היחיד ורשות הרבים

With regard to the opinion that one need not rekindle the Hanukkah light if it is extinguished, the Gemara asks: And is it true that if the Hanukkah light is extinguished one is not bound to attend to it? The Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in a baraita: The mitzva of kindling the Hanukkah lights is from sunset until traffic in the marketplace ceases. Does that not mean that if the light is extinguished, he must rekindle it so that it will remain lit for the duration of that period? The Gemara answers: No, the baraita can be understood otherwise: That if one did not yet light at sunset, he may still light the Hanukkah lights until traffic ceases. Alternatively, one could say that this is referring to the matter of its measure. One must prepare a wick and oil sufficient to burn for the period lasting from sunset until traffic ceases. If he did so, even if the light is extinguished beforehand, he need not relight it. The expression until traffic in the marketplace ceases is mentioned here, and the Gemara asks: Until when exactly is this time? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Until the traffic of the people of Tadmor [tarmoda’ei] ceases. They sold kindling wood and remained in the marketplace later than everyone else. People who discovered at sunset that they had exhausted their wood supply could purchase wood from them. The Sages taught in a baraita: The basic mitzva of Hanukkah is each day to have a light kindled by a person, the head of the household, for himself and his household. And the mehadrin, i.e., those who are meticulous in the performance of mitzvot, kindle a light for each and every one in the household. And the mehadrin min hamehadrin, who are even more meticulous, adjust the number of lights daily. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree as to the nature of that adjustment. Beit Shammai say: On the first day one kindles eight lights and, from there on, gradually decreases the number of lights until, on the last day of Hanukkah, he kindles one light. And Beit Hillel say: On the first day one kindles one light, and from there on, gradually increases the number of lights until, on the last day, he kindles eight lights. Ulla said: There were two amora’im in the West, Eretz Yisrael, who disagreed with regard to this dispute, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida. One said that the reason for Beit Shammai’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the incoming days, i.e., the future. On the first day, eight days remain in Hanukkah, one kindles eight lights, and on the second day seven days remain, one kindles seven, etc. The reason for Beit Hillel’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the outgoing days. Each day, the number of lights corresponds to the number of the days of Hanukkah that were already observed. And one said that the reason for Beit Shammai’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the bulls of the festival of Sukkot: Thirteen were sacrificed on the first day and each succeeding day one fewer was sacrificed (Numbers 29:12–31). The reason for Beit Hillel’s opinion is that the number of lights is based on the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Therefore, if the objective is to have the number of lights correspond to the number of days, there is no alternative to increasing their number with the passing of each day. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There were two Elders in Sidon, and one of them acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, and one of them acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Each provided a reason for his actions: One gave a reason for his actions: The number of lights corresponds to the bulls of the Festival. And one gave a reason for his actions: The number of lights is based on the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. The Sages taught in a baraita: It is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp at the entrance to one’s house on the outside, so that all can see it. If he lived upstairs, he places it at the window adjacent to the public domain. And in a time of danger, when the gentiles issued decrees to prohibit kindling lights, he places it on the table and that is sufficient to fulfill his obligation. Rava said: One must kindle another light in addition to the Hanukkah lights in order to use its light, as it is prohibited to use the light of the Hanukkah lights. And if there is a bonfire, he need not light an additional light, as he can use the light of the bonfire. However, if he is an important person, who is unaccustomed to using the light of a bonfire, even though there is a bonfire, he must kindle another light.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, since Rabbi Yehuda possibly concedes that if the fertilizer caused damage, he is liable to pay for the damage it caused, although he acted within his rights. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: If a pile of straw on the back of an animal that was passing through the public domain catches fire from a Hanukkah lamp that was placed outside a store, the owner of the lamp is exempt, since he put it there with permission (see 62b)? What, is it not because he put it there with the permission of the court and is therefore exempt from paying for damage caused by it? The Gemara answers: No, it is because he put it there with the permission granted to those performing a mitzva. Permission of the court is not sufficient to exempt him from paying damages, unless, in addition, permission was granted for the purpose of performing a mitzva. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that if it caught fire from a Hanukkah lamp he is exempt because he had permission to put it there in order to perform a mitzva.

And thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence, which they shall declare unto thee from that place which the LORD shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall teach thee. According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.

Rabbi Yehoshua holds that we derive from the case of Moses that one should first praise God in prayer and only afterward issue personal requests. And Rabbi Eliezer holds that we do not derive from Moses how to act, since Moses is different, as his might is great, i.e., he knew how to pray to God in this order. And the Rabbis say: The halakha is not in accordance with the statement of this Sage, who says that one should issue personal requests before praying, nor is it in accordance with the statement of that Sage, who says that personal requests should follow prayer. Rather, a person requests his own needs in the blessing ending: Who listens to prayer. Therefore, when Naḥum the Mede stated that this is the halakha, he was merely concurring with the opinion of the Rabbis. With regard to the halakhic ruling, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is that a person requests his own needs during the Amida prayer in the blessing ending: Who listens to prayer. Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, says in the name of Rav: Although the Sages said that a person requests his own needs in the blessing ending: Who listens to prayer, that is not the only option. Rather, if he wishes to recite at the conclusion of each and every blessing personal requests that reflect the nature of each and every blessing, he may recite them. Similarly, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi says that Rav says: Although the Sages said that a person requests his own needs in the blessing ending: Who listens to prayer, if he has a sick person in his house he recites a special prayer for him during the blessing of the sick. And if he is in need of sustenance, he recites a request during the blessing of the years. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Although the Sages said that a person requests his own needs in the blessing ending: Who listens to prayer; but if one wishes to recite prayers and supplications after finishing his Amida prayer, even if his personal requests are as long as the order of the confession of Yom Kippur, he may recite them. MISHNA: And these are the festivals of gentiles: Kalenda, Saturnalia, and Kratesis, and the day of the festival of their kings, and the birthday of the king, and the anniversary of the day of the death of the king. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Every death that includes public burning is a festival that includes idol worship, and any death that does not include public burning is not a festival that includes idol worship. But in the case of the day of shaving his, i.e., a gentile’s, beard and his locks, and the day of his ascent from the sea, and the day that he left prison, and also in the case of a gentile who prepared a wedding feast for his son and celebrates on that day, engaging in business is prohibited only on that day and with that man. GEMARA: Rav Ḥanan bar Rava says: When are these festivals celebrated? Kalenda is celebrated during the eight days after the winter solstice, and Saturnalia is celebrated during the eight days before the winter solstice. And your mnemonic to remember which festival is that the one that occurs after the solstice is mentioned first in the mishna, and the festival that takes place before the solstice is mentioned after, as in the verse: “You have hemmed me in behind and before, and laid Your Hand upon me” (Psalms 139:5), where the word “before” appears after the term “behind.” With regard to the dates of these festivals, the Sages taught: When Adam the first man saw that the day was progressively diminishing, as the days become shorter from the autumnal equinox until the winter solstice, he did not yet know that this is a normal phenomenon, and therefore he said: Woe is me; perhaps because I sinned the world is becoming dark around me and will ultimately return to the primordial state of chaos and disorder. And this is the death that was sentenced upon me from Heaven, as it is written: “And to dust shall you return” (Genesis 3:19). He arose and spent eight days in fasting and in prayer. Once he saw that the season of Tevet, i.e., the winter solstice, had arrived, and saw that the day was progressively lengthening after the solstice, he said: Clearly, the days become shorter and then longer, and this is the order of the world. He went and observed a festival for eight days. Upon the next year, he observed both these eight days on which he had fasted on the previous year, and these eight days of his celebration, as days of festivities. He, Adam, established these festivals for the sake of Heaven, but they, the gentiles of later generations, established them for the sake of idol worship. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, according to the one who says that the world was created in the month of Tishrei, one can understand why Adam believed that the days were becoming shorter as part of his punishment, as he saw the short days of the winter and had not yet seen the long days of summer. But according to the one who says that the world was created in the month of Nisan, he had already seen the difference between the short days and the long days, as the days in the month of Nisan become progressively longer with the passage of time. The Gemara answers: Although Adam had experienced short days, he had not seen days that were this short, as in the days before the winter solstice. The Sages taught: On the day that Adam the first man was created, when the sun set upon him he said: Woe is me, as because I sinned, the world is becoming dark around me, and the world will return to the primordial state of chaos and disorder. And this is the death that was sentenced upon me from Heaven. He spent all night fasting and crying, and Eve was crying opposite him. Once dawn broke, he said: Evidently, the sun sets and night arrives, and this is the order of the world. He arose and sacrificed a bull whose horns preceded its hoofs in the order that they were created, as it is stated: “And it shall please the Lord better than a bullock that has horns and hoofs” (Psalms 69:32). This verse is referring to the one particular bull whose horns preceded its hoofs. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The bull that Adam the first man sacrificed had one horn in its forehead, as it is stated: “And it shall please the Lord better than a bullock that has horns [makrin] and hooves.” The Gemara raises a difficulty: Isn’t makrin plural, which indicates two horns? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Mikkeren is written, i.e., the letter yod is missing from the word, indicating that there was only one horn. § Rav Mattana says: Since Rome established the festival of Kalenda on a specific date, and all of the nearby towns are ruled by Rome, i.e., they pay their tax to Rome and provide its needs but do not themselves celebrate the festival, is it prohibited or permitted to engage in business transactions with the gentile residents of those towns? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: It is prohibited to engage in business during the time of the Kalenda with everyone. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is prohibited to engage in business only with its worshippers, whereas it is permitted to engage in business transactions with gentiles who do not celebrate the festival. The Sage taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Although they said that Rome has established the festival of Kalenda and all of the nearby towns are ruled by Rome, it is prohibited to engage in business only with its worshippers. The baraita continues: With regard to the festivals Saturnalia and Kratesis, and the day of the festival of their kings, and the day on which the king was crowned, the halakha is that before the festival it is prohibited to engage in business transactions, whereas after the festival it is permitted. But in the case of a gentile who prepared a feast for his son and celebrates on that day, engaging in business is prohibited only on that day itself and with that man. Rav Ashi said: We learn in the mishna as well in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that the prohibition applies only to gentiles who celebrate the festival, not to people who are ruled by them. As the mishna teaches: With regard to the day of shaving his beard and his locks, and the day of his ascent from the sea, and the day that he left prison, engaging in business is prohibited only on that day and with that man. Rav Ashi explains the proof: Granted, the mishna specifies that the prohibition is limited to that day alone, in order to exclude the days before and after it. But when it states that the prohibition applies only to that man, what does the mishna exclude? Obviously the prohibition does not extend to all gentiles, as it is a personal festival. Doesn’t the mishna’s ruling serve to exclude those who are ruled by him? Therefore, conclude from the language of the mishna that a prohibition extends only to gentiles who celebrate the festival, not to those who are ruled by them. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael says: Jews who are outside of Eretz Yisrael are considered to engage in idol worship in purity, i.e., unwittingly. How does this occur? In the case of a gentile who prepared a feast for the marriage of his son, and invited all of the Jews in his town, even though they eat of their own kosher food and drink of their own kosher beverages, and their own attendant stands before them, the verse ascribes guilt to them as though they ate of the offerings to the dead, i.e., idols, as it is stated: “And sacrifice to their gods, and they call you, and you eat of their sacrifice” (Exodus 34:15). Since Jews participate in a feast in which the gentile sacrifices offerings to his idol, it is as though they partook of the offering themselves. The Gemara asks: But why not say that the verse is criticizing the Jews only once they eat from the sacrifice? Rava said: If that is what is meant, let the verse say only: And you eat of their sacrifice. What is meant by the additional phrase: “And they call you”? This indicates that the prohibition occurs from the time of the call. Therefore,