Explanation #1 (Rashi): The text does not say "d'Tanya", for if it were a Beraisa, how could Abaye argue?

Rebuttal: This is not difficult. Abaye agrees that "Oh" comes to include other garments according to the other Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, like Abaye himself says below;

This [that Rava cites here] is that very Beraisa below, just Rava abbreviated it.

Implied question: Why did we ask 'what does Abaye learn from "Oh"?'

Answer: [We ask] according to R. Shimon ben Elazar and that Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael (above), but according to the other Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, "Oh" includes other garments, even for three by three fingers, like I explained above (26b DH Rebbi);

According to Rava, who says that according to the other Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, we include other Begadim only for three by three Tefachim, this Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael does not contradict the other.

Observation: We could have asked here, according to Rava, what does this Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael learn from "Oh"? Abaye and Rava argue only according to R. Shimon ben Elazar. Rava must expound like Abaye expounds according to Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael here.

Question: Below (63b), we expound from "Oh Beged" that any amount of woven fabric is Tamei!

Suggestion: Both Drashos are equally reasonable, and we learn both of them!

Rejection: Still, when we ask 'what does Abaye learn from "Oh Beged"?', we should say that he needs it for any amount of woven fabric!

Suggestion: We can erase from Seforim in which it says "Oh Beged", and adopt the text that he learns from "Oh b'Veged Pishtim", which is written regarding Tzara'as!

Rejection: This is fine for Rava, who learns Sheratzim from Tzara'as, since the Torah revealed, and the same applies to any amount of woven fabric;

However, according to Abaye, how can we answer?!

Explanation: However, they are not Tamei regarding Sheratzim, like it says below (64a) "perhaps I include ropes and strings [for Tum'as Sheratzim]!"

Citation (64a): The Torah said "Sak". Just like Sak is spun and woven, we include [only] what is spun and woven.

Implied question: Surely, Tzara'as is more stringent!

Answer (Maharam): It means as follows. If one would think like you said, that "Oh Beged" [in Parshas Sheratzim] includes three by three [fingers] of wool and linen, we should learn from Tzara'as from them, for it is more stringent!

Implied question: Rava should agree that this properly refutes [his Kal v'Chomer]!

Answer: Rava is not concerned for it, for [it is not a Kal v'Chomer]. It is a mere Giluy Milsa. The Torah taught regarding Nega'im that three by three [fingers] is called a Beged for wool or linen, and the same applies to Sheratzim.

Question (Ri of Korvil ha'Kadosh): We should say a Kal v'Chomer as follows. Warp and woof are Tahor regarding Sheratzim, and Tamei regarding Nega'im. Three by three [fingers], which is Tamei regarding Sheratzim, all the more so it is Tamei regarding Nega'im!

Answer #1: Kelim (other than garments) refute this. They receive Tum'as Sheratzim, but not Tum'as Tzara'as. I can say the same about three by three [fingers].

Suggestion: We cannot refute this from Kelim, for when they are attached, they do not become Tamei and they cannot become Ohel ha'Mes. (Maharsha - this is one matter. Tum'as Ohel does not apply to them.)

Rejection: Also three by three [fingers] cannot become an Ohel, since it is not a square Tefach.

Answer #2: Sak or colored garments or garments of Nochrim refute this. They receive Tum'as Sheratzim, but not Tum'as Tzara'as, like it says in Toras Kohanim.

Inference: Here it connotes that Adashah [a lentil] is smaller than k'Gris (the area of a bean, which is the Shi'ur for Tzara'as).

Question (Ri): In Pesachim (67b), it says [to explain R. Shimon] that a Metzora is more stringent than a Ba'al Keri (one who had a seminal emission), for a Metzora must grow his hair and tear his clothes;

[The Gemara asks] just the contrary, a Ba'al Keri is more stringent, for any amount [of semen] is Metamei him! [It answers that R. Shimon] holds like R. Nasan, who says that the Shi'ur is Chasimas Pi ha'Amah (enough to seal the opening of the Ever);

Inference: Chasimas Pi ha'Amah is not less than a Gris. (If it were, still a Ba'al Keri is more stringent!)

There, above it said that a Zav is more stringent than a Sheretz, for the Tum'ah comes out of his body. If k'Adashah were smaller than a Gris and [if so, it is also smaller than] Chasimas Pi ha'Amah, we should ask that a Sheretz [has a stringency;] k'Adashah of it is Metamei!

Answer: If not from a teaching, we cannot ask from reasoning, for we can say that k'Adashah, which has thickness, when one flattens it, it is wider than a Gris.

Question: Why isn't camel's wool included in wool? Why does it need an inclusion?

Answer: Stam wool is of sheep. Camel's wool is not called Stam wool, rather, camel's wool;

The same applies to other wool. Since it has an accompanying name, it needs an inclusion, like it says in Chulin (62b) "Ezov", and not Ezov Kuchlis (blue, or of Kuchli).

Question: Why do we need an inclusion for goats' hair? The verse explicitly says "Sak", which is something that comes from goats, like is proven below (64b)!

Answer (Ri): Sak is from goats' hair. It is called hair, and not Notzah. From the fine [hair], which is called Notzah, they make garments, and not Sak;

Because they pluck it, like chickens' feathers, they call it Notzah (which usually means feathers).

Support (Ri): It connotes like this in Chulin (137a). It says that Reishis ha'Gez applies only to sheep, for it says "Reishis Gez Tzoncha", and we learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Gez-Gez" from "umi'Gez Kevasai Yischamam";

The Gemara asks that we should learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Gizah-Gizah" from Bechor, and it would apply even to cattle! It rejects this, for it says "Titen Lo", and not for his Sak.

The Gemara asks that Notzah of goats should be obligated. This shows that Notzah is not included in Sak!

Explanation: In order that that Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael will not argue with this one, he retracted from what he said above, and not from this teaching here. Rava holds that "Af Kol" includes [receiving Tum'as] Sheratzim.

Citation (Yevamos 4b) Question: Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael does not hold like Rava. What is their source for "ha'Kenaf" - [Tzitzis must be] the same species as the corner?

Question: How does [the Makshan] know that [Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael] disagrees? Rava holds that "Af Kol" [that Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael said] refers to Sheratzim!

If not for "Af Kol", one might have thought that [Tum'as] Sheratzim applies to all garments, and "Oh" teaches three by three [fingers]. However, now that it says "also everything is wool and linen", we need "Oh" to teach three by three Tefachim of other garments, but three by three fingers is not [Mekabel Tum'ah]!

Answer: There it says according to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, who said that "Af Kol" includes Tzitzis. Now, surely [Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael] disagrees with Rava, for Rava obligates other species in Tzitzis!

Question (Ri): in Yevamos (4b) it connotes that according to Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, "Af Kol" includes Kil'ayim, so that Tzemer u'Fishtim will be superfluous to expound Semuchin to permit Kil'ayim in Tzitzis!

Answer: That is before we knew that "Sha'atnez" is superfluous [for Semuchin]. In the conclusion, according to Rabanan "Sha'atnez" is superfluous, also according to Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, Tzemer u'Fishtim teaches about itself, so we do not need "Af Kol" to include Kil'ayim.

Question: According to Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, why was Tzemer u'Fishtim written regarding wearing? Since it wrote "u'Veged Kil'ayim Sha'atnez Lo Ya'aleh Alecha", [and] we know that all garments are wool and linen [since we know that such Kil'ayim may not be on a person, surely he may not wear it]!

Answer: One might have thought that this is only regarding Ha'alah (only mixtures of wool and linen may not be on a person), but one may not wear any two species [joined together].

Implied question: According to Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, we can ask that we should learn a Gezeirah Shavah Sha'atnez [of wearing] from Sha'atnez [of Ha'alah], like it says at the beginning of the Sugya in Yevamos (4b)!

Answer: Now we need Sha'atnez to be superfluous to expound Semuchin, and it is not superfluous to expound a Gezeirah Shavah from it.

Implied question: Why didn't we say that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said it? He said that "Af Kol" includes Tzitzis (and not Tum'ah)!

Answer: We would not confuse (attribute to) Rava the words of Rav Nachman [bar Yitzchak. There is room to confuse Rava] only with Rav Papa, who was his Talmid and was Rosh Yeshivah after Rava, and when he said something, people did not know if he said so himself, or he learned it from his Rebbi.

Correction: The text does not say "like the inference", for we learn from Rava's teaching itself. The text does say so in Yevamos (4b).

Pesak: Even though in Menachos (39b), Rav Nachman said that silk is exempt from Tzitzis, we hold like Rava, for he was later, and mid'Oraisa it is obligated in Tzitzis.

Implied question: We can ask oppositely! It discusses people who see. We should include people who see. [Will you say that] it discusses people who see, and we include blind people?!

Answer: [This is not difficult, for] the Mitzvah is primarily on the garment, and not on the person. If he does not have a four cornered garment, he is exempt from Tzitzis!

Question: R. Shimon ben Elazar said that we may be Mesachech (use for Sechach) with [anything from a tree], except for flax. This connotes even if it was not spun;

This is like we say in Sukah (12b) that if one was Mesachech with combed flax, it is Pasul, and it connotes there that this is when it was crushed and combed, even if it was not spun;

Sumchus said that it is Pasul only if it was spun!

Answer: R. Shimon ben Elazar forbids mid'Rabanan. He holds that if it was beaten and combed, since it is close to spinning, and spun is forbidden mid'Oraisa, since it receives Tum'as Tzara'as;

[Abaye] said that they taught the same matter, for Sumchus said that if he was Mesachech with something, it is Pasul, i.e. mid'Oraisa, since he said "since it receives Tum'as Tzara'as"

There would be no reason to forbid mid'Rabanan if mid'Oraisa it were permitted to be Mesachech with [something that receives] Tum'as Tzara'as, for a decree lest one use [something that receives] Tum'as Mes;

Since something spun is forbidden mid'Oraisa, if so Anitzei (beaten and combed) flax should be forbidden mid'Rabanan, since it is close to spinning, like I explained.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It was not spun.

Remark: He gave this difficult Perush, because Shesi v'Erev were already taught.

Objection (Rashba): What is the source to say that it gets Tum'as Tzara'as? The Torah said Shesi v'Erev!

Explanation #2 (Ri): Unin is spun (thread). Also the Aruch explained like this.

"Shesi v'Erev" refers to wool, for one can distinguish warp and woof threads of wool. Warp threads are from the big strips of wool, and they are spun backhanded, unlike Erev is spun. It was normal to cook it, even though nowadays it is not normal.

Unin of flax is spun. Warp and woof are not mentioned regarding it, for it is not recognized which is warp and which is woof, like it says in Avodah Zarah (17b);

Citation (17b): [To test if R. Eliezer ben Parta was truly an expert weaver,] they brought to him two balls of thread, and asked which is the warp and which is the woof. A miracle occurred, and a female bee came and sat on the woof (it corresponds to a female, for the warp in inserted into it.) This shows that regarding flax, the difference is not recognized (unless one is an expert).

Explanation #1 (Rashi, above): E.g. hemp and cotton (are from trees, and one may not light with them).

Rebuttal (R. Tam): If so, it should be forbidden to light with it. It is widespread that people light with cotton! Also, it is very good for a wick!

Explanation #2 (Ri): Surely, one may light with hemp and cotton. They do not come from trees, rather, they are seeds, like it says in Menachos (15b) that the Torah forbids [Kilai ha'Kerem of Zera'im] only with hemp and Luf. Other Zera'im [are forbidden only mid'Rabanan]. Also flax is a kind of seed, like hemp;

Our Mishnah needs to permit flax (even though the general rule does not apply to seeds) because it is called Etz - "va'Titmenem b'Fishtei ha'Etz";

This is like Etz ha'Da'as, according to the opinion that it was wheat. It is called Etz, even though it is not a tree.

Explanation #3: It says in Brachos (40b) that whenever if you take the fruit, and the tree will not produce [more Peros in that place], we do not bless Borei Peri ha'Etz;

Flax, hemp and cotton, if you take the Pri, i.e. the seeds, the tree will not produce more [there]. Therefore, they are not called "what comes from a tree."

Implied question: It says above (17a) that Kelim of any size bring Tum'ah on themselves [when they tower over Tum'as Mes]. This implies that all Kelim can become an Ohel to receive Tum'ah due to Ohel!

Answer: Here we discuss something attached to the ground. Even though initially it was a garment, since it was connected to an Ohel, it lost the status of a garment, and it is not Mitamei, except for linen, even though it is connected, like it says "v'Hizah Al ha'Ohel..."

Question (Ri): A Mishnah in Ohalos (8:1) says "the following bring Tum'ah and block - a chest, box... and sheets. They become Ohalim;

How can linen sheets block Tum'ah? Anything that receives Tum'ah cannot block Tum'ah!

Answer #1: It discusses linen sheets that are attached. They do not receive Tum'ah.

Answer #2: The Rashba (i.e. R. Shimshon) explained differently in the Mishnayos (on 8:1. An Ohel, even though it becomes Tamei, blocks Tum'ah.)