Study Menachot folio 38B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
If we say that the individual omitted the mitzva of white strings and fulfilled only the mitzva of tekhelet strings, how is this possible? According to the opinion of R' Yehuda HaNasi, the absence of either one prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other, and therefore in this case one would
The Talmud answers that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It means that he omitted a mitzva but nevertheless performed a mitzva. And what does it mean that he omitted a mitzva? It means that he did not perform the mitzva in the optimal manner because he did not insert the white strings first, but he
The Talmud asks: This works out well with regard to the Mishnah’s statement that absence of the white strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the tekhelet strings, which has been interpreted to mean that failing to insert the white strings before the tekhelet strings does not invalid
Rami bar Ḥama said: That statement of the Mishnah is necessary only in the case of a garment that consists entirely of tekhelet wool. In such a case, one is supposed to insert the tekhelet strings before the white strings.
The Talmud notes that this was also stated by amora’im: Levi said to Shmuel: Aryokh, do not sit on your feet until you explain to me this matter: When the Mishnah states that the absence of the tekhelet strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of tzitzit with the white strings, and the ab