Menachot Daf 42 (מנחות דף מ״ב)
Daf: 42 | Amudim: 42a – 42b | Date: 23 Shevat 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (42a)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: “no measure” means no maximum measure, but there is a minimum
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵין לָהּ שִׁיעוּר לְמַעְלָה, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהּ שִׁיעוּר לְמַטָּה. דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ לוּלָב אֵין לוֹ שִׁיעוּר, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאֵין לוֹ שִׁיעוּר כְּלָל?
English Translation:
the baraita means that ritual fringes do not have a maximum measure, i.e., the strings can be as long as one wants; however, they do have a minimum measure, and if the strings are shorter than this measure they are not fit. As, if you do not say so, in a case similar to it, where it is taught that a lulav has no measure, is it possible that it also has no measure whatsoever?
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment resolves the contradiction raised at the end of the previous daf between the established minimum measurements for tzitzit and the baraita from the attic of Yochanan ben Beteira stating that “tzitzit have no measure.” The Gemara explains that “no measure” refers only to no maximum — the strings can be as long as one wishes — but there is certainly a minimum. The lulav serves as a powerful parallel: we know it has a minimum of three handbreadths, yet a baraita also says it “has no measure.”
Key Terms:
- שִׁיעוּר (Shiur) = Measure; here referring to minimum required length
- לְמַעְלָה / לְמַטָּה (L’maalah / L’matah) = Maximum (upward) / minimum (downward)
Segment 2
TYPE: ראיה
Proof from the lulav: it has a minimum measure of three handbreadths
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתְנַן: לוּלָב שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים כְּדֵי לְנַעְנֵעַ בּוֹ – כָּשֵׁר, אֶלָּא: אֵין לוֹ שִׁיעוּר לְמַעְלָה, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לוֹ שִׁיעוּר לְמַטָּה; הָכִי נָמֵי אֵין לוֹ שִׁיעוּר לְמַעְלָה, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לוֹ שִׁיעוּר לְמַטָּה.
English Translation:
But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Sukka 29b): A lulav that has three handbreadths in length, sufficient to enable one to wave with it, is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva? This indicates that if the lulav is less than the measure, it is not fit. Rather, it must be that a lulav has no maximum measure, but it does have a minimum measure. So too, ritual fringes have no maximum measure, but they have a minimum measure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara brings the explicit mishna in Sukka that specifies a minimum of three handbreadths for a lulav. Since the baraita also says the lulav “has no measure,” it must mean no maximum — the lulav can be of any length above three handbreadths. The same interpretive principle applies to tzitzit: the strings must meet a minimum length (four fingerbreadths, per the earlier discussion), but can be as long as desired. This resolves the apparent contradiction and concludes the measurement discussion.
Key Terms:
- לוּלָב (Lulav) = Palm branch used on Sukkot; parallel case for measurement rules
- לְנַעְנֵעַ (L’na’anea) = To wave; the functional requirement that determines the minimum length
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא
The etymology of “tzitzit” and Abaye’s requirement to separate the strings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״צִיצִת״ – אֵין צִיצִית אֶלָּא עָנָף, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיִּקָּחֵנִי בְּצִיצִת רֹאשִׁי״, וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וְצָרִיךְ לְפָרוֹדַהּ כִּי צוּצִיתָא דְּאַרְמָאֵי.
English Translation:
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “That they prepare for themselves strings” (Numbers 15:38). The term strings [tzitzit] means nothing other than strings that hang down [anaf], and so it states in the verse: “I was taken by a lock [betzitzit] of my head” (Ezekiel 8:3). And Abaye says: And one is required to separate the ritual fringes like a gentile’s lock of hair, part of which is braided and the rest of which is allowed to hang loose.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment begins a new section on the physical form of tzitzit. The baraita derives the meaning of “tzitzit” from a verse in Ezekiel about a lock of hair, establishing that the word means “something that hangs loosely.” Abaye adds a practical instruction: the tzitzit should be partly wound/braided and partly loose, like the distinctive hairstyle of gentiles. This is the basis for the practice of winding the strings partially and leaving the rest hanging freely.
Key Terms:
- עָנָף (Anaf) = Branch; something that hangs loosely
- צוּצִיתָא דְּאַרְמָאֵי (Tzutzita d’Arma’ei) = A gentile’s lock of hair; partly braided, partly loose
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא
Where on the corner to affix tzitzit — dispute between Sages and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הֵטִיל עַל הַקֶּרֶן, אוֹ עַל הַגְּדִיל – כְּשֵׁירָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב (אוֹמֵר) פּוֹסֵל בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: If one affixed the ritual fringes to the tip of the corner or to the border [gadil], they are fit. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov disqualifies them in both cases.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita presents a dispute about exact placement. The Sages validate placing tzitzit either at the very tip of the corner or on the reinforced border of the garment. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov requires a specific location — neither on the tip nor on the border, but in between, on the body of the fabric near the corner. His position reflects a stricter reading of “on the corners of their garments” — the tzitzit must hang down onto the corner, not be placed at its tip or on decorative edging.
Key Terms:
- קֶּרֶן (Keren) = Corner tip of the garment
- גְּדִיל (Gadil) = Border/reinforced edge of a garment
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Giddel’s ruling that tzitzit must hang down onto the corner follows R. Eliezer ben Ya’akov
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: צִיצִית צְרִיכָה שֶׁתְּהֵא נוֹטֶפֶת עַל הַקֶּרֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַל כַּנְפֵי בִגְדֵיהֶם״, כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Giddel says that Rav says: Ritual fringes must be inserted into a hole above the corner and hang down onto the corner of the garment, as it is stated: “On the corners of their garments” (Numbers 15:38)? In accordance with whose opinion is this? The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies Rav Giddel’s ruling as following Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. The key phrase is “notfet al hakeren” — the tzitzit must “drip down” onto the corner. This means the hole for the strings must be above the corner, so the strings hang downward over it. The verse “on the corners” (al kanfei) is read as requiring the strings to be positioned upon the corner, not at its very edge. This becomes the accepted halakhic practice.
Key Terms:
- נוֹטֶפֶת (Notefet) = Dripping/hanging down; the tzitzit must fall onto the corner
Segment 6
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Yochanan: the hole must be at least a full thumb joint from the edge
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּרְחִיק מְלֹא קֶשֶׁר גּוּדָל.
English Translation:
Rabbi Ya’akov says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And one must distance the hole through which the ritual fringes are inserted into the garment the length of a full thumb joint from the edge of the garment.
קלאוד על הדף:
This establishes the minimum distance from the edge of the garment to the hole where the tzitzit strings are inserted. A “full thumb joint” (melo kesher gudal) — approximately two fingerbreadths — ensures the tzitzit are clearly “on” the corner rather than at its very edge. If the hole were too close to the edge, the strings would appear to be hanging from the edge itself rather than being attached to the body of the garment near the corner.
Key Terms:
- מְלֹא קֶשֶׁר גּוּדָל (Melo Kesher Gudal) = Full thumb joint; the minimum distance from the edge
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Why we need both Rav Pappa’s maximum (3 fingerbreadths) and Rabbi Ya’akov’s minimum
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ דְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב, דְּאִי מִדְּרַב פָּפָּא הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: תּוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ דְּלָא לַירְחֵיק טְפֵי, וְכַמָּה דִּמְקָרַב מְעַלֵּי, אִיצְטְרִיךְ דְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: And it was necessary to state the ruling of Rav Pappa (41b) that the ritual fringes must be inserted into a hole within three fingerbreadths of the edge of the garment, and it was also necessary to state the ruling of Rabbi Ya’akov. This is because if the location of the hole was taught only from the statement of Rav Pappa, I would say that his ruling that the hole must be within three fingerbreadths of the edge of the garment was to teach that one may not distance the hole from the edge of the garment by more than this amount, but the closer the hole is to the edge of the garment, the better. Consequently, it was necessary to include the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is a classic “tzrikha” (necessity) passage explaining why both rulings are needed. Rav Pappa (from 41b) sets the maximum — no more than three fingerbreadths from the edge. But without Rabbi Yochanan’s minimum, one might think closer is always better. The two rulings together define a “sweet spot” for the hole: between one full thumb joint (minimum) and three fingerbreadths (maximum) from the edge.
Key Terms:
- אִיצְטְרִיךְ (Itztrich) = It was necessary; a formula for explaining why multiple rulings are needed
- צְרִיכָא (Tzrikha) = Both are necessary; the conclusion of such a passage
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Continuation: without Rabbi Ya’akov’s minimum, we’d think farther is better
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי מִדְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מְלֹא קֶשֶׁר גּוּדָל, דְּלָא לִיקְרַב טְפֵי, וְכַמָּה דְּרַחִיק מְעַלֵּי, צְרִיכָא.
English Translation:
And if the location of the hole was taught only from the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov, I would say that his ruling that it must be a full thumb joint away from the edge of the garment was to teach that one may not situate the hole closer than that to the edge of the garment, but the further he places it, the better. Therefore, both statements were necessary.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second half of the tzrikha completes the logic: if we only had Rabbi Yochanan’s minimum, we might think that farther away from the edge is always better. Rav Pappa’s maximum of three fingerbreadths prevents that conclusion. Together, the two rulings create a defined range — no closer than a thumb joint, no farther than three fingerbreadths — within which the tzitzit hole must be placed.
Key Terms:
- כַמָּה דְּרַחִיק מְעַלֵּי = The farther the better; the erroneous conclusion prevented by Rav Pappa’s ruling
Segment 9
TYPE: מעשה
Story: Rav Samma questions Ravina’s torn corner — the distance requirement applies only at the time of making
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבִינָא וְרַב סַמָּא הֲווֹ יָתְבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי, חַזְיֵיהּ רַב סַמָּא לְקַרְנֵיהּ דִּגְלִימֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא דִּסְתַר וּבְצַר מִמְּלֹא קֶשֶׁר גּוּדָל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא סָבַר לַהּ מָר לְהָא דְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בִּשְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּיה אִיתְּמַר.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Ravina and Rav Samma were sitting before Rav Ashi. Rav Samma saw that the corner of Ravina’s cloak was torn and therefore the hole through which the ritual fringes were inserted was less than the full length of a thumb joint from the edge of the garment. Rav Samma said to Ravina: Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with that statement of Rabbi Ya’akov that the hole must be at least the length of a thumb joint from the edge of the garment? Ravina said to Rav Samma: It was stated that this distance is required at the time when the ritual fringes are made. If the corner tears later, causing the hole to be closer to the edge of the garment, the ritual fringes remain fit.
קלאוד על הדף:
This narrative illustrates a crucial practical distinction: the minimum distance requirement applies only at the time of making (bi’she’at asiyah), not as an ongoing requirement. If the garment subsequently tears, bringing the hole closer to the edge, the tzitzit remain valid. Ravina’s response reveals sophisticated halakhic reasoning — distinguishing between initial requirements and post-facto conditions. This principle has broad applications in Jewish law.
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּיה (Bi’she’at Asiyah) = At the time of making; the requirement applies only initially
- דִּסְתַר (D’setar) = That was torn; the garment deteriorated after the tzitzit were attached
Segment 10
TYPE: אגדתא
Rav Ashi consoles Rav Samma: “One of them is like two of us”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכְּסִיף, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: לָא תִּתְּקִיף לָךְ, חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ כִּתְרֵי מִינַּן.
English Translation:
Rav Samma became embarrassed because he had asked his question based on a mistaken assumption. Rav Ashi said to Rav Samma: Do not be upset that Ravina is a greater scholar than you are; one of them, i.e., the Sages of Eretz Yisrael, is like two of us, i.e., the Sages of Babylonia.
קלאוד על הדף:
This brief but famous passage reflects the Talmud’s awareness of the intellectual relationship between the Torah academies of Eretz Yisrael and Babylonia. Rav Ashi’s consolation — “one of them is like two of us” — is both a compliment to Ravina’s learning and an expression of humility about the Babylonian scholars’ relative status. This saying became proverbial in rabbinic literature for acknowledging superior scholarship without diminishing one’s own worth.
Key Terms:
- אִיכְּסִיף (Ichsif) = He became embarrassed
- חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ כִּתְרֵי מִינַּן = One of them is like two of us; proverbial expression about scholarly standing
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Three methods of attaching tzitzit strings: Rav Acha bar Ya’akov’s looping method
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב רָמֵי אַרְבַּע, וְעָיֵיף לְהוּ מֵיעָף, וּמְעַיֵּיל לְהוּ בִּגְלִימָא, וְאָבֵיק לְהוּ מֵיבָק. קָסָבַר: בָּעֵינַן תְּמָנְיָא בִּגְלִימָא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֶיהְוֵי ״גְּדִיל״ ״גְּדִילִים״ בִּמְקוֹם פְּתִיל.
English Translation:
§ With regard to attaching ritual fringes to a garment, the Gemara relates that Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov would affix four strings to the garment, and he would first fold them in half and then insert them at the point of the folds into the hole of the garment, so that on one side there were eight strings and on the other side there were four loops. He would then take the eight strings and loop them through the four loops and pull them tight, thereby attaching them to the garment. The Gemara explains that he held that we require eight strings when they are initially placed in the garment, in order that there be twisted cord and “twisted cords” (Deuteronomy 22:12), i.e., four doubled strings, at the place, i.e., the time, when he creates the loose hanging string.
קלאוד על הדף:
This begins a section presenting three different practices for physically attaching the strings to the garment. Rav Acha bar Ya’akov’s method is elaborate: he folds four strings, creating eight ends on one side and four loops on the other, then threads the ends through the loops. His rationale is that at the moment of creating the hanging fringe, there must already be eight strings visible in the garment. This ensures the verse’s requirement of “gedilim” (twisted cords, plural) is fulfilled at the time the loose fringes are formed.
Key Terms:
- אָבֵיק (Avik) = To loop; threading strings through loops to attach them
- גְּדִיל / גְּדִילִים (Gedil / Gedilim) = Twisted cord(s); the biblical source for the number of strings
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Yirmeya of Difti’s method (16 strings) and Mar son of Ravina’s method (our practice)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב יִרְמְיָה מִדִּפְתִּי רָמֵי תְּמָנְיָא, דְּאִינְהוּ שִׁיתְּסַר, וְלָא אָבֵיק לְהוּ. מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא עָבֵיד כְּדִידַן.
English Translation:
Rav Yirmeya of Difti would affix eight strings that are sixteen strings after they are placed in the hole of the garment and half of each string hangs down on each side, and he would not loop them as Rav Aha bar Ya’akov did. Mar, son of Ravina, would prepare ritual fringes like ours, placing four strings through the hole and allowing both ends of each string to hang down, thereby forming eight.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara contrasts three methods: Rav Acha’s looping technique (4 folded = 8+4 loops), Rav Yirmeya’s maximalist approach (8 strings = 16 ends), and Mar son of Ravina’s simpler method (4 strings through the hole = 8 hanging ends). The last method — “like ours” (k’didan) — is what became standard practice. This simple method of folding four strings through the hole to create eight hanging strands is how tzitzit are made to this day.
Key Terms:
- כְּדִידַן (K’didan) = Like ours; indicating the accepted practice
- שִׁיתְּסַר (Shitsar) = Sixteen; the maximum number of hanging strands according to Rav Yirmeya
Segment 13
TYPE: מעשה
Rav Nachman rebukes Rav Adda bar Ahava for reciting a blessing when attaching tzitzit
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב נַחְמָן אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה רָמֵי חוּטֵי, וְקָא מְבָרֵךְ ״לַעֲשׂוֹת צִיצִית״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי ״צִיצִי״ [דְּקָא] שָׁמַעְנָא? הָכִי אָמַר רַב: צִיצִית אֵין צְרִיכָה בְּרָכָה.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman found Rav Adda bar Ahava affixing strings to a garment and reciting the blessing that concludes: To prepare ritual fringes [tzitzit]. Rav Naḥman said to Rav Adda bar Ahava: What is this tzitzi sound that I hear? This is what Rav says: Ritual fringes do not require a blessing when one attaches them to the garment.
קלאוד על הדף:
This colorful narrative introduces a major halakhic question: does one recite a blessing when attaching tzitzit to a garment, or only when wearing the garment? Rav Nachman’s humorous rebuke — “What is this tzitzi sound I hear?” — conveys Rav’s position that no blessing is recited upon attaching the strings. Rav Adda bar Ahava, however, held that one should bless “la’asot tzitzit” (to make tzitzit) at that time. This dispute will be connected to the broader question of chovat gavra vs. chovat tallit.
Key Terms:
- לַעֲשׂוֹת צִיצִית (La’asot Tzitzit) = To make/prepare ritual fringes; the disputed blessing text
- אֵין צְרִיכָה בְּרָכָה = Does not require a blessing; Rav’s position
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Chisda raises a contradiction from Rav against Rav: if a gentile’s tzitzit are invalid, the mitzva requires Jewish production — so it should need a blessing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, עָל רַב חִסְדָּא לְמִירְמֵא דְּרַב אַדְּרַב, וּמִי אָמַר רַב: צִיצִית אֵין צָרִיךְ בְּרָכָה? וְהָא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִין לְצִיצִית בְּגוֹי שֶׁהִיא פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעָשׂוּ לָהֶם צִיצִת״ – בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל יַעֲשׂוּ וְלֹא הַגּוֹיִם יַעֲשׂוּ!
English Translation:
With regard to this statement of Rav, the Gemara relates that when Rav Huna died, Rav Ḥisda went into the study hall to raise a contradiction from one statement of Rav to another statement of Rav, as follows: Did Rav actually say that ritual fringes do not require a blessing when one attaches them to the garment? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav says: From where is it derived that ritual fringes attached by a gentile are unfit? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “Speak unto the children of Israel and command them that they prepare for themselves strings” (Numbers 15:38). The Sages derive from here that the children of Israel shall prepare ritual fringes, but the gentiles shall not prepare ritual fringes.
קלאוד על הדף:
The timing is significant: Rav Chisda waited until after Rav Huna’s death to raise this contradiction, likely out of deference to his teacher. The contradiction is sharp: if Rav holds that a gentile’s tzitzit are invalid (meaning the mitzva specifically requires Jewish production), then the act of attaching tzitzit should carry enough significance to require a blessing. This sets up a lengthy discussion about when blessings are recited on the production of mitzva items.
Key Terms:
- כִּי נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ (Ki Nach Nafshei) = When he died; Rav Chisda waited out of respect for Rav Huna
- לְמִירְמֵא (L’mirma) = To raise a contradiction between two statements of the same authority
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Yosef explains Rav Chisda’s principle: blessing correlates with gentile validity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא מַאי רוּמְיָא? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: קָסָבַר רַב חִסְדָּא: כׇּל מִצְוָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה בְּגוֹי – בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵךְ, כׇּל מִצְוָה שֶׁפְּסוּלָה בְּגוֹי – בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵךְ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But what is the contradiction between these two statements of Rav? Rav Yosef said: Rav Ḥisda held that in the case of any mitzva for which the necessary item is fit when produced by a gentile, if it is produced by a Jew, he does not need to recite a blessing. Conversely, any mitzva for which the necessary item is unfit when produced by a gentile, if it is produced by a Jew, he needs to recite a blessing when he produces the item.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef clarifies Rav Chisda’s reasoning: there is a direct correlation between whether a gentile can produce a mitzva item and whether a Jew must recite a blessing when doing so. If the gentile version is invalid, the Jewish production has unique religious significance — and thus warrants a blessing. If the gentile version is valid, the production itself has no special Jewish religious dimension, and the blessing is recited only upon performing the mitzva. This elegant principle will be tested against several cases.
Key Terms:
- רוּמְיָא (Rumya) = Contradiction between two statements of the same authority
- כְּשֵׁירָה בְּגוֹי / פְּסוּלָה בְּגוֹי = Valid/invalid when done by a gentile; the criterion for requiring a blessing
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge from circumcision: valid by a gentile, yet a Jew recites a blessing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּכְלָלָא הוּא? וַהֲרֵי מִילָה דִּכְשֵׁירָה בְּגוֹי, דְּתַנְיָא: עִיר שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ רוֹפֵא יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ רוֹפֵא אַרְמַאי וְרוֹפֵא כּוּתִי – יָמוּל אַרְמַאי וְאַל יָמוּל כּוּתִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כּוּתִי וְלֹא אַרְמַאי.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And is this an established principle? But what about circumcision, which is valid if performed by a gentile, as it is taught in a baraita: In a city in which there is no Jewish physician, and in which there is an Aramean, i.e., a gentile, physician and a Samaritan physician, it is preferable that the Aramean circumcise the Jewish boys of the city and the Samaritan not circumcise them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is preferable that the Samaritan circumcise the boys and the Aramean not circumcise them. Nevertheless, all agree that a circumcision performed by a gentile is valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rav Chisda’s principle with circumcision. The baraita shows that both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda accept gentile circumcision as valid in principle — they only disagree about who is preferable. Yet as the next segment shows, a Jewish mohel still recites a blessing. This contradicts Rav Chisda’s rule that if a gentile can validly perform the act, a Jew should not recite a blessing upon doing so.
Key Terms:
- כּוּתִי (Kuti) = Samaritan; suspected of insincere motives
- אַרְמַאי (Arma’i) = Aramean/gentile; preferred over Samaritans according to R. Meir
Segment 17
TYPE: ראיה
Proof: circumcision valid by gentile, yet Jewish mohel recites a blessing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבְיִשְׂרָאֵל צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵךְ, דְּאָמַר מָר: הַמָּל אוֹמֵר: ״בָּרוּךְ אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ עַל הַמִּילָה״.
English Translation:
And despite the fact that circumcision performed by a gentile is valid, when it is performed by a Jew, he must recite a blessing, as the Master said: The one who circumcises a child says: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us through His mitzvot and has commanded us concerning circumcision.
קלאוד על הדף:
This completes the challenge: circumcision is valid when performed by a gentile, yet a Jewish mohel nevertheless recites the blessing “al hamilah” (concerning circumcision). This directly contradicts Rav Chisda’s principle that valid gentile performance means no blessing for Jewish performance. The question is potent because circumcision is one of the most fundamental mitzvot.
Key Terms:
- הַמָּל (HaMal) = The one who circumcises; the mohel
- עַל הַמִּילָה (Al HaMilah) = Concerning circumcision; the specific blessing text
Segment 18
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: Rav himself invalidates gentile circumcision, so the challenge doesn’t apply
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִידֵּי הוּא טַעְמָא, אֶלָּא לְרַב? רַב מִיפְסָיל פָּסֵיל, דְּאִיתְּמַר: מִנַּיִן לְמִילָה בְּגוֹי שֶׁפְּסוּלָה? דָּרוּ בַּר פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמַר: ״וְאַתָּה אֶת בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמֹר״.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Is there reason to resolve the contradiction according to anyone but Rav? Rav himself invalidates circumcision performed by a gentile, as it was stated: From where is it derived that circumcision performed by a gentile is not valid? Daru bar Pappa says in the name of Rav: This is derived from the verse: “And God said unto Abraham: And as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you, and your seed after you throughout their generations” (Genesis 17:9). The verse indicates that only the descendants of Abraham may perform circumcision.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara deflects the challenge: since Rav Chisda’s principle is being used to resolve a contradiction in Rav’s own statements, we only need consistency within Rav’s system. And Rav himself holds that gentile circumcision is invalid, deriving this from “you shall keep My covenant” — only descendants of Abraham (i.e., Jews) may perform it. Within Rav’s framework, both circumcision and tzitzit (if attached by a gentile) are invalid, so the blessing requirement is consistent.
Key Terms:
- מִידֵּי הוּא טַעְמָא אֶלָּא לְרַב = Is the reasoning relevant except according to Rav?; we only need internal consistency
- וְאַתָּה אֶת בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמֹר = And you shall keep My covenant; the source for restricting circumcision to Jews
Segment 19
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Yochanan’s alternative source: “himmol yimmol” — only the circumcised may circumcise
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״, הַמָּל יִמּוֹל.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan says that this halakha is derived from the doubled verb in the verse: “Must be circumcised [himmol yimmol]” (Genesis 17:13), which he interprets to mean: Only one who is circumcised [hammal] may circumcise [yamul] others.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan offers an alternative derivation for restricting circumcision to Jews (or at least to those who are circumcised). The doubled verb “himmol yimmol” is read as a play on words: “hammal” (the circumcised one) “yamul” (shall circumcise). Since gentiles are generally uncircumcised, they cannot perform the act. This derivation has a different logical structure — it focuses on the performer’s status rather than covenantal identity — but reaches the same practical conclusion.
Key Terms:
- הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל (Himmol Yimmol) = Must surely be circumcised; the doubled verb read as a restriction
- הַמָּל יִמּוֹל (HaMal Yamul) = The circumcised one shall circumcise; the derived rule
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא
Testing Rav Chisda’s principle: sukka supports it, tefillin refute it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
סוּכָּה מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ, תְּפִילִּין הָוֵי תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes that the halakha with regard to a sukka supports the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, who holds that when an item used for a mitzva can be created by a gentile, a Jew who creates it does not recite a blessing. And the halakha with regard to phylacteries is a conclusive refutation of his opinion.
קלאוד על הדף:
This transitional statement sets up the two-pronged test of Rav Chisda’s principle. The Gemara will show that sukka supports his theory (gentile-built sukka is valid; no blessing on building), but tefillin refute it (gentile-written tefillin are invalid; yet no blessing on writing them either). This systematic testing of principles against case law is a hallmark of Talmudic reasoning.
Key Terms:
- מְסַיַּיע (Mesayya) = Supports; the sukka case confirms the principle
- תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ (Teyuvtei) = Conclusive refutation; the tefillin case disproves it
Segment 21
TYPE: ברייתא
Sukka support: a gentile’s sukka is valid
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲרֵי סוּכָּה דִּכְשֵׁירָה בְּגוֹי, דְּתַנְיָא: סוּכַּת גּוֹיִם, סוּכַּת נָשִׁים, סוּכַּת בְּהֵמָה, סוּכַּת כּוּתִיִּים, סוּכָּה מִכׇּל מָקוֹם – כְּשֵׁירָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁתְּהֵא מְסוּכֶּכֶת כְּהִילְכָתָהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: A sukka is fit even if it was built by a gentile, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a booth built by gentiles, a booth built by women, a booth for domesticated animals, a booth built by Samaritans, a booth of any sort, each is fit for use as a sukka, provided that it is roofed in accordance with the halakha.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita demonstrates remarkable inclusiveness: a sukka built by virtually anyone — gentiles, women, even one made for animals — is valid as long as the roofing (sekhakh) meets halakhic requirements. The only concern is the physical structure, not who built it. This establishes the first half of the test case for Rav Chisda’s principle: since a gentile’s sukka is valid, a Jew should not recite a blessing upon building one (and indeed, as the next segment shows, he does not).
Key Terms:
- מְסוּכֶּכֶת כְּהִילְכָתָהּ = Roofed in accordance with halakha; the sole requirement for validity
Segment 22
TYPE: ברייתא
No blessing “la’asot sukka” — only “leishev basukka” when sitting in it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵךְ, דְּתַנְיָא: הָעוֹשֶׂה סוּכָּה לְעַצְמוֹ אוֹמֵר: ״בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם שֶׁהֶחֱיָינוּ וְקִיְּמָנוּ וְהִגִּיעָנוּ לַזְּמַן הַזֶּה״, בָּא לֵישֵׁב בָּהּ אוֹמֵר: ״בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ לֵישֵׁב בַּסּוּכָּה״, וְאִילּוּ ״לַעֲשׂוֹת סוּכָּה״ לָא מְבָרֵךְ.
English Translation:
And if a sukka was built by a Jew, he is not required to recite a blessing upon its construction, as it is taught in a baraita: One who constructs a sukka for himself recites: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time. When he comes to sit in the sukka, he recites: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us through His mitzvot and commanded us to reside in the sukka. The Gemara notes that the baraita indicates that he recites a blessing at the time of construction, whereas he does not recite a blessing including the words: To construct a sukka, which confirms the opinion of Rav Ḥisda.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita perfectly supports Rav Chisda: a gentile can validly build a sukka, and correspondingly, a Jew does not recite a mitzva-specific blessing (“la’asot sukka”) when building one. He only recites “shehecheyanu” (a general thanksgiving) on building, and the mitzva blessing (“leishev basukka”) when actually sitting in it. The construction itself is not considered the completion of the mitzva — the mitzva is fulfilled by sitting in it. This fits neatly with Rav Chisda’s theory.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁהֶחֱיָינוּ (Shehecheyanu) = Who has kept us alive; a general thanksgiving blessing, not mitzva-specific
- לֵישֵׁב בַּסּוּכָּה (Leishev BaSukka) = To sit in the sukka; the mitzva-specific blessing recited only upon performing the actual mitzva
Segment 23
TYPE: קושיא
Tefillin refutation begins: tefillin written by a gentile are invalid, yet…
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּפִילִּין תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ, וַהֲרֵי תְּפִילִּין דִּפְסוּלוֹת בְּגוֹי, דְּתָנֵי רַב חִינָּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא
English Translation:
By contrast, the halakha with regard to phylacteries is a conclusive refutation of Rav Ḥisda’s opinion. Phylacteries are unfit when written by a gentile, as it is taught by Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rava,
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment begins the refutation of Rav Chisda’s principle. If his rule were correct, then since tefillin written by a gentile are invalid, a Jew who writes them should recite a blessing. But as the next amud will show, no such blessing is recited. The passage continues onto 42b, where the full baraita and the resolution are presented. This cross-amud break is a reminder that the daf division is artificial — the argument flows continuously.
Key Terms:
- תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ (Teyuvtei) = His refutation; a stronger challenge than a simple question
Amud Bet (42b)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא
Tefillin/mezuzot/Torah scrolls written by heretics, gentiles, women, minors, or apostates are invalid
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִפַּשְׁרוּנְיָא: סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה, תְּפִילִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת שֶׁכְּתָבָן מִין, כּוּתִי, גּוֹי, עֶבֶד, אִשָּׁה, וְקָטָן, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד – פְּסוּלִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּקְשַׁרְתָּם״ ״וּכְתַבְתָּם״, כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בִּקְשִׁירָה יֶשְׁנוֹ בִּכְתִיבָה, כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּקְשִׁירָה אֵינוֹ בִּכְתִיבָה.
English Translation:
of Pashronya: A Torah scroll, phylacteries, or mezuzot that were written by a heretic, a Samaritan, a gentile, a Canaanite slave, a woman, a minor, or a Jewish apostate [meshummad] are unfit, as it is stated: “And you shall bind them for a sign on your arm…and you shall write them on the doorposts of your house” (Deuteronomy 6:8–9). From this juxtaposition, one can derive the following: Anyone who is included in the mitzva of binding the phylacteries, i.e., one who is both obligated and performs the mitzva, is included in the class of people who may write Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot; and anyone who is not included in the mitzva of binding is not included in the class of people who may write sacred texts.
קלאוד על הדף:
This important baraita establishes who may write sacred texts. The derivation is elegant: the Torah juxtaposes “you shall bind them” (referring to tefillin) with “you shall write them.” Only those who are part of the binding obligation can be part of the writing. This excludes heretics (who deny the Torah), Samaritans (whose sincerity is suspect), gentiles (not commanded), women (exempt from tefillin per the Sages), minors (not yet obligated), and apostates. The principle connects the writer’s personal obligation to their capacity to produce the sacred item.
Key Terms:
- מִין (Min) = Heretic; one who denies fundamental Torah principles
- מְשׁוּמָּד (Meshummad) = Apostate; a Jew who has abandoned observance
- כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בִּקְשִׁירָה יֶשְׁנוֹ בִּכְתִיבָה = Whoever is included in binding is included in writing; the derivational principle
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Yet no blessing “la’asot tefillin” when writing — only when donning them
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵךְ, דִּשְׁלַח רַב חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עַל תְּפִילִּין שֶׁל יָד אוֹמֵר: ״בָּרוּךְ אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ לְהַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין״, עַל תְּפִילִּין שֶׁל רֹאשׁ אוֹמֵר: ״בָּרוּךְ אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ עַל מִצְוַת תְּפִילִּין״, וְאִילּוּ ״לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּפִילִּין״ לָא מְבָרֵךְ!
English Translation:
And despite the fact that phylacteries written by a gentile are unfit, a Jew who writes them does not have to recite a blessing. As Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Huna, sent a ruling in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: On phylacteries of the arm one says the blessing: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us through His mitzvot and commanded us to don phylacteries. On phylacteries of the head one says the blessing: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us through His mitzvot and commanded us concerning the mitzva of phylacteries. The implication of this is that one recites blessings only when he dons the phylacteries, whereas when he writes the phylacteries he does not recite a blessing: To prepare phylacteries.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the devastating refutation of Rav Chisda’s principle. According to his rule, since tefillin written by a gentile are invalid, a Jew who writes them should recite a blessing. But the halakha clearly shows that no blessing “la’asot tefillin” (to prepare tefillin) is recited — only “l’hani’ach tefillin” (to don tefillin) when actually wearing them. This proves the correlation between gentile validity and blessing requirement is not an established principle. The two blessings for arm and head tefillin are incidentally preserved here.
Key Terms:
- לְהַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין (L’haniach Tefillin) = To don phylacteries; the blessing for the arm tefillin
- עַל מִצְוַת תְּפִילִּין (Al Mitzvat Tefillin) = Concerning the mitzva of phylacteries; the blessing for the head tefillin
Segment 3
TYPE: מסקנא
New principle: blessing at production depends on whether production IS the completion of the mitzva
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לָאו הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא: כׇּל מִצְוָה דַּעֲשִׂיָּיתָהּ גְּמַר מִצְוָה, כְּגוֹן מִילָה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְשֵׁירָה בְּגוֹי – בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵךְ, וְכׇל מִצְוָה דַּעֲשִׂיָּיתָהּ לָאו גְּמַר מִצְוָה, כְּגוֹן תְּפִילִּין, אַף עַל גַּב דִּפְסוּלוֹת בְּגוֹי – בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵךְ.
English Translation:
Rather, isn’t this the reason for the distinction between different mitzvot: For any mitzva whose performance is the completion of the mitzva, such as circumcision, even though it is valid when performed by a gentile, when it is performed by a Jew he must recite a blessing. But for any mitzva where the performance of a particular act is not the completion of the mitzva, such as writing phylacteries, where one does not complete the mitzva until he dons them, even though it is not valid when performed by a gentile, when it is performed by a Jew he does not need to recite a blessing.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having refuted Rav Chisda’s original principle, the Gemara offers a refined alternative: the determining factor is whether production itself completes the mitzva. Circumcision is “gemar mitzva” — the act of cutting IS the mitzva’s completion, so a blessing is recited then. But writing tefillin is preparatory — the mitzva isn’t complete until they are worn. Therefore no blessing upon writing. This elegantly accounts for all the cases: sukka (mitzva completed by sitting, not building), tefillin (completed by donning, not writing), and circumcision (completed by the act itself).
Key Terms:
- עֲשִׂיָּיתָהּ גְּמַר מִצְוָה (Asiyatah Gemar Mitzva) = Its production is the completion of the mitzva
- עֲשִׂיָּיתָהּ לָאו גְּמַר מִצְוָה = Its production is not the completion of the mitzva; further action is needed
Segment 4
TYPE: מסקנא
Application to tzitzit: the dispute about blessing depends on chovat tallit vs. chovat gavra
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבְצִיצִית, בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר חוֹבַת טַלִּית הוּא, וּמָר סָבַר חוֹבַת גַּבְרָא הוּא.
English Translation:
And with regard to reciting a blessing when one attaches ritual fringes to a garment, the Sages disagree about this: One Sage, Rav Adda bar Ahava, holds that it is an obligation pertaining to the cloak. Therefore, when one attaches the ritual fringes he is completing the mitzva, and he should recite a blessing: To prepare ritual fringes. And one Sage, Rav Naḥman, citing Rav, holds that it is an obligation incumbent upon the man. Consequently, the mitzva is not complete until he wears the garment, and he should not recite a blessing when he attaches the ritual fringes to the garment.
קלאוד על הדף:
This brilliantly connects the blessing dispute back to the fundamental question from daf 41: is tzitzit chovat tallit (obligation of the garment) or chovat gavra (obligation of the person)? If chovat tallit, attaching the strings completes the mitzva for that garment — like circumcision, the act IS the fulfillment — and a blessing is appropriate. If chovat gavra, the mitzva isn’t complete until the person actually wears the garment, making attachment merely preparatory — like writing tefillin — and no blessing is recited. The theological question has a concrete practical consequence.
Key Terms:
- חוֹבַת טַלִּית (Chovat Tallit) = Obligation of the garment; attaching = completing the mitzva
- חוֹבַת גַּבְרָא (Chovat Gavra) = Obligation of the man; wearing = completing the mitzva
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Mordekhai to Rav Ashi: you teach the gentile-tzitzit ruling differently
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מָרְדֳּכַי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אַתּוּן הָכִי מַתְנִיתוּ לַהּ.
English Translation:
Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: You teach this halakha about gentiles attaching ritual fringes to a garment in this manner, citing Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav that the ritual fringes are invalid. Consequently, Rav Ḥisda raises a contradiction between this ruling and another ruling of Rav.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Mordekhai reveals a textual variant that resolves the entire preceding discussion. In Rav Ashi’s academy, the tradition from Rav states that gentile-made tzitzit are invalid — which creates the contradiction Rav Chisda raised. But as Rav Mordekhai will show in the next segment, his academy had a different version of Rav’s ruling, one that avoids the contradiction entirely.
Key Terms:
- אַתּוּן הָכִי מַתְנִיתוּ = You teach it this way; indicating a different textual tradition in another academy
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Alternative version: Rav actually holds gentile-made tzitzit ARE valid — “ve’asu lahem” = others may make for them
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲנַן הָכִי מַתְנֵינַן לַהּ, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִין לְצִיצִית בְּגוֹי שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעָשׂוּ לָהֶם צִיצִית״, יַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם אֲחֵרִים.
English Translation:
We teach it in this way, according to which there is no contradiction: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: From where is it derived that if ritual fringes are attached to a garment by a gentile they are valid? It is derived from that which is stated: “Speak unto the children of Israel and command them that they prepare for themselves [lahem] strings” (Numbers 15:38). From the fact that the verse does not merely state: That they prepare [ve’asu], but rather states “ve’asu lahem,” which can be translated as: That they prepare for them, the indication is that even others, i.e., gentiles, shall prepare ritual fringes for them.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is a remarkable reversal: in Rav Mordekhai’s tradition, Rav actually derived that gentile-made tzitzit ARE valid! The key is reading “ve’asu lahem” not as “they [Israel] shall make for themselves” (restrictive), but as “they shall make for them” (permissive — even others may make tzitzit for Israel). Under this reading, there is no contradiction in Rav: he holds gentile tzitzit are valid AND no blessing is recited upon attaching them — perfectly consistent with Rav Chisda’s original principle. Different textual traditions can entirely reshape halakhic conclusions.
Key Terms:
- יַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם אֲחֵרִים = Others shall make for them; reading “lahem” as permitting gentile production
- אֲנַן הָכִי מַתְנֵינַן = We teach it this way; indicating a variant tradition
Segment 7
TYPE: מימרא
Materials for tzitzit: kotzim, nimin, and geradin are invalid; sisin are valid according to Rav
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: עֲשָׂאָן מִן הַקּוֹצִים, וּמִן הַנִּימִין, וּמִן הַגְּרָדִין – פְּסוּלָה, מִן הַסִּיסִין – כְּשֵׁירָה.
English Translation:
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If one prepared ritual fringes from threads that protrude from the fabric like thorns [kotzim], or if he prepared them from threads [nimin] that were used to sew the garment and remain attached to it, or from the strings [geradin] that hang from the bottom of a garment, the ritual fringes are unfit, as one must attach ritual fringes to a garment for the sake of the mitzva. But if he prepared ritual fringes from swatches of wool that were not spun for the sake of the mitzva, they are fit.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment introduces the “lishmah” (for the sake of the mitzva) requirements for tzitzit materials. Rav rules that threads already part of the garment — protruding fibers (kotzim), sewing threads (nimin), or loose bottom threads (geradin) — cannot be repurposed as tzitzit because they weren’t prepared for this purpose. However, un-spun wool swatches (sisin) that are not yet part of the garment may be used, even though they weren’t spun specifically for tzitzit. Shmuel will disagree in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- קּוֹצִים (Kotzim) = Thorns; fibers protruding from fabric like thorns
- נִימִין (Nimin) = Threads; sewing threads remaining in the garment
- גְּרָדִין (Geradin) = Loose threads hanging from the bottom of a garment
- סִיסִין (Sisin) = Wool swatches; un-spun wool pieces
Segment 8
TYPE: מחלוקת
Shmuel: even sisin are invalid — spinning must be for the sake of the mitzva
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר: אַף מִן הַסִּיסִין פְּסוּלָה, בָּעֵינַן טְוִיָּיה לִשְׁמָהּ.
English Translation:
Rav Yehuda continues: When I stated this halakha in the name of Rav before Shmuel, he said to me: Even ritual fringes tied from swatches of wool that were not spun for the sake of the mitzva are unfit, as we require the spinning of the string to be for the sake of the mitzva.
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel adds a stringent requirement: not only must the threads be separate from the garment (ruling out kotzim/nimin/geradin), but the spinning itself must be done with the intent for tzitzit. This is the principle of “tviyah lishmah” — spinning for the sake of the mitzva. This becomes a major halakhic issue: must the artisan explicitly intend that the spinning is for tzitzit? This dispute between Rav and Shmuel about lishmah has far-reaching implications for how tzitzit strings are manufactured to this day.
Key Terms:
- טְוִיָּיה לִשְׁמָהּ (Tviyah Lishmah) = Spinning for its [the mitzva’s] sake; Shmuel’s requirement
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
Parallel dispute in tefillin: Sages vs. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel on lishmah for leather
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּתַנָּאֵי: צִיפָּן זָהָב, אוֹ שֶׁטָּלָה עֲלֵיהֶן עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה – פְּסוּלוֹת. עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה – כְּשֵׁירוֹת, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עִיבְּדָן לִשְׁמָן. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה פְּסוּלוֹת, עַד שֶׁיְּעַבְּדֵן לִשְׁמָן.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes that this dispute is like a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: If one took phylacteries and coated them with gold or patched them with the skin of a non-kosher animal, then they are unfit. But if one patched them with the skin of a kosher animal, then they are fit, and this is so even though he did not prepare the skin for their sake, i.e., for the sake of its use in a mitzva. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even if he patched them with the skin of a kosher animal they are unfit, until he prepares them for their sake.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara draws a parallel between the Rav/Shmuel dispute about tzitzit and a Tannaitic dispute about tefillin leather. The first Tanna holds that kosher animal leather is valid for tefillin even without specific lishmah preparation — like Rav’s view on wool swatches. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel requires lishmah preparation — like Shmuel. This shows the lishmah question is a broader principle affecting multiple mitzvot, not just tzitzit.
Key Terms:
- צִיפָּן זָהָב (Tzifan Zahav) = Coated them with gold; invalidates tefillin
- עִיבְּדָן לִשְׁמָן (Ibbdan Lishman) = Prepared them for their sake; the lishmah requirement for leather
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
How tekhelet dye is prepared: Abaye asks Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda about the process
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָא תְּכֵילְתָּא הֵיכִי צָבְעִיתוּ לַהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַיְיתִינַן דַּם חִלָּזוֹן וְסַמָּנִין, וְרָמֵינַן לְהוּ בְּיוֹרָה, וְשָׁקְלִינַן פּוּרְתָּא בְּבֵיעֲתָא, וְטָעֲמִינַן לְהוּ בְּאוּדְרָא, וְשָׁדֵינַן לַיהּ לְהָהוּא בֵּיעֲתָא, וְקָלֵינַן לֵיהּ לְאוּדְרָא.
English Translation:
§ Abaye said to Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda: How do you dye this sky-blue wool to be used for ritual fringes? Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda said to Abaye: We bring blood of a ḥilazon and various herbs and put them in a pot and boil them. And then we take a bit of the resulting dye in an egg shell and test it by using it to dye a wad of wool to see if it has attained the desired hue. And then we throw away that egg shell and its contents and burn the wad of wool.
קלאוד על הדף:
This fascinating passage preserves the actual recipe for preparing tekhelet dye. The chilazon’s blood is mixed with herbs and boiled. Before dyeing the actual tzitzit wool, a sample is removed in an eggshell and tested on a wad of wool to check the color. Crucially, both the test sample and the test wool are destroyed — the eggshell is discarded and the wool is burned. This meticulous procedure reveals three halakhic principles that the Gemara will now derive.
Key Terms:
- חִלָּזוֹן (Chilazon) = The sea creature whose blood produces tekhelet dye
- טָעֲמִינַן (Ta’aminan) = We test/taste; testing the dye on a sample
- בֵּיעֲתָא (Bei’ata) = Eggshell; used as a vessel for the test sample
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Three halakhot derived: test-dyed wool is invalid; dyeing must be lishmah; testing disqualifies the dye
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תְּלָת: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ טְעִימָה פְּסוּלָה, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דְּבָעֵינַן צְבִיעָה לִשְׁמָהּ, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ טְעִימָה פָּסְלָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara comments: Learn from this statement three halakhot: Learn from it that wool that was dyed for the purpose of testing the dye and not for use as ritual fringes is unfit for ritual fringes. Consequently, one burns the wad of wool so that no one will use it for ritual fringes. And learn from it that we require dyeing for the sake of the mitzva. And learn from it that using dye for testing renders all the dye in that vessel unfit. Therefore, some of the dye is removed from the pot before it is tested.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara derives three rules from the dyeing procedure: (1) The test wool is burned because it was dyed for testing purposes, not for tzitzit — making it unfit. (2) The dye used for actual tzitzit must be applied lishmah (for the sake of the mitzva). (3) Once dye has been used for a non-lishmah purpose (testing), all the dye in that batch becomes unfit — which is why a sample is first removed to a separate eggshell before testing. This last point is particularly significant and will be discussed further.
Key Terms:
- טְעִימָה (Te’imah) = Testing/tasting; using the dye on a sample
- צְבִיעָה לִשְׁמָהּ (Tzevi’ah Lishmah) = Dyeing for the sake of the mitzva
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Challenge: aren’t “test is invalid” and “dyeing must be lishmah” the same thing?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַיְינוּ טְעִימָה פְּסוּלָה, הַיְינוּ צְבִיעָה לִשְׁמָהּ? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מָה טַעַם קָאָמַר – מָה טַעַם טְעִימָה פְּסוּלָה? מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵינַן צְבִיעָה לִשְׁמָהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: The halakha that wool dyed for the purpose of testing the dye is unfit is the same as the requirement of dyeing for the sake of the mitzva. It is only because the sky-blue strings must be dyed for the sake of the mitzva that wool dyed as a test is unfit for use as ritual fringes, so why are these stated as two halakhot? Rav Ashi said: The statement about learning three halakhot employs the style known as: What is the reason, and it means: What is the reason that wool that was dyed for the purpose of testing is unfit? It is because we require dyeing for the sake of the mitzva.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara notices that two of the three derived halakhot appear to be the same: “test wool is invalid” is simply a consequence of “dyeing must be lishmah.” Rav Ashi resolves this using the “mah ta’am” (what is the reason) rhetorical structure: the statement really lists only two distinct halakhot, but one of them comes with its reason. So the “three” things are actually: (1) test wool is invalid — why? — because dyeing must be lishmah, and (2) testing disqualifies the dye batch.
Key Terms:
- מָה טַעַם קָאָמַר (Mah Ta’am Ka’amar) = It employs the “what is the reason” style; a Talmudic rhetorical device
Segment 13
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel: test-dye disqualifies from “kelil tekhelet” — the dye must be used exclusively
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּתַנָּאֵי: טְעִימָה פְּסוּלָה, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כְּלִיל תְּכֵלֶת״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes that the halakha that using the dye for testing renders all the dye in the pot unfit is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: Tekhelet dye that was used for testing is unfit, as it is stated concerning the priestly vestments: “And you shall make the robe of the ephod entirely of blue [kelil tekhelet]” (Exodus 28:31), which indicates that the dye must be used exclusively for this purpose, i.e., this must be the first item it is being used to dye. This is the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel derives from the verse about the ephod (“kelil tekhelet” — entirely tekhelet) that the dye must be used exclusively for its sacred purpose — it must be the first and only use of that batch. If the dye was first used for testing, it has been “used” for a non-sacred purpose and is no longer “entirely” for tekhelet. This connects the tekhelet of tzitzit to the tekhelet of priestly garments through a shared standard of exclusivity.
Key Terms:
- כְּלִיל תְּכֵלֶת (Kelil Tekhelet) = Entirely of tekhelet; the standard of exclusive use
- מַרְאֶה שֵׁנִי (Mar’eh Sheni) = Second appearance; a second use of the dye
Segment 14
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Yochanan ben Dahavai: even a second use of the dye is valid — from “ushni tola’at”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן דַּהֲבַאי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ מַרְאֶה שֵׁנִי שֶׁבָּהּ כָּשֵׁר, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּשְׁנִי תוֹלָעַת״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Dahavai says: Even a second appearance caused by the dye is fit, meaning even if it is the second time that the dye is being used, it is still fit. As it is stated in the verse: “And scarlet wool [ushni tola’at]” (Leviticus 14:4), which is interpreted to mean that this may be the second [sheni] usage of the dye.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan ben Dahavai offers a more lenient view: even if the dye has been used before (for testing or another purpose), the resulting color is still valid. He derives this from a clever wordplay on “ushni tola’at” (scarlet wool) — reading “sheni” as “second,” meaning a second use of dye is acceptable. This dispute has practical implications for dye manufacturers: must they use a fresh batch for every batch of tzitzit strings, or can they reuse dye?
Key Terms:
- וּשְׁנִי תוֹלָעַת (Ushni Tola’at) = And scarlet wool; reinterpreted as “second [use of] worm-dye”
Segment 15
TYPE: ברייתא
Purchasing sacred items: tekhelet only from an expert, tefillin only from an expert, scrolls and mezuzot from anyone
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: תְּכֵלֶת אֵין לָהּ בְּדִיקָה, וְאֵין נִיקַּחַת אֶלָּא מִן הַמּוּמְחֶה. תְּפִילִּין יֵשׁ לָהֶם בְּדִיקָה, וְאֵין נִיקָּחִין אֶלָּא מִן הַמּוּמְחֶה. סְפָרִים וּמְזוּזוֹת יֵשׁ לָהֶן בְּדִיקָה, וְנִיקָּחִין מִכׇּל אָדָם.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: There is no reliable method of testing sky-blue wool, and therefore it may be purchased only from an expert. There is a method of testing phylacteries to ensure they were written properly, but nevertheless they may be purchased only from an expert. There is a method of testing Torah scrolls and mezuzot, and they may be purchased from anyone.
קלאוד על הדף:
This practical baraita establishes a hierarchy of consumer protection for sacred items. Tekhelet is the most restricted — it cannot be tested to verify it is genuine chilazon dye (as opposed to indigo), so it must be purchased only from a trusted expert. Tefillin can be opened and checked, but this is considered undignified (one must unsew them), so they too should come from experts. Torah scrolls and mezuzot can be fully inspected and may be purchased from anyone. This reflects a nuanced approach to religious commerce: more verification = more openness in the marketplace.
Key Terms:
- מּוּמְחֶה (Mumcheh) = Expert; a person with established reliability
- בְּדִיקָה (Bedikah) = Testing/inspection; the ability to verify the item’s validity
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא
But didn’t Rav Yitzchak test tekhelet? Beginning of a method using alum, fenugreek, and urine
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּתְכֵלֶת אֵין לָהּ בְּדִיקָה? וְהָא רַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה בָּדֵיק לֵיהּ! (סִימָן בְּגֶשֶׁם) מַיְיתֵי מַגְבְּיָא גִּילָא, וּמַיָּא דְּשַׁבְלִילְתָּא, וּמֵימֵי רַגְלַיִם
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And is there no method for testing sky-blue wool? But didn’t Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, test it to ensure it was dyed with tekhelet? The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the test, which was carried out with items whose names contain the letters gimmel, shin, or mem. He would bring alum clay [megavya gila], and water of fenugreek [shavlilta], and urine [meimei raglayim]
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the previous baraita’s claim that tekhelet cannot be tested by citing Rav Yitzchak’s actual testing method. The test uses three substances — alum clay, fenugreek water, and urine — apparently to check whether the dye holds fast under chemical challenge. If genuine chilazon tekhelet retains its color while fake dyes (like indigo) do not, then there IS a test. The passage breaks off mid-description (continuing on the next daf), preserving a remarkable glimpse into ancient dye-testing chemistry.
Key Terms:
- מַגְבְּיָא גִּילָא (Megavya Gila) = Alum clay; a mordant used in dyeing and testing
- שַׁבְלִילְתָּא (Shavlilta) = Fenugreek; an herb used in the testing solution
- מֵימֵי רַגְלַיִם (Meimei Raglayim) = Urine; used as a chemical reagent in the test