Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 1, 2020 | 讝壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Shabbat 26

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Vega/Gordon Family in Philadelphia in honor of Hadran for helping them to be “kove’a itim” with the daily daf and by Judy Shapiro in honor of Hadran for making Torah learning so accessible and engaging, and by Ruti Amal for a refuah shleima to her grandmother Anna Smirnova.聽

The gemara continues to discuss the nature of sap and oil of the balsam tree, regarding its flammabil 讞讘专 注诐 转专讙讜诪讬诐 ity by bringing a story of a mother-in-law who used this to help kill her daughter-in-law whom she did not like. What can be learned from this seemingly strange story? One cannot light using untithed produce that became impure. From where is this derived? Another reason is given as to why one cannot light with sap from a balsam tree. Several other opinions are brought regarding oils that can or can’t be used for lighting Shabbat candles. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri is not pleased that others forbade so many types of oil as various types of oils were limited in certain areas and this made it difficult for people to find oil with which to light. A braita is brought regarding susceptibility to impurity of a cloth made from items that come from trees – are they susceptible to impurities? Does it matter which type of material the cloth is made from? What is the minimum size if they are susceptible?

Click to join us on Zoom, Sun-Fri at 07:15 Israel time

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

诇讬诪讗 诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 注祝 讞讚讗 讜注讜讚 拽讗诪专 讞讚讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 注祝 讜注讜讚 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬住转驻拽 诪诪谞讜

Let the Master say a different reason: Because tar is volatile, i.e., it is liable to evaporate quickly and cause a fire. The Gemara answers: He stated one reason and another: One, because it is volatile and potentially dangerous; and, furthermore, due to a decree lest one take sap from it.

讛讛讬讗 讞诪转讗 讚讛讜转 住谞讬讗讛 诇讛 诇讻诇转讛 讗诪专讛 诇讛 讝讬诇 讗讬拽砖讬讟 讘诪砖讞讗 讚讗驻专住诪讗 讗讝诇讗 讗讬拽砖讬讟 讻讬 讗转转 讗诪专讛 诇讛 讝讬诇 讗讬转诇讬 砖专讙讗 讗讝诇讗 讗转诇讗 砖专讙讗 讗讬谞驻讞 讘讛 谞讜专讗 讜讗讻诇转讛:

The Gemara relates: A mother-in-law who hated her daughter-in-law said to her: Go adorn yourself with balsam oil. She went and adorned herself. When she came, her mother-in-law said to her: Go light the lamp. She went and lit the lamp. She caught fire and was burned.

讜诪讚诇转 讛讗专抓 讛砖讗讬专 谞讘讜讝专讗讚谉 专讘 讟讘讞讬诐 诇讻讜专诪讬诐 讜诇讬讜讙讘讬诐 讻讜专诪讬诐 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诇讜 诪诇拽讟讬 讗驻专住诪讜谉 诪注讬谉 讙讚讬 讜注讚 专诪转讗 讬讜讙讘讬诐 讗诇讜 爪讬讬讚讬 讞诇讝讜谉 诪住讜诇诪讜转 砖诇 爪讜专 讜注讚 讞讬驻讛:

Since balsam oil was discussed, the Gemara cites the verse: 鈥淏ut Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard left of the poorest of the land to be vinedressers and husbandmen鈥 (Jeremiah 52:16). The Gemara explains the verse: With regard to vinedressers, Rav Yosef taught: These poorest of the land were the balsam collectors in the south of Eretz Yisrael, in the expanse from Ein Gedi to Ramata. And the husbandmen; these are the trappers of the snail [岣lazon], from which the sky blue dye is produced in the north of the country, in the area between the Promontory of Tyre and 岣ifa. Only a small number of poor people could barely eke out a living from these tasks, which involved mere gathering.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讟讘诇 讟诪讗 讘讞讜诇 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘谞驻讟 诇讘谉 讘讞讜诇 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转 讘砖诇诪讗 谞驻讟 诇讘谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 注祝 讗讘诇 讟讘诇 讟诪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

The Sages taught: One may not light with ritually impure untithed produce [tevel] during the week, and needless to say one may not light with it on Shabbat. On a similar note, one may not light with white naphtha during the week, and needless to say one may not light with it on Shabbat. Granted, with regard to white naphtha, its prohibition is understandable because it is volatile and potentially dangerous. However, with regard to ritually impure tevel, what is the reason that the Sages prohibited lighting with it?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗谞讬 讛谞讛 谞转转讬 诇讱 讗转 诪砖诪专转 转专讜诪讜转讬 讘砖转讬 转专讜诪讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞转 转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讗讞转 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讛 讗诇讗 诪砖注转 讛专诪讛 讜讗讬诇讱 讗祝 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讛 讗诇讗 诪砖注转 讛专诪讛 讜讗讬诇讱:

The Gemara answers that the verse said: 鈥淎nd I, behold, I have given you the charge of My terumot (Numbers 18:8). From the fact that terumot is plural, the Sages derived that the verse is speaking of two terumot: Both teruma that is ritually pure and teruma that is ritually impure. Just as with regard to teruma that is ritually pure, you, the priest, have permission to benefit from it only from the time teruma was separated and onward, so too, with regard to teruma that is ritually impure, you have permission to benefit from it only from the time teruma was separated and onward. Since a portion of the untithed produce is teruma that has not yet been separated, it is prohibited even for a priest to use it.

讙讜驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘爪专讬 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 爪专讬 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 砖专祝 诪注爪讬 讛拽讟祝 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛注抓 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛驻专讬 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讗诇讗 讘砖诪谉 讝讬转 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara proceeds to discuss the matter of the Tosefta itself, the case of lighting with sap from balsam trees on Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may not light with tzori on Shabbat. And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would also say: Tzori, which is one of the component spices of the incense in the Temple, is merely the sap that emerges from balsam trees, and is not part of the balsam tree itself. Rabbi Yishmael says: Anything that originates from the tree, one may not light with it; only materials that do not come from trees may be used. Rabbi Yishmael ben Beroka says: One may only light with a substance that emerges from the fruit. Rabbi Tarfon says: One may only light with olive oil alone.

注诪讚 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 注诇 专讙诇讬讜 讜讗诪专 诪讛 讬注砖讜 讗谞砖讬 讘讘诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 砖诪谉 砖讜诪砖诪讬谉 讜诪讛 讬注砖讜 讗谞砖讬 诪讚讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 砖诪谉 讗讙讜讝讬诐 讜诪讛 讬注砖讜 讗谞砖讬 讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讗 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 砖诪谉 爪谞讜谞讜转 讜诪讛 讬注砖讜 讗谞砖讬 拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 诇讗 讻讱 讜诇讗 讻讱 讗诇讗 谞驻讟 讗诇讗 讗讬谉 诇讱 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri stood on his feet and, contrary to this statement, said: And what shall the people of Babylonia, who have only sesame oil, do? And what shall the people of Medea, who have only nut oil, do? And what shall the people of Alexandria, who have only radish oil, do? And what shall the people of Cappadocia, who have neither this nor that but only naphtha, do? Rather, you have a prohibition only with regard to those substances with regard to which the Sages said: One may not light with them. All other oils are permitted.

讜诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘砖诪谉 讚讙讬诐 讜讘注讟专谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 讗讜诪专 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘砖诪谉 驻拽讜注讜转 讜讘谞驻讟 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讘砖专 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘砖诪谉 讚讙讬诐 住讜诪讻讜住 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘 讘专讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讜诇讗 诪住讬讬诪讬

And one may light with fish oil and tar. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: One may light with gourd oil and naphtha. Sumakhos says: Among the substances that emerge from the flesh of living beings, one may light only with fish oil. The Gemara asks: The opinion of Sumakhos is identical to the opinion of the first tanna, who also permits lighting with fish oil. The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to what Rav Beruna said that Rav said: One is permitted to use molten fat to which oil was added for lighting. They disagree with regard to this halakha; however, their opinions are not defined and it is unclear which of them permits using it and which prohibits using it.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛注抓 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讜诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讜 讞讜抓 诪驻砖转谉 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Anything that emerges from the tree does not have the legal status of an area of three by three fingerbreadths. Even if it is three by three fingerbreadths, it is not considered sufficiently large to become ritually impure. And, therefore, one may roof his sukka with it, as the roofing of his sukka may not be made from any material that can become ritually impure. This is the case for everything that originates from a tree with the exception of linen, which has a unique legal status. Abaye said:

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗诪专讜 讘讙讚讬诐 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 讜驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讗祝 讻诇 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael essentially said the same thing, even though they said it in different ways. The Gemara elaborates: The statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is that which we said: The only fabrics woven from plant materials that are considered bona fide fabrics are those made of linen. What is the statement of the tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael? As it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Since the word garments is stated in the Torah unmodified, without stating from what materials those garments were made, and the verse specified in one of its references to garments, in the halakhot of ritual impurity of leprosy, wool and linen: 鈥淎nd the garment in which there will be the plague of leprosy, whether it be a woolen garment, or a linen garment鈥 (Leviticus 13:47), the conclusion can be drawn: Just as below, when it mentions a garment in the case of leprosy, the Torah is referring to one made of wool or linen, so too, all garments mentioned in the Torah are those made from wool or linen. Other fabrics are not classified as garments.

专讘讗 讗诪专 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讘砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛

In contrast to Abaye, who viewed the opinions expressed by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael as expressing the same idea, Rava said that the two opinions are not identical. There is a difference between them when the cloth is three by three handbreadths, with regard to other garments that are neither wool nor linen. As Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says explicitly: If it is less than three by three fingerbreadths, indicating that he is of the opinion that a cloth that is three by three handbreadths that is suitable for use even by wealthy people can become ritually impure. In his opinion, the uniqueness of linen fabric is not that it can become ritually impure, but rather that a linen rag, even if it is very small, can become ritually impure. The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael is not of the opinion that other garments can become ritually impure.

讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛转 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讘爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 诪讬讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讘讙讚 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讚 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讘讙讚 讜讗讬诪讗 诇专讘讜转 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讛砖转讗 砖转讬 讜注专讘 诪讬讟诪讗 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

In any case, based on the above, everyone agrees that, clearly, three by three fingerbreadths in a wool or linen garment can become ritually impure with the impurity of leprosy. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara responds that it is derived as it was taught in a baraita with regard to this matter. When the Torah states: Garment, unmodified, I have derived that nothing other than a whole garment can become ritually impure. However, with regard to a cloth that is three by three fingerbreadths, from where do I derive that it is also included in this halakha? The verse states: 鈥淎nd the garment in which there will be the plague of leprosy鈥 (Leviticus 13:47). From the addition of the word: And the garment [vehabeged], it is derived that all woven swatches are subsumed within the category of garment in this matter. The Gemara asks: And perhaps say that it comes to include a woven garment that is three by three handbreadths? The Gemara answers: That is inconceivable. Is that not derived through an a fortiori inference? As, now, even the threads of the warp or the threads of the woof can become ritually impure, is it necessary to mention that a cloth three by three handbreadths can become ritually impure as well? A garment that is three by three handbreadths is comprised of several warp and woof threads that can themselves become ritually impure.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 谞诪讬 诇讬转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讚讞讝讜 讘讬谉 诇注砖讬专讬诐 讘讬谉 诇注谞讬讬诐 讗转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 诇注谞讬讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讞讝讬讬谉 诇注砖讬专讬诐 诇讗 讞讝讬讬谉 诇讗 讗转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘讬讛 拽专讗 讛讗 诇讗 讻转讘讬讛 拽专讗 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

The Gemara rejects this: If so, then let us also derive a cloth that is three by three fingerbreadths through the same a fortiori inference from the warp and woof threads. Rather, it must be that this a fortiori inference is flawed. Threads woven into fabric do not maintain their previous status as they are no longer suitable to be used as warp and woof threads. Rather, cloths that are three by three handbreadths, which are suitable for use by both the wealthy and the poor as they are multipurpose cloths, can be derived through an a fortiori inference, as they are certainly more significant than the warp and woof threads and they become ritually impure. However, cloths that are three by three fingerbreadths, which are suitable for use by the poor but are unsuitable for use by the wealthy, are not derived through an a fortiori inference. Therefore, the reason that they can become ritually impure is specifically because it was written in the Torah. Had it not been written in the Torah, we would not derive it through an a fortiori inference.

讜讗讬诪讗 诇专讘讜转 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讘砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讙讚 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讘讙讚 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 诇讗 讜讗讬诪讗 讻讬 讗讬诪注讜讟 诪砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讗讘诇 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 诪讬讟诪讗 转专讬 诪讬注讜讟讬 讻转讬讘讬 讘讙讚 爪诪专 讗讜 [讘讘讙讚] 驻砖转讬诐 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛

The Gemara also asks: Indeed, there is amplification in the Torah, derived from the term: And the garment, which is a generalization that comes to expand upon the details that follow. And say that it comes to include the ruling that cloth that is three by three handbreadths in garments made of materials other than wool or linen can become ritually impure. The Gemara answers: That is inconceivable. The verse said: A garment of wool or linen, indicating that a garment made of wool or linen, yes, it becomes ritually impure; a garment made of other materials, no, it does not become ritually impure. The Gemara asks: And say that when the verse excluded, it excluded specifically a garment that is three by three fingerbreadths; however, a garment that is three by three handbreadths can become ritually impure. The Gemara replies: Two exclusions are written; once it is stated: 鈥淎 garment of wool or linen鈥 (Leviticus 13:59), and it is also stated: 鈥淲hether it be a woolen garment, or a linen garment鈥 (Leviticus 13:47). One verse comes to exclude cloth of three by three fingerbreadths, and one verse comes to exclude cloth of three by three handbreadths, to emphasize that a garment made of a material that is neither wool nor linen cannot become ritually impure at all. This corresponds to Abaye鈥檚 opinion that garments not made of wool or linen cannot become ritually impure.

讜诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讘砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讘砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rava, who said that the practical difference between the two opinions is with regard to cloth three by three handbreadths in other garments, that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is of the opinion that they can become ritually impure, whereas the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael is not of the opinion that they can become ritually impure, in the case of a cloth that is three by three handbreadths in other garments,

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Copy of Facebook posts

The Sweet Smell of Apharsemon

There are many references in the Gemara to apharsemon. We learn that one of the things that a woman cannot...
Weaving Wisdom

Rabbis, Archaeologist and Linguists

In the Daf Yomi, we see many interesting discussions about ancient vessels and other types of furnishings and tools.聽 An...
daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time- Shabbat 26-32

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26nklNuIUc8 Join Rabbanit Dr. Tamara Spitz each week as she reviews the key topics of the previous week鈥檚 seven pages....
Women's Daf Yomi of Alon Shvut

Not all Cloth is Created Equal (regarding Teumah)

The daf begins with a concern regarding oils that when lit cause Sparks to fly and could thereby damage the...

Shabbat 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 26

诇讬诪讗 诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 注祝 讞讚讗 讜注讜讚 拽讗诪专 讞讚讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 注祝 讜注讜讚 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬住转驻拽 诪诪谞讜

Let the Master say a different reason: Because tar is volatile, i.e., it is liable to evaporate quickly and cause a fire. The Gemara answers: He stated one reason and another: One, because it is volatile and potentially dangerous; and, furthermore, due to a decree lest one take sap from it.

讛讛讬讗 讞诪转讗 讚讛讜转 住谞讬讗讛 诇讛 诇讻诇转讛 讗诪专讛 诇讛 讝讬诇 讗讬拽砖讬讟 讘诪砖讞讗 讚讗驻专住诪讗 讗讝诇讗 讗讬拽砖讬讟 讻讬 讗转转 讗诪专讛 诇讛 讝讬诇 讗讬转诇讬 砖专讙讗 讗讝诇讗 讗转诇讗 砖专讙讗 讗讬谞驻讞 讘讛 谞讜专讗 讜讗讻诇转讛:

The Gemara relates: A mother-in-law who hated her daughter-in-law said to her: Go adorn yourself with balsam oil. She went and adorned herself. When she came, her mother-in-law said to her: Go light the lamp. She went and lit the lamp. She caught fire and was burned.

讜诪讚诇转 讛讗专抓 讛砖讗讬专 谞讘讜讝专讗讚谉 专讘 讟讘讞讬诐 诇讻讜专诪讬诐 讜诇讬讜讙讘讬诐 讻讜专诪讬诐 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诇讜 诪诇拽讟讬 讗驻专住诪讜谉 诪注讬谉 讙讚讬 讜注讚 专诪转讗 讬讜讙讘讬诐 讗诇讜 爪讬讬讚讬 讞诇讝讜谉 诪住讜诇诪讜转 砖诇 爪讜专 讜注讚 讞讬驻讛:

Since balsam oil was discussed, the Gemara cites the verse: 鈥淏ut Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard left of the poorest of the land to be vinedressers and husbandmen鈥 (Jeremiah 52:16). The Gemara explains the verse: With regard to vinedressers, Rav Yosef taught: These poorest of the land were the balsam collectors in the south of Eretz Yisrael, in the expanse from Ein Gedi to Ramata. And the husbandmen; these are the trappers of the snail [岣lazon], from which the sky blue dye is produced in the north of the country, in the area between the Promontory of Tyre and 岣ifa. Only a small number of poor people could barely eke out a living from these tasks, which involved mere gathering.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讟讘诇 讟诪讗 讘讞讜诇 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘谞驻讟 诇讘谉 讘讞讜诇 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转 讘砖诇诪讗 谞驻讟 诇讘谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 注祝 讗讘诇 讟讘诇 讟诪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

The Sages taught: One may not light with ritually impure untithed produce [tevel] during the week, and needless to say one may not light with it on Shabbat. On a similar note, one may not light with white naphtha during the week, and needless to say one may not light with it on Shabbat. Granted, with regard to white naphtha, its prohibition is understandable because it is volatile and potentially dangerous. However, with regard to ritually impure tevel, what is the reason that the Sages prohibited lighting with it?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗谞讬 讛谞讛 谞转转讬 诇讱 讗转 诪砖诪专转 转专讜诪讜转讬 讘砖转讬 转专讜诪讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞转 转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讗讞转 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讛 讗诇讗 诪砖注转 讛专诪讛 讜讗讬诇讱 讗祝 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讛 讗诇讗 诪砖注转 讛专诪讛 讜讗讬诇讱:

The Gemara answers that the verse said: 鈥淎nd I, behold, I have given you the charge of My terumot (Numbers 18:8). From the fact that terumot is plural, the Sages derived that the verse is speaking of two terumot: Both teruma that is ritually pure and teruma that is ritually impure. Just as with regard to teruma that is ritually pure, you, the priest, have permission to benefit from it only from the time teruma was separated and onward, so too, with regard to teruma that is ritually impure, you have permission to benefit from it only from the time teruma was separated and onward. Since a portion of the untithed produce is teruma that has not yet been separated, it is prohibited even for a priest to use it.

讙讜驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘爪专讬 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 爪专讬 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 砖专祝 诪注爪讬 讛拽讟祝 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛注抓 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛驻专讬 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讗诇讗 讘砖诪谉 讝讬转 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara proceeds to discuss the matter of the Tosefta itself, the case of lighting with sap from balsam trees on Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may not light with tzori on Shabbat. And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would also say: Tzori, which is one of the component spices of the incense in the Temple, is merely the sap that emerges from balsam trees, and is not part of the balsam tree itself. Rabbi Yishmael says: Anything that originates from the tree, one may not light with it; only materials that do not come from trees may be used. Rabbi Yishmael ben Beroka says: One may only light with a substance that emerges from the fruit. Rabbi Tarfon says: One may only light with olive oil alone.

注诪讚 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 注诇 专讙诇讬讜 讜讗诪专 诪讛 讬注砖讜 讗谞砖讬 讘讘诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 砖诪谉 砖讜诪砖诪讬谉 讜诪讛 讬注砖讜 讗谞砖讬 诪讚讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 砖诪谉 讗讙讜讝讬诐 讜诪讛 讬注砖讜 讗谞砖讬 讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讗 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 砖诪谉 爪谞讜谞讜转 讜诪讛 讬注砖讜 讗谞砖讬 拽驻讜讟拽讬讗 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 诇讗 讻讱 讜诇讗 讻讱 讗诇讗 谞驻讟 讗诇讗 讗讬谉 诇讱 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri stood on his feet and, contrary to this statement, said: And what shall the people of Babylonia, who have only sesame oil, do? And what shall the people of Medea, who have only nut oil, do? And what shall the people of Alexandria, who have only radish oil, do? And what shall the people of Cappadocia, who have neither this nor that but only naphtha, do? Rather, you have a prohibition only with regard to those substances with regard to which the Sages said: One may not light with them. All other oils are permitted.

讜诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘砖诪谉 讚讙讬诐 讜讘注讟专谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 讗讜诪专 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘砖诪谉 驻拽讜注讜转 讜讘谞驻讟 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讘砖专 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘砖诪谉 讚讙讬诐 住讜诪讻讜住 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘 讘专讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讜诇讗 诪住讬讬诪讬

And one may light with fish oil and tar. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: One may light with gourd oil and naphtha. Sumakhos says: Among the substances that emerge from the flesh of living beings, one may light only with fish oil. The Gemara asks: The opinion of Sumakhos is identical to the opinion of the first tanna, who also permits lighting with fish oil. The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to what Rav Beruna said that Rav said: One is permitted to use molten fat to which oil was added for lighting. They disagree with regard to this halakha; however, their opinions are not defined and it is unclear which of them permits using it and which prohibits using it.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛注抓 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讜诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讜 讞讜抓 诪驻砖转谉 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Anything that emerges from the tree does not have the legal status of an area of three by three fingerbreadths. Even if it is three by three fingerbreadths, it is not considered sufficiently large to become ritually impure. And, therefore, one may roof his sukka with it, as the roofing of his sukka may not be made from any material that can become ritually impure. This is the case for everything that originates from a tree with the exception of linen, which has a unique legal status. Abaye said:

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗诪专讜 讘讙讚讬诐 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 讜驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讗祝 讻诇 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael essentially said the same thing, even though they said it in different ways. The Gemara elaborates: The statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is that which we said: The only fabrics woven from plant materials that are considered bona fide fabrics are those made of linen. What is the statement of the tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael? As it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Since the word garments is stated in the Torah unmodified, without stating from what materials those garments were made, and the verse specified in one of its references to garments, in the halakhot of ritual impurity of leprosy, wool and linen: 鈥淎nd the garment in which there will be the plague of leprosy, whether it be a woolen garment, or a linen garment鈥 (Leviticus 13:47), the conclusion can be drawn: Just as below, when it mentions a garment in the case of leprosy, the Torah is referring to one made of wool or linen, so too, all garments mentioned in the Torah are those made from wool or linen. Other fabrics are not classified as garments.

专讘讗 讗诪专 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讘砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛

In contrast to Abaye, who viewed the opinions expressed by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael as expressing the same idea, Rava said that the two opinions are not identical. There is a difference between them when the cloth is three by three handbreadths, with regard to other garments that are neither wool nor linen. As Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says explicitly: If it is less than three by three fingerbreadths, indicating that he is of the opinion that a cloth that is three by three handbreadths that is suitable for use even by wealthy people can become ritually impure. In his opinion, the uniqueness of linen fabric is not that it can become ritually impure, but rather that a linen rag, even if it is very small, can become ritually impure. The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael is not of the opinion that other garments can become ritually impure.

讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛转 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讘爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 诪讬讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讘讙讚 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讚 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讘讙讚 讜讗讬诪讗 诇专讘讜转 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讛砖转讗 砖转讬 讜注专讘 诪讬讟诪讗 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

In any case, based on the above, everyone agrees that, clearly, three by three fingerbreadths in a wool or linen garment can become ritually impure with the impurity of leprosy. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara responds that it is derived as it was taught in a baraita with regard to this matter. When the Torah states: Garment, unmodified, I have derived that nothing other than a whole garment can become ritually impure. However, with regard to a cloth that is three by three fingerbreadths, from where do I derive that it is also included in this halakha? The verse states: 鈥淎nd the garment in which there will be the plague of leprosy鈥 (Leviticus 13:47). From the addition of the word: And the garment [vehabeged], it is derived that all woven swatches are subsumed within the category of garment in this matter. The Gemara asks: And perhaps say that it comes to include a woven garment that is three by three handbreadths? The Gemara answers: That is inconceivable. Is that not derived through an a fortiori inference? As, now, even the threads of the warp or the threads of the woof can become ritually impure, is it necessary to mention that a cloth three by three handbreadths can become ritually impure as well? A garment that is three by three handbreadths is comprised of several warp and woof threads that can themselves become ritually impure.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 谞诪讬 诇讬转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讚讞讝讜 讘讬谉 诇注砖讬专讬诐 讘讬谉 诇注谞讬讬诐 讗转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 诇注谞讬讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讞讝讬讬谉 诇注砖讬专讬诐 诇讗 讞讝讬讬谉 诇讗 讗转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘讬讛 拽专讗 讛讗 诇讗 讻转讘讬讛 拽专讗 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

The Gemara rejects this: If so, then let us also derive a cloth that is three by three fingerbreadths through the same a fortiori inference from the warp and woof threads. Rather, it must be that this a fortiori inference is flawed. Threads woven into fabric do not maintain their previous status as they are no longer suitable to be used as warp and woof threads. Rather, cloths that are three by three handbreadths, which are suitable for use by both the wealthy and the poor as they are multipurpose cloths, can be derived through an a fortiori inference, as they are certainly more significant than the warp and woof threads and they become ritually impure. However, cloths that are three by three fingerbreadths, which are suitable for use by the poor but are unsuitable for use by the wealthy, are not derived through an a fortiori inference. Therefore, the reason that they can become ritually impure is specifically because it was written in the Torah. Had it not been written in the Torah, we would not derive it through an a fortiori inference.

讜讗讬诪讗 诇专讘讜转 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讘砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讙讚 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讘讙讚 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 诇讗 讜讗讬诪讗 讻讬 讗讬诪注讜讟 诪砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讗讘诇 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 诪讬讟诪讗 转专讬 诪讬注讜讟讬 讻转讬讘讬 讘讙讚 爪诪专 讗讜 [讘讘讙讚] 驻砖转讬诐 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛

The Gemara also asks: Indeed, there is amplification in the Torah, derived from the term: And the garment, which is a generalization that comes to expand upon the details that follow. And say that it comes to include the ruling that cloth that is three by three handbreadths in garments made of materials other than wool or linen can become ritually impure. The Gemara answers: That is inconceivable. The verse said: A garment of wool or linen, indicating that a garment made of wool or linen, yes, it becomes ritually impure; a garment made of other materials, no, it does not become ritually impure. The Gemara asks: And say that when the verse excluded, it excluded specifically a garment that is three by three fingerbreadths; however, a garment that is three by three handbreadths can become ritually impure. The Gemara replies: Two exclusions are written; once it is stated: 鈥淎 garment of wool or linen鈥 (Leviticus 13:59), and it is also stated: 鈥淲hether it be a woolen garment, or a linen garment鈥 (Leviticus 13:47). One verse comes to exclude cloth of three by three fingerbreadths, and one verse comes to exclude cloth of three by three handbreadths, to emphasize that a garment made of a material that is neither wool nor linen cannot become ritually impure at all. This corresponds to Abaye鈥檚 opinion that garments not made of wool or linen cannot become ritually impure.

讜诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讘砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讘砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rava, who said that the practical difference between the two opinions is with regard to cloth three by three handbreadths in other garments, that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is of the opinion that they can become ritually impure, whereas the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael is not of the opinion that they can become ritually impure, in the case of a cloth that is three by three handbreadths in other garments,

Scroll To Top