משנה: כַּרְשִׁינֵי תְרוּמָה מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתָן לִבְהֵמָה וּלְחַיָּה וְלַתַּרְנוֹגַלִּין. יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁשָּׂכַר פָּרָה מִכֹּהֶן מַאֲכִילָהּ כַּרְשִׁינֵי תְרוּמָה. וְכֹהֵן שֶׁשָּׂכַר פָּרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ עָלָיו לֹא יַאֲכִילֶנָּה כַּרְשִׁינֵי תְרוּמָה. יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁשָּׁם פָּרָה מִכֹּהֶן לֹא יַאֲכִילֶנָּה כַּרְשִׁינֵי תְרוּמָה. וְכֹהֵן שֶׁשָּׁם פָּרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל מַאֲכִילָהּ כַּרְשִׁינֵי תְרוּמָה. מַדְלִיקִין שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה בְּבָתֵּי כְּנֵיסִיּוֹת וּבְבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת וּבִמְבוֹאוֹת אֲפֵילִין וְעַל גַּבֵּי הַחוֹלִים בִּרְשׁוּת הַכֹּהֵן. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּישְׂאֵת לְכֹהֵן וְהִיא לִימּוּדֶת לָבוֹא אֶצֶל אָבִיהָ אָבִיהָ מַדְלִיק בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ. מַדְלִיקִין בְּבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה אֲבָל לֹא בְּבֵית הָאֵבֶל דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר בְּבֵית הָאֵבֶל אֲבָל לֹא בְּבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹסֵר כָּאן וְכָאן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר כָּאן וְכָאן. MISHNAH: Heave vetch may be fed to domestic animals, wild animals, and chickens117If these animals are possessions of the Cohen, as explained in the Halakhah. The determining factor is ownership.. An Israel who rented a cow from a Cohen feeds it heave vetch. A Cohen who rented a cow from an Israel may not feed it heave vetch even if he is required to feed it. An Israel who received a cow from a Cohen by appraisal118At the time of transfer of ownership, the value of the cow was appraised but not paid. The Israel will fatten the cow. If it is finally sold, the original owner will receive the appraised value and part of the added value. Since there is transfer of ownership, some rules will have to be observed to avoid giving the Cohen’s part of the added value the status of forbidden interest. may not feed it heave vetch. A Cohen who received a cow from an Israel by appraisal may feed it heave vetch.
One lights “oil to burn”124Impure olive oil of heave which must be burned. It may be used for lighting. Since Cohanim also use public institutions such as synagogues, houses of study, and public roads, their consent to the use of impure oil for the institutions is implied. in synagogues, houses of study, dark passageways, and near the sick with permission of the Cohen. If the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen is used to visit her father125She is a member of the Cohen’s family and stands in his stead in matters of heave., her father puts up lights with her permission. One puts up lights at a wedding but not in a house of mourning, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, in a house of mourning but not at a wedding. Rebbi Meïr forbids in both cases, Rebbi Simeon permits in both cases126The Halakhah will discuss the four possible opinions..
הלכה: מְנַיִין לְפָרָתוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן שֶׁהָֽיְתָה שׁוּמָה אֶצֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַאֲכִילָהּ בִּתְרוּמָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכֹהֵן כִּי יִקְנֶה נֶפֶשׁ קִנְייַן כַּסְפּוֹ וגו׳. יָכוֹל לֹא יַאֲכִילֶנָּהּ בְּכַרְשִׁינִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר הֵם. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי יָכוֹל לֹא תֹאכַל בְּכַרְשִׁינִין וּבְתִלְתָּן. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֵית כָּאן תִּלְתָּן. תִּלְתָּן דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. לֹא כֵן תַּנֵּי מְנַיִין לְכֹהֵן שֶׁקָּנָה עֶבֶד וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל בּוֹ שׁוּתָפוּת אֲפִילוּ אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה בּוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַאֲכִילוֹ בִתְרוּמָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכֹהֵן כִּי יִקְנֶה. תַּנֵּי בַּר קַפָּרָא אֶחָד זוֹ וְאֶחָד זוֹ לֹא תֹאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. HALAKHAH: From where that a cow of a Cohen which was appraised at an Israel’s cannot be fed vetch? The verse says (Leviticus.22.11">Lev. 22:11): “If a Cohen buys a living being with his money, etc.119(Leviticus.22.11">Lev. 22:11): “If a Cohen buys a living being with his money, he may eat of it; whoever is born in his house, they shall eat of his bread.” The ownership must be 100% the Cohen’s.” I could think, he may not feed it vetch, the verse says, “they”120The argument is elliptic. It is a little more explicit in Sifra Emor Parašah 5:6: “They shall eat,” they but not an animal. I could think an animal could not eat [heave] vetch? The verse says, “a living being”.. Some Tannaïm state: I could think, he may not feed it vetch or fenugreek. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of the Torah is that here, there is no “fenugreek”121Vetch is human food only in times of famine; fenugreek is human food. R. Joḥanan follows the argument of Terumot 11:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.11.5.1">Note 117 to exclude feeding animals heave of human food.. Did we not state: From where that a Cohen who bought a slave in partnership with an Israel, even if the latter has only a one percent interest, cannot feed him heave122Why should an animal given to the Cohen on appraisal be fed heave vetch if the Israel has a continuing monetary stake in the animal?? The verse says, “If a Cohen buys.” Bar Qappara stated: Neither one of them may eat heave123Bar Qappara (and the editors of the Yerushalmi) disagree with the Mishnah and forbid heave vetch in all cases of an animal given on appraisal..
מַדְלִיקִין שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה בְּבָתֵּי כְּנֵיסִיּוֹת וּבְבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת כו׳. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כֵּן הִיא מַתְנִיתָא וְעַל גַּבֵּי הַחוֹלִים בִּרְשׁוּת כֹּהֵן. הָא מַתְנִיתָא קַדְמִייָתָא אֲפִילוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת כֹּהֵן. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה בִּיקּוּר הַחוֹלֶה אֵין לוֹ שִׁיעוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָא בַּר אָדָא מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה כֵן וְעַל גַּבֵּי הַחוֹלִין בִּרְשׁוּת כֹּהֵן. “One lights ‘oil to burn’ in synagogues, houses of study; etc.” Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is the Mishnah: “and near the sick with permission of the Cohen.127The permission of the Cohen is needed only for burning at the bedside of a Non-Cohen; public buildings can be lit since the utility for some Cohen is assured.” That means, the earlier parts of the Mishnah even without the permission of a Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Sickbed visits have no measure128One may visit the sick at all times, even after dark; therefore, the sick may need light after dark. The Nedarim.26b">Babli, Nedarim 26b, is not quite sure about the meaning of the statement..” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah says so: “and near the sick with permission of the Cohen.”
רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא עַד כְּדוֹן בִּתְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּֽפְלָה לוֹ מִבֵּית אֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹהֵן. וַאֲפִילוּ בִתְרוּמַת גֹּרְנוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ מָאן יֵימַר לָךְ בִּתְרוּמַת גֹּרְנוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. רִבִּי יוֹנָה כְרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְרִבִּי זְעִירָא. מָאן דְּאָמַר בִּתְרוּמַת גֹּרְנוֹ נִדְלַק וְאָתֵי אַתְייָא לְמָאן דְּאָמַר בִּתְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּֽפְלָה לוֹ מִבֵּית אֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹהֵן בְּלֹא כֵן בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ זְכִייָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ בִּמְזַכֶּה לוֹ עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: So far heave that fell to him from the house of his maternal grandfather, a Cohen130This refers to the part of the Mishnah speaking of the father of a Cohen’s wife. The Mishnah presupposes that the Israel is the rightful owner of some impure heave oil. One possibility is that it came to him as an inheritance.. Perhaps also from the heave of his own threshing floor131Maybe he is an olive grower and the oil is his from his own oilpress. “Threshing floor”, referring to grain, simply denotes the place and moment the obligation of heave was created.? He said to him, who could tell you, from the heave of his own threshing floor? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose; Rebbi Jonah followed Rebbi Jeremiah132That an Israel may use impure heave from his own harvest to the benefit of a Cohen without ever transferring ownership., Rebbi Yose followed Rebbi Zeïra. He who says, from the heave of his own threshing floor, may he go and light a lamp? 133The Rome ms. has here a lengthy addition: ר׳ בא בר כהן בעא קומי ר׳ יוסי ולמאן דאמר בתרומה שנפלה לו מבית אבי אמו כהן בלא כך שאינו … “Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: According to him who said, heave that fell to him from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, without that would he not …” Following him who said, heave that fell to him from the house of his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, would he not need empowering anyhow134Since he is an Israel and you said that an Israel cannot use his own heave for the benefit of a Cohen, he should not be able to use his inheritance without transferring ownership to his son-in-law.? He said to him, when he transfers it to him through a third party135He cannot transfer the ownership of his own possessions without actually performing some act of transfer but he may tell a third person to accept disposal rights of this heave for his daughter. Then he can use the oil for her benefit..
תַּנֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכֹהֵן שֶׁהָיוּ שׁוּתָפִין בְּחָנוּת. מְמַלֵּא יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַנֵּר שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה וְעוֹלֶה לָעֲלִייָה וְיוֹרֵד לֶחָנוּת לַעֲשׂוֹת צְרָכָיו שֶׁל כֹּהֵן. אֲבָל לֹא שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. כֹהֵן שֶׁבָּא אֶצֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת עַמּוֹ חֶשְׁבּוֹן מַדְלִיק עַל גַּבָּיו שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה אַף עַל פִּי כֵן זְכַייָהּ אָמַר לָהֶן בִּמְזַכֶּה לָהֶן עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר. It was stated137A somewhat similar text is in Tosephta 10:9, but there the Israel is the employee of the Cohen and it is clear that what he does in the store is for the benefit of his employer. In the baraita here, “the business of the Cohen” means anything in which the Cohen has some monetary interest; it only excludes private affairs of the Israel.: “If an Israel and a Cohen were partners in a store, the Israel may fill the lamp with oil to burn and go to the upper floor and down into the store in the business of the Cohen, but not his own. If a Cohen came to an Israel to help him with his accounts138The visit of the Cohen is for the benefit of the Israel. In this case, the same problem arises as in the previous case of inherited oil, cf. Notes 131–132., the latter may light oil to burn for him.” Where is the empowering? He139R. Zeïra, the author of the preceding paragraph. said to them, when he transfers it to them through a third party.
תַּנֵּי בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לַעֲשׂוֹת צְרָכָיו שֶׁל כֹּהֵן אֲבָל לֹא שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. It was stated: An Israel woman who came to work for a Cohen, but not for an Israel140This baraita fragment must have stated that she may use left-over oil for some personal use, cf. Tosephta 10:9 and the two following paragraphs.
תַּנֵּי בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לְהַדְלִיק מִכֹּהֶנֶת טוֹבֶלֶת פְּתִילָהּ שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה וּמַדְלֶקֶת. רִבִּי הוּנָא בְשֵׁם דְּבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי שְׁעַת מִשְׁלַחַת זְאֵיבִים הָֽיְיתָה וְלֹא עָמַד בֵּית דִּין וּבִיטֵּל. כְּמַה דְתֵימַר תַּמָּן לֹא עָמַד בֵּית דִּין וּבִיטֵּל אַף הָכָא לֹא עָמַד בֵּית דִּין וּבִיטֵּל. 141This entire paragraph is taken from Sheviit 4:2:9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sheviit.4.2.9">Ševi‘it Chapter 4, Notes 39–42. A somewhat similar statement is in Tosephta 10:9. From here to the start of the discussion about weddings, the text is also in Šabbat, Chapter 2, fol. 4c/d. It was stated: “An Israel woman who comes to a priestly woman to get fire dips her wick into oil to burn and lights.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the house of Rebbi Yannai: It was a time of wolf packs; there was no court which disestablished. (As you say there, there was no court which disestablished, so here there was no court which disestablished!)142This sentence, which embodies the essence of the argument in Sevi‘it, is out of place here. As R. S. Lieberman notes, it seems from the Tosephta that the Israel woman needs the light to go home in the night from the Cohen’s house. This kind of use is generally accepted by popular practice since it is necessary if the Cohen should have any kind of social life.
בְּקָרוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן שֶׁהָיָה מַאֲכִיל אֶצֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְכֵן בִּגְדּוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן שֶׁהָיָה נֶאֱרָג אֶצֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִדְלִיק עַל גַּבָּיו שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּא לַעֲשׂוֹת חֶשְׁבּוֹן עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִדְלִיק עַל גַּבָּיו שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה וְעָמַד לוֹ וְהָלַךְ לוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי כֵן אֵין מְחַייְבִין אוֹתוֹ לְכַבּוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּיכְבֶּה מֵאֵילָיו. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בַּר עַכְבָּרִי הֲוָה עֲבַד עוֹבְדְּתָא גַּבֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה צִיפֹּרַיָּא. מִי אֲזִיל לֵיהּ מַלֵּי לֵיהּ בּוֹצִינָא שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה. וְלֹא כֵן סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר לַעֲשׂוֹת צְרָכָיו שֶׁל כֹּהֵן אֲבָל לֹא שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָֽמְרִין דִּי לָא הֲוָה עֲבַד לֵיהּ כֵּן לָא הֲוָה אֲתֵי. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר כַּד יַמְטִּי בֵּייתֵיהּ הֲוָה מַטְפִּי לָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא עַל יָדִי כֵן הֲוָה שְׁהַר וְעַל יָדִי כֵן הֲוָה קְרֵץ. “144Tosephta 10:9. If cattle of a Cohen was fed at an Israel’s, or the garment of a Cohen being woven at an Israel’s, he lights for this oil to burn without hesitation. If a Cohen came to an Israel to help him with his accounts138The visit of the Cohen is for the benefit of the Israel. In this case, the same problem arises as in the previous case of inherited oil, cf. Notes 131–132. and he lit oil to burn for him, even after [the Cohen] left one does not require him to extinguish it before it burns out by itself.” Rebbi Ḥanania from Akhbar145He appears only here (and in the parallel in Šabbat). His employer, R. Ḥiyya from Sepphoris, is also quoted in ‘Orlah in a discussion with R. Ammi. Therefore, both men belong to the third generation of Galilean Amoraim. It follows from the story that this R. Ḥiyya was a Cohen; he might be identical with R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. worked at R. Ḥiyya’s from Sepphoris. When he left, the latter filled him a lamp full of oil to burn. Were we not of the opinion to say, “to work for a Cohen, but not for an Israel”? They said, if he had not done this for him, he would not have come. They thought, when he arrived at his house, he had to extinguish it. Rebbi Ḥinena said, this happened to me; by this he awoke, by this he got up early.
אָדָא שַׁמָּשָׁא שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי אִימִּי בְּגִין דַּאֲנָא צְבַע פְּתִילָה מִן חוֹלָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ בָּטֵל הוּא עַל גַּב פְּתִילוֹת. הוֹרֵי רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי כְּאִילֵּין דְּבַר נְחֶמְיָה כֵן. רִבִּי אִימִּי נְסַב פְּתִילָה. רִבִּי אִילָּא לֹא נְסַב פְּתִילָה. לֵית לְרִבִּי אִילָּא הָדָא דְרִבִּי אִימִּי. סָבַר רִבִּי אִילָּא מִשּׁוּם גֶּזֶל וּבְלָא מִן הָדֵין שַׁמָּשָׁא מְבַזְבְּזָא בָהּ קְדוּשָׁה. Ada the nurse asked Rebbi Ammi: Since I am dipping wicks at a sick person’s146The question is elliptic, so is the answer. It is not even clear whether R. Immi ruled to permit (R. Eliahu Fulda) or prohibit (R. Moses Margalit). It seems, with R. Eliahu Fulda, that the paragraph refers to the statement in the Mishnah that oil to burn may be used for all sick persons with the consent of the Cohen. The question now is whether from this oil the nurse can light for himself. The answer is that the value of the oil is insignificant.? He said to him, it becomes insignificant in the wick. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi instructed those of Bar Neḥemiah in this way. Rebbi Immi took a wick, Rebbi Ila did not take a wick147Dipped in oil for burning given to the sick.. Did Rebbi Ila not agree with Rebbi Immi? Rebbi Ila thought because of robbery; in addition, the nurse will spoil the consecrated food148Will not treat it with due respect but will use it in dirty places..
גַּמְלִיאֵל זוּגָא שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יָסָא מַהוּ לְהוֹסִיף שֶׁמֶן חוּלִין וּלְהַדְלִיק. אָמַר לֵיהּ לֹא תַנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה אֶלָּא אֵין מְחַייְבִין אוֹתוֹ לְמַצּוֹתוֹ. Gamliel the twin asked Rebbi Yasa: May one add profane oil and light149May one add profane oil to oil for burning and use it to light for a healthy Israel with no connection to any Cohen?? He said to him, Rebbi Hoshaia stated only that one is not required to squeeze it out150In the baraita/Tosephta quoted above, Terumot 11:5:7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.11.5.7">Note 142, the Israel does not have to extinguish the light when the Cohen leaves, but he is not permitted to start burning oil for burning in the absence of the Cohen. Therefore, Gamliel’s question has to be answered in the negative.
אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ שָׁנָה לִי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עַכְמַאי. בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁהָֽיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה וּבְיָדָהּ נֵר וּבְתוֹכוֹ שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מוֹסֶפֶת לְתוֹכוֹ שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל חוּלִין וּמַדְלֶקֶת. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי זְעִירָא מַה טִבְייָהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ אָדָם גָּדוֹל הָיָה וּבָקִי בְמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ הָיָה. פִּרְשֵׁיהּ רִבִּי חִייָא דִכְפַר תְּחוּמִין קוֹמֵי רַב וּמַנִּיתֵיהּ חֲכִים. Rebbi Abbahu said, Jonathan ben Akhmai did teach me: The daughter of a Cohen standing Sabbath eve with a light filled with oil for burning, adds some profane oil and lights151Mishnah Šabbat 2:2 states that Sabbath lamps may not be filled with oil for burning. It is now stated that this refers only to lamps filled exclusively with oil for burning, not to a mixture of that with profane oil.. Rebbi Zeïra said, what is the nature of this152Can this statement be trusted? Since the Babli does not mention the possibility of adding profane oil, it certainly must disagree.? He said to him, he was a great personality, well versed in the Mishnah. Rebbi Ḥiyya from Kefar Teḥumin explained this to Rabbi and he appointed him rabbi153R. Ḥiyya from Kefar Teḥumin was a third generation Amora in Galilee. Therefore, “Rabbi” mentioned here cannot be Rebbi; it must be R. Jehudah II Neśia, or possibly R. Joḥanan. The person given the title “rabbi” seems to have been Jonathan ben Akhmai.
Here ends the parallel in Šabbat 2..
מַדְלִיקִין בְּבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה אֲבָל לֹא בְּבֵית הָאֵבֶל דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוּדָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר בְּבֵית הָאֵבֶל אֲבָל לֹא בְּבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹסֵר כָּאן וְכָאן. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר כָּאן וְכָאן. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. בֵּית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה עַל יְדֵי דְמָנֵיהוֹן נְקִיִים לֹא מִתְעַסְּקִין. בְּבֵית הָאֵבֶל עַל יְדֵי דְמָנֵיהוֹן צֹאִין מִתְעַסְּקִין בֵּיהּ. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. בֵּית הָאֵבֶל עַל יְדֵי דְאִינּוּן כְּנִיעִין לֹא מִתְעַסְּקִין בֵּיהּ. בֵּית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה עַל יְדֵי דְאִינּוּן פְּחִיזִין מִתְעַסְּקִין בֵּיהּ. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּבֵית הָאֵבֶל עַל יְדֵי דְמָנֵיהוֹן צוֹאִין מִתְעַסְּקִין בּוֹ. בֵּית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה עַל יְדֵי דְאִינּוּן פְּחִיזִין מִתְעַסְּקִין בֵּיהּ. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּית הָאֵבֶל עַל יְדֵי דְאִינּוּן כְּנִיעִין לֹא מִתְעַסְּקִין בֵּיהּ. בֵּית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה עַל יְדֵי דְמָנֵיהוֹן נְקִיִין לֹא מִתְעַסְּקִין בֵּיהּ. אָֽמְרִין דְּבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי צַיְדָּנַיָּא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. דִּלֹא כֵן מַה נָן אָֽמְרִין. רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֵין הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אָמַר לֵיהּ שֶׁל בֵּית קוֹדְמִין הִיא. וְהָא רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר מֵעֵין שְׁנֵיהֶן. וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מֵעֵין שְׁנֵיהֶן. וְרִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. “One puts up lights at a wedding but not in a house of mourning, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, in a house of mourning but not at a wedding. Rebbi Meїr forbids in both cases, Rebbi Simeon permits in both cases.” What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? At a wedding, since their garments are clean, they will not touch it154Since they will not touch it, there is no danger that any oil will be used for other than approved purposes.. In a house of mourning, since their garments are dirty, they will touch it. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? In a house of mourning, since they are subdued, they will not touch it. At a wedding, since they are unrestrained, they will touch it. What is the reason of Rebbi Meїr? In a house of mourning, since their garments are dirty, they will touch it. At a wedding, since they are unrestrained, they will touch it. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? In a house of mourning, since they are subdued, they will not touch it. At a wedding, since their garments are clean, they will not touch it. In the house of Rebbi Yannai they said, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose from Sidon asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: Otherwise, what would we say? Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon, does practice not follow Rebbi Simeon155This is false, cf. Terumot 3:1:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.3.1.6">Chapter 3, Note 25.? He said to him, it is from the preceding paragraph. Rebbi Jehudah says similar to these two, Rebbi Yose says similar to those two, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, practice follows Rebbi Yose156If the disagreement between RR. Meїr and Simeon is taken as fundamental, practice should follow one of the opinions intermediate between the fundamental opinions. This would lead one to declare that practice must follow R. Yose. Therefore, the decision to follow R. Simeon for a wedding is not trivial..
מַהוּ לְהַדְלִיק שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה בַּחֲנוּכָּה. אָֽמְרִין דְּבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי מַדְלִיקִין שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה בַּחֲנוּכָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי נִיסָא אֲנָא לָא אֲנָא חֲכִים לְאַבָּא. אִימָּא הֲוָה אָֽמְרָה לִי אָבוֹךְ הֲוָה אֲמֵר מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל חוּלִין מַדְלִיק שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה בַּחֲנוּכָּה. May one use oil for burning on Hanukkah? They said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One uses oil for burning on Hanukkah. Rebbi Nasa said, I never knew my father. My mother told me, your father said that he who has no profane oil may use oil for burning on Hanukkah157Even without permission of a Cohen (Maimonides Terumot 11:18). In the Shabbat.21">Babli, Šabbat 21a/b, this is a matter of controversy. The Yerushalmi’s position there is represented by R. Zeїra in the name of Rav Mattanah or Rav, the opposite position is taken by Rav Huna..