פירוש על ברכות 105:19

AND IF YOU SAY THAT THIS PROHIBITED [FLAME] HAS GONE. The Gemara is searching for the reason that when a Jew lights a candle from a gentile’s candle it is permissible to recite the b’rochoh on that light, but when a gentile lights a candle from another gentile it is prohibited. The Gemara is presently suggesting that when a gentile lights a fire on Shabos and the Jew lights a candle from that fire after Shabos the original flame is no longer here and that is why the Jew may now recite a b’rochoh on the new light that was kindled. The Gemara eventually rejects this line of thinking.
Tosfos wonders why the Gemara even thought that this might be a viable solution to the question. The Gemara could have asked on this hypothesis that if so, that the original flame is no longer here, then when a gentile lights a candle from a gentile after Shabos the same should be true, that the old forbidden flame is no longer here and the new flame should be permitted for the recital of a b’rochoh, but the Gemara chose to ask a stronger question from the Braiso that says one is liable for carrying a flame on Shabos, which shows that the old flame is still in existence, otherwise one could not be liable for picking up the old flame and putting down a new flame. Because the Gemara could have answered the question that if it is a new flame, it should be permitted to recite a b’rochoh upon it even when a gentile lights from a gentile as it soon answers that although it is technically correct that the same should apply to a gentile lighting from a gentile, there is a Rabbinic decree that one might confuse a leniency allowing him to use the light of a second gentile and come to use the light of the first gentile. Since the Gemara, even in its question was aware of this possible answer; it chose to ask a question that could not easily be refuted.

[THE SAGES ISSUED A] DECREE BECAUSE OF THE FIRST GENTILE, AND THE FIRST GENTILE BECAUSE OF THE FIRST PILLAR [OF FLAME]. There is a general principle that when our Sages legislate decrees that are designed to protect us from violating a prohibition, they do not enact a second decree to protect us from violating the first decree. It seems that in the instance we are discussing here, we have this situation. The initial fear is that one might recite the b’rochoh on the first pillar of light that comes from the gentile’s fire. We therefore say that you cannot recite a b’rochoh on a gentile’s fire at all. That is one decree. We are now extending that to include a second gentile. This seems to be a decree to safeguard us from violating a previous decree.
This is one decree, which our sages decreed, that any fire that is in the hand of a gentile cannot be used for the b’rochoh, even though it is somewhat of an expansion of the original fear that one may recite a b’rochoh on the very first pillar of light, the sages sometimes do expand the initial decree to include a second level because if not for this second level of the decree that includes any fire in the hand of a gentile this first level of the decree, would not remain in practice. Our Sages understood that when the decree would be passed on to the regular populace, they would not understand that there is an essential difference between a first gentile and a second gentile. If the fire of a second gentile is permitted for the recital of a b’rochoh, they would not understand why the fire of the first gentile is forbidden. They therefore legislated that any fire of a gentile may not be used for the recital of the b’rochoh. All facets of this decree, the first and second gentile’s falls into the context of one decree. Any further legislation to protect one from violating this first expanded decree, for example prohibiting a fire lit by a Jew from a gentile’s fire, would be a decree for a decree, which our Sages did not do.
However, upon a fire that a gentile kindled from a Jew’s fire and upon a fire that Jew kindled from a gentile’s fire we may recite a b’rochoh, and that is how we rule. Extending the decree beyond a gentile’s fire to include a fire that a Jew lit from a gentile’s fire or vice versa would be a decree to protect us from violating a decree, which our Sages did not do.

WHERE THERE IS AN IMPORTANT PERSON. Sometimes the light in a synagogue is usable for a b’rochoh and sometimes it is not. The Gemara says that the difference is whether there is an important person in the synagogue or not. We can gather from the context in which this is presented that the flame we are discussing was not really needed for light. Sometimes it was lit for additional light and sometimes in honor of a person. If so, that there was an important person in the synagogue then the light was kindled in honor of the important person and not for light, and we may not recite a b’rochoh on that light since its purpose is to honor an important person and not for light. This is Rashi’s explanation. And Rabainu Chananel said the reverse. When there is an important person it was kindled for light and can be used for the b’rochoh and when there is no important person it was lit for the honor of the synagogue and cannot be used for a b’rochoh.

ONE MAY NOT RECITE A BLESSING OVER IT. When one uses perfumed oil in middle of the meal, he does not recite a b’rochoh for benefiting from the fragrance of the wood. But he is benefiting from the oil! Rashi says that he does however recite the b’rochoh that Hashem created sweet oil. And that which we said earlier in perek Kaitzad M’vorchim (43a): this pressed oil, we recite upon it “He who created fragrant wood”, that is when he intends to smell the fragrance and it is not speaking of when one uses it during the meal to cleanse one’s hands.

E.g. attending to a sick person.

M. omits : b. Isaac.

Provided it was lit before the advent of the Sabbath ; but if kindled on the Sabbath, one may not use it for the benediction.

I.e. the flame is not to be considered as continuous and the same, but as consisting of a succession of flashes, each distinct. Consequently it may be thought that the prohibited light ceases with the termination of the Sabbath, and the flame then becomes permissible for the purpose of the benediction.

The circumstance referred to here is : A man puts oil in a vessel and places it in the public way, and by means of a torch which he holds while in the private domain, sets light to it.

The flame of the burning oil is distinct from the torch which ignited it; and the law only considers an infraction of the Sabbath the carrying of the same thing from the private to the public way or vice versa. Since then, in that circumstance, the man is deemed guilty of an infraction of the law, the ignited oil must be considered identical with the torch.

Viz. the original torch of the gentile which may have been used for work on the Sabbath.

The light kindled by the Israelite.

Who may have kindled his light on the Sabbath, which is forbidden.

Which may have been ignited on the Sabbath. If, however, the light of the gentile had not been kindled on the Sabbath, it would be allowed.

This clause is only inserted for completeness and is not to be pressed for any deductions.

M. : Rab said.

I.e. very soon after sunset.

Because a Jew would not be found holding a torch then, since it is a forbidden act on the Sabbath.

It is then worthy of being considered an illumination.

When it is in full blaze and gives forth illumination.

In whose honour the light had been kindled; and since it is not an ordinary illumination it cannot be used for the benediction.

Who may be having his meal there, and consequently the light is for illumination and the benediction may be said.

By whose light the beadle could have his meal ; therefore the illumination is in honour of a distinguished visitor and cannot be used for the benediction.

I.e. the religious devotion of a Congregation is better than that of an individual.

All those studying would have to stop to listen, perhaps in the middle of a difficult passage; whereas each could say the benediction when most convenient for him.

An exclamation meaning "healing," when somebody sneezed. J. T. Chap, vi, has the Greek word ἴησις in place of the Hebrew marpe'. See J. E. II. p. 255. In Tosifta Shab. viii. 5, it is denounced as a superstitious custom. On the Eastern etiquette in the event of one sneezing, see Lane, p. 210.

And not as illumination.

And not for smelling.

M.: Rab said.

I.e. at the burial of an eminent person to pay him honour. This was the Roman custom; cf. D. C. A. p. 103.

If the funeral takes place at the conclusion of the Sabbath.

Because it is used as illumination.

Because it is used as a disinfectant and not for smelling.

On the hands after a meal, the oil being mixed with spices. In the case of the oil, it means that the benediction is not "Who createst fragrant wood" but "Who createst fragrant oil"; see fol. 43 a, p. 280.

I.e. the perfume is not there for one to smell but to be sold.

In 'Erubin 64 b, the Rabbis deplore that the Jewish women are addicted to sorcery. Hillel declared : "The more women, the more witchcraft"; Abot ii. 8 ; Singer, p. 188. Roman writers also refer to this fact ; cf. Radin, Jews among the Greeks atid Romans, p. 325. For the Talmudic references, see Blau, Das altjudische Zauberwesen, pp. 28 ff.

See p. 46 n. 6.

Sepphoris is identified by the Talmud (Megillah 6a) with Kitron (Judges i. 30); but it is improbable. Josephnu (Vita, § 67) places it in Galilee. It is now identified with the village of Sefuriyeh, five miles N.W. of Nazareth.