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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 18, 2018 | 讟壮 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 39

How are the windings in the tzitzit done? Do there need to be strings hanging down? What type of fabrics obligate a garment聽in tzitzit?


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

讚诇诪讗 讚讗讬拽讟专

The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps the sons of Rabbi 岣yya were referring to a case where one tied knots between the sets of windings even though there is no obligation to do so.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽砖专 注诇讬讜谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讬砖专讬 住讚讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转 驻砖讬讟讗 讛转讜讻祝 转讻讬驻讛 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讘讜专 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

And Rabba says: Learn from it that the uppermost knot in the ritual fringes is required by Torah law. As, if it enters your mind to say that it is by rabbinic law, whereas by Torah law it is sufficient to merely insert the strings into the hole without tying any knots, for what reason was it necessary for the Torah to permit placing wool ritual fringes on a linen cloak? It is obvious that it is permitted, since if one attaches a swatch of wool and a swatch of linen with a single connection, it is not considered a connection with regard to the prohibition against wearing a garment that includes both wool and linen. Rather, learn from it that the uppermost knot is required by Torah law.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗诐 谞驻住拽 讛讞讜讟 诪注讬拽专讜 驻住讜诇讛 讬转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜拽讗 讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转讞讬诇转讜 讗讘诇 住讜驻讜 砖讬专讬讜 讜讙专讚讜诪讬讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗

Rabba bar Rav Adda says that Rav Adda says that Rav says: If a string was severed at its base, i.e., where it is connected to the garment, the ritual fringes are unfit. Rav Na岣an sat in the study hall and stated this halakha. Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from a baraita: In what case is this statement said, i.e., that there is a minimum length required for the strings? That is only when the strings are initially affixed to the garment. But in the end, i.e., after the strings are affixed in an acceptable manner, its remainder and its severed strings are fit at any length.

诪讗讬 砖讬专讬讜 讜诪讗讬 讙专讚讜诪讬讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖讬专讬讜 讚讗讬驻住讬拽 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讗讬砖转讬讬专 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讙专讚讜诪讬讜 讚讗讬讙专讚讜诐 讗讬讙专讚讜诪讬

The Gemara clarifies: What is its remainder and what are its severed strings? What, is it not that when the baraita mentions its remainder it is referring to a case where parts of the strings were severed and parts of them remain, and when the baraita mentions its severed strings it is referring to a case where the strings were completely severed, and nevertheless the strings are fit for the mitzva?

诇讗 讞讚讗 拽转谞讬 砖讬讜专讬 讙专讚讜诪讬讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜诇讬诪讗 讙专讚讜诪讬讜 砖讬专讬讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘注讬谞谉 砖讬讜专讗 诇讙专讚讜诪讬讜 讻讚讬 诇注谞讘谉

The Gemara responds to Rava鈥檚 objection: No, the tanna of the baraita is teaching one halakha, and the baraita should be understood as follows: The remainder of its severed strings are fit at any length. The Gemara asks: If so, let the baraita simply say: Its severed strings are fit at any length; why do I need the mention of its remainder? This teaches us that we require a remainder of its severed strings long enough to wrap them around the other strings and tie them in a slipknot.

讬转讬讘 专讘讛 讜拽讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞讜讟 砖诇 讻专讱 注讜诇讛 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专讛 讜诇讗 专讘 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 住讞 诇讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讚诪谉 讗讜砖讗 讞讜讟 砖诇 讻专讱 注讜诇讛 诇讛 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉

Rabba sat in the study hall and said in the name of Rav: The string used for winding around the other strings is counted in the quota of ritual fringes, i.e., it is one of the eight strings on each corner, and there is no need to have an additional string for winding. Rav Yosef said to Rabba: Shmuel said it, and not Rav. This was also stated by another amora: Rabba bar bar 岣na says: Rabbi Yoshiya of Usha told me that the string used for winding around the other strings is counted in the quota of ritual fringes.

讬转讬讘 专讘讗 讜拽讗 讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 转讻诇转 砖讻专讱 专讜讘讛 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘 讗诪专讛 讜诇讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 转讻诇转 砖讻专讱 专讜讘讛 讻砖专讛

Rava sat in the study hall and said in the name of Shmuel: If one wound the majority of the white and the sky-blue strings instead of leaving the larger portion of the strings hanging loose beyond the windings, the ritual fringes are nevertheless fit. Rav Yosef said to Rava: Rav said it, and not Shmuel. The Gemara supports Rav Yosef鈥檚 version from that which was also stated: Rav Huna bar Yehuda says that Rav Sheshet says that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: If one wound the majority of the white and the sky-blue strings, the ritual fringes are nevertheless fit.

专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 转讻诇转 砖讻专讱 专讜讘讛 讻砖专讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讻专讱 讘讛 讗诇讗 讞讜诇讬讗 讗讞转 讻砖专讛 讜谞讜讬讬 转讻诇转 砖诇讬砖 讙讚讬诇 讜砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖讬 注谞祝

Rav 岣yya, son of Rav Natan, teaches this discussion like this: Rav Huna says that Rav Sheshet says that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: If one wound the majority of the white and the sky-blue strings, the ritual fringes are nevertheless fit. And even if he wound only one set of windings, the ritual fringes are fit. But the finest way to affix the white and sky-blue strings is to ensure that one-third of the length of the strings is windings and two-thirds are loose hanging strings.

讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 讞讜诇讬讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 砖讬讻专讜讱 讜讬砖谞讛 讜讬砖诇砖 转讗谞讗 讛驻讜讞转 诇讗 讬驻讞讜转 诪砖讘注 讜讛诪讜住讬祝 诇讗 讬讜住讬祝 注诇 砖诇砖 注砖专讛

The Gemara asks: And what is the measure of a set of windings? It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is such that one winds once and winds a second and third time, i.e., each set must contain at least three windings. It was taught: One who minimizes the sets of windings may not have fewer than seven sets, and one who adds to this number of sets may not have more than thirteen sets of windings.

讛驻讜讞转 诇讗 讬驻讞讜转 诪砖讘注 讻谞讙讚 砖讘注讛 专拽讬注讬诐 讜讛诪讜住讬祝 诇讗 讬讜住讬祝 注诇 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讻谞讙讚 砖讘注讛 专拽讬注讬谉 讜砖砖讛 讗讜讬专讬谉 砖讘讬谞讬讛诐

The Gemara provides explanations for these guidelines: One who minimizes the sets of windings may not wind fewer than seven sets, corresponding to the seven firmaments. And one who adds to this number of sets may not wind more than thirteen sets of windings, corresponding to the seven firmaments and the six air spaces between them.

转谞讗 讻砖讛讜讗 诪转讞讬诇 诪转讞讬诇 讘诇讘谉 讛讻谞祝 诪讬谉 讻谞祝 讜讻砖讛讜讗 诪住讬讬诐 诪住讬讬诐 讘诇讘谉 诪注诇讬谉 讘拽讜讚砖 讜诇讗 诪讜专讬讚讬谉

It was taught: When one begins to form the windings, he begins winding with a white string. This is because the verse indicates that one first inserts 鈥渢he fringe of the corner鈥 (Numbers 15:38), i.e., the white strings, which are of the same type as the corner of the garment. And when he concludes the windings, he concludes with a white string, in accordance with the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and does not downgrade.

专讘 讜专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讛讜讛 拽讗 讞诇讬祝 讜讗讝讬诇 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚诪讬讻住讬 讙诇讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讛 转讻诇转讗 讜专诪讬 诇讬讛 转讻诇转讗

搂 The Gemara relates: Rav and Rabba bar bar 岣na were sitting together. A certain man was passing by wearing a cloak that was made entirely of sky-blue wool, on which he had affixed white and sky-blue strings,

讜讙讚讬诇讗 诪讬讙讚讬诇 讗诪专 专讘 讬讗讬 讙诇讬诪讗 讜诇讗 讬讗讬 转讻诇转讗 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 讬讗讬 讙诇讬诪讗 讜讬讗讬 转讻诇转讗

and the ritual fringes were composed entirely of windings, without any portion of the strings hanging loose. Rav said: The cloak is beautiful, but the white and sky-blue strings are not beautiful. Rabba bar bar 岣na said: The cloak is beautiful, and the white and sky-blue strings are also beautiful.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 住讘专 讻转讬讘 讙讚讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 驻转讬诇 讗讜 讙讚讬诇 讗讜 驻转讬诇

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabba bar bar 岣na holds that since it is written in one verse: 鈥淵ou shall prepare yourself twisted cords鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:12), and in another it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall put on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread鈥 (Numbers 15:38), it teaches that the ritual fringes may be composed entirely of either twisted cords, i.e., the windings, or loose threads or strings.

讜专讘 住讘专 诇注讜诇诐 驻转讬诇 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讛讬讗 讙讚讬诇讬诐 诇诪谞讬讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讙讚讬诇 砖谞讬诐 讙讚讬诇讬诐 讗专讘注讛 注砖讛 讙讚讬诇 讜驻讜转诇讬讛讜 诪转讜讻讜

And Rav holds that actually, we also require loose strings in addition to the windings, and when that term 鈥渢wisted cords鈥 appears in the verse, it comes for the purpose of teaching the number of strings that are required. If the verse would have employed the singular term twisted cord, it would still indicate that two strings are required, as twisted means that two strings are wound around each other. Once the verse uses the plural term 鈥渢wisted cords,鈥 it thereby indicates that four strings are required. By using the terms 鈥渢wisted cords鈥 and 鈥渢hread,鈥 the verses indicates: Form twisted cords with the four strings that one attaches to each corner, and let the strings hang loose from them.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诇讜讬 讞讜讟讬 爪诪专 驻讜讟专讬谉 讘砖诇 驻砖转谉

Shmuel says in the name of Levi: Wool strings exempt a garment made of linen, i.e., one fulfills the mitzva by affixing wool strings to a linen garment.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖诇 驻砖转谉 诪讛讜 砖讬驻讟专讜 讘砖诇 爪诪专 爪诪专 讘砖诇 驻砖转讬诐 讛讜讗 讚驻讟专 讚讻讬讜谉 讚转讻诇转 驻讟专讛 诇讘谉 谞诪讬 驻讟专 讗讘诇 驻砖转讬诐 讘爪诪专 诇讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to whether strings made of linen exempt a garment made of wool? One can say that it is only wool strings that exempt a garment of linen, as since the sky-blue string, which must be wool, exempts a linen garment, white strings of wool also exempt the garment. But if one affixes linen strings to a wool garment, he does not fulfill his obligation.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讬讞讚讜 讙讚诇讬诐 转注砖讛 诇讱 诇讗 砖谞讗 爪诪专 讘驻砖转讬诐 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 驻砖转讬诐 讘爪诪专

Or perhaps, since it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together. You shall prepare yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of your covering鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11鈥12), which indicates that one may wear wool and linen together in order to fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes, there is no difference whether one affixes wool strings to a garment of linen, and there is no difference whether one affixes linen strings to a garment of wool.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讞讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讜讟讬 爪诪专 驻讜讟专讬谉 讘砖诇 驻砖转谉 讜砖诇 驻砖转谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 讘砖诇 爪诪专 讞讜讟讬 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讬专讗讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma, as Ra岣va says that Rav Yehuda says: Wool strings exempt a garment made of linen, strings of linen exempt a garment made of wool, and strings of wool and linen exempt a garment in any case, i.e., all garments, and even garments made from silks [beshira鈥檌n].

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛砖讬专讗讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛爪讬爪讬转 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛砖讬专讗讬谉 讜讛讻诇讱 讜讛住专讬拽讬谉 讻讜诇谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转 诪讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara notes: And this last point disagrees with a ruling of Rav Na岣an, as Rav Na岣an says: Shira鈥檌n are entirely exempt from the obligation of ritual fringes. Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from the following baraita: Garments made from types of silks known as shira鈥檌n, kalakh, and serikin all require ritual fringes. The Gemara answers: The baraita means that there is an obligation by rabbinic law, whereas Rav Na岣an meant they are exempt by Torah law.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讻讜诇谉 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 讘讛谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪讬砖转专讜 讘讛讜 讻诇讗讬诐 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讻讬 诪讬砖转专讬 讘讛讜 讻诇讗讬诐 讗讬诪讗 讗讜 爪诪专 讗讜 驻砖转讬诐

The Gemara challenges this suggestion: If that is so, then say the latter clause of the baraita: And with regard to all of these garments, strings of wool and linen exempt them. This indicates that one may affix wool sky-blue strings and white linen strings. Granted, if you say that the obligation of ritual fringes for silk garments is by Torah law, that is why diverse kinds are permitted for them. But if you say that the obligation is by rabbinic law, how could diverse kinds be permitted for them? The Gemara answers: Say instead: Either wool or linen strings exempt silk garments, but one may not affix both wool and linen strings to the same silk garment.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛谉 讘诪讬谞谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪讬驻讟专讜 讘诪讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讛讜讗 讚驻讟专

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to assume that this is the correct interpretation of the baraita, as the baraita teaches in the latter clause: Strings made from these silk fabrics exempt a garment of their type but do not exempt a garment that is not of their type. Granted, if you say that the obligation to attach ritual fringes to these garments is by rabbinic law, that is why they are exempted if one affixes strings of their type. But if you say that the obligation is by Torah law, then it should be only wool or linen that exempt these garments.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬专讬讗 讻讚专讘讗 讚专讘讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讛讻谞祝 诪讬谉 讻谞祝 讜讻转讬讘 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐

The Gemara rejects this: If it is due to that reason, there is no conclusive argument, because one can maintain that other fabrics also fulfill the obligation of ritual fringes by Torah law, in accordance with the opinion of Rava. As Rava raises a contradiction: It is written in one verse: 鈥淎nd they shall put on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread鈥 (Numbers 15:38). The term 鈥渢he corner鈥 indicates that the fringe must be from the same type of fabric as the corner. And yet it is written: 鈥淲ool and linen鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11), immediately before the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall prepare yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of your covering鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:12), indicating that ritual fringes must be from either wool or linen.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 讘讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 砖讗专 诪讬谞讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讜讟专讬谉

How so? Strings made of wool or linen exempt any garment, whether the garment is made of their type of fabric, or whether it is not of their type of fabric. Strings made of all other types of fabric exempt garments made of their type of fabric, e.g., silk strings exempt a silk garment, but they do not exempt a garment made from a fabric that is not their type, i.e., a garment made from a different fabric.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

The Gemara notes: And Rav Na岣an, who holds that silk garments do not require ritual fringes by Torah law, holds in accordance with the ruling stated by a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗诪专讜 讘讙讚讬诐 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 讜驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讗祝 讻诇 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐

As a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since the word garments is usually stated in the Torah without specification as to the material from which the garments are made, and the verse specified in one of its references to garments that it is referring to garments made from wool or linen, as it states: 鈥淎nd the garment in which there will be the mark of leprosy, whether it be a woolen garment or a linen garment鈥 (Leviticus 13:47), it may be derived that so too, all garments mentioned in the Torah are those made from wool or linen. Other fabrics are not classified as garments by Torah law. Consequently, when the Torah requires strings on the corners of garments (see Numbers 15:38), it is referring specifically to garments made of wool or linen.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪驻拽讗 诪讗讬讚讱 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讙讚 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讚 爪诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 爪诪专 讙诪诇讬诐 讜爪诪专 讗专谞讘讬诐 讜谞讜爪讛 砖诇 注讝讬诐 讜讛讻诇讱 讜讛住专讬拽讬谉 讜讛砖讬专讗讬谉 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讘讙讚

Abaye said: This statement by a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael diverges from another statement by a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that all fabrics are considered garments. As a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: From the fact that the verse states: 鈥淎 woolen garment鈥 (Leviticus 13:47), I have derived only that a garment of wool can become ritually impure. From where is it derived that garments made of camels鈥 hair, rabbits鈥 wool, goats鈥 hair, or the types of silk kalakh, serikin, and shirayin, are also included in this halakha? The same verse states: 鈥淥r a linen garment.鈥 The word 鈥渙r鈥 serves as an amplification to include all types of fabric.

  • 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 39

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 39

讚诇诪讗 讚讗讬拽讟专

The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps the sons of Rabbi 岣yya were referring to a case where one tied knots between the sets of windings even though there is no obligation to do so.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽砖专 注诇讬讜谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讬砖专讬 住讚讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转 驻砖讬讟讗 讛转讜讻祝 转讻讬驻讛 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讘讜专 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

And Rabba says: Learn from it that the uppermost knot in the ritual fringes is required by Torah law. As, if it enters your mind to say that it is by rabbinic law, whereas by Torah law it is sufficient to merely insert the strings into the hole without tying any knots, for what reason was it necessary for the Torah to permit placing wool ritual fringes on a linen cloak? It is obvious that it is permitted, since if one attaches a swatch of wool and a swatch of linen with a single connection, it is not considered a connection with regard to the prohibition against wearing a garment that includes both wool and linen. Rather, learn from it that the uppermost knot is required by Torah law.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗诐 谞驻住拽 讛讞讜讟 诪注讬拽专讜 驻住讜诇讛 讬转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜拽讗 讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转讞讬诇转讜 讗讘诇 住讜驻讜 砖讬专讬讜 讜讙专讚讜诪讬讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗

Rabba bar Rav Adda says that Rav Adda says that Rav says: If a string was severed at its base, i.e., where it is connected to the garment, the ritual fringes are unfit. Rav Na岣an sat in the study hall and stated this halakha. Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from a baraita: In what case is this statement said, i.e., that there is a minimum length required for the strings? That is only when the strings are initially affixed to the garment. But in the end, i.e., after the strings are affixed in an acceptable manner, its remainder and its severed strings are fit at any length.

诪讗讬 砖讬专讬讜 讜诪讗讬 讙专讚讜诪讬讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖讬专讬讜 讚讗讬驻住讬拽 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讗讬砖转讬讬专 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讙专讚讜诪讬讜 讚讗讬讙专讚讜诐 讗讬讙专讚讜诪讬

The Gemara clarifies: What is its remainder and what are its severed strings? What, is it not that when the baraita mentions its remainder it is referring to a case where parts of the strings were severed and parts of them remain, and when the baraita mentions its severed strings it is referring to a case where the strings were completely severed, and nevertheless the strings are fit for the mitzva?

诇讗 讞讚讗 拽转谞讬 砖讬讜专讬 讙专讚讜诪讬讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜诇讬诪讗 讙专讚讜诪讬讜 砖讬专讬讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘注讬谞谉 砖讬讜专讗 诇讙专讚讜诪讬讜 讻讚讬 诇注谞讘谉

The Gemara responds to Rava鈥檚 objection: No, the tanna of the baraita is teaching one halakha, and the baraita should be understood as follows: The remainder of its severed strings are fit at any length. The Gemara asks: If so, let the baraita simply say: Its severed strings are fit at any length; why do I need the mention of its remainder? This teaches us that we require a remainder of its severed strings long enough to wrap them around the other strings and tie them in a slipknot.

讬转讬讘 专讘讛 讜拽讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞讜讟 砖诇 讻专讱 注讜诇讛 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专讛 讜诇讗 专讘 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 住讞 诇讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讚诪谉 讗讜砖讗 讞讜讟 砖诇 讻专讱 注讜诇讛 诇讛 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉

Rabba sat in the study hall and said in the name of Rav: The string used for winding around the other strings is counted in the quota of ritual fringes, i.e., it is one of the eight strings on each corner, and there is no need to have an additional string for winding. Rav Yosef said to Rabba: Shmuel said it, and not Rav. This was also stated by another amora: Rabba bar bar 岣na says: Rabbi Yoshiya of Usha told me that the string used for winding around the other strings is counted in the quota of ritual fringes.

讬转讬讘 专讘讗 讜拽讗 讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 转讻诇转 砖讻专讱 专讜讘讛 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘 讗诪专讛 讜诇讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 转讻诇转 砖讻专讱 专讜讘讛 讻砖专讛

Rava sat in the study hall and said in the name of Shmuel: If one wound the majority of the white and the sky-blue strings instead of leaving the larger portion of the strings hanging loose beyond the windings, the ritual fringes are nevertheless fit. Rav Yosef said to Rava: Rav said it, and not Shmuel. The Gemara supports Rav Yosef鈥檚 version from that which was also stated: Rav Huna bar Yehuda says that Rav Sheshet says that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: If one wound the majority of the white and the sky-blue strings, the ritual fringes are nevertheless fit.

专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 转讻诇转 砖讻专讱 专讜讘讛 讻砖专讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讻专讱 讘讛 讗诇讗 讞讜诇讬讗 讗讞转 讻砖专讛 讜谞讜讬讬 转讻诇转 砖诇讬砖 讙讚讬诇 讜砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖讬 注谞祝

Rav 岣yya, son of Rav Natan, teaches this discussion like this: Rav Huna says that Rav Sheshet says that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: If one wound the majority of the white and the sky-blue strings, the ritual fringes are nevertheless fit. And even if he wound only one set of windings, the ritual fringes are fit. But the finest way to affix the white and sky-blue strings is to ensure that one-third of the length of the strings is windings and two-thirds are loose hanging strings.

讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 讞讜诇讬讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 砖讬讻专讜讱 讜讬砖谞讛 讜讬砖诇砖 转讗谞讗 讛驻讜讞转 诇讗 讬驻讞讜转 诪砖讘注 讜讛诪讜住讬祝 诇讗 讬讜住讬祝 注诇 砖诇砖 注砖专讛

The Gemara asks: And what is the measure of a set of windings? It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is such that one winds once and winds a second and third time, i.e., each set must contain at least three windings. It was taught: One who minimizes the sets of windings may not have fewer than seven sets, and one who adds to this number of sets may not have more than thirteen sets of windings.

讛驻讜讞转 诇讗 讬驻讞讜转 诪砖讘注 讻谞讙讚 砖讘注讛 专拽讬注讬诐 讜讛诪讜住讬祝 诇讗 讬讜住讬祝 注诇 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讻谞讙讚 砖讘注讛 专拽讬注讬谉 讜砖砖讛 讗讜讬专讬谉 砖讘讬谞讬讛诐

The Gemara provides explanations for these guidelines: One who minimizes the sets of windings may not wind fewer than seven sets, corresponding to the seven firmaments. And one who adds to this number of sets may not wind more than thirteen sets of windings, corresponding to the seven firmaments and the six air spaces between them.

转谞讗 讻砖讛讜讗 诪转讞讬诇 诪转讞讬诇 讘诇讘谉 讛讻谞祝 诪讬谉 讻谞祝 讜讻砖讛讜讗 诪住讬讬诐 诪住讬讬诐 讘诇讘谉 诪注诇讬谉 讘拽讜讚砖 讜诇讗 诪讜专讬讚讬谉

It was taught: When one begins to form the windings, he begins winding with a white string. This is because the verse indicates that one first inserts 鈥渢he fringe of the corner鈥 (Numbers 15:38), i.e., the white strings, which are of the same type as the corner of the garment. And when he concludes the windings, he concludes with a white string, in accordance with the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and does not downgrade.

专讘 讜专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讛讜讛 拽讗 讞诇讬祝 讜讗讝讬诇 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚诪讬讻住讬 讙诇讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讛 转讻诇转讗 讜专诪讬 诇讬讛 转讻诇转讗

搂 The Gemara relates: Rav and Rabba bar bar 岣na were sitting together. A certain man was passing by wearing a cloak that was made entirely of sky-blue wool, on which he had affixed white and sky-blue strings,

讜讙讚讬诇讗 诪讬讙讚讬诇 讗诪专 专讘 讬讗讬 讙诇讬诪讗 讜诇讗 讬讗讬 转讻诇转讗 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 讬讗讬 讙诇讬诪讗 讜讬讗讬 转讻诇转讗

and the ritual fringes were composed entirely of windings, without any portion of the strings hanging loose. Rav said: The cloak is beautiful, but the white and sky-blue strings are not beautiful. Rabba bar bar 岣na said: The cloak is beautiful, and the white and sky-blue strings are also beautiful.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 住讘专 讻转讬讘 讙讚讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 驻转讬诇 讗讜 讙讚讬诇 讗讜 驻转讬诇

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabba bar bar 岣na holds that since it is written in one verse: 鈥淵ou shall prepare yourself twisted cords鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:12), and in another it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall put on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread鈥 (Numbers 15:38), it teaches that the ritual fringes may be composed entirely of either twisted cords, i.e., the windings, or loose threads or strings.

讜专讘 住讘专 诇注讜诇诐 驻转讬诇 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讛讬讗 讙讚讬诇讬诐 诇诪谞讬讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讙讚讬诇 砖谞讬诐 讙讚讬诇讬诐 讗专讘注讛 注砖讛 讙讚讬诇 讜驻讜转诇讬讛讜 诪转讜讻讜

And Rav holds that actually, we also require loose strings in addition to the windings, and when that term 鈥渢wisted cords鈥 appears in the verse, it comes for the purpose of teaching the number of strings that are required. If the verse would have employed the singular term twisted cord, it would still indicate that two strings are required, as twisted means that two strings are wound around each other. Once the verse uses the plural term 鈥渢wisted cords,鈥 it thereby indicates that four strings are required. By using the terms 鈥渢wisted cords鈥 and 鈥渢hread,鈥 the verses indicates: Form twisted cords with the four strings that one attaches to each corner, and let the strings hang loose from them.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诇讜讬 讞讜讟讬 爪诪专 驻讜讟专讬谉 讘砖诇 驻砖转谉

Shmuel says in the name of Levi: Wool strings exempt a garment made of linen, i.e., one fulfills the mitzva by affixing wool strings to a linen garment.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖诇 驻砖转谉 诪讛讜 砖讬驻讟专讜 讘砖诇 爪诪专 爪诪专 讘砖诇 驻砖转讬诐 讛讜讗 讚驻讟专 讚讻讬讜谉 讚转讻诇转 驻讟专讛 诇讘谉 谞诪讬 驻讟专 讗讘诇 驻砖转讬诐 讘爪诪专 诇讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to whether strings made of linen exempt a garment made of wool? One can say that it is only wool strings that exempt a garment of linen, as since the sky-blue string, which must be wool, exempts a linen garment, white strings of wool also exempt the garment. But if one affixes linen strings to a wool garment, he does not fulfill his obligation.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讬讞讚讜 讙讚诇讬诐 转注砖讛 诇讱 诇讗 砖谞讗 爪诪专 讘驻砖转讬诐 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 驻砖转讬诐 讘爪诪专

Or perhaps, since it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together. You shall prepare yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of your covering鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11鈥12), which indicates that one may wear wool and linen together in order to fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes, there is no difference whether one affixes wool strings to a garment of linen, and there is no difference whether one affixes linen strings to a garment of wool.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讞讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讜讟讬 爪诪专 驻讜讟专讬谉 讘砖诇 驻砖转谉 讜砖诇 驻砖转谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 讘砖诇 爪诪专 讞讜讟讬 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讬专讗讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma, as Ra岣va says that Rav Yehuda says: Wool strings exempt a garment made of linen, strings of linen exempt a garment made of wool, and strings of wool and linen exempt a garment in any case, i.e., all garments, and even garments made from silks [beshira鈥檌n].

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛砖讬专讗讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛爪讬爪讬转 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛砖讬专讗讬谉 讜讛讻诇讱 讜讛住专讬拽讬谉 讻讜诇谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转 诪讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara notes: And this last point disagrees with a ruling of Rav Na岣an, as Rav Na岣an says: Shira鈥檌n are entirely exempt from the obligation of ritual fringes. Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from the following baraita: Garments made from types of silks known as shira鈥檌n, kalakh, and serikin all require ritual fringes. The Gemara answers: The baraita means that there is an obligation by rabbinic law, whereas Rav Na岣an meant they are exempt by Torah law.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讻讜诇谉 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 讘讛谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪讬砖转专讜 讘讛讜 讻诇讗讬诐 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讻讬 诪讬砖转专讬 讘讛讜 讻诇讗讬诐 讗讬诪讗 讗讜 爪诪专 讗讜 驻砖转讬诐

The Gemara challenges this suggestion: If that is so, then say the latter clause of the baraita: And with regard to all of these garments, strings of wool and linen exempt them. This indicates that one may affix wool sky-blue strings and white linen strings. Granted, if you say that the obligation of ritual fringes for silk garments is by Torah law, that is why diverse kinds are permitted for them. But if you say that the obligation is by rabbinic law, how could diverse kinds be permitted for them? The Gemara answers: Say instead: Either wool or linen strings exempt silk garments, but one may not affix both wool and linen strings to the same silk garment.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛谉 讘诪讬谞谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪讬驻讟专讜 讘诪讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讛讜讗 讚驻讟专

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to assume that this is the correct interpretation of the baraita, as the baraita teaches in the latter clause: Strings made from these silk fabrics exempt a garment of their type but do not exempt a garment that is not of their type. Granted, if you say that the obligation to attach ritual fringes to these garments is by rabbinic law, that is why they are exempted if one affixes strings of their type. But if you say that the obligation is by Torah law, then it should be only wool or linen that exempt these garments.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬专讬讗 讻讚专讘讗 讚专讘讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讛讻谞祝 诪讬谉 讻谞祝 讜讻转讬讘 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐

The Gemara rejects this: If it is due to that reason, there is no conclusive argument, because one can maintain that other fabrics also fulfill the obligation of ritual fringes by Torah law, in accordance with the opinion of Rava. As Rava raises a contradiction: It is written in one verse: 鈥淎nd they shall put on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread鈥 (Numbers 15:38). The term 鈥渢he corner鈥 indicates that the fringe must be from the same type of fabric as the corner. And yet it is written: 鈥淲ool and linen鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11), immediately before the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall prepare yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of your covering鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:12), indicating that ritual fringes must be from either wool or linen.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 讘讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 砖讗专 诪讬谞讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讜讟专讬谉

How so? Strings made of wool or linen exempt any garment, whether the garment is made of their type of fabric, or whether it is not of their type of fabric. Strings made of all other types of fabric exempt garments made of their type of fabric, e.g., silk strings exempt a silk garment, but they do not exempt a garment made from a fabric that is not their type, i.e., a garment made from a different fabric.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

The Gemara notes: And Rav Na岣an, who holds that silk garments do not require ritual fringes by Torah law, holds in accordance with the ruling stated by a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗诪专讜 讘讙讚讬诐 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 讜驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讗祝 讻诇 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐

As a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since the word garments is usually stated in the Torah without specification as to the material from which the garments are made, and the verse specified in one of its references to garments that it is referring to garments made from wool or linen, as it states: 鈥淎nd the garment in which there will be the mark of leprosy, whether it be a woolen garment or a linen garment鈥 (Leviticus 13:47), it may be derived that so too, all garments mentioned in the Torah are those made from wool or linen. Other fabrics are not classified as garments by Torah law. Consequently, when the Torah requires strings on the corners of garments (see Numbers 15:38), it is referring specifically to garments made of wool or linen.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪驻拽讗 诪讗讬讚讱 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讙讚 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讚 爪诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 爪诪专 讙诪诇讬诐 讜爪诪专 讗专谞讘讬诐 讜谞讜爪讛 砖诇 注讝讬诐 讜讛讻诇讱 讜讛住专讬拽讬谉 讜讛砖讬专讗讬谉 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讘讙讚

Abaye said: This statement by a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael diverges from another statement by a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that all fabrics are considered garments. As a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: From the fact that the verse states: 鈥淎 woolen garment鈥 (Leviticus 13:47), I have derived only that a garment of wool can become ritually impure. From where is it derived that garments made of camels鈥 hair, rabbits鈥 wool, goats鈥 hair, or the types of silk kalakh, serikin, and shirayin, are also included in this halakha? The same verse states: 鈥淥r a linen garment.鈥 The word 鈥渙r鈥 serves as an amplification to include all types of fabric.

Scroll To Top