The Mishna says תעשה ולא מן העשוי ["'Make a thread on the four corners of your garment', do not make from what is already made"] and the gemara in Menakot [40b] asks on this from R. Zira who said: "If one puts tzitzit on a four cornered garment that already has four blue threads, then it is valid."
Rava said: "He transgresses 'thou shalt not add to these commandments,' and so the act is invalid." Rav Papa said: "The difference between the Mishna and R Zira is if one intends to add or to nullify."
Rava is hard to understand. If you would have only Rav Papa things would seem clear.
Rav Shach in Laws of Tzitzit I:15, brings that the explanation of Rava is an argument between most other Rishonim that say he is agreeing with R Zira. The Rambam says he is disagreeing.
I have some thoughts about this sugia.
But first let me try to make it clear.
First the case is where you have four and then one more is added. Then you take off the forth and leave the fifth.
Mishna: invalid.
R. Zira: Valid.
Rav Papa. Intending to add is the Mishna. Intending to nullify the forth is valid.
If you understand Rava as disagreeing with Rav Zira [that is Rambam] that means he thinks adding a fifth means even after taking off the forth it is still invalid. That means Rava would be disagreeing with Rav Papa also and saying that it makes no difference what his intention was.
But if Rava is coming to agree with R Zira it seems odd to say that it is valid because the deed of adding was not a "act" and so taking off the forth would be the beginning of putting on the fifth. This seems hard to understand for me.\\\\
There are here so many variables flying around that this is the exact type of thing that it is helpful to have a learning partner with high IQ.
You can place Rava (against Rav Papa) as saying the side of transgression is when the garment is OK because the act is not an act [Raavad] ;or with Rav Papa in the opposite sense-- that the side of transgression is when the act is not an act, and so only when he intends to nullify the previous thread is it OK (That is like the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Joseph Karo and the Rambam).
And you still do not know of perhaps the meaning is even to take off the forth thread or the extra fifth that the other is null also because of the same principle, "Make, but not from what is made", since even the forth was null while the 5th was on. So taking off the fifth should not make the 4th valid because it is a case of "make not from what is made".
In any case, my learning partner, David Bronson with whom I was learning in Uman was perfect for this kind of thing-- where just off hand I can count at least 20 or more permutations of how to fit this sugia together. But on my own I think this will take a long time to get to any clarity.
A side note here is that it is important to not that adding "extra" makes the whole thing null. This is why you would have in the world of Lithuanian types of yeshivot that "adding extra" of more than what the Law requires is looked at negatively. You see that principle here. The Law requires four tzitziot [blue threads] on a garment with four corners. Putting on a fifth one does not get one extra credit. It nulifies all the other four. So from this one can learn the lesson that what the Law requires it requires, not less and not more. Adding more than that nullifies everything.
Rava said: "He transgresses 'thou shalt not add to these commandments,' and so the act is invalid." Rav Papa said: "The difference between the Mishna and R Zira is if one intends to add or to nullify."
Rava is hard to understand. If you would have only Rav Papa things would seem clear.
Rav Shach in Laws of Tzitzit I:15, brings that the explanation of Rava is an argument between most other Rishonim that say he is agreeing with R Zira. The Rambam says he is disagreeing.
I have some thoughts about this sugia.
But first let me try to make it clear.
First the case is where you have four and then one more is added. Then you take off the forth and leave the fifth.
Mishna: invalid.
R. Zira: Valid.
Rav Papa. Intending to add is the Mishna. Intending to nullify the forth is valid.
If you understand Rava as disagreeing with Rav Zira [that is Rambam] that means he thinks adding a fifth means even after taking off the forth it is still invalid. That means Rava would be disagreeing with Rav Papa also and saying that it makes no difference what his intention was.
But if Rava is coming to agree with R Zira it seems odd to say that it is valid because the deed of adding was not a "act" and so taking off the forth would be the beginning of putting on the fifth. This seems hard to understand for me.\\\\
There are here so many variables flying around that this is the exact type of thing that it is helpful to have a learning partner with high IQ.
You can place Rava (against Rav Papa) as saying the side of transgression is when the garment is OK because the act is not an act [Raavad] ;or with Rav Papa in the opposite sense-- that the side of transgression is when the act is not an act, and so only when he intends to nullify the previous thread is it OK (That is like the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Joseph Karo and the Rambam).
And you still do not know of perhaps the meaning is even to take off the forth thread or the extra fifth that the other is null also because of the same principle, "Make, but not from what is made", since even the forth was null while the 5th was on. So taking off the fifth should not make the 4th valid because it is a case of "make not from what is made".
In any case, my learning partner, David Bronson with whom I was learning in Uman was perfect for this kind of thing-- where just off hand I can count at least 20 or more permutations of how to fit this sugia together. But on my own I think this will take a long time to get to any clarity.
A side note here is that it is important to not that adding "extra" makes the whole thing null. This is why you would have in the world of Lithuanian types of yeshivot that "adding extra" of more than what the Law requires is looked at negatively. You see that principle here. The Law requires four tzitziot [blue threads] on a garment with four corners. Putting on a fifth one does not get one extra credit. It nulifies all the other four. So from this one can learn the lesson that what the Law requires it requires, not less and not more. Adding more than that nullifies everything.
