Shabbat 27b — the Talmud in English

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

this

“also every” ![](pamud.bmp "

exact position of the amud") that the tanna of the first clause said comes

to include

those who are not obligated in the mitzva of

tzitzit

except for wool and linen garments.

And we challenge this:

“tzitzit?!”

This

is explicitly written: “You shall not wear shatnez, wool and linen

together,” and afterward it is written:

“You shall make twisted threads for yourself.”

And it means, for those that it specified nearby—and these are wool and linen—and from it we learn that one is obligated in tzitzit only for wool and linen garments.

And we explain:

It might enter your mind to say

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

as

he said,

Rava.

For Rava raises

verses against one another. It is written: “And they shall place upon the tzitzit of the corner a thread of sky-blue,” and this “corner” is superfluous, and it should have written: “And they shall place upon the tzitzit a thread of sky-blue.”

And from it we expound:

“of the kind of the corner,”

from the same kind as the corner you shall make the tzitzit; and when the garment is silk, silk tzitzit exempts it.

And it is written

another verse: “You shall not wear shatnez,

wool and linen together—

you shall make twisted threads for yourself,” and since they are juxtaposed, it implies that you shall make the tzitzit from them, and these are wool and linen.

How is this so?

These two verses contradict one another.

And Rava explains it thus: Twisted threads of

wool and linen

are

exempting whether of their kind,

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

not of their kind,

for example, when the garment is made of silk.

But twisted threads made of

other kinds

are only on a garment made

of their kind

that they are

exempting,

but on a garment made

not of their kind they do not exempt

[and for this purpose the superfluity of “the corner” comes, to reveal to us that we should not learn from the juxtaposition of the verses that other kinds are exempt, but rather that they exempt only of their kind].

And now we explain that which we said, “also every,” to include tzitzit.

It might enter your mind to say

that we hold

as Rava; it teaches us

the tanna said “also every,” to include a garment, for one is obligated in tzitzit only for wool and linen garments [and the superfluity of “the corner” teaches us that you should make two white threads and two sky-blue threads, which is “of the kind of the corner,” for an ordinary garment is a white linen garment].

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

According to what Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak explained

with regard to

that which

the school of Rabbi Ishmael’s tanna

said, that “also every” comes to include tzitzit—

what is different

that

with regard to impurity he includes other garments

from the verse

that is written, “or a garment”?

But

here too

with regard to tzitzit,

let us say that it includes other garments from

the verse that is written: “upon the four corners of your garment

with which you cover yourself,”

for “with which you cover yourself” is an inclusion, and let us say that it includes other kinds of garments.

And we explain:

That

comes

to include the garment

of

a blind person.

For it was taught:

It is written [Numbers 15:39]:

“And you shall see it.”

And we exclude

this excludes a night garment,

designated for wearing only at night, which is not a time of seeing .

Do you say “this excludes 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

with it,”

a blind person’s garment

is already stated.

How then do I fulfill

that which is written,

“And you shall see it”?—

this excludes a night garment,

which is subject to tzitzit only when it is a garment worn at a time of seeing.

And we challenge:

And what have you seen to include

a

blind person’s garment and exclude a night garment?

And we explain:

I include a blind person’s garment, for it exists in 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 in seeing for others

[for night does not exist in seeing for everyone] .

And we challenge:

And let us say

that the verse did not come for a blind person’s garment, but rather

to include other garments

that are not wool and linen, for the obligation of tzitzit?

And we explain:

It is logical

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

stands in

the section of

wool and linen

[for “you shall make twisted threads for yourself” is adjacent to “you shall not wear shatnez”], it

includes

a blind person’s garment that is

wool and linen.

But can we say that the verse “with which”

stands with wool and linen—

—

does it include other garments?!

Therefore we include a blind person’s garment, and exclude a night garment and other garments.

Abaye said: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and Sumakhos said one thing,

that an object that becomes impure through the impurity of afflictions may not be used to roof the sukka, even though it does not become impure through contact impurity.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar—

this is

that which we said

above [26a]: “Everything that comes from a tree may be used to roof with it, except for flax.” Since he did not say, “except for a linen garment,” it implies that flax, even if it has not yet been spun, such as bundles of flax [which are strips of combed flax before spinning], may not be used to roof with it, and even though it does not become impure through the impurity of creeping creatures, since it becomes impure through the impurity of afflictions.

Sumakhos—

for it was taught: Sumakhos says: If one roofed

the sukka

with spun material

[spun threads], it is

invalid.

And the reason is: Because it becomes impure

through

the impurity of

afflictions,

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

In accordance with whom

did Sumakhos say this, that it becomes impure immediately once it has been spun?

[Another explanation]:

In accordance with whom?

With the one who says that even bundles of flax become impure through afflictions.

And we explain:

Like this tanna.

For we learned:

Threads of

warp and woof become impure through afflictions

[the warp thread is thin, while the woof thread is very thick].

And it becomes impure

immediately

from the time it is spun,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And Rabbi Judah says:

The thread of

the warp

becomes impure only

from

the time

that it is boiled.

That is, when its ends are boiled and it is removed from the cauldron in which it is boiled in order to whiten it.

And

the thread of

the woof

becomes impure

immediately

once it is spun.

And the bundles of flax,

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

once they have been whitened

in an oven, they become subject to impurity [and with flax he did not distinguish between warp and woof, since the difference between them is not recognizable].

Mishna:

Every

thing

that comes from a tree

from which one made a wick—

one may not kindle with it

a Shabbat lamp,

except for flax,

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

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

And every

thing

that comes from a tree,

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

it does not become impure with tent impurity,

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

Except,

besides a tent made of

flax,

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

Gemara:

And we inquire into it:

From where do we know that flax is called a tree?

Mar Zutra said: For the verse says, “And she brought them up to the roof and concealed them in the stalks of the tree-flax.”

And it calls flax “tree.” Learn from it.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And that which comes from a tree does not become impure with tent impurity, except for flax.”

And we inquire into it:

From where do we know

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

Rabbi Elazar said: He derives

a gezerah shavah

“tent—

—

tent” ![](pamud.bmp "

exact position of the amud")

from the Tabernacle.