Menachot 38b — the Talmud in English

Shall we say that he has lacked the mitzva of white,

because he delayed the white,

and fulfilled the mitzva of tekhelet,

it is impossible to say this, for

according to Rabbi, indispensability holds back

the white and the tekhelet

from one another.

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

Rather,

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav,

this is what he is saying:

that he lacked the mitzva

of putting the white first,

but he performed a mitzva.

For he also has the mitzva of white, since now there are both white and tekhelet here.

And what is

the meaning of the wording

“he has lacked a mitzva”? —

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

so that the mitzva is not complete.

And the Gemara raises an objection to the answer that our Mishna is according to Rabbi, and that the explanation of the words “the white does not hold back the tekhelet” is that not putting the white first does not hold back the tekhelet.

This is understandable concerning white, which does not hold back the tekhelet,

for the meaning of this is that not putting the white first does not hold back the mitzva of tekhelet.

But the second law in the Mishna,

“the tekhelet does not hold back the white,”

and according to what we explained—that “the white does not hold back the tekhelet” means that putting the tekhelet before the white does not hold back the mitzva—we will have to explain “the tekhelet does not hold back the white” to mean that putting the white first does not hold back the mitzva.

What is it?!

But putting the white first is a law applying initially, for this is how its mitzva is performed, so how did the Mishna use the wording “does not hold back”?!

And we answer:

Rami bar Hama said: It was needed only

the law of the Mishna that the tekhelet does not hold back the white

for a garment that is entirely tekhelet,

where it is a mitzva to give tekhelet first and afterward white, since the order is always that the type of the corner comes first, and in this garment the tekhelet comes first [ordinarily the threads are white, like the corner, which is white, and afterward comes tekhelet, which is not of the type of the corner. But here, since the type of the corner is tekhelet, one must first give tekhelet threads, which are of the type of the corner, and afterward the white threads]. And concerning a tekhelet garment the Mishna said that if he put the white first, the failure to put the tekhelet first does not hold back the white.

It was also stated,

that the explanation of this law of the Mishna is that precedence does not hold back:

Levi said to Shmuel: Aryokh!

[an expression of kingship, since the halakha follows Shmuel in monetary matters, he is like a king, whose judgment is judgment]

Do not sit,

do not sit, but stand

on your feet

on your feet

until you explain this matter to me,

until you explain this Mishna to me,

“The tekhelet does not hold back the white, and the white does not hold back the tekhelet”—what is it?

Does the Mishna come to say that the Sages disagree with Rabbi and hold that they do not hold one another back, or does it come to teach the law of the precedence of white, which does not hold back, even according to Rabbi?

He said to him,

Shmuel said to Levi:

It was needed

this Mishna

only for a sheet

of white [and the same applies to other colors, which are not tekhelet, that are common

in tzitzit, for it is a mitzva to put first

the giving of the threads of

white at the beginning.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason?

For we derive from that which is written, “And they shall place upon the tzitzit

of the corner,”

that the first threads that are given into the garment must be

of the type of the corner,

and afterward the tekhelet threads, which are not of the type of the corner, are given.

And if he put the tekhelet before the white, it is of no consequence,

and it does not hold back.

And we ask:

This is understandable concerning white, which does not hold back the tekhelet,

if he put and gave the tekhelet before it;

but what is “the tekhelet does not hold back the white”?

But initially he must give the white before the tekhelet.

Rami bar Hama said: It was needed only for a garment that is entirely tekhelet, for it is a mitzva to put

in it

the tekhelet first,

since

the

teaching

“the corner—the type of the corner”

teaches us that the tekhelet threads must be given first in a tekhelet garment, since in this case the tekhelet is “the type of the corner”; nevertheless,

if he put first

and gave

the white first, it is of no consequence,

and it does not hold back.

And we ask:

Rava said:

But that which they derived from what is written, “And they shall place upon the tzitzit of the corner [the type of the corner] a thread of tekhelet,” that one must put the white threads first, is an established law, even in a tekhelet garment, because

is it something—

is it

the color that causes

the order of giving the threads, and does it change from a white garment to a tekhelet garment? Surely this cannot be the Torah’s intention. Rather, since most garments are made of cloths that are not dyed tekhelet, the Torah said that one should always give the white threads before giving the tekhelet threads, because the white threads are of the ordinary type in a garment, and not the tekhelet threads, which are a type that is uncommon in a garment. Therefore the Torah wrote “tekhelet” after “tzitzit of the corner,” to teach that tekhelet is always given last. If so, the question returns: What is the meaning of “the tekhelet does not hold back the white”?

Rather, Rava said

a new explanation of the Mishna:

It was needed

the law of the Mishna that the tekhelet and the white do not hold one another back

only concerning severed threads,

when part of the tzitzit threads were cut and small remnants of threads remained hanging from the braid of the tzitzit, as their measure will be explained below;

for if the tekhelet threads are severed

if the threads of

the tekhelet are severed, and

the threads of

white

remain in the proper measure. And likewise,

if the white threads are severed

the threads of

white, and

the threads of

the tekhelet

it is of no consequence,

and they are fit 16 .

And similarly,

as the sons of Rabbi Hiyya said: the truncated threads of tekhelet

are valid

because threads of white remained in the requisite measure.

And

so the sons of Rabbi Hiyya also said:

the truncated hyssop,

which remained from the stalks in the bundle of hyssop, with which the purification water is sprinkled upon those impure through contact with the dead in order to purify them, is

valid

for sprinkling.

And we raised the question:

And how much

is

the measure

of

truncated threads

in tzitzit? How much must remain of the thread for it still to be valid? And we explain:

Bar Hamduri said in the name of Samuel:

Anything that remains in the threads that were cut,

enough for making a loop,

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

They raised a dilemma before them:

Does the measure “enough for making a loop” mean

for all

eight threads

together,

which is a large measure,

or perhaps

the measure with which one can make a loop

with each one

of the threads

separately?

And we conclude:

teyku!

Rav Ashi raised a question:

What is the law if threads remained that are

thick,

bulky,

so that they cannot be made into a loop

because of their thickness, but

if they were thin,

if they had been thin, they would be

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

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

they are valid, since they contain a length such that, had they been thin, they would have had enough for making a loop; and the only reason it is impossible to make a loop with them is their thickness,

for their mitzva is more recognizable

through the thickness. And the entire measure in the law of truncated threads is that the nature of the mitzva should be recognizable. And the Gemara clarifies:

Who

is the

tan­nnay [

the Sages in the beraita]

who disagrees with Rabbi,

and holds that the threads of tekhelet and white do not prevent one another?

And the Gemara answers:

This is the tan­nnay:

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yitzhak says in the name of Rabbi Natan, who said in the name of Rabbi Yose the Galilean, who said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri:

If

he does not have tekhelet, he places

in their place

threads of white,

and fulfills his obligation of tzitzit with four threads of white.

Rava said: Infer from this

from the law that truncated tzitzit are valid, that

one must tie

a knot in the threads of the braid

on every loop

of the four loops of the braid.

For if it enters your mind that it is not necessary

to tie between every loop, but one knot at the end of the braid, before the beginning of the hanging threads, is sufficient, there is a difficulty:

that which the sons of Rabbi Hiyya said: The truncated threads of tekhelet are valid,

and likewise

the truncated hyssop is valid.

But since the hanging threads of the tzitzit were cut and only short hanging threads remained adjacent to the knot at the end of the braid, this knot is destined to come undone [because short threads located after the knot cause the knot to loosen]. And then,

once the upper

knot

comes undone,

the upper one at the end of the braid,

the whole of it comes undone,

all the loops comprising the braid will come apart and be released, and no braid at all will remain, but only separate hanging threads. Yet both a braid and hanging threads must remain, for this is the form of tzitzit. For without the braid, there is no tzitzit.

And if so, it is demonstrated that one must tie between one loop and the next , because then, if truncated threads remain from the hanging threads, we need not be concerned that the knot at the end of the braid might come undone: even if the first knot comes undone, additional knots will still remain to hold the braid, and the hanging threads that remain after the knot at the end of the braid comes undone will have sufficient length so 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 validated truncated threads, that one must always tie on every loop?