וּמִפְּנֵי בִּיטּוּל עֲנִיִּים — שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ עֲנִיִּים יוֹשְׁבִין וּמְשַׁמְּרִין ״עַכְשָׁיו מַנִּיחַ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת פֵּאָה״. וּמִפְּנֵי חֲשָׁד — שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ עוֹבְרִין וְשָׁבִין אוֹמְרִים: תָּבֹא מְאֵרָה לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא הִנִּיחַ פֵּאָה בְּשָׂדֵהוּ. וּמִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תְּכַלֶּה״. אַטּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ לָאו מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תְּכַלֶּה״ נִינְהוּ? אָמַר רָבָא: מִפְּנֵי הָרַמָּאִין. And due to causing the poor to be idle; so that the poor, who have no way of knowing when he is going to cut the grain and where in the field he is going to leave the pe’a, will not be sitting and observing until he designates the pe’a and constantly saying to themselves: Now the owner of the field is placing pe’a. Now that he leaves the pe’a in a defined area at the end of his field, and the poor people know exactly where they can receive their portion, they need not waste their time in anticipation. And due to suspicion; if one leaves the pe’a in the middle of the field, the poor will come and take their portion immediately when he designates the area of pe’a. When the owner then continues to cut and harvest the rest of the grain in the field, the pe’a will not be noticeable. Insisting that he leave pe’a at the end of the field ensures that passersby will not say: A person who did not leave pe’a in his field should be cursed. We learned that the fourth reason is due to the verse: You shall not wholly reap. The Gemara wonders: Aren’t all of these reasons due to: You shall not wholly reap? All of the reasons explain that one may not reap his entire field and must leave pe’a at the end of his field. Rava said: The meaning of the last reason is that pe’a is separated that way due to cheaters. There is concern that a person would not leave pe’a at all. He would claim that he already separated it in the middle of his field and that the poor already came and took it. In order to bolster the mitzva of pe’a, the Sages instituted that it must be separated specifically at the end of one’s field. In terms of the discussion in the Gemara, apparently, the desire to avoid arousing suspicion is a factor taken into consideration in determining halakha.
אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר רְדִיפָה אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: נֵר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי פִיּוֹת — עוֹלָה לִשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם. אָמַר רָבָא: מִילֵּא קְעָרָה שֶׁמֶן וְהִקִּיפָהּ פְּתִילוֹת. כָּפָה עָלֶיהָ כְּלִי — עוֹלָה לְכַמָּה בְּנֵי אָדָם. לֹא כָּפָה עָלֶיהָ כְּלִי — עֲשָׂאָהּ כְּמִין מְדוּרָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְאֶחָד נָמֵי אֵינָהּ עוֹלָה. Rav Yitzḥak bar Redifa said that Rav Huna said: Lighting an oil lamp that has two spouts, with one wick placed in each of the spouts, is considered to have fulfilled the obligation of kindling the Hanukkah light for two people. Similarly, Rava said: One who filled a bowl with oil and placed wicks all around it, if he overturned a vessel on top of it, it is considered to have fulfilled the obligation of lighting the Hanukkah light for several people, corresponding to the number of wicks. By overturning a vessel atop the bowl, each wick appears to be burning independently. If one did not overturn a vessel on top of it, he thereby made it appear like a type of bonfire. From afar, the light from all of the flames appear to be a single flame. And it is not even considered to have fulfilled the obligation of lighting the Hanukkah light for one person because the mitzva is specifically to light a flame and not a bonfire.
אָמַר רָבָא: פְּשִׁיטָא לִי, נֵר בֵּיתוֹ וְנֵר חֲנוּכָּה — נֵר בֵּיתוֹ עָדִיף, מִשּׁוּם שְׁלוֹם בֵּיתוֹ. נֵר בֵּיתוֹ וְקִידּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם — נֵר בֵּיתוֹ עָדִיף, מִשּׁוּם שְׁלוֹם בֵּיתוֹ. בָּעֵי רָבָא: נֵר חֲנוּכָּה וְקִידּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם מַהוּ? קִידּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם עֲדִיף — דִּתְדִיר, אוֹ דִילְמָא נֵר חֲנוּכָּה עֲדִיף — מִשּׁוּם פַּרְסוֹמֵי נִיסָּא? בָּתַר דְּבַעְיַהּ, הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: נֵר חֲנוּכָּה עֲדִיף, מִשּׁוּם פַּרְסוֹמֵי נִיסָּא. Rava said: It is obvious to me that there is a fixed list of priorities. When a person is poor and must choose between purchasing oil to light a Shabbat lamp for his home or purchasing oil to light a Hanukkah lamp, the Shabbat lamp for his home takes precedence. That is due to peace in his home; without the light of that lamp, his family would be sitting and eating their meal in the dark. Similarly, if there is a conflict between acquiring oil to light a lamp for his home and wine for the sanctification [kiddush] of Shabbat day, the lamp for his home takes precedence due to peace in his home. However, Rava raised a dilemma: When the conflict is between oil for a Hanukkah lamp or wine for kiddush of Shabbat day, what is the ruling in that case? Does kiddush of Shabbat day take priority because it is frequent, i.e., it is performed every week, and there is a principle: When there is a conflict between a frequent practice and an infrequent practice, the frequent practice takes precedence? Or, perhaps the Hanukkah lamp takes precedence due to publicity of the miracle? After he raised the dilemma, he then resolved it on his own and he ruled that, in that case, the Hanukkah lamp takes precedence due to publicity of the miracle.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָרָגִיל בְּנֵר הָוְיִין לֵיהּ בָּנִים תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים. הַזָּהִיר בִּמְזוּזָה — זוֹכֶה לְדִירָה נָאָה. הַזָּהִיר בְּצִיצִית — זוֹכֶה לְטַלִּית נָאָה. הַזָּהִיר בְּקִידּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם — זוֹכֶה וּמְמַלֵּא גַּרְבֵי יַיִן. רַב הוּנָא הֲוָה רְגִיל דַּהֲוָה חָלֵיף וְתָנֵי אַפִּתְחָא דְרַבִּי אָבִין נַגָּרָא. חֲזָא דַּהֲוָה רְגִיל בִּשְׁרָגֵי טוּבָא, אֲמַר: תְּרֵי גַּבְרֵי רַבְרְבֵי נָפְקִי מֵהָכָא. נָפְקִי מִינַּיְיהוּ רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין וְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין. רַב חִסְדָּא הֲוָה רְגִיל דַּהֲוָה חָלֵיף וְתָנֵי אַפִּיתְחָא דְּבֵי נָשָׁא דְּרַב שֵׁיזְבִי. חֲזָא דַּהֲוָה רְגִיל בִּשְׁרָגֵי טוּבָא, אֲמַר: גַּבְרָא רַבָּא נָפֵק מֵהָכָא. נְפַק מִינַּיְיהוּ רַב שֵׁיזְבִי. Rav Huna said: One who is accustomed to kindle lights on Shabbat and Hanukkah will be rewarded and have children who are Torah scholars, who will disseminate the light of Torah. One who is meticulous in performing the mitzva of mezuza merits a beautiful house on which to affix his mezuza. One who is meticulous in performing the mitzva of ritual fringes merits a beautiful garment. One who is meticulous in performing the mitzva of kiddush of the day merits and fills jugs of wine. The Gemara relates: Rav Huna was accustomed to pass by and teach at the entrance of the house of Rabbi Avin the carpenter. He saw that Rabbi Avin was accustomed to kindle many lights in honor of Shabbat. Rav Huna said: Two great men will emerge from here. Indeed, Rav Idi bar Avin and Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin, his two oldest sons, emerged from their family. On a similar note, the Gemara relates: Rav Ḥisda was accustomed to pass by and teach at the entrance of Rav Sheizvi’s father’s family home. He saw that Rav Sheizvi’s father was accustomed to kindle many lights in honor of Shabbat. Rav Ḥisda said: A great person will emerge from here. Indeed, Rav Sheizvi emerged from them.
דְּבֵיתְהוּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף הֲוָת מְאַחֲרָה וּמַדְלְקָה. אֲמַר לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: תָּנֵינָא ״לֹא יָמִישׁ עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן יוֹמָם וְעַמּוּד הָאֵשׁ לָיְלָה״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעַמּוּד עָנָן מַשְׁלִים לְעַמּוּד הָאֵשׁ וְעַמּוּד הָאֵשׁ מַשְׁלִים לְעַמּוּד הֶעָנָן. סְבַרָה לְאַקְדּוֹמֵי. אֲמַר לַהּ הָהוּא סָבָא: תָּנֵינָא, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַקְדִּים וְשֶׁלֹּא יְאַחֵר. The Gemara relates that Rav Yosef’s wife would kindle the Shabbat lights late. Rav Yosef said to her: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “The pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night, departed not from before the people” (Exodus 13:22), this teaches that the pillar of cloud would overlap with the pillar of fire? The pillar of fire would appear slightly before nightfall. And the pillar of fire would overlap with the pillar of cloud, as well. The pillar of cloud would appear slightly before daybreak. Therefore, in lighting the Shabbat lights it is also appropriate to light earlier, beginning Shabbat slightly before dark on Shabbat eve. She thought to kindle the lights much earlier, on Shabbat eve, long before nightfall. An Elder said to her, we learned: As long as he neither lights too early nor too late.
אָמַר רָבָא: דְּרָחֵים רַבָּנַן, הָווּ לֵיהּ בְּנִין רַבָּנַן. דְּמוֹקִיר רַבָּנַן, הָווּ לֵיהּ חַתְנָווֹתָא רַבָּנַן. דְּדָחֵיל מֵרַבָּנָן, הוּא גּוּפֵיהּ הָוֵי צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן. וְאִי לָאו בַּר הָכֵי הוּא, מִשְׁתַּמְעָן מִילֵּיהּ כְּצוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן. Similar to the reward due one who kindles the Shabbat lights, Rava said: One who loves Sages will have children who are Sages. One who honors Sages will have sons-in-law who are Sages. One who stands in awe of the Sages will himself become a Torah scholar. And if he is not capable and lacks the talent to become a Torah scholar, his statements will be received like the statements of a Torah scholar.
וְלֹא בְּשֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה וְכוּ׳: מַאי שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה? אָמַר רַבָּה: שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנִּטְמְאָה. וְאַמַּאי קָרוּ לֵהּ ״שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה״? — הוֹאִיל וְלִשְׂרֵיפָה עוֹמֵד. וּבְשַׁבָּת מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁמִּצְוָה עָלָיו לְבַעֲרוֹ, גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יַטֶּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בְּיוֹם טוֹב לִישְׁתְּרֵי! אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בְּשֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב? — גְּזֵרָה יוֹם טוֹב אַטּוּ שַׁבָּת. We learned in the mishna that one may not light with burnt oil on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is burnt oil? Rabba said: It is oil of teruma that became ritually impure. And why did they call it burnt oil? Because its burning is imminent, as it is prohibited to eat this oil and one is obligated to burn it. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that one may not light with it on Shabbat? The Gemara explains: Because it is a mitzva to burn it, the Sages issued a decree lest, in doing so, he come to adjust the wick in order to hasten its burning. Abaye said to him: But if what you say is so, that the reason for the prohibition is a concern lest he adjust it, then, on a Festival, when adjusting a wick is permitted, it should be permitted to light with burnt oil. Why then did we learn in the mishna: One may not light with burnt oil even on a Festival? The Gemara answers: It is a decree issued by the Sages prohibiting burning it even on a Festival, due to the prohibition to burn it on Shabbat.
רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: לְשֶׁמָּא יַטֶּה לָא חָיְישִׁינַן, אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּיוֹם טוֹב שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עָסְקִינַן — לְפִי שֶׁאֵין שׂוֹרְפִין קׇדָשִׁים בְּיוֹם טוֹב. וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בְּשֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לָאו בְּיוֹם טוֹב עָסְקִינַן! אָמַר רַב חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא: ״מַה טַּעַם״ קָאָמַר: מַה טַּעַם אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בְּשֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב — לְפִי שֶׁאֵין שׂוֹרְפִין קׇדָשִׁים בְּיוֹם טוֹב. Rav Ḥisda said: The reason for the prohibition against lighting a Shabbat lamp with burnt oil is different, as we are not concerned lest one come to adjust the wick. Rather, here, in our mishna, we are dealing with a Festival that fell on Shabbat eve, in which case he must kindle Shabbat lights on the Festival. One may not light a Shabbat lamp with burnt oil on a Festival because one may not burn consecrated items on a Festival, a prohibition that applies to teruma as well. The Gemara asks: But from the fact that we learned in the latter clause, i.e., the next mishna, that one may not light with burnt oil on a Festival, by inference, in the first clause of the mishna we are not dealing with a Festival but rather with a standard Shabbat. Rabbi Ḥanina from Sura said: This mishna must be understood in the following manner: These are not two distinct halakhot; rather, this mishna was stated employing the didactic style of what is the reason. What is the reason that one may not light with burnt oil on a Festival or on a Festival that falls on Shabbat eve? It is because one may not burn consecrated items on a Festival at all.