(a)After writing "ve'ha'Bor Reik", why does the Pasuk in Veyeishev need to add "Ein Bo Mayim"?
(b)When one kindles the Menorah by the entrance to the courtyard or the street, how close to the entrance must it be placed?
(c)According to Rav, one places the Menorah on the right-hand side of the doorway - by the Mezuzah. What does Shmuel hold, and what is his reasoning?
(a)After writing "ve'ha'Bor Reik", the Pasuk adds "Ein Bo Mayim" - implying that, although there was no water in the pit, there were snakes and scorpions (Allegorically speaking, this means that a head which is empty of Torah, is bound to contain harmful thoughts and ideologies.)
(b)When one kindles the Menorah by the entrance to the courtyard or the street - it should be placed within one Tefach of the doorway.
(c)According to Rav, one places the Menorah on the right-hand side of the doorway - by the Mezuzah; according to Shmuel - it should be placed on the left-hand side, so that, someone who enters is surrounded by Mitzvos - the Mezuzah on his right, and the Menorah on his left.
(a)What was Shmuel's reaction, when someone quoted Rav Asi's ruling that it is forbidden to count money by the light of a Chanukah-Menorah?
(b)How did Rav Yosef prove Rav Asi's opinion from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "ve'Shafach, ve'Chisah"?
(c)And what does Rav Yosef say about Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who cited this Din as the source for the prohibition of taking down the ornaments hanging in the Succah for one's own use?
(d)May one take down ornaments from the Succah on Shemini Atzeres (in Eretz Yisrael, when one no longer sits in the Succah) for one's personal use?
(a)When someone quoted Rav Asi's ruling that it is forbidden to count money by the light of a Chanukah-Menorah - Shmuel expressed surprize, because, he argued, since when does a Menorah have Kedushah?
(b)Rav Yosef justified Rav Asi's statement - on the grounds that the blood of a Shechted animal doesn't have Kedushah either, yet the Beraisa, commenting on the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Shafach - ve'Chisah", writes that one should cover the blood of a bird or of a wild animal (a deer etc.) with the same hand that one Shechted it, and not with one's foot. Clearly, concludes Rav Yosef, this has nothing to do with the sanctity of the object, but with respect for an object with which a Mitzvah is being performed. Note: According to the Rosh [Si'man 5] it is only casual Hana'ah which needs to be perform close to the Chanukah-lights - such as counting money - which is forbidden, casual benefit which does need close scrutiny, is permitted.
(c)When Rav Yosef heard that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learnt the prohibition of using the Succah decorations from that of the Chanukah-lights, he exclaimed 'Marei de'Avraham, Tali Tanya be'de'Lo Tanya!' - The Succah decorations are already mentioned in a Beraisa, whereas the Chanukah-lights are not!
(d)One may not take down Succah decorations on Shemini Atzeres (even in Eretz Yisrael, and even aside from the possible Isur of untying a knot), since the Beraisa specifically forbids deriving any benefit from them - 'until 'Motza'ei Yom-Tov ha'Acharon shel Chag'! (And the Beraisos were written in Eretz Yisrael, where Yom-Tov ha'Acharon refers to Shemini Atzeres).
(a)Under which conditions is it permitted to take down ornaments for one's own use, on Succos?
(a)It is permitted to take down Succah decorations and use them on Succos - provided one stipulated before Yom-Tov, that he did not withdraw one's personal rights from them throughout the period of dusk (Bein Hashemashos).
(a)Rav holds (by Ner Chanukah) 'Ein Madlikin mi'Ner le'Ner'; 'Ein Matirin (Tzitzis) mi'Beged le'Beged'; and 'Ein Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon bi'Gereirah' (on Shabbos). Shmuel disagrees with him in all three cases. What ...
1. ... did Abaye quote his Rebbe, Rabbah, as saying with regard to these three Halachos?
2. ... is Rebbi Shimon's reason by 'Gereirah'?
(b)Rav forbids lighting one Chanukah-light from another for one of two reasons; one of them is because of 'Bizuy Mitzvah' (despising the Mitzvah). What is the ...
1. ... other one?
2. ... the difference between the two reasons?
(c)Those who give Rav 's reason as being because of Bizuy Mitzvah, must learn that Shmuel permits performing a Mitzvah, even though it involves Bizuy Mitzvah. In that case, how will Shmuel explain the Tosefta in Ma'aser Sheini, which forbids the weighing of Chulin coins against coins of Ma'aser Sheini, even though it is for the purpose of redeeming other Ma'aser Sheini with them?
(a)Rav holds (by Ner Chanukah) 'Ein Madlikin mi'Ner le'Ner'; 'Ein Matirin (Tzitzis) mi'Beged le'Beged'; and 'Ein Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon bi'Gereirah' (on Shabbos). Shmuel disagrees with him in all three cases.
1. Abaye quoted Rabbah as saying - that these three cases were the sole exceptions of Rabah's principle throughout Shas, to follow the opinion of Rav against that of Shmuel (in matters of Isur).
2. Rebbi Shimon permits one to drag a bench along the ground (even though it may just make a groove in the ground), because it may also not make a groove, and, since it is not his interntion to do so, he may go ahead and drag it. (Incidently, the Hagahos Oshri [Si'man 7] points out that Shmuel only permits the removal of Tzitzis from a garment, if it is in order to put on another garment; otherwise, it is forbidden. Rashi too, agrees that the obligation of Tzitzis pertains to the garment, not just to the person.)
(b)Rav forbids lighting one Chanukah-light from another for one of two reasons; one of them is because of 'Bizuy Mitzvah' (despising the Mitzvah).
1. The other one - is because of 'Akchushei Mitzvah' (meaning that one seems to be taking some of the light and the oil - and thereby detracting - from the one lamp, in order to provide the other lamp with fuel).
2. The difference between the two reasons lies in a case when one lights one light directly from the other - and not by means of a twig: the first reason will no longer apply, since the second light is in no way inferior to the first (presumably, we are speaking about two different Menoros, and not two lights on the same Menorah - where the second light - which was only lit as a Hidur Mitzvah - is in fact, inferior to the first). Nevertheless, he still appears to be detracting from the oil and the light of the first Menorah, in order to provide for the second Menorah, in which case, it will still be forbidden.
(c)Those who give Rav 's reason as being because of Bizuy Mitzvah, must learn that Shmuel permits performing a Mitzvah, even though it involves Bizuy Mitzvah. In that case, Shmuel will explain the Tosefta in Ma'aser Sheini (which forbids the weighing of Chulin coins against coins of Ma'aser Sheini, even though it is for the purpose of redeeming other Ma'aser Sheini with them),not because of 'Bizuy Mitzvah' (which does not apply as we just explained),but - because he might find the Chullin coins unsuitable, or other coins better than them, in which case, he will have used the Ma'aser-Sheni coins without having performed a Mitzvah with them.
(a)Assuming that the Menorah was placed east-west, which lamp was called the 'Ner ha'Ma'aravi'?
(b)What was the daily procedure of Hatavas and Hadlakas ha'Neros in the Mishkan - before the death of Shimon ha'Tzadik, when the Ner ha'Ma'aravi would burn throughout the day following the night that it was lit?
(a)If the Menorah was placed from East to West, then it was the second lamp that was called the 'Ner ha'Ma'aravi', because it was the first lamp (after the Ner ha'Mizrachi) to be eligible for the title of "Lifnei Hash-m" (which, bearing in mind that the Shechinah was in the west, the 'Ner ha'Mizrachi' was not), and we have a principle 'Ein Ma'avirin Al ha'Mitzvos'.
(b)The Kohen would enter the Heichal, where he would find all the lights extinguished. He would then clean out all the other lamps, and replace the oil and the wicks for the evening. He would light the Ner ha'Ma'aravi from the Mizbei'ach ha'Olah, and leave it burning until the evening, when he would take out the burning wick and hold it in his hand - or place it in a receptacle - whilst he cleaned out the lamp and put in new oil and a new wick. Finally, he would light the Ner ha'Ma'aravi with the old wick (which he had just lit), and all the other wicks, each one from the lamp next to it, starting with the ones on either side of the Ner ha'Ma'aravi, which he lit from the Ner ha'Ma'aravi. They did not need to use any medium to kindle the lights, because the wicks were long and could be extended from the one lamp to the next in order to light them in this fashion.
(a)The light of the Menorah was not needed for the Kohanim to see by, since Hash-m, who lit up the Camp of Yisrael each night (during their forty years in the desert), was certainly capable of lighting up His own house. T he Menorah was therefore lit to serve as a testimony. A testimony for what?
(b)What difficulty does this statement present on Rav (whether he forbids kindling one lamp from aniother because of 'Bizuy Mitzvah' or because of 'Akchushei Mitzvah' - according to those who maintain that the lamp-holders of the Menorah were immovable (see Tosfos DH 've'Ha')?
(c)How does Rav Papa partially answer the Kashya, and what is still difficult (and will remain unanswered)?
(a)The Menorah was a testimony for the nations of the world that the Shechinah rested in Yisrael, by virtue of the Ner ha'Ma'aravi, which was the first lamp to be lit each night, but the last to go out (in spite of the fact that the wick was the same size, and the same amount of oil was used - as all the others).
(b)Since the lamp-holders were immovable, the Kohen must have used a medium to kindle the one lamp from the other, leaving a Kashya on both those who hold that the Isur of lighting from one to the other is because of 'Bizuy Mitzvah', and on those who hold that it is because of 'Akchushei Mitzvah'.
(c)Rav Papa answers that it was not necessary to use a medium to kindle the lights of the Menorah in the Beis Hamikdash, since they had very long wicks, which could be pulled across from the one lamp-holder to the other without removing them from their lamp-holders. That resolves the Kashya on those who learn 'Bizuy Mitzvah'. The problem remains however, according to those learn 'Akchushei Mitzvah'. According to them, even lighting directly from one lamp to the other should have been prohibited, because of 'Akchushei Mitzvah'? This Kashya remains unanswered.
(a)We conclude that, whether one may or may not kindle one Chanukah light directly from another, is linked to another She'eilah. Which She'eiah?
(b)Is there a proof from Rava ...
1. ... (who rules that someone who holds the Ner Chanukah in his hand, is not Yotze), that 'Hanachah Osah Mitzvah'?
2. ... (who also rules, that if one moved the Chanukah light from one place to another, he is not Yotze) that 'Hadlakah Osah Mitzvah'?
(a)The Gemara concludes that, if we say 'Hadlakah Osah Mitzvah', one may light one lamp from the other, just as we find by the Menorah of the Mishkan But if 'Hanachah Oseh Mitzvah', then the Hadlakah is not such a Mitzvah, and to light one lamp from the other would therefore be a 'Bizuy Mitzvah'.(Whether or not, we hold of 'Akchushei Mitzvah', regarding lighting one from the other using a medium, see Rosh Si'man 7, who brings a Machlokes Rishonim regarding this point.)
(b)There is no proof from Rava ...
1. ... (who rules that someone who holds the Ner Chanukah in his hand, is not Yotze), that 'Hanachah Osah Mitzvah' - because even if Rava would hold 'Hadlakah Osah Mitzvah', he could still disqualify a Menorah that someone is holding from the Mitzvah, because people will think that he needs the lamp for his own private use (and we have already learnt earlier that, since the very objective of the Chanukah lights is 'Pirsumei Nisa' (to publicize the miracle) it must be made clear to all that the Menorah has been lit for the Mitzvah, and not for any ulterior motive.
2. ... (who also rules, that if one moved the Chanukah light from one place to another, he is not Yotze) that 'Hadlakah Osah Mitzvah' - because even if he were to hold 'Hanachah Osah Mitzvah', he might still not permit moving it once it has been lit, because people will think that he is moving it for his own personal use.
(a)How do we resolve our She'eilah from the Beraisa, which states, that if a lamp was burning all day, when the time to light arrives, one must extinguish the lamp and re-kindle it?
(b)What is the Gemara's second proof?
(c)Can a grown-up Yotze with the lighting of a Cheresh, Shoteh or Katan?
(d)A woman is Chayav to light Ner Chanukah, because 'Af Hen Hayu be'Oso ha'Nes'. What does that mean?
(a)We resolve our She'eilah from the Beraisa, which states, that if a lamp was burning all day, when the time to light arrives, one must extinguish the lamp and re-kindle it. Now if the Mitzvah wuld be the Hanachah - then why does the Beraisa only obligate one to extinguish the lamp and re-light it? Why does it not add that one also needs to re-place it? This, concludes the Gemara, proves categorically, that 'Hadlakah Osah Mitzvah', and not 'Hanachah'.
(b)The Gemara's second proof is from the text of the Berachah, which is 'Lehadlik Ner shel Chanukah', and not 'Lehani'ach' etc.
(c)Having just concluded that 'Hadlakah Osah Mitzvah', it is obvious that a grown up will not be Yotze with the lighting of a Cheresh, Shotah or Katan.
(d)'Af Hen Hayu be'Oso ha'Nes' means firstly, that the women were saved from a terrible decree that was aimed specifically at them (that the first night after a woman's marriage she had to spend with the Greek mayor), and secondly, that the miracle was largely due to the efforts of a woman (the beautiful and righteous Yehudis - widowed daughter of Yochanan Kohen Gadol, who hit upon an ingenious and daring scheme which resulted in her killing the Greek king Aliporni).