Previous daf

1)

(a) Beis Shamai exempt a Sadin (a linen garment) from Tzitzis - because they do not Darshen 'Semuchin' ("Lo Silbash Sha'atnez ... Gedilim Ta'aseh Lach", from which ...

(b) Beis Hillel - learn that it is permitted.

(c) The dual ramifications of their Machlokes are - 1. whether or not, the garment is Chayav Tzitzis; 2. whether or not, the wearer transgresses the Isur of Sha'atnez.

(d) The Tana uses the expression 'Potrin' and 'Mechayvin' and not 'Osrin' and 'Matirin' - because the Mitzvah of Tzitzis is not just the personal obligation of the wearer, but also pertains to the garment, even when it is not being worn.

(a) Besides woolen Tzitzis on a linen garment, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel also argue over - linen Tzitzis on a woolen garment (as we learned earlier) ...

(b) ... and the reason that he picked specifically 'Sadin be'Tzitzis' is - because (unlike the latter case) once he attaches Tzitzis (incorporating Techeiles), it is inevitably Kil'ayim.

(a) When Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok declares that whoever attaches Techeiles (i.e. Tzitzis) to his linen garment in Yerushalayim creates a stir - he is coming to support the opinion of Beis Shamai.

(b) Rebbi disagrees with Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok. According to him, the Rabbanan forbade Sadin be'Tzitzis in Yerushalayim - because the Yerushalayim were not experts in Darshening 'Semuchin', and they were afraid, if they permitted it, others might go on to permit Kil'ayim elsewhere.

(c) The Rabbanan have every right to allow people to wear garments without Tzitzis - as we learned in Yevamos, because they have mandate to permit what the Torah forbids regarding 'Shev ve'Al Ta'aseh' (like here where they exempted them from attaching Tzitzis).

(a) Alternatively, Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok comes to query Beis Shamai. When he says 've'ha'Lo Kol ha'Matil Techeiles bi'Yerushalayim Eino Ela min ha'Masmihin', he means to ask - that this implies that people were surprised if one did so, but not that it was forbidden (as Beis Shamai maintained).

(b) In that case - Rebbi comes to resolve Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok's Kashya on Beis Shamai, in that they did not forbid it mi'd'Oraysa (as Rebbi Eliezer believed), but mi'de'Rabbanan (as we explained earlier).

(c) When Rabah bar Chanan asked Rava why, according to Rebbi, they did not ...

1. ... organize ten men to go to the market-place wearing each wearing a Sadin be'Tzitzis (to publicize the Heter), he replied - that the people would be even more surprised if they did.
2. ... announce at the Pirka (the big Yom-Tov D'rashah, which everyone attended) that Sadin be'Tzitis is permitted, he replied - that the Chachamim were worried (not about the D'rashah of Semuchin as we thought until now, but) about the possibility that the Techeiles dealers will sell Kala Ilan (a forgery that resembles Techeiles, but is not), in which case the Isur of Kil'ayim be'Tzitzis remains.

(a) When we ask 've'Lo Yehei Ela Lavan', we mean that - (based on what we learned earlier, permitting woolen Tzitzis of Lavan as well as those of Techeiles on a linen garment [see Tosfos DH 'Keivan']) - why the Chachamim were concerned about Kala Ilan, since even Lavan is permitted.

(b) And we answer with a statement of Resh Lakish 'Kol Makom she'Atah Motzei Asei ve'Lo Sa'aseh - Im Atah Yachol Lekayem es Sheneihem, Mutav; ve'Im La'av, Yavo Ve'yidcheh es Lo Sa'aseh'. Consequently, there where there is no Mitzvah of Techeiles, woolen Tzitzis of Lavan will not override the Isur of Kil'ayim (seeing as it is possible to attach linen Tzitzis).

(c) We refute the current explanation of Kala Ilan - because seeing as it is possible to institute examining all the cauldrons in which the Techeiles dye is prepared for forgery (as we shall see later), the Chachamim would have been unlikely to have issued such a decree.

(d) So we suggest that the decree to which Rebbi refers is that of 'Te'imah' (which means testing) - meaning that, even if it is possible to test the dye, the Chachamim were afraid that the sellers might pour some of the dye that has been tested back into the cauldrons of Techeiles, thereby rendering the entire cauldron Pasul, as we shall see later).

(e) Alternatively, the Kashya 'Ve'livdekeih' means that whoever purchases dye for Techeiles should examine it for forgery, in which case there is no reason to worry about Kala Ilan. 'Ela Gezeirah Mishum Te'imah' then means - that they decreed in case the seller sells genuine dye that was used to test the cauldrons (which is also Pasul), and that is something which cannot be examined.

(a) But this too, we query 've'Lichtevah a'Diski', which means - that the Chachamim should send out letters to teach the people how do to Te'imah, without disqualifying the remaining dye.

(b) We try and refute that - on the grounds that the Diski are not reliable (since there are always people who will disregard them).

(c) Rava however, upholds the Kashya of 'Diski', since we rely on 'Diski' regarding Chametz on Pesach and Yom Kipur - by which he means that the Chachamim did rely on the letters that they sent to the Golah, informing them that they had fixed a leap year, or Elul as a full month, that year ...

(d) ... and if they relied on Diski regarding Chametz on Pesach and fasting on Yom Kipur, both of which are subject to Kareis, how much more so with regard to Tzitzis, which is merely an Asei.

7)

(a) Rava explains the decree of Rebbi ('Lamah Asruhah? L'fi she'Ein Beki'in') in connection with the concern that people whose Kanaf tore within three finger-breadths, would stitch it with linen threads, leaving some of it hanging from the corner. The Chachamim were afraid that subsequently, when attaching the Tzitzis - they may incorporate the excess thread into the Tzitzis ...

(b) ... in which case the Tzitzis will be Pasul because of "Ta'aseh", 've'Lo min he'Asuy' (the Tzitzis must be attached initially for the Mitzvah of Tzitzis, and not taken from the threads that are already hanging from the garment). Consequently, the wearer will be wearing Kil'ayim she'Lo be'Makom Mitzvah.

(c) When Rava added that Rebbi Zeira in Eretz Yisrael held like him - he was referring to the occasion when Rebbi Zeira removed the Tzitzis from his linen garment, specifically for the reason that Rava gave.

(d) Rav Zeira explained 'Gezeirah Mishum K'sus Laylah' - the Chachamim were afraid that one may wear the (otherwise Kasher) Sadin be'Tzitzis at night-time, when there is no Mitzvah, contravening the La'av of Sha'atnez (see Tosfos DH 'Mishum' and Shitah Mekubetzes 1).

(a) According to Rava, a regular garment with corners of leather - is Chayav Tzitzis, but not vice-versa. The criterion for Tzitzis is the Beged, not the Kanaf.

(b) And he claimed - that Rebbi Zeira in Eretz Yisrael agreed with him.

(c) Rav Acha'i disagrees. In his opinion, the Kanaf is the criterion, and not the Beged.

(a) Rava maintains that attaching Tzitzis to a three-cornered garment and then cutting the garment to make a fourth corner - constitutes "Ta'aseh", 've'Lo min he'Asuy' ...

(b) ... and the Beraisa 'Chasidim ha'Rishonim she'Argu Bah Shalosh, Hayu Matilin Lah Techeiles' - is referring (not to the corners, but) to the final three finger-breadths of the Beged, from which point the Tzitzis are placed. In fact, Rava amends the text to 'Keivan she'Batz'u Bah Shalosh' (meaning that, when weaving the garment, the Chasidim would attach the Tzitzis as soon as they reached that point [see Shitah Mekubetzes 4]).

(a) Rebbi Zeira stated that if one attaches Tzitzis to a garment that already has Tzitzis, and then cuts off the first ones - the Tzitzis are Kasher, apparently because he does not hold "Ta'aseh", 've'Lo min he'Asuy', see Tosfos DH 've'ha'Amar' and Shitah Mekubetzes 5).

(b) According to Rava (who holds "Ta'aseh", 've'Lo min he'Asuy') however, it is not "Ta'aseh", 've'Lo min he'Asuy' - because attaching the second set of Tzitzis constitutes 'Bal Tosif' (adding to the Mitzvah), automatically negating the Asiyah, which takes place only when one cuts off the first set.

(c) But Rav Papa queries Rava's answer. He maintains - that if the person who attaches the second set of Tzitzis has in mind to negate the first set, and not to add to it, it will not constitute 'Bal Tosif, and will therefore constitute "Ta'aseh", 've'Lo min he'Asuy'.

(a) Initially, we interpret Rebbi Zeira ... Amar Shmuel's statement, exempting Tzitzis from Kil'ayim, even in the case of a Talis which is Patur, to mean - one that does not have the Shi'ur that is Chayav Tzitzis.

(b) The Beraisa describes a Talis that does ...

1. ... have a Shi'ur as - one that covers the head and body of a Katan, and which a Gadol would not be embarrassed to wear in the street.
2. ... not have the Shi'ur as - one that does not cover the head and body of a Katan, even if a Gadol would not be ashamed to wear it occasionally in the street.

(c) The Tana adds 've'Chein le'Inyan Kil'ayim'. Assuming he meant that the Din of Arai applies to Kil'ayim, too, the ramifications would be - that one is permitted to wear a Beged of Kil'ayim, casually.

(d) He cannot mean that however - since the Mishnah in Kil'ayim specifically states that there is no such concession as Arai by Kil'ayim.

(a) So Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains 've'Chein le'Inyan Kil'ayim' - to mean that the same Din will apply to Sadin be'Tzitzis (that if the Sadin would cover a Katan, and a Gadol would not be ashamed to wear it casually in the street), one is permitted to attach Tzitzis to it.

(b) In light of the ruling that there is no Arai by Kil'ayim, Rebbi Zeira's statement 'va'Afilu be'Talis Peturah' must refer to - the P'tur of a Talis that already has Tzitzis.

(c) Rebbi Zeira did indeed already teach us 'Hitil le'Muteles, Kesheirah' - and it is from there that we derive his latter ruling (see Tosfos DH 'Chada').