Menachot Daf 39 (מנחות דף ל״ט)
Daf: 39 | Amudim: 39a – 39b | Date: 20 Shevat 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (39a)
Segment 1
TYPE: דחייה
Rejection of proof that knots between windings are required
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּלְמָא דְּאִיקְּטַר.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya were referring to a case where one tied knots between the sets of windings even though there is no obligation to do so.
קלאוד על הדף:
This brief response concludes a discussion from the previous daf (38b) about whether one is required to tie a knot after each set of windings (chulyah). The sons of Rabbi Chiyya’s statement about severed strings could have implied that knots between windings are mandatory. The Gemara deflects this proof by suggesting they may have been describing a case where knots were voluntarily added, not that they are legally required. This leaves the question of inter-winding knots unresolved.
Key Terms:
- דִּלְמָא (dilma) = Perhaps; introduces an alternative explanation that weakens a proof
- אִיקְּטַר (iktar) = Was knotted; past tense referring to the tying of knots
Segment 2
TYPE: מימרא
Rabba: The uppermost knot is required by Torah law
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבָּה: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, קֶשֶׁר עֶלְיוֹן דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּרַבָּנַן, מַאי אִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִישְׁרֵי סָדִין בְּצִיצִית? פְּשִׁיטָא! הַתּוֹכֵף תְּכִיפָה אַחַת אֵינוֹ חִיבּוּר, אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
English Translation:
And Rabba says: Learn from it that the uppermost knot in the ritual fringes is required by Torah law. As, if it enters your mind to say that it is by rabbinic law, whereas by Torah law it is sufficient to merely insert the strings into the hole without tying any knots, for what reason was it necessary for the Torah to permit placing wool ritual fringes on a linen cloak? It is obvious that it is permitted, since if one attaches a swatch of wool and a swatch of linen with a single connection, it is not considered a connection with regard to the prohibition against wearing a garment that includes both wool and linen. Rather, learn from it that the uppermost knot is required by Torah law.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba presents a fundamental proof regarding the legal status of the uppermost knot (kesher elyon) in tzitzit. His argument is elegant: the Torah specifically permits attaching wool tzitzit to a linen garment despite the prohibition of sha’atnez (wearing wool and linen together). If the knot were merely rabbinic, there would be no sha’atnez issue — because a single stitch (tekhifah achat) without a proper knot does not constitute a halachic “connection” for sha’atnez purposes. The fact that the Torah needed to create an exception proves the knot is biblically mandated. This has significant practical implications for the validity of tzitzit.
Key Terms:
- קֶשֶׁר עֶלְיוֹן (kesher elyon) = The uppermost knot; the first knot tied closest to the garment
- דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא (d’oraita) = By Torah law; a biblical requirement
- סָדִין (sadin) = Linen cloak; used as a test case for sha’atnez
- תּוֹכֵף תְּכִיפָה אַחַת (tokhef tekhifah achat) = A single connection; insufficient to constitute halachic attachment
Segment 3
TYPE: מימרא / קושיא
Rav: String severed at its base invalidates tzitzit; Rava’s challenge
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב אַדָּא אָמַר רַב אַדָּא אָמַר רַב: אִם נִפְסַק הַחוּט מֵעִיקָּרוֹ – פְּסוּלָה. יָתֵיב רַב נַחְמָן וְקָא אָמַר לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּתְחִילָּתוֹ, אֲבָל סוֹפוֹ – שְׁיָרָיו וְגַרְדּוּמָּיו כׇּל שֶׁהוּא.
English Translation:
§ Rabba bar Rav Adda says that Rav Adda says that Rav says: If a string was severed at its base, i.e., where it is connected to the garment, the ritual fringes are unfit. Rav Naḥman sat in the study hall and stated this halakha. Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman from a baraita: In what case is this statement said, i.e., that there is a minimum length required for the strings? That is only when the strings are initially affixed to the garment. But in the end, i.e., after the strings are affixed in an acceptable manner, its remainder and its severed strings are fit at any length.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new sugya opens with Rav’s ruling that a string completely severed at its base renders the tzitzit invalid. When Rav Nachman repeats this ruling, Rava challenges him from a baraita that distinguishes between initial attachment (which requires full-length strings) and post-attachment (where severed strings — gardumim — remain valid at any length). The challenge suggests that even completely severed strings should be valid after initial attachment, contradicting Rav’s strict ruling.
Key Terms:
- נִפְסַק מֵעִיקָּרוֹ (nifsak me’ikaro) = Severed at its base; completely cut at the point of attachment
- בִּתְחִילָּתוֹ (bitchilato) = Initially; when first attaching the strings
- שְׁיָרָיו וְגַרְדּוּמָּיו (shirayav v’gardumav) = Its remainder and its severed strings
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
Clarifying the baraita: What is “remainder” vs. “severed strings”?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי שְׁיָרָיו וּמַאי גַּרְדּוּמָּיו? מַאי לָאו ״שְׁיָרָיו״ – דְּאִיפְּסִיק מִינַּיְיהוּ וְאִישְׁתַּיַּיר מִינַּיְיהוּ, ״גַּרְדּוּמָּיו״ – דְּאִיגַּרְדּוּם אִיגַּרְדּוֹמֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies: What is its remainder and what are its severed strings? What, is it not that when the baraita mentions its remainder it is referring to a case where parts of the strings were severed and parts of them remain, and when the baraita mentions its severed strings it is referring to a case where the strings were completely severed, and nevertheless the strings are fit for the mitzva?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s challenge becomes more pointed here. He proposes that the baraita distinguishes two separate cases: “shirayav” (remainder) refers to when some strings are still intact while others are severed, and “gardumav” (severed strings) refers to when all strings are completely cut short. If this reading is correct, even totally severed strings would be valid — directly contradicting Rav’s position that strings severed at their base invalidate the tzitzit.
Key Terms:
- אִיפְּסִיק מִינַּיְיהוּ (ifseik minaihu) = Were severed from among them; partial severance
- אִיגַּרְדּוּם (igardoom) = Were completely cut short
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: The baraita teaches one halakha, not two
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, חֲדָא קָתָנֵי, שַׁיּוֹרֵי גַּרְדּוּמָּיו כׇּל שֶׁהוּא. וְלֵימָא: ״גַּרְדּוּמָּיו״, ״שְׁיָרָיו״ לְמָה לִי? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּבָעֵינַן שִׁיּוּרָא לְגַרְדּוּמָּיו כְּדֵי לְעׇנְבָן.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds to Rava’s objection: No, the tanna of the baraita is teaching one halakha, and the baraita should be understood as follows: The remainder of its severed strings are fit at any length. The Gemara asks: If so, let the baraita simply say: Its severed strings are fit at any length; why do I need the mention of its remainder? This teaches us that we require a remainder of its severed strings long enough to wrap them around the other strings and tie them in a slipknot.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reinterprets the baraita to avoid contradicting Rav. Rather than describing two separate cases, “shirayav” and “gardumav” form one compound phrase: “the remainder of the severed strings” — meaning that partially severed strings are valid at any length. The Gemara then asks why the extra word “shirayav” is needed if only one concept is taught. The answer establishes a practical minimum: the remnant must be long enough to tie in a slipknot (aniva). This harmonizes the baraita with Rav’s ruling that completely severed strings are invalid while clarifying the minimum for partially severed ones.
Key Terms:
- חֲדָא קָתָנֵי (chada katanei) = It teaches one [halakha]; the baraita makes a single unified statement
- כְּדֵי לְעׇנְבָן (k’dei l’anvan) = Enough to tie in a slipknot; the minimum remainder required
Segment 6
TYPE: מימרא
The winding string counts toward the quota of eight
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָתֵיב רַבָּה וְקָאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: חוּט שֶׁל כֶּרֶךְ עוֹלֶה מִן הַמִּנְיָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: שְׁמוּאֵל אַמְרַהּ וְלָא רַב. אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי: אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, סָח לִי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה דְּמִן אוּשָׁא: חוּט שֶׁל כֶּרֶךְ עוֹלָה לָהּ מִן הַמִּנְיָן.
English Translation:
§ Rabba sat in the study hall and said in the name of Rav: The string used for winding around the other strings is counted in the quota of ritual fringes, i.e., it is one of the eight strings on each corner, and there is no need to have an additional string for winding. Rav Yosef said to Rabba: Shmuel said it, and not Rav. This was also stated by another amora: Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: Rabbi Yoshiya of Usha told me that the string used for winding around the other strings is counted in the quota of ritual fringes.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new topic: does the string used for winding (the shamash in modern practice) count as one of the required eight strings, or is it an additional ninth string? Rabba reports in Rav’s name that it counts toward the eight. Rav Yosef corrects the attribution to Shmuel — a significant correction, as these two authorities often disagree. Rabba bar bar Chana’s independent tradition from the tanna Rabbi Yoshiya of Usha confirms the ruling itself. This has practical significance: one inserts four folded strings (making eight), and one of these eight serves double duty as the winding string.
Key Terms:
- חוּט שֶׁל כֶּרֶךְ (chut shel kerekh) = The winding string; the string used to wrap around the others
- עוֹלֶה מִן הַמִּנְיָן (oleh min haminyan) = Counts toward the quota; included in the required number
Segment 7
TYPE: מימרא
If the majority of the string length is wound, the tzitzit are valid
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָתֵיב רָבָא וְקָא אָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: תְּכֵלֶת שֶׁכָּרַךְ רוּבָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: רַב אַמְרַהּ, וְלָא שְׁמוּאֵל. אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: תְּכֵלֶת שֶׁכָּרַךְ רוּבָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
Rava sat in the study hall and said in the name of Shmuel: If one wound the majority of the white and the sky-blue strings instead of leaving the larger portion of the strings hanging loose beyond the windings, the ritual fringes are nevertheless fit. Rav Yosef said to Rava: Rav said it, and not Shmuel. The Gemara supports Rav Yosef’s version from that which was also stated: Rav Huna bar Yehuda says that Rav Sheshet says that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: If one wound the majority of the white and the sky-blue strings, the ritual fringes are nevertheless fit.
קלאוד על הדף:
Interestingly, Rav Yosef again corrects an attribution — this time in reverse. In Segment 6, Rav Yosef said a ruling attributed to Rav actually belongs to Shmuel; here he says a ruling attributed to Shmuel actually belongs to Rav. The pattern suggests that traditions about the winding string were confused between these two major authorities. The substantive ruling itself — that winding the majority of the string length is post-facto valid — is confirmed by a long chain of transmission tracing back to Rav.
Key Terms:
- כָּרַךְ רוּבָּהּ (karakh rubah) = Wound the majority; wrapped most of the string length in windings
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Chiyya bar Rav Natan’s expanded version: minimum and ideal proportions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן מַתְנֵי הָכִי: אָמַר רַב הוּנָא, אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא, אָמַר רַב: תְּכֵלֶת שֶׁכָּרַךְ רוּבָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לֹא כָּרַךְ בָּהּ אֶלָּא חוּלְיָא אַחַת – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְנוֹיֵי תְכֵלֶת – שְׁלִישׁ גְּדִיל וּשְׁנֵי שְׁלִישֵׁי עָנָף.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Natan, teaches this discussion like this: Rav Huna says that Rav Sheshet says that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: If one wound the majority of the white and the sky-blue strings, the ritual fringes are nevertheless fit. And even if he wound only one set of windings, the ritual fringes are fit. But the finest way to affix the white and sky-blue strings is to ensure that one-third of the length of the strings is windings and two-thirds are loose hanging strings.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chiyya bar Rav Natan presents the most comprehensive version of this tradition, establishing three tiers of validity: (1) Even a single set of windings (chulyah) is minimally valid. (2) Winding the majority of the string is valid post-facto but not ideal. (3) The optimal proportion (noyei tekhelet) is one-third windings (gedil) and two-thirds loose hanging strings (anaf). This three-tier framework — minimum, acceptable, and ideal — is characteristic of the Gemara’s approach to mitzvah performance and forms the basis for practical halachic rulings about tzitzit construction.
Key Terms:
- חוּלְיָא אַחַת (chulyah achat) = One set of windings; the absolute minimum
- נוֹיֵי תְכֵלֶת (noyei tekhelet) = The beauty/finest form of tekhelet; the optimal way
- שְׁלִישׁ גְּדִיל (shelish gedil) = One-third windings
- שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישֵׁי עָנָף (shnei shelishei anaf) = Two-thirds loose hanging strings
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
The measure of a set of windings and the number of sets
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּר חוּלְיָא? תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכְרוֹךְ וְיִשְׁנֶה וִישַׁלֵּשׁ. תָּאנָא: הַפּוֹחֵת לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשֶּׁבַע, וְהַמּוֹסִיף לֹא יוֹסִיף עַל שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And what is the measure of a set of windings? It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is such that one winds once and winds a second and third time, i.e., each set must contain at least three windings. It was taught: One who minimizes the sets of windings may not have fewer than seven sets, and one who adds to this number of sets may not have more than thirteen sets of windings.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having established that at least one chulyah is required, the Gemara now defines the parameters. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teaches that each chulyah consists of a minimum of three wraps. A separate baraita establishes the range of sets: between seven and thirteen. These precise measurements transform the abstract concept of winding into a concrete, reproducible practice. The numbers seven and thirteen are not arbitrary — as the next segment explains, they carry symbolic meaning.
Key Terms:
- שִׁיעוּר חוּלְיָא (shiur chulyah) = The measure of a winding set; minimum three wraps per set
- הַפּוֹחֵת / הַמּוֹסִיף (hapochet / hamosif) = One who minimizes / one who adds; establishing minimum and maximum
Segment 10
TYPE: אגדתא
The symbolic meaning: seven firmaments and six spaces
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַפּוֹחֵת לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשֶּׁבַע, כְּנֶגֶד שִׁבְעָה רְקִיעִים, וְהַמּוֹסִיף לֹא יוֹסִיף עַל שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה, כְּנֶגֶד שִׁבְעָה רְקִיעִין וְשִׁשָּׁה אֲוִירִין שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם.
English Translation:
The Gemara provides explanations for these guidelines: One who minimizes the sets of windings may not wind fewer than seven sets, corresponding to the seven firmaments. And one who adds to this number of sets may not wind more than thirteen sets of windings, corresponding to the seven firmaments and the six air spaces between them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara provides a cosmic rationale for the winding parameters. The connection to the firmaments reflects the broader idea that tzitzit serve as a reminder of heaven and divine commandments — as stated elsewhere, “tekhelet resembles the sea, the sea resembles the sky, and the sky resembles the Throne of Glory.” Seven sets represent the seven heavens; thirteen adds the six spaces between them, totaling the complete heavenly structure. This aggadic explanation anchors the physical details of tzitzit construction in theological symbolism.
Key Terms:
- רְקִיעִים (rekiim) = Firmaments; the seven layers of heaven in Jewish cosmology
- אֲוִירִין (avirin) = Air spaces; the gaps between the firmaments
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
Begin and end the windings with white — ma’alin bakodesh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנָא: כְּשֶׁהוּא מַתְחִיל – מַתְחִיל בַּלָּבָן: ״הַכָּנָף״ – מִין כָּנָף, וּכְשֶׁהוּא מְסַיֵּים – מְסַיֵּים בַּלָּבָן, מַעֲלִין בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין.
English Translation:
It was taught: When one begins to form the windings, he begins winding with a white string. This is because the verse indicates that one first inserts “the fringe of the corner” (Numbers 15:38), i.e., the white strings, which are of the same type as the corner of the garment. And when he concludes the windings, he concludes with a white string, in accordance with the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and does not downgrade.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita establishes the order of winding: begin with white and end with white. Two separate rationales are given: beginning with white fulfills “hakanaf” — matching the garment’s material. Ending with white follows the principle of ma’alin bakodesh (one elevates in holiness and does not downgrade). Since the tekhelet string is holier (being specially dyed), ending with the white string ensures one doesn’t descend from a higher level. This principle of ma’alin bakodesh appears throughout Jewish law, from Chanukah candles to the order of Torah readings.
Key Terms:
- מִין כָּנָף (min kanaf) = Of the same type as the corner; matching the garment material
- מַעֲלִין בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין (ma’alin bakodesh v’lo moridin) = One elevates in sanctity and does not downgrade
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
A man with an entirely tekhelet cloak passes by Rav and Rabba bar bar Chana
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב וְרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה הֲווֹ יָתְבִי, הֲוָה קָא חָלֵיף וְאָזֵיל הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּמִיכַּסֵּי גְּלִימָא דְּכוּלֵּהּ תְּכֵלְתָּא, וּרְמֵי לֵיהּ תְּכֵלְתָּא
English Translation:
§ The Gemara relates: Rav and Rabba bar bar Ḥana were sitting together. A certain man was passing by wearing a cloak that was made entirely of sky-blue wool, on which he had affixed white and sky-blue strings,
קלאוד על הדף:
This narrative sets up a halachic dispute through a real-world observation. Rav and Rabba bar bar Chana see a man whose cloak is entirely dyed tekhelet, and whose tzitzit strings are composed entirely of windings with no loose hanging portion. This triggers a debate about the structure of tzitzit — must there be both a wound section (gedil) and a loose section (petil/anaf), or can the tzitzit consist entirely of windings? The story continues on amud bet.
Key Terms:
- גְּלִימָא דְּכוּלֵּהּ תְּכֵלְתָּא (gelima d’kuleh tekheleta) = A cloak made entirely of sky-blue wool
Amud Bet (39b)
Segment 1
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rav and Rabba bar bar Chana disagree about all-wound tzitzit
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּגְדִילָא מִיגְּדִיל. אָמַר רַב: יָאֵי גְּלִימָא וְלָא יָאֵי תְּכֵלְתָּא, רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר: יָאֵי גְּלִימָא וְיָאֵי תְּכֵלְתָּא.
English Translation:
and the ritual fringes were composed entirely of windings, without any portion of the strings hanging loose. Rav said: The cloak is beautiful, but the white and sky-blue strings are not beautiful. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: The cloak is beautiful, and the white and sky-blue strings are also beautiful.
קלאוד על הדף:
The story continues from amud aleph. The man’s tzitzit are entirely wound — no loose-hanging strings (anaf). Rav criticizes the tzitzit as not “beautiful” — meaning halachically suboptimal or invalid — because they lack loose hanging strings. Rabba bar bar Chana approves of both the cloak and the tzitzit, holding that all-wound tzitzit are valid. The use of “beautiful” (ya’ei) rather than “valid” (kasher) is notable — it may reflect a dispute about whether loose strings are an absolute requirement or merely an aesthetic preference.
Key Terms:
- גְּדִילָא מִיגְּדִיל (gedila migedil) = Entirely composed of windings; no loose threads
- יָאֵי (ya’ei) = Beautiful/proper; term used for halachic fitness
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
The basis of Rabba bar bar Chana’s view: either windings or loose strings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה סָבַר: כְּתִיב ״גְּדִיל״ וּכְתִיב ״פְּתִיל״, אוֹ גְדִיל אוֹ פְתִיל.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabba bar bar Ḥana holds that since it is written in one verse: “You shall prepare yourself twisted cords” (Deuteronomy 22:12), and in another it is written: “And they shall put on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread” (Numbers 15:38), it teaches that the ritual fringes may be composed entirely of either twisted cords, i.e., the windings, or loose threads or strings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies the exegetical basis for the dispute. Rabba bar bar Chana reads the two Torah passages as presenting alternatives: “gedilim” (twisted cords/windings) from Deuteronomy and “petil” (thread/loose string) from Numbers are read as “either/or” — one may have all windings or all loose threads. This reading treats the two verses as offering flexibility in tzitzit construction rather than mandating both components.
Key Terms:
- גְּדִיל (gedil) = Twisted cord; refers to the wound/braided section of tzitzit
- פְּתִיל (petil) = Thread; refers to the loose-hanging strings
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Rav’s view: “gedilim” teaches the number of strings, not an alternative format
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַב סָבַר: לְעוֹלָם פְּתִיל בָּעֵינַן, וְהָהוּא ״גְּדִילִים״ לְמִנְיָינָא הוּא דַּאֲתָא – גְּדִיל שְׁנַיִם, גְּדִילִים אַרְבָּעָה, עֲשֵׂה גְּדִיל וּפוֹתְלֵיהוּ מִתּוֹכוֹ.
English Translation:
And Rav holds that actually, we also require loose strings in addition to the windings, and when that term “twisted cords” appears in the verse, it comes for the purpose of teaching the number of strings that are required. If the verse would have employed the singular term twisted cord, it would still indicate that two strings are required, as twisted means that two strings are wound around each other. Once the verse uses the plural term “twisted cords,” it thereby indicates that four strings are required. By using the terms “twisted cords” and “thread,” the verses indicates: Form twisted cords with the four strings that one attaches to each corner, and let the strings hang loose from them.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav disagrees fundamentally with Rabba bar bar Chana’s reading. For Rav, “gedilim” is not an alternative to “petil” but rather teaches the number of strings: “gedil” (singular) implies two (the minimum for twisting), and “gedilim” (plural) doubles this to four. Both components — wound section and loose strings — are always required. The verse combines the concepts: make twisted cords (the winding section) and let them hang loose from them (the free-hanging portion). This interpretation has become the normative halacha.
Key Terms:
- לְמִנְיָינָא (l’minyanna) = For the purpose of counting; teaching the number of strings
- פוֹתְלֵיהוּ מִתּוֹכוֹ (potleihu mitocho) = Let the strings hang loose from within it
Segment 4
TYPE: מימרא
Shmuel in the name of Levi: wool strings exempt a linen garment
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּלֵוִי: חוּטֵי צֶמֶר פּוֹטְרִין בְּשֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן.
English Translation:
§ Shmuel says in the name of Levi: Wool strings exempt a garment made of linen, i.e., one fulfills the mitzva by affixing wool strings to a linen garment.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new major sugya begins, addressing the relationship between string material and garment material. Shmuel reports that wool tzitzit strings are valid on a linen garment — even though this creates sha’atnez (the forbidden mixture of wool and linen). This is permitted because the mitzva of tzitzit overrides the prohibition, as derived from the juxtaposition of “you shall not wear sha’atnez” and “you shall make twisted cords” in Deuteronomy 22:11-12. This principle — aseh docheh lo ta’aseh (a positive commandment overrides a negative one) — is foundational in halacha.
Key Terms:
- חוּטֵי צֶמֶר (chutei tzemer) = Wool strings
- פּוֹטְרִין (potrin) = Exempt; fulfill the obligation for
Segment 5
TYPE: בעיא
Dilemma: Do linen strings also exempt a wool garment?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן מַהוּ שֶׁיִּפְטְרוּ בְּשֶׁל צֶמֶר? צֶמֶר בְּשֶׁל פִּשְׁתִּים הוּא דְּפָטַר, דְּכֵיוָן דִּתְכֵלֶת פָּטְרָה לָבָן נָמֵי פָּטַר, אֲבָל פִּשְׁתִּים בְּצֶמֶר לָא.
English Translation:
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to whether strings made of linen exempt a garment made of wool? One can say that it is only wool strings that exempt a garment of linen, as since the sky-blue string, which must be wool, exempts a linen garment, white strings of wool also exempt the garment. But if one affixes linen strings to a wool garment, he does not fulfill his obligation.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a subtle question: Shmuel established that wool strings work on linen, but is the reverse also true? The logic for wool-on-linen is clear: since tekhelet (which must be wool) is valid on a linen garment, white wool strings naturally follow. But linen has no such built-in basis — there is no linen tekhelet. One side of the dilemma argues that the permission is one-directional: wool on linen yes, but linen on wool no.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן (shel pishtan) = Of linen; linen strings
- תְּכֵלֶת פָּטְרָה (tekhelet patrah) = The tekhelet exempts; since tekhelet must be wool, wool strings naturally work on any garment
Segment 6
TYPE: בעיא (המשך)
The other side: sha’atnez juxtaposition applies symmetrically
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים יַחְדָּו. גְּדִלִים תַּעֲשֶׂה לָךְ״, לָא שְׁנָא צֶמֶר בְּפִשְׁתִּים וְלָא שְׁנָא פִּשְׁתִּים בְּצֶמֶר?
English Translation:
Or perhaps, since it is written: “You shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together. You shall prepare yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of your covering” (Deuteronomy 22:11–12), which indicates that one may wear wool and linen together in order to fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes, there is no difference whether one affixes wool strings to a garment of linen, and there is no difference whether one affixes linen strings to a garment of wool.
קלאוד על הדף:
The other side of the dilemma argues for symmetry: the juxtaposition of sha’atnez and tzitzit in Deuteronomy 22:11-12 creates a general permission for combining wool and linen in tzitzit — in either direction. If the Torah permits the sha’atnez mixture for tzitzit purposes, it applies regardless of which material is the garment and which is the string. This reading derives a broad, bidirectional principle from the textual juxtaposition.
Key Terms:
- שַׁעַטְנֵז (sha’atnez) = The prohibited mixture of wool and linen in a garment
- לָא שְׁנָא… וְלָא שְׁנָא (la shena… v’la shena) = There is no difference… and no difference; both directions are equivalent
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: Rachava/Rav Yehuda — both directions work, even for silk garments
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַחֲבָה אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: חוּטֵי צֶמֶר פּוֹטְרִין בְּשֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן, וְשֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן פּוֹטְרִין בְּשֶׁל צֶמֶר, חוּטֵי צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים פּוֹטְרִין בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשִׁירָאִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma, as Raḥava says that Rav Yehuda says: Wool strings exempt a garment made of linen, strings of linen exempt a garment made of wool, and strings of wool and linen exempt a garment in any case, i.e., all garments, and even garments made from silks [beshira’in].
קלאוד על הדף:
Rachava’s tradition from Rav Yehuda resolves the dilemma comprehensively: both directions work. Wool strings exempt linen, linen strings exempt wool, and together wool-and-linen strings exempt any garment — even silk (shira’in). This last point opens a major new discussion: are silk (and other non-wool/linen) garments obligated in tzitzit by Torah law or only by rabbinic decree? The mention of shira’in will trigger a debate between Rav Nachman and the baraita.
Key Terms:
- שִׁירָאִין (shira’in) = Silk garments; a luxury fabric in Talmudic times
- פּוֹטְרִין בְּכׇל מָקוֹם (potrin b’khol makom) = Exempt in any case; universally valid
Segment 8
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rav Nachman: silk garments are exempt from tzitzit; Rava’s challenge
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הַשִּׁירָאִין פְּטוּרִין מִן הַצִּיצִית. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: הַשִּׁירָאִין וְהַכָּלָךְ וְהַסְּרִיקִין כּוּלָּן חַיָּיבִין בְּצִיצִית – מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: And this last point disagrees with a ruling of Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman says: Shira’in are entirely exempt from the obligation of ritual fringes. Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from the following baraita: Garments made from types of silks known as shira’in, kalakh, and serikin all require ritual fringes. The Gemara answers: The baraita means that there is an obligation by rabbinic law, whereas Rav Naḥman meant they are exempt by Torah law.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman’s position is sharply defined: silk garments are completely exempt from tzitzit. When Rava challenges him from a baraita that explicitly obligates silk garments, the Gemara offers a harmonization: Rav Nachman means they are exempt by Torah law, while the baraita refers to a rabbinic obligation. This distinction — d’oraita vs. d’rabbanan — will drive the extended discussion that follows, as the Gemara explores whether silk garments are biblically or rabbinically obligated in tzitzit.
Key Terms:
- כָּלָךְ (kalakh) = A type of silk fabric
- סְּרִיקִין (serikin) = Another type of silk fabric
- מִדְּרַבָּנַן (mi’d’rabbanan) = By rabbinic law; as a rabbinical enactment
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא / תירוץ
If silk obligation is only rabbinic, how can sha’atnez be permitted?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וְכוּלָּן צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים פּוֹטְרִין בָּהֶן. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – הַיְינוּ דְּמִישְׁתְּרוּ בְּהוּ כִּלְאַיִם, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּרַבָּנַן – הֵיכִי מִישְׁתְּרֵי בְּהוּ כִּלְאַיִם? אֵימָא: אוֹ צֶמֶר אוֹ פִּשְׁתִּים.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges this suggestion: If that is so, then say the latter clause of the baraita: And with regard to all of these garments, strings of wool and linen exempt them. This indicates that one may affix wool sky-blue strings and white linen strings. Granted, if you say that the obligation of ritual fringes for silk garments is by Torah law, that is why diverse kinds are permitted for them. But if you say that the obligation is by rabbinic law, how could diverse kinds be permitted for them? The Gemara answers: Say instead: Either wool or linen strings exempt silk garments, but one may not affix both wool and linen strings to the same silk garment.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is a crucial challenge: the baraita says wool AND linen strings exempt silk garments, implying sha’atnez is permitted. If the obligation is only rabbinic, how can a rabbinic mitzva override the Torah-level prohibition of sha’atnez? Only a Torah-level obligation could do that. The Gemara’s answer is elegant: reread the baraita as “either wool OR linen” — not both simultaneously. This avoids the sha’atnez issue entirely while maintaining the rabbinic-obligation framework.
Key Terms:
- כִּלְאַיִם (kilayim) = Diverse kinds; the prohibition against mixing wool and linen
- אוֹ צֶמֶר אוֹ פִּשְׁתִּים (o tzemer o pishtim) = Either wool or linen; not both together
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Supporting the rabbinic interpretation: silk strings exempt only their own type
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: הֵן בְּמִינָן פּוֹטְרִין, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן אֵין פּוֹטְרִין. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּרַבָּנַן – הַיְינוּ דְּמִיפַּטְרוּ בְּמִינָן, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים הוּא דְּפָטַר.
English Translation:
The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to assume that this is the correct interpretation of the baraita, as the baraita teaches in the latter clause: Strings made from these silk fabrics exempt a garment of their type but do not exempt a garment that is not of their type. Granted, if you say that the obligation to attach ritual fringes to these garments is by rabbinic law, that is why they are exempted if one affixes strings of their type. But if you say that the obligation is by Torah law, then it should be only wool or linen that exempt these garments.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara brings further support for the rabbinic interpretation. The baraita’s latter clause says silk strings can exempt a silk garment (of the same type) but not garments of other types. If the obligation were biblical, only wool or linen strings should work (as derived from “hakanaf” — min kanaf). The fact that silk strings work on silk garments fits better with a rabbinic obligation where the Rabbis required matching materials. However, this argument is about to be challenged.
Key Terms:
- בְּמִינָן / שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן (b’minan / shelo b’minan) = Of their type / not of their type; matching or non-matching materials
Segment 11
TYPE: דחייה
Rava’s resolution: the “min kanaf” principle explains both Torah-level and matching
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מִשּׁוּם הָא לָא אִירְיָא, כִּדְרָבָא, דְּרָבָא רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״הַכָּנָף״ – מִין כָּנָף, וּכְתִיב ״צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים״.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this: If it is due to that reason, there is no conclusive argument, because one can maintain that other fabrics also fulfill the obligation of ritual fringes by Torah law, in accordance with the opinion of Rava. As Rava raises a contradiction: It is written in one verse: “And they shall put on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread” (Numbers 15:38). The term “the corner” indicates that the fringe must be from the same type of fabric as the corner. And yet it is written: “Wool and linen” (Deuteronomy 22:11), immediately before the verse states: “You shall prepare yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of your covering” (Deuteronomy 22:12), indicating that ritual fringes must be from either wool or linen.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects the previous argument by introducing Rava’s reconciliation of two seemingly contradictory verses. “Hakanaf” (the corner) implies the strings should match the garment’s fabric, while the juxtaposition with “wool and linen” implies only these two materials are valid for strings. These two principles can coexist even if the obligation for all garments is biblical — as the next segment will show.
Key Terms:
- הַכָּנָף (hakanaf) = The corner; interpreted to mean the fringes should match the garment material
- רָמֵי (ramei) = Raises a contradiction; identifies a conflict between two sources
Segment 12
TYPE: מסקנא
Rava’s resolution: wool and linen are universal; other fabrics match their own type only
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא כֵּיצַד? צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים פּוֹטְרִין בֵּין בְּמִינָן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן, שְׁאָר מִינִין – בְּמִינָן פּוֹטְרִין, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן אֵין פּוֹטְרִין.
English Translation:
How so? Strings made of wool or linen exempt any garment, whether the garment is made of their type of fabric, or whether it is not of their type of fabric. Strings made of all other types of fabric exempt garments made of their type of fabric, e.g., silk strings exempt a silk garment, but they do not exempt a garment made from a fabric that is not their type, i.e., a garment made from a different fabric.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava presents the elegant reconciliation: wool and linen have a dual basis (both “hakanaf” for matching AND the special juxtaposition with sha’atnez), giving them universal applicability. Other fabrics only have “min kanaf” — they match their own type but cannot cross over. This creates a two-tier system: wool and linen are the “gold standard” materials for tzitzit strings, valid on any garment, while other fabrics have limited, same-type-only validity. This resolution became the basis for the Rambam’s ruling.
Key Terms:
- שְׁאָר מִינִין (she’ar minin) = Other types; fabrics other than wool and linen
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Nachman follows the Tanna d’bei Rabbi Yishmael
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַב נַחְמָן, כִּדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: And Rav Naḥman, who holds that silk garments do not require ritual fringes by Torah law, holds in accordance with the ruling stated by a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies the tannaitic source for Rav Nachman’s position: a teaching from the school of Rabbi Yishmael. This is important because it shows Rav Nachman is not innovating but has tannaitic support. The principle will be spelled out in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל (tanna d’bei Rabbi Yishmael) = A tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael; a well-known source of hermeneutic principles
Segment 14
TYPE: ברייתא
Tanna d’bei Rabbi Yishmael: “garments” in the Torah means wool or linen
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: הוֹאִיל וְנֶאֶמְרוּ בְּגָדִים בַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם, וּפָרַט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים – אַף כֹּל צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים.
English Translation:
As a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since the word garments is usually stated in the Torah without specification as to the material from which the garments are made, and the verse specified in one of its references to garments that it is referring to garments made from wool or linen, as it states: “And the garment in which there will be the mark of leprosy, whether it be a woolen garment or a linen garment” (Leviticus 13:47), it may be derived that so too, all garments mentioned in the Torah are those made from wool or linen. Other fabrics are not classified as garments by Torah law. Consequently, when the Torah requires strings on the corners of garments (see Numbers 15:38), it is referring specifically to garments made of wool or linen.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is one of the most far-reaching hermeneutic principles in the Talmud. The school of Rabbi Yishmael teaches that whenever the Torah says “beged” (garment) without specification, it refers exclusively to wool or linen — because the Torah specifies these materials in the context of tzaraat (Leviticus 13:47). By this principle, the Torah’s command to put tzitzit on “your garments” only applies to wool or linen garments. All other fabrics are excluded from the biblical obligation, though the Rabbis extended the requirement rabbinically.
Key Terms:
- בְּגָדִים סְתָם (begadim stam) = Garments stated generically; without specifying the material
- פָּרַט (parat) = Specified; the Torah clarified in one case what “garment” means
- אַף כֹּל (af kol) = So too all; extending the specification to all similar contexts
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Abaye: This conflicts with another teaching from Rabbi Yishmael’s school
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וְהַאי תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מַפְּקָא מֵאִידַּךְ תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״בֶּגֶד״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בֶּגֶד צֶמֶר, מִנַּיִין לְרַבּוֹת צֶמֶר גְּמַלִּים וְצֶמֶר אַרְנָבִים וְנוֹצָה שֶׁל עִזִּים וְהַכָּלָךְ וְהַסְּרִיקִין וְהַשִּׁירָאִין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ בֶגֶד״.
English Translation:
Abaye said: This statement by a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael diverges from another statement by a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that all fabrics are considered garments. As a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: From the fact that the verse states: “A woolen garment” (Leviticus 13:47), I have derived only that a garment of wool can become ritually impure. From where is it derived that garments made of camels’ hair, rabbits’ wool, goats’ hair, or the types of silk kalakh, serikin, and shirayin, are also included in this halakha? The same verse states: “Or a linen garment.” The word “or” serves as an amplification to include all types of fabric.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye points out an internal contradiction within the school of Rabbi Yishmael itself. One teaching limits “garment” to wool and linen; another teaching from the same school expands “garment” to include all fabrics by deriving from the word “or” (אוֹ) in “or a linen garment” an amplification that includes all materials. This contradiction is significant because it shows that even within a single school of thought, different hermeneutical approaches can lead to opposite conclusions. The practical implications are enormous: is the tzitzit obligation on non-wool/linen garments biblical or rabbinic?
Key Terms:
- מַפְּקָא (mapka) = Diverges from; contradicts
- צֶמֶר גְּמַלִּים (tzemer gemalim) = Camels’ hair
- צֶמֶר אַרְנָבִים (tzemer arnavim) = Rabbits’ wool
- נוֹצָה שֶׁל עִזִּים (notzah shel izim) = Goats’ hair
- ״אוֹ בֶגֶד״ (o beged) = “Or a garment”; the word “or” serves as an amplification