1) TOSFOS DH Kesher ha'Elyon
úåñôåú ã"ä ÷ùø äòìéåï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we need other Drashos to permit Kil'ayim in Tzitzis.)
á÷åðèøñ ôéøù ùðé ôéøåùéí àçã àçø äâãéì åð÷øà òìéåï ëîå (ðãä ãó éâ.) ìîòìä îï äòèøä
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is after the Gedil. It is called Elyon, like (Nidah 13a) "above the Atarah" (the crown on the Ever. It is it is further from the body.)
åæä àéðå îåëç àìà ãîéäà áòéðï ÷ùø
(b) Consequence: It is proven only that a knot is needed (but not where it is).
åì''à ôéøù ñîåê ìëðó àáì ÷ùø ùàçø äâãéì ëéåï ùøçå÷ îï äèìéú îùåí ääåà ìà äåé ëìàéí
(c) Explanation #2 (Rashi): Kesher ha'Elyon is next to the corner, but the knot after the Gedil, since it is far from the Talis, due to this it is not Kil'ayim. (This is not in our Rashi, but Shitah Mekubetzes brings it from Rashi Kesav Yad.)
åúéîä ìäàé ãîåëç äéëé îñé÷ áéáîåú (ãó ã:) ìîàï ãìà ãøéù ñîåëéí àìà äéëà (ãîåëç) [ö"ì ãîåôðä - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãöîø åôùúéí ìîä ìé ãëìàéí [ö"ì áöéöéú - öàï ÷ãùéí] îúðà ãáé øáé éùîòàì ùîòéðï ãáâãéäí öîø åôùúéí åëå'
(d) Question: According to what is proven, how do we conclude in Yevamos (4b) according to the opinion that expounds Semuchim only when it is Mufneh (extra), 'why do we need "Tzemer u'Fishtim" to teach about [a Heter for] Kil'ayim in Tzitzis? We know this from Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, that [Stam] "Bigdeihem" are of wool or linen' (and the Torah said to put Techeles, which is wool, on them)!
åäùúà ÷ùø äòìéåï ìà ùîòéðï )åà''ë) [ö"ì àìà îùåí ãàí ìà ëï - øé"à çáø] ìà äåé ëìàéí åàéöèøéê ùôéø ìàéúåéé öîø åôùúéí ìåîø ùéäà öøéê ìòùåúí áòðéï ùéäà áäí ëìàéí
1. Summation of question: We know Kesher ha'Elyon only because if not, [Techeles on a linen garment] is not Kil'ayim. We need Tzemer u'Fishtim to teach that one must make (Tzitzis) in a way that necessitates that it will be Kil'ayim!
åé''ì ãäëà ìà îôé÷ î÷øà ãöîø åôùúéí àìà îâãéì åîåëç (ãëìàéí) [ö"ì îëìàéí - öàï ÷ãùéí] ããøùä ãâãéì ãøùä ðëåðä äéà ãáòéðï âãéì èåá
(e) Answer #1: Here, [Rabah] does not learn from the verse Tzemer u'Fishtim, rather, from "Gedil", and it is proven from Kil'ayim that the Drashah of Gedil is a proper Drashah, that we require a good Gedil.
àé ðîé ñåâéà ãäúí àúéà ëîàï ãàîø âãéì ãåå÷à(åùîà ãäúí) [ö"ì åñåâéà ãäëà - öàï ÷ãùéí] àúéà ëîàï ãàîø àå âãéì àå ôúéì åôìåâúà ãàîåøàé äåà áñîåê
(f) Answer #2: The Sugya there is like the opinion that requires specifically Gedil (Kesher ha'Elyon is needed to sustain the Gedil), and the Sugya here is like the opinion that says either Gedil or Pesil. Amora'im argued about this above (38b).
åäëé ðîé úéîä ãáôø÷ äîåöà úôéìéï (òéøåáéï öå:) îùîò ãáòéðï ùæåøéï åø''ú ðîé ôéøù ãàéðå çééá òì ëìàéí òã ùéäà îùæø åàí ëï àéöèøéê èåáà ÷øà ãëìàéí áöéöéú
(g) Question: It is likewise difficult, that in Eruvin (96b) it connotes that we require [that the threads are] twined, and also R. Tam explained that one is liable for Kil'ayim only if it is twined. If so, we properly need a verse [to permit] Kil'ayim in Tzitzis. (If not, we would say that it is forbidden, and Techeles on a linen garment may not be twined!)
åéù ìåîø ãáòìîà éìéó ìéä (îúëìú ãáâãé ëäåðä) [ö"ì úëìú ãöéöéú îúëìú ãáâãé ëäåðä ãáòéðï ùæåøéï - öàï ÷ãùéí] åëéåï ãúëìú ùæåø äåà äãéï ìáï
(h) Answer: We learn from elsewhere - we learn Techeles of Tzitzis from Techeles of Bigdei Kehunah, that it must be twined. Since Techeles is twined, the same applies to white.
2) TOSFOS DH d'Igardom Igradumi
úåñôåú ã"ä ãàéâøãåí àéâøãåîé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two explanations.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ùðôñ÷å ìâîøé
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): They were totally cut.
å÷ùä ãäà ëì ùäåà ÷úðé
(b) Question: It is taught "Kol she'Hu"!
åöøéê ìåîø ãìöããéï ÷úðé åìà ÷àé àìà àùéøéå
(c) Answer: He must say that different cases were taught. ["Kol she'Hu"] applies only to Shirav (its remnants).
åðøàä ìôøù îàé ìàå ùéøéå ãàéôñé÷ îéðééäå ëìåîø ùéù îï äçåèéí ùðôñ÷å îòé÷øí åàéùúééø îï äùìéîéï ðîé åâøãåîéå ãàéâøãîå ëåìí
(d) Explanation #2: [The Gemara asked], doesn't "Shirav" mean that some snapped, i.e. some threads snapped from their source, and also whole threads remained, and "Gardumin" means that all were cut?
åäùúà ìà ÷àé ëì ùäåà àìà àâøãåîéå åäà ãàéôñé÷ îéðééäå äåé äùúà ëîå ðôñ÷ äçåè îòé÷øå ãìòéì
(e) Consequence: Now, Kol she'Hu refers only to Gardumav, and "d'Ifsik Minahu" is now like "the thread snapped from its source" above (the opposite of Explanation #1).
åëé äàé âååðà ÷øé ùéøéå ôø÷ ÷îà ãñåëä (ãó éâ.) âáé àæåá úçéìúå ùìùä åñåôå ùðéí åö''ò
(f) Support: We find Shirav like this in Sukah (13a) regarding Ezov - initially three (are required) and at the end two. This requires investigation (whether we may conclude like Explanation #2, or we should consider it a Safek).
3) TOSFOS DH Gardumav Kol she'Hu
úåñôåú ã"ä ùéøé âøãåîéå ëì ùäåà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that elsewhere, we could have asked from here.)
ôø÷ îé ùîú (á''á ãó ÷ð.) äåä îöé ìàéúåéé äê âáé äê ãôøéê åëì äéëà ãúðé ëì ùäåà ìéú ìéä ùéòåøà
(a) Observation: In Bava Basra (150a) we could have brought this, regarding the question "whenever it taught Kol she'Hu, is there no Shi'ur?!"
4) TOSFOS DH Lo Yifchos mi'Sheva k'Neged Shiv'ah Reki'im
úåñôåú ã"ä ìà éôçåú îùáò ëðâã ùáòä ø÷éòéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses customs of knots and Chuliyos.)
ìôé ùúëìú ãåîä ìéí åéí ãåîä ìø÷éò åàðï ãìéú ìï úëìú ìà ÷ôãéðï áäà
(a) Explanation #1: This is because Techeles resembles the sea, and the sea resembles the sky. We, who do not have Techeles, are not particular about this (seven Chuliyos).
åäà ðîé ãàîøéðï öøéê ì÷ùåø òì ëì çåìéà åçåìéà äééðå ëãé ùéäà ðéëø äúëìú
(b) Remark: Also what we say that one must tie on every Chuliyah, this is so the Techeles will be recognized (so we need not be particular about this nowadays).
åîä ùàðå ðåäâéí çîùä ÷ùøéí ôéøù á÷åðèøñ (âáé) [ö"ì ãäà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] öéöéú ù÷åìä ëðâã ëì äîöåú ìôé ùöéöéú òåìä ú''ø åç' çåèéï åçîùä ÷ùøéí òåìä úøé''â
(c) Explanation (Rashi): We tie five knots, for Tzitzis is equivalent to all the Mitzvos, for the Gematriya of Tzitzis is 600, and there are eight [ends of] threads, and with five knots, in all it is 613.
åîéäå ëì öéöéú äàîåøéí áôøùä çñéøéí éå''ã
(d) Question: Every "Tzitzis" in the Parshah is written lacking a Yud (its Gematriya is 590)!
åéù ìåîø ùéù ôñå÷ åäéä ìëí ìöéöéú åâ' öéöéú ëúåáéí áôøùä åìî''ã æå îùìéîúï
(e) Answer: There is a verse "v'Hayah Lachem l'Tzitzis", and Tzitzis is written three times in the Parshah. The Lamed (its Gematriya is 30) completes them (we add 10 to each Tzitzis).
åëï ðåäâ øáéðå úí ìòùåú àåúï ä' ÷ùøéí á' áñîåê ìèìéú åâ' ñîåê ìôúéì îùåí îòìéï á÷ãù åìà îåøéãéï ëãàîøéðï ùîñééí áìáï
(f) Remark: So is the custom of R. Tam, to make five knots, two next to the Talis (corner) and three next to the Pesil, because for we ascend in Kedushah and do not descend, like we say "he finishes with white";
åòì ëì ÷ùø ùðé ÷ùøéí ëãé ùéäà ÷ùø ùì ÷ééîà
1. He makes every knot a double knot, so it will be permanent.
îéäå ìà îöéðå ùåí ñîê áäù''ñ îôåøù îä' ÷ùøéí
(g) Disclaimer: We do not find any explicit support from the Gemara for five knots.
åéù ìåîø ãäà ãàîøéðï öøéê ì÷ùåø òì ëì çåìéà åçåìéà äééðå àçú ùì ìáï åàçú ùì úëìú ùäï ùúéí
(h) Remark: We can say that this that we said that he must tie on every Chuliyah, this is one of white and one of Techeles, which are two [Chuliyos];
åäùúà ëùàéï ôåçú îùáò òåùä ä' ÷ùøéí ñîåê ìèìéú ÷ùø àçã åàçø ëê ùúé çåìéåú àçú ùì (úëìú åàçú ùì ìáï ÷ùø) [ö"ì ìáï åàçú ùì úëìú å÷ùø - éùø åèåá] àçã òã ùîñééí ùù çåìéåú äøé àøáòä ÷ùøéí
1. Now, when one may not have less than seven (Chuliyos), he makes five knots - one knot next to the Talis and afterwards two Chuliyos, one of white and one of Techeles, and one knot, until he finishes six Chuliyos. There are four knots [so far].
åàçø ëê òåùä çåìéà ùáéòéú ùì ìáï ëãé ùéäà îñééí áìáï åàçø ëê ÷åùø àç' äøé ä' ÷ùøéí
2. Afterwards he makes a seventh Chuliyah of white, so he will finish with white, and afterwards one knot. This is five knots [in all].
åéù îôøùéí ìà éôçåú îùáò ëøéëåú áéï ëì ÷ùø å÷ùø:
(i) Explanation #2: Some explain that one may not have less than seven windings between every two knots.
39b----------------------------------------39b
5) TOSFOS DH Oh Gedil Oh Pesil
úåñôåú ã"ä àå âãéì àå ôúéì
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that elsewhere, we expound differently.)
ìîàé ãôøéùéú ìòéì ãîôúéì ùîòéðï ãáòé á' çåèéï úëìú ÷ùéà ãäëà ãøùéðï ìéä ìàå âãéì àå ôúéì
(a) Question: I explained above (38a DH ha'Techeles) that from "Pesil" we learn that we require two threads of Techeles. It is difficult, for here we expound "either Gedil or Pesil"!
åé''ì ãäà ðîé ùîòú îéðä ëéåï ãáçã ôøùä ëúéá âãéì åáàéãê ëúéá ôúéì
(b) Answer: Also this we learn from it, since in one Parshah it is written Gedil, and in the other it is written Pesil.
åîéäå ÷ùä ãôúéì îöéöéú ðô÷à ããøùéðï ì÷îï (ãó îá.) àéï öéöéú àìà òðó
(c) Question: We learn Pesil from Tzitzis, for we expound below (42a) that "Tzitzis" means only Anaf (straight strings)!
åéù ìåîø ãàéöèøéê öéöéú ìàùîåòéðï ãìàçø òùééúï öøéê ìôøåã ëãàéúà ì÷îï
(d) Answer: We need "Tzitzis" to teach that after making them, one must separate [them], like it says below (42a);
åáñôøé ãøéù åòùå ìäí öéöéú ùåîò àðé éòùä ëåìä âãéìéí ú''ì öéöéú äà ëéöã ëãé ùúäà âãéì éåöàú îï äëðó åöéöéú îï äâãéì
1. And the Sifri expounds "v'Asu Lahem Tzitzis" - one might have thought that he makes all Gedilim! It says "Tzitzis". How is this? Gedil comes out of the corner, and Tzitzis from the Gedil.
åäà áøééúà ÷ùéà ìøáä áø áø çðä å÷ùä ðîé ìøá ããøéù ìéä äëà îôúéì åäúí ãøéù ìéä îöéöéú
(e) Observation: This Beraisa is difficult for Rabah bar bar Chanah, and it is difficult also for Rav, who expounds here from "Pesil", and there it expounds from "Tzitzis"!
6) TOSFOS DH veha'Hu Gedilim l'Minyana
úåñôåú ã"ä åääåà âãéìéí ìîðééðà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses how Rav and Rabah bar bar Chanah expound.)
úéîä îàé ãåç÷éä ãøá ìîéîø âãéìéí ìîðééðà ðéîà ã÷øà áà ìåîø úøååééäå áòé âãéì åôúéì
(a) Question: What forced Rav to say that Gedilim comes for the number [of threads]? He should say that the verse comes to teach that we require both Gedil and Pesil!
åéù ìãçå÷ åìôøù ãèòí ãøáä áø áø çðä îùåí ããøéù âãéìéí ëîå îéòåè àçø îéòåè îùåí ãëúéá áìùåï øáéí åàò''â ãìéëà âãéì ëìì
(b) Answer: With difficulty, we can say that Rabah bar bar Chanah's reason is because he expounds Gedilim like an exclusion after an exclusion, because it is written in a plural expression, and even though there is no Pesil;
åëé úéîà àí ëï ôúéì ãëúá øçîðà ìîä ìé
1. Question: If so, why did the Torah write Pesil?
àéöèøéê ãàé ìà ôúéì äåä ôñìéðï ôúéì åâãéì áäãé äããé ÷îùîò ìï ôúéì
2. Answer: This is needed. If not for Pesil, we would disqualify Pesil and Gedil together. "Pesil" teaches that this is not so;
åøá ñáø ìîðééðà åìà ìîòè âãéìéí
3. And Rav holds that it comes for the number, and not to exclude Gedilim.
åúéîä øáä áø áø çðä îðééðà îðà ìéä
(c) Question: What is Rabah bar bar Chanah's source for the number?
7) TOSFOS DH v'Posleihu mi'Tocho
úåñôåú ã"ä åôåúìéäå îúåëå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings three explanations of this.)
ôéøù á÷åðè' ùçåè ùì ëøê îï äîðééï
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): The wrapping thread counts [towards the required number].
åáìùåï àçø ôé' ùéäà äôúéì ãäééðå äòðó îùåìùì ìîèä åéåöà îï äâãéì
(b) Explanation #2: The Pesil, i.e. the Anaf, hangs below and comes out from the Gedil.
åúéîä ãäà ðô÷à ìï îöéöéú ì÷îï (ãó îá.)
(c) Question: We learn this from Tzitzis below (42a)!
åáîúðéúéï ôéøùúé áò''à ùëôìå ëòéï ôúéìä åäééðå òééó ìäå îéòó ãì÷îï (ùí)
(d) Explanation #3: In our Mishnah (38a DH ha'Techeles) I explained differently. He doubles it like a wick. This is "Ayef Lehu Meya'ef" below (42a).
8) TOSFOS DH Lavan Nami Patar
úåñôåú ã"ä ìáï ðîé ôèø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Chidush of this.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ àò''â ãìà îéðà ãëðó äåà
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): Even though it is not the same Min as the corner [it exempts].
åìà éúëï ìôé îä ùôéøùúé ìòéì ãëåìäå áø îúëìú àé÷øå îéï ìáï
(b) Objection: This cannot be, according to what I explained above (38b DH Midi) that everything except for Techeles is called the Min of white!
àìà äëé ôéøåùà àò''â ãëìàéí ðéðäå
(c) Explanation #2: Rather, even though they are Kil'ayim [it exempts the garment].
9) TOSFOS DH u'Pliga d'Rav Nachman
úåñôåú ã"ä åôìéâà ãøá ðçîï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we say that they argue.)
äåä îöé ìîéîø ãîãøáðï äåà
(a) Implied question: [The Gemara] could have said that [Rachbah does not argue. He obligates] mid'Rabanan!
àìà îùåí ùäàîåøàéí éù ìäí ìáàø ãáøéäí éåúø
(b) Answer #1: Amora'im should explain their words more.
àé ðîé ìà îñúáø ìéä ëîå ùðáàø áñîåê
(c) Answer #2: He holds that it is not reasonable to say so, like we will explain below.
10) TOSFOS DH v'Rav Nachman d'Amar k'Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael
úåñôåú ã"ä åøá ðçîï ãàîø ëúðà ãáé øáé éùîòàì
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we needed to say so.)
úéîä äà ùôéø ùðé îãøáðï
(a) Question: [The Gemara] properly answered [that the Beraisa obligates only] mid'Rabanan! (Why must we say that Rav Nachman holds like another Tana?)
åéù ìåîø ãìà îñúáø ìéä ìîéîø äëé àìà îëç äëé ðîé îñúáøà åëé ãçé ìéä öøéê ìîöåà úðà
(b) Answer #1: [The Gemara] held that it is reasonable to say so only due to the support [from the Seifa, which teaches that threads of these materials exempt only their own kind]. Once we reject the support, we must find a Tana [who exempts];
àé ðîé ìà îñúáø ìéä ìôìåâé àãøùà ãîéðä àé ìà îùëç ìéä úðà
(c) Answer #2: It is unreasonable [to the Gemara] that he argues with the Drashah of the same Min, unless we find a Tana [who argues].
åðøàä ãîëåìäå úðàé îåëç ãàéú ìéä äëðó îéï ëðó
(d) Explanation: It is proven from all the Tana'im (of our Mishnah and the Beraisos) that he expounds ha'Kanaf - Min Kanaf. (The need for both white and Techeles, and the Mitzvah to put white first, and the very name "Lavan" are due to this Drashah. It is unreasonable to say that Rav Nachman argues with all of these!)
åìà îééúé ãúðà ãáé øáé éùîòàì àìà ìåîø ãáâãéäí öîø åôùúéí ãàé ìàå äàé èòîà ìà îôé÷ ìéä îäëðó îéï äëðó
1. [The Gemara] brings Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael only to say that "Bigdeihem" are wool or linen. If not for this reason, we would not learn this from ha'Kanaf "Min Kanaf." (Rather, he would expound like Rava, to include other Minim.)
åø''ú åøù''é ôñ÷å ëøáà îùåí ãäåà áúøàä
(e) Pesak: R. Tam and Rashi rule like Rava, for he is Basra.
11) TOSFOS DH Af Kol Tzemer u'Fishtim
úåñôåú ã"ä àó ëì öîø åôùúéí
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the source to say that he argues.)
úéîä îðà ìéä ãôìéâ ãìîà ùàðé äëà ãàéëà ééúåøà ãäëðó îéï ëðó
(a) Question: What is the source that he argues? Perhaps here is different, for this is something extra - ha'Kanaf, Min Kanaf!
ãäëé ðîé ãøéù ôø÷ áîä îãìé÷éï (ùáú ëæ.) îàå áâã ùàø áâãéí ìúðà ãáé øáé éùîòàì
1. Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael expounds like this in Shabbos (27a) from "Oh Beged" to include other Begadim!
åéù ìåîø ãìà ãîé ãäúí ìà îô÷éðï áâã ã÷øà îîùîòåúéä ãìòåìí áâã ã÷øà öîø åôùúéí äåà àìà ãîøáéðï àó ùàø îéðéï
(b) Answer #1: There is different. We do not remove "Beged" from its connotation. Really, "Beged" of the verse is wool or linen, just we include even other species;
àáì äëà àé ãøùú îéðéä áùàø îéðéï à''ë áâã ãëúéá áøéùà äåé ðîé ùàø îéðéï åà''ë îô÷ú áâã îîùîòåúà
1. However, here, if we expound from it other species, if so also Beged written in the Reisha is also other species. If so, you remove "Beged" from its connotation.
àé ðîé é''ì ãøáà ìà ãøéù îééúåøà îéãé àìà îùåí ãñáø áâãéäí ëì áâãéäí îùîò åòìä ëúéá äëðó îéï ëðó ùîãáø îï äöéöéú
(c) Answer #2: Rava does not expound anything from something extra, rather, because he holds that "Bigdeihem" connotes all their garments, and about this it says ha'Kanaf - Min Kanaf, which discusses Tzitzis.
åìôéøåù æä òì ëøçéê úðà ãáé øáé éùîòàì ìéú ìéä ãøáà
(d) Consequence: According to this, you are forced to say that Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael argues with Rava.
12) TOSFOS DH Amar Abaye Ha Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael
úåñôåú ã"ä àîø àáéé äàé úðà ãáé øáé éùîòàì
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that elsewhere, this is rejected.)
ôø÷ áîä îãìé÷éï (âí æä ùí) àéúà ìäà îéìúà åãçé ìéä øáà äúí
(a) Reference: This is brought in Shabbos (27a), and there Rava rejected it.
13) TOSFOS DH Beged Ein Li Ela Beged
úåñôåú ã"ä áâã àéï ìé àìà áâã öîø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that we expound the verse of Tum'as Sheratzim.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ áðâòéí ëúéá
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is written regarding Nega'im.
å÷ùä çãà ãà''ë öøéê ìâøåñ àå ááâã ãäëé ëúéá âáé ðâòéí
(b) Question #1: If so, the text must say "Oh Beged", for so it is written regarding Nega'im!
åúå ãô' áîä îãìé÷éï (âí æä ùí) ãøùéðï ìéä ìîéìúà àçøéúé
(c) Objection #2: In Shabbos (27a), we expound [that verse] for something else!
åúå äéëé éìôéðï îðâòéí ìøáà ãîúøõ ìä äúí ãìà îô÷à îàéãê úðà ãáé øáé éùîòàì äà âáé ðâòéí îøáä ùàø áâãéí
(d) Objection #3: How can we learn from Nega'im, according to Rava, who answers there that one Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael does not argue with the other? Regarding Nega'im, he includes other Begadim! (Birkas ha'Zevach - if so, what is Rav Nachman's source to exclude other garments? It is difficult to say that he holds like Abaye.)
åúå ãäúí (îùîò áôéøåù äëé åúå úðï) [ö"ì ìà îùîò äëé ãúðï - öàï ÷ãùéí] áäãéà ãùàø îéðéï ìà îéèîå áðâòéí ðéîà ãìà ëúðà ãáé øáé éùîòàì
(e) Objection #4: There, it connotes unlike this, for a Mishnah explicitly teaches that other garments do not get Tum'as Nega'im. Will we say that it is unlike Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael?!
ìëê öøéê ìôøù ãáùøöéí äåà ãëúéá (åé÷øà éà)
(f) Explanation #2: We must say that the verse discusses Sheratzim (Vayikra 11:32).
åúéîä ãà''ë àîàé àéöèøéê ìàúåéé ðåöä ùì òæéí äà ù÷ ëúéá áäãéà
(g) Question: If so, why must he include goats' hair? Sak is written there explicitly!
åé''ì ãàéëà áâã îï äã÷ ùáðåöä ùì òæéí
(h) Answer: There is a garment made from fine goats' hair.
åëï îåëç ôø÷ øàùéú äâæ (çåìéï ÷ìæ.) ãîîòè âéæä ùì ùåø îúúï ìå åìà ìù÷å åôøéê àìà îòúä ðåöä ùì òæéí ìéçééá àìîà ìàå îëìì ù÷ äåé
1. Source: It is proven like this in Chulin (137a). It excludes [from Chiyuv in Reishis ha'Gez] shearings of a bull from '"Titen Lo", and not for his Sak', and asks "according to this, goats' hair should be liable!" This shows that it is not included in Sak.
åäùúà ðéçà äà ãîøáä ìàáéé îäëà â' òì â' áùàø áâãéí åãéï ù÷ äåé ã' òì ã':
(i) Support: Now it is fine that according to Abaye, we include from here three by three [Tefachim] of other garments, and the law of Sak is four by four [to receive Tum'ah].