האור בחנוכה

on a similar note, Rav Kahana said: Reeds that one tied them into a bundle, require that most of them ignite. If one did not tie them into a bundle, they do not require that most of them ignite, in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna. However, seeds require that most of them ignite. And if he placed them in woven baskets, they do not require that most of them catch fire. Rav Yosef taught a baraita: Four bonfires do not require that most of the flammable materials catch fire, as their materials burn easily once the fire takes hold of them. And they are: A bonfire of pitch, and of sulfur, and of dry cheese, and of fatty materials. And it was taught in a baraita: A bonfire of straw and one of rakings of wood gathered from the field also do not require that most of it catch fire. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Babylonian wood does not require that most of it catch fire. Rav Yosef the Babylonian objects: What is that wood that they use in Babylonia that burns so well? If you say that it refers to wood slivers used for burning and light, now that with regard to a wick, Ulla said that one who lights it for a Shabbat lamp must light most of what emerges from the vessel; is it necessary to mention with regard to wood slivers that most of them must be lit? Rather, Rav Yosef said: Certainly the reference is to the branch of a cedar tree. And Rami bar Abba said: The reference here is to a hyssop [zaza]. We shall return to you, Yiziot HaShabbat This mishna cites a list of fuels and wicks that one may not use in kindling the Shabbat lights, either because their use might induce one to perform a prohibited labor on Shabbat or because they are not in keeping with the deference due Shabbat. The mishna begins by listing the materials that one may not use as wicks. That is followed by a list of the substances that one may not use as fuel.MISHNA: With what may one light the Shabbat lamp, and with what may one not light it? With regard to types of prohibited wicks, one may light neither with cedar bast [lekhesh], nor with uncombed flax [ḥosen], nor with raw silk [kalakh], nor with willow bast [petilat ha’idan], nor with desert weed [petilat hamidbar], nor with green moss that is on the surface of the water. With regard to types of prohibited oils, one may light neither with pitch [zefet], nor with wax [sha’ava], nor with castor oil [shemen kik], nor with burnt oil [shemen sereifa], nor with fat from a sheep’s tail [alya], nor with tallow [ḥelev]. Naḥum the Mede says: One may light with boiled tallow. And the Rabbis say: Both tallow that was boiled and tallow that was not boiled, one may not light with them. GEMARA: Most of the terms used in the mishna were not understood in Babylonia. Therefore, the Gemara translated and clarified them. We learned in the mishna that one may not light with lekhesh. The Gemara explains that lekhesh is the branch of the cedar tree. The Gemara asks: Isn’t the cedar mere wood? How would one fashion a wick out of wood? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to the woolly substance that is beneath its bark. The mishna taught further that one may not light with ḥosen. Rav Yosef said: Ḥosen is tow, thin chaff that falls off the stalk of combed flax. Abaye said to him: Isn’t it written: “And the ḥason shall be as tow” (Isaiah 1:31)? By inference, ḥosen is not tow. Rather, Abaye said: Ḥosen is flax whose stalk was crushed but not yet combed. The threads in the stalk are still covered by a shell and therefore do not burn well. And we also learned in the mishna that one may not light with kalakh. Shmuel said: I asked all seafarers, and they said to me that the present-day name of kalakh mentioned in the mishna is kulka. Rav Yitzḥak bar Ze’ira said: Kalakh is the cocoon of the silkworm [gushkera]. The Gemara relates that Ravin and Abaye were sitting before Rabbana Neḥemya, brother of the Exilarch. Ravin saw that Rabbana Neḥemya was wearing metaksa, a type of silk. Ravin said to Abaye: This is the kalakh that we learned in our mishna. Abaye said to him: We call it shira peranda. The Gemara raises an objection from that which we learned: The shira’im, the kalakh, and the sirikin, different types of silk, all require ritual fringes. Apparently, shira’im and kalakh are different types of silk. This is a conclusive refutation of the statement of Ravin who identified kalakh with shira peranda. The Gemara responds: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation. If you wish, say instead that shira is a distinct entity, and shira peranda is a distinct entity. Shira peranda is kalakh. And we learned in the mishna that one may not light with petilat ha’idan. The Gemara explains that petilat ha’idan is willow, which does not burn well. The Gemara relates that Ravin and Abaye were walking in the valley of Tamrurita. They saw these willow trees. Ravin said to Abaye: This is the idan that we learned in the mishna. Abaye said to him: But this is mere wood. How would one fashion a wick from it? Ravin peeled the bark and showed him the wool-like substance between the bark and the tree. We also learned in the mishna: Nor with desert silk [petilat hamidbar]. That is the mullein plant, which does not burn well. And we learned in the mishna that one may not use the green moss that is on the surface of the water to fashion a wick for lighting the Shabbat lamp. The Gemara asks: What is this green moss? If you say that it is the moss found on standing water, isn’t that moss brittle and therefore unfit material from which to fashion a wick? Rather, Rav Pappa said: It is referring to the moss that accumulates on ships, which is more pliable and when dried can be fashioned into a wick. It was taught in a baraita: The Sages added to the list of prohibited wicks in the mishna those made of wool and hair as well. The Gemara remarks: And our tanna did not consider it necessary to enumerate these because it is virtually impossible to fashion wicks from these materials, as, when they burn, wool shrinks and hair is scorched. Consequently, they are unsuitable for use as wicks. And we learned in the mishna that one may not use zefet or sha’ava as fuel in lighting the Shabbat lamp. The Gemara explains that zefet is pitch, and sha’ava is wax. It was taught in a baraita: Until this point, the word zefet, the mishna is dealing with disqualification of materials unfit for use as wicks, and from this point on it is dealing with disqualification of substances unfit for use as oils. The Gemara asks: Obviously, a wick cannot be made from pitch and similar materials. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the mishna to mention wax, lest you say that it is also unfit for use as a coating for wicks, in the manner that wicks are usually made. Therefore, it teaches us that even though wax is unfit for use as oil, it is fit for use as coating for wicks. Rami bar Avin said: Tar [itran] is the by-product of pitch. When wood is burned to extract pitch, a clearer liquid oozes out after the pitch, and that is tar. Similarly, wax is the by-product of honey.

one is not bound to attend to it. Therefore, there is no reason to make certain from the outset to light it with materials that burn well, as even if it is extinguished, he is not required to relight it. However, he also holds that it is permitted to use its light. As a result, he must ensure that the wick burns well on Shabbat; if not, he is liable to come to adjust the flame in order to use its light. The third opinion is that which Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Mattana said, and others say that Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: The wicks and oils with which the Sages said one may not light on Shabbat, one may, nevertheless, light with them on Hanukkah, both during the week and on Shabbat. Rabbi Yirmeya said: What is Rav’s reason? He holds that if it is extinguished, one is not bound to attend to it and relight it, and it is prohibited to use its light. Therefore, even on Shabbat, there is no concern lest he come to adjust the wick, as it is prohibited to utilize its light. The Gemara relates that the Sages said this halakha before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya and he did not accept it, as he did not hold Rabbi Yirmeya in high regard. However, subsequently, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, the Sages said this halakha before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and he accepted it. Then Abaye said regretfully: Had I merited, I would have learned this halakha from the outset. The Gemara wonders: Didn’t he ultimately learn it and accept it? What difference does it make from whom and at what point he learned it? The Gemara answers: The practical difference is with regard to knowledge acquired in one’s youth, which is better remembered. 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 asks: What is Hanukkah, and why are lights kindled on Hanukkah? The Gemara answers: The Sages taught in Megillat Ta’anit: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev, the days of Hanukkah are eight. One may not eulogize on them and one may not fast on them. What is the reason? When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary they defiled all the oils that were in the Sanctuary by touching them. And when the Hasmonean monarchy overcame them and emerged victorious over them, they searched and found only one cruse of oil that was placed with the seal of the High Priest, undisturbed by the Greeks. And there was sufficient oil there to light the candelabrum for only one day. A miracle occurred and they lit the candelabrum from it eight days. The next year the Sages instituted those days and made them holidays with recitation of hallel and special thanksgiving in prayer and blessings. We learned there in a mishna with regard to damages: In the case of a spark that emerges from under a hammer, and went out of the artisan’s workshop, and caused damage, the one who struck the hammer is liable. Similarly, in the case of a camel that is laden with flax and it passed through the public domain, and its flax entered into a store, and caught fire from the storekeeper’s lamp, and set fire to the building, the camel owner is liable. Since his flax entered into another’s domain, which he had no permission to enter, all the damages were caused due to his negligence. However, if the storekeeper placed his lamp outside the store and it set fire to the flax, the storekeeper is liable, as he placed the lamp outside his domain where he had no right to place it. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the flax was set on fire by the storekeeper’s Hanukkah lamp that he placed outside the entrance to his store, he is not liable, as in that case, it is permitted for the storekeeper to place his lamp outside. Ravina said in the name of Rabba: That is to say that it is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp within ten handbreadths of the ground. As if it should enter your mind to say that he may place it above ten handbreadths, why is the storekeeper exempt? Let the camel owner say to the storekeeper: You should have placed the lamp above the height of a camel and its rider, and then no damage would have been caused. By failing to do so, the storekeeper caused the damage, and the camel owner should not be liable. The Gemara rejects this: And perhaps one is also permitted to place the Hanukkah lamp above ten handbreadths, and the reason Rabbi Yehuda exempted the storekeeper was due to concern for the observance of the mitzva of kindling Hanukkah lights. He held that if you burden one excessively, he will come to refrain from performing the mitzva of kindling Hanukkah lights. Since the storekeeper placed the Hanukkah lamp outside at the behest of the Sages, the storekeeper should not be required to take extra precautions. With regard to the essence of the matter Rav Kahana said that Rav Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum:

... Another explanation. “And all the work that king Solomon had wrought in the house of the Lord was finished.” (Melachim I 7:51) What does ‘all the work’ mean? It was built by itself, rising and floating up – thus it does not say when the house was built, but rather “And the house, when it was in building…” (Melachim I 6:7) “…was built of stone finished at the quarry (masa)…” (ibid.) What does ‘finished at the quarry’ (masa nivne) mean? R’ Brechia said: the stone picked itself up (nosah atzma), rose up and was built by itself. This is what Shlomo said in his song “I have surely built You a house to dwell in…” (Melachim I 8:13) He says ‘I have surely built’, meaning ‘I built a building and the stones rose up and flew into place themselves’. If you are shocked that the Holy One would do such a thing for a single righteous person, “And a stone was brought and placed on the mouth of the pit…” (Daniel 6:18) And where did they get a rock in Bavel? Our Rabbis said that it rolled all the way from the land of Israel and came in an instant. So if the Holy One did such a thing for flesh and blood, are you surprised that He would do so for the building of a house to the Holy One?