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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 20, 2018 | 讬状讗 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 41

If one has a long garment and folds it, does one need to put strings on the folded part?聽Is the obligation of tzitzit that all four cornered聽garments one owns should have tzitzit or is it an obligation only if one is wearing a four cornered聽garment, it must have tzitzit? Or does anyone hold (possibly an angel) that it is an obligation on a person to wear a four corenred聽garment, thus obligating him in tzitzit? Is one allowed to move strings from one pair of tzitzit to another?


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

讜讛讙讚讜诇 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讚专讱 注专讗讬 讞讬讬讘转 讘爪讬爪讬转 讗讬谉 讛拽讟谉 诪转讻住讛 讘讜 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讙讚讜诇 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 注专讗讬 驻讟讜专讛 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 讻诇讗讬诐

and an adult goes out in public on occasion while wearing it, it is required to have ritual fringes. But if it is not large enough for a minor to cover his head and most of his body with it, then even if an adult goes out in public on occasion while wearing it, it is exempt from ritual fringes. And so too with regard to diverse kinds, i.e., the prohibition against wearing wool and linen together.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 讻诇讗讬诐 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讻诇讗讬诐 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讗讬谉 注专讗讬 讘讻诇讗讬诐

And we discussed it: What is meant by: And so too with regard to diverse kinds? If we say that it means: And so too with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds, that if a minor could not cover the majority of his head and body with it, the prohibition of diverse kinds does not apply, that is difficult: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Kilayim 9:2): There is no exemption with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds for clothing that an adult would not wear even occasionally in public?

讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 住讚讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转

And Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says in explanation: Rather, the baraita means: And so too with regard to whether a linen cloak is required to have ritual fringes. If the cloak is large enough for a minor to cover his head and most of his body with it, then it requires ritual fringes, and wearing the garment with the ritual fringes is not a violation of the prohibition of diverse kinds. But if the garment is smaller than that, it is prohibited to place ritual fringes on it, due to the prohibition of diverse kinds. Therefore, one cannot explain Shmuel鈥檚 statement to mean that a cloak that is exempt from ritual fringes because it is too small is not subject to the prohibition of diverse kinds.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 驻讟讜专讛 讛讟讬诇 诇诪讜讟诇转

Rather, what is meant by the statement that a cloak that is exempt from ritual fringes is not subject to the prohibition of diverse kinds? It is referring to where one affixed ritual fringes to a garment that already had ritual fringes affixed to it. Even though the second set of ritual fringes is superfluous, nevertheless there is no violation of the prohibition of diverse kinds.

讜讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讞讚讗 诪讻诇诇 讚讞讘讬专转讛 讗讬转诪专

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Zeira already say this one time when he stated that if one attached ritual fringes to a garment that already had ritual fringes attached to it and he then removed the first set of strings, the garment is fit? The Gemara answers: One was stated from the other by inference, and Rabbi Zeira did not state both statements.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讟诇讬转 讻驻讜诇讛 讞讬讬讘转 讘爪讬爪讬转 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 讻驻诇讛 讜转驻专讛 砖讞讬讬讘转

The Sages taught in a baraita: A very long cloak that is folded in half is required to have ritual fringes at the fold. And Rabbi Shimon deems it exempt it from ritual fringes at the fold because that is not where the corners of the garment are located. And Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis agree that if he folded it and sewed it, it is required to have ritual fringes at the fold.

转驻专讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚谞拽讟讛 讘住讬讻讬

The Gemara challenges: If one sewed it, it is obvious that it is required to have ritual fringes at the fold. The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to state this halakha because it is referring to a case where he fastened it with pins rather than sewing it in the conventional manner.

专讘讛 讘专 讛讜谞讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讞讝讬讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诪讬讻住讬 讟诇讬转 讻驻讜诇讛 讜专诪讬 诇讬讛 讞讜讟讬 注讬诇讜讬 讻驻讬诇讗 讗讬驻砖讬讟讗 讜讗转讗 讞讜讟讗 讜拽诐 诇讛讚讬 专讬砖讬讛

The Gemara relates that Rabba bar Huna arrived at the house of Rava bar Rav Na岣an, and he saw that Rava bar Rav Na岣an was wearing a cloak that was folded and that he had affixed strings to it on the corners of the fold. The cloak unfolded, and the string that had been on the corner of the fold now came and settled near his head, i.e., in the middle of the cloak, as the two sides of the cloak were in the front and back of Rava bar Rav Na岣an.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讻谞祝 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗转讗 砖讚讬讬讛 讗讬讻住讬 讙诇讬诪讗 讗讞专讬转讬

Rabba bar Huna said to Rava bar Rav Na岣an: This is not the corner of the garment that the Merciful One writes about in the Torah. Rava bar Rav Na岣an went and threw it off, and he covered himself with a different cloak.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 住讘专转 讞讜讘转 讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 讞讜讘转 讟诇讬转 讛讜讗 讝讬诇 专诪讬 诇讛

Rabba bar Huna said to Rava bar Rav Na岣an: Do you hold that ritual fringes are an obligation incumbent upon the man? That is not so. Rather, it is an obligation that pertains to every cloak that one owns. Therefore, go and affix ritual fringes to it properly.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 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 讘讛 转讻诇转 砖讗谞讬 讞住讬讚讬诐 讚诪讞诪专讬 讗谞驻砖讬讬讛讜

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a baraita supports the opinion of Rabba bar Huna: 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 ready to be worn. This seems to prove that there is an obligation to affix ritual fringes to all the cloaks in one鈥檚 possession, even if he is not currently wearing them. The Gemara rejects this proof: The pious men were different, as they would act stringently with themselves. Therefore, one cannot adduce the actual requirement from their behavior.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚诪诇讗讻讗 讚诪诇讗讻讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讚诪讬讻住讬 住讚讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讟讬谞讗 拽讟讬谞讗 住讚讬谞讗 讘拽讬讬讟讗 讜住专讘诇讗 讘住讬转讜讗 爪讬爪讬转 砖诇 转讻诇转 诪讛 转讛讗 注诇讬讛

The Gemara notes that this disagrees with what an angel said. As an angel found Rav Ketina when he was wearing a linen cloak, which is exempt from ritual fringes. The angel said to him: Ketina, Ketina, if you wear a linen cloak in the summer and a coat [sarbela], which has only two corners and is therefore also exempt from ritual fringes, in the winter, what will become of the ritual fringes of sky-blue wool? As a result, you will never fulfill the mitzva.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注谞砖讬转讜 讗注砖讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讝诪谉 讚讗讬讻讗 专讬转讞讗 注谞砖讬谞谉

Rav Ketina said to him: Do you punish us even for failing to fulfill a positive mitzva? The angel said to him: At a time when there is divine anger and judgment, we punish even for the failure to fulfill a positive mitzva.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讞讜讘转 讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讚诇讗 拽讗 专诪讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讜讘转 讟诇讬转 讛讜讗 讛讗 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘讗

The Gemara attempts to draw conclusions from the statement of the angel: Granted, if you say that the mitzva of ritual fringes is an obligation incumbent upon the man, that is why Rav Ketina would be deemed liable at a time of divine anger, as he did not affix ritual fringes to his cloak and thereby neglected the obligation incumbent upon him. But if you say that it is an obligation to attach them to every cloak that one owns, since Rav Ketina鈥檚 cloaks were not required to have ritual fringes, he was not obligated to attach ritual fringes to them. Why should he be punished in a time of divine anger?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讞讜讘转 讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 谞讛讬 讚讞讬讬讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讻讬 诪讬讻住讬 讟诇讬转 讚讘转 讞讬讜讘讗 讻讬 诪讬讻住讬 讟诇讬转 讚诇讗讜 讘转 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讬讗 诪讬 讞讬讬讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗

The Gemara responds: Rather, what should one assume, that it is an obligation incumbent upon the man? Even so, granted that the Merciful One rendered him obligated when he is wearing a cloak that has four corners and is therefore subject to the obligation of ritual fringes, but when he is wearing a cloak that is not subject to the obligation of ritual fringes, did the Merciful One deem him obligated?

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讟爪讚拽讬 诇诪讬驻讟专 谞驻砖讱 诪爪讬爪讬转

Rather, this is what the angel is saying to Rav Ketina: Are you seeking ploys [tatzdeki] to exempt yourself from performing the mitzva of ritual fringes?

讗诪专 专讘 讟讜讘讬 讘专 拽讬住谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇讬 拽讜驻住讗 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转 讜诪讜讚讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讝拽谉 砖注砖讗讛 诇讻讘讜讚讜 砖驻讟讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗砖专 转讻住讛 讘讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讛讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗讬讻住讜讬讬 注讘讬讚讗

Rav Tovi bar Kisna says that Shmuel says: Garments that are not being worn but are stored in a box are required to have ritual fringes, because the mitzva pertains to the garment, not the man. But Shmuel concedes in the case of an old man, where the garment was made as a shroud in his honor, that the shroud is exempt. What is the reason for this? The Merciful One states in the Torah that one must place ritual fringes on the corners of garments 鈥渨ith which you cover yourself鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:12). This shroud is not made for the purpose of covering oneself.

讘讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讜讚讗讬 专诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 诇注讙 诇专砖 讞专祝 注砖讛讜

The Gemara comments: At that time, i.e., a person鈥檚 burial, we certainly affix ritual fringes to the shroud, because otherwise it would be a violation of: 鈥淲hoever mocks the poor blasphemes his Maker鈥 (Proverbs 17:5). If we did not place them, it would be mocking the deceased, as if to taunt him that now he is no longer obligated in mitzvot.

讗诪专 专讞讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讟诇讬转 砖谞拽专注讛 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 讬转驻讜专 转讜讱 砖诇砖 诇讗 讬转驻讜专

Ra岣va says that Rabbi Yehuda says: In the case of a cloak that became torn at one of its corners, if it was torn beyond three fingerbreadths from the edge of the garment, one may sew it. But if it was torn within three fingerbreadths of the edge of the garment, then one may not sew it. There is a concern that he might use the thread with which he sewed the garment for the ritual fringes, in which case the strings would be unfit due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from what has already been prepared.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讟诇讬转 砖谞拽专注讛 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 讬转驻讜专 转讜讱 砖诇砖 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬转驻讜专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬转驻讜专

The Gemara comments: This halakha is also taught in a baraita: In the case of a cloak that became torn at one of its corners, if it was torn beyond three fingerbreadths from the edge of the garment, one may sew it. But if it was torn within three fingerbreadths of the edge of the garment, Rabbi Meir says: One may not sew it. And the Rabbis say: One may sew it.

讜砖讜讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪讛 注诇 讗诪讛 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜讘讛 转讻诇转 讜转讜诇讛 讘讛 讜砖讜讬谉 砖诪讘讬讗 转讻诇转 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜转讜诇讛 讘讛

And Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis agree that one may not bring a piece of cloth, even if it is a square cubit in size, from elsewhere, containing white and sky-blue strings, and attach it to a cloak. This is because one must attach the ritual fringes directly to the corner of the garment, rather than attaching them to a piece of cloth and then attaching that cloth to the garment. And Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis also agree that one may bring white or sky-blue strings from elsewhere and attach them to the garment, i.e., one may remove strings from one garment in order to attach them to another garment.

讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 转讛讗 诪讜驻住拽转 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 诪转讬专讬谉 诪讘讙讚 诇讘讙讚 讚讬诇诪讗 讚讗讬 讘诇讗讬

This is permitted provided that the strings are not broken. The Gemara asks: Should one conclude from this baraita that it is always permitted to untie ritual fringes from one garment in order to affix them to another garment? The Gemara rejects this inference: Perhaps the ruling of this baraita applies only if the first garment was worn out and no longer wearable.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讟诇讬转 砖讻讜诇讛 转讻诇转 讻诇 诪讬谞讬 爪讘注讜谞讬谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 讘讛 讞讜抓 诪拽诇讗 讗讬诇谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a cloak that is made entirely of sky-blue wool, strings of every type of color exempt it, i.e., the ritual fringes that are not tekhelet may be any color except for indigo, a color that is indistinguishable from tekhelet. This indicates that if one attached strings dyed with indigo alongside the strings dyed with tekhelet, the ritual fringes are unfit.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讟诇讬转 讗讬谉 驻讜讟专 讘讛 讗诇讗 诪讬谞讛 讟诇讬转 砖讻讜诇讛 转讻诇转 诪讘讬讗 转讻诇转 讜讚讘专 讗讞专 讜转讜诇讛 讘讛 讜拽诇讗 讗讬诇谉 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讜讗诐 讛讘讬讗 讻砖专

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A cloak is exempted only by strings of its own type. In the case of a cloak that is made entirely of sky-blue wool, one brings sky-blue [tekhelet] strings and something else, i.e., strings of a different color, and attaches them to the cloak. And he may not bring strings dyed with indigo along with the strings dyed with tekhelet. But if he brought strings dyed with indigo together with the strings dyed with tekhelet, the ritual fringes are fit.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讟诇讬转 讘转 讗专讘注讛 讞讜讟讬谉 讻讗谉 讘讟诇讬转 讘转 砖诪讜谞讛 讞讜讟讬谉

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: This is not difficult, because here, in the baraita that holds that the ritual fringes are fit after the fact, it is referring to a cloak that has only four strings, two of tekhelet and two of indigo. There, in the baraita that holds that the ritual fringes are unfit after the fact, it is referring to a cloak that has eight strings, four of tekhelet and four of indigo. In this case, the Sages were concerned that one would take the four indigo strings from this garment and use them in another garment, thinking that they were tekhelet.

砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 诪转讬专讬谉 诪讘讙讚 诇讘讙讚 讚诇诪讗 讚讗讬 注讘讚

The Gemara asks: Should you conclude from the fact that the Sages were concerned lest one take the indigo strings from this garment for use in another garment that in general one may untie ritual fringes from one garment in order to affix them to another garment? The Gemara responds: Perhaps their concern was that if one did transfer the strings, he might mistake indigo for tekhelet, but it is not permitted to transfer the strings ab initio.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪转讬专讬谉 诪讘讙讚 诇讘讙讚 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪转讬专讬谉 诪讘讙讚 诇讘讙讚

It was stated that there is a dispute between amora鈥檌m with regard to this halakha. Rav says: One may not untie ritual fringes from one garment in order to affix them to another garment. And Shmuel says: One may untie them from one garment and affix them to another garment.

专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪谞专 诇谞专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪谞专 诇谞专

The Gemara cites additional disputes between Rav and Shmuel: Rav says: One may not light from one Hanukkah lamp to another Hanukkah lamp. And Shmuel says: One may light from one Hanukkah lamp to another Hanukkah lamp.

专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讙专讬专讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讙专讬专讛

Rabbi Shimon rules that it is permitted to drag items on Shabbat despite the possibility that one might thereby create a furrow in the ground. Creating a furrow is a labor prohibited on Shabbat, but since he does not intend to create the furrow, and it is not certain that a furrow will be created, dragging the item is permitted. Rav says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to dragging items on Shabbat. And Shmuel says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to dragging items on Shabbat.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚诪专 注讘讬讚 讻专讘 诇讘专 诪讛谞讬 转诇转 讚注讘讬讚 讻砖诪讜讗诇 诪转讬专讬谉 诪讘讙讚 诇讘讙讚 讜诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪谞专 诇谞专 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讙专讬专讛

Abaye said: In all halakhic matters of the Master, Rabba, he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Rav, except these three where he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. He ruled that one may untie ritual fringes from one garment in order to affix them to another garment, and one may light from one Hanukkah lamp to another Hanukkah lamp, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to dragging items on Shabbat.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讙讜专专 讗讚诐 诪讟讛 讻住讗 讜住驻住诇 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讞专讬抓

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: A person may drag a bed, chair, or bench on the ground on Shabbat, provided that he does not intend to make a furrow in the ground. Even if a furrow is formed inadvertently, one does not need to be concerned.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪住专 诇讬讛 诇拽爪专讗 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 注讘讬讚 诇讛 住讬住讗 专讘讬谞讗 讞讬讬讟 诇讛讜 诪讬讞讟

The Gemara relates that Rav Yehuda would give his garments containing ritual fringes to a laundryman and was not concerned that the strings dyed with tekhelet might become detached and that the laundryman would replace them with strings dyed with indigo. Rav 岣nina would form a bundle with his ritual fringes so that they would not become detached while they were being laundered. Ravina would tuck them into a pocket he formed on the garment and sew the cover of the pocket in order to protect the ritual fringes.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诪讛 讞讜讟讬谉 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗专讘注讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇砖讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: How many strings does one place on a garment? Beit Shammai say: Four strings are inserted into the hole in the garment, so that there are eight strings hanging down altogether, and Beit Hillel say: Three strings are inserted into the garment.

讜讻诪讛 转讛讗 诪砖讜诇砖转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗专讘注 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇砖 讜砖诇砖 砖讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 诪讗专讘注 讘讟驻讞 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讟驻讞 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗专讘注 讘讙讜讚诇 砖讬转 讘拽讟谞讛 讞诪砖 讘转讬诇转讗

And how much should be hanging [meshulleshet] beyond the knots and windings? Beit Shammai say: Four fingerbreadths, and Beit Hillel say: Three fingerbreadths. And the three fingerbreadths that Beit Hillel say should be hanging are each one-fourth of a handbreadth [tefa岣] of any average person. The Gemara notes that Rav Pappa said: The handbreadth of the Torah is four fingerbreadths if measured by the thumb; six fingerbreadths if measured by the smallest finger; and five if measured by the third, i.e., the middle, finger.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗专讘注讛 讘转讜讱 讗专讘注 讜诪砖讜诇砖转 讗专讘注 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诇砖讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 诪砖讜诇砖转 砖诇砖

Rav Huna says that the halakha is: One must attach four strings within four fingerbreadths of the edge of the garment, and they should hang down four fingerbreadths beyond the knots and windings. And Rav Yehuda says: One must attach three strings within three fingerbreadths of the edge of the garment, and they should hang down three fingerbreadths beyond the knots and windings.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗专讘注讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 诪砖讜诇砖转 讗专讘注

Rav Pappa says that the halakha is that one must attach four strings within three fingerbreadths of the edge of the garment, and they should hang down four fingerbreadths beyond the knots and windings.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 砖讬注讜专讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 爪讬爪讬转 讗讬谉 爪讬爪讬转 讗诇讗 讬讜爪讗 讜讗讬谉 爪讬爪讬转 讗诇讗 诪砖讛讜 讜讻讘专 注诇讜 讝拽谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讝拽谞讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇注诇讬讬转 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讜讗诪专讜 爪讬爪讬转 讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讬注讜专 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 诇讜诇讘 讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讬注讜专

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that ritual fringes have a required measure? And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭hat they prepare for themselves strings鈥 (Numbers 15:38). Strings are nothing other than what emerges from the corner of the garment, and the term strings indicates only that there must be strings of any length. And it already occurred that the elders of Beit Shammai and the elders of Beit Hillel ascended to the attic of Yo岣nan ben Beteira, and they discussed the matter and said: Ritual fringes have no measure. Similarly, a lulav has no measure.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讬注讜专 讻诇诇 诇讗

What, does this not mean that ritual fringes have no required measure at all? The Gemara answers: No,

  • 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 41

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 41

讜讛讙讚讜诇 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讚专讱 注专讗讬 讞讬讬讘转 讘爪讬爪讬转 讗讬谉 讛拽讟谉 诪转讻住讛 讘讜 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讙讚讜诇 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 注专讗讬 驻讟讜专讛 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 讻诇讗讬诐

and an adult goes out in public on occasion while wearing it, it is required to have ritual fringes. But if it is not large enough for a minor to cover his head and most of his body with it, then even if an adult goes out in public on occasion while wearing it, it is exempt from ritual fringes. And so too with regard to diverse kinds, i.e., the prohibition against wearing wool and linen together.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 讻诇讗讬诐 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讻诇讗讬诐 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讗讬谉 注专讗讬 讘讻诇讗讬诐

And we discussed it: What is meant by: And so too with regard to diverse kinds? If we say that it means: And so too with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds, that if a minor could not cover the majority of his head and body with it, the prohibition of diverse kinds does not apply, that is difficult: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Kilayim 9:2): There is no exemption with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds for clothing that an adult would not wear even occasionally in public?

讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 住讚讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转

And Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says in explanation: Rather, the baraita means: And so too with regard to whether a linen cloak is required to have ritual fringes. If the cloak is large enough for a minor to cover his head and most of his body with it, then it requires ritual fringes, and wearing the garment with the ritual fringes is not a violation of the prohibition of diverse kinds. But if the garment is smaller than that, it is prohibited to place ritual fringes on it, due to the prohibition of diverse kinds. Therefore, one cannot explain Shmuel鈥檚 statement to mean that a cloak that is exempt from ritual fringes because it is too small is not subject to the prohibition of diverse kinds.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 驻讟讜专讛 讛讟讬诇 诇诪讜讟诇转

Rather, what is meant by the statement that a cloak that is exempt from ritual fringes is not subject to the prohibition of diverse kinds? It is referring to where one affixed ritual fringes to a garment that already had ritual fringes affixed to it. Even though the second set of ritual fringes is superfluous, nevertheless there is no violation of the prohibition of diverse kinds.

讜讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讞讚讗 诪讻诇诇 讚讞讘讬专转讛 讗讬转诪专

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Zeira already say this one time when he stated that if one attached ritual fringes to a garment that already had ritual fringes attached to it and he then removed the first set of strings, the garment is fit? The Gemara answers: One was stated from the other by inference, and Rabbi Zeira did not state both statements.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讟诇讬转 讻驻讜诇讛 讞讬讬讘转 讘爪讬爪讬转 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 讻驻诇讛 讜转驻专讛 砖讞讬讬讘转

The Sages taught in a baraita: A very long cloak that is folded in half is required to have ritual fringes at the fold. And Rabbi Shimon deems it exempt it from ritual fringes at the fold because that is not where the corners of the garment are located. And Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis agree that if he folded it and sewed it, it is required to have ritual fringes at the fold.

转驻专讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚谞拽讟讛 讘住讬讻讬

The Gemara challenges: If one sewed it, it is obvious that it is required to have ritual fringes at the fold. The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to state this halakha because it is referring to a case where he fastened it with pins rather than sewing it in the conventional manner.

专讘讛 讘专 讛讜谞讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讞讝讬讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诪讬讻住讬 讟诇讬转 讻驻讜诇讛 讜专诪讬 诇讬讛 讞讜讟讬 注讬诇讜讬 讻驻讬诇讗 讗讬驻砖讬讟讗 讜讗转讗 讞讜讟讗 讜拽诐 诇讛讚讬 专讬砖讬讛

The Gemara relates that Rabba bar Huna arrived at the house of Rava bar Rav Na岣an, and he saw that Rava bar Rav Na岣an was wearing a cloak that was folded and that he had affixed strings to it on the corners of the fold. The cloak unfolded, and the string that had been on the corner of the fold now came and settled near his head, i.e., in the middle of the cloak, as the two sides of the cloak were in the front and back of Rava bar Rav Na岣an.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讻谞祝 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗转讗 砖讚讬讬讛 讗讬讻住讬 讙诇讬诪讗 讗讞专讬转讬

Rabba bar Huna said to Rava bar Rav Na岣an: This is not the corner of the garment that the Merciful One writes about in the Torah. Rava bar Rav Na岣an went and threw it off, and he covered himself with a different cloak.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 住讘专转 讞讜讘转 讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 讞讜讘转 讟诇讬转 讛讜讗 讝讬诇 专诪讬 诇讛

Rabba bar Huna said to Rava bar Rav Na岣an: Do you hold that ritual fringes are an obligation incumbent upon the man? That is not so. Rather, it is an obligation that pertains to every cloak that one owns. Therefore, go and affix ritual fringes to it properly.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 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 讘讛 转讻诇转 砖讗谞讬 讞住讬讚讬诐 讚诪讞诪专讬 讗谞驻砖讬讬讛讜

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a baraita supports the opinion of Rabba bar Huna: 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 ready to be worn. This seems to prove that there is an obligation to affix ritual fringes to all the cloaks in one鈥檚 possession, even if he is not currently wearing them. The Gemara rejects this proof: The pious men were different, as they would act stringently with themselves. Therefore, one cannot adduce the actual requirement from their behavior.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚诪诇讗讻讗 讚诪诇讗讻讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讚诪讬讻住讬 住讚讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讟讬谞讗 拽讟讬谞讗 住讚讬谞讗 讘拽讬讬讟讗 讜住专讘诇讗 讘住讬转讜讗 爪讬爪讬转 砖诇 转讻诇转 诪讛 转讛讗 注诇讬讛

The Gemara notes that this disagrees with what an angel said. As an angel found Rav Ketina when he was wearing a linen cloak, which is exempt from ritual fringes. The angel said to him: Ketina, Ketina, if you wear a linen cloak in the summer and a coat [sarbela], which has only two corners and is therefore also exempt from ritual fringes, in the winter, what will become of the ritual fringes of sky-blue wool? As a result, you will never fulfill the mitzva.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注谞砖讬转讜 讗注砖讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讝诪谉 讚讗讬讻讗 专讬转讞讗 注谞砖讬谞谉

Rav Ketina said to him: Do you punish us even for failing to fulfill a positive mitzva? The angel said to him: At a time when there is divine anger and judgment, we punish even for the failure to fulfill a positive mitzva.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讞讜讘转 讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讚诇讗 拽讗 专诪讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讜讘转 讟诇讬转 讛讜讗 讛讗 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘讗

The Gemara attempts to draw conclusions from the statement of the angel: Granted, if you say that the mitzva of ritual fringes is an obligation incumbent upon the man, that is why Rav Ketina would be deemed liable at a time of divine anger, as he did not affix ritual fringes to his cloak and thereby neglected the obligation incumbent upon him. But if you say that it is an obligation to attach them to every cloak that one owns, since Rav Ketina鈥檚 cloaks were not required to have ritual fringes, he was not obligated to attach ritual fringes to them. Why should he be punished in a time of divine anger?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讞讜讘转 讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 谞讛讬 讚讞讬讬讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讻讬 诪讬讻住讬 讟诇讬转 讚讘转 讞讬讜讘讗 讻讬 诪讬讻住讬 讟诇讬转 讚诇讗讜 讘转 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讬讗 诪讬 讞讬讬讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗

The Gemara responds: Rather, what should one assume, that it is an obligation incumbent upon the man? Even so, granted that the Merciful One rendered him obligated when he is wearing a cloak that has four corners and is therefore subject to the obligation of ritual fringes, but when he is wearing a cloak that is not subject to the obligation of ritual fringes, did the Merciful One deem him obligated?

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讟爪讚拽讬 诇诪讬驻讟专 谞驻砖讱 诪爪讬爪讬转

Rather, this is what the angel is saying to Rav Ketina: Are you seeking ploys [tatzdeki] to exempt yourself from performing the mitzva of ritual fringes?

讗诪专 专讘 讟讜讘讬 讘专 拽讬住谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇讬 拽讜驻住讗 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转 讜诪讜讚讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讝拽谉 砖注砖讗讛 诇讻讘讜讚讜 砖驻讟讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗砖专 转讻住讛 讘讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讛讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗讬讻住讜讬讬 注讘讬讚讗

Rav Tovi bar Kisna says that Shmuel says: Garments that are not being worn but are stored in a box are required to have ritual fringes, because the mitzva pertains to the garment, not the man. But Shmuel concedes in the case of an old man, where the garment was made as a shroud in his honor, that the shroud is exempt. What is the reason for this? The Merciful One states in the Torah that one must place ritual fringes on the corners of garments 鈥渨ith which you cover yourself鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:12). This shroud is not made for the purpose of covering oneself.

讘讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讜讚讗讬 专诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 诇注讙 诇专砖 讞专祝 注砖讛讜

The Gemara comments: At that time, i.e., a person鈥檚 burial, we certainly affix ritual fringes to the shroud, because otherwise it would be a violation of: 鈥淲hoever mocks the poor blasphemes his Maker鈥 (Proverbs 17:5). If we did not place them, it would be mocking the deceased, as if to taunt him that now he is no longer obligated in mitzvot.

讗诪专 专讞讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讟诇讬转 砖谞拽专注讛 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 讬转驻讜专 转讜讱 砖诇砖 诇讗 讬转驻讜专

Ra岣va says that Rabbi Yehuda says: In the case of a cloak that became torn at one of its corners, if it was torn beyond three fingerbreadths from the edge of the garment, one may sew it. But if it was torn within three fingerbreadths of the edge of the garment, then one may not sew it. There is a concern that he might use the thread with which he sewed the garment for the ritual fringes, in which case the strings would be unfit due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from what has already been prepared.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讟诇讬转 砖谞拽专注讛 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 讬转驻讜专 转讜讱 砖诇砖 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬转驻讜专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬转驻讜专

The Gemara comments: This halakha is also taught in a baraita: In the case of a cloak that became torn at one of its corners, if it was torn beyond three fingerbreadths from the edge of the garment, one may sew it. But if it was torn within three fingerbreadths of the edge of the garment, Rabbi Meir says: One may not sew it. And the Rabbis say: One may sew it.

讜砖讜讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪讛 注诇 讗诪讛 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜讘讛 转讻诇转 讜转讜诇讛 讘讛 讜砖讜讬谉 砖诪讘讬讗 转讻诇转 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜转讜诇讛 讘讛

And Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis agree that one may not bring a piece of cloth, even if it is a square cubit in size, from elsewhere, containing white and sky-blue strings, and attach it to a cloak. This is because one must attach the ritual fringes directly to the corner of the garment, rather than attaching them to a piece of cloth and then attaching that cloth to the garment. And Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis also agree that one may bring white or sky-blue strings from elsewhere and attach them to the garment, i.e., one may remove strings from one garment in order to attach them to another garment.

讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 转讛讗 诪讜驻住拽转 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 诪转讬专讬谉 诪讘讙讚 诇讘讙讚 讚讬诇诪讗 讚讗讬 讘诇讗讬

This is permitted provided that the strings are not broken. The Gemara asks: Should one conclude from this baraita that it is always permitted to untie ritual fringes from one garment in order to affix them to another garment? The Gemara rejects this inference: Perhaps the ruling of this baraita applies only if the first garment was worn out and no longer wearable.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讟诇讬转 砖讻讜诇讛 转讻诇转 讻诇 诪讬谞讬 爪讘注讜谞讬谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 讘讛 讞讜抓 诪拽诇讗 讗讬诇谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a cloak that is made entirely of sky-blue wool, strings of every type of color exempt it, i.e., the ritual fringes that are not tekhelet may be any color except for indigo, a color that is indistinguishable from tekhelet. This indicates that if one attached strings dyed with indigo alongside the strings dyed with tekhelet, the ritual fringes are unfit.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讟诇讬转 讗讬谉 驻讜讟专 讘讛 讗诇讗 诪讬谞讛 讟诇讬转 砖讻讜诇讛 转讻诇转 诪讘讬讗 转讻诇转 讜讚讘专 讗讞专 讜转讜诇讛 讘讛 讜拽诇讗 讗讬诇谉 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讜讗诐 讛讘讬讗 讻砖专

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A cloak is exempted only by strings of its own type. In the case of a cloak that is made entirely of sky-blue wool, one brings sky-blue [tekhelet] strings and something else, i.e., strings of a different color, and attaches them to the cloak. And he may not bring strings dyed with indigo along with the strings dyed with tekhelet. But if he brought strings dyed with indigo together with the strings dyed with tekhelet, the ritual fringes are fit.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讟诇讬转 讘转 讗专讘注讛 讞讜讟讬谉 讻讗谉 讘讟诇讬转 讘转 砖诪讜谞讛 讞讜讟讬谉

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: This is not difficult, because here, in the baraita that holds that the ritual fringes are fit after the fact, it is referring to a cloak that has only four strings, two of tekhelet and two of indigo. There, in the baraita that holds that the ritual fringes are unfit after the fact, it is referring to a cloak that has eight strings, four of tekhelet and four of indigo. In this case, the Sages were concerned that one would take the four indigo strings from this garment and use them in another garment, thinking that they were tekhelet.

砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 诪转讬专讬谉 诪讘讙讚 诇讘讙讚 讚诇诪讗 讚讗讬 注讘讚

The Gemara asks: Should you conclude from the fact that the Sages were concerned lest one take the indigo strings from this garment for use in another garment that in general one may untie ritual fringes from one garment in order to affix them to another garment? The Gemara responds: Perhaps their concern was that if one did transfer the strings, he might mistake indigo for tekhelet, but it is not permitted to transfer the strings ab initio.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪转讬专讬谉 诪讘讙讚 诇讘讙讚 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪转讬专讬谉 诪讘讙讚 诇讘讙讚

It was stated that there is a dispute between amora鈥檌m with regard to this halakha. Rav says: One may not untie ritual fringes from one garment in order to affix them to another garment. And Shmuel says: One may untie them from one garment and affix them to another garment.

专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪谞专 诇谞专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪谞专 诇谞专

The Gemara cites additional disputes between Rav and Shmuel: Rav says: One may not light from one Hanukkah lamp to another Hanukkah lamp. And Shmuel says: One may light from one Hanukkah lamp to another Hanukkah lamp.

专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讙专讬专讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讙专讬专讛

Rabbi Shimon rules that it is permitted to drag items on Shabbat despite the possibility that one might thereby create a furrow in the ground. Creating a furrow is a labor prohibited on Shabbat, but since he does not intend to create the furrow, and it is not certain that a furrow will be created, dragging the item is permitted. Rav says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to dragging items on Shabbat. And Shmuel says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to dragging items on Shabbat.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚诪专 注讘讬讚 讻专讘 诇讘专 诪讛谞讬 转诇转 讚注讘讬讚 讻砖诪讜讗诇 诪转讬专讬谉 诪讘讙讚 诇讘讙讚 讜诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪谞专 诇谞专 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讙专讬专讛

Abaye said: In all halakhic matters of the Master, Rabba, he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Rav, except these three where he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. He ruled that one may untie ritual fringes from one garment in order to affix them to another garment, and one may light from one Hanukkah lamp to another Hanukkah lamp, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to dragging items on Shabbat.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讙讜专专 讗讚诐 诪讟讛 讻住讗 讜住驻住诇 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讞专讬抓

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: A person may drag a bed, chair, or bench on the ground on Shabbat, provided that he does not intend to make a furrow in the ground. Even if a furrow is formed inadvertently, one does not need to be concerned.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪住专 诇讬讛 诇拽爪专讗 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 注讘讬讚 诇讛 住讬住讗 专讘讬谞讗 讞讬讬讟 诇讛讜 诪讬讞讟

The Gemara relates that Rav Yehuda would give his garments containing ritual fringes to a laundryman and was not concerned that the strings dyed with tekhelet might become detached and that the laundryman would replace them with strings dyed with indigo. Rav 岣nina would form a bundle with his ritual fringes so that they would not become detached while they were being laundered. Ravina would tuck them into a pocket he formed on the garment and sew the cover of the pocket in order to protect the ritual fringes.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诪讛 讞讜讟讬谉 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗专讘注讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇砖讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: How many strings does one place on a garment? Beit Shammai say: Four strings are inserted into the hole in the garment, so that there are eight strings hanging down altogether, and Beit Hillel say: Three strings are inserted into the garment.

讜讻诪讛 转讛讗 诪砖讜诇砖转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗专讘注 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇砖 讜砖诇砖 砖讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 诪讗专讘注 讘讟驻讞 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讟驻讞 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗专讘注 讘讙讜讚诇 砖讬转 讘拽讟谞讛 讞诪砖 讘转讬诇转讗

And how much should be hanging [meshulleshet] beyond the knots and windings? Beit Shammai say: Four fingerbreadths, and Beit Hillel say: Three fingerbreadths. And the three fingerbreadths that Beit Hillel say should be hanging are each one-fourth of a handbreadth [tefa岣] of any average person. The Gemara notes that Rav Pappa said: The handbreadth of the Torah is four fingerbreadths if measured by the thumb; six fingerbreadths if measured by the smallest finger; and five if measured by the third, i.e., the middle, finger.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗专讘注讛 讘转讜讱 讗专讘注 讜诪砖讜诇砖转 讗专讘注 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诇砖讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 诪砖讜诇砖转 砖诇砖

Rav Huna says that the halakha is: One must attach four strings within four fingerbreadths of the edge of the garment, and they should hang down four fingerbreadths beyond the knots and windings. And Rav Yehuda says: One must attach three strings within three fingerbreadths of the edge of the garment, and they should hang down three fingerbreadths beyond the knots and windings.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗专讘注讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 诪砖讜诇砖转 讗专讘注

Rav Pappa says that the halakha is that one must attach four strings within three fingerbreadths of the edge of the garment, and they should hang down four fingerbreadths beyond the knots and windings.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 砖讬注讜专讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 爪讬爪讬转 讗讬谉 爪讬爪讬转 讗诇讗 讬讜爪讗 讜讗讬谉 爪讬爪讬转 讗诇讗 诪砖讛讜 讜讻讘专 注诇讜 讝拽谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讝拽谞讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇注诇讬讬转 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讜讗诪专讜 爪讬爪讬转 讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讬注讜专 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 诇讜诇讘 讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讬注讜专

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that ritual fringes have a required measure? And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭hat they prepare for themselves strings鈥 (Numbers 15:38). Strings are nothing other than what emerges from the corner of the garment, and the term strings indicates only that there must be strings of any length. And it already occurred that the elders of Beit Shammai and the elders of Beit Hillel ascended to the attic of Yo岣nan ben Beteira, and they discussed the matter and said: Ritual fringes have no measure. Similarly, a lulav has no measure.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讬注讜专 讻诇诇 诇讗

What, does this not mean that ritual fringes have no required measure at all? The Gemara answers: No,

Scroll To Top