Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Commentary for Shabbat 41:12

אמר רב הונא פתילות ושמנים שאמרו חכמים אין מדליקין בהן בשבת אין מדליקין בהן בחנוכה בין בשבת בין בחול אמר רבא מאי טעמא דרב הונא קסבר כבתה זקוק לה ומותר להשתמש לאורה ורב חסדא אמר מדליקין בהן בחול אבל לא בשבת קסבר כבתה

Rami b. Hama recited: The wicks and oil which the Sages said, One may not light therewith on the Sabbath, one must [also] not light therewith in the Temple, because it is said, to cause a lamp to burn continually.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXVII, 21. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> — He recited and he interpreted it: the flame must ascend of itself, and not through something else.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Le-ha'aloth (E.V. to burn) literally means to cause to go up.-These wicks and oils do not burn of themselves but need frequent attention. V. p. 84, n. 9. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> We learnt: The outworn breeches and girdles of priests were unravelled, and with these they kindled [the lights]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The girdles contained wool, which, as stated on 20b, was added to the forbidden materials enumerated in the Mishnah. The reference is to the Temple, and thus this refutes Rami b. Hama. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> — The rejoicing of the Water-Drawing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the house of drawing'. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> was different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the daily morning service during the Feast of Tabernacles a libation of water, in addition to the usual libation of wine, was poured out on the altar. This was drawn from the Pool of Siloam on the night of the first day, and carried in procession to the Temple amid great rejoicing; cf. Suk. 53a: 'He who has not seen the rejoicing of the Water-Drawing has never seen rejoicing in his life.' The outer court of the Temple was brilliantly illuminated, and for this, not for the ordinary Temple lamp, the unravelled breeches and girdles were used. Rashi observes: because this was not a Biblical precept. Another reason may be that so much was used that it was really a fire, rather than a flame, which is permitted supra. V. J.E. XII, 476 2. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> Come and hear: Worn out priestly garments were unravelled, and of these wicks were made for the Temple. Surely that means [the garments] of composite materials?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of wool and linen. I.e., the girdles; v. n. i. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> — No: [the garments] of linen [are meant].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The breeches. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> R. Huna said: With regard to the wicks and oils which the Sages said, One must not light therewith on the Sabbath, one may not light therewith on Hanukkah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra b. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> either on the Sabbath or on weekdays. Raba observed, What is R. Huna's reason? He holds that if it [the Hanukkah lamp] goes out, one must attend thereto,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., relight it. Therefore it must be made of good oil in the first place, lest it go out and is not relit.-This, of course, can only apply to weekdays. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> and one may make use of its light.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., for reading. Therefore these wicks and oils are forbidden on the Sabbath as the first reason in p. 88, n. 5, which applies here too. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> R. Hisda maintained: One may light therewith on weekdays, but not on the Sabbath. He holds, If it goes out,

Rashi on Shabbat

[If] it becomes extinguished: The Channuakah light.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Tosafot on Shabbat

And it is permissible to use its light: And you may say, "From where did Rava [know] that Rav Huna held that it is permissible to use its light; maybe that which he said, 'We may not light [it] on Shabbat,' is because he held that if it becomes extinguished, he is bound to it, but he may not light it on Shabbat?" But it can be said (answered) that, if so, he would not have needed to say, "both on Shabbat and during the week" - since it is [for] the same reason. Rather, he should have said, "We do not light" - without differentiation. [But] since he said, "both on Shabbat and during the week," we understand from it that there is still another reason for not lighting on Shabbat, besides the reason for the week; and that is lest he tilt it. And if so, he holds that it is permissible to use its light. However Rav, who said, "We may light both on Shabbat and during the week," could not have found to say, "we light," without differentiation. For I would have thought that it was [permissible] specifically during the week, but on Shabbat we may not light [it], lest he tilt [it]. As all things being equal, I would not have said that anyone would be stringent to forbid using its light. And so is the law, that it is forbidden to use the light of the Channukah light, like Rav and Rabbi Yochanan. And Abbaye also accepted this [to be the law]. And it is also implied later that Rav Yosef holds like this. And [if] it becomes extinguished, one is not bound to it - since all of them hold like this; whereas Rav Huna is alone, so the law is not like him.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Rashi on Shabbat

One is bound to it: To fix it. Hence he needs from the outset to make it proper, lest he be negligent and not fix it [if it goes out].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Rashi on Shabbat

And it is permissible to use its light: Hence it is forbidden on Shabbat, lest he tilt [it] (to prevent it from feeding fuel to the fire) for the sake of [another] use.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse