מנחות 40 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Our Rabbis taught: A linen garment is, according to Beth Shammai, exempt from zizith; but Beth Hillel declare it liable. The halachah is in accordance with Beth Hillel. R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok said, Is it not a fact that any one in Jerusalem who attaches blue threads [to his linen garment] causes amazement? Rabbi said, If that is so, why did they forbid it? Because people are not versed in the law. Raba son of R. Hanan said to Raba, Then let ten people insert it and let them go about in the market place and so the law will be made known to all! People will wonder at it all the more. Then let it be announced at the public lecture! — It is to be feared that people will use imitation blue. But it is no worse than if it were white! — Since one could use threads of the same material [as the garment], it is not [allowed to do otherwise]; this being in accordance with Resh Lakish's view, for Resh Lakish said, Wherever you find a positive precept and a negative precept [in opposition], if you can possibly observe both, well and good, otherwise let the positive precept come and override the negative one. But it can be examined, can it not? — Rather we apprehend that it may have been used for testing. But it can be announced on public notices, can it not? — And are we to rely upon public notices? Whereupon Raba said, If^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ

^ᵃnote:It is even forbidden to wear a linen garment that is provided with fringes on account of the prohibition of diverse kinds, linen and wool, which prohibition is not waived even for the performance of the law of zizith.
^ᵇnote:For the prohibition of diverse kinds is waived by the precept of zizith, this being inferred by reason of the juxtaposition of the two texts; cf. Deut. XXII, 11 and 12.
^ᶜnote:But it is not forbidden, thus contrary to Beth Shammai's view. Aliter: it causes amazement by reason of the flagrant transgression of the law, thus R. Eliezer b. R. Zadok is in conflict with Beth Hillel.
^ᵈnote:Since it is not forbidden in law, why did Beth Shammai impose the restriction? Aliter: since Beth Hillel's view was accepted as the law, why should it create amazement in Jerusalem?
^ᵉnote:And if it were permitted to wear diverse kinds in pursuance of the precept of zizith people might forget about the precept and would wear diverse kinds in all circumstances.
^ᶠnote:That the prohibition of diverse kinds is waived only in pursuance of the precept of zizith.
^ᵍnote:That pious men should be wearing garments of diverse kinds, wool and linen.
^ʰnote:ikht tke, a vegetable blue dye, probably indigo, being an imitation of the genuine blue ,kf, which is obtained from the blood of a mollusc. Now the prohibition of diverse kinds is waived only when woollen threads dyed with genuine blue are used, but not when they are dyed with imitation blue.
^ⁱnote:The threads dyed with this imitation blue should be regarded as though not dyed at all, and it has been established that in the absence of blue threads ordinary white woollen threads may be used in their stead.
^ʲnote:Since genuine blue is unobtainable and in its place white threads are used, it is proper to use those threads which are of the same material as the garment, thus avoiding any clashing between precepts and obviating the one overriding the other; so that only white threads of linen may be used as fringes in a linen garment.
^ᵏnote:By carrying out the positive precept without at the same time transgressing the prohibition, as here by attaching white threads of linen as fringes in a linen garment.
^ˡnote:Every blue thread can be subjected to a test so as to ascertain whether the blue dye is genuine or imitation; v. infra 42b. According to another interpretation given in Rashi, the purchaser of the blue thread can inspect the dye in the pan of the dyer in order to ascertain whether the dye is genuine or not.
^ᵐnote:This thread of blue may be the testing thread, i.e., the thread that was dipped into the pan of dye in order to ascertain whether the dye had reached its proper strength and consistency, and it may not be inserted in a garment, for it is essential that the dyeing of the thread be prepared specifically for the purpose of zizith and not for testing purposes. According to the second interpretation (v. prec. n.): the inspection is of no avail, for the dyer may have drawn off a small quantity so as to test its colour and then have poured it back into the pan, which action renders the entire contents of the pan invalid for the zizith.
^ⁿnote:Notifying all dyers that the testing thread may not be used in a garment. And according to the second interpretation: notifying all dyers that the quantity taken for the test may not be poured back into the pan.
^ᵒnote:Some people may ignore these notices, either through inadvertence or deliberately.

²in respect of leaven on the Passover Festival or in respect of the Day of Atonement which involve the penalty of kareth we rely upon public notices, how much more so may we rely upon them here where only the transgression of a positive precept can be involved! — Rather, said Raba, I suggested the following explanation and in the West it was similarly reported in the name of R. ‘Zera: The apprehension is that the linen garment may have been torn within three fingerbreadths’ distance [from the hem] and it had been sewn together [with linen threads, and the threads were left hanging for the fringe], and the Torah has said, ‘Thou shalt make and not use what is ready made’. R. Zera [it was reported,] removed [the fringes from] his linen garment. Rab Zera said, It is also to be feared that one will use it as a night wrap. Raba also said, I stated the following and in the West it was similarly reported in the name of R. Zera: If the garment is made of cloth and the corners thereof of leather, it is subject to zizith; If the garment is made of leather and the corners thereof of cloth, it is exempt. What is the reason? Because we consider the main part of the garment. R. Ahai, however, always decided according to the material of the corner. Raba said in the name of R. Sehora who said it in the name of R. Huna, If a man inserted fringes in the corners of a three-cornered garment and then added a fourth corner [and inserted a fringe therein], it is invalid, because of the rule ‘Thou shalt make, and not use what is ready made’. An objection was raised: The pious men of old used to insert the zizith as soon as three fingerbreadths of the garment had been woven! — Render: they used to insert the fringes as soon as the last three fingerbreadths had been reached. Do we then always apply the rule ‘Thou shalt make, and not use what is ready made’? Surely R. Zera has said that if a man inserted fringes in a garment that was already provided with fringes, it is valid! — Raba replied, Since one thereby transgresses the law of Thou shalt not add thereto, the act done is not considered at all. R. Papa demurred: How do you know that this man's intention was to add [to the other fringes]? Perhaps it was to cancel the others, so that there was no transgression of ‘Thou shalt not add thereto’; accordingly the act done is considered an act. R. Zera said in the name of R. Mattena who said it in the name of Samuel, [A garment that is provided with] fringes does not come within the prohibition of diverse kinds, and [it is the same] even though the garment was exempt from zizith. What is meant by ‘a garment exempt from zizith’? Does it mean a garment smaller than the prescribed measure? But it has been taught: A garment with which a child can cover his head and most of his body,^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ

^ᵖnote:The decisions of the Sanhedrin concerning intercalation of the year whereby the year is deemed to be a leap year and thus postponing the Passover Festival for a month, or intercalation of the month whereby another day is added to the month and thus postponing the Day of Atonement (or any Festival that comes in the subsequent month) by one day, were announced to the public by means of notices and letters.
^ᵠnote:For the use of the test thread (or the thread dyed from the quantity taken for testing) is but an infringement of a positive precept, for Holy Writ declares, That they make them fringes (Num. XV, 38), that is to say, the threads must be prepared specifically for the zizith.
^ʳnote:Why it is forbidden to insert the blue woollen threads in a linen garment.
^ˢnote:Lit., ‘in agreement with me’.
^ᵗnote:So that when the garment is repaired it is already provided with part of the fringe, which is invalid for the precept.
^ᵘnote:Deut. XXII, 12.
^ᵛnote:Accordingly when threads of wool are added to the fringe the prohibition of diverse kinds applies and it is not waived by the precept since the precept is not properly performed.
^ʷnote:For the same reason as explained above by Raba.
^ˣnote:Which is exempt from zizith. And whenever the garment is used not in pursuance of the performance of the precept (e.g., if worn by night) one transgresses the prohibition of diverse kinds.
^ʸnote:And a leather garment is exempt from zizith.
^ᶻnote:And the rule is just the reverse of that stated by Raba.
^ᵃᵃnote:A three-cornered garment is exempt from zizith, accordingly when the first three fringes were inserted there was no obligation for fringes, and when the obligation falls due, i.e. when the fourth corner is added, the fringes are found to be already made.
^ᵃᵇnote:Lit., ‘the blue’ (threads).
^ᵃᶜnote:As soon as a strip three fingers wide (the minimum size of a garment) had been woven they used to insert two fringes, one at each corner, and the other two fringes they inserted when the cloth was finished. Now it is clear that the obligation of fringes falls due only when the weaving is finished, nevertheless, it is taught here, that the first two fringes are deemed valid and are not regarded as ready made.
^ᵃᵈnote:A second fringe was inserted at each corner close to the existing fringe, and when all eight fringes were attached, the first set of four fringes were cut away.
^ᵃᵉnote:I.e., the second set of fringes satisfy the law, although when these fringes were inserted there was no obligation for them, since the first set of fringes had not yet been removed.
^ᵃᶠnote:Deut. XIII, 1. At the time when each fringe of the second set is inserted there is a transgression of this precept, so that the fringe so made is null and void, and therefore only when the first set is removed does the second set of fringes come into existence, Where, however, the fringes were inserted in a three-cornered garment, this act, not being an infringement of the law, is an act of consequence, and when a fourth corner is added and a fringe attached thereto, the first three fringes are disqualified as being ready made.
^ᵃᵍnote:Nevertheless R. Zera rules that the second set of fringes is valid even though it was ready made; thus in conflict with the principle laid down.
^ᵃʰnote:And it may be worn by a person that is not subject to the law of zizith, e.g. a woman (R. Tam).