Shabbat 54

לאתויי ציצית ציצית בהדיא כתיב (דברים כב, יא) לא תלבש שעטנז צמר ופשתים וכתיב (דברים כב, יב) גדילים תעשה לך סד"א כדרבא דרבא רמי כתיב (במדבר טו, לח) הכנף מין כנף וכתיב צמר ופשתים יחדיו הא כיצד צמר ופשתים פוטרין בין במינן בין שלא במינן שאר מינין במינן פוטרין שלא במינן אין פוטרין ס"ד כדרבא קמ"ל

is to include fringes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 38; i.e., only wool and linen garments are liable thereto. ');">¹</span> [But] of fringes it is explicitly stated, 'Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together'; and then it is written, Thou shalt make thee fringes?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the juxtaposition shows that they are required only in garments of wool or linen. It may be observed that the Talmud regards the deduction from this juxtaposition as an explicit statement, and not merely as something derived by exegesis. ');">²</span>

אמר רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי לתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל מאי שנא לענין טומאה דמרבי שאר בגדים דכתיב או בגד הכא נמי לימא לרבות שאר בגדים מאשר תכסה בה ההוא לאתויי כסות סומא הוא דאתא דתניא וראיתם אותו פרט לכסות לילה אתה אומר פרט לכסות לילה או אינו אלא פרט לכסות סומא כשהוא אומר אשר תכסה בה הרי כסות סומא אמור הא מה אני מקיים וראיתם אותו פרט לכסות לילה

I might argue, it is as Raba. For Raba opposed [two verses]: it is written, [and that they put upon the fringe of] each border,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. ibid. 'Border' is superfluous, since the first half of the verse reads, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments. Hence it is thus interpreted. ');">³</span> [which indicates] of the same kind of [material as the] border; but it is also written, '[Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff,] wool and linen together'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this is immediately followed by the precept of fringes, we translate: though a mixture of wool and linen are forbidden, yet 'thou shalt make thee fringes', i.e., wool fringes are permitted in a linen garment and vice versa, which contradicts the implication of the other verse. ');">⁴</span>

ומה ראית לרבות סומא ולהוציא כסות לילה מרבה אני כסות סומא שישנה בראייה אצל אחרים ומוציא אני כסות לילה שאינה בראייה אצל אחרים

How is this [to be reconciled]? Wool and linen fulfil [the precept]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'acquit' (the garment of its obligation). ');">⁵</span> both in their own kind and not in their own kind;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whatever the material, wool or linen fringes may be inserted. ');">⁶</span>

ואימא לרבות שאר בגדים מסתברא קאי בצמר ופשתים מרבה צמר ופשתים קאי בצמר ופשתים מרבה שאר בגדים:

other kinds [of materials] discharge [the obligation] in their own kind, but not in a different kind. [Thus,] you might argue, it is as Raba:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the juxtaposition illumines the nature of the fringes, but does not teach that the garment itself must be of wool or linen. For in fact, according to Raba, there is an obligation whatever the material. ');">⁷</span> therefore we are informed [otherwise].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Yeb., Sonc. ed., p. 15 notes. ');">⁸</span>

אמר אביי רבי שמעון בן אלעזר וסומכוס אמרו דבר אחד רשב"א הא דאמרן סומכוס דתניא סומכוס אומר סיככה בטווי פסולה מפני שמטמאה בנגעים

R. Aha son of Raba asked R. Ashi: According to the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael, why is uncleanness different that we include other garments? Because 'or raiment' is written! Then here too<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reference to fringes. ');">⁹</span> let us say that other garments are included from [the verse] wherewith thou coverest thyself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. This too is superfluous and indicates extension. ');">¹⁰</span>

כמאן כי האי תנא דתנן שתי וערב מטמא בנגעים מיד דברי רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה אומר השתי משישלה והערב מיד והאוני' של פשתן משיתלבנו:

— That comes to include a blind person's garment. For it was taught: That ye may look upon it:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the fringed garment. — Num. XV, 39. ');">¹¹</span> this excludes a night garment. You say, this excludes a night garment; yet perhaps it is not so, but rather it excludes a blind man's garment? When it is said, 'wherewith thou coverest thyself', lo! a blind man's garment is stated. How then do I interpret<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'fulfil'. ');">¹²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל היוצא מן העץ אין מדליקין בו אלא פשתן וכל היוצא מן העץ אינו מטמא טומאת אהלים אלא פשתן:

that ye may look upon it'? As excluding a night garment. And what [reason] do you see to include a blind man's [garment], and to exclude a night garment? I include a blind man's garment, which can be seen by others,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which is subject to looking in respect to others'. ');">¹³</span> while I exclude night garments, which are not seen by others. Yet say [rather] that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. 'wherewith thou coverest thyself'. ');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנלן דפשתן איקרי עץ אמר מר זוטרא דאמר קרא (יהושע ב, ו) והיא העלתם הגגה ותטמנם בפשתי העץ:

is to include other garments?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not of wool or linen. ');">¹⁵</span> It is logical that when one treats of wool and linen he includes [a particular garment of] wool and linen; but when one treats of wool and linen, shall he include other garments?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not. ');">¹⁶</span>

והיוצא מן העץ אינו מטמא טומאת אהלים אלא פשתן: מנלן אמר רבי אלעזר גמר אהל אהל

Abaye said: R. Simeon b. Eleazar and Symmachos said the same thing. R. Simeon b. Eleazar, as stated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra, 26a bottom, and note a.l. ');">¹⁷</span> Symmachos, for it was taught: Symmachos said: If one covers it [the booth] with spun [flax], it is unfit, because it may be defiled by leprosy. With whom [does that agree]? With this Tanna. For we learnt: The warp and the woof are defiled by leprosy immediately:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After spinning, though given no further treatment. ');">¹⁸</span> this is R. Meir's ruling. But R. Judah maintained: The warp, when it is removed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the kettle in which it is boiled. Maim. Neg. XI, 8 appears to read: when it has been boiled. ');">¹⁹</span> the wool, immediately; and bundles of [wet] flax,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jast. Rashi: unspun flax; Tosaf.: spun flax. ');">²⁰</span> after bleaching.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus Symmachos, who rules that it is liable to leprous defilement immediately it is spun (this being the reason that it may not be used as a covering of the booth, v. p. 114, n. 8.), agrees with R. Meir. ');">²¹</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. WHATEVER COMES FORTH FROM A TREE ['EZ] YOU MAY NOT LIGHT [THE SABBATH LAMP] THEREWITH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Using it as a wick. ');">²²</span> SAVE FLAX; AND WHATEVER COMES FORTH FROM A TREE CANNOT BE DEFILED WITH THE UNCLEANNESS OF TENTS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a tent or awning of such material overshadows a dead body, it does not become unclean, just as the roof of a house which contains a dead body is not unclean, though all utensils under the same roof or covering are defiled. ');">²³</span> EXCEPT LINEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the tent is of linen, that itself is defiled. ');">²⁴</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. How do we know that flax is designated tree ['ez]? Said Mar Zutra, Because Scripture saith, But she had brought them up to the roof, and hid them with the stalks ['ez] of the flax.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Josh. II, 6. ');">²⁵</span> AND WHATEVER COMES FORTH FROM A TREE CANNOT BE DEFILED WITH THE UNCLEANNESS OF TENTS, EXCEPT LINEN. How do we know it? — Said R. Eleazar, The meaning of tent [ohel] is learnt