Shabbat 20b

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: קָנִים שֶׁאֲגָדָן — צְרִיכִין רוֹב, לֹא אֲגָדָן — אֵין צְרִיכִין רוֹב. גַּרְעִינִין — צְרִיכִין רוֹב, נְתָנָן בְּחוֹתָלוֹת — אֵין צְרִיכִין רוֹב. on a similar note, Rav Kahana said: Reeds that one tied them into a bundle, require that most of them ignite. If one did not tie them into a bundle, they do not require that most of them ignite, in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna. However, seeds require that most of them ignite. And if he placed them in woven baskets, they do not require that most of them catch fire.

תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: אַרְבַּע מְדוּרוֹת אֵין צְרִיכִין רוֹב: שֶׁל זֶפֶת, וְשֶׁל גׇּפְרִית, וְשֶׁל גְּבִינָה, וְשֶׁל רְבָב. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: אַף שֶׁל קַשׁ וְשֶׁל גְּבָבָא. Rav Yosef taught a baraita: Four bonfires do not require that most of the flammable materials catch fire, as their materials burn easily once the fire takes hold of them. And they are: A bonfire of pitch, and of sulfur, and of dry cheese, and of fatty materials. And it was taught in a baraita: A bonfire of straw and one of rakings of wood gathered from the field also do not require that most of it catch fire.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עֵצִים שֶׁל בָּבֶל אֵין צְרִיכִין רוֹב. מַתְקִיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי הִיא? אִילֵימָא סִילְתֵּי — הַשְׁתָּא פְּתִילָה אָמַר עוּלָּא הַמַּדְלִיק צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּדְלִיק בְּרוֹב הַיּוֹצֵא, סִילְתֵּי מִבַּעְיָא? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: שׂוֹכָא דְאַרְזָא. רָמֵי בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר: זָאזָא. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Babylonian wood does not require that most of it catch fire. Rav Yosef the Babylonian objects: What is that wood that they use in Babylonia that burns so well? If you say that it refers to wood slivers used for burning and light, now that with regard to a wick, Ulla said that one who lights it for a Shabbat lamp must light most of what emerges from the vessel; is it necessary to mention with regard to wood slivers that most of them must be lit? Rather, Rav Yosef said: Certainly the reference is to the branch of a cedar tree. And Rami bar Abba said: The reference here is to a hyssop [zaza].

הדרן עלך יציאות השבת

We shall return to you, Yiziot HaShabbat

מַתְנִי׳ בַּמֶּה מַדְלִיקִין וּבַמָּה אֵין מַדְלִיקִין? אֵין מַדְלִיקִין לֹא בְּלֶכֶשׁ, וְלֹא בְּחוֹסֶן, וְלֹא בְּכָלָךְ, וְלֹא בִּפְתִילַת הָאִידָן, וְלֹא בִּפְתִילַת הַמִּדְבָּר, וְלֹא בִּירוֹקָה שֶׁעַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם, וְלֹא בְּזֶפֶת, וְלֹא בְּשַׁעֲוָה, וְלֹא בְּשֶׁמֶן קִיק, וְלֹא בְּשֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה, וְלֹא בְּאַלְיָה, וְלֹא בְּחֵלֶב. נַחוּם הַמָּדִי אוֹמֵר: מַדְלִיקִין בְּחֵלֶב מְבוּשָּׁל. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד מְבוּשָּׁל וְאֶחָד שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְבוּשָּׁל אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בּוֹ. This mishna cites a list of fuels and wicks that one may not use in kindling the Shabbat lights, either because their use might induce one to perform a prohibited labor on Shabbat or because they are not in keeping with the deference due Shabbat. The mishna begins by listing the materials that one may not use as wicks. That is followed by a list of the substances that one may not use as fuel.

MISHNA: With what may one light the Shabbat lamp, and with what may one not light it? With regard to types of prohibited wicks, one may light neither with cedar bast [lekhesh], nor with uncombed flax [ḥosen], nor with raw silk [kalakh], nor with willow bast [petilat ha’idan], nor with desert weed [petilat hamidbar], nor with green moss that is on the surface of the water. With regard to types of prohibited oils, one may light neither with pitch [zefet], nor with wax [sha’ava], nor with castor oil [shemen kik], nor with burnt oil [shemen sereifa], nor with fat from a sheep’s tail [alya], nor with tallow [ḥelev]. Naḥum the Mede says: One may light with boiled tallow. And the Rabbis say: Both tallow that was boiled and tallow that was not boiled, one may not light with them.

גְּמָ׳ לֶכֶשׁ — שׂוֹכָא דְאַרְזָא. שׂוֹכָא דְאַרְזָא עֵץ בְּעָלְמָא הוּא! בְּעַמְרָנִיתָא דְּאִית בֵּיהּ. GEMARA: Most of the terms used in the mishna were not understood in Babylonia. Therefore, the Gemara translated and clarified them. We learned in the mishna that one may not light with lekhesh. The Gemara explains that lekhesh is the branch of the cedar tree. The Gemara asks: Isn’t the cedar mere wood? How would one fashion a wick out of wood? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to the woolly substance that is beneath its bark.

וְלֹא בְּחוֹסֶן. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: נְעוֹרֶת שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָכְתִיב ״וְהָיָה הֶחָסוֹן לִנְעוֹרֶת״, מִכְּלָל דְּחוֹסֶן לָאו נְעוֹרֶת הוּא! אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כִּיתָּנָא דִּדְיִיק וְלָא נְפִיץ. The mishna taught further that one may not light with ḥosen. Rav Yosef said: Ḥosen is tow, thin chaff that falls off the stalk of combed flax. Abaye said to him: Isn’t it written: “And the ḥason shall be as tow” (Isaiah 1:31)? By inference, ḥosen is not tow. Rather, Abaye said: Ḥosen is flax whose stalk was crushed but not yet combed. The threads in the stalk are still covered by a shell and therefore do not burn well.

וְלֹא בְּכָלָךְ. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁאֵלְתִּינְהוּ לְכׇל נָחוֹתֵי יַמָּא וְאָמְרִי (לַהּ) כּוּלְכָא שְׁמֵיהּ. רַב יִצְחָק בַּר זְעֵירָא אָמַר: גּוּשְׁקְרָא. And we also learned in the mishna that one may not light with kalakh. Shmuel said: I asked all seafarers, and they said to me that the present-day name of kalakh mentioned in the mishna is kulka. Rav Yitzḥak bar Ze’ira said: Kalakh is the cocoon of the silkworm [gushkera].

רָבִין וְאַבָּיֵי הֲווֹ יָתְבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּנָא נְחֶמְיָה אֲחוּהּ דְּרֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא. חַזְיֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה לְבִישׁ מְטַכְסָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִין לְאַבָּיֵי: הַיְינוּ כָּלָךְ דִּתְנַן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנַן ״שִׁירָא פְּרַנְדָּא״ קָרֵינַן לֵיהּ. The Gemara relates that Ravin and Abaye were sitting before Rabbana Neḥemya, brother of the Exilarch. Ravin saw that Rabbana Neḥemya was wearing metaksa, a type of silk. Ravin said to Abaye: This is the kalakh that we learned in our mishna. Abaye said to him: We call it shira peranda.

מֵיתִיבִי: הַשִּׁירָאִים וְהַכָּלָךְ וְהַסְּרִיקִין חַיָּיבִין בְּצִיצִית, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרָבִין! תְּיוּבְתָּא. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: שִׁירָא לְחוּד, וְשִׁירָא פְּרַנְדָּא לְחוּד. The Gemara raises an objection from that which we learned: The shira’im, the kalakh, and the sirikin, different types of silk, all require ritual fringes. Apparently, shira’im and kalakh are different types of silk. This is a conclusive refutation of the statement of Ravin who identified kalakh with shira peranda. The Gemara responds: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation. If you wish, say instead that shira is a distinct entity, and shira peranda is a distinct entity. Shira peranda is kalakh.

וְלֹא בִּפְתִילַת הָאִידָן — אַחְוִינָא. רָבִין וְאַבָּיֵי הֲווֹ קָאָזְלִי בְּפַקְתָּא דְטַמְרוּרִיתָא. חֲזַנְהִי לְהָנְהוּ אַרְבָתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִין לְאַבָּיֵי: הַיְינוּ אִידָן דִּתְנַן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַהִיא עֵץ בְּעָלְמָא הוּא! קְלַף וְאַחְוִי לֵיהּ עַמְרָנִיתָא דְּבֵינֵי בֵּינֵי. וְלֹא בִּפְתִילַת הַמִּדְבָּר — שַׁבְרָא. And we learned in the mishna that one may not light with petilat ha’idan. The Gemara explains that petilat ha’idan is willow, which does not burn well. The Gemara relates that Ravin and Abaye were walking in the valley of Tamrurita. They saw these willow trees. Ravin said to Abaye: This is the idan that we learned in the mishna. Abaye said to him: But this is mere wood. How would one fashion a wick from it? Ravin peeled the bark and showed him the wool-like substance between the bark and the tree. We also learned in the mishna: Nor with desert silk [petilat hamidbar]. That is the mullein plant, which does not burn well.

וְלֹא בִּירוֹקָה שֶׁעַל כּוּ׳. מַאי הִיא? אִילֵימָא אוּכַּמְתָּא דַחֲרִיצֵי — אִיפָּרוֹכֵי מִפָּרְכָן. אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אוּכַּמְתָּא דְּאַרְבָּא. And we learned in the mishna that one may not use the green moss that is on the surface of the water to fashion a wick for lighting the Shabbat lamp. The Gemara asks: What is this green moss? If you say that it is the moss found on standing water, isn’t that moss brittle and therefore unfit material from which to fashion a wick? Rather, Rav Pappa said: It is referring to the moss that accumulates on ships, which is more pliable and when dried can be fashioned into a wick.

תָּנָא: הוֹסִיפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁל צֶמֶר וְשֶׁל שֵׂעָר. וְתַנָּא דִידַן: צֶמֶר מִכְווֹץ כָּוֵויץ, שֵׂעָר אִיחֲרוֹכֵי מִיחֲרַךְ. It was taught in a baraita: The Sages added to the list of prohibited wicks in the mishna those made of wool and hair as well. The Gemara remarks: And our tanna did not consider it necessary to enumerate these because it is virtually impossible to fashion wicks from these materials, as, when they burn, wool shrinks and hair is scorched. Consequently, they are unsuitable for use as wicks.

וְלֹא בְּזֶפֶת. זֶפֶת — זִיפְתָּא, שַׁעֲוָה — קִירוּתָא. תָּנָא: עַד כָּאן פְּסוּל פְּתִילוֹת, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ פְּסוּל שְׁמָנִים. פְּשִׁיטָא! שַׁעֲוָה אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לִפְתִילוֹת נָמֵי לָא חַזְיָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. And we learned in the mishna that one may not use zefet or sha’ava as fuel in lighting the Shabbat lamp. The Gemara explains that zefet is pitch, and sha’ava is wax. It was taught in a baraita: Until this point, the word zefet, the mishna is dealing with disqualification of materials unfit for use as wicks, and from this point on it is dealing with disqualification of substances unfit for use as oils. The Gemara asks: Obviously, a wick cannot be made from pitch and similar materials. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the mishna to mention wax, lest you say that it is also unfit for use as a coating for wicks, in the manner that wicks are usually made. Therefore, it teaches us that even though wax is unfit for use as oil, it is fit for use as coating for wicks.

אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר אָבִין: עִטְרָנָא — פְּסוּלְתָּא דְזִיפְתָּא. שַׁעֲוָה — פְּסוּלְתָּא דְּדוּבְשָׁא. Rami bar Avin said: Tar [itran] is the by-product of pitch. When wood is burned to extract pitch, a clearer liquid oozes out after the pitch, and that is tar. Similarly, wax is the by-product of honey.

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference that emerges from that which Rami bar Avin taught? The Gemara explains: Its significance is with regard to buying and selling. One who buys tar can insist upon receiving the by-product of pitch and no other material. The same is true with regard to wax and honey.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל אֵלּוּ שֶׁאָמְרוּ אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בָּהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת, אֲבָל עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן מְדוּרָה — בֵּין לְהִתְחַמֵּם כְּנֶגְדָּהּ בֵּין לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ לְאוֹרָהּ, בֵּין עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע, בֵּין עַל גַּבֵּי כִּירָה. וְלֹא אָסְרוּ אֶלָּא לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן פְּתִילָה לַנֵּר בִּלְבַד. The Sages taught in the Tosefta: With regard to all of those materials about which they said that one may not light the lamp with them on Shabbat; however, one may use them ab initio to make a bonfire. One may do so both to warm himself opposite it and to utilize its light, and he may ignite it both on the ground and on a stove. They prohibited using them only to make a wick for an oil lamp.

וְלֹא בְּשֶׁמֶן קִיק וְכוּ׳. מַאי שֶׁמֶן קִיק? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁאֵילְתִּינְהוּ לְכֹל נָחוֹתֵי יַמָּא, וַאֲמַרוּ לִי: עוֹף אֶחָד יֵשׁ בִּכְרַכֵּי הַיָּם וְקִיק שְׁמוֹ. רַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: מִשְׁחָא דְּקָאזָא. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: קִיקָיוֹן דְּיוֹנָה. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: לְדִידִי חֲזִי לִי קִיקָיוֹן דְּיוֹנָה, וְלִצְלוּלִיבָא דָּמֵי וּמִדֻּפְשְׁקֵי רָבֵי, וְעַל פּוּם חַנְוָתָא מַדְלָן יָתֵיהּ, וּמִפַּרְצִידוֹהִי עָבְדִי מִשְׁחָא, וּבְעַנְפוֹהִי נָיְיחָן כׇּל בְּרִיחֵי דְמַעְרְבָא. And we learned in the mishna that one may not light the Shabbat lamp with kik oil. The Gemara asks: What is kik oil? Shmuel said: I asked all the seafarers, and they said to me that there is a bird in the cities on the sea coast, and kik is its name. Kik oil is produced from that bird. Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, said: This is referring to cotton oil. Reish Lakish said: It is the oil made from the seed of a plant like the castor plant [kikayon] of Jonah. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: I have seen the species of the castor plant of Jonah, and it is similar to the ricinus tree and it grows in swamps, and they place it at the entrance of shops for shade, and they produce oil from its seeds, and all the sick people of the West, Eretz Yisrael, rest beneath its branches.

אָמַר רַבָּה: פְּתִילוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בָּהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָאוּר מְסַכְסֶכֶת בָּהֶן. שְׁמָנִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בָּהֶן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין נִמְשָׁכִין אַחַר הַפְּתִילָה. Rabba said: Those wicks about which the Sages said one may not light with them on Shabbat, the reason is: Because the fire flickers on them. It sputters on the wick and does not burn well. Those oils with which the Sages said that one may not light on Shabbat, the reason is: Because they are not drawn effectively by the wick.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה: שְׁמָנִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בָּהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּתֵּן לְתוֹכָן שֶׁמֶן כׇּל שֶׁהוּא וְיַדְלִיק? מִי גָּזְרִינַן דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְאַדְלוֹקֵי בְּעֵינַיְיהוּ, אוֹ לָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין מַדְלִיקִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַדְלִיקִין. Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: Those oils with which the Sages said one may not light on Shabbat, what is the ruling? May one, ab initio, add to them any amount of oil with which it is permissible to light and light with that mixture? The sides of the dilemma are: Do we issue a decree lest one come to light these oils in their natural form, without mixing them with permissible oils? Or no, that possibility is not a source of concern? Rabba said to him: One may not light that mixture. What is the reason for this? The reason is because the halakha is that one may not light (Arukh).

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: כָּרַךְ דָּבָר שֶׁמַּדְלִיקִין בּוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מַדְלִיקִין בּוֹ — אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בּוֹ. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: שֶׁל בֵּית אַבָּא הָיוּ כּוֹרְכִין פְּתִילָה עַל גַּבֵּי אֱגוֹז וּמַדְלִיקִין. קָתָנֵי מִיהַת מַדְלִיקִין! Abaye raised an objection to Rabba’s opinion from that which was taught in the Tosefta: One who wrapped a material with which one may light around a material with which one may not light, may not light with the bound wick. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In the ancestral house of my father, they would wrap a wick with which one is permitted to light around a nut, and that was how they would light. In any case, it is teaching that, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, one may light. Apparently, one is permitted to light with a combination of permitted and prohibited wicks.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַדְּמוֹתְבַתְּ לֵיהּ מִדְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, סַיְּיעֵיהּ מִדְּתַנָּא קַמָּא! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: ״מַעֲשֶׂה רַב״. מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא: מַאי לָאו, לְהַדְלִיק? לָא, לְהַקְפּוֹת. אִי לְהַקְפּוֹת, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא? כּוּלָּהּ רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא וְחַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: כָּרַךְ דָּבָר שֶׁמַּדְלִיקִין בּוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מַדְלִיקִין בּוֹ — אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בּוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — לְהַדְלִיק, אֲבָל לְהַקְפּוֹת — מוּתָּר, שֶׁרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: שֶׁל בֵּית אַבָּא הָיוּ כּוֹרְכִין פְּתִילָה עַל גַּבֵּי אֱגוֹז. Rabba said to him: Before you raise an objection to my opinion from the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, support it from the statement of the first tanna, who said that it is prohibited to light in that case. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as it is preferable to challenge from the statement of Rabban Gamliel with regard to the custom in his father’s house. There is a principle that proof cited from an action is great, i.e., a practical precedent is more substantial than a theoretical halakha. Nevertheless, the difficulty from the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel remains: Is he not speaking of a case where he combined the wick and the nut to light them together? If so, one is permitted to combine the prohibited and the permitted. The Gemara answers: No, it is speaking in a case where he combined them to float the wick on the oil with the help of the nut. The Gemara asks: If it is speaking only with regard to a case of floating the wick, what is the reason that the first tanna prohibits doing so? The Gemara answers: The entire baraita is the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and it is incomplete, and it teaches the following: One who wrapped a material with which one may light around a material with which one may not light, may not light with it. In what case is this statement said? When he combines the materials to light them together. However, if he utilizes that with which one may not light merely in order to float the wick, it is permitted, as we learned that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the ancestral house of my father, they would wrap a wick with which one is permitted to light around a nut. That was how they would light.

אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב בְּרוֹנָא אָמַר רַב: חֵלֶב מְהוּתָּךְ וְקִרְבֵי דָגִים שֶׁנִּמּוֹחוּ, אָדָם נוֹתֵן לְתוֹכָן שֶׁמֶן כׇּל שֶׁהוּא וּמַדְלִיק? הָנֵי מִימַּשְׁכִי בְּעֵינַיְיהוּ, וְהָנֵי לָא מִימַּשְׁכִי בְּעֵינַיְיהוּ. וּגְזַרוּ רַבָּנַן עַל חֵלֶב מְהוּתָּךְ מִשּׁוּם חֵלֶב שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְהוּתָּךְ, וְעַל קִרְבֵי דָגִים שֶׁנִּמּוֹחוּ מִשּׁוּם קִרְבֵי דָגִים שֶׁלֹּא נִמּוֹחוּ. וְלִיגְזוֹר נָמֵי חֵלֶב מְהוּתָּךְ וְקִרְבֵי דָגִים שֶׁנִּמּוֹחוּ שֶׁנָּתַן לְתוֹכָן שֶׁמֶן מִשּׁוּם חֵלֶב מְהוּתָּךְ וְקִרְבֵי דָגִים שֶׁנִּמּוֹחוּ שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן לְתוֹכָן שֶׁמֶן! הִיא גּוּפָהּ, גְּזֵירָה, וַאֲנַן נֵיקוּם וְנִיגְזוֹר גְּזֵירָה לִגְזֵירָה?! In any case, to this point the conclusion is that one may not light with a mixture of permitted and prohibited oils. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Beruna say that Rav said: With regard to molten fat or fish innards that dissolved and became like oil, a person may place any amount of oil fit for lighting into it and light. Apparently, one may light with a mixture of permitted and prohibited oils. Rabba answers: These, the fat and the fish innards, are drawn by the wick even in their natural state, and those, the prohibited oils, are not drawn in their natural state. Originally, the Sages issued a decree to prohibit molten fat due to unmolten fat and to prohibit dissolved fish innards due to undissolved fish innards; however, the Sages did not issue a decree in a case where one added to them any amount of oil suitable for lighting, and permitted lighting with it. The Gemara asks: Let them also issue a decree to prohibit molten fat and dissolved fish innards to which he added oil due to molten fat and dissolved fish innards to which he did not add permitted oil. The Gemara rejects this: That prohibition with regard to molten fat and dissolved fish innards itself is based on a decree. And will we arise and issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree? The Sages do not issue decrees under those circumstances. Therefore, there is no reason to prohibit their use.

תָּנֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: פְּתִילוֹת וּשְׁמָנִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בָּהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת — אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בָּהֶן בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְהַעֲלוֹת נֵר תָּמִיד״. הוּא תָּנֵי לַהּ, וְהוּא אָמַר לַהּ — כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא שַׁלְהֶבֶת עוֹלָה מֵאֵילֶיהָ, וְלֹא שֶׁתְּהֵא עוֹלָה עַל יְדֵי דָּבָר אַחֵר. Rami bar Ḥama taught a baraita: Those wicks and oils, which the Sages said one may not light with them on Shabbat, one may not light with them in the Temple either because it is stated with regard to the Temple candelabrum: “And you shall command the children of Israel, that they bring unto you pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually” (Exodus 27:20). Rami bar Ḥama taught that baraita and he also said its explanation: What is the proof from the verse? One may interpret the verse homiletically: The requirement is to light the candelabrum so that the flame ascends of itself when it is kindled, and not that it ascends by means of something else, i.e., adjusting the wick after it was lit.

תְּנַן: מִבְּלָאֵי מִכְנְסֵי כֹּהֲנִים וּמֵהֶמְיָנֵיהֶם הָיוּ מַפְקִיעִין, וּמֵהֶן מַדְלִיקִין. שִׂמְחַת בֵּית הַשּׁוֹאֵבָה שָׁאנֵי. We learned in a mishna: They would unravel the threads of the tattered trousers of the priests and their belts in order to make wicks from them, and from those same wicks they would light at the Celebration of Drawing Water. There was wool in the belts of the priests. It is said that their belts were made from, among other things, tekhelet, which in the Bible refers to dyed wool. Apparently, one may light with a mixture that includes a wick unsuitable for lighting. The Gemara answers: The Celebration of Drawing Water is different, as in that celebration, they did not light the Temple candelabrum. They lit special lanterns made specifically for that purpose and were not stringent with regard to the wicks placed in them.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רַבָּה בַּר מַתְנָה: בִּגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה שֶׁבָּלוּ מַפְקִיעִין אוֹתָן, וּמֵהֶן הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין פְּתִילוֹת לַמִּקְדָּשׁ. מַאי לָאו, דְּכִלְאַיִם? לָא, דְּבוּץ. Come and hear a related question from that which Rabba bar Mattana taught: Priestly garments that were tattered, they would unravel them into threads from which they would make wicks for the Temple. Is this not also referring to garments made of diverse kinds, like the sashes of the priests that were made of a mixture of wool and linen? The Gemara answers: No, these wicks were made from linen garments alone.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: פְּתִילוֹת וּשְׁמָנִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בָּהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת, אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בָּהֶן בַּחֲנוּכָּה, בֵּין בְּשַׁבָּת בֵּין בַּחוֹל. אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב הוּנָא? — קָסָבַר: כָּבְתָה זָקוּק לָהּ, וּמוּתָּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ לְאוֹרָהּ. וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: מַדְלִיקִין בָּהֶן בַּחוֹל, אֲבָל לֹא בְּשַׁבָּת. קָסָבַר: כָּבְתָה Rav Huna said: Those wicks and oils with which the Sages said that one may not light the lamp on Shabbat, one may not light the lamp with them on Hanukkah either; both when it falls on Shabbat and when it falls during the week. Rava said: What is the reason for Rav Huna’s statement? He holds that if the Hanukkah light becomes extinguished, even though one lit it properly, one is bound to attend to it and relight it so that it will burn properly. Therefore, one must ensure that the wick burns properly from the outset. And utilizing the light of the Hanukkah lamp is permitted during the week. Consequently, in order to prevent him from inadvertently sinning on Shabbat, he must ensure from the outset that the wick burns well, lest he come to adjust the flame on Shabbat. Those wicks and oils do not burn well at all. And Rav Ḥisda said: Those same oils and wicks with which the Sages prohibited to light on Shabbat, one may light with them on Hanukkah during the week, but not on Shabbat. He holds that if the Hanukkah light is extinguished

אֵין זָקוּק לָהּ, וּמוּתָּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ לְאוֹרָהּ. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב: פְּתִילוֹת וּשְׁמָנִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בָּהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת, מַדְלִיקִין בָּהֶן בַּחֲנוּכָּה, בֵּין בַּחוֹל בֵּין בְּשַׁבָּת. אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב? — קָסָבַר: כָּבְתָה אֵין זָקוּק לָהּ, וְאָסוּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ לְאוֹרָהּ. one is not bound to attend to it. Therefore, there is no reason to make certain from the outset to light it with materials that burn well, as even if it is extinguished, he is not required to relight it. However, he also holds that it is permitted to use its light. As a result, he must ensure that the wick burns well on Shabbat; if not, he is liable to come to adjust the flame in order to use its light. The third opinion is that which Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Mattana said, and others say that Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: The wicks and oils with which the Sages said one may not light on Shabbat, one may, nevertheless, light with them on Hanukkah, both during the week and on Shabbat. Rabbi Yirmeya said: What is Rav’s reason? He holds that if it is extinguished, one is not bound to attend to it and relight it, and it is prohibited to use its light. Therefore, even on Shabbat, there is no concern lest he come to adjust the wick, as it is prohibited to utilize its light.

אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, וְלָא קַבְּלַהּ. כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְקַבְּלַהּ. אֲמַר: אִי זְכַאי, גְּמִירְתַּיהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא. וְהָא גַּמְרַהּ! נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לְגִירְסָא דְיַנְקוּתָא. The Gemara relates that the Sages said this halakha before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya and he did not accept it, as he did not hold Rabbi Yirmeya in high regard. However, subsequently, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, the Sages said this halakha before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and he accepted it. Then Abaye said regretfully: Had I merited, I would have learned this halakha from the outset. The Gemara wonders: Didn’t he ultimately learn it and accept it? What difference does it make from whom and at what point he learned it? The Gemara answers: The practical difference is with regard to knowledge acquired in one’s youth, which is better remembered.

וְכָבְתָה אֵין זָקוּק לָהּ? וּרְמִינְהוּ: מִצְוָתָהּ מִשֶּׁתִּשְׁקַע הַחַמָּה עַד שֶׁתִּכְלֶה רֶגֶל מִן הַשּׁוּק. מַאי לָאו, דְּאִי כָּבְתָה הֲדַר מַדְלֵיק לָהּ! לָא, דְּאִי לָא אַדְלֵיק — מַדְלֵיק. וְאִי נָמֵי לְשִׁיעוּרַהּ. With regard to the opinion that one need not rekindle the Hanukkah light if it is extinguished, the Gemara asks: And is it true that if the Hanukkah light is extinguished one is not bound to attend to it? The Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in a baraita: The mitzva of kindling the Hanukkah lights is from sunset until traffic in the marketplace ceases. Does that not mean that if the light is extinguished, he must rekindle it so that it will remain lit for the duration of that period? The Gemara answers: No, the baraita can be understood otherwise: That if one did not yet light at sunset, he may still light the Hanukkah lights until traffic ceases. Alternatively, one could say that this is referring to the matter of its measure. One must prepare a wick and oil sufficient to burn for the period lasting from sunset until traffic ceases. If he did so, even if the light is extinguished beforehand, he need not relight it.

עַד שֶׁתִּכְלֶה רֶגֶל מִן הַשּׁוּק. וְעַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עַד דְּכָלְיָא רִיגְלָא דְתַרְמוֹדָאֵי. The expression until traffic in the marketplace ceases is mentioned here, and the Gemara asks: Until when exactly is this time? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Until the traffic of the people of Tadmor [tarmoda’ei] ceases. They sold kindling wood and remained in the marketplace later than everyone else. People who discovered at sunset that they had exhausted their wood supply could purchase wood from them.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִצְוַת חֲנוּכָּה, נֵר אִישׁ וּבֵיתוֹ. וְהַמְהַדְּרִין, נֵר לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. וְהַמְהַדְּרִין מִן הַמְהַדְּרִין, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן מַדְלִיק שְׁמֹנָה, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ פּוֹחֵת וְהוֹלֵךְ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן מַדְלִיק אַחַת, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ מוֹסִיף וְהוֹלֵךְ. The Sages taught in a baraita: The basic mitzva of Hanukkah is each day to have a light kindled by a person, the head of the household, for himself and his household. And the mehadrin, i.e., those who are meticulous in the performance of mitzvot, kindle a light for each and every one in the household. And the mehadrin min hamehadrin, who are even more meticulous, adjust the number of lights daily. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree as to the nature of that adjustment. Beit Shammai say: On the first day one kindles eight lights and, from there on, gradually decreases the number of lights until, on the last day of Hanukkah, he kindles one light. And Beit Hillel say: On the first day one kindles one light, and from there on, gradually increases the number of lights until, on the last day, he kindles eight lights.

אָמַר עוּלָּא: פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ תְּרֵי אָמוֹרָאֵי בְּמַעְרְבָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר זְבִידָא. חַד אָמַר טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי כְּנֶגֶד יָמִים הַנִּכְנָסִין, וְטַעְמָא דְּבֵית הִלֵּל כְּנֶגֶד יָמִים הַיּוֹצְאִין. וְחַד אָמַר טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי כְּנֶגֶד פָּרֵי הַחַג, וְטַעְמָא דְּבֵית הִלֵּל דְּמַעֲלִין בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וְאֵין מוֹרִידִין. Ulla said: There were two amora’im in the West, Eretz Yisrael, who disagreed with regard to this dispute, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida. One said that the reason for Beit Shammai’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the incoming days, i.e., the future. On the first day, eight days remain in Hanukkah, one kindles eight lights, and on the second day seven days remain, one kindles seven, etc. The reason for Beit Hillel’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the outgoing days. Each day, the number of lights corresponds to the number of the days of Hanukkah that were already observed. And one said that the reason for Beit Shammai’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the bulls of the festival of Sukkot: Thirteen were sacrificed on the first day and each succeeding day one fewer was sacrificed (Numbers 29:12–31). The reason for Beit Hillel’s opinion is that the number of lights is based on the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Therefore, if the objective is to have the number of lights correspond to the number of days, there is no alternative to increasing their number with the passing of each day.

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁנֵי זְקֵנִים הָיוּ בְּצַיְדָּן. אֶחָד עָשָׂה כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי וְאֶחָד עָשָׂה כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. זֶה נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִדְבָרָיו כְּנֶגֶד פָּרֵי הַחַג, וְזֶה נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִדְבָרָיו דְּמַעֲלִין בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וְאֵין מוֹרִידִין. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There were two Elders in Sidon, and one of them acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, and one of them acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Each provided a reason for his actions: One gave a reason for his actions: The number of lights corresponds to the bulls of the Festival. And one gave a reason for his actions: The number of lights is based on the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נֵר חֲנוּכָּה מִצְוָה לְהַנִּיחָהּ עַל פֶּתַח בֵּיתוֹ מִבַּחוּץ. אִם הָיָה דָּר בַּעֲלִיָּיה — מַנִּיחָהּ בַּחַלּוֹן הַסְּמוּכָה לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. וּבִשְׁעַת הַסַּכָּנָה — מַנִּיחָהּ עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ וְדַיּוֹ. The Sages taught in a baraita: It is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp at the entrance to one’s house on the outside, so that all can see it. If he lived upstairs, he places it at the window adjacent to the public domain. And in a time of danger, when the gentiles issued decrees to prohibit kindling lights, he places it on the table and that is sufficient to fulfill his obligation.

אָמַר רָבָא: צָרִיךְ נֵר אַחֶרֶת לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ לְאוֹרָהּ. וְאִי אִיכָּא מְדוּרָה — לֹא צָרִיךְ. וְאִי אָדָם חָשׁוּב הוּא — אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא מְדוּרָה צָרִיךְ נֵר אַחֶרֶת. Rava said: One must kindle another light in addition to the Hanukkah lights in order to use its light, as it is prohibited to use the light of the Hanukkah lights. And if there is a bonfire, he need not light an additional light, as he can use the light of the bonfire. However, if he is an important person, who is unaccustomed to using the light of a bonfire, even though there is a bonfire, he must kindle another light.

מַאי חֲנוּכָּה? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: בְּכ״ה בְּכִסְלֵיו יוֹמֵי דַחֲנוּכָּה תְּמָנְיָא אִינּוּן דְּלָא לְמִסְפַּד בְּהוֹן וּדְלָא לְהִתְעַנּוֹת בְּהוֹן. שֶׁכְּשֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ יְוָוֽנִים לַהֵיכָל טִמְּאוּ כׇּל הַשְּׁמָנִים שֶׁבַּהֵיכָל. וּכְשֶׁגָּבְרָה מַלְכוּת בֵּית חַשְׁמוֹנַאי וְנִצְּחוּם, בָּדְקוּ וְלֹא מָצְאוּ אֶלָּא פַּךְ אֶחָד שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן שֶׁהָיָה מוּנָּח בְּחוֹתָמוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְלֹא הָיָה בּוֹ אֶלָּא לְהַדְלִיק יוֹם אֶחָד. נַעֲשָׂה בּוֹ נֵס וְהִדְלִיקוּ מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁמוֹנָה יָמִים. לְשָׁנָה אַחֶרֶת קְבָעוּם וַעֲשָׂאוּם יָמִים טוֹבִים בְּהַלֵּל וְהוֹדָאָה. The Gemara asks: What is Hanukkah, and why are lights kindled on Hanukkah? The Gemara answers: The Sages taught in Megillat Ta’anit: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev, the days of Hanukkah are eight. One may not eulogize on them and one may not fast on them. What is the reason? When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary they defiled all the oils that were in the Sanctuary by touching them. And when the Hasmonean monarchy overcame them and emerged victorious over them, they searched and found only one cruse of oil that was placed with the seal of the High Priest, undisturbed by the Greeks. And there was sufficient oil there to light the candelabrum for only one day. A miracle occurred and they lit the candelabrum from it eight days. The next year the Sages instituted those days and made them holidays with recitation of hallel and special thanksgiving in prayer and blessings.

תְּנַן הָתָם: גֵּץ הַיּוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת הַפַּטִּישׁ וְיָצָא וְהִזִּיק — חַיָּיב. גָּמָל שֶׁטָּעוּן פִּשְׁתָּן וְהוּא עוֹבֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְנִכְנְסָה פִּשְׁתָּנוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַחֲנוּת וְדָלְקָה בְּנֵרוֹ שֶׁל חֶנְוָנִי וְהִדְלִיק אֶת הַבִּירָה — בַּעַל הַגָּמָל חַיָּיב. הִנִּיחַ חֶנְוָנִי אֶת נֵרוֹ מִבְּחוּץ — חֶנְוָנִי חַיָּיב. We learned there in a mishna with regard to damages: In the case of a spark that emerges from under a hammer, and went out of the artisan’s workshop, and caused damage, the one who struck the hammer is liable. Similarly, in the case of a camel that is laden with flax and it passed through the public domain, and its flax entered into a store, and caught fire from the storekeeper’s lamp, and set fire to the building, the camel owner is liable. Since his flax entered into another’s domain, which he had no permission to enter, all the damages were caused due to his negligence. However, if the storekeeper placed his lamp outside the store and it set fire to the flax, the storekeeper is liable, as he placed the lamp outside his domain where he had no right to place it.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּנֵר חֲנוּכָּה — פָּטוּר. אָמַר רָבִינָא מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבָּה: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת נֵר חֲנוּכָּה מִצְוָה לְהַנִּיחָהּ בְּתוֹךְ עֲשָׂרָה. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: הָיָה לָךְ לְהַנִּיחַ לְמַעְלָה מִגָּמָל וְרוֹכְבוֹ! וְדִילְמָא, אִי מַיטְּרְחָא לֵיהּ טוּבָא אָתֵי לְאִימְּנוֹעֵי מִמִּצְוָה. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the flax was set on fire by the storekeeper’s Hanukkah lamp that he placed outside the entrance to his store, he is not liable, as in that case, it is permitted for the storekeeper to place his lamp outside. Ravina said in the name of Rabba: That is to say that it is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp within ten handbreadths of the ground. As if it should enter your mind to say that he may place it above ten handbreadths, why is the storekeeper exempt? Let the camel owner say to the storekeeper: You should have placed the lamp above the height of a camel and its rider, and then no damage would have been caused. By failing to do so, the storekeeper caused the damage, and the camel owner should not be liable. The Gemara rejects this: And perhaps one is also permitted to place the Hanukkah lamp above ten handbreadths, and the reason Rabbi Yehuda exempted the storekeeper was due to concern for the observance of the mitzva of kindling Hanukkah lights. He held that if you burden one excessively, he will come to refrain from performing the mitzva of kindling Hanukkah lights. Since the storekeeper placed the Hanukkah lamp outside at the behest of the Sages, the storekeeper should not be required to take extra precautions.

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא, דָּרֵשׁ רַב נָתָן בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי תַּנְחוּם: With regard to the essence of the matter Rav Kahana said that Rav Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum:

נֵר שֶׁל חֲנוּכָּה שֶׁהִנִּיחָה לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה — פְּסוּלָה, כְּסוּכָּה וּכְמָבוֹי. וְאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא, דָּרֵשׁ רַב נָתָן בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב תַּנְחוּם: מַאי דִכְתִיב ״וְהַבּוֹר רֵק אֵין בּוֹ מָיִם״? מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְהַבּוֹר רֵק״ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מָיִם? אֶלָּא מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֵין בּוֹ מָיִם״ — מַיִם אֵין בּוֹ, אֲבָל נְחָשִׁים וְעַקְרַבִּים יֵשׁ בּוֹ. A Hanukkah lamp that one placed above twenty cubits is invalid, just as a sukka whose roofing is more than twenty cubits high, and just as an alleyway whose beam, its symbolic fourth partition in order to place an eiruv, is more than twenty cubits high, are invalid. The reason is the same in all three cases: People do not usually raise their heads and see objects at a height above twenty cubits. As there is a requirement to see all of these, they are deemed invalid when placed above that height. And the Gemara cites another statement that Rav Kahana said that Rav Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rav Tanḥum: What is the meaning of the verse that is written with regard to Joseph: “And they took him, and cast him into the pit; and the pit was empty, there was no water in it” (Genesis 37:24)? By inference from that which is stated: And the pit was empty, don’t I know that there was no water in it? Rather, why does the verse say: There was no water in it? The verse comes to emphasize and teach that there was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it.

אָמַר רַבָּה: נֵר חֲנוּכָּה מִצְוָה לְהַנִּיחָהּ בְּטֶפַח הַסָּמוּךְ לַפֶּתַח. וְהֵיכָא מַנַּח לֵיהּ? רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר: מִיָּמִין רַב שְׁמוּאֵל מִדִּפְתִּי אָמַר: מִשְּׂמֹאל. וְהִילְכְתָא מִשְּׂמֹאל, כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא נֵר חֲנוּכָּה מִשְּׂמֹאל וּמְזוּזָה מִיָּמִין. Rabba said: It is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp within the handbreadth adjacent to the entrance. The Gemara asks: And where, on which side, does he place it? There is a difference of opinion: Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said: On the right side of the entrance. Rav Shmuel from Difti said: On the left. And the halakha is to place it on the left so that the Hanukkah lamp will be on the left and the mezuza on the right. One who enters the house will be surrounded by mitzvot (ge’onim).

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַב: אָסוּר לְהַרְצוֹת מָעוֹת כְּנֶגֶד נֵר חֲנוּכָּה. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר לִי: וְכִי נֵר קְדוּשָּׁה יֵשׁ בָּהּ? מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: וְכִי דָּם קְדוּשָּׁה יֵשׁ בּוֹ? דְּתַנְיָא ״וְשָׁפַךְ … וְכִסָּה״ — בַּמֶּה שֶׁשָּׁפַךְ יְכַסֶּה. שֶׁלֹּא יְכַסֶּנּוּ בָּרֶגֶל, שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מִצְוֹת בְּזוּיוֹת עָלָיו. הָכָא נָמֵי, שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מִצְוֹת בְּזוּיוֹת עָלָיו. Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said that Rav said: It is prohibited to count money opposite a Hanukkah light. Rav Yehuda relates: When I said this halakha before Shmuel, he said to me: Does the Hanukkah light have sanctity that would prohibit one from using its light? Rav Yosef strongly objected to this question: What kind of question is that; does the blood of a slaughtered undomesticated animal or fowl have sanctity? As it was taught in a baraita that the Sages interpreted the verse: “He shall spill its blood and cover it with dust” (Leviticus 17:13): With that which he spilled, he shall cover. Just as a person spills the blood of a slaughtered animal with his hand, so too, he is obligated to cover the blood with this hand and not cover it with his foot. The reason is so that mitzvot will not be contemptible to him. Here too, one should treat the Hanukkah lights as if they were sacred and refrain from utilizing them for other purposes, so that mitzvot will not be contemptible to him.

בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מַהוּ לְהִסְתַּפֵּק מִנּוֹיֵי סוּכָּה כׇּל שִׁבְעָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ אָסוּר לְהַרְצוֹת מָעוֹת כְּנֶגֶד נֵר חֲנוּכָּה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מָרֵיהּ דְּאַבְרָהָם! תָּלֵי תַּנְיָא בִּדְלָא תַּנְיָא. סוּכָּה תַּנְיָא, חֲנוּכָּה לָא תַּנְיָא. דְּתַנְיָא: סִכְּכָהּ כְּהִלְכָתָהּ וְעִיטְּרָהּ בִּקְרָמִים וּבִסְדִינִין הַמְצוּיָּירִין, וְתָלָה בָּהּ אֱגוֹזִים, אֲפַרְסְקִין, שְׁקֵדִים וְרִמּוֹנִים, וּפַרְכִּילֵי עֲנָבִים וַעֲטָרוֹת שֶׁל שִׁבֳּלִים, יֵינוֹת, (שֶׁל) שְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת — אָסוּר לְהִסְתַּפֵּק מֵהֶן עַד מוֹצָאֵי יוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל חַג. וְאִם הִתְנָה עֲלֵיהֶן — הַכֹּל לְפִי תְּנָאוֹ! — אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אֲבוּהוֹן דְּכוּלְּהוּ דָּם. The Gemara relates that they raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: What is the halakha with regard to using decorations of a sukka all seven days of the festival of Sukkot? He said to them: They already said in a similar vein that it is prohibited to count money opposite the Hanukkah light, which proves that one may not use the object of a mitzva for another purpose. Rav Yosef replied in surprise: Master of Abraham! He makes that which was taught dependent upon that which was not taught. As, with regard to sukka, the prohibition to enjoy use of its decorations was taught in a baraita, and the prohibition to enjoy use of the Hanukkah lights was not taught in a baraita at all. As it was taught in a Tosefta in tractate Sukka: With regard to one who roofed the sukka in accordance with its halakhic requirements, and decorated it with colorful curtains and sheets, and hung in it ornamental nuts, peaches, almonds, and pomegranates, and grape branches [parkilei], and wreaths of stalks of grain, wines, oils, and vessels full of flour, it is prohibited to use them until the conclusion of the last day of the Festival. And, if before he hung the decorations he stipulated with regard to them that he will be permitted to use them even during the Festival, everything is according to his stipulation, and he is permitted to use them. In any case, since the prohibition to benefit from the Hanukkah light is not explicitly taught, a proof should not be cited from there to resolve the dilemma with regard to sukka decorations. Rather, Rav Yosef said: There is no need to bring a proof for the halakhot of sukka from the Hanukkah light. Rather, the paradigm of them all is blood. The verse with regard to the covering of the blood of slaughter is the original source from which the prohibition to treat mitzvot with contempt is derived.

אִיתְּמַר: רַב אָמַר אֵין מַדְלִיקִין מִנֵּר לְנֵר, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר מַדְלִיקִין. רַב אָמַר אֵין מַתִּירִין צִיצִית מִבֶּגֶד לְבֶגֶד, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר מַתִּירִין מִבֶּגֶד לְבֶגֶד. רַב אָמַר אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּגְרִירָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּגְרִירָה. It was stated in a dispute between amora’im that Rav said: One may not light from one Hanukkah lamp to another lamp. And Shmuel said: One may light in that manner. The Gemara cites additional disputes between Rav and Shmuel. Rav said: One may not untie ritual fringes from one garment in order to affix them to another garment. And Shmuel said: One may untie them from one garment and affix them to another garment. And Rav said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging, as Rabbi Shimon permitted dragging objects on Shabbat, even if, as a result, a furrow would be dug in the ground, as it was not the person’s intent to dig that hole. Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כֹּל מִילֵּי דְּמָר עָבֵיד כְּרַב לְבַר מֵהָנֵי תְּלָת דְּעָבֵיד כִּשְׁמוּאֵל: מַדְלִיקִין מִנֵּר לְנֵר, וּמַתִּירִין מִבֶּגֶד לְבֶגֶד, וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּגְרִירָה. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: גּוֹרֵר אָדָם מִטָּה כִּסֵּא וְסַפְסָל — וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִתְכַּוֵּין לַעֲשׂוֹת חָרִיץ. Abaye said: In all halakhic matters of the Master, Rabba, he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Rav, except these three where he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. He ruled: One may light from one Hanukkah lamp to another lamp, and one may untie ritual fringes from garment to garment, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging. As it was taught in a baraita, Rabbi Shimon says: A person may drag a bed, chair, and bench on the ground, as long as he does not intend to make a furrow in the ground. Even if a furrow is formed inadvertently, one need not be concerned.

יָתֵיב הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: טַעְמָא דְרַב מִשּׁוּם בִּיזּוּי מִצְוָה. אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא תְּצִיתוּ לֵיהּ, טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַב מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מַכְחִישׁ מִצְוָה. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּקָא מַדְלֵיק מִשְּׁרָגָא לִשְׁרָגָא: מַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם בִּיזּוּי מִצְוָה — מִשְּׁרָגָא לִשְׁרָגָא מַדְלֵיק. מַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם אַכְחוֹשֵׁי מִצְוָה — מִשְּׁרָגָא לִשְׁרָגָא נָמֵי אָסוּר. One of the Sages sat before Rav Adda bar Ahava, and he sat and said: The reason for the opinion of Rav, who prohibited lighting from one Hanukkah lamp to another, is due to contempt for the mitzva. Using the light for a purpose other than illumination demeans the mitzva of Hanukkah lights. Rav Adda bar Ahava said to his students: Do not listen to him, as the reason for Rav’s opinion is due to the fact that he thereby weakens the mitzva. By lighting from lamp to lamp he slightly diminishes the oil and wick designated for the purpose of the mitzva. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in a case where he lights directly from lamp to lamp, without using a wood chip or another lamp to light the second lamp. According to the one who said that Rav’s reason is due to contempt for the mitzva, directly from lamp to lamp he may even light ab initio, as, by lighting another Hanukkah lamp, he does not thereby demean the sanctity of the mitzva because the second lamp is also a mitzva. According to the one who said that Rav’s reason is because he weakens the mitzva, lighting directly from lamp to lamp is also prohibited, as ultimately, he utilizes the mitzva lamp for a task that he could have accomplished with a non-sacred lamp.

מֵתִיב רַב אַוְיָא: סֶלַע שֶׁל Rav Avya raised an objection from that which was taught in a Tosefta: A sela of

עֲשָׁשִׁית שֶׁהָיְתָה דּוֹלֶקֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ, לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת מְכַבָּהּ וּמַדְלִיקָהּ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא הַדְלָקָה עוֹשָׂה מִצְוָה — שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ הַנָּחָה עוֹשָׂה מִצְוָה, הַאי מְכַבָּהּ וּמַדְלִיקָהּ, מְכַבָּהּ וּמַגְבִּיהָהּ וּמַנִּיחָהּ וּמַדְלִיקָהּ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! וְעוֹד: מִדְּקָא מְבָרְכִינַן ״אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ לְהַדְלִיק נֵר שֶׁל חֲנוּכָּה״ — שְׁמַע מִינָּה הַדְלָקָה עוֹשָׂה מִצְוָה. שְׁמַע מִינָּה. A lantern that continued to burn the entire day of Shabbat, at the conclusion of Shabbat one extinguishes it and lights it again as a Hanukkah light. Granted, if you say that lighting accomplishes the mitzva, the requirement to extinguish the lantern and relight it in order to fulfill the mitzva of kindling the Hanukkah light works out well. However, if you say that placing accomplishes the mitzva, this statement, which stated that one extinguishes it and lights it, is imprecise. According to this opinion, it needed to say: One extinguishes it and lifts it from its place and sets it down and lights it, as only by placing the lamp in an appropriate place could one fulfill the mitzva of the Hanukkah light. Furthermore, there is additional proof that lighting accomplishes the mitzva. From the fact that we recite the following blessing over the mitzva of kindling the Hanukkah light: Who has made us holy through His commandments and has commanded us to light the Hanukkah light, the Gemara suggests: Conclude from this that lighting accomplishes the mitzva, as it is over lighting that one recites the blessing. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this.

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרִינַן הַדְלָקָה עוֹשָׂה מִצְוָה, הִדְלִיקָהּ חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם. אִשָּׁה וַדַּאי מַדְלִיקָה, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת בְּנֵר חֲנוּכָּה שֶׁאַף הֵן הָיוּ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַנֵּס. And, the Gemara remarks, now that we say that lighting accomplishes the mitzva, there are practical ramifications. If a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, all of whom are of limited intellectual capacity and not obligated in mitzvot, kindled the Hanukkah light, he did nothing in terms of fulfilling the mitzva, even if an adult obligated in mitzvot subsequently set it down in its appropriate place. That is because placing a lit lamp does not constitute fulfillment of the mitzva. The lighting must be performed by a person with full intellectual capacity, obligated in mitzvot. However, a woman certainly may light, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in lighting the Hanukkah light, as they too were included in that miracle of being saved from the decree of persecution.

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אַכְסְנַאי חַיָּיב בְּנֵר חֲנוּכָּה. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: מֵרֵישׁ כִּי הֲוֵינָא בֵּי רַב, מִשְׁתַּתַּפְנָא בִּפְרִיטֵי בַּהֲדֵי אוּשְׁפִּיזָא. בָּתַר דִּנְסֵיבִי אִיתְּתָא, אָמֵינָא: הַשְׁתָּא וַדַּאי לָא צְרִיכְנָא, דְּקָא מַדְלְקִי עֲלַי בְּגוֹ בֵּיתַאי. Rav Sheshet said: A guest is obligated in lighting the Hanukkah light in the place where he is being hosted. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Zeira said: At first, when I was studying in the yeshiva, I would participate with perutot, copper coins, together with the host [ushpiza], so that I would be a partner in the light that he kindled. After I married my wife, I said: Now I certainly need not do so because they light on my behalf in my house.

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל הַשְּׁמָנִים כּוּלָּן יָפִין לַנֵּר, וְשֶׁמֶן זַיִת מִן הַמּוּבְחָר. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה מְהַדַּר מָר אַמִּשְׁחָא דְשׁוּמְשְׁמֵי. אָמַר: הַאי מְשִׁיךְ נְהוֹרֵיהּ טְפֵי. כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁמַע לַהּ לְהָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, מְהַדַּר אַמִּשְׁחָא דְזֵיתָא. אָמַר: הַאי צְלִיל נְהוֹרֵיהּ טְפֵי. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All the oils are suitable for the Hanukkah lamp, and olive oil is the most select of the oils. Abaye said: At first, my Master, Rabba, would seek sesame oil, as he said: The light of sesame oil lasts longer and does not burn as quickly as olive oil. Once he heard that statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, he sought olive oil because he said: Its light is clearer.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל הַשְּׁמָנִים יָפִין לַדְּיוֹ, וְשֶׁמֶן זַיִת מִן הַמּוּבְחָר. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לְגַבֵּל, אוֹ לְעַשֵּׁן? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר זוּטְרָא: כׇּל הַשְּׁמָנִים יָפִין לַדְּיוֹ, וְשֶׁמֶן זַיִת מִן הַמּוּבְחָר — בֵּין לְגַבֵּל בֵּין לְעַשֵּׁן. רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר זוּטְרָא מַתְנֵי הָכִי: כׇּל הָעֲשָׁנִים יָפִין לַדְּיוֹ, וְשֶׁמֶן זַיִת מִן הַמּוּבְחָר. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: כׇּל הַשְּׂרָפִין יָפִין לַדְּיוֹ, וּשְׂרַף קְטָף יָפֶה מִכּוּלָּם. On a similar note, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All the oils are suitable for making ink, and olive oil is the most select. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s intention: Did he mean that olive oil is the most select in terms of being the best for use to mix and knead with the soot produced from a fire in manufacturing ink; or did he mean for use to smoke, i.e., burning olive oil to produce smoke is the most select method of producing the soot used in manufacturing ink? Come and hear a resolution to this from that which Rav Shmuel bar Zutrei taught: All oils are suitable for ink, and olive oil is the most select, both to knead and to smoke. Rav Shmuel bar Zutra taught it this way: All types of smoke are good for ink, and olive oil is the most select. Similarly, Rav Huna said: All saps are good for strengthening the ink compound, and balsam sap is the best of all.

אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: הַמַּדְלִיק נֵר שֶׁל חֲנוּכָּה צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵךְ. וְרַב יִרְמְיָה אָמַר: הָרוֹאֶה נֵר שֶׁל חֲנוּכָּה צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵךְ. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן, הָרוֹאֶה מְבָרֵךְ שְׁתַּיִם, וּמַדְלִיק מְבָרֵךְ שָׁלֹשׁ. מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ, מַדְלִיק מְבָרֵךְ שְׁתַּיִם, וְרוֹאֶה מְבָרֵךְ אַחַת. מַאי מְמַעֵט? מְמַעֵט זְמַן: וְנִימְעוֹט נֵס! — נֵס כׇּל יוֹמֵי אִיתֵיהּ. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: One who lights a Hanukkah light must recite a blessing. And Rabbi Yirmeya said: One who sees a burning Hanukkah light must recite a blessing because the mitzva is not only to kindle the light but to see the light as well. Therefore, there is room to recite a blessing even when seeing them. Rav Yehuda said: On the first day of Hanukkah, the one who sees burning lights recites two blessings, and the one who lights recites three blessings. From there on, from the second day of Hanukkah, the one who lights recites two blessings, and the one who sees recites one blessing. The Gemara asks: What blessing does he omit on the other days? The Gemara answers: He omits the blessing of time: Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time. The Gemara asks: And let us omit the blessing of the miracle: Who has performed miracles. The Gemara answers: The miracle is relevant on all of the days, whereas the blessing: Who has given us life, is only pertinent to the first time he performs the mitzva each year.

מַאי מְבָרֵךְ? — מְבָרֵךְ: ״אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ לְהַדְלִיק נֵר שֶׁל חֲנוּכָּה״. וְהֵיכָן צִוָּנוּ? רַב אַוְיָא אָמַר: מִ״לֹּא תָסוּר״. רַב נְחֶמְיָה אָמַר: ״שְׁאַל אָבִיךָ וְיַגֵּדְךָ זְקֵנֶיךָ וְיֹאמְרוּ לָךְ״. And what blessing does one recite? He recites: Who has made us holy through His commandments and has commanded us to light the Hanukkah light. The Gemara asks: And where did He command us? The mitzva of Hanukkah is not mentioned in the Torah, so how is it possible to say that it was commanded to us by God? The Gemara answers that Rav Avya said: The obligation to recite this blessing is derived from the verse: “You shall not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto you, to the right, nor to the left” (Deuteronomy 17:11). From this verse, the mitzva incumbent upon all of Israel to heed the statements and decrees of the Sages is derived. Therefore, one who fulfills their directives fulfills a divine commandment. Rav Neḥemya said that the mitzva to heed the voice of the Elders of Israel is derived from the verse: “Ask your father, and he will declare unto you, your Elders, and they will tell you” (Deuteronomy 32:7).

מֵתִיב רַב עַמְרָם: הַדְּמַאי, מְעָרְבִין בּוֹ וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִין בּוֹ וּמְבָרְכִין עָלָיו וּמְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו וּמַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ עָרוֹם וּבֵין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ כׇּל מִדְּרַבָּנַן בָּעֵי בְּרָכָה, הָכָא כִּי קָאֵי עָרוֹם הֵיכִי מְבָרֵךְ? וְהָא בָּעֵינַן וְהָיָה מַחֲנֶיךָ קָדוֹשׁ — וְלֵיכָּא! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וַדַּאי דְּדִבְרֵיהֶם בָּעֵי בְּרָכָה, סָפֵק דְּדִבְרֵיהֶם לָא בָּעֵי בְּרָכָה. Rav Amram raised an objection from that which we learned in a mishna: With regard to doubtfully tithed produce [demai], i.e., grain that was acquired from an am ha’aretz about which there is uncertainty whether or not he tithed it; one may use it to establish an eiruv, i.e., joining of courtyards and joining of borders, and to establish the merging of alleys, and one recites a blessing before and after eating it, and one invites a quorum for recitation of Grace after Meals after eating it. Although the Sages said that one is required to separate tithes from demai, they allowed it to be used for specific purposes and in exigent circumstances. And they said that one may separate the tithe from demai when he is naked and at dusk Shabbat eve, a time when separating tithes from actual untithed produce [tevel] is prohibited. And if you say that every action instituted by rabbinic ordinance requires a blessing, as fulfillment of rabbinic ordinances is based on the mitzva: You shall not turn aside, here, when he stands naked, how can he recite a blessing? Don’t we require fulfillment of the mitzva: “Therefore shall your camp be holy; that He see no unseemly thing in you, and turn away from you” (Deuteronomy 23:15)? And the camp is not holy when one recites a blessing in a state of nakedness. Abaye said: There is room to distinguish between the cases: In a case where there is a definite mitzva by rabbinic law, a blessing is required. In a case where there is a rabbinic ordinance instituted due to uncertainty with regard to the circumstances, as in the case of demai, which may or may not have been tithed already, a blessing is not required.

וְהָא יוֹם טוֹב שֵׁנִי דִּסְפֵק דִּבְרֵיהֶם הוּא, וּבָעֵי בְּרָכָה? הָתָם כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִיזַלְזְלוּ בֵּהּ. רָבָא אָמַר: רוֹב עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ מְעַשְּׂרִין הֵן. The Gemara asks: Isn’t the second day of a Festival in the Diaspora a rabbinic ordinance instituted due to uncertainty whether the first day or the second is the actual Festival, and nevertheless a blessing is required? On the second day of the Festival one recites the same blessings as he does on the first. The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the second day of the Festival, the reason that blessings are required is so that people will not treat it with contempt. If Festival blessings were not required on the second day of the Festival, people would take its sanctity lightly. Rava said another reason: Demai is not considered to be an ordinance instituted by the Sages due to uncertainty. In fact, in most cases, an am ha’aretz tithes. The concern lest they do not tithe is not a full-fledged case of uncertainty. It is merely a case of suspicion for which the Sages did not institute a blessing. That is not the case with regard to the second day of a Festival. Even though it was instituted due to uncertainty, one must recite the Festival blessings. Since it was instituted by the Sages, one is obligated to recite a blessing just as he recites blessings for other rabbinic ordinances.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: חָצֵר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי פְּתָחִים צְרִיכָה שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת. (וְאָמַר) [אָמַר] רָבָא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא מִשְׁתֵּי רוּחוֹת, אֲבָל מֵרוּחַ אַחַת — לָא צְרִיךְ. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם חֲשָׁדָא — חֲשָׁדָא דְמַאן? אִילֵּימָא חֲשָׁדָא דְעָלְמָא — אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוּחַ אַחַת נָמֵי לִיבְעֵי! אִי חֲשָׁדָא דִּבְנֵי מָתָא — אֲפִילּוּ מִשְׁתֵּי רוּחוֹת נָמֵי לָא לִיבְעֵי. לְעוֹלָם מִשּׁוּם חֲשָׁדָא דִּבְנֵי מָתָא, וְזִימְנִין דְּחָלְפִי בְּהַאי וְלָא חָלְפִי בְּהַאי, וְאָמְרִי: כִּי הֵיכִי דִּבְהַאי פִּיתְחָא לָא אַדְלִיק — בְּהָךְ פִּיתְחָא נָמֵי לָא אַדְלִיק. Rav Huna said: A courtyard that has two entrances requires two lamps, one lamp at each entrance, so that it will be obvious that the residents of this courtyard light properly. And Rava said: We only said this in a case where the two entrances face two different directions. However, if they both face in the same direction one need not light at more than one entrance. The Gemara clarifies Rava’s statement: What is the reason for this? If you say that it is because those who see the entrance without a lamp burning will harbor suspicion lest he does not kindle the Hanukkah light, whose suspicion concerns us? If you say that the concern is with regard to the suspicion of people who do not live in the city and are unfamiliar with the courtyard’s tenants, even when both entrances face the same direction let them be required to light at both entrances because visitors are unaware that there are two entrances to that courtyard. And if the concern is with regard to the suspicion of the residents of that city, even when the two entrances face two different directions let them not be required to light at both entrances. The local residents know that only one person lives in the courtyard and will assume that if he did not light at one entrance he surely lit at the other. The Gemara answers: Actually, say that it is because of the suspicion of the residents of that city, and sometimes they pass this entrance and do not pass that one, and they say: Just as he did not light in this entrance, in that second entrance he also did not light. In order to avoid suspicion, it is preferable to light at both entrances.

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּחָיְישִׁינַן לַחֲשָׁד? — דְּתַנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: בִּשְׁבִיל אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה לְהַנִּיחַ פֵּיאָה בְּסוֹף שָׂדֵהוּ: מִפְּנֵי גֶּזֶל עֲנִיִּים, וּמִפְּנֵי בִּיטּוּל עֲנִיִּים, וּמִפְּנֵי הַחֲשָׁד, וּמִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תְּכַלֶּה״. מִפְּנֵי גֶּזֶל עֲנִיִּים — שֶׁלֹּא יִרְאֶה בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שָׁעָה פְּנוּיָיה וְיֹאמַר לִקְרוֹבוֹ עָנִי: ״הֲרֵי זוֹ פֵּאָה״. And from where do you say that we are concerned about suspicion? As it was taught in a Tosefta that Rabbi Shimon said: On account of four things the Torah said that one should leave pe’a, crops for the poor in the corner of his field, specifically at the end of his field. Only after one has cut virtually the entire field should he leave an uncut corner for the poor. He should not designate an area for pe’a in the middle of the field in the course of cutting the field. The reasons for this ruling are: Due to robbing the poor, and due to causing the poor to be idle, and due to suspicion, and due to the verse: “You shall not wholly reap the corner of your field” (Leviticus 23:22). The Gemara explains: Due to robbing the poor; so that the owner of the house will not see a time when the field is unoccupied and there are no poor people in the area. If he could designate pe’a as he wished, there is room to suspect that he might say to his poor relative: This is pe’a, in the place and at the time that he chooses. He would thereby conceal the fact that there is pe’a in his field from other poor people. The result would be that, for all intents and purposes, he robbed pe’a from those with whom he did not share the information.

וּמִפְּנֵי בִּיטּוּל עֲנִיִּים — שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ עֲנִיִּים יוֹשְׁבִין וּמְשַׁמְּרִין ״עַכְשָׁיו מַנִּיחַ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת פֵּאָה״. וּמִפְּנֵי חֲשָׁד — שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ עוֹבְרִין וְשָׁבִין אוֹמְרִים: תָּבֹא מְאֵרָה לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא הִנִּיחַ פֵּאָה בְּשָׂדֵהוּ. וּמִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תְּכַלֶּה״. אַטּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ לָאו מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תְּכַלֶּה״ נִינְהוּ? אָמַר רָבָא: מִפְּנֵי הָרַמָּאִין. And due to causing the poor to be idle; so that the poor, who have no way of knowing when he is going to cut the grain and where in the field he is going to leave the pe’a, will not be sitting and observing until he designates the pe’a and constantly saying to themselves: Now the owner of the field is placing pe’a. Now that he leaves the pe’a in a defined area at the end of his field, and the poor people know exactly where they can receive their portion, they need not waste their time in anticipation. And due to suspicion; if one leaves the pe’a in the middle of the field, the poor will come and take their portion immediately when he designates the area of pe’a. When the owner then continues to cut and harvest the rest of the grain in the field, the pe’a will not be noticeable. Insisting that he leave pe’a at the end of the field ensures that passersby will not say: A person who did not leave pe’a in his field should be cursed. We learned that the fourth reason is due to the verse: You shall not wholly reap. The Gemara wonders: Aren’t all of these reasons due to: You shall not wholly reap? All of the reasons explain that one may not reap his entire field and must leave pe’a at the end of his field. Rava said: The meaning of the last reason is that pe’a is separated that way due to cheaters. There is concern that a person would not leave pe’a at all. He would claim that he already separated it in the middle of his field and that the poor already came and took it. In order to bolster the mitzva of pe’a, the Sages instituted that it must be separated specifically at the end of one’s field. In terms of the discussion in the Gemara, apparently, the desire to avoid arousing suspicion is a factor taken into consideration in determining halakha.

אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר רְדִיפָה אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: נֵר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי פִיּוֹת — עוֹלָה לִשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם. אָמַר רָבָא: מִילֵּא קְעָרָה שֶׁמֶן וְהִקִּיפָהּ פְּתִילוֹת. כָּפָה עָלֶיהָ כְּלִי — עוֹלָה לְכַמָּה בְּנֵי אָדָם. לֹא כָּפָה עָלֶיהָ כְּלִי — עֲשָׂאָהּ כְּמִין מְדוּרָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְאֶחָד נָמֵי אֵינָהּ עוֹלָה. Rav Yitzḥak bar Redifa said that Rav Huna said: Lighting an oil lamp that has two spouts, with one wick placed in each of the spouts, is considered to have fulfilled the obligation of kindling the Hanukkah light for two people. Similarly, Rava said: One who filled a bowl with oil and placed wicks all around it, if he overturned a vessel on top of it, it is considered to have fulfilled the obligation of lighting the Hanukkah light for several people, corresponding to the number of wicks. By overturning a vessel atop the bowl, each wick appears to be burning independently. If one did not overturn a vessel on top of it, he thereby made it appear like a type of bonfire. From afar, the light from all of the flames appear to be a single flame. And it is not even considered to have fulfilled the obligation of lighting the Hanukkah light for one person because the mitzva is specifically to light a flame and not a bonfire.

אָמַר רָבָא: פְּשִׁיטָא לִי, נֵר בֵּיתוֹ וְנֵר חֲנוּכָּה — נֵר בֵּיתוֹ עָדִיף, מִשּׁוּם שְׁלוֹם בֵּיתוֹ. נֵר בֵּיתוֹ וְקִידּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם — נֵר בֵּיתוֹ עָדִיף, מִשּׁוּם שְׁלוֹם בֵּיתוֹ. בָּעֵי רָבָא: נֵר חֲנוּכָּה וְקִידּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם מַהוּ? קִידּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם עֲדִיף — דִּתְדִיר, אוֹ דִילְמָא נֵר חֲנוּכָּה עֲדִיף — מִשּׁוּם פַּרְסוֹמֵי נִיסָּא? בָּתַר דְּבַעְיַהּ, הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: נֵר חֲנוּכָּה עֲדִיף, מִשּׁוּם פַּרְסוֹמֵי נִיסָּא. Rava said: It is obvious to me that there is a fixed list of priorities. When a person is poor and must choose between purchasing oil to light a Shabbat lamp for his home or purchasing oil to light a Hanukkah lamp, the Shabbat lamp for his home takes precedence. That is due to peace in his home; without the light of that lamp, his family would be sitting and eating their meal in the dark. Similarly, if there is a conflict between acquiring oil to light a lamp for his home and wine for the sanctification [kiddush] of Shabbat day, the lamp for his home takes precedence due to peace in his home. However, Rava raised a dilemma: When the conflict is between oil for a Hanukkah lamp or wine for kiddush of Shabbat day, what is the ruling in that case? Does kiddush of Shabbat day take priority because it is frequent, i.e., it is performed every week, and there is a principle: When there is a conflict between a frequent practice and an infrequent practice, the frequent practice takes precedence? Or, perhaps the Hanukkah lamp takes precedence due to publicity of the miracle? After he raised the dilemma, he then resolved it on his own and he ruled that, in that case, the Hanukkah lamp takes precedence due to publicity of the miracle.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָרָגִיל בְּנֵר הָוְיִין לֵיהּ בָּנִים תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים. הַזָּהִיר בִּמְזוּזָה — זוֹכֶה לְדִירָה נָאָה. הַזָּהִיר בְּצִיצִית — זוֹכֶה לְטַלִּית נָאָה. הַזָּהִיר בְּקִידּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם — זוֹכֶה וּמְמַלֵּא גַּרְבֵי יַיִן. רַב הוּנָא הֲוָה רְגִיל דַּהֲוָה חָלֵיף וְתָנֵי אַפִּתְחָא דְרַבִּי אָבִין נַגָּרָא. חֲזָא דַּהֲוָה רְגִיל בִּשְׁרָגֵי טוּבָא, אֲמַר: תְּרֵי גַּבְרֵי רַבְרְבֵי נָפְקִי מֵהָכָא. נָפְקִי מִינַּיְיהוּ רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין וְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין. רַב חִסְדָּא הֲוָה רְגִיל דַּהֲוָה חָלֵיף וְתָנֵי אַפִּיתְחָא דְּבֵי נָשָׁא דְּרַב שֵׁיזְבִי. חֲזָא דַּהֲוָה רְגִיל בִּשְׁרָגֵי טוּבָא, אֲמַר: גַּבְרָא רַבָּא נָפֵק מֵהָכָא. נְפַק מִינַּיְיהוּ רַב שֵׁיזְבִי. Rav Huna said: One who is accustomed to kindle lights on Shabbat and Hanukkah will be rewarded and have children who are Torah scholars, who will disseminate the light of Torah. One who is meticulous in performing the mitzva of mezuza merits a beautiful house on which to affix his mezuza. One who is meticulous in performing the mitzva of ritual fringes merits a beautiful garment. One who is meticulous in performing the mitzva of kiddush of the day merits and fills jugs of wine. The Gemara relates: Rav Huna was accustomed to pass by and teach at the entrance of the house of Rabbi Avin the carpenter. He saw that Rabbi Avin was accustomed to kindle many lights in honor of Shabbat. Rav Huna said: Two great men will emerge from here. Indeed, Rav Idi bar Avin and Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin, his two oldest sons, emerged from their family. On a similar note, the Gemara relates: Rav Ḥisda was accustomed to pass by and teach at the entrance of Rav Sheizvi’s father’s family home. He saw that Rav Sheizvi’s father was accustomed to kindle many lights in honor of Shabbat. Rav Ḥisda said: A great person will emerge from here. Indeed, Rav Sheizvi emerged from them.

דְּבֵיתְהוּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף הֲוָת מְאַחֲרָה וּמַדְלְקָה. אֲמַר לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: תָּנֵינָא ״לֹא יָמִישׁ עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן יוֹמָם וְעַמּוּד הָאֵשׁ לָיְלָה״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעַמּוּד עָנָן מַשְׁלִים לְעַמּוּד הָאֵשׁ וְעַמּוּד הָאֵשׁ מַשְׁלִים לְעַמּוּד הֶעָנָן. סְבַרָה לְאַקְדּוֹמֵי. אֲמַר לַהּ הָהוּא סָבָא: תָּנֵינָא, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַקְדִּים וְשֶׁלֹּא יְאַחֵר. The Gemara relates that Rav Yosef’s wife would kindle the Shabbat lights late. Rav Yosef said to her: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “The pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night, departed not from before the people” (Exodus 13:22), this teaches that the pillar of cloud would overlap with the pillar of fire? The pillar of fire would appear slightly before nightfall. And the pillar of fire would overlap with the pillar of cloud, as well. The pillar of cloud would appear slightly before daybreak. Therefore, in lighting the Shabbat lights it is also appropriate to light earlier, beginning Shabbat slightly before dark on Shabbat eve. She thought to kindle the lights much earlier, on Shabbat eve, long before nightfall. An Elder said to her, we learned: As long as he neither lights too early nor too late.

אָמַר רָבָא: דְּרָחֵים רַבָּנַן, הָווּ לֵיהּ בְּנִין רַבָּנַן. דְּמוֹקִיר רַבָּנַן, הָווּ לֵיהּ חַתְנָווֹתָא רַבָּנַן. דְּדָחֵיל מֵרַבָּנָן, הוּא גּוּפֵיהּ הָוֵי צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן. וְאִי לָאו בַּר הָכֵי הוּא, מִשְׁתַּמְעָן מִילֵּיהּ כְּצוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן. Similar to the reward due one who kindles the Shabbat lights, Rava said: One who loves Sages will have children who are Sages. One who honors Sages will have sons-in-law who are Sages. One who stands in awe of the Sages will himself become a Torah scholar. And if he is not capable and lacks the talent to become a Torah scholar, his statements will be received like the statements of a Torah scholar.

וְלֹא בְּשֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה וְכוּ׳: מַאי שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה? אָמַר רַבָּה: שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנִּטְמְאָה. וְאַמַּאי קָרוּ לֵהּ ״שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה״? — הוֹאִיל וְלִשְׂרֵיפָה עוֹמֵד. וּבְשַׁבָּת מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁמִּצְוָה עָלָיו לְבַעֲרוֹ, גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יַטֶּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בְּיוֹם טוֹב לִישְׁתְּרֵי! אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בְּשֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב? — גְּזֵרָה יוֹם טוֹב אַטּוּ שַׁבָּת. We learned in the mishna that one may not light with burnt oil on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is burnt oil? Rabba said: It is oil of teruma that became ritually impure. And why did they call it burnt oil? Because its burning is imminent, as it is prohibited to eat this oil and one is obligated to burn it. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that one may not light with it on Shabbat? The Gemara explains: Because it is a mitzva to burn it, the Sages issued a decree lest, in doing so, he come to adjust the wick in order to hasten its burning. Abaye said to him: But if what you say is so, that the reason for the prohibition is a concern lest he adjust it, then, on a Festival, when adjusting a wick is permitted, it should be permitted to light with burnt oil. Why then did we learn in the mishna: One may not light with burnt oil even on a Festival? The Gemara answers: It is a decree issued by the Sages prohibiting burning it even on a Festival, due to the prohibition to burn it on Shabbat.

רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: לְשֶׁמָּא יַטֶּה לָא חָיְישִׁינַן, אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּיוֹם טוֹב שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עָסְקִינַן — לְפִי שֶׁאֵין שׂוֹרְפִין קׇדָשִׁים בְּיוֹם טוֹב. וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בְּשֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לָאו בְּיוֹם טוֹב עָסְקִינַן! אָמַר רַב חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא: ״מַה טַּעַם״ קָאָמַר: מַה טַּעַם אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בְּשֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב — לְפִי שֶׁאֵין שׂוֹרְפִין קׇדָשִׁים בְּיוֹם טוֹב. Rav Ḥisda said: The reason for the prohibition against lighting a Shabbat lamp with burnt oil is different, as we are not concerned lest one come to adjust the wick. Rather, here, in our mishna, we are dealing with a Festival that fell on Shabbat eve, in which case he must kindle Shabbat lights on the Festival. One may not light a Shabbat lamp with burnt oil on a Festival because one may not burn consecrated items on a Festival, a prohibition that applies to teruma as well. The Gemara asks: But from the fact that we learned in the latter clause, i.e., the next mishna, that one may not light with burnt oil on a Festival, by inference, in the first clause of the mishna we are not dealing with a Festival but rather with a standard Shabbat. Rabbi Ḥanina from Sura said: This mishna must be understood in the following manner: These are not two distinct halakhot; rather, this mishna was stated employing the didactic style of what is the reason. What is the reason that one may not light with burnt oil on a Festival or on a Festival that falls on Shabbat eve? It is because one may not burn consecrated items on a Festival at all.