Shabbat 26b (כו:) — the Talmud in English

Abaye said:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael stated the same matter.

For the source of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s statement is what Rabbi Yishmael expounded.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar:

that is

the statement we said,

that anything derived from a tree does not contract garment impurity, except for linen.

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael—

what is it?

And we explain:

For the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since the word “garments” is stated in the Torah

in several places, such as with regard to impurity imparted by creeping animals, impurity imparted by a corpse, and also with regard to the mitzva of ritual fringes, and in all of them it is stated simply as “garment

,” and the verse specifies in one of them,

in the garment mentioned with regard to the impurity of leprous marks, “a garment

of wool or linen.”

As it is written [Leviticus 13:47]: “And if a leprous mark is on a garment, on a garment of wool or on a garment of linen.” And there we learn by means of a generalization, specification, and generalization that only a garment of wool or linen contracts the impurity of leprous marks [as in two verses the Torah writes “garment,” which is an inclusive term, while in one of them the Torah specifies “wool or linen”].

And we derive the other contexts through the principle of analogy from the laws of leprous marks:

Just as there

with regard to the impurity of leprous marks, only a garment that is

of wool or linen

contracts the impurity of leprous marks, so too in all other places where the Torah writes simply “garment,” it refers only to a garment of

wool or linen,

excluding other garments, such as a garment made from something derived from a tree or made from goats’ hair, which do not contract impurity [even if they are three handbreadths in size. See Tosafot, s.v. Rabbi], and are not subject to the mitzva of ritual fringes.

Rava said:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael did not state the same matter; rather, they disagreed. And the matter between them is a garment of other types whose measure is

three

handbreadths

by three

handbreadths—

that is what distinguishes them.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds

that this garment measuring three handbreadths by three handbreadths contracts impurity even when it is not made of wool or linen. For he explicitly said that anything derived from a tree is not subject to the measure of “three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths,” which proves that it does have the status of “three handbreadths by three handbreadths.”

Whereas

the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael does not hold

that a garment not made of wool or linen contracts impurity at all.

And now we inquire:

According to everyone,

these tannaitic authorities,

at any rate [

whether according to Abaye or according to Rava, who disagree with regard to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar as to whether a garment of three handbreadths made of other materials contracts impurity]—a garment measuring

three

fingerbreadths

by three

fingerbreadths

of wool or linen,

which

contracts

impurity

from leprous marks—where do we derive

this?

And we explain:

For it was taught:

It is written in the passage concerning leprous marks: “And if a leprous mark is on a garment.” And this is how we expound it: Had it been written only

“garment,”

I would have said:

I have derived only

that

a complete garment

contracts impurity.

A garment that consists of only

three

fingerbreadths

by three

fingerbreadths—

from where

do we know that it contracts impurity?

The verse therefore states: “And the garment”—the letter vav comes to include a garment of three fingerbreadths, which also contracts impurity .

The additional letter vav comes to include a garment measuring three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, teaching that it too becomes impure.

And we challenge this:

Perhaps

the verse comes

to include

specifically a garment that is

three

handbreadths

by three

handbreadths, and three fingerbreadths are insufficient.

And we wonder: Is this

not a kal va-homer?

There is no need for a verse for this.

For

now,

a thread of

warp and woof

that is fit for weaving a garment of three by three fingerbreadths

contracts impurity.

A garment of

three by three

handbreadths—

is it necessary

to say so?

And we challenge this:

If so,

a garment of

three by three

fingerbreadths

also

should not require a verse, but

should be derived by a kal va-homer: If a thread that is fit for weaving three by three fingerbreadths contracts impurity, then a garment of three by three fingerbreadths—is it necessary to say so!?

And we explain:

Rather,

only a garment of

three by

three

handbreadths,

as

garments of this size

are suitable both for the wealthy and for the poor,

and even wealthy people value a garment of this size and do not discard it, is what

can be derived by a kal va-homer

from a thread of warp and woof of three fingerbreadths.

But a garment of

three

fingerbreadths

by three

fingerbreadths, which

is suitable only for the poor,

who value it and do not discard it, but

is not suitable for the wealthy,

because they do not take care to avoid discarding it—

cannot be derived by a kal va-homer,

as one might say that it is not considered a garment.

And

the reason is that the verse wrote it,

for we include it from the superfluous wording “and the garment

”;

but

had the verse not written it, we would not derive

that it contracts impurity

by a kal va-homer

from the law of a thread of warp and woof, since it is not suitable for the wealthy; one might say that it does not have the status of a garment and does not contract impurity.

And we further ask:

Perhaps

the verse comes

to include

a garment of

three by three

handbreadths

of other garments

that are not made of wool or linen?

And we answer:

The verse says: “A

garment of

wool

or a garment of

linen,”

which is a specification following a generalization, and it is expounded as follows:

A garment

that is

of wool or linen—yes,

it contracts impurity; but

with regard to other materials,

other types of garments—

no,

they do not contract impurity at all.

And we further challenge this:

Perhaps when other materials are excluded,

they are excluded only

from

the measure of

three by three

fingerbreadths.

But

a garment of other materials measuring

three

handbreadths

by three

handbreadths does

contract impurity?

And we answer:

Two exclusions are written

in the passage concerning the impurity of garments. One is

“a garment of wool or a garment of linen.”

And another verse appears at the end of the passage: “This is the law of the leprous mark on a garment of wool or linen.”

One

verse comes

to exclude

the law of impurity

from

a garment of other materials measuring

three by three

fingerbreadths.

And one

verse comes

to exclude

the law of impurity

from

a garment of other materials measuring

three by three

handbreadths.

And we challenge this:

And according to Rava, who says

that a garment of

three

handbreadths by

three handbreadths made of other

types of

garments [

that are not made of wool or linen]

is what distinguishes them,

between Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds

that they contract the impurity of leprous marks, whereas

the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael does not hold so,

and he maintains that they do not contract impurity—