Shabbat 27a — the Talmud in English

Three by three [fingerbreadths] in other garments

that are not of wool and linen, which become impure through other impurities [but not through the impurity of afflictions], according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar

From where does he derive it?

Since the garments concerning which the Torah explicitly specified the impurity of afflictions are only of wool and linen—from where does he derive the law of impurity through other impurities for a garment measuring three handbreadths by three handbreadths of other kinds? After all, we must learn the unstated from the stated, and the stated concerning the impurity of afflictions is specifically wool and linen!? And we answer:

It emerges

for him

from

the verse written in the passage of the impurity of creeping things: “Of every wooden vessel

or garment

or skin or sack”—“or” is an inclusion.

For it was taught: “Garment”

I have only [a] garment

whole, a garment of

three

handbreadths

by three

handbreadths

of other

kinds of

garments

that are not wool or linen—

from where

does it become impure?

The verse states: “Or garment.”

And we challenge:

But Abaye,

who holds, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, that other garments do not receive impurity even when they are three by three,

this

extra word

“or garment”—

what does he do with it?

And we answer: This verse

is needed for him, to include

a garment of

three by three

fingerbreadths

of wool and linen, which becomes impure through

the impurity of

creeping things.

And Rava

would say to you: The verse necessarily comes to include three by three handbreadths in other garments. For with regard to including the law of receiving impurity in a garment of three by three fingerbreadths, so that it should become impure through the impurity of creeping things, we do not need a verse, since

the Torah revealed it concerning afflictions, and the same law applies

also

to creeping things [

for we derive creeping things from afflictions by a binyan av ].

And Abaye

would say to you:

There is grounds to refute this: What is distinctive about afflictions

that they are more stringent,

for

even a thread

of warp and woof becomes impure through them,

whereas, can you say this with regard to the impurity of creeping things, which renders impure only a woven garment?

And the other one, [

Rava ] would say to you:

If it enters your mind that afflictions are more stringent

and therefore there is no possibility of deriving from

them

anything,

the Torah should have written

the law of receiving impurity

concerning

the impurity of

creeping things, and afflictions should have come from them.

Rather, necessarily, the verse comes to include three by three in other garments.

And the other one, [

Abaye ] would say to you: The impurity of

afflictions does not come from

the impurity of

creeping things.

Because

there is grounds to refute this: What is distinctive about the

impurity of

creeping things, for it renders impure at

a small measure,

the size of a lentil,

whereas, can you say this with regard to afflictions, for we require the measure of a gris?

And Rava’s reasoning is: Since it is merely a revelation of a matter that three by three in wool and linen is considered a garment, the same law applies to the impurity of creeping things. Tosafot, s.v. sheken.

Abaye said: This tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael

who says that nothing receives impurity except a garment of wool and linen

excludes,

expounds [that is, disagrees with]

the other tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael,

who includes other garments for the impurity of creeping things.

For the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

It is written concerning the impurity of creeping things: “Of every wooden vessel or garment or skin.” And this is how we expound it:

“Garment,” I have only [a] garment

of

wool and linen; from where to include camel wool and rabbit wool, goat down, and silk garments [

silk ],

and kalkh,

a garment made from silk waste,

and sarikim,

a garment made from silk fibers.

The verse states: “Or garment.” “Or” includes other kinds.

And since we include other kinds for receiving impurity from creeping things, learn 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 this tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael

does not hold for

the first statement

with regard to other garments,

that garments of other kinds do not receive impurity, this refers only to small garments that have the measure of

three by three

fingerbreadths. But if other garments have the measure of

three by three

handbreadths,

he does hold

that they too receive impurity.

And we wonder:

But it was Rava who said

above that

three by three

handbreadths

in other garments

specifically

is held by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar

that they receive impurity. But

the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael does not hold

that they have the law of receiving impurity!?

And we explain:

Rava retracted that

earlier statement, and Rava holds that even according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, three by three in other kinds receive impurity [and in this he disagrees with Abaye, for according to Abaye, in accordance with the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, there is no receiving of impurity at all. And Rava holds that according to both of them there is no impurity for three by three fingerbreadths, but there is impurity for three by three handbreadths].

And if you wish, say to yourself:

to you:

This

statement was not said by Rava; rather,

Rav Pappa said it.

And it is Rav Pappa who establishes these two tannaim of the school of Rabbi Yishmael according to one approach.

For Rav Pappa said: “Also every

wool and linen,” which the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael in the first statement says, does not mean that other kinds do not receive impurity, for certainly they too become impure. Rather, it comes

to bring

the law of other garments with regard to

mixed species,

for the prohibition of mixed species applies only to wool and linen .

And we wonder:

Mixed species—

is it

not explicitly written concerning it, “You shall not wear shaatnez, wool and linen together”!?

And we explain:

It might enter your mind to say:

This matter, that the Torah specified that the prohibition of mixed species is with wool and linen,

applies only by way of wearing, but with regard to placing them upon oneself,

when one puts them upon himself, say that

any two kinds are prohibited;

therefore the first tanna teaches us that even with regard to placing them upon oneself, the prohibition of mixed species applies only to wool and linen.

And we wonder:

A

is it

not a kal va-homer?

A

is it

not the case that with wearing, through which one benefits with his entire body from the mixed species, you said

that what is made

of wool and linen, yes,

there is a prohibition of wearing it, but

anything else, no,

the Torah did not prohibit.

Placing upon oneself,

which is lesser than wearing,

is it not all the more so

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

And we conclude:

Rather,

this

of Rav Pappa—

it is nonsense.