Traité Menachot

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : and an adult goes out in public on occasion while wearing it, it is required to have ritual fringes. But if it is not large enough for a minor to cover his head and most of his body with it, then even if an adult goes out in public on occasion while wearing it, it is exempt from ritual fringes. And so too with regard to diverse kinds, i.e., the prohibition against wearing wool and linen together.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And we discussed it: What is meant by: And so too with regard to diverse kinds? If we say that it means: And so too with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds, that if a minor could not cover the majority of his head and body with it, the prohibition of diverse kinds does not apply, that is difficult: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Kilayim 9:2): There is no exemption with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds for clothing that an adult would not wear even occasionally in public?

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says in explanation: Rather, the baraita means: And so too with regard to whether a linen cloak is required to have ritual fringes. If the cloak is large enough for a minor to cover his head and most of his body with it, then it requires ritual fringes, and wearing the garment with the ritual fringes is not a violation of the prohibition of diverse kinds. But if the garment is smaller than that, it is prohibited to place ritual fringes on it, due to the prohibition of diverse kinds. Therefore, one cannot explain Shmuel’s statement to mean that a cloak that is exempt from ritual fringes because it is too small is not subject to the prohibition of diverse kinds.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rather, what is meant by the statement that a cloak that is exempt from ritual fringes is not subject to the prohibition of diverse kinds? It is referring to where one affixed ritual fringes to a garment that already had ritual fringes affixed to it. Even though the second set of ritual fringes is superfluous, nevertheless there is no violation of the prohibition of diverse kinds.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Zeira already say this one time when he stated that if one attached ritual fringes to a garment that already had ritual fringes attached to it and he then removed the first set of strings, the garment is fit? The Gemara answers: One was stated from the other by inference, and Rabbi Zeira did not state both statements.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § The Sages taught in a baraita: A very long cloak that is folded in half is required to have ritual fringes at the fold. And Rabbi Shimon deems it exempt from ritual fringes at the fold because that is not where the corners of the garment are located. And Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis agree that if he folded it and sewed it, it is required to have ritual fringes at the fold.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara challenges: If one sewed it, it is obvious that it is required to have ritual fringes at the fold. The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to state this halakha because it is referring to a case where he fastened it with pins rather than sewing it in the conventional manner.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara relates that Rabba bar Huna arrived at the house of Rava bar Rav Naḥman, and he saw that Rava bar Rav Naḥman was wearing a cloak that was folded and that he had affixed strings to it on the corners of the fold. The cloak unfolded, and the string that had been on the corner of the fold now came and settled near his head, i.e., in the middle of the cloak, as the two sides of the cloak were in the front and back of Rava bar Rav Naḥman.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rabba bar Huna said to Rava bar Rav Naḥman: This is not the corner of the garment that the Merciful One writes about in the Torah. Rava bar Rav Naḥman went and threw it off, and he covered himself with a different cloak.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rabba bar Huna said to Rava bar Rav Naḥman: Do you hold that ritual fringes are an obligation incumbent upon the man? That is not so. Rather, it is an obligation that pertains to every cloak that one owns. Therefore, go and affix ritual fringes to it properly.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a baraita supports the opinion of Rabba bar Huna: It is told of the early generations of pious men that once they weaved three fingerbreadths of the length of the garment, they would affix the white and sky-blue strings to the first two corners, even though the garment was not yet ready to be worn. This seems to prove that there is an obligation to affix ritual fringes to all the cloaks in one’s possession, even if he is not currently wearing them. The Gemara rejects this proof: The pious men were different, as they would act stringently with themselves. Therefore, one cannot adduce the actual requirement from their behavior.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara notes that this disagrees with what an angel said. As an angel found Rav Ketina when he was wearing a linen cloak, which is exempt from ritual fringes. The angel said to him: Ketina, Ketina, if you wear a linen cloak in the summer and a coat [sarbela], which has only two corners and is therefore also exempt from ritual fringes, in the winter, what will become of the ritual fringes of sky-blue wool? As a result, you will never fulfill the mitzva.