Shabbat 22b — the Talmud in English

Rav Avya raised an objection from what we learned:

from this:

a coin of ![](pamud.bmp "

exact column location")

second tithe,

which he redeemed second-tithe produce with, behold, it is sanctified with the sanctity of second tithe [Rashi wrote that this is speaking of dinars of second tithe].

And therefore,

one may not weigh gold dinars against it.

For it is forbidden to place the sanctified coins on its other side of the scale in order to know what the weight of the gold dinars is.

And even

if he weighs a gold dinar in order to know its weight

in order to redeem another second tithe with it—

it is also forbidden.

Granted, if you say that when Rav and Shmuel disagree

we are dealing with one who lights

from a lamp

one lamp

to a lamp

a second lamp, and their disagreement is whether this is considered “weakening a mitzva.”

But

if he lights one lamp from another lamp

with a splinter, Shmuel forbade it

because of contempt for a mitzva [even though his need is a mitzva-related need].

And likewise, Shmuel will forbid another use that is contempt for a mitzva, even when its purpose is for the sake of a mitzva.

Therefore

the beraita that said that it is forbidden to weigh against money of second tithe—

will not be a refutation

of Shmuel.

But if you say

that Shmuel

also permits [lighting] with a splinter

to light from one lamp to another, and his reason is that a mitzva-related use is permitted,

then

this

that it was taught that with second tithe one may not weigh—

will be a refutation

of Shmuel. For what is the reason that a use that is for the sake of a mitzva is forbidden?

And we answer:

Rabba said:

the reason that we forbid weighing against it is—

a decree lest he fail to adjust his weights.

For perhaps, in the end, when he sees that the gold dinars are less than the weight that he needs, or, conversely, that they exceed it, he will not redeem the second tithe with them,

and he removes them,

that is, he leaves them as they are, unconsecrated, and takes them out

for

use of

unconsecrated [property],

and he will not redeem second tithe with them, and it turns out that he weighed unconsecrated dinars against money of second tithe without benefit to the second tithe.

Rav Sheshet raised an objection:

It is written concerning the lamp in the Menorah:

“Outside the curtain of the testimony

in the Tent of Meeting

he shall arrange

it, Aaron.”

And does he need the light

of the Menorah

[for this]?

But during all forty years that Israel traveled in the wilderness, they traveled only by its light

of the Holy One, blessed be He—that is, the pillar of fire.

Rather,

necessarily,

it is testimony

the Menorah

to

all

the inhabitants of the world that the Divine Presence rests among Israel.

And now we explain:

What testimony

is that of the Menorah? What does it testify?

Rav said: This is the western lamp,

which was the second lamp in the Menorah from the east [for the Menorah stood from east to west, and the second lamp from the east was called the “western lamp,” since it was western in relation to the first, the eastern one],

into which he placed,

in that lamp,

oil in the same measure as its companions,

the other lamps—that is, half a log.

For the Sages estimated the measure so that it would burn from evening until morning [even on the long nights], as it is written, “from evening until morning.”

And from it,

from the western lamp,

he would light,

he would begin the lighting, for he would light it first among the lamps at twilight.

And with it,

with the preparation of the western lamp,

he would finish

the preparation of the lamps at twilight, before lighting the lamps. [The preparation of the lamps means: cleaning the lamp of the residue of the wick, and placing in it new oil and a new wick.]

That is, by way of a miracle he would find it burning in the morning [it had burned throughout all the hours of the day and night by way of a miracle], while the other lamps were extinguished. And therefore, he would not prepare it in the morning; rather, he would only prepare the other extinguished lamps, and only in the evening would he also prepare the western lamp.

And this miracle, that the western lamp burned without being extinguished, was the testimony that Israel is beloved before the Omnipresent.

And now we raise an objection:

But here,

with the Menorah,

since the lamps are fixed

in the Menorah, and he cannot detach the western lamp from the Menorah in order to light the other lamps with it, if so,

it is not possible

there is no other possibility,

that he does not take

a splinter [a small piece of wood]

and light

the splinter from the western lamp, and with that splinter he lights the other lamps.

And if so,

it is difficult

for this beraita. For we see that they would light the lamps of the Menorah one from another by means of a splinter. And this difficulty applies

both according to the one who says

above that the reason it is forbidden to light from one lamp to another is

because of contempt for a mitzva, and according to the one who says

that the reason it is forbidden to light from one lamp to another is

because of weakening a mitzva.

Rav Pappa explained: In

the Menorah, all the

wicks were long.

And they extended beyond their lamps and reached one another. The wick adjacent to the western lamp on its western side he would light from it, and the rest he would light from one another. They would not light with a splinter.

And we refute:

In the end, according to the one who says

that it is forbidden to light from one lamp to another

because of weakening a mitzva, it is difficult

for him from this beraita, for we hear from here that it is permitted to light from one lamp to another.

And we conclude:

It is difficult.

What is the conclusion concerning it?

Is the halakha in accordance with Shmuel’s words, that it is permitted to light from one lamp to another?

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: We see: If lighting performs the mitzva,

that the lighting of the lamp is the principal mitzva of the Hanukkah lamp,

one may light from one lamp to another

just as in the Menorah they would light from one lamp to another [Rashi].

And if

the

placing

in the place where it will burn

performs the mitzva—

one may not light from one lamp to another.

For since the principal mitzva is not in the lighting, therefore one does not light from one lamp to another [because this is like a use for an unconsecrated purpose, since it is not the principal mitzva].

Concerning

this matter,

they raised a question

before the Sages: Is

lighting what performs the mitzva,

or is placing what performs

the mitzva?

Come and hear: For Rava said: If one was holding a Hanukkah lamp

in his hand from the time he lit it until it was extinguished,

and was standing [Rashi: this wording is not precise] without placing it down—

without placing it down—

he has done nothing,

for he did not fulfill his obligation.

And from the fact that he did not fulfill his obligation,

learn from it: placing performs the mitzva.

And therefore, since he did not place it down, he did not fulfill his obligation. But if lighting performs the mitzva, why has he done nothing?

And we reject this: It is different

there,

for there is another reason: the miracle is not recognizable. For

the observer says—

for his own needs,

for his own use,

he is holding it! And from this one cannot learn that the principal mitzva is the placing.

Therefore, nothing can be learned from this case concerning whether the essential commandment is the placing.

Come and hear: For Rava said: If he lit it indoors,

inside his house,

and took it out

outside, to the entrance of his house—

he has done nothing.

Granted, if you say that lighting performs the mitzva,

therefore he has done nothing. Since the principal mitzva is the lighting, he must light it in the place where the mitzva is fulfilled.

But if you say that placing performs the mitzva—

why

if he lit it indoors and afterward took it outside

has he done nothing?

But the mitzva of lighting was fulfilled by placing it outside!?

And this too we reject:

There too,

in the case where he lit it indoors and took it outside, there is another reason. For

the observer says: for his own needs

in order to use it

he lit it,

and not for the mitzva. It must be recognizable that it is the lighting of a Hanukkah lamp .