Menachot

and in which a grown-up person would walk out for a moment, is subject to zizith; but if a child cannot cover with it his head and most of his body, even though a grown-up person might walk out in it for a moment, it is exempt. And so it is, too, in regard to diverse kinds. Now we pondered over this: What does the ruling ‘And so it is, too, in regard to diverse kinds’ signify? Can it mean: And so it is, too, in regard to the applicability of the prohibition of diverse kinds?1 Surely we have learnt:2 Diverse kinds may not be worn even for a moment! R. Nahman b. Isaac, however, explained, It means, And so it is, too, in regard to the insertion of fringes in a linen garment!3 — We must say that ‘a garment exempt from fringes’ means, a garment already provided with fringes in which one inserted [another set of fringes].4 But has not R. Zera taught this once?5 — One was stated as an inference from the other.6 Our Rabbis taught: A garment that was folded over is subject to zizith, but R. Simeon declares it to be exempt.7 They are agreed, however, that if it was folded over and sewn down, it is subject to the law. Is not this obvious? — It is necessary to be stated where it was only fastened down with pins.8 Rabbah son of R. Huna once visited the house of Raba b. R. Nahman and saw that the latter was wearing a garment that was folded over, the fringes being inserted in the folded corners. It happened to become unfolded and the fringes were found to be above9 [in the middle of the garment], whereupon Rabbah said to him, ‘Surely this is not the corner prescribed by the All-Merciful in the Torah!’ He at once cast off this garment and put on another. Thereupon Rabbah said to him, ‘Do you think that [the law of zizith] is an obligation incumbent upon the person? It is an obligation attaching to the garment;10 go, therefore, and insert the fringes in it [in the proper manner]’. Shall we say that the following supports his view?11 [For it was taught]: The pious men of old used to insert the fringes as soon as three fingerbreadths of the garment had been woven?12 — It is different with those pious men for they imposed upon themselves additional obligations. His view13 is at variance with the angel's view. For an angel once found R. Kattina wearing a linen wrap,14 and he exclaimed, ‘Kattina, Kattina, a wrap in summer and a cloak15 in winter, and what is to happen to the law of zizith?’ ‘And do you punish’, asked R. Kattina, ‘a person [who omits to perform] a positive precept?’ ‘In a time of wrath’, replied the angel, ‘we do’. Now if you hold that the law of zizith is an obligation incumbent upon the person then that is why one would incur guilt for not wearing a garment with fringes; but if you hold that it is an obligation attaching to the garment, then why [is any guilt incurred] seeing that these garments are exempt? What then do you hold? That it is an obligation incumbent upon the person? I grant you that the All — Merciful would punish one who wears [without fringes] a garment that is subject to fringes, but would the All-Merciful punish one who wears [without fringes] a garment that is not subject to it? — This is what [the angel] implied, ‘You find every excuse to free yourself from the law of zizith’. R. Tobi b. Kisna said in the name of Samuel, The garments put away in a chest are subject to zizith.16 Samuel, however, admits that where an old man made it for his shroud17 it is exempt, for the Divine Law says, Wherewith thou coverest thyself,18 and this is not intended for an ordinary covering. Nevertheless, when the time comes for its use we should insert fringes in it, on account of the injunction, Whoso mocketh the poor19 blasphemeth his Maker.20 Rehabah said in the name of Rab Judah, If a garment was torn more than three [fingerbreadths’ distance from the corner], it may be sewn up, but if [torn] within three [fingerbreadths’ distance from the corner], it may not be sewn up.21 It has been taught [in a Baraitha] to the same effect, viz., If a garment was torn more than three [fingerbreadths’ distance from the corner], it may be sewn up, but if [torn] within three [fingerbreadths’ distance from the corner], R. Meir says, It may not be sewn up; but the Sages say, It may be sewn up. And they are agreed that one may not fetch a piece of cloth, even a cubit square, which has fringes to it from another garment and tack it on to this garment.22 And they are also agreed that the fringes may be taken out of another garment and put into this garment, temporarily is not prohibited, although consisting of diverse kinds, wool and linen. the body of a child. It is thus evident that a garment smaller than the prescribed measure, even though provided with fringes, comes within the prohibition of diverse kinds. kinds does not apply. to Tosaf. and Sh. Mek. it is just the reverse, i.e., the previous ruling was inferred from this one. the garment, and not in the corner as required by law. likelihood of the garment becoming unfolded. garment one is wearing is provided with fringes. duty to insert fringes would arise only when the garment was about to be worn. V. Ber. 18a, and Tosaf. Nid. 61b s.v. kct. three fingerbreadths’ distance from the corner (the area within which it is proper to insert the fringes, v. infra), it may not be sewn together, for after the sewing a thread may be left hanging and, together with other threads, will be used for the fringe. But such a fringe is invalid since one of the threads was ready made and not inserted for the purpose of the fringe. According to R. Amram, Halakoth Gedoloth, and Nimmuke Joseph this garment had fringes to it but one corner with the fringe had torn off; now if the piece torn off was more than three fingerbreadths’ distance on each side from the corner, i.e., the piece was three fingerbreadths square or more, it is still a garment and the fringe retains its character as a fringe, so that it may be sewn to the rest of the garment and the fringes are valid: If, however, the piece was less than three fingerbreadths square, it is no more a garment and the fringe is no more a fringe, consequently it may not be sewn to the rest of the garment so as to serve as a fringe, since the fringe had already lost its character as such.