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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 19, 2018 | 讬壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 40

Can one wear tzitzit that have shaatnez聽(wool strings on a linen garment)?


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

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 住讚讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜讟专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to ritual fringes on a linen cloak, Beit Shammai deem the cloak exempt from ritual fringes due to the fact that the sky-blue strings must be made from wool, and there is a Torah prohibition against wearing a mixture of wool and linen. And Beit Hillel deem a linen cloak obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes. And the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讜讛诇讗 讻诇 讛诪讟讬诇 转讻诇转 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛诪转诪讬讛讬谉

Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Tzadok says: But is it not the case that anyone who affixes sky-blue strings to a linen cloak in Jerusalem is considered nothing other than one of those who causes others to be astonished at their behavior, as it appears that he is violating the prohibition against wearing a garment containing wool and linen?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 讗住专讜讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉

The baraita concludes: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If so, that the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel and a linen cloak is required to have ritual fringes, why did the Sages prohibit attaching ritual fringes to linen garments in Jerusalem? It is because people are not well versed in the halakha and might ultimately wear garments of wool and linen even when it is not necessary for the mitzva of ritual fringes.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞讗 诇专讘讗 讜诇专诪讜 讘讬 注砖专讛 讜谞驻拽讜 诇砖讜拽讗 讜诪驻专住诪讗 诇诪讬诇转讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚诪转诪讛讜 注讬诇讜谉

Rava bar Rav 岣na said to Rava: If that is the concern, then let ten people take linen cloaks with ritual fringes and go out to the marketplace and thereby publicize the matter, i.e., that it is permitted to affix wool strings to a linen garment due to the mitzva. Rava answered: All the more so people would be astonished at us for acting in such an unconventional manner.

讜诇讬讚专砖讗 讘驻讬专拽讗 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 拽诇讗 讗讬诇谉

The Gemara suggests: Let the Rabbis teach during their public lecture that affixing wool strings to a linen garment is permitted for the mitzva of ritual fringes. The Gemara answers: Wearing strings on a linen garment is prohibited because of a rabbinic decree due to the concern that people might use strings that were dyed blue with indigo [kala ilan], instead of with tekhelet, the sky-blue dye produced from the 岣lazon (see 44b), in which case they would not fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes and would violate the prohibition against wearing garments containing wool and linen.

讜诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 诇讘谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗驻砖专 讘诪讬谞谉 诇讗

The Gemara suggests: Even if one鈥檚 blue strings are not dyed with tekhelet as required for the mitzva, let them be considered merely as white strings. In the absence of tekhelet one fulfills the mitzva with white strings, and therefore it should be permitted to affix white woolen strings to a linen garment. The Gemara explains: Since it is possible to affix white strings that are the same type of material as the garment, i.e., linen, and thereby fulfill the mitzva without overriding the prohibition against wearing a garment made from wool and linen, one may not affix white wool strings to a linen garment.

讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讗诐 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇拽讬讬诐 讗转 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讟讘 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬讘讜讗 注砖讛 讜讬讚讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛

The Gemara notes: This is in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: Any place where you find a positive mitzva and a prohibition that clash with one another, if you are able to fulfill both of them, that is preferable; and if that is not possible, the positive mitzva shall come and override the prohibition. In this case, the clash is between the mitzva of ritual fringes and the prohibition against wearing a garment that contains wool and linen. One can fulfill both of them by using white strings that are linen instead of wool if the garment is made from linen.

讜诇讬讘讚拽讜讛 讗诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讟注讬诪讛

The Gemara suggests: And let them test the strings to ascertain whether they are dyed with indigo or with tekhelet, as explained by the Gemara (42b). The Gemara responds: Rather, the prohibition against affixing ritual fringes to a linen garment is a rabbinic decree due to the concern that perhaps the sky-blue strings were colored with tekhelet dye that had been used for testing the color of the dye in the vat and therefore became unfit (see 42b). In such a case, there would be no fulfillment of the mitzva of sky-blue ritual fringes to override the prohibition against wearing a garment of wool and linen.

讜诇讬讻转讘讛 讗讚讬住拽讬 讗讚讬住拽讬 诇讬拽讜诐 讜诇讬住诪讜讱 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛砖转讗

The Gemara suggests: Let the Sages write letters informing dye producers that tekhelet that was used for testing the color of the dye in the vat is unfit for ritual fringes. The Gemara explains: Shall we go and rely on letters, assuming that dye producers will follow the instructions they contain? Rava responded to this and said: Now,

讞诪抓 讘驻住讞 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讻专转 住诪讻讬谞谉 讗讚讬住拽讬 讛讻讗 讚注砖讛 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

with regard to the prohibitions against eating leavened bread on Passover and eating on Yom Kippur, which are punishable by karet, we rely on letters sent from the rabbinical court in Eretz Yisrael publicizing whether the year was declared a leap year and when they have declared the New Moon; here, with regard to the mitzva of ritual fringes, which is merely a positive mitzva, is it not all the more so correct that letters can be relied on?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗诪专讬 讜讗讬转诪专 讘诪注专讘讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讜讜转讬 砖诪讗 讬拽专注 住讚讬谞讜 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 讜讬转驻专谞讜

Rather, Rava said: This is a statement that I said, and it was stated in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Zeira in accordance with my opinion: The reason for the rabbinic decree is lest one鈥檚 cloak rip within three fingerbreadths of the edge of the corner of the garment, which is where the ritual fringes are placed, and he sew it with linen string and then use the excess string for ritual fringes.

讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬

And in such a case the ritual fringes would be unfit because the Torah states: 鈥淵ou shall prepare yourself twisted cords鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:12), which teaches: Prepare it, and not from what has already been prepared. Consequently, the strings must be attached to the garment for the sake of the mitzva of ritual fringes. When the individual places the linen string there in order to stitch the garment and then decides to use it for the mitzva of ritual fringes and adds sky-blue wool strings, he does not fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes and violates the prohibition against wearing a garment of wool and linen.

砖专讗 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇住讚讬谞讬讛 专讘 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 讙讝讬专讛 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛

Because of this rabbinic decree, Rabbi Zeira untied the ritual fringes and removed them from his linen cloak. Rav Zeira said: The rabbinic decree prohibiting ritual fringes on a linen garment is also due to the concern that one might affix ritual fringes to a nighttime garment. Since the mitzva of ritual fringes does not apply in that case, if one wears the garment he would not fulfill the mitzva and would violate the prohibition against wearing a garment with wool and linen.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗诪专讬 讜讗讬转诪专 讘诪注专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讜讜转讬 讛讬讗 砖诇 讘讙讚 讜讻谞驻讬讛 砖诇 注讜专 讞讬讬讘转 讛讬讗 砖诇 注讜专 讜讻谞驻讬讛 砖诇 讘讙讚 驻讟讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讬拽专 讘讙讚 讘注讬谞谉

And Rava said: This is a statement that I said, and it was stated in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Zeira in accordance with my opinion: If a garment is made from cloth and its corners are made from leather, it is required to have ritual fringes. Conversely, if a cloak is made from leather and its corners are made from cloth, it is exempt from the mitzva of ritual fringes. What is the reason for this? We require that the main part of the garment be obligated, and a leather garment is not required to have ritual fringes.

专讘 讗讞讗讬 讗讝讬诇 讘转专 讻谞祝

The Gemara notes: Rav A岣i would follow the corner in determining whether the garment is required to have ritual fringes or not, because the Torah states: 鈥淥n the corners of their garments鈥 (Numbers 15:38).

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 住讞讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讟讬诇 诇讘注诇转 砖诇砖 讜讛砖诇讬诪讛 诇讗专讘注 驻住讜诇讛 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬

Rava says that Rav Se岣ra says that Rav Huna says: In a case where one affixed ritual fringes to a garment possessing only three corners, which is not required to have ritual fringes, and then completed its fourth corner by sewing on additional material or cutting away some of the material, the ritual fringes he attached to the original three corners are unfit. This is due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from what has already been prepared. Once the garment is required to have ritual fringes one may attach the ritual fringes; the strings that were attached before the garment was required to have them are not fit.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讞住讬讚讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讻讬讜谉 砖讗专讙讜 讘讛 砖诇砖 讛讬讜 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇讛 转讻诇转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 砖驻爪注讜 讘讛 砖诇砖 讛讬讜 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇讛 转讻诇转

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: It is told of the early generations of pious men that once they weaved three fingerbreadths of the length of the garment, they would affix the white and sky-blue strings to the first two corners, even though the garment was not yet long enough to be obligated to have ritual fringes. The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita should read as follows: Once they completed [shepatzu] the garment until there were only three fingerbreadths left to weave, they would affix the white and sky-blue strings to the first two corners.

讜诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 (讗讬谞讬) 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讟讬诇 诇诪讜讟诇转 讻砖专讛

The Gemara asks: And do we say: Prepare it, and not from what has already been prepared? Is that so that this principle disqualifies ritual fringes that one affixed to a garment before he was required to do so? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Zeira say: If one affixed ritual fringes to a garment that already had ritual fringes affixed to it and then removed the original strings, it is fit, despite the fact that when he attached the second set they were superfluous? This indicates that even if one attaches ritual fringes to a garment when there is no obligation to attach them, the ritual fringes are fit.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛砖转讗 讘讘诇 转讜住讬祝 拽讗讬 诪注砖讛 诇讗 讛讜讬

Rava said: This does not present a difficulty, because now that he adds a second, unnecessary set of ritual fringes and is liable for violating the prohibition of adding to a mitzva (see Deuteronomy 13:1), is it not considered an action?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讙讘专讗 诇讗讜住讜驻讬 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讚诇诪讗 诇讘讟讜诇讬 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讜讘诇 转讜住讬祝 诇讬讻讗 诪注砖讛 讗讬讻讗

Rav Pappa objects to this: From where is it known that Rabbi Zeira is discussing a case where the person intended to add to the original set of ritual fringes? Perhaps Rabbi Zeira is discussing a case where he intended to nullify the original strings, and therefore there is no prohibition of adding to a mitzva, and there is an action.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转讻诇转 讗讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讟诇讬转 驻讟讜专讛

With regard to the issue of affixing ritual fringes to a garment that already has ritual fringes, the Gemara relates: Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Mattana says that Shmuel says: White and sky-blue strings are not subject to the prohibition of diverse kinds, and this is the halakha even if they are affixed to a cloak that is exempt from ritual fringes.

诪讗讬 讟诇讬转 驻讟讜专讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 砖讬注讜专讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讟诇讬转 砖讛拽讟谉 诪转讻住讛 讘讜 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜

The Gemara asks: What is meant by: A cloak that is exempt from ritual fringes? If we say that it is referring to a cloak that is not of the size necessary to require the affixing of ritual fringes, that is difficult: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a cloak that is large enough for a minor to cover his head and most of his body with it,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 40

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 40

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 住讚讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜讟专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to ritual fringes on a linen cloak, Beit Shammai deem the cloak exempt from ritual fringes due to the fact that the sky-blue strings must be made from wool, and there is a Torah prohibition against wearing a mixture of wool and linen. And Beit Hillel deem a linen cloak obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes. And the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讜讛诇讗 讻诇 讛诪讟讬诇 转讻诇转 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛诪转诪讬讛讬谉

Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Tzadok says: But is it not the case that anyone who affixes sky-blue strings to a linen cloak in Jerusalem is considered nothing other than one of those who causes others to be astonished at their behavior, as it appears that he is violating the prohibition against wearing a garment containing wool and linen?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 讗住专讜讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉

The baraita concludes: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If so, that the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel and a linen cloak is required to have ritual fringes, why did the Sages prohibit attaching ritual fringes to linen garments in Jerusalem? It is because people are not well versed in the halakha and might ultimately wear garments of wool and linen even when it is not necessary for the mitzva of ritual fringes.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞讗 诇专讘讗 讜诇专诪讜 讘讬 注砖专讛 讜谞驻拽讜 诇砖讜拽讗 讜诪驻专住诪讗 诇诪讬诇转讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚诪转诪讛讜 注讬诇讜谉

Rava bar Rav 岣na said to Rava: If that is the concern, then let ten people take linen cloaks with ritual fringes and go out to the marketplace and thereby publicize the matter, i.e., that it is permitted to affix wool strings to a linen garment due to the mitzva. Rava answered: All the more so people would be astonished at us for acting in such an unconventional manner.

讜诇讬讚专砖讗 讘驻讬专拽讗 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 拽诇讗 讗讬诇谉

The Gemara suggests: Let the Rabbis teach during their public lecture that affixing wool strings to a linen garment is permitted for the mitzva of ritual fringes. The Gemara answers: Wearing strings on a linen garment is prohibited because of a rabbinic decree due to the concern that people might use strings that were dyed blue with indigo [kala ilan], instead of with tekhelet, the sky-blue dye produced from the 岣lazon (see 44b), in which case they would not fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes and would violate the prohibition against wearing garments containing wool and linen.

讜诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 诇讘谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗驻砖专 讘诪讬谞谉 诇讗

The Gemara suggests: Even if one鈥檚 blue strings are not dyed with tekhelet as required for the mitzva, let them be considered merely as white strings. In the absence of tekhelet one fulfills the mitzva with white strings, and therefore it should be permitted to affix white woolen strings to a linen garment. The Gemara explains: Since it is possible to affix white strings that are the same type of material as the garment, i.e., linen, and thereby fulfill the mitzva without overriding the prohibition against wearing a garment made from wool and linen, one may not affix white wool strings to a linen garment.

讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讗诐 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇拽讬讬诐 讗转 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讟讘 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬讘讜讗 注砖讛 讜讬讚讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛

The Gemara notes: This is in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: Any place where you find a positive mitzva and a prohibition that clash with one another, if you are able to fulfill both of them, that is preferable; and if that is not possible, the positive mitzva shall come and override the prohibition. In this case, the clash is between the mitzva of ritual fringes and the prohibition against wearing a garment that contains wool and linen. One can fulfill both of them by using white strings that are linen instead of wool if the garment is made from linen.

讜诇讬讘讚拽讜讛 讗诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讟注讬诪讛

The Gemara suggests: And let them test the strings to ascertain whether they are dyed with indigo or with tekhelet, as explained by the Gemara (42b). The Gemara responds: Rather, the prohibition against affixing ritual fringes to a linen garment is a rabbinic decree due to the concern that perhaps the sky-blue strings were colored with tekhelet dye that had been used for testing the color of the dye in the vat and therefore became unfit (see 42b). In such a case, there would be no fulfillment of the mitzva of sky-blue ritual fringes to override the prohibition against wearing a garment of wool and linen.

讜诇讬讻转讘讛 讗讚讬住拽讬 讗讚讬住拽讬 诇讬拽讜诐 讜诇讬住诪讜讱 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛砖转讗

The Gemara suggests: Let the Sages write letters informing dye producers that tekhelet that was used for testing the color of the dye in the vat is unfit for ritual fringes. The Gemara explains: Shall we go and rely on letters, assuming that dye producers will follow the instructions they contain? Rava responded to this and said: Now,

讞诪抓 讘驻住讞 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讻专转 住诪讻讬谞谉 讗讚讬住拽讬 讛讻讗 讚注砖讛 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

with regard to the prohibitions against eating leavened bread on Passover and eating on Yom Kippur, which are punishable by karet, we rely on letters sent from the rabbinical court in Eretz Yisrael publicizing whether the year was declared a leap year and when they have declared the New Moon; here, with regard to the mitzva of ritual fringes, which is merely a positive mitzva, is it not all the more so correct that letters can be relied on?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗诪专讬 讜讗讬转诪专 讘诪注专讘讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讜讜转讬 砖诪讗 讬拽专注 住讚讬谞讜 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 讜讬转驻专谞讜

Rather, Rava said: This is a statement that I said, and it was stated in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Zeira in accordance with my opinion: The reason for the rabbinic decree is lest one鈥檚 cloak rip within three fingerbreadths of the edge of the corner of the garment, which is where the ritual fringes are placed, and he sew it with linen string and then use the excess string for ritual fringes.

讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬

And in such a case the ritual fringes would be unfit because the Torah states: 鈥淵ou shall prepare yourself twisted cords鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:12), which teaches: Prepare it, and not from what has already been prepared. Consequently, the strings must be attached to the garment for the sake of the mitzva of ritual fringes. When the individual places the linen string there in order to stitch the garment and then decides to use it for the mitzva of ritual fringes and adds sky-blue wool strings, he does not fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes and violates the prohibition against wearing a garment of wool and linen.

砖专讗 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇住讚讬谞讬讛 专讘 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 讙讝讬专讛 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛

Because of this rabbinic decree, Rabbi Zeira untied the ritual fringes and removed them from his linen cloak. Rav Zeira said: The rabbinic decree prohibiting ritual fringes on a linen garment is also due to the concern that one might affix ritual fringes to a nighttime garment. Since the mitzva of ritual fringes does not apply in that case, if one wears the garment he would not fulfill the mitzva and would violate the prohibition against wearing a garment with wool and linen.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗诪专讬 讜讗讬转诪专 讘诪注专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讜讜转讬 讛讬讗 砖诇 讘讙讚 讜讻谞驻讬讛 砖诇 注讜专 讞讬讬讘转 讛讬讗 砖诇 注讜专 讜讻谞驻讬讛 砖诇 讘讙讚 驻讟讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讬拽专 讘讙讚 讘注讬谞谉

And Rava said: This is a statement that I said, and it was stated in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Zeira in accordance with my opinion: If a garment is made from cloth and its corners are made from leather, it is required to have ritual fringes. Conversely, if a cloak is made from leather and its corners are made from cloth, it is exempt from the mitzva of ritual fringes. What is the reason for this? We require that the main part of the garment be obligated, and a leather garment is not required to have ritual fringes.

专讘 讗讞讗讬 讗讝讬诇 讘转专 讻谞祝

The Gemara notes: Rav A岣i would follow the corner in determining whether the garment is required to have ritual fringes or not, because the Torah states: 鈥淥n the corners of their garments鈥 (Numbers 15:38).

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 住讞讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讟讬诇 诇讘注诇转 砖诇砖 讜讛砖诇讬诪讛 诇讗专讘注 驻住讜诇讛 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬

Rava says that Rav Se岣ra says that Rav Huna says: In a case where one affixed ritual fringes to a garment possessing only three corners, which is not required to have ritual fringes, and then completed its fourth corner by sewing on additional material or cutting away some of the material, the ritual fringes he attached to the original three corners are unfit. This is due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from what has already been prepared. Once the garment is required to have ritual fringes one may attach the ritual fringes; the strings that were attached before the garment was required to have them are not fit.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讞住讬讚讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讻讬讜谉 砖讗专讙讜 讘讛 砖诇砖 讛讬讜 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇讛 转讻诇转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 砖驻爪注讜 讘讛 砖诇砖 讛讬讜 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇讛 转讻诇转

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: It is told of the early generations of pious men that once they weaved three fingerbreadths of the length of the garment, they would affix the white and sky-blue strings to the first two corners, even though the garment was not yet long enough to be obligated to have ritual fringes. The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita should read as follows: Once they completed [shepatzu] the garment until there were only three fingerbreadths left to weave, they would affix the white and sky-blue strings to the first two corners.

讜诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 (讗讬谞讬) 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讟讬诇 诇诪讜讟诇转 讻砖专讛

The Gemara asks: And do we say: Prepare it, and not from what has already been prepared? Is that so that this principle disqualifies ritual fringes that one affixed to a garment before he was required to do so? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Zeira say: If one affixed ritual fringes to a garment that already had ritual fringes affixed to it and then removed the original strings, it is fit, despite the fact that when he attached the second set they were superfluous? This indicates that even if one attaches ritual fringes to a garment when there is no obligation to attach them, the ritual fringes are fit.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛砖转讗 讘讘诇 转讜住讬祝 拽讗讬 诪注砖讛 诇讗 讛讜讬

Rava said: This does not present a difficulty, because now that he adds a second, unnecessary set of ritual fringes and is liable for violating the prohibition of adding to a mitzva (see Deuteronomy 13:1), is it not considered an action?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讙讘专讗 诇讗讜住讜驻讬 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讚诇诪讗 诇讘讟讜诇讬 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讜讘诇 转讜住讬祝 诇讬讻讗 诪注砖讛 讗讬讻讗

Rav Pappa objects to this: From where is it known that Rabbi Zeira is discussing a case where the person intended to add to the original set of ritual fringes? Perhaps Rabbi Zeira is discussing a case where he intended to nullify the original strings, and therefore there is no prohibition of adding to a mitzva, and there is an action.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转讻诇转 讗讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讟诇讬转 驻讟讜专讛

With regard to the issue of affixing ritual fringes to a garment that already has ritual fringes, the Gemara relates: Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Mattana says that Shmuel says: White and sky-blue strings are not subject to the prohibition of diverse kinds, and this is the halakha even if they are affixed to a cloak that is exempt from ritual fringes.

诪讗讬 讟诇讬转 驻讟讜专讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 砖讬注讜专讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讟诇讬转 砖讛拽讟谉 诪转讻住讛 讘讜 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜

The Gemara asks: What is meant by: A cloak that is exempt from ritual fringes? If we say that it is referring to a cloak that is not of the size necessary to require the affixing of ritual fringes, that is difficult: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a cloak that is large enough for a minor to cover his head and most of his body with it,

Scroll To Top