Today’s daf, Massechet Shabbat 21a, has been sponsored by Mr. Joey Cohen in memory of Moshe ben Frida. May his soul be bound in the bond of eternal life. Amen. Massechet Shabbat has also been dedicated by Benjamin Stavrash for a complete recovery, together with all the sick of the Jewish people, especially those who are ill among them.
We begin today’s Gemara on 20b, at the bottom of the page, four lines from the bottom, with the words “up to pitch.” We learned in the Mishnah that one of the items that may not be used for the Sabbath lights is pitch. The Gemara explains: “Pitch”—in Aramaic, this is called tar. The oil that drips from trees is wax, and the wax is called a certain type of honeycomb residue.
Up to pitch, we are discussing inferior wicks, as the Mishnah said: flax that has not been combed, silk, a piece of cloth, and a wick made from certain inferior materials. All of these refer to wicks that are unsuitable for use on the Sabbath. From pitch onward, however, we are discussing inferior oils. The Mishnah dealt with two different problems: wicks that are not suitable for the Sabbath lights, and oils that are not suitable for the Sabbath lights. The Gemara is telling us that once we reach pitch and wax, we have begun discussing the inferior oils.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? We know that pitch and wax are not wicks, so why does the Gemara need to tell us that a new category has begun? The Gemara answers that there is a novelty regarding wax. One might have thought that wax is unsuitable not only when used as fuel, but also when used as a wick. The Gemara therefore teaches us that if wax is made into a wick, it is acceptable.
How can wax be used as a wick? Look at a candle. A long piece of wax is made, and a wick is placed inside it. When it is made in this manner, the wax is considered to be part of the wick itself, and it is acceptable. This is the novelty of the Gemara’s wording: the Mishnah is discussing inferior wicks, whereas once it mentions wax, it is discussing inferior fuel. If one takes a piece of wax and places it in a bowl as fuel, it is unsuitable. But if the wax has actually been made into a candle, then it produces a proper flame, and there is no concern that one will adjust it on the Sabbath.
Rami bar Hama says that the tar residue is the remnant of pitch. When pitch is heated, the material that emerges from it is called this residue. Wax, meanwhile, is the residue of honey. When the honey is removed from the honeycomb, what remains is called wax.
Rashi explains that this residue is pitch that emerges from a tree. When it is heated, a clear liquid flows from it. It looks like oil, and this is the residue referred to by the Gemara.
The Gemara asks: What practical difference does it make for us to know these definitions? The Gemara answers that there is a commercial application. If a person sells wax, he may sell the residue of a honeycomb, and it is considered wax. Once the honey has been removed from the honeycomb, it is already considered wax; the purchaser cannot claim that when he bought wax, he expected something that had undergone further processing. No additional process is necessary, and the buyer has no claim against the seller.
The Sages taught: All of the wicks that we said may not be used on the Sabbath are forbidden only when they are used individually as a wick. One may nevertheless make a large fire from them. A bonfire consists of many pieces of fuel, and each piece lights the others. In such a case, we are not concerned that the flame will flicker and that one will come to adjust it. Therefore, the inferior wicks are forbidden only when used alone. When they are placed together to make a bonfire, it is permitted, whether one is using it for heat or for light, whether it is placed on the ground or on top of an oven.
As Rashi explains, one piece of fuel lights the other, so there is no concern that the flame will flicker and that a person will adjust it. Of course, if one uses the material by itself, there is a problem. This is one of the oils that the Mishnah said is not suitable for the Sabbath lights.
Shmuel said: What is the oil called castor oil? He said, “I asked all the sailors on the waters, and they told me that there is a bird that lives on the islands called the castor bird, and oil is produced from it.” According to this interpretation, the Mishnah is referring to oil that comes from this bird.
Rashi offers another interpretation: it is oil made from cottonseed, which we would call cottonseed oil today. This comes from a type of tree, like the tree described in the Book of Yonah. That tree produces oil, and that oil is also unsuitable for lighting.
It should be pointed out that Hacham Ben Zion says that today cottonseed oil is refined and burns very well, so it would be suitable for use. Nevertheless, he says it is preferable to add a little of another oil, just to be safe.
He said, “I saw the castor tree mentioned in the Book of Yonah, and it resembles a growth called a marsh plant. It grows in marshes, and storekeepers hang it in front of their stores to provide shade and a pleasant smell. Oil is made from the seeds of this tree. Beneath its leaves, all the sick people of the Land of Israel would lie.” It was therefore a very versatile tree.
Rashi explains that the castor tree of Yonah grows near water. Storekeepers would hang it near the front of their stores to provide shade and a pleasant smell. Oil was made from its seeds, and sick people would lie beneath its leaves.
The Gemara explains that the reason these wicks are unsuitable is that the flame flickers and does not hold properly. The flame surrounds the wick rather than entering it properly, and therefore it does not catch well. Rashi compares this to a knife that is not smooth. Similarly, the light of these wicks does not burn properly; it jumps. According to another explanation, the oil does not enter the wick itself. It singes the outside of the wick without penetrating it, and therefore the wick does not catch properly.
The Gemara continues: The reason the oils mentioned in the Mishnah are unsuitable for lighting on the Sabbath is that they do not draw toward the wick. The concern is that a person may tilt the lamp in order to improve the flow of the oil, which would involve the prohibition of kindling on the Sabbath. The Gemara has therefore given us the reasons why the wicks are unsuitable and why the oils are unsuitable.
The Gemara now asks: If an oil is unsuitable, may one add a little suitable oil to it and then light it on the Sabbath? Perhaps the good oil will cause the mixture to draw properly toward the wick, and the problem will be corrected. Or perhaps, once the Sages prohibited these inferior oils, they prohibited using them even when good oil is added, because a person might eventually come to use the inferior oil by itself.
He answered: One may not light with the inferior oil even if suitable oil has been added. The reason is that the Sages made a decree prohibiting the use of the inferior oil, and therefore one may not use it alone or as part of a mixture.
The Gemara raises a question. The first opinion in a teaching says that if one takes a suitable wick and wraps it around one of the materials that is unsuitable as a wick, the combination may be lit. The teaching quotes Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel as saying that his family would take a wick, wrap it around a nut, and light it. Although the nut itself is unsuitable as a wick, this seems to show that one may combine a suitable item with an unsuitable one. If so, the same should apply to oil: one should be permitted to add suitable oil to inferior oil.
The Gemara answers that instead of bringing a question from the first opinion, one should bring a proof from Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. After all, the first opinion explicitly says that one may not combine a suitable wick with an unsuitable material. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s family, however, did this in practice, and their practice must represent the law. How, then, did his family use the nut?
The Gemara asks whether they used the nut as part of the wick itself. If so, this would indeed prove that a suitable wick may be combined with an unsuitable one. The Gemara answers that this was not what they did. They used the nut as a floater. They did not light the nut at all; they placed the wick on it so that the wick would float on the oil.
The Gemara asks: If that was the entire purpose, why would the first opinion prohibit placing a suitable wick over an unsuitable material? The Gemara answers that there is only one opinion, and words are missing from the teaching. The correct text is that if one combines a suitable wick with an unsuitable material with the intention of lighting both of them, it is forbidden. If one uses the unsuitable material only as a floater, it is permitted. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel agrees that one may not combine suitable and unsuitable wicks for lighting; his family merely used the inferior material as a floater.
The Gemara raises another question: You are telling me that one may not combine suitable oil with inferior oil and light them on the Sabbath. What about liquefied fat? This is the inner fat of fish that has been melted into a liquid. The Mishnah teaches that these materials may not be used to light on their own, and the Gemara assumes that fish fat is included even though the Mishnah did not mention it explicitly. Yet perhaps one may add a drop of good oil to it and light it. Again, we have a case in which an inferior material is combined with a suitable one.
Rav says that these oils may be used when suitable oil is added to them, even though they may not be used by themselves. The Gemara explains that, according to the strict law, there should be no prohibition against lighting with these oils, because they burn properly on their own. The Sages made a decree not to use them alone, but they did not extend the decree to a mixture containing suitable oil. In these cases, the reason they are prohibited is only a rabbinic decree. Since the oils themselves burn properly, the Sages did not prohibit adding suitable oil to them.
The inferior oils discussed earlier, however, do not draw properly toward the wick on their own. Since they do not burn properly, the Sages made a decree that one may not correct the problem by adding good oil, because one might eventually come to use the inferior oil by itself.
Rashi explains that when the Gemara discusses the liquefied fat and fish fat, it is referring to an inferior oil that is suitable when combined with another oil, not necessarily to a mixture in which the other oil is physically blended with it. Even if one does not add another oil to the liquefied fat or fish fat, they burn properly. The decree was that one might come to use the material before it had been liquefied. The liquefied material itself is suitable; the prohibition is a decree lest one use the material before it is liquefied. Therefore, the Sages did not make a further decree prohibiting a mixture containing suitable oil. That would be a decree upon a decree, and the Sages do not generally make such an additional decree.
The Gemara challenges this reasoning: The Sages did make a decree regarding liquefied fat. They prohibited it because one might come to use the fat before it was liquefied. Why, then, did they not make another decree prohibiting liquefied fat even when suitable oil was added, lest one come to use the fat without adding suitable oil?
The Gemara answers that the prohibition of the liquefied fat itself is already a decree, lest one use the material before it is liquefied. To prohibit it when good oil is added would be a decree upon a decree, lest one use it without good oil. Although the Sages make decrees, they do not generally make a decree upon a decree. Therefore, they permitted the addition of suitable oil in that case.
Rami bar Hama taught: The wicks and oils that the Sages said may not be used on the Sabbath may not be used to light in the Temple either. The requirement in the Temple is that the flame should rise on its own. What does that mean? It means that the flame must burn independently, without needing to be corrected by tilting the lamp or adjusting the oil. Since these inferior wicks and oils require assistance, they may not be used for the Menorah in the Temple.
Yet we learned in a teaching that at the time of Sukkot, people would make a celebration in Jerusalem and would light large golden lamps in the Temple to provide illumination. When the clothing of the priests wore out, they would tear the garments and make wicks from them for the lamps. The belts of the priests were made of wool, and we learned that wool is unsuitable as a wick for the Sabbath lights. How, then, can the Gemara say that unsuitable wicks may not be used in the Temple?
The Gemara answers that the Temple lamps were not governed by the same requirement. The verse says that the flame of the Menorah must rise on its own, and this requirement is associated with the Menorah that was lit every day. The lamps used at the celebration were not subject to that same requirement.
The Gemara asks whether the teaching was referring to garments containing a mixture of wool and linen, including the priestly belt. If so, the contradiction remains, because such material is unsuitable as a Sabbath wick. The Gemara answers that it was not referring to the woolen garments. The lamps were made from the linen garments of the priests, and linen is suitable as a wick. Thus, there is no contradiction.
The Gemara now moves to the famous discussion of Hanukkah. Rav Huna says: The wicks and oils that the Sages said may not be used on the Sabbath may not be used for the Hanukkah lights either, neither on the Sabbath of Hanukkah nor on the weekdays of Hanukkah.
Rava explains the reasoning behind Rav Huna’s ruling. Rav Huna holds two principles. First, if a Hanukkah light goes out before the required time, one is obligated to relight it. Therefore, one must use wicks and oils that burn properly. If inferior materials are used, the light may go out, and a person might be lazy and fail to relight it. To avoid placing a person in that situation, only suitable wicks and oils may be used.
Second, Rav Huna holds that one may benefit from the light of the Hanukkah lamp. Since a person may use its light to read or perform other work, there is no difference in this respect between the Sabbath lights, whose purpose is to provide illumination, and the Hanukkah lights. If one uses inferior wicks and oils on the Sabbath of Hanukkah, the flame may flicker, and the person may come to tilt the lamp. This is why Rav Huna prohibits the inferior materials both on the Sabbath and during the week.
To review: Rav Huna’s first principle is that if the light goes out, one is obligated to relight it. Since a person might become negligent and fail to relight it, one must use good oil and good wicks, which are unlikely to go out. His second principle is that one may use the light of the Hanukkah lamp. Because one may benefit from its light, there is a concern that a flickering flame will lead a person to adjust the oil.
Rashi explains that because one is obligated to correct the lamp if it goes out, one should initially make the lighting proper, lest the person neglect to correct it. Rashi also explains that the principle permitting use of the light applies to Hanukkah on the Sabbath, when the lamp is used for ordinary illumination. For that reason, there is a concern that one will adjust the lamp.
A strong question is raised: Where do we see that Rav Huna holds that one may benefit from the Hanukkah light? Perhaps Rav Huna holds that it is forbidden to use its light. According to that possibility, the reason one may not use inferior materials on the Sabbath is only that if the light goes out, one is obligated to relight it, and one might not do so. Perhaps that is Rav Huna’s only reason.
The Gemara answers from the way Rav Huna formulated his ruling. He separated the Sabbath from the weekdays, indicating that there are two different reasons. Had there been only one reason, he could have stated simply that one may not use these materials for Hanukkah. The fact that he distinguished between the Sabbath and the weekdays suggests that he holds that one may benefit from the light, and that the obligation to relight applies as well.
Rav Hisda disagrees with Rav Huna. He says that one may use these inferior wicks and oils during the weekdays of Hanukkah, but not on the Sabbath of Hanukkah. Rav Hisda holds that if the light goes out, one is not obligated to relight it. Therefore, during the week, there is no concern that the light will go out and that a person will fail to relight it, because he is not required to relight it in the first place.
Rav Hisda does, however, hold that one may benefit from the Hanukkah light. Therefore, on the Sabbath of Hanukkah, one may not use inferior materials. Since the flame flickers and does not catch properly, a person might come to adjust it. According to Rav Hisda, this is the reason inferior wicks and oils are prohibited on the Sabbath, while they are permitted during the week.
According to Rav, who permits these materials, the reasoning is clear. During the week, there is no problem using inferior wicks, because even if the light goes out, one is not obligated to relight it. In addition, Rav holds that it is forbidden to benefit from the Hanukkah light. Since one may not use its light, there is no concern that one will adjust the lamp. Thus, there is no problem using inferior wicks and oils.
Rashi explains that the prohibition against using the light is intended to make it recognizable that the lamp was lit for the mitzvah of Hanukkah.
Rabbi Yirmiyah explained this ruling, and his interpretation was quoted in his name. The people did not accept the interpretation when it was presented in the name of Rabbi Yirmiyah. Later, when Ravin came and quoted the same interpretation in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, Abaye accepted it.
Abaye said, “If I had merited it, I would have accepted it when you first told it to me in the name of Rabbi Yirmiyah.” Rashi explains that he meant that he would have reviewed the ruling at that time. The Gemara says that what a person learns in his youth remains with him much more effectively than what he learns when he is older. Abaye therefore regretted that he had not accepted and reviewed the ruling when he first heard it, because he had lost the advantage of learning in his youth.
The Gemara returns to the principle that if the Hanukkah light goes out, one must relight it. Do we hold this way? We have a contradiction. We learned that the mitzvah of the Hanukkah light lasts from sunset until the feet of the people have disappeared from the marketplace. Why does the teaching give us this time period? Perhaps it is teaching that if the light goes out during that period, one must relight it.
The Gemara gives two answers. Perhaps the time period teaches only that if one did not light at the beginning of the mitzvah period, one may still light until the people have left the marketplace. Once that period has passed, one may no longer light. The teaching is saying that if one did not light earlier, one may still light during that period; it is not necessarily teaching that one must relight a lamp that went out.
Alternatively, the time period tells us how much oil must initially be placed in the lamp. There must be enough oil for the lamp to burn from sunset until the feet of the people have disappeared from the marketplace. Once the correct amount of oil has been placed in the lamp, if it goes out, one is not necessarily required to relight it.
What is the meaning of the phrase “until the feet have disappeared from the marketplace”? It refers to the feet of the wood sellers. These were people whose livelihood was selling wood for fuel. They remained in the marketplace later than anyone else, because people would return from work and purchase wood for their homes. When someone arrived home and realized that he needed more wood, he would go back to the marketplace and buy it. The wood sellers were therefore the last people to remain there.
The Sages taught: The mitzvah of Hanukkah is that each night one should light one lamp in every household. Those who perform the mitzvah in a more beautiful manner light one lamp for each member of the household. If there are ten people in the house, each person lights one lamp on the first night, two on the second night, and so on.
Bet Shammai says that on the first night one lights eight lights, and from then on the number decreases: eight, seven, six, and so forth. Bet Hillel says that on the first night one lights one light, and from then on the number increases until eight lights are lit on the eighth night.
There is a dispute between two Amoraim, Rav Yosef bar Avin and Rav Yosef bar Zebida, regarding the reasoning of Bet Shammai. According to one explanation, Bet Shammai looks at the number of days of Hanukkah that remain. On the first night, eight days remain; on the second night, seven remain; and so forth. Bet Hillel looks at the number of days that have already passed. On the first night, one day has passed; on the second night, two days have passed. Although the first day has not yet completely passed, it is nevertheless counted as one day.
According to another explanation, Bet Shammai found a precedent in the Torah. During Sukkot, a total of seventy bulls were offered. Thirteen were offered on the first day, twelve on the second, and so forth, until seven were offered on the seventh day. The number therefore decreases each day. The seventy bulls correspond to the seventy nations. Bet Shammai says that Hanukkah should likewise begin with eight lights and decrease each night.
Bet Hillel says that there is a principle in the Torah: One ascends in holiness and does not descend. Therefore, the number of lights should increase each night. Bet Shammai agrees that normally one ascends in holiness, but says that when there is an overriding reason, the principle need not determine the practice. The offerings of Sukkot provide such a precedent, and the same reasoning applies to the Hanukkah lights.
Bet Shammai’s reasoning is also explained as a way of publicizing the miracle. The Sages tell us that the Hasmoneans found only one sealed container of oil, containing enough oil to burn for one day, but it miraculously lasted for eight days. According to the explanation that the oil was divided into eight portions, on the first night there were eight portions, on the second night seven portions remained, and so forth. Bet Shammai therefore says that the number of lights should decrease, corresponding to the diminishing amount of oil remaining.
Rabbah bar bar Hannah said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that there were two elders in Sidon. One followed Bet Shammai, lighting according to the decreasing number, and one followed Bet Hillel, lighting according to the increasing number. The Gemara then records the reasoning each one gave: one based his practice on the offerings of Sukkot, while the other based his practice on the principle that one ascends in holiness and does not descend.
What is the purpose of telling us this story? There is an important point here. Normally, when there is a dispute between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel, the law follows Bet Hillel. That applies when the dispute concerns the basic law. Here, however, everyone agrees that the basic requirement is one light per household. The dispute concerns only the enhanced manner of performing the mitzvah. The story teaches that when one is performing the mitzvah in an enhanced manner, one may follow the opinion of Bet Shammai.
The proof is that one of the elders in Sidon continued to follow Bet Shammai, apparently even after the general ruling had been established according to Bet Hillel. Why was he permitted to do so? Because the dispute concerned enhancement of the mitzvah, not the basic law.
The Bi’ur Halachah, written by the Hafetz Hayim, brings this reasoning in the discussion of Hanukkah and presents it as his own suggestion. He says that he was hesitant to write such a novel idea because he had not seen it elsewhere. In his time, the Ritva had not yet been printed. Today, however, that work is available, and we see that the Ritva arrived at the same reasoning as the earlier authorities.
There is another famous dispute between Tosafot and the Rambam regarding the enhanced manner of performing the mitzvah. When Bet Hillel says that those who perform the mitzvah in an enhanced manner light one lamp on the first night, two on the second, and so forth, does this mean one set of lights for the entire household? According to this interpretation, the household lights one lamp on the first night, two on the second, and eight on the eighth night, regardless of how many people live in the house.
Or does the enhanced practice mean one lamp for each individual in the household? According to that interpretation, if there are ten people in the house, everyone lights one lamp on the first night, everyone lights two on the second night, and on the final night there are eighty lights in the house.
The Rambam understands the Gemara according to the second interpretation: each person lights his own set of candles. Tosafot understands it as referring to one set of candles for the entire household. It is interesting that our practice follows Tosafot, with one set of lights per household, while Ashkenazic practice follows the Rambam, with each person in the household lighting his own set. The later authorities point out that this is an unusual situation: the Sephardic practice follows Tosafot, while the Ashkenazic practice follows the Rambam. One does not see that arrangement very often.
The Gemara continues: It is a mitzvah to place the Hanukkah lamp outside. Rashi explains that the homes of that time opened onto a courtyard, so one placed the lamp at the entrance of the house, facing the courtyard. If a person lived on an upper floor, he did not have an entrance opening directly onto the courtyard. In that case, he placed the lamp inside, near the window facing the public domain.
When there was danger and the Jews were unable to light publicly, they placed the lamp on the table inside the house, and that was sufficient. The Gemara says that when one places the lamp on the table, one must place another light next to it. Since one might use the light of the Hanukkah lamp for ordinary purposes, the additional light demonstrates that the Hanukkah lamp was lit for the mitzvah, while the other light is the one being used for illumination.
If there is a fire in the room, another light is not necessary. Similarly, if a person is an important or distinguished individual, he does not need another light, because he would not ordinarily use the Hanukkah lamp for his personal needs. Rashi explains that the additional light is needed to create recognition that the Hanukkah lamp was lit for the mitzvah.
The reason for the additional light is therefore not necessarily that one might use the Hanukkah lamp, but to make the purpose of the lamp recognizable. When the lamp is outside, its purpose is apparent. When it is near the window, its purpose is apparent. But when it is on the kitchen table, how do we know that it was lit for the mitzvah rather than simply for illumination? The additional light demonstrates that the Hanukkah lamp is for the mitzvah.
According to this reasoning, the extra light might not be necessary today when we use a special menorah or candelabrum, because everyone knows that it is being used for the mitzvah. Even if it is placed on the table, no one would think that it was lit merely for illumination. Thus, there is room to suggest that the additional light is not required today. Nevertheless, we know that the accepted practice is to use one, perhaps because there are other reasons for concern that a person might use the Hanukkah light. In any event, according to Rashi, the primary reason for the additional light is recognition.
The Gemara asks: What is Hanukkah? We have a teaching that says that throughout all the days on which miracles occurred for the Jewish people, fasting and eulogies are prohibited. On the twenty-fifth day of Kislev, the days of Hanukkah begin. Hanukkah lasts for eight days, during which eulogies and fasting are prohibited.
When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary, they defiled all the oil that was in the Temple. The Hasmoneans rose up, defeated them, and entered the Sanctuary. They found only one container of oil that was sealed with the seal of the High Priest. They knew that it was pure, but there was only enough oil to burn for one day. A miracle occurred, and it burned for eight days. The following year, the Sages established these eight days as holidays, with praise and thanksgiving.
There were several miracles: the miracle of the oil and the miracle of the war, in which the Hasmoneans defeated the Greeks. Which miracle is the holiday primarily commemorating? The wording emphasizes that they found a sealed container of oil in a hidden place. The seal demonstrated that the Greeks had not touched it, because if they had touched it, they would have defiled the oil. The fact that the seal remained intact showed that the oil had not been tampered with. The purpose of the holiday, therefore, is especially connected with the recitation of praise and thanksgiving for the miracle of the oil.
The well-known question of the Beit Yosef is that Hanukkah should seemingly have been established for only seven days. There was enough oil to burn on the first day, and the miracle occurred only during the following seven days. Why, then, do we celebrate eight days?
The Beit Yosef gives three famous answers. First, the Hasmoneans knew that they would not be able to obtain pure oil for eight days. They therefore divided the pure oil into eight portions and placed one-eighth in the Menorah each night. A miracle occurred even on the first night, because one-eighth of the oil burned for the entire night.
The second answer is that they poured all the oil into the Menorah on the first night, and the miracle was that the container remained full. There is a source brought to support the view that the miracle occurred in the container itself. The wording of the Gemara says that they found a container of oil and that a miracle occurred, suggesting that the miracle took place in the container.
The third answer is that on the first night they poured all the oil into the Menorah, and the next morning they found that all the oil they had lit was still there. Thus, there was a miracle even on the first night, because the oil did not diminish.
It is also explained that the first night commemorates the miracle of the victory in the war. According to this explanation, the twenty-fifth of Kislev was already established as Hanukkah because the Jews had rested from their enemies. The first night commemorates the military victory, while the subsequent nights commemorate the miracle of the oil. There are, of course, many other answers. There is a book called Ner David Me’ah that offers one hundred answers to this question.
Blessed is the Lord forever. Amen and amen.