Shabbat 23a (כג.) — the Talmud in English

Come and hear: As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:

A glass lamp,

a glass menorah,

that

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

it remained lit continuously 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 effects the mitzva,

then when he extinguishes and relights it, he

properly

performs the mitzva.

But if you say that placing effects the mitzva—

this

man, how can he suffice with merely

extinguishing and relighting it?

But

he should extinguish it and raise it

from its place,

place it

again,

and light it—

he must

perform the mitzva in this manner, since he does not fulfill his obligation until he places it in its proper place again at the conclusion of Shabbat.

Furthermore,

there is another proof that resolves the question:

from the fact that we recite the blessing

over the lighting:

“Who sanctified us with His mitzvot 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 based on the primary act of the mitzva].

Conclude from this: Lighting effects the mitzva.

And we conclude:

Conclude from this!

Since this question has been resolved, the previous question has also been resolved: Is it permitted to light from one lamp to another? Since the primary act of the mitzva is the lighting, one may light from one lamp to another, just as the lamps of the menorah were lit from one lamp to another.

Nevertheless, since the common practice is to be stringent and not to light from one lamp to another, one should not alter the practice—Tosafot, s.v. “Conclude from this.”

And now that we say

that it is established for us that

lighting effects 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 if an adult placed it in its proper place.]

But

a

woman—

she certainly may light,

even to fulfill the obligation on behalf of others.

The reason is that

Rabbi Yehoshua 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 virgin who married must first submit to the governor. The salvation, too, was brought about through a woman: Judith, daughter of Yohanan the High Priest, fed him cheese and cut off his head [the head of the leader of the enemies], 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 home of his own .

Rabbi Zeira said: Initially,

before I married,

when I was in the house of Rav,

when I went there to study Torah,

I would contribute a small coin with the host,

giving the homeowner a peruta and participating with him in the oil used for the lighting .

But

after I married,

when I was sometimes a guest while traveling to study Torah,

I would say: Now—

I certainly do not need

to participate with the homeowner, because

they light on my behalf—

my wife lights for me

within my home \-

in my house.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All oils are suitable for

lighting the

lamp

of Hanukkah.

Olive oil

is the

most preferable

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

Abaye said: Initially,

at first,

the Master would seek

Rabba bar Naḥmani would seek

o

ther

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

The reason he acted this way:

he

said: This

sesame oil

makes its light last longer,

because it does not consume the oil quickly.

In the end,

when he heard

this

t

hat

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

had said that olive oil is the most preferable, he

began seeking olive oil.

He said: This

olive oil

makes its light clearer,

for it is clear and illuminates.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All

types of

oils

are suitable

for making

ink, and olive oil

is

the most preferable.

Their practice was to smoke a glass vessel with olive oil until it blackened, scrape off the soot, mix it with a small amount of oil, and dry it in the sun; afterward they would dissolve it into the ink [Rashi in the name of the Geonim].

They raised a dilemma:

Why is olive oil more suitable? Is it in order

to mix

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

to produce smoke,

in order to create the soot?

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

Olive oil

is

the most preferable, whether

for

mixing

with it

or

for

smoking.

Rav Shmuel bar Zutra taught it in this manner: All smoke is suitable for ink, and olive oil is the most preferable.

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

are suitable for ink.

And plum-tree resin [wild plum tree; Otzar La’az]—

is the finest of them all.

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

when lighting it .

And Rabbi Yirmeya said:

Even a person who

sees a Hanukkah lamp

burning [but has not yet lit himself and will not be lighting; Rashba]

must recite a blessing.

Rav Yehuda said: On the first day

of Hanukkah:

one who sees a Hanukkah lamp

burning

recites two

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

And

one who

lights

the lamp

himself

recites three

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

But

from this point onward,

on the remaining days, when he

lights—

he recites

only

two .

And

the one who

sees

a burning lamp

—

recites

only

one.

What does he omit?

Which blessing does he not recite on the remaining days?

He omits

the blessing of

time,

“Who has given us life.”

And we ask:

Let him omit

the blessing of

the miracle?

“Who performed miracles for our forefathers.”

And we answer:

The miracle

exists every day

of Hanukkah,

it is present,

because on each of the eight days there was the miracle that they lit from the flask of oil [which had been sufficient for only one day]. This is not so with the blessing of Sheheḥeyanu, whose content is that God granted us the merit of reaching the time of the mitzva; therefore, once the time has already arrived, it is no longer recited.

We inquire: With regard to the lighting,

what blessing does he recite?

And we explain:

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

And we object: Can we recite, “and commanded us”?

And where did He command us

in the Torah? Did the Sages not institute this mitzva?

Rav Avya said:

He commanded us

from

the verse

“You shall not deviate

from the matter that they tell you.” From here it follows that there 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.”

During the days of Yohanan the High Priest, the Great Sanhedrin sent agents throughout the borders of Israel and investigated. They found that everyone was careful to separate teruma gedola from produce that was tevel. But regarding the first tithe, the second tithe, and the tithe for the poor, a minority of the ammei ha-aretz of Israel were lenient with themselves and did not separate them. Therefore, the Sages decreed that the produce of ammei ha-aretz would have the status of “doubtfully tithed produce,” which is called demai [based on Rambam, Ma'aser 9:1].

Rav Amram raised an objection: With demai

one may establish an eruv ḥatzerot. This means that all the residents of one courtyard place, on the eve of Shabbat, food in the house of one of them, thereby “combining” all their domains into a single domain, as though all the residents of the courtyard lived in the house where the eruv was placed, so that each one may carry from his house into the courtyard or from the courtyard into his house. The Mishna teaches that one may establish an eruv with food that is demai.

Likewise, one may establish with it an eruv teḥumin: At the point where the permitted distance of travel on Shabbat ends [two thousand cubits], one places food sufficient for two meals. Through this, it is considered as though his place of residence were there, and he may walk on Shabbat from that place an additional two thousand cubits. An eruv teḥumin may also be established by placing bread that is demai.

And one may participate with it in a shituf mevo’ot. A mavוי is an area enclosed by partitions, with courtyards opening into it. The residents of the courtyards may not carry from the courtyards into the mavוי, or from the mavוי into the courtyards, unless they place shared food on the eve of Shabbat in one of the courtyards. This makes the mavוי, together with all the courtyards, a single domain; this is called a shituf mevo’ot, which permits carrying from the courtyard into the mavוי and from the mavוי into the courtyard. It is permitted to establish it even with food that is demai.

Even though demai is forbidden for consumption by rabbinic decree, nevertheless, since the poor were not included in the decree of demai, and if he wished he could have declared his property ownerless and become poor, it is considered fit for consumption.

And

when he eats demai,

one recites over it

the blessing over bread [and some explain: the Grace after Meals, Rash of Demai, chapter 1].

And one invites others to recite the Grace after Meals with him

when three are present.

Although they ate it in violation of the prohibition [without separating the tithes], they recite a blessing over it [and this is not considered “He who gains bread recites a blessing—he has blasphemed the Lord,” which applies to one who eats forbidden foods and does not recite a blessing], since if he wished he could have declared his property ownerless and become poor, and a poor person is permitted to eat tevel. Therefore, it is considered food fit for him [Berakhot 47a].

And one separates from it

the terumat ma'aser, the second tithe, or the tithe for the poor, even a person who is

naked

and unable to recite a blessing.

And

one separates it

during twilight

on the eve of Shabbat. When there is a doubt whether darkness has fallen, one may tithe demai, but one may not tithe produce that is certainly not tithed [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?

But we require:

“Your camp shall be holy

and no indecent thing shall be seen among you” [from which we learn that one may not mention the Divine Name when exposed],

and

in this case

there is

no “holy camp,” since he is naked.

And we answer:

Abaye said:

Not all rabbinic enactments are the same.

The distinction is as follows:

Certainly rabbinic,

when the Sages institute an enactment that has the status of certainty, such as lighting the Hanukkah lamp, it

requires a blessing,

as they instituted a blessing even over a rabbinic mitzva.

However,

a doubt concerning a rabbinic matter,

such as separating terumat ma'aser and tithes from demai [which is an enactment based on a doubt, as perhaps the produce was already tithed],

does not require a blessing,

since 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

in the Diaspora, by which the Sages instituted that those living outside Eretz Yisrael observe two festival days, was enacted because of a doubt, perhaps the month had been declared full or deficient;

and nevertheless,

it requires a blessing?

For one recites the blessing over the festival Kiddush on the second day. This is difficult: Did you not say that no blessing was instituted over a matter of doubt?

And we answer:

There, with regard to the enactment of the second festival day, they instituted a blessing in order to strengthen the enactment,

so that people would not treat it lightly,

with regard to the sanctity of the second festival day.

Rava said:

Actually, the Sages instituted a blessing even over a doubt concerning a rabbinic matter, and therefore one recites Kiddush on the second festival day. The case of separating demai, over which one does not recite a blessing, is no difficulty.

What is the reason?

The majority of ammei ha-aretz tithe their produce,

and this enactment does not even have the status of a “doubt concerning a rabbinic matter.” Since we rely on the majority, it is merely an additional stringency; therefore, the Sages did not institute a blessing over the separation of demai.

Rav Huna said: A courtyard with two entrances,

meaning that a house has 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 every entrance

only

when they open

onto two sides,

such as one entrance facing north and one entrance facing east.

But

when the two entrances are

on one side,

it is not necessary

to light at every entrance.

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 homeowner of not having lit a lamp,

Suspicion of whom?

Toward whom are you concerned that suspicion will arise?

If you say

the suspicion

of

people from elsewhere,

who are not residents of the place,

if so,

even

when the entrances are

on one side, it should also be necessary

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

And if

you are concerned about

the suspicion of the townspeople [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 also not be necessary

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

who know the residents of the houses and know that only one resident lives in that house, then

even when the entrances are

on

two sides, he should not need

to light at both entrances, since the local residents know that this is one resident’s house with two entrances.

And we explain:

the reason is always

that Rav Huna's reason is

because of the suspicion of the townspeople .

But as for what troubles you—do they not know that only one person lives in this house, so that there is no longer any suspicion?

And

however,

sometimes they pass by this entrance,

passing by one entrance,

but do not pass by this entrance,

near the second entrance.

And they say:

This man,

just as he did not light at this entrance—

at that entrance

the second one,

he also did not light.

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

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

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon said: For four reasons [

reasons]

the Torah said to leave

the

corner portion

which the owner of the field is commanded to designate specifically

at the end of his field,

at the completion of the harvest [as it is written, “you shall not finish,” which implies the time of finishing, that is, the completion of the harvest] .

a.

Because of the theft from the poor.

b.

And because of the loss suffered by the poor.

c.

And because of suspicion.

d.

And because of

the prohibition of

“You shall not finish.”

Now we explain all the reasons:

Because of the theft from the poor—

so that

the owner of the field will not see an unoccupied time

when no poor people come to gather,

and say to his poor relative: “Here is the corner portion,”

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