1)
We begin on Shabbat 21a-21b:
By way of explanation, Rava claims that Rav Huna holds that if it is extinguished he must deal with it, and thus if it goes out his initial lighting was not sufficient. Therefore, we should not light with it, neither on Shabbat nor during the week, because what if it goes out? He would have to relight, and what if he did not?אמר רב הונא פתילות ושמנים שאמרו חכמים אין מדליקין בהן בשבת אין מדליקין בהן בחנוכה בין בשבת בין בחול
אמר רבא מאי טעמא דרב הונא קסבר כבתה זקוק לה ומותר להשתמש לאורה
ורב חסדא אמר מדליקין בהן בחול אבל לא בשבת
קסבר כבתה אין זקוק לה ומותר להשתמש לאורהRav Huna said: the materials for wicks and oils that the Sages said that we do not light with them for Shabbat, we do not light with them on Chanukka, neither on Shabbat nor during the week.
Rava said: what is the reason of Rav Huna?
He holds that if it is extinguished he need must deal with it {to relight it} and furthermore that it is permissible to make use of its light.
And Rav Chisda said: We may light with them {on Chanukka} during the week but not on Shabbat.
He holds that if they were extinguished he need not deal with it, and furthermore that it is permitted to make use of its light.
This first reason is sufficient. The bit about being able to use the light on Shabbat is irrelevant, because it may not be used even during the week, so how can Rava make this deduction? (The idea of being able to make use of the Chanukka lamp is that if he uses it with these inferior materials, he may come to tilt the lamp and violate the Shabbat.) Rishonim take this as an additional reason why these materials may not be used.
I would claim this is a back-formation of sorts. Once Rava explained Rav Chisda, who requires the fact that it is permissible to use on Shabbat, he mentioned it as well in explaining Rav Huna , who does not need it. Since there is no cause to say they disagree, we might as well have Rav Huna and Rav Chisda agreeing in this matter.
In terms of the explanation of Rav Chisda, who says that it may be used for Chanukka lamps on weekdays but not on Shabbat, someone (perhaps Rava, perhaps the stama degemara) explains that he holds that if it is extinguished, he need not relight it. Thus, on a weekday, there is nothing to be concerned with. It may not be used on Shabbat because benefit may be had from its light, and he may come to tilt the lamp.
Now, we know not who says this explanation. However, it is most likely Rava, since we see elsewhere in terms of disputes between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda that Rava steps in and an explanation of both sides is given. For example, here in Brachot 25a (link goes to the Rif Brachot 16a}, Rava explains both sides of a dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda as to whther one may read the Shema when their is fecal matter on his flesh. {Alternatively we can have the explanation of Rav Chisda provided by the stama degemara as a back formation after seeing the explanation Rabbi Yirmiya gives to Rav/Rav Matna, to be discussed shortly, and it is tacked on to Rava's explanation of Rav Huna to make everything nicely parallel.}
The gemara continues:
Now, to explain Rav/Rav Matna's opinion, according to Rabbi Yirmiya: we need not be concerned if they become extinguished as a result of the inferior materials used, because even if it goes out, he need not deal with it, and he has already fulfilled his obligation. Further, since he may make use of the Chanukka lamp, we need not worry that he will come to tilt it.א"ר זירא אמר רב מתנה ואמרי לה א"ר זירא אמר רב:
פתילות ושמנים שאמרו חכמים אין מדליקין בהן בשבת מדליקין בהן בחנוכה בין בחול בין בשבת
א"ר ירמיה מאי טעמא דרב?
קסבר כבתה אין זקוק לה ואסור להשתמש לאורה
אמרוה רבנן קמיה דאביי משמיה דר' ירמיה ולא קיבלה
כי אתא רבין אמרוה רבנן קמיה דאביי משמיה דר' יוחנן וקיבלה
אמר אי זכאי גמירתיה לשמעתיה מעיקרא
והא גמרה?!
נפקא מינה לגירסא דינקותאRabbi Zera cited Rav Matna, and some say Rabbi Zera cited Rav:
The wicks and oild that the Sages said we do not light with on Shabbat, we may light with on Chanukka {for Chanukka lamps}, whether on a weekday or on Shabbat.
Rabbi Yirmiya said: What is the reason of Rav?
He holds that if it is extinguished he need not deal with it, and furthermore it is forbidden to make use of its light.
The Rabbis said this {explanation} before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yirmiya and he did not accept.
When Rabin came, the Rabbis said this before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yochanan and he accepted it.
He said: If I have merited, I would have learned this report initially {from Rabbi Yirmiya}.
But he did learn it?!
There is a difference, in terms of the learning of one's youth.
The Rif cites this explanation of Rav lehalacha (see here). And it makes sense to do so. After all, this is a statement of Rav, and we rule like Rav in regarding issurim. Further, Abaye eventually accepts Rabbi Yirmiya and Rabbi Yochanan's explanation of this statement of Rav, so it stands to reason that we should rule like him.
There are some problem with this: later we see that Abaye states that Rabba ruled with Shmuel, and against Rav, that one may light from one lamp to another, which perhaps should be forbidden if all use of the lamp is forbidden. Further, why is Rav talking later about whether one may specifically count money opposite the lamp, and if one may light from one lamp to another, if he holds that all use is forbidden?
In fact, it may not be Rav who makes this statement. As mentioned earlier in the gemara, Rabbi Zera either cited Rav Matna or Rav. We must determine who was cited - this is a critical point.
א"ר זירא אמר רב מתנה ואמרי לה א"ר זירא אמר רבWho did Rabbi Zera cite? I would explain as follows. The sofer had two different girsaot before him. One gemara had Rabbi Zera citing Rav Matna, and another had him citing Rav. If the sofer only copied one version, he could be losing important information (who was cited) for future generations. As a result, he copied "Rabbi Zera cited Rav Matna." Then, since another girsa was before him that said "Rabbi Zera cited Rav," he wrote, "and some say" followed by the alternate girsa.
Rabbi Zera cited Rav Matna, and some say Rabbi Zera cited Rav:
Now, in the continuation of the gemara, we see only Rav is mentioned. א"ר ירמיה מאי טעמא דרב? Rav Yirmiya said: What is the reason of Rav? Rabbi Yirmiya is not explaining the reason of Rav Matna. Thus, we might think to say that it is surely Rav who is being citing. I would argue against this. What is happening is that the sofer had two versions, and one had Rav throughout, and the other had Rav Matna throughout. The sofer saw fit to mention Rav Matna as an alternative to Rav the first time, but afterwards needs not continue to mention Rav Matna as an alternative to Rav, since it is obvious that he should be substituted throughout (here, in one other instance).
Now, we know Rav was in Eretz Yisrael at some point, so it makes sense for both Rabbi Yirmiya and Rabbi Yochanan to give an explanation. So, perhaps this is sufficient evidence that it is Rav, and not Rav Matna, who was cited. Alas, Rav Matna is often enough cited in Talmud Yerushalmi, and so he remains a valid possibility.
Textually, the version that says Rav Matna is better. When you have two variant texts A and B, a good way to decide which is original is to ask the question: How easy is it to get from A to B? And how easy is it to get from B to A?
Assume the text was originally Rav Matna. How easy is it to get from there to Rav? Fairly easy. The sofer need only accidentally omit one word, Matna, and you have Rav Zera citing Rav.
Now assume the text was originally Rav. How easy is it to get from there to Rav Matna? Not so easy. The sofer would need to copy a word ex nihilo, which does not exist in his source text.
Since it is easier to go from Rav Matna to Rav than in the opposite direction, from a purely textual perspective Rav Matna is probably the original.
From a logical perspective Rav Matna is also the better choice. After all, we would otherwise seem to have an inconsistency in the opinion of Rav, in that Rav (thoug some would say this is only Rav Assi) only seems to forbid the use of the lamp in specific cases, such as counting coins, such that Rav Yosef says that it is only because of degrading the mitzvah, so how can Rav say that in all cases its use is forbidden? This contradiction is resolved if it is not Rav who forbids in all cases, but rather Rav Matna.
{Caveat: I speak of deciding halacha here only in theory. This is all lehalacha and not limaaseh.}
In terms of deciding halacha:
Even had it been Rav who made the statement, Rav did not say explicitly that use may not be made of the Chanukka lamp, but rather others (Rabbi Yirmiya and Rabbi Yochanan) had derived it from his words. Abaye eventually agreed to the explanation, but initially rejected this explanation.
Now, we no longer have the strength of it being Rav who made the statement. It is Rav Matna. We do not say that the halacha is like Rav Matna regarding issurim. We only say that regarding Rav.
We now have a three way dispute between Rav Huna, Rav Chisda, and Rav Matna. Assuming for a moment that we reject Rav Matna, it is a dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda. In such a case, we would decide like Rav Huna, because he is the teacher (see here in the Rif Shabbat 16a where the Rif decides like Rav Huna over Rav Chisda on this basis).
Why should we reject Rav Matna?
Well, we see Rav says later that is is forbidden to count money opposite the Chanukka lamp, and Shmuel says it is permitted. But both of them were only speaking about counting money, but (in the simplest reading) not every single type of use. So if both Rav and Shmuel agree, it is hard to believe that we should rule against them and hold like Rav Matna. And even if it Rav Assi and Shmuel there, the fact remains that it was a matter for discussion in that case of counting coins. I will show soon that it was Rav and not Rav Assi, but no matter. The fact that is was still be discussed, and debated by the likes of Rav Yosef, who says it is only because of disgrace of the mitzvah. This would all contradict Rav Matna, who would forbid in every case. So, we seem to have Shmuel, Rav Yosef, and Rav or Rav Assi against Rav Matna.
Further, we have Rav's dispute with Shmuel about lighting from one lamp to another, and the dispute between Rav Ada bar Ahava and a certain member of the rabbinate for the reason - is it because it takes away from the mitzvah or because it is disgraceful. Why should Rav make a separate statement about lighting from one lamp to another if all use is forbidden. He must hold some use is allowed. And within the dispute, no one says by way of explanation that it is because all use is forbidden. And so Rav, Shmuel, Rav Ada bar Ahava, and the member of the rabbinate would all seem to disagree with Rav Matna.
What about the fact that Abaye was convinced of the reason for Rav Matna's statement? Firstly, he was not originally convinced of the truth of this explanation. And even when he accepted the reason, he only accepted this as a reason for Rav Matna's statement. This does not mean that he accepted Rav Matna's statement.
Indeed, how could he accept Rav Matna's statement. After all, he said (as we will see later) that Master (Rabba bar Nachmani) practiced like Rav over Shmuel in all cases except three, and one of the three in which he practiced like Shmuel in that one may light from one Chanukka lamp to another. We see that some use may be made of the lamp, and so his teacher Rabba clearly does not rule like Rav Matna.
Furthermore, let us assume for a moment that Abaye in fact agrees with Rav Matna. We have Rava who explains both Rav Huna and Rav Chisda, and ignoring Rav Matna. This would suggest that Rava holds like Rav Huna or Rav Chisda, and so we have a dispute between Abaye and Rava. Since this is not ya"l kega"m, we would rule like Rava agaist Abaye.
So we should reject Rav Matna, and then within the dispute of Rav Huna vs. Rav Chisda, we should rule like Rav Huna, as we said above, because he is the teacher.
Recall what Rav Huna says:
אמר רב הונא פתילות ושמנים שאמרו חכמים אין מדליקין בהן בשבת אין מדליקין בהן בחנוכה בין בשבת בין בחולאמר רבא מאי טעמא דרב הונא קסבר כבתה זקוק לה ומותר להשתמש לאורהRav Huna said: the materials for wicks and oils that the Sages said that we do not light with them for Shabbat, we do not light with them on Chanukka, neither on Shabbat nor during the week.
Rava said: what is the reason of Rav Huna?
He holds that if it is extinguished he need must deal with it {to relight it} and furthermore that it is permissible to make use of its light.
As a result, we should say that we may not light with these wicks and oils on Chanukka, whether during the week or during Shabbat; further, that if it is extinguished, he needs to relight; further, it is permissible to make use of its light {with some exceptions to be discussed later).
Now, the stama degemara tries to make sense of the opinion that if is extinguished, he need not deal further with it.
Which implies that if it is extinguished he need not relight it.
We might say that this is just trying to figure according to this opinion of Rav Matna, but we do not pasken like it. Alternatively, we need to know this because we hold like Rav Chisda. Alternatively, as we know, this is the stama degamara, and we should not derive halacha from his questions and answers. (Perhaps then, we need it to be lit for this whole span of time, while people are still in the market, and can thus see it, so that he fulfills publicizing the miracle to the best of his ability.)
Alternatively, (and this is the best answer,) we see that Rav Huna, Rav Chisda, and Rav Matna dispute the issue of whether he would need to relight, and so the two (Rav Chisda and Rav Matna) who say he does not need to relight need to make sense of the statement about the timespan of the mitzvah. While they do not discuss it directly, it needs to make sense. As a result, the question is asked how they would explain it, and this explanation works just as well if we rule like Rav Huna. In other words, it is an opportunity to clarify what the meaning of the statement about the timespan is, on the basis of the fact that it must make sense according to all.
2)
The gemara in Shabbat 22a states:
Now, the stama degemara tries to make sense of the opinion that if is extinguished, he need not deal further with it.
וכבתה אין זקוק לה
ורמינהו מצותה משתשקע החמה עד שתכלה רגל מן השוק
מאי לאו דאי כבתה הדר מדליק לה
לא דאי לא אדליק מדליק
וא"נ לשיעורהAnd if it is extinguished, he need not deal with it.
And one can ask: "Its mitzvah is from sunset until the foot ceases from the market."
Does this not mean that if is is extinguished he should relight it?
No. Rather that if he did not light it yet, he should light.
Alternatively, for the measure {of how much oil there should be for it to stay lit}.
We might say that this is just trying to figure according to this opinion of Rav Matna, but we do not pasken like it. Alternatively, we need to know this because we hold like Rav Chisda. Alternatively, as we know, this is the stama degamara, and we should not derive halacha from his questions and answers. (Perhaps then, we need it to be lit for this whole span of time, while people are still in the market, and can thus see it, so that he fulfills publicizing the miracle to the best of his ability.)
Alternatively, (and this is the best answer,) we see that Rav Huna, Rav Chisda, and Rav Matna dispute the issue of whether he would need to relight, and so the two (Rav Chisda and Rav Matna) who say he does not need to relight need to make sense of the statement about the timespan of the mitzvah. While they do not discuss it directly, it needs to make sense. As a result, the question is asked how they would explain it, and this explanation works just as well if we rule like Rav Huna. In other words, it is an opportunity to clarify what the meaning of the statement about the timespan is, on the basis of the fact that it must make sense according to all.
2)
The gemara in Shabbat 22a states:
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסי <אמר>:
אסור להרצות מעות כנגד נר חנוכה
כי אמריתה קמיה דשמואל אמר לי וכי נר קדושה יש בה?!
מתקיף לה רב יוסף וכי דם קדושה יש בו?!
דתניא (ויקרא יז)
ושפך וכסה
במה ששפך יכסה שלא יכסנו ברגל שלא יהו מצות בזויות עליו
ה"נ שלא יהו מצות בזויות עליוRav Yehuda cited Rav Ashi (who cited Rav):
It is forbidden to count money opposite a Chanukka lamp.
When I said this before Shmuel, he said to me: And does the lamp possess sanctity?!
Rav Yosef challenged this: And does blood possess sanctity?!
For we learn {in a brayta}: (Vayikra 17:13):
Here too {in terms of counting money}, so that the mitzvot should not be disgraceful to him.
Once again, before determining meaning, we must establish a correct text. Who said the initial statement? Was it Rav? Was it Rav Assi?
In the Artscroll translation, they write: Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Assi (who said in the name of Rav). They explain in a footnote that they follow here the Masoret HaShas who notes that the words in parentheses do not appear in the Rosh's text, nor in Rashi, who attributes it to Rav Assi. Similarly, in Soncino. There, they omit (who said in the name of Rav) entirely, and explain in a footnote: "Cur. ed. adds: in Rab's name: Rosh omits it, and it appears to be absent from Rashi's text too."
Thus, they decide, following Rosh and Rashi, and following the decision of Masoret HaShas, that the words in parentheses do not belong, and are incorrect. Thus it is Rav Assi who says the statement, and it is a question whether Rav Assi would agree with "Rav" cited above. (As I already showed, "Rav" above is really Rav Matna.)
However, I feel they do this statement a bit of an injustice here. From reading them, one would get the impression that there are two possible versions of the attribution:
Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Assi:
Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Assi who said in the name of Rav:
In fact, there is a third version of the attribution:
Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:
Indeed, in the Rif Shabbat 9b going on Shabbat 22a, we have: אמר רב יהודה אמר רב.
I would posit that the version with Rav Yehuda citing Rav Assi citing Rav is in fact derivative of the other two versions. Indeed, we see a somewhat similar situation in the case of Rav/Rav Matna above. Our gemara has א"ר זירא אמר רב מתנה ואמרי לה א"ר זירא אמר רב, that is, Rav Zera is either citing Rav Matna or Rav, and explicitly outlaying that these are alternatives, and the Rif constructs from this א"ר זירא (אמר רב מתנה) אמר רב, with either the Rif or someone else enclosing the alternative in parentheses to show it is not the favored version. I don't know what Masoret HaShas had before him, but even if he had it in full without parentheses, this might have resulted from an amalgamation of the two versions.
At any rate, we can confirm two versions of the statement from the Rishonim - Rashi and Rosh, vs. that of the Rif:
In the Artscroll translation, they write: Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Assi (who said in the name of Rav). They explain in a footnote that they follow here the Masoret HaShas who notes that the words in parentheses do not appear in the Rosh's text, nor in Rashi, who attributes it to Rav Assi. Similarly, in Soncino. There, they omit (who said in the name of Rav) entirely, and explain in a footnote: "Cur. ed. adds: in Rab's name: Rosh omits it, and it appears to be absent from Rashi's text too."
Thus, they decide, following Rosh and Rashi, and following the decision of Masoret HaShas, that the words in parentheses do not belong, and are incorrect. Thus it is Rav Assi who says the statement, and it is a question whether Rav Assi would agree with "Rav" cited above. (As I already showed, "Rav" above is really Rav Matna.)
However, I feel they do this statement a bit of an injustice here. From reading them, one would get the impression that there are two possible versions of the attribution:
Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Assi:
Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Assi who said in the name of Rav:
In fact, there is a third version of the attribution:
Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:
Indeed, in the Rif Shabbat 9b going on Shabbat 22a, we have: אמר רב יהודה אמר רב.
I would posit that the version with Rav Yehuda citing Rav Assi citing Rav is in fact derivative of the other two versions. Indeed, we see a somewhat similar situation in the case of Rav/Rav Matna above. Our gemara has א"ר זירא אמר רב מתנה ואמרי לה א"ר זירא אמר רב, that is, Rav Zera is either citing Rav Matna or Rav, and explicitly outlaying that these are alternatives, and the Rif constructs from this א"ר זירא (אמר רב מתנה) אמר רב, with either the Rif or someone else enclosing the alternative in parentheses to show it is not the favored version. I don't know what Masoret HaShas had before him, but even if he had it in full without parentheses, this might have resulted from an amalgamation of the two versions.
At any rate, we can confirm two versions of the statement from the Rishonim - Rashi and Rosh, vs. that of the Rif:
Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Assi:
Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסי
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב
and it is between these two versions that we should decide. To help in the decision, I will include the next line of text.
Imagine now that the last word on the line is אסור, but there is not enough space to finish it. He would write:
As I discussed earlier, when you have two variant texts A and B, a good way to decide which is original is to ask the question: How easy is it to get from A to B? And how easy is it to get from B to A?
Let us say A is Rav Yehuda citing Rav. To get to B, Rav Asi, all that needs happen is that אסור is recorded in one manuscript at the end and beginning of a line, and the next sofer mistakes the mark for a yud. This is different from the Rav/Rav Matna case above. There, there was no ready explanation for the insertion of the word Matna, whereas here there is a ready explanation for the insertion of the word Assi.
To get from B to A, that is from Rav Assi to Rav, we can simply say that the sofer overlooked a word. It is made even more likely by the presence of a word (אסור) which is quite similar immediately following. He started to write Assi and ended up writing Assur.
Which path is easier? This is a more subjective call. However, I would say that while the manuscript would have to be just so to get the word אסור on a line boundary, if the text is copied often enough it will get there, and then the confusion of אס' א with אסי is extremely easy. Meanwhile, while skipping a word is common, it is a more difficult operation than confusing one tiny mark for another tiny mark. Thus, I would claim that the original text of the gemara wasאמר רב יהודה אמר רב, and that this is the better version, from a purely textual perspective.
{As a Rif blogger, I feel gratified that the Rif's girsa wins out.}
This is also the better text from a logical perspective. Rav Yehuda is known as the student of both Rav and Shmuel. Many, many times, we have Rav Yehuda cite Shmuel, or Rav Yehuda cite Rav. Indeed, many times our gemara simply says "Rav Yehuda said," while the Rif has "Rav Yehuda cited Rav." As a result, we would expect Rav Yehuda to cite Rav, more than have him cite Rav Assi. And, we would expect him to learn something from one of his main teachers, Rav, and repeat it to the other of his main teachers, Shmuel, to see his opinion on it.
Further, Rav and Shmuel are among the classical sets of disputants. Abaye and Rava. Hillel and Shammai. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish. Rav and Shmuel. We should expect Rav and Shmuel to be arguing.
Further, we know that Rav and Shmuel argue on a similar point, shortly thereafter in the gemara, about whether one can light from one Chanukka lamp to another. Rav says it is forbidden and Shmuel says it is permitted. This follows the general line of this dispute.
Now, the Rif has both the statement of Rav/Rav Matna, as well as this current statement of Rav Rav/Rav Assi, assigned to Rav. How does one explain why Rav discusses this more trivial case when earlier he forbad in all instances? The Ran attempts an answer. Other Rishonim discuss whether Rav Assi will agree with Rav above.
In fact, I will say once again, the first statement was not Rav but Rav Matna, so there is no reason to harmonize the two. Similarly, we need not see if Rav Assi agrees with Rav, for it is not Rav Assi but Rav who is speaking. He would most likely not agree with "Rav" {=Rav Matna} above.
3)
Now, there is another statement of Rav, on Shabbat 22a:
How are we to understand Rav's opinion?
The gemara continues:
Based on the distinction made of lighting directly (which, BTW, seems to be from the stama degemara), it seems that the original case under discussion was using a wood chip to take from one light in order to light the next. This could be seen as disrespectful, but lighting directly from one to the next involves no disrespect. That a wood chip was under discussion was not made clear in the framing of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel.
I would say that since the phrase "diminishing the mitzvah" and not "diminishing the oil," or "light," is used, it really means that by using it for some other purpose, even to light another Chanukka lamp, takes away from the mitzvah aspect. On the other side, disrespect for the mitzvah implies that acts which are disrespectful to the mitzvah are forbidden, but other acts are allowed. Lighting a wood chip is disrespectful, while lighting directly is not.
{As a digression: Perhaps using the Chanukka lamp directly as a shamash to light something else could also be construed as disrespecting the mitzvah, and not just use of a wood chip. That is, do not adopt this distinction from the stama, since it is not in the text of the Rav/Shmuel dispute. If one wanted to find a nafka mina, one could look to other, respectful uses, such as reading a sefer using its light.}
This argument as the reason of Rav can also be applied to the Rav/Shmuel dispute above {understood by everyone but me as a Rav Assi/Shmuel dispute}. Rav said that one may not count coins opposite the Chanukka lamp. Shmuel objected: Is the Chanukka lamp sanctified?! That is, he understood Rav was saying that no use may be made of the Chanukka lamp, because it takes away from the mitzvah to make use of it. {As opposed to "draws away oil" or "dims."} That is, Shmuel understood Rav as Rav Adda bar Ahava understands Rav, and he objects to it.
Rav Yosef agrees that this is a legitimate objection, and argues that this is not in fact the reason for Rav's opinion. Rather, using it to count coins, a mundane task, shows disrespect for the mitzvah. Rav Yosef understands Rav as a certain member of the rabbinate explained Rav's opinion before Rav Adda bar Ahava.
Thus, we have a consistency of shittot in understanding Rav. There is Shmuel + Rav Adda bar Ahava vs. Rav Yosef (+ Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi) + a member of the rabbinate.
How should we pasken?
{Again, this is just theoretical, and no one should act on the basis of my words.}
Rav vs. Shmuel in a case of prohibitions, we rule like Shmuel.
Thus, in terms of counting coins, we rule like Rav.
In terms of lighting from one lamp to another, we have Abaye's testimony that in this, Rabba bar Nachmani practiced like Shmuel over Rav, and the Rif cites this lehalacha. Whether this is via a wood chip or even directly is left unexplained.
However, if we say that the reasoning of Rav is the same in both cases, we have an inconsistency.
Some suggestions:
I would say that once these explanations of Rav arose, they assumed a life of their own, independent of whether Rav himself agreed with it. As a result, disrespect for the mitzvah may be the reason for Rav, as Rav Yosef suggested. Counting money opposite the Chanukka candles is certainly disrespect. Lighting another lamp {even via a wood chip} is more arguable, and perhaps this is why Rabba in practice acted like Abaye to allow it.
Alternatively, Shmuel objected in the case of counting coins. Rav Yosef mounted a good defense to him. Perhaps Shmuel would agree in that case, because of disrespect. However, in the case of lighting from one lamp to the next, we again have the argument. Perhaps Rav indeed holds as Rav Adda bar Abba, that it is because of taking away from the mitzvah. However, we do not rule in this case like Rav but like Shmuel. Thus, by coins, Shmuel agrees to Rav Yosef, but Shmuel said nothing about disrespect to mitzvot by lighting from lamp to lamp, and Rav has a different reason to which we do not agree.
Alternatively, taking away from the mitzvah actually does mean dimming the light or taking away oil, which is not at issue by cointing coins. By counting coins, Rav's reason is disrespect, as Rav Yosef argues to Shmuel. They (the rabbinate) tried to apply this same reason to Rav's rule about lighting from one lamp to the next, but were shot down by Rav Adda bar Ahava, who gives a different reason. This other reason is not as convincing, and so Rabba rules in favor of Shmuel.
Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Assi:vs.
It is forbidden to count money opposite a Chanukka lamp.אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסיאסור להרצות מעות כנגד נר חנוכה
Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Assi:Another piece of necessary information. In manuscripts of Mishna, Talmud, Rishonim, etc., a common feature is what the sofer does at the end of a line. Sometimes he places extra letters like a ב at the end of a line to get it to justify neatly. Other times, he begins a word, and does not have space to finish it, and so places a little mark over the end of the word to note and writes the word in full on the next line.
It is forbidden to count money opposite a Chanukka lamp.אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסיאסור להרצות מעות כנגד נר חנוכה
Imagine now that the last word on the line is אסור, but there is not enough space to finish it. He would write:
Another sofer, copying the manuscript, could easily confuse the little mark for a yud, and so Rav becomes Rav Assi. Alternatively, a sofer could think this is an abbreviation for Assi, and expand it by adding a yud.אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אס' אאסור להרצות מעות כנגד נר חנוכה
As I discussed earlier, when you have two variant texts A and B, a good way to decide which is original is to ask the question: How easy is it to get from A to B? And how easy is it to get from B to A?
Let us say A is Rav Yehuda citing Rav. To get to B, Rav Asi, all that needs happen is that אסור is recorded in one manuscript at the end and beginning of a line, and the next sofer mistakes the mark for a yud. This is different from the Rav/Rav Matna case above. There, there was no ready explanation for the insertion of the word Matna, whereas here there is a ready explanation for the insertion of the word Assi.
To get from B to A, that is from Rav Assi to Rav, we can simply say that the sofer overlooked a word. It is made even more likely by the presence of a word (אסור) which is quite similar immediately following. He started to write Assi and ended up writing Assur.
Which path is easier? This is a more subjective call. However, I would say that while the manuscript would have to be just so to get the word אסור on a line boundary, if the text is copied often enough it will get there, and then the confusion of אס' א with אסי is extremely easy. Meanwhile, while skipping a word is common, it is a more difficult operation than confusing one tiny mark for another tiny mark. Thus, I would claim that the original text of the gemara wasאמר רב יהודה אמר רב, and that this is the better version, from a purely textual perspective.
{As a Rif blogger, I feel gratified that the Rif's girsa wins out.}
This is also the better text from a logical perspective. Rav Yehuda is known as the student of both Rav and Shmuel. Many, many times, we have Rav Yehuda cite Shmuel, or Rav Yehuda cite Rav. Indeed, many times our gemara simply says "Rav Yehuda said," while the Rif has "Rav Yehuda cited Rav." As a result, we would expect Rav Yehuda to cite Rav, more than have him cite Rav Assi. And, we would expect him to learn something from one of his main teachers, Rav, and repeat it to the other of his main teachers, Shmuel, to see his opinion on it.
Further, Rav and Shmuel are among the classical sets of disputants. Abaye and Rava. Hillel and Shammai. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish. Rav and Shmuel. We should expect Rav and Shmuel to be arguing.
Further, we know that Rav and Shmuel argue on a similar point, shortly thereafter in the gemara, about whether one can light from one Chanukka lamp to another. Rav says it is forbidden and Shmuel says it is permitted. This follows the general line of this dispute.
Now, the Rif has both the statement of Rav/Rav Matna, as well as this current statement of Rav Rav/Rav Assi, assigned to Rav. How does one explain why Rav discusses this more trivial case when earlier he forbad in all instances? The Ran attempts an answer. Other Rishonim discuss whether Rav Assi will agree with Rav above.
In fact, I will say once again, the first statement was not Rav but Rav Matna, so there is no reason to harmonize the two. Similarly, we need not see if Rav Assi agrees with Rav, for it is not Rav Assi but Rav who is speaking. He would most likely not agree with "Rav" {=Rav Matna} above.
3)
Now, there is another statement of Rav, on Shabbat 22a:
So once again we have a dispute between Rav and Shmuel in terms of what one may do with the Chanukka lamp.איתמר
רב אמר אין מדליקין מנר לנר ושמואל אמר מדליקיןרב אמר אין מתירין ציצית מבגד לבגד ושמואל אמר מתירין מבגד לבגד
רב אמר אין הלכה כרבי שמעון בגרירה ושמואל אמר הלכה כרבי שמעון בגרירה
אמר אביי כל מילי דמר עביד כרב לבר מהני תלת דעביד כשמואל
מדליקין מנר לנר
ומתירין מבגד לבגד
והלכה כרבי שמעון בגרירהIt was said {by Amoraim}:
Rav said: we do not light from one {Chanukka} lamp to another {Chanukka} lamp, and Shmuel said: we do light.
Rav said: we do not untie tzitzit from one garment to another, and Shmuel said: we do untie tzitzit from one garment to another.
Rav said: the halacha is not like Rabbi Shimon in terms of dragging {a bench, thus making a furrow, which he permits since he did not intend to create the furrow}, and Shmuel said the halacha is like Rabbi Shimon in terms of dragging.
Abaye said: In all matters that Master {Rabba bar Nachmani} did he did like Rav, with the exception of these three, which he did like Shmuel:
We may light from {Chanukka} lamp to lamp
And we may untie from one garment to another garment
And the halacha is like Rabbi Shimon by dragging.
How are we to understand Rav's opinion?
The gemara continues:
Diminishing the mitzvah is interpreted by Rishonim as drawing oil away from the mitzvah, or dimming it. Disrespect for the mitzvah seems to be because he is making a use of it.יתיב ההוא מרבנן קמיה דרב אדא בר אהבה
ויתיב וקאמר טעמא דרב משום ביזוי מצוה
אמר להו לא תציתו ליה טעמיה דרב משום דקא מכחיש מצוה
מאי בינייהו? איכא בינייהו דקא מדליק משרגא לשרגא
מ"ד משום ביזוי מצוה משרגא לשרגא מדליק
מ"ד משום אכחושי מצוה משרגא לשרגא נמי אסורA certain member of the rabbinate sat before Rav Ada bar Ahava
And he sat and he said the reason of Rav is because of disrespect for the commandment.
He said to them {the assembled Sages}: Do not listen to him! The reason of Rav is because he diminishes the commandment.
What is the difference between them? This is the difference - when he kindles {directly} from one light to the other light.
According to the one who says because of disrespect for the mitzvah, from one light {directly} to the other light, he may kindle.
The one who says because of diminishing the mitzvah, from one light {directly} to another light is also forbidden.
Based on the distinction made of lighting directly (which, BTW, seems to be from the stama degemara), it seems that the original case under discussion was using a wood chip to take from one light in order to light the next. This could be seen as disrespectful, but lighting directly from one to the next involves no disrespect. That a wood chip was under discussion was not made clear in the framing of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel.
I would say that since the phrase "diminishing the mitzvah" and not "diminishing the oil," or "light," is used, it really means that by using it for some other purpose, even to light another Chanukka lamp, takes away from the mitzvah aspect. On the other side, disrespect for the mitzvah implies that acts which are disrespectful to the mitzvah are forbidden, but other acts are allowed. Lighting a wood chip is disrespectful, while lighting directly is not.
{As a digression: Perhaps using the Chanukka lamp directly as a shamash to light something else could also be construed as disrespecting the mitzvah, and not just use of a wood chip. That is, do not adopt this distinction from the stama, since it is not in the text of the Rav/Shmuel dispute. If one wanted to find a nafka mina, one could look to other, respectful uses, such as reading a sefer using its light.}
This argument as the reason of Rav can also be applied to the Rav/Shmuel dispute above {understood by everyone but me as a Rav Assi/Shmuel dispute}. Rav said that one may not count coins opposite the Chanukka lamp. Shmuel objected: Is the Chanukka lamp sanctified?! That is, he understood Rav was saying that no use may be made of the Chanukka lamp, because it takes away from the mitzvah to make use of it. {As opposed to "draws away oil" or "dims."} That is, Shmuel understood Rav as Rav Adda bar Ahava understands Rav, and he objects to it.
Rav Yosef agrees that this is a legitimate objection, and argues that this is not in fact the reason for Rav's opinion. Rather, using it to count coins, a mundane task, shows disrespect for the mitzvah. Rav Yosef understands Rav as a certain member of the rabbinate explained Rav's opinion before Rav Adda bar Ahava.
Thus, we have a consistency of shittot in understanding Rav. There is Shmuel + Rav Adda bar Ahava vs. Rav Yosef (+ Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi) + a member of the rabbinate.
How should we pasken?
{Again, this is just theoretical, and no one should act on the basis of my words.}
Rav vs. Shmuel in a case of prohibitions, we rule like Shmuel.
Thus, in terms of counting coins, we rule like Rav.
In terms of lighting from one lamp to another, we have Abaye's testimony that in this, Rabba bar Nachmani practiced like Shmuel over Rav, and the Rif cites this lehalacha. Whether this is via a wood chip or even directly is left unexplained.
However, if we say that the reasoning of Rav is the same in both cases, we have an inconsistency.
Some suggestions:
I would say that once these explanations of Rav arose, they assumed a life of their own, independent of whether Rav himself agreed with it. As a result, disrespect for the mitzvah may be the reason for Rav, as Rav Yosef suggested. Counting money opposite the Chanukka candles is certainly disrespect. Lighting another lamp {even via a wood chip} is more arguable, and perhaps this is why Rabba in practice acted like Abaye to allow it.
Alternatively, Shmuel objected in the case of counting coins. Rav Yosef mounted a good defense to him. Perhaps Shmuel would agree in that case, because of disrespect. However, in the case of lighting from one lamp to the next, we again have the argument. Perhaps Rav indeed holds as Rav Adda bar Abba, that it is because of taking away from the mitzvah. However, we do not rule in this case like Rav but like Shmuel. Thus, by coins, Shmuel agrees to Rav Yosef, but Shmuel said nothing about disrespect to mitzvot by lighting from lamp to lamp, and Rav has a different reason to which we do not agree.
Alternatively, taking away from the mitzvah actually does mean dimming the light or taking away oil, which is not at issue by cointing coins. By counting coins, Rav's reason is disrespect, as Rav Yosef argues to Shmuel. They (the rabbinate) tried to apply this same reason to Rav's rule about lighting from one lamp to the next, but were shot down by Rav Adda bar Ahava, who gives a different reason. This other reason is not as convincing, and so Rabba rules in favor of Shmuel.
No comments:
Post a Comment