ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 27
(a) Abaye learns from "O Beged" to include clothes of three by three
finger- breadths by wool and linen with regard to Tum'as Sheretz, since the
'Vav' in "*ve*'ha'Beged" included them only by Tum'as Nega'im.
(b) According to Abaye, we cannot learn Tum'as Sheretz from Tum'as Nega'im,
because Tum'as Nega'im is special, inasmuch as the woof and the warp are
also subject to Tum'ah, which is not the case by Tum'as Sheretz.
(c) Abaye maintains that we could not have learned Tum'as Nega'im from
Tum'as Sheretz either, because 'Sheratzim' are special, inasmuch as they
are Metamei with the small Shiur of a 'ke'Adashah' (the size of a lentil) -
whilst 'Nega'im' requires a 'ki'Geris' (the size of a bean).
(Tosfos d.h. 'she'Ken' explains why Rava does not consider this a
(a) Rava maintains that this second Beraisa of Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael
(which includes garments of other materials in the Din of Tum'as Sheratzim)
from "O Beged", is not a discrepancy at all. Why not?
Because that Beraisa speaks about clothes which are three by three
*Tefachim*, whereas in the previous Beraisa, he was referring to clothes of
three by three *finger-breadths*.
(b) Rava has now retracted from what he said earlier, that *that* was the
opinion of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, but that, according to Tana de'Bei
Rebbi Yishmael, not even other garments of three by three *Tefachim*, are
subject to Tum'as Sheretz. He no longer Darshens the Mi'ut of "Beged Tzemer
(a) According to Rav Papa, the 'Af Kol' of Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael does
not refer to the unspecified 'Begadim' mentioned by the *other types of
Tum'ah* (by which Tum'ah *is* applicable, as we have just explained - both
by three by three Tefachim and by three by three finger breadths) - and by
Tziztis, like Rava indeed explains. But it refers to all other clothes by
*Kil'ayim*, to teach us that they are all excluded from the Pasuk "u'Beged
Kil'ayim Sha'atnez" - even garments of three by three Tefachim.
(b) The Torah writes "Tzemer u'Fishtim" by the Isur of *wearing* Kil'ayim,
but by the Isur of putting Kil'ayim over oneself (e.g. a blanket, which one
does not wear), where the Torah writes "u'Veged Kil'ayim Sha'atnez Lo
Ya'aleh Alecha" (without specifying to which type of Beged it is
referring), we may have thought that all types of garments are included.
Therefore Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael writes 'Af Kol Tzemer u'Fishtim'.
(c) But this a joke, because if the Torah restricts the Isur of *wearing*
Sha'atnez to wool and linen, then how much more so to the Isur of just
placing it on oneself - which surely cannot be more stringent than actually
(a) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, only garments of wool and linen
are Chayav Tzitzis.
(b) According to him, if not for the 'Af Kol' of Tana de'Bei Rebbi
Yishmael, we would have learnt the Semuchin with regard to the Tzitzis -
not the garment. We would have Darshened it like Rava, who learns from that
Semuchin, that wool and linen Tzitzis exempt garments made of any material;
whereas from "ha'Kanaf" - Min ha'Kanaf ('Min' pronounced as the English
word 'mean'), we learn that any other kind of Tzitzis will only exempt a
garment of the same material as the Tzitzis themselves (e.g. cotton Tzitzis
will exempt a cotton garment, but not a linen one).
(c) We need the Pasuk of "Asher Techaseh Bah" to include the garment of a
blind man in the Mitzvah of Tzitzis, so it is not redundant.
(d) "u'Re'isem Oso" comes to preclude a night garment (even when it is worn
in the day. Some Rishonim explain a night garment to mean any garment worn
at night, even a day garment) from the Mitzvah of Tzitzis.
(a) Since we have one Pasuk to *include* and one to *exclude*, it makes
more sense to include the garment of a blind person, since his garment is
at least visible to others, whereas a night garment is not visible to
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, prefers to include a woolen or linen garment
of a blind person from "Asher Techaseh Bah" rather than a garment of other
materials, because, since the Pasuk is referring specifically to woolen and
linen garments, it is more logical to include woolen and linen garments,
than garments of other materials.
(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar said earlier that linen cannot be used as
Sechach, because is subject to Tum'as Nega'im - even though it is not
subject to Tum'as Sheretz (such as raw tufts of flax); and that is
precisely the reasoning of Sumchus, who disqualifies spun wool from being
used as Sechach, because it is subject to Tum'as Nega'im, even though it is
not subject to Tum'as Sheretz.
(b) We know that *that* is what Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar meant, because he
said 'Chutz mi'Pishtan' and not 'Chutz mi*'Bigdei* Pishtan'; so we see that
he is speaking about spun flax, and not clothes made from flax.
(c) Sumchus, who renders the wool Tamei as soon as it has been spun, holds
like Rebbi Meir.
(d) In Rashi's second explanation, when the Gemara asks 'ke'Ma'an', it
means like whom does Abaye (who explains Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar to mean
tufts of flax, and not flax garments) hold? And the Gemara answers like the
Seifa of the Mishnah in Nega'im, which reads 've'ha'Onin Shel Pishtan,
(a) The only derivative of a tree that may be used for the Shabbos lights
(b) Flax is also the only derivative of a tree that becomes Tamei Tum'as
Ohel even when it is fixed to the ground, and requires sprinkling with the
ashes of the Parah Adumah on the third and the seventh days.
(c) We learn that flax is considered the derivative of a tree from a Pasuk
in Yehoshua, where it writes that Rachav ha'Zonah hid the two spies