Commentary page

Shabbat 21a

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Shabbat 21a

Shabbat 21a. The full printed text of this folio side — 12 numbered segments, about 462 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

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.

Segment 2

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.

Segment 3

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.

Segment 4

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.

Segment 5

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 ).

Segment 6

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.

Segment 7

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.

Segment 8

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.

Segment 9

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.

Segment 10

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.

Segment 11

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.

Segment 12

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

Shabbat 21a

Shabbat 21a

Rashi

Tosafot

Rabbeinu Chananel

Rashba

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Maharam

Penei Yehoshua

Gilyon HaShas

Chiddushei Rabbi Akiva Eiger

Ben Yehoyada

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text