Menachot 75
בלאו (דברים יז, יא) דלא תסור
as referring to the prohibition, Thou shalt not turn aside.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, Deut. XVII, 11. I.e., the principle is that only a Rabbinic prohibition, though having for its sanction this verse in the Torah, can be set aside on account of man's dignity. ,hknrf');"><sup>1</sup></span> Another version states that [Rabina] told him of it there [in the street]; whereupon [Mar] said to him, 'Do you think that I am going to cast it off here?
ואיכא דאמרי מהתם א"ל וא"ל מאי דעתיך למישדייה והאמר מר גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה את לא תעשה שבתורה והא תרגומה רב בר שבא קמיה דרב כהנא בלאו דלא תסור הכא נמי כרמלית דרבנן היא:
Has not a Master said, Great is the dignity of man since it overrides a negative precept of the Torah? ' 'But has not Rab B'Shabba explained it before R'Kahana as referring to the prohibition, Thou shalt not turn aside? ' 'Here also it is only a karmelith,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , an area which is neither a public nor a private domain, in which, however, it is forbidden to carry anything on the Sabbath by Rabbinic decree.');"><sup>2</sup></span> so that the prohibition is only Rabbinic.
<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך הקומץ</strong></big><br><br>
<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE [ABSENCE OF THE] BLUE [IN THE FRINGES] DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE WHITE, NEITHER DOES THE [ABSENCE OF THE] WHITE INVALIDATE THE BLUE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There should be, according to law, four threads inserted in each of the four corners of the garment, two white and two blue (or, three white and one blue) ; nevertheless the absence of one colour is of no consequence provided there was the proper number of threads in all. Consequently it is valid if there were four blue threads, or four white threads.');"><sup>3</sup></span> THE [ABSENCE OF THE] HAND-TEFILLAH DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE HEAD-TEFILLAH, NEITHER DOES THE [ABSENCE OF THE] HEAD-TEFILLAH INVALIDATE THE HAND-TEFlllah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if a man has only one tefilah (sing. of tefillin) he should put on that one.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
מתני׳ <big><strong>התכלת</strong></big> אינה מעכבת את הלבן והלבן אינו מעכב את התכלת תפלה של יד אינה מעכבת את של ראש ושל ראש אינה מעכבת את של יד:
<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Must we say that our Mishnah is not in accordance with Rabbi? For it was taught: That ye may look upon it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 39.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
מ"ט דרבי דכתיב (במדבר טו, לח) הכנף מין כנף וכתיב פתיל תכלת ואמר רחמנא וראיתם אותו עד דאיכא תרוייהו בחד
But the Sages say, The [absence of] one does not invalidate the other. What is the reason for Rabbi's view? - Because the text says, The corner,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 38.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ורבנן וראיתם אותו כל חד לחודיה משמע
[which implies that the fringes must be] of the same [colour] as that of the corner,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As garments were usually of white linen, there must therefore be white threads as fringes.');"><sup>7</sup></span> and it also says, A blue thread;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 38.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
דתניא מצוה להקדים לבן לתכלת ואם הקדים תכלת ללבן יצא אלא שחיסר מצוה מאי חיסר מצוה
But the Rabbis [say].' That ye may look upon it', signifies each one by itself. Must we then say that [our Mishnah] is not in accordance with Rabbi? - Rab Judah answered in the name of Rab, You may even say that it follows Rabbi's view, for [our Mishnah deals here] only with the question of precedence. As it was taught: The [proper performance of the] precept is to insert<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, to twine, v. Sh. Mek. n. 3. The white threads, as derived above from 'the corner', precede the blue in the verse.');"><sup>8</sup></span> the white threads before the blue; but if a man inserted the blue before the white, it is indeed valid, but he has not fulfilled the precept. What is meant by 'has not fulfilled the precept'?