Menachot 40b — the Talmud in English

Now

in relation to the law

of leaven on Passover,

and in relation to eating on

the Day of Atonement,

whose prohibition

is punishable by excision,

and nevertheless

we rely on the letters,

on the letters that went out from the court to announce when Passover is and when the Day of Atonement is,

here,

in relation to tekhelet,

which is merely a positive commandment,

it

is certainly no less so

that one should rely on the letters?!

Rather, Rava said: I said this matter

I said it in Babylonia,

and it was stated

the same thing

in the West

[in the Land of Israel]

in the name of Rabbi Zeira, in accordance with me:

that the reason they prohibited tzitzit on a linen sheet

was lest his sheet tear within three

fingerbreadths of the edge of the sheet,

and he sew it

to the tear with linen threads, and from the remainder of the threads that remain hanging at the edge of the sheet he would make tzitzit [together with tekhelet threads], and these threads that remained hanging after the sewing are not fit for the mitzva of tzitzit, since

the Torah said “

twisted threads

you shall make

for yourself,” meaning that their making must begin for the sake of the mitzva of tzitzit,

and not

will the mitzva be fulfilled

from what was already made

previously in the garment not for the sake of the mitzva 49 .

And since he will not fulfill the mitzva of tzitzit, the tekhelet threads that he attaches to the linen threads render the sheet prohibited on account of kilayim when this is not for the purpose of a mitzva. Therefore, the Sages were concerned about such a situation and prohibited attaching tzitzit to a sheet, for it is preferable that they refrain from fulfilling the mitzva of tzitzit through inaction rather than transgress the prohibition of kilayim through an action.

Rabbi Zeira permitted his sheet!

Rabbi Zeira permitted the tzitzit threads that had been on his sheet, which was made of linen, and agreed with the decree, out of concern lest it tear and be sewn, and he thereby come to transgress kilayim.

Rav Zeira said:

The reason the Sages prohibited attaching tzitzit to a sheet is a different one:

also a decree

on account of a night garment!

Lest people come to cover themselves with it at night, when it is not the time for fulfilling the mitzva of tzitzit, and it will be found that he transgresses the prohibition of kilayim at a time when he is not fulfilling the mitzva of tzitzit 51 .

And Rava said: I said this matter

I said it in Babylonia,

and it was stated in the West in the name of Rabbi Zeira, in accordance with me:

A cloak that

is of cloth

made of woven material,

and its corners

the corners of the cloak are

of leather,

it

is obligated

in tzitzit.

But if the cloak itself

is of leather,

then although

its corners

are of

cloth

[woven material], it

is exempt

from tzitzit.

And “cloth” is called only woven material, but not something made from a piece of leather 52 .

And the Gemara clarifies:

What is the reason

that the obligation is not determined according to the place where the tzitzit is attached? Because

we require the principal part of the garment

for determining the obligation of tzitzit. Therefore, only if the principal part of the garment is made of a species that is obligated is it obligated in tzitzit.

Rav Aha follows the corner,

and if it were made of cloth, he would attach tzitzit to it even though the principal part of the garment was made of leather 53 .

Rava said that Rav Sehora said that Rav Huna said: One who attached

tzitzit threads

to

a cloak that was

possessed of three

corners only,

and

afterward

completed it to four

corners by sewing an additional corner onto it, although he now attached tzitzit to the fourth corner, it is

invalid, because of “you shall make, and not from what was already made”!

For when the tzitzit threads were attached to the first three corners, the cloak was not obligated in tzitzit. Thus, at the time it became obligated, when he attached the fourth corner to it, the tzitzit threads were already in it. The Torah required him to attach tzitzit to it when it became obligated, and he does not fulfill his obligation with tzitzit that were already hanging on the garment before the time of the obligation.

It was objected:

The early pious ones,

who made every effort to be exact in the mitzvot, were accustomed to attach tzitzit to a garment at the very first moment when this was possible. Therefore, when they wove and prepared a garment with four corners,

as soon as they had woven three

fingerbreadths of material into it, which is the smallest measure of a garment,

they would attach to it

threads of

tekhelet

on the two corners that had already been woven. And it is proven that although a small and narrow garment, three fingerbreadths wide, is not obligated in tzitzit because it does not have the required measure, nevertheless this does not invalidate the tzitzit attached to it on account of “you shall make, and not from what was already made.” This is difficult for Rava.

And we answer:

Say: As soon as they had torn three!

That is, at the time the weaving of the garment was completed, when they had entered the last three fingerbreadths that still remained to be woven into the garment, and it was already possible to attach tzitzit to it because it already had four corners,

they would attach to it tekhelet.

For at that point there was already “making” in the attachment of the tzitzit.

And we challenge:

Do we say

how can it be that tzitzit attached while the garment was still exempt from tzitzit is invalid because of

“you shall make, and not from what was already made,” yet Rabbi Zeira said: One who attached

an additional tzitzit

to one already attached,

meaning that he had already attached tzitzit once to the garment and now came to add an additional tzitzit on each corner, it is

valid,

even if he afterward cut off the first tzitzit! In such a case, there is no status of making concerning the second tzitzit that now remain, since the garment had already been exempted through the first tzitzit, and nevertheless they are not invalidated because of “you shall make, and not from what was already made”?!

And we answer:

Rava said: Now, in making the second ones, he stands in violation of “do not add”;

therefore,

“there is no making”!

Since, in making the second tzitzit, he violated the prohibition of “do not add,” there is no status of “making” at all in their attachment . And afterward, when he cuts off the first ones, at that moment the cutting is considered the “making” of the second tzitzit, and this is not called “from what was already made.” But in the case of a three-cornered cloak to which he attached tzitzit and afterward made it a four-cornered cloak, the attachment of the tzitzit is considered “making.” Therefore, when the cloak subsequently becomes obligated, it is considered “from what was already made,” and it is invalid.

Rav Pappa challenged him: From where [do you know] that the man intends to add?

How do we know that the one who attaches tzitzit a second time intends to add beyond what the Torah commanded, and thereby violated “do not add,” and therefore there is no status of “making” at all in his act? [Therefore, when he cuts off the first ones, the second tzitzit will be valid.]

Perhaps he intends to nullify them

Perhaps the one attaching them intends, through his act, to nullify the first tzitzit, intending to remove them afterward and now “make” other tzitzit in their place for the sake of the mitzva of tzitzit. In that case,

there is no “do not add,”

but

there is making!

And it is making while exempt, as with a three-cornered cloak. If so, it is proven from here that there is no invalidity of “you shall make, and not from what was already made” when the garment was exempt from making those tzitzit!

Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Matana said that Shmuel said:

Threads of

tekhelet

made of wool that were attached to a garment together with white linen threads

do not involve

the prohibition of

kilayim ,

even

if he attached them

to a cloak

such as one that

is exempt

from the obligation of tzitzit. And we raise a question:

What is meant by “an exempt cloak”?

What sort of cloak is being discussed?

If you say that it lacks the required measure,

and we say that there is no prohibition of kilayim even if he attached wool and linen to a cloak smaller than the required measure, we learned the opposite: If it lacks the measure of obligation, there is a prohibition of kilayim. For we learned: