Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

January 18, 2022 | 讟状讝 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讘 | TODAY'S DAF: Moed Katan 6

Today's Daf Yomi

April 2, 2020 | 讞壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Shabbat 27

Today’s shiur is dedicated by Chanah and Michael Piotrkowski in memory of Chanah’s beloved

father Avigdor Yosef ben Zvi Hirsh z”l and by Allison Ickovic for a refuah shleima for her little girl Zoe Arielle bat Rachel Yael.

From where does Rava derive that according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar all cloths that are 3×3 tefachim are susceptible to impurities? How does Abaye respond to this proof? There is a back and forth discussion between Rava and Abaye to match the berses according to each one’s interpretation. Abaye brings a braita from the school of Rabbi Yishmael that contradicts the braita in the previous daf from the school of Rabbi Yishmael. One says that all materials other than linen are not susceptible to impurities at any size and the other one says that all materials are susceptible to impurities are 3×3 tefachim (handsbreaths). Three answers are brought (Rava, Rav Papa and Rav Nachman) to resolve this contradiction and for each one, the gemara raises questions. The mishna talks about all items that come from the tree itself – one cannot light with them and a covering made from something that comes from a tree would not create a tent for purposes of impurity of a dead body if it was used as a covering. The only expception to this rule is flax. Does flax come from a tree?

Click to join us on Zoom, Sun-Fri at 07:15 Israel time

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讗讜 讘讙讚 讚转谞讬讗 讘讙讚 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讚 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讘砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讘讙讚

from where does Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar derive that it can become ritually impure? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, it is derived from the verse that speaks of the ritual impurity of creeping animals: 鈥淥r a garment, or skin, or sack鈥 (Leviticus 11:32). The additional 鈥渙r鈥 comes to include items that are not generally included in the definition of garment. As it was taught in a baraita: From the fact that it says garment, I have derived nothing other than a whole garment; however, a swatch that is three by three handbreadths in other garments, from where is it derived that it can become ritually impure? The verse states: Or a garment.

讜讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 讗讜 讘讙讚 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜转 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讘爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讚诪讟诪讗 讘砖专爪讬诐

The Gemara asks: And Abaye, who says that everyone agrees that other garments do not become ritually impure at all, this phrase: Or a garment, what does he do with it and what does it come to add? The Gemara answers: He needs it to include a small swatch of fabric that is three by three fingerbreadths made of wool or linen. Despite its size, it can become ritually impure from contact with creeping animals.

讜专讘讗 讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 谞讙注讬诐 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇砖专爪讬诐

And Rava holds that there is no need for the verse to discuss that matter explicitly, as the Torah revealed in the case of leprosy that it is considered to be a garment, and the same is true with regard to the ritual impurity of creeping animals.

讜讗讘讬讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇谞讙注讬诐 砖讻谉 砖转讬 讜注专讘 诪讟诪讗 讘讛诐

And Abaye holds that one cannot derive the halakhot of creeping animals from the halakhot of leprosy, as there is room to refute that comparison in the following manner: What comparison is there to leprosy, which has more stringent halakhot of ritual impurity, as even the warp and woof threads alone can become ritually impure from it, which is not the case with regard to ritual impurity from creeping animals? Therefore, even small scraps can become ritually impure from leprosy.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 谞讙注讬诐 讞诪讬专讬 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 砖专爪讬诐 讜诇讬转讜 谞讙注讬诐 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

The other amora, Rava, says: If it should enter your mind to say that leprosy is more stringent, then the Torah should have written the halakha with regard to creeping animals, and let leprosy be derived from them. Ultimately, the two halakhot are paralleled to one another in the Torah. It would have been simpler to explicitly write the laws of creeping animals and to derive leprosy from them. Since that is not the case, it is proof that the halakhot of creeping animals can be derived from leprosy.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞讙注讬诐 诪砖专爪讬诐 诇讗 讗转讜 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇砖专爪讬诐 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗 讘讻注讚砖讛

The other amora, Abaye, said that this contention is fundamentally unsound, as leprosy could not be derived from creeping animals because there is room to refute this idea and challenge: What is the comparison to the ritual impurity of creeping animals, which is more stringent than the ritual impurity of leprosy, as the creeping animal makes one ritually impure even in a case where it is a lentil-bulk, which is not true of other types of ritual impurity? Therefore, verses were necessary to teach about the ritual impurity of both creeping animals and leprosy.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪驻讬拽 诪讗讬讚讱 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讙讚 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讚 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 诪谞讬讬谉 诇专讘讜转 爪诪专 讙诪诇讬诐 讜爪诪专 讗专谞讘讬诐 谞讜爪讛 砖诇 注讝讬诐 讜讛砖讬专讬谉 讜讛讻诇讱 讜讛住专讬拽讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讘讙讚

Abaye said: This statement of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael diverges from another statement of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: From the fact that the verse says garment, I have derived nothing other than the halakha that a garment of wool or linen can become ritually impure. However, from where is it derived to include garments made of camels鈥 hair and rabbits鈥 wool, goats鈥 hair or the types of silk, the shirayin, the kalakh, and the serikin among the fabrics that can become ritually impure? The verse states: Or a garment. The word 鈥渙r鈥 serves as an amplification to include all types of fabric.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讛讱 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛

Whereas Rava said: There is no need to say that there is a dispute in this case between two tannaim from a single school. Rather, when this tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael, quoted above, is not of the opinion that there is ritual impurity in other garments, it is only with regard to a swatch that is three by three fingerbreadths; however, with regard to a cloth that is three by three handbreadths he is of the opinion that it becomes ritually impure. His previous statement came to exclude a small garment from becoming ritually impure. This statement is referring to a larger garment that is three by three handbreadths.

讜讛讗 专讘讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讘砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讗 诪讛讛讬讗 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专讛

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 Rava the one who said above that, in the case of three by three handbreadths in other garments, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is of the opinion that they can become ritually impure, whereas the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael is not of the opinion that they become ritually impure? The Gemara answers: Rava retracted that opinion in order to reconcile the opinions of the tannaim of the school of Rabbi Yishmael. And if you wish, say instead a different answer: Rav Pappa said this statement and not Rava. Since Rav Pappa was the primary disciple of Rava, the Gemara attributed his statement to Rava.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗祝 讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 讻诇讗讬诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘讬 讘讬讛 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讬讞讚讬讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚专讱 诇讘讬砖讛 讗讘诇 讘讛注诇讗讛 讻诇 转专讬 诪讬谞讬 讗住讜专

Rav Pappa himself understood the first statement of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael and stated it in a completely different manner. In his opinion, the derivation from the halakhot of leprosy, which concluded that even all nonspecific mentions of garments in the Torah refer to wool or linen, came to include the halakhot of diverse kinds, the Torah prohibition to wear clothing made from a mixture of wool and linen threads. He sought to prove that the halakhot of prohibited mixtures of threads apply only to wool and linen. The Gemara asks: Why does he require this derivation with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds? The fact that the prohibition is limited to wool and linen is explicitly written, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11). The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, an additional derivation was necessary, as it would have entered your mind to say that this, the restriction of the prohibition of diverse kinds to wool and linen, applies specifically to a case when one uses them together in the manner of wearing them; however, in merely placing the garments upon oneself, any two kinds are prohibited. Therefore, it was necessary to derive that the garment mentioned is restricted to wool and linen.

讜诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诇讘讬砖讛 讚拽讗 诪讬转讛谞讬 讻讜诇讬 讙讜驻讬讛 诪讻诇讗讬诐 讗诪专转 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讛注诇讗讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诇讗 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讘讚讜转讗 讛讬讗

This claim is rejected: And is it not an a fortiori inference? Just as in the case of wearing the garment, where one鈥檚 entire body derives benefit from the diverse kinds, you said that wool and linen, yes, are included in the prohibition, other materials, no, are not included; in the case of merely placing the garment upon himself, all the more so that the halakha should not be more stringent. Rather, certainly the halakha that was attributed to Rav Pappa is a mistake, and he did not say it.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讗祝 讻诇

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k also said that those statements of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael do not refer to the halakhot of ritual impurity. They refer to another topic. In his opinion, the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael came to say that just as the halakhot of leprosy are limited to garments made from wool or linen, so too, all

诇讗转讜讬讬 爪讬爪讬转 爪讬爪讬转 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讙讚讬诇讬诐 转注砖讛 诇讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讚专讘讗 讚专讘讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讛讻谞祝 诪讬谉 讻谞祝 讜讻转讬讘 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讬讞讚讬讜 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 讘讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 砖讗专 诪讬谞讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讚专讘讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

garments mentioned in the Torah are made from wool and linen. This comes to include the law of ritual fringes; the obligation of ritual fringes applies only to those materials. The Gemara asks: Why is that derivation necessary? With regard to ritual fringes it is written explicitly: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11); and juxtaposed to it, it is written: 鈥淵ou shall make for you twisted fringes upon the four corners of your covering, with which you cover yourself鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:12). From the juxtaposition of these two verses it is derived that the mitzva of ritual fringes applies only to garments to which the laws of diverse kinds apply. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k responded that the matter is not so clear, as it could have entered your mind to say in accordance with the statement of Rava. As Rava raised a contradiction: On the one hand, it is written: 鈥淎nd that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of sky blue鈥 (Numbers 15:39); apparently, the threads of the ritual fringes must be of the same type of fabric as the corner of the garment. However, in Deuteronomy, in the laws of ritual fringes, it is written in juxtaposition to the laws of diverse kinds: Wool and linen together. The ritual fringes may only be made of those materials. How can that contradiction be resolved? Rather, Rava says: Ritual fringes made of wool and linen exempt the garment and fulfill the obligation of ritual fringes whether the garment is of their own type, wool or linen, whether it is not of their own type. Whereas with regard to other types, a garment of their own type, they exempt; a garment not of their own type, they do not exempt. It would have entered your mind to explain this in accordance with the approach of Rava. Therefore, the tanna taught us that the obligation of ritual fringes applies only to wool and linen and not to other materials.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚诪专讘讬 砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讗讜 讘讙讚 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 诇专讘讜转 砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐 诪讗砖专 转讻住讛 讘讛 讛讛讜讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讻住讜转 住讜诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜专讗讬转诐 讗讜转讜 驻专讟 诇讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 驻专讟 诇讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 驻专讟 诇讻住讜转 住讜诪讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 转讻住讛 讘讛 讛专讬 讻住讜转 住讜诪讗 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜专讗讬转诐 讗讜转讜 驻专讟 诇讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: According to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, what is different about ritual impurity that he includes other garments not made of wool and linen because it is written: Or a garment, which is a term of amplification? Here too, in the matter of ritual fringes, say that it comes to include other garments from the phrase: Of your covering, with which you cover yourself. Rav Ashi answered: That amplification is necessary to include the garment of a blind person in the obligation of ritual fringes. As it was taught in a baraita, with regard to ritual fringes it is stated: 鈥淎nd it shall be unto you for a fringe, that you may look upon it and remember all the mitzvot of the Lord鈥 (Numbers 15:39). The phrase: That you may look, comes to exclude a night garment, which cannot be seen and is therefore exempt from the mitzva of ritual fringes. The tanna continues: Do you say that the verse comes to exclude a night garment? Or is it only to exclude the garment of a blind person who is also unable to fulfill the verse: That you may look upon it? The tanna explains: When it says in Deuteronomy: Of your covering, with which you cover yourself, the garment of a blind person is mentioned, as he too covers himself with a covering. If so, then how do I fulfill the exclusion: That you may look upon it? It comes to exclude a night garment.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 住讜诪讗 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讻住讜转 住讜诪讗 砖讬砖谞讛 讘专讗讬讬讛 讗爪诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讘专讗讬讬讛 讗爪诇 讗讞专讬诐

The Gemara asks: Since there is one verse that includes and another verse that excludes, what did you see that led you to include a blind person and to exclude a night garment in the obligation of ritual fringes? The Gemara answers: I include the garment of a blind person because it is, at least, visible to others, and I exclude a night garment because it is not even visible to others.

讜讗讬诪讗 诇专讘讜转 砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐 诪住转讘专讗 拽讗讬 讘爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 诪专讘讛 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 拽讗讬 讘爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 诪专讘讛 砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐:

The Gemara asks: And say that this amplification does not come to include a blind person鈥檚 garments, but rather, as Rava said, to include other garments not made from wool or linen in the obligation of ritual fringes. The Gemara answers: It is logical to say that since the Torah is standing and discussing a garment made of wool or linen, it is certainly including another garment made of wool or linen. Therefore, an amplification with regard to the garment of a blind person made of wool or linen is derived. However, when the Torah is standing and discussing a garment made from wool or linen, is it reasonable to say that it is including other garments with them? Rather, other garments are certainly not derived from there.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜住讜诪讻讜住 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 住讜诪讻讜住 讚转谞讬讗 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 住讬讻讻讛 讘讟讜讜讬 驻住讜诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讘谞讙注讬诐

The Gemara returns to discuss the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who disqualified even small cloths from being used as roofing in the sukka because they can become ritually impure. Abaye said: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and Sumakhos said the same thing. The Gemara specifies: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar; that which we stated above. Sumakhos; as it was taught in a baraita: Sumakhos says: A sukka that he roofed with roofing made from spun thread is disqualified because spun thread can become ritually impure from leprosy.

讻诪讗谉 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞谉 砖转讬 讜注专讘 诪讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 诪讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛砖转讬 诪砖讬砖诇讛 讜讛注专讘 诪讬讚 讜讛讗讜谞讬谉 砖诇 驻砖转谉 诪砖讬转诇讘谞讜:

In accordance with whose opinion is Sumakhos鈥 statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as we learned in a mishna: Warp and woof can become ritually impure from leprosy immediately after they are spun; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The warp can become ritually impure only after it is removed from the cauldron in which it is boiled, and it is only the woof that can become ritually impure immediately. However, the bundles of unprocessed flax can become ritually impure after they are bleached in the oven and their processing is at least half-completed. Sumakhos, the student of Rabbi Meir, adheres to his position.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛注抓 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 驻砖转谉 讜讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛注抓 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讛诇讬诐 讗诇讗 驻砖转谉:

MISHNA: Of all substances that emerge from the tree, one may light only with flax on Shabbat (Tosafot) because the other substances do not burn well. And of all substances that emerge from the tree, the only substance that becomes ritually impure with impurity transmitted by tents over a corpse is flax. If there is a dead body inside a house or a tent that is made from any materials that originate from a tree, everything in the house becomes ritually impure. However, only in the case of flax does the tent itself become impure.

讙诪壮 诪谞诇谉 讚驻砖转谉 讗讬拽专讬 注抓 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬讗 讛注诇转诐 讛讙讙讛 讜转讟诪谞诐 讘驻砖转讬 讛注抓:

GEMARA: The mishna mentioned flax as a material that comes from a tree. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that flax is called a tree? Based on appearance, it does not resemble a tree at all. Mar Zutra said: It is derived from that which the verse said: 鈥淎nd she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the trees of flax鈥 (Joshua 2:6).

讜讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛注抓 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讛诇讬诐 讗诇讗 驻砖转谉: 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讙诪专 讗讛诇 讗讛诇

And we also learned in the mishna that with regard to any substance that emerges from the tree, the only substance that becomes ritually impure with impurity transmitted by tents over a corpse is flax. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rabbi Elazar said: The tanna learned a verbal analogy [gezera shava] between the word tent, written in the context of ritual impurity, and the word tent,

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Weaving Wisdom

Rabbis, Archaeologist and Linguists

In the Daf Yomi, we see many interesting discussions about ancient vessels and other types of furnishings and tools.聽 An...
daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time- Shabbat 26-32

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26nklNuIUc8 Join Rabbanit Dr. Tamara Spitz each week as she reviews the key topics of the previous week鈥檚 seven pages....
beni hassan

Linen, Wool, Shatnez, and Spinning

Today鈥檚 daf had some interesting issues about linen, wool and other fibers.. And nowadays there are even more fibers from...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 27: Strange and Stranger Mitzvot, and What We Learn from Them

The impurity of Tzara'at and the impurity of the creepy-crawlies -- can one be inferred from the other? Different ways...

Shabbat 27

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 27

诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讗讜 讘讙讚 讚转谞讬讗 讘讙讚 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讚 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讘砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讘讙讚

from where does Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar derive that it can become ritually impure? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, it is derived from the verse that speaks of the ritual impurity of creeping animals: 鈥淥r a garment, or skin, or sack鈥 (Leviticus 11:32). The additional 鈥渙r鈥 comes to include items that are not generally included in the definition of garment. As it was taught in a baraita: From the fact that it says garment, I have derived nothing other than a whole garment; however, a swatch that is three by three handbreadths in other garments, from where is it derived that it can become ritually impure? The verse states: Or a garment.

讜讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 讗讜 讘讙讚 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜转 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讘爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讚诪讟诪讗 讘砖专爪讬诐

The Gemara asks: And Abaye, who says that everyone agrees that other garments do not become ritually impure at all, this phrase: Or a garment, what does he do with it and what does it come to add? The Gemara answers: He needs it to include a small swatch of fabric that is three by three fingerbreadths made of wool or linen. Despite its size, it can become ritually impure from contact with creeping animals.

讜专讘讗 讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 谞讙注讬诐 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇砖专爪讬诐

And Rava holds that there is no need for the verse to discuss that matter explicitly, as the Torah revealed in the case of leprosy that it is considered to be a garment, and the same is true with regard to the ritual impurity of creeping animals.

讜讗讘讬讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇谞讙注讬诐 砖讻谉 砖转讬 讜注专讘 诪讟诪讗 讘讛诐

And Abaye holds that one cannot derive the halakhot of creeping animals from the halakhot of leprosy, as there is room to refute that comparison in the following manner: What comparison is there to leprosy, which has more stringent halakhot of ritual impurity, as even the warp and woof threads alone can become ritually impure from it, which is not the case with regard to ritual impurity from creeping animals? Therefore, even small scraps can become ritually impure from leprosy.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 谞讙注讬诐 讞诪讬专讬 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 砖专爪讬诐 讜诇讬转讜 谞讙注讬诐 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

The other amora, Rava, says: If it should enter your mind to say that leprosy is more stringent, then the Torah should have written the halakha with regard to creeping animals, and let leprosy be derived from them. Ultimately, the two halakhot are paralleled to one another in the Torah. It would have been simpler to explicitly write the laws of creeping animals and to derive leprosy from them. Since that is not the case, it is proof that the halakhot of creeping animals can be derived from leprosy.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞讙注讬诐 诪砖专爪讬诐 诇讗 讗转讜 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇砖专爪讬诐 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗 讘讻注讚砖讛

The other amora, Abaye, said that this contention is fundamentally unsound, as leprosy could not be derived from creeping animals because there is room to refute this idea and challenge: What is the comparison to the ritual impurity of creeping animals, which is more stringent than the ritual impurity of leprosy, as the creeping animal makes one ritually impure even in a case where it is a lentil-bulk, which is not true of other types of ritual impurity? Therefore, verses were necessary to teach about the ritual impurity of both creeping animals and leprosy.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪驻讬拽 诪讗讬讚讱 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讙讚 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讚 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 诪谞讬讬谉 诇专讘讜转 爪诪专 讙诪诇讬诐 讜爪诪专 讗专谞讘讬诐 谞讜爪讛 砖诇 注讝讬诐 讜讛砖讬专讬谉 讜讛讻诇讱 讜讛住专讬拽讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讘讙讚

Abaye said: This statement of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael diverges from another statement of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: From the fact that the verse says garment, I have derived nothing other than the halakha that a garment of wool or linen can become ritually impure. However, from where is it derived to include garments made of camels鈥 hair and rabbits鈥 wool, goats鈥 hair or the types of silk, the shirayin, the kalakh, and the serikin among the fabrics that can become ritually impure? The verse states: Or a garment. The word 鈥渙r鈥 serves as an amplification to include all types of fabric.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讛讱 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛

Whereas Rava said: There is no need to say that there is a dispute in this case between two tannaim from a single school. Rather, when this tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael, quoted above, is not of the opinion that there is ritual impurity in other garments, it is only with regard to a swatch that is three by three fingerbreadths; however, with regard to a cloth that is three by three handbreadths he is of the opinion that it becomes ritually impure. His previous statement came to exclude a small garment from becoming ritually impure. This statement is referring to a larger garment that is three by three handbreadths.

讜讛讗 专讘讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讘砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讗 诪讛讛讬讗 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专讛

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 Rava the one who said above that, in the case of three by three handbreadths in other garments, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is of the opinion that they can become ritually impure, whereas the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael is not of the opinion that they become ritually impure? The Gemara answers: Rava retracted that opinion in order to reconcile the opinions of the tannaim of the school of Rabbi Yishmael. And if you wish, say instead a different answer: Rav Pappa said this statement and not Rava. Since Rav Pappa was the primary disciple of Rava, the Gemara attributed his statement to Rava.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗祝 讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 讻诇讗讬诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘讬 讘讬讛 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讬讞讚讬讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚专讱 诇讘讬砖讛 讗讘诇 讘讛注诇讗讛 讻诇 转专讬 诪讬谞讬 讗住讜专

Rav Pappa himself understood the first statement of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael and stated it in a completely different manner. In his opinion, the derivation from the halakhot of leprosy, which concluded that even all nonspecific mentions of garments in the Torah refer to wool or linen, came to include the halakhot of diverse kinds, the Torah prohibition to wear clothing made from a mixture of wool and linen threads. He sought to prove that the halakhot of prohibited mixtures of threads apply only to wool and linen. The Gemara asks: Why does he require this derivation with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds? The fact that the prohibition is limited to wool and linen is explicitly written, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11). The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, an additional derivation was necessary, as it would have entered your mind to say that this, the restriction of the prohibition of diverse kinds to wool and linen, applies specifically to a case when one uses them together in the manner of wearing them; however, in merely placing the garments upon oneself, any two kinds are prohibited. Therefore, it was necessary to derive that the garment mentioned is restricted to wool and linen.

讜诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诇讘讬砖讛 讚拽讗 诪讬转讛谞讬 讻讜诇讬 讙讜驻讬讛 诪讻诇讗讬诐 讗诪专转 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讛注诇讗讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诇讗 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讘讚讜转讗 讛讬讗

This claim is rejected: And is it not an a fortiori inference? Just as in the case of wearing the garment, where one鈥檚 entire body derives benefit from the diverse kinds, you said that wool and linen, yes, are included in the prohibition, other materials, no, are not included; in the case of merely placing the garment upon himself, all the more so that the halakha should not be more stringent. Rather, certainly the halakha that was attributed to Rav Pappa is a mistake, and he did not say it.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讗祝 讻诇

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k also said that those statements of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael do not refer to the halakhot of ritual impurity. They refer to another topic. In his opinion, the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael came to say that just as the halakhot of leprosy are limited to garments made from wool or linen, so too, all

诇讗转讜讬讬 爪讬爪讬转 爪讬爪讬转 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讙讚讬诇讬诐 转注砖讛 诇讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讚专讘讗 讚专讘讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讛讻谞祝 诪讬谉 讻谞祝 讜讻转讬讘 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讬讞讚讬讜 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 讘讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 砖讗专 诪讬谞讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讚专讘讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

garments mentioned in the Torah are made from wool and linen. This comes to include the law of ritual fringes; the obligation of ritual fringes applies only to those materials. The Gemara asks: Why is that derivation necessary? With regard to ritual fringes it is written explicitly: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11); and juxtaposed to it, it is written: 鈥淵ou shall make for you twisted fringes upon the four corners of your covering, with which you cover yourself鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:12). From the juxtaposition of these two verses it is derived that the mitzva of ritual fringes applies only to garments to which the laws of diverse kinds apply. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k responded that the matter is not so clear, as it could have entered your mind to say in accordance with the statement of Rava. As Rava raised a contradiction: On the one hand, it is written: 鈥淎nd that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of sky blue鈥 (Numbers 15:39); apparently, the threads of the ritual fringes must be of the same type of fabric as the corner of the garment. However, in Deuteronomy, in the laws of ritual fringes, it is written in juxtaposition to the laws of diverse kinds: Wool and linen together. The ritual fringes may only be made of those materials. How can that contradiction be resolved? Rather, Rava says: Ritual fringes made of wool and linen exempt the garment and fulfill the obligation of ritual fringes whether the garment is of their own type, wool or linen, whether it is not of their own type. Whereas with regard to other types, a garment of their own type, they exempt; a garment not of their own type, they do not exempt. It would have entered your mind to explain this in accordance with the approach of Rava. Therefore, the tanna taught us that the obligation of ritual fringes applies only to wool and linen and not to other materials.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚诪专讘讬 砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讗讜 讘讙讚 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 诇专讘讜转 砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐 诪讗砖专 转讻住讛 讘讛 讛讛讜讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讻住讜转 住讜诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜专讗讬转诐 讗讜转讜 驻专讟 诇讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 驻专讟 诇讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 驻专讟 诇讻住讜转 住讜诪讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 转讻住讛 讘讛 讛专讬 讻住讜转 住讜诪讗 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜专讗讬转诐 讗讜转讜 驻专讟 诇讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: According to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, what is different about ritual impurity that he includes other garments not made of wool and linen because it is written: Or a garment, which is a term of amplification? Here too, in the matter of ritual fringes, say that it comes to include other garments from the phrase: Of your covering, with which you cover yourself. Rav Ashi answered: That amplification is necessary to include the garment of a blind person in the obligation of ritual fringes. As it was taught in a baraita, with regard to ritual fringes it is stated: 鈥淎nd it shall be unto you for a fringe, that you may look upon it and remember all the mitzvot of the Lord鈥 (Numbers 15:39). The phrase: That you may look, comes to exclude a night garment, which cannot be seen and is therefore exempt from the mitzva of ritual fringes. The tanna continues: Do you say that the verse comes to exclude a night garment? Or is it only to exclude the garment of a blind person who is also unable to fulfill the verse: That you may look upon it? The tanna explains: When it says in Deuteronomy: Of your covering, with which you cover yourself, the garment of a blind person is mentioned, as he too covers himself with a covering. If so, then how do I fulfill the exclusion: That you may look upon it? It comes to exclude a night garment.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 住讜诪讗 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讻住讜转 住讜诪讗 砖讬砖谞讛 讘专讗讬讬讛 讗爪诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讘专讗讬讬讛 讗爪诇 讗讞专讬诐

The Gemara asks: Since there is one verse that includes and another verse that excludes, what did you see that led you to include a blind person and to exclude a night garment in the obligation of ritual fringes? The Gemara answers: I include the garment of a blind person because it is, at least, visible to others, and I exclude a night garment because it is not even visible to others.

讜讗讬诪讗 诇专讘讜转 砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐 诪住转讘专讗 拽讗讬 讘爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 诪专讘讛 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 拽讗讬 讘爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 诪专讘讛 砖讗专 讘讙讚讬诐:

The Gemara asks: And say that this amplification does not come to include a blind person鈥檚 garments, but rather, as Rava said, to include other garments not made from wool or linen in the obligation of ritual fringes. The Gemara answers: It is logical to say that since the Torah is standing and discussing a garment made of wool or linen, it is certainly including another garment made of wool or linen. Therefore, an amplification with regard to the garment of a blind person made of wool or linen is derived. However, when the Torah is standing and discussing a garment made from wool or linen, is it reasonable to say that it is including other garments with them? Rather, other garments are certainly not derived from there.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜住讜诪讻讜住 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 住讜诪讻讜住 讚转谞讬讗 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 住讬讻讻讛 讘讟讜讜讬 驻住讜诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讘谞讙注讬诐

The Gemara returns to discuss the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who disqualified even small cloths from being used as roofing in the sukka because they can become ritually impure. Abaye said: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and Sumakhos said the same thing. The Gemara specifies: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar; that which we stated above. Sumakhos; as it was taught in a baraita: Sumakhos says: A sukka that he roofed with roofing made from spun thread is disqualified because spun thread can become ritually impure from leprosy.

讻诪讗谉 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞谉 砖转讬 讜注专讘 诪讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 诪讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛砖转讬 诪砖讬砖诇讛 讜讛注专讘 诪讬讚 讜讛讗讜谞讬谉 砖诇 驻砖转谉 诪砖讬转诇讘谞讜:

In accordance with whose opinion is Sumakhos鈥 statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as we learned in a mishna: Warp and woof can become ritually impure from leprosy immediately after they are spun; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The warp can become ritually impure only after it is removed from the cauldron in which it is boiled, and it is only the woof that can become ritually impure immediately. However, the bundles of unprocessed flax can become ritually impure after they are bleached in the oven and their processing is at least half-completed. Sumakhos, the student of Rabbi Meir, adheres to his position.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛注抓 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 驻砖转谉 讜讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛注抓 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讛诇讬诐 讗诇讗 驻砖转谉:

MISHNA: Of all substances that emerge from the tree, one may light only with flax on Shabbat (Tosafot) because the other substances do not burn well. And of all substances that emerge from the tree, the only substance that becomes ritually impure with impurity transmitted by tents over a corpse is flax. If there is a dead body inside a house or a tent that is made from any materials that originate from a tree, everything in the house becomes ritually impure. However, only in the case of flax does the tent itself become impure.

讙诪壮 诪谞诇谉 讚驻砖转谉 讗讬拽专讬 注抓 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬讗 讛注诇转诐 讛讙讙讛 讜转讟诪谞诐 讘驻砖转讬 讛注抓:

GEMARA: The mishna mentioned flax as a material that comes from a tree. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that flax is called a tree? Based on appearance, it does not resemble a tree at all. Mar Zutra said: It is derived from that which the verse said: 鈥淎nd she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the trees of flax鈥 (Joshua 2:6).

讜讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛注抓 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讛诇讬诐 讗诇讗 驻砖转谉: 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讙诪专 讗讛诇 讗讛诇

And we also learned in the mishna that with regard to any substance that emerges from the tree, the only substance that becomes ritually impure with impurity transmitted by tents over a corpse is flax. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rabbi Elazar said: The tanna learned a verbal analogy [gezera shava] between the word tent, written in the context of ritual impurity, and the word tent,

Scroll To Top