The Babylonian Talmud

Menachoth

 

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 23a

Raba answered, R. Judah is of the opinion that where an element is mixed with like kind and also with another kind, you must disregard the like kind as if it were not there, and the other kind, if more in quantity, will neutralize [the element].1

It was reported: If [the priest] poured oil on the handful taken from the sinner's meal-offering, R. Johanan maintains it is invalid; but Resh Lakish says, He should in the first instance wipe up with it the remains of the log of oil and then offer it.2 But is it not written, He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon?3 - That verse means that one should not apportion for it a quantity of oil as for the other [meal-offerings].4

R. Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish. It was taught: If a dry meal-offering was mixed with one mingled with oil, it may be offered up.5 R. Judah says, It may not be offered up. presumably the handful of a sinner's meal-offering was mixed with the handful of a freewill meal-offering!6 - No, the meal-offering that is offered with a bullock or with a ram was mixed with the meal-offering that is offered with a lamb,7 But this is expressly stated, viz., If the meal-offering that is offered with a bullock or with a ram was mixed with the meal-offering that is offered with a lamb, or if a dry meal-offering was mixed with one mingled with oil, it may be offered up. R. Judah says, It may not be offered up.8 - One [clause] merely illustrates the other.

Raba raised the question: What is the law if oil was squeezed out of the handful on to wood?9 Do we say that whatsoever is joined to the thing offered is like the offering itself,10 or not? Rabina said to R. Ashi, Is not this question similar to the case disputed by R. Johanan and Resh Lakish? For it was reported: If a man offered up [outside the Temple court] a limb which was not as large as an olive but the bone brought it up to an olive's bulk, R. Johanan says, He is liable [to the penalty of kareth]; but Resh Lakish says, He is not liable. 'R. Johanan says, He is liable', because what is joined11 to the thing offered is like the offering itself; 'Resh Lakish says, He is not liable', because what is joined to the thing offered is not like the offering! - The question can indeed be asked, both according to R. Johanan and according to Resh Lakish. It can be asked according to R. Johanan, for [it may be that] R. Johanan held that view only in regard to the bone, since it is of the same kind as the flesh, but not in regard to [the wood] for it is not of the same kind as the handful. And Resh Lakish, too, perhaps he held that view only in regard to the bone, since it can become separated,12 and if separated there is no obligation to put it back, but not in regard to the oil13 for it cannot be separated. Or perhaps these differences do not count! - The question remains unanswered.

MISHNAH. IF TWO MEAL-OFFERINGS FROM WHICH THE HANDFULS HAD NOT YET BEEN TAKEN WERE MIXED TOGETHER, BUT IT IS STILL POSSIBLE TO TAKE THE HANDFUL FROM EACH SEPARATELY,14 THEY ARE VALID; OTHERWISE THEY ARE INVALID. IF THE HANDFUL [OF A MEAL-OFFERING] WAS MIXED WITH A MEAL-OFFERING FROM WHICH THE HANDFUL HAD NOT YET BEEN TAKEN, IT15 MUST NOT BE OFFERED. IF, HOWEVER, IT WAS OFFERED, THEN THE MEAL-OFFERING FROM WHICH THE HANDFUL HAD BEEN TAKEN DISCHARGES THE OWNER'S OBLIGATION WHILST THE OTHER FROM WHICH THE HANDFUL HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN DOES NOT DISCHARGE THE OWNER'S OBLIGATION. IF THE HANDFUL WAS MIXED WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE MEAL-OFFERING OR WITH THE REMAINDER OF ANOTHER MEAL-OFFERING, IT MUST NOT BE OFFERED; BUT IF IT WAS OFFERED IT DISCHARGES THE OWNER'S OBLIGATION.

GEMARA. R. Hisda said, Nebelah16 meat is neutralized in ritually slaughtered meat,17 since slaughtered meat cannot assume the character of nebelah meat;18 ritually slaughtered meat is not neutralized in nebelah meat, since nebelah meat can assume the character of slaughtered meat, for when it has putrified the uncleanness thereof has gone.19 But R. Hanina said, Whatsoever can become like the other is not neutralized, and whatsoever cannot become like the other is neutralized.20 According to whose view [do they differ]?21 It cannot be according to the view of the Rabbis, for they have said that only things which are offered up do not neutralize one another, but in a mixture of like kinds neutralization takes effect.22 Neither can it be according to R. Judah, for

____________________
(1) The case dealt with by R. Judah in our Mishnah is where the handful, which is made up of oil and flour, was mixed with one of the meal-offerings mentioned, which also contains oil. Now the oil in the handful is disregarded, so that the flour of the handful will neutralize the oil of the other meal-offering which it has absorbed, with the result that the handful has had too much oil and is therefore invalid.
(2) It is the proper thing, maintains Resh Lakish, to scrape up with the handful of the sinner's meal-offering any oil that may be found remaining in the log measure which had been used for some other meal-offering. Accordingly if he actually poured some oil on the handful it is certainly valid.
(3) Lev. V, 11.
(4) Before the taking of the handful. After that, however, he may add a little oil to it.
(5) This Tanna applies here the principle laid down by the Rabbis that things which are offered up do not neutralize one another; therefore in this mixture one is not affected by the other, and the whole is offered upon the altar.
(6) The former meal-offering being dry, and the latter mingled with oil. Now it is clear that the first Tanna permitted the offering of these meal-offerings only because he holds that things offered up when mixed together do not neutralize each other, so that each is considered as though it were by itself; where, however, oil was poured on to a dry meal-offering they would also declare it to be invalid, contra Resh Lakish.
(7) The meal-offering offered with a bullock or with a ram is called 'dry' as compared with that offered with a lamb, since the former had two logs of oil to each tenth of an ephah of flour, whereas the latter had three logs of oil to the same quantity of flour.
(8) Thus clearly showing that the second clause is a case quite different from the first, and 'dry' no doubt means the sinner's meal-offering which contains no oil at all.
(9) Consequently there would be too little oil in the handful.
(10) Since the wood with the oil on it will be later joined to the handful and together burnt on the altar it is as though the oil were still in the handful so that none of the oil can really be said to be lacking, consequently it is valid. V. Rashi and Tosaf. a.l. for further interpretations.
(11) Sc. the bone.
(12) I.e., the bone might spring off from the altar.
(13) According to the first interpretation of Rashi which has been adopted here it should read 'the wood', V. Sh. Mek. n. 6.
(14) There remained from each meal-offering a quantity sufficient for the taking of the handful that had not mixed with the other.
(15) Sc. the whole mixture.
(16) נבלה, an animal which had died a natural death or was slaughtered in any manner than that prescribed by Jewish ritual law. The carcass may not be eaten (Deut. XIV, 21), and it conveys uncleanness by carrying and by contact (Lev. XI, 39, 40).
(17) If a morsel of nebelah meat was confused with a large quantity of ritually slaughtered meat, it is neutralized in the mixture and is regarded as non-existent, so that whosoever touches this mixture in any part thereof remains clean.
(18) The latter conveys uncleanness, whilst the former does not; the mixture is therefore considered to be a mixture of different kinds (in view of the difference between them as to the law of uncleanness), so that the one is neutralized in the other according to all views.
(19) And if a morsel of ritually slaughtered meat was confused with a large quantity of nebelah meat, the whole is regarded as a mixture of like kinds and no neutralization takes place. Consequently if terumah (v. Num. XVIII, 8ff) produce were to be brought into contact with this mixture it would not be unclean of a certainty, but would always be considered to be in a state of doubtful uncleanness, since it might only have touched the morsel of slaughtered meat in the mixture. R. Hisda is of the opinion that it is the neutralizer, i.e., the substance which is in the majority in the mixture, which is to be considered; and if it is, or can become, like the substance which is about to be neutralized, the mixture is then considered to be a mixture of like kinds.
(20) R. Hanina is of the opinion that it is the substance which is about to be neutralized, i.e., the substance which is in the minority in the mixture, which is to be considered, and if it can become like the neutralizer, only then is the mixture considered to be a mixture of like kinds and neutralization does not take place.
(21) Sc. R. Hisda and R. Hanina.
(22) So that it is immaterial whether the nebelah meat can become like the slaughtered meat or vice versa, for even if the mixture is a mixture of like kinds neutralization takes effect.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 23b

R. Judah adopts the criterion of appearance,1 and [by that criterion] in either case it would be a mixture of like kinds! - Rather it is according to R. Hiyya's view, for R. Hiyya taught: In a mixture of nebelah meat and ritually slaughtered meat neutralization takes place.2 And whose view does R. Hiyya follow? It cannot be that of the Rabbis, for they have said that only things which are offered up do not neutralize one another, but in a mixture of like kinds neutralization takes effect.3 Neither can it be that of R. Judah, for according to R. Judah in any mixture of like kinds neutralization does not take effect! - In fact he follows the opinion of R. Judah, for R. Judah laid down the rule that in a mixture of like kinds neutralization does not take effect only in that case where it is possible for one kind to become like the other, but where it is not possible for one kind to become like the other, there neutralization does take effect. And they differ in this point: R. Hisda holds that we must consider the neutralizer,4 but R. Hanina holds that we must consider what is to be neutralized.5

We have learnt: IF TWO MEAL-OFFERINGS FROM WHICH THE HANDFULS HAD NOT YET BEEN TAKEN WERE MIXED TOGETHER, BUT IT IS STILL POSSIBLE TO TAKE THE HANDFUL FROM EACH SEPARATELY, THEY ARE VALID; OTHERWISE THEY ARE INVALID, Now in this case we see that when the handful is taken from one, whereby the rest becomes the remainder, this remainder does not neutralize the other meal-offering from which the handful has not yet been taken.6 Whose view is represented here? It cannot be that of the Rabbis, for they have said that only things which are offered up do not neutralize one another;7 but in a mixture of like kinds neutralization takes effect. Obviously it is the view of R. Judah. Now this is well according to him who holds that we must consider what is to be neutralized, for here what is to be neutralized8 can become like the neutralizer,9 seeing that when the handful will have been taken from the other meal-offering there will be a remainder like that of the first meal-offering.10 But according to him who holds that we must consider the neutralizer, [it will be asked here,] Can the remainder ever become like that from which the handful has not yet been taken?11 Are we to say then that our Mishnah is not in accordance with R. Hiyya [as interpreted by R. Hisda]? - It is to be explained there according to R. Zera's dictum; for R. Zera said,12 'Burning' is stated with regard to the handful,13 and 'burning' is also stated with regard to the remainder;14 therefore as in the case of the handful, concerning which the expression 'burning' is used, [it is established that] one handful cannot neutralize the other,15 so too in the case of the remainder, concerning which the expression 'burning' is also used, the remainder cannot neutralize the handful.16

Come and hear: IF THE HANDFUL [OF A MEAL-OFFERING] WAS MIXED WITH A MEAL-OFFERING FROM WHICH THE HANDFUL HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN, IT MUST NOT BE OFFERED. IF, HOWEVER, IT WAS OFFERED, THEN THE MEAL-OFFERING FROM WHICH THE HANDFUL HAD BEEN TAKEN DISCHARGES THE OWNER'S OBLIGATION, WHILST THE OTHER FROM WHICH THE HANDFUL HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN DOES NOT DISCHARGE THE OWNER'S OBLIGATION. We see then that the meal-offering from which the handful had not been taken does not neutralize the handful. Whose view is this? It cannot be that of the Rabbis, for they have said that only things which are offered up do not neutralize one another; but in a mixture of like kinds neutralization takes effect. Obviously it is the view of R. Judah. Now it is well according to him who holds that we must consider the neutralizer, for here the neutralizer17 can become like that which is to be neutralized, seeing that every particle thereof is appropriate to be taken up in the handful.18 But according to him who holds that we must consider what is to be neutralized, [it will be asked,] Can the handful ever become like the meal-offering from which the handful has not yet been taken? Are we to say then that our Mishnah is not in accordance with R. Hiyya [as interpreted by R. Hanina]?19 - This too must be explained in accordance with R. Zera's dictum.

Come and hear: IF THE HANDFUL WAS MIXED WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE MEAL-OFFERING OR WITH THE REMAINDER OF ANOTHER MEAL-OFFERING, IT MUST NOT BE OFFERED; BUT IF IT WAS OFFERED IT DISCHARGES THE OWNER'S OBLIGATION. Now here the neutralizer cannot become like that which is to be neutralized, nor can what is to be neutralized become like the neutralizer,20 nevertheless the remainder does not neutralize the handful. Whose view is this? It cannot be that of the Rabbis, for etc.! - R. Zera answered, 'Burning' is stated with regard to the handful, and 'burning' is also stated with regard to the remainder; as in the case of the handful, concerning which the expression 'burning' is used, [it is established that] one handful cannot neutralize the other, so too in the case of the remainder, concerning which the expression 'burning' is also used, the remainder cannot neutralize the handful.21

Come and hear: If one seasoned it22 with cumin or with sesame seed or with any other kind of spice, it is fit;23 for it is unleavened bread, only that it is called seasoned unleavened bread. Now it was assumed that there were more spices than unleavened dough. According to him, then, who holds that we must consider what is to be neutralized, it is well, for what is to be neutralized24 can become like the neutralizer, seeing that when it becomes mouldy it is like the spices.25 But according to him who holds that we must consider the neutralizer, [it will be asked,] Can the spices become like the unleavened bread?26 - We are dealing here with the case where there was not so much spices; indeed the larger part was the unleavened bread, and therefore it is not neutralized. This too is to be inferred [from the words of the Baraitha], for it reads, 'It is unleavened bread, only that it is called seasoned unleavened bread'27 This is conclusive.

When R. Kahana went up [to Palestine] he found the sons of R. Hiyya sitting and discoursing as follows: If one divided a tenth28

____________________
(1) V. supra 22a. Things that have the same appearance are regarded as of like kind; and nebelah meat and slaughtered meat would always be considered as of like kind, so that neutralization would not take effect.
(2) But only in one case, either where nebelah meat was confused with a larger quantity of slaughtered meat as R. Hisda would have it, or where slaughtered meat was confused with a larger quantity of nebelah meat as R. Hanina would have it.
(3) Whereas R. Hiyya holds that neutralization does take place in a mixture of nebelah meat and slaughtered meat, even though only in one case, v. prec. n.
(4) Sc. the substance which is in the majority in the mixture. If this substance can become like the substance which is in the minority, the mixture is deemed to be one of like kinds, and neutralization will not take place.
(5) Sc. the substance which is in the minority in the mixture. V. p. 147, n. 7
(6) It is certain that neutralization does not take place, for otherwise it would not be permitted subsequently (as stated in the Mishnah) to take the handful from the second meal-offering.
(7) The remainder, however, is not a thing that is offered up, consequently it should neutralize the other meal-offering, even though the mixture is of like kinds.
(8) Sc. the other meal-offering from which the handful has not yet been taken.
(9) Sc. the remainder of the meal-offering from which the handful has been taken.
(10) And it is deemed to be a mixture of like kinds and neutralization does not take place.
(11) Obviously it cannot. The mixture is therefore one of unlike kinds and neutralization should take effect, so that it should not be permitted subsequently to take the handful from the second meal-offering.
(12) Infra, and Zeb. 110a,
(13) Lev, II, 2.
(14) Lev. II, 10, For whatever offering has a portion thereof burnt upon the altar comes under the law of 'ye shall not burn'.
(15) This is admitted even by R. Judah. V. supra p. 141.
(16) The effect of R. Zera's teaching is that the law of neutralization does not apply to any mixture of remainders and handfuls in any circumstances.
(17) Sc. the meal-offering from which the handful had not yet been taken.
(18) Consequently the mixture is deemed to be one of like kinds, and therefore neutralization does not take place. In cur. edd. this is added in the text. It is omitted in MS.M.
(19) This sentence is omitted in all MSS.
(20) Neutralization therefore should take effect.
(21) V. p. 149, nn. 1, 2 and 3.
(22) Sc. unleavened dough.
(23) To be used on the Passover night for fulfilling the command of eating unleavened bread.
(24) Here the unleavened dough.
(25) And it is no more unleavened bread.
(26) Of course not; consequently neutralization should take place and it should not be regarded as unleavened bread at all.
(27) Thus clearly showing that the main part is the unleavened bread and not the spices.
(28) The tenth part of an ephah of flour set aside for a meal-offering.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 24a

and put [the two halves] into the mixing vessel, and then a tebul yom1 touched one of them, what would be the law?2 Does the rule which we learnt that with consecrated things a vessel unites all that is therein,3 apply only when they4 are touching one another, but not when they do not touch one another; or perhaps this makes no difference? - Said he5 to them, Did we learn, 'a vessel joins'?6 We learnt 'a vessel unites'; that is, in all circumstances.7

If one placed another [half-tenth] between them, what is the law?8 - He replied to them, [The rule is:] What stands in need of a vessel, the vessel unites; what does not stand in need of a vessel, the vessel does not unite.9

And what if a tebul yom inserted his finger between them?10 - He replied: There is nothing other than earthenware vessels that can convey uncleanness through its air-space.11

He5 then put to them this question: May the handful be taken from one [half] in respect of the other?12 Is the principle of '[the vessel] uniting [its contents]' Biblical or only Rabbinical?13 - They answered him, We have not heard of that, but we have heard of a similar case; for we have learnt: IF TWO MEAL-OFFERINGS FROM WHICH THE HANDFULS HAD NOT YET BEEN TAKEN WERE MIXED TOGETHER, BUT IT IS STILL POSSIBLE TO TAKE THE HANDFUL FROM EACH SEPARATELY, THEY ARE VALID; OTHERWISE THEY ARE INVALID. Now where it is possible to take the handful [from each separately, it states that] they are valid. But why? The rest that is mixed together surely does not touch [the handful]?14 - Raba, however, suggested that perhaps the masses were spread in the shape of a comb.15

What is then the ruling? Said Raba, Come and hear, for it has been taught: And he shall take up therefrom,16 that is, from the whole; one may not therefore bring the tenth [divided] in two vessels and have the handful taken. It follows, however, that from one vessel which is like two vessels17 the handful may be taken. Said Abaye to him, perhaps by 'two vessels' is meant, e.g., a kapiza-measure fixed in a kab-measure;18 for although on top the contents are united, since the sides of the kapiza-measure form a partition below, one may not [bring the meal-offering therein]. And by one vessel which is like two vessels' is meant, e.g., a hen trough,19 in which the contents, although separated by a partition, are nevertheless in contact. But in this case where they are not in contact the question still remains.

R. Jeremiah raised this question: How is it where the vessel unites [the two half-tenths within] and there is a connection by water [with another half-tenth lying outside]?20 Does the rule which we learnt that with consecrated things a vessel unites all that is therein,21 apply to what is inside but not to what is outside; or perhaps since there is a connection it is united thereby?22 And if you were to decide that since there is a connection it is united thereby, this further question will arise: How is it where there is a connection by water [with one of the halves inside the vessel] and the vessel unites [the halves that are therein], and then a tebul yom touched the part that was outside?23 Does the rule which

tacles, since the sides of the inner receptacle separate the contents of the one we have learnt that with consecrated things a vessel unites all that is therein, apply only to the case where [the uncleanness] came into contact with what was inside but not where it came into contact with what was outside; or perhaps this makes no difference? - These questions remain undecided.

Raba raised the following question: What is the position if a tenth was divided into halves and one of the halves became unclean; afterwards these two halves were placed in the mixing vessel24 and a tebul yom touched that [half] which was already unclean? Do we say that it is sated with uncleanness25 or not? Said Abaye to him, Do we then say that a thing can be sated with uncleanness? Surely we have learnt:26 If a sheet which had contracted midras27 uncleanness

____________________
(1) טבול יום, a person who, having been unclean, had immersed himself during the day and must await sunset before he is deemed fully clean. He suffers now only a slight degree of uncleanness; he is deemed to be unclean in the second degree and can affect with uncleanness terumah and consecrated things.
(2) Would the other part, not touched by the tebul yom, be unclean or not?
(3) And if only a part of the contents of the vessel becomes unclean, everything that is therein is unclean; v. Hag. III, 2; 20b.
(4) Sc. the contents of the vessel.
(5) R. Kahana.
(6) Which would imply that the contents of the vessel were in contact.
(7) Even when they are not in contact.
(8) I.e., after having divided a tenth into halves he added another half-tenth, placing it between the two previous halves, and then this extra half was touched by a tebul yom. The question is whether the other halves are affected with uncleanness or not.
(9) This extra half-tenth has no need of this vessel, and indeed could not be used together with the other halves in this vessel; consequently the other halves are not affected with uncleanness.
(10) Without having touched either the vessel or its contents.
(11) And therefore the contents of this vessel are clean.
(12) I.e., when taking the handful is it necessary to take some from each half, or may it be taken entirely from one half in respect of the whole vessel? It must be noted that there was no contact whatsoever between the two halves of the meal-offering.
(13) If the principle is Biblical then it is to be applied to all cases, even though the result would be one of leniency, as here with the taking of the handful. On the other hand, were it only Rabbinical, it would be applied only to such cases as would result in a stringent ruling, as in the case of uncleanness.
(14) For only the quantities sufficient for the taking of the handfuls stand apart by themselves, the remainders of each meal-offering being mixed together, so that the remainder of one meal-offering is entirely separate from the handful of that same meal-offering. Nevertheless the offering is valid, presumably because all parts are united by the vessel; thus proving that the principle of 'uniting' is Biblical.
(15) Like the teeth of a comb, joined at one end and separate at the other. In our Mishnah, the two meal-offerings were lying side by side and separated only at the ends wherefrom the handfuls might be taken. Where, however, the two halves were quite apart the question still remains.
(16) Lev. VI, 8.
(17) I.e., where the flour is divided into halves in the one vessel and there is no contact at all between them.
(18) I.e., the kab vessel was constructed with a kapiza vessel fixed in its hollow, the two forming in fact only one vessel but with two separate receptacles. The result is that when both receptacles are filled to the brim with the flour of a meal-offering there is no contact between the contents of the two recepfrom the other. And even if the flour was heaped up to cover the sides of the kapiza or inner vessel, so that ostensibly there is contact between the contents of both receptacles, it is still invalid, for the contact between the contents is not made in the vessel, but outside the vessel. Kapiza is a small measure; for kab v. Glos.
(19) I.e., a vessel separated into two divisions by a low bar placed at the bottom of the vessel (Rashi). According to Maim. the division of the bar is at the top only, so that the contents, although appearing divided, are really united below; v. Yad. Pesule ha-Mukdashim, XI, 22.
(20) There were two half-tenths in the vessel not in contact, and another half-tenth lying outside the vessel was connected by water (i.e., a pipe or conduit running from the vessel to the place where the outside half-tenth lay) with one of the halves inside the vessel. Now the other half-tenth that lay in the vessel and which was in no wise connected with the outside half-tenth was rendered unclean; and the question is whether or not the uncleanness can be passed on to the half-tenth that is lying outside in the following stages: first the uncleanness is passed on by reason of the uniting force of the vessel to the other half-tenth that is with it in the vessel, and then the latter passes on the uncleanness to what is lying outside by reason of the water connection.
(21) Hag. III, 2.
(22) And the half-tenth that is outside becomes unclean too,
(23) The question is whether in the reverse process, where the uncleanness is to be brought in from the outside into the vessel, the connection mentioned would serve as a link so as to convey the uncleanness within.
(24) And there was no contact between them. At this stage there is no doubt at all that the other half-tenth is not unclean, since at the time when one half-tenth contracted uncleanness it was not in the vessel with the other half-tenth.
(25) I.e., once it has been rendered unclean it cannot suffer any further uncleanness, so that the other half-tenth that is now with it in the vessel remains clean.
(26) Kel. XXVII, 9.
(27) Heb. מדרס. That degree of uncleanness arising when an unclean person, of those mentioned in Lev. XV, 4 and 25, lies or sits or treads upon or leans with the body against an object, provided that such object was fit and generally used for one of the above purposes.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 24b

was used as a curtain, it becomes free of midras uncleanness1 but remains unclean by reason of contact with midras uncleanness. R. Jose said, What midras uncleanness has it touched? If, however, one that had an issue had touched it,2 it would be unclean by reason of contact with one that had an issue.3 At any rate, it says, if one that had an issue had touched it, it would be unclean, presumably even though [this contact was] subsequent [to the midras uncleanness], that is to say, it first had contracted midras uncleanness and then further uncleanness by reason of contact with one that had an issue. Now why is this? Should we not say it was sated with uncleanness?4 - He replied, Whence do you know to say that this contact by one that had an issue was subsequent [to the midras uncleanness]? Perhaps it was prior to the midras uncleanness, so that it was a case of a graver uncleanness being imposed upon a lighter uncleanness.5 Here, however, since at each [contact] there is only a light uncleanness, it is not so!6 One might prove it, however, from the subsequent [Mishnah] which reads: R. Jose agrees that where two sheets lay folded one above the other and one that had an issue sat upon them, the upper has contracted midras uncleanness, and the lower has contracted midras uncleanness and also uncleanness by reason of contact with midras uncleanness. Now why is this? Should we not say it was sated with uncleanness? - There they7 come simultaneously, whilst here they come one after another.

Raba said, Where a tenth was divided [into halves] and one [half] was lost so that another was brought as a substitute, and then it was found again, and now all three [half-tenths] are in the mixing vessel - if that which had been lost became unclean, then it is united with the first half-tenth,8 but not with the substituted half-tenth.9 If the substituted half-tenth became unclean, then it is united with the first half-tenth but not with the lost half-tenth. If the first half-tenth became unclean, then it is united with each of the others.10 Abaye said, Even if any one of the half-tenths became unclean, it is united with each of the others, since they all belong together.11

And so it is with regard to the taking of the handful. If the handful was taken from the half-tenth which had been lost, then what was left of it and the first half-tenth may be eaten12 but not the substituted half-tenth. If it was taken from the substituted half-tenth, then what was left of it and the first half-tenth may be eaten but not the half-tenth which had been lost. If it was taken from the first half-tenth, then [what was left of it may be eaten but] the others may not be eaten.13 Abaye said, Even though the handful was taken from any one half-tenth, the other two may not be eaten, since they all belong together.

R. Papa demurred, [You say that] what was left of it may be eaten, but one third of the handful has not been offered!14 R. Isaac the son of R. Mesharsheya also demurred, How may the handful be offered, is not one third thereof unhallowed? - R. Ashi answered, The taking of the handful rests with the mind of the priest, and clearly when the priest takes the handful he does so only in respect of a tenth.15 [

____________________
(1) Since it is no longer intended to be used for any of the purposes (specified in the prec. n.) which make it susceptible to midras uncleanness.
(2) Before it was used as a curtain. At this stage the sheet bears two kinds of uncleanness: midras uncleanness and the uncleanness from contact with one that had an issue.
(3) For as soon as it is used as a curtain the midras uncleanness vanishes and there remains now the uncleanness from contact with one that had an issue.
(4) And once it has contracted midras uncleanness it was no more susceptible to any further uncleanness.
(5) And it is admitted by all that a thing which had contracted a lighter uncleanness (i.e., one which can only convey uncleanness to foodstuffs and liquids) cannot be so sated with uncleanness as to preclude any graver uncleanness (i.e., one which can convey uncleanness even to men and vessels).
(6) For foodstuffs can only suffer light uncleanness. In our case, therefore, since the half-tenth has already contracted a light uncleanness it cannot suffer a further similar uncleanness.
(7) The two kinds of uncleanness.
(8) I.e., the half-tenth which had not been lost will also be unclean for these two originally formed the tenth.
(9) And this half remains clean; for at no time was it contemplated that what was lost and what was substituted for it should together make up the tenth.
(10) For the first half-tenth was intended to be taken in the first place together with what was lost, and subsequently with what was substituted for it, so that a relation was set up between the first half-tenth and each of the others, and therefore all are unclean.
(11) Lit., 'members of the same narrow house'; i.e., they all were intended to be used for the one meal-offering.
(12) Since originally these two made up the tenth for the meal-offering.
(13) The first half-tenth was intended to go with each of the other half-tenths and, inasmuch as the handful can serve only in respect of one tenth, there is one half-tenth which has not been rendered permissible by the handful; and as it is not known which it is, both may not be eaten.
(14) Presumably when the handful was taken out and offered up it was intended to serve everything that was in the vessel, so that one third of the handful should not have been offered, since that represented the superfluous half-tenth. Consequently the handful must be regarded as having been incomplete so that what was left of it cannot be permitted to be eaten. The reading 'one third' in the text is supported by MS.M. and Sh. Mek. In cur. edd. the text states 'one sixth'; the meaning, however, is identical with the foregoing explanation, and is arrived at in this way. Since it is not known which of the two remaining half-tenths is the superfluous one which causes one third of the handful to be nullified, this result is therefore attributed in equal shares to each of the half-tenths, so that each is responsible for the nullification of one sixth of the handful,
(15) The third half-tenth is disregarded by the priest when he takes the handful; therefore, the residue of that half-tenth from which the handful was taken may be eaten, whilst the two remaining half-tenths may not, since we do not know which was the half-tenth disregarded by the priest. Quaere: where the priest expressly declared which half-tenth he disregarded and which he took account of, would the latter be permitted to be eaten? V. Likkute Halakoth. a.l.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 25a

MISHNAH. IF THE HANDFUL HAD BECOME UNCLEAN AND YET WAS OFFERED, THE PLATE1 RENDERS IT ACCEPTABLE,2 BUT IF IT HAD BEEN TAKEN OUT [OF THE TEMPLE COURT] AND WAS AFTERWARDS OFFERED, THE PLATE DOES NOT RENDER IT ACCEPTABLE; FOR THE PLATE ONLY RENDERS ACCEPTABLE THE OFFERING WHICH WAS UNCLEAN BUT NOT THAT WHICH WAS TAKEN OUT.

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: It is written, And Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the holy things.3 What iniquity is it that it atones for? Should you say it is the iniquity of piggul4 - but it has already been said, it shall not be accepted.5 Should you say it is the iniquity of nothar6 - but it has already been said, Neither shall it be imputed unto him.7 Hence it atones for nothing other than the iniquity of uncleanness, since an exception to the general rule has been made for the community.8 R. Zera demurred, Perhaps it is the iniquity of an offering having been taken outside [that the plate atones for], since an exception to the general rule had been made in the case of the high places?9 - Abaye answered, It is written, That they may be accepted before the Lord,10 that is, the iniquity committed before the Lord11 [is atoned for by the plate], but not the iniquity of an offering having been taken outside.12 R. Ela'a demurred, perhaps it is the iniquity of [a service being performed with] the left hand [that is atoned for by the plate], since an exception to the general rule has been made on the Day of Atonement?13 - Abaye answered him, The verse states 'iniquity', that is, the iniquity that was incurred is set aside;14 on the Day of Atonement, however, it is proper to serve with the left hand. R. Ashi answered thus, The verse says, 'The iniquity of the holy things', but not the iniquity of them that offer the offering.15 R. Sima the son of R. Idi said to R. Ashi (others report: R. Sima the son of R. Ashi said to R. Ashi): perhaps it is the iniquity of a blemish in the offering [that is atoned for by the plate], since an exception to the general rule has been made in the case of bird-offerings, for a Master has said, The unblemished state and the male sex are prerequisite in animal-offerings but not in bird-offerings?16 - He replied, It is for your sake that it is written, It shall not be accepted;17 and also, For it shall not be acceptable for you.18

Our Rabbis taught: If the blood of an offering became unclean and yet was sprinkled inadvertently19 it is acceptable, if deliberately it is not acceptable. This is the rule only with a private offering, but in the case of an offering of the community it is acceptable, whether inadvertently or deliberately. In the case of an offering by a gentile20 [the rule is] whether inadvertently or deliberately, whether accidentally or intentionally,

____________________
(1) The High Priest's plate of pure gold worn on the forehead (v. Ex. XXVIII 36-38). Its function was to secure the Divine acceptance of a sacrifice which was offered although it had been rendered unclean.
(2) The meal-offering is valid and the remainder may be eaten.
(3) Ex. XXVIII, 38. This verse intimates that the High Priest's plate atones for some fault in connection with the offering.
(4) Heb. פיגול 'abomination', v. Glos. Here meaning: the intention expressed during one of the services of the sacrifice of eating the flesh thereof outside the prescribed place.
(5) Lev. XIX, 7. The text adopted in the translation is in accordance with the Sifra which is supported by Rashi (Pes. 16b s.v. אי זה) and Sh. Mek. But v. Tosaf. s.v. ונשא.
(6) Heb. נותר 'left over'; v. Glos. Here meaning: the intention expressed during one of the services of the sacrifice of eating the flesh thereof outside the prescribed time.
(7) Ibid., VII, 18.
(8) A sacrifice on behalf of the community may be offered even in a state of uncleanness.
(9) Although the prohibition against taking out the offering was already in force at the Tabernacle in the wilderness (v. Pes. 82a) it did not apply later on when the Tabernacle was housed at Nob and at Gibeon, for then it was permitted for every individual to set up a high place or altar in any place and offer sacrifices there.
(10) Ex. XXVIII, 38.
(11) I.e., whilst the offering is within the Temple Court.
(12) An iniquity which is not committed 'before the Lord',
(13) When the High Priest performed service with his left hand too; v. Yoma 47a.
(14) Lit., 'I have set it aside'. Now the uncleanness of an offering is admittedly a defect, but since it is of no consequence in the case of the community, such defect in the offering of an individual will be atoned for by the plate.
(15) The plate therefore cannot atone for the guilt of a service performed with the left hand, for that is the guilt of the officiating priest and such guilt is expressly excluded.
(16) Supra 6a, Hul. 23a, and elsewhere.
(17) Lev. XXII, 23.
(18) Ibid, 20. These verses indicate that under no circumstances are blemished animals acceptable for an offering.
(19) V. infra as to the meaning of 'inadvertently', whether it refers to the contracting of the uncleanness or the sprinkling.
(20) Gentiles were also allowed to offer either freewill- or votive-offerings; v. infra 73b.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 25b

it is not acceptable.

A contradiction was pointed out, for it was taught: For what guilt does the plate atone? For the blood or the flesh or the fat of an offering which became unclean, whether inadvertently or deliberately, whether accidentally or intentionally, whether in a private offering or in an offering of the community!1 - Said R. Joseph, There is no contradiction, for one2 [Baraitha] states the view of R. Jose, the other the view of the Rabbis. For it has been taught: One must not set aside unclean produce as terumah3 for clean produce; if one did so inadvertently the terumah is valid, but if deliberately the terumah is not valid.4 R. Jose says, Whether one did it inadvertently or deliberately the terumah is valid.5 But perhaps all that R. Jose said was that we do not penalize him; have you heard him say that the plate atones for [the uncleanness of] the eatable portions of the offering?6 Has it not been taught: R. Eliezer says, The plate atones for [the uncleanness of] the eatable portions; but R. Jose says, The plate does not atone for [the uncleanness of] the eatable portions? You must reverse [the authorities and read thus]: R. Eliezer says, The plate does not atone for [the uncleanness of] the eatable portions; but R. Jose says, The plate does atone for [the uncleanness of] the eatable portions. But how can you reverse [the authorities]? Behold, it has been taught: I might have thought that [an unclean person who ate7 of] the flesh of a sacrifice which had become unclean before the sprinkling of the blood would be culpable8 on the ground of uncleanness,9 it is therefore written, Every one that is clean shall eat the flesh; but the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people,10 signifying that [the unclean person who eats of] what has been rendered permitted to those that are clean is culpable on account of uncleanness, but [the unclean person who eats of] what has not been rendered permitted to those that are clean11 is not culpable on account of uncleanness. But perhaps it is not so, but rather it signifies that [the unclean person who eats of] what may now be eaten by those that are clean is culpable on account of uncleanness, but [the unclean person who eats of] what may not now be eaten by those that are clean12 is not culpable on account of uncleanness, and so I would exclude those parts of the offering which had been left overnight and which had been taken out [of the Temple court], since they may not be eaten by those that are clean.13 The verse therefore states, That pertain unto the Lord, an inclusive expression. I might then include the flesh that was piggul and that which was left over - but is not that which was left over identical with that which had been left overnight? Read therefore: [I might then include] the flesh that was piggul, that it shall be like that which was left over14 - the verse therefore states, Of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, an exclusive expression. And why do you prefer to include the one class and exclude the other? Since the verse uses an inclusive and also an exclusive expression, I include those which were at one time permitted,15 but I exclude those which were at no time permitted.16 If you now ask, Why is [an unclean person] culpable on the ground of uncleanness for eating after the sprinkling of the blood flesh which had become unclean before the sprinkling?17 [I reply], It is because the plate atones for it.18 Now [one is culpable] only for that which became unclean but not for that which was taken out.19 And whom have you heard say that where the offering had been taken out [of the Temple court] the sprinkling is of no effect? It is R. Eliezer20 ; and yet it states [in the Baraitha] that the plate atones for [the uncleanness of] the eatable portions!21 - R. Hisda then said, There is no difficulty at all; for one [Baraitha] states the view of R. Eliezer,22 the other the view of the Rabbis. But perhaps all that R. Eliezer said was that the plate atones for [the uncleanness of] the eatable portions; have you heard him say that we do not impose any penalty?23 - Indeed we have, for just as we assumed that to be R. Jose's view24 so we may assume it to be R. Eliezer's view too; for it has been taught: R. Eliezer says, Whether one [set apart unclean produce as terumah for clean produce] inadvertently or deliberately, the terumah is valid. But perhaps R. Eliezer said so25 only in the case of terumah which is less grave; have you heard him say so in the case of holy things which are more grave? - Then to whom will you attribute that [Baraitha]?26

Rabina said, As to its uncleanness, whether [it was rendered unclean] inadvertently or deliberately, [the offering] is acceptable; but as to its sprinkling, if [it was sprinkled] inadvertently it is acceptable, but if deliberately it is not acceptable.27 R. Shila said, As to its sprinkling, whether [it was sprinkled] inadvertently or deliberately it is acceptable; but as to its uncleanness,if [it was rendered unclean] inadvertently it is acceptable, but if deliberately it is not acceptable. And how does R. Shila explain the Baraitha which reads, 'Which became unclean, whether inadvertently or deliberately'? - It means, it was rendered unclean inadvertently, and it was sprinkled either inadvertently or deliberately.

____________________
(1) It is manifest that the plate effects atonement for uncleanness, even though deliberately caused, in the case of a private offering; thus in conflict with the first quoted Baraitha.
(2) The latter Baraitha.
(3) V. Glos.
(4) For the Rabbis penalized the one who acted deliberately in defiance of the law. As to the effect of this act, whether it is absolutely null and void or only that it does not render the rest of the produce permitted although what was set aside is terumah, v. Yeb. 89a.
(5) Accordingly the latter Baraitha which states that even if part of the offering was deliberately made unclean the plate atones for it represents the view of R. Jose.
(6) As opposed to the sacrificial portions, for the uncleanness of which all agree that the plate atones. For that is what the latter Baraitha, attributed to R. Jose, teaches when it says, inter alia, that the plate atones for the flesh which became unclean. But this view is not generally held, and on what grounds therefore do we attribute such a view to R. Jose?
(7) Before the sprinkling of the blood.
(8) Incurring the penalty of kareth.
(9) MS.M., reads: 'I might have thought that (an unclean person who partook of the clean flesh of the offering) before the sprinkling of the blood would be liable on the ground of uncleanness.' This reading is preferred by Rashi.
(10) Lev. VII, 19, 20.
(11) I.e., flesh of an offering before the sprinkling of the blood.
(12) Even though it had once been rendered permitted to them, as in the case where the flesh, having been rendered permitted after the sprinkling of the blood, became unfit subsequently by being left overnight or by being taken out of the Temple court.
(13) And therefore whosoever eats of such flesh whilst in a state of uncleanness does not incur the penalty of kareth.
(14) And whosoever eats of the offering that became piggul (v. Glos.) whilst in a state of uncleanness incurs the penalty of kareth, as is the case with the flesh that had been left overnight.
(15) Sc. the offering which had been left overnight or had been taken out of the Sanctuary after the sprinkling; for these had been rendered permitted with the sprinkling.
(16) Sc. the offering which was rendered piggul through a wrongful intention expressed at the sprinkling of the blood, in which case the offering was never rendered permitted.
(17) For that flesh was at no time permitted to be eaten; nevertheless one is liable for eating it whilst in a state of uncleanness, v. Zeb. 106a and Hul. 101a, for only piggul is excluded in the above Baraitha as being the only case of an offering at no time permitted.
(18) And the sprinkling of the blood is perfectly valid, so that the offering is 'rendered permitted', even though it may not be eaten, and therefore one is culpable.
(19) Thus if an unclean person ate, after the sprinkling, the flesh of the offering which had become unclean before the sprinkling he would be liable, but not if he ate after the sprinkling the flesh which had been taken out before the sprinkling, for in the former case the sprinkling is valid but not in the latter.
(20) V. Me'il. 6b.
(21) But according to the answer given above ('Reverse the authorities') R. Eliezer holds the opposite view!
(22) The Baraitha (p. 159) which teaches that the plate atones for the uncleanness deliberately caused even in a private offering represents the view of R. Eliezer, since therein is also taught that the plate atones for the uncleanness of the eatable portions, which is clearly R. Eliezer's view.
(23) I.e., that the plate secures atonement where one deliberately sprinkled the blood which had become unclean.
(24) From R. Jose's ruling in the case of terumah it was inferred that in all cases an act deliberately done in defiance of the law is valid and no penalty is to be imposed.
(25) That a wrongful act though deliberately done is nevertheless valid.
(26) Which teaches that even deliberately it is acceptable. It must be R. Eliezer.
(27) Rabina in this way explains away the contradiction between the two statements. The first Baraitha which states with regard to the private offering. 'If inadvertently it is acceptable, if deliberately it is not acceptable', deals with the sprinkling of the unclean blood. The second Baraitha which states that the plate atones for the blood which became unclean 'whether inadvertently or deliberately', obviously deals with the uncleanness; the sprinkling, however, would be acceptable only if done inadvertently.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 26a

Come and hear: It was taught: If the blood became unclean and It was sprinkled inadvertently, it is acceptable, if deliberately it is not acceptable!1 - It means, If the blood became unclean and it was sprinkled, whether it was sprinkled inadvertently or deliberately, if it was rendered unclean inadvertently it is acceptable, but if deliberately it is not acceptable.

MISHNAH. IF THE REMAINDER OF THE MEAL-OFFERING BECAME UNCLEAN OR WAS BURNT OR LOST, ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF R. ELIEZER2 IT IS LAWFUL [TO BURN THE HANDFUL], BUT ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF R. JOSHUA3 IT IS UNLAWFUL.

GEMARA. Rab said, That is so provided the whole of the remainder became unclean,4 but not if only a part of it became unclean. Now it was assumed5 that this provision applied only to the case where it became unclean but not to the case where it was burnt or lost.6 But what could be [Rab's] view? If he holds that what is left thereof is something of consequence, then the same should be the case where it was burnt or lost. And if he holds that what is left thereof is of no consequence, but that in the case where it became unclean the reason7 is that the plate atones [for the uncleanness of the eatable portions], then the same should be the case7 even where the whole of the remainder [became unclean]! - Indeed he holds that what is left thereof is something of consequence, and as it is in the case where it became unclean, so it is where it was burnt or lost; the only reason, however, why [Rab] dealt with the case where it became unclean was that it was the first [mentioned in our Mishnah]. And so it was taught [in the following Baraitha]: R. Joshua says, If of any animal-offering mentioned in the Torah there remained an olive's bulk of the flesh or an olive's bulk of the fat, [the priest] may sprinkle the blood; if there remained a half-olive's bulk of the flesh and a half-olive's bulk of the fat, he may not sprinkle the blood. In the case of a burnt-offering, however, even if there remained a half-olive's bulk of the flesh and a half-olive's bulk of the fat, he may sprinkle the blood, since it is wholly burnt. And in the case of a meal-offering, even if all of it still remains, he may not sprinkle the blood.8 How does the meal-offering come in here? R. Papa explained that it referred to the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings. For one might have thought that since it accompanies the animal-offering it is deemed to be part of the animal-offering; we are therefore taught [that it is not so].

Whence do we know this?9 - R. Johanan said in the name of R. Ishmael (while some trace the tradition further back to R. Joshua b. Hananiah), The verse says, And he shall burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the Lord;10 hence [the blood is sprinkled on account of] the fat even if there is no flesh,11 We thus know it of the fat, but whence do we know it of the caul of the liver and of the two kidneys?12 - For it has been stated [in the abovementioned Baraitha], 'And in the case of a meal-offering, even if all of it still remains, he may not sprinkle the blood'; that is, on account of the meal-offering he may not sprinkle the blood, but it is to be inferred that he may sprinkle on account of the caul of the liver or of the two kidneys. Whence do we know it? - R. Johanan explained on his own authority, It is written, 'For a sweet savour,' signifying that [the blood may be sprinkled on account of] everything that is offered up for a sweet savour.

And it was absolutely necessary for the verse to have written 'the fat' as well as "for a sweet savour'. For if only 'the fat' were written, I should have said that only on account of the fat [may the blood be sprinkled] but not on account of the caul of the liver or the two kidneys; the Divine Law therefore stated 'for a sweet savour'. And if only 'for a sweet savour' were written, I should have said that even on account of the meal-offering [may the blood be sprinkled]; the Divine Law therefore stated 'the fat'.13

MISHNAH. IF [HE DID] NOT [PUT THE HANDFUL] INTO A VESSEL OF MINISTRY14 IT IS INVALID; BUT R. SIMEON DECLARES IT VALID, IF HE BURNT THE HANDFUL TWICE,15 IT IS VALID.

GEMARA. R. Judah the son of R. Hiyya said, What is the reason for R. Simeon's view? It is written, It is most holy as the sin-offering and as the guilt-offering;16 that is to say, if he is about to perform the service17 with his hand,18 he must do so with his right hand as the sin-offering; but if he is about to offer it in a vessel, he may do so with his left hand as the guilt-offering.19 R. Jannai said,20 Since he took the handful from a vessel of ministry he may offer it up and burn it even in his girdle and even in a potsherd. R. Nahman b. Isaac said, All agree that the handful must be sanctified.21

An objection was raised: If the fat, the limbs and the wood were brought up to be burnt [upon the altar] with the hand or with a vessel, with the right hand or with the left, they are valid. If the handful, the incense-offering and the frankincense were brought up [upon the altar] with the hand or with a vessel, with the right hand or with the left, they are valid. Is this not a refutation of the view of R. Judah the son of R. Hiyya?22 - R. Judah the son of R. Hiyya could answer you: It is to be taken as separate cases thus, If [brought up] with the hand, it must be with the right hand only; if with a vessel, it may be either with the right hand or with the left.

Come and hear: If he took out the handful from23 a vessel of ministry but neither sanctified it in a vessel of ministry nor offered it up to be burnt in a vessel of ministry, it is invalid. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon declare it valid if only it had been put into a vessel!24 - Render: After it had been put into a vessel.25

Come and hear: But the Sages say, The handful requires vessels of ministry; thus he takes out the handful from a vessel of ministry, sanctifies it in a vessel of ministry and offers it up to be burnt in a vessel of ministry. R. Simeon says, As long as he has taken out the handful from a vessel of ministry he may offer it and burn it not in a vessel of ministry and that suffices!26 - Render: As long as he has taken out the handful from a vessel of ministry and also sanctified it in a vessel of ministry he may offer it and burn it and that suffices.

Come and hear: If he took out the handful with his right hand and transferred it into his left hand, he should transfer it back again to his right hand. If while it was in his left hand

____________________
(1) This obviously means that if the unclean blood was sprinkled deliberately it is not acceptable; contra R. Shila.
(2) Who holds (Pes. 77a) that the blood of a sacrifice may be sprinkled even though the flesh is not available (either because it became unclean or was burnt or lost); likewise the handful of the meal-offering may be burnt upon the altar even though the remainder is not available.
(3) Who holds that where the flesh was not available it is not lawful to sprinkle the blood; similarly here, where the remainder is not available it is not lawful to burn the handful.
(4) Then only does R. Joshua maintain that it is unlawful to burn the handful.
(5) Since Rab only dealt with the case where it became unclean.
(6) I.e., even though only a part of the remainder was burnt or lost R. Joshua still maintains that it is unlawful to burn the handful.
(7) That it is lawful to burn the handful.
(8) V. supra p. 51 and the notes thereon.
(9) That the blood may be sprinkled even though only an olive's bulk of the fat remained.
(10) Lev. XVII, 6.
(11) For the verse reads: And the priest shall sprinkle the blood . . . and burn the fat for a sweet savour, which clearly shows that the sprinkling is performed on account of the fat.
(12) That the blood may be sprinkled even though only these parts of the offering remained.
(13) The result is that the blood may be sprinkled on account of anything that is offered up for a sweet savour provided it is part of the animal like the fat.
(14) But the priest immediately emptied his handful upon the altar.
(15) I.e., he divided the handful into halves and burnt a half at a time.
(16) Lev. VI, 10, in reference to the meal-offering.
(17) I.e., burn the handful,
(18) Like the sin-offering whose blood is sprinkled with the finger of the right hand.
(19) The blood of which is dashed from the vessel against the altar, and such service, according to R. Simeon (v. Zeb. 24b), may be performed with the left hand, and in the case of the leper's guilt-offering must be performed with the left hand (v. Sh. Mek.).
(20) R. Jannai interprets R. Simeon's view as he understands it.
(21) I.e., it must be put into a vessel of ministry. All that R. Simeon permits is to take out the handful after it had been sanctified in a vessel of ministry and offer it with the hand upon the altar.
(22) This Baraitha evidently represents R. Simeon's view since it declares valid the offering of the handful with the hand, yet it also permits the use of the left hand; contra R. Judah.
(23) The word שלא 'not', found in cur. edd., is struck out by Sh. Mek. and is wanting in MS.M.
(24) Though not necessarily a vessel of ministry; contra R. Nahman.
(25) The meaning is, after the handful had been sanctified in a vessel of ministry the services which follow, as the bringing nigh and the burning, do not, according to R. Eleazar and R. Simeon, require a vessel.
(26) Contra R. Nahman.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 26b

he expressed the intention [of eating the remainder] outside the prescribed place or outside the prescribed time it is invalid, but there is no penalty of kareth; if1 while it was in his right hand he expressed the intention [of eating the remainder] outside the prescribed place it is invalid but there is no penalty of kareth, but if [he intended to eat it] outside the prescribed time it is piggul and there is also the penalty of kareth. This is the opinion of R. Eleazar and R. Simeon. But the Sages say, As soon as he transferred it into his left hand the transfer rendered it invalid, the reason being that it still required sanctification in a vessel, and since it has been transferred into the left hand it is on the same footing as when the blood of an offering had poured out from the throat on to the ground and had been gathered up, in which case it is invalid.2 Hence it is clear that according to R. Eleazar and R. Simeon the putting into the vessel of ministry is not essential. This surely refutes R. Nahman's view, and supports the view of R. Judah the son of R. Hiyya.3 Is it also a refutation of R. Jannai's view?4 - R. Jannai can answer, I am in agreement with the Tanna who taught the Baraitha concerning the burning [of the fat etc.], and the terms thereof are not to be taken as separate cases.5

IF HE BURNT THE HANDFUL TWICE IT IS VALID. R. Joshua b. Levi said, Twice but not more than twice. But R. Johanan said, Twice and even more than twice. What is the issue between them? - R. Zera answered, The issue between them is as to whether the handful may be less than the quantity of two olives' bulk and whether the burning of a quantity less than an olive's bulk counts as an offering.6 R. Joshua b. Levi is of the opinion that the handful may not be less than two olives' bulk and also that the burning of a quantity less than an olive's bulk does not count as an offering;7 but R. Johanan maintains that the handful may be less than the quantity of two olives' bulk and that the burning of a quantity less than an olive's bulk counts as an offering.8

It was stated: From what time does the handful render the remainder permissible to be eaten? R. Hanina says, As soon as the fire has taken hold of it;9 and R. Johanan says, Only when the fire has burnt the greater part of it. Rab Judah said to Rabbah b. R. Isaac, I will explain to you the reason for R. Johanan's view; for it is written, And lo, the smoke of the land went up as the smoke of a furnace,10 and a furnace does not send up smoke until the fire has burnt up the greater part.11

Rabin b. R. Adda said to Raba, Your pupils report that R. Amram pointed out [the following difficulty]: It was taught: I only know that things that are usually offered by night, e.g., the limbs and the fat parts of the offering, may be offered up and burnt after sunset and are allowed to continue burning throughout the night; but whence do I know that things that are usually offered by day, e.g., the handful, the frankincense, the incense-offering, the meal-offering of the priests,the anointed High Priest's meal-offering and, the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings, may also be offered up and burnt after sunset? - But have you not said, 'Things that are usually offered by day'?12 Say rather: at sunset,13 - whence then do I know that these also are allowed to continue burning throughout the night? From the verse, This is the law of the burnt-offering,14 an inclusive expression. Now if it is offered up at sunset it can hardly be possible that the fire will have burnt the greater portion of it [by sunset]!15 - This is no difficulty, for here [in the latter case] it deals with the handful being taken up, and there with it rendering the remainder permissible.16 R. Eleazar reads [in the above]: 'after sunset', and explains it as referring to the pieces that have burst off the altar,17 And so, too, when R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he explained it in the name of R. Jannai as referring to the pieces that had burst off the altar. But could R. Jannai have said so? Surely R. Jannai has said, Any part of the incense which had burst off the altar, even if it was a whole grain, may not be put back! Moreover, R. Hanina b. Minyomi taught at the school of R. Eliezer b. Jacob: It is written, Whereto the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering on the altar,18 that is, you may put back unconsumed parts of the burnt-offering [if they had burst off the altar], but you must not put back unconsumed parts of the incense! - Omit 'incense'.19

R. Assi said, When R. Eleazar was studying the laws of the meal-offering he raised the following question: How is it if he placed the handful [upon the altar] and then put the wood-pile on top of it?20 Is this regarded as a way of burning or not? - This question remains undecided.

Hezekiah raised the question: How is it if he placed the limbs [of an offering upon the altar] and then put the wood-pile above them? [Shall we say,] since the Divine Law says, Upon the wood,21 then they must actually be upon the wood; or, since there is another verse which reads, Whereto the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering on the altar,22 he may do it either the one way or the other? - This, too, remains undecided.

R. Isaac Nappaha raised the question: How is it if he placed the limbs by the side of the wood-pile? Of course according to him who maintains23 that 'upon' must be taken in its literal meaning, there can be no question here,

____________________
(1) This passage is omitted in many MSS. The translation is based upon the text as emended by Sh. Mek.
(2) For did it not require sanctification in a vessel then the placing of the handful in the left hand would be regarded on the same footing as when the blood of an animal-offering had poured out from the vessel on to the ground, in which case all agree that it may be gathered up again and it is valid. Cf. Yoma 48a.
(3) For the Baraitha states that he must transfer it back again to the right hand which conforms with R. Judah's teaching that if the hand is used it must be the right hand only.
(4) For R. Jannai who allows the offering of the handful in a potsherd would surely allow it to be offered in the left hand, nevertheless this Baraitha insists upon its being transferred back again into the right hand.
(5) V. supra p. 166. According to that Baraitha it is permitted to offer the handful in the left hand.
(6) Lit., 'there is a burning of less than an olive's bulk'.
(7) So that if the handful, which must not be less than two olives' bulk, was divided equally into two parts there would be an olive's bulk for each burning, but this would not be so if it were divided into more than two parts.
(8) It is therefore immaterial whether it is divided into two or more parts.
(9) Even if only a part thereof.
(10) Gen. XIX, 28.
(11) And of the handful it is written והקטיר (Lev. II, 2), which would mean, and he shall cause the smoke (קיטור) to go up.
(12) And there can be no doubt at all that such may not be offered after sunset.
(13) I.e., just before sunset.
(14) Lev. VI, 2. 'The law' is a comprehensive and all-inclusive expression, and here teaches that one law applies to all things that are brought up on the altar.
(15) And if the handful has not been offered before the sunset of that day it becomes invalid; consequently, since it may be placed upon the altar just before sunset, as soon as the fire has taken hold of it it is deemed to be offered, which is contrary to R. Johanan.
(16) It is true that as soon as the fire has taken hold of it it is deemed to be offered, but only in the sense that it has been taken up and accepted by the altar as an offering on the same day before sunset, so that it is valid. But, maintains R. Johanan, it will only render the remainder permissible to be eaten when the fire has burnt the greater part of it.
(17) And these may be put back upon the altar throughout the night. The handful, however, had been placed on the altar before sunset.
(18) Ibid. VI, 3.
(19) From the Baraitha quoted by R. Amram according to which portions of incense which had burst off the altar may be put back.
(20) Normally the wood-pile is arranged upon the altar and the parts of the offering are put on top of the wood.
(21) Lev. I, 8: And Aaron's sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces . . . in order upon the wood . . . which is upon the altar.
(22) Ibid VI, 3, which verse shows that the burnt-offering was put actually upon the surface of the altar and not necessarily upon the wood.
(23) V. infra 96a.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 27a

for here is written, Upon the wood. The question arises only according to him who maintains that 'upon' may mean 'near to'. How is it then? Do we also explain 'upon' here as 'near to'; or perhaps, since the phrases 'upon the wood' and 'upon the altar' are in juxtaposition, as in the latter phrase 'upon' is taken in its literal meaning so in the former 'upon' is to be taken in its literal meaning? - This, too, remains undecided.

MISHNAH. OF THE HANDFUL THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE.1 OF THE TENTH2 THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. OF THE WINE3 THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. OF THE OIL4 THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. OF THE FINE FLOUR AND THE OIL THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. OF THE HANDFUL AND THE FRANKINCENSE THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER.

GEMARA. [OF THE HANDFUL THE ABSENCE OF THE SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE.] Why is it so? - Because Scripture stated his handful twice.5

OF THE TENTH THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. Why? - Because it is written, Of the fine flour thereof,6 [signifying that] if any part thereof was lacking it is invalid.

OF THE WINE THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. [Because it is written,] Thus.7

OF THE OIL THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. [As to the oil] of the drink-offerings, [because it is written], Thus, and of the freewill meal-offering, because it is written, And of the oil thereof,6 [signifying that] if any part thereof was lacking it is invalid.

OF THE FINE FLOUR AND THE OIL THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER, [Because it is written,] Of the fine flour thereof and of the oil thereof,6 and further, Of the bruised corn thereof and of the oil thereof.8

OF THE HANDFUL AND THE FRANKINCENSE THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. [Because it is written,] With all the frankincense thereof,9 and further, And all the frankincense which is upon the meal-offering.10

MISHNAH. OF THE TWO HE-GOATS11 OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. OF THE TWO LAMBS12 OF THE FEAST OF WEEKS THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. OF THE TWO LOAVES13 THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. OF THE TWO ROWS14 [OF THE SHEWBREAD] THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. OF THE TWO DISHES14 [OF FRANKINCENSE] THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. OF THE ROWS AND THE DISHES THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. OF THE TWO KINDS [OF CAKES] USED IN THE OFFERING OF THE NAZIRITE,15 OF THE THREE KINDS USED FOR THE RED COW,16 OF THE FOUR KINDS [OF CAKES] USED IN THE THANK-OFFERING,17 OF THE FOUR KINDS [OF PLANTS] USED FOR THE LULAB,18 AND OF THE FOUR KINDS USED FOR THE [PURIFICATION OF THE] LEPER,19 THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS. OF THE SEVEN SPRINKLINGS [OF THE BLOOD] OF THE RED COW20 THE [OMISSION OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS. OF THE SEVEN SPRINKLINGS BETWEEN THE STAVES OF THE ARK,21 AND OF THOSE TOWARDS THE VEIL AND UPON THE GOLDEN ALTAR,22 THE [OMISSION OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS.

GEMARA. OF THE TWO HE-GOATS OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT THE [ABSENCE OF ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER - for the term 'statute' is used therewith.23

OF THE TWO LAMBS OF THE FEAST OF WEEKS THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER - for the expression 'shall be' is used therewith.24 THE TWO LOAVES - for the expression 'shall be' is used therewith.24

THE TWO ROWS - for the term 'statute' is used therewith.25

THE TWO DISHES - for the term 'statute' is used therewith.25

THE ROWS AND THE DISHES - for the term 'statute' is used therewith.

THE TWO KINDS [OF CAKES] USED IN THE OFFERING OF THE NAZIRITE - for it is written, So he must do.26

THE THREE KINDS USED FOR THE RED COW - for the term 'statute' is used therewith.27 THE FOUR KINDS OF CAKES USED IN THE THANK-OFFERING - for [the thank-offering] has been placed side by side with the offering of the Nazirite, in the verse, With the sacrifice of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving,28 and the Master said, Of his peace-offerings, includes the peace-offering of the Nazirite.29

THE FOUR KINDS USED FOR THE LEPER - for it is written, This shall be the law of the leper.30

THE FOUR KINDS USED FOR THE LULAB - for it is written, And ye shall take,31 signifying the taking of them all. R. Hanan b. Abba said, This32 was taught only in the case where he did not have them at all, but where he had them all one does not invalidate the other.33 An objection was raised against him. It was taught: Of the four kinds used for the lulab two are fruit-bearing34 and two are not;35 those which bear fruits must be joined to those which bear no fruits and those which bear no fruits must be joined to those which bear fruits. And a man does not fulfil his obligation unless they are all bound in one band. And so it is with Israel's conciliation with God, [it is achieved] only when they are all in one band, as it is said, That buildeth his chambers in the heaven, and hath founded his band upon the earth.36 - This is a matter of dispute between Tannaim. For it was taught: The lulab is valid whether it be bound with the others or not; but R. Judah says, If it is bound with the others it is valid, and if it is not so bound it is not valid. What is the reason for R. Judah's view? - He draws an analogy by means of the expression 'taking' used [both here and] also in connection with the bunch of hyssop:37 as there the kinds must be bound in one bunch, so here they must be bound in one band. The Rabbis, however, do not draw this analogy by means of the expression 'taking'. With whose view then would the following Baraitha agree? For it was taught: It is a meritorious act to bind the lulab with the other species; nevertheless if one did not bind it, it is valid! If with R. Judah's view, why then is it valid if one did not bind it? And if it agrees with the view of the Rabbis, why does it say 'It is a meritorious act'?38 - Indeed it agrees with the view of the Rabbis, and it is a meritorious act only on the principle of This is my God and I will beautify him.39

OF THE SEVEN SPRINKLINGS [OF THE BLOOD] OF THE RED COW, THE [OMISSION OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS - for the term 'statute' is used therewith.40

OF THE SEVEN SPRINKLINGS BETWEEN THE STAVES OF THE ARK, AND OF THOSE TOWARDS THE VEIL AND UPON THE GOLDEN ALTAR, THE [OMISSION OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS. As for the offerings of the Day of Atonement, because the term 'statute' is used therewith;41 and as for the bullock offered when the anointed High Priest sinned in error, and the bullock offered when the whole community sinned in error, and the he-goats offered on account of the sin of idolatry, because of the following teaching: It is written, Thus shall he do with the bullock, as he did with the bullock of the sin-offering.42 Wherefore is it written?42 In order to repeat thereby the laws of the sprinkling,43

____________________
(1) Lit., 'the smaller part hinders the larger part'. The offerings mentioned must be absolutely whole, but if they were lacking even the smallest quantity they are invalid as offerings.
(2) The tenth of an ephah of flour prescribed for the meal-offering.
(3) Which formed part of the drink-offerings offered with most sacrifices, cf. Num. XV, 4ff: a half-hin for a bullock, a third-hin for a ram, and a quarter-hin for a lamb.
(4) Offered with the drink-offerings in the same quantity as prescribed for the wine (v. prec. n.), or the log of oil required for the freewill meal-offering.
(5) Cf. Lev. II, 2 and V, 12. This repetition signifies that it must be absolutely whole and that every part thereof is indispensable.
(6) Ibid. II, 2. This rule is derived from the superfluous suffix ה in the word, corresponding to the Eng. 'thereof'.
(7) Num. XV, 11. The term 'thus' indicates that it must be offered in the manner prescribed without any variations whatsoever.
(8) Lev. II, 16. According to Rabbinic interpretation 'bruised corn' and 'fine flour' are identical save that the former is applied to the 'Omer-offering. Hence there is a repetition of the items to indicate their indispensability.
(9) Lev. II, 2.
(10) Ibid. VI, 8.
(11) Ibid. XVI, 5.
(12) Ibid. XXIII, 19.
(13) Offered with the lambs on the Feast of Weeks, cf. ibid. 17.
(14) Cf. ibid. XXIV, 5ff.
(15) Unleavened leaves and unleavened wafers; v. Num. VI, 15.
(16) Cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool; v. ibid. XIX, 6.
(17) Unleavened cakes, unleavened wafers, cakes of soaked fine flour, and leavened cakes; v. Lev. VII, 12, 13.
(18) לנלב, the palm-branch, which with the citron, the myrtle and the willow branches, was used in the Temple and Synagogue service on the Feast of Tabernacles; v. ibid. XXIII, 40.
(19) Cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool, and the two living birds; v. ibid. XIV, 6.
(20) Num. XIX, 4.
(21) Of the blood of the bullock and of the he-goat on the Day of Atonement; v. Lev. XVI, 14, 15.
(22) Of the blood of the abovementioned offerings (v. p. 172, n. 13) and also of the blood of the bullock offered when the whole community sinned in error (Lev. IV, 17,18). and of the bullock offered when the anointed High Priest sinned in error (ibid 6, 7).
(23) Lev. XVI, 34. The term 'statute' used in connection with any law or ceremony implies the absolute indispensability of the rites connected therewith.
(24) Ibid. XXIII, 17. The expression 'shall be' invariably indicates indispensability.
(25) Ibid. XXIV, 9.
(26) Num. VI, 21.
(27) Ibid. XIX, 2.
(28) Lev. VII, 13.
(29) V. infra 78a.
(30) Ibid. XIV, 2.
(31) Ibid. XXIII, 40. The Heb. ולקחתם is interpreted as though divided into two words: ולקח, 'and he shall take', and תם, 'wholly' 'completely'; hence all the four kinds must be taken together.
(32) That the absence of any one kind invalidates the others.
(33) I.e., for the purposes of the precept they need not be taken bound together in one hand.
(34) The ethrog (the citron) and the lulab (the palm branch).
(35) The myrtle and the willow.
(36) Amos IX, 6. The people are founded and established on earth only when they are in one band - that is, when all the sections of the community are united, the righteous (the fruit-bearing) and the unrighteous (the non-fruit-bearing); this is symbolized by the taking and binding together in one band of the four species. It is evident therefore from this Baraitha that the four species must be bound together, contra R. Hanan.
(37) Used in the purification rites of the leper, v. Lev. XIV, 4.
(38) Since according to the Rabbis it is immaterial whether they are bound together or not.
(39) Ex. XV, 2. Thus it is a meritorious act generally to perform the precepts in the most beautiful manner possible.
(40) Num. XIX, 2.
(41) Lev. XVI, 34.
(42) Ibid. IV, 20. This verse is stated in connection with the bullock offered when the whole community sinned in error, and its purport apparently is to direct that the service of this offering be performed in the same manner as the offering of the anointed High Priest mentioned in the foregoing paragraph. On examination, however, it will be seen that this injunction is superfluous, since all the details of the service, as stated in connection with the foregoing offering, are repeated here in full.
(43) Thus rendering the sprinklings indispensable.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 27b

so that if one sprinkling was omitted the whole is invalid.1

Our Rabbis taught: If the seven sprinklings of the blood of the Red Cow were made under the name of some other [offering] or were not directed rightly,2 they are invalid; but as for those [sprinklings which must be performed] inside3 or [the sprinklings in the purification rites] of a leper,4 if they were made under the name of some other [offering], they are invalid, but if they were not rightly directed, they are valid. But has it not also been taught, with regard to the sprinklings of the blood of the Red Cow, that if they were sprinkled under the name of another they are invalid, whilst if they were not rightly directed they are still valid? - Said R. Hisda, This is no difficulty; for one5 [Baraitha] states the view of R. Judah and the other that of the Rabbis. For it was taught: If a man that lacked atonement6 unwittingly entered the Temple court he is liable to bring a sin-offering, but if he entered deliberately he has incurred the penalty of kareth;7 and, needless to say, this is so of a tebul yom7 and others that were unclean. If a man that was clean overstepped the boundary8 and entered the Temple he has thereby incurred forty [stripes]; and if he entered within the veil9 or towards the front of the mercy-seat10 he has thereby incurred death [at the hands of heaven]. R. Judah says, If he entered into the Temple or within the veil he has thereby incurred forty [stripes], and if he entered towards the front of the mercy-seat he has thereby incurred death. Wherein do they differ? - In the interpretation of the following verse: And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil, towards the front of the mercy-seat which is upon the ark; that he die not.11 The Rabbis12 maintain that [against entering] into the holy place there is the prohibition 'that he come not',13 and [against entering] within the veil or towards the front of the mercy-seat there is the warning 'that he die not'; whereas R. Judah maintains that [against entering] into the holy place or within the veil there is the prohibition 'that he come not', and [against entering] towards the front of the mercy-seat there is the warning 'that he die not'. What is the reason for this view of the Rabbis? - If the law is as R. Judah maintains, the Divine Law should only have stated 'into the holy place' and 'towards the front of the mercy-seat', but not 'within the veil', for I should have said, If for entering the holy place one incurs stripes, how much more so for entering within the veil! Why then did the Divine Law also state 'within the veil'? That you might infer that there is the penalty of death for it. And R. Judah, [how does he reply to this]? - Had the Divine Law only stated 'into the holy place' and not' within the veil' I might have thought that by the expression 'into the holy place' only 'within the veil' was meant, so that [against entering] into the Temple there is not even a prohibition! And the Rabbis? - You could not possibly have thought so, since the entire Temple is referred to as 'the holy place', as it is written, And the veil shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy.14 And what is the reason for R. Judah's view? - If the law is as the Rabbis maintain, the Divine Law should only have stated 'into the holy place within the veil', but not 'towards the front of the mercy-seat', for I should have said, If for entering within the veil one incurs death, how much more so for entering towards the front of the mercy-seat! Why then did the Divine Law also state 'towards the front of the mercy-seat'? That you might infer that only [for entering] towards the front of the mercy seat is there the penalty of death, whereas [for entering] within the veil there is only a prohibition. And the Rabbis, [how do they reply to this]? - Indeed it was unnecessary, and the only reason why the Divine Law stated 'towards the front of the mercy-seat' in this verse was in order to exclude [from the prohibition] entering by the side.15 As it was taught by a Tanna in the school of R. Eliezer b. Jacob: The verse, Towards the front of the mercy-seat on the east,16 establishes the principle that wherever Scripture says 'the front' it means the east side. And R. Judah?17 - [He says,] The verse should then have only stated [here] 'the front', why does it also state 'towards'? To teach that 'towards' must be interpreted with exactness.18 And the Rabbis? - [They say,] 'Towards' need not be interpreted exactly. Now19 since R. Judah maintains that the expression 'towards the front of the mercy-seat' must be interpreted with exactness, similarly he would hold that the expression 'and he shall sprinkle towards the front' must also be interpreted exactly;20 whilst the Rabbis hold that just as the one need not be interpreted exactly so the other need not be interpreted exactly.21 R. Joseph, however, demurred, saying, Then according to R. Judah, if 'towards' must be interpreted exactly, 'upon'22 would also have to be interpreted exactly, would it not? And it would follow therefore that during the second Temple, inasmuch as there was no ark nor mercy-seat,23 no sprinklings were to be made [on the Day of Atonement]! - Rabbah b. 'Ulla answered, It is written, And he shall make atonement for the holy sanctuary,24 that is, for the place that is sanctified for the holy sanctuary.25

Raba said, Both26 state the view of the Rabbis, [yet here is no contradiction]

____________________
(1) Lit., 'he has done nothing'. It appears from Rashi that at this point in the text there followed a lengthy argument exactly as found in Zeb. 39a. The addition is also found in MS.M. and it reads as follows: I only know this of the seven sprinklings upon the veil, since whenever seven sprinklings are ordained it is established that the omission of one renders the whole invalid; but whence do I know this also of the four sprinklings upon the altar? Because Scripture says. So he shall do with this (Lev. IV, 20). The expression 'the bullock' (ibid.) includes the bullock of the Day of Atonement; the expression 'as he did with the bullock' (ibid.) includes the bullock offered by the anointed High Priest; and the expression 'of the sin-offering' (ibid.) includes the he-goats offered on account of the sin of idolatry. V. Rashi.
(2) In accordance with Num. XIX, 4, the blood of the Red Cow had to be sprinkled in the direction of 'the entrance of the tent of meeting'.
(3) E.g., the offerings of the Day of Atonement or the sin-offering of the anointed High Priest.
(4) The officiating priest sprinkled of the oil that was in the palm of his hand seven times in the direction of the Holy of Holies; v. Lev. XIV, 16.
(5) The latter Baraitha.
(6) A person who had duly immersed after his uncleanness, had awaited sunset, but had not yet brought the prescribed offerings. Such a person still retains a slight measure of uncleanness.
(7) V. Glos.
(8) A non-priest was not permitted to enter into the Temple Hall beyond the first eleven cubits from the entrance on the east side. Cf. Yoma 16b.
(9) I.e., into the Holy of Holies.
(10) This is still further in the Holy of Holies; he stepped close to the mercy-seat which formed the cover for the Ark.
(11) Lev. XVI, 2.
(12) I.e., the first Tanna in the foregoing Baraitha whose view is expressed anonymously as being the general accepted view of the Rabbis.
(13) An ordinary prohibition for the transgression of which the punishment of forty stripes is incurred.
(14) Ex. XXVI, 33.
(15) I.e., any entry into the Holy of Holies not made in the ordinary way through the door on the east with the face looking westward; e.g., by breaking through the north wall or the south wall of the Holy of Holies and entering thereby, or by entering through the door on the east but with the face looking either northward or southward. For such an entry one would not incur any penalty.
(16) Lev. XVI, 14.
(17) Is not the expression 'towards the front of the mercy-seat' required to show that the east side was meant?
(18) The expression 'towards the front of the mercy-seat' is not stated (argues R. Judah) merely to indicate that the east side is meant, since for that purpose 'the front', without 'towards', would have been sufficient. Its true purpose is to teach that only for entering towards the front of the mercy-seat is the penalty of death at the hands of heaven incurred, but not for merely entering within the veil.
(19) The Gemara now proceeds to elaborate the answer proposed by R. Hisda supra that one Baraitha states the view of R. Judah and the other that of the Rabbis.
(20) And therefore if the blood of the Red Cow was not sprinkled quite in the direction towards the front of the Holy of Holies, it is invalid.
(21) And the sprinklings are valid even though made not quite in the proper direction.
(22) In connection with the sprinkling of the blood of the bullock on the Day of Atonement it is written, And he shall sprinkle with his finger upon the mercy-seat (Lev. XVI, 14); and therefore unless the sprinkling is made actually upon the mercy-seat it is invalid.
(23) According to tradition these were hidden away by Josiah (v. Yoma 52b), and so were not in use during the Second Temple.
(24) Lev. XVI, 33.
(25) The High Priest shall 'make atonement', i.e., sprinkle the blood on to the place sanctified for the ark.
(26) Sc. the two teachings which were shown above to be contradictory.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 28a

for in the one case [the priest] stood facing the west with his back to the east1 and sprinkled, whereas in the other he stood facing the south with his back to the north2 and sprinkled.

The Master said, 'But as for those [sprinklings which must be performed] inside, or [the sprinklings in the purification rites] of a leper, if they were made under the name of some other [offering], they are invalid, but if they were not rightly directed, they are valid'. But it has been taught: Whether they were made under the name of some other [offering] or were not rightly directed, they are valid! Said R. Joseph: This is no contradiction; one Baraitha states the view of R. Eliezer, the other that of the Rabbis. R. Eliezer who likens the guilt-offering to the sin-offering3 likens also the log [of oil of the leper] to the guilt-offering;4 the Rabbis, however, do not liken one with the other.5 But according to R. Eliezer is it permitted to deduce a law by analogy from another law which has itself been deduced by analogy?6 - Raba therefore answered, Both teachings state the view of the Rabbis; one deals with the validity7 [of the offering], whereas the other deals with the acceptance8 [of the offering in fulfilment of the owner's obligation].

MISHNAH. OF THE SEVEN BRANCHES OF THE CANDLESTICK,9 THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS. OF THE SEVEN LAMPS THEREOF, THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS. OF THE TWO PORTIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE MEZUZAH,10 THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER; INDEED EVEN ONE [IMPERFECT] LETTER CAN INVALIDATE THE WHOLE. OF THE FOUR PORTIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE TEFILLIN,11 THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS; INDEED EVEN ONE [IMPERFECT] LETTER CAN INVALIDATE THE WHOLE. OF THE FOUR FRINGES,12 THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS, SINCE THE FOUR TOGETHER FORM ONE PRECEPT. R. ISHMAEL SAYS, THE FOUR ARE FOUR SEPARATE PRECEPTS.

GEMARA. [OF THE SEVEN BRANCHES OF THE CANDLESTICK etc.] Why is it so? - Because the expression 'shall be' is used therewith.13

Our Rabbis taught: The candlestick had to be made from one mass and of gold; if it was made from scraps [of gold] it is invalid, but if made from any other metal it is valid. Now why is it invalid if made from scraps? It is, presumably, because Scripture says 'beaten work' and also 'shall be';14 then when made from other metals too it should be invalid, should it not, since Scripture says, 'of gold' and also 'shall be'? - The verse also says, Shall the candlestick be made, to include other metals. Perhaps it is to include scraps! - You cannot think so, for the expression 'shall be' refers to 'beaten work'.15 But does not the expression 'shall the candlestick be made' also refer to 'beaten work'?16 - Scripture stated, Of beaten work, Of beaten work, twice,17 signifying that this condition is indispensable. But is it not also written, Gold, Gold, twice,17 so that this too is indispensable? - What is this that you say? It is well if you hold that if made out of scraps it is invalid and if out of other metal it is valid, for then the repetition of the terms 'gold' and 'beaten work' is made use of in the exposition [which follows]. But if you hold that if made out of scraps it is valid and if out of other metals it is invalid, what use then will you make of the repetition of the terms 'gold' and 'beaten work'?18

What is the exposition [referred to]? - It was taught: Of a talent of pure gold shall it be made, with all these vessels:19 if made of gold it must be a talent [in weight], if not of gold it need not be a talent. Its cups, its knops, and its flowers:20 if made of gold there must then be cups, knops and flowers, if not of gold there need be neither cups nor knops nor flowers. Perhaps I ought also to say, If made of gold there must then be branches, if not of gold there need be no branches! - That would be called a lamp.21 And this was the work of the candlestick, beaten work of gold:22 if of gold it must be beaten work, if not of gold it need not be beaten work. And what use is made of the [second] expression 'beaten work' in this last [verse]? - It serves to exclude the trumpets.23 For it was taught: The trumpets had to be made [each] from one mass and of silver; if made from scraps [of silver] they are valid, if from other metals they are invalid. Now why are they invalid if made from other metals? presumably because it is written 'of silver'24 and also 'shall be';24 then when made from scraps they should also be invalid, should they not, since it is written 'beaten work'24 and 'shall be'? Scripture therefore stated in connection with the candlestick, It was beaten work,22 'it' [was beaten work] but not the trumpets.

Our Rabbis taught: All the vessels

____________________
(1) This was the right and proper position for sprinkling the blood of the Red Cow, and it is valid even though the sprinklings were not quite in the direction of the Holy of Holies.
(2) In which case both the position of the priest who sprinkled the blood and the direction in which it was sprinkled were wrong, and therefore it is invalid.
(3) By reason of the juxtaposition of these two kinds of offering in one verse, Lev. VII, 7: As is the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering, the laws of each are placed on the same footing; and as the sin-offering is rendered invalid if any vital service was performed under any other name but its own, so it is with the guilt-offering too. V. Zeb. 10b.
(4) By the juxtaposition of the log of oil and the guilt-offering of the leper in one verse, ibid. XIV, 21, the further analogy is made: as the guilt-offering is rendered invalid by the performance of any of its vital services under another name (by analogy with the sin-offering, v. prec. n.), so it is too with the service of the sprinkling of the oil in the purification rites of the leper.
(5) So that the ruling in the latter Baraitha is in accordance with the view of the Rabbis.
(6) V. supra p. 179, nn. 7 and 8. It is absolutely disallowed to deduce any law in connection with holy things by the process of double analogy. Cf. Zeb. 49b.
(7) The latter Baraitha implied that the offering was valid, but only to this extent, that the remainder of the log of oil was thereby rendered permitted to the priests.
(8) The former Baraitha by ruling 'they are invalid' merely wished to convey that the sprinklings were not accepted in fulfilment of the leper's obligation; and therefore he is still prohibited from entering the camp of Israel and from eating consecrated food.
(9) Cf. Ex. XXV, 31ff.
(10) V. Glos. The two portions are: Deut. VI, 4-8, and XI, 13-21.
(11) V. Glos. The four portions are: Deut. VI, 4-8; XI, 13-21; Ex. XIII, 1-10 and 11-16.
(12) Cf. Num. XV, 38.
(13) Ex. XXV, 36: Their knops and their branches shall be of one piece with it.
(14) The term 'beaten work' implies hammered out of one piece, and since the expression 'shall be' is added in the verse, this condition of 'beaten work' is indispensable. The expressions used in this exposition are in Ex. XXV, 31: And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made . . . its cup', its knops and its flowers shall be of one piece with it.
(15) Thus ruling out the use of broken pieces.
(16) And therefore by reason of the general and comprehensive expression 'shall the candlestick be made' it should also be permitted if made out of broken pieces, or scraps of gold.
(17) Ibid. vv. 31 and 36.
(18) The force of the argument centres around the term 'beaten work' which is used four times in connection with the candlestick: twice in Ex. XXV (in vv. 31 and 36) and twice in Num: VIII, 4. If it is held that it is invalid if made out of scraps, then this term was stated twice to indicate that this condition was indispensable, and on two more occasions for the purposes given in the following exposition. If, however, it is valid if made out of scraps, then at least in one instance this term is superfluous. V. Sh. Mek a.l.
(19) Ex. ibid. 39.
(20) Ex. XXV, 31.
(21) But not a מנורה, a branched candlestick.
(22) Num. VIII, 4.
(23) Cf. ibid. X. 2ff. Thus the two silver trumpets need not be beaten work.
(24) Ibid.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 28b

which Moses had made were valid for him and valid also for future generations; the trumpets, however, were valid for him but invalid for future generations. What is the reason for the trumpets? Should you say because it is written, Make thee,1 that is, for thyself only but not for future generations; then the verse, And make thee an ark of wood,2 would also signify for thyself only but not for future generations.3 But in fact the expression 'thee' [in the latter verse] means, according to one opinion,4 of thine own, or according to another opinion, 'I would have preferred it to come from thine own rather than from theirs';5 then here6 too it means the same thing! - Here7 it is different, since 'thee' is stated twice: 'Make thee' and 'They shall be unto thee'.8

R. Papa the son of R. Hanin recited the following teaching before R. Joseph: The candlestick had to be made from one mass and of gold; if it was made of silver it is still valid; if of tin or lead or gasitron,9 Rabbi declares it to be invalid, but R. Jose b. Judah declares it to be valid. If it was made of wood or of bone or of glass, all agree that it is invalid. Thereupon he said to him,10 What can be the reason for this?11 He replied, Both masters interpret [the verse] by the principle of 'general proposition and specification',12 but they differ in this: one13 concludes, as the thing specified is clearly a metal, so all metals are permitted; but the other concludes, as the thing specified is a valuable [metal], so only valuable [metals] are permitted.14 Then said [R. Joseph] to him, Set aside your teaching in view of mine, for it has been taught: If vessels of ministry were made of wood, Rabbi declares them invalid, but R. Jose b. Judah declares them valid. In what do they differ? Rabbi interprets [the verse] by the principle of 'general proposition and specification', whereas R. Jose b. Judah interprets it by the principle of 'amplification and limitation'. Rabbi interprets the verse by 'general proposition and specification' thus, And thou shalt make a candlestick15 is a general proposition, 'of pure gold' is a particular specification, 'of beaten work shall the candlestick be made' is another general proposition; we thus have two general propositions separated by a particular specification, in which case you may only include such things as are similar to the thing specified, and as the thing specified is clearly a metal so all metals are included. R. Jose b. Judah on the other hand interprets the verse by 'amplification and limitation' thus, 'And thou shalt make a candlestick' is an amplifying proposition, 'of pure gold' is a limitation, 'of beaten work shall the candlestick be made' is another amplifying proposition; we thus have two amplifying propositions separated by a limitation, in which case they include [well-nigh] everything. What do they include? Everything.16 And what do they exclude? Earthenware.17 On the contrary, Set aside your teaching because of mine! - You cannot say so,18 for it was taught: If there was no gold available for it,19 it may be made of silver, of copper, of iron, of tin or of lead. R. Jose b. Judah allows it even of wood. And another Baraitha also taught: A man may not make a house after the design of the Temple, or a porch after the design of the Temple porch, or a courtyard after the design of the Temple court, or a table after the design of the table [in the Temple], or a candlestick after the design of the candlestick [in the Temple]. He may, however, make one with five, six or eight [branches], but with seven he may not make one, even though it be of other metal.20 R. Jose b. Judah says, He should not make one even of wood, for thus did the Hasmonean kings make it.21 But [the Rabbis] said to him, Is any proof to be deduced from that? In fact it was made of iron bars which they overlaid with tin;22 when they [the Hasmoneans] grew richer they made one of silver, and when they grew still richer they made one of gold.

Samuel said in the name of an old scholar, The height of the candlestick was eighteen handbreadths: three handbreadths for the base and the flower upon it,23 two handbreadths plain,24 one handbreadth for cup, knop and flower, again two handbreadths plain, one handbreadth for a knop out of which two branches come forth, one on each side, extending and rising to the same height as the candlestick, then one handbreadth plain, one handbreadth for a knop out of which two branches come forth, one on each side, extending and rising to the same height as the candlestick, then again one handbreadth plain, and one handbreadth for a knop out of which two branches come forth, one on each side, extending and rising to the same height as the candlestick, and then two handbreadths plain; there now remained25 three handbreadths, in which space were three cups, a knop and a flower. The cups were like Alexandrian goblets,26 the knops like Cretan apples, and the flowers like the blossoms around the capitals of columns. It will be found, therefore, that there were twenty-two cups, eleven knops, and nine flowers. Of the cups the [omission of] one invalidates the others, of the knops the [omission of] one invalidates the others, and of the flowers the [omission of] one invalidates the others; moreover, of the cups, the knops and the flowers, the [omission of] one kind invalidates the others. It is quite clear that there were twenty-two cups, for it is written, And in the candlestick were four cups,27 and it is also written, Three cups like almond-blossoms in one branch, a knop and a flower;28 so that its own four29

____________________
(1) Ibid.
(2) Deut. X, 1.
(3) But this was not the case, for the same ark which Moses had made was used in the future generations.
(4) V. Yoma 3b.
(5) If only this were possible; but it is not since it is the duty of the whole community to provide it. In cur. edd. the expression 'as though it were possible' (the usual expression used when referring to God in anthropomorphic terms) is here inserted, but it is not found in any MS., and indeed it is quite unnecessary here.
(6) In the case of the trumpets.
(7) In the case of the trumpets.
(8) Num. X, 2.
(9) גסיטרון, prob. ** tin; perhaps of a special kind, as distinguished from צעץ, ordinary tin.
(10) R. Joseph said to R. Papa.
(11) This distinction in R. Jose b. Judah, according to which it is valid if made of lead or of tin, but invalid if made of wood.
(12) V. infra.
(13) R. Jose b. Judah.
(14) Rabbi therefore excludes lead and tin, and also wood.
(15) Ex. XXV, 31.
(16) All substances, even wood.
(17) Since it is of little value. This Baraitha, according to which R. Jose allows all substances except earthenware, and Rabbi allows all metals, overrides the former Baraitha quoted by R. Papa.
(18) For according to R. Papa's teaching R. Jose does not allow wood, but this is in conflict with the two Baraithas which follow.
(19) Sc. the candlestick.
(20) Since the seven-branched candlestick of the Temple was permitted to be made of other metals too, and even of wood according to R. Jose b. Judah.
(21) Sc. the Temple candlestick, after they had retaken and purified the Temple.
(22) Many MSS. read: 'with wood'.
(23) V. infra, p. 185, n. 6.
(24) I.e., without any ornamentation.
(25) In the central or main shaft of the candlestick.
(26) Which were wide at the top and tapered down towards the base.
(27) Ex. XXV, 34; the reference being to the central shaft.
(28) Ibid. 33.
(29) I.e., of the central shaft.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 29a

and the eighteen of the [six] branches make twenty-two. It is also clear that there were eleven knops, for the knops thereof implies two, and six of the [six] branches and the knop [from which the first pair of branches rose], and the knop [from which the second pair rose], and the knop [from which the third pair rose], thus making a total of eleven. But how do we arrive at nine flowers? Its own two and the six of the [six] branches make only eight? - R. Salmon said, It is written, Unto the base thereof, and unto the flowers thereof, it was beaten work.1

Rab said, The height of the candlestick was nine handbreadths. Thereupon R. Shimi b. Hiyya raised the following objection to Rab. We have learnt:2 There was a stone before the candlestick in which were three steps; on this the priest stood to trim the lamps.3 He answered, You, Shimi!4 I meant only from the point where the branches begin [to rise] and upwards.5

It is written, And the flowers, and the lamps and the tongs, of gold, of finished gold.6 What is meant by 'finished gold'? R. Ammi said, They finished up all Solomon's fine gold.7 For Rab Judah said in Rab's name, Solomon had made ten candlesticks, and for each one he had used one thousand talents of gold; each had been cast in the furnace one thousand times so that it was reduced to one talent.8 But surely it is not so, for it is written, And all King Solomon's drinking vessels were of gold, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon were of pure gold; none were of silver; it was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon!9 - We said Solomon's fine gold [was finished up]. And would it lose so much?10 Surely it has been taught: R. Jose b. Judah said, It once happened that the candlestick which was used in the Temple was found to be larger than that made by Moses by a Gordian11 golden denar; thereupon it was cast eighty times into the furnace so that it was brought down to a talent! - Since it had been made long ago it would remain in that condition.12

R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan, What is the meaning of the expression, 'Upon the pure candlestick'?13 It signifies that its pattern came down from the place of purity.14 Will you then say that the expression 'Upon the pure table'15 also signifies that its pattern came down from the place of purity? One would rather say that 'pure' [in the latter case] implies that it can contract uncleanness; then [in the former case] too 'pure' implies that it can contract uncleanness? - [This does not follow at all,] for it is right to say so there [in regard to the table] because of Resh Lakish's exposition. For Resh Lakish said, What is the meaning of the expression 'upon the pure table'? It signifies that it can contract uncleanness. But is not [the table] an article of wood made to rest, and an article of wood made to rest cannot contract uncleanness? This proves that they used to lift it up and exhibit the Shewbread on it to those who came up for the festivals, saying to them, Behold, God's love for you!16 (Wherein is seen 'God's love for you'? - It is as R. Joshua b. Levi had stated. For R. Joshua b. Levi had stated, A great miracle was wrought in regard to the Shewbread, for at its removal it was as [fresh as when] it was set,17 as it is written, To put hot bread in the day that it was taken away.)18 But in this case [of the candlestick], to say that the term 'pure' implies that it can contract uncleanness is too obvious [and unnecessary], for it is a metal vessel and metal vessels certainly contract uncleanness! We must therefore say that its pattern came down from the place of purity.

It was taught: R. Jose b. Judah says, An ark of fire and a table of fire and a candlestick of fire came down from heaven; and these Moses saw and reproduced, as it is written, And see that thou make them after their pattern, which is being shown thee in the mount.19 Will you then say the same [of the tabernacle], for it is written, And thou shalt rear up the tabernacle according to the fashion thereof which hath been shown thee in the mount!20 - Here it is written 'according to the fashion thereof', whilst there 'after their pattern'.21

R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan, The angel Gabriel had girded himself with a kind of belt22 and demonstrated unto Moses the work of the candlestick, for it is written, And this was the work of the candlestick.23

A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael stated, Three things presented difficulties to Moses, until the Holy One, blessed be He, showed Moses with His finger, and these are they: the candlestick, the new moon,24 and the creeping things.25 The candlestick, as it is written, And this was the work of the candlestick. The new moon, as it is written, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months.26 The creeping things, as it is written, And these are they which are unclean.27 Others add, Also the rules for slaughtering [beasts], as it is written, Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar.28

OF THE TWO PORTIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE MEZUZAH THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER; INDEED EVEN ONE [IMPERFECT] LETTER CAN INVALIDATE THE WHOLE. Is not this obvious?29 - Rab Judah answered in the name of Rab, The law had to be taught in respect of the tittle of the letter yod.30 And is not this, too, obvious?31 - It had to be taught in regard to the other statement of Rab Judah in the name of Rab. For Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, Any letter that is not surrounded on all four sides by a margin of parchment is invalid.32

Ashian b. Nidbak said in the name of Rab Judah, If the inner [leg] of the letter he33 was perforated, it is still valid; if the [right] leg was perforated it is invalid. R. Zera said, This was explained to me by R. Huna - and R. Jacob said, This too was explained to me by Rab Judah - as follows: If the inner [leg] of the he was perforated, it is still valid; if the [right] leg was perforated and there still remained thereof the size of a small letter,34 it is valid; otherwise it is invalid.

It once happened to Agra, the father-in-law of R. Abba,

____________________
(1) Num. VIII, 4. The flower (in the Heb. פרחה, in the sing.) in this verse is in addition to those mentioned in Ex. XXV, 31ff; hence there were nine. This extra flower was placed at the foot of the candlestick close to the pedestal.
(2) Tam. III, 9.
(3) And if the entire height of the candlestick was only nine handbreadths, then surely the priest had no need of stone or steps to reach it.
(4) Rab expresses surprise at his pupil Shimi who puts to him a question whose answer is only too obvious.
(5) And as this point was in the centre of the candlestick, there were nine handbreadths from it to the top, and similarly from this point to the base; so that Rab's view is entirely in accord with Samuel's supra.
(6) II Chr. IV, 21. The Heb. expression מכלות זהב, in E.VV. 'perfect gold', is very difficult; hence the suggestion in the Gemara.
(7) Deriving מכלות from כלה 'to complete, exhaust, finish up'.
(8) This lavish and extravagant use of gold would naturally exhaust all his gold, however great his supply was.
(9) I Kings X, 21. It is evident that Solomon had an unlimited supply.
(10) By repeated refinings to be reduced from one thousand talents to one talent.
(11) Cur. edd. קורדיקני; v. Jast. s.v. גורדײני. The word is omitted in MS.M.
(12) I.e., since it had been well wrought and refined in Solomon's days, when centuries later it was cast eighty times into the furnace it would not then have lost very much.
(13) Lev. XXIV, 4.
(14) I.e., from Heaven. The pattern of the candlestick was shown by God unto Moses; v. infra.
(15) Ibid. 6.
(16) The table was therefore mobile and not regarded as a vessel made to rest; consequently it could contract uncleanness. It is right therefore that the term 'pure' in connection with the table should mean free from uncleanness.
(17) When the Shewbread was removed after having remained seven days upon the table it was as fresh as on the day when it was placed thereon.
(18) I Sam. XXI, 7. The Heb. חם 'hot' is interpreted as referring to the bread that was taken away, thus indicating that it was still fresh and hot.
(19) Ex. XXV, 40.
(20) Ibid. XXVI, 30.
(21) The latter expression signifies that a model or picture was actually shown to Moses, whereas the former expression signifies merely that the tabernacle was to be constructed in accordance with the instructions and directions received by Moses.
(22) After the manner of artificers who tie up their clothes with a belt or girdle when engaged upon delicate work so as not to be hampered in their work.
(23) Num. VIII, 4. The term 'this' implies that something was held up as a pattern or model to illustrate the instructions given.
(24) The proper observance of the first appearance of the new moon.
(25) The identification of the clean and unclean reptiles.
(26) Ex. XII, 2.
(27) Lev. XI, 29.
(28) Ex. XXIX, 38. And as the first act of the offering is the slaughtering the expression 'this' clearly refers to an actual demonstration unto Moses of the rules and regulations of slaughtering.
(29) That one imperfect letter can invalidate the whole. For the law insists upon perfect writing in Scrolls of the Law, tefillin, and mezuzah.
(30) I.e., even if the lower (according to Tosaf. 'the upper') stroke of the letter yod was missing, it is invalid.
(31) Since without the stroke it is no yod and it would not be recognizable as such.
(32) The letter must not be joined to or run into either the preceding or following letters, but must be surrounded by a blank margin of the parchment.
(33) I.e., the left or detached leg of the letter ה. It is referred to as inner for in early MSS. this leg was almost in the middle of the letter. Aliter: the inner space of the letter.
(34) I.e., the upper part of the leg was still joined to the roof of the letter, thus ה, so that it can be read as a he, although reduced in size.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 29b

that the [right] leg of the letter he in the word ha'am1 had been severed by a perforation; whereupon he came to R. Abba who ruled that if there still remained thereof the size of a small letter it is valid, otherwise it is invalid.

It once happened to Rami b. Tamre, also known as2 Rami b. Dikule, that the leg of the letter wow in the word wa-yaharog3 had been severed by a perforation; whereupon he came to R. Zera who said, Go, fetch a child that is neither too clever nor too foolish; if he is able to read the word as wa-yaharog, it is valid; otherwise, the word is yaharog4 and it is invalid.

Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, When Moses ascended on high he found the Holy One, blessed be He, engaged in affixing coronets to the letters.5 Said Moses, 'Lord of the Universe, Who stays Thy hand?'6 He answered, 'There will arise a man, at the end of many generations, Akiba b. Joseph by name, who will expound upon each tittle heaps and heaps of laws'. 'Lord of the Universe', said Moses; 'permit me to see him'. He replied, 'Turn thee round'. Moses went and sat down behind eight rows7 [and listened to the discourses upon the law]. Not being able to follow their arguments he was ill at ease, but when they came to a certain subject and the disciples said to the master 'Whence do you know it?' and the latter replied 'It is a law given unto Moses at Sinai' he was comforted. Thereupon he returned to the Holy One, blessed be He, and said, 'Lord of the Universe, Thou hast such a man and Thou givest the Torah by me!' He replied, 'Be silent, for such is My decree'.8 Then said Moses, 'Lord of the Universe, Thou hast shown me his Torah, show me his reward'. 'Turn thee round', said He; and Moses turned round and saw them weighing out his flesh at the market-stalls.9 'Lord of the Universe', cried Moses, 'such Torah, and such a reward!' He replied, 'Be silent, for such is My decree'.

Raba said, There are seven letters which require each three strokes, and these are they: shin, 'ayin, teth, nun, zayin, gimmel, and zadde.10

R. Ashi said, I have observed that scribes who are most particular add a vertical stroke to the roof of the letter heth,11 and suspend the [inner] leg of the letter he. They add a vertical stroke to the roof of the letter heth, signifying thereby that He lives in the heights of the word.12 And they suspend the [inner] leg of the letter he for the reason given in the following discussion. For R. Judah the patriarch asked R. Ammi, What is the meaning of the verse, Trust ye in the Lord for ever; for in Yah the Lord is an everlasting rock?13 He replied, It implies that if one puts his trust in the Holy One, blessed be He, behold He is unto him as a refuge in this world and in the world to come. This, retorted the other, was my difficulty: why does the verse say in Yah and not Yah? The reason is as was expounded by R. Judah b. R. Ila'i. [Yah, he said,] refers to the two worlds which the Holy One, blessed be He, created, one with the letter he and the other with the letter yod. Yet I do not know whether the future world was created with the yod and this world with the he or this world with the yod and the future world with the he; but since it is written, These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created:14 read not be-hibare'am,15 when they were created, but be-he bera'am,16 He created them with the he; hence I may say that this world was created with the he and the future world with the yod. And wherefore was this world created with the he? - Because it is like an exedra17 and whosoever wishes to go astray18 may do so. And wherefore is the [left] leg [of the he] suspended? - To indicate that whosoever repents is permitted to re-enter.19 And why should he not re-enter by the same [way as he went out]? - Such an opportunity would not arise;20 and this is consistent with Resh Lakish's view. For Resh Lakish said, What is the meaning of the verse, If it concerneth the scorners, He scorneth them, but unto the humble He giveth grace?21 If a man comes to purify himself, they assist him; but if he comes to defile himself, they open the door for him. And wherefore has [the letter he] a coronet? - Because the Holy One, blessed be He, says, If a man repents I will set a crown upon him. And why was the future world created with the letter yod? - Because the righteous men therein are but few.22 And why is its head bent low? - Because the righteous men therein hang their heads low, for the good deeds of one are not like [the good deeds of] the other.23

R. Joseph said, Rab gave two rulings in connection with scrolls [of the Law] but to each there is a refutation. The first is this: Rab said, If a scroll of the Law has two mistakes in every column it may be corrected, but if three, it must be hidden away. And the refutation [is from the following]. It was taught: If three it may be corrected, but if four it must be hidden away.

A Tanna taught: If there was one column free from mistakes it saves the whole scroll.24 R. Isaac b. Samuel b. Martha said in the name of Rab, provided only the scroll was for the most part written correctly. Abaye asked R. Joseph, How is it if in that column there were three mistakes?25 - He replied, Since it is permitted to correct them they are regarded as already corrected.

This rule26 applies only when letters are missing, but when there are too many letters it does not matter.27 And why is it not so when letters are missing?28 - R. Kahana answered, Because it would look speckled.29 Agra, the father-in-law of R. Abba, had a scroll in which there were additional letters, so he came to R. Abba who told him the law: This rule applies only when letters are missing,

____________________
(1) העם, Ex. XIII, 3, in connection with the tefillin (Rashi).
(2) So in all MSS. and early edd. and so emended by Sh. Mek. Cur. edd. 'the father-in-law of'.
(3) I.e., the initial waw in ויהרג (meaning 'and he killed'), occurring in one of the Scriptural portions of the Tefillin, in Ex. XIII, 15.
(4) יהרג. Strictly speaking ײהרג which would be read as yehareg (meaning 'will be killed') and being followed by 'the Lord' would have a blasphemous connotation.
(5) These are the Taggin, i.e., three small strokes written on top of the letters שעטנזגץ in the form of a crown. V. infra Raba's statement, and note thereon.
(6) I.e., is there anything wanting in the Torah that these additions are necessary?
(7) Of R. Akiba's disciples.
(8) Lit., 'so it has come to My mind'.
(9) R. Akiba died a martyr's death at the hands of the Romans during the Hadrianic persecution. V. Ber. 61b.
(10) שעטנזגץ. V. supra n. 2. There is diversity of opinion as to the proper placing of these strokes. V. Tosaf a.l. In the Scrolls of the Law used at the present time in Ashkenazic communities the form of ornamentation is this, e.g., ש.
(11) Here, too, there are diverse opinions as to the form. The word חטרי which has been translated in the text, following Rashi, by 'add a vertical stroke' from חוטרא, 'a stick', may also mean 'make hump-like', from חטרתא 'the camel's hump'. The form of this letter in Scrolls of the present day is ח.
(12) The letter heth is the initial letter of the word חי, 'He lives', and the stroke or tower above indicates that the abode of the living God is on high.
(13) Isa. XXVI, 4. The latter half of the verse reads כי ביה ה צור עולמים and this is interpreted as meaning 'for with Yah (i.e., with the letters yod and he) the Lord formed the worlds.'
(14) Gen. II, 4.
(15) בהבראם.
(16) בהי בראם.
(17) The world is like an exedra, i.e., closed on three sides and open on the fourth (v. B.B. 25a and b); and so, too, is the letter he. Hence it was most appropriate for this world to be created by the letter he.
(18) Sc. from the right path; i.e., to be rebellious.
(19) Through the small opening at the side.
(20) The repentant sinner requires encouragement and support, so that an additional entrance is made ready for him.
(21) Prov. III, 34.
(22) The letter yod is the smallest letter of the alphabet, and in shape its head droops downwards.
(23) So that each feels a certain sense of shame in the presence of the other.
(24) Even though in the other columns there are very many mistakes. Of course the mistakes have to he corrected.
(25) Is this column to be regarded as free from mistakes since the three mistakes in it may be corrected?
(26) That a scroll with four mistakes in each column must be hidden away.
(27) Since the additional letters can easily be erased.
(28) The missing letters can surely be inserted.
(29) The insertion of missing letters above the lines would make the whole look irregular.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 30a

but when there are additional letters it does not matter.

The other ruling of Rab is this: Rab said, He who is writing a scroll of the Law and has reached the end may finish off even in the middle of the column. And an objection is raised from the following: He who is writing a scroll of the Law and has reached the end may not finish off in the middle of the column as one does with other books, but he should reduce each line as he goes on until he reaches the end of the column! - Rab was referring to other books. But he says 'a scroll of the Law'! - He meant the books of the Law.1 But this cannot be so, for R. Joshua b. Abba cited R. Giddal who said it in the name of Rab, The words 'in the sight of all Israel'2 are to be written in the middle of the column! - He means the middle of the line.3

It was stated: The Rabbis say, [One may finish] even in the middle of the line;4 but R. Ashi says, [One may finish] only in the middle of the line.3 And the law is: Only in the middle of the line.

R. Joshua b. Abba cited R. Giddal who said it in the name of Rab, The last eight verses of the Torah must be read [in the Synagogue service] by one person alone.5 Whose view is followed here? It surely is not R. Simeon's, for it was taught:6 It is written, So Moses the servant of the Lord died there.7 Now is it possible that Moses whilst still alive would have written, 'So Moses . . . died there'? The truth is, however, that up to this point Moses wrote, from this point Joshua the son of Nun wrote. This is the opinion of R. Judah, or, according to others, of R. Nehemiah. Said R. Simeon to him, Can we imagine the scroll of the law being short of one letter? Is it not written, Take this book of the Law, and put it etc.?8 We must say that up to this point the Holy One, blessed be He, dictated and Moses repeated and wrote, and from this point the Holy One, blessed be He, dictated and Moses wrote9 with tears [in his eyes], as it says of another occasion, Then Baruch answered them, He pronounced all these words to me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book.10 Must we then say that the view stated is not in accordance with R. Simeon?11 - You may even say that it follows the view of R. Simeon, for since they differ [from the rest of the Torah] in one way, they differ in another.12

R. Joshua b. Abba again cited R. Giddal who said in the name of Rab, He who buys a scroll of the Law in the market is regarded as one that has seized a precept in the market, but he who writes it, him the Scripture regards as if he had received it at mount Sinai. R. Shesheth said, Even if he corrected but one letter he is regarded as if he had written it.

(Mnemonic 'A.G.L.M.).13 Our Rabbis taught: A man should use sheets [of parchment] which contain from three to eight columns; he should not use one which contains less columns or more.14 And he should not put in too many columns15 for it would look like an epistle, nor too few columns16 for the eyes would wander;17 but [the width of the column should equal] the word lemishpehothekem written three times.18 If a man happened to possess a sheet with nine columns, he should not divide it [into two sheets of] three and six columns, but [into sheets of] four and five columns.19 These rules apply only [to sheets] at the beginning [or in the middle] of the scroll, but at the end of the scroll even one verse or one column [may take up the whole sheet]. One verse! Surely you cannot mean that!20 - Say rather: One verse in one column.21 The width of the margin below shall be one handbreadth, above three fingerbreadths, and between one column and the other the space of two fingerbreadths. In books of the Law22 the margin below shall be three fingerbreadths, above two fingerbreadths, and between one column and the other the space of a thumb-breadth. Between each line there must be the space of a line, between each word the width of a letter, and between each letter a hairbreadth. A man should not reduce the size of the script on account of the margin above or below,23 or on account of the space between one line and another, or the requisite space between one section and another. If [when almost at the end of a line] he has to write a word of five letters he must not write two letters in the column and three outside,

____________________
(1) I.e., each of the first four books of the Torah may finish in the middle of a column, but the fifth book which would complete the scroll of the Law, Rab agrees, must be written in the form of a colophon gradually reducing the lines so as to reach the end of the column.
(2) These are the last words of the Torah.
(3) But at the end of the column. I.e., the last words in the last line of the column are written in the middle of the line.
(4) And also in the middle of the column (Rashi; but v. Sh. Mek. a.l.).
(5) These verses may not be divided into two portions to be read by two persons.
(6) B.B. 15a.
(7) Deut. XXXIV, 5.
(8) Ibid. XXXI, 26, said by Moses before he died. If then Moses did not complete the Torah he would not have referred to it as the book of the Law.
(9) But did not repeat the words as heretofore, because of his grief.
(10) Jer. XXXVI, 18. Baruch the scribe when writing down the Lamentations as spoken by Jeremiah did not repeat the words because of the grief they caused him.
(11) For since these verses were, according to R. Simeon, written by Moses they should in no wise be different from any other section in the Torah; accordingly it should be permitted to divide these verses into two portions.
(12) These verses have a special law since they were written in special circumstances.
(13) A mnemonic made up of the characteristic Hebrew letters of the rules which follow.
(14) As each sheet was sewn to the others it is advisable for the sake of utility not to have the seams too near or too far apart from each other.
(15) I.e., the maximum number of columns (8) in a small sheet.
(16) I.e., the minimum number of columns (3) in a large sheet.
(17) For the length of the line in each column would he unduly large and the eyes would stray so that the reader would be in doubt as to which line he must read next.
(18) למשפחותיכם. I.e., thirty letters.
(19) So as to make the sheets as far as is possible of similar width.
(20) Since it is necessary to end at the foot of the column, how is it conceivable to fill the whole sheet with one verse?
(21) I.e., the column may be made very narrow, perhaps with only one word on each line, or even enlarging the script, so as to fill up the whole column.
(22) חומשים, also written in scroll form but not intended to be used for the Synagogue service.
(23) The size of the script should be uniform in the column and should not be reduced on the first or last lines so as to obtain the proper marginal space above or below.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 30b

but three in the column and two outside.1 If [when he has come to the end of the line] he has to 'write a word of two letters, he may not insert it between the columns but must write the word at the beginning of the next line.

If [the scribe] omitted the Name of God [and had already written the next word], he should erase the word that was written and insert it above the line, and should write the Name upon the erasure. This is the opinion of R. Judah. R. Jose says, He may even insert the Name above the line. R. Isaac says, He may even wipe away2 [the word that was written] and write [the Name in its place]. R. Simeon of Shezur says, He may write the whole Name above the line but not a part of it. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says in the name of R. Meir, He may write the Name neither upon an erasure nor upon a word that has been wiped away, neither may he insert it above the line. What must he do then? He must remove the whole sheet and hide it away.

It was stated: R. Hananel said in the name of Rab, The halachah is that he may insert the Name above the line. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Isaac b. Samuel, The halachah is that he may wipe away [the written word] and write [the Name in its place]. Why does not R. Hananel say that the halachah follows this Master,3 and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah say that it follows the other Master?4 - Because there is another reading which reverses the names.5

Rabin b. Hinena said in the name of 'Ulla who had it from R. Hanina, The halachah is in accordance with R. Simeon of Shezur.6 Moreover, wherever R. Simeon of Shezur stated his view the halachah is in accordance with it. In what connection was this ruling [of R. Hanina] stated? Should you say in connection with the above: 'R. Simeon of Shezur says, He may write the whole Name above the line but not a part of it'; but since it has been reported in that connection that R. Hananel said in the name of Rab, The halachah is that he may insert the Name above the line, and that Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Isaac b. Samuel, The halachah is that he may wipe away [the written word] and write [the Name in its place], if then [R. Hanina's ruling was stated in connection with the above Baraitha], he should have also stated his view [together with the others]!7 - Rather it was stated in connection with the following: 'R. Simeon of Shezur says, Even if it8 is five years old and is ploughing in the field it is still rendered clean by reason of the slaughtering of its dam'.9 But since it was reported in that connection that Ze'iri said in the name of R. Hanina, The halachah follows R. Simeon of Shezur, if this were so then he also should have said it there!10 - Rather it was stated in connection with the following: At first it was held: If a man whilst being led out in chains [to execution] said, 'Write out a bill of divorce for my wife', it was to be written and also to be delivered to her.11 Later they laid down that the same rule applied to one who was leaving on a sea journey or setting out with a caravan. R. Simeon of Shezur says, It also applies to a man who was dangerously ill. Or [it was stated] in connection with the following:12 If the terumah13 which had been separated from the tithe of demai13 produce fell back into its place,14 R. Simeon of Shezur says, Even on a weekday one need only ask [the seller] about it and eat it by his word.15 But since it was reported in that connection that R. Johanan said, The halachah follows R. Simeon of Shezur in the case of 'The dangerous ill man' and in 'The terumah separated from the tithe of demai produce',16 if this were so then he too should have said it there. - Rather it was stated in connection with the following: R. Jose b. Kippar says in the name of R. Simeon of Shezur, If Egyptian beans had been sown only for seed17 and part of them had taken root before the New Year and part after the New Year, one may not then separate terumah and the tithes from one part on behalf of the other, for one may not separate terumah and tithes from new produce on behalf of the old or from old produce on behalf of the new. What then should one do? One should collect the whole crop into one heap [and then separate the terumah and the tithes from it], so that the new produce in the terumah or tithe would be deemed to be taken in respect of the new produce that is left in the heap, and the old produce in the terumah or tithe would be deemed to be in respect of the old produce that is left in the heap. But since it was reported in that connection that R. Samuel b. Nahmani said In the name of R. Johanan, The halachah follows R. Simeon of Shezur, if this were so, then he too should have said it there! - In fact, said R. Papa, it was stated in connection with the case of the 'Chest'. R. Nahman b. Isaac said, It was stated in connection with the case of the 'Wine'. R. Papa said

____________________
(1) If therefore there is sufficient space for three letters he may write the word allowing two letters to encroach upon the margin; but if there is not sufficient space for three letters he must write the whole word in the next line.
(2) Whilst the ink is still moist. The writing upon such a surface would not be as clear and distinct as upon an erased surface.
(3) Sc. R. Jose.
(4) Sc. R. Isaac.
(5) I.e., the opinions assigned to R. Jose and R. Isaac are reversed; hence it was necessary when stating the halachah to report the actual decision.
(6) In Upper Galilee.
(7) I.e., with R. Hananel and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah.
(8) Sc. an animal which was extracted alive out of the womb after the slaughtering of its dam.
(9) Hul. 74b.
(10) I.e., if R. Hanina's ruling was stated in connection with the above quoted Mishnah then Rabin b. Hinena should also have stated his tradition of the halachah alongside with Ze'iri in Hul. l.c.
(11) Even though he gave no instructions that it was to be delivered to his wife. It is assumed that he intended it to be delivered to her but omitted to say so owing to his perturbed state of mind. Git. 65b.
(12) Demai IV, 1.
(13) V. Glos.
(14) I.e., it was mixed up with ordinary 'common' produce. The mixture now may be eaten only by priests and would have to be sold to the priest at a low price, so that the loss to the owner is considerable.
(15) In the special circumstances, because of the loss involved and the produce being demai (i.e., produce that had been bought from an 'am ha-arez who was not trusted with regard to the separation of the tithes), the Rabbis permitted the owner to enquire of the seller about it and to rely upon his word if the seller assured him that he had separated the various dues. If this occurred on the Sabbath it would certainly be permitted to ask the seller about the produce and to rely upon his word, for the honour of the Sabbath (v. Dem. l.c.), but according to R. Simeon of Shezur this is permitted even on a weekday.
(16) Keth. 55a, and Hul. 75b.
(17) In which case they become subject to terumah and tithes from the moment they take root; v. R.H. 13b.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 31a

in connection with the 'Chest', for we have learnt:1 A chest, say Beth Shammai, should be measured on the inside;2 but Beth Hillel say, On the outside.3 They agree, however, that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the rim should not be included in the measurement. R. Jose says, They agree that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the rim should be included, but that the space between them should not be included. R. Simeon of Shezur says, If the legs were a handbreadth high the space between them should not be included, but if less, it should be included in the measurement. R. Nahman b. Isaac said in connection with 'Wine', for we have learnt:4 R. Meir says, Oil [when rendered unclean] is always unclean in the first degree.5 The Sages say, Honey also. R. Simeon of Shezur says, Wine also. Are 'we to infer that the first Tanna holds that it is not so with wine?6 - Render: R. Simeon of Shezur says, [Only] wine.

It was taught: R. Simeon of Shezur related, Once my untithed produce got mixed up with tithed produce,7 so I went and asked R. Tarfon about it and he advised me, Go and buy some [demai8 produce] in the market and separate the tithes from it on behalf of the mixture too.9 He10 evidently was of the opinion that11 the majority of 'amme ha-arez8 separate the tithes, so that in this case he would be taking the tithe from what is exempt [from the tithe by the law of the Torah] in respect of what is also exempt [by the Torah]. But why did he not advise him, Go and buy produce from a gentile?12 - Because he holds that a gentile cannot own land in the land of Israel so fully as to release it from the obligation of tithe13 so that he would be taking the tithe from what was subject [to tithe by the Torah] in respect of what was exempt.

Another version states: He advised him, Go and buy produce from a gentile. Evidently he was of the opinion that a gentile can own land so fully in the land of Israel as to release it from the obligation of tithe, so that in this case he would be taking the tithe from what is exempt [by the Torah] in respect of what is exempt too. And why did he not advise him, God and buy' [demai produce] in the market? - Because he holds that the majority of amme ha-arez do not separate the tithes.14

R. Yemar b. Shelemya sent the following question to R. Papa: Does the ruling of Rabin b. Hinena who cited 'Ulla in the name of R. Hanina, namely, that the halachah was in accordance with R. Simeon of Shezur; and moreover, that wherever R. Simeon of Shezur stated his view the halachah was in accordance with it, include that case where untithed produce got mixed up with tithed produce? He replied, It does. R. Ashi said, Mar Zutra told me that R. Hanina of Sura was puzzled at the question. It is obvious, said he;

____________________
(1) Kel. XVIII, 1.
(2) To determine its capacity. If it can hold forty se'ahs liquid or two kors dry ware it is not susceptible to uncleanness, for it is no longer deemed to be a 'vessel'.
(3) I.e., the sides of the chest and the top and bottom are to be included in the measurement.
(4) Toh. III, 2.
(5) For with whatever grade of uncleanness a liquid came into contact, whether with a primary source of uncleanness or with what was unclean in the first or second degree, it will always be unclean in the first degree. Cf. Pes. 14b.
(6) Surely all agree that wine is a liquid and the above principle (v. prec. note) applies.
(7) And since the greater part of this mixture was tithed produce the whole is deemed by the law of the Torah to be tithed produce, and is not subject to any further tithe at all. It is, however, subject to tithe by Rabbinic law. The interpretation adopted here is the second given by Rashi, which is indeed preferred by him.
(8) V. Glos.
(9) Demai produce, too, is exempt from tithe by the law of the Torah (because we adopt the majority principle and the majority of 'amme ha-arez separate the tithes), but is subject to it only by Rabbinic law. It is therefore identical with the produce of the mixture.
(10) R. Tarfon.
(11) The words 'According to the law of the Torah a substance loses its identity when mixed in a larger quantity' found here in the text are omitted in all MSS., and are struck out here by Sh. Mek.
(12) Produce grown in a field belonging to a gentile is, it is assumed for the present, exempt by the law of the Torah from the tithe, but is subject to it only 'by Rabbinic law.
(13) The produce of his field is therefore subject to the tithe by the law of the Torah.
(14) So he would then be taking the tithe from what was subject to tithe by the law of the Torah in respect of what was exempt by the law of the Torah

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 31b

for does it say 'Wherever he stated his view in the Mishnah'? It simply says, 'Wherever he stated his view'.

R. Ze'ira said in the name of R. Hananel who said it in the name of Rab, If a rent [in a scroll of the Law] extended into two lines [of the script] it may be sown together; but if into three lines it may not be sewn together.1 Rabbah the younger said to R. Ashi, Thus said R. Jeremiah of Difti in the name of Raba: The rule that we have laid down, namely, that if it extended into three lines it may not be sewn together, applies only to old scrolls; but in the case of new scrolls it would not matter.2 Moreover 'old' does not mean actually old, nor 'new' actually new, but the one means prepared with gall-nut juice3 and the other means not so prepared. It is [permitted to sew it] only with sinews but not with thread.

R. Judah b. Abba raised the question: How is it if [the rent extended] between the columns4 or between one line and another? - This remains unanswered.

R. Ze'iri said in the name of R. Hananel who cited it in the name of Rab, If a mezuzah5 was written in lines consisting of two words each it is valid. The question was raised: How is it if the first line consisted of two words, the second of three, and the third of one word?6 - R. Nahman b. Isaac answered, Certainly [it is valid], for it has merely been written like the song.7 An objection was raised: If he wrote it like the song or the song like it, it is invalid! - That was taught in connection with a scroll of the Law.

It has also been reported: Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan (others say: R. Aha b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan), If the mezuzah was written [in lines of unequal length consisting of] two words, three words, and one word, it is valid, provided it was not in the form of a tent, nor tail-like.8

R. Hisda said, The words, 'above the earth'9 must be [alone] in the last line. Some say [they must be written] at the end of the line, others say at the beginning. 'Some say, at the end of the line', for it is written, As the heaven is high above the earth.10 'Others say, at the beginning', as the heaven is far from the earth.11

R. Helbo said, I have seen R. Huna rolling up the mezuzah beginning at 'one' and finishing at 'hear';12 moreover, he left [the space between] the sections closed.13 An objection was raised: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said, R. Meir used to write [the mezuzah] on duksustus,14 in the form of a column,

____________________
(1) But the whole sheet of parchment must be removed.
(2) And no matter how far the rent extended, it may be sewn together again.
(3) In that case even though old it is strong, and will withstand any rent, and therefore it may be sewn together again. This is the interpretation according to Alfasi, Hil. Sef. Tor., and Maim. Yad, Sef. Tor. IX, 15. Rashi explains: if treated with gall-nut juice it becomes darkened and is at once regarded as old. A very difficult explanation.
(4) I.e., to such an extent that had it been in a column it would have gone beyond three lines of script. The question is whether it may be sewn together or not.
(5) V. Glos.
(6) The lines were of unequal length thus: **
(7) Sc. the song of Moses, Ex. XV. In the first column of the song the lines are of unequal length, v. Meg. 16b.
(8) The words in the consecutive lines must not increase in a regular order, that is, like a tent, narrow above and wide below thus: ** nor decrease in a regular order, that is, tapering off like a tail thus: ** V. Sh. Mek. notes 5 and 6.
(9) Deut. XI, 22; the last words in the mezuzah.
(10) Ps. CIII, 11. The penultimate line in the mezuzah ends with 'the heaven', so that if 'above the earth' were written at the end of the last line it would be seen that 'the heaven' is directly above 'the earth', in conformity with the expression in Psalms.
(11) And the furthest distance between these words is obtained by placing 'the heaven' at the end of the penultimate line and 'the earth' at the beginning of the last line.
(12) The opening line of the mezuzah is: Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is One (Deut. VI, 4): and as Heb. is written from right to left, it is clear therefore that R. Huna used to roll up the mezuzah beginning at the left with the word 'one' and finishing at the right with the word 'hear'.
(13) I.e., he began the second passage in the mezuzah on the same line as that on which the first passage ended, allowing only a short blank space between the two passages.
(14) דוכסוסטוס. In making parchment it was the usual practice to split the thickness of the skin and divide it into two sheets, each sheet being treated and prepared. The parchment made from the inner sheet, i.e., the side next to the flesh of the animal, was regarded as the best quality (this was known as קלף, and that made from the outer sheet, i.e., the side next to the hair, was an inferior quality (this was known as דוכסוסטוס).

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 32a

leaving a space above and a space below, and leaving [the space between] the sections open.1 And I said to him, Master, what is the reason for this? And he answered, Because [the portions] are not close to each other in the Torah.2 And R. Hananel said in the name of Rab that the halachah follows R. Simeon b. Eleazar. Now presumably [the halachah referred to the ruling] of leaving [the space between] the sections open? - No, it referred to the ruling of leaving a space [above and below]. And how much space must there be? - R. Menashya b. Jacob (others say: R. Samuel b. Jacob) said, The space taken up by the clasps of the scribes.3

Said Abaye to R. Joseph, And do you not hold that Rab's statement [of the halachah] referred to the leaving of the space [above and below]? But is it not the fact that Rab usually relies upon the practice of people, and the general practice is to leave [the space between] the sections closed?4 For Rabbah said in the name of R. Kahana who had it from Rab, If Elijah were to come and say that halizah5 may be performed with a covered shoe, he would be obeyed; [were he, however, to say] that halizah may not be performed with a sandal, he would not be obeyed, for the people have long ago adopted the practice [of performing it] with a sandal. R. Joseph, however, reported in the name of R. Kahana who had it from Rab, If Elijah were to come and say that halizah may not be performed with a covered shoe, he would be obeyed; [were he, however, to say] that halizah may not be performed with a sandal, he would not be obeyed, for the people have long ago adopted the practice [of performing it] with a sandal. And it was asked, What is the difference between them? And it was suggested that the practical difference between them was as to whether a covered shoe may be used in the first instance!6 - We must say therefore [that Rab's statement of the halachah referred] to the leaving of the space;7 this proves it.

R. Nahman b. Isaac said, The precept is to leave [the space between the sections] closed, nevertheless if it was left open it is valid; for when R. Simeon b. Eleazar spoke of 'leaving the space between the sections open', he meant, even open.

Shall we say that the following supports his view? For it was taught:8 Similarly, if scrolls of the Law or tefillin had worn out, one may not make out of them a mezuzah, for one may not bring down what is of a higher sanctity to a lower sanctity.9 Now it follows that if it were permitted to bring down to a lower sanctity one would be allowed to make [a mezuzah out of tefillin or a scroll of the Law]; but how is this possible? Here the portions are closed but there they are open!10 - Perhaps [it would have been permitted] only to complete11 [the mezuzah].

And if it were permitted to bring down what is of a higher sanctity to a lower sanctity, [you say that] one would be allowed to make [a mezuzah out of tefillin]? But it has been taught:12 It is a law handed to Moses at Sinai that the [Scriptural portions in the] tefillin must be written on kelaf13 and the mezuzah on duksustus.13 Kelaf is the side [of the skin] next to the flesh, and duksustus is the side next to the hair!13 - This is only a recommendation. But it was taught: If one did otherwise, it is invalid! - That refers only to the tefillin. But it was taught that if one did otherwise in either case, it is invalid!14 - The two cases refer to the tefillin only, but in the one case he wrote the portions on that side of kelaf nearest to the hair, and in the other case

____________________
(1) I.e., the second passage is begun on a fresh line, leaving blank the rest of the line in which the first passage ended.
(2) The two passages of the mezuzah are not consecutive in the Torah, the one comes from Deut. VI, 4-9 and the other from XI, 13-21. The second passage is therefore to be begun on a separate line.
(3) Clasps were used by scribes to prevent the sheets of parchment from rolling up.
(4) Accordingly Rab would certainly not have ruled that the space between the sections must be left open which is contrary to the general practice. Hence his ruling could only refer to the space to be left above and below.
(5) חליצה lit., 'drawing off' sc. the shoe; v. Deut. XXV, 5-9. The adopted practice was for the widow to take off a sandal from the foot of her brother-in-law. There was some doubt, however, whether the ceremony may be performed with a covered shoe instead of a sandal. Cf. Yeb. 102a.
(6) According to Rabbah's version it is not right nowadays to use a covered shoe for this ceremony in the first instance when a sandal is available, until there has been a definite ruling by Elijah that it is permitted. On the other hand, according to R. Joseph's version a covered shoe may be used nowadays even though a sandal is available, until we have a ruling to the contrary. It is thus evident that Rab relies upon the practice of the people.
(7) But on the question as to whether the space between the sections is to be left open or closed, Rab as usual follows the general practice, which is that it is to be closed.
(8) Shab. 79b.
(9) The mezuzah is deemed to be of a lesser sanctity since it contains only two Scriptural portions, whereas the tefillin contain four.
(10) For in the scroll of the Law the space after the שמע (i.e., Deut. VI, 4-9, the first passage in the mezuzah) is closed, and in the mezuzah it is to be left open. We must therefore say that R. Simeon b. Eleazar meant that it may even be left open, thus supporting R. Nahman's view!
(11) I.e., if a word or a line was missing in the mezuzah it would be permitted to patch it up with the same word or the same line cut out from the worn out scroll of the Law or from the tefillin, were it not for the general restriction against lowering the sanctity of a sacred object. But the space between the sections of the mezuzah must in fact be left open.
(12) Shab. 79b.
(13) V. supra p. 202, n. 5.
(14) Presumably the expression 'in either case' refers to the tefillin and the mezuzah, and we are here taught that any variation, e.g., writing the mezuzah on kelaf or the tefillin on duksustus, renders them invalid.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 32b

he wrote them on that side of duksustus nearest to the flesh.1 Alternatively I can say that the ruling, 'If one did otherwise in either case2 [it is invalid]', is dependent upon Tannaim. For it was taught: If one did otherwise in either case,2 it is invalid; R. Ahai declares it valid on the authority of R. Ahai b. R. Hanina (others say, On the authority of R. Jacob b. R. Hanina).

Again, if it were permitted to bring down what is of a higher sanctity to a lower sanctity, [you say that] one would be allowed to make [a mezuzah out of tefillin]? But it must be written on ruled lines!3 For R. Minyomi b. Hilkiah said in the name of R. Hama b. Goria who said it in the name of Rab, A mezuzah that is not written on ruled lines is invalid. Moreover, R. Minyomi b. Hilkiah on his own authority said that [the rule for writing] the mezuzah on ruled lines is a law handed to Moses at Sinai! - Tannaim differ on this point, for it was taught: R. Jeremiah said in the name of our Master:4 Tefillin and mezuzoth may be written from memory5 and need not be written on ruled lines. The halachah6 is: Tefillin need not be written on ruled lines, the mezuzah must be written on ruled lines, and both may be written from memory. What is the reason? - They are well known by heart.

R. Helbo said, I once saw R. Huna when he wished to sit down on a couch upon which lay a scroll of the Law, invert a vessel on the ground, place the scroll upon it, and then sit on the couch. For he was of the opinion that it was forbidden to sit on a couch upon which lay a scroll of the Law. This is at variance with the opinion of Rabbah b. Bar Hanah; for Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan, It is permitted to sit on a bed upon which lies a scroll of the Law. And if someone should whisper in your ear [seeking to contradict you] saying, It is related of R. Eleazar that once, while sitting on his bed, he remembered that a scroll of the Law lay on it, whereupon he slipped off and sat upon the ground, and it appeared as though he had been bitten by a serpent, [answer him that] there the scroll of the Law was actually lying upon the ground.7

Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, If one wrote it8 like a letter,9 it is invalid. Why? - Because of the inference that is made by the expression 'writing', which is used here [in connection with the mezuzah] and also there in connection with the scroll.10

Rab Judah also said in the name of Samuel, If one hung it on a stick,11 it is invalid. Why? Because it must be upon thy gates.12 A Baraitha has also been taught to this effect: If one hung it on a stick, or attached it [to the wall] behind the door, it is a danger13 and it is no fulfilment of the precept. The household of King Monobaz used to do so when staying at a hostel,14 merely in remembrance of the mezuzah.

Rab Judah further said in the name of Samuel, The precept is to fix it within the space of the door.15 Is not this obvious? Does not the Divine Law say, And upon thy gates?16 - I might have thought that, since Raba stated that the [proper performance of the] precept is to fix it

____________________
(1) And in either case it is invalid, for the Scriptural portions of the tefillin must be written only on the internal side of kelaf, i.e., the side nearest to the flesh, and any variation would render invalid. On the other hand the mezuzah may be written on any kind of parchment, kelaf or duksustus.
(2) I.e., both as regards the tefillin and the mezuzah.
(3) Whereas the Scriptural portions of the tefillin are not written on ruled lines, so that the portions of the tefillin cannot serve for the mezuzah.
(4) Rabbi(?)
(5) Lit., 'not from the writing'; i.e., without a copy.
(6) I.e., the law which was given to Moses at Sinai; so Rashi Meg. 18b.
(7) And as an expression of his sorrow for the Scroll that was lying on the ground R. Eleazar also sat down on the ground. Had it, however, been on the bed, he would not have objected to anyone sitting on the same bed.
(8) Sc. the mezuzah. And so throughout this passage.
(9) I.e., it was written without having ruled the lines beforehand and without special care as to the spelling of the words (Rashi).
(10) In connection with the mezuzah it is written (Deut. VI,9 ): And thou shalt write them, and in connection with the Book of the Law it is written (Ex. XVII, 14): Write this for a memorial in the book; as the latter must be written with accuracy as to spelling and upon ruled lines, so the mezuzah too must be written with accuracy and upon ruled lines. Rashi also suggests the inference from the writing of' a divorce (lit., 'a book of divorcement, v. Deut. XXIV, 1), which must also be written with accuracy; but see Tosaf. s.v. כתבה.
(11) I.e., a stick was fastened to the door-post and the mezuzah was hung on the stick.
(12) Deut. VI, 9. It must be upon the actual door-post.
(13) For one might easily knock against it (Tosaf.).
(14) Since there is no obligation to affix mezuzoth to a temporary abode.
(15) I.e., upon that side of the door-post which faces the door but not upon the side which faces the street or the house within.
(16) Deut. VI, 9. It must be fixed on the side where the door shuts, which is on the inside of the framework of the door-post.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 33a

in the handbreadth nearest to the street, the further it is from the house the better, he therefore teaches us [that it is not so].

Rab Judah further said in the name of Samuel, If one wrote it on two sheets,1 it is invalid. An objection was raised: It was taught: If one wrote it on two sheets and fixed it on the two door-posts, it is invalid. It follows, however, that if it was placed on one doorpost it is valid!2 - [The Baraitha] meant that it could be placed on two door-posts.3

Rab Judah further said in the name of Samuel, In the law of mezuzah one must be guided by the conclusiveness of the hinge. What is meant by 'the hinge'? - R. Adda said, The sockets [for the pin of the hinge]. In what circumstances?4 - For example, where there is a door between two houses, one house being for men and the other for women.5

The Exilarch once built a house and said to R. Nahman, 'Fix the mezuzoth for me'; whereupon R. Nahman replied, 'First put the door[-posts] in their places'.6

Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, If one fixed it in the manner of a bolt,7 it is invalid. But this cannot be, for when R. Isaac b. Joseph came [from Palestine] he reported that all the mezuzoth in Rabbi's house were fixed in the manner of a bolt, and also that the door through which Rabbi used to enter the House of Study had no mezuzah! - This is no contradiction, for in the one case it was attached horizontally,8 in the other it was bent at a right angle.9 But this10 too cannot be, for the door through which R. Huna used to enter the House of Study had a mezuzah! - That [door] was used more frequently [than the others]. And Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab that in the law of mezuzah one must decide upon the [door] most frequently used.11

R. Zera said in the name of R. Mattena who said it in the name of Samuel, The proper performance of the precept is to fix it at the beginning of the upper third of the door-post. But R. Huna said, It must be raised one handbreadth from the ground and it must be one handbreadth away from the lintel, otherwise the whole of the door-post is valid for the mezuzah. An objection was raised: It must be raised one handbreadth from the ground and it must be one handbreadth away from the lintel, otherwise the whole of the door-post is valid for the mezuzah. So R. Judah. R. Jose says, It is written, And thou shalt bind them,12 and And thou shalt write them:13 as the binding [of the tefillin] is high up,14 so the writing must be placed high up.15 Now according to R. Huna this is well, for he agrees with R. Judah; but with whom does Samuel agree? Neither with R. Judah nor with R. Jose! - R. Huna the son of R. Nathan answered, Indeed he agrees with R. Jose,

____________________
(1) So Tosaf. and Asheri. According to Rashi: 'in two columns'.
(2) Even though written on two sheets; contra Rab Judah.
(3) In the Baraitha cited, the two sheets were actually placed on one door-post, but it could have been placed on the two door-posts since there were separate sheets; thus it is in accordance with Rab Judah.
(4) Is one to be guided by the conclusiveness of the hinge.
(5) The mezuzah must be affixed to the right door-post as one enters the house; in this case, however, where one door communicates between two houses, whilst each house has its own door leading into the street, it is difficult to establish which house leads into the other, and on which door-post of this door is the mezuzah to be fixed. We are therefore taught the following test: that side of the door where the sockets for the door-pin are placed is considered to be the inside. Accordingly the mezuzah must be affixed to the right door-post as one enters that house on the inside of which the sockets are found.
(6) For only then arises the duty to fix the mezuzah.
(7) I.e., horizontally.
(8) In which case it is invalid.
(9) I.e., partly horizontal and partly vertical; like the thigh and the leg which form a right angle at the knee when sitting. In this case it is valid.
(10) The report that the door through which Rabbi used to enter the House of Study had no mezuzah.
(11) I.e., in a room which has more than one door the mezuzah must be affixed to that door which is most frequently used.
(12) Deut. VI, 8.
(13) Ibid. 9.
(14) At the top of the head; v. infra 37a.
(15) At the top of the door-post, close to the lintel.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 33b

for by 'the beginning of the upper third' he meant that as the furthest point, for one should not fix it lower than a third of the door-post away from the lintel.

Raba said, The proper performance of the precept is to fix it in the handbreadth nearest to the street. Why? - The Rabbis say, So that one should encounter a precept immediately [on one's return home]; R. Hanina of Sura says, So that it should protect the entire house.

R. Hanina said, Come and see how the character of the Holy One, blessed be He, differs from that [of men] of flesh and blood. According to human standards, the king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him from without; but with the Holy One, blessed be He, it is not so, for it is His servants that dwell within and He keeps guard over them from without; as it is said, The Lord is thy keeper; the Lord is thy shade upon thy right hand.1

R. Joseph the son of Raba stated in his discourse in the name of Raba, If one set it deep in the door-post, to the depth of a handbreadth, it is invalid. Shall we say that the following Baraitha supports him? For it was taught: If one set it in the post [of the door] or if one added another frame,2 and there was the depth of a handbreadth,3 another mezuzah is necessary, but if less, no other mezuzah is necessary! - That [first clause of the Baraitha] refers to a door behind a door.4 But this is expressly stated further on, [thus,] If there was a door behind a door and there was a depth of a handbreadth, another mezuzah is necessary, but if less, no other mezuzah is necessary! - This is merely stated as illustrating [the cases mentioned].

A Tanna taught: If a man set up a door-frame of [hollow] reeds, he may cut away a length of reed and place [the mezuzah in the hollow]. R. Aha the son of Raba said, This was taught only if he first set up the door-frame and then cut away a length of reed and placed [the mezuzah] therein; but if he first cut away a length [of the reed] and placed therein [the mezuzah] and then set up [the whole as a door-frame], it is invalid, because of the principle 'Thou shalt make, but not [use] what is ready made'.5

Raba also said, Faulty6 doors are exempt from mezuzah. What is meant by 'faulty doors'? - In this R. Rehumai and Abba Jose differ; one says, Those that have no upper beam;7 and the other says, Those that have no side-posts.8

R. Hisda said, An exedra9 is exempt from mezuzah, since it has no door-posts. It follows, however, that if it had door-posts it would require a mezuzah, but surely [the posts] were made only as supports for the ceiling! - He meant to say this: even though it has door-posts it is exempt, for they were made only as supports for the ceiling. Abaye said, I have seen that the halls in the Master's house, although they have posts, have no mezuzoth. Obviously he was of the opinion that they serve only as supports for the ceiling. An objection was raised: A lodge,10 an exedra, and a balcony, each requires a mezuzah! - The reference here is to the exedra of a school-house.11 But the exedra of a school-house is a proper room, is it not? - We must say that the reference is to a Roman exedra.12

Rehabah said in the name of Rab Judah, An entrance-lodge requires two mezuzoth. What is meant by 'an entrance-lodge'? - R. Papa the Elder said in the name of Rab, It is a lodge, with one door opening on to the courtyard and another leading to the dwelling-houses.

Our Rabbis taught: A lodge which leads into a garden and thence into an outhouse13 is, according to R. Jose, considered as the outhouse.14 But the Sages say, It is considered as the air space15 [of the garden]. Rab and Samuel both said, If the door opens from the garden into the house,16 there is no dispute at all that it requires a mezuzah, since it clearly admits into the house; they differ only where the door opens from the house into the garden,17 the one maintaining that the outhouse is the main thing,18 the other that the garden is the main thing.19 But Rabbah and R. Joseph both said, If the door opens from the house into the garden20 there is no dispute at all that it is exempt, since it is clearly the door for the garden; they differ only where the door opens from the garden into the house, the one maintaining that it serves for entering into the house,21 the other that it was entirely

____________________
(1) Ps. CXXI, 5. The mezuzah which is upon thy right hand protects the house.
(2) To the existing door-frame upon which there was already fixed a mezuzah.
(3) In the first clause, presumably this means that it was set in deep in the post to the depth of a handbreadth, and in the second clause this means that the thickness of the new frame was a handbreadth, so that the mezuzah on the original frame is now sunken in to the depth of a handbreadth.
(4) The post referred to in the first clause of the Baraitha was a post that served as the right door-post for two doors. Thus, through the first door one entered the house, and at right angles to this door and hard by it on the right there opened another door through which one entered into an inner room. If the thickness of this door-post was a handbreadth or more, then two mezuzoth are necessary, but if less, then one mezuzah serves for both doors. Similarly the framework spoken of in the second clause of the Baraitha refers also to this post, thus a jamb was added on each side of this door-post making the thickness of the whole more than a handbreadth. Another explanation is that the Baraitha refers to a small door that is made in a large door; if the width from the right edge of the small door to the right edge of the large door is a handbreadth or more, then each door requires a mezuzah; but if less, one mezuzah (i.e., the one on the doorpost of the large door) serves for both doors.
(5) The principle stated here, which is derived from the law of sukkah (v. Deut. XVI, 13) and of zizith (v. ibid. XXII, 12), where in both texts the expression 'thou shalt make' is used, is that one's duty is fulfilled only when the precept has been performed after the obligation for its performance has fallen due. In this case, however, the mezuzah was fixed to the door-post before the latter had been set in position and then there was no obligation for a mezuzah; therefore when later it is set in position the mezuzah is 'ready made' and cannot serve the purpose.
(6) 'Semitic doors' (R. Han. in Tosaf. 'Erub. 11a, s.v. פתחי).
(7) Or 'doors to a room which has no ceiling'. But v. Tosaf. a.l.
(8) Or 'lintels'.
(9) A hall, closed on three sides and open on the fourth.
(10) The watchman's lodge at the entrance of a house.
(11) A hall having four walls but which do not reach to the roof.
(12) Which had sides only a few feet high and the rest of each side was made up of lattice-windows.
(13) Thus: Fig. 1 Fig. 2 The dispute is concerning that door which leads from the lodge into the garden.
(14) And requires a mezuzah.
(15) And does not require a mezuzah. This reading 'as the air space' is obviously the correct one and is supported by MSS. and Sh. Mek. Cur. edd. read 'as the lodge', which gives no sensible meaning.
(16) In the ensuing argument 'house', בית, stands for בית שער, the lodge; cf. Alfasi and Asheri, where the word בית is used at the beginning of the passage too. The interpretation as preferred by Rashi is as follows: if the hinges of the door in question are on the inside, so that the door opens inside (v. Fig. 1), this is conclusive evidence that the door belongs primarily to the lodge (v. supra p. 207), and therefore it requires a mezuzah. V. Rashi for other interpretations of this uncertain passage.
(17) I.e., the hinges are on the outside, so that the door opens outside into the garden (v. Fig. 2).
(18) This is R. Jose's view. He holds that the purpose of this door is not so much for the garden as for the outhouse which can be reached only through this door; and as the outhouse requires a mezuzah so does this door too require a mezuzah.
(19) The Sages' view. It is therefore exempt from the mezuzah.
(20) V. p. 211, n. 8.
(21) Sc. the lodge. This is R. Jose's view.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 34a

made for the sake of the garden. Abaye and Raba decided in accordance with the views of Rabbah and R. Joseph, whilst R. Ashi decided in accordance with the views of Rab and Samuel, adopting the stricter ruling.1 And the law is in accordance with the views of Rab and Samuel, adopting the stricter ruling.

It was stated: As for a staircase which leads from one room to an upper room,2 R. Huna said, If it has but one door, it requires one mezuzah only, but if it has two doors, it requires two mezuzoth. R. Papa said, One can learn from R. Huna's dictum that a room that has four doors requires four mezuzoth. Is not this obvious? - It was necessary to be stated even though one [door] was mostly used.3

Amemar said, A door which is in the corner4 requires a mezuzah. Thereupon R. Ashi said to Amemar, But it has no posts! - He replied, Here are its posts.5

R. Papa once came to Mar Samuel's house and saw there a door which had only one door-post, and that on the left side, to which was affixed a mezuzah. He said, Apparently this is in accord with R. Meir,6 but might not R. Meir have said so only when [the post was] on the right side; did he say so when it was on the left side? What is [your authority for] this?7 - It was taught: [Upon the doorposts of] thy house:8 that is, upon the right side as you enter. You say, the right side, but perhaps it is not that but the left side? The verse therefore says, 'Thy house'. How is this derived [from the verse]? Rabbah explained, 'As you enter' implies the right side, for when a man steps [into his house] he steps in with his right foot first. R. Samuel b. Aha quoting Raba b. 'Ulla derived it in the presence of R. Papa from the following verse: And Jehoiada the priest took a chest, and bored a hole in the lid of it, and set it beside the altar, on the right side as one cometh into the house of the Lord; and the priests that kept the threshold put therein all the money that was brought into the house of the Lord.9

What is this view of R. Meir? - It was taught: A house that has only one door-post requires a mezuzah according to R. Meir; but the Sages exempt it. What is the reason for the Sages' view? - Because it is written The door-posts.10 And what is the reason for R. Meir's view? - It was taught: It is written 'The door-posts', and I know that the minimum of 'door-posts' is two; since, however, in the second portion11 the verse also says the doorposts,12 which is unnecessary, we have then an inclusive term following another inclusive term, and whenever an inclusive term follows another inclusive term its effect is to restrict;13 Scripture has thus brought down the law to one door-post.14 This is the argument of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba says, This is unnecessary; for it is written, Upon the lintel and on the two side-posts.15 Now there was no need for Scripture to say. 'two'; what then does it mean by 'two'? It lays down the principle that wherever' 'door-posts' are mentioned only one is meant unless the verse expressly says 'two'.

Our Rabbis taught: It is written, And thou shalt write them.16 It is possible to think that this means that one should write [the portion] upon the stones [of the house], therefore it uses the expression 'writing' here and the expression 'writing' there,17 and as in the latter case it means upon a scroll so here it means upon a scroll. Or perhaps argue this way: it uses the expression 'writing' here and the expression 'writing' there,18 as there it means upon the stones so here it means upon the stones. Let us then see to which [of the two] is this case most similar. We may infer the 'writing' which is intended as a precept for all times from the 'writing' which is also intended as a precept for all times, but we may not infer the 'writing' which is intended as a precept for all times from the 'writing' which is not intended as a precept for all times.19 And [it20 must be written with ink] as it says elsewhere, Then Baruch answered them, He pronounced all these words unto me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book.21

R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi, But the Divine Law says upon the door-posts,22 and you say we must infer the 'writing' here from the 'writing' there [that it shall be written on a scroll]! [He replied,] The verse says, 'And thou shalt write them', which implies a perfect writing,23 and then [place it] upon the door-posts. But since then it is written, 'And thou shalt write them',24 wherefore do I need the analogy of the common expressions? - Without the analogy I should have said that one must write it upon a stone25 and set it up upon the threshold [as the door-post], it therefore teaches us otherwise.

OF THE FOUR PORTIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE TEFILLIN, THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS; INDEED EVEN ONE [IMPERFECT] LETTER CAN INVALIDATE THE WHOLE. Is not this obvious?26 - Rab Judah answered in the name of Rab, The law had to be taught in respect of the tittle of the letter yod. And is not this, too, obvious? - It was necessary to be taught in respect of the other statement of Rab Judah; for Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, Any letter that is not surrounded on all four sides by a margin of parchment is invalid.

____________________
(1) I.e., accepting R. Jose's ruling. So that in all the circumstances stated a mezuzah is necessary.
(2) It was usual to place a door at the foot of the staircase or at the top so as to afford privacy to the tenants of the upper and lower floors. Sometimes a door was placed both at the foot and at the top of the staircase.
(3) All four doors, nevertheless, must be provided with mezuzoth.
(4) I.e., the door was placed in a corner of the room at an angle to each of the adjoining walls (see drawing). According to Asheri the meaning is that the whole of one wall was taken up by the door.
(5) The extremities of the two walls to which the door is attached form the door-posts.
(6) Who holds that a door which has only one door-post must, nevertheless, have a mezuzah.
(7) That the right side only was meant.
(8) Deut. VI, 9. Heb. ביתך 'thy house' is interpreted as ביאתך 'thy entering'.
(9) II Kings XII, 10. Hence whatever is to be placed at the entrance of a house must be placed on the right side.
(10) Deut. ibid. The use of the plural implies a minimum of two.
(11) Inscribed in the mezuzah.
(12) Ibid. XI, 20.
(13) For here each expression by itself indicates plurality, and since it is repeated Scripture thereby intimates that the condition of plurality is no longer essential.
(14) That a door which has only one door-post requires a mezuzah.
(15) Ex. XII, 23.
(16) Deut. VI, 9.
(17) In the law of a bill of divorce; cf. ibid. XXIV, 1. So Rashi; Tosaf. suggest that the reference is to the scroll used in the case of a woman suspected of adultery, cf. Num. V, 23, or to the Book of the Law written by the king, cf. Deut. XVII, 18.
(18) With reference to the memorial of stones to be set up by the Israelites when they cross the Jordan, and upon which are to be written all the words of the law; cf. ibid. XXVII, 3ff.,
(19) The engraving upon the stones was an ordinance for that time only.
(20) The mezuzah as well as the bill of divorce and the other cases mentioned above in n. 3.
(21) Jer. XXXVI, 18.
(22) I.e., actually written upon the wood.
(23) The Heb. וכתבתם 'and thou shalt write them', is interpreted as though divided into two words: וכתב תם meaning, a perfect writing; and this is the case only when writing is applied with ink upon a scroll, for any writing with ink upon wood or stones would be imperfect and indistinct.
(24) Signifying that the writing must be upon a scroll.
(25) I.e., one must carve the words upon a stone, which would also be a perfect and distinct writing.
(26) V. supra 29a for this identical passage, p. 189 and the notes thereon.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 34b

Our Rabbis taught: It is written, Letotefeth, letotefeth, and letotafoth,1 making four in all.2 So R. Ishmael. R. Akiba says, There is no need of that interpretation, for 'tot' means two in Katpi3 and 'foth' means two in Afriki.4

Our Rabbis taught: I might have said that one should write [the Scriptural portions] upon four pieces of parchment and put them in four compartments made out of four pieces of leather; the verse therefore says, And for a memorial between thine eyes:5 one memorial I commanded you, but not two or three memorials. How then should one do? One should write them upon four pieces of parchment and put them in four compartments made out of one piece of leather.6 If, however, one wrote them upon one parchment and put them in the four compartments,7 that is sufficient. There must be a blank space between each [portion]. So Rabbi; but the Sages say, This is not necessary. They agree, however, that between each there must be a line or a thread.8 And if the divisions [between the compartments] were not noticeable,9 they are invalid.

Our Rabbis taught: How must one write them? The portions for the hand-tefillah10 one should write upon one piece of parchment; if one wrote them upon four pieces of parchment and put them in one compartment that is still valid. They must, however, be fastened together,11 for it is written, And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand12 and as outside it is one sign, so inside, too, it must be one sign. This is the opinion of R. Judah. But R. Jose says, This is not necessary.13 Moreover, said R. Jose, R. Judah Berabbi14 concedes to me that if a man has no hand-tefillah but has two head-tefillahs, he may cover up one of them with a skin and place it [on his arm]. 'Concede', [you say,] but that is the very issue between them!15 - Raba answered, R. Jose's statement proves that R. Judah withdrew his opinion. Surely this cannot be, for R. Haninah sent [from Palestine] the following ruling in the name of R. Johanan: The hand-tefillah may be converted for use on the head but the head-tefillah may not be converted for use on the arm, for one may not bring down what is of a higher sanctity to a lower sanctity!16 - This is no difficulty, for one [ruling] refers to an old one17 and the other to a new one.18 And according to him who maintains that the mere designation [of a thing for a certain purpose] has a certain force,19 [we must say that the owner] had made a reservation with regard to it from the very outset.20

Our Rabbis taught: What is the order [of the four Scriptural portions in the head-tefillah]? 'Sanctify unto Me'21 and 'And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee'22 are on the right, while 'Hear'23 and 'And it shall come to pass if ye shall hearken diligently'24 are on the left. But there has been taught just the reverse? - Abaye said, This is no contradiction, for in the one case25 the reference is to the right of the reader,26 whereas in the other it is to the right of the one that wears them; the reader thus reads them27 according to their order.28

R. Hananel said in the name of Rab, If a man reversed the order of the Scriptural portions, it is invalid. Abaye said, This is so

____________________
(1) The word לטטפת (frontlets, i.e., the tefillin) occurs three times in the Torah, twice (Deut. VI, 8 and XI, 18) defectively written, לטטפת so that in each instance the word might be read in the singular, and once (Ex. XIII, 16) written plene, לטטפות, which indicates the plural number,' thus making a total of four. It must be noted that this Talmudic statement does not agree with the Masoretic text, for לטטפות, written plene, is not to be found at all in our versions. V. Tosaf. s.v. לטטפת.
(2) Hence the rule that the tefillin worn on the head must be composed of four compartments, each containing a specified portion of Scripture.
(3) perhaps the Coptic language.
(4) The language of N. Africa.
(5) Ex. XIII, 9.
(6) This was constructed with the aid of a mould or frame over which the hide, flexible and moist, was tautly stretched and allowed to harden, thus assuming the required form.
(7) The four portions were written upon one long strip of parchment with large blank spaces between one portion and the other, and the parchment was so placed in the compartments that each portion occupied a separate compartment, and the blank spaces of the parchment corresponded with the spaces between the compartments.
(8) I.e., although the Sages do not insist upon the leaving of a blank space between one portion and the other, they nevertheless concede to Rabbi that each portion must be separated and marked off from the others at least by a thread. Others explain: even when the four portions are in four separate compartments, each portion must be tied up with a thread. V. Sh. Mek. n. 4.
(9) Although consisting of four compartments they were so firmly united that the divisions were no longer noticeable from the outside.
(10) I.e., the tefillah (sing. of tefillin) that is put on the arm.
(11) Into one piece, either sewn together or joined together with glue.
(12) Ex. XIII, 9.
(13) Sc. to join the pieces of parchment into one.
(14) 'The eminent scholar' (Rashi). V. Nazir (Sonc. ed.) p. 64, n. 1.
(15) R. Judah maintaining that the hand-tefillah must be one inside as it is outside.
(16) The head-tefillah is deemed to be of a higher sanctity than that worn on the arm, since the former bears upon it two letters of the Name שדי 'Almighty', whereas the hand-tefillah bears only the last letter of this name; cf. infra 35b. In view of this ruling, then, how can it be said that both R. Judah and R. Jose agree that the head-tefillah may be converted for use upon the hand merely by covering it with a piece of leather?
(17) I.e., the head-tefillah had already been worn on the head, in which case its sanctity may not be lowered by converting it for use upon the arm.
(18) The tefillah had been made as a head-tefillah and also designated for that purpose but had not yet been worn; in that case it may be converted for use on the arm.
(19) V. Sanh. 47b, Meg. 26b, and Ber. 23b. The fact that it was intended to be used as a head-tefillah will debar it from being used upon the arm.
(20) Namely, that if he should require it for use as a hand-tefillah he will convert it to that use.
(21) Ex. XIII, 1-10.
(22) Ibid. 11-16.
(23) Deut. VI, 4-9.
(24) Ibid. XI, 13-21.
(25) In the first Baraitha.
(26) I.e., the person facing the one that wears the tefillin.
(27) When reading the portions from right to left (Rashi).
(28) Sc. as they are found in the Torah, and that is, the order as given in the first Baraitha (Rashi). According to R. Tam's interpretation of the first Baraitha, which states the order from the reader's point of view, the sections occupy the following places: 'Sanctify' is on the extreme right, to the left of it is 'And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee', next to it is 'And it shall come to pass if ye shall hearken diligently', and on the extreme left is 'Hear'.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 35a

only [if he put] a portion that should be inside outside or what should be outside inside,1 but if he put what should be inside also inside or what should be outside also outside,2 it does not matter. Thereupon Raba said to him, Why is it that [the placing of] an inside portion outside or of an outside portion inside is not valid? It is, is it not, because that which should look out into the open does not do so, whilst that which should not look out into the open actually does so? Then, likewise, [the placing of] an outside portion also outside or an inside portion also inside [should also be invalid], since what should look out into the open on the right looks out on the left, and what should look out into the open on the left looks out on the right? We must rather say that there Is no such distinction.3

R. Hananel also said in the name of Rab, The underside4 of the tefillin is a law given to Moses at Sinai. Abaye said, The duct4 of the tefillin is also a law given to Moses at Sinai.

Abaye also said, The shin5 of the tefillin is a law given to Moses at Sinai. The division [between the compartments] must reach as far as the stitches. But R. Dimi of Nehardea said, As long as it is noticeable it need not [reach as far as the stitches].

Abaye also said, The parchment [for the Scriptural portions] of the tefillin must be examined against a flaw, since we require the writing to be perfect and it would not be so [if it had a flaw]. But R. Dimi of Nehardea said, This is not necessary, for the pen6 would detect [any flaw].

R. Isaac said, That the straps [of the tefillin] must be black is a law given to Moses at Sinai. An objection was raised: The tefillin must be tied with straps of the same [material as the tefillin themselves.]7 The straps may be either green or black or white; but they should not be red because it is repellent,8 and also for another reason.9 R. Judah said, It is related of one of R. Akiba's disciples that he used to tie his tefillin with strips of blue wool, and R. Akiba made no comment. But is it possible that that righteous man actually saw his disciple do so and he did not prevent him? They said to him, He certainly did not see him do so, for had he seen him he would not have allowed him. It is related further of Hyrkanos the son of R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos that he used to tie his tefillin with strips of purple wool, and he [R. Eliezer] made no comment. But is it possible that that righteous man actually saw his son do so and he did not prevent him? They said to him, He certainly did not see him do so, for had he seen him he would not have allowed him. Now it is stated here, at all events, [that the straps may be] either green or black or white! - This is no contradiction, for here it speaks of the outside of the strap and there of the inside.10 But if of the inside, how can it be repellent or give any ground for suspicion?11 - It might sometimes become twisted.12

A Tanna taught: That the tefillin must be square is a law given to Moses at Sinai. R. Papa13 said, [This refers to] the stitching14 and the diagonal.15 Shall we say that the following [Mishnah] supports this view? For we have learnt: If a man made his tefillin round, it is a danger16 and it is no fulfilment of the precept!17 - R. papa said, That [Mishnah] deals with the case where they were made round like a nut.18

R. Huna said, As long as the surface of the sides19 of the tefillin is whole they are valid. R. Hisda said, If two [sides]20 were split they are still valid; but if three, they are invalid. Said to him Raba, Your ruling that if two [sides] were split they are still valid is true only if [the rents were] not facing each other,21 but if they were facing each other they are invalid. And even if they were facing each other [they are invalid] only if they were new22 [tefillin], but if they were old it would not matter. Abaye asked R. Joseph, What is meant by new, and what by old? He replied, If when one stretches the leather it rebounds, it is old; otherwise it is new.

____________________
(1) I.e., the portions of the first and second compartments or of the third and fourth had been interchanged.
(2) I.e., the portions of the second and third compartments (both inner portions) or of the first and fourth compartments (both outer portions) had been interchanged.
(3) And any change in the order of the portions will render the tefillin invalid.
(4) Each tefillah, it must be remembered, is in the form of a square leather box upon a base, that of the hand consisting of one compartment and of the head of four compartments. In order to obtain the necessary shape (usually in the form of a cube) a mould or frame is used over which the skin whilst moist and pliable is tautly stretched. On being removed from the frame the skin is cut around to an equal length on three sides, whilst on the fourth side there is left a long strip of skin which, after allowing for a projection on this fourth side in order to provide a loop or a duct through which the straps are passed, is bent under the whole box so as to form the underside or the base of the tefillah. After inserting the necessary texts into the several compartments the base is stitched carefully to the extremities of the box on three sides.
(5) The letter shin must be embossed on the right and left sides of the head-tefillah. The shin on the right side (when worn by the person) is of the usual shape, whilst the shin on the left side has four heads, thus **.
(6) At the time of writing the Scriptural portions.
(7) I.e., of leather; but not with strips of wool or silk or linen.
(8) For it might be said that the straps had been stained with the blood of a sore or a wound.
(9) The suspicion that the wearer of these tefillin had had relations with his wife during her period of menstruation, and the straps had consequently been dyed red with blood.
(10) R. Isaac only stated that the outside of the strap must be black; the inside, however, may be of any colour as stated in the Baraitha, except red.
(11) Since the inside of the strap is not seen.
(12) And the inside would be seen.
(13) According to MS.M., 'Rab'. In the parallel passage in Meg. 24b, 'Raba'. So Alfasi.
(14) The stitching of the underside to the box (v. supra p. 218, n. 6) must be done very carefully so that the box should remain a perfect square; thus the stitches should not be pulled too much for fear that the leather will become creased and so lose its correct shape. V. Tosaf. s.v. תפילין, and also Tosaf. Meg. 24b, s.v. בתפרן
(15) I.e., it must be an exact square so that the diagonal should be one and two-fifths times the length of the side.
(16) For if he knocks against anything the round head-tefillah would pierce his skull.
(17) Meg. 24b.
(18) I.e., the underside was convex and oval and did not lie flat on the head. In that case only is there a danger, but not where the base is flat and only the box is made round like a cylinder.
(19) I.e., the external sides of the box, or the sides which form the divisions between the compartments.
(20) According to Maim. (v. Yad, Tef. III, 18 and Kesef Mishneh a.l.) the reference is to the stitching of the tefillin, and the rules are here stated where two or more stitches had snapped.
(21) Or: next to each other, i.e., in adjoining compartments.
(22) For it is evident that the leather was of an inferior quality.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 35b

Or else, if when one holds up the strap, [the box] hangs on to it,1 it is new; otherwise it is old.

Abaye was once sitting before R. Joseph when the strap of his tefillin suddenly snapped. He thereupon asked R. Joseph, May one tie it together? He answered, The verse says, And thou shalt bind them,2 signifying that the binding shall be perfect. R. Aha the son of R. Joseph asked R. Ashi, May one sew it together, turning the seam on the inside?-He answered, Go and see how the people act.3

R. Papa said, Curtailed straps4 are still valid. But this is not correct; for since R. Hiyya's sons stated, Curtailed blue threads5 are valid, and curtailed hyssop twigs6 are valid, it is clear that only there [are they valid] since they are only accessories of precepts, but it is not so here, as [the straps] are accessories of holy things.7 Apparently there is a fixed length [for the strap], what then is the minimum length? - Rami b. Hama said in the name of Resh Lakish, To the middle finger.8 R. Kahana explained it, [To the middle finger] when bent, but R. Ashi explained it, [To the middle finger] when extended.

Rabbah used to tie the knot at the back of his head and allow [the straps] to fall straight down [over his shoulders].9 R. Aha b. Jacob used to tie the knot and then plait [the straps] together. Mar the son of Rabina used to do according to our custom.10

R. Judah the son of R. Samuel b. Shilath said in the name of Rab, The knot11 of the tefillin is a law given to Moses at Sinai. R. Nahman said, Their ornamentation should be on the outside.12

Once as R. Ashi was sitting before Mar Zutra the strap of his tefillin twisted round, whereupon Mar Zutra said to him, Is not the Master of the opinion that their ornamentation should be on the outside? He replied, [Yes, but] I did not notice it.

It is written,' And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon thee; and they shall be afraid of thee.13 It was taught: R. Eliezer the Great says, This refers to the tefillah of the head.14

And I will take away My hand, and thou shalt see My back.15 Said R. Hana b. Bizna in the name of R. Simeon the Pious, This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed Moses the knot of the tefillin.

Rab Judah said, The knot of the tefillin should be placed high up,16 so that Israel be high up and not low down. Moreover, it should face the front, so that Israel be in front and not behind.

R. Samuel b. Bidri said in the name of Rab (according to some, R. Aha Arika said it in the name of R. Huna, whilst according to others, R. Menashya said it in the name of Samuel), When must one recite the blessing over the tefillin? As soon as they have been put on. But this cannot be, for has not Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel that with regard to all precepts the blessing must be recited prior to the performance thereof? - Abaye and Raba both said, It means, from the time they have been put on until they have been tied.17

____________________
(1) And does not snap.
(2) Deut. VI, 8. The Heb. וקשרתם 'and thou shalt bind them' is interpreted as two words, וקשר תם 'the binding shall be perfect', or 'the binder (i.e., the strap) shall be perfect'; the strap must therefore be whole and not tied together with a knot.
(3) And the people are not in the habit of sewing the straps together again; it is therefore forbidden to do so (Rashi). According to R. Tam it is permitted since the people do sew the straps together.
(4) I.e., the straps which usually hang down after the head-tefillah has been placed upon the head, had been cut short and only stumps of them remained.
(5) Of the zizith, v. infra 38b.
(6) Used in the purification rites of a leper; cf. Lev. XIV, 4.
(7) The accessories of holy things are of a higher sanctity and are treated with greater stringency than the accessories of precepts; v. Meg. 26b.
(8) The reference evidently is to the length of the strap of the hand-tefillah, and the rule is that it must reach from the place that the tefillah is laid upon the arm to the middle finger (either bent or extended). So 'Aruch, Maim., and Tosaf. According to Rashi the reference is to the length of the straps that hang down beyond the knot that is tied at the back of the head. And the answer given 'To the first finger', is explained by R. Kahana as that length corresponding to the greatest distance between the first and middle fingers, and by R., Ashi as that length corresponding to the greatest distance between the first finger and the thumb. The translation in the text follows the explanation of the 'Aruch.
(9) At the back (Rashi); or, in front over the shoulders (Tosaf.).
(10) I.e., he used to let the straps hang down over his shoulders in front.
(11) I.e., the special shape of the knot of the head-tefillah which must resemble the letter daleth and of the hand-tefillah which must resemble the letter yod. These two letters, together with the letter shin that is embossed on the sides of the head-tefillah, form the Name שדי, Almighty.
(12) The letters formed by the knots of the tefillin should be clearly seen from the outside. Another explanation: that side of the straps which is polished black should be on the outside.
(13) Deut. XXVIII, 10.
(14) Since the head-tefillah contains the greater part of the Divine Name.
(15) Ex. XXXIII, 23. V. Ber. 7a.
(16) This, according to Rashi, refers to the position of the knot of the head-tefillah, which must be placed high up at the back of the head and not low down at the nape of the neck. Asheri cites R. 'Amram Gaon that the reference here is to the position of the knot of the hand-tefillah, i.e., high up on the arm.
(17) For as long as they have not been tied the precept is not yet performed.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 36a

R. Hisda said, If a man spoke between the putting on of the [hand-] tefillah and the [head-] tefillah, he must make another blessing.1 [Evidently] only if he spoke, he must [make another blessing], but not if he did not speak. But R. Hiyya the son of R. Huna sent [from Palestine] the following decision in the name of R. Johanan: Over the hand-tefillah one must say, 'Blessed [art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe,] who hast sanctified us by thy commandments and hast commanded us to put on the tefillin'. Over the head-tefillah one must say, Blessed . . . who hast sanctified us by thy commandments and hast given us command concerning the precept of the tefillin!' - Abaye and Raba both said, It means, if he did not speak [between one tefillah and the other] he must only recite one blessing, but if he did speak he must recite the two blessings.2

One taught: If a man spoke between [the putting on of] one tefillah and the other tefillah, he has committed a transgression and returns home on account of it from the battle line.3

One taught: When a man puts on the tefillin, he should put on first the hand-tefillah and then the head-tefillah, and when he takes them off, he should take off first the head-tefillah and then the hand-tefillah. Now it is right that when he puts them on he should put on first the one on the hand and then the one on the head, since it is written, And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand,4 and then it says, And they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes;4 but whence do we know that on taking them off he should first take off the one from the head and then the one from the hand? - Rabbah said, R. Huna explained it to me. The verse says, And they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes, that is to say, so long as they are 'between thine eyes' both shall be there.5

Our Rabbis taught: When must one recite the blessing over the tefillin?6 At the time when it is proper to put them on.7 Thus, if a man rises early to go out on a journey and is afraid his tefillin might get lost,8 he should put them on, and as soon as the proper time arrives he should touch them9 and recite the blessing over them. And until when must one keep them on? Until sunset. R. Jacob said, Until every foot has left the market.10 But the Sages say, Until the time when people go to sleep. The Sages and11 R. Jacob, however, admit that if a man took them off in order to enter a privy or a bath-house and in the meantime the sun had set, he has not to put them on again. R. Nahman said, The halachah agrees with R. Jacob, since R. Hisda and Rabbah b. R. Huna used to say the evening prayer while still wearing them.12 Another version reads: R. Nahman said, The halacha does not agree with R. Jacob.13

____________________
(1) When putting on the head-tefillah.
(2) As reported by R. Hiyya. So that in ordinary circumstances only one blessing is recited, namely at the putting on of the hand-tefillah, which blessing serves for the head-tefillah too. If, however, one interrupted with talk between one tefillah and the other then the second blessing must be recited before putting on the head-tefillah. So Rashi and Alfasi, but v. Tosaf. s.v. לא.
(3) In accordance with the Biblical injunction, 'What man is there that is fearful and fainthearted? let him go and return unto his house (Deut. XX, 8), which is explained by R. Jose as alluding to the man who is afraid because of his transgressions. V. Sot. 44a.
(4) Deut. VI, 8.
(5) This teaching, according to Rashi, is inferred from the fact that the verse uses in connection with the head-tefillah the expression 'and they shall be', which is in the plural. Accordingly the head-tefillah must never be alone upon the person; therefore it should be put on last and taken off first.
(6) If one has put them on before daybreak.
(7) That is, the time in the early morning when a man can see a friend of his at a distance of four cubits and recognize him. V. Ber. 9b.
(8) If he were to carry them in his hand.
(9) As though he were putting them on at that moment.
(10) I.e., after darkness has fallen.
(11) So in many MSS. and in Alfasi, and so Sh. Mek. Cur. edd. read '(admit) to R. Jacob'.
(12) Hence they are worn after sunset.
(13) But the halachah follows the first Tanna's view that the tefillin are to be taken off at sunset (Tosaf.).

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 36b

But did not R. Hisda and Rabbah b. R. Huna say the evening prayer while still wearing them? - They certainly differ [from the above ruling].

And could Rabbah b. R. Huna have said so? Did not Rabbah b. R. Huna say that if it was doubtful whether darkness had already fallen or not, one should not take them off1 nor put them on? Now it follows from this that if it were certain that darkness had fallen one would have to take them off! - This was stated with regard to the eve of Sabbath.2 But what can be his view? If he holds that the night is a time for tefillin, then the Sabbath is also a time for tefillin, and if, on the other hand, he holds that the night is not a time for tefillin, then the Sabbath, too, is not a time for tefillin, since the same passage which excludes the Sabbath [from the wearing of tefillin] also excludes the night. For it was taught:3 It is written, And thou shalt observe this ordinance in its season from day to day.4 'Day', but not night; 'from day', but not all days; hence the Sabbaths and the Festivals are excluded. So R. Jose the Galilean; but R. Akiba says, This ordinance refers only to the Passover-offering!5 - He derives it from the text from which R. Akiba derives it.6 For it was taught: One might have thought that a man should put on the tefillin on Sabbaths and on Festivals, Scripture therefore says, And it shall be for a sign upon thy hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes,7 that is, [only on those days] which stand in need of a sign [are tefillin to be worn], but Sabbaths and Festivals are excluded, since they themselves are a sign.8

R. Eleazar said, Whosoever puts on the tefillin after sunset transgresses a positive precept.9 R. Johanan said, He transgresses a negative precept.10 Shall we say that they differ in the principle stated by R. Abin in the name of R. Ila'a? For R. Abin said in the name of R. Ila'a, Wherever the expression 'observe', 'lest', or 'do not', is used it indicates a negative precept. One11 therefore accepts R. Abin's principle while the other12 does not! - No, all accept the principle stated by R. Abin in the name of R. Ila'a, but they differ in this point: one12 maintains that the expression 'observe' when used in connection with a prohibition has the force of a negative precept and when used in connection with a command has the force of a positive precept; but the other11 maintains that the expression 'observe' even when used in connection with a command has the force of a negative precept.

R. Eleazar also said, If one's purpose is to guard them it is allowed.13 Rabina related, I was once sitting before R. Ashi when darkness had already fallen and he put on his tefillin;14 so I said to him, 'Is it my Master's purpose to guard them?' 'Yes', he replied. I saw, however, that his purpose was not to guard them. He was of the opinion that that was the law,15 but one should not rule so [in actual practice].16

Rabbah b. R. Huna said, A man must from time to time touch his tefillin;17 this may be inferred by an a fortiori argument from the plate.18 If of the plate, which contains the Divine Name only once, the Torah says, And it shall be always upon his forehead,19 implying that his mind must not be diverted from it; how much more is this to apply to the tefillin which contain the Divine Name so many times!

Our Rabbis taught: Thy hand,20 that is the left hand. You say it is the left hand, but perhaps it is the right! It is written, Yea, My hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand hath spread out the heavens.21 And it is also written, Her hand she put to the tent-pin, and her right hand to the workmen's hammer.22 And it is also written, Why withdrawest Thou Thy hand, even Thy right hand? Draw it out of Thy bosom and consume them.23

____________________
(1) If one was wearing the tefillin at the time.
(2) When Rabbah b. R. Huna agrees that the tefillin must be taken off by the time darkness has fallen, since Sabbath is not the proper time for the wearing of the tefillin.
(3) 'Er. 96a.
(4) Ex. XIII, 10, literally translated.
(5) Of which the preceding verse speaks. And the expression 'from day to day' would be translated as 'from year to year'.
(6) Rabbah b. R. Huna maintains that the night is a proper time for tefillin but the Sabbath is not, for only the latter is excluded in the verse.
(7) Ibid. 16.
(8) Of the relation of God to Israel. Cf. Ex. XXXI, 17.
(9) For the prohibition against wearing the tefillin at night is only inferred from the verse which states And thou shalt observe this ordinance... from day to day, thereby excluding the nights, and a prohibition derived from a positive precept has the force of a positive precept only.
(10) For the expression 'observe' indicates a negative precept.
(11) R. Johanan.
(12) R. Eleazar.
(13) To put on the tefillin (or, to keep them on, v. Sh. Mek, n. 1) after sunset, where the safety of the tefillin is concerned.
(14) According to MS.M., Alfasi, and Sh. Mek. the text should be: 'And he was still wearing the tefillin.
(15) That the night is also the time for tefillin.
(16) Lest one falls asleep whilst wearing the tefillin.
(17) With his hand while wearing them. I.e., they must constantly be in his mind.
(18) The plate of gold worn by the High priest upon the forehead upon which were engraved the words: Holy to the Lord (Ex. XXVIII, 36).
(19) Ex. XXVIII, 38.
(20) Heb. ידך; in Ex. XIII, 9, and also in a number of other verses, in connection with the tefillin.
(21) Isa. XLVIII, 13. Here יד clearly means the left hand, in contradistinction from ימין, the right hand. This is also seen in the other verses quoted.
(22) Jud. V, 26.
(23) Psalms LXXIV, 11.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 37a

R. Jose ha-Horem1 says, But we also find the right hand referred to as 'hand', for it is written, And when Joseph saw that his father was laying his hand, the right one!2 And the other? It is referred to as 'the hand, the right one', but never as 'the hand'. R. Nathan says, All this is unnecessary, for since it is written And thou shalt bind them3 and And thou shalt write them,4 as writing is with the right hand so the binding shall be with the right hand, and if the binding is to be with the right hand then obviously [the hand-tefillah] must be put on the left hand. Whence does R. Jose ha-Horem learn that it must be put on the left hand? - He derives it from that same passage from which R. Nathan derives it. R. Ashi said, He derives it from thy hand,5 which, being written with the letter he at the end, indicates the weaker hand. Thereupon R. Abba said to R. Ashi, perhaps it means, the stronger hand?6 - He replied, Is it written with the letter heth?

This is further disputed by Tannaim. It was taught. Thy hand, written with the he, indicates the left hand. Others say, Thy hand, includes a man that has but the stump of the arm.7 Another [Baraitha] taught: One that has no [left] arm is exempt from tefillin. Others say, 'Thy hand', includes a man that has but the stump of the arm.

Our Rabbis taught: A left-handed man puts his tefillin on his right hand for that is his left.8 But it has also been taught that he must put it on his left hand which is also the left of all people! - The latter was taught of a person who is ambidextrous.

A Tanna in the school of Manasseh taught: Upon thy hand,9 that is, on the biceps muscle; between thine eyes,9 that is, on the skull. On what part? It was said in the school of R. Jannai, Where the skull of a babe is still tender.

Pelemo enquired of Rabbi, If a man has two heads on which one must he put the tefillin?' 'You must either leave',10 he replied, 'or regard yourself under the ban'. In the meantime there came a man [to the school] saying, 'I have begotten a first-born child with two heads, how much must I give the priest?'11 An old man came forward and ruled that he must give [the priest] ten sela's. But this is not so! For Rami b. Hama learnt: From the verse. The firstborn of man thou shalt surely redeem,12 I might conclude that this would apply even when the firstborn was rendered trefah13 within thirty days [of his birth]. Scripture therefore added,

____________________
(1) There are a number of variants to this word, and the meaning is extremely doubtful. In cur. edd. החורם, the net-maker (Jast.); others read החרום, the flat-nosed, being called by this epithet either because of his physical deformity or, more probably, because of the teaching he reported concerning a firstling that was flat-nosed; v. Bek. 43b. Other variants are ההרס and החרס, possibly place-names.
(2) Gen. XLVIII, 17. This destroys the argument of the first Tanna.
(3) Sc. the Tefillin; Deut. VI, 8.
(4) Sc. the Mezuzah; ibid. 9.
(5) Ex. XIII, 16. ידכה, with superfluous 'he', is interpreted as יד כהה, the weaker hand.
(6) Interpreting ידכה as יד כח, for the letters he and heth are frequently interchanged since they resemble each other so closely in form and pronunciation.
(7) 'The weaker hand' meaning also the broken arm or amputated arm with but a stump left. The tefillin must be put on this stump.
(8) I.e., the weaker hand.
(9) Ex. XIII, 9.
(10) Sc. the school. Rabbi thought that this question was put merely from a desire to scoff at him.
(11) For his redemption. The fixed sum for redemption was five shekels (sela's in the Rabbinic tongue), cf. Num. XVIII, 16.
(12) Ibid. 15.
(13) Heb. טריפה, afflicted with a fatal organic disease This is R. Tam's interpretation; according to Rashi, the child was killed.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 37b

Howbeit,1 limiting thereby [the general application]!2 - In this case it is different since the Divine Law declared [the law of redemption] to be governed by the expression 'per head'.3

The Master said, 'Upon thy hand, that is, on the biceps muscle'. Whence is this derived? - Our Rabbis taught: Upon thy hand, that is, the upper part of the hand.4 You say it is the upper part of the hand, but perhaps it means actually upon the hand?5 Since the Torah ordains that one must put tefillin upon the hand and also upon the head, as in the latter case it is to be upon the upper part of the head so in the former it is to be upon the upper part of the hand. R. Eliezer says, This is unnecessary; for the verse says, 'And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand', implying that the sign shall be unto thee but not unto others.6 R. Isaac says, This too is unnecessary; for it is written, And ye shall lay up these My words in your heart . . . and ye shall bind them,7 implying that it must be placed over against the heart.8

R. Hiyya and R. Aha the son of R. Ivia used to place it exactly over against the heart. R. Ashi was once sitting before Amemar. The latter had an injury on his arm and his tefillin were exposed;9 whereupon R. Ashi said to him, Does not the Master hold 'it shall be for a sign unto thee but not unto others'? - That, he replied, was stated only to indicate the place, namely, where it is a sign unto thee only.10

Whence is it derived that it must be upon the upper part of the head? - Our Rabbis taught: 'Between thine eyes', that is, the upper part of the head. You say it is the upper part of the head, but perhaps it means actually between the eyes? It is written here, 'Between thine eyes', and it is written there, Nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead;11 as in the latter case it means the upper part of the head where baldness can be made, so in the former case too it means the upper part of the head where baldness can be made. R. Judah says, This is unnecessary; for since the Torah ordains that one must put tefillin on the hand and also on the head, as in the former case it is put on a place which can be declared unclean as a leprous spot by one symptom only,12 so in the former case it must be put on a place which can be declared unclean as a leprous spot by one symptom only;12 one must therefore rule out the place between the eyes where flesh and hair are to be found, [and so can be declared unclean by two symptoms,] either by [the appearance of] white hair or yellow hair.

OF THE FOUR FRINGES, THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS, SINCE THE FOUR TOGETHER FORM ONE PRECEPT. [R. ISHMAEL SAYS, THE FOUR ARE FOUR SEPARATE PRECEPTS.] What is the practical difference between the two?13 - R. Joseph said, They differ in respect of a linen garment with [woollen] fringes.14 Rabbah b. Abina said, They differ in respect of a five-cornered garment.15 Rabina said, They differ in respect of R. Huna's dictum. For R. Huna said, If a man went out in the street on the Sabbath wearing a garment not provided with proper fringes as required by law, he is liable to a sin-offering.16

R. Shisha the son of R. Idi said, If a man cut off [one corner of] his garment,17 he has gained nothing, for he has simply made it into a five-cornered garment.18

R. Mesharsheya said, If a man folded up his garment,19 he has gained nothing, for it is regarded as spread out.20 We have also learnt:21 Water-skins that [have been pierced and] have been tied up again are not susceptible to uncleanness,22 excepting those tied up with an Arab knot.23

R. Dimi of Nehardea said, If a man sewed together [the folded corners of] his garment,24 he has gained nothing, for if he has no use for the corners he should cut them off and throw them away.25

R. ISHMAEL SAYS, THE FOUR ARE FOUR SEPARATE PRECEPTS. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name that the halachah agrees with R. Ishmael.26 The halachah, however, is not in accordance with him.

Rabina was once walking behind Mar son of R. Ashi [in the street] on one of the Sabbaths preceding the Festival,27 when suddenly a corner of [Mar's] garment with its fringe had torn away, but Rabina told him nothing about it. When he came home and Rabina told him that it had torn away there [in the street], he said, 'Had you told me of it I should then and there have cast it off'.28 But has not a Master said, Great is the dignity of man since it overrides a negative precept of the Torah?29 - Rab b. Shabba explained it before R. Kahana

____________________
(1) Ibid. Heb. אך, having a limiting force, and so excluding certain cases.
(2) Accordingly in the case of a child with two heads, since it cannot continue to live, the father should be exempt entirely from the payment of redemption money!
(3) Num. III, 47. Consequently as this child has two heads and is now living there must be a payment of ten sela's for his redemption.
(4) Sc. the muscle of the arm.
(5) I.e., the palm of the hand.
(6) And if actually put on the hand it would immediately be noticeable by all. It must consequently be put high up on the arm which part is usually covered with the sleeve.
(7) Deut. XI, 18.
(8) I.e., upon the muscle of the arm, at a point nearest the heart.
(9) For his coat had been cut away around the arm so as to give greater freedom to his injured arm.
(10) I.e., on the upper part of the arm. It need not, however, be at all times covered and hidden from view.
(11) Deut. XIV, 1.
(12) A leprous spot on any part of the body that is free from hair, as the hand, is deemed to be unclean by the appearance of white hairs therein (Lev. XIII, 3), whilst a leprous spot on any part covered with hair, as the head, is deemed to be unclean by the appearance of yellow hairs therein (ibid. 30).
(13) Since the first Tanna and R. Ishmael are agreed that the four fringes are indispensable.
(14) In ordinary circumstances such a garment may not be worn, save where the precept of zizith is concerned. Where, however, one fringe was missing, the entire precept, according to the first Tanna has gone, and the cloak is therefore forbidden as containing diverse kinds, wool and linen; but according to R. Ishmael it is permitted, since each fringe is a separate precept.
(15) A five-cornered garment must be provided with fringes (v. infra 43a), but they differ as to the number of fringes necessary; according to the first Tanna there must be four fringes only, since four make up the precept, whilst according to R. Ishmael each corner must have a fringe, since each fringe is a separate precept.
(16) For bearing an unnecessary burden on the Sabbath, since the fringes were not in accordance with the law. Now if the garment had only three fringes, according to the first Tanna the precept is not thereby fulfilled, hence by reason of R. Huna's dictum the fringes are regarded as an unnecessary burden on the Sabbath; but according to R. Ishmael, the precept is thereby performed, so that R. Huna's ruling would not apply to this case.
(17) Either he cut away a square piece at the corner, leaving behind two right-angled corners, thus making the garment five-cornered; or, he cut away one corner diagonally, leaving two obtuse-angled corners.
(18) Which must also be provided with fringes.
(19) I.e., he turned up each corner of the garment in order to render the garment exempt from fringes (and in the subsequent case of R. Dimi, he sewed down these corners) (Rashi 2); or, he folded the garment (and according to R. Dimi he sewed the fold) and inserted the fringes in the new corners formed by the fold (Rashi 2).
(20) And therefore even now it must be provided 'with fringes in its corners.
(21) Kel. XXVI, 4.
(22) Since the knot is only temporary and will be untied, the water-skin is regarded even now as a pierced vessel, and is therefore not susceptible to uncleanness.
(23) For these remain so permanently.
(24) V. supra n. 4.
(25) But as long as the corners are not cut off the garment must be provided with fringes.
(26) With all the practical results that follow from that view, as stated above.
(27) For it was usual to preach on the laws of the Festival four Sabbaths before the Festival. V. Pes. 6a.
(28) For since the garment was not now properly provided with fringes (R. Ishmael's view not being accepted as law) it is regarded as an unnecessary burden carried on the Sabbath.
(29) And as it would be undignified for a man of his eminence to remove his garment in the street he is permitted to carry it on the Sabbath.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 38a

as referring to the prohibition, Thou shalt not turn aside.1 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? 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,2 so that the prohibition is only Rabbinic.

CHAPTER 4

MISHNAH. THE [ABSENCE OF THE] BLUE [IN THE FRINGES] DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE WHITE, NEITHER DOES THE [ABSENCE OF THE] WHITE INVALIDATE THE BLUE3 THE [ABSENCE OF THE] HAND-TEFILLAH DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE HEAD-TEFILLAH, NEITHER DOES THE [ABSENCE OF THE] HEAD-TEFILLAH INVALIDATE THE HAND-TEFlllah.4

GEMARA. Must we say that our Mishnah is not in accordance with Rabbi? For it was taught: That ye may look upon it,5 implies that the [absence of] one invalidates the other. So Rabbi. 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,6 [which implies that the fringes must be] of the same [colour] as that of the corner,7 and it also says, A blue thread;6 and then the Divine Law says. 'That ye may look upon it', that is, both must be there together as one. 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 insert8 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'?

____________________
(1) 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.
(2) כרמלית, 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.
(3) 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.
(4) And if a man has only one tefilah (sing. of tefillin) he should put on that one.
(5) Num. XV, 39.
(6) Ibid. 38.
(7) As garments were usually of white linen, there must therefore be white threads as fringes.
(8) Or, to twine, v. Sh. Mek. n. 3. The white threads, as derived above from 'the corner', precede the blue in the verse.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 38b

Should you say it means that he has not fulfilled the precept of the white [threads] but has fulfilled the precept of the blue, but according to Rabbi the absence of one invalidates the other!1 - Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, It means that he has not fulfilled the precept and yet has performed the precept, for 'has not fulfilled the precept' only means that he has not performed the precept in the best way. This then explains the clause, NEITHER DOES THE WHITE INVALIDATE THE BLUE;2 but how can one explain the other clause, THE BLUE DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE WHITE?3 Moreover,4 it has been reported: Levi once said to Samuel, Arioch,5 you are not to sit down6 until you explain to me the following: THE BLUE DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE WHITE, NEITHER DOES THE WHITE INVALIDATE THE BLUE.

What does it mean? - He answered, This refers to the fringes in a [white linen] garment; for it is proper to insert the white threads first, since Holy Writ says 'the corner', [signifying that the fringes] of the same [colour] as the corner [must be inserted first]; nevertheless, if one inserted the blue first it does not matter. Well, this explains. NEITHER DOES THE WHITE INVALIDATE THE BLUE, but how can one explain, THE BLUE DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE WHITE? - Rami b. Hama answered, The latter rule refers to a garment that is entirely blue, in which case it is proper to insert the blue threads first, since Holy Writ says 'the corner', [signifying that the fringes] of the same [colour] as the corner [must be inserted first]; nevertheless, if one inserted the white threads first it does not matter. Raba objected, Does then the colour affect the law?7 - Raba therefore explained that [our Mishnah] refers to the curtailment of the threads; thus whether the blue [threads] were curtailed and the white remained or the white were curtailed and the blue remained, it does not matter. As the sons of R. Hiyya said, Curtailed blue threads are valid; curtailed hyssop twigs are valid. What is the minimum length of a curtailed thread? - Bar Hamduri stated in the name of Samuel, There must be sufficient to make a loop therewith. The question was raised: Does 'sufficient to make a loop' mean to make a loop of all the threads together,8 or of each thread separately? - This remains undecided.

R. Ashi raised the question: How is it if [the curtailed threads] are so thick that one cannot make a loop with them, although had they been thinner one could have made a loop with them? - R. Aha the son of Raba answered R. Ashi, They are most certainly [valid], since the precept is all the more noticeable thereby.9

Who is the Tanna that disagrees with Rabbi?10 - It is the Tanna of the following Baraitha. For it was taught: R. Isaac says in the name of R. Nathan who said it in the name of R. Jose the Galilean and who in turn said it in the name of R. Johanan b. Nuri, If a man has no blue threads he should insert all white threads.11

Raba said, You can infer from this12 that one must make a knot after each joint;13 for should you hold that this is not necessary, then how could the sons of R. Hiyya have said, Curtailed blue threads are valid, also curtailed hyssop twigs are valid? As soon as the upper knot14 becomes loose it would all become undone!15 -

____________________
(1) Since it is considered as though the precept of the white threads had not been fulfilled at all, this omission according to Rabbi impairs the validity of the blue; how then can it be said that if the proper precedence was not adhered to it it is still valid?
(2) I.e., even though the blue was inserted first it is not invalid.
(3) Which would mean apparently that even though the white was inserted first it is not invalid. But that is the proper order of precedence!
(4) In cur. edd. is inserted here an answer by Rami b. Hama which is actually given below. It is omitted here in all MSS. and by Sh. Mek.
(5) A title of dignity applied to Samuel the contemporary of Rab; probably a Persian adaptation of 'judge' (Jast.) V. Rashi here, and in Shab. 53a and also in Hul. 76b. V. also Kid. (Sonc. ed.) p. 189, n. 11.
(6) Lit., 'sit on your legs', with reference to their custom of sitting on the ground with their legs crossed under them.
(7) Once it is established that the white threads must be inserted first - established by reason of the fact that most garments were of white linen and the rule that the fringes similar in colour to the corner of the garment must be inserted first-this law stands and is not altered by reason of the colour of the garment.
(8) In which case the curtailed thread would have to be longer than where the loop was to be made by the curtailed thread by itself.
(9) For there is here the minimum length for curtailed threads, and moreover they are thicker and therefore more noticeable.
(10) I.e., whose view is put forward by the Sages in the Baraitha supra p. 233.
(11) For the omission of one colour does not prevent the use of the other. This Tanna clearly disagrees with Rabbi.
(12) From the statement of R. Hiyya's sons.
(13) Each fringe is in part wound around with thread (גדיל), and in part hangs loose (עגף). After the threads have been inserted in the hole at the corner of the garment and folded over double, one thread is taken and wound around the others, and after several windings a knot is made and then the windings begin over again. Each series of windings is called a joint (חוליא), and at the end of each joint a knot (קשר) is made to prevent the windings from becoming undone.
(14) I.e., the uppermost and first knot when holding up the garment by the fringe; or the last or nethermost knot when the garment is worn.
(15) Since a thread has snapped close to the last knot it would inevitably follow that this knot would become undone, and if there were no other knots at each joint, the entire fringe would become undone, in which case it certainly cannot be valid.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 39a

Perhaps [they said so only where] there were knots [after each joint].1

Raba also said, You can infer from this that the upper knot2 is an ordinance of the Torah;3 for should you say it is a Rabbinic ordinance,4 then why was it necessary for the Torah to permit the insertion of [woollen] fringes in a [linen] garment?5 One would have no doubt about it, for if one merely fastens together [two pieces] with one fastening6 no connection is thereby formed!7 You can therefore infer from this that it is an ordinance of the Torah.

Rabbah son of R. Adda said in the name of R. Adda who said it in the name of Rab, If a thread had snapped at the top,8 it is invalid. R. Nahman was sitting and repeating the above rule when Raba raised the following objection against him: This9 applies only at the outset,10 but later on11 the remnants thereof and the curtailed threads thereof may be of any length whatsoever. Now what is meant by 'remnants' and what by 'curtailed threads'? Presumably 'remnant' means that a part [of the thread] had broken off and a part had remained, and 'curtailed' means that [the thread] had entirely broken away!12 - No, both terms must be taken together thus, the remnants of the curtailed threads may be of any length whatsoever. Then it should have mentioned only 'the curtailed threads'; why does it add 'the remnants'? - It teaches us that there must be left a remnant of the curtailed threads sufficient to make a loop therewith.

Rabbah was sitting and reciting the following in the name of Rab: The thread that is used for winding is included in the number of threads.13 Whereupon R. Joseph said to him, It was Samuel who said it and not Rab. It has also been reported: Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said, R. Josiah of Usha told me that the thread used for winding is included in the number of threads.

Rabbah again was sitting and reciting the following in the name of Samuel: If the greater part of the fringe14 was wound around,15 it is still valid. Whereupon R. Joseph said to him, It was Rab who said it and not Samuel. Indeed it has been reported: R. Huna b. Judah said in the name of R. Shesheth who said it in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba who in turn said it in the name of Rab, If the greater part of the fringe was wound around, it is still valid.

R. Hiyya the son of R. Nathan reports it as follows: R. Huna said in the name of R. Shesheth who said it in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba who said it in the name of Rab, If the greater part of the fringe was wound around, it is still valid. And even if only one joint16 was made, it is valid. It is most becoming, however, for the fringe to be wound around17 for a third [of its length] and the remaining two thirds [to hang loose] as locks.18

What is the minimum length of a joint? - It was taught: Rabbi says, [In a joint] the thread must be wound once, twice and a third time. It was taught: If a man wishes to make few,19 he should not make less than seven, and if many, he should not make more than thirteen. If few, he should not make less than seven, to correspond to the seven heavens;20 and if many, he should not make more than thirteen, to correspond to the seven heavens plus the six intervening spaces.

A Tanna taught: At the start one begins to wind with the white thread, since Holy Writ says 'the corner' [signifying that the thread] of the same [colour] as the corner [must be used first], and at the end one finishes the winding with a white thread, since what is holy we may raise [to a higher degree of sanctity] but not bring down.21

Once Rab and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah were sitting together when a man passed by wearing a garment entirely blue, to which were attached fringes

____________________
(1) Where, however, there were no knots after each joint, a curtailed thread would render the whole invalid. Hence there is no proof that there must be a knot after each joint.
(2) Here Rashi suggests, either the last knot (as above) that is furthest from the garment at the end of all the windings, or (v. Tosaf. s.v. קשר) the first knot that is made as soon as the threads have been inserted in the corner of the garment.
(3) I.e., a law given to Moses at Sinai.
(4) But by Biblical law it is not necessary to tie the threads together, not even to the garment.
(5) This is established by the juxtaposition of the texts, viz., (Deut. XXII, 12) Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and limen together, and (12) Thou shalt make thee twisted cords, intimating that the former prohibition is superseded by the precept of zizith.
(6) I.e., joining cloths of wool and of linen with a single stitch or knot.
(7) So that by merely threading the woollen strands through the linen garment there is no infringement of the law of 'mixed stuffs'; hence there was no necessity for an express permission by Holy Writ.
(8) Close to the garment; the entire thread had thus broken away.
(9) That the fringes must be of a prescribed minimum length; cf. infra 41b.
(10) I.e., in the first instance when attaching the fringes to the garment.
(11) l.e., if at one time the fringes had been of the prescribed length, but had later been reduced.
(12) And yet it is valid, contra R. Nahman.
(13) To make up the requisite number of eight threads.
(14) Lit., 'the blue'.
(15) Contrary to the prescribed requirement of two thirds hanging loose as locks, v. infra.
(16) חוליא, a section of the fringe around which a thread has been wound several times, and bounded at each end by a knot.
(17) This part is termed גדיל.
(18) Lit., 'a branch' ענף.
(19) Sc. joints; so Rashi and Maim. According to Nimukke Joseph the reference is to the number of windings in each joint.
(20) v. Hag. 12b. For the connection between the heavens and the zizith v. infra 43b.
(21) The white thread is deemed to be of a higher degree of sanctity since it is mentioned first in the text. The middle joint is wound round with the blue thread.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 39b

which were entirely wound around;1 whereupon Rab remarked, A fine garment, but the fringes are not fine; but Rabbah b. Bar Hana said, A fine garment and fine fringes. Wherein do they differ? - Rabbah b. Bar Hana maintains, since Holy Writ says 'twisted cords'2 and also 'thread',3 [the fringe] may be either [entirely] a twisted cord or [entirely] in loose threads. Rab, however, maintains that there must always be loose threads; but the expression 'twisted cords' is required only for the determination of the number of threads; for the expression 'twisted cord' would imply two threads,4 but 'twisted cords'5 implies four; one must therefore twist them into a cord, but from the middle they must hang down in separate threads.6

Samuel said in the name of Levi, [White] woollen threads7 fulfil8 [the precept of fringes] in a linen garment. The question was raised: Would [white] linen threads7 fulfil [the precept of fringes] in a woollen garment? Do we hold that only [white] woollen threads fulfil [the precept] in a linen garment, for since blue [woollen threads] fulfil [the precept in any garment]9 white [woollen threads] also fulfil the precept, but [white] linen threads cannot fulfil the precept in a woollen garment; or, we can argue, since it is written, Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together. Thou shalt make thee twisted cords,10 accordingly it matters not whether woollen threads are put in a linen garment or linen threads in a woollen garment?11 - Come and hear. Rehabah said in the name of Rab Judah, Woollen threads fulfil the precept in a linen garment and linen threads in a woollen garment; [blue] woollen threads together with [white] linen threads fulfil the precept in any garment, even [in a garment] of silk.

This differs from R. Nahman's view, for R. Nahman said, Silk garments are exempt from zizith. Raba raised the following objection against R. Nahman: It was taught: Garments of silk or of raw silk or of floss-silk must be provided with zizith!12 - That is merely a Rabbinic enactment. But then consider the next clause [of that Baraitha]: Woollen threads and linen threads fulfil the precept in every case.13 Now if you say that it is so14 by the law of the Torah then that is why diverse kinds are permitted for them; but if you say that it14 is merely a Rabbinic enactment, how can it be that diverse kinds are permitted for them? - Render, either woollen threads or linen threads.15 And that is indeed the more reasonable view to take, for it reads in the final clause [of that Baraitha]: These16 fulfil the precept in a garment of the same material but not in a garment of a different material. Now if you say that it is merely a Rabbinic enactment, then that is why these fulfil the precept in a garment of the same material; but if you say that it is so by the law of the Torah, surely [according to the Torah] only wool and linen can discharge the obligation!17 - This is not a conclusive argument, for the text may be explained in accordance with Raba's argument. For Raba pointed out a contradiction: It is written, The corner,18 [which implies that the fringes are to be of] the same kind [of material] as that of the corner, but it is also written, Wool and linen.19 How are the texts to be reconciled? Wool and linen fulfil [the precept of zizith] both in garments of their own kind [of material] as well as in garments of a different kind, whereas other kinds of threads20 fulfil the precept only in a garment of their own kind [of material], but not in a garment of a different kind [of material].

R. Nahman,21 however, agrees with the view of the Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael. For a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: Since in the Torah the word 'garments' is used without being specified,22 but in one particular case23 Holy Writ specified 'wool and linen', the inference is that all garments are understood as being of wool or of linen.

Abaye said, This teaching of a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael differs from that of another Tanna of the same school. For a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: By garment23 I understand only a garment of [sheep's] wool; whence can I include garments of camel hair, of hare's hair, of goat's hair, or of raw silk or floss-silk or fine silk? Scripture therefore says, Or a garment.24

____________________
(1) The entire fringe had been covered with windings of thread so that no part hung loose as the locks of hair. I.e., it was all גדיל and no ענף.
(2) Deut. XXII, 22. Heb. גדילים.
(3) Num. XV, 38. Heb. פתיל.
(4) For a twisted cord cannot be made of less than two threads.
(5) In the plural.
(6) Or: 'that which is used for winding shall be of it', i.e., the thread that is wound around the others is included in the number of threads.
(7) Together with the blue woollen threads.
(8) Lit., 'discharge'. Sc. the garment of its obligation.
(9) For in every garment of whatever material blue threads must be inserted, and these blue threads, תכלת, must be of wool.
(10) Deut. XXII, 11, 12.
(11) The precept is always fulfilled thereby.
(12) Shab. 20b.
(13) Meaning apparently that if the blue threads are of wool and the white threads of linen they together fulfil the obligation of zizith in any silk garment.
(14) That silk garments must be provided with zizith.
(15) But the two kinds together would not be permitted to be used as fringes in a silk garment.
(16) Sc., threads of silk.
(17) For only wool and linen are mentioned in connection with the zizith; cf. Deut. XXII, 11, 12.
(18) Num. XV, 38.
(19) Cf. Deut. XXII, 11, 12, which shows that the fringes must be either of wool or of linen, whatever the material of the garment is.
(20) E.g., silk.
(21) Who maintains that silk garments require fringes only by Rabbinic ordinance, for according to the law of the Torah only garments of wool and of linen are subject to zizith.
(22) Cf. Num. XV, 38: That they make them fringes in the corners of their garments; or with reference to uncleanness by creeping things, Lev. XI, 32.
(23) With reference to plagues in garments, Lev. XIII, 47, 48.
(24) Ibid. 47: Whether it be a woolen garment or a linen garment; the conjunction 'or' includes other garments too as being subject to the law of plagues.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 40a

Our Rabbis taught: A linen garment is, according to Beth Shammai, exempt from zizith;1 but Beth Hillel declare it liable.2 The halachah is in accordance with Beth Hillel. R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok said, Is it not a fact that any one in Jerusalem who attaches blue threads [to his linen garment] causes amazement?3 Rabbi said, If that is so, why did they forbid it?4 Because people are not versed in the law.5

Raba son of R. Hanan said to Raba, Then let ten people insert it and let them go about in the market place and so the law will be made known to all!6 People will wonder at it all the more.7 Then let it be announced at the public lecture! - It is to be feared that people will use imitation blue.8 But it is no worse than if it were white!9 - Since one could use threads of the same material [as the garment], it is not [allowed to do otherwise];10 this being in accordance with Resh Lakish's view, for Resh Lakish said, Wherever you find a positive precept and a negative precept [in opposition], if you can possibly observe both,11 well and good, otherwise let the positive precept come and override the negative one. But it can be examined,12 can it not? - Rather we apprehend that it may have been used for testing.13 But it can be announced on public notices,14 can it not? - And are we to rely upon public notices?15 Whereupon Raba said, If

____________________
(1) It is even forbidden to wear a linen garment that is provided with fringes on account of the prohibition of diverse kinds, linen and wool, which prohibition is not waived even for the performance of the law of zizith.
(2) For the prohibition of diverse kinds is waived by the precept of zizith, this being inferred by reason of the juxtaposition of the two texts; cf. Deut. XXII, 11 and 12.
(3) But it is not forbidden, thus contrary to Beth Shammai's view. Aliter: it causes amazement by reason of the flagrant transgression of the law, thus R. Eliezer b. R. Zadok is in conflict with Beth Hillel.
(4) Since it is not forbidden in law, why did Beth Shammai impose the restriction? Aliter: since Beth Hillel's view was accepted as the law, why should it create amazement in Jerusalem?
(5) And if it were permitted to wear diverse kinds in pursuance of the precept of zizith people might forget about the precept and would wear diverse kinds in all circumstances.
(6) That the prohibition of diverse kinds is waived only in pursuance of the precept of zizith.
(7) That pious men should be wearing garments of diverse kinds, wool and linen.
(8) קלא אילן, a vegetable blue dye, probably indigo, being an imitation of the genuine blue תכלת, which is obtained from the blood of a mollusc. Now the prohibition of diverse kinds is waived only when woollen threads dyed with genuine blue are used, but not when they are dyed with imitation blue.
(9) The threads dyed with this imitation blue should be regarded as though not dyed at all, and it has been established that in the absence of blue threads ordinary white woollen threads may be used in their stead.
(10) Since genuine blue is unobtainable and in its place white threads are used, it is proper to use those threads which are of the same material as the garment, thus avoiding any clashing between precepts and obviating the one overriding the other; so that only white threads of linen may be used as fringes in a linen garment.
(11) By carrying out the positive precept without at the same time transgressing the prohibition, as here by attaching white threads of linen as fringes in a linen garment.
(12) Every blue thread can be subjected to a test so as to ascertain whether the blue dye is genuine or imitation; v. infra 42b. According to another interpretation given in Rashi, the purchaser of the blue thread can inspect the dye in the pan of the dyer in order to ascertain whether the dye is genuine or not.
(13) This thread of blue may be the testing thread, i.e., the thread that was dipped into the pan of dye in order to ascertain whether the dye had reached its proper strength and consistency, and it may not be inserted in a garment, for it is essential that the dyeing of the thread be prepared specifically for the purpose of zizith and not for testing purposes. According to the second interpretation (v. prec. n.): the inspection is of no avail, for the dyer may have drawn off a small quantity so as to test its colour and then have poured it back into the pan, which action renders the entire contents of the pan invalid for the zizith.
(14) Notifying all dyers that the testing thread may not be used in a garment. And according to the second interpretation: notifying all dyers that the quantity taken for the test may not be poured back into the pan.
(15) Some people may ignore these notices, either through inadvertence or deliberately.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 40b

in respect of leaven on the Passover Festival or in respect of the Day of Atonement which involve the penalty of kareth we rely upon public notices,1 how much more so may we rely upon them here where only the transgression of a positive precept can be involved!2 - Rather, said Raba, I suggested the following explanation3 and in the West it was similarly4 reported in the name of R. 'Zera: The apprehension is that the linen garment may have been torn within three fingerbreadths' distance [from the hem] and it had been sewn together [with linen threads, and the threads were left hanging for the fringe],5 and the Torah has said, 'Thou shalt make6 and not use what is ready made'.7 R. Zera [it was reported,] removed [the fringes from] his linen garment.8 Rab Zera said, It is also to be feared that one will use it as a night wrap.9

Raba also said, I stated the following and in the West it was similarly reported in the name of R. Zera: If the garment is made of cloth and the corners thereof of leather, it is subject to zizith; If the garment is made of leather10 and the corners thereof of cloth, it is exempt. What is the reason? Because we consider the main part of the garment. R. Ahai, however, always decided according to the material of the corner.11

Raba said in the name of R. Sehora who said it in the name of R. Huna, If a man inserted fringes in the corners of a three-cornered garment and then added a fourth corner [and inserted a fringe therein], it is invalid, because of the rule 'Thou shalt make, and not use what is ready made'.12 An objection was raised: The pious men of old used to insert the zizith13 as soon as three fingerbreadths of the garment had been woven!14 - Render: they used to insert the fringes as soon as the last three fingerbreadths had been reached.

Do we then always apply the rule 'Thou shalt make, and not use what is ready made'? Surely R. Zera has said that if a man inserted fringes in a garment that was already provided with fringes,15 it is valid!16 - Raba replied, Since one thereby transgresses the law of Thou shalt not add thereto,17 the act done is not considered at all. R. Papa demurred: How do you know that this man's intention was to add [to the other fringes]? Perhaps it was to cancel the others, so that there was no transgression of 'Thou shalt not add thereto'; accordingly the act done is considered an act.18

R. Zera said in the name of R. Mattena who said it in the name of Samuel, [A garment that is provided with] fringes does not come within the prohibition of diverse kinds,19 and [it is the same] even though the garment was exempt from zizith. What is meant by 'a garment exempt from zizith'? Does it mean a garment smaller than the prescribed measure? But it has been taught: A garment with which a child can cover his head and most of his body,

____________________
(1) The decisions of the Sanhedrin concerning intercalation of the year whereby the year is deemed to be a leap year and thus postponing the Passover Festival for a month, or intercalation of the month whereby another day is added to the month and thus postponing the Day of Atonement (or any Festival that comes in the subsequent month) by one day, were announced to the public by means of notices and letters.
(2) For the use of the test thread (or the thread dyed from the quantity taken for testing) is but an infringement of a positive precept, for Holy Writ declares, That they make them fringes (Num. XV, 38), that is to say, the threads must be prepared specifically for the zizith.
(3) Why it is forbidden to insert the blue woollen threads in a linen garment.
(4) Lit., 'in agreement with me'.
(5) So that when the garment is repaired it is already provided with part of the fringe, which is invalid for the precept.
(6) Deut. XXII, 12.
(7) Accordingly when threads of wool are added to the fringe the prohibition of diverse kinds applies and it is not waived by the precept since the precept is not properly performed.
(8) For the same reason as explained above by Raba.
(9) Which is exempt from zizith. And whenever the garment is used not in pursuance of the performance of the precept (e.g., if worn by night) one transgresses the prohibition of diverse kinds.
(10) And a leather garment is exempt from zizith.
(11) And the rule is just the reverse of that stated by Raba.
(12) A three-cornered garment is exempt from zizith, accordingly when the first three fringes were inserted there was no obligation for fringes, and when the obligation falls due, i.e. when the fourth corner is added, the fringes are found to be already made.
(13) Lit., 'the blue' (threads).
(14) As soon as a strip three fingers wide (the minimum size of a garment) had been woven they used to insert two fringes, one at each corner, and the other two fringes they inserted when the cloth was finished. Now it is clear that the obligation of fringes falls due only when the weaving is finished, nevertheless, it is taught here, that the first two fringes are deemed valid and are not regarded as ready made.
(15) A second fringe was inserted at each corner close to the existing fringe, and when all eight fringes were attached, the first set of four fringes were cut away.
(16) I.e., the second set of fringes satisfy the law, although when these fringes were inserted there was no obligation for them, since the first set of fringes had not yet been removed.
(17) Deut. XIII, 1. At the time when each fringe of the second set is inserted there is a transgression of this precept, so that the fringe so made is null and void, and therefore only when the first set is removed does the second set of fringes come into existence, Where, however, the fringes were inserted in a three-cornered garment, this act, not being an infringement of the law, is an act of consequence, and when a fourth corner is added and a fringe attached thereto, the first three fringes are disqualified as being ready made.
(18) Nevertheless R. Zera rules that the second set of fringes is valid even though it was ready made; thus in conflict with the principle laid down.
(19) And it may be worn by a person that is not subject to the law of zizith, e.g. a woman (R. Tam).

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 41a

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. And so it is, too, in regard to diverse kinds. Now we pondered over this: What does the ruling 'And so it is, too, in regard to diverse kinds' signify? Can it mean: And so it is, too, in regard to the applicability of the prohibition of diverse kinds?1 Surely we have learnt:2 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!3 - We must say that 'a garment exempt from fringes' means, a garment already provided with fringes in which one inserted [another set of fringes].4 But has not R. Zera taught this once?5 - One was stated as an inference from the other.6

Our Rabbis taught: A garment that was folded over is subject to zizith, but R. Simeon declares it to be exempt.7 They are agreed, however, that if it was folded over and sewn down, it is subject to the law. Is not this obvious? - It is necessary to be stated where it was only fastened down with pins.8

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. It happened to become unfolded and the fringes were found to be above9 [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. Thereupon Rabbah said to him, 'Do you think that [the law of zizith] is an obligation incumbent upon the person? It is an obligation attaching to the garment;10 go, therefore, and insert the fringes in it [in the proper manner]'.

Shall we say that the following supports his view?11 [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?12 - It is different with those pious men for they imposed upon themselves additional obligations.

His view13 is at variance with the angel's view. For an angel once found R. Kattina wearing a linen wrap,14 and he exclaimed, 'Kattina, Kattina, a wrap in summer and a cloak15 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 an 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.16 Samuel, however, admits that where an old man made it for his shroud17 it is exempt, for the Divine Law says, Wherewith thou coverest thyself,18 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 poor19 blasphemeth his Maker.20

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.21 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.22 And they are also agreed that the fringes may be taken out of another garment and put into this garment,

____________________
(1) 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.
(2) Kil. IX, 2.
(3) 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.
(4) The second set of fringes, although unnecessary, does not bring the garment within the prohibition.
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
(7) 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.
(8) 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.
(9) Lit., 'at his head'.
(10) 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.
(11) Of Rabbah b. R. Huna, that the zizith is an obligation attaching to the garment.
(12) 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.
(13) V. p. 246, n. 8.
(14) Which was without fringes, since it was mainly used as a night wrap.
(15) A garment with rounded corners and so not subject to the law of zizith.
(16) For the obligation rests upon the garments, and as they are intended to be worn, they must be provided with fringes.
(17) Lit., 'for his honour'.
(18) Deut. XXII, 12:
(19) 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. Nid. 61b s.v. אבל.
(20) Prov. XVII, 5.
(21) 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.
(22) For the fringe would be ready made, and so invalid.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 41b

provided they are not cut.1 You may well infer from this, may you not, that one may detach the fringes from one garment [for insertion] into another garment?2 - Perhaps [it is permitted] only when the first garment was worn out.3

Our Rabbis taught: In a garment that is entirely blue [threads of] any colour fulfil [the precept of zizith], except imitation blue.4 An objection was raised: Only threads of the same colour as the garment fulfil the precept; but in a garment that is entirely blue one should insert blue threads and threads of some other colour, except threads of imitation blue;5 if, however, these were inserted, it is, nevertheless, valid!6 - R. Nahman b. Isaac said, This is no difficulty, for in the one case the garment had fringes, each consisting of four threads, and in the other it had fringes each consisting of eight threads.7 You may well infer from this, may you not, that one may detach the fringes from one garment [for insertion] into another garment?8 - Perhaps it had been done [in contravention of the law].9

It was stated: Rab said, One may not detach [the fringes] from one garment [and insert them] into another; but Samuel said, One may do so. Rab said, One may not kindle one light10 from another light; but Samuel said, One may do so. Rab said, The halachah is not in accordance with R. Simeon's view concerning the dragging [of an object on the Sabbath]; but Samuel said, It is. Abaye said, In every case my Master [Rabbah] followed Rab's ruling, save in the above three cases in which he followed Samuel's ruling, namely, that one may detach the fringes from one garment [and insert them] into another, that one may kindle one light from another light, and that the halachah is in accordance with R. Simeon's view concerning the dragging [of an object on the Sabbath], for it was taught: R. Simeon says, A man may drag a bed, a chair or a bench on the Sabbath, provided he has no intention of making a groove.11

Rab Judah used to send [his garment with the fringes] to the fuller.12 R. Hanina used to roll up the fringes into a ball.13 Rabina used to sew them up.

Our Rabbis taught: How many threads must one insert? Beth Shammai say, Four;14 but Beth Hillel say. Three. And how far must they hang down?15 Beth Shammai say, Four [fingerbreadths]; but Beth Hillel say, Three. And as for the three [fingerbreadths] stated by Beth Hillel each must measure one fourth part of the handbreadth of an ordinary person. R. Papa said, The handbreadth of the Torah is equal to four times the width of the thumb, or six times the width of the little finger, or five times the width of the middle finger.16

R. Huna said, Four [threads] must be [inserted in the garment] within [the distance of] four [fingerbreadths from the corner], and they must hang down for four [fingerbreadths]. Rab Judah said, Three [threads] must be inserted within three [fingerbreadths from the corner], and they must hang down for three [fingerbreadths]. R. Papa said, The law is: Four [threads] must be inserted within three [fingerbreadths from the corner], and they must hang down for four [fingerbreadths].

Do we then hold that the fringes have a prescribed length, but I can point out a contradiction. It was taught: Zizith:17 the word zizith means nothing else than something which hangs over; moreover zizith signifies any length whatsoever. And [this was established] long ago when the elders of Beth Shammai and of Beth Hillel went up into the upper chamber of Johanan b. Bathyra and decided that there was no prescribed length for the zizith; and so, too, that there was no prescribed length for the lulab.18 Now this means, does it not, that there is no prescribed length at all for it? - No,

____________________
(1) I.e., each thread is whole and intact (Rashi). This is too obvious, and Tosaf and Nimmuke Joseph are at a loss to suggest a satisfactory explanation.
(2) But it is a subject of dispute between Rab and Samuel, infra.
(3) But it is forbidden to remove the fringes from a garment that is in good condition in order to insert them into another garment, for this would be a disparagement of the precept.
(4) For the fringe must consist of two colours, threads of real blue and threads of another colour (usually white). Hence it is not permitted to have a fringe of real blue and imitation blue since they are both the one colour.
(5) V. p. 248, n. 6.
(6) Thus in conflict with the Baraitha which absolutely excludes imitation blue.
(7) The second Baraitha deals with the case where there were four threads already inserted in the garment, two of real blue and two of some other colour, and it was desired to insert four more threads of imitation blue. Now this is not permitted in the first instance (though if one did so it is valid), for this garment might be sold and the buyer, believing that all the blue threads are genuine, might remove two of the imitation blue threads and insert them into another garment, relying upon them as genuine blue threads, thus involving the transgression of the law of diverse kinds. (Second interpretation of Rashi.)
(8) Since the apprehension is that the imitation blue threads will be removed from this garment and put into another (v. prec. note), it is obvious that it is permitted to do so.
(9) Although it is not permitted to remove the fringes from one garment for insertion into another, the apprehension is that one might do so and in the circumstances of this case there might arise therefrom the transgression of a grave law.
(10) On the Feast of Hanukkah when lights are kindled for eight days.
(11) Although when dragging a heavy object over soft earth it is inevitable that a groove be made, which act is forbidden on the Sabbath, R. Simeon permits it as long as there was no intention of making the groove. V. Shab. 22a.
(12) And he had no fears lest the fuller damage the real blue threads and replace them with imitation blue threads.
(13) To protect them during washing.
(14) One must insert four threads in the hole at each corner of the garment and double them over in the middle, so that eight threads hang down.
(15) After making the necessary windings and knots in the form of a chain, the threads are left to hang loose; and it is established that the loose threads, called the פתיל or ענף, must be twice as long as the chain-like portion, called the גדיל. The dispute between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel is, according to Rashi, in respect of the length of the פתיל, and according to R. Tam, in respect of the length of the גדיל.
(16) In MS.M.: 'five times and one third the (width of the middle) finger'; so too' R. Gershom, and Sh. Mek.
(17) Num. XV, 38.
(18) The palm-branch, לולב used on the Feast of Tabernacles. V. Lev. XXIII, 40.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 42a

there is no prescribed maximum length but there is a prescribed minimum length.1 For if you will not say so, the ruling 'And so, too, that there was no prescribed length for the lulab' would also have to mean that there is no prescribed length at all for it, but we have learnt: A lulab which is three handbreadths in length, long enough to shake, is valid?2 We must therefore say that it means, there is no prescribed maximum length for it but there is a prescribed minimum length; so here too, [with regard to the zizith] it means, there is no prescribed maximum length for it but there is a prescribed minimum length.

Our Rabbis taught: zizith: the word zizith means nothing else than something which hangs loose, for so it says, And took me by a lock [zizith] of mine head.3 Abaye said, One must keep [the threads] separate, like the forelock of the gentiles.4

Our Rabbis taught If one attached the fringes to the tip [of the corner] or to the selvedge [of the garment],5 it is valid; R. Eliezer b. Jacob declares it invalid in both cases. Whose view is adopted in the following statement of R. Giddal in the name of Rab: The fringes must hang over the corner,6 for it is written, Upon the corners of their garments?7 It is the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob.

R. Jacob said in the name of R. Johanan, It8 must be removed from the corner the distance of the first joint of the thumb. Now both R. Papa's teaching9 and this teaching of R. Jacob are necessary. For from R. Papa's teaching I only know that it must be within three fingerbreadths' distance from the corner and not farther away than that, but the nearer it is [to the corner] the better; therefore R. Jacob's teaching was necessary. And from R. Jacob's teaching I only know that it must be away from the corner the distance of the first joint of the thumb and not nearer than that, but the farther away it is [from the corner] the better; therefore [both teachings] are necessary.

Rabina and R. Sama were once sitting before R. Ashi when R. Sama noticed that the [edges around the hole in the] corner of Rabina's garment had frayed and [the fringe] was now less than the distance of the first joint of the thumb away [from the corner], and he said to him, 'Does not my Master accept R. Jacob's teaching?' He replied, 'That rule was intended to apply only at the time when it was first made'. [R. Sama] became embarrassed, whereupon R. Ashi said to him, 'Do not be upset, for one of them10 is equal to two of us'.

R. Aha b. Jacob used to take four threads, double them over, insert them through the garment, and then make them into a loop;11 he was of the opinion that there must be eight threads in the [hole of the] garment, the same number as the threads which hang loose.12 R. Jeremiah of Difti used to insert eight threads, which [when hanging down] made sixteen loose threads, but he did not make them into a loop. Mar the son of Rabina used to do it as we do now.13

R. Nahman once found R. Adda b. Ahabah inserting the threads [in a garment] and reciting the blessing '[Blessed art thou . . . and hast commanded us] to make the zizith', whereupon he said, 'What is this zizi that I hear?14 Thus said Rab: When making the zizith no blessing is to be pronounced'.

After the death of R. Huna, R. Hisda came in [as head of the School] and pointed out the following contradictory teachings of Rab. Did Rab really say that when making the zizith no blessing was to be pronounced? Surely Rab Judah has stated in the name of Rab, Whence do we know that the zizith made by a gentile are invalid? Because it is said, Speak unto the children of Israel and bid them that they make them fringes;15 the children of Israel shall make [the fringes], but not gentiles! But where is the contradiction here? - R. Joseph said, R. Hisda is of the opinion that a precept which may be performed by a gentile does not require a blessing when performed by an Israelite,16 but a precept which may not be performed by a gentile requires a blessing when performed by an Israelite.17

Is this a general principle? But take the case of circumcision. This is permitted to be performed by a gentile, for it has been taught: In a town where there is no Israelite physician but there is a Cuthean18 physician as well as a gentile one, circumcision should be performed by the gentile but not by the Cuthean. This is the opinion of R. Meir. But R. Judah said, It should be performed by the Cuthean but not by the gentile.19 And yet when performed by an Israelite a blessing must be pronounced, for a Master has said,20 He that performs the circumcision must say, 'Blessed . . . who hast sanctified us by thy commandments, and hast given us command concerning the circumcision!' - This question [by R. Hisda] concerns Rab, does it not? Surely Rab declares it21 invalid! For it has been stated:22 Whence do we know that circumcision performed by a gentile is invalid? Daru b. Papa said in the name of Rab, From the verse, And as for thee, thou shalt keep my covenant.23 R. Johanan said, From the words, Must needs be circumcised,24 that is, he who is circumcised shall circumcise.

The law concerning the sukkah25 adds support [to R. Hisda's principle] while that concerning the tefillin refutes it. Thus, the sukkah is valid when made by a gentile, for it has been taught: A booth of gentiles, women, cattle, or Cutheans, or any manner of booth, is valid [as a sukkah], provided it was roofed according to law.26 And when made by an Israelite no blessing is necessary, for it has been taught: When a man makes a sukkah for himself he must say, 'Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast kept us in life, and hast preserved us, and enabled us to reach this season'; and when he enters to sit in it he must say, 'Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast sanctified us by thy commandments, and hast commanded us to dwell in the sukkah'. But one never says, [Blessed . . . and hast commanded us] to make the sukkah. On the other hand, the law of tefillin is a refutation; for the tefillin are invalid when made by a gentile, for R. Hinena the son of Raba

____________________
(1) The fringes may be as long as desired, but they must hang down for at least the length of four fingerbreadths.
(2) But if it is less than three handbreadths in length it is not valid; so that there is a prescribed minimum length for it. V. Suk. 29b.
(3) Ez. VIII, 3. Heb. בציצת.
(4) The forelock after being bound together was left to hang loose in separate strands of hair. So, too, with the fringes, after the necessary windings the threads must hang loose in separate strands.
(5) The closely woven binding at the edge of the garment so as to prevent ravelling.
(6) I.e., the fringes must be some distance away from the corner so that the threads hang over and strike the corner; and it is invalid if the fringes were attached to the actual corner, thus in agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob.
(7) Num. XV, 38.
(8) I.e., the hole in the garment through which the fringes are thread.
(9) Supra 41b, that the fringes must be inserted within three fingerbreadths' distance from the corner.
(10) Sc. scholars from Palestine, of whom Rabina was one.
(11) Having doubled over the threads he used to insert the looped end through the hole in the garment an inch or so and then pass the ends of the threads through this loop and pull tight, and in this manner the threads hung from the garment.
(12) So MS.M. and early editions, reading דבעינן for גדיל גדילים דליהוי. According to cur. text: the same as the number of threads that hang loose suggested by the terms 'twisted cord' and 'twisted cords' (v. supra p. 239).
(13) I.e., insert four threads so that there are eight threads hanging loose.
(14) Mockingly mispronouncing the word.
(15) Num. XV, 38.
(16) For the usual formula 'Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who hast sanctified us by thy commandments and hast commanded us . . .' does not apply since the commandment may be also performed by a gentile.
(17) And since gentiles may not make the fringes it follows that when an Israelite makes them a blessing must be pronounced; thus contradicting the former statement of Rab.
(18) The Cutheans, often called Samaritans, were one of the peoples settled in Samaria by the Assyrian king after the exile of the ten tribes. They adopted certain Jewish practices, particularly those based upon the written word of the Torah; cf. 2 Kings XVII, 2ff. Later, however, they were found to be worshipping a dove on Mount Gerizim; v. Hul. 6a.
(19) V. A.Z. 26b.
(20) Shab. 137b.
(21) Sc. circumcision by a gentile.
(22) A.Z. 27a.
(23) Gen. XVII, 9. Only one like Abraham, i.e., circumcised, may perform the circumcision.
(24) Ibid. 13. Heb. המול ימול can by a slight alteration of the vowels be rendered המול, 'he who is circumcised may circumcise', thus excluding gentiles.
(25) Heb. סכה, the booth set up at the Feast of Tabernacles in fulfilment of Lev. XXIII, 42.
(26) Suk. 8b.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 42b

of Pashrunia taught: A scroll of the Law, tefillin and mezuzoth written by a min,1 a Cuthean, a gentile, a slave, a woman, a minor, or an apostate Jew,2 are invalid, since it says, And thou shalt bind them . . . and thou shalt write them,3 which indicates that those who 'bind' may 'write', but those who do not 'bind' may not 'write'. And yet when made by an Israelite no blessing is pronounced; for R. Hiyya the son of R. Huna sent the following decision in the name of R. Johanan: Over the hand-tefillah one must say, 'Blessed . . . who hast sanctified us by thy commandments and hast commanded us to put on the tefillin'. Over the head-tefillah one must say, 'Blessed . . . who hast sanctified us by thy commandments and hast given us command concerning the precept of the tefillin'. But one never says, '[Blessed . . . and hast commanded us] to make the tefillin!' - Indeed this is the true principle: Wherever a precept is completed by a single act,4 e.g., circumcision, although it may be performed by a gentile, when an Israelite performs it he must pronounce a blessing; and wherever a precept is not completed by a single act, e.g., the tefillin,5 although it may be made by a gentile, when an Israelite makes it he does not pronounce a blessing. And as regards the zizith they differ6 in this: One holds that [the law of zizith] is an obligation resting upon the garment,7 whilst the other holds that it is an obligation incumbent upon the person.8

R. Mordecai said to R. Ashi, You have had it reported so;9 but we had it reported thus: Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, Whence do we know that the zizith made by a gentile is valid? Because it is said, Speak unto the children of Israel and bid them that they make them fringes;10 others may make [the fringes] for them.

Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, If a man made [the zizith] from the fringes11 of the cloth, or from sewing threads,12 or from tufts11 of the cloth, they are invalid;13 but if he made them from a ball of thread they are valid.14 When I repeated this before Samuel he said that even if he made them from a ball of thread they are invalid, because it is necessary that the weaving of the thread be done for this purpose. This, however, is a matter of dispute between Tannaim, for it has been taught:15 If a man overlaid [the tefillin] with gold or covered them with the skin of an unclean animal, they are invalid;16 if with the skin of a clean animal, they are valid, even though he did not prepare it for this specific purpose. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, Even if he covered them with the skin of a clean animal they are invalid, unless it had been prepared for this specific purpose.17

Abaye enquired of R. Samuel b. Rab Judah, How do you dye the blue thread? He replied, We take the blood of hillazon18 together with other ingredients and put them all in a pot and boil them together. Then we take out a little in an egg-shell and test it on a piece of wool; and we throw away what remains in the egg-shell and burn the wool. One can infer three things from this: [i] that the dye used for testing is unfit;19 [ii] that the dyeing must be for the specific purpose [of the precept]; and [iii] that the dye used for testing renders the rest unfit.20 Are not the rules that the test quantity is itself unfit and that the dyeing must be for the specific purpose [of the precept] identical in meaning? - R. Ashi answered, One states the reason for the other, as much as to say: Why is the test quantity itself unfit? Because the dyeing must be for the specific purpose [of the precept]. This, however, is a matter of dispute between Tannaim, for it has been taught: The test quantity is itself unfit, for it says, All of blue.21 So R. Hanina b. Gamaliel. But R. Johanan b. Dahabai says, Even the second dyeing22 is valid, for it says, And scarlet.23

Our Rabbis taught: There is no manner of testing the blue thread;24 it should therefore be bought only from an expert.25 The tefillin can be tested,26 nevertheless they should only be bought from an expert.27 Scrolls of the Law and mezuzoth can be tested, and may be bought from anyone.28

Is there then no manner of testing the blue thread? But R. Isaac the son of R. Judah used to test it (mnemonic sign: with Ge Shem)29 thus: He used to mix together liquid alum, juice of fenugreek, and urine

____________________
(1) Heb. מין, a sectarian, or heretic. Idolatrous priests, whether Jews or gentiles (Rashi); v. Glos.
(2) Heb. מומר, 'a changed (Israelite)'; a Jew who neglects the practices without discarding the beliefs of Judaism.
(3) Deut. VI, 8, 9.
(4) Lit., 'comes to an end by the doing thereof'.
(5) For the performance of the precept of tefillin is not completed by the making but by the wearing of them.
(6) R. Nahman and R. Hisda as to whether one must pronounce a blessing when making the fringes.
(7) This is R. Hisda's view, and therefore as soon as the fringes are inserted in the garment that is the completion of the precept, so that it is necessary to make a blessing at the time.
(8) R. Nahman holds that the precept is performed only when the garment is worn, and therefore no blessing is pronounced when inserting the fringes.
(9) That fringes made by a gentile are invalid.
(10) Num. XV, 38. 'They' is taken impersonally, not necessarily the children of Israel.
(11) The fringes or tufts of the woven cloth were twisted into zizith, but were not attached to the cloth for this purpose.
(12) That were used in the sewing of the garment and the ends of which were left hanging from the garment.
(13) Since they were not attached to the garment as zizith.
(14) Even though the thread was not woven specifically for zizith.
(15) Git. 45b; Sanh. 48b.
(16) Cf. Shab. 108a: That the law of the Lord may be in thy mouth (Ex. XIII, 9), the tefillin should be made from that which is permissible for food.
(17) Similarly the first Tanna and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel would differ as to the necessity for weaving the threads specifically for the purpose of zizith.
(18) Heb. iuzkj, a species of mollusc. V. Lewysohn, Zoologie des Talmuds, 280-285.
(19) For dyeing, and the wool dipped in it must be burnt, since it was not dyed for the purpose of the zizith.
(20) If it is poured back into the vessel with the dye.
(21) Ex. XXVIII, 31. The dyeing of the blue thread for the zizith should be the first use of the dye, i.e. nothing should have been dyed with this dye previously. Hence the quantity of dye used in testing is not valid for the zizith.
(22) I.e., even though something else has already been dyed with this dye.
(23) Lev. XIV, 4. Heb. שני תולעת is interpreted as שני תולעת 'the second use of the scarlet dye'. And so it is too with the blue dye.
(24) To ascertain whether it has been dyed with genuine or imitation blue.
(25) One who knows that vegetable blue or any other imitation blue is unfit for the purpose.
(26) To ascertain whether they have been made according to prescribed law and whether the Scriptural portions therein have been correctly written.
(27) One who knows that it is essential to prepare the leather specifically for the tefillin.
(28) Since it is not necessary that the parchment upon which they are written be prepared specially for the purpose.
(29) גשם being the initial letters of the ingredients used in the mixture for testing: ג for גילא (alum), ש for אתלילבש (fenugreek) and מ for מי רגלים (urine).

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 43a

of a forty-day old child,1 and soak [the blue thread] in it overnight until the morning; if the colour faded it is invalid,2 but if not, it is valid. Moreover, R. Adda stated the following test before Raba in the name of R. 'Avira: One should take a piece of hard leavened dough of barley meal and bake it with [the blue thread] inside; if the colour improved3 it is valid, but if it deteriorated it is invalid; and in order to remember this, think of the phrase 'a false change, a true change!'4 - The statement 'There is no manner of testing the blue thread' refers to the test quantity.5

Mar of Moshke once obtained in the time of R. Ahai some blue thread; on testing it by the test submitted by R. Isaac the son of R. Judah its colour faded, but on testing it by R. Adda's test its colour improved. He was about to declare it invalid when R. Ahai said to him, This is neither genuine blue nor imitation blue! We must therefore say that one test6 supplements the other thus: if the test of R. Isaac the son of R. Judah had been applied and the colour had not faded it is certainly valid, but if its colour had faded we should then test it by R. Adda's test by [baking it in] a hard piece of leavened dough; if its colour improved it is valid, but if it deteriorated it is invalid. A message was sent from there [Palestine] saying, The tests supplement each other.

R. Mani was most particular when buying [the blue thread]. in accordance with the restrictions of the above Baraitha;7 whereupon a certain old man said to him, Those who long preceded you acted so, and they were successful in their business.

Our Rabbis taught: If a man bought a garment furnished with zizith from an Israelite in the market, the presumption is [that it is valid];8 if he bought it from a gentile, who was a merchant, it is valid,9 but if he was a private individual it is invalid.10 And [this is so] not withstanding that they said, A man may not sell a garment furnished with zizith to a gentile unless he removed the zizith.11 What is the reason for this? - Here it was explained, on account of a harlot.12 Rab Judah said, It is to be feared that [an Israelite] might join him on the road and he might kill him.13

Rab Judah attached fringes to the aprons of [the women of] his household;14 moreover, he used to say every morning the blessing ['. . . and hast commanded us] to enwrap ourselves with the fringes'. But since he attached [the fringes to the womens' garments], obviously he is of the opinion that it is a precept not dependent on a fixed time;15 why then did he say the blessing every morning?16 - He follows Rabbi's view; for it was taught: Whenever a man puts on the tefillin he should make a blessing over them, says Rabbi. But if so, at any time [of the day whenever he puts on the garment he should say the blessing]? - Rab Judah was a most decorous person and would not take off his cloak the whole day long. Then why [did he say the blessing] in the morning?17 - That was when he changed from night clothes into day clothes.

Our Rabbis taught: All must observe the law of zizith, priests, Levites, and Israelites, proselytes, women and slaves. R. Simeon declares women exempt, since it is a positive precept dependent on a fixed time,18 and women are exempt from all positive precepts that are dependent on a fixed time.

The Master said, 'All must observe the law of zizith, priests, Levites, and Israelites'. Is not this obvious? For if priests and Levites and Israelites were exempt, then who would observe it? - It was stated particularly on account of priests. For I might have argued, since it is written, Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together, and [it is followed by,] Thou shalt make thee twisted cords,19 . that only those who are forbidden to wear mingled stuff must observe the law of zizith, and as priests are permitted to wear mingled stuff20 they need not observe [the law of zizith]; we are therefore taught [that they, too, are bound], for although while performing the service [in the Temple] they may wear [mingled stuff] they certainly may not wear it when not performing the service.

R. Simeon declares women exempt'. What is R. Simeon's reason? - It was taught: That ye may look upon it:21 this excludes a night garment. You say it excludes a night garment, but perhaps it is not so, but it excludes rather a blind man's garment? The verse, when it says, Wherewith thou coverest thyself,22 clearly includes a blind man's garment; how then must I explain the verse, That ye may look upon it? As excluding a night garment. And why do you choose to include a blind man's garment and to exclude a night garment?23 include a blind man's garment since it is looked upon by others, whilst I exclude a night garment since it cannot be looked upon by others. And the Rabbis,

____________________
(1) Or 'that had been kept for forty days'.
(2) For it is not genuine blue.
(3) Lit., 'changed for the better'.
(4) Where the change was for the worse, i.e., the colour deteriorated, it is spurious and is invalid; but where the change was for the better it is genuine and is valid.
(5) I.e., there is no manner of testing the blue thread so as to ascertain whether it was dyed in the vessel with the dye or in the quantity taken out as a test.
(6) Lit., 'the teachings' referring to the teachings of R. Isaac and R. Adda.
(7) That it should be bought only from an expert who knows the law.
(8) I.e., the blue thread in the zizith is deemed to be genuine.
(9) For the merchant would not risk his reputation as an honest dealer by passing off the imitation blue for the genuine.
(10) For the gentile may have dyed the thread himself, in which case it obviously could not have been dyed for the purpose of the precept.
(11) Nevertheless if one bought it from a gentile merchant it is valid, for it is almost certain that a Jew sold it to him.
(12) A gentile harlot, receiving this garment with the fringes from a gentile as hire, might spread an evil report against a Jew, producing the garment in support of her words.
(13) A Jewish wayfarer would unhesitatingly join the gentile on the way, believing him to be a Jew since he is wearing a garment with fringes, and would have no suspicion against him so as to guard himself against attack.
(14) For he held that women are also bound to wear zizith.
(15) For women must observe only those positive precepts that do not depend upon the time of the year or of the day for their performance; therefore by imposing the precept of zizith upon women Rab Judah obviously holds that night as well as day is the proper time for the fringes.
(16) Surely the blessing should be said only once, and that when the garment is put on for the first time.
(17) Which presumably means at dawn; he should, however, have recited the blessing even earlier than dawn, as soon as he rose.
(18) For the night is not the proper time for zizith.
(19) Deut. XXII, 11, 12.
(20) For the girdle which was part of the Priests' robes consisted of wool and linen.
(21) Num. XV, 39.
(22) Deut. XXII, 12.
(23) The verse surely is not required to include a blind man's garment; since they declare that a night garment is subject to zizith - for according to them the precept is not limited to time, a fortiori a blind man's garment is subject to zizith.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 43b

for what purpose do they use the expression 'Wherewith thou coverest thyself'? - They require it for the following Baraitha that was taught: Upon the four corners of thy covering;1 four, but not three.2 You say, 'four but not three', but perhaps it is not so, but rather 'four but not five'? The verse, when it says, 'Wherewith thou coverest thyself', clearly includes a five-cornered garment; how then must I explain the verse, 'Upon the four corners'? Four, but not three. And why do you choose to include a five-cornered garment and to exclude a three-cornered one? I include a five-cornered garment since five contains four, whilst I exclude a three-cornered garment since three does not contain four. And whence does R. Simeon know this? - He derives it from the word 'wherewith'.3 And the Rabbis? - The word 'wherewith' [they say] does not convey any teaching.

And for what purpose do the Rabbis use the expression 'That ye may look upon it'? - They require it for the following teaching: ' That ye may look upon it, and remember', that is, look upon this precept and remember another precept that is dependent upon it, namely, the reading of the Shema'. As we have learnt: From what time in the morning may the Shema' be read? From the time that one can distinguish between blue and white.4 Another [Baraitha] taught: 'That ye may look upon it, and remember', that is, look upon this precept, and remember another precept that is next to it, namely, 'the law concerning mingled stuffs, for it is written, Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together'. Thou shalt make thee twisted cords.5 And another [Baraitha] taught: That ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the Lord: as soon as a person is bound to observe this precept6 he must observe all the precepts. This is in accordance with R. Simeon's view that [the zizith] is a precept dependent on time.7 And another [Baraitha] taught: 'That ye may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord': this precept is equal to all the precepts together.8 And another [Baraitha] taught: 'That ye may look upon it and remember . . . and do them': looking [upon it] leads to remembering [the commandments], and remembering leads to doing them. R. Simeon b. Yohai says, Whosoever is scrupulous in the observance of this precept is worthy to receive the Divine presence, for it is written here, 'That ye may look upon it', and there it is written, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and Him shalt thou serve.9

Our Rabbis taught: Beloved are Israel, for the Holy One, blessed be He, surrounded them with precepts: tefillin on their heads, tefillin on their arms, zizith on their garments, and mezuzoth on their door-posts; concerning these David said, Seven times a day do I praise Thee, because of Thy righteous ordinances.10 And as David entered the bath and saw himself standing naked, he exclaimed, 'Woe is me that I stand naked without any precepts about me!' But when he reminded himself of the circumcision in his flesh his mind was set at ease. And when he came out he sang a hymn of praise concerning it, as it is written, For the Leader; [with stringmusic;] on the Eighth. A Psalm of David;11 that is, concerning circumcision which was given eighth.12

R. Eliezer b. Jacob said, Whosoever has the tefillin on his head, the tefillin on his arm, the zizith on his garment, and the mezuzah on his doorpost, is in absolute security against sinning, for it is written, And a threefold cord is not quickly broken;13 and it is also written, The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear Him, and delivereth them.14

It was taught: R. Meir used to say, Why is blue specified from all the other colours [for this precept]? Because blue resembles the colour of the sea, and the sea resembles the colour of the sky, and the sky resembles the colour of [a sapphire, and a sapphire resembles the colour of]15 the Throne of Glory, as it is said, And there was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone,16 and it is also written, The likeness of a throne as the appearance of a sapphire stone.17

It was taught: R. Meir used to say, Greater is the punishment for the [non-observance of the] white threads than for the [non-observance of the] blue threads [of the fringes].18 This is to be illustrated by a parable. A king of flesh and blood gave orders to two servants; to one he said, 'Bring me a seal of clay', but to the other he said, 'Bring me a seal of gold'; and they both failed in their duty and did not bring them. Now who is deserving of the greater punishment? Surely it is the one to whom the king said, 'Bring me a seal of clay', and who did not do so.

It was taught: R. Meir used to say, A man is bound to say one hundred blessings daily, as it is written, And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee?19 On Sabbaths and on Festivals20 R. Hiyya the son of R. Awia endeavoured to make up this number by the use of spices and delicacies.21

It was taught: R. Judah22 used to say, A man is bound to say the following three blessings daily: '[Blessed art thou . . .] who hast not made me a heathen',23 '. . . . who hast not made me a woman'; and ' . . . who hast not made me a brutish man'. R. Aha b. Jacob once overhead his son saying '[Blessed art thou . . .] who hast not made me a brutish man', whereupon he said to him, 'And this too!'24 Said the other, 'Then what blessing should I say instead?' [He replied,] . . . who hast not made me a slave'. And is not that the same as a woman?25 - A slave

____________________
(1) Deut. XXII, 12.
(2) I.e., a three-cornered garment is not subject to zizith.
(3) This word, being superfluous, includes a five-cornered garment within the law.
(4) As soon as one can distinguish the various threads of the zizith one may recite the Shema'; v. Ber. 9b. Thus one precept is made dependent upon the other. For the Shema' v. Authorized P.B. p. 40.
(5) Deut. XXII, 11, 12.
(6) I.e., at the age of thirteen years and one day; in other words: whosoever is bound to keep the law of zizith must keep all the precepts of the Torah. Aliter: As soon as one is bound to observe this precept, i.e., at daybreak, one must observe all the other precepts of the day.
(7) And consequently women are exempt. According to the Rabbis, however, this principle does not hold good, for women, although bound to observe the law of zizith, are exempt from many laws.
(8) The numerical value of the letters of the word ציצית (90+10+90+10+400) is 600, which together with the eight threads and five knots of each fringe makes 613, which equals the number of precepts in the Torah.
(9) Deut. VI, 13. The word אתו 'him' or 'it' is common to both verses, and as in the latter verse it refers to the Lord, so too in the former; thus the observance of 'it' makes one worthy of looking upon 'Him'.
(10) Psalms CXIX, 164. The reference is to these seven precepts: the four fringes, the two tefillin, and the mezuzah.
(11) Psalms VI,1.
(12) I.e., to be observed on the eighth day. Or, which was given as the eighth commandment in the Torah specifically to Israel, for the first seven commandments were given to the sons of Noah. V. Maharsha.
(13) Eccl. IV, 12. The reference is to the three precepts enumerated.
(14) Psalms XXXIV, 8.
(15) Supplied from Sh. Mek.
(16) Ex. XXIV, 10.
(17) Ezek. I, 26. And as God sits upon His Throne of Glory He is immediately reminded of the blue thread of the zizith worn by the Israelites, and bestows upon them blessings. Moreover, it is a mark of honour for Israel to wear upon their garments a thread which bears the colour of the Throne of Glory.
(18) For the white threads are easily obtainable, whereas the blue threads are not only difficult to obtain but very expensive.
(19) Deut. X, 12, The word מה 'what' is interpreted as though it were מאה 'a hundred'. But see Tosaf. s.v. שואל.
(20) When in place of the usual prayer of eighteen benedictions there is a prayer of seven benedictions.
(21) For the enjoyment of which it is necessary to make a blessing.
(22) So in many MSS., in Hal. Ged. and Alfasi, and in the parallel passages in Jer. Ber. IX, 1, and Tosef. Ber. VII. Cur. edd. 'R. Meir'.
(23) So MS.M., Alfasi and Asheri, and so too in Tosef. Ber. l.c. Cur. edd. '. . . who hast made me an Israelite'.
(24) This blessing savours somewhat of conceit. Aliter: there is no reason to make this blessing since a brutish man is also bound by all the precepts.
(25) For with regard to the performance of precepts a woman and a slave are on the same footing; cf. Hag. 4a.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 44a

is more contemptible.1

Our Rabbis taught: The hillazon resembles the sea in its colour,2 and in shape it resembles a fish; it appears3 once in seventy years, and with its blood one dyes the blue thread; and therefore it is so expensive.

It was taught: R. Nathan said, There is not a single precept in the Torah, even the lightest, whose reward is not enjoyed in this world; and as to its reward in the future world I know not how great it is. Go and learn this from the precept of zizith. Once a man, who was very scrupulous about the precept of zizith, heard of a certain harlot in one of the towns by the sea who accepted four hundred gold [denars] for her hire. He sent her four hundred gold [denars] and appointed a day with her. When the day arrived he came and waited at her door, and her maid came and told her, 'That man who sent you four hundred gold [denars] is here and waiting at the door'; to which she replied 'Let him come in'. When he came in she prepared for him seven beds, six of silver and one of gold; and between one bed and the other there were steps of silver, but the last were of gold. She then went up to the top bed and lay down upon it naked. He too went up after her in his desire to sit naked with her, when all of a sudden the four fringes [of his garment] struck him across the face; whereupon he slipped off and sat upon the ground. She also slipped off and sat upon the ground and said, 'By the Roman Capitol,4 I will not leave you alone until you tell me what blemish you saw in me. 'By the Temple',5 he replied, 'never have I seen a woman as beautiful as you are; but there is one precept which the Lord our God has commanded us, it is called zizith, and with regard to it the expression 'I am the Lord your God' is twice written,6 signifying, I am He who will exact punishment in the future, and I am He who will give reward in the future. Now [the zizith] appeared to me as four witnesses [testifying against me]'. She said, 'I will not leave you until you tell me your name, the name of your town, the name of your teacher, the name of your school in which you study the Torah'. He wrote all this down and handed it to her. Thereupon she arose and divided her estate into three parts; one third for the government,7 one third to be distributed among the poor, and one third she took with her in her hand; the bed clothes, however, she retained. She then came to the Beth Hamidrash of R. Hiyya, and said to him, 'Master, give instructions about me that they make me a proselyte'. 'My daughter', he replied; 'perhaps you have set your eyes on one of the disciples?' She thereupon took out the script and handed it to him. 'Go', said he 'and enjoy your acquisition'. Those very bed-clothes which she had spread for him for an illicit purpose she now spread out for him lawfully. This is the reward [of the precept] in this world; and as for its reward in the future world I know not how great it is. Rab Judah said, A borrowed garment is exempt from zizith for the first thirty days, thereafter it is subject to it. So, too, it was taught in a Baraitha: He who stays at an inn in the Land of Israel or who rents a house outside the Land [of Israel] is, for the first thirty days, exempt from mezuzah, thereafter he is subject to it. But he who rents a house within the Land of Israel is bound to affix a mezuzah forthwith, in order to maintain the settlement in the Land of Israel.8

THE [ABSENCE OF THE] HAND-TEFILLAH DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE HEAD-TEFILLAH. R. Hisda said, This was taught only when he has [both],9 but if he has not [both, the absence of one will certainly] invalidate the other. They asked him, 'Do you still say this?' 'No', he replied; 'for can it be said that one who has not the wherewithal to perform two precepts should not even perform one?' What was his opinion before? - It was only a precaution lest he become negligent [in the precept].10

R. Shesheth said, Whosoever does not put on the tefillin transgresses eight precepts;11 and whosoever has not zizith attached to his garment transgresses five precepts;12 and every priest who does not go up to the platform13 transgresses three precepts;14 and whosoever has not a mezuzah on his door transgresses two precepts, namely, And thou shalt write them,15 And thou shalt write them.16

Resh Lakish said, He who puts on the tefillin will live long, for it is written,

____________________
(1) Or, 'nevertheless go on (including the blessing concerning the slave)', so as to make up the three blessings.
(2) Or 'its essence', i.e. its blood. V. Lewysohn, op. cit. p. 282.
(3) Lit., 'comes up', i.e., from the sea; so Rashi in San. 91a and Meg. 6a.
(4) A form of oath. According to Rashi: By the head of Rome (referring to the Emperor).
(5) Lit., 'the service' (of the Temple).
(6) Num. XV, 41. The expression is repeated in this verse.
(7) So that they should not hinder her in her purpose of being converted to Judaism.
(8) The rule that the tenant must fix the mezuzah will deter him from leaving the premises since he would not be permitted to remove it on leaving; v. B.M. 102a. Furthermore, even if he were to leave the premises the house would soon be let again because of the advantage of its having mezuzoth affixed.
(9) I.e., he possesses both tefillin; in that case the wearing of one is not dependent upon the other.
(10) And he will acquire only one tefillah since the use of one is itself a precept.
(11) For in each of the four Scriptural texts of the tefillin there is a twofold injunction, namely, to place the tefillin upon the hand and upon the head; hence the non-observance of this law involves the transgression of these eight commands. V. Rashi.
(12) The four precepts stated in Num. XV, 38 and 39, and the fifth in Deut. XXII, 12.
(13) To pronounce the priestly benediction.
(14) Cf. Num. VI, 23: On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel; ye shall say to them, which contains two precepts, and the third in v. 27: So shall they put My name upon the children of Israel.
(15) Deut. VI, 9.
(16) Ibid. XI, 20.

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 44b

The Lord upon them, they shall live, and altogether therein is the life of my spirit; wherefore recover Thou me, and make me to live.1

MISHNAH. THE [ABSENCE OF THE] FINE FLOUR AND THE OIL DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE WINE,2 NEITHER DOES THE [ABSENCE OF THE] WINE INVALIDATE THEM. THE [OMISSION OF ONE OF THE] SPRINKLINGS [OF THE BLOOD] ON THE OUTER ALTAR DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE REST.3

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: It is written, And their meal-offering and their drink-offerings,4 that is, you must first offer the meal-offering and then the drink-offering.5 Rabbi says, It is written, A sacrifice and drink-offerings,6 that is, you must first offer the sacrifice and then the drink-offering.7 But [against] Rabbi [it will be asked]: Is it not written, 'And their meal-offering and their drink-offerings'? - That verse he requires for the teaching that their meal-offering and their drink-offerings may be offered at night and that their meal-offering and their drink-offerings may be offered even on the following day.8 And [against] the Rabbis [it will be asked]: Is it not written, 'A sacrifice and drink-offerings'? - That verse they require for Ze'iri's teaching; for Ze'iri said, The drink-offerings become hallowed only by the slaughtering of the animal-offering.9 And does not Rabbi also require that verse for Ze'iri's teaching? And do not the Rabbis also require the other verse for the teaching that their meal-offering and their drink-offerings may be offered at night and that their meal-offering and their drink-offerings may be offered even on the following day?10 - In truth this is the reason for the Rabbis' view; it is written, A burnt-offering and a meal-offering.11 And [against] Rabbi [then it will be asked]: Is it not written, A burnt-offering and a meal-offering? - Rather [this is the true position]: When the drink-offerings accompany the sacrifice all are agreed that the meal-offering is offered first and it is followed by the drink-offering, for it is written, 'A burnt-offering and a meal-offering'. They only differ where they are offered as an offering by themselves; the Rabbis are of the opinion that just as when they accompany the sacrifice the meal-offering is offered first and then the drink-offering, so it is, too, when they are offered by themselves, namely, the meal-offering is offered first and then the drink-offering. Rabbi, however, distinguishes thus: only there [where they accompany the sacrifice does the meal-offering precede the drink-offering] for since the offering began with what is eaten12 one should continue with what is eaten;13 but where they are offered as an offering by themselves the drink-offering takes the first place, since the Psalm is sung [by the Levites] over it.14

THE [OMISSION OF ONE OF THE] SPRINKLINGS [OF THE BLOOD] ON THE OUTER ALTAR DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE REST. Our Rabbis taught: Whence do we know that any offering whose blood must be sprinkled on the outer altar effects atonement even if it is sprinkled with but one act of sprinkling? From the verse, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord thy God.15

MISHNAH. THE [ABSENCE OF EITHER THE] BULLOCKS OR THE RAMS OR THE LAMBS DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE OTHERS.16 R. SIMEON SAID, IF THEY HAD [MEANS ENOUGH FOR THE] MANY BULLOCKS BUT HAD NOT [MEANS ENOUGH FOR] THE DRINK-OFFERINGS, THEY SHOULD BRING ONE BULLOCK AND ITS DRINK-OFFERINGS AND SHOULD NOT OFFER THEM ALL WITHOUT DRINK-OFFERINGS.

GEMARA. Which bullocks and lambs are meant? Will you say those of the Feast [of Tabernacles]?17 But there is written of them, After the ordinance,18 After the ordinance!18 - We must therefore say that those of the New Moon and of Pentecost are meant, which are ordained in the Book of Numbers.19

____________________
(1) Isa. XXXVIII, 16. The opening of this verse is interpreted in reference to the tefillin thus: They that hear upon them the name of the Lord (i.e. that wear the tefillin) shall live.
(2) The reference is to the drink-offerings which accompanied most important animal sacrifices; v. Num. XV, 4ff. The absence of one component part does not prevent the offering of the other.
(3) I.e., the omission of one sprinkling does not render the ceremony invalid, since the sacrifice is valid if the blood was sprinkled with but one act of sprinkling. V. Zeb. 36b.
(4) Ibid. XXIX, 18.
(5) In this passage 'drink-offering' (in the sing.) refers only to the wine libation.
(6) Lev. XXIII, 37.
(7) Which is to be followed by the meal-offering.
(8) Provided they were not hallowed in a vessel of ministry on the previous day. Cf. Tem. 14a.
(9) But before the slaughtering of the animal the drink-offerings designated for this sacrifice may be used for another.
(10) Since both the verses cited are required for the special teachings, neither can draw any inference therefrom as to the priority of the meal-offering over the drink-offering, or vice versa.
(11) Lev. XXIII, 37. Hence the meal-offering follows immediately after the animal-offering.
(12) Sc. solid food; i.e., the flesh of the sacrifice which is burnt upon the altar.
(13) Sc. the meal-offering. which is also solid food consumed by the altar.
(14) V. 'Ar. 11a.
(15) Deut. XII, 27. The expression 'poured out' suggests one act of sprinkling.
(16) Each may be offered by itself in the absence of the others.
(17) On each day of this Festival bullocks and lambs were offered; v. Num. XXIX, 12ff.
(18) Ibid. 18 and 33. These terms imply precision and the indispensability of every item prescribed.
(19) The reference is to the Musaf or additional offerings of the New Moon and of Pentecost, consisting in each case of two bullocks, one ram and seven lambs; cf. ibid. XXVIII, 11 and 27.

 

Next

 


2009 JCR