This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “nanny“ Mauskopf, Bashya Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. “A kind and gentle mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She embraced Torah learning and the love of Torah. May her מeshama have an Aliya.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Rava explains that the top knot on the tzitzit (after all the windings) must be of Torah origin. If it were not, the attachment would be considered temporary, and there would be no need for the Torah to permit the use of mixed types (shatnez—wool and linen) in tzitzit.
Raba bar Rav Ada transmitted in the name of Rav that if a single thread is torn at its base (the top of the tzitzit), the tzitzit are no longer valid. When Rav Nachman taught this, Rava raised a challenge from a braita, but Rav Nachman reinterpreted the source in a way that resolved the contradiction.
Raba stated in the name of Rav that the specific thread used for the windings counts as one of the required threads of the tzitzit. Rav Yosef corrected the attribution, noting that the statement actually originated from Shmuel. Raba taught in the name of Shmuel that if the techelet thread was mostly consumed by the windings, leaving only a small amount of string to hang down, the tzitzit remain valid. Rav Yosef again corrected him, clarifying that this statement came from Rav.
Rav is quoted by another source as establishing the halakha on three points: a minimum of set of one windings is necessary, and the ideal tzitzit consists of one-third windings and two-thirds hanging string. According to Rebbi, each winding (chulya) should of one thread wound at least three times. However, a different braita states there should be between seven and thirteen windings, representing the seven firmaments and the spaces between them. One should also begin and end the windings with a white string, as derived from the biblical verse.
Rav and Raba bar bar Hana disagree about whether a garment with only windings and no loose strings hanging is valid. Their debate is rooted in different ways of understanding the purpose of the terms petil and gedilim used in the Torah.
Shmuel says in the name of Levi that even the white threads can be made of wool when placed on a linen garment. A question is then raised as to whether a woolen garment can have linen threads; Rav Yehuda’s statement is cited to answer this, as he explicitly permits linen strings in a woolen garment. He even permits using both wool and linen strings in a silk garment. Rav Nachman disagrees with this last point and exempts a silk garment from tzitzit entirely. Rava challenges Rav Nachman’s position, but Rav Nachman resolves the difficulty. Their underlying dispute is whether the word beged (clothing) in the Torah refers to all materials or only to those made of wool or linen.
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “nanny“ Mauskopf, Bashya Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. “A kind and gentle mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She embraced Torah learning and the love of Torah. May her מeshama have an Aliya.”
Menachot 39
דִּלְמָא דְּאִיקְּטַר.
The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya were referring to a case where one tied knots between the sets of windings even though there is no obligation to do so.
וְאָמַר רַבָּה: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, קֶשֶׁר עֶלְיוֹן דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּרַבָּנַן, מַאי אִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִישְׁרֵי סָדִין בְּצִיצִית? פְּשִׁיטָא! הַתּוֹכֵף תְּכִיפָה אַחַת אֵינוֹ חִיבּוּר, אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
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.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב אַדָּא אָמַר רַב אַדָּא אָמַר רַב: אִם נִפְסַק הַחוּט מֵעִיקָּרוֹ – פְּסוּלָה. יָתֵיב רַב נַחְמָן וְקָא אָמַר לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּתְחִילָּתוֹ, אֲבָל סוֹפוֹ – שְׁיָרָיו וְגַרְדּוּמָּיו כׇּל שֶׁהוּא.
§ 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 Naḥman sat in the study hall and stated this halakha. Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman 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.
מַאי שְׁיָרָיו וּמַאי גַּרְדּוּמָּיו? מַאי לָאו ״שְׁיָרָיו״ – דְּאִיפְּסִיק מִינַּיְיהוּ וְאִישְׁתַּיַּיר מִינַּיְיהוּ, ״גַּרְדּוּמָּיו״ – דְּאִיגַּרְדּוּם אִיגַּרְדּוֹמֵי.
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?
לָא, חֲדָא קָתָנֵי, שַׁיּוֹרֵי גַּרְדּוּמָּיו כׇּל שֶׁהוּא. וְלֵימָא: ״גַּרְדּוּמָּיו״, ״שְׁיָרָיו״ לְמָה לִי? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּבָעֵינַן שִׁיּוּרָא לְגַרְדּוּמָּיו כְּדֵי לְעׇנְבָן.
The Gemara responds to Rava’s 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.
יָתֵיב רַבָּה וְקָאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: חוּט שֶׁל כֶּרֶךְ עוֹלֶה מִן הַמִּנְיָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: שְׁמוּאֵל אַמְרַהּ וְלָא רַב. אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי: אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, סָח לִי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה דְּמִן אוּשָׁא: חוּט שֶׁל כֶּרֶךְ עוֹלָה לָהּ מִן הַמִּנְיָן.
§ 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 Ḥana 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.
יָתֵיב רָבָא וְקָא אָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: תְּכֵלֶת שֶׁכָּרַךְ רוּבָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: רַב אַמְרַהּ, וְלָא שְׁמוּאֵל. אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: תְּכֵלֶת שֶׁכָּרַךְ רוּבָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה.
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’s 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.
רַב חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן מַתְנֵי הָכִי: אָמַר רַב הוּנָא, אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא, אָמַר רַב: תְּכֵלֶת שֶׁכָּרַךְ רוּבָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לֹא כָּרַךְ בָּהּ אֶלָּא חוּלְיָא אַחַת – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְנוֹיֵי תְכֵלֶת – שְׁלִישׁ גְּדִיל וּשְׁנֵי שְׁלִישֵׁי עָנָף.
Rav Ḥiyya, 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.
וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּר חוּלְיָא? תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכְרוֹךְ וְיִשְׁנֶה וִישַׁלֵּשׁ. תָּאנָא: הַפּוֹחֵת לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשֶּׁבַע, וְהַמּוֹסִיף לֹא יוֹסִיף עַל שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה.
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.
הַפּוֹחֵת לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשֶּׁבַע, כְּנֶגֶד שִׁבְעָה רְקִיעִים, וְהַמּוֹסִיף לֹא יוֹסִיף עַל שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה, כְּנֶגֶד שִׁבְעָה רְקִיעִין וְשִׁשָּׁה אֲוִירִין שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם.
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.
תָּנָא: כְּשֶׁהוּא מַתְחִיל – מַתְחִיל בַּלָּבָן: ״הַכָּנָף״ – מִין כָּנָף, וּכְשֶׁהוּא מְסַיֵּים – מְסַיֵּים בַּלָּבָן, מַעֲלִין בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין.
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 “the fringe of the corner” (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.
רַב וְרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה הֲווֹ יָתְבִי, הֲוָה קָא חָלֵיף וְאָזֵיל הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּמִיכַּסֵּי גְּלִימָא דְּכוּלֵּהּ תְּכֵלְתָּא, וּרְמֵי לֵיהּ תְּכֵלְתָּא
§ The Gemara relates: Rav and Rabba bar bar Ḥana 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,
וּגְדִילָא מִיגְּדִיל. אָמַר רַב: יָאֵי גְּלִימָא וְלָא יָאֵי תְּכֵלְתָּא, רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר: יָאֵי גְּלִימָא וְיָאֵי תְּכֵלְתָּא.
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 Ḥana said: The cloak is beautiful, and the white and sky-blue strings are also beautiful.
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה סָבַר: כְּתִיב ״גְּדִיל״ וּכְתִיב ״פְּתִיל״, אוֹ גְדִיל אוֹ פְתִיל.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabba bar bar Ḥana holds that since it is written in one verse: “You shall prepare yourself twisted cords” (Deuteronomy 22:12), and in another it is written: “And they shall put on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread” (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.
וְרַב סָבַר: לְעוֹלָם פְּתִיל בָּעֵינַן, וְהָהוּא ״גְּדִילִים״ לְמִנְיָינָא הוּא דַּאֲתָא – גְּדִיל שְׁנַיִם, גְּדִילִים אַרְבָּעָה, עֲשֵׂה גְּדִיל וּפוֹתְלֵיהוּ מִתּוֹכוֹ.
And Rav holds that actually, we also require loose strings in addition to the windings, and when that term “twisted cords” 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 “twisted cords,” it thereby indicates that four strings are required. By using the terms “twisted cords” and “thread,” the verses indicates: Form twisted cords with the four strings that one attaches to each corner, and let the strings hang loose from them.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּלֵוִי: חוּטֵי צֶמֶר פּוֹטְרִין בְּשֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן.
§ 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.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן מַהוּ שֶׁיִּפְטְרוּ בְּשֶׁל צֶמֶר? צֶמֶר בְּשֶׁל פִּשְׁתִּים הוּא דְּפָטַר, דְּכֵיוָן דִּתְכֵלֶת פָּטְרָה לָבָן נָמֵי פָּטַר, אֲבָל פִּשְׁתִּים בְּצֶמֶר לָא.
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.
אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים יַחְדָּו. גְּדִלִים תַּעֲשֶׂה לָךְ״, לָא שְׁנָא צֶמֶר בְּפִשְׁתִּים וְלָא שְׁנָא פִּשְׁתִּים בְּצֶמֶר?
Or perhaps, since it is written: “You shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together. You shall prepare yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of your covering” (Deuteronomy 22:11–12), 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.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַחֲבָה אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: חוּטֵי צֶמֶר פּוֹטְרִין בְּשֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן, וְשֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן פּוֹטְרִין בְּשֶׁל צֶמֶר, חוּטֵי צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים פּוֹטְרִין בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשִׁירָאִין.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma, as Raḥava 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’in].
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הַשִּׁירָאִין פְּטוּרִין מִן הַצִּיצִית. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: הַשִּׁירָאִין וְהַכָּלָךְ וְהַסְּרִיקִין כּוּלָּן חַיָּיבִין בְּצִיצִית – מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara notes: And this last point disagrees with a ruling of Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman says: Shira’in are entirely exempt from the obligation of ritual fringes. Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from the following baraita: Garments made from types of silks known as shira’in, kalakh, and serikin all require ritual fringes. The Gemara answers: The baraita means that there is an obligation by rabbinic law, whereas Rav Naḥman meant they are exempt by Torah law.
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וְכוּלָּן צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים פּוֹטְרִין בָּהֶן. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – הַיְינוּ דְּמִישְׁתְּרוּ בְּהוּ כִּלְאַיִם, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּרַבָּנַן – הֵיכִי מִישְׁתְּרֵי בְּהוּ כִּלְאַיִם? אֵימָא: אוֹ צֶמֶר אוֹ פִּשְׁתִּים.
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.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: הֵן בְּמִינָן פּוֹטְרִין, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן אֵין פּוֹטְרִין. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּרַבָּנַן – הַיְינוּ דְּמִיפַּטְרוּ בְּמִינָן, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים הוּא דְּפָטַר.
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.
אִי מִשּׁוּם הָא לָא אִירְיָא, כִּדְרָבָא, דְּרָבָא רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״הַכָּנָף״ – מִין כָּנָף, וּכְתִיב ״צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים״.
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: “And they shall put on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread” (Numbers 15:38). The term “the corner” indicates that the fringe must be from the same type of fabric as the corner. And yet it is written: “Wool and linen” (Deuteronomy 22:11), immediately before the verse states: “You shall prepare yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of your covering” (Deuteronomy 22:12), indicating that ritual fringes must be from either wool or linen.
הָא כֵּיצַד? צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים פּוֹטְרִין בֵּין בְּמִינָן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן, שְׁאָר מִינִין – בְּמִינָן פּוֹטְרִין, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן אֵין פּוֹטְרִין.
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.
וְרַב נַחְמָן, כִּדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
The Gemara notes: And Rav Naḥman, 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.
דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: הוֹאִיל וְנֶאֶמְרוּ בְּגָדִים בַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם, וּפָרַט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים – אַף כֹּל צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים.
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: “And the garment in which there will be the mark of leprosy, whether it be a woolen garment or a linen garment” (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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וְהַאי תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מַפְּקָא מֵאִידַּךְ תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״בֶּגֶד״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בֶּגֶד צֶמֶר, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת צֶמֶר גְּמַלִּים וְצֶמֶר אַרְנָבִים וְנוֹצָה שֶׁל עִזִּים וְהַכָּלָךְ וְהַסְּרִיקִין וְהַשִּׁירָאִין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ בֶגֶד״.
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: “A woolen garment” (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’ hair, rabbits’ wool, goats’ hair, or the types of silk kalakh, serikin, and shira’in, are also included in this halakha? The same verse states: “Or a linen garment.” The word “or” serves as an amplification to include all types of fabric.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
When Do The Ends Justify The Means? The Case Of Sha’atnez In Tzitzit
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
Oceanside NY, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
Menachot 39
דִּלְמָא דְּאִיקְּטַר.
The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya were referring to a case where one tied knots between the sets of windings even though there is no obligation to do so.
וְאָמַר רַבָּה: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, קֶשֶׁר עֶלְיוֹן דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּרַבָּנַן, מַאי אִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִישְׁרֵי סָדִין בְּצִיצִית? פְּשִׁיטָא! הַתּוֹכֵף תְּכִיפָה אַחַת אֵינוֹ חִיבּוּר, אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
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.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב אַדָּא אָמַר רַב אַדָּא אָמַר רַב: אִם נִפְסַק הַחוּט מֵעִיקָּרוֹ – פְּסוּלָה. יָתֵיב רַב נַחְמָן וְקָא אָמַר לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּתְחִילָּתוֹ, אֲבָל סוֹפוֹ – שְׁיָרָיו וְגַרְדּוּמָּיו כׇּל שֶׁהוּא.
§ 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 Naḥman sat in the study hall and stated this halakha. Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman 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.
מַאי שְׁיָרָיו וּמַאי גַּרְדּוּמָּיו? מַאי לָאו ״שְׁיָרָיו״ – דְּאִיפְּסִיק מִינַּיְיהוּ וְאִישְׁתַּיַּיר מִינַּיְיהוּ, ״גַּרְדּוּמָּיו״ – דְּאִיגַּרְדּוּם אִיגַּרְדּוֹמֵי.
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?
לָא, חֲדָא קָתָנֵי, שַׁיּוֹרֵי גַּרְדּוּמָּיו כׇּל שֶׁהוּא. וְלֵימָא: ״גַּרְדּוּמָּיו״, ״שְׁיָרָיו״ לְמָה לִי? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּבָעֵינַן שִׁיּוּרָא לְגַרְדּוּמָּיו כְּדֵי לְעׇנְבָן.
The Gemara responds to Rava’s 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.
יָתֵיב רַבָּה וְקָאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: חוּט שֶׁל כֶּרֶךְ עוֹלֶה מִן הַמִּנְיָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: שְׁמוּאֵל אַמְרַהּ וְלָא רַב. אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי: אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, סָח לִי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה דְּמִן אוּשָׁא: חוּט שֶׁל כֶּרֶךְ עוֹלָה לָהּ מִן הַמִּנְיָן.
§ 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 Ḥana 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.
יָתֵיב רָבָא וְקָא אָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: תְּכֵלֶת שֶׁכָּרַךְ רוּבָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: רַב אַמְרַהּ, וְלָא שְׁמוּאֵל. אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: תְּכֵלֶת שֶׁכָּרַךְ רוּבָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה.
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’s 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.
רַב חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן מַתְנֵי הָכִי: אָמַר רַב הוּנָא, אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא, אָמַר רַב: תְּכֵלֶת שֶׁכָּרַךְ רוּבָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לֹא כָּרַךְ בָּהּ אֶלָּא חוּלְיָא אַחַת – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְנוֹיֵי תְכֵלֶת – שְׁלִישׁ גְּדִיל וּשְׁנֵי שְׁלִישֵׁי עָנָף.
Rav Ḥiyya, 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.
וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּר חוּלְיָא? תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכְרוֹךְ וְיִשְׁנֶה וִישַׁלֵּשׁ. תָּאנָא: הַפּוֹחֵת לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשֶּׁבַע, וְהַמּוֹסִיף לֹא יוֹסִיף עַל שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה.
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.
הַפּוֹחֵת לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשֶּׁבַע, כְּנֶגֶד שִׁבְעָה רְקִיעִים, וְהַמּוֹסִיף לֹא יוֹסִיף עַל שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה, כְּנֶגֶד שִׁבְעָה רְקִיעִין וְשִׁשָּׁה אֲוִירִין שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם.
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.
תָּנָא: כְּשֶׁהוּא מַתְחִיל – מַתְחִיל בַּלָּבָן: ״הַכָּנָף״ – מִין כָּנָף, וּכְשֶׁהוּא מְסַיֵּים – מְסַיֵּים בַּלָּבָן, מַעֲלִין בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין.
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 “the fringe of the corner” (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.
רַב וְרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה הֲווֹ יָתְבִי, הֲוָה קָא חָלֵיף וְאָזֵיל הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּמִיכַּסֵּי גְּלִימָא דְּכוּלֵּהּ תְּכֵלְתָּא, וּרְמֵי לֵיהּ תְּכֵלְתָּא
§ The Gemara relates: Rav and Rabba bar bar Ḥana 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,
וּגְדִילָא מִיגְּדִיל. אָמַר רַב: יָאֵי גְּלִימָא וְלָא יָאֵי תְּכֵלְתָּא, רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר: יָאֵי גְּלִימָא וְיָאֵי תְּכֵלְתָּא.
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 Ḥana said: The cloak is beautiful, and the white and sky-blue strings are also beautiful.
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה סָבַר: כְּתִיב ״גְּדִיל״ וּכְתִיב ״פְּתִיל״, אוֹ גְדִיל אוֹ פְתִיל.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabba bar bar Ḥana holds that since it is written in one verse: “You shall prepare yourself twisted cords” (Deuteronomy 22:12), and in another it is written: “And they shall put on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread” (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.
וְרַב סָבַר: לְעוֹלָם פְּתִיל בָּעֵינַן, וְהָהוּא ״גְּדִילִים״ לְמִנְיָינָא הוּא דַּאֲתָא – גְּדִיל שְׁנַיִם, גְּדִילִים אַרְבָּעָה, עֲשֵׂה גְּדִיל וּפוֹתְלֵיהוּ מִתּוֹכוֹ.
And Rav holds that actually, we also require loose strings in addition to the windings, and when that term “twisted cords” 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 “twisted cords,” it thereby indicates that four strings are required. By using the terms “twisted cords” and “thread,” the verses indicates: Form twisted cords with the four strings that one attaches to each corner, and let the strings hang loose from them.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּלֵוִי: חוּטֵי צֶמֶר פּוֹטְרִין בְּשֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן.
§ 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.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן מַהוּ שֶׁיִּפְטְרוּ בְּשֶׁל צֶמֶר? צֶמֶר בְּשֶׁל פִּשְׁתִּים הוּא דְּפָטַר, דְּכֵיוָן דִּתְכֵלֶת פָּטְרָה לָבָן נָמֵי פָּטַר, אֲבָל פִּשְׁתִּים בְּצֶמֶר לָא.
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.
אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים יַחְדָּו. גְּדִלִים תַּעֲשֶׂה לָךְ״, לָא שְׁנָא צֶמֶר בְּפִשְׁתִּים וְלָא שְׁנָא פִּשְׁתִּים בְּצֶמֶר?
Or perhaps, since it is written: “You shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together. You shall prepare yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of your covering” (Deuteronomy 22:11–12), 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.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַחֲבָה אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: חוּטֵי צֶמֶר פּוֹטְרִין בְּשֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן, וְשֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן פּוֹטְרִין בְּשֶׁל צֶמֶר, חוּטֵי צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים פּוֹטְרִין בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשִׁירָאִין.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma, as Raḥava 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’in].
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הַשִּׁירָאִין פְּטוּרִין מִן הַצִּיצִית. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: הַשִּׁירָאִין וְהַכָּלָךְ וְהַסְּרִיקִין כּוּלָּן חַיָּיבִין בְּצִיצִית – מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara notes: And this last point disagrees with a ruling of Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman says: Shira’in are entirely exempt from the obligation of ritual fringes. Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from the following baraita: Garments made from types of silks known as shira’in, kalakh, and serikin all require ritual fringes. The Gemara answers: The baraita means that there is an obligation by rabbinic law, whereas Rav Naḥman meant they are exempt by Torah law.
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וְכוּלָּן צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים פּוֹטְרִין בָּהֶן. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – הַיְינוּ דְּמִישְׁתְּרוּ בְּהוּ כִּלְאַיִם, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּרַבָּנַן – הֵיכִי מִישְׁתְּרֵי בְּהוּ כִּלְאַיִם? אֵימָא: אוֹ צֶמֶר אוֹ פִּשְׁתִּים.
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.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: הֵן בְּמִינָן פּוֹטְרִין, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן אֵין פּוֹטְרִין. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּרַבָּנַן – הַיְינוּ דְּמִיפַּטְרוּ בְּמִינָן, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים הוּא דְּפָטַר.
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.
אִי מִשּׁוּם הָא לָא אִירְיָא, כִּדְרָבָא, דְּרָבָא רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״הַכָּנָף״ – מִין כָּנָף, וּכְתִיב ״צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים״.
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: “And they shall put on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread” (Numbers 15:38). The term “the corner” indicates that the fringe must be from the same type of fabric as the corner. And yet it is written: “Wool and linen” (Deuteronomy 22:11), immediately before the verse states: “You shall prepare yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of your covering” (Deuteronomy 22:12), indicating that ritual fringes must be from either wool or linen.
הָא כֵּיצַד? צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים פּוֹטְרִין בֵּין בְּמִינָן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן, שְׁאָר מִינִין – בְּמִינָן פּוֹטְרִין, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן אֵין פּוֹטְרִין.
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.
וְרַב נַחְמָן, כִּדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
The Gemara notes: And Rav Naḥman, 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.
דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: הוֹאִיל וְנֶאֶמְרוּ בְּגָדִים בַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם, וּפָרַט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים – אַף כֹּל צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים.
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: “And the garment in which there will be the mark of leprosy, whether it be a woolen garment or a linen garment” (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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וְהַאי תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מַפְּקָא מֵאִידַּךְ תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״בֶּגֶד״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בֶּגֶד צֶמֶר, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת צֶמֶר גְּמַלִּים וְצֶמֶר אַרְנָבִים וְנוֹצָה שֶׁל עִזִּים וְהַכָּלָךְ וְהַסְּרִיקִין וְהַשִּׁירָאִין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ בֶגֶד״.
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: “A woolen garment” (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’ hair, rabbits’ wool, goats’ hair, or the types of silk kalakh, serikin, and shira’in, are also included in this halakha? The same verse states: “Or a linen garment.” The word “or” serves as an amplification to include all types of fabric.
