This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree regarding the law of a sadin (a linen garment) in the context of tzitzit. While Beit Shammai exempts a linen garment from the obligation of tzitzit to avoid the prohibition of shaatnez (mixing wool and linen), Beit Hillel holds it is obligated. Their reasoning is based on the textual juxtaposition of the laws of shaatnez and tzitzit, which teaches that the positive commandment (aseh) of tzitzit overrides the negative prohibition (lo taaseh) of shaatnez. Although the halakha follows Beit Hillel, Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Tzadok testifies that anyone who attached tchelet (wool) to a linen garment in Jerusalem was viewed with wonder – as it caused onlookers to mistakenly believe shaatnez was generally permitted. Rabbi explains that the Sages eventually prohibited this practice because people did not know about the drasha permitting shaatnez and would come to think that shaatnez was permitted in general.
Since difficulties were raised against Rabbi’s explanation, Rava and Rabbi Zeira offer four alternative reasons for why the Sages prohibited wool tzitzit on linen garments:
- Decree of “kala ilan“: There is a concern that one might use a dye that looks like techelet but is not the authentic wool dyed with snail secretions. In such a case, the wearer violates the prohibition of shaatnez (wool and linen) without having fulfilled the mitzvah that allows it.
- Decree of “teima” (testing): A concern regarding the validity of the tzitzit – lest the techelet used was dyed during the “testing” of the color, which is invalid because it was not dyed specifically for the sake of the mitzva (lishma).
- Concern of “ta’aseh ve’lo min he-asui “: Rava and Rabbi Zera explain a concern that if the linen garment tears within three fingerbreadths of its edge, a person might sew it back up and leave the sewing threads to serve as tzitzit. This would be invalid because the Torah requires the mitzva to be actively made by attaching the strings to the garment, rather than utilizing threads that were already there for a different purpose.
- Decree of night garments: Since a garment worn exclusively at night is exempt from tzitzit, wearing wool strings on a linen night garment would constitute a shaatnez violation without any mitzva to permit it.
The Gemara discusses the definition of a garment obligated in tzitzit regarding a hybrid garment made of leather and fabric. Rava rules that we follow the primary material of the garment: if the body of the garment is fabric and the corners are leather, it is obligated; if the body is leather and the corners are fabric, it is exempt. Rav Achai disagrees, arguing that the status follows the material of the corners themselves.
Regarding the construction of the tzitzit, Rav Huna rules that if one attached tzitzit to a garment while it only had three corners and then completed the fourth corner afterward, the tzitzit is invalid due to “ta’aseh ve’lo min he-asui“ (Make it, and not from that which is already made). The Gemara challenges this from the practice of the early Chasidim who would attach techelet after weaving only three fingerbreadths of the garment (when only two corners were in existence). The Gemara resolves this by understanding the custom of the pious ones to be performed at the end, when there were only three fingerbreadths left to weave (when the four corners were already in existence).
The Gemara challenges the invalidation of “ta’aseh ve’lo min he-asui” based on Rabbi Zeira’s ruling, which validates attaching new tzitzit onto a garment that already has tzitzit (and then removing the old ones). Rava suggests that because of the prohibition of “bal tosif” (do not add to the mitzvot), the act of attaching the strings before the obligation exists is not considered a significant “act.” However, Rav Papa challenges Rava’s reasoning, explaining that it depends on human intent: if one intends to cancel the first set of strings and replace them with the new ones, it is considered a significant act. This raises the question: if intent makes it a valid act, why was the case of attaching tzitzit before the garment was finished invalid in light of Rabbi Zeira permitting the case of the extra strings?
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Menachot 40
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: סָדִין בְּצִיצִית – בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹטְרִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְחַיְּיבִין, וַהֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן רַבִּי צָדוֹק: וַהֲלֹא כׇּל הַמֵּטִיל תְּכֵלֶת בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִן הַמַּתְמִיהִין!
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?
אָמַר רַבִּי: אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה אֲסָרוּהָ? לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בַּר רַב חָנָא לְרָבָא: וְלִרְמוֹ בֵּי עַשְׂרָה וְנִפְּקוּ לְשׁוּקָא וּמִפַּרְסְמָא (למילתא) [מִילְּתָא]! כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּמַתְמְהוּ עִילָּוַן.
Rava bar Rav Ḥana 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.
וְלִידְרְשַׁהּ בְּפִירְקָא! גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם קָלָא אִילָן.
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 ḥilazon (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.
וְלֹא יְהֵא אֶלָּא לָבָן! כֵּיוָן דְּאֶפְשָׁר בְּמִינָן – לָא.
The Gemara suggests: Even if one’s 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.
כִּדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, אִם אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְקַיֵּים אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶם – מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו – יָבוֹא עֲשֵׂה וְיִדְחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
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.
וְלִיבְדְּקוּהָ, אֶלָּא גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם טְעִימָה.
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.
וְלִיכְתְּבָה אַדִּיסְקֵי! אַדִּיסְקֵי לֵיקוּם וְלִיסְמוֹךְ? אָמַר רָבָא: הַשְׁתָּא
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,
חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים דְּכָרֵת – סָמְכִינַן אַדִּיסְקֵי, הָכָא דַּעֲשֵׂה בְּעָלְמָא לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן!
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?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הָא מִילְּתָא אָמְרִי, וְאִיתְּמַר בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא כְּוָותִי: שֶׁמָּא יִקָּרַע סְדִינוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ וְיִתְפְּרֶנּוּ.
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’s 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.
וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״ – וְלֹא מִן הֶעָשׂוּי.
And in such a case the ritual fringes would be unfit because the Torah states: “You shall prepare yourself twisted cords” (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.
שְׁרָא רַבִּי זֵירָא לִסְדִינֵיהּ. רַב זֵירָא אָמַר: גְּזֵירָה נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם כְּסוּת לַיְלָה.
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.
וְאָמַר רָבָא: הָא מִילְּתָא אֲמַרִי, וְאִיתְּמַר בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא כְּוָותִי: הִיא שֶׁל בֶּגֶד וּכְנָפֶיהָ שֶׁל עוֹר – חַיֶּיבֶת, הִיא שֶׁל עוֹר וּכְנָפֶיהָ שֶׁל בֶּגֶד – פְּטוּרָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? עִיקַּר בֶּגֶד בָּעֵינַן.
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.
רַב אַחַאי אָזֵיל בָּתַר כָּנָף.
The Gemara notes: Rav Aḥai would follow the corner in determining whether the garment is required to have ritual fringes or not, because the Torah states: “On the corners of their garments” (Numbers 15:38).
אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב סְחוֹרָה אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הֵטִיל לְבַעֲלַת שָׁלֹשׁ, וְהִשְׁלִימָהּ לְאַרְבַּע – פְּסוּלָה, ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״ – וְלֹא מִן הֶעָשׂוּי.
§ Rava says that Rav Seḥora 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.
מֵיתִיבִי: חֲסִידִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָרְגוּ בָּהּ שָׁלֹשׁ, הָיוּ מְטִילִין לָהּ תְּכֵלֶת. אֵימָא: כֵּיוָן שֶׁפָּצְעוּ בָּהּ שָׁלֹשׁ, הָיוּ מְטִילִין לָהּ תְּכֵלֶת.
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.
וּמִי אָמְרִינַן ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״ – וְלֹא מִן הֶעָשׂוּי? (אִינִי), וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הֵטִיל לְמוּטֶּלֶת – כְּשֵׁרָה.
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’t 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.
אָמַר רָבָא: הַשְׁתָּא בְּ״בַל תּוֹסִיף״ קָאֵי, מַעֲשֶׂה לָא הָוֵי?
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?
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: מִמַּאי דְּגַבְרָא לְאוֹסוֹפֵי קָא מִיכַּוֵּין? דִּלְמָא לְבַטּוֹלֵי קָא מִיכַּוֵּין, וּ״בַל תּוֹסִיף״ לֵיכָּא, מַעֲשֶׂה אִיכָּא!
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב מַתְנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: תְּכֵלֶת אֵין בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם כִּלְאַיִם, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטַלִּית פְּטוּרָה.
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.
מַאי טַלִּית פְּטוּרָה? אִילֵּימָא דְּלֵית בַּהּ שִׁיעוּרָא, וְהָתַנְיָא: טַלִּית שֶׁהַקָּטָן מִתְכַּסֶּה בּוֹ רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ
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’t 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,
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.
Menachot Daf 38-44- Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
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.
Ontario, Canada
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
Los Angeles, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Bronx, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
Menachot 40
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: סָדִין בְּצִיצִית – בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹטְרִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְחַיְּיבִין, וַהֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן רַבִּי צָדוֹק: וַהֲלֹא כׇּל הַמֵּטִיל תְּכֵלֶת בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִן הַמַּתְמִיהִין!
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?
אָמַר רַבִּי: אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה אֲסָרוּהָ? לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בַּר רַב חָנָא לְרָבָא: וְלִרְמוֹ בֵּי עַשְׂרָה וְנִפְּקוּ לְשׁוּקָא וּמִפַּרְסְמָא (למילתא) [מִילְּתָא]! כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּמַתְמְהוּ עִילָּוַן.
Rava bar Rav Ḥana 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.
וְלִידְרְשַׁהּ בְּפִירְקָא! גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם קָלָא אִילָן.
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 ḥilazon (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.
וְלֹא יְהֵא אֶלָּא לָבָן! כֵּיוָן דְּאֶפְשָׁר בְּמִינָן – לָא.
The Gemara suggests: Even if one’s 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.
כִּדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, אִם אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְקַיֵּים אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶם – מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו – יָבוֹא עֲשֵׂה וְיִדְחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
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.
וְלִיבְדְּקוּהָ, אֶלָּא גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם טְעִימָה.
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.
וְלִיכְתְּבָה אַדִּיסְקֵי! אַדִּיסְקֵי לֵיקוּם וְלִיסְמוֹךְ? אָמַר רָבָא: הַשְׁתָּא
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,
חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים דְּכָרֵת – סָמְכִינַן אַדִּיסְקֵי, הָכָא דַּעֲשֵׂה בְּעָלְמָא לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן!
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?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הָא מִילְּתָא אָמְרִי, וְאִיתְּמַר בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא כְּוָותִי: שֶׁמָּא יִקָּרַע סְדִינוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ וְיִתְפְּרֶנּוּ.
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’s 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.
וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״ – וְלֹא מִן הֶעָשׂוּי.
And in such a case the ritual fringes would be unfit because the Torah states: “You shall prepare yourself twisted cords” (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.
שְׁרָא רַבִּי זֵירָא לִסְדִינֵיהּ. רַב זֵירָא אָמַר: גְּזֵירָה נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם כְּסוּת לַיְלָה.
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.
וְאָמַר רָבָא: הָא מִילְּתָא אֲמַרִי, וְאִיתְּמַר בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא כְּוָותִי: הִיא שֶׁל בֶּגֶד וּכְנָפֶיהָ שֶׁל עוֹר – חַיֶּיבֶת, הִיא שֶׁל עוֹר וּכְנָפֶיהָ שֶׁל בֶּגֶד – פְּטוּרָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? עִיקַּר בֶּגֶד בָּעֵינַן.
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.
רַב אַחַאי אָזֵיל בָּתַר כָּנָף.
The Gemara notes: Rav Aḥai would follow the corner in determining whether the garment is required to have ritual fringes or not, because the Torah states: “On the corners of their garments” (Numbers 15:38).
אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב סְחוֹרָה אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הֵטִיל לְבַעֲלַת שָׁלֹשׁ, וְהִשְׁלִימָהּ לְאַרְבַּע – פְּסוּלָה, ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״ – וְלֹא מִן הֶעָשׂוּי.
§ Rava says that Rav Seḥora 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.
מֵיתִיבִי: חֲסִידִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָרְגוּ בָּהּ שָׁלֹשׁ, הָיוּ מְטִילִין לָהּ תְּכֵלֶת. אֵימָא: כֵּיוָן שֶׁפָּצְעוּ בָּהּ שָׁלֹשׁ, הָיוּ מְטִילִין לָהּ תְּכֵלֶת.
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.
וּמִי אָמְרִינַן ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״ – וְלֹא מִן הֶעָשׂוּי? (אִינִי), וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הֵטִיל לְמוּטֶּלֶת – כְּשֵׁרָה.
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’t 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.
אָמַר רָבָא: הַשְׁתָּא בְּ״בַל תּוֹסִיף״ קָאֵי, מַעֲשֶׂה לָא הָוֵי?
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?
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: מִמַּאי דְּגַבְרָא לְאוֹסוֹפֵי קָא מִיכַּוֵּין? דִּלְמָא לְבַטּוֹלֵי קָא מִיכַּוֵּין, וּ״בַל תּוֹסִיף״ לֵיכָּא, מַעֲשֶׂה אִיכָּא!
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב מַתְנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: תְּכֵלֶת אֵין בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם כִּלְאַיִם, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטַלִּית פְּטוּרָה.
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.
מַאי טַלִּית פְּטוּרָה? אִילֵּימָא דְּלֵית בַּהּ שִׁיעוּרָא, וְהָתַנְיָא: טַלִּית שֶׁהַקָּטָן מִתְכַּסֶּה בּוֹ רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ
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’t 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,
