מנחות מא, א

מנחות מא, א

נושאים הלכות ציצית פ"אפ"גהלכות כלאים פ"י

1. א 2
   וְהַגָּדוֹל יוֹצֵא בָּהּ דֶּרֶךְ עֲרַאי – חַיֶּיבֶת בְּצִיצִית, אֵין הַקָּטָן מִתְכַּסֶּה בּוֹ רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַגָּדוֹל יוֹצֵא בָּהּ עֲרַאי – פְּטוּרָה, וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן כִּלְאַיִם.
   and an adult goes out in public on occasion while wearing it, it is required to have ritual fringes. But if it is not large enough for a minor to cover his head and most of his body with it, then even if an adult goes out in public on occasion while wearing it, it is exempt from ritual fringes. And so too with regard to diverse kinds, i.e., the prohibition against wearing wool and linen together.
2. ב
   וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: מַאי ״וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן כִּלְאַיִם״? אִילֵּימָא וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן אִיסּוּרָא דְכִלְאַיִם, וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: אֵין עֲרַאי בְּכִלְאַיִם!
   And we discussed it: What is meant by: And so too with regard to diverse kinds? If we say that it means: And so too with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds, that if a minor could not cover the majority of his head and body with it, the prohibition of diverse kinds does not apply, that is difficult: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Kilayim 9:2): There is no exemption with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds for clothing that an adult would not wear even occasionally in public?
3. ג
   וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן סָדִין בְּצִיצִית.
   And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says in explanation: Rather, the baraita means: And so too with regard to whether a linen cloak is required to have ritual fringes. If the cloak is large enough for a minor to cover his head and most of his body with it, then it requires ritual fringes, and wearing the garment with the ritual fringes is not a violation of the prohibition of diverse kinds. But if the garment is smaller than that, it is prohibited to place ritual fringes on it, due to the prohibition of diverse kinds. Therefore, one cannot explain Shmuel’s statement to mean that a cloak that is exempt from ritual fringes because it is too small is not subject to the prohibition of diverse kinds.
4. ד
   אֶלָּא מַאי פְּטוּרָה – הֵטִיל לַמּוּטֶלֶת.
   Rather, what is meant by the statement that a cloak that is exempt from ritual fringes is not subject to the prohibition of diverse kinds? It is referring to where one affixed ritual fringes to a garment that already had ritual fringes affixed to it. Even though the second set of ritual fringes is superfluous, nevertheless there is no violation of the prohibition of diverse kinds.
5. ה
   וְהָא אַמְרַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא? חֲדָא מִכְּלָל דַּחֲבֶירְתָּהּ אִיתְּמַר.
   The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Zeira already say this one time when he stated that if one attached ritual fringes to a garment that already had ritual fringes attached to it and he then removed the first set of strings, the garment is fit? The Gemara answers: One was stated from the other by inference, and Rabbi Zeira did not state both statements.
6. ו 3
   תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: טַלִּית כְּפוּלָה חַיֶּיבֶת בְּצִיצִית, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר, וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאִם כְּפָלָהּ וּתְפָרָהּ – שֶׁחַיֶּיבֶת.
   § The Sages taught in a baraita: A very long cloak that is folded in half is required to have ritual fringes at the fold. And Rabbi Shimon deems it exempt from ritual fringes at the fold because that is not where the corners of the garment are located. And Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis agree that if he folded it and sewed it, it is required to have ritual fringes at the fold.
7. ז 2
   תְּפָרָהּ, פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא דְּנַקְטַהּ בְּסִיכֵּי.
   The Gemara challenges: If one sewed it, it is obvious that it is required to have ritual fringes at the fold. The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to state this halakha because it is referring to a case where he fastened it with pins rather than sewing it in the conventional manner.
8. ח
   רַבָּה בַּר הוּנָא אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי רָבָא בַּר רַב נַחְמָן, חַזְיֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה מִיכַּסֵּי טַלִּית כְּפוּלָה, וּרְמֵי לֵיהּ חוּטֵי עִילָּוֵי כְּפֵילָא. אִיפְּשִׁיטָא, וַאֲתָא חוּטָא וְקָם לַהֲדֵי רֵישֵׁיהּ.
   The Gemara relates that Rabba bar Huna arrived at the house of Rava bar Rav Naḥman, and he saw that Rava bar Rav Naḥman was wearing a cloak that was folded and that he had affixed strings to it on the corners of the fold. The cloak unfolded, and the string that had been on the corner of the fold now came and settled near his head, i.e., in the middle of the cloak, as the two sides of the cloak were in the front and back of Rava bar Rav Naḥman.
9. ט
   אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו הַיְינוּ כָּנָף דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא! אֲתָא שַׁדְיַיהּ, אִיכַּסִּי גְּלִימָא אַחֲרִיתִי.
   Rabba bar Huna said to Rava bar Rav Naḥman: This is not the corner of the garment that the Merciful One writes about in the Torah. Rava bar Rav Naḥman went and threw it off, and he covered himself with a different cloak.
10. י 1
    אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי סָבְרַתְּ חוֹבַת גַּבְרָא הוּא? חוֹבַת טַלִּית הוּא, זִיל רְמִי לַהּ.
    Rabba bar Huna said to Rava bar Rav Naḥman: Do you hold that ritual fringes are an obligation incumbent upon the man? That is not so. Rather, it is an obligation that pertains to every cloak that one owns. Therefore, go and affix ritual fringes to it properly.
11. יא
    לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: חֲסִידִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָרְגוּ בָּהּ שָׁלֹשׁ – הָיוּ מְטִילִין בָּהּ תְּכֵלֶת. שָׁאנֵי חֲסִידִים, דְּמַחְמְרִי אַנַּפְשַׁיְיהוּ.
    The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a baraita supports the opinion of Rabba bar Huna: It is told of the early generations of pious men that once they weaved three fingerbreadths of the length of the garment, they would affix the white and sky-blue strings to the first two corners, even though the garment was not yet ready to be worn. This seems to prove that there is an obligation to affix ritual fringes to all the cloaks in one’s possession, even if he is not currently wearing them. The Gemara rejects this proof: The pious men were different, as they would act stringently with themselves. Therefore, one cannot adduce the actual requirement from their behavior.
12. יב 5
    וּפְלִיגָא דְּמַלְאֲכָא, דְּמַלְאֲכָא אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַב קַטִּינָא דְּמִיכַּסֵּי סְדִינָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קַטִּינָא, קַטִּינָא! סְדִינָא בְּקַיְיטָא וְסַרְבָּלָא בְּסִיתְוָא, צִיצִית שֶׁל תְּכֵלֶת מָה תְּהֵא עָלֶיהָ?
    The Gemara notes that this disagrees with what an angel said. As an angel found Rav Ketina when he was wearing a linen cloak, which is exempt from ritual fringes. The angel said to him: Ketina, Ketina, if you wear a linen cloak in the summer and a coat [sarbela], which has only two corners and is therefore also exempt from ritual fringes, in the winter, what will become of the ritual fringes of sky-blue wool? As a result, you will never fulfill the mitzva.
13. יג 3
    אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָנְשִׁיתוּ אַעֲשֵׂה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בִּזְמַן דְּאִיכָּא רִיתְחָא עָנְשִׁינַן.
    Rav Ketina said to him: Do you punish us even for failing to fulfill a positive mitzva? The angel said to him: At a time when there is divine anger and judgment, we punish even for the failure to fulfill a positive mitzva.
14. יד 1
    אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא חוֹבַת גַּבְרָא הוּא – הַיְינוּ דְּמִחַיַּיב דְּלָא קָא רָמֵי, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ חוֹבַת טַלִּית הוּא – הָא לָא מִיחַיְּיבָא!
    The Gemara attempts to draw conclusions from the statement of the angel: Granted, if you say that the mitzva of ritual fringes is an obligation incumbent upon the man, that is why Rav Ketina would be deemed liable at a time of divine anger, as he did not affix ritual fringes to his cloak and thereby neglected the obligation incumbent upon him. But if you say that it is an obligation to attach them to every cloak that one owns, since Rav Ketina’s cloaks were not required to have ritual fringes, he was not obligated to attach ritual fringes to them. Why should he be punished in a time of divine anger?
15. טו 1
    אֶלָּא מַאי חוֹבַת גַּבְרָא הוּא? נְהִי דְּחַיְּיבֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא כִּי מִיכַּסֵּי טַלִּית דְּבַת חִיּוּבָא, כִּי מִיכַּסֵּי טַלִּית דְּלָאו בַּת חִיּוּבָא הִיא, מִי חַיְּיבֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא?
    The Gemara responds: Rather, what should one assume, that it is an obligation incumbent upon the man? Even so, granted that the Merciful One rendered him obligated when he is wearing a cloak that has four corners and is therefore subject to the obligation of ritual fringes, but when he is wearing a cloak that is not subject to the obligation of ritual fringes, did the Merciful One deem him obligated?
16. טז 3
    אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: טַצְדְּקֵי לְמִיפְטַר נַפְשָׁךְ מִצִּיצִית?
    Rather, this is what the angel is saying to Rav Ketina: Are you seeking ploys [tatzdeki] to exempt yourself from performing the mitzva of ritual fringes?
17. יז 3
    אָמַר רַב טוֹבִי בַּר קִיסְנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּלֵי קוּפְסָא חַיָּיבִין בְּצִיצִית, וּמוֹדֶה שְׁמוּאֵל בְּזָקֵן שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לִכְבוֹדוֹ שֶׁפְּטוּרָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״אֲשֶׁר תְּכַסֶּה בָּהּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, הַאי לָאו לְאִיכַּסּוֹיֵי עֲבִידָא.
    Rav Tovi bar Kisna says that Shmuel says: Garments that are not being worn but are stored in a box are required to have ritual fringes, because the mitzva pertains to the garment, not the man. But Shmuel concedes in the case of an old man, where the garment was made as a shroud in his honor, that the shroud is exempt. What is the reason for this? The Merciful One states in the Torah that one must place ritual fringes on the corners of garments “with which you cover yourself” (Deuteronomy 22:12). This shroud is not made for the purpose of covering oneself.
18. יח
    בְּהָהִיא שַׁעְתָּא, וַדַּאי רָמֵינַן לֵיהּ, מִשּׁוּם ״לֹעֵג לָרָשׁ חֵרֵף עֹשֵׂהוּ״.
    The Gemara comments: At that time, i.e., a person’s burial, we certainly affix ritual fringes to the shroud, because otherwise it would be a violation of: “Whoever mocks the poor blasphemes his Maker” (Proverbs 17:5). If we did not place them, it would be mocking the deceased, as if to taunt him that now he is no longer obligated in mitzvot.
19. יט
    אָמַר רַחֲבָה אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: טַלִּית שֶׁנִּקְרְעָה חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ – יִתְפּוֹר, תּוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ – לֹא יִתְפּוֹר.
    § Raḥava says that Rabbi Yehuda says: In the case of a cloak that became torn at one of its corners, if it was torn beyond three fingerbreadths from the edge of the garment, one may sew it. But if it was torn within three fingerbreadths of the edge of the garment, then one may not sew it. There is a concern that he might use the thread with which he sewed the garment for the ritual fringes, in which case the strings would be unfit due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from what has already been prepared.
20. כ 4
    תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: טַלִּית שֶׁנִּקְרְעָה, חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ – יִתְפּוֹר, תּוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִתְפּוֹר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יִתְפּוֹר.
    The Gemara comments: This halakha is also taught in a baraita: In the case of a cloak that became torn at one of its corners, if it was torn beyond three fingerbreadths from the edge of the garment, one may sew it. But if it was torn within three fingerbreadths of the edge of the garment, Rabbi Meir says: One may not sew it. And the Rabbis say: One may sew it.
21. כא 7
    וְשָׁוִין שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא אֲפִילּוּ אַמָּה עַל אַמָּה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר וּבָהּ תְּכֵלֶת, וְתוֹלֶה בָּהּ. וְשָׁוִין שֶׁמֵּבִיא תְּכֵלֶת מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר וְתוֹלֶה בָּהּ,
    And Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis agree that one may not bring a piece of cloth, even if it is a square cubit in size, from elsewhere, containing white and sky-blue strings, and attach it to a cloak. This is because one must attach the ritual fringes directly to the corner of the garment, rather than attaching them to a piece of cloth and then attaching that cloth to the garment. And Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis also agree that one may bring white or sky-blue strings from elsewhere and attach them to the garment, i.e., one may remove strings from one garment in order to attach them to another garment.