Menachot 38b (לח:) — the Talmud in English

If you say that he forfeited the mitzva of white,

because he delayed the white,

and fulfilled the mitzva of sky blue,

that cannot be said, since

according to Rabbi, they are indispensable

—the white and the sky blue—

to one another.

And if he did not fulfill the mitzva of white, why has he fulfilled the mitzva of sky blue?

Rather,

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav,

this is what it means: He

forfeited the mitzva

of placing the white first,

but he performed a mitzva.

He also has the mitzva of white, since both white and sky blue are now present.

And what

is the meaning of the expression

“he forfeited a mitzva”? —

That he did not perform the mitzva in the preferable manner,

so the mitzva is not complete.

The Gemara challenges the answer that our Mishna follows Rabbi, and that the words “the white does not prevent the sky blue” mean that failure to place the white first does not prevent the sky blue.

This works with regard to the white, which does not prevent the sky blue,

meaning that failure to place the white first does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of sky blue.

But concerning the second ruling in the Mishna,

that the sky blue does not prevent the white,

if, as we explained, “the white does not prevent the sky blue” means that placing the sky blue before the white does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva, then we must explain “the sky blue does not prevent the white” to mean that placing the white first does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva.

What could that mean?!

After all, placing the white first is a rule for the outset, for that is the manner in which its mitzva is performed; how, then, could the Mishna use the expression “does not prevent”?

And we answer:

Rami bar Hama said: It is necessary only

for the Mishna’s ruling that the sky blue does not prevent the white

in the case of a garment that is entirely sky blue,

where the mitzva is to place the sky blue first and afterward the white. The order is always to place the species of the corner first, and in this garment the sky blue comes first [normally the threads are white, like the corner, which is white, followed by sky blue, which is not of the species of the corner. Here, however, since the species of the corner is sky blue, the sky-blue threads, which are of the species of the corner, must be placed first, followed by the white threads]. Concerning a sky-blue garment, the Mishna says that if one placed the white first, the failure to place the sky blue first does not prevent the white.

It was also stated

that the Mishna’s ruling means that precedence is not indispensable:

Levi said to Shmuel: Ariokh!

[An expression of kingship: Since the halakha follows Shmuel in monetary matters, he is like a king, whose judgment is binding.]

Do not sit,

but stand

on your feet

on your legs

until you explain this matter to me,

until you explain this Mishna to me:

“The sky blue does not prevent the white, and the white does not prevent the sky blue”—what does this mean?

Is the Mishna saying that the Sages disagree with Rabbi and hold that neither prevents the other, or is it teaching the law of precedence—that the failure to place the white first is not indispensable—even according to Rabbi?

He said to him,

Shmuel said to Levi:

This Mishna is necessary

only

with regard to a white sheet

[and the same applies to other colors that are not sky blue, which are common

in tzitzit, for it is a mitzva to place first

the threads of

white.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason?

We derive it from what is written: “And they shall place upon the tzitzit of

the corner

that the first threads placed in the garment must be

of the species of the corner,

and afterward the sky-blue threads, which are not of the species of the corner, are placed.

And if he placed the sky blue before the white, it is of no consequence,

and it does not prevent fulfillment.

And we ask:

This works with regard to the white, which does not prevent the sky blue,

if he placed the sky blue before it.

But what is the meaning of “the sky blue does not prevent the white”?

After all, ideally one must place the white before the sky blue.

Rami bar Hama said: It is necessary only for a garment that is entirely sky blue, for it is a mitzva to place first

in it

the sky blue,

since

the

derivation

“the corner—the species of the corner”

teaches us that the sky-blue threads must be placed first in a sky-blue garment, since in this case the sky blue is “the species of the corner.” Nevertheless,

if he placed first

and placed

the white first, it is of no consequence,

and it does not prevent fulfillment.

And we ask:

Rava said:

The fact that we derive from what is written, “And they shall place upon the tzitzit of the corner [the species of the corner] a thread of sky blue,” that the white threads must be placed first is a fixed rule, even for a sky-blue garment. For

is it the case

that

the color causes

the order in which the threads are placed, so that it changes from a white garment to a sky-blue garment? Surely this cannot be the Torah’s intention. Rather, since most garments are made of fabrics that are not dyed sky blue, the Torah says that the white threads should always be placed before the sky-blue threads, because the white threads are the species ordinarily found in a garment, whereas sky-blue threads are not commonly found in a garment. Therefore, the Torah wrote “sky blue” after “the tzitzit of the corner,” teaching that the sky blue is always placed last. If so, the question returns: What is the meaning of “the sky blue does not prevent the white”?

Rather, Rava said:

a new explanation of the Mishna.

It is necessary only

for the Mishna’s ruling that the sky blue and the white do not prevent one another

with regard to severed threads,

when some of the tzitzit threads have been cut and small remnants remain hanging from the tzitzit braid, as the required measure will be explained below.

If the sky-blue threads are severed

and the threads of

white remain

at the required measure—and the same applies

white

remain in the required measure—and the same applies

if the

threads of

white are severed and the threads of

the threads of

sky blue remain—

it is of no consequence,

and they are fit. 16 .

And similarly,

as the sons of Rabbi Hiyya say: the remnants of tekhelet

are fit

because white threads remained in the requisite measure.

And

so the sons of Rabbi Hiyya also said:

the remnants of hyssop,

which remain from the stalks in the bundle of hyssop with which the waters of the purification offering are sprinkled upon those impure due to contact with the dead in order to purify them, are

fit

for sprinkling.

And we inquire concerning this:

What

is

the measure

of

remnants

with regard to ritual fringes? How much of the thread must remain for it still to be fit? And we explain:

Bar Hamduri said in the name of Shmuel:

whatever remains in the severed threads

enough to make a loop knot,

that is, to make a loop knot with them 18 .

They raised a dilemma before them:

Does the measure “enough to make a loop knot” mean

for all

eight threads

together,

which is a large measure,

or perhaps

the measure with which one can make a loop knot with

each one

of the threads

separately?

And we conclude:

Teyku!

Rav Ashi raised a dilemma:

What is the law if threads remained that are

thick,

so that,

they cannot be tied into a loop knot

because of their thickness, but

if they were thin,

if they were thin, they would be

able to be tied into a loop knot—what is the law?

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: All the more so

they are fit, since they have a length such that, had they been thin, they would have been sufficient for making a loop knot; and the only reason they cannot be tied into a loop knot is their thickness.

Their mitzva is more recognizable

through the thickness, and the entire measure in the law of remnants is that the nature of the mitzva be recognizable. And the Gemara clarifies:

Who

is

the tanna [

the Sages in the beraita]

who disagrees with Rabbi,

maintaining that the tekhelet and white threads do not invalidate one another?

And the Gemara answers:

It is this tanna:

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yitzhak says in the name of Rabbi Natan, who said in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri:

If

he does not have tekhelet, he places

in its place

white threads,

and thereby fulfills his obligation of ritual fringes with four white threads.

Rava said: Learn from this

from the law that the remnants of ritual fringes are fit:

one must tie

a knot in the threads of the twisted section

at every coil

of the four coils of the twisted section.

For if it enters your mind that it is not necessary

to tie between each of the coils, and that one knot at the end of the twisted section, before the beginning of the hanging threads, is sufficient, this would be difficult:

That which the sons of Rabbi Hiyya said, the remnants of tekhelet are fit,

and likewise

the remnants of hyssop are fit.

But since the hanging threads of the ritual fringes were severed and only short threads remained adjacent to the knot at the end of the twisted section, this knot will eventually come undone [because short threads located beyond the knot cause the knot to loosen]. Then,

once the upper

knot,

the uppermost one

at the end of the twisted section, becomes undone,

the entire thing becomes undone;

all the coils composing the twisted section will unravel and come undone, and no twisted section will remain at all, only separate hanging threads. But both a twisted section and hanging threads must remain, as this is the form of ritual fringes. For without the twisted section, there are no ritual fringes.

If so, it is proven that one must tie between each coil and the next , for then, if remnants of the hanging threads remain, there is no concern that the knot at the end of the twisted section may come undone. Even if the first knot comes undone, additional knots will still remain to hold the twisted section together, and the threads that remain after the knot at the end of the twisted section comes undone will be long enough that the additional knots will not come undone.

And we reject this: What proof is there from the fact that the sons of Rabbi Hiyya deemed remnants fit that one must always tie at every coil?