Shabbat 23a — the Talmud in English

Come and hear: for Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

A glass vessel,

a glass lamp-holder,

that

he lit it for the mitzva of the Hanukkah lamp on the eve of Shabbat, and

it remained burning throughout the entire day

of

Shabbat—

at the conclusion of Shabbat,

when he wishes to fulfill the mitzva of lighting,

he extinguishes

it,

and lights it

again.

And we prove from this:

Granted, if you say that lighting performs the mitzva,

then when he extinguishes it and lights it

properly

he has acted.

But if you say that placing performs the mitzva—

this

man, how is it sufficient for him that he

extinguishes it and lights it?

But

he should extinguish it and lift it

from its place,

and place it

a second time,

and light it—

he must do so,

for he does not fulfill his obligation until he places it in its place a second time at the conclusion of Shabbat.

Furthermore,

there is evidence to resolve the question:

from the fact that we recite a blessing

over the lighting:

“Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to light the Hanukkah lamp,”

and we do not recite “to place” the Hanukkah lamp [for the wording of the blessing is over the essence of the mitzva].

Infer from this: lighting performs the mitzva.

And we conclude:

Infer from this!

And since this question has been resolved, the previous question as well—whether it is permitted to light from one lamp to another—has been resolved: since the essence of the mitzva is the lighting, one may light from one lamp to another, just as in the Menora they would light from one lamp to another.

[In any event, since the world has adopted the practice of being stringent and not lighting from one lamp to another, one must not change the practice—Tosafot, s.v. “Infer from this.”]

And now that we say

that we hold

that lighting performs the mitzva,

therefore, if

a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor lit it,

who are not subject to the obligation—

he has done nothing!

[Even though an adult placed it in its place.]

But

a woman—

she certainly may light,

even to enable others to fulfill their obligation.

And the reason is because

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in the

mitzva of

the Hanukkah lamp,

because

they too were included in that miracle,

for the Greeks decreed that every maiden who married would first be violated by the governor. And the salvation was also brought about through a woman: Judith, daughter of Johanan the High Priest, fed him cheese and cut off his head [the head of the leader of the oppressors], and when they saw that he had been killed, they all fled .

Rav Sheshet said: A guest

—a visitor—

is obligated in the Hanukkah lamp,

even though he does not have a house of his own.

Rabbi Zeira said: At first,

before I married a woman,

when I was in the house of Rav,

when I went to study Torah,

I would contribute a small coin together with the host,

I would give a peruta to the master of the house and participate with him in the oil for the lighting.

But

after I married a woman,

and sometimes I was a guest, when I went to study Torah,

I would say: Now—

I certainly do not need

to participate with the master of the house, because

they light on my behalf—

my wife lights for me

within my house -

in my house.

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: All the oils are suitable for

lighting

a lamp

of Hanukkah.

And olive oil

is

the most choice

for lighting with it, because through it the miracle was performed [Mishna Berura, section 673].

Abaye said: At first,

initially,

the master would seek

Rabba bar Naḥmani would seek

a

different

sesame oil [sesame oil] in order to light the Hanukkah lamp with it. [See Tosafot, s.v. “At first.”]

And the reason that he acted this way

was:

He said: This

sesame oil—

its light lasts longer,

because it does not consume the oil quickly.

In the end,

when he heard

this

that

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi

said: olive oil is the most choice, he

would

seek olive oil.

He said: This

olive oil—

its light is clearer,

it is clear and gives light.

And Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: All

kinds of

oils

are suitable

for making

ink, and olive oil

is

the most choice.

Their practice was to smoke glass vessels with olive oil until they became black, scrape off the blackness, mix it with a little oil, dry it in the sun, and afterward dissolve it into the ink [Rashi in the name of the Geonim].

They raised a question before them:

For what purpose is olive oil more suitable? Is it in order

to mix

it with the blackness that formed in the vessel, or is olive oil good in order

to smoke,

in order to create the blackness?

Come and hear: Rav and Samuel bar Zutra taught: All smoke is suitable for ink.

And olive oil

is

the most choice, whether

for

mixing

with it,

or

for

smoking.

Rav Samuel bar Zutra taught it in this way: All smoke is suitable for ink, and olive oil is the most choice.

Rav Huna said: All resins [viscous liquids dripping from the tree called “goma,” Rashi, Keritot 6a; and Tosafot, s.v. “All,” disagree]

viscous liquids that drip from trees and are called gum

are suitable for ink.

And kat af resin [a wild plum tree, Otzar La'az]—

wild plum tree

is better than all of them.

Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: One who lights a Hanukkah lamp must recite a blessing

when lighting it.

And Rav Yirmeya said:

Even a person who

sees a Hanukkah lamp

burning [but has not yet lit himself, and is also not going to light; Rashba]

must recite a blessing.

Rav Judah said: On the first day

of Hanukkah:

one who sees a Hanukkah lamp

burning

recites two

blessings: “Who performed miracles for our fathers,” and the blessing of Sheheḥeyanu.

And

one who

lights

a lamp himself

recites three

blessings, adding the blessing over the lighting to the two.

But

from here onward,

on the other days, when he

lights—he

recites

only

two .

And

the one who

sees

a burning lamp—he

recites

only

one.

What does he omit?

Which blessing does he not recite on the other days?

He omits

the blessing of

time,

Sheheḥeyanu.

And we raise an objection:

Let him omit

the blessing of

the miracle?

“Who performed miracles for our fathers.”

And we answer:

The miracle

exists every day

of Hanukkah;

it exists,

because on all eight days there was the miracle that they lit from the flask of oil [since it was fit only for one day]. This is not so with the blessing of Sheheḥeyanu, whose content is that He granted us merit to reach the time of the mitzva; therefore, after the time has already arrived, one does not recite it.

And we inquire about it: Regarding the lighting,

what does he recite?

And we explain:

He recites: “Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to light the Hanukkah lamp.”

And we are astonished: Can we recite, “and commanded us,”

and where did He command us

in the Torah? Surely the Sages instituted it.

Rav Avya said:

He commanded us

from

the verse of

“You shall not turn aside

from the matter that they tell you.” From here, it follows that it is a mitzva to heed the words of the Sages.

Rav Neḥemya said:

We derive it from another verse, as it is written:

“Ask your father—

and he will tell you; your elders—

and they will say to you.”

In the days of Johanan the High Priest, the Great Court sent out and examined throughout all the borders of Israel, and found that everyone was careful regarding the separation of the great teruma from produce whose tithes had not been separated. But regarding the first tithe and the second tithe, or the tithe for the poor, a minority of the common people of Israel were lenient with themselves and did not separate them. Therefore, they decreed that the produce of the common people should have the status of “produce of uncertainly tithed” (demai), and this is what is called demai [based on Maimonides, Ma'aser 9:1].

Rav Amram raised an objection: Demai—

one may establish an eruv with it—

an “eruv of courtyards.” That is, all the residents of one courtyard place, on the eve of Shabbat, food in the house of one of them, and through this they “mix” all their domains into one domain, as though all the members of the courtyard lived in the same house in which they placed the eruv, so that it is permitted for each one to take from his house into the courtyard, or to bring from the courtyard into the house. And the Mishna teaches that one may establish an eruv with food that is demai.

Likewise, one may establish with it an “eruv of boundaries”: at the place where the measure of walking on Shabbat ends [two thousand cubits], he places food sufficient for two meals, and through this it is considered as though his place of residence were at that location, and he is permitted to walk on Shabbat from the place where he placed it two thousand cubits. And even an eruv of boundaries may be established when he places bread that is demai.

And one may participate with it—

“a joining of alleyways.” An alleyway is a place enclosed by partitions, with the courtyards opening into it, and the members of the courtyards are not permitted to take out from the courtyards into the alleyway, or to bring from the alleyway into the courtyards, unless they placed, on the eve of Shabbat, shared food in one of the courtyards. Through this, the alleyway together with all the courtyards becomes one domain, and this is called a “joining of an alleyway,” which permits carrying from the courtyard into the alleyway and bringing from the alleyway into the courtyard. And one may establish an eruv even with food that is demai.

And although demai is forbidden to eat by rabbinic law, nevertheless, since the poor were not included in the decree of demai, and if he wished he could declare his possessions ownerless and become poor, it is considered fit for eating.

And

when he ate demai—

one recites over it

the blessing over bread [and some explain: the blessing after the meal, Rabbi Shimshon, Demai 1].

And one invites with it

for the invitation to recite the blessing after the meal in a group of three.

And although they ate it in violation [without separation], one recites over it [and he is not considered “one who robs and blesses has blasphemed the Lord,” which is said concerning one who eats forbidden foods, who does not recite a blessing], since if he had desired he could have declared his possessions ownerless and become poor, and a poor person is permitted to eat untithed produce; therefore, it is considered food fit for him [Berakhot 47a].

And one separates it [from it] the terumat ma'aser, and the second tithe or the tithe for the poor, even a person who is

the tithe offering, the second tithe, or the tithe for the poor, even if he is

naked

and cannot recite a blessing.

And

one separates it

during twilight

of the eve of Shabbat: when there is doubt whether it has become dark, one tithes demai, but one does not tithe produce that is certainly untithed [below 34a].

And now we raise an objection:

And if you say that every

mitzva that is

rabbinic requires a blessing,

as you said, that one recites a blessing over lighting the Hanukkah lamp even though it is rabbinic, then

when he stands naked—

how

can he

recite a blessing?

For we require, “Your camp shall be holy,

and there shall not be seen among you an indecent thing” [from which it is learned that one may not mention the Name of Heaven when an indecent thing is visible].

And

here

there is no

“holy camp,” since he is naked.

And we answer:

Abaye said:

Not all rabbinic enactments are equal.

And the distinction is:

Certainly their words,

when the Sages institute an enactment that has the status of “certain,” such as lighting the Hanukkah lamp—

requires a blessing,

for they instituted a blessing even over a rabbinic mitzva.

However,

a doubt concerning their words,

such as separating the terumat ma'aser and tithes from demai [which is an enactment having the status of a doubt, for perhaps it has already been tithed]—

does not require a blessing,

for the Sages did not institute a blessing over this separation. Therefore, he may separate the tithes from demai even while naked, since he does not need to recite a blessing.

And we object:

But

the enactment of

the second festival day

of the Diaspora, by which the Sages instituted that those living outside the Land should observe two festival days, and it is an enactment because of the doubt whether the month was full or deficient,

and

nevertheless

requires a blessing?

For one recites the sanctification of the day on the second day. But this is difficult: you said that a blessing was not instituted over a doubt.

And we answer:

There,

regarding the enactment of the second festival day, they instituted a blessing in order to strengthen the enactment,

so that they would not treat it lightly

regarding the sanctity of the second festival day.

Rava said:

In fact, the Sages instituted a blessing even over a doubt concerning their words, and therefore they sanctify the day on the second festival day. And the case of separating demai, over which one does not recite a blessing, is not difficult.

What is the reason?

Most common people do tithe,

and this enactment does not even have the status of “a doubt concerning their words,” for since we rely on the majority, it is merely an extra stringency. Therefore, they did not institute a blessing over separating demai.

Rav Huna said: A courtyard that has two entrances,

that is, a house with two entrances opening into the courtyard,

requires

the lighting of

two lamps,

one lamp at each entrance.

Rava said: We said

that one must light at each entrance

only

when they open

on two sides,

for example, one entrance toward the north and one entrance toward the east.

But

when the two entrances are

on one side—

it is not necessary

to light at each entrance.

And we inquire:

What is the reason

that one must light at both entrances?

If you say it is because of suspicion,

that people will suspect the master of the house of not having lit—

Suspicion of whom?

Toward whom are you concerned?

If you say

suspicion

of

people at large,

who are not residents of the place,

if so,

even

when the entrances are

on one side, it should likewise be necessary

to light at both entrances, since the one who sees does not know that the house belongs to one person, and thinks that it is divided internally between two residents.

And if

you are concerned about

the suspicion of the residents of the city [the residents of the city],

who know those who live in the houses and know that only one resident lives in that house, then

even

if the entrances are

on two sides, it should likewise not be necessary

to light at both entrances, since the local residents know that this is the house of one resident with two entrances?

And we explain:

Always

the reason of Rav Huna is

because of the suspicion of the townspeople .

And as for what is difficult for you: do they not know that only one person lives in this house, and there is no longer any suspicion?

And

however,

sometimes they pass by this one,

passing beside one entrance,

but do not pass by this one,

beside the second entrance.

And they say:

this man,

just as at this entrance he did not light—

at this entrance

the second one

he also did not light.

Therefore, when the two entrances are on two sides, he must light at both of them because of suspicion; but when the entrances are on one side, there is no suspicion.

And from where do you say that we are concerned about suspicion?

For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon said: For four things [reasons]

reasons]

the Torah said to leave

the

peah,

which the owner of the field is commanded to separate specifically

at the end of his field,

at the completion of the harvesting [as it is written, “You shall not finish off,” and this implies at the time of finishing off, that is, the completion of the harvesting] .

a.

Because of the robbery of the poor.

b.

And because of the loss of the poor.

c.

And because of suspicion.

d.

And because of

the prohibition of

“You shall not finish off.”

And now we explain all the reasons:

Because of the robbery of the poor—

so that

the owner of the house will not see a free hour

when no poor people come to glean,

and say to his poor relative: Here is peah,

and take it for yourself. But when he leaves it at the end of his field, all the poor see it and come to glean.