שבת דף כא

למאי נפקא מינה? למקח וממכר.

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.

תנו רבנן: כל אלו שאמרו אין מדליקין בהן בשבת, אבל עושין מהן מדורה — בין להתחמם כנגדה בין להשתמש לאורה, בין על גבי קרקע, בין על גבי כירה.

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.

ולא אסרו אלא לעשות מהן פתילה לנר בלבד.

ולא בשמן קיק וכו׳. מאי שמן קיק? אמר שמואל: שאילתינהו לכל נחותי ימא, ואמרו לי: עוף אחד יש בכרכי הים וקיק שמו.

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.

רב יצחק בריה דרב יהודה אמר: משחא דקאזא. ריש לקיש אמר: קיקיון דיונה. אמר רבה בר בר חנה: לדידי חזי לי קיקיון דיונה, ולצלוליבא דמי ומדפשקי רבי,

ועל פום חנותא מדלן יתיה, ומפרצידוהי עבדי משחא, ובענפוהי נייחן כל בריחי דמערבא.

אמר רבה: פתילות שאמרו חכמים אין מדליקין בהן בשבת, מפני שהאור מסכסכת בהן. שמנים שאמרו חכמים אין מדליקין בהן, מפני שאין נמשכין אחר הפתילה.

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.

בעא מיניה אביי מרבה: שמנים שאמרו חכמים אין מדליקין בהן בשבת, מהו שיתן לתוכן שמן כל שהוא וידליק?

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).

מי גזרינן דילמא אתי לאדלוקי בעינייהו, או לא? אמר ליה: אין מדליקין. מאי טעמא? לפי שאין מדליקין.

איתיביה: כרך דבר שמדליקין בו על גבי דבר שאין מדליקין בו — אין מדליקין בו. אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל: של בית אבא היו כורכין פתילה על

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.

גבי אגוז ומדליקין. קתני מיהת מדליקין!

אמר ליה: אדמותבת ליה מדרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, סייעיה מדתנא קמא! הא לא קשיא: ״מעשה רב״. מכל מקום קשיא: מאי לאו, להדליק? לא, להקפות. אי להקפות,

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.

מאי טעמא דתנא קמא? כולה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל היא וחסורי מיחסרא, והכי קתני: כרך דבר שמדליקין בו על גבי דבר שאין מדליקין בו — אין מדליקין בו.

במה דברים אמורים — להדליק, אבל להקפות — מותר, שרבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: של בית אבא היו כורכין פתילה על גבי אגוז.

איני?! והאמר רב ברונא אמר רב: חלב מהותך וקרבי דגים שנמוחו, אדם נותן לתוכן שמן כל שהוא ומדליק? הני מימשכי בעינייהו, והני לא מימשכי בעינייהו.

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.

וגזרו רבנן על חלב מהותך משום חלב שאינו מהותך, ועל קרבי דגים שנמוחו משום קרבי דגים שלא נמוחו. וליגזור נמי חלב מהותך וקרבי דגים שנמוחו

שנתן לתוכן שמן משום חלב מהותך וקרבי דגים שנמוחו שלא נתן לתוכן שמן! היא גופה, גזירה, ואנן ניקום וניגזור גזירה לגזירה?!

תני רמי בר חמא: פתילות ושמנים שאמרו חכמים אין מדליקין בהן בשבת — אין מדליקין בהן במקדש, משום שנאמר: ״להעלות נר תמיד״. הוא תני לה,

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.

והוא אמר לה — כדי שתהא שלהבת עולה מאיליה, ולא שתהא עולה על ידי דבר אחר.

תנן: מבלאי מכנסי כהנים ומהמיניהם היו מפקיעין, ומהן מדליקין. שמחת בית השואבה שאני.

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.

תא שמע, דתני רבה בר מתנה: בגדי כהונה שבלו מפקיעין אותן, ומהן היו עושין פתילות למקדש. מאי לאו, דכלאים? לא, דבוץ.

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.

אמר רב הונא: פתילות ושמנים שאמרו חכמים אין מדליקין בהן בשבת, אין מדליקין בהן בחנוכה, בין בשבת בין בחול. אמר רבא: מאי טעמא דרב הונא? — קסבר:

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

כבתה זקוק לה, ומותר להשתמש לאורה. ורב חסדא אמר: מדליקין בהן בחול, אבל לא בשבת. קסבר: כבתה

אין זקוק לה, ומותר להשתמש לאורה. אמר רבי זירא אמר רב מתנה, ואמרי לה אמר רבי זירא אמר רב: פתילות ושמנים שאמרו חכמים אין מדליקין בהן בשבת,

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.

מדליקין בהן בחנוכה, בין בחול בין בשבת. אמר רבי ירמיה: מאי טעמא דרב? — קסבר: כבתה אין זקוק לה, ואסור להשתמש לאורה.

אמרוה רבנן קמיה דאביי משמיה דרבי ירמיה, ולא קבלה. כי אתא רבין אמרוה רבנן קמיה דאביי משמיה דרבי יוחנן, וקבלה. אמר: אי זכאי, גמירתיה לשמעתיה מעיקרא. והא גמרה!

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.

נפקא מינה לגירסא דינקותא.

וכבתה אין זקוק לה? ורמינהו: מצותה משתשקע החמה עד שתכלה רגל מן השוק. מאי לאו, דאי כבתה הדר מדליק לה! לא, דאי לא אדליק — מדליק.

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.

ואי נמי לשיעורה.

עד שתכלה רגל מן השוק. ועד כמה? אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן: עד דכליא ריגלא דתרמודאי.

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.

תנו רבנן: מצות חנוכה, נר איש וביתו. והמהדרין, נר לכל אחד ואחד. והמהדרין מן המהדרין, בית שמאי אומרים: יום ראשון מדליק שמנה, מכאן ואילך פוחת והולך.

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.

ובית הלל אומרים: יום ראשון מדליק אחת, מכאן ואילך מוסיף והולך.

אמר עולא: פליגי בה תרי אמוראי במערבא, רבי יוסי בר אבין ורבי יוסי בר זבידא. חד אמר טעמא דבית שמאי כנגד ימים הנכנסין,

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.

וטעמא דבית הלל כנגד ימים היוצאין. וחד אמר טעמא דבית שמאי כנגד פרי החג, וטעמא דבית הלל דמעלין בקדש ואין מורידין.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן: שני זקנים היו בצידן. אחד עשה כבית שמאי ואחד עשה כדברי בית הלל. זה נותן טעם לדבריו כנגד פרי החג,

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.

וזה נותן טעם לדבריו דמעלין בקדש ואין מורידין.

תנו רבנן: נר חנוכה מצוה להניחה על פתח ביתו מבחוץ. אם היה דר בעלייה — מניחה בחלון הסמוכה לרשות הרבים. ובשעת הסכנה — מניחה על שלחנו ודיו.

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.

אמר רבא: צריך נר אחרת להשתמש לאורה. ואי איכא מדורה — לא צריך. ואי אדם חשוב הוא — אף על גב דאיכא מדורה צריך נר אחרת.

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.

מאי חנוכה? דתנו רבנן: בכ״ה בכסליו יומי דחנוכה תמניא אינון דלא למספד בהון ודלא להתענות בהון. שכשנכנסו יוונים להיכל טמאו כל השמנים שבהיכל. וכשגברה מלכות בית חשמונאי ונצחום,

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.

בדקו ולא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול, ולא היה בו אלא להדליק יום אחד. נעשה בו נס והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים.

לשנה אחרת קבעום ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודאה.

תנן התם: גץ היוצא מתחת הפטיש ויצא והזיק — חייב. גמל שטעון פשתן והוא עובר ברשות הרבים ונכנסה פשתנו לתוך החנות ודלקה בנרו של

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.

חנוני והדליק את הבירה — בעל הגמל חייב. הניח חנוני את נרו מבחוץ — חנוני חייב.

רבי יהודה אומר: בנר חנוכה — פטור. אמר רבינא משום דרבה: זאת אומרת נר חנוכה מצוה להניחה בתוך עשרה. דאי סלקא דעתך למעלה מעשרה, לימא ליה:

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.

היה לך להניח למעלה מגמל ורוכבו! ודילמא, אי מיטרחא ליה טובא אתי לאימנועי ממצוה.

אמר רב כהנא, דרש רב נתן בר מניומי משמיה דרבי תנחום:

With regard to the essence of the matter Rav Kahana said that Rav Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum: