Menachot 42a — the Talmud in English

And we reject this:

No.

What they said

“It has no measure,”

means that it has no measure

above,

and one may make the length of the threads as long as he wishes,

but it has a measure below.

And the Gemara proves that this is the meaning of the beraita:

For if you do not say so,

the continuation of the beraita will be difficult:

“Similarly, a lulav has no measure.”

But

here too

can we interpret it

as meaning that it has no measure at all? But we learned: A lulav that has three handbreadths, sufficient to wave with it, is valid?

Rather,

necessarily, the meaning is that

it has no measure above, but it has a measure below.

And

here too,

the meaning with regard to the law of tzitzit is that

it has no measure above, but it has a measure below.

And the law in the beraita: “There is no tzitzit except something” means that if the threads were initially long and were cut, and something remained, nevertheless the tzitzit is valid.

But certainly at the outset it requires a measure.

The Sages taught:

“And they shall make for themselves

‘tzitzit’”

there is no tzitzit except an anaf! That is, threads hanging from the edge of the garment.

And so it says:

“And he sent forth the form of a hand

and took me by the tzitzit of my head.”

Thus, tzitzit means threads or hairs that emerge from a particular place.

And Abaye said: And one must separate them,

to separate the tzitzit threads so that they do not become tangled with one another, but rather they should be

like the tzutzita of the Arameans

—like the forelock of idol-worshippers, whose hairs are stuck together below and separated above.

The Sages taught: If one attached

tzitzit

to

the edge of the point of the

corner

of the garment,

or

if he attached it

to the gedil,

which is a thick and strong thread sewn along the edge of the garment so that the garment should not tear,

it is valid,

even though he did not distance the tzitzit threads from the edge of the garment.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov invalidates in both cases.

And the Gemara brings the statement of Rav Giddel citing Rav, who likewise requires distancing the tzitzit threads from the corner of the garment, and explains the reason for this law.

And we say:

In accordance with whom is this statement that Rav Giddel

citing Rav said: The tzitzit must be

hanging

and draping over the corner?

Therefore one must attach it above the edge, and distance it from both sides of the corner by the measure that will be explained below, so that by doing this the tzitzit will be “draping” and resting upon the corner. And we learn this law from what

is stated: “And they shall make for themselves tzitzit

on the corners of their garments,”

so that the tzitzit will drape over the corners of their garments,

that the tzitzit should be draping over the corners of their garments.

In accordance with whom

did Rav Giddel state this law?

With Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

who invalidated tzitzit attached at the edge of the garment, whereas the Rabbis declared it valid.

Rabbi Yaakov said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: And one must distance

the tzitzit from the edge of the garment by the measure of

a full thumb-knot

[which is the measure of the thumb from its beginning until the first joint] from both sides of the corner. If he distanced it by less than this measure, it is considered as though he attached it to the corner, and it is invalid.

And similarly Rav Pappa said above [41b] that one must place the tzitzit threads within three fingerbreadths of the edge of the garment, and no farther.

And the Gemara explains:

It was necessary

to state also the words

of Rav Pappa, and it was necessary

to state also the words

of Rabbi Yaakov,

and one law cannot be derived from the other.

For if

we knew only the statement

of Rav Pappa, I might have said

that the law Rav Pappa stated—that one must attach the tzitzit

within three

fingerbreadths—means

that he must not distance it

from the edge of the garment

more

than this measure. But

the closer he brings it

to the edge of the garment

the better,

and he may even place the tzitzit at the very point of the edge. Therefore

it was necessary

to state the law

of Rabbi Yaakov,

who said that one must distance it from the edge of the garment by the measure of a thumb-knot.

And if

we knew only the law stated

by Rabbi Yaakov, I might have said

that the requirement of the measure of

a full thumb-knot

means

that he must not bring it closer

to the edge of the garment. But

the farther he distances it, the better,

and it is preferable to distance it as much as possible from the edge of the garment. Therefore

both are necessary,

to teach us that one may not distance it from the edge by more than three fingerbreadths, and likewise one may not bring it closer to the edge by less than a full thumb-knot.

Ravina and Rav Sama were sitting before Rav Ashi.

He saw him,

that

Rav Sama saw the corner of Ravina’s cloak,

the corner of his garment,

which had come apart,

because the hole had widened and the gedil had descended downward, until

it was reduced,

the distance from the threads to the edge of the garment having become less

than a full thumb-knot.

He said to him,

Rav Sama said to Ravina: Is it the case that

the Master does not accept this statement of Rabbi Yaakov,

that one must distance the gedil from the edge by a full thumb-knot?

He said to him,

Ravina said to Rav Sama: The statement of Rabbi Yaakov, that one must distance it by a full thumb-knot,

was stated with regard to the time of making

the tzitzit.

It was stated.

And indeed, at the time of making I distanced the gedil by this measure; only afterward the hole widened and the gedil descended below the measure.

When Rav Sama heard Ravina’s answer,

he was embarrassed,

because he did not know that it had been stated with regard to the time of making.

Rav Ashi said to Rav Sama:

Do not be distressed,

do not be upset about this matter, for

one of them

is from the people of the Land of Israel [Ravina was from the people of the Land of Israel, [and one such person] is considered equal to two of us from Babylonia], for the people of the Land of Israel are discerning and sharp.

Now the Gemara brings three opinions concerning the tzitzit threads and the manner of attaching them to the garment:

Rav Aha bar Yaakov would take

[he would take]

four

tzitzit threads

and double them thoroughly

[he would fold them into eight before attaching them to the corner],

and insert them into the cloak,

he would insert the tzitzit threads at the place of the fold into the hole of the tallit, in such a manner that a kind of ring was formed at the place of the fold, and afterward

he would tie it thoroughly,

[he would take the eight ends of the threads and insert them again into the fold, so that they would hang in a loop from the tallit]. And the reason he did this was that

he held that we require eight

threads

in the cloak

itself,

so that there should be “a gedil,” “gedilim,” in place of a petil.

And this is how he expounded: It is written, “You shall make for yourself gedilim,” and a gedil itself is at least two threads, for one thread is not subject to being made thick. And since it is written gedilim in the plural, this implies two gedilim, namely four threads; and when they are doubled, they are eight. And he holds that all eight must be inserted into the garment, and not that one should insert four threads while only the anaf consists of eight threads.

Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti would take eight

threads and insert them into the hole of the tallit, and fold them in the middle, and it turned out

that they were sixteen

[for after they were folded they became sixteen hanging threads],

but he would not tie them

[he did not knot them]; rather, he would wrap one of the threads around the other fifteen threads. And according to his words as well, there are eight threads in the hole of the garment, like Rav Aha.

Mar, the son of Ravina, would make

the tzitzit

like ours:

he would insert four threads into the hole and fold them in the middle, and there would be eight threads hanging from the corner.

Rav Naḥman found Rav Adda bar Ahava attaching threads,

he saw Rav Adda bar Ahava while he was attaching tzitzit threads to his tallit,

and reciting the blessing, “to make tzitzit.”

He said to him

in a mocking manner:

What is this “tzitzi”

that I

hear?

But

so said Rav:

The making of

the tzitzit does not require a blessing.

When Rav Huna died, Rav Hisda came to raise

an objection from the words

of Rav’s

statement,

of Rav

himself, which apparently contradict one another. And this is how he objected:

And did Rav say that tzitzit does not require a blessing? But Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: From where [do we know] with regard to tzitzit

that one who made it

an idol-worshipper made it, that it is invalid? As it is stated:

“Speak to the children of Israel and let them make tzitzit for themselves,”

and we expound:

“The children of Israel”

shall make, but idol-worshippers shall not make.

And we raised this objection of Rav Hisda:

But what is the contradiction?

After all, these two statements do not contradict one another.

Rav Yosef said: Rav Hisda holds

that

any mitzva that is valid when performed by an idol-worshipper,

if a

Jew performs it, he need not recite a blessing,

for he cannot say, “Who sanctified us with His commandments,” since an idol-worshipper is also valid in its performance.

And

any mitzva that is invalid when performed by an idol-worshipper requires a blessing when performed by a Jew. Since Rav holds that tzitzit is not valid when performed by an idol-worshipper, according to this principle he should have to recite a blessing; this contradicts Rav’s statement that no blessing is required.

And we challenge: Is

this indeed a general rule

?

But

we have found

circumcision that is valid when performed by a gentile.

For it was taught: A city in which there is no Jewish physician [

circumciser]

but there is an Aramean physician [

gentile],

and a Samaritan physician: the Aramean should circumcise, but the Samaritan should not circumcise!

Because the Samaritans circumcise for the sake of Mount Gerizim and not for the sake of the Name,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

He should circumcise

a Samaritan but not

circumcise

an Aramean!

Because he is suspected of bloodshed.

In any event, we have learned here that a gentile is fit to circumcise, and in this they did not disagree.

On the other hand,

with regard to a Jew

who circumcises,

he must recite a blessing, for the Master said: The circumciser says, “Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe, Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning circumcision,”

and if so, circumcision is valid when performed by a gentile, and a Jew recites a blessing over it; and this contradicts Rav Hisda’s general rule!?

And we answer:

Is the reason

that Rav Hisda stated this general rule

anything other than for Rav,

and according to

Rav

there is no difficulty from circumcision, for Rav

categorically declares invalid

circumcision performed by a gentile.

For it was stated: From where is it derived that circumcision performed by a gentile is invalid? Daru bar Pappa said in the name of Rav:

From what is written:

“But you shall keep My covenant”

—and we expound: To one circumcised like you I entrust him!

Rabbi Yohanan said:

From what is written:

“He shall surely be circumcised,”

and we expound:

The one who is commanded to circumcise shall circumcise!

And one who is not commanded concerning circumcision shall not circumcise. And since according to Rav a gentile is not fit for circumcision, for this reason a Jew recites a blessing over it.

And we say: The law of

a sukka supports him

—Rav Hisda; while the law of

tefillin is a refutation of him.

And the Gemara explains:

But a sukka, which is valid when made by a gentile.

For it was taught: A sukka of gentiles, a sukka of women, a sukka of animals, a sukka of Samaritans, a sukka made from any material is valid, provided that it is roofed in accordance with its law.

And with regard to a Jew, it is not necessary to recite a blessing, for it was taught: One who makes

a sukka for himself

says: “Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe, Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time.” When he enters to sit in it, he says: “Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe, Who sanctified us with His commandments

and commanded us to sit in the sukka.” But

the blessing

“to make a sukka” he does not recite.

And this supports Rav Hisda, that for something that is valid when made by gentiles, a Jew does not recite a blessing over its making.