## Menachot Daf 5b

###### Menachot 5b:1
[Menachot 5b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:1)

הֵאִיר מִזְרָח מַתִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**the illumination of** the **eastern** horizon **permits** the new crop.


###### Menachot 5b:2
[Menachot 5b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:2)

וְהָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לָאו בְּפֵירוּשׁ אִיתְּמַר, אֶלָּא מִכְּלָלָא אִיתְּמַר, דִּתְנַן: אֵין מְבִיאִין מִנְחַת בִּכּוּרִים וּמִנְחַת בְּהֵמָה קוֹדֶם לָעוֹמֶר, דְּבָעֵינַן ״מִמַּשְׁקֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל״, וְאִם הֵבִיא – פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And this** statement **of Reish Lakish was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference,** i.e., it is evident from a different statement of Reish Lakish that this is his opinion. **As we learned** in a mishna (68b): **One may not bring a meal offering, the first fruits, or the meal offering** brought with the libations accompanying **an animal** offering, from the new crop, **prior to** the sacrifice of **the *omer*.** The Gemara interrupts its citation of the mishna to add that the reason is **that we require** that an offering be **“from the well-watered pastures of Israel,”** i.e., it must be brought from that which is permitted to the Jewish people, and the new crop has not yet been permitted to them. The mishna concludes: **And if he brought** these offerings from the new crop they are **unfit.**


###### Menachot 5b:3
[Menachot 5b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:3)

קוֹדֶם לִשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם לֹא יָבִיא, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיקְּרוּ ״בִּכּוּרִים״, וְאִם הֵבִיא – כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: After the *omer* but **prior to the two loaves one may not bring** those offerings from the new crop. The Gemara explains that this is **because** the two loaves **are called first fruits,** and therefore they should precede all other offerings from the new crop. The mishna adds: **But if he brought** those offerings from the new crop, they are **fit.**


###### Menachot 5b:4
[Menachot 5b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:4)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר וּבַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, אֲבָל בְּשִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר אִם הֵבִיא – כָּשֵׁר, וְקַשְׁיָא לִי: לִיהְווֹ כַּמְחוּסַּר זְמַן! אַלְמָא קָסָבַר הֵאִיר הַמִּזְרָח מַתִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yitzḥak says** that **Reish Lakish says:** The Sages **taught** that a meal offering that was brought from the new crop before the *omer* meal offering is disqualified **only** if it was brought **on the fourteenth or on the fifteenth** of Nisan. **But** if it was **on the sixteenth,** then even **if he brought** it prior to the *omer* meal offering, it is **valid.** He continues: **And** this statement poses **a difficulty for me:** Why should meal offerings be valid when sacrificed on the sixteenth if they were sacrificed before the *omer* meal offering? **Let them be** considered **like** offerings **whose time has not yet** arrived. The Gemara comments: **Apparently,** Reish Lakish **holds** that **the illumination of the eastern** horizon **permits** the new crop.


###### Menachot 5b:5
[Menachot 5b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:5)

וְרָבָא אָמַר: מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁקְּמָצָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ – כְּשֵׁירָה, וּשְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין, וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר אַחֶרֶת לְהַתִּירָהּ, שֶׁאֵין מַחְשָׁבָה מוֹעֶלֶת אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁרָאוּי לָעֲבוֹדָה, וּבְדָבָר הָרָאוּי לָעֲבוֹדָה, וּבִמְקוֹם הָרָאוּי לָעֲבוֹדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara previously cited the opinion of Rav that an *omer* meal offering from which a handful was removed not for its own sake is disqualified. The Gemara also cited the opinion of Reish Lakish that this meal offering is valid but another *omer* meal offering is necessary to permit the new crop for consumption. **And Rava says:** With regard to **an *omer* meal offering** from **which** the priest **removed a handful not for its own sake,** it is **valid and its remainder is consumed, and it does not require another *omer* meal offering to permit it** for consumption. The reason is **that** improper **intent is effective [*mo’elet*]** to disqualify an offering **only** when it is expressed **by one who is fit for the** Temple **service, and with regard to an item that is fit for the** Temple **service, and in a place that is fit for the** Temple **service.**


###### Menachot 5b:6
[Menachot 5b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:6)

בְּמִי שֶׁרָאוּי לָעֲבוֹדָה – לְאַפּוֹקֵי כֹּהֵן בַּעַל מוּם, וּבְדָבָר הָרָאוּי לָעֲבוֹדָה – לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר דְּלָא חַזְיָא, דְּחִדּוּשׁ הוּא, וּבִמְקוֹם הָרָאוּי לָעֲבוֹדָה – לְאַפּוֹקֵי נִפְגַּם הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava elaborates: The condition that improper intent disqualifies only when expressed **by one who is fit for the** Temple **service** serves **to exclude** the intent of **a blemished priest,** who is disqualified from performing the Temple service. The condition that it disqualifies only when expressed **with regard to an item that is fit for the** Temple **service** serves **to exclude the *omer* meal offering, which** is generally **unfit** for the Temple service, **as it is a novelty,** in that it is brought from barley whereas most meal offerings are brought from wheat. **And** finally, the condition that it disqualifies only when expressed **in a place that is fit for the** Temple **service** serves **to exclude** sacrificial rites that were performed with improper intent while **the altar was damaged.** At such a time improper intent does not disqualify an offering, and therefore if the altar is repaired on the same day, the offering may be sacrificed upon the altar.


###### Menachot 5b:7
[Menachot 5b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:7)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״מִן הַבָּקָר״ לְמַטָּה, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, אֶלָּא לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַטְּרֵפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses the prohibition against sacrificing an item that is prohibited to the Jewish people. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: It is derived from a passage in the Torah that discusses burnt offerings: “You shall bring your offering from the cattle, even from the herd or from the flock” (Leviticus 1:2), that certain animals are prohibited for sacrifice upon the altar (see *Temura* 28a). **When it states later,** in the next verse: “If his offering is a burnt offering **of the herd”** (Leviticus 1:3), this is difficult, **as** there is **no** need for **the verse to state** this, as it was already written earlier. **Rather,** this serves **to exclude an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [*tereifa*]** from being brought as an offering.


###### Menachot 5b:8
[Menachot 5b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:8)

וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁמּוּתֶּרֶת לַהֶדְיוֹט – אֲסוּרָה לַגָּבוֹהַּ, טְרֵיפָה שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַהֶדְיוֹט – אֵין דִּין שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַגָּבוֹהַּ? חֵלֶב וָדָם יוֹכִיחוּ, שֶׁאֲסוּרִין לַהֶדְיוֹט וּמוּתָּרִין לַגָּבוֹהַּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* questions the need for this derivation: **But could this not** be derived through an *a fortiori* **inference? And if a blemished** animal, **which is permitted to an ordinary person [*lehedyot*]** for consumption, is nevertheless **prohibited** as an offering **for the Most High** (see Leviticus 22:19), then certainly with regard to **a *tereifa*, which is forbidden to an ordinary person** for consumption (see Exodus 22:30), **is it not logical that it is prohibited for the Most High?** The *baraita* responds: **Fat [*ḥelev*] and blood prove** that this *a fortiori* inference is not valid, **as they are forbidden to an ordinary person and** yet **they are permitted for the Most High.**


###### Menachot 5b:9
[Menachot 5b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:9)

מָה לְחֵלֶב וָדָם, שֶׁכֵּן בָּאִין מִכְּלַל הֶיתֵּר, תֹּאמַר בִּטְרֵיפָה שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ אֲסוּרָה, וְלֹא תְּהֵא מוּתֶּרֶת לַגָּבוֹהַּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* rejects this suggestion: **What** is notable **about fat and blood?** They are notable **in that they come from** an item that is **generally permitted,** i.e., the animal from which they come is itself permitted for consumption. Will **you say** the same **with regard to a *tereifa*, which is entirely forbidden** for eating, **and** therefore **should not be permitted for the Most High?**


###### Menachot 5b:10
[Menachot 5b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:10)

מְלִיקָה תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ אִיסּוּר, וַאֲסוּרָה לַהֶדְיוֹט, וּמוּתֶּרֶת לַגָּבוֹהַּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* responds: The **pinching** of bird offerings **will prove** that one cannot derive by means of an *a fortiori* inference that a *tereifa* is disqualified. **As** a bird killed by the pinching of its nape is also **entirely forbidden, and** yet although it is **forbidden** for consumption **to an ordinary person,** as it is rendered a carcass, it is nevertheless **permitted for the Most High,** as bird offerings are killed by the pinching of their napes. The verse is therefore necessary to disqualify a *tereifa*.


###### Menachot 5b:11
[Menachot 5b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:11)

מָה לִמְלִיקָה, שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתָהּ אוֹסַרְתָּהּ, בִּשְׁעַת קְדוּשָּׁתָהּ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ הִיא נֶאֶסְרָה לַהֶדְיוֹט, דְּהַיְינוּ מְלִיקָתָהּ, אֲבָל קוֹדֶם לָכֵן לֹא נֶאֶסְרָה לַהֶדְיוֹט, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּטְרֵיפָה, שֶׁאֵין קְדוּשָּׁתָהּ אוֹסַרְתָּהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* rejects this suggestion as well: **What** is notable **about pinching?** It is notable **in that its sanctity prohibits it,** i.e., only **at the time** when **it** becomes **sanctified for the altar** does **it** become **prohibited** for consumption **to an ordinary person, which is** at the time of **its pinching. But before this** time it is **not** yet **prohibited to an ordinary person** for consumption. This **is not the case with regard to a *tereifa*, as its sanctity does not prohibit it** for consumption, since it is always prohibited to eat it. Accordingly, by logical inference alone one can arrive at the conclusion that a *tereifa* should not be permitted for the Most High.


###### Menachot 5b:12
[Menachot 5b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:12)

וְאִם הֵשַׁבְתָּה, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״מִן הַבָּקָר״ לְמַטָּה, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַטְּרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* concludes with a statement that will soon be explained: **And if you have responded,** i.e., if you succeeded in rejecting the *a fortiori* inference, then **when** the verse **states later: “Of the herd”** (Leviticus 1:3), **as** there is **no** need for **the verse to state** this phrase, it serves **to exclude a *tereifa*.**


###### Menachot 5b:13
[Menachot 5b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:13)

מָה ״אִם הֵשַׁבְתָּה״? (סִימָן: רְקִיחַ, מָר, אַדָּא, לְשֵׁישֵׁיהּ).

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** response is alluded to by the statement: **If you have responded?** The conclusion of the *baraita* had indicated that the *a fortiori* inference must be accepted. The Gemara cites several suggestions, for which it provides the following **mnemonic: *Rekiaḥ*, *Mar*, *Adda*, *Leshisheih*.** These terms allude to the names of some of the Sages mentioned in the following discussion: Rav; Rabbi Akiva; Rav Aḥa; Mar, son of Ravina; Rav Adda; and Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi.


###### Menachot 5b:14
[Menachot 5b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:14)

אָמַר רַב, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַהֶדְיוֹט וּמוּתֶּרֶת לַגָּבוֹהַּ. מָה לְמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר, שֶׁכֵּן מַתֶּרֶת חָדָשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav said** that this is the response: The *halakha* that a *tereifa* is unfit for sacrifice must be derived from a verse **because it may be said** that **the *omer* meal offering proves** that the *halakha* concerning a *tereifa* cannot be derived by the *a fortiori* inference, **as** the *omer* is **prohibited** for consumption **to an ordinary person,** since it comes from the new crop, **and** yet it is **permitted** as an offering **for the Most High.** The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **What** is notable **about the *omer* meal offering?** It is notable **in that** the *omer* **renders** the **new** crop **permitted** for consumption, whereas a *tereifa* does not render anything permitted.


###### Menachot 5b:15
[Menachot 5b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:15)

בַּשְּׁבִיעִית – שְׁבִיעִית נָמֵי, שֶׁכֵּן מַתֶּרֶת סְפִיחִין בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: סְפִיחִין אֲסוּרִים בִּשְׁבִיעִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: Although the *omer* meal offering generally renders the new crop permitted, the *omer* brought **during a Sabbatical Year** does not render the crop permitted, as it is prohibited to plant during the Sabbatical Year, and consequently there is no new crop for the *omer* offering to permit. The Gemara counters this suggestion: The *omer* meal offering brought during **a Sabbatical Year also** renders something permitted, **as it permits produce that grew without being purposely planted [*sefiḥin*] during the Sabbatical Year.** The Gemara responds: Nevertheless, **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who says** that ***sefiḥin* are prohibited during the Sabbatical Year,** the *omer* meal offering brought during a Sabbatical Year does not render the new crop permitted for consumption, and yet it is permitted for the Most High. A verse is therefore necessary to derive that a *tereifa* may not be sacrificed.


###### Menachot 5b:16
[Menachot 5b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:16)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר אַבָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נָמֵי לִפְרוֹךְ, מָה לְמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁכֵּן מַתֶּרֶת חָדָשׁ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa bar Abba said to Rav Ashi: According to** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva as well, let us refute** the statement of Rav, as **what** is notable **about the *omer* meal offering?** It is notable **in that** the *omer* **permits** the **new** crop for consumption **outside of Eretz** Yisrael, where the prohibitions of the Sabbatical Year do not apply.


###### Menachot 5b:17
[Menachot 5b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:17)

וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: חָדָשׁ בְּחוּץ לָאָרֶץ לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, שֶׁכֵּן בָּאָה לְהַתִּיר לָאו שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And even according to the one who says** that the consumption of produce from the **new** crop grown **outside of Eretz** Yisrael is **not** prohibited **by Torah law,** Rav’s statement can be refuted in another manner: What is notable about the *omer* meal offering? It is notable **in that** the *omer* **comes to permit a prohibition** that applies to a substance **that** was previously **within it,** i.e., the burning upon the altar of a handful from the *omer* meal offering renders the remainder of the meal offering permitted to the priests, whereas a *tereifa* is entirely forbidden.


###### Menachot 5b:18
[Menachot 5b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:18)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: אִי הָכִי, טְרֵיפָה נָמֵי תִּקְרַב וְתַתִּיר לָאו שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ! אֶלָּא פָּרֵיךְ הָכִי: מָה לְמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר, שֶׁכֵּן מִצְוָתָהּ בְּכָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina:** This is not a refutation, as, **if that is so,** then with regard to **a *tereifa* as well, you should sacrifice** it **and you will** thereby **permit a prohibition** that applies to a substance **that** was previously **within it,** and its meat will become permitted to the priests for consumption. Therefore, a verse is needed to exclude a *tereifa*. **Rather,** one can **refute** the statement of Rav **like this: What** is notable **about the *omer* meal offering?** It is notable **in that its mitzva is in this** manner, i.e., the Torah requires the *omer* meal offering to be brought from the new crop in order to permit the new crop for consumption. By contrast, there is no mitzva to sacrifice specifically a *tereifa*.


###### Menachot 5b:19
[Menachot 5b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:19)

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר מְפַטֵּם הַקְּטֹרֶת יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאָסוּר לַהֶדְיוֹט וּמוּתָּר לַגָּבוֹהַּ. מְפַטֵּם גַּבְרָא הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish said** that this is the response alluded to at the end of the *baraita*: The *halakha* that a *tereifa* is unfit for sacrifice must be derived from a verse **because it can be said** that **the one who prepares the incense proves** that the *halakha* concerning a *tereifa* may not be derived by the *a fortiori* inference, **as** this is **prohibited to an ordinary person, and** is nevertheless **permitted for the Most High.** The Gemara questions the terminology of Reish Lakish: But **the one who prepares** the incense **is a person.** How can it be said that a person is prohibited to an ordinary person?


###### Menachot 5b:20
[Menachot 5b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:20)

אֶלָּא, פִּטּוּם הַקְּטֹרֶת יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאָסוּר לַהֶדְיוֹט וּמוּתָּר לַגָּבוֹהַּ. מָה לְפִטּוּם הַקְּטֹרֶת, שֶׁכֵּן מִצְוָתוֹ בְּכָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Reish Lakish meant that **the preparation of the incense proves** it, **as** it is **prohibited** to prepare the incense mixture for use **by an ordinary person** (see Exodus 30:37), **and** yet it is **permitted** to do so **for the Most High.** The Gemara refutes this claim: **What** is notable **about preparation of the incense?** It is notable **in that its mitzva is in this** manner. By contrast, there is no mitzva to sacrifice specifically a *tereifa*.


###### Menachot 5b:21
[Menachot 5b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:21)

מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא אָמַר, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: שַׁבָּת תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַהֶדְיוֹט וּמוּתֶּרֶת לַגָּבוֹהַּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar, son of Ravina, said** that this is the response of the *baraita*: The *halakha* that a *tereifa* is unfit for sacrifice must be derived from a verse **because it can be said** that **Shabbat proves** that the *halakha* concerning a *tereifa* cannot be derived by the *a fortiori* inference, **as it is prohibited for an ordinary person** to perform labor on Shabbat, **and** yet the labor involved in the Temple service is **permitted** on Shabbat **for the Most High.** Without the verse, one might similarly conclude that a *tereifa* is permitted for the Most High despite the fact that it is prohibited for consumption.


###### Menachot 5b:22
[Menachot 5b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:22)

מָה לְשַׁבָּת, שֶׁכֵּן הוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ אֵצֶל הֶדְיוֹט בְּמִילָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **What** is notable **about Shabbat?** It is notable **in that the general prohibition** against labor on Shabbat **was permitted with regard to an ordinary person in** the case of **circumcision,** as the mitzva of circumcision must be performed in its proper time, even on Shabbat, despite the fact that the act of circumcision is generally prohibited on Shabbat.


###### Menachot 5b:23
[Menachot 5b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:23)

אַטּוּ מִילָה צוֹרֶךְ הֶדְיוֹט הוּא? מִילָה מִצְוָה הִיא! אֶלָּא, מָה לְשַׁבָּת שֶׁכֵּן מִצְוָתָהּ בְּכָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is that to say** that **circumcision is** considered **a requirement of an ordinary person,** whose performance was exempted from the general prohibition against labor on Shabbat for one’s private needs? **Circumcision is a mitzva. Rather,** the statement of Mar, son of Ravina, can be refuted like this: **What** is notable **about Shabbat?** It is notable **in that its mitzva is in this** manner, i.e., the Torah requires that offerings be brought on Shabbat. By contrast, there is no mitzva to sacrifice specifically a *tereifa*.


###### Menachot 5b:24
[Menachot 5b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:24)

רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר, כִּלְאַיִם תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאֲסוּרִין לַהֶדְיוֹט וּמוּתָּרִין לַגָּבוֹהַּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda bar Abba said** that this is the response mentioned in the *baraita*: The *halakha* that a *tereifa* is unfit for sacrifice must be derived from a verse **because it can be said** that the prohibition against **diverse kinds proves** that the *halakha* of a *tereifa* cannot be derived from the *a fortiori* inference, **as it is prohibited for an ordinary person** to wear garments sewn from a mixture of diverse kinds (Deuteronomy 22:11), **and** yet such garments are **permitted for the Most High,** as the belt of the priestly vestments was fashioned from a mixture of diverse kinds.


###### Menachot 5b:25
[Menachot 5b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5b:25)

מָה לְכִלְאַיִם, שֶׁכֵּן הוּתְּרוּ מִכְּלָלָן אֵצֶל הֶדְיוֹט בְּצִיצִית? אַטּוּ צִיצִית צוֹרֶךְ הֶדְיוֹט הִיא? מִצְוָה הִיא! אֶלָּא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **What** is notable **about** the prohibition against **diverse kinds?** It is notable **in that** the **general prohibition** against wearing a garment sewn from diverse kinds **was permitted in** the case of **an ordinary person with regard to ritual fringes,** as a string of sky-blue wool must be placed on a four-cornered garment even if that garment is made from linen. The Gemara asks: **Is that to say** that **ritual fringes** are considered **a requirement of an ordinary person,** whose performance was exempted from the general prohibition concerning diverse kinds with regard to one’s private needs? Placing ritual fringes on a garment **is a mitzva. Rather,** the claim of Rav Adda bar Abba can be refuted like this: