Shabbat shalom. We begin today’s page, 24b, in the middle of the page, with the Mishnah.
The Mishnah teaches that one may not use oil known as impure terumah oil. We learned this yesterday. According to one explanation, the Mishnah is specifically discussing a case in which one is lighting this oil on a festival that occurs on Friday, immediately before Shabbat.
The reason one may not light this oil is not that it is poor-quality oil. On the contrary, it is very good oil and burns well. The problem is that one may not burn something that became invalid on a festival. The Gemara will provide a source for this prohibition.
The Mishnah also discusses tar. Although tar is highly flammable, it has a bad smell. The concern is that a person will leave the room because of the smell and end up eating his Shabbat meal in the dark. The Mishnah lists other oils that may be used, including sesame oil, nut oil, radish oil, and fish oil. The latter refers to the oil produced from the insides of fish that have been melted. It also mentions gourd oil.
Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Tarfon disagree about these oils. Rabbi Tarfon says that one should use only olive oil. This seems to be because olive oil draws best into the wick and because it is the clearest of all the oils; that is, it produces the clearest flame.
We now return to the original case of the Mishnah: oil that must be burned because it became impure. Why may it not be used? The reason is that one may not burn something that became invalid on a festival.
The Gemara asks where this ruling is derived from and brings several possible sources.
The first source is a verse concerning the meat of the Passover offering. The offering is eaten on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan, and the Torah says that none of it may remain until morning. Anything that remains until morning must be burned.
The word “morning” seems to be stated unnecessarily. The verse could simply have said that whatever remains must be burned. Why does it mention morning a second time? The Gemara explains that the burning takes place on the second morning, not on the morning of the fifteenth, which is a festival. One must wait until the following morning, the first day of the intermediate days of the festival, and then burn the leftover meat.
The proof is that leftover sacrificial meat, which has become invalid, may not be burned on a festival. The Gemara infers that the same applies to terumah that became impure.
The Gemara brings a second source. The daily offering and the additional offering of Shabbat may be brought on Shabbat. However, the limbs and fats of an offering brought on Friday may not be burned on Shabbat. Similarly, the limbs and fats of an ordinary offering may not be burned on a festival.
These offerings are otherwise valid offerings. They were merely not required for that particular day. All the more so, then, one may not burn something that is invalid and has no purpose for that day. The valid offerings were brought at the proper time; only their limbs and fats could not be burned on the following Shabbat or festival. Certainly, invalid sacrifices may not be burned on a festival.
The Gemara brings a third source concerning the prohibition of labor on a festival. The Torah says that all labor may not be performed, except for labor required for food preparation. The expression “it alone” teaches that only activities directly related to preparing food are permitted, but not preparatory activities. Thus, one may cook or bake, but one may not prepare the spit, sharpen the knife for slaughter, or prepare the oven.
The same expression also teaches that a circumcision performed outside its proper time does not override a festival or Shabbat. The Gemara reasons as follows: just as a circumcision performed outside its proper time does not override the laws of the festival, the burning of invalid sacrificial material also does not override those laws, because its burning has no fixed time on the festival.
The Gemara develops the logical argument through several stages. A person afflicted with skin disease may not remove the affected area in order to serve in the Temple. Thus, the prohibition against removing the affected area is strong enough to override Temple service.
Temple service, however, overrides Shabbat. The priests perform the Temple service on Shabbat and bring the daily and additional offerings. Therefore, the prohibition involving the skin disease overrides Temple service, even though Temple service itself overrides Shabbat.
We also know that circumcision can override the prohibition against removing such an affected area. If the affected area is located where the circumcision must be performed, the circumcision may be carried out even though the affected area will be removed. Thus, circumcision overrides that prohibition.
The argument is therefore that if Shabbat is overridden because of Temple service, while Temple service is itself overridden because of the prohibition against removing the affected area, and circumcision overrides that prohibition, then a circumcision performed outside its proper time should seemingly override Shabbat as well. The Torah therefore teaches, through the expression “it alone,” that even a circumcision outside its proper time does not override Shabbat or a festival.
Once we know that an out-of-time circumcision does not override the festival, we can apply the same principle to the burning of invalid sacrificial material. Since the burning has no fixed time on the festival, it does not override the festival.
Rav Ashi brings another proof. The Torah calls a festival a day of rest, which is a positive commandment, and it also prohibits labor, which is a negative commandment. Although a positive commandment can override a negative commandment, it cannot override both a positive and a negative commandment together. Therefore, even though there is a positive commandment to burn invalid sacrificial material, that commandment cannot override the positive and negative commandments governing labor on a festival.
Lighting a fire on a festival is generally permitted when it is necessary for food preparation. Nevertheless, burning invalid sacrifices is included in the general prohibition. Some sacrificial materials may not provide benefit at the time they are burned, and the burning of all invalid sacrificial material is treated as one category. Therefore, the positive commandment to burn it does not override both the positive and negative commandments of the festival.
At first glance, this discussion seems to imply that burning impure terumah is permitted during the week. The prohibition against using this oil as fuel on a festival would then be a separate issue. The Gemara asks whether one may use impure terumah oil as fuel on an ordinary weekday, even though one benefits from it.
Abaye says that just as there is a commandment to burn sacrifices that became impure, there is also a commandment to burn terumah that became impure. The Torah permits benefit from terumah while it is being burned. The Gemara will prove this.
Why must impure terumah be burned? One explanation is that it is a mitzvah to burn it, just as it is a mitzvah to burn invalid sacrifices. A second explanation is that if it remains available, someone might mistakenly eat it. According to the second explanation, perhaps it would be sufficient to destroy it in some other way rather than burn it. Tosafot, however, cites the Mishnah in Temurah as indicating that impure terumah must specifically be burned. Whether this requirement is biblical or rabbinic is left as a question.
In any event, the Gemara teaches that impure terumah must be burned, but one may benefit from it while it is burning. It may be used as fuel beneath food, for example.
Where does the Torah indicate that one may benefit from impure terumah? The Torah says to Aaron, “I am giving you My terumot.” The plural implies that the priest may benefit not only from pure terumah, which he may eat, but also from impure terumah, which he may use as fuel for cooking.
The Gemara brings another possible proof from the declaration made concerning the tithes. In the confession over the tithes, a person says that he did not destroy impure second tithe and did not benefit from it. This seems to imply that when he burned impure second tithe, he did not do so for his own benefit. If so, impure second tithe may not be used as fuel.
The Gemara asks whether that is really the correct inference. Perhaps the exclusion in the verse applies specifically to oil designated for a meal offering or another consecrated offering. If such oil became impure, perhaps one may benefit from it while burning it.
That possibility is rejected through a logical argument. Consecrated offerings are more stringent than second tithe. It would not make sense to prohibit benefit from impure second tithe while permitting benefit from impure consecrated material.
The Gemara then suggests that terumah is more stringent than second tithe. Second tithe may be eaten by anyone in Jerusalem, whereas terumah may be eaten only by priests. If one may not benefit from impure second tithe while burning it, certainly one should not be permitted to benefit from impure terumah.
The Gemara responds that the verse says “from it,” indicating that something else is excluded. The question is: what is excluded? Why assume that the verse excludes terumah rather than consecrated offerings? Both have stringencies.
The Gemara answers that it is more logical not to exclude consecrated offerings. Consecrated offerings have several additional stringencies. The mnemonic given is “panka akas,” representing piggul, leftover sacrificial meat, the status of an offering, misuse of consecrated property, excision, and the restrictions applying to a mourner before burial.
First, an offering becomes piggul when the person performing the service intends to eat it after the permitted time, even if he ultimately eats it within the permitted time. Second, there is the prohibition of leftover sacrificial meat, when the meat actually remains beyond its permitted time. Both involve a prohibition and the punishment of excision.
Third, consecrated material is itself called an offering. Fourth, it is subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. Although priests may eat certain consecrated foods and there is no prohibition of misuse once the food is permitted to them, consecrated offerings are subject to misuse before the blood is sprinkled. This applies especially to the most sacred offerings.
Fifth, one who eats consecrated food while impure is subject to excision and dies prematurely. The Gemara explains that this means a shortened life and that his children may also die. This is more severe than the punishment for a priest who eats terumah while impure, which is death by Heaven but does not have the same effect on his children.
Sixth, a mourner whose close relative has died but has not yet been buried is called an onen and may not eat consecrated food. These stringencies show that consecrated offerings are more severe than terumah.
The Gemara then reverses the argument. Perhaps we should not exclude consecrated offerings from the prohibition of benefit while burning impure material, because terumah also has several significant stringencies.
The first is death by Heaven. A non-priest who eats terumah, or a priest who eats terumah while impure, is subject to death by Heaven. By contrast, certain offerings, such as peace offerings, may be eaten by non-priests.
The second is the additional fifth. A non-priest who accidentally eats terumah must repay the value of what he ate and add a fifth. There is no comparable fifth in the case of offerings.
The third is that terumah cannot be redeemed in order to make it ordinary property. By contrast, an animal consecrated as an offering that subsequently becomes blemished can be redeemed.
The fourth is that terumah may not be eaten by non-priests. By contrast, certain offerings may be eaten by their owners, even when the owners are not priests, and certain offerings may be eaten by non-priests after the blood has been sprinkled on the altar.
Thus, just as six stringencies were found in consecrated offerings, four stringencies were found in terumah. The Gemara asks again: if the verse concerning impure second tithe says “from it,” why assume that it excludes terumah rather than consecrated offerings?
The Gemara answers that consecrated offerings are more stringent overall. Alternatively, even without counting the individual stringencies, consecrated offerings are more severe because one who eats them while impure is subject to excision, whereas the corresponding punishment for impure terumah is death by Heaven without the additional consequences for his children.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak brings a third source. The Torah says, “You shall give it to him.” The Gemara understands this as meaning that one should give the terumah to the priest to eat, but not give impure terumah to him as fuel. The priest should receive pure terumah to eat. This implies that if the terumah is genuinely impure, the priest may benefit from it as fuel while burning it.
The Gemara now returns to the Mishnah’s discussion of tar. Why may one not use tar? Because of its unpleasant smell. The concern is that a person will leave the room and eat his meal elsewhere.
Abaye asks why that should be a problem. Let him leave the room. The Gemara answers that the lighting of the Shabbat lamp is an obligation. A meal is considered significant only when it is eaten in a place with light, like daytime. If a person lights tar and leaves because of the smell, he will not eat his Shabbat meal in a properly lit place.
The lighting of the Shabbat lamp is therefore part of honoring and enjoying Shabbat. It is not merely a matter of having a flame somewhere in the house; the meal itself must be eaten in a place with light.
The Gemara uses the word “obligation” in discussing the Shabbat lamp, just as it uses that word regarding washing one’s hands after a meal. This raises a question: what does “obligation” exclude?
Rabbeinu Tam explains that the term excludes the status of an ordinary mitzvah. Washing the hands before a meal is a mitzvah, and therefore a blessing is recited. Washing after the meal was instituted because of danger, so no blessing is recited. Similarly, the lighting of the Shabbat lamp is called an obligation rather than a mitzvah in order to distinguish it from an optional practice.
Nevertheless, lighting the Shabbat lamp is certainly a mitzvah. It was instituted because of the honor and enjoyment of Shabbat, and a blessing should therefore be recited. The word “obligation” means that it is obligatory in contrast to activities that are merely optional, such as bathing in hot water before Shabbat.
The Gemara asks what mitzvah is involved in bathing in hot water before Shabbat. It recounts that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi would bring out a bucket of hot water on Friday, wash his face, hands, and feet, put on his garment, cover his head, and sit in beautiful clothing with ritual fringes. At that point, he appeared like an angel of God.
The garments are described as linen garments. The question arises how woolen blue fringes could be placed on linen garments, since that would ordinarily involve the prohibition of mixing wool and linen.
The answer is that the Torah juxtaposes the commandment of ritual fringes with the prohibition against mixing wool and linen. From this, the Sages derive that although the mixture is normally prohibited, it is permitted in ritual fringes.
His students did not agree that woolen fringes could be placed on linen garments. They therefore covered the corners of their garments so that their teacher would not see that they had not followed his practice.
When Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi discovered this, he asked whether he had not taught them that a linen sheet is exempt from ritual fringes. The reference is to a sheet or garment used at night, which is not considered a regular daytime garment.
Beit Shammai does not derive the law from the juxtaposition of ritual fringes and the prohibition against mixing wool and linen. According to Beit Shammai, one may place ritual fringes only on a woolen garment, not on linen.
Rashi explains that Beit Shammai nevertheless holds that a four-cornered garment requires ritual fringes even when it is lying in a drawer and is not being worn. The linen garment is exempt only because it is the normal type of garment designated for nighttime use. Thus, its exemption is not because it is lying in a drawer, but because of the garment’s normal function.
The students, however, held that the law follows the other position: the linen garment is obligated in ritual fringes, but the Sages prohibited placing woolen fringes on it as a precaution. They were concerned that a person might place woolen fringes on a linen garment designated for nighttime use, which would not be obligated in ritual fringes and would therefore not have the permission created by the juxtaposition.
According to this explanation, the students did place linen fringes on their linen garments; they merely did not place woolen fringes on them. They covered the corners because they did not want Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi to see that they had not followed his opinion.
Tosafot cites another explanation from a responsum of Rashi. According to that explanation, the students did not place any fringes on the garments. They held strictly like Beit Shammai, who did not derive permission from the juxtaposition. Tosafot and Rabbeinu Tam, however, explain that they placed linen fringes on the linen garments but refrained from using wool.
The Gemara’s account demonstrates that one should follow the practices of the Sages. Since Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi bathed in hot water before Shabbat and prepared himself in this way, this became a model for the honor of Shabbat.
The Gemara then cites the statement that after the destruction of the Temple, goodness was removed from the world. What does this mean? It means that people no longer had enough oil even to light their Shabbat lamps. Without light, there is no peace in the home: people stumble, fall, and collide with one another in the darkness.
The statement that goodness was forgotten refers to several forms of physical comfort. It refers to bathing in hot water before Shabbat, to a properly made bed with comfortable sheets, and to a wife who is prepared and adorned for her husband. Some explain that a properly made bed refers specifically to the wife of a Torah scholar, because the marital obligation of a Torah scholar is from one Shabbat to the next.
The Mishnah’s concern is therefore clear. If a person lights tar and leaves because of the smell, he will not eat his meal in the light. The Shabbat lamp is an obligation because a proper Shabbat meal requires light, and the light brings honor, enjoyment, and peace to the home.
Tosafot raises several questions about Rashi’s explanation of the discussion concerning the prohibition against mixing wool and linen with ritual fringes. Rabbeinu Tam offers a novel interpretation. Even according to Beit Shammai, there may not be a biblical prohibition against placing linen fringes on a linen garment. The Sages nevertheless prohibited even linen on linen as a precaution, because allowing linen on linen might lead someone to place wool on linen in a situation where the garment was intended for nighttime use.
According to Beit Shammai, the juxtaposition does not create permission. Therefore, one may not place woolen fringes on linen. The students followed this position and covered their garments. According to Rashi’s explanation, they did not place any fringes on them; according to Rabbeinu Tam’s explanation, they did place linen fringes on the linen garments but did not use wool.
We are left with a fundamental disagreement between the explanation attributed to Rashi and the explanation of Tosafot and Rabbeinu Tam: did the students place any fringes on their garments? According to Rashi, they apparently did not. According to Rabbeinu Tam, they placed linen fringes on the linen garments but refrained from adding wool. Baruch Hashem.