Menachot 42a (מב.) — the Talmud in English

And we reject this:

No.

What they said :

It has no prescribed measure,

means that it has no prescribed measure

above,

and one may make the threads as long as one wishes,

but it has a prescribed measure below.

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

For if you do not say so,

the continuation of the beraita will be difficult:

“Similarly, a lulav has no prescribed measure.”

But

here too

could we interpret this to mean

that it has no prescribed measure at all? But we learned in the Mishna: A lulav that is three handbreadths long, sufficient to wave with, is fit?

Rather,

necessarily, the intention is that it

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

And

here too,

the intention regarding the law of tzitzit is that it

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

And the law stated in the beraita, “There is no tzitzit אלא something,” means that if the threads were initially long and were cut, and something remained, nevertheless the tzitzit is fit 1.

But certainly, initially there must be a prescribed measure.]

The Sages taught:

“And they shall make for themselves

‘tzitzit’”:

“Tzitzit” means nothing other than a tassel—that is, threads hanging from the edge of a garment.

And similarly it says:

“And He sent forth the form of a hand

and took me by the locks of my head.”

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

And Abaye said: One must separate them,

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

like the lock of a gentile woman [

like the forelock of idolaters], whose hairs are joined below and separated above 2.

The Sages taught: If one attached

tzitzit

to

the edge of the tip of the

corner

of the garment,

or

if one attached them

to the gedil,

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

it is fit,

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

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov invalidates both.

And the Gemara cites the statement of Rav Giddel in the name of 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 whose opinion is that which Rav Giddel

said in the name of Rav: 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 the tzitzit will “drape” and rest upon the corner. We derive this halakha from what

is stated:

“And they shall make for themselves tzitzit

on the corners of their garments,”

meaning that the tzitzit should drape over the corners of their garments.

In accordance with whose opinion

did Rav Giddel state this halakha?

In accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov,

who invalidated tzitzit attached at the edge of the garment, whereas the Rabbis declared them fit.

Rabbi Ya'akov said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: One must distance

the tzitzit from the edge of the garment by

the full measure of a thumb-knot [

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

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 away.

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 Ya'akov;

neither law can be derived from the other.

For if

we knew only the statement

of Rav Pappa, I might have said

that Rav Pappa's law, that one must attach the tzitzit

within three

fingerbreadths, means

that one must not distance them

from the edge of the garment

more

than this measure, but

the closer one brings them

to the edge of the garment

the better,

and one could even place the tzitzit at the very tip of the edge. Therefore,

it was necessary

to state the law

of Rabbi Ya'akov,

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

And if

we knew only the law

of Rabbi Ya'akov, I might have said

that the requirement of the measure of

a full thumb-knot

means

that one must not bring them closer

to the edge of the garment, but

the farther one distances them, the better,

and it is preferable to distance them as far as possible from the edge of the garment. Therefore,

both are necessary,

to teach us that one may not distance them more than three fingerbreadths from the edge, and likewise one may not bring them closer than a full thumb-knot 5.

Ravina and Rav Sama were sitting before Rav Ashi.

He saw

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, until

it was reduced, [

the distance from the threads to the edge of the garment having decreased]

to less than a full thumb-knot.

He said to him,

Rav Sama said to Ravina: Do you not

accept the ruling of Rabbi Ya'akov,

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

He said to him,

Ravina said to Rav Sama: What Rabbi Ya'akov said, that one must distance them by a full thumb-knot,

was stated with reference to the time of making

the tzitzit;

that is what was said.

And indeed, at the time of making them I distanced the gedil by this measure; only afterward did the hole widen and the gedil descend below the required measure.

When Rav Sama heard Ravina's answer,

he was embarrassed,

because he had not known that it had been stated with reference to the time of making.

Rav Ashi said to Rav Sama:

Do not be distressed;

do not feel bad about this, for

one of them

was from the people of Eretz Yisrael [Ravina was from the people of Eretz Yisrael; [he was] considered equal to two of us from Babylonia], since the people of Eretz Yisrael are discerning and sharp 7.

The Gemara now presents three opinions concerning the tzitzit threads and the manner of attaching them to the garment:

Rav Aha bar Ya'akov cast [

he would take]

four

tzitzit threads,

and doubled them, [

he doubled them to make eight before attaching them to the corner]

and inserted them into the cloak,

inserting the tzitzit threads at the fold into the hole of the tallit, so that a kind of loop was formed at the fold, and afterward

he tied them firmly, [

he took the eight ends of the threads and inserted them again into the fold, so that they hung from the tallit in a loop]. The reason he did this was that

he held that we require eight

threads

in the cloak

itself,

so that “gedil” would be “gedilim” in place of “petil.”

And this is how he expounded it: It is written, “You shall make for yourself gedilim,” and a gedil consists of at least two threads, since one thread cannot be called a gedil. Since it is written “gedilim,” this indicates two gedilim, namely, four threads, and when they are doubled there are eight. He holds that all eight must be inserted into the garment, rather than inserting four threads and having only the hanging tassel consist of eight threads.

Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti cast eight

threads and inserted them into the hole of the tallit, doubling them in the middle, and it emerged

that they were sixteen [

after being doubled, they became sixteen hanging threads],

but he did not tie them [

he did not knot them]. Rather, he wound one of the threads around the other fifteen. According to his view as well, there are eight threads in the hole of the garment, in accordance with Rav Aha's opinion.

Mar, the son of Ravina, made

the tzitzit

like ours:

he inserted four threads into the hole and doubled them in the middle, and there were consequently eight threads hanging from the corner.

Rav Naḥman found Rav Adda bar Ahava casting threads,

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

and reciting the blessing “to make tzitzit.”

He said to him

mockingly:

What is this “tzitzi

that I

hear?”

But

this is what Rav said:

The making of

the tzitzit does not require a blessing.

When Rav Huna died, Rav Hisda came to raise

an objection from

Rav's

statement,

Rav's

own teaching, which apparently contradicts it. And this is how he objected:

Did Rav say that tzitzit does not require a blessing? But Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: From where is it derived that tzitzit

made by

an idolater is invalid? It is stated

“Speak to the children of Israel, and they shall make for themselves tzitzit,”

and we expound:

The children of Israel

shall make them, but idolaters shall not make them.

And we raised Rav Hisda's difficulty:

But what contradiction is this?

Surely these two statements do not contradict one another.

Rav Yosef said: Rav Hisda holds

that

any mitzva that is fit to be performed by an idolater,

if it is performed by

an Israelite, it does not require a blessing,

since he cannot say, “Who sanctified us with His mitzvot,” for an idolater is also fit to perform it 10.

And

any mitzva that is invalid when performed by an idolater requires a blessing when performed by an Israelite;

since Rav holds that tzitzit is not valid when made by an idolater, according to this principle he should have to recite a blessing. This is difficult: Why, then, did Rav say that no blessing is required?

And we challenge this: Is

this a general rule

?

But

we have found with regard to

circumcision that it is valid when performed by an idolater.

As it is taught in a beraita: A city in which there is no Jewish circumciser [circumciser]

circumciser

but there is an Aramean physician [gentile],

a gentile,

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

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

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Let

a Samaritan

circumcise,

but not an Aramean!

Because he is suspected of bloodshed.

In any event, we have learned here that an idolater is fit to circumcise, and they did not disagree about this.

On the other hand,

with regard to a Jew,

who circumcises,

he must recite a blessing, as the Master said: One who circumcises says, “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us concerning circumcision,”

and therefore circumcision is valid when performed by an idolater, while a Jew recites a blessing over it; and this contradicts Rav Ḥisda’s general rule!?

And we answer:

Is the reason

that Rav Ḥisda stated this general rule

anything other than according to Rav?

And according to

Rav,

there is no difficulty from circumcision, since Rav indeed

categorically deems invalid

circumcision performed by an idolater.

As it was stated: From where is it derived that circumcision performed by an idolater is invalid? Daro bar Pappa said in the name of Rav:

From the fact that it is written,

“And you shall keep My covenant,”

and we expound it: “I entrust him to one circumcised like you”!

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

From the fact that it is written,

“He shall surely circumcise,”

and we expound it:

“One who is commanded to circumcise shall circumcise!”

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

And we say: The law of

a sukkah supports

Rav Ḥisda, whereas the law of

phylacteries is a refutation of him.

And the Gemara explains:

But a sukkah is valid when made by an idolater.

As it is taught in a beraita: A sukkah made by idolaters, a sukkah made by women, a sukkah made for animals, a sukkah made by Samaritans, and a sukkah made by anyone is valid, provided that it is covered in accordance with its halakhic requirements.

And with regard to a Jew, it is not necessary to recite a blessing, as it is taught in a beraita: One who makes

a sukkah for himself

says: “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who has given us life, sustained us, and enabled us to reach this time”; when he enters to sit in it, he says: “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who sanctified us with His mitzvot

and commanded us to sit in the sukkah.” But

the blessing

“to make a sukkah” is not recited.

This supports Rav Ḥisda, that concerning something valid when made by idolaters, a Jew does not recite a blessing over its making.