Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 27

(1) "TUM'AH" OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN WOOL AND LINEN

QUESTION: The Gemara cites two statement of Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishma'el which apparently contradict each other. The first Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishma'el says that other materials (in addition to wool and linen) cannot become Tamei with Tum'as Sheratzim. The second Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishma'el says that other materials can become Tamei with Tum'as Sheratzim. Rava resolves the contradiction by saying that both statements of Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishma'el agree that other materials can become Tamei when they are three by three Tefachim large, but not when they are three by three Etzba'os (which is what the first Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishma'el was referring to when he said that other materials cannot become Tamei).

The Gemara points out that Rava, by giving this answer to resolve the two statements of Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishma'el, is contradicting an earlier statement that he made. Rava said (26b) that Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishma'el is of the opinion that other materials, even when they are three by three Tefachim, *cannot* become Tamei.

The Gemara answers that either Rava changed his mind and retracted his earlier statement, or that is was actually Rav Papa who suggested this resolution of the two statements of Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishma'el. (Since Rav Papa was a student of Rava, the students erred by attributing the answer Rav Papa suggested to his mentor, Rava.)

How can the Gemara say that Rav Papa is the one who gave the resolution that was originally said in the name of Rava, when Rav Papa himself (a line later in the Gemara) gives a completely different resolution? (Rav Papa explains that the first Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishma'el agrees that other materials can become Tamei, and when he said, "Just like there [regarding Tum'as Nega'im] the Torah limits it to wool and linen, so, too, everything is limited to wool and linen," he was not referring to all other Tum'os, but rather, to the laws of Kela'im.)

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI explains that when the Gemara says that Rav Papa is the one who said this answer, it does not mean that he gave the same answer as the one above that was attributed to Rava. Rather, he gave a different answer to resolve the contradiction between the two statements of Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishma'el; it was not the same answer that was attributed to Rava. The students thought that they heard the answer in the name of Rava, and, furthermore, they misunderstood the answer, misconstruing it to have something to do with Rava's original statement (that he really did say, concerning the opinion of Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishma'el that other materials do not become Tamei).

(b) The RAMBAN suggests that when Rav Papa's own answer (that the first Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishma'el was referring to Kela'im) was refuted, he offered a *new* solution. That other solutoin was the one that was originally attributed to Rava.

(c) The Ramban suggests another approach. Rav Papa's answer *does* differentiate between other materials that are three by three Tefachim and those that are three by three Etzba'os. The first Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishma'el agrees that other materials can become Tamei when they are three by three Tefachim. But when he says "so, too, everything is limited to wool and linen," he is stating that just like Nega'im is absolutely limited to wool and linen (and not even large articles made of other materials can become Tamei with Tum'as Nega'im), so, too, there is another Halachah that is absolutely limited. He cannot be referring to other Tum'os, because other Tum'os *do* apply to other materials when they are three by three Tefachim. It must be that he is referring to some other Halachah that does not apply at all to other materials. Rav Papa explains, therefore, that the words "so, too, everything is limited to wool and linen" must be referring to Kela'im, and that is what is similar to Nega'im. It comes out then, that Rav Papa actually said both ideas -- that other materials can become Tamei with Tum'as Sheratzim when they are three by three Tefachim, and that the first statement of Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishma'el was referring only to Kela'im.

27b

QUESTION: How can the Mishnah say that Tum'as Ohel does not apply to tree objects that are made into an Ohel, when the Gemara explicitly states that a Mardei'a (a wooden stick) can become Tamei if made into an Ohel (17a)?

(a) TOSFOS (DH v'Ein Metamei) says that tree objects remain Tahor when they are made into an Ohel while they are attached to the ground. Pishtan is the only tree product that will become Tamei even *while* it is attached to the ground.

(b) The RASHBA suggests that all materials, even Pishtan, are Tahor when attached to the ground. When not attached to the ground, all materials that pass over a dead body will become Tamei. Our Mishnah is referring to a piece of wood that was set up for *permanent use* as a tent, but was not attached to the ground. In such a case, only Pishtan will become Tamei.

(c) TOSFOS HA'ROSH explains that the Mishnah is discussing an object that is still in the process of being made. If, while making an object, one decides to use it as an Ohel, it is no longer considered a Kli and will not become Tamei. Pishtan, on the other hand, remains a Kli even if it is decided, while it is being formed, that it will only be used as an Ohel (and not as a utensil or article of clothing). It does not lose its status of Kli and it will still become Tamei.