פירוש על שבת 44:9

Second tithe: Dinar-coins through which he redeemed second tithe may not be weighed against mundane dinar-coins (as a counter-weight) to see that they are undiminished (that their weight is a complete measure).

Granted, if you say [that] when Rav and Shmuel disagree, it is from lamp to lamp in actuality and not with a wood chip, and it is about this that Shmuel permits, since he is not concerned that he weakens it; but with a wood chip, he concedes. Then this is no refutation. For the body of these dinar-coins of the mundane are not [of] a commandment. And even though they are needed for a commandment, they are similar to the wood chip. However if you say Shmuel also permits [it] with a wood chip - since it is [for] the need of a commandment - then it is a refutation. For [the Tosefta] forbade to weigh [the coins], even though it was for the need of a commandment.

His weights not be precisely equal: Lest he not find them to be good; or he find them to [weigh] more, and spare them and not redeem the tithe upon them. So it comes out that he showed contempt towards the tithe without a need.

And render them unsanctified: Meaning to say, he will leave them unsanctified, as they are.

The western lamp: According to the one in Menachot who says the branches were laying east and west, the second lamp from the outside which is on the eastern side (which is west of the lamp next to it) is called western. And according to the one who says that they were laying north and south, the middle one is called western, since its opening is towards the west, and all the other lamps are towards the middle [lamp], as it is written (Numbers 8:2), "towards the face of the candelabrum" - which is the middle - "they shall give light, etc." The ones of the north were facing to the south, and the ones of the south were to the north. Lamps are loces of gold, in which we place oil and wicks.

And does He require its light? Didn’t all those forty years: It is a wonder: Why did it mention forty years? The whole world always walks by the light of the Omnipresent! And some explain it as, "Did Aharon need its light when he went inside?" [Accordingly,] didn't the pillar of cloud give light to them in all the places those forty years? It is as we say in the Baraita of the Work of the Tabernacle, "He would look inside a pitcher and know what is inside it; in a barrel and know what is inside it." And it so implied in Torat Kohanim - that it is referring to the priests. As there, it teaches the version, "And did they need the lamp? And didn't all of those forty years they not require the lamp? As it is stated (Exodus 40:38), 'For the cloud of the Lord was over the tabernacle.'" However at the end of [the chapter entitled] Kol Korbanot (Menachot 26b), it is implied that it is referring to the Divine Presence. As it cites it regarding that which Rabbi Elazar said, "I do not require [it] for eating and I do not require it for its light." And there it also said, "'To the curtain of the testimony' (Leviticus 24:3) - it is testimony to all who come to the world that the Divine Presence rests among Israel. But perhaps you will say (ask), 'Do I require its light,' Didn't all those forty years [etc.]?"

Like the measure of the others: Half a log. They measured it [to be sufficient] for the long nights of the Tevet season. And if it is [still] lit during the day (and the night) during the short nights, let it be lit. But not less, that it not become extinguished in Tevet at night - for the Torah stated (Exodus 27:21), "from evening to morning."

And with it he would conclude: [Rashi] explained, "and with it he would conclude" the ordering (cleaning). For he would order the rest in the morning, but he would order this one in the afternoon. And he would hold the old one in his hand or place it in a vessel until he would place the oil and wick and light, and [then] light the others from it. But this is difficult to Riva: For if it is possible to light from the old light - if so - let him also light the other ones from it; so what is the question on Rav? Once he has removed the old wick from the lamp, there is no longer [an issue] of contempt of the commandment, nor [an issue of] weakening the commandment. But rather it is certainly impossible to do this. So when he came to order [the lamps], he would order everything in the lamp and the wick would become extinguished on its own. However while the old wick of the western lamp was still lit, he would light the others from it. And he would [then] order it, put oil and a new wick into it and light it from the others. So "with it he would conclude," [refers to] the lighting.

And he would light from it the lamps in the afternoon.

But isn’t it true that here, since the lamps were fixed, etc.: Like the one, in the chapter [entitled] Shtei Middot (Menachot 88b), who said that the lamp was flexible, as it is implied there that it was connected but it was flexible, in order that he could order it properly. But there is [also] one that said there that it was not fixed, but that he would rather remove it completely at the time of the ordering and place it [back] afterwards.

And with it he would conclude: This is the ordering (cleaning) of the lamps. As it lit the whole day and he does not order it until the evening. And this teaching is taught in Torat Kohanim. And it holds that they were laying east to west. And so was it taught before it (Sifra, Emor, Section 13:7), "'To raise a light always' - so that the western light [burn] continuously, as he would begin with it and end with it." And since it is not written, "to raise lights" - we understand from this that one lamp is fixed, to begin with it every day. And that is the western lamp - the second one from the east. And thus do we learn (Tamid 33a), "He entered. [If] he found the two eastern lamps burning, he would remove the ash from the easternmost lamp. But he would leave the western lamp burning, as from that lamp he would kindle the candelabrum in the afternoon. If he found that it was extinguished" - such as when Shimon the Just died - "he would kindle it from the altar of the burnt offering." And it appears in my eyes that the Rabbis said that its being fixed was the second lamp, was because we do not pass over commandments. But when he came to the [Temple] chamber, he first encountered the first [lamp], yet he could not begin with it, since it is written, "shall arrange it [...] before the Lord." [Still] there needs to be one external to it. For, if not, we do not call it, "before the Lord." And thus do we say in Menachot (98b), "It is written about the western lamp, 'before the Lord.' This implies all [the others] are not before the Lord, etc." And he would finish the ordering with it. For he would order the rest in the morning, but he would order this one in the afternoon. And he would hold the old one in his hand or place it in a vessel until he would place the oil and wick and light, and [then] light the others from it. And that which we say in Seder Yoma (33b) - "The arranging [of the candelabrum] is five lamps before the two lamps," implies that he would arrange all of them in the morning; and it learns this from verses - that is when no miracle existed, and he would find that it had been extinguished. For the verse does not rely on a miracle. But all the time that Israel was beloved, it would burn the whole day. And that is its testimony.

But isn’t it that here, since the lamps were fixed in the candelabrum, and he was not able to remove the western lamp to light the others from it - perforce that which is taught, "he would light from it," cannot be that he did not use a wood chip.

And lit the wood chip from the western lamp. And he would light the rest from that wood chip.

It was with long wicks: All of the wicks went out from their lamps until they reached one another. So he would light the one next to it from it; and the others, one from another.

Ultimately, according to the one who said, etc.: As behold, according to him, from lamp to lamp is forbidden.

If kindling accomplishes the commandment: If the commandment of Channukah is dependent on the lighting, we may kindle [from one to the other], as we find with the [Temple] candelabrum.

What is about it: It is a wonder: What is its question; and what is that which [Rav Huna, the son of Rabbi Yehoshua] also said, "We see if kindling, etc." Behold, it is at first glance implied that the law is like Shmuel (such that there is no question to be resolved)! For behold, Rabbah acted according to him. And if so, a wood chip is also permissible. For note that it is perforce about a wood chip that they argue, and about contempt for the commandment. As behold, the one that explained the reason of Rav being on account of weakening the commandment was refuted. So we must say that it did not hold the words of Rabbah to be essential. [Hence] he asked if placing accomplishes the commandment, so it is forbidden for Rav from lamp to lamp on account of contempt for the commandment, as it is with a wood chip; or does kindling accomplish the commandment, and it is permissible, like with the [Temple] candelabrum - for we are not concerned about weakening the commandment. And it concludes that kindling accomplishes the commandment, so it is permissible. Or also (another explanation): I found in the name of Rivam that it is asking according to Shmuel - as the law is like him - whether it is permissible with a wood chip or not. So he asks if we hold like it said above, that according to the one that said it is on account of contempt for the commandment, it is permissible to light from lamp to lamp according to Rav. And if so, they are arguing about a wood chip, and Shmuel permits with a wood chip. Or perhaps we do not hold like this and there is contempt of the commandment also from lamp to lamp, and Rav forbids [it] - since the placing accomplishes the commandment, such that it is not similar to the [Temple] candelabrum, and it is only from lamp to lamp that Shmuel permits. But with a wood chip, even Shmuel concedes that it is forbidden. It concludes - we see that we ask [this], and resolve that kindling accomplishes the commandment. So for Rav, one may kindle from lamp to lamp, like the candelabrum; and for Shmuel, it is permissible even with a wood chip.

But if placing the lamp accomplishes the commandment: So the main commandment is dependent upon the placement.

We may not light from lamp to lamp: Since kindling is not so much the commandment.

We teach the version, "As a dilemma was raised before them": Meaning to say that this matter was already raised; and the resolution of that dilemma was resolved for us like this.

As a dilemma was raised before them, does kindling accomplish the commandment, etc.: And what comes out from it (the practical difference) is if a deaf-mute, a mentally compromised person or a minor lit or placed [the lamps].

One who was holding a Hanukkah lamp in his hand, from when he lit it to when it became extinguished.

And standing: Not necessarily, but this is the [Talmud]'s expression.

For his need: To use. So there is no recognition [that it is to commemorate] the miracle.

Inside: In the house.

And takes it out: As it said earlier, that he needs to place it at the entrance to his house on the outside.

Granted, if you say that lighting accomplishes the commandment - that is why he did nothing: For since that is its commandment, it needs to be done in a place where he is obligated.