Menachot 41a (מא.) — the Talmud in English

And it was taught in a baraita: A garment in which a minor can cover his head

and most of his body

and an adult can go out wearing it

to the marketplace

occasionally

and is not embarrassed—that is the measure of a garment that is

obligated in ritual fringes 57 .

But if

the minor cannot cover his head and most of his body with it,

then

even though an adult can go out wearing it occasionally, it is exempt

from the obligation of ritual fringes,

and likewise

the law

with regard to prohibited mixtures!

And we raised a question concerning this:

What is meant by “and likewise with regard to prohibited mixtures”?

In what respect did they compare ritual fringes to prohibited mixtures?

If you say

that the baraita intends to teach

that likewise

the law

with regard to the prohibition of prohibited mixtures,

namely, that a garment smaller than the measure mentioned in the baraita may be made of wool and linen, and there is no prohibition of prohibited mixtures in doing so, this cannot be said, [for

did we not learn in the Mishna: “There is no occasional use with regard to prohibited mixtures,”

and even a small garment with which one would be embarrassed to go out occasionally to the marketplace is prohibited because of prohibited mixtures?]

And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: “And likewise with regard to a linen sheet with ritual fringes,”

meaning that the baraita’s intention is to compare the measure for ritual fringes to prohibited mixtures: If one has a large linen garment that contains the measure obligating ritual fringes, he may attach to it tekhelet made of wool and need not be concerned about the prohibition of prohibited mixtures. But if the garment is small and does not contain the measure obligating ritual fringes, he may not attach tekhelet to it, because he would be wearing prohibited mixtures without thereby fulfilling the mitzva of ritual fringes.

If so, it is explicit in the baraita that it is prohibited to attach wool and linen to a garment that does not contain the measure for ritual fringes. This presents a difficulty for Rav Mattana, who said that one may attach tekhelet to a linen garment, even to a garment exempt from ritual fringes: What is that exempt garment?

And we answer:

Rather, what is meant by “exempt”? He attached them to a garment that already had ritual fringes!

If one attached additional ritual fringes to a linen garment, and these include woolen tekhelet, there is no prohibition of prohibited mixtures, even though through the additional ritual fringes he is not fulfilling the mitzva of ritual fringes, because prohibited mixtures are entirely permitted in connection with ritual fringes.

And we challenge this:

But

this was already

stated once by Rabbi Zeira, was it not?

Above, he said that if one attached ritual fringes to a garment that already had ritual fringes, they are valid. Since it was thereby established that he may remove whichever he wishes—the original ones or the later ones—and the garment remains valid, it is obvious that both sets are regarded as ritual fringes and that there is no prohibition of prohibited mixtures in this.

And we answer:

One statement was said by implication of the other.

In truth, Rav Zeira derived the law that prohibited mixtures are “entirely permitted” even in a garment exempt from ritual fringes from the first ruling, that “if one attached [ritual fringes] to a garment that already had ritual fringes, they are valid.”

The Sages taught: A doubled garment,

which was as long as two garments and was folded,

is obligated in ritual fringes.

He places the ritual fringes at the folded area, that is, at the four corners when it is folded.

And Rabbi Shimon exempts

it from having ritual fringes attached to it, because if he attaches ritual fringes at the folded area, then when he unfolds it, the ritual fringes will be in its middle. 60 .

And Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis agree

on this point

that if he folded it and sewed it, it is obligated

because the sewing prevents it from unfolding.

And we challenge this: If he

sewed it

literally,

it is obvious

that it is obligated, for now this is its form.

And we answer:

No, it is necessary in a case where he fastened it with pins,

that is, he joined it with pins, which is not permanent sewing.

Rabba bar Rav Huna happened to come to the house of Rava bar Rav Naḥman. He saw him wearing a doubled garment

[which had not been fastened with pins],

and he had placed threads over the fold

[the ritual-fringe threads were at the folded area].

It unfolded

[the garment became unfolded],

and the thread came to stand opposite his head

[and its threads were found in the middle, beside the head of Rava bar Rav Naḥman].

He said to him

Rabba bar Rav Huna: In such a manner, with the threads standing in the middle of the garment,

this is not the corner that the Torah refers to!

For a corner is the edge of the garment.

Rava bar Rav Naḥman came

and

cast it aside,

the garment,

and covered himself with another cloak.

He said to him

Rabba bar Rav Huna:

Do you think

that ritual fringes are

an obligation on the person,

so that by your action you have accomplished the fulfillment of the mitzva of ritual fringes with another garment, and you do not care that the doubled garment remains as it was? No; ritual fringes are

an obligation of the garment!

Even when you are not wearing it, it requires ritual fringes. Therefore,

go and attach them

to this doubled garment, since its fold has been undone.

And we say:

Let us say that this supports

Rabba bar Rav Huna, who maintains that ritual fringes are an obligation of the garment. For we learned:

The early pious ones, as soon as they wove into it

a length of

three

fingerbreadths, which is the measure of a garment,

would immediately insert tekhelet into it,

at the time of weaving, even before the garment was completed and suitable for wearing. If the obligation begins with wearing, this was still before the time of obligation. It therefore follows that the mitzva is incumbent upon the garment.

And we reject this.

The early pious ones

were different,

for they were stringent upon themselves.

And we say: Rabba bar Rav Huna, who maintains that ritual fringes are an obligation of the garment,

disagrees with an angel

[in this matter, differing from the angel’s statement].

The angel

[an angel]

encountered Rav Ketina

covered

with a

linen sheet

that did not have ritual fringes, because they had decreed that ritual fringes should not be attached to it due to the concern that it was a night garment.

He said to him,

the angel:

Ketina, Ketina!

Since you cover yourself with a

linen sheet

to which ritual fringes are not attached

in the summer

[in summer],

and

with a

cloak

[a garment whose edges are rounded and which has only two lower corners, and which is exempt from ritual fringes] you cover yourself

in the winter.

If so,

what will become of ritual fringes?

When will you fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes?

Rav said to him,

Rav Ketina said to the angel: Is it that in Heaven

you punish for failure to perform a positive commandment ?

A person is not obligated to purchase a garment obligated in ritual fringes in order to attach ritual fringes to it. Rather, only if he wears a garment with four corners is he obligated to attach ritual fringes to it. Why, then, did you say to me, “What will become of ritual fringes?”

The angel said to him,

the angel said to Rav Ketina: Indeed, under ordinary circumstances, Heaven does not punish one who does not purchase a garment obligated in ritual fringes. But

when there is wrath

in the world,

we punish

even for failure to perform a positive commandment.

The Gemara clarifies the angel’s words:

Granted, if you say that it is an obligation on the person,

it is understandable that

he is liable

to punishment in a time of wrath because

he does not attach

ritual fringes to himself.

But if you say that it is an obligation of the garment,

it is difficult, because a linen sheet and a cloak

are not obligated

in ritual fringes; why should he be punished for not possessing a garment that is obligated?

And we challenge this:

Rather, what

do you

say—that it is

an obligation on the person?

Even if the Torah obligated him

in ritual fringes, that is

when he is covered

[already covered] with

a garment subject to the obligation,

but

when he is covered with a garment not subject to the obligation, did the Torah obligate him?!

Rather,

it must be that

this is what he said to him:

the angel said to Rav Ketina:

What stratagems

[devices] are you employing

to exempt yourself from ritual fringes!

It is certainly improper to employ stratagems in order to exempt oneself from the mitzva. Therefore, even if ritual fringes are an obligation of the garment, this is improper, and he is punished for it in a time of wrath. 62 .

Rav Tuvya bar Kisna said in the name of Shmuel: Garments in storage,

that is, garments suitable for ritual fringes, even though they are folded and placed in a box, nevertheless, since they are intended to be used for covering oneself, they are considered your garment “with which you cover yourself,” and

they are obligated

in ritual fringes.

And Shmuel concedes that, in the case of an elderly man who made it

this garment

for his honor,

so that it would serve as his shroud after his death,

it is exempt

from ritual fringes.

What is the reason?

“With which you cover yourself,” the Torah said,

and

this one is not made for covering oneself.

Nevertheless,

at that time—

after he has died, when he is covered in his shroud—

we certainly attach ritual fringes to it

ritual fringes to this garment

because of

the verse

“He who mocks the poor blasphemes his Maker,”

for if ritual fringes are not attached to them, it appears as though one is mocking the deceased, as if saying to him: You are exempt from the mitzvot.

Raḥava said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: If a garment was torn

if

outside three

fingerbreadths from the edge of the garment it was torn,

one may sew it.

They were not concerned that some of the sewing thread might remain and that one might leave it in the garment and add to it until there were four threads for ritual fringes [and if he did so, the garment would not be valid, since this thread that remained from the sewing is not fit for ritual fringes, for it must specifically be “made, and not made incidentally,” and this remaining thread was already made]. The reason they were not concerned is that since he is sewing beyond three fingerbreadths from the edge of the garment, this is not a place where ritual fringes are attached.

But if the tallit tore

within three

fingerbreadths of the edge of the garment,

one may not sew it,

because this is the place of the tzitzit, and they were concerned that he might use a thread from the sewing and make it into tzitzit, which would be invalid 64 .

It was also taught likewise: A tallit that tore beyond three

fingerbreadths—

one may sew it .

Within three

fingerbreadths,

Rabbi Meir says: One may not sew it; and the Rabbis say: One may sew it. From Rabbi Meir’s words, it is demonstrated that the ruling is in accordance with what Reḥava said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda 66 . The beraita continues:

And from Rabbi Meir’s words it is evident that the ruling is in accordance with what Reḥava said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda. 66 .

And the beraita continues:

And Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis agree

on this matter:

One may not bring

a piece of cloth

even

if it is large,

a cubit by a cubit, from elsewhere [

from another cloth]

with tekhelet on it and hang it on the garment,

because it is written: “And they shall make for themselves tzitzit on the corners of their garments”—that is, when the tzitzit are affixed, they must be affixed to the garment; whereas this corner was not part of this garment when the tzitzit were made 68 .

And Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis agree,

also on this matter:

he brings

and permits

tekhelet [

that is, tzitzit]

from elsewhere,

from another garment,

and hangs it on

this garment.