מנא ליה נפקא מאו בגד דתניא בגד אין לי אלא בגד שלשה על שלשה בשאר בגדים מניין תלמוד לומר או בגד
from where does Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar derive that it can become ritually impure? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, it is derived from the verse that speaks of the ritual impurity of creeping animals: “Or a garment, or skin, or sack” (Leviticus 11:32). The additional “or” comes to include items that are not generally included in the definition of garment. As it was taught in a baraita: From the fact that it says garment, I have derived nothing other than a whole garment; however, a swatch that is three by three handbreadths in other garments, from where is it derived that it can become ritually impure? The verse states: Or a garment.
ואביי האי או בגד מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לרבות שלש על שלש בצמר ופשתים דמטמא בשרצים
The Gemara asks: And Abaye, who says that everyone agrees that other garments do not become ritually impure at all, this phrase: Or a garment, what does he do with it and what does it come to add? The Gemara answers: He needs it to include a small swatch of fabric that is three by three fingerbreadths made of wool or linen. Despite its size, it can become ritually impure from contact with creeping animals.
ורבא גלי רחמנא גבי נגעים והוא הדין לשרצים
And Rava holds that there is no need for the verse to discuss that matter explicitly, as the Torah revealed in the case of leprosy that it is considered to be a garment, and the same is true with regard to the ritual impurity of creeping animals.
ואביי איכא למיפרך מה לנגעים שכן שתי וערב מטמא בהם
And Abaye holds that one cannot derive the halakhot of creeping animals from the halakhot of leprosy, as there is room to refute that comparison in the following manner: What comparison is there to leprosy, which has more stringent halakhot of ritual impurity, as even the warp and woof threads alone can become ritually impure from it, which is not the case with regard to ritual impurity from creeping animals? Therefore, even small scraps can become ritually impure from leprosy.
ואידך אי סלקא דעתך נגעים חמירי לכתוב רחמנא גבי שרצים וליתו נגעים מינייהו
The other amora, Rava, says: If it should enter your mind to say that leprosy is more stringent, then the Torah should have written the halakha with regard to creeping animals, and let leprosy be derived from them. Ultimately, the two halakhot are paralleled to one another in the Torah. It would have been simpler to explicitly write the laws of creeping animals and to derive leprosy from them. Since that is not the case, it is proof that the halakhot of creeping animals can be derived from leprosy.
ואידך נגעים משרצים לא אתו דאיכא למיפרך מה לשרצים שכן מטמא בכעדשה
The other amora, Abaye, said that this contention is fundamentally unsound, as leprosy could not be derived from creeping animals because there is room to refute this idea and challenge: What is the comparison to the ritual impurity of creeping animals, which is more stringent than the ritual impurity of leprosy, as the creeping animal makes one ritually impure even in a case where it is a lentil-bulk, which is not true of other types of ritual impurity? Therefore, verses were necessary to teach about the ritual impurity of both creeping animals and leprosy.
אמר אביי האי תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל מפיק מאידך תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל דתני דבי רבי ישמעאל בגד אין לי אלא בגד צמר ופשתים מניין לרבות צמר גמלים וצמר ארנבים נוצה של עזים והשירין והכלך והסריקין תלמוד לומר או בגד
Abaye said: This statement of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael diverges from another statement of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: From the fact that the verse says garment, I have derived nothing other than the halakha that a garment of wool or linen can become ritually impure. However, from where is it derived to include garments made of camels’ hair and rabbits’ wool, goats’ hair or the types of silk, the shirayin, the kalakh, and the serikin among the fabrics that can become ritually impure? The verse states: Or a garment. The word “or” serves as an amplification to include all types of fabric.
רבא אמר כי לית ליה להך תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל בשאר בגדים שלש על שלש שלשה על שלשה אית ליה
Whereas Rava said: There is no need to say that there is a dispute in this case between two tanna’im from a single school. Rather, when this tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael, quoted above, is not of the opinion that there is ritual impurity in other garments, it is only with regard to a swatch that is three by three fingerbreadths; however, with regard to a cloth that is three by three handbreadths he is of the opinion that it becomes ritually impure. His previous statement came to exclude a small garment from becoming ritually impure. This statement is referring to a larger garment that is three by three handbreadths.
והא רבא הוא דאמר שלשה על שלשה בשאר בגדים לרבי שמעון בן אלעזר אית ליה לתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל לית ליה הדר ביה רבא מההיא ואי בעית אימא הא רב פפא אמרה
The Gemara asks: Isn’t Rava the one who said above that, in the case of three by three handbreadths in other garments, 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 become ritually impure? The Gemara answers: Rava retracted that opinion in order to reconcile the opinions of the tanna’im of the school of Rabbi Yishmael. And if you wish, say instead a different answer: Rav Pappa said this statement and not Rava. Since Rav Pappa was the primary disciple of Rava, the Gemara attributed his statement to Rava.
רב פפא אמר אף כל לאתויי כלאים כלאים בהדיא כתיבי ביה לא תלבש שעטנז צמר ופשתים יחדיו סלקא דעתך אמינא הני מילי דרך לבישה אבל בהעלאה כל תרי מיני אסור
Rav Pappa himself understood the first statement of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael and stated it in a completely different manner. In his opinion, the derivation from the halakhot of leprosy, which concluded that even all nonspecific mentions of garments in the Torah refer to wool or linen, came to include the halakhot of diverse kinds, the Torah prohibition to wear clothing made from a mixture of wool and linen threads. He sought to prove that the halakhot of prohibited mixtures of threads apply only to wool and linen. The Gemara asks: Why does he require this derivation with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds? The fact that the prohibition is limited to wool and linen is explicitly written, as it is stated: “You shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together” (Deuteronomy 22:11). The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, an additional derivation was necessary, as it would have entered your mind to say that this, the restriction of the prohibition of diverse kinds to wool and linen, applies specifically to a case when one uses them together in the manner of wearing them; however, in merely placing the garments upon oneself, any two kinds are prohibited. Therefore, it was necessary to derive that the garment mentioned is restricted to wool and linen.
ולאו קל וחומר הוא ומה לבישה דקא מיתהני כולי גופיה מכלאים אמרת צמר ופשתים אין מידי אחרינא לא העלאה לא כל שכן אלא דרב פפא בדותא היא
This claim is rejected: And is it not an a fortiori inference? Just as in the case of wearing the garment, where one’s entire body derives benefit from the diverse kinds, you said that wool and linen, yes, are included in the prohibition, other materials, no, are not included; in the case of merely placing the garment upon himself, all the more so that the halakha should not be more stringent. Rather, certainly the halakha that was attributed to Rav Pappa is a mistake, and he did not say it.
רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אף כל
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak also said that those statements of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael do not refer to the halakhot of ritual impurity. They refer to another topic. In his opinion, the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael came to say that just as the halakhot of leprosy are limited to garments made from wool or linen, so too, all