משנה: כָּל־הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הָעֵץ אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בּוֹ אֶלָּא פִשְׁתָּן. וְכָל־הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הָעֵץ אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹהָלִים אֶלָּא פִשְׁתָּן. פְּתִילַת הַבֶּגֶד שֶׁקִּיפְּלָהּ וְלֹא הִיבְהֲבָהּ רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר טְמֵאָה וְאֵין מַדְלִיקִין בָּהּ. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר טְהוֹרָה וּמַדְלִיקִין בָּהּ׃ MISHNAH: One does not kindle with any wood product but flax14Flax is not a tree. The Babli explains that flax is called “wooden flax” in Joshua.2.6">Jos. 2:6.. No wood product may become impure by tent impurity15The original impurity imparted to anything susceptible of impurity which is under one roof with a corpse. Wooden implements that are not containers cannot become impure. But flax as textile material can become impure. but flax. A wick braided from textile which was threaded but not singed, Rebbi Eliezer says it may become impure16Cloth of the minimal size of a handkerchief [which is defined as (3 finger-widths)2] is subject to all kinds of impurity. If the cloth wears out and is shredded to yield thread to make wicks, it is no longer subject to impurity. Once the threads are reassembled into a wick they become susceptible of impurity once the wick is usable. In R. Aqiba’s view, a wick will not burn unless its end has been singed and turned into charcoal; therefore the manufacture of the wick is not complete until it has been singed. Unfinished products do not become impure. and one does not use it to kindle; Rebbi Aqiba says it does not become impure and one may use it to kindle.
הלכה: כָּל־הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הָעֵץ אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בּוֹ אֶלָּא פִשְׁתָּן כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמָעוֹן בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. כְּתִיב לְהַֽעֲלוֹת נֵר֖ תָּמִֽיד: שִׁיעֲרוּ לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין לְךָ עוֹשֶׂה שַׁלְהֶבֶת אֶלָּא פִשְׁתָּן בִּלְבַד. תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי שִׁמָעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר. כָּל־הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הָעֵץ אֵין בּוֹ מִשׁוּם שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ. וּמְסַכְּכִין בּוֹ. חוּץ מִן הַפִּשְׁתָּן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כֶעָבִים הָרַכִּים. דְּתַנִּינָן. הֶעָכִים הָרַכִּים, אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם שָׁלשׁ עַל שָׁלוֹשׁ: אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מִן הַמִּשְׁכָּן לָֽמְדוּ. דִּכְתִיב אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּ֥ן תַּֽעֲשֶׂה֭ עֶ֣שֶׂר יְרִיעוֹת שֵׁ֣שׁ מָשְׁזָ֗ר. וּכְתִיב פַּאֲרֵ֤י פִשְׁתִּים֙ יִֽהְי֣וּ עַל־רֹאשָׁ֔ם. אַתְּ לָמֵד שֵׁשׁ מִשֵׁשׁ. וְשֵׁשׁ מִפַּאֲרֵ֤י. וּפַּאֲרֵ֤י מִפַּאֲרֵ֤י. HALAKHAH: Mishnah96Quote from Mishnah 3.. “One does not kindle with any wood product but flax,” etc. Rebbi Simeon94Read: R. Samuel ben Rav Isaac. bar Rav Isaac said it is written97Exodus.27.20">Ex. 27:20.: to raise permanent light. They estimated to say that nothing makes a flame like flax98The wick in the lamp which was burning through the night had to be of flax.. It was stated99Shabbat.26a">Babli 26a, Tosephta 2:4. According to Rashi this implies that hemp fibers and cloth are impervious to impurity.: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, no wood product is subject to the three-by-three rule16Cloth of the minimal size of a handkerchief [which is defined as (3 finger-widths)2] is subject to all kinds of impurity. If the cloth wears out and is shredded to yield thread to make wicks, it is no longer subject to impurity. Once the threads are reassembled into a wick they become susceptible of impurity once the wick is usable. In R. Aqiba’s view, a wick will not burn unless its end has been singed and turned into charcoal; therefore the manufacture of the wick is not complete until it has been singed. Unfinished products do not become impure. except flax and one may use it as roofing100It is a strict rabbinic rule that the roof of a sukkah may not be made with anything susceptible to impurity. Wooden logs as well as stems of plants may be used but not fruits., except flax.” Rebbi Yose said, they made it like coarse or soft, as we have stated101Kelim 28:8" href="/Mishnah_Kelim.28.8">Mishnah Kelim 28:8. Cloth which is either very coarse or very fine cannot be used as handkerchief. Therefore it cannot become impure in the size of (3 fingers)2. The minimum size for such fabric to be susceptible to impurity is that of a towel, (3 handbreadths)2.: “the coarse and the soft are not subject to the three-by-three rule.” Rebbi Eleazar said, they learned it102The fact that linen textile is called “tent” and therefore brings impurity is implied by the instructions for the building of the Tabernacle. from the Tabernacle as it is written103Exodus.26.1">Ex. 26.1., the Sanctuary you shall make ten gobelins, twilled byssus; and it is written104Ezekiel.44.16">Ez. 44:16., linen turbansshall be on their heads. You learn byssus from byssus, and byssus from turbans, and turbans from turbans105There is a quote missing for the chain of reasoning. The gobelins which formed the walls of the Tabernacle were partially made of שֵׁשׁ “byssus”. The problem is to prove that byssus was made of linen. Since the same word was used in Exodus.26.1">Ex. 26.1 and Exodus.39.28">Ex.39:28, speaking of the priestly vestments, the hat-turbans of byssus, one may assume that the same turbans and the same materials are mentioned in Ezekiel.44.16">Ez. 44:16, where it is explicitly stated that the priests’ turbans are made of linen. Similarly in the Yoma.71b">Babli Yoma71b; a different derivation in the name of R. Eleazar is in the Babli Šabbat 27b/28a..
רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שָׁאַל. מָהוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹהֶל מֵעוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵיאָה. וְהָֽכְתִיב וְעוֹרוֹת תְּחָשִׁ֖ים. רִבִּי יוּדְה רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבָּנִן. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. טִיינוֹן. לְשֵׁם צִבְעוֹ נִקְרָא. וְרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אָמַר. גלקטינן. וְרַבָּנִן אָֽמְרִין. מִין חַיָּה טְהוֹרָה וְגִדּוּלָּהּ בַּמִּדְבָּר. וַתְייָא כַּיי דָּמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. כְּמִין חַיָּה טְהוֹרָה בָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה בַּמִּדְבָּר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָשָׂה בָהּ מְלֶאכֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן נִגְנְזָה. רִבִּי אָבוּן אָמַר. קֶרֶשׁ הָיָה שְׁמָהּ. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. דְּחָדָא קֶרֶן. וְתִיטַ֣ב לָ֭יי מִשּׁ֥וֹר פָּ֗ר מַקְרִין וּמַפְרִֽיס. מִקֶּרֶן כָתַב רַחֲמָנָא. Rebbi Eleazar asked, may one make the Tent106Is a tent made of leather from an impure animal a tent in the meaning of Numbers.19">Num.19 in which a corpse causes impurity for all persons and vessels inside. of leather from an impure animal? But is it not written107Exodus.25.5">Ex. 25:5. Since taḥaš is not mentioned in the lists of pure animals in Lev. 11 and Deut. 14, one must assume that it was impure. But the Tabernacle is the prime example of a “tent”; if its cover was of leather from an impure animal the question should not arise., and taḥaš skins. 108A parallel exists in Eccl. rabba 1(28). Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Nehemiah and the rabbis. Rebbi Jehudah says, violet109Following Buxtorf, accepted by most moderns, this is Greek ἰάνθινος, -η, -ον, adj., “violet-colored”. In Eccl. r., one reads אלטינון.; it was called thus because of its color. Rebbi Nehemiah said, blue110This is identified as Greek γλαύκινος, -η, -ον, adj., “bluish-gray”. In Eccl. r., גלטינון.. But the rabbis say, a kind of pure animal which grows up in the desert. It comes like what Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu111Read: R. Abbahu (the Amora) in the name of R. Eleazar ben R. Yose (the Tanna)., Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Meïr said: 112The same interpretation in the Shabbat.28b">Babli, 28b. The Holy One, praise to Him, created for Moses in the desert a kind of pure aniMal. After the work of the Tabernacle had been finished it was hidden. Rebbi Abun said, its name was qereš. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, a unicorn. It is preferable to the Eternal over a cattle ox which sprouts a horn and has split hooves113Psalms.69.32">Ps. 69:32.. The All-Merciful wrote114The Psalms, as Holy Scriptures, are considered of divine origin., it sprouts a horn.
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. כָּל־הַפָּחוּת מִשְּׁלשָׁה עַל שְׁלשָׁה שֶׁהִתְקִינוֹ לָפוֹק בּוֹ אֶת הַמֶּרְחָץ וּלְנַעֵר בּוֹ אֶת הַקְּדֵירָה וּלְקַנֵּחַ בּוֹ אֶת הָרֵיחַיִם בֵּין מִן הַמּוּכָן בֵּין שֶׁאֵין מִן הַמּוּכָן טָמֵא. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר. אַף מַטְלֵית חֲדָשָׁה בֵּין מִן הַמּוּכָן בֵּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִן הַמּוּכָן טָהוֹר. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. מִן הַמּוּכָן טָמֵא וְשֶׁאֵינוּ מִן הַמּוּכָן טָהוֹר: מַה בֵּין הַמּוּכָן מַה בֵּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִן הַמּוּכָן. בֵּין שֶׁהֵכִינָהּ לְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת בֵּין שֶׁהִשְׁלִיכָהּ לָאִישְׁפָּה. וְהָֽתְנָן. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר. אַף מַטְלִית חֲדָשָׁה כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶן. וְלֵית בַּר נַשׁ אָמַר. אַף אֲפִילוּ אֶלָּא עֲדִי מוֹדֵי עַל קַדְמִיתָא. בֵּין שֶׁהֵכִינָהּ לִטְלוֹתָהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הֵכִינָהּ לִטְלוֹתָהּ. הָדָא יַלְפָּא מִן הַהִיא וְהַהִיא יַלְפָּא מִן הָדָא. הָדָא יַלְפָּא מִן הַהִיא. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר וְהוּא שֶׁקִּיפְּלָהּ. וְהַהִיא יַלְפָּא מִן הָדָא. כְּשֶׁלֹּא הֵכִינָהּ לִטְלוֹתָהּ. אֲבָל הֵכִינָהּ לִטְלוֹתָהּ טְמֵיאָה הִיא. There, we have stated115Kelim 28:2" href="/Mishnah_Kelim.28.2">Mishnah Kelim 28:2. Shabbat.29a">Babli 29a.: “A [cloth] less than three by three [fingerwidths] which he took to plug the bath or to pour a pot116To use it as a potholder. or to clean a millstone, whether it was prepared or not prepared can become impure117For him the rule that textiles of area less that 9 (fingerwidth)2 cannot become impure is an empirical one since such a small piece in general is of no use. If somebody finds a use, the piece becomes a regular piece of textile and is subject to all laws of impurity., the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says, (also a new rag)118Probably the words in parenthesis should be deleted; they are not found in any Mishnah ms. and are copied here from the quote later of Mishnah 27:12. whether prepared or not prepared, is pure119For him the three-finger rule is a permanent rabbinic decree which cannot be changed.. Rebbi Aqiba says, prepared it may become impure, not prepared it is pure.” What is the difference between prepared and not prepared? Whether he made it ready in the house or threw it into the garbage120A single use does not bring on impurity. If the rag was used once and then thrown away it cannot become impure. But if it is prepared for re-use it becomes valuable and is susceptible to impurity.. But did we not state121Kelim 27:12" href="/Mishnah_Kelim.27.12">Mishnah Kelim 27:12. תנן is Babylonian spelling.: “Rebbi Eliezer says, also a new rag follows the same rule.122The Mishnah states that an impure piece of (3 fingerwiths)2 which was torn loses its impurity only if it is thrown away, with the exception of purple strips which are valuable also in minute sizes and never lose their impurity. R. Eliezer extends the latter rule to unused textiles.” Nobody says “also”, “even”, unless he agree with the preceding; whether he prepared it to hang it up or did not prepare it to hang it up123For re-use.. This learns from the other and the other learns from this. This learns from the other; the words of Rebbi Eliezer if he folded it124For the first use; Shabbat.29b">Babli 29b. If it never was intended for use he agrees that it is not susceptible to impurity.. And the other learns from this; if he did not prepare it to hang it up. But if he prepared it to hang it up it may become impure.
וּמַה טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. נַעֲשֶׂה כִמְטָהֵר כֵּלִים בַּשַּׁבָּת. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁקִּיפְּלָהּ לֹא טַהֳרָה. שֶׁכֵּן שַׁמָּשִׁים אוּמָנִין רוֹצִין בְּקִיפּוּלָהּ. וְלֹא מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם שֶׁהִיא טִהוֹרָה. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. מִפְּנֵי יוֹם טוֹב שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת. וְלֹא מֵאֵילֶיהָ הִיא טִהוֹרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיוּ בָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ מְצוּמְצָמוֹת. 125Here starts a new Genizah leaf edited by Ginzberg (p. 73). What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason126This refers to the statement of R. Eliezer in the Mishnah who prohibits the use of linen wicks.? He is like one who purifies vessels on the Sabbath127If the linen was impure and he uses it as wick, the moment it becomes unusable as textile it loses the impurity of textiles. This is the equivalent of repairing defective equipment and is forbidden on the Sabbath.. When he threaded it128This “threading” is not the “folding” mentioned in the preceding paragraph but the twisting of linen threads to make a wick. Since some people insist on using only twisted wicks, the threads remain usable even if they do not cover an area of (3 fingerwidths)2 and do not lose their impurity., it did not become pure since professional waiters like it threaded. Does it not become pure when it still is daylight? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: because of a holiday which falls on Friday129It also is forbidden to repair equipment of a holiday; for a similar argument cf. Shabbat 2:1:12" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shabbat.2.1.12">Note 56.. Does it not become pure automatically? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it if it was exactly three-by-three130Then they lose their impurity the moment a person starts lighting them. One cannot say that the loss of impurity is later an automatic consequence of a prior permitted act of a human. Shabbat.38b">Babli 38b (in the name of the Babylonian Rav Joseph.).
רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נְזִירָא. עֲשָׂאָהּ מָזוֹר טְהוֹרָה. שְׁרָייָהּ בַּשֶׁמֶן לֹא כְמִי שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ מָזוֹר. רִבִּי זְעִירָה רִבִּי יַנַּאי רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בָּן לֵוִי. נִרְאִין דְּבָרִים שֶׁתְּהֵא הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָא. שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר מֵעֵין שְׁנֵיהֶן. וְאֵינָהּ אֶלָּא כְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מִקּוּלֵּי שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר טָהֹרָה אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ טְמֵיאָה. בְּגִין רַב. דְּרַב אָמַר. מַסִּיקִין בְּכֵלִים וְאֵין מַסִּיקִין בְּשִׁיבְרֵי כֵלִים. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Simeon the nazir131In G correctly: R. Simeon the nazir’s son.: If he made it into a bandage it is pure132Kelim 28:2" href="/Mishnah_Kelim.28.2">Mishnah Kelim 28:2. The medication makes the bandage unusable otherwise.. If one dipped it in oil is it not as if he made a bandage133Then the wick already is pure and R. Eliezer’s reason does not apply.? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yannai134In G one reads “R. Joḥanan” before the mention of R. Yannai; there is a lacuna preceding this word; it is not clear whether it read “R. Zeˋira in the name of R. Joḥanan.” One has to wonder why R. Jeremiah, the student of R. Zeˋira, reports a different tradition., Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, logically practice should follow Rebbi Aqiba who is similar to both135In Mishnah Šabbat 2:3 practice certainly follows R. Aqiba against R. Eliezer. For consistency the practice also should follow R. Aqiba in Kelim 28:1" href="/Mishnah_Kelim.28.1">Mishnah Kelim28:1 where he partially follows R. Eliezer and partially R. Joshua. In general, R. Joshua is an overriding authority., but in fact it follows Rebbi Joshua who is lenient in the matter of three-by-three. Not only pure but even impure, because of Rav, since Rav said one heats with vessels, but one does not heat with pieces of vessels136Vessels may become impure but potsherds are pure. Rav permits to use combustible vessels as fuel even though they become pure by losing their qualities as vessels in the fire. He forbids using shards as fuel, which cannot become impure, since they may not be moved on the Sabbath because they are of no use (Chapter 17). There is no connection between susceptibility to impurity and use as wick on the Sabbath. The statement of Rav is quoted in the Shabbat.28a">Babli 28a, Shabbat.29a">29a, Shabbat.124b">124b, Shabbat.143a">143a; Beitzah.32a">Beṣah 32a, Beitzah.33a">33a..