Menachot 81

והגדול יוצא בה דרך עראי חייבת בציצית אין הקטן מתכסה בו ראשו ורובו אע"פ שהגדול יוצא בה עראי פטורה וכן לענין כלאים

and in which a grown-up person would walk out for a moment, is subject to zizith; but if a child cannot cover with it his head and most of his body, even though a grown-up person might walk out in it for a moment, it is exempt.

והוינן בה מאי וכן לענין כלאים אילימא וכן לענין איסורא דכלאים והא אנן תנן אין עראי בכלאים

And so it is, too, in regard to diverse kinds.

ואמר רב נחמן בר יצחק וכן לענין סדין בציצית

Now we pondered over this: What does the ruling 'And so it is, too, in regard to diverse kinds' signify?

אלא מאי פטורה הטיל למוטלת

Can it mean: And so it is, too, in regard to applicability of the prohibition of diverse kinds?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Namely, that a garment which is too small to cover a child but which might be worn by a grown-up person temporarily is not prohibited, although consisting of diverse kinds, wool and linen.');">¹</span>

והא אמרה רבי זירא חדא זימנא חדא מכלל דחבירתה איתמר

Surely we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kil. IX, 2.');">²</span>

ת"ר טלית כפולה חייבת בציצית ורבי שמעון פוטר ושוין שאם כפלה ותפרה שחייבת

Diverse kinds may not be worn even for a moment! R'Nahman B'Isaac, however, explained, It means, And so it is, too, in regard to the insertion of fringes in a linen garment!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is forbidden to insert the fringes in a linen garment that is too small to cover the head and the greater part of the body of a child. It is thus evident that a garment smaller than the prescribed measure, even though provided with fringes, comes within the prohibition of diverse kinds.');">³</span>

תפרה פשיטא לא צריכא דנקטה בסיכי

- We must say that 'a garment exempt from fringes' means, a garment already provided with fringes in which one inserted [another set of fringes].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second set of fringes, although unnecessary, does not bring the garment within the prohibition.');">⁴</span>

רבה בר הונא איקלע לבי רבא בר רב נחמן חזייה דהוה מיכסי טלית כפולה ורמי ליה חוטי עילוי כפילא איפשיטא ואתא חוטא וקם להדי רישיה

But has not R'Zera taught this once?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 40b. Since each set is regarded as being in pursuance of the precept, it follows that the prohibition of diverse kinds does not apply.');">⁵</span>

אמר ליה לאו היינו כנף דכתב רחמנא באורייתא אתא שדייה איכסי גלימא אחריתי

- One was stated as an inference from the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Zera stated one ruling only, namely the previous one, and this ruling here was inferred from it (Rashi) . According to Tosaf. and Sh. Mek. it is just the reverse, i.e., the previous ruling was inferred from this one.');">⁶</span>

אמר ליה מי סברת חובת גברא הוא חובת טלית הוא זיל רמי לה

Our Rabbis taught: A garment that was folded over is subject to zizith, but R'Simeon declares it to be exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the garment might later become unfolded and spread out and the fringes will then be found to be in the middle of the garment, and not in the corner as required by law.');">⁷</span>

לימא מסייע ליה חסידים הראשונים כיון שארגו בה שלש היו מטילין בה תכלת שאני חסידים דמחמרי אנפשייהו

They are agreed, however, that if it was folded over and sewn down, it is subject to the law.

ופליגא דמלאכא דמלאכא אשכחי' לרב קטינא דמיכסי סדינא אמר ליה קטינא קטינא סדינא בקייטא וסרבלא בסיתוא ציצית של תכלת מה תהא עליה

Is not this obvious? - It is necessary to be stated where it was only fastened down with pins.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case all agree that it is subject to zizith, since the pins fasten the parts firmly together, and there is little likelihood of the garment becoming unfolded.');">⁸</span>

אמר ליה ענשיתו אעשה אמר ליה בזמן דאיכא ריתחא ענשינן

Rabbah son of R'Huna once visited the house of Raba B'R'Nahman and saw that the latter was wearing a garment that was folded over, the fringes being inserted in the folded corners.

אי אמרת בשלמא חובת גברא הוא היינו דמחייב דלא קא רמי אלא אי אמרת חובת טלית הוא הא לא מיחייבא

It happened to become unfolded and the fringes were found to be above<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'at his head'.');">⁹</span>

אלא מאי חובת גברא הוא נהי דחייביה רחמנא כי מיכסי טלית דבת חיובא כי מיכסי טלית דלאו בת חיובא היא מי חייביה רחמנא

[in the middle of the garment], whereupon Rabbah said to him, 'Surely this is not the corner prescribed by the All-Merciful in the Torah!' He at once cast off this garment and put on another.

אלא הכי קאמר ליה טצדקי למיפטר נפשך מציצית

Thereupon Rabbah said to him, 'Do you think that [the law of zizith] is an obligation incumbent upon the person?

אמר רב טובי בר קיסנא אמר שמואל כלי קופסא חייבין בציצית ומודה שמואל בזקן שעשאה לכבודו שפטורה מ"ט (דברים כב, יב) אשר תכסה בה אמר רחמנא האי לאו לאיכסויי עבידא

It is an obligation attaching to the garment;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And every garment of four corners in one's possession must be provided with fringes, and it is not sufficient that the garment one is wearing is provided with fringes.');">¹⁰</span>

בההיא שעתא ודאי רמינן ליה משום (משלי יז, ה) לועג לרש חרף עושהו

go, therefore, and insert the fringes in it [in the proper manner]'.

אמר רחבה אמר ר' יהודה טלית שנקרעה חוץ לשלש יתפור תוך שלש לא יתפור

Shall we say that the following supports his view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Rabbah b. R. Huna, that the zizith is an obligation attaching to the garment.');">¹¹</span>

תניא נמי הכי טלית שנקרעה חוץ לשלש יתפור תוך שלש רבי מאיר אומר לא יתפור וחכ"א יתפור

[For it was taught]: The pious men of old used to insert the fringes as soon as three fingerbreadths of the garment had been woven?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Clearly because the obligation rests upon the garment as soon as it is made, for if it were a personal obligation the duty to insert fringes would arise only when the garment was about to be worn.');">¹²</span>

ושוין שלא יביא אפילו אמה על אמה ממקום אחר ובה תכלת ותולה בה ושוין שמביא תכלת ממקום אחר ותולה בה

- It is different with those pious men for they imposed upon themselves additional obligations. His view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 246, n. 8.');">¹³</span> is at variance with the angel's view. For an angel once found R'Kattina wearing a linen wrap,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was without fringes, since it was mainly used as a night wrap.');">¹⁴</span> and he exclaimed, 'Kattina, Kattina, a wrap in summer and a cloak<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A garment with rounded corners and so not subject to the law of zizith.');">¹⁵</span> in winter, and what is to happen to the law of zizith? ' 'And do you punish', asked R'Kattina, 'a person [who omits to perform] a positive precept? ' 'In a time of wrath', replied the angel, 'we do'. Now if you hold that the law of zizith is a obligation incumbent upon the person then that is why one would incur guilt for not wearing a garment with fringes; but if you hold that it is an obligation attaching to the garment, then why [is any guilt incurred seeing that these garments are exempt? What then do you hold? That it is an obligation incumbent upon the person? I grant you that the All - Merciful would punish one who wears [without fringes] a garment that is subject to fringes, but would the All-Merciful punish one who wears [without fringes] a garment that is not subject to it? - This is what [the angel] implied, 'You find every excuse to free yourself from the law of zizith'. R'Tobi B'Kisna said in the name of Samuel, The garments put away in a chest are subject to zizith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the obligation rests upon the garments, and as they are intended to be worn, they must be provided with fringes.');">¹⁶</span> Samuel, however, admits that where an old man made it for his shroud<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for his honour'.');">¹⁷</span> it is exempt, for the Divine Law says, Wherewith thou coverest thyself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 12:');">¹⁸</span> and this is not intended for an ordinary covering. Nevertheless, when the time comes for its use we should insert fringes in it, on account of the injunction, Whoso mocketh the poor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is none so poor as the dead. So that no indignity be shown to the dead the fringes are inserted in the shroud. V. Ber. 18a, and Tosaf. kct Nid. ');">¹⁹</span> blasphemeth his Maker.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XVII, 5.');">²⁰</span> Rehabah said in the name of Rab Judah, If a garment was torn more than three [fingerbreadths' distance from the corner], it may be sewn up, but if [torn] within three [fingerbreadths' distance from the corner], it may not be sewn up.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Rashi and R. Gershom the garment had as yet no fringes to it. Now if a piece had torn away within three fingerbreadths' distance from the corner (the area within which it is proper to insert the fringes, v. infra) , it may not be sewn together, for after the sewing a thread may be left hanging and, together with other threads, will be used for the fringe. But such a fringe is invalid since one of the threads was ready made and not inserted for the purpose of the fringe. According to R. Amram, Halakoth Gedoloth, and Nimmuke Joseph this garment had fringes to it but one corner with the fringe had torn off; now if the piece torn off was more than three fingerbreadths' distance on each side from the corner, i.e., the piece was three fingerbreadths square or more, it is still a garment and the fringe retains its character as a fringe, so that it may be sewn to the rest of the garment and the fringes are valid: If, however, the piece was less than three fingerbreadths square, it is no more a garment and the fringe is no more a fringe, consequently it may not be sewn to the rest of the garment so as to serve as a fringe, since the fringe had already lost its character as such.');">²¹</span> It has been taught [in a Baraitha] to the same effect, viz. , If a garment was torn more than three [fingerbreadths' distance from the corner], it may be sewn up, but if [torn] within three [fingerbreadths' distance from the corner], R'Meir says, It may not be sewn up; but the Sages say, It may be sewn up. And they are agreed that one may not fetch a piece of cloth, even a cubit square, which has fringes to it from another garment and tack it on to this garment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the fringe would be ready made, and so invalid.');">²²</span> And they are also agreed that the fringes may be taken out of another garment and put into this garment,