Question: Rava says that R. Shimon ben Elazar is Metamei three fingers by three fingers of other garments - what is his source?

Answer: He learns from "O Veged".

(Beraisa): "Veged" only teaches that a [full] garment is Mekabel Tum'ah;

Question: What is the source that even three Tefachim by three Tefachim is Mekabel Tum'ah?

Answer: We learn from "O Veged".

Question: According to Abaye, what do our Tana'im learn from "O Veged"?

Answer: This teaches that three fingers by three fingers of wool and linen is Mekabel Tum'as Sheratzim.

Rava says, the Torah taught that they can receive Tzara'as, we learn that they also receive Tum'as Sheratzim, no other verse is needed for this.

Abaye: We cannot learn from Tzara'as - they have a stringency, even warp and woof receive Tzara'as!

Rava: Tzara'as cannot be more stringent - if so, the Torah would have taught [that three fingers receives Tum'ah] regarding Sheratzim, and we would learn to Tzara'as!

Abaye: We could not learn from Sheratzim to Tzara'as - Sheratzim have a stringency, the size of a lentil of a Sheretz is Metamei!

(Abaye): The following Tana d'vei R. Yishmael argues on the Tana d'vei R. Yishmael of the previous Beraisa (26B):

(Tana d'vei R. Yishmael - Beraisa): "Veged" - one might have thought, only garments of (sheep's) wool and linen receive Tum'as Sheratzim - "O Veged" teaches that also garments of camel's of rabbit's wool, goat's hair, silk, Kalach and frayed silk.

(Resolution #1: Rava): They do not argue - they agree that three fingers of other garments does not receive Tum'ah, but three Tefachim does!

Question: But Rava said above that only R. Shimon ben Elazar holds that way, but Tana d'vei R. Yishmael says that other garments never receive Tum'ah!

Answer #1: Rava retracted.

Answer #2: Rava did not say this (Resolution #1), rather, Rav Papa [gave a slightly different answer].

(Resolution #2 - Rav Papa): When the previous Tana d'vei R. Yishmael (26B) said 'in all places, ['Veged'] refers to wool and linen', he referred to Sha'atnez (and not to Tum'ah).

Objection: Why would he have to teach that - it explicitly says "Lo Silbash Sha'atnez Tzemer u'Fishtim Yachdav"!

Answer: One might have thought, that only applies to wearing Sha'atnez - but the prohibition to put Sha'atnez on one's body [even without wearing it - "U'Veged Kil'ayim Sha'atnez Lo Ya'aleh Alecha"] applies to any two materials - holds that teaches that this is not so.

Question: But a Kal va'Chomer teaches this!

The whole body benefits by wearing, yet the Torah forbids only wool and linen - putting the garment on the body [is less benefit], all the more so!

Rav Papa's resolution is refuted.

(Resolution #3 - Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): When the previous Tana d'vei R. Yishmael (26B) said 'in all places, ['Veged'] refers to wool and linen', he referred to Tzitzis (and not to Tum'ah).

Question: Why should he have to teach that - the law is obvious!

Right after "Lo Silbash Sha'atnez Tzemer u'Fishtim Yachdav" it says "Gedilim Ta'aseh Lecha"!

Answer: One might have thought to learn like Rava.

Contradiction (Rava): One verse says "Ha'Kanaf" - the Tzitzis should be the same material as the corner (this implies that Tzitzis applies to garments of any material);

But Tzitzis is written adjacent to "Tzemer u'Fishtim Yachdav"!

Answer (Rava): Fringes of wool and linen are Kosher for any garment; fringes of any other material are Kosher only for garments of that material.

Tana d'vei R. Yishmael teaches unlike Rava, i.e. Tzitzis applies only to wool and linen.

(R. Acha brei d'Rava): Tana d'vei R. Yishmael includes other garments regarding Tum'ah because it says "O Veged";

Question: We should include other garments also regarding Tzitzis - it says "Asher Techaseh Bah"!

Answer (Rav Ashi): That comes to include the garment of a blind man.

(Beraisa): "And you will see it" - this excludes a night garment.

Suggestion: Perhaps it excludes a blind man's garment, not a night garment!

Rejection: "Asher Techaseh Bah" includes a blind man's garment.

Question: [The inclusion and exclusion are not specific -] why don't we learn the opposite way (include a night garment and exclude a blind man's garment)?

Answer: It is more reasonable to include a blind man's garment, which other people see, than a night garment, which no one sees.

Question: Why don't we say that the inclusion is for garments of other materials?

Answer: The verse is right after "Tzemer u'Fishtim" - presumably, it includes garments of wool and linen, not of other materials.

(Abaye): R. Shimon ben Elazar and Sumchus agree with each other.

He refers to R. Shimon's teaching above (26A, that linen is the only tree derivative Pasul for Sechach. He is Posel even linen that was not spun or woven, for it receives Tzara'as.)

(Beraisa - Sumchus): If one covered a Sukah with anything spun it is Pasul, because it receives Tzara'as. (Tosfos - R. Shimon ben Elazar agrees that it is Pasul mid'Oraisa only if it was spun.)

Version #1 - Question: Like whom does Sumchus hold?

Version #2 - Question: Like whom does Abaye hold? (end of Version #2)

Answer: He holds like R. Yehudah:

(Mishnah - R. Meir): Warp and woof (Tosfos - of wool) receive Tzara'as immediately;

R. Yehudah says, warp receives [Tzara'as] after it is removed from the pot; woof receives immediately; bundles of flax (Tosfos - linen threads) receive after they are whitened in the oven.

(Mishnah): We may not use anything from a tree for a wick, except for linen;

If anything from a tree was an Ohel over a Mes, it itself does not become Tamei, except for linen.

(Gemara) Question: What is the source that linen is considered a tree?

Answer (Mar Zutra): "...Va'Titmenem b'Fishtei ha'Etz".