Shabbat 26b — the Talmud in English

Abaye said: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and the tannai of the school of Rabbi Yishmael stated one matter.

For the source of the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is from what Rabbi Yishmael expounded.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar—

that is,

that which we said—

that what emerges from the tree does not contract impurity of garments, except for flax.

The tannai of the school of Rabbi Yishmael—

what is it?

And we explain:

For the tannai of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since “garments” were stated in the Torah

in several places, such as with the impurity of creeping creatures and the impurity of a corpse, and also in relation to the mitzva of tzitzit, and they were stated with the expression “garment”

without specification. And Scripture specified for you in one of them,

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

of wool and flax.”

For it is written [Leviticus 13:47]: “And the garment, when there shall be in it a plague of leprosy, in a garment of wool or in a garment of flax.” And there we learned by means of “generalization, specification, and generalization” that only a garment of wool or flax contracts the impurity of afflictions [for in two verses the Torah wrote “garment,” which is an inclusive expression, and in one of them the Torah specified “wool or flax”].

And we derive the other places through the method of “as we find” from the laws of afflictions:

Just as there,

with regard to the impurity of afflictions, nothing contracts the impurity of afflictions except a garment that is

of wool and flax, so too every

other place where the Torah wrote the expression “garment” without specification means only a garment of

wool and flax,

to exclude other garments, such as a garment made from what emerges from the tree or one made from goats’ hair, which do not contract impurity [even if it contains the measure of three handbreadths. And see Tosafot, s.v. Rabbi], and are not subject to tzitzit.

Rava said:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and the tannai of the school of Rabbi Yishmael did not state one matter; rather, they disagree. And a garment of other kinds, whose measure is

three

handbreadths

by three

handbreadths—

that is the difference between them.

For Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds

that this garment of three handbreadths by three handbreadths contracts impurity, even when it is not made of wool or flax. For he explicitly said that anything emerging from the tree is not subject to the measure of “three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths,” and it follows that it is subject to “three handbreadths by three handbreadths.”

But

the tannai of the school of Rabbi Yishmael does not hold

that there is any law of contracting impurity at all for a garment that is not of wool or flax.

And now we inquire:

According to everyone,

these tannaim,

at least [and whether according to Abaye or according to Rava, who disagree according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar as to whether a garment of three handbreadths made of other kinds contracts impurity]—a garment of

whether according to Abaye or according to Rava, who disagree concerning Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s opinion as to whether a garment made of other materials and measuring three handbreadths by three handbreadths becomes impure—

three

fingerbreadths

by three

fingerbreadths

of wool and flax,

which

contracts

impurity of

afflictions—from where do we know

this?

And we explain:

For it was taught:

It is written in the section of afflictions: “And the garment, when there shall be in it a plague of leprosy.” And this is how we expound it: If it had been written

“garment,”

I would have said:

I have only

that it contracts impurity

when it is a garment

that is whole.

A garment that contains only

three

fingerbreadths

by three

fingerbreadths—

from where

does it contract impurity?

The verse therefore says: “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:

But perhaps

the verse comes

to include

specifically a garment that is

three

handbreadths

by three

handbreadths, and the measure of three fingerbreadths is insufficient.

And we wonder: Is it

not a kal va-chomer?

For this does not require a verse.

For

now,

a thread of

warp and woof,

which is fit to weave with it 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, and it should

be derived by a kal va-chomer:

If a thread that is fit to weave with it three by three fingerbreadths contracts impurity, 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,

for

garments of such a measure

are fit both for the wealthy and for the poor,

for even wealthy people are particular about a garment of such a measure and do not throw it away, is what

is derived by a kal va-chomer

from a thread of warp and woof of three fingerbreadths.

But a garment of

three

fingerbreadths

by three

fingerbreadths, which

is fit only for the poor,

who are particular not to throw it away, but

is not fit for the wealthy,

because they are not particular about throwing it away—

is not derived by a kal va-chomer,

for one might say that it is not a garment.

And

the reason is that Scripture wrote it,

for we include it from the extra wording “and the garment”;

but

if

Scripture had not written it, we would not derive

that it becomes impure

by a kal va-chomer

from the law of a thread of warp and woof, since it is not fit for the wealthy; one might say that the name garment does not apply to it and it will not contract impurity.

And furthermore we challenge:

But perhaps

the verse comes

to include

a garment of

three by three

handbreadths

of other garments

that are not of wool or flax?

And we answer:

The verse says: “

In a

wool garment

or in a garment of

flax,”

which is a specification that follows a generalization, and this is how it is expounded:

A garment

that is

wool and flax—yes,

it contracts impurity, but

other things,

other types of garments—

no,

they do not contract impurity at all.

And furthermore we challenge:

But perhaps, when other kinds are excluded,

they are excluded only

from

the measure of

three by three

fingerbreadths.

But

a garment of other kinds with a measure of

three

handbreadths

by three

handbreadths does

contract impurity?

And we answer:

Two exclusions are written

in the section of garment afflictions. One is

“a wool garment or a garment of flax.”

And another verse at the end of the section: “This is the law of the plague of leprosy in the woolen garment or the linen garment.”

One

verse comes

to exclude

the law of impurity

from

a garment of other kinds with a measure of

three by three

fingerbreadths.

And one

verse comes

to exclude

the law of impurity

from

a garment of other kinds with a measure of

three by three

handbreadths.

And we challenge:

And according to Rava, who says

that a garment of

three

handbreadths by

three handbreadths of other

kinds of

garments [

that are not of wool or flax]

is the difference between them,

between Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and the tannai of the school of Rabbi Yishmael: For

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds

that they contract the impurity of afflictions, whereas

the tannai of the school of Rabbi Yishmael does not hold,

and maintains that they do not contract impurity—