Q&A: Tzitzit and Kilayim
Tzitzit and Kilayim
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In the above Talmudic passage there is a strange underlying assumption (initial thought) that links kilayim and tzitzit—
Babylonian Talmud, tractate Menachot 43a
The Master said: Everyone is obligated in tzitzit—priests, Levites, and Israelites. This is obvious; for if priests, Levites, and Israelites were exempt, who would be obligated? The case of priests was necessary, for you might have said: since it is written, “You shall not wear shaatnez, wool and linen together,” and immediately after that, “You shall make fringes for yourself,” only one for whom kilayim is not permitted in wearing is obligated in tzitzit; but these priests, since kilayim is permitted for them, should not be obligated. Therefore it teaches us: although it is permitted during the time of the service, when it is not during the time of the service it is not permitted.
Why would we think that? What is there about kilayim and tzitzit, aside from the juxtaposition of the verses, that links the commandments?
You can see in Tosafot, s.v. “these priests,” on Arachin 3b, that Rabbi Yitzhak of Orléans continues in this direction and says that perhaps women are not prohibited in kilayim because they are not obligated in tzitzit!!
Answer
“The above”? It should say: “the following.”
There is an assumption here that juxtaposition, which serves as the basis for an analogy or for an exposition based on adjacent passages, might perhaps also express an essential connection and not merely be a literary device hinting at a connection. That is at least the initial thought.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t know whether one can say that in general. Here it was not accepted. But even here it’s not clear that in the conclusion there is no connection. In the conclusion, the connection just doesn’t require exempting the priests from tzitzit.
The Rabbi wrote that perhaps there is an essential connection between kilayim and tzitzit. How would that reasoning fit into the fifth stage of the passage? Should we try to look for what the connection is? If so, how?
“The fifth stage of the passage”? I didn’t understand.
After you reach the conclusion that the Talmud sees a connection (and that this also remains true in the conclusion…), you certainly can try to think about what that connection is. True, we do not generally expound the reasons for the verse, but if the Torah places the passages side by side and the Sages see a connection between them, then apparently there is a connection and it can be found.
I don’t have a recipe for how to look for it (“the context of discovery,” even in science, is distinctly creative). Maybe through additional laws that are shared specifically by these two. Also, remember that one is a prohibition and the other is a positive commandment. That raises the possibility of seeing them as two sides of the same coin: the positive commandment is to place tzitzit, and the prohibition is to go about wearing kilayim not within the framework of tzitzit. In other words, there is no prohibition on kilayim as such, but on a garment that is not tzitzit and contains kilayim. That is, the prohibition of kilayim is not an ordinary prohibition but a kind of negation of the positive commandment of tzitzit (though of course it is a prohibition in the halakhic sense). For example, there is an opinion that someone who goes around with a four-cornered garment without tzitzit has not negated a positive commandment. Perhaps according to that view, negating the positive commandment of tzitzit means going around with a kilayim garment that is not tzitzit. (And there is also no obligation to make tzitzit specifically out of kilayim.)
Maybe this could also have implications for someone who discovers invalid tzitzit on his garment in the public domain on the Sabbath, but this is not the place to elaborate.
Thank you very much, Rabbi, for the reply.
This opens up another topic, but I’d be glad for a reference—why did the Rabbi include the question of essence under the rule that we do not expound the reasons for the verses?
Because when you look for a conceptual connection between two commandments, that relates to their reasons. If you do not know their reasons, how can you know whether there is or is not a connection between them?
Thank you for the reply and for the correction.
Does the fact that it is not accepted mean that the initial thought is incorrect?