Explanation: The person will be frantic about [loss of] his property, and he will come to extinguish.

Question: He should have said that even during the week it is forbidden, like we say below that we do not light with white kerosene even during the week, for it flies!

Question (Ri): Below, a Beraisa teaches that Tzari is a sap from the Ketaf tree. This implies that the reason is because it is not drawn after the wick (like all the other oils that Tana'im in that Beraisa disqualify);

Why did [Rabah] need to invent a new reason on his own (since it smells nice, we decree lest he take some)?

Explanation #1 (Rashi): All the more so one may not light with Tahor Tevel.

Rebuttal: This is not a Kal v'Chomer! What is the basis [for such a Kal v'Chomer]?

Explanation #2: Rather, the same applies to Tahor Tevel. We learn Tahor Tevel from Tamei Tevel. Just like you may not get any benefit from Tamei Tevel that consumes it, until after separating [Terumah], the same applies to Tahor Tevel.

Distinction: Benefit that does not consume it is permitted. We do not find anywhere that Tevel is Asur b'Hana'ah.

Support: Also from here we learn that if a Kohen rented a cow from a Yisrael, he may not feed it vetch of Terumah (Yevamos 66b), for benefit that consumes is forbidden to Zarim;

However, other benefits are permitted, for a Mishnah (Eruvin 20b) teaches that one may make an Eruv for a Yisrael with Terumah.

Implied question: Why didn't he teach "except for flax", like in our Mishnah?

Answer: Our Mishnah discusses Pasul wicks. Here we discuss Pasul oils.

Question (Rashba): R. Yishmael taught in our Mishnah "one may not light with tar due to Kevod Shabbos." This implies that it is drawn after the wick nicely, just we decree lest he leave (due to the odor, and eat in darkness) like it explained above (25b);

Here it connotes that everything that comes from a tree is not drawn after the wick. Tar comes from a tree, for it is the waste product of pitch, like it said above (20b)!

Question #1 (Rashba): What does R. Shimon Shezuri come to teach? Also R. Yochanan ben Nuri permits them, since he said "you have (we disqualify) only what Chachamim said we may not light with." This implies only those [listed], but wild gourd oil and kerosene are permitted!

Question #2: R. Yochanan [ben Nuri] explicitly permits kerosene!

Suggestion: R. Shimon Shezuri discusses white kerosene.

Rejection: Even during the week, one may not light with it!

Answer: If the text of R. Shimon [Shezuri's] opinion says "one may not light", this is fine.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): One of them permits melted Chelev in a mixture, but fish oil [is permitted] even intact, and one permits fish oil [only] in a mixture, but does not permit Chelev at all.

Question: If so, neither of them holds totally like Rav Barona! The Gemara connotes unlike this.

Remark: Rashi has this difficulty, because he explained in our Mishnah that fish oil is fish innards that melted.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Fish oil is oil that comes from the eye of the fish, like it says in Bava Basra (73b) that they filled 300 barrels of oil from an eye [of a giant fish]. Rav Barona agrees that fish oil is permitted intact.

Support: Now, one of them holds totally like Rav Barona.

Implied question: We should say that the latter Tana (Sumchus) comes to add! (One may not light with anything from a living being, even in a mixture.)

Answer: There is some indication that the first Tana is stringent, since [R. Yochanan ben Nuri] said "you have only what [Chachamim forbade], and we light with fish oil and tar", and he came to explain what is permitted, and he did not explain also Rav Barona's [leniency].

Inference (Rashba): One may use less than three by three [fingers] for Sechach, even of flax;

Question: In Sukah (47a), we say that if one used rags less than three by three [fingers] for Sechach, it is Pasul!

Answer (Rashba): There we discuss when they come from a large garment. They were already proper to receive Tum'ah. Here we discuss when they were never three by three.

Question (Rashba): Even if it was never woven three by three, it is Mekabel Tum'ah, like it says below (63b) that any amount of something woven is (can become) Tamei, and we may not use it for Sechach!

Answer: That is when he intends to weave more. Here we discuss when he does not intend to weave more. Therefore, if it is not three by three, it is Tahor.

Question: Since in other garments, even three by three Tefachim is Tahor according to R. Shimon ben Elazar, why did he mention Shalosh Al Shalosh (feminine, i.e. three by three fingers)?

Answer (Rav Pores): He mentioned Shalosh Al Shalosh due to linen. Even three by three fingers of it is Tamei.

Implied question: We say below (27b) that R. Shimon ben Elazar and Sumchus taught the same, for Sumchus said that if one used for Sechach anything spun it is Pasul;

Inference: This that [R. Shimon ben Elazar] said here "except for flax" refers to spun threads, and not a garment!

Answer: [R. Shimon ben Elazar's] teaching primarily discusses linen garments, but in any case we derive below that since he did not say 'except for a linen garment', he discusses also spun threads.

Question: What forced Abaye to establish that [R. Shimon ben Elazar] taught Shalosh Al Shalosh [fingers] due to linen? He should say that [R. Shimon] taught precisely (he could not say Shaloshah Al Shaloshah, for three by three Tefachim of all garments receive Tum'ah), like Rava said!

Suggestion: He does not want to make an argument between R. Shimon ben Elazar and Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael.

Rejection: Abaye himself says below (27a) "this Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael argues with the other Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael"! (It would be better to avoid an argument between the two of them!)

Answer: Abaye holds that below, Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael includes other garments, i.e. even Shalosh Al Shalosh, and he holds that other garments either have Tum'ah like wool and linen, or they are totally Tahor. (Therefore he was forced to make an argument between the Tana'im d'Vei R. Yishmael, and he could not say that only three by three Tefachim of other garments receive Tum'ah.)

Question (Ri): Perhaps the Mishnah (Nega'im 11:5) taught that a ball of thread enough to weave three by three fingers is Tamei, this is after we know that three by three fingers woven receives Tum'ah;

However, as long as we did not know that [this Shi'ur] of woven fabric [is Mekabel Tum'ah], also warp and woof threads receive Tum'ah only if there is enough to weave much! If so, how can we learn three by three Tefachim from a Kal v'Chomer from warp and woof?

Answer #1 (Ri): The Gemara holds that it is reasonable that three by three fingers woven is better than warp and woof, even enough to weave 1000 by 1000.

Answer #2 (Rashba): Surely, in a garment we can distinguish based on its Shi'ur, for the Torah wrote "Beged", which connotes a complete garment;

However, warp and woof, the Shi'ur depends on reasoning, i.e. [enough to weave] three by three Tefachim, which is useful even for rich people, for it can join to a big garment.

Explanation #1 (Rav Pores): This Kal v'Chomer was mentioned only l'Ravcha d'Milsa (for extra clarity). Also without the Kal v'Chomer, we do not need an inclusion for three by three Tefachim. Since it is useful for poor and rich, it is an important garment;

There is no difference between three by three Tefachim, and four or five Amos, since this is proper just like this.

Support #1: This is proven from Rava's words. He learns three by three Tefachim of other garments from "Oh Beged." What is the source? Perhaps we need the verse for a full garment!

Inference: There is no distinction between a full garment and three by three Tefachim.

Support #2: Also Abaye, who establishes "Oh Beged" to teach about three by three fingers of wool or linen, that it receives Tum'as Sheratzim, and he does not establish it for three by three fingers, since three by three fingers is considered a garment, and it does not need an inclusion.

Support #3: Also the question "we should say that three by three fingers was excluded" [connotes that three by three fingers is like a garment]. I will explain there.

Explanation #2: We need the Kal v'Chomer, for if not for the Kal v'Chomer, one might have thought that "Beged" connotes a full garment;

However, now that there is a Kal v'Chomer, it reveals to us that wherever "Beged" is written, it is three by three fingers.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [It need not include] three by three fingers of wool and linen. We know that from a Kal v'Chomer.

Rebuttal: We said that since they are useful for poor and rich, we do not learn them from a Kal v'Chomer!

Explanation #2: We ask as follows. I should say that it is to include three by three Tefachim, i.e. we should include three by three fingers of other garments, for there is no exclusion to exclude them;

"Tzemer u'Fishtim" comes to exclude other garments from three by three fingers. If not for Tzemer u'Fishtim, we would have included three by three fingers in all garments from "veha'Beged", since the verse was written Stam.

[The Tartzan] answers "it is written Tzemer u'Fishtim." He did not understand the question. He thought that the Makshan did not know that it is written Tzemer u'Fishtim;

This is why he asked again "I should say that three by three fingers was excluded!" This is the first question, but now he explains it well.

Observation: This supports Rav Pores, who explained that three by three Tefachim is included in "Beged", and the Kal v'Chomer was l'Ravcha d'Milsa;

If we do not learn three by three Tefachim from "Beged", rather, from a Kal v'Chomer, if so, what was the question "it was excluded only from three by three fingers!"? Why do we need an exclusion? What would be the source to include three by three fingers in other garments?

The inclusion of "veha'Beged", we establish it for wool and linen, even three by three fingers;

We do not need [an inclusion for] three by three Tefachim of wool and linen, for we learn from a Kal v'Chomer from warp and woof threads;

However, other garments, which we do not learn from a Kal v'Chomer, for regarding warp and woof it is explicitly written Tzemer u'Fishtim, we need the inclusion from "veha'Beged" for three by three Tefachim.

Disclaimer: However, perhaps the Makshan thought that we should include three by three fingers of other garments, just like for wool and linen, since the verse is written Stam, and one inclusion helps for all of them.

Question: It should omit the inclusion from "veha'Beged", and you would be forced to say that three by three fingers of wool and linen is Tamei. If not, why do we need two exclusions?!

Answer: If not for the inclusion "veha'Beged", we would have established the two exclusions to include three by three Tefachim of other garments. An exclusion followed by an exclusion always includes.

Comment: I am uneasy about this. How can we say that an exclusion followed by an exclusion is only to include three by three Tefachim of other garments?!

It is more reasonable to say that since we can properly establish two exclusions, we cannot say that it comes to include!

Answer (cont.): I would have thought that three by three fingers of wool or linen is Tahor. However, now that the inclusion "veha'Beged" is written, you are forced to say that these two exclusions come to exclude, and not to include;

If they came to include, from "veha'Beged" and one exclusion we would know three by three Tefachim in other garments, like I explained above.

Question: Still, it should omit the inclusion "veha'Beged" and one exclusion, and write only one Tzemer u'Fishtim, and I would know that other garments do not get Tum'as Tzara'as, for what would be the source to include them?

We would know also that three by three fingers of Tzemer u'Fishtim receive Tum'ah. If not, why did the Torah write Tum'ah at all in a garment of wool or linen? We know three by three Tefachim from a Kal v'Chomer from warp and woof! Rather, surely it comes to teach three by three fingers.

Answer: Now that the verse reveals to us that Tum'as Tzara'as applies to garments, we properly learn the Shi'ur from a Kal v'Chomer from warp and woof;

However, had the Torah not written Tum'as Begadim, we would not have learned from a Kal v'Chomer that Tum'ah applies to a garment. One might have thought that Tzara'as applies only to warp and woof, but not to a garment. Perhaps Tzara'as will not come on it at all!