Raavad on Mishne Torah

Glosses of the Raavad on Mishna Torah, Hilchos Tzitzis

Chapter 1

Halakhah 6

And there should be 1/8 threads Techeiles and 7 Lavan strings. Raavad Z”L wrote, this is a mistake, rather, it should be 2/8 Techeiles and 6 Lavan.

Halakhah 7

And he takes one thread from the white, etc., until ‘on the four corners.’ The Raavad wrote: This order has no root and no branch. And why should there be more Techeiles than Lavan? Techeiles is min kanaph (the same type as the corner), and with it one begins and with it one ends, and in its windings it is minimized. This is nothing but a major error. But Rav Natronai Gaon arranged it nicely, a very fine order, in the way the halacha says.

And how much is the shiur of a chulya? So that he wraps and repeats and triples — this is going on the Techeiles. And the Tanna who said ‘one shouldn’t reduce less than seven’ — that’s going on the wrappings: three of Techeiles and four of Lavan, since you start with white and end with white. First, you tie near the corner one knot with a white thread and a Techeiles thread — that’s what’s called the ‘upper knot.’ Afterwards, you wrap two threads, one white and one Techeiles, until six wrappings, and the seventh is white alone — that makes the seven we said, and that’s one chulya.

And all these wrappings are on the six hanging threads that are hanging down from the corner. In this way, you make five knots, and between each knot a chulya of seven wrappings, like we said. The minhag became to make one chulya with two knots near the corner, and two chulyos at the end of the braid with three knots. And in the middle, one winds not precisely — whether bunched or spread out — with Techeiles and Lavan.

Halakhah 10

One of the white threads, etc., until ‘but one thread, etc.’ The Raavad wrote: This is a mistake. Rather, it needs to be shazurin (twisted). For we learn in the Sifri — ‘Techeiles, Techeiles’ from the Mishkan: just like over there they were twisted, so too here they must be twisted. And in Eruvin also we say: one who finds Techeiles in the marketplace — if they are leshonos (flat strips), it is invalid; if they are chutin (threads), it is kosher. And we establish it as referring to threads that are twisted and cut off, the way they need to be for tzitzis.

Halakhah 15

‘If he placed tzitzis … until it was invalid’. The Raavad wrote: I looked into his words and I did not find this in the Gemara. For they said: ‘If he placed [tzitzis] on one that already had them, it is kosher’. And Rava explained: the reason is, regarding bal tosif (not adding), we need a maaseh (an “act”) — and here, there is no maaseh. Therefore, in our case, if he cut off the first [threads] and left the second ones — that’s called an act. And Rav Pappa, who asked against him: from where do we know that this man intends to add? Maybe he intends to cancel the first ones? So bal tosif there is not, but a maaseh there is. This doesn’t mean that if he really intended to add, one of them would be invalidated; rather, it means that to exempt the man from bal tosif — when he came to cancel the first ones, that’s the case. But the statement ‘if he placed [tzitzis] on one that already had them, it is kosher’ — that was said stam.

And what it concludes in Sanhedrin, regarding zaken mamre: that if there were four strings and he brought a fifth — if you hold that the top knot is d’Oraisa, then it’s downgraded and standing, which shows that because of addition the mitzvah is invalid — over there it’s really because of chatzitzah, meaning the extra thread is blocking between the main threads and the knot. For according to the one who says the top knot is not d’Oraisa, we say: this one stands by itself and that one stands by itself, and there’s no downgrade. So too here — if there was a proper knot according to halacha, and he added another one and tied it properly, this one stands by itself and that one stands by itself, and it’s kosher — whether he intended to add or whether he intended to cancel. And this is the main halacha — dehai lechudei ka’ei v’hai lechudei ka’ei (this one stands on its own and that one stands on its own).

Chapter 2

Halakhah 7

One who finds Techeiles in the marketplace — even if he finds cut threads that are twisted, it is invalid. The Raavad wrote: If you look carefully at the correct girsa in Eruvin, you’ll see that the conclusion is in fact that twisted and cut threads are kosher — since no one would bother to go through so much trouble [to fake them].

And what we learned in the Mishnah: One who finds old Tefillin — he brings them in pair by pair, but not new ones; this is Rabbi Yehuda’s view — it’s not because we’re concerned that maybe they’re amulets, since no one would go to all that trouble to make an amulet in the form of Tefillin. Rather, what are ‘new ones’? Ones that aren’t tied. And the reason is because it’s not possible to tie them on Shabbos, even with a bow. And Rabbi Yehuda is consistent with his view that an anivah (a bow) counts as a knot.

Halakhah 8

A tallis that is entirely red … until ‘that are not dyed’. The Raavad wrote: I saw someone who asked on the Rambam and on this braisa, which is particular that the tzitzis must be the color of the tallis — so that it should be min hakanaf (of the same type as the corner). And the question was: how could this be, when Rava said at the beginning of HaTecheiles — is it because of the color that it becomes min hakanaf?

But this is not a question. Over there [in Menachos], the discussion was only about whether Techeiles should come before Lavan — and the point was, it’s not proper to put Techeiles before Lavan just because of color, even if the whole tallis is Techeiles. Rather, for sure the mitzvah is to precede Lavan to Techeiles, even though Lavan is also its min. For the Torah said: ‘On the tzitzis of the corner, a thread of Techeiles’ — meaning, Techeiles should always come on the tzitzis of the corner, i.e. that Techeiles should be the last part.

Nevertheless, it still needs to have some of the color of the tallis, so that there will be in it something of the min hakanaf.

Chapter 3

Halakhah 1

A garment that a person is obligated in … until ‘and to go with it’. The Raavad wrote: He (the Rambam) said well — that we don’t measure by every type of minor, but specifically with a child who can go by himself in the marketplace. For they said: ‘And the adult may go out in it temporarily’ — which shows that it’s not measured by every small child.

Halakhah 2

But a tallis of other materials … until ‘in the mitzvah of tzitzis’. The Raavad wrote: It seems to me that this is just a guess (kolach), and it is not clear.

Halakhah 9

Women and slaves who want to wrap themselves in tzitzis may do so without a bracha. The Raavad wrote: This is specifically with tzitzis that don’t have kilayim. But there are those who differentiate and say — even with a bracha, and they hold that the bracha is also optional. And they bring proof from the first perek of Kiddushin, from Rav Yosef: for he said — at first I thought, if someone would tell me the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda who says a blind man is exempt from mitzvos, I would make a Yom Tov for the Rabbanan [i.e. I’d celebrate] — since I wouldn’t be commanded and I’d still do them. And if you’ll say that someone who isn’t obligated isn’t allowed to make a bracha, then he’d be doing an issur, since the mitzvos he did would be with a bracha! But if it’s without a bracha, then what kind of Yom Tov is there? Clearly, the bracha too can be said.