1) TOSFOS DH Sadin b'Tzitzis Beis Shamai Potrin
úåñôåú ã"ä ñãéï áöéöéú áéú ùîàé ôåèøéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses Beis Shamai's reason.)
ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãìà (ãøùéðï) [ö"ì ãøùé - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã[ ñîåëéï åìà àéùúøé ëìì ëìàéí áöéöéú
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Beis Shamai] do not expound Semuchin. Kil'ayim is not permitted in Tzitzis at all.
åäà ãð÷è ìùåï ôèåø åçéåá åéúëï éåúø ìùåï àéñåø åäéúø
(b) Implied question: Why does [the Tana] say "exempt" and "obligated"? It would be more appropriate to say "Asur" and "permitted"!
îùåí ã÷ñáø çåáú èìéú åàéñåø åäéúø ðîé áäà úìéà
(c) Answer: It is because he holds that there is an obligation [to put Tzitzis] on a Talis [that he owns, even if he is not wearing it], and Isur and Heter also depend on this (whether it is exempt or obligated).
åä''ä ðîé áèìéú ùì öîø ùìà éôèøå áå çåèé ôùúï åîéìúà ãôñé÷à ð÷è ãëì ñãéï îôùúï åàé àôùø áå áìà ëìàéí ùòé÷ø îöåú öéöéú úëìú åúëìú òîøà äåà
1. The same applies to a woolen Talis. Linen threads do not exempt it. [The Beraisa] discusses a uniform law - every Sadin is of linen, and it is impossible without Kil'ayim, for the primary Mitzvah of Tzitzis is Techeles, and Techeles is wool.
îùîò îúåê ôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ãöéöéú (ëìàéí) [ö"ì ãëìàéí - öàï ÷ãùéí] äåà ãàñøéðï åëï ôéøù áúùåáä åëï [ëúá] øáéðå éöç÷ áøáé éäåãä
(d) Opinion #1: Rashi connotes that we forbid Tzitzis of Kil'ayim (but one puts linen Tzitzis on a Sadin). He also explained so in a Teshuvah, and so wrote Rabbeinu Yitzchak b'Ribi Yehudah.
å÷ùä ãäà àîøéðï áøéù éáîåú (ãó ã.) àôéìå îàï ãìà ãøéù ñîåëéï áòìîà áîùðä úåøä ãøéù
(e) Question: We say in Yevamos (4a) that even the one who does not expound Semuchin elsewhere, he expounds in Mishnah Torah (Sefer Devarim)!
åé''ì ãàéëà çã úðà áðæéø (ãó ðç.) ãîôé÷ îøàùå ãòùä ãåçä ìà úòùä åöîø åôùúéí ìëãøáà
(f) Answer #1: There is one Tana in Nazir (58a) who learns from "Rosho" that Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh (a Metzora shaves his head, including the Pe'os, and even if he is a Nazir), and Tzemer u'Fishtim teaches like Rava (39b. Wool or linen exempts any material. Any other material exempts only a garment of that material);
åáéú ùîàé ñáéøà ìäå ëääåà úðà åñáéøà ìäå ëøáé éäåãä ãìà ãøéù ñîåëéï àìà äéëà ãîåëç àå îåôðä
1. Beis Shamai hold like that Tana, and like R. Yehudah, who expounds Semuchin only when it is Muchach (it should have been written elsewhere; surely, it was written here to expound Semuchin) or Mufneh (there are extra words);
åàò''â ãòùä ãåçä ìà úòùä ìà ùøé öéöéú ëìàéí ãäà àôùø ì÷ééí ùðéäí åòé÷ø îöåú úëìú ìà éäà àìà áöîø
2. Even though Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh, Kil'ayim is not permitted in Tzitzis, for it is possible to fulfill both of them, and the primary Mitzvah of Techeles is only with a [garment of] wool (or other materials other than linen, for they hold like Rava - PF)!
àé ðîé ìàùîòéðï ÷ùø ãìòéì ìà éãòéðï àìà îãàéùúøé ëìàéí áöéöéú
(g) Answer #2: [The Semuchin] teaches about Kesher (Taharas ha'Kodesh - just like Kil'ayim applies only when the wool and linen are tied to each other, Tzitzis must be tied to the garment). Above (39a) we know [Kesher] only from the Heter of Kil'ayim in Tzitzis.
åîéäå ìà éúëï ìîéîø [ö"ì ëï - éùø åèåá] ìôé îä (ùôéøù) [ö"ì ùôéøùúé - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìîòìä âáé ÷ùø äòìéåï
(h) Rebuttal: We cannot say so according to what I explained above (39a DH Kesher) regarding the top knot (that we learn it from "Gedilim").
îéäå âí àääåà úðà ãðæéø ôø''ú ãñîéê àâãéìéí ãîøàùå ìà îöé îôé÷ ëãàéúà áéáîåú
(i) Objection #1 (to Answer #1): Also the Tana in Nazir, R. Tam explained that he relies on Gedilim, for he cannot learn from Rosho, like it says in Yevamos (5a. Tiglachas Metzora overrides only a Lav that is not Shavah b'Chol (women may cut their Pe'os) or can be annulled through She'elah, e.g. Nazir.)
åúå ãáñãø øá òîøí ôñé÷ ëá''ù áäà åàðï ôùéèà ãìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ÷éí ìï ëá''ä ëãîåëç áëì ãåëúé
(j) Objection #2: Seder Rav Amram [Gaon] rules like Beis Shamai in this, and it is obvious to us that according to Rashi, we hold like Beis Hillel, like is proven everywhere!
åìôé' ä÷åðèøñ ö''ì ãàéï äìëä àìà ëúðàé ãáñîåê åëãîôøù åîùåí âæéøä åöéöéú îîéðå ùøé ìëåìé òìîà
(k) Answer: According to Rashi, we must say that the Halachah follows the Tana'im below, like [the Gemara] explains, and it is due to a decree, and all agree that Tzitzis from the same Min [of the garment] is permitted.
åöøéê ìãçå÷ äà ãùøà øáé æéøà ìñãéðéä äééðå öéöéú úëìú
1. Observation: He is forced to say, with difficulty, that R. Zeira removed his Sadin (40b), i.e. [he removed from it] the Tzitzis of Techeles;
åîìàëà ðîé (ì÷îï ãó îà.) ãàîø ìøá ÷èéðà ñãéðà á÷ééèà öéöéú îä úäà òìéä îöéöéú îï äîåáçø ÷à î÷ôéã
2. Also the angel (below, 41a) who said to Rav Ketina "in summer you wear a Sadin - what will be with Tzitzis?!", he was adamant that [Rav Ketina does not fulfill] the ideal Mitzvah.
åúå ÷ùä ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ãôìåâúà ãàîåøàé äåà àé öéöéú çåáú âáøà àå çåáú èìéú
(l) Objection #3: (Rashi said that Beis Shamai hold that Tzitzis is Chovas Talis.) Amora'im argue about whether Tzitzis is Chovas Gavra (an obligation on one who wears it) or Chovas Talis;
åòåã ã÷é''ì (ùí ãó îá) çåáú âáøà îãîáøëéðï ìäúòèó åîãá''ù ðùîò ìá''ä ãçåáú èìéú äåé
1. Also, we hold that it is Chovas Gavra, since we bless Lehis'atef. From Beis Shamai, we learn to Beis Hillel that it is Chovas Talis (we do not find that they argue about this)!
ìëê ôé' ø''ú ãîãàåøééúà á''ù ðîé çéåáé îçééáé åìà ôèøé àìà îùåí äðé èòîé ãîôøù áùîòúéï åàôéìå îîéðå ðîé ôèøé ìéä ãìîà àúé ìîéòáã úëìú åäìëê ùééê ùôéø ìùåï ôèåø
(m) Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Mid'Oraisa, also Beis Shamai obligate. They exempt only due to the reasons it explains in our Sugya, and even from its Min they exempt it, lest he come to make Techeles. Therefore, the expression "exempt" is appropriate.
åòåã éù ìåîø ìôé' ä÷åðè' ãá''ù àó áîéðï ôèøé ãñáøé ìä ëøáé ãàîø (ìòéì ãó ìç.) äúëìú îòëáú äìáï
(n) Opinion #2: We can say according to Rashi (Explanation #1) that Beis Shamai exempt even from its own Min. They hold like Rebbi, who said above (38a) that Techeles is Me'akev white. (We can say so according to what Rashi wrote here, but Tosfos brought above that in a Teshuvah, Rashi explained like Opinion #1. - PF)
åäùúà ðéçà äà ãð÷è ñãéï ãåå÷à
(o) Support: Now it is fine that [Beis Shamai] mentioned specifically a Sadin. (One can fulfill the Mitzvah with a wool Talis.)
åîéäå úéîä ãäùúà ëéåï ãìà àéôùø ðãçé òùä ììà úòùä
(p) Question: Now, since it is impossible [mid'Oraisa to do the Mitzvah with a Sadin], the Aseh should be Docheh the Lo Sa'aseh!
2) TOSFOS DH Amar R. Eliezer b'Ribi Tzadok
úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øáé àìéòæø áøáé öãå÷
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings two opinions about whose opinion R. Eliezer and Rebbi discuss.)
á÷åðèøñ ôé' ùðé ìùåðåú åìùåï ùðé ùôé' ã÷àé àá''ù ãôèøé åäìà àéï áå ø÷ úîéä åøáé ðîé ÷àé àá''ù àí ëï ìîä àñøåä á''ù
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi's second Perush): He refers to Beis Shamai, who exempt. There is no Isur [if he puts Tzitzis], just he astounds. Also Rebbi refers to Beis Shamai - if so, why did Beis Shamai forbid?
åæäå ëôé' ø''ú ùìîòìä ãèòîà ãá''ù îùåí âæéøä äéà àáì ìôé' ä÷åðè' ùìîòìä ìà éúëï ãðé÷å àá''ù
(b) Consequence: This is like R. Tam explained above, that Beis Shamai's reason is a due to a decree. However, according to Rashi's Perush above (that Beis Shamai forbid Kil'ayim in Tzitzis mid'Oraisa), we cannot establish them to refer to Beis Shamai!
åäéä éëåì ìôøù à''ë ìîä àñøå äòåìí åèòîà ãðôùéä ÷àîø åìà ÷éí ìéä ëá''ù
(c) Observation: [Rashi] could have explained [that Rebbi asked] "if so, why did everyone forbid?", and he says his own opinion. He does not hold like Beis Shamai!
åòåã ôé' ãøáé àìéòæø àá''ä îäãø ãîçééáé ìéä åäìà áðé éøåùìéí éúîäå òìéå
(d) Explanation #2 (Rashi): R. Eliezer refers to Beis Hillel, who obligate [a Sadin]. People of Yerushalayim will be astounded at [one who puts Tzitzis on it];
åàîø øáé à''ë ìîä àñøåä ãôùéèà ëá''ù ìà ÷é''ì åìîä îúîéäéï
1. Rebbi said "if so, why did they forbid it?" Obviously, we do not hold like Beis Shamai. Why are people astounded?
3) TOSFOS DH v'Halachah k'Divrei Beis Hillel
úåñôåú ã"ä åäìëä ëãáøé á''ä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos rejects an alternative text.)
é''ñ âåøñéï àé àéëà öéöéú ùì öîø áéåí îéëñé áéä åôèåø åëé ù÷òä çîä àé îìáéù ìéä çééá
(a) Alternative text: Some texts say "if it has wool Tzitzis, during the day he wears it, and he is exempt (he does not transgress Kil'ayim). When the sun sets, if he wears it, he is liable."
åîç÷å ø''ú ëîå ùàôøù ì÷îï
(b) Rebuttal: R. Tam erased this text, like I will explain below (40b DH Techeles).
4) TOSFOS DH Lo Yehei Ela Lavan
úåñôåú ã"ä ìà éäà àìà ìáï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that Rebbi holds that there is no Mitzvah of white alone.)
àò''â ãàìéáà ãøáé ÷ééîé ãñ''ì (ìòéì ãó ìç.) äúëìú îòëáú àú äìáï
(a) Implied question: We discuss Rebbi's opinion, and Rebbi holds above (38a) that Techeles is Me'akev white!
îéäå øáé ìàå èòîà ãðôùéä ÷àîø àìà îäãø àáðé éøåùìéí ëãôøéùéú
(b) Answer: Rebbi did not explain his own reason. Rather, he discusses Bnei Yerushalayim, like I explained (DH Amar).
5) TOSFOS DH Kivan d'Efshar b'Minan
úåñôåú ã"ä ëéåï ãàôùø áîéðï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara above.)
ìòéì (ãó ìè:) ãîñé÷ðà ãçåèé )ôùúï ôåèøéï áùì) [ö"ì öîø ôåèøéï áùì ôùúï åùì ôùúï áùì öîø - ùéèä î÷åáöú]
(a) Implied question: Above (39b), we concluded that wool threads exempt a linen garment, and linen [threads] exempt a wool garment!
äééðå áäãé úëìú ãîéâå ãúëìú ôèø áùì ôùúï ìáï ðîé ôèø åàò''â ãàôùø áîéðå
(b) Answer: That is together with Techeles. Since Techeles exempts a linen garment, also [wool] threads of white exempt it, even though it is possible with its Min (linen. However, when there is no Techeles, there is no Heter for Kil'ayim.)
åäàé ãôùéèà ìéä èôé ãçåèé öîø ôåèøéï áùì ôùúï
(c) Implied question: Why is it more obvious that wool threads exempt a linen garment [than vice-versa]?
äééðå îùåí ãáìàå äëé àéëà ëìàéí
(d) Answer #1: It is because even without this, there is Kil'ayim [due to Techeles].
àé ðîé îãàåøééúà (ãøçîðà) ùøééä åøáðï äåà ãâæåø ãëéåï ãàôùø ì÷ééí ùðéäí àáì îãàåøééúà ùøé ãëìàéí îîù äåúø àöì öéöéú åìàå îùåí ãçéä
(e) Answer #2: Mid'Oraisa it is permitted [even without Techeles], and Rabanan decreed [even with Techeles], since it is possible to fulfill both. However, mid'Oraisa it is permitted, for real Kil'ayim was permitted for Tzitzis. It is not due to Dichuy (which permits only when one cannot fulfill both of them. Taharas ha'Kodesh asks, if so, how do we learn from Tzitzis that Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh?)
åäà ãîñ÷éðï ìòéì ãôåèø
(f) Implied question: We concluded above that [threads that make it Kil'ayim] exempt!
äééðå îãàåøééúà
(g) Answer #1: That is mid'Oraisa.
àé ðîé îñ÷ðà ìà ÷ééîà äëé
(h) Answer #2: The conclusion above is not sustained.
6) TOSFOS DH v'Livdekei
úåñôåú ã"ä åìéáã÷éä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings two explanations of this.)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ ùúé ìùåðåú ìùåï àçã ìéáãå÷ ëì éåøåú äöåáòéí åîùðé îùåí èòéîä ãäåé ùìà ìùîå
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): [We ask that] we should check all pots of dyers, and answer that it is due to testing, which is Lo Lishmah.
åäëé ðîé äåä îöé ìîéîø ùîà ùìà ìùîå òáã ëåìéä
(b) Observation: Also, we could have answered that perhaps he made it all Lo Lishmah.
ì''à åòé÷ø åìéáã÷éä ëãàéúà ì÷îï ãîééúé âéìúà åùáìéìúà åáã÷éðï ìéä ìöéöéú àé úëìú äåà àå ÷ìà àéìï
(c) Explanation #2 (Rashi): [We ask that] we should check it like it says below (42b). He brings alum, fenugreek juice... and checks the Tzitzis, if it is Techeles (the color will not fade) or Kala Ilan;
åîùðé îùåí èòéîä ùîà öéöéú æä ðòùä îï äöîø ùèòí áå åæä àé àôùø ááãé÷ä:
1. We answer that it is due to testing. Perhaps this Tzitzis was made from wool used to test (it was not l'Shem Mitzvas Techeles). This cannot be checked.
40b----------------------------------------40b
7) TOSFOS DH Shema Yikra Sadino b'Soch Gimel
úåñôåú ã"ä ùîà é÷øò ñãéðå áúåê â'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when Ta'aseh v'Lo Min ha'Asuy applies)
ôé' á÷åðèøñ áúåê ùìù ìëðó åëùéúôøðå áçåèé ôùúï éðéç ñåó äçåèéï úìåééï ùí ìöéöéú åäåä ìéä úòùä åìà îï äòùåé
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Perhaps his Sadin will tear] within three [fingers] of the corner, and when he sews it with linen threads, he will leave the ends of the threads there for Tzitzis, and this is [Pasul due to] "Ta'aseh", v'Lo Min ha'Asuy (we must fulfill the Mitzvah when attaching Tzitzis);
åàôé' ìøáðï ãàîøé (ìòéì ãó ìç.) ãúëìú àéðä îòëáú àú äìáï äééðå ëùéù ã' çåèéï àáì äëà ãìéëà àìà á' ìà
1. And even according to Rabanan, who say above (38a) that Techeles is not Me'akev white [and vice-versa], that is when there are four threads, but here that there are only two [Kosher] threads, no (it is Me'akev).
îéäå äåä ìéä ìîéð÷è îùåí ãáòéðï èååéä àå úìééä ìùîä àáì úòùä åìà îï äòùåé ìéëà ìôé îä ùàôøù ì÷îï âáé òùàä îï ä÷åöéí åîï äâøãéï åëå'
(b) Objection: He should have said because we require spinning or attaching [the threads] Lishmah, but Ta'aseh v'Lo Min ha'Asuy does not apply, according to what I will explain below (42b DH ha'Kotzim) about one who made [Tzitzis] from excess strands on the end of the garment...
åäà ãúðéà ì÷îï (ãó îà.) èìéú ùð÷øòä çåõ ìùìù éúôåø úåê â' øáé îàéø àåîø ìà éúôåø åçë''à éúôåø
(c) Remark: A Beraisa below (41a) says that a Talis that was torn outside of three [fingers from the corner], he sews it. Within three, R. Meir says that he may not sew it. Chachamim say, he sews it;
àôé' ìøáðï âæøéðï ùîà éúôåø åéäà áå àéñåø ëìàéí
1. Even according to Rabanan, we decree [about a Sadin] lest he sew it (and threads will remain, and he will count them towards Tzitzis), and there is an Isur of Kil'ayim [in the garment. Taharas ha'Kodesh, Yashar v'Tov - below, they did not decree lest he not fulfill the Mitzvah. Here that he will transgress Kil'ayim, even they decreed.]
åîéäå ÷ùä îääåà ãøá äåðà ãàîø ì÷îï (ãó îà:) øçå÷ îï äëðó ã' äåé îöåú öéöéú
(d) Question: [According to Rashi] that [Beraisa] is difficult for Rav Huna, who says below (41b) that the Mitzvah of Tzitzis is [within] four [fingers] of the corner!
àáì îáøééúà ãçñéãé ìéëà ìà÷ùåéé
(e) Implied question: We can ask also from the Beraisa (below) of Chasidim (they put Tzitzis on a garment once they wove three fingers of it)!
ãäà îôøùéðï áñîåê ëéåï ùôöòå ùìù
(f) Answer: We explain below once they were within three fingers of finishing the garment.
ìëê öøéê ìôøù úåê ùìù äééðå ùð÷øò äëðó ùäöéöéú úìåé áä åìà ðùúééø â' åäåé ëàéìå ðôñ÷ ìâîøé àáì àí ðùúééø áå â' ìãáøé äëì çéáåø îòìéà äåé
(g) Explanation #2: Therefore, we must explain "within three", i.e. the corner with Tzitzis attached tore, and three did not remain, and it is as if was totally cut off. However, if three remained, all agree that it is properly attached.
åäùúà ùîòúéï ëø' îàéø àúéà
(h) Consequence: Now, our Sugya is like R. Meir (who forbids sewing).
åäà ãìà âæøéðï ùîà é÷øò ëåìä
(i) Implied question: Why don't we decree lest all of it tear?
ãáäà ìà èòå
(j) Answer: People would not err about this. (They know that the Tzitzis were disqualified.)
åäà ãîùîò ô' ãí çèàú (æáçéí ãó öã:) âáé áâã ùéöà çåõ ì÷ìòéí ãàôéìå ðùúééø áå â' àìà ùàéï áå ëãé îòôåøú ìà çùéá çéáåø
(k) Implied question: In Zevachim (94b) it connotes that a garment that went outside the Kela'im, even if three [fingers] remained, but not enough to make a turban, it is not considered connected...
(åáôø÷) [ö"ì ãáôø÷ - éùø åèåá] äòåø åäøåèá (çåìéï ãó ÷ëâ:) îåëç ãëãé îòôåøú äåé èôé îâ'
1. For in Chulin (123b) it is proven that enough to make a turban is more than three!
ùàðé äúí ãëì äáâã ð÷øò àáì äëà ùàéðå ð÷øò ø÷ çúéëä ìà äåé (áôñåì) [ö"ì ëðôñ÷ - ùéèä î÷åáöú]:
(l) Answer: There is different, for the entire garment tore. Here, only a piece tore. It is not as if [the corner] was cut off.
8) TOSFOS DH Rav Zeira Amar
úåñôåú ã"ä (ø') [ö"ì øá - ãôåñ åéðéöéä] æéøà àîø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is not Rav Zeira.)
îùîò ãøá æéøà ìàå äééðå øáé æéøà åìà ëôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ áëúåáåú (ãó îâ:):
(a) Inference: Rav Zeira is not R. Zeira. This is unlike Rashi explained in Kesuvos (43b).
9) TOSFOS DH Mishum Kesus Laylah
úåñôåú ã"ä îùåí ëñåú ìéìä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos rules like this, and like R. Shimon.)
ø''ú ôé' ãëï òé÷ø ëãàéúà ô' áîä îãìé÷éï (ùáú ãó ëä:) åàéðäå ñáåø îùåí ëñåú ìéìä
(a) Explanation (R. Tam): This is primary, like it says in Shabbos (25b) "they hold [that it was a decree] due to a night garment."
îúåê ëê éù ìäåëéç îëàï ãäìëä ëø' ùîòåï ãìéìä ìàå æîï öéöéú äéà
(b) Inference: From this we can prove that the Halachah follows R. Shimon, that night is not Zman Tzitzis. (On 43a, he says that Tzitzis is Mitzvas Aseh sheha'Zman Gerama, and Chachamim disagree.)
åòåã àîøéðï ô' áîä îãìé÷éï (ãó ëæ.) àùø úëñä áä ìîä ìé ìàúåéé ëñåú ñåîà
(c) Support #1: Also, it says in Shabbos (27a) why do we need "Asher Techaseh Bah"? It includes the garment of a blind man;
åäééðå ëø''ù ãìøáðï ãøáé ùîòåï îå÷îé ìéä ìøáåú áòìú çîù àìîà ñúí äù''ñ ëø''ù àúà
1. This is like R. Shimon, for Rabanan of R. Shimon establish the verse to discuss a garment with five corners. This shows that the Stam Gemara holds like R. Shimon.
åòåã áô' á' ãáøëåú (ãó éã:) àîøéðï ùìà äéå àåîøéí áîòøáà ôøùú öéöéú áìéìä [åøá éåñó àîø òìä] ëîä îòìéà äàé ùîòúà
(d) Support #2: In Brachos (14b), we say that in Eretz Yisrael they did not say Parshas Tzitzis at night (because the Mitzvah does not apply then), and Rav Yosef said "how great is this teaching!"
åñúí áøééúà ðîé ô''÷ ãæáçéí (ãó éç:) ëø' ùîòåï îå÷é
(e) Support #3: A Stam Beraisa in Zevachim (18b) we establish like R. Shimon.
åøá éäåãä ãøîé úëìúà ìôøæåîà ãàéðùé áéúéä ì÷îï (ãó îâ.) åáô''÷ ãñåëä (ãó éà.) ø''é ìáã äéä òåùä ëï
(f) Support #4: Rav Yehudah put Tzitzis on his wife's garment below (43a) and in Sukah (11a). Only Rav Yehudah did so. (Others hold that it is Zman Gerama.)
åáô''÷ ãáøëåú (ãó éâ.) àîø ø' éäåùò áï ÷øçä ìîä (ðñîëä) [ö"ì ÷ãîä - éã áðéîéï] ôøùä åëå' ìåîø ùæå ðåäâú áéï áéåí áéï áìéìä åæå àéðä ðåäâú àìà áéåí
(g) Support #5: In Brachos (13a), R. Yehoshua ben Korchah said 'why is Parshas "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a" before [Parshas Tzitzis, in Shma]? [The former] applies during the day and at night, and the latter applies only during the day.' (He says so in a Mishnah, and no one argues.)
åàåø''ú àò''â ãëñåú éåí çééá àôé' áìéìä åëñåú ìéìä ôèåø àôé' áéåí îëì î÷åí îé÷øé ùôéø æîï âøîà ùäéåí âåøí ìçééá äîìáåù
(h) Explanation (R. Tam): Even though a day garment is obligated even at night, and a night garment is exempt even during the day, in any case it is properly called sheha'Zman Gerama, for the day causes the garment to be obligated.
îéäå áéøåùìîé ã÷ãåùéï åáúåñôúà âøñéðï àéæå äéà îöåú òùä ùìà äæîï âøîà ëâåï àáéãä åùéìåç ä÷ï åîò÷ä åöéöéú åøáé ùîòåï ôåèø àú äðùéí îï äöéöéú
(i) Question: In the Yerushalmi in Kidushin and in the Tosefta, the text says "what is a Mitzvas Aseh she'Lo ha'Zman Gerama? [It is Mitzvos like] [Hashavas] Aveidah, Shilu'ach ha'Kan, Ma'akah and Tzitzis. R. Shimon exempts women from Tzitzis";
àîø ìäí øáé ùîòåï àé àúí îåãéí ìé ùäéà îöåú òùä ùäæîï âøîà ùäøé ëñåú ìéìä ôèåø
1. R. Shimon said [to Chachamim] do you not admit to me that it is a Mitzvas Aseh sheha'Zman Gerama, for a night garment is exempt?
àîø ø' àéìà èòîà ãøáðï ùàí äéúä èìéú äîéåçãú ìéåí åììéìä çééáú
2. R. Ila said, Rabanan's reason is because if a Talis was special for day and for night, it is obligated. (This refutes Tosfos' inference and all the supports, except for Support #4, for also Rabanan exempt a night garment, but they do not call it Zman Gerama (PF). R. Tam's Perush is only according to R. Shimon. Further, it is possible that R. Shimon exempts a day garment at night, unlike R. Tam! (Yad Binyamin)
åáñôøé ðîé úðéà òì ëðôé áâãéäí ùåîò àðé àó áòìú â' åëå' ùåîò àðé àó ëñåú ìéìä áîùîò ú''ì åøàéúí àåúå áéåí åìà áìéìä åàí äéúä èìéú îéåçãú ìéåí åìéìä çééáú áöéöéú åö''ò
(j) Strengthening of question: Also in the Sifri, it is taught "Al Kanfei Bigdeihem" - I would think that [this is] even a garment with three corners... I would think that even a night garment is included. It says "u'Re'isem Oso" - during the day, and not at night. And if a Talis was special for day and for night, it is obligated. This requires investigation. (The Reisha taught the argument about Zman Gerama, and the Seifa exempts a night garment Stam, i.e. all agree about this.)
10) TOSFOS DH veha'Amar R. Zeira Hitil l'Muteles Kesherah
úåñôåú ã"ä åäàîø ø' æéøà äèéì ìîåèìú ëùéøä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with what R. Zeira held above.)
úéîä äéëé ñ''ã ãøáé æéøà ìéú ìéä úòùä åìà îï äòùåé äà ø' æéøà âåôéä àéú ìéä ìòéì
(a) Question: What was R. Zeira's Havah Amina? Does he not hold that [it is Pasul due to] "Ta'aseh", v'Lo Min ha'Asuy?! R. Zeira himself holds like this above!
åé''ì ãñ''ã ëéåï ãúçéìú äðçúï ìùí îöåä ìà ùééê áéä úòùä åìà îï äòùåé
(b) Answer: He thought that since they were initially put l'Shem Mitzvah, [the Pasul due to] "Ta'aseh", v'Lo Min ha'Asuy does not apply;
àáì ìòéì ëé (çúê) [ö"ì ðçúê - çîãú ãðéàì] ðúáèìä äðçúå
1. However, above when it was cut, the putting [l'Shem Mitzvah] was Batel.
11) TOSFOS DH b'Bal Tosif Kai Ma'aseh Lo Havi
úåñôåú ã"ä ááì úåñéó ÷àé îòùä ìà äåé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the reason to be Machshir.)
ãëéåï ãòáéã àéñåøà ìà çùéá òùééä åáùòú ÷öéöú äøàùåðéí æå äéà òùééúï
(a) Explanation: Since he did an Isur, it is not considered an action, and at the time he cuts the first, this is its action;
åìà ãîé ìääéà ãô' ÷îà ãñåëä (ãó éà.) ãìà àîøéðï ÷öéöúï æå äéà òùééúï åö''ò
1. This is unlike the case in Sukah (11a), that we do not say that cutting [a branch from a tree] is its action [to be Machshir it for Sechach]. This requires investigation.
12) TOSFOS DH mi'Mai d'Gavra Le'osufei ka'Mikavein
úåñôåú ã"ä îîàé ãâáøà ìàåñåôé ÷îéëåéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with both opinions about Bal Tosif.)
àôéìå ìîàï ãàîø áô' áúøà ãòéøåáéï (ãó (÷.) [ö"ì öå. - éùø åèåá] ãìòáåø îùåí áì úåñéó ìà áòé ëååðä åîùîò ðîé áääåà ôéø÷à ãìøáé éäåùò ìà áòé ëååðä
(a) Implied question: There is an opinion in Eruvin (96a) that does not require intent [for the Mitzvah] to transgress Bal Tosif, and it seems there (100a) that R. Yehoshua does not require intent!
î''î äëà îåãä ãìéëà áì úåñéó ëéåï ãìáèåìé ÷îéëåéï
(b) Answer: In any case here he admits that there is no Bal Tosif, for he intends to be Mevatel [the first threads].
13) TOSFOS DH Techeles Ein Bah Mishum Kil'ayim v'Afilu b'Talis Peturah
úåñôåú ã"ä úëìú àéï áä îùåí ëìàéí åàôéìå áèìéú ôèåøä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Kil'ayim is permitted even when there is no Mitzvah of Techeles.)
îã÷àîø åàôéìå åìà ÷àîø àôé' áìà åé''å îùîò ãáìà èìéú ôèåøä àéöèøéê ìàùîåòéðï ãúëìú àéï áä îùåí ëìàéí
(a) Inference: Since he said v'Afilu, and did not say Afilu without a [prefix] Vov, this implies that he needs to teach that [even] if the Talis is not exempt, he must teach that [the Isur of] Kil'ayim does not apply to Techeles.
åëé äàé âååðà ãéé÷ ô' èøó á÷ìôé (éåîà îå.) àåîø äéä ø''î àáøé òåìú çåì ùðéúåúøå òåùä ìäï îòøëä åñåãøï åàôé' áùáú åîåëçà ñåâéà ãäúí ãúøúé îéìé àùîòéðï
(b) Support: The Gemara infers like this in Yoma (46a). R. Meir used to say that limbs of an Olah of a weekday that were left over, we make a Ma'arachah and arrange them [to burn at night], and even on Shabbos. The Sugya there proves that he teaches two matters (doing so at night, and doing so at night when it is Shabbos.)
åàåø''ú ãäëà ðîé àùîòéðï ãàôéìå áìéìä àéï áä îùåí ëìàéí àó òì âá ãìàå æîï öéöéú äéà ãìâîøé äúéø äëúåá ëìàéí ùì öéöéú
(c) Explanation (R. Tam): Also here, he teaches that even at night Kil'ayim does not apply, even though it is not Zman Tzitzis, for the Torah totally permitted Kil'ayim of Tzitzis.
åäà ãâæøéðï ìòéì îùåí ëñåú ìéìä
(d) Implied question: Above, we decree due to a night garment!
äééðå ëñåú ùàéðå îéåçã ø÷ ììéìä (åø''ú ñåúø ôéøåù ùìîòìä - öàï ÷ãùéí îåç÷å îëàï åîáéàå ìîèä) ãëñåú éåí çééá àôéìå áìéìä [ö"ì åø''ú ñåúø ôéøåùå ìòéì - öàï ÷ãùéí] åëï ôø÷ ÷îà ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ìã.)
(e) Answer: This refers to a garment that is special only for night, for a day garment is obligated even at night. R. Tam contradicts his Perush above (DH Mishum, that he said so. Here he says that night is not Zman Tzitzis), and similarly in Kidushin (34a) [it says that Tzitzis is Zman Gerama].
åúãò (îëàï îãó äáà) ãàîøéðï ì÷îï (ãó îã.) èìéú ùàåìä ëì ì' éåí ôèåøä îï äöéöéú îëàï åàéìê çééáú åàôé' ùì ëìàéí åàò''â ãôèåø îãàåøééúà
(f) Proof: We say below (44a) that a borrowed Talis is exempt from Tzitzis all 30 days [after borrowing it]. From then and onwards it is obligated, and even if it is of Kil'ayim, and even though mid'Oraisa it is exempt.