מנחות 39 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Perhaps [they said so only where] there were knots [after each joint]. Raba also said, You can infer from this that the upper knot is an ordinance of the Torah; for should you say it is a Rabbinic ordinance, then why was it necessary for the Torah to permit the insertion of [woollen] fringes in a [linen] garment? One would have no doubt about it, for if one merely fastens together [two pieces] with one fastening no connection is thereby formed! You can therefore infer from this that it is an ordinance of the Torah. Rabbah son of R. Adda said in the name of R. Adda who said it in the name of Rab, If a thread had snapped at the top, it is invalid. R. Nahman was sitting and repeating the above rule when Raba raised the following objection against him: This applies only at the outset, but later on the remnants thereof and the curtailed threads thereof may be of any length whatsoever. Now what is meant by ‘remnants’ and what by ‘curtailed threads’? Presumably ‘remnant’ means that a part [of the thread] had broken off and a part had remained, and ‘curtailed’ means that [the thread] had entirely broken away! — No, both terms must be taken together thus, the remnants of the curtailed threads may be of any length whatsoever. Then it should have mentioned only ‘the curtailed threads’; why does it add ‘the remnants’? — It teaches us that there must be left a remnant of the curtailed threads sufficient to make a loop therewith. Rabbah was sitting and reciting the following in the name of Rab: The thread that is used for winding is included in the number of threads. Whereupon R. Joseph said to him, It was Samuel who said it and not Rab. It has also been reported: Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said, R. Josiah of Usha told me that the thread used for winding is included in the number of threads. Rabbah again was sitting and reciting the following in the name of Samuel: If the greater part of the fringe was wound around, it is still valid. Whereupon R. Joseph said to him, It was Rab who said it and not Samuel. Indeed it has been reported: R. Huna b. Judah said in the name of R. Shesheth who said it in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba who in turn said it in the name of Rab, If the greater part of the fringe was wound around, it is still valid. R. Hiyya the son of R. Nathan reports it as follows: R. Huna said in the name of R. Shesheth who said it in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba who said it in the name of Rab, If the greater part of the fringe was wound around, it is still valid. And even if only one joint was made, it is valid. It is most becoming, however, for the fringe to be wound around for a third [of its length] and the remaining two thirds [to hang loose] as locks. What is the minimum length of a joint? — It was taught: Rabbi says, [In a joint] the thread must be wound once, twice and a third time. It was taught: If a man wishes to make few, he should not make less than seven, and if many, he should not make more than thirteen. If few, he should not make less than seven, to correspond to the seven heavens; and if many, he should not make more than thirteen, to correspond to the seven heavens plus the six intervening spaces. A Tanna taught: At the start one begins to wind with the white thread, since Holy Writ says ‘the corner’ [signifying that the thread] of the same [colour] as the corner [must be used first], and at the end one finishes the winding with a white thread, since what is holy we may raise [to a higher degree of sanctity] but not bring down. Once Rab and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah were sitting together when a man passed by wearing a garment entirely blue, to which were attached fringes^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ

^ᵃnote:Where, however, there were no knots after each joint, a curtailed thread would render the whole invalid. Hence there is no proof that there must be a knot after each joint.
^ᵇnote:Here Rashi suggests, either the last knot (as above) that is furthest from the garment at the end of all the windings, or (v. Tosaf. s.v. rae) the first knot that is made as soon as the threads have been inserted in the corner of the garment.
^ᶜnote:I.e., a law given to Moses at Sinai.
^ᵈnote:But by Biblical law it is not necessary to tie the threads together, not even to the garment.
^ᵉnote:This is established by the juxtaposition of the texts, viz., (Deut. XXII, 12) Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and limen together, and (12) Thou shalt make thee twisted cords, intimating that the former prohibition is superseded by the precept of zizith.
^ᶠnote:I.e., joining cloths of wool and of linen with a single stitch or knot.
^ᵍnote:So that by merely threading the woollen strands through the linen garment there is no infringement of the law of ‘mixed stuffs’; hence there was no necessity for an express permission by Holy Writ.
^ʰnote:Close to the garment; the entire thread had thus broken away.
^ⁱnote:That the fringes must be of a prescribed minimum length; cf. infra 41b.
^ʲnote:I.e., in the first instance when attaching the fringes to the garment.
^ᵏnote:l.e., if at one time the fringes had been of the prescribed length, but had later been reduced.
^ˡnote:And yet it is valid, contra R. Nahman.
^ᵐnote:To make up the requisite number of eight threads.
^ⁿnote:Lit., ‘the blue’.
^ᵒnote:Contrary to the prescribed requirement of two thirds hanging loose as locks, v. infra.
^ᵖnote:thkuj, a section of the fringe around which a thread has been wound several times, and bounded at each end by a knot.
^ᵠnote:This part is termed khsd.
^ʳnote:Lit., ‘a branch’ ;bg.
^ˢnote:Sc. joints; so Rashi and Maim. According to Nimukke Joseph the reference is to the number of windings in each joint.
^ᵗnote:v. Hag. 12b. For the connection between the heavens and the zizith v. infra 43b.
^ᵘnote:The white thread is deemed to be of a higher degree of sanctity since it is mentioned first in the text. The middle joint is wound round with the blue thread.

²which were entirely wound around; whereupon Rab remarked, A fine garment, but the fringes are not fine; but Rabbah b. Bar Hana said, A fine garment and fine fringes. Wherein do they differ? — Rabbah b. Bar Hana maintains, since Holy Writ says ‘twisted cords’ and also ‘thread’, [the fringe] may be either [entirely] a twisted cord or [entirely] in loose threads. Rab, however, maintains that there must always be loose threads; but the expression ‘twisted cords’ is required only for the determination of the number of threads; for the expression ‘twisted cord’ would imply two threads, but ‘twisted cords’ implies four; one must therefore twist them into a cord, but from the middle they must hang down in separate threads. Samuel said in the name of Levi, [White] woollen threads fulfil [the precept of fringes] in a linen garment. The question was raised: Would [white] linen threads fulfil [the precept of fringes] in a woollen garment? Do we hold that only [white] woollen threads fulfil [the precept] in a linen garment, for since blue [woollen threads] fulfil [the precept in any garment] white [woollen threads] also fulfil the precept, but [white] linen threads cannot fulfil the precept in a woollen garment; or, we can argue, since it is written, Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together. Thou shalt make thee twisted cords, accordingly it matters not whether woollen threads are put in a linen garment or linen threads in a woollen garment? — Come and hear. Rehabah said in the name of Rab Judah, Woollen threads fulfil the precept in a linen garment and linen threads in a woollen garment; [blue] woollen threads together with [white] linen threads fulfil the precept in any garment, even [in a garment] of silk. This differs from R. Nahman's view, for R. Nahman said, Silk garments are exempt from zizith. Raba raised the following objection against R. Nahman: It was taught: Garments of silk or of raw silk or of floss-silk must be provided with zizith! — That is merely a Rabbinic enactment. But then consider the next clause [of that Baraitha]: Woollen threads and linen threads fulfil the precept in every case. Now if you say that it is so by the law of the Torah then that is why diverse kinds are permitted for them; but if you say that it is merely a Rabbinic enactment, how can it be that diverse kinds are permitted for them? — Render, either woollen threads or linen threads. And that is indeed the more reasonable view to take, for it reads in the final clause [of that Baraitha]: These fulfil the precept in a garment of the same material but not in a garment of a different material. Now if you say that it is merely a Rabbinic enactment, then that is why these fulfil the precept in a garment of the same material; but if you say that it is so by the law of the Torah, surely [according to the Torah] only wool and linen can discharge the obligation! — This is not a conclusive argument, for the text may be explained in accordance with Raba's argument. For Raba pointed out a contradiction: It is written, The corner, [which implies that the fringes are to be of] the same kind [of material] as that of the corner, but it is also written, Wool and linen. How are the texts to be reconciled? Wool and linen fulfil [the precept of zizith] both in garments of their own kind [of material] as well as in garments of a different kind, whereas other kinds of threads fulfil the precept only in a garment of their own kind [of material], but not in a garment of a different kind [of material]. R. Nahman, however, agrees with the view of the Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael. For a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: Since in the Torah the word ‘garments’ is used without being specified, but in one particular case Holy Writ specified ‘wool and linen’, the inference is that all garments are understood as being of wool or of linen. Abaye said, This teaching of a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael differs from that of another Tanna of the same school. For a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: By garment I understand only a garment of [sheep's] wool; whence can I include garments of camel hair, of hare's hair, of goat's hair, or of raw silk or floss-silk or fine silk? Scripture therefore says, Or a garment. 24^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ

^ᵛnote:The entire fringe had been covered with windings of thread so that no part hung loose as the locks of hair. I.e., it was all khsd and no ;bg.
^ʷnote:Deut. XXII, 22. Heb. ohkhsd.
^ˣnote:Num. XV, 38. Heb. kh,p.
^ʸnote:For a twisted cord cannot be made of less than two threads.
^ᶻnote:In the plural.
^ᵃᵃnote:Or: ‘that which is used for winding shall be of it’, i.e., the thread that is wound around the others is included in the number of threads.
^ᵃᵇnote:Together with the blue woollen threads.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lit., ‘discharge’. Sc. the garment of its obligation.
^ᵃᵈnote:For in every garment of whatever material blue threads must be inserted, and these blue threads,,kf,, must be of wool.
^ᵃᵉnote:Deut. XXII, 11, 12.
^ᵃᶠnote:The precept is always fulfilled thereby.
^ᵃᵍnote:Shab. 20b.
^ᵃʰnote:Meaning apparently that if the blue threads are of wool and the white threads of linen they together fulfil the obligation of zizith in any silk garment.
^ᵃⁱnote:That silk garments must be provided with zizith.
^ᵃʲnote:But the two kinds together would not be permitted to be used as fringes in a silk garment.
^ᵃᵏnote:Sc., threads of silk.
^ᵃˡnote:For only wool and linen are mentioned in connection with the zizith; cf. Deut. XXII, 11, 12.
^ᵃᵐnote:Num. XV, 38.
^ᵃⁿnote:Cf. Deut. XXII, 11, 12, which shows that the fringes must be either of wool or of linen, whatever the material of the garment is.
^ᵃᵒnote:E.g., silk.
^ᵃᵖnote:Who maintains that silk garments require fringes only by Rabbinic ordinance, for according to the law of the Torah only garments of wool and of linen are subject to zizith.
^ᵃᵠnote:Cf. Num. XV, 38: That they make them fringes in the corners of their garments; or with reference to uncleanness by creeping things, Lev. XI, 32.
^ᵃʳnote:With reference to plagues in garments, Lev. XIII, 47, 48.
^ᵃˢnote:Ibid. 47: Whether it be a woolen garment or a linen garment; the conjunction ‘or’ includes other garments too as being subject to the law of plagues.