Shabbat 23b — the Talmud in English

And because of the neglect of the poor —

so that

there would not be poor people

who do not know when he will harvest,

sitting and waiting

lest

the owner now set aside the pe'a.

And because of suspicion —

so that

passersby would not be

thinking that the owner had not set aside pe'a [and did not know that he had already set it aside at the beginning]. And

they say: “A curse should come”

a curse

upon a person who did not set aside pe'a in his field.

And because of

the prohibition

“You shall not finish off” —

whose meaning is “the time of finishing off,” namely, at the end of the field.

And we object: Is “You shall not finish off” itself a reason?

Are all

these reasons

not because of “Do not finish off”,

which is the verse that teaches us the law of pe'a?

And we explain:

Rava said:

this other reason that we stated, that it is because of “You shall not finish off,” is not the prohibition of “You shall not finish off,” but rather

because of the deceivers,

who transgress what the Torah said, “You shall not finish off,” and do not set aside pe'a at the end of the field, saying: “We set it aside at the beginning of the field.”

And from the fact that here, in the beraita, we are concerned about the suspicion of passersby, who might think that he did not set aside pe'a, the same law applies to a courtyard that has two entrances: one must light at every entrance, because of suspicion.

Rav Yitzhak bar Redifa said in the name of Rav Huna: A lamp

a clay vessel in which one lights

that has two openings,

two holes into which wicks are inserted from its two sides; lighting in it

counts for two people

who wish to beautify the mitzva by lighting each one a lamp for himself.

Rava said: If one filled a bowl with oil and surrounded it,

placing

wicks on all its sides.

If

he covered it with a vessel,

and through this separated the wicks —

the lighting

in this bowl

counts for several people.

But if

he did not cover it with a vessel —

he made it like a bonfire,

where all the flames join together.

And not only does it not count for several people, but

even for

one

it does not count

the lighting in it, because a “bonfire” is not similar to a lamp.

Rava said:

this matter

is obvious to me:

a person who is poor and cannot afford to purchase both

the lamp of his home

for Shabbat

and

also

a Hanukkah lamp —

the lamp of his home takes precedence.

And the reason for the matter is:

because of peace in his home.

For we say below (25b) that the enactment of the Shabbat lamp is because of “peace in the home,” since the members of his household suffer from sitting in darkness.

And this too is obvious to me: a person who cannot afford to purchase both

a lamp for his home and

also wine for

the kiddush of the day —

the lamp of his home takes precedence, because of peace in his home.

Rava raised a dilemma: A Hanukkah lamp and the kiddush of the day,

and he cannot afford to purchase both —

what is [the law]?

Which of the two takes precedence?

And the sides of the dilemma are:

Whether

the kiddush of the day takes precedence

because

it

is

constant,

fixed.

Or perhaps, a Hanukkah lamp takes precedence —

because of publicizing the miracle.

He subsequently resolved

the dilemma:

A Hanukkah lamp takes precedence, because of publicizing the miracle.

Rav Huna said:

A person

who is accustomed,

who beautifies

the

lighting of a

lamp

of Shabbat and Hanukkah —

he will have sons who are Torah scholars.

Because it is stated: “For a mitzva is a lamp and Torah is light”; this teaches that through a mitzva-lamp — of Shabbat and of Hanukkah — the light of Torah comes.

One who is meticulous in

the mitzva of

mezuzah,

which he beautifies —

merits a beautiful dwelling.

One who is meticulous in

the mitzva of

tzitzit,

which he beautifies —

merits a beautiful tallit.

One who is meticulous in

the mitzva of

the kiddush of the day,

which he beautifies —

merits and fills sacks

in order to

with wine.

Rav Huna was accustomed to pass by and teach,

he was accustomed always to pass

at the entrance

at his doorway

of Rabbi Avin the carpenter,

who was a woodworker.

He saw that he was accustomed

on Friday night

to many lamps

[the reading of Tosafot:

that they were accustomed,

the husband and wife,

to a lamp],

in the beautification of the lighting with many lamps. And see the Maharsha.

He said: “Two great men will emerge from here.”

For in the merit that both of them were accustomed to lighting the lamp, they would merit two sons who were Torah scholars.

Rabbi Idi bar Avin and Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin emerged from them.

Rav Hisda was accustomed to pass by and teach,

to pass always,

at the entrance of the house

at the doorway of the house of his father

of Rav Shizevi.

[Another explanation: his father-in-law.]

He saw that he was accustomed to many lamps.

He said: “A great man

a great person

will emerge from here.”

Rav Shizevi emerged from him,

who was his son-in-law; and a son-in-law is like a son.

The wife

of

Rav Yosef was delaying and lighting it,

for she would light the Shabbat lamp close to the time of sunset.

Rav Yosef said to her: It is taught,

it is written:

“The pillar of cloud did not depart by day, nor the pillar of fire by night.”

And this verse is superfluous, for it is written: “And the Lord went before them by day.” And for what purpose was it necessary to say, “The pillar of cloud did not depart by day”?

It teaches that the pillar of cloud completed the pillar of fire,

for the pillar of fire would come before the pillar of cloud had set.

And the pillar of fire completed

its light

for the pillar of cloud,

for the cloud would come before the pillar of fire had set. And it comes to teach you proper conduct for the eves of Shabbat: one should light the lamp while it is still day. [See Mekhilta, Beshalah, and Penei Yehoshua.]

From this

there is reason to advance

the lighting of the lamp while the day is still greatly in progress.

That old man said to him

[in the Sefat Emet he referred to Tosafot, Hullin 6a, where some explain that “old man” is Elijah]:

We have taught

in a beraita:

provided that he does not advance

the lighting of the Shabbat lamp while it is still greatly day, because when he advances the lighting, it is not recognizable that it is for the honor of Shabbat.

And he should not delay

lighting until the end of the permitted time.

Rava said:

Whoever

loves

loves

the Sages,

through the merit of loving them like a father loves his son, he merits

that he will have sons who are Sages.

Whoever

fears the Sages,

for he is afraid of them, merits

that he will have sons-in-law

sons-in-law

who are Sages.

Whoever honors the Sages,

merits that

he himself will be a Torah scholar.

And if

this man

is not fit for this,

as he is not accustomed to engage in Torah, he merits

that his words will be heard,

that people will listen to his words

like

those of

a Torah scholar.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Nor with oil of burning.”

And we examined it:

What

is

oil of burning?

And we explain:

Rabba said:

It is

oil of teruma that became impure.

And why is it called oil of burning?

Since

it is forbidden for eating,

and for burning

it is

designated.

And we examined it:

And with

a lamp

of Shabbat —

what is the reason not

to light it with oil of burning?

And we explain:

Since it is a mitzva upon him to burn it,

so that people will not come to stumble through it — lest they eat it — the Sages decreed

a decree

not to light the Shabbat lamp with it, because

perhaps

since he wants it to be consumed quickly, he

will tilt

the lamp.

Abaye said to him: If that is so,

that the prohibition of lighting with oil of burning is because of the possibility that he will tilt it —

on a Festival,

when there is no prohibition against kindling,

let it be permitted

to light with oil of burning.

Why, then, did we learn

[below, 24b]

“One may not light with oil of burning on a Festival”,

and according to your reasoning, that its prohibition is because of tilting, what is the reason it is prohibited?

And we answer: There, the reason is

a decree

not to light

on a Festival, lest

since they light with it on a Festival, they will also light with it on

Shabbat.

Rav Hisda said: We are not concerned about the possibility that he will tilt it.

Rather,

what is the reason it is prohibited?

And we explain:

Here,

in the Mishna,

we are dealing with a Festival that occurs

on

the eve of Shabbat,

and one may not light with oil of burning on a Festival

because one may not burn sacred items on a Festival,

as we derive below (24b) from verses.

And we ask:

But from what the final clause teaches

below (24b),

“One may not light with oil of burning on a Festival,” it follows that the first clause is not dealing with a Festival,

and if so, it is impossible to say that the reason of the Mishna, that one may not light with oil of burning, concerns a Festival.

Rabbi Hanina of Sura said:

The tanna of the Mishna below

said “What is the reason”: What is the reason that one may not light with oil of burning on a Festival —

because one may not burn sacred items on a Festival.