לְאַתּוֹיֵי צִיצִית. צִיצִית, בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב: “לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים״ וּכְתִיב: “גְּדִילִים תַּעֲשֶׂה לָךְ״! סָלְקָא דַּעֲתָךְ אָמִינָא כִּדְרָבָא, דְּרָבָא רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ‘הַכָּנָף׳ – מִין כָּנָף, וּכְתִיב “צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים יַחְדָּיו״ הָא כֵּיצַד? צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים פּוֹטְרִין בֵּין בְּמִינָּן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָּן; שְׁאָר מִינִין, בְּמִינָּן – פּוֹטְרִין, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָּן – אֵין פּוֹטְרִין. סָלְקָא דַּעֲתָךְ כִּדְרָבָא – קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן.

garments mentioned in the Torah are made from wool and linen. This comes to include the law of ritual fringes; the obligation of ritual fringes applies only to those materials. The Gemara asks: Why is that derivation necessary? With regard to ritual fringes it is written explicitly: “You shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together” (Deuteronomy 22:11); and juxtaposed to it, it is written: “You shall make for you twisted fringes upon the four corners of your covering, with which you cover yourself” (Deuteronomy 22:12). From the juxtaposition of these two verses it is derived that the mitzva of ritual fringes applies only to garments to which the laws of diverse kinds apply. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak responded that the matter is not so clear, as it could have entered your mind to say in accordance with the statement of Rava. As Rava raised a contradiction: On the one hand, it is written: “And that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of sky blue” (Numbers 15:39); apparently, the threads of the ritual fringes must be of the same type of fabric as the corner of the garment. However, in Deuteronomy, in the laws of ritual fringes, it is written in juxtaposition to the laws of diverse kinds: Wool and linen together. The ritual fringes may only be made of those materials. How can that contradiction be resolved? Rather, Rava says: Ritual fringes made of wool and linen exempt the garment and fulfill the obligation of ritual fringes whether the garment is of their own type, wool or linen, whether it is not of their own type. Whereas with regard to other types, a garment of their own type, they exempt; a garment not of their own type, they do not exempt. It would have entered your mind to explain this in accordance with the approach of Rava. Therefore, the tanna taught us that the obligation of ritual fringes applies only to wool and linen and not to other materials.

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אַשִׁי: לְתַנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מַאי שְׁנָא לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה דִּמְרַבֵּי שְׁאָר בְּגָדִים – דִּכְתִיב ‘אוֹ בֶגֶד׳ הָכָא נַמִי לֵימָא: לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר בְּגָדִים מֵ״אֲשֶׁר תְּכַסֶּה בָּהּ״ – הַהוּא לְאַתּוֹיֵי כְּסוּת סוּמָא הוּא דַּאֲתָא, דְּתַנְיָא: “וּרְאִיתֶם אוֹתוֹ״ – פְּרָט לִכְסוּת לַיְלָה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר פְּרָט לִכְסוּת לַיְלָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא פְּרָט לִכְסוּת סוּמָא? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: “אֲשֶׁר תְּכַסֶּה בָּהּ״ – הֲרֵי כְּסוּת סוּמָא אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים “וּרְאִיתֶם אוֹתוֹ״ – פְּרָט לִכְסוּת לַיְלָה.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: According to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, what is different about ritual impurity that he includes other garments not made of wool and linen because it is written: Or a garment, which is a term of amplification? Here too, in the matter of ritual fringes, say that it comes to include other garments from the phrase: Of your covering, with which you cover yourself. Rav Ashi answered: That amplification is necessary to include the garment of a blind person in the obligation of ritual fringes. As it was taught in a baraita, with regard to ritual fringes it is stated: “And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that you may look upon it and remember all the mitzvot of the Lord” (Numbers 15:39). The phrase: That you may look, comes to exclude a night garment, which cannot be seen and is therefore exempt from the mitzva of ritual fringes. The tanna continues: Do you say that the verse comes to exclude a night garment? Or is it only to exclude the garment of a blind person who is also unable to fulfill the verse: That you may look upon it? The tanna explains: When it says in Deuteronomy: Of your covering, with which you cover yourself, the garment of a blind person is mentioned, as he too covers himself with a covering. If so, then how do I fulfill the exclusion: That you may look upon it? It comes to exclude a night garment.

וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת סוּמָא וּלְהוֹצִיא כְּסוּת לַיְלָה? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי כְּסוּת סוּמָא – שֶׁיֶּשְׁנָהּ בִּרְאִיָּיה אֵצֶל אֲחֵרִים, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי כְּסוּת לַיְלָה – שֶׁאֵינָה בִּרְאִיָּיה אֵצֶל אֲחֵרִים.

The Gemara asks: Since there is one verse that includes and another verse that excludes, what did you see that led you to include a blind person and to exclude a night garment in the obligation of ritual fringes? The Gemara answers: I include the garment of a blind person because it is, at least, visible to others, and I exclude a night garment because it is not even visible to others.

וְאֵימָא לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר בְּגָדִים! מִסְתַּבְּרָא: קָאֵי בְּצֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים – מְרַבֶּה צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים, קָאֵי בְּצֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים - מְרַבֶּה שְׁאָר בְּגָדִים?!

The Gemara asks: And say that this amplification does not come to include a blind person’s garments, but rather, as Rava said, to include other garments not made from wool or linen in the obligation of ritual fringes. The Gemara answers: It is logical to say that since the Torah is standing and discussing a garment made of wool or linen, it is certainly including another garment made of wool or linen. Therefore, an amplification with regard to the garment of a blind person made of wool or linen is derived. However, when the Torah is standing and discussing a garment made from wool or linen, is it reasonable to say that it is including other garments with them? Rather, other garments are certainly not derived from there.

אָמַר אַבַּיֵי: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר וְסוּמָכוֹס אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן, סוּמָכוֹס, דְּתַנְיָא, סוּמָכוֹס אוֹמֵר: סִיכְּכָהּ בְּטָווּי – פְּסוּלָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמִּטַּמְּאָה בִּנְגָעִים.

The Gemara returns to discuss the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who disqualified even small cloths from being used as roofing in the sukka because they can become ritually impure. Abaye said: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and Sumakhos said the same thing. The Gemara specifies: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar; that which we stated above. Sumakhos; as it was taught in a baraita : Sumakhos says: A sukka that he roofed with roofing made from spun thread is disqualified because spun thread can become ritually impure from leprosy.

כְּמַאן – כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דִּתְנַן: שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב מִטַּמֵּא בִּנְגָעִים מִיָּד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַשְּׁתִי מִשֶּׁיִּשָּׁלֶה, וְהָעֵרֶב מִיָּד, וְהָאוֹנִין שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן מִשֶּׁיִּתְלַבְּנוּ.

In accordance with whose opinion is Sumakhos’ statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna , as we learned in a mishna: Warp and woof can become ritually impure from leprosy immediately after they are spun; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The warp can become ritually impure only after it is removed from the cauldron in which it is boiled, and it is only the woof that can become ritually impure immediately. However, the bundles of unprocessed flax can become ritually impure after they are bleached in the oven and their processing is at least half-completed. Sumakhos, the student of Rabbi Meir, adheres to his position.

מתני׳ כָּל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הָעֵץ – אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בּוֹ, אֶלָּא פִּשְׁתָּן. וְכָל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הָעֵץ אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֹהָלִים אֶלָּא פִּשְׁתָּן.

Of all substances that emerge from the tree, one may light only with flax Tosafot ) because the other substances do not burn well. And of all substances that emerge from the tree, the only substance that becomes ritually impure with impurity transmitted by tents over a corpse is flax. If there is a dead body inside a house or a tent that is made from any materials that originate from a tree, everything in the house becomes ritually impure. However, only in the case of flax does the tent itself become impure.

גמ׳ מְנָלַן דְּפִשְׁתָּן אִיקְרִי עֵץ? אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: “וְהִיא הֶעֱלָתַם הַגָּגָה וַתִּטְמְנֵם בְּפִשְׁתֵּי הָעֵץ״.

The mishna mentioned flax as a material that comes from a tree. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that flax is called a tree? Based on appearance, it does not resemble a tree at all. Mar Zutra said: It is derived from that which the verse said: “And she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the trees of flax” (Joshua 2:6).

“וְהַיּוֹצֵא מִן הָעֵץ אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֹהָלִים אֶלָּא פִּשְׁתָּן״. מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: גָּמַר ‘אֹהֶל׳ ‘אֹהֶל׳

And we also learned in the mishna that with regard to any substance that emerges from the tree, the only substance that becomes ritually impure with impurity transmitted by tents over a corpse is flax. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rabbi Elazar said: The tanna learned a verbal analogy [ gezera shava ] between the word tent, written in the context of ritual impurity, and the word tent,