Shabbat 22a (כב.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Kahana said: Rav Natan bar Minyomi expounded in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum:

A Hanukkah lamp that one placed

at a height of

more than twenty cubits—

is invalid.

It must be extinguished and then lit again. Tosafot, s.v. “A lamp.”

The law of a Hanukkah lamp is

like

the law of a

sukka

whose roofing is higher than twenty cubits, as it is invalid.

And like

the law of a

mavoy,

which cannot be rendered permissible by means of a crossbeam that is higher than twenty cubits.

And Rav Kahana said: Rav Natan bar Minyomi expounded in the name of Rav Tanḥum: What

is the meaning of the verse

that is written: “And the pit was empty—

there was no water in it”?

For

from the implication of what is stated, “And the pit was empty,”

do I

not know that there was no water in it?

Rather, what does the Torah teach by stating, “There was no water in it”?

To teach us that only

water was not in it, but snakes and scorpions were in it.

Rabba said: It is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp within a handbreadth of the entrance

of one’s house, so that it will be recognizable that the lamp belongs to the master of the house .

And we raised an objection:

And where does he place it?

On which side of the entrance does he place it?

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said: On the

side of

the right

of one entering the house.

Rav Shmuel of Difti said: On the

side of

the left

of one entering the house.

And their reason is:

So that the Hanukkah lamp will be on the left, and the mezuzah on the right,

and he will be surrounded by mitzvot.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Asi: It is prohibited to count

or tally

money by the light of a Hanukkah lamp .

When I stated

this halakhic ruling

before Shmuel, he said to me: Is a lamp

of Hanukkah

endowed with sanctity,

so that even incidental use is prohibited, such as counting money by its light?

Rav Yosef raised an objection

to Shmuel’s statement that an object with which one fulfills a mitzva but which has no sanctity need not be treated with honor:

Does blood

of the slaughtering of a wild animal or bird

possess sanctity?!

Nevertheless, it was stated with regard to it that it must not be covered in a degrading manner.

As it was taught:

It is written: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.” And we expound:

“He shall pour out and cover

”—with what?

In the same manner

that he poured out

the blood, in that manner

he shall cover

it. Just as slaughtering is performed with the hand, so too the covering of the blood must be performed with the hand—

so that he not cover it with his foot,

because that is not a manner of honor.

And the reason for this matter is so that

mitzvot will not become degraded in his eyes,

and covering it with one’s foot is a degrading manner.

They asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: What is the ruling concerning deriving benefit,

that is, using

the decorations of a sukka

[fruits hung in the sukka for adornment] throughout

all seven

days of the Festival of Sukkot?

He said to them: The Sages have said

the following:

It is prohibited to count

or tally

money by the light of a Hanukkah lamp.

And just as it is prohibited to use the light of a Hanukkah lamp, so too it is prohibited to use the decorations of a sukka throughout all seven days.

Rav Yosef said: Master of Abraham!

An expression of astonishment.

How could

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi have based

the ruling on a law that

was taught,

which was explicitly taught in the Tosefta—

on

a law

that was not taught,

which was not stated explicitly but was derived from another source?

For the prohibition against using the decorations of a

sukka—

was taught,

whereas the prohibition against using the light of a

Hanukkah lamp—

was not taught.

As it was taught:

If one

roofed

the sukka

in accordance with its halakha, and adorned it

with sukka decorations—

with tapestries

[woven sheets],

and with painted sheets, and hung walnuts, peaches, almonds, and pomegranates in it, and clusters of

[bunches of]

grapes,

and wreaths of ears of grain,

or

wines

or

oils and fine flours

[fine flour] in glass vessels, and hung them as decorations.

In all these cases,

it is prohibited to derive benefit

[to use]

from them—

until the conclusion of the last Festival day

of Sukkot.

But if he stipulated concerning them

before the onset of the first Festival day, saying that he was not renouncing his rights to them and was not designating them for the sukka, but was retaining the option of taking them and using them during twilight [which is the onset of the first Festival day]—

everything follows his stipulation.

He may then use them during the days of the Festival .

Thus, we learned explicitly in the Tosefta that it is prohibited to derive benefit from a sukka decoration [unless one stipulates in this manner]. If so, one cannot base the explicit law of sukka on the law that it is prohibited to count money by the light of a Hanukkah lamp.

Rather, Rav Yosef said:

Indeed, one cannot derive one from the other.

Rather,

the father of them all,

the source for all the places where the prohibition against using items associated with a mitzva is stated, is the covering of the

blood,

for we learned above that one is obligated to cover it with the hand and not with the foot, so that mitzvot will not become degraded in his eyes. And from here one can derive the ruling both for sukka and for Hanukkah.

It was stated: Rav said: One may not light from one Hanukkah lamp

of Hanukkah

to another lamp

of Hanukkah.

And Shmuel said: One may light

from one lamp to another.

The Gemara subsequently explains in what manner one may light from one lamp to another.

Rav said: One may not remove tzitzit from an old garment

in order

to

tie them to a

garment

that is new, because of the degradation of the first garment.

[But if the first one is unfit to be worn, it is permitted. Menahot 41b. See also

Tosafot, s.v.

“Rav said.”]

And Shmuel said: One may remove

tzitzit

from a garment

that is old

to a garment

that is new.

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagreed concerning work performed on Shabbat unintentionally, such as when one drags a bench across the ground and, while dragging it, makes a furrow in the ground [which is a derivative of the labor of plowing—in a field, or a derivative of building—in a house]. Rabbi Yehuda prohibits it, and Rabbi Shimon permits it. Rav and Shmuel disagreed concerning the halakhic ruling:

Rav said: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon with regard to dragging.

And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon with regard to dragging.

Abaye said: In all the matters of his master,

in all of Rabba bar Naḥmani’s actions,

he would act in accordance with Rav.

Since in every dispute concerning a prohibition, the halakha follows Rav [and some say that it was only in matters where Rav and Shmuel disagreed concerning the laws of Shabbat that he ruled in accordance with Rav. Ritva].

Except for these three, in which

Rabba bar Naḥmani would

act

in accordance

with Shmuel:

a.

One may light from one lamp to another.

b.

And one may remove

tzitzit

from one garment to another.

c.

And the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon with regard to dragging.

As it was taught:

Rabbi Shimon says:

A person may drag a bed, a chair, or a bench, provided that he does not intend to make a furrow,

but rather that the furrow be made on its own.

One of the Sages was sitting before Rav Adda bar Ahava, and he was sitting and saying: The reason for Rav

who said that it is prohibited to light a Hanukkah lamp from one lamp to another

is because of the degradation of a mitzva

is as follows: The splinter with which he transfers the flame is not an object of a mitzva. And when he lights it from a lamp used for a mitzva, this constitutes degradation of a mitzva.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said to them:

Do not listen to him

[do not heed him]

when he says that Rav’s reason is degradation of a mitzva.

Rather,

Rav’s reason

for prohibiting lighting one lamp from another is

because it diminishes the mitzva.

For it appears as though he is taking light from the mitzva lamp and drawing from its oil.

What is the difference between them,

between the two reasons?

And we explain: It is in a case

where he lights from one lamp directly to another.

He does not light one lamp from another by means of a splinter; rather, he lights two lamps directly, one from the other.

The one who says

that Rav’s reason is

because of the degradation of a mitzva

holds that

from one lamp directly to another

he may light,

and there is no degradation of a mitzva in this.

The one who says

that Rav’s reason is

because

the lighting appears like

diminishing the mitzva,

holds that lighting

from one lamp directly to another is also prohibited,

because even from one lamp to another it appears like diminishing the mitzva.