ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 22
(a) By adding "Ein Bo Mayim", the Torah implies, that although there was no
water in the pit, there *were* snakes and scorpions (Allegorically
speaking, this is taken to mean that head which is empty of Torah, is bound
to contain harmful thoughts and ideologies.)
(b) The Menorah should be placed within one Tefach of the doorway.
(c) According to the second opinion, the Menorah should be placed on the
entrance, so that, when one enters one's house, he is surrounded by Mitzvos
- the Mezuzah on the right, and the Menorah on the left.
(a) Shmuel was surprized that Rav Asi should have prohibited the counting
of money by a Menorah: 'Does a Menorah have Kedushah', he exclaimed?
(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 has been
(Incidently, according to the Rosh [Si'man 5] it is only casual Hana'ah
which one needs to perform close to the Chanukah-lights - such as counting
money - which is forbidden, casual benefit which does need close scrutiny,
(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) No! One may not take down the Succah decorations on Shemini Atzeres
(aside from the possible Isur of untying a knot), since the Beraisa
specifically forbids benefit from them - 'until 'Motza'ei Yom-Tov
ha'Acharon shel Chag'!
And all Beraisos, of course, were written in Eretz Yisrael, where Shemini
Atzeres is Motza'ei Yom-Tov.
(e) It is permitted to take down Succah decorations and use them on Succos,
if one stipulated before Yom-Tov, that one did not withdraw one's personal
rights from them throughout the period of dusk (Bein Hashemashos).
1. Abaye quoted Rabbah as saying that, although throughout Shas, Rabbah
would follow the opinion the opinion of Rav against that of Shmuel (in
matters of Isur), these three cases were the exceptions, where Rabbah
followed the opinion of Shmuel.
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 he does not intend to do so, he may go ahead and drag it
to wherever he needs it.
(Incidently, the Hagahos Oshri [Si'man 7] points out that Shmuel only
permits one to remove Tzitzis from garment to put on another; otherwise, it
is forbidden to remove the Tzitzis from a garment. Rashi too, agrees that
the obligation of Tzitzis pertains to the garment, not just to the person.)
(b) Rav forbids one to light one Chanukah-light from another, either
because of 'Bizuy Mitzvah' (despising the Mitzvah), or 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). 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 indeed inferior to the first). Nevertheless, he appears to be detracting
from the oil and the light of the first Menorah, in order to provide for
the second Menorah, so in that case too, it will be Asur.
(c) If Rav's prohibition is restricted to using a medium to light the
Chanukah-lights, then Shmuel, who argues with Rav, must permit even using a
medium lighting one Chanukah-lights from the other (since it is for the
needs of a Mitzvah) even through the use of a medium. In that case, how
will Shmuel explain the Beraisa, which forbids one to weigh Chulin coins
against coins of Ma'aser-Sheni - even if he intends to use the Chulin coins
for the Mitzvah of redeeming Ma'aser-Sheni?
(d) It is forbidden to weigh the Chullin coins against the coins of
Ma'aser-Sheni, not because of 'Bizuy Mitzvah' (which does not apply when
one is in the course of performing a Mitzvah - according to Shmuel) 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 in vain
(i.e. without having performed a
Mitzvah with them).
(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 Hashem"
(which 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 be able them in this fachion.
(a) The Menorah was a testimony for the nations of the world that the
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 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 however, remains 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
(a) The Gemara concludes that, if we say 'Hadlakah Oseh 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
(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 reagrding this point.)
(b) 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 and sundry that the Menorah has been lit for the Mitzvah, and not
for any ulterior motive.
(c) And by the same token, we do not have a proof from the fact that Rava
disqualifies a Menorah that one moved from one place to another after
having lit it, that 'Hadlakah Osah Mitzvah', because even if he holds
'Hanachah Osah Mitzvah', he will not be permitted to move it once it has
been lit, because people will think that he is moving it for his own
(a) If the Mitzvah is 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 second proof that 'Hadlakah Osah Mitzvah' is from the text of the
Berachah, which is* 'Lehadlik* Ner shel Chanukah', and not *'Lehani'ach'*
(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
(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 following
her marriage, every Jewish woman had to spend her first night 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
ealiminating the Greek king Aliporni).