Shabbat 27b (כז:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

this

“also all”

that the tanna of the first clause says comes

to include

those who are not obligated in the mitzva of

tzitzit

except with garments of wool and linen.

And we raise an objection:

Tzitzit!?

But

“you shall not wear shaatnez, wool and linen

together,” and it is written afterward:

“You shall make for yourself twisted threads.”

And this indicates that the latter verse refers to those specified immediately before it—namely, wool and linen; and from this we learn that one is obligated in tzitzit only with garments of wool and linen.

And we explain:

It might have entered your mind

that we do not expound this juxtaposition with regard to the garment, but only with regard to the tzitzit,

as

said

Rava.

Rava raises

one verse against another. It is written: “And they shall place upon the fringe of the corner a thread of sky-blue wool.” The word “corner” is superfluous, as it should have written: “And they shall place upon the fringe a thread of sky-blue wool.”

And from this we expound:

“of the same kind as the corner,”

the tzitzit shall be made from the same kind as the corner; and when the garment is made of silk, silk tzitzit exempt it.

And it is written

another verse: “You shall not wear shaatnez,

wool and linen together—

you shall make for yourself twisted threads.” Since they are juxtaposed, this indicates that you should make the tzitzit from them, namely, wool and linen.

How is this possible?

These two verses contradict one another.

And Rava explains it as follows: Twisted threads made of

wool and linen

are

effective whether with their own kind,

when the garment is made of wool and linen, or when it is made

not of their own kind,

for example, when the garment is made of silk.

But twisted threads made of

other kinds

are effective only with a garment made

of their own kind;

they

exempt

but a garment made

not of their own kind they do not exempt [and this is the purpose of the superfluous word “corner”: to reveal to us that we do not learn from the juxtaposition of the verses that other kinds are exempt, but rather that they exempt only garments of their own kind].

And now we explain that which we said: “also all” comes to include tzitzit.

It might have entered your mind

that we hold

in accordance with Rava; this teaches us

that the tanna says “also all” to include a garment, for one is obligated in tzitzit only with garments of wool and linen [and the superfluous word “corner” teaches us that one should make two white threads and two sky-blue threads, namely, “of the same kind as the corner,” since an ordinary garment is a white linen garment].

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi:

According to the way Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak explained

the

teaching of

the school of Rabbi Yishmael

that “also all” comes to include tzitzit—

what is different

that

with regard to impurity he includes other garments

from the verse

“or a garment”?

But

here too,

with regard to tzitzit,

let us say that the verse includes other garments

from

the verse that states: “upon the four corners of your garment

with which you cover yourself,”

as “with which you cover yourself” is an inclusion; and let us say that it includes other types of garments.

And we explain:

That

comes

to include the garment

of

a blind person.

As it is taught:

It is written [Numbers 15:39]:

“And you shall see it.”

And we exclude

a night garment,

which is designated to be worn only at night, when it is not a time of seeing .

You say that “except a night garment,” or perhaps it

comes to exclude

only a blind person’s garment?

When it says

in another verse:

“with which you cover

yourself,”

a blind person’s garment

is already stated.

What, then, do I establish

the meaning of the verse

“and you shall see it”?

Except a night garment,

which is obligated in tzitzit only if it is a garment worn at a time when there is seeing.

And we challenge this:

What did you see that led you to include

a

blind person’s garment and exclude a night garment?

And we explain:

I include a blind person’s garment, since it exists within the realm of seeing for others,

who are not blind and can see it.

And I exclude

from the obligation of tzitzit

a night garment, which does not exist within the realm of seeing for others [since nighttime is not a time of seeing for anyone] .

because nighttime is not a time of seeing for anyone].

And we challenge this:

But perhaps

the verse does not come to refer to a blind person’s garment, but rather

to include other garments

that are not made of wool or linen in the obligation of tzitzit?

And we explain:

It is logical

that “with which you cover yourself” includes a blind person’s garment. Since the verse “with which you cover yourself”

is situated in

the section concerning

wool and linen [as “you shall make for yourself twisted threads” is juxtaposed to “you shall not wear shaatnez”], it

includes

a blind person’s garment that is made of

wool and linen.

But can we say that the verse “with which you cover yourself,” which

is situated concerning wool and linen,

includes other garments!?

—

Therefore, we include a blind person’s garment and exclude a night garment, but not other garments.

Abaye said: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and Sumakhos stated one matter:

An item that contracts impurity through the impurity of negaim may not be used to provide roofing for a sukka, even though it does not contract impurity through impurity by contact.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar—

this is

that which we said

above [26a]: “Everything that grows from a tree may be used to provide roofing for a sukka except flax.” Since it does not say “except a linen garment,” this indicates that flax may not be used for roofing even if it has not yet been spun, such as bundles of flax [which are strips of combed flax before spinning], although it does not contract impurity through the impurity of creeping creatures; since it contracts impurity through the impurity of negaim, it may not be used.

Sumakhos—

as it is taught: Sumakhos says: If one roofed

the sukka

with spun [threads that have been spun], it is

invalid.

The reason is that it contracts

the

impurity of

negaim,

as it is written: “or in the warp or in the woof.”

In accordance with whom

did Sumakhos state this ruling, that it contracts impurity immediately upon being spun? [Another explanation:

In accordance with whom?

The one who says that even bundles of flax contract impurity through negaim.]

And we explain:

In accordance with this tanna.

As we learned:

Threads of

warp and woof contract impurity through negaim [the warp thread is thin, while the woof thread is very thick].

And they contract impurity

immediately

as soon as they are spun,

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And Rabbi Yehuda says:

The

warp

thread contracts impurity only

from

the time

that it is boiled.

That is, once it has become smooth and is removed from the vat in which it is boiled in order to whiten it.

And if it is the

woof

thread, it contracts impurity

immediately as soon as it is spun.

And the bundles of flax,

bundles of combed flax, before they are spun into threads,

contract impurity

once they have been whitened

in an oven [and with flax, no distinction is made between warp and woof, since the difference between them is not discernible].

Mishna:

Any

item

that grows from a tree

from which one made a wick—

one may not kindle with it

a Shabbat lamp,

except flax,

with which one may kindle even though it is called a tree.

And the Mishna teaches us a similar law concerning the impurity of tents:

And any

item

that grows from a tree,

if one made a tent from it and there was a corpse inside it—

it does not contract the impurity of tents;

the tent itself does not become impure [and does not require immersion], but only the vessels inside it .

Rather, besides this, a tent made of flax also becomes impure itself, as it is written [Numbers 19:18]: “And he shall sprinkle upon the tent” . Gemara: And we inquire: From where do we know that flax is called a tree? Mar Zutra said: As the verse states: “And she brought them up to the roof and concealed them among the wooden stalks of flax.” And it calls flax “wood.” Learn from this. We learned in the Mishna:

that emerges from a tree,

if one made a tent from it and a corpse was inside it

— it does not become impure with the impurity transmitted through tents;

the tent itself does not become impure [and does not require immersion]; only the vessels inside it do.

Except

besides a tent made of

a tent made of flax,

for which the tent itself also becomes impure, as it is written [Numbers 19:18]: “And he shall sprinkle it upon the tent”.

“And that which grows from a tree does not contract the impurity of tents, except flax.”

And we inquire:

From where do we know

that of everything that grows from a tree, only a tent made of flax becomes impure?

Rabbi Elazar said: He derives

by means of a verbal analogy

“tent”—

“tent”

from the Tabernacle.

Rabbi Elazar said: He derives

a conclusion based on an identical expression,

“tent”

—

“tent,”

from the Tabernacle.