one is not bound to attend to it. Therefore, there is no reason to make certain from the outset to light it with materials that burn well, as even if it is extinguished, he is not required to relight it. However, he also holds that it is permitted to use its light. As a result, he must ensure that the wick burns well on Shabbat; if not, he is liable to come to adjust the flame in order to use its light. The third opinion is that which Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Mattana said, and others say that Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: The wicks and oils with which the Sages said one may not light on Shabbat, one may, nevertheless, light with them on Hanukkah, both during the week and on Shabbat. Rabbi Yirmeya said: What is Rav’s reason? He holds that if it is extinguished, one is not bound to attend to it and relight it, and it is prohibited to use its light. Therefore, even on Shabbat, there is no concern lest he come to adjust the wick, as it is prohibited to utilize its light. The Gemara relates that the Sages said this halakha before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya and he did not accept it, as he did not hold Rabbi Yirmeya in high regard. However, subsequently, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, the Sages said this halakha before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and he accepted it. Then Abaye said regretfully: Had I merited, I would have learned this halakha from the outset. The Gemara wonders: Didn’t he ultimately learn it and accept it? What difference does it make from whom and at what point he learned it? The Gemara answers: The practical difference is with regard to knowledge acquired in one’s youth, which is better remembered. With regard to the opinion that one need not rekindle the Hanukkah light if it is extinguished, the Gemara asks: And is it true that if the Hanukkah light is extinguished one is not bound to attend to it? The Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in a baraita: The mitzva of kindling the Hanukkah lights is from sunset until traffic in the marketplace ceases. Does that not mean that if the light is extinguished, he must rekindle it so that it will remain lit for the duration of that period? The Gemara answers: No, the baraita can be understood otherwise: That if one did not yet light at sunset, he may still light the Hanukkah lights until traffic ceases. Alternatively, one could say that this is referring to the matter of its measure. One must prepare a wick and oil sufficient to burn for the period lasting from sunset until traffic ceases. If he did so, even if the light is extinguished beforehand, he need not relight it. The expression until traffic in the marketplace ceases is mentioned here, and the Gemara asks: Until when exactly is this time? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Until the traffic of the people of Tadmor [tarmoda’ei] ceases. They sold kindling wood and remained in the marketplace later than everyone else. People who discovered at sunset that they had exhausted their wood supply could purchase wood from them. The Sages taught in a baraita: The basic mitzva of Hanukkah is each day to have a light kindled by a person, the head of the household, for himself and his household. And the mehadrin, i.e., those who are meticulous in the performance of mitzvot, kindle a light for each and every one in the household. And the mehadrin min hamehadrin, who are even more meticulous, adjust the number of lights daily. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree as to the nature of that adjustment. Beit Shammai say: On the first day one kindles eight lights and, from there on, gradually decreases the number of lights until, on the last day of Hanukkah, he kindles one light. And Beit Hillel say: On the first day one kindles one light, and from there on, gradually increases the number of lights until, on the last day, he kindles eight lights. Ulla said: There were two amora’im in the West, Eretz Yisrael, who disagreed with regard to this dispute, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida. One said that the reason for Beit Shammai’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the incoming days, i.e., the future. On the first day, eight days remain in Hanukkah, one kindles eight lights, and on the second day seven days remain, one kindles seven, etc. The reason for Beit Hillel’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the outgoing days. Each day, the number of lights corresponds to the number of the days of Hanukkah that were already observed. And one said that the reason for Beit Shammai’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the bulls of the festival of Sukkot: Thirteen were sacrificed on the first day and each succeeding day one fewer was sacrificed (Numbers 29:12–31). The reason for Beit Hillel’s opinion is that the number of lights is based on the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Therefore, if the objective is to have the number of lights correspond to the number of days, there is no alternative to increasing their number with the passing of each day. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There were two Elders in Sidon, and one of them acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, and one of them acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Each provided a reason for his actions: One gave a reason for his actions: The number of lights corresponds to the bulls of the Festival. And one gave a reason for his actions: The number of lights is based on the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. The Sages taught in a baraita: It is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp at the entrance to one’s house on the outside, so that all can see it. If he lived upstairs, he places it at the window adjacent to the public domain. And in a time of danger, when the gentiles issued decrees to prohibit kindling lights, he places it on the table and that is sufficient to fulfill his obligation. Rava said: One must kindle another light in addition to the Hanukkah lights in order to use its light, as it is prohibited to use the light of the Hanukkah lights. And if there is a bonfire, he need not light an additional light, as he can use the light of the bonfire. However, if he is an important person, who is unaccustomed to using the light of a bonfire, even though there is a bonfire, he must kindle another light. The Gemara asks: What is Hanukkah, and why are lights kindled on Hanukkah? The Gemara answers: The Sages taught in Megillat Ta’anit: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev, the days of Hanukkah are eight. One may not eulogize on them and one may not fast on them. What is the reason? When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary they defiled all the oils that were in the Sanctuary by touching them. And when the Hasmonean monarchy overcame them and emerged victorious over them, they searched and found only one cruse of oil that was placed with the seal of the High Priest, undisturbed by the Greeks. And there was sufficient oil there to light the candelabrum for only one day. A miracle occurred and they lit the candelabrum from it eight days. The next year the Sages instituted those days and made them holidays with recitation of hallel and special thanksgiving in prayer and blessings. We learned there in a mishna with regard to damages: In the case of a spark that emerges from under a hammer, and went out of the artisan’s workshop, and caused damage, the one who struck the hammer is liable. Similarly, in the case of a camel that is laden with flax and it passed through the public domain, and its flax entered into a store, and caught fire from the storekeeper’s lamp, and set fire to the building, the camel owner is liable. Since his flax entered into another’s domain, which he had no permission to enter, all the damages were caused due to his negligence. However, if the storekeeper placed his lamp outside the store and it set fire to the flax, the storekeeper is liable, as he placed the lamp outside his domain where he had no right to place it. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the flax was set on fire by the storekeeper’s Hanukkah lamp that he placed outside the entrance to his store, he is not liable, as in that case, it is permitted for the storekeeper to place his lamp outside. Ravina said in the name of Rabba: That is to say that it is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp within ten handbreadths of the ground. As if it should enter your mind to say that he may place it above ten handbreadths, why is the storekeeper exempt? Let the camel owner say to the storekeeper: You should have placed the lamp above the height of a camel and its rider, and then no damage would have been caused. By failing to do so, the storekeeper caused the damage, and the camel owner should not be liable. The Gemara rejects this: And perhaps one is also permitted to place the Hanukkah lamp above ten handbreadths, and the reason Rabbi Yehuda exempted the storekeeper was due to concern for the observance of the mitzva of kindling Hanukkah lights. He held that if you burden one excessively, he will come to refrain from performing the mitzva of kindling Hanukkah lights. Since the storekeeper placed the Hanukkah lamp outside at the behest of the Sages, the storekeeper should not be required to take extra precautions. With regard to the essence of the matter Rav Kahana said that Rav Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum:

In [the era of] the Second Temple,¹The Chanukah miracle took place in the year 3596 (165 BCE). The Greek persecutions began several years beforehand. the Greek kingdom²More particularly, the Seleucid kingdom of Syria, whose ruling hierarchy was of Greek origin. issued decrees against the Jewish people, [attempting to] nullify their faith³Bereshit Rabbah 2:4 relates that the Greeks would have the Jews "write on the horn of an ox that they have no portion in the God of Israel." and refusing to allow them to observe the Torah and its commandments.⁴See Megillat Antiochus, which relates that the Greeks prevented the Jews from observing the Sabbath and performing circumcision. They extended their hands against their property⁵In this era, the Greek rulers established gentile cities in Eretz Yisrael and deprived the Jewish population of its livelihood. and their daughters;⁶Rashi, Shabbat 23a, states that before a Jewish virgin was married, she was required to have relations with a Greek officer. they entered the Sanctuary, wrought havoc within,⁷See Middot 1:6, 2:3 and Shekalim 6:3, which speak of the Greeks breaking open portions of the Soreg, a divider on the Temple Mount, and destroying portions of the wall around the Temple Courtyard. and made the sacraments impure.⁸As we find with regard to the oil for the Menorah, the Greeks did not destroy the oil; they made it impure.
Herein, there is a lesson regarding the nature of the conflict between the Greeks and the Jews. The Greeks were not anxious to stamp out Judaism entirely. They were prepared to accept Judaism as one of the cultures of the Mediterranean area, which they would incorporate into an all-encompassing collection of knowledge and values; i.e., the sacraments of Judaism would remain, but they would become impure, tainted by Greek culture.
The Jews suffered great difficulties from them, for they oppressed them greatly until the God of our ancestors had mercy upon them, delivered them from their hand, and saved them.⁹By calling attention to the Divine origin of the Jews' victory before mentioning the Hasmoneans, the Rambam emphasizes the miraculous and spiritual nature of the miracle. The sons of the Hasmoneans, the High Priests, overcame [them], slew them, and saved the Jews from their hand.¹⁰The valiant struggle of the Hasmoneans who were able to defeat the most powerful armies of the world with guerilla forces is recounted in many sources.
They appointed a king from the priests, and sovereignty returned to Israel for more than 200 years, until the destruction of the Second Temple.¹¹There is a significance to these statements beyond the laws of Chanukah. There are many Rabbinic authorities who are highly critical of the Hasmoneans for assuming the kingship of the Jewish people. (See the Ramban's commentary on the Torah, Parashat Vayichi.) Although in Hilchot Melachim 1:7-8, the Rambam writes that King David's descendants have an eternal right to the monarchy in Jerusalem, his description here of the Hasmoneans as kings does not have the slightest intimation of criticism; if anything, the contrary is true.
Several laws regarding the nature of kingship are derived from the Hasmonean kings and others, even from the kings of Herod's dynasty, who ruled after them. When the Jews overcame their enemies and destroyed them, they entered the Sanctuary; this was on the twenty-fifth of Kislev.¹Significantly, the wording of the Rambam appears to indicate that the victory of the Hasmoneans took place on the twenty-fifth of Kislev. Rabbenu Nissim and other authorities explain that the victory took place on the twenty-fourth, and it was on the twenty-fifth that the Jews rested from the war and entered the Sanctuary. Indeed, an allusion to this is found in the very name Chanukah, חנוכה, which is broken up into two words, חנו כה, "they camped on the twenty-fifth." They could not find any pure oil in the Sanctuary, with the exception of a single cruse. It contained enough oil to burn for merely one day. They lit the arrangement of candles from it for eight days²The commentaries raise the question: Why was the miracle of the cruse of oil necessary? With regard to communal offerings, in which category falls the kindling of the Menorah, we follow the rule that "the requirement for ritual purity is suspended," if it is impossible to bring the offering in purity (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:7-17). Thus, if the cruse of pure oil had burned out, the Jews could have used impure oil. Why did God perform a miracle when there was no absolute necessity?
Among the explanations for this is that God saw the dedication of the Jewish people as evidenced by their search for pure oil, and, in a greater sense, by their entire struggle against the Greeks. This commitment which extended beyond the limits of their intellect evoked a miracle from God that transcended the limits of nature. until they could crush olives and produce pure oil.³This fact also provokes a question: Why did it take so long to produce pure olive oil? Although there is an obligation to use oil of the finest quality for the Menorah (see Hilchot Issurei HaMizbe'ach 6:1, 7-8-10), when there is no other alternative, inferior oil prepared for the Menorah is also acceptable. Seemingly, it would have been possible to produce oil from olives in the Jerusalem vicinity in less than eight days. Accordingly, the Sages of that generation¹Shabbat 21b states that the celebration of the holiday was ordained in the year following the miracle. ordained that these eight days, which begin from the twenty-fifth of Kislev, should be commemorated²There are many who question why the holiday is celebrated for eight days, since the miracle was only for seven (for there was enough oil for the Menorah to burn for a single day). The Rambam's words seem to allude to a resolution of this difficulty. The miraculous lighting of the Menorah began on the twenty-fifth of Kislev and continued for eight days.
[Note, however, the Pri Chadash (Orach Chayim 670:1), who explains that, according to the Rambam, the first day of the celebration was instituted in appreciation of the military victories, while the remaining seven came in recognition of the miracle of the Menorah.] to be days of happiness³an acknowledgement of God's miracles in a material context in appreciation of the military victories.
As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Purim, Chapter 2, "happiness" is associated with feasting. In this context, the Yam shel Shlomo, Bava Kama 7:37, explains that according to the Rambam - in contrast to the rulings of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 670:2) - the festive meals customarily served on Chanukah can be considered to be feasts associated with a mitzvah. and praise [of God].⁴A spiritual acknowledgement of God in appreciation of the miracle of the Menorah. These two aspects of the celebration of the holiday reflect the different nature of the miracles mentioned in each of the first two halachot (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 10). Candles should be lit in the evening at the entrance to the houses on each and every one of these eight nights to publicize and reveal the miracle.⁵Both factors, the kindling of the Chanukah candles at night - when their light could be seen - and their placement at the entrance to the house - where their light will be projected into the street - emphasize the principle of pirsumei nisa, publicizing the Chanukah miracle.
These days are called Chanukah.⁶According to the Rambam, the choice of this name is somewhat problematic: As mentioned above, there are authorities who associated the name with the expression, חנו כה, "they camped on the twenty-fifth." This certainly does not express the Rambam's view. Megillat Ta'anit associates Chanukah with chanukat hamizbe'ach, the rededication of the altar in the Temple, but there is no mention of this event by the Rambam here. It is forbidden to eulogize and fast on them, as on the days of Purim.⁷As mentioned in the commentary on Chapter 2, Halachah 13, the prohibition to eulogize and fast applies only on the days of Chanukah themselves, and not on the preceding or succeeding days.
Significantly, unlike Purim, there is no prohibition against work on Chanukah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 670:1). Lighting the candles on these days is a Rabbinic mitzvah, like the reading of the Megillah.⁸This emphasizes the Rambam's perspective that the allusion to the obligation to read the Megillah in the Megillah itself does not change the status of this mitzvah. (See also the commentary on Chapter 1, Halachah 1.)

one is not bound to attend to it. Therefore, there is no reason to make certain from the outset to light it with materials that burn well, as even if it is extinguished, he is not required to relight it. However, he also holds that it is permitted to use its light. As a result, he must ensure that the wick burns well on Shabbat; if not, he is liable to come to adjust the flame in order to use its light. The third opinion is that which Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Mattana said, and others say that Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: The wicks and oils with which the Sages said one may not light on Shabbat, one may, nevertheless, light with them on Hanukkah, both during the week and on Shabbat. Rabbi Yirmeya said: What is Rav’s reason? He holds that if it is extinguished, one is not bound to attend to it and relight it, and it is prohibited to use its light. Therefore, even on Shabbat, there is no concern lest he come to adjust the wick, as it is prohibited to utilize its light. The Gemara relates that the Sages said this halakha before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya and he did not accept it, as he did not hold Rabbi Yirmeya in high regard. However, subsequently, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, the Sages said this halakha before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and he accepted it. Then Abaye said regretfully: Had I merited, I would have learned this halakha from the outset. The Gemara wonders: Didn’t he ultimately learn it and accept it? What difference does it make from whom and at what point he learned it? The Gemara answers: The practical difference is with regard to knowledge acquired in one’s youth, which is better remembered. With regard to the opinion that one need not rekindle the Hanukkah light if it is extinguished, the Gemara asks: And is it true that if the Hanukkah light is extinguished one is not bound to attend to it? The Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in a baraita: The mitzva of kindling the Hanukkah lights is from sunset until traffic in the marketplace ceases. Does that not mean that if the light is extinguished, he must rekindle it so that it will remain lit for the duration of that period? The Gemara answers: No, the baraita can be understood otherwise: That if one did not yet light at sunset, he may still light the Hanukkah lights until traffic ceases. Alternatively, one could say that this is referring to the matter of its measure. One must prepare a wick and oil sufficient to burn for the period lasting from sunset until traffic ceases. If he did so, even if the light is extinguished beforehand, he need not relight it. The expression until traffic in the marketplace ceases is mentioned here, and the Gemara asks: Until when exactly is this time? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Until the traffic of the people of Tadmor [tarmoda’ei] ceases. They sold kindling wood and remained in the marketplace later than everyone else. People who discovered at sunset that they had exhausted their wood supply could purchase wood from them. The Sages taught in a baraita: The basic mitzva of Hanukkah is each day to have a light kindled by a person, the head of the household, for himself and his household. And the mehadrin, i.e., those who are meticulous in the performance of mitzvot, kindle a light for each and every one in the household. And the mehadrin min hamehadrin, who are even more meticulous, adjust the number of lights daily. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree as to the nature of that adjustment. Beit Shammai say: On the first day one kindles eight lights and, from there on, gradually decreases the number of lights until, on the last day of Hanukkah, he kindles one light. And Beit Hillel say: On the first day one kindles one light, and from there on, gradually increases the number of lights until, on the last day, he kindles eight lights. Ulla said: There were two amora’im in the West, Eretz Yisrael, who disagreed with regard to this dispute, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida. One said that the reason for Beit Shammai’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the incoming days, i.e., the future. On the first day, eight days remain in Hanukkah, one kindles eight lights, and on the second day seven days remain, one kindles seven, etc. The reason for Beit Hillel’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the outgoing days. Each day, the number of lights corresponds to the number of the days of Hanukkah that were already observed. And one said that the reason for Beit Shammai’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the bulls of the festival of Sukkot: Thirteen were sacrificed on the first day and each succeeding day one fewer was sacrificed (Numbers 29:12–31). The reason for Beit Hillel’s opinion is that the number of lights is based on the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Therefore, if the objective is to have the number of lights correspond to the number of days, there is no alternative to increasing their number with the passing of each day. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There were two Elders in Sidon, and one of them acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, and one of them acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Each provided a reason for his actions: One gave a reason for his actions: The number of lights corresponds to the bulls of the Festival. And one gave a reason for his actions: The number of lights is based on the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. The Sages taught in a baraita: It is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp at the entrance to one’s house on the outside, so that all can see it. If he lived upstairs, he places it at the window adjacent to the public domain. And in a time of danger, when the gentiles issued decrees to prohibit kindling lights, he places it on the table and that is sufficient to fulfill his obligation. Rava said: One must kindle another light in addition to the Hanukkah lights in order to use its light, as it is prohibited to use the light of the Hanukkah lights. And if there is a bonfire, he need not light an additional light, as he can use the light of the bonfire. However, if he is an important person, who is unaccustomed to using the light of a bonfire, even though there is a bonfire, he must kindle another light. The Gemara asks: What is Hanukkah, and why are lights kindled on Hanukkah? The Gemara answers: The Sages taught in Megillat Ta’anit: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev, the days of Hanukkah are eight. One may not eulogize on them and one may not fast on them. What is the reason? When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary they defiled all the oils that were in the Sanctuary by touching them. And when the Hasmonean monarchy overcame them and emerged victorious over them, they searched and found only one cruse of oil that was placed with the seal of the High Priest, undisturbed by the Greeks. And there was sufficient oil there to light the candelabrum for only one day. A miracle occurred and they lit the candelabrum from it eight days. The next year the Sages instituted those days and made them holidays with recitation of hallel and special thanksgiving in prayer and blessings. We learned there in a mishna with regard to damages: In the case of a spark that emerges from under a hammer, and went out of the artisan’s workshop, and caused damage, the one who struck the hammer is liable. Similarly, in the case of a camel that is laden with flax and it passed through the public domain, and its flax entered into a store, and caught fire from the storekeeper’s lamp, and set fire to the building, the camel owner is liable. Since his flax entered into another’s domain, which he had no permission to enter, all the damages were caused due to his negligence. However, if the storekeeper placed his lamp outside the store and it set fire to the flax, the storekeeper is liable, as he placed the lamp outside his domain where he had no right to place it. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the flax was set on fire by the storekeeper’s Hanukkah lamp that he placed outside the entrance to his store, he is not liable, as in that case, it is permitted for the storekeeper to place his lamp outside. Ravina said in the name of Rabba: That is to say that it is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp within ten handbreadths of the ground. As if it should enter your mind to say that he may place it above ten handbreadths, why is the storekeeper exempt? Let the camel owner say to the storekeeper: You should have placed the lamp above the height of a camel and its rider, and then no damage would have been caused. By failing to do so, the storekeeper caused the damage, and the camel owner should not be liable. The Gemara rejects this: And perhaps one is also permitted to place the Hanukkah lamp above ten handbreadths, and the reason Rabbi Yehuda exempted the storekeeper was due to concern for the observance of the mitzva of kindling Hanukkah lights. He held that if you burden one excessively, he will come to refrain from performing the mitzva of kindling Hanukkah lights. Since the storekeeper placed the Hanukkah lamp outside at the behest of the Sages, the storekeeper should not be required to take extra precautions. With regard to the essence of the matter Rav Kahana said that Rav Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum:

the second tithe, one may not weigh gold dinars with it in order to determine their precise weight. And doing so is prohibited even if he is weighing the coin in order to redeem other second-tithe produce with it, as one may not derive benefit from tithe money. The Gemara discusses this matter: Granted, if you say that when Rav and Shmuel disagree it is with regard to a case when one lights from lamp to lamp, but with a wood chip, Shmuel prohibits lighting, this will not be a conclusive refutation of Shmuel’s opinion. But if you say that he permits lighting from lamp to lamp with a wood chip as well, this would be a conclusive refutation of his opinion, as the Sages did not permit use of and benefit from a sacred object even for the purpose of a similar sacred need. Rabba said: This is not difficult, as in the case of weighing tithe money the Sages prohibited doing so as a decree lest the weights not be precisely equal. One will discover that the weight of the gold dinars is not equal to the weight of the sela that he used to weigh them, and he will reconsider and render them unsanctified, i.e., they will maintain their original, non-sacred status. In that case, he will have used the tithe money for an unsanctified purpose. However, when one lights even a wood chip for the purpose of Hanukkah lights, it is clear that it is for the purpose of performing a mitzva, and there is no reason to issue a decree. Rav Sheshet raised an objection from that which was taught in a baraita. With regard to the Temple candelabrum, it is stated: “Outside the veil of the testimony, in the Tent of Meeting, shall Aaron order it from evening to morning before the Lord continually; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations” (Leviticus 24:3). It must be understood: And does God require its light for illumination at night? Didn’t the children of Israel, all forty years that they walked in the wilderness, walk exclusively by His light, the pillar of fire? Rather, the lighting of the candelabrum is testimony to mankind that the Divine Presence rests among Israel. The Gemara asks: What is this testimony? Rav said: That is the westernmost lamp in the candelabrum in which the measure of oil placed was the same measure of oil as was placed in the other lamps, and nevertheless he would light the others from it each day and with it he would conclude, i.e., the westernmost lamp would continue burning throughout the day after all the others were extinguished. The rest of the lamps burned only at night, and each night he would relight the rest of the lamps from the westernmost lamp. But isn’t it true that here, in the Temple, since the lamps were fixed in the candelabrum, it was impossible to light directly from lamp to lamp? There was no alternative to taking a wood chip and lighting the rest of the lamps from the westernmost lamp. Consequently, it is difficult both according to the one who said that one may not light from lamp to lamp due to contempt for the mitzva and according to the one who said that one may not light from lamp to lamp due to weakening the mitzva. Rav Pappa explained that it need not necessarily be understood that way. Rather, there were long wicks in the candelabrum, which made it possible to reach and light directly from one lamp to another. However, ultimately, according to the one who said that one may not light from lamp to lamp due to weakening the mitzva, it is difficult. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, the question remains difficult. In summary, the Gemara asks: What is the halakhic conclusion reached about this matter in terms of lighting from lamp to lamp? Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, said: We see; if the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that kindling the Hanukkah light accomplishes the mitzva and the rest is secondary, one may light from lamp to lamp. The lighting itself is the essence of the mitzva of Hanukkah lights. And if the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that placing the lit lamp in a suitable place accomplishes the mitzva, then one may not light from lamp to lamp. According to that opinion, lighting is simply an auxiliary action that facilitates the fulfillment of the essence of the mitzva, which is placing the lamp in a place where its light can be seen by the public. Since lighting is merely a preparatory action, one may not demean the mitzva by lighting from lamp to lamp. After the issue of whether lighting accomplishes the mitzva or placing accomplishes the mitzva was raised in the context of the previous discussion, the Gemara cites the discussion in its entirety. As a dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of the Hanukkah light, does lighting accomplish the mitzva, and placing the lit lamp is simply a continuation of that action, or does placing the kindled lamp accomplish the mitzva, and lighting is simply a practical necessity that facilitates placing the lamp? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from that which Rava said: One who was holding a burning Hanukkah lamp in his hand and standing, he did nothing in terms of fulfilling the mitzva. Conclude from this that placing accomplishes the mitzva. Until he sets the lamp down in its appropriate place, he did not fulfill the mitzva. The Gemara rejects this: There, they said that he did not fulfill his obligation for a different reason. One who sees it will say that he is not holding the lamp in order to fulfill the mitzva, but he is holding it for his own needs. Since holding the lamp can mislead onlookers, he does not fulfill the mitzva in that manner. Come and hear another resolution for this dilemma from that which Rava said: One who lights the Hanukkah lamp inside the house and then takes it out and places it at the entrance to his house did nothing in terms of fulfilling the mitzva. Granted, if you say that lighting accomplishes the mitzva it is understandable, as lighting in its place is required. That is why Rava ruled that he did nothing in terms of fulfilling the mitzva. However, if you say that placing accomplishes the mitzva, why did Rava rule that he did nothing? Didn’t he set it down in its appropriate place? The Gemara answers: There too, even though he subsequently brought it outside, one who sees him lighting inside will say to himself that he is lighting the lamp for his own needs and not in fulfillment of the mitzva. Come and hear another resolution from that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A lantern that continued to burn the entire day of Shabbat, at the conclusion of Shabbat one extinguishes it and lights it again as a Hanukkah light. Granted, if you say that lighting accomplishes the mitzva, the requirement to extinguish the lantern and relight it in order to fulfill the mitzva of kindling the Hanukkah light works out well. However, if you say that placing accomplishes the mitzva, this statement, which stated that one extinguishes it and lights it, is imprecise. According to this opinion, it needed to say: One extinguishes it and lifts it from its place and sets it down and lights it, as only by placing the lamp in an appropriate place could one fulfill the mitzva of the Hanukkah light. Furthermore, there is additional proof that lighting accomplishes the mitzva. From the fact that we recite the following blessing over the mitzva of kindling the Hanukkah light: Who has made us holy through His commandments and has commanded us to light the Hanukkah light, the Gemara suggests: Conclude from this that lighting accomplishes the mitzva, as it is over lighting that one recites the blessing. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this. And, the Gemara remarks, now that we say that lighting accomplishes the mitzva, there are practical ramifications. If a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, all of whom are of limited intellectual capacity and not obligated in mitzvot, kindled the Hanukkah light, he did nothing in terms of fulfilling the mitzva, even if an adult obligated in mitzvot subsequently set it down in its appropriate place. That is because placing a lit lamp does not constitute fulfillment of the mitzva. The lighting must be performed by a person with full intellectual capacity, obligated in mitzvot. However, a woman certainly may light, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in lighting the Hanukkah light, as they too were included in that miracle of being saved from the decree of persecution. Rav Sheshet said: A guest is obligated in lighting the Hanukkah light in the place where he is being hosted. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Zeira said: At first, when I was studying in the yeshiva, I would participate with perutot, copper coins, together with the host [ushpiza], so that I would be a partner in the light that he kindled. After I married my wife, I said: Now I certainly need not do so because they light on my behalf in my house. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All the oils are suitable for the Hanukkah lamp, and olive oil is the most select of the oils. Abaye said: At first, my Master, Rabba, would seek sesame oil, as he said: The light of sesame oil lasts longer and does not burn as quickly as olive oil. Once he heard that statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, he sought olive oil because he said: Its light is clearer. On a similar note, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All the oils are suitable for making ink, and olive oil is the most select. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s intention: Did he mean that olive oil is the most select in terms of being the best for use to mix and knead with the soot produced from a fire in manufacturing ink; or did he mean for use to smoke, i.e., burning olive oil to produce smoke is the most select method of producing the soot used in manufacturing ink? Come and hear a resolution to this from that which Rav Shmuel bar Zutrei taught: All oils are suitable for ink, and olive oil is the most select, both to knead and to smoke. Rav Shmuel bar Zutra taught it this way: All types of smoke are good for ink, and olive oil is the most select. Similarly, Rav Huna said: All saps are good for strengthening the ink compound, and balsam sap is the best of all. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: One who lights a Hanukkah light must recite a blessing. And Rabbi Yirmeya said: One who sees a burning Hanukkah light must recite a blessing because the mitzva is not only to kindle the light but to see the light as well. Therefore, there is room to recite a blessing even when seeing them. Rav Yehuda said: On the first day of Hanukkah, the one who sees burning lights recites two blessings, and the one who lights recites three blessings. From there on, from the second day of Hanukkah, the one who lights recites two blessings, and the one who sees recites one blessing. The Gemara asks: What blessing does he omit on the other days? The Gemara answers: He omits the blessing of time: Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time. The Gemara asks: And let us omit the blessing of the miracle: Who has performed miracles. The Gemara answers: The miracle is relevant on all of the days, whereas the blessing: Who has given us life, is only pertinent to the first time he performs the mitzva each year. And what blessing does one recite? He recites: Who has made us holy through His commandments and has commanded us to light the Hanukkah light. The Gemara asks: And where did He command us? The mitzva of Hanukkah is not mentioned in the Torah, so how is it possible to say that it was commanded to us by God? The Gemara answers that Rav Avya said: The obligation to recite this blessing is derived from the verse: “You shall not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto you, to the right, nor to the left” (Deuteronomy 17:11). From this verse, the mitzva incumbent upon all of Israel to heed the statements and decrees of the Sages is derived. Therefore, one who fulfills their directives fulfills a divine commandment. Rav Neḥemya said that the mitzva to heed the voice of the Elders of Israel is derived from the verse: “Ask your father, and he will declare unto you, your Elders, and they will tell you” (Deuteronomy 32:7). Rav Amram raised an objection from that which we learned in a mishna: With regard to doubtfully tithed produce [demai], i.e., grain that was acquired from an am ha’aretz about which there is uncertainty whether or not he tithed it; one may use it to establish an eiruv, i.e., joining of courtyards and joining of borders, and to establish the merging of alleys, and one recites a blessing before and after eating it, and one invites a quorum for recitation of Grace after Meals after eating it. Although the Sages said that one is required to separate tithes from demai, they allowed it to be used for specific purposes and in exigent circumstances. And they said that one may separate the tithe from demai when he is naked and at dusk Shabbat eve, a time when separating tithes from actual untithed produce [tevel] is prohibited. And if you say that every action instituted by rabbinic ordinance requires a blessing, as fulfillment of rabbinic ordinances is based on the mitzva: You shall not turn aside, here, when he stands naked, how can he recite a blessing? Don’t we require fulfillment of the mitzva: “Therefore shall your camp be holy; that He see no unseemly thing in you, and turn away from you” (Deuteronomy 23:15)? And the camp is not holy when one recites a blessing in a state of nakedness. Abaye said: There is room to distinguish between the cases: In a case where there is a definite mitzva by rabbinic law, a blessing is required. In a case where there is a rabbinic ordinance instituted due to uncertainty with regard to the circumstances, as in the case of demai, which may or may not have been tithed already, a blessing is not required. The Gemara asks: Isn’t the second day of a Festival in the Diaspora a rabbinic ordinance instituted due to uncertainty whether the first day or the second is the actual Festival, and nevertheless a blessing is required? On the second day of the Festival one recites the same blessings as he does on the first. The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the second day of the Festival, the reason that blessings are required is so that people will not treat it with contempt. If Festival blessings were not required on the second day of the Festival, people would take its sanctity lightly. Rava said another reason: Demai is not considered to be an ordinance instituted by the Sages due to uncertainty. In fact, in most cases, an am ha’aretz tithes. The concern lest they do not tithe is not a full-fledged case of uncertainty. It is merely a case of suspicion for which the Sages did not institute a blessing. That is not the case with regard to the second day of a Festival. Even though it was instituted due to uncertainty, one must recite the Festival blessings. Since it was instituted by the Sages, one is obligated to recite a blessing just as he recites blessings for other rabbinic ordinances. Rav Huna said: A courtyard that has two entrances requires two lamps, one lamp at each entrance, so that it will be obvious that the residents of this courtyard light properly. And Rava said: We only said this in a case where the two entrances face two different directions. However, if they both face in the same direction one need not light at more than one entrance. The Gemara clarifies Rava’s statement: What is the reason for this? If you say that it is because those who see the entrance without a lamp burning will harbor suspicion lest he does not kindle the Hanukkah light, whose suspicion concerns us? If you say that the concern is with regard to the suspicion of people who do not live in the city and are unfamiliar with the courtyard’s tenants, even when both entrances face the same direction let them be required to light at both entrances because visitors are unaware that there are two entrances to that courtyard. And if the concern is with regard to the suspicion of the residents of that city, even when the two entrances face two different directions let them not be required to light at both entrances. The local residents know that only one person lives in the courtyard and will assume that if he did not light at one entrance he surely lit at the other. The Gemara answers: Actually, say that it is because of the suspicion of the residents of that city, and sometimes they pass this entrance and do not pass that one, and they say: Just as he did not light in this entrance, in that second entrance he also did not light. In order to avoid suspicion, it is preferable to light at both entrances. And from where do you say that we are concerned about suspicion? As it was taught in a Tosefta that Rabbi Shimon said: On account of four things the Torah said that one should leave pe’a, crops for the poor in the corner of his field, specifically at the end of his field. Only after one has cut virtually the entire field should he leave an uncut corner for the poor. He should not designate an area for pe’a in the middle of the field in the course of cutting the field. The reasons for this ruling are: Due to robbing the poor, and due to causing the poor to be idle, and due to suspicion, and due to the verse: “You shall not wholly reap the corner of your field” (Leviticus 23:22). The Gemara explains: Due to robbing the poor; so that the owner of the house will not see a time when the field is unoccupied and there are no poor people in the area. If he could designate pe’a as he wished, there is room to suspect that he might say to his poor relative: This is pe’a, in the place and at the time that he chooses. He would thereby conceal the fact that there is pe’a in his field from other poor people. The result would be that, for all intents and purposes, he robbed pe’a from those with whom he did not share the information.

one is not bound to attend to it. Therefore, there is no reason to make certain from the outset to light it with materials that burn well, as even if it is extinguished, he is not required to relight it. However, he also holds that it is permitted to use its light. As a result, he must ensure that the wick burns well on Shabbat; if not, he is liable to come to adjust the flame in order to use its light. The third opinion is that which Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Mattana said, and others say that Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: The wicks and oils with which the Sages said one may not light on Shabbat, one may, nevertheless, light with them on Hanukkah, both during the week and on Shabbat. Rabbi Yirmeya said: What is Rav’s reason? He holds that if it is extinguished, one is not bound to attend to it and relight it, and it is prohibited to use its light. Therefore, even on Shabbat, there is no concern lest he come to adjust the wick, as it is prohibited to utilize its light. The Gemara relates that the Sages said this halakha before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya and he did not accept it, as he did not hold Rabbi Yirmeya in high regard. However, subsequently, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, the Sages said this halakha before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and he accepted it. Then Abaye said regretfully: Had I merited, I would have learned this halakha from the outset. The Gemara wonders: Didn’t he ultimately learn it and accept it? What difference does it make from whom and at what point he learned it? The Gemara answers: The practical difference is with regard to knowledge acquired in one’s youth, which is better remembered. With regard to the opinion that one need not rekindle the Hanukkah light if it is extinguished, the Gemara asks: And is it true that if the Hanukkah light is extinguished one is not bound to attend to it? The Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in a baraita: The mitzva of kindling the Hanukkah lights is from sunset until traffic in the marketplace ceases. Does that not mean that if the light is extinguished, he must rekindle it so that it will remain lit for the duration of that period? The Gemara answers: No, the baraita can be understood otherwise: That if one did not yet light at sunset, he may still light the Hanukkah lights until traffic ceases. Alternatively, one could say that this is referring to the matter of its measure. One must prepare a wick and oil sufficient to burn for the period lasting from sunset until traffic ceases. If he did so, even if the light is extinguished beforehand, he need not relight it. The expression until traffic in the marketplace ceases is mentioned here, and the Gemara asks: Until when exactly is this time? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Until the traffic of the people of Tadmor [tarmoda’ei] ceases. They sold kindling wood and remained in the marketplace later than everyone else. People who discovered at sunset that they had exhausted their wood supply could purchase wood from them. The Sages taught in a baraita: The basic mitzva of Hanukkah is each day to have a light kindled by a person, the head of the household, for himself and his household. And the mehadrin, i.e., those who are meticulous in the performance of mitzvot, kindle a light for each and every one in the household. And the mehadrin min hamehadrin, who are even more meticulous, adjust the number of lights daily. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree as to the nature of that adjustment. Beit Shammai say: On the first day one kindles eight lights and, from there on, gradually decreases the number of lights until, on the last day of Hanukkah, he kindles one light. And Beit Hillel say: On the first day one kindles one light, and from there on, gradually increases the number of lights until, on the last day, he kindles eight lights. Ulla said: There were two amora’im in the West, Eretz Yisrael, who disagreed with regard to this dispute, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida. One said that the reason for Beit Shammai’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the incoming days, i.e., the future. On the first day, eight days remain in Hanukkah, one kindles eight lights, and on the second day seven days remain, one kindles seven, etc. The reason for Beit Hillel’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the outgoing days. Each day, the number of lights corresponds to the number of the days of Hanukkah that were already observed. And one said that the reason for Beit Shammai’s opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the bulls of the festival of Sukkot: Thirteen were sacrificed on the first day and each succeeding day one fewer was sacrificed (Numbers 29:12–31). The reason for Beit Hillel’s opinion is that the number of lights is based on the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Therefore, if the objective is to have the number of lights correspond to the number of days, there is no alternative to increasing their number with the passing of each day. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There were two Elders in Sidon, and one of them acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, and one of them acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Each provided a reason for his actions: One gave a reason for his actions: The number of lights corresponds to the bulls of the Festival. And one gave a reason for his actions: The number of lights is based on the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. The Sages taught in a baraita: It is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp at the entrance to one’s house on the outside, so that all can see it. If he lived upstairs, he places it at the window adjacent to the public domain. And in a time of danger, when the gentiles issued decrees to prohibit kindling lights, he places it on the table and that is sufficient to fulfill his obligation. Rava said: One must kindle another light in addition to the Hanukkah lights in order to use its light, as it is prohibited to use the light of the Hanukkah lights. And if there is a bonfire, he need not light an additional light, as he can use the light of the bonfire. However, if he is an important person, who is unaccustomed to using the light of a bonfire, even though there is a bonfire, he must kindle another light. The Gemara asks: What is Hanukkah, and why are lights kindled on Hanukkah? The Gemara answers: The Sages taught in Megillat Ta’anit: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev, the days of Hanukkah are eight. One may not eulogize on them and one may not fast on them. What is the reason? When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary they defiled all the oils that were in the Sanctuary by touching them. And when the Hasmonean monarchy overcame them and emerged victorious over them, they searched and found only one cruse of oil that was placed with the seal of the High Priest, undisturbed by the Greeks. And there was sufficient oil there to light the candelabrum for only one day. A miracle occurred and they lit the candelabrum from it eight days. The next year the Sages instituted those days and made them holidays with recitation of hallel and special thanksgiving in prayer and blessings. We learned there in a mishna with regard to damages: In the case of a spark that emerges from under a hammer, and went out of the artisan’s workshop, and caused damage, the one who struck the hammer is liable. Similarly, in the case of a camel that is laden with flax and it passed through the public domain, and its flax entered into a store, and caught fire from the storekeeper’s lamp, and set fire to the building, the camel owner is liable. Since his flax entered into another’s domain, which he had no permission to enter, all the damages were caused due to his negligence. However, if the storekeeper placed his lamp outside the store and it set fire to the flax, the storekeeper is liable, as he placed the lamp outside his domain where he had no right to place it. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the flax was set on fire by the storekeeper’s Hanukkah lamp that he placed outside the entrance to his store, he is not liable, as in that case, it is permitted for the storekeeper to place his lamp outside. Ravina said in the name of Rabba: That is to say that it is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp within ten handbreadths of the ground. As if it should enter your mind to say that he may place it above ten handbreadths, why is the storekeeper exempt? Let the camel owner say to the storekeeper: You should have placed the lamp above the height of a camel and its rider, and then no damage would have been caused. By failing to do so, the storekeeper caused the damage, and the camel owner should not be liable. The Gemara rejects this: And perhaps one is also permitted to place the Hanukkah lamp above ten handbreadths, and the reason Rabbi Yehuda exempted the storekeeper was due to concern for the observance of the mitzva of kindling Hanukkah lights. He held that if you burden one excessively, he will come to refrain from performing the mitzva of kindling Hanukkah lights. Since the storekeeper placed the Hanukkah lamp outside at the behest of the Sages, the storekeeper should not be required to take extra precautions. With regard to the essence of the matter Rav Kahana said that Rav Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum:

That if one did not light, he must light: But from then on, the time has passed. RI Porat says that one should be careful and light immediately at night, so that he not delay too much. Nevertheless, if he did delay, he should light out of uncertainty. As behold, another answer is [also] answered. But it appears to RI that now there is no concern when one should light; for we only have the recognition of the members of our household [in our times], since we surely light indoors.

in the days of Rabbi Ḥalafta and Rabbi Ḥananya ben Teradyon, that someone passed before the ark as prayer leader and finished the entire blessing of the fast day, but the congregation did not answer amen after him. Instead, the attendant of the synagogue said: Sound the shofar with a long, unwavering sound, priests, blow the shofar. The prayer leader continued: He Who answered Abraham on Mount Moriah, He will answer you and hear the sound of your cry on this day. Once again, the attendant announced: Blast the shofar, with a wavering sound, sons of Aaron, blast. The prayer leader resumed: He Who answered our forefathers by the Red Sea, He will answer you and hear the sound of your cry on this day, and continued in this way. And when this matter came before the Sages, and they heard the custom of Rabbi Ḥalafta and Rabbi Ḥananya ben Teradyon, they said: They would act in accordance with this custom only at the Eastern Gate of the Temple and on the Temple Mount. However, this ceremony is never performed outside the Temple. § On the first three fasts, the members of the priestly watch, who are in charge of the Temple service that week, fast but do not complete their fast. And the members of the patrilineal family, who perform the Temple service on that particular day, did not fast at all. On the second set of three fast days, the members of the priestly watch fast and complete the fast, and the members of the patrilineal family fast but do not complete their fasts. On the final seven fasts, both groups fast and complete the fasts. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua. And the Rabbis say: On the first three fasts, the members of both groups do not fast at all. On the second three fast days, the members of the priestly watch fast and do not complete their fast, and the members of the patrilineal family do not fast at all. On the final seven, the members of the priestly watch fast and complete the fast, and the members of the patrilineal family fast but do not complete their fast. The mishna mentions another difference between the members of the priestly watch and the patrilineal family: The members of the priestly watch were permitted to drink wine during the nights, but not during the days, as they might be called upon to assist in the Temple service, which may not be performed after drinking wine. And the members of the patrilineal family, who performed the Temple service, were not permitted to drink wine, neither at night nor during the day, as their tasks were performed at night as well. It is prohibited for both the members of the priestly watch and the members of the non-priestly watch to cut their hair or launder their garments throughout the week, but on Thursday it is permitted for them to cut their hair and launder their clothes in deference to Shabbat. § The mishna returns to the issue of fasting: Any day concerning which it is written in Megillat Ta’anit not to eulogize on that day, it is also prohibited to eulogize on the day before, but it is permitted to do so on the following day. Rabbi Yosei says: It is prohibited to eulogize both on the day before and on the following day. The mishna continues: With regard to those days concerning which it is written only not to fast, it is permitted to fast on the day before and on the following day. Rabbi Yosei says: Fasting the day before is prohibited, but on the following day it is permitted to fast. The mishna continues: One may not decree a fast on the community starting on a Thursday, so as not to cause an increase in prices. If the first of a series of fasts is on a Thursday, then on Friday everyone will come to purchase their food for after the fast and for Shabbat, which will allow the storeowners to take advantage of the crowds and raise their prices. Rather, the first set of three fasts is on a Monday, Thursday, and the following Monday, and the second set of three is on a Thursday, Monday, and the following Thursday. Rabbi Yosei says: Just as the first three fasts do not begin on Thursday, so too, neither the second set nor the last set starts on a Thursday. Instead, all the series of fasts begin on a Monday. The mishna further states: One may not decree a fast on the community on New Moons, on Hanukkah, or on Purim. And if they decreed and began a set of fasts, and only afterward realized that one of the fasts would occur on one of these days, they do not interrupt the sequence. This is the statement of Rabban Gamliel. Rabbi Meir said: Although Rabban Gamliel said that they do not interrupt the sequence, he concedes that on these days, which are days with special observances, they do not complete the fast. And similarly, when the Ninth of Av occurs on Shabbat eve, the fast is not completed and one eats before the start of Shabbat, so as not to enter Shabbat while fasting. GEMARA: The mishna teaches: What is the order of fast days? They remove the ark. The Gemara asks: And is this ritual performed even on the first set of fasts? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: On the first and second sets of three fasts, everyone enters the synagogue and they pray in the manner that they pray throughout the entire year. The baraita continues: And on the final seven fasts they remove the ark to the main city square and place ashes upon the ark, and on the head of the Nasi, and on the head of the deputy Nasi, and each and every member of the community takes ashes and places them upon his head. Rabbi Natan says: They would bring specifically burnt ashes. This baraita indicates that the full ritual is performed only on the final set of fasts. Rav Pappa said in explanation: When we taught the mishna as well, it was taught only with regard to the final set of seven fasts, not the earlier series of fasts. § And the mishna further states that ashes are placed on the head of the Nasi and on the head of the deputy Nasi. And then it teaches that each and every member of the community places ashes upon his head. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Is this the proper order? Isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: With regard to matters of greatness, where it is a mark of honor and distinction to be treated first, one begins with the greatest member of the group, but for any matter involving a curse or dishonor, one begins with the least important member of the group. The Gemara cites a baraita which provides the sources for this principle. With regard to matters of greatness one begins with the greatest member, as it is stated: “And Moses said to Aaron, and to Elazar and to Itamar, his sons” (Leviticus 10:6). Moses first addresses the most important person, Aaron, and this was a matter of distinction, as the verse continues: “For the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you” (Leviticus 10:7). And for any matter involving a curse, one begins with the least important member of a group, as the serpent was cursed first, and afterward Eve was cursed and afterward Adam was cursed. Why, then, are the leaders of the community, its most important members, the first to perform these fast day expressions of mourning, which are a response to a curse? The Gemara answers: The reason is that this leadership role in the performance of these acts is considered a distinction and an honor for them, as it is as though the community is saying to them: You are worthy of requesting compassion on behalf of everyone. § The mishna teaches: Each and every member of the community places ashes upon his head. The Gemara asks: Let the Nasi and the deputy Nasi also take ashes themselves and place them upon their own heads. What is different with regard to them, that someone else takes the ashes and places them on their heads? Rabbi Abba of Caesarea said: This is done intentionally, as one who humiliates himself, in this case by placing ashes upon his own head, is not similar to

every day, but only on the first day? The Gemara answers: The days of the festival of Sukkot are distinct from one another with regard to their additional offerings, as the number of bulls offered changes each day of Sukkot (see Numbers 29:12–38). Since each day is unique, the full hallel is recited on each day. By contrast, the days of Passover are not distinct from one another with regard to their additional offerings (see Numbers 28:24), and therefore the full hallel is recited only on the first day, which is the first day on which the additional offerings for a Festival are sacrificed. The Gemara objects: On Shabbat, which is also distinct from the other days of the week with regard to its additional offerings, let us say hallel. The Gemara explains: Shabbat is not called an appointed day in the Torah, and hallel is recited only on days that are referred to in the Torah as appointed days (see Leviticus 23:4), which are days of rejoicing. The Gemara objects: On the New Moon, which is called an appointed day, let us say hallel. The Gemara explains: The New Moon is not sanctified with regard to the prohibition against the performance of labor, and hallel is recited only on a day that is sanctified, as it is written: “You shall have a song as in the night when a festival is sanctified” (Isaiah 30:29), which indicates that a night that is sanctified as a Festival, which includes a prohibition of labor, requires song, but one that is not sanctified as a Festival does not require song. The Gemara objects: On Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, which are called an appointed day and also are sanctified with regard to the prohibition against the performance of labor, let us say hallel. The Gemara explains: Hallel is not recited on those days due to the statement of Rabbi Abbahu. As Rabbi Abbahu said that the ministering angels said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, for what reason do the Jewish people not recite songs of praise, i.e., hallel, before You on Rosh HaShana and on Yom Kippur? He said to them: Is it possible that while the King is sitting on the throne of judgment and the books of life and the books of death are open before Him, the Jewish people would be reciting joyous songs of praise before Me? Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur are somber days of judgment whose mood is incompatible with the recitation of hallel. The Gemara objects: But what about Hanukkah, which has neither this or that, i.e., there is no special offering on it, nor is labor prohibited, and yet one says hallel. The Gemara explains: Hallel is recited on Hanukkah not because of its status as a Festival, but because of the miracle that occurred on those days. The Gemara objects: If so, on Purim, when there is also this factor, i.e., a miracle occurred on that day, let us say hallel. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Hallel is not recited on Purim because one does not recite a song of praise for a miracle that occurred outside of Eretz Yisrael. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak objects to this explanation: But there is the exodus from Egypt, which was a miracle that took place outside of Eretz Yisrael, and yet we say hallel on Passover night in commemoration of it? The Gemara responds that this is as it is taught in a baraita: Until the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, all lands were deemed fit for songs of praise to be recited for miracles performed within their borders, as all lands were treated equally. But once the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, that land became endowed with greater sanctity, and all the other lands were no longer deemed fit for songs of praise to be recited for miracles performed within them. Rav Naḥman says an alternative answer as to why hallel is not recited on Purim: The reading of the Megilla, i.e., the Scroll of Esther, is equivalent to reciting hallel. Rava says a third reason: Granted, hallel is said there, when recalling the exodus from Egypt, as after that salvation one can recite the phrase in hallel: “Give praise, O servants of the Lord” (Psalms 113:1), since after the Israelites’ servitude to Pharaoh ended with their salvation, they were truly servants of the Lord and not servants of Pharaoh. But can it be said here, after the salvation commemorated on Purim: “Give praise, O servants of the Lord,” which would indicate that after the salvation the Jewish people were only servants of the Lord and not servants of Ahasuerus? Not so, as even after the miracle of Purim, we are still the servants of Ahasuerus, since the Jews remained in exile under Persian rule. The Gemara objects: And according to the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who says that the reading of the Megilla itself is an act of reciting hallel, there is a difficulty: Isn’t it taught in a baraita: Once the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, that land became endowed with greater sanctity, and all the other lands were no longer deemed fit for songs of praise to be recited for miracles performed within them. How, then, may one recite a form of hallel by reading the Megilla? The Gemara answers: He maintains that once the people were exiled from Eretz Yisrael, the other lands returned to their initial suitability, and were once again deemed fit for reciting hallel, in commemoration of miracles performed within them. § The mishna teaches: And one would not play a copper flute [abuv]; rather, one would play a flute [abuv] of reed, because its sound is pleasant. The Gemara asks: The mishna opens by referring to flutes and calls them ḥalil and then concludes by referring to playing an abuv. Rav Pappa said: A ḥalil is the same as an abuv. Its original name was abuv; and why does the mishna call it a ḥalil? The reason is that its sound is sweet [ḥali]. The Sages taught in a baraita: There was a flute in the Temple; it was smooth and it was thin, i.e., its sides were thin; it was made from reed, and it was in existence from the days of Moses. The king issued a command and they plated the flute with gold, but then its sound was not as pleasant as it was previously. They therefore removed its plating and its sound was then as pleasant as it was before. Similarly, there was a cymbal in the Temple; it was made from copper and its sound was pleasant. It became damaged and the Sages sent for and brought artisans from Alexandria in Egypt and they repaired it, but its sound was not as pleasant as before. They removed the materials with which the cymbal had been repaired and its sound was then as pleasant as it had been before the repair. There was a mortar in the Temple; it was made of copper and it was from the days of Moses, and it was used to compound the spices for the incense. It became damaged and they brought artisans from Alexandria in Egypt and they repaired it, but it did not compound the spices as well as it had before. They removed the materials with which the mortar had been repaired and it then compounded the spices as it had before it was repaired. The baraita concludes: These two copper vessels, the cymbal and the mortar, were remnants from the First Temple and they were damaged and they could not be repaired in an effective manner. And it was with regard to the copper vessels constructed for the First Temple that David said: “All these vessels, which Hiram made for King Solomon, in the House of the Lord, were of burnished brass” (I Kings 7:45), and, in a parallel verse, “bright brass” (II Chronicles 4:16). And with regard to these two items it states in the verse describing the vessels that Ezra brought to Jerusalem: “And vessels of fine golden brass, two, precious as gold” (Ezra 8:27). Rav and Shmuel disagree as to the meaning of the phrase: Two, precious as gold. One said: Each and every one of these brass vessels was as valuable as two vessels made from gold. And the other one said: The two of them together were as valuable as one vessel made from gold. Similarly, Rav Yosef teaches the following explanation found in a baraita: The two of them together were as valuable as one vessel made from gold. The Gemara cites another explanation of the verse in Ezra. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: The cymbals and mortars were pairs, i.e., there were two cymbals and two mortars, as it is stated in the aforementioned verse “two”; do not read it as two [shenayim], but as pairs [sheniyyim]. § Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel teaches in a baraita: The Siloam pool used to spurt forth water through an opening with a diameter like that of an issar coin.The king issued a command and they widened the opening so that its waters would increase, but the waters actually decreased. And they subsequently decreased the size of the opening again and it once again spurted forth water as it had before. All this serves to uphold that which is stated in the verse: “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might” (Jeremiah 9:22), i.e., man should not think that he can accomplish anything he wishes. And likewise Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would say, with regard to the musical instruments in the Temple: There was no hirdolim in the Temple. The Gemara asks: What is a hirdolim? Abaye said: It is a hydraulic organ. It was not used in the Temple because its sound is pleasant but it disrupts the melody. Rava bar Sheila said that Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: There was an instrument called magreifa in the Temple.

This is [the version] we should teach, "And made them holidays with Hallel and thanksgiving": It is not that work is forbidden on them, as they were only fixed with regard to reciting Hallel and saying, Al HaNissim, in [the blessing of] thanksgiving (in the daily prayers).

On the 25th of Kislev (start) the eight days of Hanukkah, and they are prohibited for eulogizing and fasting, but are permitted for doing work. The women have made it a custom not to do work while the candles are burning. And there is [an opinion] that says that we may not be lenient for them.