Today's discussion focuses on a passage from the Talmud, beginning four lines from the bottom of the page, which references a teaching by Rabbi Shimon. The initial topic is the permissibility of using balsam oil for lighting on Shabbat. Balsam oil, derived from tree sap, possesses a strong, pleasant fragrance. The question arises: why would such an oil be forbidden on Shabbat?
Two primary reasons are presented. One concern is that its attractive scent might lead someone to take some oil from the vessel for personal use on Shabbat, which is forbidden. The other reason is its high flammability. The Gemara questions this, as extreme flammability could lead to a house fire, which would be prohibited even during the week. The Tosafot clarifies that the concern on Shabbat is not merely the fire itself, but the possibility that one might extinguish the fire, which is a specific Shabbat prohibition. This distinction is crucial: if the issue were only flammability, it should be permissible to use during the week, but the concern of extinguishing makes it problematic on Shabbat.
The Gemara then asks for clarity: is the prohibition due to the attractive scent leading to misuse, or because of the flammability leading to extinguishing? It seems there are two distinct reasons. An illustrative story is brought: a mother-in-law, who hated her daughter-in-law, instructed her to anoint herself with balsam oil. After anointing, she told her to light a candle. The fire from the candle caught the flammable oil on her body, consuming her. This tragic tale emphasizes the dangerous flammability of balsam oil.
The discussion then shifts to the origin of balsam oil. The Gemara mentions that the oil was collected from trees in specific regions, and that those who collected it were called Korbim and Yogbim. The Rashi explains that Yogbim were those who pressed fish to extract their blood for dye, which was used for royal garments. This historical context highlights the value and various uses of such natural extracts. The Gemara draws a parallel: just as certain items (like balsam oil) are forbidden for benefit even during the week, so too is tevel (untithed produce) forbidden for benefit. The comparison is made to terumah teme'ah (ritually impure priestly tithe), which, unlike pure terumah that provides benefit from the moment of separation, only provides benefit to the priests once it is rendered impure. The Gemara uses this to argue that just as tevel is forbidden, so too is balsam oil, but the analogy is complex and requires careful parsing of when benefit is permitted. The core idea is that if something is not fully processed or designated, it might be forbidden for benefit.
Returning to balsam oil, the Gemara reiterates the two reasons for its prohibition on Shabbat: either because its pleasant smell might lead one to take it from its vessel, or because it does not come from a fruit, but from a tree's sap, and thus is not considered a "good" source for lighting. A third reason is introduced: the concern that one might come to adjust the wick (flickering) on Shabbat. The rule is that only oil derived from a fruit is permissible for lighting. This is a stricter view, as it would also prohibit oil from fish or other non-fruit sources. The Beit Yosef quotes a ruling regarding radish oil, stating that if the rabbis forbade certain oils, then they are forbidden. However, other opinions permit fish oil or tar, even though they are not from fruit, because the Sages permitted them. Oil from gourds (pakorot) is permitted, but oil from meat (basar) is not. Sumchus is cited as agreeing with Rabbi Yohanan Ben Uri, who forbade oil from animal fat (chelev) but permitted fish oil. The debate then turns to whether forbidden animal fat can be made permissible by mixing it with kosher oil. One opinion says yes, another says no. This highlights a practical difference (nafka minah) between the rabbis' views.
The discussion then transitions to the laws of ritual impurity (tumah), specifically regarding garments (begadim) that can become impure from negaim (leprous-like afflictions) or from contact with a sheretz (creeping creature). The Gemara examines what types of garment materials and sizes are susceptible to impurity. A key principle is that garments made from tree-derived materials do not contract impurity if they are smaller than three by three handbreadths (tefahim). However, if they are made from wool (tzemer) or flax (pishtim), they can contract impurity if they are three by three handbreadths. The Torah, when discussing negaim, specifies "garment of wool or garment of flax." This is interpreted as a "general statement followed by a specific statement" (klal u'prat), which limits the law to only wool and flax. This means that other materials, even if they are the correct size, do not contract impurity.
The Gemara then asks how Rabbi Shimon knew that all other garments are exempt from impurity. It is explained that when he said "from tree-derived materials," he didn't mean exclusively wood, but rather any material that is not wool or flax. He learned this from the same klal u'prat structure found in the laws of negaim. The specific mention of "tree-derived" in relation to sukkah materials (which cannot be from wood) led to this broader interpretation. The Gemara then considers a different interpretive approach: a "general statement, specific statement, and another general statement" (klal u'prat u'klal). This structure implies that the law applies to everything similar to the specific items mentioned. In this case, if the Torah says "garment" (general), then "wool or flax" (specific), then "garment" again (general), it would mean that all garments that are similar to wool and flax are susceptible to impurity. However, the Gemara concludes that the specific mention of "wool or flax" limits the law to only these two materials.
A further point of contention is the minimum size for a garment to contract impurity. Rav Huna states that a garment must be three by three handbreadths to contract impurity. This is a significant size, as it is considered suitable even for wealthy individuals (ashirim) to use, making it a "significant" garment. Smaller garments, three by three fingerbreadths (etzba'ot), are only useful for the poor (ani'im) as patches, and thus are not considered significant enough to contract impurity. The Gemara asks where this distinction comes from. It is known that three by three handbreadths of wool or flax are susceptible to negaim, but how is the size derived? The Torah does not explicitly state the size. The Gemara suggests a derivation from the law of a single thread (sheti ve'erev): if a thread, which is not yet a garment, can contract impurity if it is long enough to weave into a three-fingerbreadth patch, then certainly a three-by-three handbreadth garment should contract impurity. However, the Gemara refines this: a thread is raw material, which even the wealthy might use to weave. Therefore, a three-by-three fingerbreadth patch, which is only useful for the poor, is not automatically included by this logic. The extra word "garment" in the Torah comes to teach that even a small garment, three by three fingerbreadths, which is only useful for the poor, can contract impurity.
The Gemara then questions this interpretation. Perhaps the extra "garment" is not to include small garments, but to include other materials beyond wool and flax for the three-by-three handbreadth size. The response is that the repetition of "garment of wool" and "garment of flax" explicitly limits the law to these two materials. Therefore, the extra word "garment" must be teaching about the smaller size (three by three fingerbreadths) within the category of wool and flax. The final conclusion is that only wool and flax are susceptible to impurity, and only if they are at least three by three fingerbreadths or three by three handbreadths, depending on the specific application and the interpretation of the verses. The repeated use of "garment of wool" and "garment of flax" serves to limit the law to these specific materials, whether for the smaller or larger size requirements.