1the second tithe, one may not weigh gold dinars with it in order to determine their precise weight. And doing so is prohibited even if he is weighing the coin in order to redeem other second-tithe produce with it, as one may not derive benefit from tithe money. The Gemara discusses this matter: Granted, if you say that when Rav and Shmuel disagree it is with regard to a case when one lights from lamp to lamp, but with a wood chip, Shmuel prohibits lighting, this will not be a conclusive refutation of Shmuel’s opinion. But if you say that he permits lighting from lamp to lamp with a wood chip as well, this would be a conclusive refutation of his opinion, as the Sages did not permit use of and benefit from a sacred object even for the purpose of a similar sacred need. Rabba said: This is not difficult, as in the case of weighing tithe money the Sages prohibited doing so as a decree lest the weights not be precisely equal. One will discover that the weight of the gold dinars is not equal to the weight of the sela that he used to weigh them, and he will reconsider and render them unsanctified, i.e., they will maintain their original, non-sacred status. In that case, he will have used the tithe money for an unsanctified purpose. However, when one lights even a wood chip for the purpose of Hanukkah lights, it is clear that it is for the purpose of performing a mitzva, and there is no reason to issue a decree.

2Rav Sheshet raised an objection from that which was taught in a baraita . With regard to the Temple candelabrum, it is stated: “Outside the veil of the testimony, in the Tent of Meeting, shall Aaron order it from evening to morning before the Lord continually; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations” (Leviticus 24:3). It must be understood: And does God require its light for illumination at night? Didn’t the children of Israel, all forty years that they walked in the wilderness, walk exclusively by His light, the pillar of fire? Rather, the lighting of the candelabrum is testimony to mankind that the Divine Presence rests among Israel. The Gemara asks: What is this testimony? Rav said: That is the westernmost lamp in the candelabrum in which the measure of oil placed was the same measure of oil as was placed in the other lamps, and nevertheless he would light the others from it each day and with it he would conclude, i.e., the westernmost lamp would continue burning throughout the day after all the others were extinguished. The rest of the lamps burned only at night, and each night he would relight the rest of the lamps from the westernmost lamp. But isn’t it true that here, in the Temple, since the lamps were fixed in the candelabrum, it was impossible to light directly from lamp to lamp? There was no alternative to taking a wood chip and lighting the rest of the lamps from the westernmost lamp. Consequently, it is difficult both according to the one who said that one may not light from lamp to lamp due to contempt for the mitzva and according to the one who said that one may not light from lamp to lamp due to weakening the mitzva.

3Rav Pappa explained that it need not necessarily be understood that way. Rather, there were long wicks in the candelabrum, which made it possible to reach and light directly from one lamp to another. However, ultimately, according to the one who said that one may not light from lamp to lamp due to weakening the mitzva, it is difficult. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, the question remains difficult.

4In summary, the Gemara asks: What is the halakhic conclusion reached about this matter in terms of lighting from lamp to lamp? Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, said: We see; if the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that kindling the Hanukkah light accomplishes the mitzva and the rest is secondary, one may light from lamp to lamp. The lighting itself is the essence of the mitzva of Hanukkah lights. And if the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that placing the lit lamp in a suitable place accomplishes the mitzva, then one may not light from lamp to lamp. According to that opinion, lighting is simply an auxiliary action that facilitates the fulfillment of the essence of the mitzva, which is placing the lamp in a place where its light can be seen by the public. Since lighting is merely a preparatory action, one may not demean the mitzva by lighting from lamp to lamp.

5After the issue of whether lighting accomplishes the mitzva or placing accomplishes the mitzva was raised in the context of the previous discussion, the Gemara cites the discussion in its entirety. As a dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of the Hanukkah light, does lighting accomplish the mitzva, and placing the lit lamp is simply a continuation of that action, or does placing the kindled lamp accomplish the mitzva, and lighting is simply a practical necessity that facilitates placing the lamp?

6The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from that which Rava said: One who was holding a burning Hanukkah lamp in his hand and standing, he did nothing in terms of fulfilling the mitzva. Conclude from this that placing accomplishes the mitzva. Until he sets the lamp down in its appropriate place, he did not fulfill the mitzva. The Gemara rejects this: There, they said that he did not fulfill his obligation for a different reason. One who sees it will say that he is not holding the lamp in order to fulfill the mitzva, but he is holding it for his own needs. Since holding the lamp can mislead onlookers, he does not fulfill the mitzva in that manner.

7Come and hear another resolution for this dilemma from that which Rava said: One who lights the Hanukkah lamp inside the house and then takes it out and places it at the entrance to his house did nothing in terms of fulfilling the mitzva. Granted, if you say that lighting accomplishes the mitzva it is understandable, as lighting in its place is required. That is why Rava ruled that he did nothing in terms of fulfilling the mitzva. However, if you say that placing accomplishes the mitzva, why did Rava rule that he did nothing? Didn’t he set it down in its appropriate place? The Gemara answers: There too, even though he subsequently brought it outside, one who sees him lighting inside will say to himself that he is lighting the lamp for his own needs and not in fulfillment of the mitzva.

8Come and hear another resolution from that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:

License: CC-BY-NC

Text

Layout

Concept key:

Text size

100%

Original size

Rashi

Second tithe - Dinar-coins through which he redeemed second tithe may not be weighed against mundane dinar-coins (as a counter-weight) to see that they are undiminished (that their weight is a complete measure).

Granted, if you say [that] when Rav and Shmuel disagree, it is from lamp to lamp in actuality and not with a wood chip, and it is about this that Shmuel permits, since he is not concerned that he weakens it; but with a wood chip, he concedes. Then this is no refutation. For the body of these dinar-coins of the mundane are not [of] a commandment. And even though they are needed for a commandment, they are similar to the wood chip. However if you say Shmuel also permits [it] with a wood chip - since it is [for] the need of a commandment - then it is a refutation. For [the Tosefta] forbade to weigh [the coins], even though it was for the need of a commandment.

His weights not be precisely equal - Lest he not find them to be good; or he find them to [weigh] more, and spare them and not redeem the tithe upon them. So it comes out that he showed contempt towards the tithe without a need.

And render them unsanctified - Meaning to say, he will leave them unsanctified, as they are.

The western lamp - According to the one in Menachot who says the branches were laying east and west, the second lamp from the outside which is on the eastern side (which is west of the lamp next to it) is called western. And according to the one who says that they were laying north and south, the middle one is called western, since its opening is towards the west, and all the other lamps are towards the middle [lamp], as it is written (Numbers 8:2), "towards the face of the candelabrum" - which is the middle - "they shall give light, etc." The ones of the north were facing to the south, and the ones of the south were to the north. Lamps are loces of gold, in which we place oil and wicks.

Like the measure of the others - Half a log. They measured it [to be sufficient] for the long nights of the Tevet season. And if it is [still] lit during the day (and the night) during the short nights, let it be lit. But not less, that it not become extinguished in Tevet at night - for the Torah stated (Exodus 27:21), "from evening to morning."

And he would light from it the lamps in the afternoon.

And with it he would conclude - This is the ordering (cleaning) of the lamps. As it lit the whole day and he does not order it until the evening. And this teaching is taught in Torat Kohanim. And it holds that they were laying east to west. And so was it taught before it (Sifra, Emor, Section 13:7), "'To raise a light always' - so that the western light [burn] continuously, as he would begin with it and end with it." And since it is not written, "to raise lights" - we understand from this that one lamp is fixed, to begin with it every day. And that is the western lamp - the second one from the east. And thus do we learn (Tamid 33a), "He entered. [If] he found the two eastern lamps burning, he would remove the ash from the easternmost lamp. But he would leave the western lamp burning, as from that lamp he would kindle the candelabrum in the afternoon. If he found that it was extinguished" - such as when Shimon the Just died - "he would kindle it from the altar of the burnt offering." And it appears in my eyes that the Rabbis said that its being fixed was the second lamp, was because we do not pass over commandments. But when he came to the [Temple] chamber, he first encountered the first [lamp], yet he could not begin with it, since it is written, "shall arrange it [...] before the Lord." [Still] there needs to be one external to it. For, if not, we do not call it, "before the Lord." And thus do we say in Menachot (98b), "It is written about the western lamp, 'before the Lord.' This implies all [the others] are not before the Lord, etc." And he would finish the ordering with it. For he would order the rest in the morning, but he would order this one in the afternoon. And he would hold the old one in his hand or place it in a vessel until he would place the oil and wick and light, and [then] light the others from it. And that which we say in Seder Yoma (33b) - "The arranging [of the candelabrum] is five lamps before the two lamps," implies that he would arrange all of them in the morning; and it learns this from verses - that is when no miracle existed, and he would find that it had been extinguished. For the verse does not rely on a miracle. But all the time that Israel was beloved, it would burn the whole day. And that is its testimony.

But isn’t it that here, since the lamps were fixed in the candelabrum, and he was not able to remove the western lamp to light the others from it - perforce that which is taught, "he would light from it," cannot be that he did not use a wood chip.

And lit the wood chip from the western lamp - And he would light the rest from that wood chip.

It was with long wicks - All of the wicks went out from their lamps until they reached one another. So he would light the one next to it from it; and the others, one from another.

Ultimately, according to the one who said, etc. - As behold, according to him, from lamp to lamp is forbidden.

If kindling accomplishes the commandment - If the commandment of Channukah is dependent on the lighting, we may kindle [from one to the other], as we find with the [Temple] candelabrum.

But if placing the lamp accomplishes the commandment - So the main commandment is dependent upon the placement.

We may not light from lamp to lamp - Since kindling is not so much the commandment.

We teach the version, "As a dilemma was raised before them" - Meaning to say that this matter was already raised; and the resolution of that dilemma was resolved for us like this.

One who was holding a Hanukkah lamp in his hand, from when he lit it to when it became extinguished.

And standing - Not necessarily, but this is the [Talmud]'s expression.

For his need - To use. So there is no recognition [that it is to commemorate] the miracle.

Inside - In the house.

And takes it out - As it said earlier, that he needs to place it at the entrance to his house on the outside.

Granted, if you say that lighting accomplishes the commandment - that is why he did nothing: For since that is its commandment, it needs to be done in a place where he is obligated.

License: CC0

שבת 22 עמוד ב

1מעשר שני אין שוקלין כנגדו דנרי זהב, ואפילו לחלל עליו מעשר שני אחר. אי אמרת בשלמא כי פליגי רב ושמואל מנר לנר אבל בקינסא אסר שמואל הא לא תהוי תיובתא. אלא אי אמרת בקינסא נמי שרי הא תהוי תיובתא! אמר רבה: גזירה שמא לא יכוין משקלותיו וקא מפיק להו לחולין.

2מתיב רב ששת: (ויקרא כד, ג) ״מחוץ לפרוכת העדות יערוך״, וכי לאורה הוא צריך? והלא כל ארבעים שנה שהלכו בני ישראל במדבר לא הלכו אלא לאורו! אלא עדות היא לבאי עולם שהשכינה שורה בישראל. מאי עדות? אמר רב: זו נר מערבי שנותן בה שמן כמדת חברותיה, וממנה היה מדליק ובה היה מסיים. והא הכא כיון דקביעי נרות, לא סגיא דלא משקיל ואדלוקי. קשיא בין למ"ד משום בזויי מצוה, ובין למ"ד משום אכחושי מצוה!

3תרגמא ר"פ בפתילות ארוכות. סוף סוף, למ"ד משום אכחושי מצוה קשיא! קשיא.

4מאי הוי עלה? א"ר הונא בריה דרב יהושע: חזינא אי הדלקה עושה מצוה מדליקין מנר לנר. ואי הנחה עושה מצוה אין מדליקין מנר לנר.

5דאיבעיא להו: הדלקה עושה מצוה, או הנחה עושה מצוה?

6ת"ש דאמר רבא: היה תפוש נר חנוכה ועומד לא עשה ולא כלום. שמע מינה: הנחה עושה מצוה! התם, הרואה אומר לצורכו הוא דנקיט לה.

7ת"ש דאמר רבא: הדליקה בפנים והוציאה לא עשה כלום. אא"ב הדלקה עושה מצוה הדלקה במקומו בעינן, משום הכי לא עשה כלום. אלא אי אמרת הנחה עושה מצוה, אמאי לא עשה ולא כלום? התם נמי: הרואה הוא אומר לצורכו הוא דאדלקה.

8תא שמע דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי:

Tosafot

And does He require its light? Didn’t all those forty years - It is a wonder: Why did it mention forty years? The whole world always walks by the light of the Omnipresent! And some explain it as, "Did Aharon need its light when he went inside?" [Accordingly,] didn't the pillar of cloud give light to them in all the places those forty years? It is as we say in the Baraita of the Work of the Tabernacle, "He would look inside a pitcher and know what is inside it; in a barrel and know what is inside it." And it so implied in Torat Kohanim - that it is referring to the priests. As there, it teaches the version, "And did they need the lamp? And didn't all of those forty years they not require the lamp? As it is stated (Exodus 40:38), 'For the cloud of the Lord was over the tabernacle.'" However at the end of [the chapter entitled] Kol Korbanot (Menachot 26b), it is implied that it is referring to the Divine Presence. As it cites it regarding that which Rabbi Elazar said, "I do not require [it] for eating and I do not require it for its light." And there it also said, "'To the curtain of the testimony' (Leviticus 24:3) - it is testimony to all who come to the world that the Divine Presence rests among Israel. But perhaps you will say (ask), 'Do I require its light,' Didn't all those forty years [etc.]?"

And with it he would conclude - [Rashi] explained, "and with it he would conclude" the ordering (cleaning). For he would order the rest in the morning, but he would order this one in the afternoon. And he would hold the old one in his hand or place it in a vessel until he would place the oil and wick and light, and [then] light the others from it. But this is difficult to Riva: For if it is possible to light from the old light - if so - let him also light the other ones from it; so what is the question on Rav? Once he has removed the old wick from the lamp, there is no longer [an issue] of contempt of the commandment, nor [an issue of] weakening the commandment. But rather it is certainly impossible to do this. So when he came to order [the lamps], he would order everything in the lamp and the wick would become extinguished on its own. However while the old wick of the western lamp was still lit, he would light the others from it. And he would [then] order it, put oil and a new wick into it and light it from the others. So "with it he would conclude," [refers to] the lighting.

But isn’t it true that here, since the lamps were fixed, etc. - Like the one, in the chapter [entitled] Shtei Middot (Menachot 88b), who said that the lamp was flexible, as it is implied there that it was connected but it was flexible, in order that he could order it properly. But there is [also] one that said there that it was not fixed, but that he would rather remove it completely at the time of the ordering and place it [back] afterwards.

What is about it - It is a wonder: What is its question; and what is that which [Rav Huna, the son of Rabbi Yehoshua] also said, "We see if kindling, etc." Behold, it is at first glance implied that the law is like Shmuel (such that there is no question to be resolved)! For behold, Rabbah acted according to him. And if so, a wood chip is also permissible. For note that it is perforce about a wood chip that they argue, and about contempt for the commandment. As behold, the one that explained the reason of Rav being on account of weakening the commandment was refuted. So we must say that it did not hold the words of Rabbah to be essential. [Hence] he asked if placing accomplishes the commandment, so it is forbidden for Rav from lamp to lamp on account of contempt for the commandment, as it is with a wood chip; or does kindling accomplish the commandment, and it is permissible, like with the [Temple] candelabrum - for we are not concerned about weakening the commandment. And it concludes that kindling accomplishes the commandment, so it is permissible. Or also (another explanation): I found in the name of Rivam that it is asking according to Shmuel - as the law is like him - whether it is permissible with a wood chip or not. So he asks if we hold like it said above, that according to the one that said it is on account of contempt for the commandment, it is permissible to light from lamp to lamp according to Rav. And if so, they are arguing about a wood chip, and Shmuel permits with a wood chip. Or perhaps we do not hold like this and there is contempt of the commandment also from lamp to lamp, and Rav forbids [it] - since the placing accomplishes the commandment, such that it is not similar to the [Temple] candelabrum, and it is only from lamp to lamp that Shmuel permits. But with a wood chip, even Shmuel concedes that it is forbidden. It concludes - we see that we ask [this], and resolve that kindling accomplishes the commandment. So for Rav, one may kindle from lamp to lamp, like the candelabrum; and for Shmuel, it is permissible even with a wood chip.

As a dilemma was raised before them, does kindling accomplish the commandment, etc.: And what comes out from it (the practical difference) is if a deaf-mute, a mentally compromised person or a minor lit or placed [the lamps].

License: CC0

Tap a passage to mark the comments that open with the same words.

More commentaries

Rabbeinu Chananel

אדם מטה כסא וספסל ובלבד שלא יתכוון לעשות חריץ ואסיקנ' דטעמא דרב משום בזוי מצוה וכיון דנר של מצוה הוא [דמדליק מנר של] מצוה ליכא בזיון מצוה והדלקה היא המצוה ולא הנחת הנר בטפח הסמוך לפתח הלכך מותר להדליק נר של חנוכה מנר של חנוכה שנמצא מדליק מצוה ממצוה שהדלקת נר השני היא מצותו ובעי' (להדליק) [שידליק] מי שהי' חייב ובר מצות והנשים מדליקות עששיות שהיתה דולקת כל היום כולו לערב מכבה ומדליקה ואכסנאי חייב בנר חנוכה ואי משתתף בהדי אושפיזי או אם היה נסיב תו לא צריך.

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Shabbat 22b

Shabbat 22b. The full printed text of this folio side - 8 numbered segments, about 239 words - with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Open the full commentary page

Smart source finder

Type a reference or pick tractate, book or part and the exact unit - the finder resolves it to a page on this site and shows which sages cite it.

Reference

TractateDaf (1–157)Amud

Resolved to: Shabbat 22b

Open in the reader