The Gemara in Berachot, on page 7a, begins by asking, "Who is considered rich?" This question, reminiscent of the one posed in Pirkei Avot, seeks to define true wealth. The Gemara answers that a rich person is one who is happy with their lot. This implies that true wealth is not about accumulating possessions, but about contentment. If a person is not content, it means they still feel a need, and thus cannot be truly rich. Therefore, richness is a state of mind, an attitude, rather than a measure of material possessions.
The Gemara then introduces four Sages—Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Tarfon, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yosef—each offering a different perspective on wealth. Rabbi Tarfon states that a rich man possesses a hundred vineyards, a hundred fields, and a hundred servants working them. This exaggerated description illustrates that a person who loves money will never be satisfied, as the Gemara elsewhere states, "One who loves money will never be satisfied with money." Rabbi Tarfon's point is that one should not even yearn for or pursue wealth, as it is an unending quest.
Rabbi Akiva offers a different view: a person who seeks financial success solely to support a wife with endless needs will never be truly rich. Instead, a truly wealthy man is one whose wife is good, satisfied with little, and happy with her husband and family. This perspective shifts the focus from external accumulation to internal harmony and contentment within the family unit.
Rabbi Yosef's interpretation, highly relevant to our times, focuses on health. He states that a wealthy man is one who has a bathroom close to his table, symbolizing good health and the ability to maintain it. His point is that no matter how much money one accumulates, if health is lacking and one cannot enjoy their wealth, it is worthless. Therefore, the best advice is to protect one's health, as it is the ultimate form of wealth.
The Gemara then transitions to a discussion of Shabbat laws, specifically regarding oils for lighting. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar states that one may not use "tzori" (balsam oil) on Shabbat. The reason, explained by Abaye, is twofold. First, its highly aromatic smell leads to a concern that one might come to extinguish the flame (a forbidden labor on Shabbat) to prevent the oil from burning out quickly, thus preserving their money. Second, the flame produced by tzori is very high and can attach to walls or ceilings, posing a fire hazard. Tosafot notes that this flammability is a concern even on weekdays, but on Shabbat, the additional concern of extinguishing the flame due to a person's concern for their money makes it particularly problematic.
The Gemara further discusses the prohibition of using "tevel tamei" (ritually impure produce from which tithes have not been separated) for Shabbat candles. It is forbidden to derive benefit from tevel tamei, even for Kohanim, and even on weekdays. The Gemara also mentions "neft lavan" (white naphtha), prohibiting its use on Shabbat. The reason for neft lavan's prohibition on weekdays is its flammability, similar to balsam. On Shabbat, there's an additional concern: its strong smell might cause one to leave the house, potentially leading to extinguishing the flame. The Gemara then questions why tevel tamei is problematic, since it doesn't have a strong smell like tzori or neft lavan.
The Gemara explains the prohibition of tevel tamei from a verse: "And I, behold, I have given you the charge of My heave-offerings." The plural "heave-offerings" refers to both pure and impure heave-offerings. Just as pure heave-offerings are only permissible for the Kohen after separation, impure heave-offerings (which must be burned) are only permissible for benefit after separation. Before separation, it is considered tevel tamei, from which no benefit may be derived, even for burning.
Returning to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, the Gemara reiterates his ruling against using tzori on Shabbat due to its flammability and fragrance. He also adds that tzori is a sap from the wood of a specific tree, the "ketef." Rashi explains that this is an additional fact about tzori, not a new reason for its prohibition. However, other commentators suggest it implies that tzori is not a true oil derived from fruit, and therefore does not draw properly, making it problematic for Shabbat lights.
Rabbi Yishmael ben Beroka states that only oils derived from fruit may be used for Shabbat lights. This excludes substances like "shemen dagim" (fish oil), "yitzran," and tzori, which are not fruit-based. This aligns with the idea that tzori, being tree sap, is not a proper oil.
Rabbi Tarfon declares that olive oil is the best oil for Shabbat, providing the clearest light and drawing most effectively. However, Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri challenges this, asking what the people of Babylon, who only have sesame oil, or the people of Media, who only have nut oil, or the people of Alexandria, who only have radish oil, or the people of Cappadocia, who only have naphtha, should do? He concludes that only the oils explicitly forbidden in the Mishnah (at the beginning of the chapter "Ein Madlikin") are prohibited; all other oils are permissible. He even permits "kirbei dagim" (the liquefied insides of fish) as fuel, and some say it refers to oil from the fish's eye.
Rabbi Shimon permits "shemen pakuot" (gourd oil) and naphtha. This seems redundant, as these were already implicitly permitted by Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri's general rule. Some Rishonim explain that Rabbi Shimon only permits these two, implying he disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri's broader allowance. Tosafot, with a different textual version, suggests he does not permit pakuot or naphtha, indicating a stronger disagreement.
Sumchus states that anything derived from animal flesh is forbidden, with the sole exception of fish oil. The Gemara questions if Sumchus is merely reiterating the view of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, who also permitted fish oil while the Mishnah forbade animal fat. The Gemara clarifies that there is a distinction between them, relating to the view of Rav Bruna. Rav Bruna held that even forbidden fats (like animal fat or fish insides) become permissible if mixed with a sufficient quantity of kosher oil. The Sages (Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri and Sumchus) disagree with Rav Bruna in part, distinguishing between animal fat and fish oil. One opinion holds that animal fat, if not mixed with kosher oil, is forbidden, but becomes permissible with it, whereas fish oil is permissible even without mixing. Another opinion holds that animal fat is forbidden even when mixed with oil, leaving fish oil as the only exception.
The Gemara then turns to a new topic from the Mishnah: materials that grow from a tree, such as cotton or hemp, do not contract ritual impurity (tumah) if they are made into a cloth of three by three handbreadths (the minimum size for a garment to contract tumah). Furthermore, since they come from a tree, they are permissible to use as roofing (s'chach) for a Sukkah, as s'chach must be made from something that does not contract tumah. An exception is flax, which, even in bundles before being woven into a garment, is considered susceptible to tumah of tzara'at (leprosy) and therefore cannot be used for s'chach.
The Gemara explains that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar's statement about tree-derived materials not contracting tumah is based on the teaching of Rabbi Yishmael. The Torah, in discussing the tumah of garments afflicted with tzara'at, first uses the general term "beged" (garment) and then specifies "wool or linen." This structure (a general statement followed by a specific one) limits the application of the general term to only those specifics mentioned. Thus, the law of tumah for garments applies only to wool and linen. Therefore, anything else that comes from a tree is not subject to the laws of tumah, even if it is three by three handbreadths. This also explains why such materials are valid for s'chach.
However, Rabbi Akiva offers a different interpretation. He argues that the phrase "three by three" in the Mishnah refers to handbreadths, not fingerbreadths. He suggests that while a small patch of three by three fingerbreadths might not contract tumah, a larger patch of three by three handbreadths would. His reasoning is that a three by three fingerbreadth patch is insignificant, used only by the poor, and thus not considered a proper garment. But a three by three handbreadth patch is substantial enough to be used even by the wealthy, and therefore would contract tumah. The teaching of Rabbi Yishmael, in contrast, maintains that there is no tumah at all for other items, whether three by three fingerbreadths or three by three handbreadths.
The Gemara then seeks the source for the universally accepted rule that a garment of wool or linen, even as small as three by three fingerbreadths, contracts tumah. It cites a verse regarding tzara'at on a garment: "A garment, when a tzara'at affliction is in it." The word "beged" (garment) alone would imply a complete garment. However, the extra letters in "ve'ha'beged" (and the garment) teach that even something smaller is included. The Gemara initially suggests this inclusion refers to a three by three handbreadth garment, which is significant. But it then argues that a three by three handbreadth garment would already be included by a kal v'chomer (a fortiori argument) from "sheti va'erev" (warp and weft), which are merely two threads and are already susceptible to tumah. If two threads contract tumah, certainly a three by three handbreadth garment would. Therefore, the extra letters in "ve'ha'beged" must come to include the even smaller three by three fingerbreadth garment, which is not used by the wealthy and would not be included by the kal v'chomer.
The Gemara then considers an alternative: perhaps "ve'ha'beged" comes to include three by three handbreadth garments made from materials other than wool or linen. However, this is rejected because the verse explicitly states "wool or linen," which limits the application of tumah to these specific materials. The Gemara concludes that the double mention of "beged, wool or linen" in the Torah serves two purposes: one to exclude other materials from tumah entirely, and the other to exclude them from the smaller measure of three by three fingerbreadths. Thus, only wool and linen contract tumah, and they do so even at the small size of three by three fingerbreadths, while other materials do not contract tumah at all, regardless of size.