Menachot 42b — the Talmud in English

And from

tefillin

it is proven to the contrary, and this is

its refutation: But tefillin—are they not invalid when made by a gentile, as Rav

Ḥinana son of Rava taught:

exact page location

A Torah scroll, tefillin, and mezuzot that were written by a sectarian, an informer, a gentile, a slave, a woman, or a minor

or

an apostate—

these are

invalid, as it is stated: “And you shall bind them, and you shall write them”

and we derive:

Whoever is subject to binding is subject to writing; whoever is not subject to binding is not subject to writing,

and all those mentioned are not subject to binding, since they are all exempt from tefillin [and an informer and an apostate, despite being obligated, are considered not subject to binding, for they have cast off from themselves the yoke. Gittin 45b].

And

on the other hand,

in the case of an Israelite one need not recite a blessing

upon making tefillin,

for Rav Ḥiyya son of Rav Huna sent in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Upon

putting on

hand-tefillin, he says: “Blessed are You ... who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to put on tefillin”; and upon

putting on

head-tefillin, he says: “Blessed are You ... who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the mitzva of tefillin”; but for making tefillin he does not recite a blessing

upon their making , and this is difficult for Rav Ḥisda, who said that for anything which a gentile is unfit to make, one recites a blessing upon it?

And we conclude:

Rather, is this not the reason:

rather, the rule is that

every mitzva whose completion is at its making

the

mitzva, such as circumcision, even though it is valid when performed by a gentile,

nevertheless

in the case of an Israelite one must recite a blessing; but every mitzva whose making is not

that is,

the completion

of the

mitzva, such as tefillin,

for their making is not the completion of the mitzva but rather their putting on,

even though they are invalid when made by a gentile,

nevertheless

in the case of an Israelite one need not recite a blessing.

And with regard to tzitzit,

where Rav Naḥman and Rav Ḥisda disagreed according to Rav as to whether one must recite a blessing upon making them,

they disagree over this: One Master holds that it is the obligation of the tallit,

and even if he does not wear it, he is obligated to place tzitzit on it; therefore, the placing of the tzitzit is the completion of its making, and consequently he must recite a blessing.

And one Master holds that it is the obligation of the person,

and its mitzva is completed only through wearing it; therefore, one need not recite a blessing upon making it.

Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: You learn it in this manner

regarding this law: Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav above that tzitzit made by a gentile is invalid, and therefore it was difficult for you why one need not recite a blessing upon making it.

We learn it in this manner:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: From where is it established that tzitzit made by gentiles is valid? As it is stated: “Speak to the children of Israel and they shall make for themselves tzitzit.”

And we derive:

Others shall make for them,

that is, others, namely gentiles, are also fit to make tzitzit 15 .

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

If he

made them

[the threads of the tzitzit]

from the thorns,

that is, threads hanging at the end of the garment’s sheet and cut from the garment, and he did not cut them off but made them into tzitzit for the garment; or if he made them

from the fringe threads,

such as a tallit that they sewed, or in which they made a hem with a needle, and the ends of the sewing threads hang from it, and from them they grew the tzitzit; or

from the remnants of the loom,

which are the weaving threads that remained and hang at the end of the garment, and from them he made tzitzit for this garment from which they hang—for as long as these threads are attached to the garment, they are

invalid,

because their attachment to the garment was not done for the sake of the mitzva of tzitzit 16 .

But if he made them

from the bundles of thread

[round balls of thread, Rashi, Sukkah 9a],

it is valid,

since when they were attached to the garment, they were attached for the sake of tzitzit, and this is considered making for its own sake, even though these threads were not spun for their own sake.

Rav Yehuda said:

When I stated

these laws

before Shmuel, he said: Even

if he made them

from the bundles of thread, it is invalid,

for although the threads were attached for the sake of the mitzva of tzitzit, nevertheless their spinning was not done for the sake of tzitzit, and with regard to tzitzit

we require spinning for its own sake 17 .

And we say: The matter over which Rav and Shmuel disagreed, whether spinning must be for its own sake,

is [a dispute] among the tannaim

.

For it was taught: If he overlaid

the

tefillin with gold,

that is, he made the compartments of the tefillin from gold and not from leather,

or if he placed upon them

[an expression of patching and covering]

the hide of an impure animal,

that is, he made the compartments of the tefillin from the hide of an impure animal, these compartments of the tefillin are

invalid,

because a compartment of leather is required 18 .

And specifically the hide of a pure animal is also required, for we learned from the verse, “So that the Torah of the Lord shall be in your mouth,” that the writing of a Torah scroll, and likewise sacred objects, must be made from what is permitted in your mouth, whereas the hide of an impure animal is forbidden in your mouth. But if he made them from

the hide of a pure animal, they are valid, even though he did not process them for their own sake,

for the sake of the mitzva of tefillin.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even the hide of a pure animal

is invalid until he processes it for its own sake.

Just as the Rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagreed concerning preparing the hide for making the compartments of tefillin, whether it must be done for its own sake, so too Rav and Shmuel disagreed concerning spinning the threads of tzitzit, which is preparation of the threads for attaching them, whether they must be spun for their own sake. It follows that Rav and Shmuel disagree in the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel 19 .

Abaye said to Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda: This tekhelet—

the tekhelet threads in tzitzit—

how do you dye it?

He said to him: We bring

[we bring]

the blood of a ḥillazon and dyes, and put them into a cauldron and boil it

[we throw the blood and the dyes into a cauldron and boil them],

and take a little in an eggshell

[we take a little of the dye in an eggshell in order to test the dye],

and test it with wool

[we dye with a tuft of wool inside that shell, to know whether this tekhelet is good],

and

afterward

we throw away that eggshell and burn the wool,

we throw away the dye in the eggshell and burn the wool with which they tested it.

And from this statement

learn three things

of law: a.

Learn from it

from the fact that they burn the test wool so that it will not be made into tzitzit, that

testing is invalid,

meaning that the same wool which they dye for the sake of testing is invalid for tzitzit 20 .

b.

And infer from it

also

that we require dyeing for its own sake [ [A0005]for the sake of the mitzva of tzitzit] and therefore that which was dyed for testing is unfit.

for the mitzva of tzitzit]. Therefore, what was dyed for testing is disqualified.

c.

And infer from it from the fact that one must cast out the dye that is in the egg and is not permitted to throw the egg into the dye-pot,

that

that testing renders it unfit,

and that is: if he poured into the dye-pot the dye that they used for testing, he renders the entire dye-pot unfit 21 .

And we challenge: how did you say that we learned three separate laws from here? Surely

The Gemara asks: How can you say that we learned three separate laws from here?

“testing renders it unfit” is “dyeing for its own sake,”

for they are one law: testing renders it unfit because we require dyeing for its own sake?

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said,

in truth these are not two different laws, but

“what is the reason”

for the matter

he is saying. What is the reason that testing renders it unfit? Because we require dyeing for its own sake.

And we say: this law, that testing renders tzitzit unfit,

is [the subject of] a dispute between tannaim

.

For it was taught in a beraita:

Testing renders it unfit, because it is stated

with regard to the making of the robe of the High Priest,

“all techelet”

and it indicates that the entire appearance of the hilazon must be dyed into the wool of the tzitzit, and it must not have been dyed with the techelet in this dye-pot after another thing was dyed with it previously,

the words of Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Dahavai says: even its second appearance,

for wool has already been dyed in this dye-pot,

is fit

what remains for dyeing wool for tzitzit,

because it is stated, “and scarlet wool,”

and it indicates that even the second appearance of this crimson is still called “wool.” And if so, the same law applies to techelet mentioned in that verse: its second appearance is called techelet 23 .

The Sages taught: Techelet has no test [

and the Gemara thought that the beraita means that it is impossible to test techelet to determine whether it is techelet or perhaps kela ilan, which most closely resembles the techelet made from the blood of the hilazon].

And since it has no test,

it is not purchased [

one may not buy techelet]

except from an expert

who knows that kela ilan is forbidden for tzitzit 24 .

But

tefillin have a test,

for a person can check the passages of the tefillin whether the scribe was precise regarding the deficient and additional letters or not,

and

even so

they are purchased only from an expert

who knows that the parchment must be prepared for the sake of tefillin.

Scrolls [

Torah scrolls]

and mezuzot have a test,

for one can check the writing whether it was done according to its law,

and

even

they are purchased

by them

from anyone

because there is no need to prepare them for their own sake 25 .

And we challenge the first law: But does techelet have no test? Yet Rav Yitzhak, son of Rav Yehudah, tested it

to determine through the dye whether it was techelet or kela ilan, as follows:

(Mnemonic: in rain):

He brings

bringing

alum [

a type of dye]

and water

of fenugreek

water that comes out of fenugreek,

water of fenugreek,

the water extracted from fenugreek,