(a)Why are the wicks listed in our Mishnah, forbidden?
(b)Does the prohibition extend to other types of fires - for heating etc.?
(c)May one make a bonfire with them in order to see by?
(a)The wicks listed in our Mishnah are forbidden because the flame does not remain static on such wicks, but jumps; alternatively, the flame does not enter the wick, but only encircles it, creating the likelihood that one will turn the wick higher.
(b)The prohibition of using these wicks is confined to the Shabbos-lights, and does not include any other kind of fires - such as one whose function is to heat.
(c)One may even light a bonfire with them to to see by, since there is no wick to be turned higher.
(a)'Shemen Kik' is one of the oils that is not eligible for use in Shabbos lights. Besides the oil of the 'Kik'-bird or the oil of the 'Kikayon'-tree (mentioned in Sefer Yonah), what else might 'Shemen Kik' mean?
(b)Where did the Kikayon de'Yonah' grow, where would one find it and what other advantages did it have?
(c)Why are the oils listed in our Mishnah, forbidden?
(a)'Shemen Kik' is one of the oils that is not eligible for use in Shabbos lights. Besides the oil of the 'Kik'-bird or the oil of the 'Kikayon'-tree (mentioned in Sefer Yonah) - it can also mean cotton-seed oil.
(b)The 'Kikayon of Yonah' grew - in pools of water, and one would find it in front of shops, where they would grow it for its shade and for its fragrant smell.
(c)The oils listed in our Mishnah are forbidden because they do not draw up the wick, and one is therefore likely to turn up the wick.
(a)What does Rabah say about using the forbidden oils to which one has added a little Kasher oil?
(b)Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits one to wrap the wick around a nut and to kindle it as Shabbos lights. The Tana Kama forbids it. On what grounds do we ask on Rabbah from Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, when he has support from the Tana Kama?
(c)We answer the Kashya on Rabah that the nut is not there to be lit, but to support the wick. How then, do we explain the Tana Kama, who prohibits it?
(d)How does Rabbah explain Rav, who permits adding a little oil to melted fat or to the melted innards of fish, to use for the Shabbos-lights? Why does Rav not also decree on the melted Shmaltz and on the melted innards of fish, because of those that are not melted?
(a)Rabah forbids using forbidden oils - even after adding a little Kasher oil to them, because they decreed the one because of the other (or because the oil will still not be drawn up the wick properly, and one will inevitably turn the wick higher - Rosh, Si'man 2).
(b)The Gemara asks on Rabbah from Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (whose family was accustomed to wrap a wick around a nut and to use it for Shabbos-lights), in spite of the Tana Kama, who permits it, because of the principle 'Ma'aseh Rav', which teaches us that we generally rule like the opinion which applied their ruling practically.
(c)We answer the Kashya on Rabah that the nut is not there to be lit, but to support the wick. There is, in fact, no Tana Kama. Nobody argues with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and the entire Beraisa goes like him; the Reisha, which forbids the wick wrapped around the nut, speaks when his intention was to use the nut as part of the wick, and the Seifa, when he only added it to thicken the wick (as we explained).
(d)Rabah explains that Rav permits adding a little oil to melted fat or to the melted innards of fish - because melted Chelev itself really draws after the wick, and it is only forbidden because we decree melted Chelev because of Chelev that is not melted. Consequently, he says, to forbid it (through a decree because of when it has not), would constitute a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah.
(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Sh'mos "Leha'alos Ner Tamid"?
(b)What is then the problem from the Mishnah in Succah, which permits wicks made from the worn-out belts of the Kohanim to be used for the Simchas Beis Hasho'eivah?
(c)How do we resolve this Kashya?
(d)Then what does the Beraisa mean, when it permits the worn-out Bigdei- Kehunah to be used as wicks even for the Menorah?
(a)We learn from "Leha'alos Ner Tamid" - that when the Kohen lights the Menorah, it should burn automatically, without any need of further attention. Consequently, the wicks and the oils that Chazal forbade to use for the Shabbos lights (because one may come to turn them higher), are also forbidden to use for the Menorah in the Beis Hamikdash (which should burn without needing to be turned higher).
(b)The problem from the Mishnah in Succah, which permits wicks made from the worn-out belts of the Kohanim to be used for the Simchas Beis Hasho'eivah is - that the belts of the Kohanim contained wool, which is Pasul to be used as a wick for the Shabbos-light, yet it is kasher to be used for the Simchas Beis Hasho'eivah. So we see that wicks which are Pasul for Shabbos lights, are nevertheless Kasher for the Beis Hamikdash.
(c)We resolve this Kashya by differentiating between the Menorah in the Beis Hamokdash and the 'Simchas Beis Hasho'eivah', which was not d'Oraysa, and was not included in "Leha'alos Ner Tamid".
(d)When the Beraisa permits worn-out Bigdei Kehunah to be used even for the Menorah, it refers to the clothes that were made exclusively of linen - like the pants, but not those that contained wool.
(a)Rav Huna forbids all the wicks and oils that are prohibited on Shabbos, to be used for the Chanukah-lights, both on weekdays and on Shabbos. Why does he forbid them during the week?
(b)And why does he forbid them on Shabbos?
(c)Rav Chisda agrees with Rav Huna on Shabbos, but permits their use during the week. In which basic point does he argue with Rav Huna?
(a)Rav Huna forbids all the wicks and oils that are prohibited on Shabbos, to be used for the Chanukah-lights, both on weekdays and on Shabbos. The reason that he forbids them tobe used on weekdays of Chanukah, is - because he holds 'Kavsah Zakuk Lah' (because the Mitzvah is not completed until the light has burnt for half an hour), and we suspect that, if one uses inferior wicks and oils, the light will probably go out, and he might not take the trouble of re-kindling it.
(b)He forbids them on Shabbos - because he holds that one may derive benefit from the light of the Menorah. Consequently, since the light does not burn properly, we are concerned that he will turn the wick higher.
(c)Rav Chisda agrees with Rav Huna on Shabbos, but permits their use during the week - since, in his opinion, 'Kavsah, Ein Zakuk Lah' (because as soon as he has lit, he has performed the Mitzvah).
(a)Rav Masna or Rav has a third opinion regarding the use of the Pasul wicks and oils on Chanukah during the week and on Shabbos-Chanukah. What is it?
(b)Abaye was upset with himself for not accepting Rebbi Yirmiyah's interpretation of Rav, though he did accept exactly the same explanation from Ravin quoting Rebbi Yochanan many years later. Why was he upset? What difference does it make whether one accepts an opinion earlier or later?
(c)Even if we hold 'Kavsa, Ein Zakuk Lah', what other two reasons might there be to explain the Beraisa 'Mitzvasah mi'she'Tishka ha'Chamah Ad she'Tichleh Regel min ha'Shuk'?
(d)The Gemara interprets 'Ad she'Tichleh Regel Min ha'Shuk' to mean 'Rigla de'Tarmudai'. What does this mean?
(a)Rav Masna or Rav holds that one is permitted to use the Pasul oils and wicks both during the week and on Shabbos; because, in his opinion, 'Kavsah, Ein Zakuk Lah' (removing the reason to forbid during the week), and 'Asur Lehishtamesh le'Orah' (removing the reason to forbid it on Shabbos).
(b)Abaye was upset with himself for not accepting Rebbi Yirmiyah's interpretation of Rav, though he did accept exactly the same explanation from Ravin quoting Rebbi Yochanan many years later. This is - because knowledge gained in one's youth is more ingrained than knowledge that one gains only later.
(c)Even if we hold 'Kavsa, Ein Zakuk Lah', when the Tana says 'Mitzvasah mi'she'Tishka ha'Chamah Ad she'Tichleh Regel min ha'Shuk' he could mean - that one is obligated to light the Chanukah lights during that time, no earlier and no later or that when one kindles the Menorah, it must contain sufficient oil, and be placed in such a location, that it is able to burn for that period of time (half an hour) - irrespective if whether it actually does burn or not.
(d)The Gemara interprets 'Ad she'Tichleh Regel Min ha'Shuk' to mean 'Rigla de'Tarmudai' - referring to people from Tarmud, who used to sell wood in the market-place. They would wait each night until everyone had gone home, and had had a chance to check whether they needed wood for their fires. The people would then return and make their purchases. As long as the Tarmudai were there, there were people walking the streets, and 'Pirsumei Nisa' still applied; the moment they left, the streets became deserted and 'Pirsumei Nisa' was no longer applicable.
(a)What is the minimum number of lights that one needs to light per family each night of Chanukah?
(b)What do the Mehadrin do?
(c)And what do the Mehadrin min ha'Mehadrin do, according to Beis Hillel?
(d)What does 'Mehadrin' mean?
(a)The minimum number of lights that one needs to light per family each night of Chanukah - is one.
(b)The Mehadrin light one light per night for each member of the family.
(c)According to Beis Hillel, the Mehadrin min ha'Mehadrin light one light on the first night, two on the second, three on the third and so on (it is not clear whether the Mehadrin min ha'Mehadrin need to light progressively for each member of the family, or whether they light only one set per family - see Tosfos DH 've'ha'Mehadrin, and Rambam).
(d)'Mehadrin' is the title given to people who make the effort to perform the Mitzvos in the best possible (or the most beautiful) manner.
(a)Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue whether the Mehadrin Min ha'Mehadrin start with one and add one light each night, or whether they begin with eight and deduct one each night. There are two ways of explaining this: 1. Beis Shamai goes after the incoming days (eight days to go, seven days to go, six, five etc.); whereas Beis Hillel follows the outgoing days (the first day, the second day, etc.) What is the other way?
(b)According to the Din of the Gemara, where does one kindle the Menorah?
(c)Who kindles the Menorah by the window facing the street?
(d)And when would one light it on one's dining-room table?
(a)Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue whether the Mehadrin Min ha'Mehadrin start with one and add one light each night, or whether they begin with eight and deduct one each night. There are two ways of explaining this: 1. Beis Shamai goes after the incoming days (eight days to go, seven days to go, six, five etc.); whereas Beis Hillel follows the outgoing days (the first day, the second day, etc.). The other way is - that Beis Shamai compares the Chanukah lights to the bulls of Succos (perhaps this means that, seeing as the seventy bulls symbolize the seventy nations, Beis Shamai understands that the Chanukah-lights represent the downfall of the Greeks and all other nations that threaten our spiritual existence - See Rashi Pinchas, 29:18). Beis Hillel on the other hand, apply the principle 'Ma'alin ba'Kodesh, ve'Lo Moridin', since there is no tradition here to override that principle, as there is by the seventy bulls, which, the Torah writes specifically, must be brought regressively from the first day of Succos till the seventh.
(b)According to the Din of the Gemara - one kindles the Menorah outside, by the door leading from the house into the courtyard. (According to Tosfos DH 'Mitzvah', the Gemara means by the doorway leading from the courtyard into the street - see Maharam).
(c)It is only someone who lives in the attic, and who does not have any rights in the courtyard - who lights by his window.
(d)And it is only in the time of danger - that one is Yotze when one lights the Menorah on one's dining-room table.
(a)In the previous case, why would one require another light to be lit?
(b)When will this not be necessary?
(c)Why would the Din change if there was an important dignitary present?
(a)Since it is forbidden to benefit from the Chanukah lights, it is necessary, when lighting inside, to kindle another light, in order to demonstrate that the the Chanukah lights are not for one's personal use (this is the source for the Shamash).
(b)The extra light will not be necessary if a bonfire has been lit - since he can do his personal things by the light of the bonfire, and it is clear to all that he lit the Menorah for the sake of the Mitzvah, and not for his personal use.
(c)A bonfire will not eliminate the need for anoyther light should there be an important dignitary present - because an important dignitary does not usually use the light of a bonfire for his personal matters. Consequently, it will not be clear that the Menorah was lit for the Mitzvah and not for himself, and another light will have to be lit.
(a)What do we mean when we ask 'What is Chanukah'?
(b)What do we answer?
(c)What was special about the jar of oil that they found?
(d)'The following year they fixed these days as a Yom-Tov'. Which two ...
1. ... positive Mitzvos did they institute on Chanukah?
2. ... prohibitions did they initiate?
(a)When we ask 'What is Chanukah?' it means to ask for which miracle did Chazal institute Chanukah - that of the victory or that of the oil?
(b)We answer that it was only after (and because of) the miracle of the oil that they fixed Chanukah.
(c)The Kohen Gadol's seal was intact on the jar of oil which they found. In fact, it is possible that they found more than one jar of oil, but the others were not sealed with the seal of the Kohen Gadol.
(d)'The following year they fixed these days as a Yom-Tov' - with regard to ...
1. ... the recital of Hallel, and thanking Hash-m in the form of 'Al ha'Nisim'.
2. ... and with regard to not eulogising and not fasting.
(a)Ravina maintains that it is a Mitzvah to place one's Menorah lower than ten Tefachim from the ground. How do we attempt to prove this from the Din regarding a passing camel?
(b)On what grounds is this proof refuted?
(c)The maximum height of the Menorah however, is unanimously agreed upon. What is it - and to what other two other areas of Halachah is this Din compared?
(a)Ravina maintains that it is a Mitzvah to place one's Menorah lower than ten Tefachim from the ground. We attempt to prove this from the Din regarding a passing camel, because Rebbi Yehudah exempts one from liability on Chanukah, if the flax that his camel was carrying caught fire on a Menorah and, as a result, somebody's mansion burnt. We initially thought that this must be because of the Mitzvah to place one's Menorah below ten Tefachim (like Ravina). Now if it was permitted to place one's Menorah higher, then why is he not Chayav for being negligence and placing it so low, instead of placing it higher than ten Tefachim (above the height of a camel and its rider)?
(b)It may be, argues the Gemara, that one is permitted to light one's Menorah above ten Tefachim. Nevertheless, the owner of the camel is not liable, because Chazal did not trouble a person to go to such lengths of organising a location in the street above ten Tefachim. Why not? Because this might result in many people not lighting at all.
(c)The maximum height of the Menorah is twenty Amos from the ground. And that is also the maximum height of a Sucah and the cross-beam marking the entrance to a Mavoy (a cul-de-suc) - in connedtion with the Din of Eiruv.