נֵר שֶׁל חֲנוּכָּה שֶׁהִנִּיחָה לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה — פְּסוּלָה, כְּסוּכָּה וּכְמָבוֹי. וְאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא, דָּרֵשׁ רַב נָתָן בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב תַּנְחוּם: מַאי דִכְתִיב ״וְהַבּוֹר רֵק אֵין בּוֹ מָיִם״? מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְהַבּוֹר רֵק״ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מָיִם? אֶלָּא מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֵין בּוֹ מָיִם״ — מַיִם אֵין בּוֹ, אֲבָל נְחָשִׁים וְעַקְרַבִּים יֵשׁ בּוֹ.
A Hanukkah lamp that one placed above twenty cubits is invalid, just as a sukka whose roofing is more than twenty cubits high, and just as an alleyway whose beam, its symbolic fourth partition in order to place an eiruv, is more than twenty cubits high, are invalid. The reason is the same in all three cases: People do not usually raise their heads and see objects at a height above twenty cubits. As there is a requirement to see all of these, they are deemed invalid when placed above that height. And the Gemara cites another statement that Rav Kahana said that Rav Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rav Tanḥum: What is the meaning of the verse that is written with regard to Joseph: “And they took him, and cast him into the pit; and the pit was empty, there was no water in it” (Genesis 37:24)? By inference from that which is stated: And the pit was empty, don’t I know that there was no water in it? Rather, why does the verse say: There was no water in it? The verse comes to emphasize and teach that there was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it.
אָמַר רַבָּה: נֵר חֲנוּכָּה מִצְוָה לְהַנִּיחָהּ בְּטֶפַח הַסָּמוּךְ לַפֶּתַח. וְהֵיכָא מַנַּח לֵיהּ? רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר: מִיָּמִין רַב שְׁמוּאֵל מִדִּפְתִּי אָמַר: מִשְּׂמֹאל. וְהִילְכְתָא מִשְּׂמֹאל, כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא נֵר חֲנוּכָּה מִשְּׂמֹאל וּמְזוּזָה מִיָּמִין.
Rabba said: It is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp within the handbreadth adjacent to the entrance. The Gemara asks: And where, on which side, does he place it? There is a difference of opinion: Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said: On the right side of the entrance. Rav Shmuel from Difti said: On the left. And the halakha is to place it on the left so that the Hanukkah lamp will be on the left and the mezuza on the right. One who enters the house will be surrounded by mitzvot (ge’onim).
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַב: אָסוּר לְהַרְצוֹת מָעוֹת כְּנֶגֶד נֵר חֲנוּכָּה. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר לִי: וְכִי נֵר קְדוּשָּׁה יֵשׁ בָּהּ? מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: וְכִי דָּם קְדוּשָּׁה יֵשׁ בּוֹ? דְּתַנְיָא ״וְשָׁפַךְ … וְכִסָּה״ — בַּמֶּה שֶׁשָּׁפַךְ יְכַסֶּה. שֶׁלֹּא יְכַסֶּנּוּ בָּרֶגֶל, שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מִצְוֹת בְּזוּיוֹת עָלָיו. הָכָא נָמֵי, שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מִצְוֹת בְּזוּיוֹת עָלָיו.
Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said that Rav said: It is prohibited to count money opposite a Hanukkah light. Rav Yehuda relates: When I said this halakha before Shmuel, he said to me: Does the Hanukkah light have sanctity that would prohibit one from using its light? Rav Yosef strongly objected to this question: What kind of question is that; does the blood of a slaughtered undomesticated animal or fowl have sanctity? As it was taught in a baraita that the Sages interpreted the verse: “He shall spill its blood and cover it with dust” (Leviticus 17:13): With that which he spilled, he shall cover. Just as a person spills the blood of a slaughtered animal with his hand, so too, he is obligated to cover the blood with this hand and not cover it with his foot. The reason is so that mitzvot will not be contemptible to him. Here too, one should treat the Hanukkah lights as if they were sacred and refrain from utilizing them for other purposes, so that mitzvot will not be contemptible to him.
בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מַהוּ לְהִסְתַּפֵּק מִנּוֹיֵי סוּכָּה כׇּל שִׁבְעָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ אָסוּר לְהַרְצוֹת מָעוֹת כְּנֶגֶד נֵר חֲנוּכָּה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מָרֵיהּ דְּאַבְרָהָם! תָּלֵי תַּנְיָא בִּדְלָא תַּנְיָא. סוּכָּה תַּנְיָא, חֲנוּכָּה לָא תַּנְיָא. דְּתַנְיָא: סִכְּכָהּ כְּהִלְכָתָהּ וְעִיטְּרָהּ בִּקְרָמִים וּבִסְדִינִין הַמְצוּיָּירִין, וְתָלָה בָּהּ אֱגוֹזִים, אֲפַרְסְקִין, שְׁקֵדִים וְרִמּוֹנִים, וּפַרְכִּילֵי עֲנָבִים וַעֲטָרוֹת שֶׁל שִׁבֳּלִים, יֵינוֹת, (שֶׁל) שְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת — אָסוּר לְהִסְתַּפֵּק מֵהֶן עַד מוֹצָאֵי יוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל חַג. וְאִם הִתְנָה עֲלֵיהֶן — הַכֹּל לְפִי תְּנָאוֹ! — אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אֲבוּהוֹן דְּכוּלְּהוּ דָּם.
The Gemara relates that they raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: What is the halakha with regard to using decorations of a sukka all seven days of the festival of Sukkot? He said to them: They already said in a similar vein that it is prohibited to count money opposite the Hanukkah light, which proves that one may not use the object of a mitzva for another purpose. Rav Yosef replied in surprise: Master of Abraham! He makes that which was taught dependent upon that which was not taught. As, with regard to sukka, the prohibition to enjoy use of its decorations was taught in a baraita, and the prohibition to enjoy use of the Hanukkah lights was not taught in a baraita at all. As it was taught in a Tosefta in tractate Sukka: With regard to one who roofed the sukka in accordance with its halakhic requirements, and decorated it with colorful curtains and sheets, and hung in it ornamental nuts, peaches, almonds, and pomegranates, and grape branches [parkilei], and wreaths of stalks of grain, wines, oils, and vessels full of flour, it is prohibited to use them until the conclusion of the last day of the Festival. And, if before he hung the decorations he stipulated with regard to them that he will be permitted to use them even during the Festival, everything is according to his stipulation, and he is permitted to use them. In any case, since the prohibition to benefit from the Hanukkah light is not explicitly taught, a proof should not be cited from there to resolve the dilemma with regard to sukka decorations. Rather, Rav Yosef said: There is no need to bring a proof for the halakhot of sukka from the Hanukkah light. Rather, the paradigm of them all is blood. The verse with regard to the covering of the blood of slaughter is the original source from which the prohibition to treat mitzvot with contempt is derived.
אִיתְּמַר: רַב אָמַר אֵין מַדְלִיקִין מִנֵּר לְנֵר, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר מַדְלִיקִין. רַב אָמַר אֵין מַתִּירִין צִיצִית מִבֶּגֶד לְבֶגֶד, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר מַתִּירִין מִבֶּגֶד לְבֶגֶד. רַב אָמַר אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּגְרִירָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּגְרִירָה.
It was stated in a dispute between amora’im that Rav said: One may not light from one Hanukkah lamp to another lamp. And Shmuel said: One may light in that manner. The Gemara cites additional disputes between Rav and Shmuel. Rav said: One may not untie ritual fringes from one garment in order to affix them to another garment. And Shmuel said: One may untie them from one garment and affix them to another garment. And Rav said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging, as Rabbi Shimon permitted dragging objects on Shabbat, even if, as a result, a furrow would be dug in the ground, as it was not the person’s intent to dig that hole. Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כֹּל מִילֵּי דְּמָר עָבֵיד כְּרַב לְבַר מֵהָנֵי תְּלָת דְּעָבֵיד כִּשְׁמוּאֵל: מַדְלִיקִין מִנֵּר לְנֵר, וּמַתִּירִין מִבֶּגֶד לְבֶגֶד, וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּגְרִירָה. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: גּוֹרֵר אָדָם מִטָּה כִּסֵּא וְסַפְסָל — וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִתְכַּוֵּין לַעֲשׂוֹת חָרִיץ.
Abaye said: In all halakhic matters of the Master, Rabba, he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Rav, except these three where he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. He ruled: One may light from one Hanukkah lamp to another lamp, and one may untie ritual fringes from garment to garment, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging. As it was taught in a baraita, Rabbi Shimon says: A person may drag a bed, chair, and bench on the ground, as long as he does not intend to make a furrow in the ground. Even if a furrow is formed inadvertently, one need not be concerned.
יָתֵיב הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: טַעְמָא דְרַב מִשּׁוּם בִּיזּוּי מִצְוָה. אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא תְּצִיתוּ לֵיהּ, טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַב מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מַכְחִישׁ מִצְוָה. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּקָא מַדְלֵיק מִשְּׁרָגָא לִשְׁרָגָא: מַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם בִּיזּוּי מִצְוָה — מִשְּׁרָגָא לִשְׁרָגָא מַדְלֵיק. מַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם אַכְחוֹשֵׁי מִצְוָה — מִשְּׁרָגָא לִשְׁרָגָא נָמֵי אָסוּר.
One of the Sages sat before Rav Adda bar Ahava, and he sat and said: The reason for the opinion of Rav, who prohibited lighting from one Hanukkah lamp to another, is due to contempt for the mitzva. Using the light for a purpose other than illumination demeans the mitzva of Hanukkah lights. Rav Adda bar Ahava said to his students: Do not listen to him, as the reason for Rav’s opinion is due to the fact that he thereby weakens the mitzva. By lighting from lamp to lamp he slightly diminishes the oil and wick designated for the purpose of the mitzva. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in a case where he lights directly from lamp to lamp, without using a wood chip or another lamp to light the second lamp. According to the one who said that Rav’s reason is due to contempt for the mitzva, directly from lamp to lamp he may even light ab initio, as, by lighting another Hanukkah lamp, he does not thereby demean the sanctity of the mitzva because the second lamp is also a mitzva. According to the one who said that Rav’s reason is because he weakens the mitzva, lighting directly from lamp to lamp is also prohibited, as ultimately, he utilizes the mitzva lamp for a task that he could have accomplished with a non-sacred lamp.
מֵתִיב רַב אַוְיָא: סֶלַע שֶׁל
Rav Avya raised an objection from that which was taught in a Tosefta: A sela of