Shabbat 26a (כו.) — the Talmud in English

Abaye said to him:

Let the Master say

another reason:

because it flares up,

as sparks fly from it and ignite the house, and he will be anxious about his property and come to extinguish it. [Tosafot].

And we explain:

one reason, and furthermore,

he is stating an additional reason

as well.

One reason: because it flares up,

and there is concern that it will cause a fire.

And furthermore: This is a decree lest he take some of it for his own use.

That mother-in-law

[the mother of her husband]

who hated her

who was hostile

toward her daughter-in-law.

She said to her

the mother-in-law:

Go and adorn yourself,

go and beautify yourself,

with balsam oil,

with persimmon oil.

She went and adorned herself.

When she came

[when she returned]

she said

to her

mother-in-law:

Go and light the lamp,

light the lamp.

She went and hung the lamp; the fire caught in it

and seized it,

and consumed her —

and she was burned.

It is written in the Book of Jeremiah:

“And from the poorest of the land,

from the remnant of the inhabitants of the land [from those who had not been exiled],

Nebuzaradan, chief of the executioners, left

so that they would be

vinedressers and farmers.”

“Vinedressers” —

Rav Yosef taught: These are the gatherers of balsam

[and the collectors were called “vinedressers”]

from Ein Gedi to Ramata

[a place-name].

“Farmers” —

These are the hunters of the ḥilazon, from the ladders of Tyre

[the ascent of the mountain]

to Haifa.

And they were called “farmers,” from the term “winepresses,” because they wounded the ḥilazon to extract its blood [similar to the operation of a winepress with grapes]. Nebuzaradan left them so that they would supply him with balsam and ḥilazon for the king’s garments.

The Sages taught:

One may not light a lamp

with

oil of

untithed produce

that is

impure

[and all the more so, untithed produce that is pure]

on

a

weekday,

and needless to say

that one may not light with it

on Shabbat.

Similarly, one may not light with white naphtha on

a

weekday. And needless to say

that one may not light with it

on Shabbat.

And we raise a question:

Granted, white naphtha

may not be used for lighting

because it flares up

and there is danger in lighting it.

But impure untithed produce —

what is the reason

that one may not light with it?

And we explain:

The verse states: “And I, behold, I have given you

the charge of My terumot.”

“My terumot” is in the plural. Thus

the verse is speaking of two terumot: one pure teruma and one impure teruma.

And this teaches you:

Just as with pure teruma, you have no

use or benefit

from it except from the time of its elevation

— its separation

and thereafter, so too with impure teruma you have no

permission to use it

except from the time of its elevation and thereafter.

But before its separation, while it is still untithed produce, you may not use it .

As for the matter itself, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may not light with balsam.

As we explained above, the reason is that we are concerned lest he take some of it for his own use, and because of the concern that he will ignite the house.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would likewise say

another reason why one may not light with balsam: because

balsam is not

oil that emerges from a fruit,

but

it is

resin that drips from kataf trees

[the name of the tree], and since it comes from a tree, it is like tar, which does not draw properly through the wick.

[Another interpretation in Rashi: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is not explaining an additional reason why one may not light with balsam; rather, this is an independent statement.]

Rabbi Yishmael says: Any

oil

that emerges from a tree —

one may not light with it.

Rabbi Yishmael ben Beroka says:

One may light only

with

oil

that emerges from a fruit,

excluding fish oil. [See Rashash].

Rabbi Tarfon says: One may light only with olive oil!

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri stood on his feet and said:

According to you, that one may light only with olive oil,

what will the people of Babylonia do, as they have only sesame oil?

And

likewise —

what will the people of Media do, as they have only walnut oil?

And what will the people of Alexandria do, as they have only radish oil?

Will they not light a Shabbat lamp?

And what will the people of Cappadocia do, who have neither this nor that,

as they have none of the oils that emerge from fruit,

but only naphtha

— will they not light a Shabbat lamp?

[This difficulty applies also to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, who said that one may light only with oil that emerges from a fruit.]

Rather, you have no

grounds for disqualifying an oil for lighting

other than what the Sages said

in our Mishna; these are the types of oil with which

one may not light

.

And one may light with fish oil,

although it resembles animal fat and does not emerge from a fruit.

And

one may also light

with tar,

although it is produced from pitch.

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: One may light with oil made from wild gourds, and with naphtha.

Sumakhos says: With anything that emerges from flesh —

one may not light with it, except with fish oil.

And we raise a question:

Sumakhos —

is this not the same as the first tanna!?

[The reference is to the statement of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, who disqualified lighting with the oils enumerated in the Mishna; and animal fat, which emerges from flesh, may likewise not be used for lighting, while he permitted lighting with fish oil.]

And we explain:

The difference between them

is this matter

that

said

Rav Bruna said that Rav said

[above, 21a: With regard to melted animal fat and fish entrails that have been liquefied, one may put any amount of oil into them and light with the mixture.

One of them holds that melted animal fat is permitted through admixture, but fish oil is permitted even by itself.

And the other holds that fish oil is permitted when another substance is mixed into it, but animal fat is entirely prohibited. [Tosafot, s.v. “There is a difference,” dispute this].

But they are not identified:

it is not known who said this and who said that.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Any

substance

that emerges from a tree,

such as hemp and cotton —

is not subject to the measure of three by three

fingerbreadths, which is the measure of a garment to be susceptible to ritual impurity [apart from the impurity of a surface on which one lies or sits, whose measure is three handbreadths].

And

likewise,

one may use it for the roofing of a sukka

since it is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

[But with a substance that is susceptible to ritual impurity, one may not roof a sukka, as it is derived in tractate Sukka [12a] from the verse: “You shall make the Festival of Booths for yourself when you gather from your threshing floor and your winepress,” which teaches that one may roof only with something analogous to the refuse of a threshing floor and a winepress, which is not susceptible to ritual impurity.]

Except for flax,

which, although it is called a tree, is susceptible to ritual impurity, and one may not use it for the roofing of a sukka.