Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 2, 2020 | ח׳ בניסן תש״פ

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

תוכן זה תורגם גם ל: עברית

מנא ליה נפקא מאו בגד דתניא בגד אין לי אלא בגד שלשה על שלשה בשאר בגדים מניין תלמוד לומר או בגד

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: “Or a garment, or skin, or sack” (Leviticus 11:32). The additional “or” 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.

ואביי האי או בגד מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לרבות שלש על שלש בצמר ופשתים דמטמא בשרצים

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.

ורבא גלי רחמנא גבי נגעים והוא הדין לשרצים

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.

ואביי איכא למיפרך מה לנגעים שכן שתי וערב מטמא בהם

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.

ואידך אי סלקא דעתך נגעים חמירי לכתוב רחמנא גבי שרצים וליתו נגעים מינייהו

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.

ואידך נגעים משרצים לא אתו דאיכא למיפרך מה לשרצים שכן מטמא בכעדשה

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.

אמר אביי האי תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל מפיק מאידך תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל דתני דבי רבי ישמעאל בגד אין לי אלא בגד צמר ופשתים מניין לרבות צמר גמלים וצמר ארנבים נוצה של עזים והשירין והכלך והסריקין תלמוד לומר או בגד

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’ hair and rabbits’ wool, goats’ 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 “or” serves as an amplification to include all types of fabric.

רבא אמר כי לית ליה להך תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל בשאר בגדים שלש על שלש שלשה על שלשה אית ליה

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.

והא רבא הוא דאמר שלשה על שלשה בשאר בגדים לרבי שמעון בן אלעזר אית ליה לתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל לית ליה הדר ביה רבא מההיא ואי בעית אימא הא רב פפא אמרה

The Gemara asks: Isn’t 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.

רב פפא אמר אף כל לאתויי כלאים כלאים בהדיא כתיבי ביה לא תלבש שעטנז צמר ופשתים יחדיו סלקא דעתך אמינא הני מילי דרך לבישה אבל בהעלאה כל תרי מיני אסור

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: “You shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together” (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.

ולאו קל וחומר הוא ומה לבישה דקא מיתהני כולי גופיה מכלאים אמרת צמר ופשתים אין מידי אחרינא לא העלאה לא כל שכן אלא דרב פפא בדותא היא

This claim is rejected: And is it not an a fortiori inference? Just as in the case of wearing the garment, where one’s 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.

רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אף כל

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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

לאתויי ציצית ציצית בהדיא כתיב לא תלבש שעטנז צמר ופשתים וכתיב גדילים תעשה לך סלקא דעתך אמינא כדרבא דרבא רמי כתיב הכנף מין כנף וכתיב צמר ופשתים יחדיו הא כיצד צמר ופשתים פוטרין בין במינן בין שלא במינן שאר מינין במינן פוטרין שלא במינן אין פוטרין סלקא דעתך כדרבא קא משמע לן

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: “You shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together” (Deuteronomy 22:11); and juxtaposed to it, it is written: “You shall make for you twisted fringes upon the four corners of your covering, with which you cover yourself” (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 Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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: “And that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of sky blue” (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.

אמר רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי לתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל מאי שנא לענין טומאה דמרבי שאר בגדים דכתיב או בגד הכא נמי לימא לרבות שאר בגדים מאשר תכסה בה ההוא לאתויי כסות סומא הוא דאתא דתניא וראיתם אותו פרט לכסות לילה אתה אומר פרט לכסות לילה או אינו אלא פרט לכסות סומא כשהוא אומר אשר תכסה בה הרי כסות סומא אמור הא מה אני מקיים וראיתם אותו פרט לכסות לילה

Rav Aḥa, 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: “And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that you may look upon it and remember all the mitzvot of the Lord” (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.

ומה ראית לרבות סומא ולהוציא כסות לילה מרבה אני כסות סומא שישנה בראייה אצל אחרים ומוציא אני כסות לילה שאינה בראייה אצל אחרים

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.

ואימא לרבות שאר בגדים מסתברא קאי בצמר ופשתים מרבה צמר ופשתים קאי בצמר ופשתים מרבה שאר בגדים:

The Gemara asks: And say that this amplification does not come to include a blind person’s 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.

אמר אביי רבי שמעון בן אלעזר וסומכוס אמרו דבר אחד רבי שמעון בן אלעזר הא דאמרן סומכוס דתניא סומכוס אומר סיככה בטווי פסולה מפני שמטמאה בנגעים

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.

כמאן כי האי תנא דתנן שתי וערב מטמא בנגעים מיד דברי רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה אומר השתי משישלה והערב מיד והאונין של פשתן משיתלבנו:

In accordance with whose opinion is Sumakhos’ 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.

מתני׳ כל היוצא מן העץ אין מדליקין בו אלא פשתן וכל היוצא מן העץ אינו מטמא טומאת אהלים אלא פשתן:

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.

גמ׳ מנלן דפשתן איקרי עץ אמר מר זוטרא דאמר קרא והיא העלתם הגגה ותטמנם בפשתי העץ:

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: “And she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the trees of flax” (Joshua 2:6).

והיוצא מן העץ אינו מטמא טומאת אהלים אלא פשתן: מנלן אמר רבי אלעזר גמר אהל אהל

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.  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’s seven pages....
beni hassan

Linen, Wool, Shatnez, and Spinning

Today’s 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

מנא ליה נפקא מאו בגד דתניא בגד אין לי אלא בגד שלשה על שלשה בשאר בגדים מניין תלמוד לומר או בגד

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: “Or a garment, or skin, or sack” (Leviticus 11:32). The additional “or” 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.

ואביי האי או בגד מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לרבות שלש על שלש בצמר ופשתים דמטמא בשרצים

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.

ורבא גלי רחמנא גבי נגעים והוא הדין לשרצים

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.

ואביי איכא למיפרך מה לנגעים שכן שתי וערב מטמא בהם

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.

ואידך אי סלקא דעתך נגעים חמירי לכתוב רחמנא גבי שרצים וליתו נגעים מינייהו

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.

ואידך נגעים משרצים לא אתו דאיכא למיפרך מה לשרצים שכן מטמא בכעדשה

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.

אמר אביי האי תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל מפיק מאידך תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל דתני דבי רבי ישמעאל בגד אין לי אלא בגד צמר ופשתים מניין לרבות צמר גמלים וצמר ארנבים נוצה של עזים והשירין והכלך והסריקין תלמוד לומר או בגד

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’ hair and rabbits’ wool, goats’ 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 “or” serves as an amplification to include all types of fabric.

רבא אמר כי לית ליה להך תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל בשאר בגדים שלש על שלש שלשה על שלשה אית ליה

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.

והא רבא הוא דאמר שלשה על שלשה בשאר בגדים לרבי שמעון בן אלעזר אית ליה לתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל לית ליה הדר ביה רבא מההיא ואי בעית אימא הא רב פפא אמרה

The Gemara asks: Isn’t 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.

רב פפא אמר אף כל לאתויי כלאים כלאים בהדיא כתיבי ביה לא תלבש שעטנז צמר ופשתים יחדיו סלקא דעתך אמינא הני מילי דרך לבישה אבל בהעלאה כל תרי מיני אסור

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: “You shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together” (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.

ולאו קל וחומר הוא ומה לבישה דקא מיתהני כולי גופיה מכלאים אמרת צמר ופשתים אין מידי אחרינא לא העלאה לא כל שכן אלא דרב פפא בדותא היא

This claim is rejected: And is it not an a fortiori inference? Just as in the case of wearing the garment, where one’s 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.

רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אף כל

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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

לאתויי ציצית ציצית בהדיא כתיב לא תלבש שעטנז צמר ופשתים וכתיב גדילים תעשה לך סלקא דעתך אמינא כדרבא דרבא רמי כתיב הכנף מין כנף וכתיב צמר ופשתים יחדיו הא כיצד צמר ופשתים פוטרין בין במינן בין שלא במינן שאר מינין במינן פוטרין שלא במינן אין פוטרין סלקא דעתך כדרבא קא משמע לן

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: “You shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together” (Deuteronomy 22:11); and juxtaposed to it, it is written: “You shall make for you twisted fringes upon the four corners of your covering, with which you cover yourself” (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 Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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: “And that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of sky blue” (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.

אמר רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי לתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל מאי שנא לענין טומאה דמרבי שאר בגדים דכתיב או בגד הכא נמי לימא לרבות שאר בגדים מאשר תכסה בה ההוא לאתויי כסות סומא הוא דאתא דתניא וראיתם אותו פרט לכסות לילה אתה אומר פרט לכסות לילה או אינו אלא פרט לכסות סומא כשהוא אומר אשר תכסה בה הרי כסות סומא אמור הא מה אני מקיים וראיתם אותו פרט לכסות לילה

Rav Aḥa, 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: “And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that you may look upon it and remember all the mitzvot of the Lord” (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.

ומה ראית לרבות סומא ולהוציא כסות לילה מרבה אני כסות סומא שישנה בראייה אצל אחרים ומוציא אני כסות לילה שאינה בראייה אצל אחרים

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.

ואימא לרבות שאר בגדים מסתברא קאי בצמר ופשתים מרבה צמר ופשתים קאי בצמר ופשתים מרבה שאר בגדים:

The Gemara asks: And say that this amplification does not come to include a blind person’s 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.

אמר אביי רבי שמעון בן אלעזר וסומכוס אמרו דבר אחד רבי שמעון בן אלעזר הא דאמרן סומכוס דתניא סומכוס אומר סיככה בטווי פסולה מפני שמטמאה בנגעים

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.

כמאן כי האי תנא דתנן שתי וערב מטמא בנגעים מיד דברי רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה אומר השתי משישלה והערב מיד והאונין של פשתן משיתלבנו:

In accordance with whose opinion is Sumakhos’ 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.

מתני׳ כל היוצא מן העץ אין מדליקין בו אלא פשתן וכל היוצא מן העץ אינו מטמא טומאת אהלים אלא פשתן:

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.

גמ׳ מנלן דפשתן איקרי עץ אמר מר זוטרא דאמר קרא והיא העלתם הגגה ותטמנם בפשתי העץ:

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: “And she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the trees of flax” (Joshua 2:6).

והיוצא מן העץ אינו מטמא טומאת אהלים אלא פשתן: מנלן אמר רבי אלעזר גמר אהל אהל

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,

More Ways to Learn with Hadran

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top