Shabbat 26bשבת כ״ו ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Shabbat 26b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
26bכ״ו ב

רבי שמעון בן אלעזר ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אמרו דבר אחד רבי שמעון בן אלעזר הא דאמרן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל מאי היא דתני דבי רבי ישמעאל הואיל ונאמרו בגדים בתורה סתם ופרט לך הכתוב באחד מהן צמר ופשתים מה להלן צמר ופשתים אף כל צמר ופשתים

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael essentially said the same thing, even though they said it in different ways. The Gemara elaborates: The statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is that which we said: The only fabrics woven from plant materials that are considered bona fide fabrics are those made of linen. What is the statement of the tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael? As it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Since the word garments is stated in the Torah unmodified, without stating from what materials those garments were made, and the verse specified in one of its references to garments, in the halakhot of ritual impurity of leprosy, wool and linen: “And the garment in which there will be the plague of leprosy, whether it be a woolen garment, or a linen garment” (Leviticus 13:47), the conclusion can be drawn: Just as below, when it mentions a garment in the case of leprosy, the Torah is referring to one made of wool or linen, so too, all garments mentioned in the Torah are those made from wool or linen. Other fabrics are not classified as garments.

רבא אמר שלשה על שלשה בשאר בגדים איכא בינייהו דרבי שמעון בן אלעזר אית ליה לתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל לית ליה

In contrast to Abaye, who viewed the opinions expressed by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael as expressing the same idea, Rava said that the two opinions are not identical. There is a difference between them when the cloth is three by three handbreadths, with regard to other garments that are neither wool nor linen. As Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says explicitly: If it is less than three by three fingerbreadths, indicating that he is of the opinion that a cloth that is three by three handbreadths that is suitable for use even by wealthy people can become ritually impure. In his opinion, the uniqueness of linen fabric is not that it can become ritually impure, but rather that a linen rag, even if it is very small, can become ritually impure. The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael is not of the opinion that other garments can become ritually impure.

דכולי עלמא מיהת שלש על שלש בצמר ופשתים מיטמא בנגעים מנלן דתניא בגד אין לי אלא בגד שלש על שלש מנין תלמוד לומר והבגד ואימא לרבות שלשה על שלשה לאו קל וחומר הוא השתא שתי וערב מיטמא שלשה על שלשה מיבעיא

In any case, based on the above, everyone agrees that, clearly, three by three fingerbreadths in a wool or linen garment can become ritually impure with the impurity of leprosy. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara responds that it is derived as it was taught in a baraita with regard to this matter. When the Torah states: Garment, unmodified, I have derived that nothing other than a whole garment can become ritually impure. However, with regard to a cloth that is three by three fingerbreadths, from where do I derive that it is also included in this halakha? The verse states: “And the garment in which there will be the plague of leprosy” (Leviticus 13:47). From the addition of the word: And the garment [vehabeged], it is derived that all woven swatches are subsumed within the category of garment in this matter. The Gemara asks: And perhaps say that it comes to include a woven garment that is three by three handbreadths? The Gemara answers: That is inconceivable. Is that not derived through an a fortiori inference? As, now, even the threads of the warp or the threads of the woof can become ritually impure, is it necessary to mention that a cloth three by three handbreadths can become ritually impure as well? A garment that is three by three handbreadths is comprised of several warp and woof threads that can themselves become ritually impure.

אי הכי שלש על שלש נמי ליתי בקל וחומר אלא שלשה על שלשה דחזו בין לעשירים בין לעניים אתי בקל וחומר שלש על שלש לעניים הוא דחזיין לעשירים לא חזיין לא אתי בקל וחומר טעמא דכתביה קרא הא לא כתביה קרא לא גמרינן בקל וחומר

The Gemara rejects this: If so, then let us also derive a cloth that is three by three fingerbreadths through the same a fortiori inference from the warp and woof threads. Rather, it must be that this a fortiori inference is flawed. Threads woven into fabric do not maintain their previous status as they are no longer suitable to be used as warp and woof threads. Rather, cloths that are three by three handbreadths, which are suitable for use by both the wealthy and the poor as they are multipurpose cloths, can be derived through an a fortiori inference, as they are certainly more significant than the warp and woof threads and they become ritually impure. However, cloths that are three by three fingerbreadths, which are suitable for use by the poor but are unsuitable for use by the wealthy, are not derived through an a fortiori inference. Therefore, the reason that they can become ritually impure is specifically because it was written in the Torah. Had it not been written in the Torah, we would not derive it through an a fortiori inference.

ואימא לרבות שלשה על שלשה בשאר בגדים אמר קרא בגד צמר ופשתים בגד צמר ופשתים אין מידי אחריני לא ואימא כי אימעוט משלש על שלש אבל שלשה על שלשה מיטמא תרי מיעוטי כתיבי בגד צמר או [בבגד] פשתים חד למעוטי משלש על שלש וחד למעוטי משלשה על שלשה

The Gemara also asks: Indeed, there is amplification in the Torah, derived from the term: And the garment, which is a generalization that comes to expand upon the details that follow. And say that it comes to include the ruling that cloth that is three by three handbreadths in garments made of materials other than wool or linen can become ritually impure. The Gemara answers: That is inconceivable. The verse said: A garment of wool or linen, indicating that a garment made of wool or linen, yes, it becomes ritually impure; a garment made of other materials, no, it does not become ritually impure. The Gemara asks: And say that when the verse excluded, it excluded specifically a garment that is three by three fingerbreadths; however, a garment that is three by three handbreadths can become ritually impure. The Gemara replies: Two exclusions are written; once it is stated: “A garment of wool or linen” (Leviticus 13:59), and it is also stated: “Whether it be a woolen garment, or a linen garment” (Leviticus 13:47). One verse comes to exclude cloth of three by three fingerbreadths, and one verse comes to exclude cloth of three by three handbreadths, to emphasize that a garment made of a material that is neither wool nor linen cannot become ritually impure at all. This corresponds to Abaye’s opinion that garments not made of wool or linen cannot become ritually impure.

ולרבא דאמר שלשה על שלשה בשאר בגדים איכא בינייהו לרבי שמעון בן אלעזר אית ליה לתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל לית ליה שלשה על שלשה בשאר בגדים

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rava, who said that the practical difference between the two opinions is with regard to cloth three by three handbreadths in other garments, that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is of the opinion that they can become ritually impure, whereas the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael is not of the opinion that they can become ritually impure, in the case of a cloth that is three by three handbreadths in other garments,