Shabbat 27a (כז.) — the Talmud in English

A garment three by three [fingerbreadths] made of other materials

that are not wool or linen, which become impure through other forms of ritual impurity [but not through impurity of leprous afflictions], according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar!

From where does he derive this?

Since the garments with regard to which the Torah explicitly stated the impurity of leprous afflictions are only those of wool and linen, from where does he derive that a garment of other materials measuring three handbreadths by three handbreadths is susceptible to the other forms of ritual impurity? After all, we must derive what is unstated from what is explicitly stated, and the explicitly stated case of impurity of leprous afflictions applies specifically to wool and linen! And we answer:

It follows

for him

from

the verse written in the passage concerning the impurity imparted by creeping animals: “Of any wooden vessel

or garment

or leather or sack”—the word “or” is an inclusion.

As it is taught in a beraita: “A garment.”

I have derived only a complete garment,

a garment measuring

three

handbreadths

by three

handbreadths

of other

types of

garments

that are not wool or linen—

from where

does it become impure?

The verse states: “Or garment.”

And we raise an objection:

But as for Abaye,

who holds, in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, that garments of other materials do not become impure even when they measure three by three,

this

extra phrase,

“or garment,”

what does he do with it?

And we answer: This verse

is necessary to include

a garment measuring

three by three

fingerbreadths

of wool and linen, which becomes impure through

the impurity of

creeping animals.

And Rava

will say to you: The verse must perforce have come to include a garment measuring three by three handbreadths made of other materials. For to include the rule that a garment measuring three by three fingerbreadths becomes impure through the impurity of creeping animals, we do not require a verse, since

the Torah revealed with regard to leprous afflictions, and the same law applies

also

to creeping animals

[as we derive the law of creeping animals from that of leprous afflictions by means of a binyan av].

And Abaye

will say to you:

There is room to refute this: What is distinctive about leprous afflictions,

which are more stringent,

for they

render impure even a single

warp or weft thread,

whereas with regard to the impurity of creeping animals, only a woven garment becomes impure?

And the other one,

[Rava] will say to you:

If it enters your mind that leprous afflictions are more stringent

and therefore it is impossible to derive from

them

—

let the Torah write

the law of susceptibility to impurity

with regard to

the impurity of

creeping animals, and let leprous afflictions be derived from them.

Rather, perforce, the verse has come to include a garment measuring three by three handbreadths made of other materials.

And the other one,

[Abaye] will say to you: The impurity of

leprous afflictions is not derived from

the impurity of

creeping animals.

Because

there is room to refute this: What is distinctive about

the impurity of

creeping animals, for it renders impure

at a small measure,

the size of a lentil,

whereas with regard to leprous afflictions, a measure the size of a gris is required.

And Rava’s reasoning is: Since this is merely a revelation of the matter—that a piece measuring three by three of wool and linen is considered a garment—the same law applies to the impurity of creeping animals. Tosafot, s.v. “for.”

Abaye said: This tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael

who says that only a garment of wool and linen becomes susceptible to impurity—

excludes,

i.e., disagrees with

the other tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael,

who includes garments of other materials with regard to the impurity of creeping animals.

For the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

It is written with regard to the impurity of creeping animals: “Of any wooden vessel or garment or leather.” And this is how it is expounded:

“Garment”—I have derived only a garment

of

wool and linen. From where do I include camel’s wool and rabbit’s wool, goat’s hair, and silk cloth

[shirin],

and kelakh,

a garment made from silk waste,

and sarikין,

a garment made from silk fibers.

The verse states: “Or garment.”

“Or” includes other materials.

And from the fact that we include other materials as susceptible to the impurity of creeping animals, conclude from it that this tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael disagrees with the other tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rava said: When the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael

at the beginning

does not hold of other garments,

that garments made of other materials do not become susceptible to impurity, this applies only to small garments measuring

three by three

fingerbreadths. But if garments of other materials measure

three by three

handbreadths,

he does hold

that they too become susceptible to impurity.

And we wonder:

But was it not Rava who said

above that

three by three

handbreadths

of other garments

specifically

is held by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar

to be susceptible to impurity? But

the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael does not hold

that they have the law of susceptibility to impurity!?

And we explain:

Rava retracted that

earlier statement, and Rava holds that even according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, garments measuring three by three handbreadths made of other materials become susceptible to impurity [and in this he disagrees with Abaye, for according to Abaye, the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael does not hold at all that they are susceptible to impurity. But Rava holds that according to both tannaim, a garment measuring three by three fingerbreadths is not susceptible to impurity, whereas one measuring three by three handbreadths is].

And if you wish, say

to you:

This

teaching was not stated by Rava, but

was stated by Rav Pappa.

And it was Rav Pappa who reconciled those two tannaim of the school of Rabbi Yishmael as expressing one position.

For Rav Pappa said: “Also all

wool and linen,” as the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael at the beginning stated, does not mean that garments of other materials do not become susceptible to impurity, for certainly they too become impure. Rather, it comes

to include

the law of other garments with regard to

kilayim,

for the prohibition of kilayim applies only to wool and linen .

And we wonder: Kilayim—

the prohibition

is

explicitly written with regard to it: “You shall not wear a mixture of wool and linen together”!?

And we explain:

It might enter your mind to say that the fact that the Torah specified that the prohibition of kilayim applies to wool and linen

means that the prohibition is only with regard to wearing them;

however, with regard to placing them upon oneself,

i.e., placing them on oneself, say that

any two types are prohibited.

Therefore, the tanna at the beginning teaches us that even with regard to placing them upon oneself, the prohibition of kilayim applies only to wool and linen.

And we wonder:

And

if

it is not a kal va-homer?

And

if

with regard to wearing, when one derives benefit from the entire body through the kilayim, you say that a garment

made

of wool and linen, yes, is subject to the prohibition of wearing, but

the Torah

nothing else

did the Torah prohibit.

Placing them upon oneself,

which is less significant than wearing them,

all the more so

should it not be prohibited except with a garment made of wool and linen?

And we conclude:

Rather,

this statement

of Rav Pappa—

is nonsense.