Menachot

of a forty-day old child,1 and soak [the blue thread] in it overnight until the morning; if the colour faded it is invalid,2 but if not, it is valid. Moreover, R. Adda stated the following test before Raba in the name of R. ‘Avira: One should take a piece of hard leavened dough of barley meal and bake it with [the blue thread] inside; if the colour improved3 it is valid, but if it deteriorated it is invalid; and in order to remember this, think of the phrase ‘a false change, a true change!’4 — The statement ‘There is no manner of testing the blue thread’ refers to the test quantity. 5 Mar of Moshke once obtained in the time of R. Ahai some blue thread; on testing it by the test submitted by R. Isaac the son of R. Judah its colour faded, but on testing it by R. Adda's test its colour improved. He was about to declare it invalid when R. Ahai said to him, This is neither genuine blue nor imitation blue! We must therefore say that one test6 supplements the other thus: if the test of R. Isaac the son of R. Judah had been applied and the colour had not faded it is certainly valid, but if its colour had faded we should then test it by R. Adda's test by [baking it in] a hard piece of leavened dough; if its colour improved it is valid, but if it deteriorated it is invalid. A message was sent from there [Palestine] saying, The tests supplement each other. R. Mani was most particular when buying [the blue thread]. in accordance with the restrictions of the above Baraitha;7 whereupon a certain old man said to him, Those who long preceded you acted so, and they were successful in their business. Our Rabbis taught: If a man bought a garment furnished with zizith from an Israelite in the market, the presumption is [that it is valid];8 if he bought it from a gentile, who was a merchant, it is valid,9 but if he was a private individual it is invalid.10 And [this is so] not withstanding that they said, A man may not sell a garment furnished with zizith to a gentile unless he removed the zizith.11 What is the reason for this? — Here it was explained, on account of a harlot.12 Rab Judah said, It is to be feared that [an Israelite] might join him on the road and he might kill him.13 Rab Judah attached fringes to the aprons of [the women of] his household;14 moreover, he used to say every morning the blessing [‘. . . and hast commanded us] to enwrap ourselves with the fringes’. But since he attached [the fringes to the womens’ garments], obviously he is of the opinion that it is a precept not dependent on a fixed time;15 why then did he say the blessing every morning?16 — He follows Rabbi's view; for it was taught: Whenever a man puts on the tefillin he should make a blessing over them, says Rabbi. But if so, at any time [of the day whenever he puts on the garment he should say the blessing]? — Rab Judah was a most decorous person and would not take off his cloak the whole day long. Then why [did he say the blessing] in the morning?17 — That was when he changed from night clothes into day clothes. Our Rabbis taught: All must observe the law of zizith, priests, Levites, and Israelites, proselytes, women and slaves. R. Simeon declares women exempt, since it is a positive precept dependent on a fixed time,18 and women are exempt from all positive precepts that are dependent on a fixed time. The Master said, ‘All must observe the law of zizith, priests, Levites, and Israelites’. Is not this obvious? For if priests and Levites and Israelites were exempt, then who would observe it? — It was stated particularly on account of priests. For I might have argued, since it is written, Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together, and [it is followed by,] Thou shalt make thee twisted cords,19 . that only those who are forbidden to wear mingled stuff must observe the law of zizith, and as priests are permitted to wear mingled stuff20 they need not observe [the law of zizith]; we are therefore taught [that they, too, are bound], for although while performing the service [in the Temple] they may wear [mingled stuff] they certainly may not wear it when not performing the service. R. Simeon declares women exempt’. What is R. Simeon's reason? — It was taught: That ye may look upon it:21 this excludes a night garment. You say it excludes a night garment, but perhaps it is not so, but it excludes rather a blind man's garment? The verse, when it says, Wherewith thou coverest thyself,22 clearly includes a blind man's garment; how then must I explain the verse, That ye may look upon it? As excluding a night garment. And why do you choose to include a blind man's garment and to exclude a night garment?23 include a blind man's garment since it is looked upon by others, whilst I exclude a night garment since it cannot be looked upon by others. And the Rabbis, was for the better it is genuine and is valid. in the quantity taken out as a test. purpose of the precept. Jew, producing the garment in support of her words. garment with fringes, and would have no suspicion against him so as to guard himself against attack. their performance; therefore by imposing the precept of zizith upon women Rab Judah obviously holds that night as well as day is the proper time for the fringes. he rose. to zizith — for according to them the precept is not limited to time, a fortiori a blind man's garment is subject to zizith.