1) TOSFOS DH ha'Techeles Einah Me'akeves Es ha'Lavan

úåñôåú ã"ä äúëìú àéðä îòëáú àú äìáï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the required number of threads of each.)

îöåä ìúú á' çåèéï úëìú åá' çåèéï ìáï áöéöéú

(a) Explanation: The Mitzvah is to put two threads of Techeles and two threads of white in Tzitzis.

åîùîò ìëàåøä ãàéï æä îòëá àú æä ùàí äèéì ùðé çåèéï îï äàçã éöà ëé (äðê) [ö"ì äà - öàï ÷ãùéí] ã÷úðé úôìä ùì éã àéðä îòëáú àú ùì øàù ëå'

(b) Explanation #1: It seems to connote that one is not Me'akev the other. If one put two threads of one of them he was Yotzei, like what [our Mishnah] taught "the hand Tefilin is not Me'akev the head Tefilin..."

àáì á÷åðèøñ ôéøù àé òáã àøáòúï úëìú àå àøáòúï ìáï éöà åëï àðå ðåäâéï

(c) Explanation #2: Rashi explained that if he made all four Techeles, or all four white, he was Yotzei. This is our custom.

åáâîøà îåëéç ëï åäìà ëì äîèéì úëìú áñãéðå áéøåùìéí àéðå àìà îï äîúîéäéï åîôøù ãàñåøéä âæéøä îùåí ÷ìà àéìï åôøéê ìà éäà àìà ìáï

(d) Support: The Gemara (40a) proves like this. "Anyone who puts Techeles in his linen garment in Yerushalayim is shocking." The Gemara explains that this is a decree due to Kala Ilan. It asks "it is no worse than white!"

îùîò ãàé äåé ìáï àéï ëàï àéñåøà àó òì âá ãáìà äðé ã÷ìà àéìï àéëà ùðé çåèé ìáï

1. Inference: If the [woolen Kala Ilan threads] were white, there would be no Isur, even though without the Kala Ilan there are two threads of white!

åîéäå éù ìãçåú ãàò"â ãáùðé çåèé ìáï àéëà îöåä ëé øîé èôé ìéëà àéñåø ëìàéí ãàéï æä îåñéó òì äîöåä

(e) Rejection: We can reject this. Even though there is a Mitzvah with two threads of white, when he puts more, there is no Isur of Kil'ayim, for he does not add to the Mitzvah;

ãâãéì ùðéí âãéìéí àøáòä ããøùéðï îéðéä ùðéí ìáï åùðéí úëìú ìàå ìîòåèé èôé ÷àúé ëãàùëçï âáé òøáé ðçì

1. 'Gedil' is two, and "Gedilim" is four, from which we expound two white and two Techeles, does not come to exclude more, like we find regarding Arvei Nachal;

ããøùéðï (ñåëä ãó ìã:) òøáé ùúéí åðåäâéí ìäùéí äøáä áìåìá

2. We expound (Sukah 34b) "Arvei" - two, and our custom is to put many with the Lulav.

åì÷îï âáé èìéú ùëåìä úëìú ëå' ãàîøéðï áèìéú áú ùîåðä çåèéï

(f) Support (for Rejection): Below (41b), regarding a Talis that is totally Techeles... we say [that it discusses] a garment with eight strings [on each corner];

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ùàéï ëàï àéñåø áì úåñéó ëéåï ùëì äùîåðä áëøê àçã åìà ãîé ìäèéì ìîåèìú

1. Rashi explained that there is no Isur of Bal Tosif, since all eight are bound in one binding. This is unlike putting threads on a Muteles (a garment with Tzitzis attached);

åäééðå èòîà ãáäèéì ìîåèìú ìáã ùééê áì úåñéó îùåí ãöéöéú àçã òì ëðó àçã àîø øçîðà

2. The reason why Bal Tosif applies only to putting threads on a Muteles is because the Torah said to put one [bundle of] Tzitzis on one corner.

åîäúí ðîé éù øàéä ãëé ìéëà àìà ìáï àå úëìú áòéðï ìòåìí ã' çåèéï ãîùîò ãáèìéú áú ã' çåèéï ìà çééùéðï ùîà éñéø á' îäï åéðéç áèìéú (àçã) [ö"ì àçø - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãàøáòúï îöåä

(g) Support (for Explanation #2): Also from there, there is a proof that when there is only white or [only] Techeles, we always require four threads, for it connotes that if the garment has four threads [on each corner] we are not concerned lest he remove two and put them on another, for all four are a Mitzvah.

îéäå áñåó àìå äï äðçð÷éï (ñðäãøéï ãó ôç:) îùîò ãàí äåñéó çåèéï áëøê àçã ôñåì âáé æ÷ï îîøà

1. Question: Sanhedrin (88b) connotes that if he added threads in one binding, it is Pasul, regarding a Zaken Mamrei;

ãà"ø àìòæø àéðå çééá àìà òì ãáø ùòé÷øå îãáøé úåøä åôéøåùå îãáøé ñåôøéí åéù áå ìäåñéó åàí äåñéó âåøò åàðå àéï ìðå àìà úôéìéï

i. R. Elazar said that he is liable only for something whose source is from the Torah, and Chachamim explained it, and it is possible to add, and if he added, he detracts, and the only such case is Tefilin.

åôøéê åäàéëà öéöéú åîùðé àé ÷ùø äòìéåï ìàå ãàåøééúà äàé ìçåãéä ÷àé åäàé ìçåãéä ÷àé

ii. [The Gemara] asks that there is [also] Tzitzis, and answers "if the first knot is not mid'Oraisa, these (the required threads) stand alone, and these (the extra threads) stand alone (and Bal Tosif does not apply)";

åàé ÷ùø äòìéåï ãàåøééúà âøåò åòåîã äåà

iii. And if the first knot is mid'Oraisa, it is substandard (Pasul) from the beginning (from when he made the knot)!

åäàé ãìà îå÷é ìä äúí áäèéì ìîåèìú

2. Implied question: Why don't we establish it there when he put [threads] on a Muteles?

îùåí ããéìîà ìà îéôñìà áëê àó òì âá ãòåáø òì áì úåñéó àí ðúëåéï ìäåñéó åàí ìà ðúëåéï ìäåñéó ùøé

3. Answer: Perhaps this does not disqualify, even though he transgresses Bal Tosif if he intended to add, and if he did not intend to add, it is permitted.

åîàï ãîôìéâ ì÷îï (ãó îà:) áéï èìéú áú àøáòä ìèìéú áú ùîåðä

(h) Implied question: What is the reasoning of the one who distinguishes below (41b) between a Talis Bas Arba'ah (it has four strings on each corner) and a Bas Shemoneh?

ä"ô áèìéú áú àøáòä ãäééðå ùðéí çåèéï ùäï àøáòä ëùäï ëôåìéï ùìà äéä ìå úëìú åðåúï àìå ùöáåòéï ÷ìà àéìï áî÷åí ìáï

(i) Answer: It means as follows. A Talis Bas Arba'ah means two threads that are four when they are doubled. He did not have Techeles, and he put these that are dyed Kala Ilan in place of white;

åèìéú áú ç' äééðå áú ã' ùäï ëôåìéï ùéñáåø ëåìí úëìú åé÷ç îäï ìôèåø èìéú àçøú

1. A Talis Bas Shemoneh has four threads that are doubled. Everyone will think that they are Techeles, and one will take from them to exempt another Talis.

åîéäå ÷ùä ìôé' æä ãáú ã' ðîé éñáåø ùäåà úëìú åéåñéó òìéäï ìáï ùì ôùúï

(j) Question #1: According to this, also a Bas Arba'ah, he will think that they are Techeles, and add white of linen! (Since they are not really Techeles, there is no Heter for Kil'ayim.)

åòåã ãääéà áøééúà ãîå÷é ááú ã' ÷úðé îáéà úëìú åãáø àçø åúåìä áä å÷ìà àéìï ìà éáéà åàí äáéà ëùø

(k) Question #2: The Beraisa which we establish to discuss a Bas Arba'ah, it teaches "he brings Techeles and something else and attaches [them on the corner]. He may not bring Kala Ilan. If he brought, it is Kosher."

àìîà îùîò ãîééøé áúåìä ÷ìà àéìï òí äúëìú åòì ëøçéê àøáòä åùîåðä ãå÷à ÷àîø áìà ëôåìåú

1. Inference: We discuss one who attaches Kala Ilan with (i.e. and also) Techeles, and you are forced to say that it is truly four or eight without doubling! (If it were after they are doubled, Bas Arba'ah would have only one Techeles and one Kala Ilan!)

åùîà ëì îä ùîåñéó çåèéï îã' òã ç' ìàå îåñéó äåà åìà îéôñéì áëê ëãàùëçï àîåøàé ì÷îï (ãó îá.) ãøá àçà áø éò÷á øîé ã' åøá àçà îãôúé øîé ç'

(l) Answer: Perhaps all that he adds threads from four until eight is not Mosif (adding improperly), and it is not disqualified through this, like we find Amora'im below (42a) that Rav Acha bar Yakov attached four, and Rav Acha mi'Difti attached eight.

åäùúà ìà ôìéâé ëåìé äàé àìà ãîø òáéã äôçåú åîø òáéã äéúø

(m) Consequence: They do not argue so much, just one did the least, and one did the most [permitted];

åáñðäãøéï îééøé ãîåñéó èôé îúîðéà

1. In Sanhedrin it discusses that he adds more than eight.

åöøéê èòí îðìï ãáùìîà àé ôìéâé áäà ãîàï ãøîé ã' ñáø ëããøùéðï âãéì ùðéí âãéìéí àøáòä

(n) Question: What is the source? Granted, if they argue about this - the one who attached four holds like we expound 'Gedil' is two, and "Gedilim" is four;

åîàï ãøîé úîðéà ñáø ãâãéìéí ã÷àîø øçîðà àëì îéï åîéï ÷àé âãéìéí îìáï åâãéìéí îúëìú ãäééðå öîø åôùúéí ãòìééäå ÷àé

1. And the one who attached eight holds that "Gedilim" that the Torah said refers to each kind - Gedilim of white and Gedilim of Techeles, i.e. wool and linen, which [the previous verse] discusses;

àáì àé ìà ôìéâé îä ñáøà äéà æå ãàé áòé òáéã äëé åàé áòé òáéã äëé

2. However, if they do not argue, what reasoning is this - if he wants he does so, and if he wants he does so?!

åö"ì ãëì æä éù áîùîòåú âãéìéí ãàé òáéã úëìú åìáï áéï ùðéäí ã' çåèéï âãéìéí ÷øéðà áéä

(o) Answer: We must say that Gedilim has a connotation that if he did Techeles and white, between both of them four threads, it is called Gedilim;

åàé òáéã îëì çã åçã âãéìéí ëâåï ã' çåèéï ìáï åã' çåèéï úëìú âãéìéí ðîé ÷øéðà áéä åìàå îåñéó äåà

1. And if he did from each one Gedilim, e.g. four threads of white and four threads of Techeles, also this is called Gedilim, and this is not Mosif;

àáì àé øîé èôé îåñéó äåà åâøåò åòåîã äåà

2. However, if he attaches more, he is Mosif, and it is inferior (Pasul) from the beginning.

åòåã öøéê èòí îðìï ãëé ìéú ìéä àìà àå ìáï àå úëìú ãìà îéôèø áúøé çåèé ìçåãééäå òã ãøîé ã'

(p) Question: Also, we need a reason - what is the source that when there is only white or Techeles, it is not exempted through two threads alone, until he attaches four?

åùîà îùåí ããøùéðï âãéì ùðéí âãéìéí ã' áéï éù áå îéï àçã áéï éù áå ùðé îéðéï

(q) Answer: Perhaps it is because we expound 'Gedil' is two. "Gedilim" is four, whether there is one kind or two kinds.

å÷öú ÷ùä äà ãàîøé' áâîøà àí ä÷ãéí úëìú ììáï éöà àìà ùçéñø îöåä îàé çéñø îöåä

(r) Question: It says in the Gemara "if he put Techeles before white, he was Yotzei, but he omitted a Mitzvah. What is "he omitted a Mitzvah"?

[àéìéîà çéñø îöåä] ãìáï å÷ééí îöåä ãúëìú ìøáé òëåáé îòëáé àäããé

1. If you will say that he omitted the Mitzvah of white and fulfilled the Mitzvah of Techeles - [you cannot, for] according to Rebbi they are Me'akev each other!

ãîùîò ãàé ìà îòëáé ðéçà àìîà àó òì âá ãçéñø îöåä ãìáï ÷ééí îöåä ãúëìú áá' çåèéï

2. Inference: If they were not Me'akev each other, it would be fine. This shows that even though he omitted the Mitzvah of white, he fulfilled the Mitzvah of Techeles with two threads!

åéù ìåîø ãìäëùéø úëìú îéäà îäðé ìáï ã÷øéðà áéä âãéìéí ã'

(s) Answer: To be Machshir Techeles, white helps. We call this Gedilim - four. (The two threads of white do not fulfill the Mitzvah of white, but not they count towards the required four threads)

åà"ú åîðìï ãáòéðï á' çåèéï ìáï åá' çåèéï ãúëìú ãéìîà àâãéìéí ÷ôéã ÷øà àôéìå çã îäàé åâ' îäàé

(t) Question: What is the source that we need two threads of white and two threads of Techeles? Perhaps the verse is adamant about Gedilim, and even one of these and three of these!

åéù ìåîø ëéåï ãúøé îéðé áòé øçîðà ñáøà äåà ùéäéå ùåéï

(u) Answer #1: Since the Torah requires two species, it is logical that they be equal.

åòåã ôúéì úëìú ëúéá åôúéì îùîò úøé ëããøùéðï ôø÷ áà ìå (éåîà òá.) å÷éöõ ôúéìéí ôúéì ùðéí ôúéìéí ã'

(v) Answer #2: It is written "Pesil Techeles", and Pesil connotes two, like we expound in Yoma (72a) "v'Kitzetz Pesilim" - Pesil is two. Pesilim is four;

åìáï ðîé ìà ôçåú îúøé ã÷ãéù èôé ëãàîøéðï áâîøà ãîúçéì áìáï åîñééí áìáï ãîòìéï á÷åãù åìà îåøéãéï

1. Also white is no less than two, for it is more Kadosh, like we say in the Gemara (39a) "he begins with white (for it says "ha'Kanaf", i.e. strings similar to the corner) and finishes with white, for we ascend in Kedushah and we do not descend."

åîéäå èòí æä ãôúéì ìà éúëï ãáôø÷ áà ìå îùîò å÷éöõ ãî÷öõ àçã ìùðéí

(w) Rebuttal #1: This reason of Pesil cannot be, because in Yoma it connotes that "v"Kitzetz" means that he cuts one into two;

åäëà òì ëøçéï ìà îùîò úøé ëãîåëç áñôøé áôøùú [ùìç] ìê åáôøùú ëé úöà åòùå ìäí öéöéú ùåîò àðé çåè àçã áôðé òöîå ú"ì âãéìéí ëîä âãéìéí ðòùéï àéï [âãéì] ôçåú îùìùä çåèéï ëãáøé áéú äéìì

1. And here you are forced to say that it does not connote two, like is proven in the Sifri in Parshas Shelach and in Parshas Ki Setzei "v'Asu Lahem Tzitzis" - I hear even one thread by itself! It says Gedilim. How much is Gedilim? Gedilim is not less than three threads according to Beis Hillel.

îùîò ãîôúéì ìà äåä ùîòéðï àìà çã

2. Inference: We learn from Pesil only one!

åòåã ãàé ôúéì îùîò úøé åäëðó îéï ëðó ìëì äôçåú çã à"ë áìà âãéìéí ðîé úéôå÷ ìéä úìúà

(x) Rebuttal #2: If Pesil connotes two, and '"ha'Kenaf" - the same type as the corner' connotes at least one, if so also without Gedilim we know three!

åöøéê ìåîø ùçåì÷ òì äù"ñ ùìðå ãîùîò ãçã îúëìú îäðé

(y) Answer: We must say that [the Sifri] argues with the Bavli, for [the Sifri] connotes that one from Techeles helps.

åîä ùàðå ëåôìéí äã' ìç'

1. Implied question: Why do we fold the four to eight?

ñîëéðï àäà ãàîøéðï ì÷îï (ãó îá.) øá àçà áø éò÷á øîé ã' åòééó ìäå îéòó åîòééì ìäå áâìéîà åàáé÷ ìäå ëå' òã îø áøéä ãøáðà òáéã ëé ãéãï

2. Answer #1: We rely on what it says below (42a) that Rav Acha bar Yakov folded four strings, and put the folded ends through [a hole in the corner of] the garment. He then was Avik them (put the two ends of each string through the loop in its middle and made a bow)... until Mar brei d'Ravina did as we do;

åôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãìà àáé÷ ìäå

i. Rashi explained that [Mar] was not Avik them.

åòåã úðéà áñôøé á"ù àåîøéí ã' ùì öîø åã' ùì úëìú

3. Answer #2: A Beraisa in Sifri teaches that Beis Shamai say four of wool and four of Techeles. (In a Beraisa below (41b), Beis Shamai require four. Presumably, the Sifri discusses after they are folded.)

åàí úàîø äéà âåôä îðìï ùöøéê ìëåôìï

4. Question: What is the source that one must fold them?

åàé äåä îôøùéðï òùä âãéì åôåúìéäå îúåëå äééðå ùöøéê ìôåúìå ëòéï ôúéìä ùäéà ëôåìä ðéçà

5. Answer: If we would explain "make a Gedil and Posleihu from inside", i.e. that he must fold it like a Pesilah (wick), which is doubled, it would be fine.

àáì á÷åðè' ìà ôéøù ëï åùí àôøù.

6. Remark: Rashi did not explain like this. There I will explain. (See Tosfos Bechoros 39b DH Kamah.)

2) TOSFOS DH Kesiv ha'Kanaf Min ha'Kanaf

úåñôåú ã"ä ëúéá äëðó îéï äëðó

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is even according to Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael.)

åàôéìå ìúðà ãáé ø''é ô''÷ ãéáîåú (ãó ã:) ãôìéâ àøáà ããøéù äëé

(a) Implied suggestion: This is unlike Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael in Yevamos (4b), who argues with Rava, who expounds this!

ìà ôìéâ àìà àäà ãîøáä ùàø îéðéí àáì äëðó îéï ëðó ãøéù ùôéø:

(b) Rejection: [Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael] argues only about what [Rava] includes other species, but he properly expounds ha'Kanaf - Min Kanaf [to obligate white on the corner].

3) TOSFOS DH v'Im Hikdim Techeles l'Lavan Yatza

úåñôåú ã"ä åàí ä÷ãéí úëìú ììáï éöà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not say that it is Me'akev.)

úéîä ëéåï ãî÷øà äåà ããøùéðï ãìáï áøéùà ðéîà ãîòëá ãäà ìà áòéðï ùðä äëúåá ìòëá àìà á÷ãùéí

(a) Question: Since we expound from a verse that white should be first, we should say that it is Me'akev, for we require a repetition to teach that something is Me'akev only in Kodshim!

åéù ìåîø ãìéú ìï ìîéîø ãàñãø ìáã é÷ôéã äëúåá ìòëá ëîå âáé çìéöä (éáîåú ãó ÷ä.) ä÷ãéí ø÷é÷ä ìçìéöä îä ùòùä òùåé

(b) Answer: We should not say that the Torah is adamant about the order to be Me'akev, just like regarding Chalitzah, if spitting was done before Chalitzah, what was done was done;

åàò''â ãëúéá ëëä òéëåáà ìà ÷àé àìà àçñøåï îòùä:

1. Even though it is written Kachah, to teach that it is Me'akev, this refers only to an action that was not done.

38b----------------------------------------38b

4) TOSFOS DH Ileima Chiser Mitzvah d'Lavan v'Kiyem Mitzvah d'Techeles

úåñôåú ã"ä àéìîà çéñø îöåä ãìáï å÷ééí îöåä ãúëìú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he did not say oppositely.)

úéîä ãàéôëà äåä ìéä ìîéîø ãîöåú ìáï òáã àáì îöåú úëìú äðòùéú ùìà ëäìëä çéñø

(a) Question: He should have said oppositely, that he did the Mitzvah of white, but the Mitzvah of Techeles, which was done improperly, he missed!

åé''ì ãîùåí îúðéúéï ð÷è äëé äìáï àéðå îòëá äúëìú ôéøåù àéðå îòëá ëìì äúëìú ù÷éãí

(b) Answer: Because our Mishnah said "white is not Me'akev Techeles", this means that it is not Me'akev at all the [Mitzvah of] Techeles that preceded it.

5) TOSFOS DH l'Rebbi Ikuvei Me'akev

úåñôåú ã"ä ìøáé òëåáé îòëá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we ask according to Rebbi.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ åëãøáé áòéðï ìàå÷îä

(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): We want to establish it like Rebbi.

åúéîä ãîùîò ãìøáðï ðéçà åàí ëï ìîñ÷ðà ìà ðöèøê ìúéøåõ øá éäåãä åìà îéñúáø äëé

(b) Question: This implies that it is fine like Rabanan (if he put Techeles before white, he lost the Mitzvah of white). If so, in the conclusion (Rava said that we discuss remnants; we do not discuss the Mitzvah of putting Min ha'Kanaf first) we do not need Rav Yehudah's answer (that he lost the ideal Mitzvah, and did a Mitzvah. Rather, we can say that our Mishnah is Rabanan). This is unreasonable! (Yad Binyamin - perhaps it is unreasonable, for Rashi explained in the Mishnah that Rabanan require four threads. If he did not fulfill white, it is as if those threads are not there! Above (38a DH ha'Techeles), Tosfos said that even so, the white are Machshir the Techeles. This Tosfos disagrees (Tosfos' question there is not difficult according to Tosfos' answer here).

îéäå ìîñ÷ðà ðîé îöéðå ìîéîø ãáòé ìàå÷åîé îúðéúà ëøáé

(c) Answer: Also in the conclusion we can say that we want to establish the Beraisa like Rebbi (for it is difficult to establish it like Rabanan, like I brought above from Yad Binyamin).

àé ðîé é''ì ãëì ùëï ìøáðï ã÷ùä èôé àîàé çéñø îöåä äà ìà îòëáé àäããé

(d) Explanation #2: All the more so according to Rabanan it is more difficult, why is he lacking a Mitzvah? They are not Me'akev each other!

6) TOSFOS DH Lo Nitzrecha Ela l'Sadin b'Tzitzis

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà ðöøëà àìà ìñãéï áöéöéú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he discusses a linen Talis.)

úéîä àîàé ð÷è äëé ìéð÷åè èìéú öîø áöéöéú

(a) Question: Why does it say so? He should discuss a wool Talis [to teach that even then, he should put white before Techeles, for it is Min ha'Kanaf]!

åéù îôøùéí ãåå÷à úëìú ìà äåé îéï ãñãéï îùåí ãäåå ëìàéí âáéä àáì öîø åúëìú äåé îéðå åìáï ðîé ãúðéà ìòéì îôùúï äåé

(b) Answer #1: Only Techeles is not the Min (species) of the Sadin (linen garment), because they are Kil'ayim, but wool and Techeles, this is the same Min. (The Mitzvah is to put Techeles before white on a wool Talis.)

å÷ùä ãàí ëï îàé ÷ùéà ìéä úéðç ìáï àéðå îòëá äúëìú àìà úëìú àéðä îòëáú àú äìáï îàé ðéäå åîàé ôéøëà

(c) Question: If so, what was difficult to [the Makshan] "we understand 'white is not Me'akev Techeles'. What is 'Techeles is not Me'akev white?'" What was the difficulty?

äà ðîé îùëçú ìä ãäà úëìú åöîø çã îéðà äåé åàéðä îòëáú çåèé ìáï (àé ðîé) [ö"ì äééðå - ùôú àîú] çåèé ôùúï ìîàé ãôùèéðï ì÷îï (ãó ìè:) çåèé ôùúï ôåèøéï áùì öîø

1. We find also this [in a wool garment], for Techeles and wool are one Min, and it is not Me'akev threads of white, i.e. linen threads, according to what we resolve below (39b) that linen threads exempt [a garment] of wool! (I.e. if the white threads are of linen, he should put Techeles first. The Mishnah teaches that the order is not Me'akev!)

ìëê ðøàä ëôé' ä÷åðèøñ ãìäëé ð÷è ñãéï ãôùéèà ãäåé ìáï (åìáï ùì öîø äåä îöèøó) [ö"ì åúëìú àò"â ãùì öîø äåé îöåä ìä÷ãéí - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìôùúï èôé

(d) Answer #2 (Rashi): It mentioned a Sadin because it is obvious that it is white, and Techeles, even though it is wool, it is a Mitzvah to put the linen first. (Do not say that also according to Rashi, we can ask what was difficult 'Techeles is not Me'akev white?' We find also this in a wool garment! It was properly difficult, for even in a wool garment, the Mitzvah is to put white first.)

7) TOSFOS DH Midi Tziv'a Ka Garim

úåñôåú ã"ä îéãé öéáòà ÷à âøéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when color does not matter.)

îùîò ùøåöä á÷åðèøñ ìôøù îùåí ã÷øà áøåá èìéúåú àééøé ùäï ìáðåú åàéðï öáåòåú úëìú åëéåï ãëúéá äëðó îéï ëðó äåé ëàéìå ëúá áäãéà úï ùðé çåèé ìáï úçéìä åàç''ë ôúéì úëìú

(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): The verse discusses most Talesim, which are white, and not dyed Techeles. Since it is written ha'Kanaf - Min Kanaf, it is as if the Torah explicitly said to put two threads of white first, and afterwards Pesil Techeles.

åöøéê ìåîø ãñúí èìéúåú ùìäí äéå âí îùàø îéðéí ãøáà äåà ããøéù ì÷îï îãëúéá äëðó îéï ëðó ãùàø îéðéí áîéðí ôåèøéï

(b) Consequence: We must say that their Stam Talesim were also from other species, for Rava expounds below (39b) since it is written ha'Kanaf - Min Kanaf, that [threads] of other species exempt [garments of] that species. (If their Stam Talesim were only of wool or linen, we should say that the verse discusses most Talesim, and does not teach about other Minim!)

åîéäå úéîä àí äéå øâéìéí áèìéú ùì öîø ðäé ãìà àééøé ÷øà áàåúå ùäåà öáåò úëìú îëì î÷åí àééøé áöáåò áöáò àçø ëé äéëé ããøùéðï ëìê åùéøàéï åñéøé÷éï

(c) Question: This is astounding! If a wool Talis was common for them - granted, the verse does not discuss one that is dyed Techeles, but in any case, it discusses one dyed another color, just like we expound (39b) Klach (waste silk), silk and Serikin (carded flax);

åçåèé úëìú äåé èôé îéðà ãéãéä îçåèé ôùúï åà''ë ìéùðé äëé ãëé î÷ãéí ìáï ùì ôùúï áèìéú öîø ìéú ìï áä

1. Threads of Techeles are Minah of [a wool Talis] more than flax threads. If so, we should answer that when he puts a white flax thread in a wool garment [before Techeles], this is not a problem!

åéù ìåîø ëéåï ã÷øà òì ëøçéï ìà àééøé áöáåò úëìú ãäà ëúéá îéï ëðó åëúéá ôúéì úëìú àìîà úëìú ìàå îéï ãëðó äåé

(d) Answer: Since you are forced to say that the verse does not discuss when it is dyed Techeles, for it is written Min Kanaf, and it is written Pesil Techeles. This shows that Techeles is not Min ha'Kanaf...

åàò''â ãî''î äåé îéðå èôé ìà çùéá îéãé ãäà ìà äåé áëìì îéï ëðó ã÷øà

1. And even though in any case, [Techeles] is more considered Mino (for a wool garment), it is not important at all, for it is not what the verse calls "Min Kanaf."

åòåã éù ìôøù ãöáéòä ãìàå îöåä ìàå îéãé äéà

(e) Explanation #2: Dying that is not a Mitzvah means nothing.

(åúå) [ö"ì åúéîä - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ãúðéà ì÷îï (ãó îà:) èìéú ùëåìä úëìú ëì îéðé öáòåðéï ôåèøéï áä çåõ î÷ìà àéìï

(f) Question #1: A Beraisa below (41b) says that a Talis that is all Techeles, [threads of] all colors exempt it, except for Kala Ilan;

åôéøù á÷åðèøñ ôåèøéï áä ìùí ìáï ãëéåï ãîéï ëðó [ìéëà] ì÷éåîé àéï ìê ìçæåø àçø ìáï àìà ùéäéå áä ùðé îéðéï

1. Rashi explained that they exempt it for white. Since there is no [way to fulfill] Min Kanaf, you need not pursue white, just [the Techeles and the threads used for white] should be two Minim (different colors).

îùîò ãèìéú ìáðä áòé ìáï

2. Inference: [We say so only for a Talis of Techeles, but] a white Talis needs white [threads]!

åáàéãê áøééúà (ùí) ãúðéà èìéú àéï ôåèø áä àìà îéðä ôéøù á÷åðèøñ àí àãåîä éèéì áä çåèéï àãåîéï åùðé çåèéï úëìú àìîà öéáòà âøéí

(g) Question #2: In the other Beraisa there, which taught that only the same Min exempts a Talis, Rashi explained that if it is red, he attaches red threads and two threads of Techeles. This shows that the color matters!

åìôé úéøåõ øàùåï ðéçà ãöéáòà äåé çã îéðà áø îúëìú

(h) Answer #1: According to the first answer (d), this is fine. The [same] color is called the same Min, except for Techeles.

åé''ì ãîãøáðï äåé

(i) Answer #2: (Mid'Oraisa, the color does not matter.) This is mid'Rabanan.

àé ðîé éù ìåîø ùí áò''à

(j) Answer #3: We can explain there unlike Rashi. (Rather, "the same Min" means the same material.)

8) TOSFOS DH Ela l'Gardumin

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ìâøãåîéï åëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how much must be cut to disqualify.)

îùîò ãàé àâøãåí ëåìäå îéôñìé

(a) Explanation #1: This implies that if all of them were cut, this disqualifies.

åàåø''ú ãòëùéå ùðåúðéï ã' çåèéï á' îùåí ìáï åá' îùåí úëìú åëåôìï ìùîåðä öøéê ìéæäø ãàí ðôñ÷å ùìùä îï äçåèéï ùîà äí îùìùä çåèéï åðîöà ùìà ðùàøå á' çåèéï ùìéîéï

(b) Pesak (R. Tam): Nowadays that we put four threads, two threads for white and two threads for Techeles, and double (fold) them to eight, one must be careful, for if three [ends] of the threads snapped, perhaps they are from three threads, and it turns out that there do not remain two complete threads.

åéù ìã÷ã÷ ÷öú ãñåâéà æå ëøáé àúéà ãäùúà äåé îöåä àçú åäìëä ëøáé îçáéøå àáì ìà îçáéøéå (òéøåáéï ãó îå:) åë''ù îøáå åøáé éåñé äâìéìé øáå äéä

(c) Question: It seems that the Sugya is like Rebbi, for now it is one Mitzvah, and the Halachah follows Rebbi against his colleague, but not against his colleagues, and all the more so not against his Rebbi, and R. Yosi ha'Gelili was his Rebbi!

åàäà ñåîëéï ùàéï ìðå úëìú [åîèéìéï ìáï] åìøáðï àôé' áçã îéôñéì ãäà úøé îöåú ðéðäå åìà úåòéì äàçú ìçáéøúä ãäåé ëàéìå àéâøãí úëìú åî÷öú ìáï

1. We rely on this (that the Halachah follows Rabanan) nowadays that we do not one have Techeles, and we attach white. According to Rabanan even if one [snapped] it is Pasul, for one does not help for the other, for it is as if Techeles and some of the white were cut!

åîéäå ðøàä ìîàé ãáòéðï áìáï ðîé ã' çåèéï à''ë çã îöåä ðéðäå

(d) Answer: However, it seems that also according to what we require four threads of white, if so it is one Mitzvah. (Taharas ha'Kodesh - above Tosfos said that according to Rabanan there are two Mitzvos. Tosfos retracts, and says that since we require four, this shows that it is one Mitzvah. Therefore, it suffices if two threads remain.)

åàé ìà áòéðï àìà á' ë''ù ãìà îòëáé åëîàï ãìéúðäå äåå

1. And if we require only two (for they are two Mitzvos), all the more so (if he put an extra two and they were cut) they are not Me'akev, and it is as if they are not [there].

åîéäå ìà îéñúáø ãñåâééï ìà äåé ëøáðï ãäà ãàîøé áðé ø' çééà äåé ãìà ëäìëúà

2. However, this is unreasonable (to say that we require only two, for if so) our Sugya is unlike Rabanan, and what Bnei R. Chiya is said unlike the Halachah. (The law of Gardumin and the Shi'ur of Kedei Anivah would not apply!)

åòåã é''ì ãàé àéâøãí úëìú å÷í àìáï äééðå ãðôñ÷ äçåè îòé÷øå åìà ðùúééø àìà ëì ùäåà (îï äìáï) ã÷øéðï ëä''â âøãåîéå áëì ùäåà åìà äåé ëàéìå ðôñ÷å ùðéäí ìâîøé (ì''ä åëì æä) [ãäåàéì îöåä àçú äéà îåòéì äùìí ìçáéøå

(e) Explanation #2: "If Techeles was cut and only white remained" means that the thread was cut from its source and only Mashehu remained. In such a case it is called Gardumin of Kolshehu, and it is not as if both were totally cut. Since it is one Mitzvah, the whole one helps for the other;

àáì ìøáðï ðôñ÷ çåè à' îòé÷øå ôñåì àìà àí ðùàø ëãé òðéáä

1. However, according to Rabanan, if one thread was cut from its source, it is Pasul, unless Kedei Anivah remained. (Taharas ha'Kodesh - now Tosfos is Machshir even if all four were cut and Kedei Anivah remained, unlike Explanation #1.)

åäà ãàîøé áðé ø' çééà âøãåîé úëìú åëå' îùîò ãàéâøãåí ëì àøáòúï ëé ÷øàå ìëì äöéöéú úëìú åáðùàø ëãé òðéáä]

(f) Consequence: Bnei R. Chiya said "Gardumei Techeles..." This implies that all four were cut, for all the Tzitzis are called Techeles, and Kedei Anivah remained.

9) TOSFOS DH Kedei Le'anvam

úåñôåú ã"ä ëãé ìòðáí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses where this is required.)

îúåê ôé' ä÷åðèøñ ãáñîåê âáé äà ãîåëç øáà ãöøéê ì÷ùåø òì ëì çåìéà åëå' åëéåï ãîéùúøé òéìàé îéùúøé ëåìäå åôé' ìéú ìéä äà ãàîøï ìòéì ëãé ùéòåø òðéáä

(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): Rava proved that one must tie on every Chuliya (set of windings)... since the top [knot] will be undone, all [will be undone] - Rashi explained that [Rava] disagrees with what we said above that the Shi'ur is Kedei Anivah. (Shitah Mekubetzes brings such a text of Rashi.)

îùîò ãñáéøà ìéä ãòðéáä çåõ ì÷ùø àçøåï ùáöéöéú

1. Inference: He holds that [Kedei] Anivah is past the last knot of the Tzitzis.

åéúëï éåúø ìôøù ãùéòåø òðéáä ñîåê ìëðó ÷àîø åäùúà ìà ôìéâ àìòéì

(b) Explanation #2: Perhaps it is better to explain that the Shi'ur of [Kedei] Anivah is next to the corner. Now he does not argue with above.

åëï îùîò ÷öú áñôøé áôøùú âãéìéí áã''à áúçéìä àáì áùéøéí âøãåîéí ëì ùäåà îùîò ãàâãéìéí ÷àé

(c) Support: It connotes a little like this in the Sifri in Parshas Gedilim. When (must Kedei Anivah remain)? It is at the beginning (at the corner), but Gardumin remnants (after the windings), Kolsheu [suffices]. This implies that it refers to Gedilim.

åëï ðøàä ìäåëéç îùí ùä÷ùø äåà îï äã' àì äã'

(d) Inference: One can prove from there that the knot is from the four [ends] to the [other] four ends;

ãàé îçåè äëøéëä åàçã îï äçåèéï ëîå ùäéä ðåäâ ø''ú ëùäéä ðôñ÷ àçã îï äçåèéï äðëøëéï åìà îçåè äëåøê äéëé îéùúøé ä÷ùø áëê

1. If it were from the thread wrapped [around the others] to one of the threads, like R. Tam used to do, when one of the [inner] wrapped threads snapped, and not the thread wrapped around them, how does the knot become undone through this?

ãáùìîà àé îï äã' ìã' ëùðôñ÷ äàçã îã' åàéðå î÷ùø ñåúø ä÷ùø

2. Granted, if [the knot is] from the four to the four, when one of the four snapped and he does not tie, this destroys the knot!

åé''ì (ãäëé ÷àîø ãîñúîà ëùéòåø ãàé) [ö"ì ãîñúîà ëé àéùúøé àçã - öàï ÷ãùéí] îã' àëúé ÷ééîà úìúà àáì àçã úå ìà ÷àé

(e) Rejection: Presumably, when one of the four [threads] is undone (snaps), three will remain (and the knot will endure) but [if three snap and only one remains, the knot] will not last based on one [intact thread].

10) TOSFOS DH Kivan d'Ishteri Chad Ishteri Kulhu

úåñôåú ã"ä ëéåï ãàéùúøé çã àéùúøå ëåìäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies this according to both Amora'im.)

åàéï ëàï âãéì

(a) Explanation: [They all become undone] and there is no Gedil (windings).

åàôéìå ìî''ã àå âãéì àå ôúéì

(b) Implied suggestion: This is unlike the opinion that Gedil or Pesil suffices!

îåëç ùôéø ãàôé' ôúéì ìéëà ãäà ñåôå ìéôåì

(c) Rejection: [Even according to that opinion] it is properly proven, for there is not even Pesil, for in the end it will fall.

åìà îåëç îéãé àìà ãáòé ÷ùøà àçøéðà àáì îäà ìà îåëç ãöøéê ì÷ùåø òì ëì çåìéà

(d) Implied question: It is proven only that we require tying at the end, but this does not prove that he must tie on every Chuliya!

åðøàä ùîáéà ëï ãáî÷åí àçø ìà àùëçï àúøà ãîñúáø èôé àé ìà áéï çåìéà ìçåìéà ëãé ìäôñé÷:

(e) Answer: He brings [a proof that one must tie on every Chuliya], for there is no place more reasonable to tie, if not between Chuliya and Chuliya, to separate them.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF