Source: http://halakhah.com/shabbath/shabbath_26.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 08:15:11+00:00

Document:
Let the Master say, because it is volatile?1 — He states, one thing and yet another.' One thing, because it is volatile; and yet another, as a preventive measure, lest he draw supplies from it.
A certain mother-in-law hated her daughter-in-law. Said she to her, 'Go and adorn yourself with balsam oil.'2 She went and adorned herself. On her return she said to her, 'Go and light the lamp.' She went and lit the lamp: a spark flew out on her and consumed her.
Anointing with oil is and was a common practice in the hot eastern countries; Krauss, T.A. I, 229 and 233.
Purple-fish, used for dyeing tekeleth, a peculiar kind of blue.
[H] is derived from [H] 'to split', with reference to the splitting of the mollusc in order to extract the dye; v. infra 76a.
Clean terumah is used for human consumption, and before it is actually separated it is forbidden, even to the priest, i.e., he may not enjoy the produce in which it is contained.
Unclean terumah can be used only as fuel, and the analogy shows that this is permitted only when it is actually separated, but not while it is yet tebel.
Excluding fish and mineral oil, and oil tapped direct from the tree.
You cannot add to the list of forbidden oils enumerated on 20b.
Of Shezor, supposed to be Sheghor, near Kefar Anan in Galilee, v. Neub., Geogr., p. 278.
Sc. R. Johanan b. Nuri.
V. supra 11a. One holds that tallow, being flesh, may not be used at all, even if mixed with oil, thus rejecting the view expressed there, and the other maintains that the mixture is permitted.
Who accepts R. Beruna's dictum and who rejects it.
A piece of cloth three fingerbreadths square (or more) is liable to become unclean. R. Simeon b. Eleazar excepts the produce of trees, e.g., cotton cloth.
The booth (sukkah), in which one must dwell during the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. XXIII, 42), must be covered with a material that is not liable to defilement (Suk. 12.b); hence the produce of trees is fit for this purpose.
Even if not made up into a garment and as yet merely spun (v. infra 27b). Though not liable to defilement by reptiles it is subject to the uncleanness of leprosy.
Now all at least agree that an area of three [fingerbreadths] of wool or linen is subject to the defilement of leprosy. How do we know it? Because it was taught, A garment:5 I know it only of a [complete] garment; whence do I learn it of [cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square? From the verse, and the garment.6 Yet say that it is to include three [handbreadths] square?7 — Does that not follow a minori: if a warp and a woof become unclean,8 is there a question of three [handbreadths] square?9 If so, if it is three [fingerbreadths] square, let it also be deduced a minori?10 — Rather, [this is the reply]: three [handbreadths] square, which is of use11 both to the wealthy and to the poor, can be deduced a minori12 three [fingerbreadths] square, which is of use to the poor only, but not to the rich,13 cannot be learnt a minori: hence it is only because Scripture wrote it; but had Scripture not written it, we could not deduce it a minori.
Yet say [that its purpose is] to include three [handbreadths] square of other materials?14 — Scripture saith, a woollen garment, or a linen garment:15 only a woollen or a linen garment, but not anything else. Yet say, when it is excluded it is from [the defilement of] three [fingerbreadths] square, but three [handbreadths] square can become unclean? — Two limitations are written: 'a woollen garment or a linen garment',16 [hence] one is to exclude [them] from [the defilement of] three [fingerbreadths] square, and the other to exclude them from [the defilement of] three [handbreadths] square.
Now, according to Raba, who said, They differ in respect of three [handbreadths] by three in other cloths, R. Simeon b. Eleazar accepting [their liability to defilement], whilst the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael rejects it, — how does he [R. Simeon b. Eleazar] know [the defilement of] three [handbreadths] square of other materials?
No particular Tanna is meant, but the collective view of that School.
E.g., the uncleanness of garments caused by the carcases of forbidden animals (Lev. II, 25) or reptiles (v. 32): there the garments are unspecified. On the other hand, with respect to leprosy in garments wool and flax are specified: The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, whether it be a woollen garment, or a linen garment.-Lev. XIII, 47.
In his statement he employs the word shalosh, feminine, which must refer to fingerbreadths (ezba'oth, fem.). Hence they are not subject to the stricter law that even when only three fingerbreadths square they shall be liable to defilement. Whence it follows that they are subject to the next standard of liability, viz., three handbreadths (sheloshah, masc. agreeing with tefahim, handbreadths); v. infra.
For he simply rules that wherever 'garments' is stated it means wool or flax.
Lev. XIII, 47: referring to leprosy.
We-habeged, E.V. The garment also, 'And' is regarded as an extension.
But not the smaller standard.-Shalosh refers to ezba'oth, fingerbreadths; sheloshah to tefahim, handbreadths; v. n. 1.
No extension is needed for that.
Since cloth containing a warp and a woof can be less.
For it is then nearer to an actual garment.
A rich man would not trouble to save it for some possible service-hence it is further removed from 'garment'.
Lev. XIII, 48; these are also specified in v. 47.
V. P. 115, n. 13.

References: v. 
 v. 

V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

V.