Shabbos 22 – שבת כב

Click here to view text of Daf (can be minimized to view alongside player)

Download Video (mp4)

Download Audio

Download Audio (smaller file size)

Diagram 1   Diagram 2   Diagram 3   Diagram 4

Today’s Daf Yomi Question:

Rava says if he lit inside then brought it outside he is not yotzei, since the lighting needs to be done in the proper place.  We learned yesterday that in times of need they would light inside (as is done nowadays); if lighting inside is technically acceptable then why in this case is it not considered a proper lighting?

The Gemara quotes two pieces in the name of Rav Tanchum (Ner Chanukah above twenty, and the pit of Yosef); is there any connection between the two?

Click here to reply / view answers


13 thoughts on “Shabbos 22 – שבת כב

  1. I was wondering about the point of the phrase, “rather Rav Yosef says, avuhon dkulhu dam”. The Gemara seemed to show how Rav Yosef felt that there is a braisa to prove the Halacha of noi succah instead of Chanukah. So what does dam have to do with?

    • It seems Rav Yosef was disputing Rav Asi on two accounts; firstly, the fact that Chanukah is more pashut and thus serves as the basis for Sukkah. He proves that the opposite is true – that Sukkah is more pashut to us than Chanukah – since Sukkah is stated in a braisa. Secondly, neither Chanukah nor Sukkah are actually the source-base but rather Dam which is stated in a braisa based on a passuk.

  2. I just don’t understand why the Gemara would bring down the mishna of Rav Shimon about gereirah, it doesn’t prove anything? My assumption is based on the context that abayei was talking about how his rebbi held like Shmuel and then brings this mishna…

  3. הסוגיא פריך מהדלקת נר במקדש שהיו מדליקין מנר לנר ע”י קינסא, ומשני בפתילות ארוכות, קשה רוב הפתילה שמחוץ לנר אינו משמש למצות הדלקת נרות, אלא הולך ונאכל עד סמוך לשמן, ומאז מתחיל המצוה להתקיים, וא”כ אותו חלק של הפתילה אינו אלא כקינסא בעלמא, ומאי משני? ואין לומר שעכ”פ פתילה זו תהיה של מצוה לבסוף, דהלא זה דומה לדינרים של חולין שלבסוף יעשו של מעשר שני ומ”מ דומה לקינסא.

    שם איתא דלהצד דהנחה עושה מצוה אסור להדליק מנר לנר, משום שאין בההדלקה כ”כ מצוה, וקשה שקודם שהניחה הרי עדיין אין הנר הדולק של מצוה, וא”כ למה אסור להדליק נר שני ממנו?

    • לכאורה משמע מדברי הגמ’ לעיל (כא.) שמצות הדלקת המנורה התחילה תיכף כשהדליקו הפתילה, דאמרינן התם צריך שידליק באופן שתהא שלהבת עולה מאיליה, דהיינו ברוב היוצא מן הפתילה (לעיל כ:) חזינן אע”ג שהפתילה נשרף עד שמגיע לשמן סוף סוף מעשה הדלקה שפיר קא עביד בעת הדלקת הפתילה.
      זו קושיא אלימתא. ויתכן לומר פשוט דאיירי הכא שנר הראשון שמדליקין ממנו כבר מונח במקומו והוי נר של מצוה גמור, וזה דוחק. ועוד יתכן לומר אפילו תימא דהנחה עושה מצוה, מקרי נר של מצוה תיכף מעת הדלקתו (כיון שנר זה הותחל בו המצוה ועומד ליגמר בהנחתו) אולם אסור להדליק ממנו כיון שמ”מ מעשה ההדלקה עצמה לאו גמר מצוה מקרי (בשעת ההדלקה) והוי ביזוי של חפץ מצוה, ועדיין צ”ע.

  4. Why does the gemara have a problem with saying that Shmuel would permit kindling a second candle with a wood chip, given the braissa of Rav Avya says it’s a problem to weigh sela coin of maaser sheni against unconsecrated golden dinars?

    Can’t the 2 cases be distinguished in that by Shmuel, the wood chip WILL DEFINITELY be used to light the 2nd candle, but in the braissa, the problem of bizayon of using the maaser sheni sela coin could be that WE DON’T KNOW IF IN FACT the unconsecrated golden dinars will ULTIMATELY be used for any mitzva purpose (for maaser sheni).

    If the above distinction is correct, why would the gemara have to resort to Rabbah’s response that the braissa ruling doesn’t reflect the techinical din, but rather a gezaira in the event the golden dinars won’t actually be used for a mitzva ( maaser sheni)?

    • The Gemara’s discussion is based on the concept of ‘bizuy mitzva’ – which is a personal disregard and disrespect for the Mitzva; which indeed is viewed within the personal context and the person’s intention. Rashi explains that he is weighing to use those coins for future chillul of Maaser; which precludes the concept of bizuy mitzvah. This is akin to lighting the kisna, since his intent purpose is to use it for a Mitzva. In short, the halacha seems to be determined by intent, not by the subsequent results (prior to Raba’s gzeira).

  5. The 20 ama requirement by chanukah lights and mavui is in order to have a visual heker / to be seen – as higher it is not in the line of sight

    the 20 ama requirement by sukkah is a function of the shade / sun relationship, angle sum makes with high walls prevents sunlight

    comparing all 3 seems strange therefore

    any thoughts ??

    • In Maseches Sukka (2a) Raba explains that the pesul of twenty ama is because the schach is out of sight to the person sitting in the Sukkah, and we learn from a passuk that the schach needs to be easily discernible.
      There are actually other explanations for the requirement of twenty ama by both Mavoi and Sukkah (that are unrelated to a person’s vision range) – according to them the Gemara here is merely bundling together various halachos relating to height of twenty ama irrelevant of the reason behind it.

  6. The gemora says that the reason one doesn’t count money in front of the chanuka neirois is because of “bizoyoin” than if so why is one allowed to light (after the gemora answers that the wicks were long so you were able to light it without using an in between candle) with the wicks and the reason its not a “bizoyoin” is because “hadloke” is the mitzvah, so why isn’t it the same thing by counting money?

    • Indeed the maaseh hadloko which is the ikar maaseh mitzva (Ritvah) creates a Ner Chanukah which is now considered a ‘chefetz shel mitzva’ and cannot be diverted from its mitzvah use.

  7. Reuvain tried to save yosef so he threw him in to a pit of snakes??? The answer to both questions is that he couldn’t see the snakes because it was deeper than 20 amos and as R Tanchum said the eye doesn’t grasp more then 20 amos.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *