Daf 20

1) You can't light the Shabbos candles with a wick that's made out of the cottony substance under the bark of the ceder tree or willow. Nor with flax that was beaten but not carded, Parnada silk, a long desert grass or with the moss growing under ships. The reason that they're unfit since the fire doesn't catch well. There's a Braisa that adds that you can't use hair or wool. However, our Mishna didn't include it since they're not fit at all to be wicks since hair burns and wool just shrivels [and therefore, it's not needed to be mentioned].

2) You can't use the following for oil; pitch, wax, Kik oil (either it's from a bird, cottonseed, or the Kikayon that grew for the prophet Yona). The reason they're forbidden is because the oil doesn't flow well through the wick and you'll come to tilt the lamp to keep it lit. [Tosfos quotes Maharam that permits lighting with them as long as you have one good lamp, since it would serve as a distinction that it's Shabbos today and you won't come to tilt it The Rash from Kutzi allowed doing actions by the light of these candles that you don't really need the light to do, like to take out wine from a barrel.]

The Gemara says the implications is that wax is only Pasul for oil, but you can use it as a wick (by wrapping it around the wick like our wax candles). [Tosfos brings the Bnai Narvona who say that this is only allowed if the wax candle was placed in the oil, since it has the form of a wick, since it's in oil. However, you can't light it by itself, since the wax would have the form of the oil, which we say is invalid. However, Tosfos disagrees. After all, if it would be prohibited to light by itself, you can't light it in oil either since we don't allow lighting with material fit to light with wrapped around material that's unfit to light with. So, we must conclude that it's permitted by itself.]

3) Wax is the waste-product of honey, and Itron (a fuel) is the waste-product of pitch. The practical difference to all this is regarding business. (If you buy these items, what must the seller give you.) [Tosfos explains: they can give over those waste-products as is, and they don't need to refine them to make the end product.])

Daf 21

4) All these items are only invalid to use as a wick, but you're allowed to fuel a fireplace with them, whether you need it to warm you or to see by its light.

5) You can't put a little bit of good oil into these invalid oils. Granted that the good oil in the mixture helps to make the rest of the oil to flow well through the wick, still, we decreed to forbid it since he might light it without mixing the good oil. The exception is; you can mix good oil with melted fats and disintegrated fish intestines. [Tosfos points out that this is not the regular fish oil that's completely permitted without adding any oil.] After all, these oils really flow well through the wick. They only forbid lighting with them since you might come to light with unmelted fats and fish intestines that were not completely disintegrated. Therefore, they didn't decree to forbid them even when mixed with good oil since it would be a double Gezeira. You can't light with them when mixed with the good oil for perhaps you'll light without mixing in the good oil, and if you light without it, it's only a Gezeira that you'll light it without being melted or disintegrated.

6) Although we don't allow lighting with a fit material wrapped around and unfit material that you don't light with, however, you can wrap a wick around a nut so it will float in the oil.

7) The same way you can't light with these wicks and oil by Shabbos, you can't light them either in the Mikdash since the Torah cares that the flame should be going up by itself, and doesn't need help from other things (like to tilt it). [R' Akiva Eiger asks: why list here that the oils are invalid since, anyhow, the only oil the Torah allows for the Menorah is olive oil]. However, it doesn't apply to the rabbinical enactment to light at the Simcha Beis Hasho'eivah, therefore, you can rip old, worn out, belts and pants from the Bigdei Kehuna despite having wool mixed into them.

8) [Tosfos explains: although the Bigdei Kehuna still have Kedusha after they're worn out and someone who takes pleasure from it is Chayiv for M'eila, still, since they did it to honor the Korban to fulfil the Pasuk "you shall draw water with joy," it's consider a necessity for the Korban, and it's permitted. Thus, that which the Gemara says that a woman in Yerushalayim could separate beans from their impurities with their light, it just saying how light it was, but a woman wouldn't be allowed to actually have pleasure from the light. However, the Yerushalmi brings a proof from this that there is no M'eila (by intangible pleasures) like by seeing, hearing and smelling.]

9) [Tosfos says: that, which we ask how can you light with the belt; although that there is linen mixed in it which is valid material, and we only forbade mixing good and bad material for a Gezeira that you might light the invalid material by itself, which is not applicable in the Mikdash; still, since ther is only a minority of it in the mixture, for it was only a fourth linen, it's Batul in the rest of the materials and it's like there was no linen in it.]

10) R' Huna says that you can't light the Chanuka Menorah with those oils and wicks, whether it's during the week or for Shabbos. The Gemara explains his reasons: it's forbidden during the week is; since he holds that you need to relight it if it goes out early; and you need to worry that these oils and wicks will cause it to go out, and you might be negligent and won't end up relighting it. The reason it's forbidden for Shabbos is since he holds that you may use the Chanuka lights for your own use, you might come to tilt it. [Tosfos explains: although the reason why you can't do it during the week should also be suffice for not doing in on Shabbos. However, since he stressed that you can't do it on Shabbos, it seems that there is an independent reason not to do it on Shabbos.]

11) R' Chisda says; you can light it during the week since you don't need to relight it if it goes out. However, you can't light with them for Shabbos since he holds that you can use the light of the Menorah and you might come to tilt it. Rav holds that you may light them both during the week and on Shabbos since you don't need to relight them if they go out, and he holds that it's forbidden to use the light, so you won't come to tilt it on Shabbos.

12) R' Yochanan also holds that you can't have pleasure from the Chanuka lights, and so held Abaya in his conclusion. [Tosfos says: therefore, that's the Halacha. Also the Halacha is, of course, if it goes out, you don't need to relight it, since R' Huna who requires it is a single opinion.] Although we say that the Mitzvah of Chanuka lights start from sunset until people stop walking in the street (i.e., when the wood sellers leave, since they wait around the longest, for, perhaps, someone went home, found out he doesn't have enough wood, and will go back out to purchase some); that doesn't mean that, if it goes out before that time, you need to relight it. Rather, if you didn't light it up to that point, you can still light it. Alternatively, it's the amount of oil needed to be put in the Menorah to light. [Tosfos: Ri Porat says; therefore, you should light early in order not to pass the time for lighting the Menorah according to the first answer. However, if you passed that time, you should light from a Safeik, perhaps it's like the second answer. The Ri, however, holds: nowadays, when we light inside, you don't need to worry so much that you passed the time since its only to show your household (who remain the whole night there).]

13) The Mitzvah of Chanuka lights is that there should be one light for each household. The nicer Mitzvah is to have a light for each person in the household. The nicest Mitzvah is; according to Beis Shammai, you start the first night with eight candles and light one less every night. This either represents the days that are coming, or it represents the bulls brought on Sukkos that also deminished every day. According to Beis Hillel, you start with one light and you add one every night. It either represents the amount of days that passed, or it represents the concept "we ascend in our Kedusha, and we don't descend." [The Ri says; this is going on the original Mitzvah, one light per household; but not for everyone in the household to do. After all, if everyone will light, there is no distinction that the amount went up every night, since the observer will just assume that the amount of candles represents how many people are in the household.]

14) The Mitzvah is to place the Chanuka lights outside you're house's front door. [Rashi says you light by the house even if you have a courtyard in front. However, Tosfos says that it's only true to light by your house if it's without a courtyard. After all, we see that the Gemara says: if you have two openings to your courtyard, you need to light by both openings. Also, we say that a lamp that has two wicks can count for two people. This would only fit well if you light at the courtyard's entrance, that they both will light on the left side. However, if you're lighting by their houses' doors, and this lamp is placed between the two doors, one of them will be lighting by the right side of his door.]

If you live on the second floor, you place the Menorah by the window facing the street. If it's in a time of danger, (i.e., when the people called the Chaveirm confiscated all lights lit on their holidays); you can light it on your table, and it's enough. [Tosfos says: even though they even confiscated the lights on the table, but they didn't search for those lamps that much, and it was really only a problem to light in front of the house.] In that case, you need another light to be able to use the light by the table. However, if you have a fire in the fireplace that you can use its light, an extra candle is not necessary. However, if he's a distinguished person, who it's usually below his dignity to use the fire from the fireplace to read, he would need another candle to light by the table.

15) If a smith bangs with his hammer and a spark shoots out and damages, he's obligated to pay for the damage. If a camel is overloaded with flax and it stuck into a store (as the camel passed by) and got lit with a flame and burned the whole building, the camel's owner is obligated to pay for the damage. However, if the store owner brought his light out into the street, he needs to pay. R' Yehuda exempts him if he brought out the Chanuka lamp, since he has an obligation to place it there. Rava wanted to bring this as a proof that you need to put it below ten Tefachim; or else, why shouldn't he be obligated to place it above the height of a camel and its rider? The Gemara rejects the proof; even if he may put it that high, still the rabbis didn't make him place it that high, because if it's a big bother, we're worried that he'll refrain from doing the Mitzva.

Daf 22

16) You're not Yoitza if you place the Chanuka Menorah above twenty Amos from the ground the same way a Sukka that high is Pasul, and a crossbeam over an alley doesn't permit carrying there. [Tosfos says: and you can't be Yoitza by lowering it. We Paskin that the lighting does the Mitzva, and it was an invalid lighting.]

17) It's a Mitzvah to put it within a Tefach from the opening of the house. There is an argument whether to put it on the right or left side. We Paskin like the opinion to place it on the left side so that you will be surrounded by Mitzvos; having the Mezuza on the right and the Menorah on your left.

18) Rav holds that it's forbidden to count money by the light of the Menorah. Shmuel asks: does the flame have Kedusha on it to forbid it? Rav answers: it's forbidden to count just like we see that the Torah forbids covering blood by kicking dirt over it with your foot since it's a disgrace to the Mitzvah. Therefore, you can't count money by the light of the Menorah since it's a disgrace to the Mitzva.

19) We also see that it's forbidden to partake pleasure from Sukka decorations until after Shmini Atzeres because it's a disgrace to the Mitzvah. (However, if he made a condition not to designate it exclusively for the Sukka, we follow his condition.) [Tosfos explains: that, which they forbade it on Shmini Atzeres (despite that Sukka is no longer a Mitzva on that day) is for, perhaps, you need to eat a meal Bein Hashmashes coming into Shmini Atzeres, and you will need to eat in the Sukka (since it still might be at the end of Sukkos), so it's still designated for the Mitzva then, and is Muktza for the Mitzva. We have a rule: once it's Muktza Bein Hashmashes, it remains Muktza for the whole next day. This is not similar to an Esrog that's permitted on Shmini Atzeres despite that you're prohibited to eat it during Bein Hashmashes. That's because you don't need to practically set it aside for Bein Hashmashes like we said by Sukka, but you just need to refrain from eating it then for, perhaps, it was still part of the seventh day. This is like an egg that was laid the first day Yom Tov that's permitted on the second day despite that you can't eat it during Bein Hashmashes between the two days.]

20) [Tosfos says; even though the Gemara in the third Perek implies that the reason why Sukka decorations are forbidden is because it's Muktza (set aside) for its Mitzva, and not because it's a disgrace; that reason is only needed after the Sukka collapses, and using it is no longer a disgrace for the Mitzva since it's no longer fit for the Mitzva. We also need the reason "because it's a disgrace to the Mitzva" on Chol Hamoed, when Muktza is not applicable.

Although the Gemara compares Sukka decorations to the wood of the Sukka itself; and the wood of the Sukka is forbidden from the Torah because of a Hekish to the Korban Chagiga; that's only for the exact amount needed to make the Sukka Kosher. Anything extra is only forbidden because it's a disgrace for the Mitzvah or because of Muktza (and that's what the Gemara compares to Sukka decorations).]

21) Rav says that you can't light from one Chanuka candle to another, and Shmuel allows it. Rav forbids untying Tzitzis from one Talis to put it on another. [Tosfos explains: even if you hold that you don't need Tzitzis on clothes that you're not wearing, and you won't wear the first Talis; still, it's forbidden. As we see that you can't remove a Mezuza from a house when you leave even though everyone holds you're only obligated in the Mitzva when you live there. Although we untie the Tzitzis of the dead, that's because it's only forbidden to remove the Tzitzis from clothing of living people, since they're obligated in Tzitzis, but not from dead people who are exempt.] Shmuel says it's permitted. [Tosfos explains: even according to the one who holds you're obligated to put Tzitzis on all your clothing, even the ones that you're not wearing, still, it's permitted since you need it for a different Talis. Although you can't remove a Mezuza, that's only when you don't plan to put it on another house. Alternatively, Mezuza is different since it's coming to protect from demons.]

22) Rav also holds that you can't drag a bench on Shabbos on a ground, since it might make a trench. He Paskins against R' Shimon who permits doing actions if you don't intend to do the Melacha (as long as it's not a P'sik Reisha, inevitable). Shmuel permits it, as he Paskins like R' Shimon. Rabbah always Paskined like Rav when he argued with Shmuel except for these three cases.

23) There is an inquiry: if the reason Rav prohibits lighting from one candle to another is because it's a disgrace for the Mitzva, and that would only be if you would use an intermediate match, that you light the match from one Chanuka light to light the next Chanuka light. However, it's not a disgrace if you directly light from one Chanuka candle to another. (Therefore, according to this, Shmuel would permit it even with an intermediate match.) Or, is Rav's reasoning is because it looks like you're weakening the first light, (like you're drawing some of its oil) and, therefore, it's forbidden to light directly from one Chanuka light to another. (Therefore, we'll say that Shmuel only permitted lighting directly without an intermediate match.)

24) You can't bring a proof that it's forbidden through an intermediate match as we see a similar case by Maasar Sheini. As we say; it's forbidden to weigh a coin against a Maasar Sheini coin, even if you want to use that Chulin coin to redeem other Maasar Sheini produce. (So, we can't use Mitzva objects to service mundane objects, even if it's to service another Mitzvah object.) After all, that may be different since you might not find that the coin weighs as much as you assumed it weighed, and might not end up using it to redeem Maasar Sheini, and you used the Mitzva object without servicing any Mitzvah.

25) However, we can bring a proof that it's permitted without an intermediate match from the fact that we light all the other lamps of the Beis Hamikdash's Menora from the Ner Maaravi ("western lamp") [Rashi explains: that you take out the old Ner Maaravi that's still lit and light the new Ner Maaravi from it, and then you light the rest with the new Ner Maaravi. However, Riva asks: if you can light from the old Ner Maaravi after you take it out, perhaps you lit all the lights from the old one, and since it's not part of the Mitzva anymore, there is no problem of weakening it and it's not a disgrace lighting from it. Rather, Tosfos explains: once you take out the wick from the Ner Maaravi, it goes out right away. Therefore, they lit it from the old Ner Maaravi that was already lit in the Menorah from the night before (and is still part of the Mitzvah), before it was cleaned out.]

However, you don't need to say that he must have used an intermediate match, since he could light directly from one to the other. [Tosfos explains: not only is this true according to the one who holds that the lamps of the Menorah was not attached, and you can take out the Ner Maaravi's lamp to light the others, but also to the one who says they were attached still], we can establish the case that they had long wicks that reached to the next lamp. However, it at least proves that we're not worried about weakening the original lamp, since we allow lighting from one to the other.

26) The Gemara concludes that we need to figure out if the Mitzva of the Chanuka Menorah is to light it or is it to place it down. [Tosfos explains: either that they don't hold of Rabbah's P'sak that the Halacha is like Shmuel; and he's asking according to Rav; is the Mitzvah lighting, and the proof from the Menorah is a good proof to Chanuka and we only forbid lighting with an intermediate match, or do we say that placing the Menorah down is the Mitzvah, and therefore the lighting is not really part of the Mitzvah, but just as an intermediate preparation, and it would have the same status as an intermediate match if the lighting would have done the Mitzvah. Alternatively, he holds that the Halacha is like Shmuel, still, if the placing down is the Mitzvah, then the above case of Beis Hamikdash's Menorah is not a disproof to Rav if he holds that it's forbidden to light directly, therefore, if Rav holds you can't light directly, perhaps Shmuel only argues in that case, and may not permit by an intermediate match.]

27) It's not a proof that we say that, if someone lights the Menorah when it's in his hands and never placed it down, he is not Yoitza; that placing down is the Mitzva. After all, we can say the reason he's not Yoitza is; since he stands there holding it, it looks like he needs the light for his own use.

28) It's also not a proof that he's not Yoitza if he lights it inside and then carries it out; that the Mitzva is lighting, and he didn't light it in the right place. After all,we can say the real reason he's not Yoitza is because; since he's carrying it out lit, it seems like the lights are for his own use.

Daf 23

29) The Gemara's conclusion: they bring a proof from a case of a lantern that was lit the whole Shabbos and you come Moitzie Shabbos and you want it to be lit for Chanukah; you need to extinguish it, and then relight it. However, if placing does the Mitzvah, you would need to extinguish it, pick it up, place it down and relight it. [Tosfos says: the reason why you need to extinguish it and relight it, instead of just picking it up and placing it down lit is; since it was lit for Shabbos, it doesn't look like a Chanukah candle if it wasn't extinguished and relit. This is not similar to what we said, according to this opinion, that if a deaf, insane or minor lit, it's fine since it was, at least, lit on Chanukah.]

30) Another proof is from the Bracha "to light Chanukah lights" that the Mitzvah is to light it. [Tosfos says: therefore, you may light one Chanukah candle from another. However since the custom is to be stringent, we shouldn't change the custom.]

31) Once we Paskin that the lighting does the Mitzvah, you're not Yoitza if a deaf, insane or minor lights it. However you're definitely Yoitza if a woman lights it since she's also obligated to light Chanukah candles since they were also in the miracle. [Rashi: since they had a decree on all women who get married that they must have relations with the general first. Also, the redemption from that came out through a woman.]

32) R' Sheishes held that a guest needs to light Chanukah candles. R' Zeira originally (when he was unmarried) used to chip in a Pruta with his host to partner in the lighting. However, when he married, he said he no longer needs to chip in since his wife is lighting for him at home.

33) All oils are good for lighting, but olive oil is the best since it lights the brightest, although sesame oil lights the longest. [We only had a question that, maybe, sesame oil is better by Chanukah candles. However, we always knew that olive oil is superior regarding Shabbos candles since it flows through the wick well. After all, it's the only oil that everyone holds that you may light for Shabbos.]

34) all oils are good for inks, but olive oil is the best, both regarding mixing into the ink, and regarding making smoke (when burning it, and then the black smoke gets caught on a glass pane that's above the candle. Then you scrape it off and use it as the dye for the ink).

35) R' Huna says all Seraphim are fit for ink, but the best is from the Ketaf tree [Rashi says that Is Seraf is gum. Tosfos asks: we see that Chazal uses this expression for liquids. Also, we don't put gum into our inks. We also see in Gitten that they put gum in the inferior inks that you can B'dieved write a Get with, implying that they didn't put it in the real ink. Therefore, Tosfos explains that it's sap. Thus, R' Tam Pasuls any Sefer Torah not written with our ink, like the gallnut ink that they put gum in.]

36) Someone who lights on the first day makes three Brachos, and the one who sees it only makes two (since he doesn't say the one on lighting the candles). The other days, the lighter makes two Brachos and the one who sees only makes one. We stop saying Shehechiyanu after the first day, but we don't stop saying that Hashem makes miracles, since there was a miracle all eight days.

37) You make a Bracha "bless Hashem who commanded us to light the Chanukah candles." Although it's only a rabbinical Mitzvah , we can say Hashem commanded us since he commanded us to listen to the rabbis, as the Pasuk says " don't stray from what they say," or "ask your elders and they'll tell you."

The reason why we don't make a Bracha on separating Maasar from Damai, (as we see that they allowed separating the Maasar from them naked, which they wouldn't be able to do if they would need to make a Bracha); Abaya says since it's only a rabbinical enactment on a Safeik (that the Am Ha'aretz maybe didn't separate Maasar himself). Although they enacted to make Brachos for Yom Tov Sheini that's also only enacted for a Safeik, that's because they didn't want people to take it lightly, which they would if they didn't need to make Brachos for it. Rava answers: Damai is different than other rabbinical Mitzvos since it's only a big stringency since the majority of Am Ha'aratzim take off Maasar correctly.

38) If a courtyard has two openings; if they're on different sides, you need to light a Menorah at both openings. However, if they're on the same side, you only need to light one. We're not worried that someone who comes from out-of-town will see it and suspect that the openings are owned by two separate people, and one of them didn't light. Rather, we only need to worry that a townsman will pass, and if they're both on one side, he'll pass both and he'll realize that you lit. However, if they're on separate sides, then he may just pass by the one that didn't have a Menorah and say to himself; just like he didn't light on this side, he didn't light on the other side either.

39) We see that you need to worry that someone might suspect you, (so, you must avoid action that people might suspect you that you're doing something wrong); as R' Shimon says, there are four reasons why the Torah obligated someone to leave Pe'ah only in the corners. One, to prevent stealing from the poor, so that you don't find a moment when there is no other poor person in the field and you'll take it off for your poor relatives. Second, because you're making the poor inactive as they wait the whole day by your field waiting for the time you'll take off Pe'ah. Third, so that he won't be suspected that he didn't really take Pe'ah. Fourth, for the trickers who will claim that they already removed Pe'ah, and they didn't. (So, they gave a specific place to remove it so people will know who removed Pe'ah and who didn't.)

40) If you have a lamp that has two openings, two people can be Yoitza lighting, each one from a wick from each opening. If you have a bowl full of oil, and you surrounded the bowl with wicks; if you turn over another bowl to cover it, many people may light from as many wicks as you placed. However, if you don't overturn a bowl on it, then, even one person is not Yoitza, since it's like a bonfire (and not individual candles.).

41) If someone has limited funds; Shabbos candles come before Chanuka candles and wine for Kiddush, since Sholam Bayis (peace in the house, that people won't stumble) is the most important. If it's a question between Chanuka candles and wine for Kiddush, you should buy Chanukah candles since it publicizes the miracle, than wine for Kiddush although it's more common (that we usually have the rule that we do the more common action first). [Tosfos says: therefore, when Rosh Chodesh Teves falls out on Shabbos, we should say the Haftorah for Chanuka. Also, since we finish reading with Chanuka, we say the Haftorah on the last topic we read.

Although we read the Parsha for Rosh Chodesh before the Parsha for Chanukah, and we don't read Chanuka first because it publicizes the miracle; we must say, since we're reading both, an one isn't superseded, we should say the one more common first. Alternatively, since the Parsha of Chanuka doesn't mention candles at all, (since we only read what the Nese'im brought during the Mishkon dedication), it doesn't publicize the miracle much. Alternatively, we read Chanuka last so to end the reading on that topic, since the rule is; we read the Haftorah on the last topic read in the Sefer Torah, and we want to say he Haftorah of Chanuka since it publicizes the miracle.]

42) You shouldn't light the Shabbos candles too late, since you should do it like Hashem did to the Jews in the desert; He brought the pillar of fire before he took away the cloud, (and vice versa), so, you should also light early. However, you shouldn't light too early, since it's not recognizable that it was done for Shabbos.

43) You may not light for Shabbos or Yom Tov with Trumah oil that became Tamai. Rabbah explains the reason: since it's a Mitzvah to burn it, you might come to tilt the lamp to make it burn faster. Although that's permitted on Yom Tov, they decreed not to do it on Yom Tov since you might come to light it on Shabbos. [Tosfos explains: even though we don't make the same decree by all oils that you can't light on Shabbos; that's because their reason is simple, that they don't flow well into the wick and you'll come to tilt it; so people understand the difference between Yom Tov and Shabbos. However, the reason of the Tamai oil is not so obvious, and we need to be afraid that if people will light them on Yom Tov, they'll light them on Shabbos. The reason we don't consider it a double decree (you shouldn't light it on Yom Tov, so not to light in on Shabbos, and you can't light it on Shabbos since you might come to tilt it) since Yom Tov and Shabbos are considered as one concept. This, that they decreed not to light with melted fats, and it's not a double decree (since it's decreed for you might come to light with non-melted fats, and that's only forbidden since you might come to tilt it ); since, if you light the non-melted fats there is a very big chance that you'll tilt it, so, we'll consider it as if you'll definitely tilt it, and it's only one decree.

However, that, which R' Tarfon says in Beitza that Tamai Challah is Muktza on Yom Tov, why should it be according to Rabbah? After all, you can burn it for fuel under your pot and you don't need to decree that you'll come to do it on Shabbos. Tosfos answers: they decreed not to burn the Challah because you'll come to use oil. [Mahrsha- Tosfos reverses some of his assumptions. Really, Rabbah holds that we make double decrees (Challah because of oil, and oil, because you will tilt the lamp). Therefore, we can say that it's not definite to tilt a non-melted-fats candle, and it's still forbidden to light with a melted fats candle although it's a double decree. But they allow mixing a little bit of olive oil with the melted fats since, to forbid, it would be a triple decree (mixed melted fats because of unmixed melted fats, and that's because of unmixed non-melted fats, and that's for you might come to tilt it.) However, R' Avrham Meir Horowitz explains Tosfos' last answer: Tosfos doesn't reverse his assumptions; but he holds that Challah and oil is like one concept, so it's like one decree].]

44) R' Chisda says: we don't need to worry that you'll tilt the Tamai oil. Rather, he says that we refer to lighting it on Yom Tov that falls out before Shabbos, and the reason it's forbidden is, because he holds, you're not allowed to burn Trumah on Yom Tov.

Daf 24

45) you don't need to mention Chanuka in Bentching , but if you're coming to mention it, you say it in Nodeh Lecha like you say it in Modim in Davening. [Tosfos says: since it's thanking, and not requesting anything. Therefore, we don't mention it in Bonei Yerushalayim like we say Yaaleh V'yavo, since there is no requesting in it like there is in Yaaleh V'yavo. That's why you say it in Ritzei in Shemona Esrei since it's also a request, to return the Jews to Yerushalayim.

Rashi says: it's simple that you need to mention Chanuka during Shemona Esrei since the whole Chanuka was given for Hallel and thanking. Tosfos explains why it's more simple to mention Chanuka during Davening; since it publicizes the miracle more, since you usually Daven with many people. However, Bentching is a more private affair, so there is not that much publicizing the miracle.]

46) Rav holds that you mention Rosh Chodesh in Bentching since it's a Torah Yom Tov (and it's not similar to Chanuka). R' Chanina says that you don't need to mention Rosh Chodesh since you're not forbidden to do work (it's not such an important day). [Tosfos says: even though the Gemara in Megila says the reason that they added a fourth Aliya on Rosh Chodesh since it doesn't prevent people from losing out on work; not that it's forbidden to do work that day but they were only not accustomed to do work then.] We have a Braisa like Rav that says that you mention any day in Bentching that has a Musaf. However, you don't mention a fast day in Bentching (when you eat the night before the fast) since there is no Musaf. [However, this Braisa is no proof that you don't need to say it by Chanuka since Chanuka may be different because it publicizes the miracle. That could be the reason that the Braisa purposely uses fasts as an example, (as to say; but it won't apply to Chanuka).]

47) Therefore, Davening on a day like Rosh Chodesh that has a Korban Musaf, you must mention the day during Marriv, Shachris and Mincha, and if you forget, you must go back to say it. However, a fast that doesn't have Musaf, you say Aneinu in Shomea Tefila during Marriv, Shachris and Mincha, and if you forget, you don't need to go back. [Rashi brings the Teshuvas Hagaonim not to say Aneinu by Maariv and Shachris since something might happen that will force you to eat and not finish fasting. However, Tosfos says that the Chazon says it in Chazaras Hashatz in the morning, since he says it for the congregation, and it's impossible that one person in the congregation shouldn't finish the fast. However, Tosfos concludes that this Teshuva can't be correct since we see in the first Perek that they hold you can switch the day of fasting in the morning, and since they already said it, in those days, at Maariv the night before, why didn't they worry that they were lying in their Davening? Obviously, it's not a real concern.]

48) R' Huna and R' Yehuda says that you don't mention Chanuka by Musaf since you don't say Musaf for Chanuka. R' Yochanan and R' Nachman say that you mention it since it's a day that you Daven four Tefilos, (and you mention Chanuka at every Tefila of that day). You don't need to say that R' Gidal quoting Rav disagrees with him, that he says you don't mention Rosh Chodesh in the Haftorah of Shabbos; since that case is different since Haftorah is never applicable for Rosh Chodesh, however, Chanuka is applicable to the three other Tefilos.

49) However, R' Masna quotes Rav argues, since he says that you don't mention Yom Tov during Haftorah of Shabbos Mincha. [Rashi brings Teshuvas Hagaonim who said that they used to Maftir in Navi by Mincha on Shabbos. However, since the Persians decreed not to read it; so, once it was no longer read, so, it remained that way even after the decree passed. However, Tosfos asks: we say in Megila that they didn't enact to Maftir by Shabbos Mincha in Navi. Rather, we need to say that they read Kesuvim.]

50) However, the Gemara concludes that the Halacha is not like these, but like R' Yehoshua b. Levi who says that you mention Shabbos during Neila on Yom Kippur since it's a day that's obligated in five Tefilos. [Rashi says that this means that we don't hold like R' Gidal either, and you mention Rosh Chodesh in the Haftorah. However, Tosfos disagrees, since we already said that he can agree to this opinion (and Rosh Chodesh by Haftora is different since you never say Haftora for Rosh Chodesh)]

51) Although we Paskin like Rava that you don't mention Yom Tov in Magen Avos said by the Chazon after Maariv on Shabbos; that's because it's not a true enactment, but just enacted in order to delay the finishing so the latecomers can finish together with them and they would return from Shul together. Since their Shuls were situated out in the fields, it was dangerous to allow the stragglers to walk back themselves. However, by Neila, there is a true enactment to Daven five times.

52) There is a Tannaic argument whether you can light on Shabbos with melted fats if you mix a little regular oil with it, or not.

53) You can't light with Tamai Truma oil on Yom Tov the same way that you can't burn Kodshim. Although we say that an Asei supersedes a Lav, (so the Asei of burning Kodshim should supersede the Lav of Melacha on Yom Tov), that's because we have a Pasuk to say that burning Koshim doesn't supersede Yom Tov. [Tosfos says that you can't bring this as a proof that regularly an Asei can't supersede a Lav, since this may only be true by Tamai Trumah where you can do the Mitzva of burning it after Yom Tov.] Alternatively, there is an Asei to rest on Yom Tov, so the Asei of burning Kodshim doesn't supersede the Lav and Asei of Melacha on Yom Tov.

54) [Tosfos asks: how can we compare Truma to Kodshim (to extrapolate that, if you can't burn Kodshim, you can't burn Trumah either)? After all, it's forbidden to have pleasure from the burning of Kodshim, so it's doing a Melacha without any purpose for humans. However, you can have pleasure from burning Trumah, so why should it be different than any fuel that we can burn on Yom Tov?

Riva answers: just like we forbid bringing voluntary Shlomim on Yom Tov, although people will eat from it, but since it's mainly done for Hashem; we consider the Melacha done for Hashem, and not for humans, and the humans just eat as an afterthought, as if they're receiving a portion from Hashem's table. Even according to the opinion that holds that you can bring Shlomim on Yom Tov, that's because they hold that it's also mainly coming for human consumption. However, they'll agree that Trumah is mainly burned for the Mitzvah. However, Ri disagrees. After all, over there, by Korbanos, you must do a few Avodos after Shchita before humans may eat from it, so it's obvious that it's mainly brought for Hashem, and the humans are just receiving a portion from His table. However, by Trumah, since you'll have your pleasure when you're doing your Mitzvah, it's not consider primarily Hashem's to say that you just receive your portion from His table. Rather, you must say that there is nothing wrong, per se, to burn Trumah on Yom Tov, but they decreed not to since you might come to burn Kodshim. However, you can't say that it's a decree that you might come to burn the Trumah for no reason, which is forbidden on Yom Tov. After all, since you're allowed to have pleasure from it, we're not afraid you'll just waste it and burn it without having pleasure.]

Daf 25

55) The same way it's a Mitzva to eat Tahor Trumah, it's a Mitzvah to burn Tamai Trumah. [Rashi holds it's only rabbinically obligated to burn it in order that you won't end up eating it. Therefore, we can say that you can get rid of it any other way. Tosfos disagrees since the Gemara in Temura counts it among the ones the gets burnt. The reason that they didn't decree to get rid of it other ways, but to burn it is; since it's similar to Kodshim, they enacted to burn it like Kodshim. Alternatively, Tosfos explains: that it's a Torah requirement, since there is a Hekish to Kodshim. Still, Tosfos concludes that you don't have the rule that those that need to get burnt, you can't get rid of it any other way, like to bury it. That's only referring to prohibitions that you can't have pleasure from, like Klayim and Orlah. However, by Trumah, if you have wine (that can't be burned, you can use it by sprinkling it on your dirt floor to hold down the dust and to give a pleasant smell.] However, you can't have pleasure from burning Kodshim.

[Tosfos asks: why do we consider burning oil as having pleasure from the oil, that we only permit by Trumah since it's similar to eating, and not by Kodshim? After all, the Gemara in Pesachim allows baking over burned wood (i.e., coals) that's forbidden to have pleasure from, and the only way to have forbidden pleasure from the wood is if it's still around, like if you build a chair from it. Tosfos answers: perhaps that burning oil is considered more existing at the time it's being burned than wood.]

56) [Tosfos says: our Gemara implies that Karies is dying by the sixtieth year and Misah Biday Shamayim is that you'll die earlier, but not by a certain age. The Yerushalmi says that Karies is to die before fifty and Misah Biday Shamayim is to die before sixty. However, every Kareis comes with Ariri (loss of children) and not like the Riva who wants to differentiate between Kareises, that only ones that say explicitly gets Ariri. After all, the Gemara asks why does it need to say Ariri by an aunt? If Ariri is only for those sins that Ariri is written explicitly by them; the reason it's written is to say that there is Ariri by an aunt. However, Tosfos concludes with a question: the Toras Kohanim has a Drasha to exclude a maternal half brother's wife from Karies, although we see from all Shas that she has Kareis. We can answer according to Riva that it only excludes it from Ariri. However, it's difficult to us who hold that all Kareis needs Ariri.]

57) R' Yishmael forbids lighting with Itron (which is made from the waste-product of pitch) since it smells bad. [Tosfos points out: although Nefet also has a bad smell, and R' Yishmael doesn't forbid it, that's because it's not as bad of a smell as Itron.] Therefore, if you would light with it, we're afraid that it will cause you to abandon the lights, an there is an obligation to have Shabbos lights [Rashi and Tosfos: in the place where you eat, to give more pleasure when you eat.] As Rav says: lighting candles is an obligation, and washing your hands and face on Friday is voluntary. However, I say it's a Mitzva like R' Yehuda did.

58) [Tosfos explains: we call lighting candles an obligation in comparison to washing in hot water, which is not as much as an obligation as lighting candles. This is similar to saying that Mayim Achronim is an obligation and Mayim Rishonim is voluntary; i.e., since Mayim Achronim is to prevent a danger, and thus a bigger obligation than Mayim Rishonim. There are some who want to say that you don't make a Bracha on Shabbos candles because it's called "an obligation" the same way that you don't make a Bracha on Mayim Achronim that's also called an obligation. However, R' Tam disagrees. The only reason you don't make a Bracha on Mayim Achronim is because it only saves you from the Sodom salt; but Shabbos candles is in essence a Mitzvah for having pleasure on Shabbos. After all, there are many obligations that you make a Bracha over.

The one who says not to make a Bracha gives another reason: since, if you have a lit candle from before, you don't need to light another one, so it's not in essence a Mitzvah. However, R' Tam says that it's not a proof. After all, you make a Bracha over covering blood even if you don't have to do it if a wind blows dirt over it. Also, you make a Bracha over Mila, even though there are opinions that if he was born without a foreskin, or was circumcised earlier, you don't need to do Hatafas Dom Bris (prick to remove blood to be instead of the Mila).

Also, R' Tam says: even if you find a lit candle from before, you need to extinguish it and relight it. As we said before that you shouldn't light it too early. We also see that R' Amram says to make a Bracha on Shabbos candles.]

59) Beis Hillel holds that a linen Talis is obligated in Tzitzis and Beis Shammai says they're exempt. [Rashi explains that they don't allow putting Techeiles on, since it's made of wool and it would be Shatnez. Although we learn from Smuchin (that the Pasuk writes Shatnez next to Tzitzis), that you may wear Shatnez with Tzitzis, but Beis Shammai disagrees and doesn't learn any Drashos from Smuchin. The reason they say you're exempt, and not that it's forbidden to wear, since they hold that you're obligated to put on Tzitzis even if you're not wearing the Tzitzis. However, Tosfos disagrees. After all, if this is true, why didn't the Gemara in Menachos bring this Braisa as a proof that you must put Tzitzis on a Talis that you're not wearing? Also, the Bahag Paskins that you only need Tzitzis if you're wearing it. After all, we make the Bracha "to wrap yourself in Tziztis." Also, we say that, in Chumash Devarim, everyone Darshins Smuchin. Also, R' Amram Paskins like Beis Shammai, and we always hold like the opinion that Darshens Smuchin. Also, why did the Gemara frame the case of "linen with Tzitzis" and not "Shatnez with Tzitzis?"

Therefore, Tosfos explains: you're exempt from any Tzitzis, even from putting linen Tzitzis, since you might come to put on Techeiles, like the way the students of R' Yehuda didn't want to wear it. The reason that we don't say that Techeiles is permitted because of the Smuchin], is because you may end up wearing it on a night clothing. [Tosfos says that the Gemara in Menachos gives another reason, since the Tzitzis may rip and become invalid. The fact the Gemara gives the reason of a night clothing shows that the Halacha is like R' Shimon who says that you're exempt from Tzitzis at night. Therefore, since we Paskin like Beis Shammai, you shouldn't wear Tzitzis on a linen Talis at all, and anyone who wears it is making a Bracha L'vatala on it.]

60) R' Shimon b. Elazar says not to light with Tzari since it's explosive. [Tosfos asks: why doesn't he conclude that, for this reason, it's forbidden to light it during the week like we say later by Nefet.] Another reason it's forbidden; since it's smells delightfully, we're afraid that you may take some out and transgress extinguishing. [Tosfos says: it implies that, if it wasn't for these reasons, that it would be permitted to light since it flows well in the wick.] R' Shimon b. Elazar says that Tzari is the sap from a Ketaf tree. [Tosfos asks: this implies that it doesn't flow well in the wick like all sap from trees. If so, why not say that as the reason why we forbid it and we wouldn't need to create different reasons?]

Daf 26

61) You can't light with white Nefet even during the week since it's explosive. Also, you can't light with Tamai Tevel even during the week, [Tosfos: or even with Tahor Tevel], since we have a Hekish between Trumah Tamai and Tahor. Just like you can't have pleasure from Trumah until you separate it from the Tevel, so too you can't burn Tamai Trumah until you separate it from Tevel. [Tosfos explains: this only refers to having pleasure through destroying the Tevel, like eating or burning it. However, you don't find a prohibition to have pleasure from Tevel. Similarly, a non-Kohain can only not have pleasure from Trumah if it destroys it, like to feed Trumah beans to his animal.]

62) R' Yishmael holds that you can't light from anything that comes from (the wood) of a tree. [Tosfos explains: the reason he didn't make flax the exception, like the Mishna does later, since he's referring only to the oils and not to the wicks. Tosfos asks: why did R' Yishmael say that you can't light with Itron since it smells? After all, it comes from a tree (since it's the waste product of pitch), and that itself should forbid it, since sap doesn't flow well in the wick.]

63) R' Yishmael b. Broka says that you can only light oils that came from fruit. R' Tarfon says that you can only light with olive oil. R' Yochanan b. Nuri argues since there are many places that don't have olive oil. Rather, we should only forbid those oils that the Rabanan forbade.

64) We see that both the Tanna Kama and Sumchos allow fish oil. Since they must argue in something, we must say they argue if R' Bruna quoting Rav is correct; that you can mix a little bit of oil with melted fats and disintegrated fish innards. However, we can't tell who holds like Rav and who argues. [Rashi explains that the one who forbids holds you can't mix oil with the melted fats, but allows mixing regular oil with fish oil. The one who permits, permits fish oil without any mixture, and melted fats are only permitted with some oil mixed in. Tosfos says: if so, neither hold like Rav completely. The reason why he explains it this way is because Rashi explains "fish oil" as disintegrated fish innards. Therefore, you need to say it doesn't have the same Halacha as melted fats, as the Gemara implies that fish oil is different. However, Tosfos says that "fish oil" is oil extracted from its eye, as we find in the Gemara that they used it as oil. Therefore, disintegrated fish innards has the exact same Halacha as melted fats. One held that both are forbidden even with oil, and one holds they're permitted with oil. However, both hold they're forbidden without any oil mixed in, and thus, one held exactly like Rav.]

65) R' Shimon b. Elazar says: any material that comes from a tree can't become Tamai if it's made into a three fingers squared cloth, and you can use it for Schach, except for flax, [Tosfos says: however, this implies that you can make Schach from a swatch less than three fingers squared. However, this is only if it never was susceptible to Tumah. This excludes if it was ripped from a larger cloth. Also, it's only if your original intent was to make the cloth bigger. However, if your intention was that this small cloth should be an article of clothing by itself, it's susceptible even if it's not three Tefachim squared.] He learns that the only material of clothing that is susceptible to Tumah is wool and linen, since he extrapolates it from the material written by Tumah of Tzaras.

66) Abaya holds that this first Tanna of R' Yishmael's Beis Medrish agrees with R' Shimon b. Elazar, since he extrapolates from the weft and the woof threads of Tumas Tzaras that it only applies to wool and linen. However, Rava says that R' Shimon b. Elazar doesn't hold of this Tanna in R' Yishmael's Beis Medrish. Although he excludes other materials, that's only from Tumah of three fingers squared that's only fit for the poor. However, he may agree that other materials are susceptible to Tumah if it's three Tefachim squared since we see that a second Tanna in R' Yishmael's Beis Medrish taught a Drasha to include it. [Tosfos explains: however, Abaya held that, if you are going to have a Drasha to include other materials, it must include it regarding all cloth, even if it's only three fingers squared. Therefore, we must say that R' Shimon b. Elazar argues with this Tanna in R' Yishmael's Beis Medrish.] In one version of the Gemara's conclusion, Rava reversed his statement and holds that even the first Tanna in R' Yishmael's Beis Medrish held like the second one, and holds all materials are susceptible to Tumah at three T'fachim squared. The second version was that Rava never reversed himself, and it was R' Papa who made this statement.

Daf 27

67) R' Nachman b. Yitzchok says: when the Tanna R' Yishmael's Beis Medrish excluded all materials except for wool and linen; that was referring to Tzitzis (and not to Tumah). Although it says wool and linen by the Pasuk of Tzitzis; still, without this Drasha I would have said like Rava's Drasha; to reconcile between the above Pasuk that says only wool and linen and the extra Pasuk "the corner" which implies that you put on Tzitzis of the material of the corner no matter what material it's made of; that wool and linen Tzitzis exempt all material clothing, and Tzitzis from all other materials only exempt clothing from the same material; so this extra Drasha teaches us that all other materials are exempt completely. You shouldn't say that the Pasuk 'which you cover yourself," which comes to include something, should come to include other materials. Rather, it only comes to include a blind person that he's obligated in Tzitzis, and he's not excluded from the Pasuk "you shall see it." Therefore, that last Pasuk only comes to exclude Tzitzis at night. Once we have one Pasuk to include something and another Pasuk to exclude something else, the reason we would rather exclude night than a blind person since the Tzitzis of a blind person is seen by others, but nobody can naturally see the Tzitzis at night. [Tosfos Paskins like Rava since he's the later authority.]

68) R' Shimon b. Elazar holds that spun linen is invalid for Schach. [Tosfos: this is implied in his words that "except for linen" is Tamai, and not "except for a linen cloth."] He holds like Sumchos who holds that if you make Schach from threads, they are Pasul since they are susceptible to Tumah by Tzaras. [Tosfos asks: R' Shimon b. Elazar implies that it's invalid for Schach even before spinning since he says "except for linen' and not "except for threads of linen", as the Gemara in Sukka says; it's Pasul if it was banged and carded, even if it wasn't spun, so, how can he hold like Sumchos who only Pasuls threads that were actually spun? Tosfos answers: since Sumchos holds that threads are Pasul Schach from the Torah because they're susceptible to Tumah for Tzaras; then it makes sense why R' Shimon b. Elazar holds that they're Pasul before they're spun at least from a rabbinical decree, since it's close to being spun and Pasul from the Torah. However, if it needs to be susceptible to the Tumah of a corpse in order to be Pasul Schach from the Torah, and the rabbis decreed on threads that are susceptible to Tumah Tzaras so that you won't come to allow things that are susceptible to the Tumah of a corpse, then you can't decree to Pasul flax that wasn't spun because you'll come to permit spun threads, since that would be a double decree.]

69) Also, we must say that he holds like R' Meir that the threads become susceptible right away after it's spun, but R' Yehuda holds that the woof is only susceptible when you cook it, the weft right away and 'Onen' of linen from when it's whitened. [Rashi says that this Onen is before it's spun. Tosfos explains his reason; since we said in the first part about the woof and the weft, we should assume that, since we're changing the terminology, we're not referring anymore to the spun woof and weft. However, Tosfos asks: why should it be Tamai if the Torah says that it needs to be a woof and weft (i.e. threads)? Rather, we must say that when the Mishna talks about wool, it refers to the woof and the weft since they're very different from each other. However, since the woof and weft of linen are very similar to each other, as the Gemara implies in Avoda Zara, they're called by the generic term of 'Onen']

70) You can't light with anything that comes from a tree except for linen. [Rashi says: therefore, you can't use canvas and cotton. However, Tosfos permits since we see they light well, and the world is accustomed to light with them. They're not excluded from this rule since they're plants, and not trees. Although linen is a plant and not a tree either but the Torah calls it a tree. This is similar to R' Meir's opinion that says that wheat was the "tree of knowledge." As we see the Gemara in Brachos giving the rule of what's considered a tree (regarding making a Ha'eitz); something that grows fruit from that branch every year. If you take the fruit (i.e., seeds) from the canvas, linen or cotton plants, no other seed will grow from it.]

71) Anything that comes from wood is not susceptible to Tumah of a tent but linen. [Tosfos explains: we're referring to the tent that's attached to the ground, that it can become Tamai. Even if it started out as a big detached cloth; but when you attach it to the building afterwards, it has the status of a tent. After all, it can't refer to a moveable object that's hovering over a corpse since all materials become Tamai from it.] We learn it from a Gezeira Shava from the Mishkon (which had it's roof made out of linen). We learn that leather from a Tahor animal also becomes Tamai because of the upper layer of the Mishkon's roof made from leather. We also learn that goat hairs also becomes Tamai from the middle layer of the Mishkon's roof. We learn that a Tamai animal also becomes Tamai from a Kal V'chomer from goat's hair that doesn't become Tamai by Tzaras like Tamai animal's hides.

Daf 28

72) You need to make the Tefilin boxes from the hide of a Tahor animal since it says "in order to have the Torah of Hashem in your mouth," that it must be permitted to eat. Since the box has the letter Shin on it from Hashem's name, this Pasuk is applicable to it. There is a Halacha L'Moshe M'sinai that the straps must be black. [However, Tosfos holds, but it not necessarily that it needs to be Kosher also, like the boxes that need to be black and Kosher. Therefore, we only know that from the following rule], R' Yosef says: only hide of Tahor animals are fit for Hashem's works.

73) There are also Halochos L'Moshe M'sinai that the Tefilin need to be squared, the Parshiyos wrapped in hair, and it needs to be sewn with sinew.

74) A swatch of material that's been folded (into a wick) but haven't been scorched; R' Eleizer says that it's still susceptible to Tumah and you can't light it. R' Akiva holds it's no longer susceptible to Tumah and you may light with it.

75) R' Ada b. Ahava holds that we're referring to a swatch exactly three fingers squared, and they argue if folding it removes its status of a cloth (and makes it into a wick). We must say that he's lighting it on Yom Tov that fell out on Friday. Everyone holds of Nolad (i.e., something is Muktza when an object changes entities on Shabbos or Yom Tov). Therefore, the rule is that you can only fuel a fire with complete utensils (that are not Nolad), but not ones broken on Yom Tov (since they're Nolad, since they're no longer a utensil as it was when it came into Yom Tov.) Also, everyone holds that you need to light most of the wick that's sticking out of the oil. Therefore, R' Eliezer says; it starts out still being a cloth, and as soon as you touch it with the fire, it becomes less than three fingers squared and is a broken utensil, and since you need to light more to have most of the wick lit, you're lighting with Nolad, and that's prohibited. However, R' Akiva held that it's no longer a utensil when you folded it on Erev Yom Tov, so it's not Nolad.

Daf 29

76) However, R' Ada b. Ahava only said this to explain R' Eliezer and R' Akiva, but he personally doesn't hold that Nolad is forbidden. Therefore, he held, if a non-Jew carves out a utensil from a Jew's log, he may burn it on Yom Tov, and we don't say that it's Nolad since it started on Yom Tov as wood, and now it's a utensil.

77) Rabbah says: the reason why R' Eliezer held you can't use it to light since he holds that you can't light if the wick is not scorched, nor could you light with a rag [Tosfos says: the right text should read: even if it is scorched. (After all, if it was not scorched, then it's not allowed even if it's a true wick. Therefore, Tosfos held that men who scorch the wick are doing it for no reason since we don't Paskin like R' Eliezer since he was a student of Beis Shammai.]

78) R' Hamnuna says that we refer to a swatch of cloth that's not three fingers squared, and even though it's regularly not susceptible to Tumah, we refer to one that they use it for stuffing the drain in a bathhouse, or to wipe out a dirty pot, or to wipe down a mill. Everyone agrees that if it was stored in a box, it's a utensil and is susceptible for Tumah. Everyone also agrees that if it's put in the garbage heap, it's not susceptible. R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua argue if it's hung on a hook or thrown behind a door. R' Eliezer held it's still susceptible and R' Yehoshua says that it's no longer susceptible. R' Akiva originally held to differentiate that it's susceptible if it's hung up but not susceptible if it's thrown behind a door, but he eventually reversed his decision and held like R' Yehoshua. Therefore, R' Eliezer and R' Akiva who argue with the folded swatch made into a wick is consistent to their above opinions.

79) R' Shimon holds that cloth can't become Tamai unless it's a little bit larger than three fingers squared in order to make a hem. However, the Chachamim say that you only need it to be exactly three fingers squared.

80) R' Yehuda holds of the prohibition of Nolad. Therefore, he holds that you can only use whole utensils as fuel on Yom Tov, and not broken utensils. Even more, he holds that you can only use dates as fuel, but not their pits after you ate them. Granted that the pits didn't change, but originally, it was part of human food, and now it's only fit to feed the animals. [Tosfos asks: we see in Beitza that, even the opinion that holds of Muktza, you may throw the innards of a duck to a cat on Yom Tov after it spoils and can only be cat food, since you know it would spoil the day before and you'll give it to the cat; so why don't you say the same here? Tosfos answers: over there it was Shechted the day before and wasn't needed for the keeping of the rest of the duck, therefore, it's designated as cat food coming into Yom Tov. However, here, the pit was needed for the date coming into Yom Tov, therefore, it has the status of being part of human food on Yom Tov.] The Gemara qualifies this that it's only by Persian dates that are fully ripe and you eat all the meat from it. However, the Aramaic dates that are never ripe, and there is always some meat left on it that you can suck, always has the status of human food, and you may use it as fuel on Yom Tov.

Not only this, but you can only use a whole nut as fuel but not just the shells, even though it has an extra reason to say it didn't change more than pits since they were always exposed, while the pits were originally covered, and comes exposed only after eating. However, R' Shimon permits all of them.

81) This, that we allow using a complete utensil as fuel, even though eventually it will be burned and the remainder becomes a broken utensil; the reason why you can stir the coals; we must say that we had a majority of regular wood there, and the broken utensils are Batul in them. This is like branches that fell off from a tree on Yom Tov (and are Muktza), that we allow adding wood to make them Batul.