Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 17, 2018 | 讞壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Menachot 38

The mishna聽states that having white without techelet or techelet without white does not disqualify the tzitzit. Alternative explanations are brought in order to explain this mishna even according to Rebbi who holds that both are necessary. Other issues聽relating to tzitzit are discussed.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘诇讗讜 讚诇讗 转住讜专

He stated this with regard to the prohibition of: 鈥淵ou shall not deviate to the left or the right of that which they tell you鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:11). A prohibition by rabbinic law is overridden by human dignity, but not a prohibition by Torah law. Therefore, Mar bar Rav Ashi would have removed his garment had he known about the tear.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讛转诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 诇诪讬砖讚讬讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讙讚讜诇 讻讘讜讚 讛讘专讬讜转 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘转讜专讛 讜讛讗 转专讙讜诪讛 专讘 讘专 砖讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘诇讗讜 讚诇讗 转住讜专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻专诪诇讬转 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

And there are those who say there is a different version of this discussion: It was when they were there, in the place where the corner of Mar bar Rav Ashi鈥檚 garment tore, that Ravina said to him that it had torn, and Mar bar Rav Ashi said to him in response: What is your opinion? Do you think that I should throw the garment off? But doesn鈥檛 the Master say: Great is human dignity, as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah? The Gemara raises a difficulty: But Rav bar Shabba interpreted that statement before Rav Kahana: He stated this with regard to the prohibition of: 鈥淵ou shall not deviate,鈥 not the prohibition against carrying in the public domain, which applies by Torah law. The Gemara answers that here too, it is not a prohibition by Torah law, as the place where they were walking was not a full-fledged public domain but a karmelit, in which carrying is prohibited by rabbinic law.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛拽讜诪抓

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛转讻诇转 讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转 讗转 讛诇讘谉 讜讛诇讘谉 讗讬谞讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 讛转讻诇转 转驻诇讛 砖诇 讬讚 讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转 讗转 砖诇 专讗砖 讜砖诇 专讗砖 讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转 讗转 砖诇 讬讚

MISHNA: The absence of the sky-blue [tekhelet] strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of ritual fringes with the white strings, and the absence of white strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the sky-blue strings. If one has only one, he wears it without the other. Absence of the phylacteries of the arm does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of the phylacteries of the head, and absence of the phylacteries of the head does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of the phylacteries of the arm. If one has only one, he dons it without the other.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 讜专讗讬转诐 讗转讜 诪诇诪讚 砖诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it is taught in a baraita: When the verse requires one to place white and sky-blue strings upon the corners of his garments and then states: 鈥淭hat you may look upon it鈥 (Numbers 15:39), it teaches that the lack of either one prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. But the Rabbis say: The lack of one does not prevent the fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讚讻转讬讘 讛讻谞祝 诪讬谉 讻谞祝 讜讻转讬讘 驻转讬诇 转讻诇转 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜专讗讬转诐 讗讜转讜 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讞讚

The Gemara inquires: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, i.e., how does he derive his ruling from this verse? The Gemara explains: As it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall put on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread鈥 (Numbers 15:38). 鈥淭he fringe of the corner鈥 is a reference to strings that are of the same type as the corner of the garment. Since garments are usually white, this phrase is referring to white strings. And it is written in this same verse: 鈥淎 sky-blue thread.鈥 And the Merciful One states in the following verse, referring to both types of strings: 鈥淎nd it shall be to you for a fringe that you may look upon it鈥 (Numbers 15:39), in the singular. This teaches that one does not fulfill his obligation until both types are present together.

讜专讘谞谉 讜专讗讬转诐 讗讜转讜 讻诇 讞讚 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诪砖诪注

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, who hold that the one can fulfill one obligation without the other, understand this verse? The Gemara answers: They hold that the phrase 鈥渢hat you may look upon it鈥 indicates that one fulfills a mitzva with each one individually.

诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇拽讚诐

The Gemara concludes its initial suggestion: Shall we say that the mishna, which states that one can fulfill the mitzva with either white or sky-blue strings even in the absence of the other, is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? The Gemara responds: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the ruling of the mishna is necessary only with regard to granting precedence. The white strings should precede the blue strings, but if the order is reversed, one still fulfills the mitzva.

讚转谞讬讗 诪爪讜讛 诇讛拽讚讬诐 诇讘谉 诇转讻诇转 讜讗诐 讛拽讚讬诐 转讻诇转 诇诇讘谉 讬爪讗 讗诇讗 砖讞讬住专 诪爪讜讛 诪讗讬 讞讬住专 诪爪讜讛

This is as it is taught in a baraita: It is a mitzva to insert the white strings into the garment before inserting the sky-blue strings, but if one inserted the sky-blue strings before the white strings, he fulfilled his obligation but omitted the mitzva. The Gemara asks: What does the baraita mean by the phrase: Omitted the mitzva?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讞讬住专 诪爪讜讛 讚诇讘谉 讜拽讬讬诐 诪爪讜讛 讚转讻诇转 诇专讘讬 注讻讜讘讬 诪注讻讘 讗讛讚讚讬

If we say that the individual omitted the mitzva of white strings and fulfilled only the mitzva of sky-blue strings, how is this possible? According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the absence of either one prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other, and therefore in this case one would not fulfill any mitzva at all.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讞讬住专 诪爪讜讛 讜注砖讛 诪爪讜讛 讜诪讗讬 讞讬住专 诪爪讜讛 讚诇讗 注讘讚 诪爪讜讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专

The Gemara answers that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It means that he omitted a mitzva but nevertheless performed a mitzva. And what does it mean that he omitted a mitzva? It means that he did not perform the mitzva in the optimal manner because he did not insert the white strings first, but he did fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes.

讛转讬谞讞 诇讘谉 讚讗讬谞讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 讛转讻诇转 转讻诇转 讚讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转 讗转 讛诇讘谉 诪讗讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: This works out well with regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that absence of the white strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the sky-blue strings, which has been interpreted to mean that failing to insert the white strings before the sky-blue strings does not invalidate the ritual fringes. But what is the meaning of the mishna鈥檚 statement that the absence of sky-blue strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the white strings?

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讟诇讬转 砖讻讜诇讛 转讻诇转

Rami bar 岣ma said: That statement of the mishna is necessary only in the case of a garment that consists entirely of sky-blue wool. In such a case, one is supposed to insert the sky-blue strings before the white strings.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讜讬 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讗专讬讜讱 诇讗 转讬转讬讘 讗讻专注讱 注讚 讚诪驻专砖转 诇讬 诇讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛转讻诇转 讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转 讗转 讛诇讘谉 讜讛诇讘谉 讗讬谞讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 讛转讻诇转 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇住讚讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转 讚诪爪讜讛 诇讗拽讚讜诪讬 诇讘谉 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara notes that this was also stated by amora鈥檌m: Levi said to Shmuel: Aryokh, do not sit on your feet until you explain to me this matter: When the mishna states that the absence of the sky-blue strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of ritual fringes with the white strings, and the absence of white strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the sky-blue strings, what does it mean? Shmuel said to Levi: That statement is necessary only in the case of a linen cloak on which one places ritual fringes, where there is a mitzva to insert the white strings first.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讻谞祝 诪讬谉 讻谞祝 讜讗讬 讗拽讚讬诐 转讻诇转 诇诇讘谉 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

What is the reason for this? The verse states: 鈥淎nd they shall put on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread鈥 (Numbers 15:38). 鈥淭he fringe of the corner鈥 is a reference to the string that is the same type as the corner of the garment. In the case of a linen cloak, which is generally white, this is a reference to the white strings, and since the verse mentions 鈥渢he fringe of the corner鈥 before the sky-blue thread, the white strings must be inserted before the sky-blue strings. The mishna therefore teaches that if one inserted the sky-blue strings before the white strings, we have no problem with it after the fact, and the ritual fringes are valid.

转讬谞讞 诇讘谉 讚讗讬谞讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 讛转讻诇转 转讻诇转 讚讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转 讗转 讛诇讘谉 诪讗讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: This works out well with regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that absence of the white strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the sky-blue strings. But what is the meaning of the mishna鈥檚 statement that the absence of sky-blue strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the white strings?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讟诇讬转 砖讻讜诇讛 转讻诇转 讚诪爪讜讛 诇讗拽讚讜诪讬 转讻诇转 讘专讬砖讗 讚讛讻谞祝 诪讬谉 讻谞祝 讜讗讬 讗拽讚讬诐 诇讘谉 讘专讬砖讗 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

Rami bar 岣ma said to him: That statement of the mishna is necessary only in the case of a garment that consists entirely of sky-blue wool, where it is a mitzva to insert the sky-blue strings first, as the phrase: 鈥淭he fringe of the corner鈥 indicates that the first strings one inserts into the garment are those that are the same type as the corner of the garment. The mishna therefore teaches that if one inserted the white strings first, we have no problem with it after the fact, and the ritual fringes are fit.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬讚讬 爪讬讘注讗 拽讗 讙专讬诐 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讙专讚讜诪讬谉 讚讗讬 讗讬讙专讚诐 转讻诇转 讜拽讗讬 诇讘谉 讜讗讬 讗讬讙专讚诐 诇讘谉 讜拽讗讬 转讻诇转 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

Rava said: Is it actually the color of the garment that determines the proper order in which one should insert the strings? Rather, Rava said: The ruling of the mishna is necessary only for a case of severed strings. The mishna teaches that if the sky-blue strings were severed and the white ones remain, or if the white strings were severed and the sky-blue strings remain, we have no problem with it, and the ritual fringes are fit.

讚讗诪专讬 讘谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讙专讚讜诪讬 转讻诇转 讻砖专讬谉 讜讙专讚讜诪讬 讗讝讜讘 讻砖专讬谉 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 讙专讚讜诪讬谉 讗诪专 讘专 讛诪讚讜专讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讚讬 诇注谞讘谉

As the sons of Rabbi 岣yya say: Severed white or sky-blue strings are fit, and similarly, severed hyssop branches are fit for sprinkling the water of purification mixed with the ashes of a red heifer. The Gemara asks: What measure do severed strings need to be in order to remain fit? Bar Hamduri says that Shmuel says: The strings must remain long enough to tie them in a slipknot.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻讚讬 诇注谞讘谉 诇注谞讘谉 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讛讚讚讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 诇讞讜讚讬讛 转讬拽讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Shmuel says that severed strings must still be long enough to tie them in a slipknot, does that mean to tie all of the strings together in a slipknot? Or perhaps the strings may be even shorter, provided that they are long enough to tie each one individually. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讬诪讬 讚诇讗 诪讬注谞讘讬 讜讗讬 讛讜讜 拽讟讬谞讬 诪讬注谞讘讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚诪讬谞讻专 诪爪讜转讬讬讛讜

Rav Ashi asks: If the strings are thick and cannot be tied in a slipknot, but if they were the same length but thin they could be tied in a slipknot, what is their status? Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If the strings are long enough to be fit if they are thin, all the more so they are fit if they are thick, as the mitzva one fulfills with them is more recognizable with thicker strings.

讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 谞转谉 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 转讻诇转 诪讟讬诇 诇讘谉

The Gemara cited the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that one cannot fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes without both white and sky-blue strings, and the Gemara explained that the mishna can be interpreted in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara now asks: Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and holds that the sky-blue strings and the white strings are not interdependent? The Gemara answers: It is this following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yitz岣k says in the name of Rabbi Natan, who said in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri: If one does not have sky-blue strings, he nevertheless affixes white strings.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 爪专讬讱 诇拽砖讜专 注诇 讻诇 讞讜诇讬讗 讜讞讜诇讬讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讙专讚讜诪讬 转讻诇转 讻砖专讬谉 讜讙专讚讜诪讬 讗讝讜讘 讻砖专讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬砖转专讬 诇讬讛 注讬诇讗讬 讗讬砖转专讬 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讛

Rava said: Learn from the sons of Rabbi 岣yya that one is required to tie a knot after each and every set of windings, and one cannot suffice with only one knot at the end of all the windings. As, if it enters your mind to say that one is not required to tie a knot after each set of windings, then that which the sons of Rabbi 岣yya say: Severed white or sky-blue strings are fit, and similarly, severed hyssop branches are fit, is difficult: Once the uppermost knot is undone, all of the windings on the entire corner will come undone, as there are no other knots holding the windings in place, and in that case the garment will not have valid ritual fringes.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 38

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 38

讘诇讗讜 讚诇讗 转住讜专

He stated this with regard to the prohibition of: 鈥淵ou shall not deviate to the left or the right of that which they tell you鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:11). A prohibition by rabbinic law is overridden by human dignity, but not a prohibition by Torah law. Therefore, Mar bar Rav Ashi would have removed his garment had he known about the tear.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讛转诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 诇诪讬砖讚讬讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讙讚讜诇 讻讘讜讚 讛讘专讬讜转 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘转讜专讛 讜讛讗 转专讙讜诪讛 专讘 讘专 砖讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘诇讗讜 讚诇讗 转住讜专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻专诪诇讬转 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

And there are those who say there is a different version of this discussion: It was when they were there, in the place where the corner of Mar bar Rav Ashi鈥檚 garment tore, that Ravina said to him that it had torn, and Mar bar Rav Ashi said to him in response: What is your opinion? Do you think that I should throw the garment off? But doesn鈥檛 the Master say: Great is human dignity, as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah? The Gemara raises a difficulty: But Rav bar Shabba interpreted that statement before Rav Kahana: He stated this with regard to the prohibition of: 鈥淵ou shall not deviate,鈥 not the prohibition against carrying in the public domain, which applies by Torah law. The Gemara answers that here too, it is not a prohibition by Torah law, as the place where they were walking was not a full-fledged public domain but a karmelit, in which carrying is prohibited by rabbinic law.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛拽讜诪抓

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛转讻诇转 讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转 讗转 讛诇讘谉 讜讛诇讘谉 讗讬谞讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 讛转讻诇转 转驻诇讛 砖诇 讬讚 讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转 讗转 砖诇 专讗砖 讜砖诇 专讗砖 讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转 讗转 砖诇 讬讚

MISHNA: The absence of the sky-blue [tekhelet] strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of ritual fringes with the white strings, and the absence of white strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the sky-blue strings. If one has only one, he wears it without the other. Absence of the phylacteries of the arm does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of the phylacteries of the head, and absence of the phylacteries of the head does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of the phylacteries of the arm. If one has only one, he dons it without the other.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 讜专讗讬转诐 讗转讜 诪诇诪讚 砖诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it is taught in a baraita: When the verse requires one to place white and sky-blue strings upon the corners of his garments and then states: 鈥淭hat you may look upon it鈥 (Numbers 15:39), it teaches that the lack of either one prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. But the Rabbis say: The lack of one does not prevent the fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讚讻转讬讘 讛讻谞祝 诪讬谉 讻谞祝 讜讻转讬讘 驻转讬诇 转讻诇转 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜专讗讬转诐 讗讜转讜 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讞讚

The Gemara inquires: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, i.e., how does he derive his ruling from this verse? The Gemara explains: As it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall put on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread鈥 (Numbers 15:38). 鈥淭he fringe of the corner鈥 is a reference to strings that are of the same type as the corner of the garment. Since garments are usually white, this phrase is referring to white strings. And it is written in this same verse: 鈥淎 sky-blue thread.鈥 And the Merciful One states in the following verse, referring to both types of strings: 鈥淎nd it shall be to you for a fringe that you may look upon it鈥 (Numbers 15:39), in the singular. This teaches that one does not fulfill his obligation until both types are present together.

讜专讘谞谉 讜专讗讬转诐 讗讜转讜 讻诇 讞讚 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诪砖诪注

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, who hold that the one can fulfill one obligation without the other, understand this verse? The Gemara answers: They hold that the phrase 鈥渢hat you may look upon it鈥 indicates that one fulfills a mitzva with each one individually.

诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇拽讚诐

The Gemara concludes its initial suggestion: Shall we say that the mishna, which states that one can fulfill the mitzva with either white or sky-blue strings even in the absence of the other, is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? The Gemara responds: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the ruling of the mishna is necessary only with regard to granting precedence. The white strings should precede the blue strings, but if the order is reversed, one still fulfills the mitzva.

讚转谞讬讗 诪爪讜讛 诇讛拽讚讬诐 诇讘谉 诇转讻诇转 讜讗诐 讛拽讚讬诐 转讻诇转 诇诇讘谉 讬爪讗 讗诇讗 砖讞讬住专 诪爪讜讛 诪讗讬 讞讬住专 诪爪讜讛

This is as it is taught in a baraita: It is a mitzva to insert the white strings into the garment before inserting the sky-blue strings, but if one inserted the sky-blue strings before the white strings, he fulfilled his obligation but omitted the mitzva. The Gemara asks: What does the baraita mean by the phrase: Omitted the mitzva?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讞讬住专 诪爪讜讛 讚诇讘谉 讜拽讬讬诐 诪爪讜讛 讚转讻诇转 诇专讘讬 注讻讜讘讬 诪注讻讘 讗讛讚讚讬

If we say that the individual omitted the mitzva of white strings and fulfilled only the mitzva of sky-blue strings, how is this possible? According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the absence of either one prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other, and therefore in this case one would not fulfill any mitzva at all.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讞讬住专 诪爪讜讛 讜注砖讛 诪爪讜讛 讜诪讗讬 讞讬住专 诪爪讜讛 讚诇讗 注讘讚 诪爪讜讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专

The Gemara answers that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It means that he omitted a mitzva but nevertheless performed a mitzva. And what does it mean that he omitted a mitzva? It means that he did not perform the mitzva in the optimal manner because he did not insert the white strings first, but he did fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes.

讛转讬谞讞 诇讘谉 讚讗讬谞讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 讛转讻诇转 转讻诇转 讚讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转 讗转 讛诇讘谉 诪讗讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: This works out well with regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that absence of the white strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the sky-blue strings, which has been interpreted to mean that failing to insert the white strings before the sky-blue strings does not invalidate the ritual fringes. But what is the meaning of the mishna鈥檚 statement that the absence of sky-blue strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the white strings?

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讟诇讬转 砖讻讜诇讛 转讻诇转

Rami bar 岣ma said: That statement of the mishna is necessary only in the case of a garment that consists entirely of sky-blue wool. In such a case, one is supposed to insert the sky-blue strings before the white strings.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讜讬 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讗专讬讜讱 诇讗 转讬转讬讘 讗讻专注讱 注讚 讚诪驻专砖转 诇讬 诇讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛转讻诇转 讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转 讗转 讛诇讘谉 讜讛诇讘谉 讗讬谞讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 讛转讻诇转 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇住讚讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转 讚诪爪讜讛 诇讗拽讚讜诪讬 诇讘谉 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara notes that this was also stated by amora鈥檌m: Levi said to Shmuel: Aryokh, do not sit on your feet until you explain to me this matter: When the mishna states that the absence of the sky-blue strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of ritual fringes with the white strings, and the absence of white strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the sky-blue strings, what does it mean? Shmuel said to Levi: That statement is necessary only in the case of a linen cloak on which one places ritual fringes, where there is a mitzva to insert the white strings first.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讻谞祝 诪讬谉 讻谞祝 讜讗讬 讗拽讚讬诐 转讻诇转 诇诇讘谉 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

What is the reason for this? The verse states: 鈥淎nd they shall put on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread鈥 (Numbers 15:38). 鈥淭he fringe of the corner鈥 is a reference to the string that is the same type as the corner of the garment. In the case of a linen cloak, which is generally white, this is a reference to the white strings, and since the verse mentions 鈥渢he fringe of the corner鈥 before the sky-blue thread, the white strings must be inserted before the sky-blue strings. The mishna therefore teaches that if one inserted the sky-blue strings before the white strings, we have no problem with it after the fact, and the ritual fringes are valid.

转讬谞讞 诇讘谉 讚讗讬谞讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 讛转讻诇转 转讻诇转 讚讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转 讗转 讛诇讘谉 诪讗讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: This works out well with regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that absence of the white strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the sky-blue strings. But what is the meaning of the mishna鈥檚 statement that the absence of sky-blue strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the white strings?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讟诇讬转 砖讻讜诇讛 转讻诇转 讚诪爪讜讛 诇讗拽讚讜诪讬 转讻诇转 讘专讬砖讗 讚讛讻谞祝 诪讬谉 讻谞祝 讜讗讬 讗拽讚讬诐 诇讘谉 讘专讬砖讗 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

Rami bar 岣ma said to him: That statement of the mishna is necessary only in the case of a garment that consists entirely of sky-blue wool, where it is a mitzva to insert the sky-blue strings first, as the phrase: 鈥淭he fringe of the corner鈥 indicates that the first strings one inserts into the garment are those that are the same type as the corner of the garment. The mishna therefore teaches that if one inserted the white strings first, we have no problem with it after the fact, and the ritual fringes are fit.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬讚讬 爪讬讘注讗 拽讗 讙专讬诐 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讙专讚讜诪讬谉 讚讗讬 讗讬讙专讚诐 转讻诇转 讜拽讗讬 诇讘谉 讜讗讬 讗讬讙专讚诐 诇讘谉 讜拽讗讬 转讻诇转 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

Rava said: Is it actually the color of the garment that determines the proper order in which one should insert the strings? Rather, Rava said: The ruling of the mishna is necessary only for a case of severed strings. The mishna teaches that if the sky-blue strings were severed and the white ones remain, or if the white strings were severed and the sky-blue strings remain, we have no problem with it, and the ritual fringes are fit.

讚讗诪专讬 讘谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讙专讚讜诪讬 转讻诇转 讻砖专讬谉 讜讙专讚讜诪讬 讗讝讜讘 讻砖专讬谉 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 讙专讚讜诪讬谉 讗诪专 讘专 讛诪讚讜专讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讚讬 诇注谞讘谉

As the sons of Rabbi 岣yya say: Severed white or sky-blue strings are fit, and similarly, severed hyssop branches are fit for sprinkling the water of purification mixed with the ashes of a red heifer. The Gemara asks: What measure do severed strings need to be in order to remain fit? Bar Hamduri says that Shmuel says: The strings must remain long enough to tie them in a slipknot.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻讚讬 诇注谞讘谉 诇注谞讘谉 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讛讚讚讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 诇讞讜讚讬讛 转讬拽讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Shmuel says that severed strings must still be long enough to tie them in a slipknot, does that mean to tie all of the strings together in a slipknot? Or perhaps the strings may be even shorter, provided that they are long enough to tie each one individually. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讬诪讬 讚诇讗 诪讬注谞讘讬 讜讗讬 讛讜讜 拽讟讬谞讬 诪讬注谞讘讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚诪讬谞讻专 诪爪讜转讬讬讛讜

Rav Ashi asks: If the strings are thick and cannot be tied in a slipknot, but if they were the same length but thin they could be tied in a slipknot, what is their status? Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If the strings are long enough to be fit if they are thin, all the more so they are fit if they are thick, as the mitzva one fulfills with them is more recognizable with thicker strings.

讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 谞转谉 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 转讻诇转 诪讟讬诇 诇讘谉

The Gemara cited the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that one cannot fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes without both white and sky-blue strings, and the Gemara explained that the mishna can be interpreted in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara now asks: Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and holds that the sky-blue strings and the white strings are not interdependent? The Gemara answers: It is this following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yitz岣k says in the name of Rabbi Natan, who said in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri: If one does not have sky-blue strings, he nevertheless affixes white strings.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 爪专讬讱 诇拽砖讜专 注诇 讻诇 讞讜诇讬讗 讜讞讜诇讬讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讙专讚讜诪讬 转讻诇转 讻砖专讬谉 讜讙专讚讜诪讬 讗讝讜讘 讻砖专讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬砖转专讬 诇讬讛 注讬诇讗讬 讗讬砖转专讬 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讛

Rava said: Learn from the sons of Rabbi 岣yya that one is required to tie a knot after each and every set of windings, and one cannot suffice with only one knot at the end of all the windings. As, if it enters your mind to say that one is not required to tie a knot after each set of windings, then that which the sons of Rabbi 岣yya say: Severed white or sky-blue strings are fit, and similarly, severed hyssop branches are fit, is difficult: Once the uppermost knot is undone, all of the windings on the entire corner will come undone, as there are no other knots holding the windings in place, and in that case the garment will not have valid ritual fringes.

Scroll To Top