Mishneh Torah, Fringes 1-3

Sugya Map

Issue

The sugya at hand concerns the precise numerical requirement for the white strands (chutim) of tzitzit. Specifically, the Mishneh Torah makes a seemingly counter-intuitive assertion: is the minyan (fixed number) of these strands a d'Oraita (Torah-level) obligation, or is it merely Divrei Sofrim (Rabbinic)?

Nafka Mina(s)

• Level of Obligation: The fundamental difference in chiyuv (obligation). If d'Oraita, any deviation is a direct transgression of a Torah commandment. If Divrei Sofrim, the aveira (transgression) is of a lesser degree.
• Validity of Tzitzit: If the minyan is d'Oraita, a tzitzit with fewer or more than eight strands might be fundamentally invalid on a Torah level. If Divrei Sofrim, it might still fulfill the mitzvah b'dieved (post-facto), albeit imperfectly.
• Prohibition of Bal Tosif: Whether adding strands beyond eight constitutes a violation of bal tosif (the prohibition against adding to mitzvot), a question often tied to the d'Oraita nature of the minyan.
• Intent (Kavanah): The stringency of requiring l'shem mitzvat tzitzit for each step of the tzitzit's creation might differ based on its d'Oraita or Divrei Sofrim classification.

Primary Sources

• Mishneh Torah, Fringes 1:1, 1:6
• Numbers 15:38-39 (the mitzvah of tzitzit)
• Deuteronomy 22:12 (mentioning g'dilim)
• Menachot 39a, 39b, 41b, 42a, 43b (Talmudic derivations for tzitzit details)
• Yevamot 4a (derivation of minyan from g'dilim)
• Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvot, Shoresh 2 (Rambam's classification of halachot)

Text Snapshot

The foundational assertion for our sugya is found in:

וְאֵין לְחוּטֵי הָעָנָף מִנְיָן מִן הַתּוֹרָה. Mishneh Torah, Fringes 1:1

This phrase, typically translated as "The Torah did not establish a fixed number of strands for this tassel," is the locus classicus for the Rambam's position.

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance

The Rambam uses "חוטי הָעָנָף" (strands of the tassel). The term "עָנָף" (literally "branch") is explained by Steinsaltz as "קבוצת חוטים שמשתלשלים מן הבגד כענף מן העץ" (a group of threads that hang from the garment like a branch from a tree)¹Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Fringes 1:1:1.. This implies the entire dangling part of the tzitzit, not just the braided section (g'dil). The dikduk highlights that the anaf itself, specifically its constituent chutim, lacks a d'Oraita minyan. This is noteworthy because, in Halachah 1:6²Mishneh Torah, Fringes 1:6., the Rambam does prescribe an eight-strand minyan, clearly indicating it is d'Rabbanan or midivrei sofrim.

Readings

Rambam's Chiddush: The Minyan as Divrei Sofrim

The Rambam's statement "וְאֵין לְחוּטֵי הָעָנָף מִנְיָן מִן הַתּוֹרָה" (Fringes 1:1)³Mishneh Torah, Fringes 1:1. is a profound chiddush, as it asserts that the specific number of strands, though later fixed by the Sages to eight (as stated in Fringes 1:6)⁴Mishneh Torah, Fringes 1:6., is not a d'Oraita requirement. This runs counter to a straightforward reading of various Gemarot that derive the eight-strand count from a drasha on the word "גדילים" (braids) in Deuteronomy 22:12. The Gemara in Menachot 39b⁵Menachot 39b. and Yevamot 4a⁶Yevamot 4a. states: "גדיל שנים, גדילים ארבעה" (a braid implies two strands, braids implies four, referring to the doubled strands), which, when coupled with the two strands for tying, results in eight. For many Rishonim, a halacha derived from a drasha from a pasuk implies a d'Oraita origin. The Rambam, however, categorizes such derivations differently under certain conditions. His chiddush is his unique epistemological framework for halacha.

Kessef Mishneh's Inquiry and Initial Resolution

The Kessef Mishneh (Rabbi Yosef Karo) on Fringes 1:1⁷Kessef Mishneh on Mishneh Torah, Fringes 1:1:1 s.v. ואין לחוטי הענף. immediately raises the kushya: "יש לתמוה מדאמרינן פ"ק דיבמות האי לשיעורא הוא דאתא גדיל שנים גדילים ארבעה והכי אמרינן בפרק התכלת. משמע דמן התורה יש מנין לחוטי הענף וצ"ע" (It is puzzling, for we say in the first chapter of Yevamot that this comes for a measure: 'a braid' implies two, 'braids' implies four; and so we say in Perek HaTechelet. It implies that from the Torah there is a number for the strands of the tassel, and it requires examination).

The Kessef Mishneh then offers a terutz based on the Rambam's own methodology in Sefer HaMitzvot, Shoresh 2⁸Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvot, Shoresh 2.: "דכל דבר שאין מפורש בתורה קרי ליה דברי סופרים ואע"פ שנלמד בי"ג מדות... דאע"פ שהוא מדאורייתא קרי ליה ד"ס שאלולי שקבלו סופרים פירושו לא היינו מבינים אותו כך" (that anything not explicit in the Torah he calls Divrei Sofrim, even if it is learned by the thirteen midot... even if it is d'Oraita, he calls it Divrei Sofrim because if not for the Sages accepting its interpretation, we would not understand it thus). This implies that a halacha derived through drasha, even if ultimately d'Oraita, is termed Divrei Sofrim if its understanding relies on Rabbinic tradition or acceptance.

Nachal Eitan's Elaboration and Distinction

The Nachal Eitan (Rabbi Yitzchak Isaac Chaver) on Fringes 1:1⁹Nachal Eitan on Mishneh Torah, Fringes 1:1:1 s.v. ואין לחוטי הענף. further refines the Kessef Mishneh's explanation. He suggests a distinction: if the drasha merely clarifies the peshat (simple meaning) of the pasuk, it might be d'Oraita. However, if the drasha is a chiddush (novel interpretation) not readily apparent from the peshat, and especially if there's a machloket Amoraim regarding that drasha, the Rambam would classify it as Divrei Sofrim. The drasha of "גדיל שנים גדילים ארבעה" (Menachot 39b)¹⁰Menachot 39b. is precisely such a chiddush with a machloket, thus fitting the Rambam's criteria for Divrei Sofrim. He also points out an apparent contradiction in the Kessef Mishneh itself (comparing his view here to Hilchot Edut 13:1¹¹Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Edut 13:1. where pesulei edut derived from drasha are d'Oraita), and resolves it by noting that in Edut there is no machloket on the drasha, unlike here.

Tzafnat Pa'neach's Alternative Terutz

The Tzafnat Pa'neach (Rabbi Yosef Rosen) on Fringes 1:1¹²Tzafnat Pa'neach on Mishneh Torah, Fringes 1:1:1 s.v. ואין לחוטי. offers a dramatically different understanding. He suggests that the Rambam does agree that the eight strands for the g'dil (the braided part) are d'Oraita. However, the Rambam's statement "וְאֵין לְחוּטֵי הָעָנָף מִנְיָן מִן הַתּוֹרָה" refers specifically to "מה שנשאר אחר הכריכה" (what remains after the winding)¹³Tzafnat Pa'neach on Mishneh Torah, Fringes 1:1:1 s.v. ואין לחוטי., i.e., the hanging length of the strands, not their initial number. He cites Menachot 39a and 42a, and Tosafot 39b, noting that the Gemara states "אין ציצית אלא משהו" (the tzitzit must be at least 'something' remaining), which he interprets as referring to the hanging portion, and not contradicting the eight-strand count for the g'dil. This terutz reconciles the Gemara's drasha with the Rambam's statement by narrowing the scope of the Rambam's "אין מנין מן התורה" to a different aspect of the tzitzit.

Friction

The Strongest Kushya

The most potent kushya against the Rambam's assertion in Fringes 1:1, "וְאֵין לְחוּטֵי הָעָנָף מִנְיָן מִן הַתּוֹרָה," is the explicit Gemara in Menachot 39b¹⁴Menachot 39b. and Yevamot 4a¹⁵Yevamot 4a.. These sources derive the number of eight strands from the drasha of "גדיל שנים גדילים ארבעה" on the verse "ועשית לך גדילים" (Deuteronomy 22:12)¹⁶Deuteronomy 22:12.. For many Rishonim, a halacha derived from a drasha on a pasuk is inherently d'Oraita. The Gemara seems to treat this derivation as establishing a d'Oraita minyan. How, then, can the Rambam flatly declare that there is no minyan from the Torah? This is the Kessef Mishneh's initial bewilderment¹⁷Kessef Mishneh on Mishneh Torah, Fringes 1:1:1 s.v. ואין לחוטי הענף., and it challenges a fundamental understanding of Torah Sheb'al Peh (Oral Torah) derivations.

The Best Terutz (or two)

Terutz 1: Rambam's Epistemological Framework for Divrei Sofrim

The primary and most widely accepted terutz, articulated by the Kessef Mishneh and elaborated by the Nachal Eitan¹⁸Nachal Eitan on Mishneh Torah, Fringes 1:1:1 s.v. ואין לחוטי הענף., lies in the Rambam's unique definition of Divrei Sofrim. As expounded in Sefer HaMitzvot, Shoresh 2¹⁹Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvot, Shoresh 2., the Rambam distinguishes between halachot that are meforash (explicit) in the Torah and those derived through drasha. Even if a drasha has Biblical support (asachta), if the halacha is not explicitly stated and its understanding or acceptance relies on the tradition or interpretation of the Sages, the Rambam classifies it as Divrei Sofrim. The drasha of "גדיל שנים גדילים ארבעה" from Devarim 22:12 is not peshat (simple meaning) and is itself subject to machloket Amoraim in Menachot 39b²⁰Menachot 39b. (e.g., Rabbi Akiva's view vs. others regarding "ארבעה"). Given this ambiguity and the reliance on Rabbinic interpretation to establish the minyan, the Rambam holds that the fixed number of eight strands, while Rabbinically established and supported by a drasha, is not a d'Oraita commandment in the same vein as those explicitly stated or universally accepted Halacha l'Moshe miSinai. The obligation to have tzitzit is d'Oraita, but the minyan is d'Rabbanan.

Terutz 2: Tzafnat Pa'neach's Narrowed Scope

A compelling alternative terutz is offered by the Tzafnat Pa'neach²¹Tzafnat Pa'neach on Mishneh Torah, Fringes 1:1:1 s.v. ואין לחוטי.. He suggests that the Rambam's statement "וְאֵין לְחוּטֵי הָעָנָף מִנְיָן מִן הַתּוֹרָה" does not refer to the initial count of eight strands inserted into the garment, but rather to the length or number of strands that must remain dangling after the kricha (winding) and tying. According to this terutz, the Rambam agrees that the eight strands of the g'dil (braided portion) are d'Oraita based on the drasha. However, for the anaf (the tassel's free-hanging portion), the Torah requires only "משהו" (a minimal amount) to remain, not a specific number or length of individual strands. This interpretation allows the Rambam to reconcile the Gemara's drasha (for the g'dil) with his statement (for the anaf's dangling part), offering a nuanced reading that differentiates between the initial structure and the post-winding appearance.

Intertext

Rambam's Classification of Divrei Sofrim

The discussion around the d'Oraita/d'Rabbanan status of the minyan of tzitzit strands is a prime example of the Rambam's intricate system for categorizing mitzvot and halachot as outlined in Sefer HaMitzvot, particularly in Shoresh 2²²Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvot, Shoresh 2.. There, he defines various categories of halachot that are not explicitly written in the Torah:

1. Halachot derived from drashot (Biblical exegesis) that are universally accepted and mufkamot (firmly established) without machloket. These are considered d'Oraita.
2. Halachot derived from drashot that are not mufkamot, or where the drasha itself is the subject of machloket Amoraim. These, the Rambam often classifies as Divrei Sofrim, even though they have an asachta (Biblical support).
3. Halachot l'Moshe miSinai (laws given to Moses at Sinai), which have no explicit textual source but are part of the unbroken chain of tradition. These are d'Oraita.
4. Pure takkanot and gezeirot (Rabbinic decrees).

The Kessef Mishneh and Nachal Eitan argue that the drasha for the minyan of tzitzit strands falls into the second category. The very fact that Menachot 39b²³Menachot 39b. presents different views on how to derive the eight strands (e.g., Rabbi Akiva's interpretation vs. "גדיל שנים גדילים ארבעה") indicates that it is not a mufkam drasha and therefore, its precise details are Divrei Sofrim according to the Rambam.

Parallel Cases in Rambam's Works

The Nachal Eitan highlights a crucial point by comparing the Kessef Mishneh's explanation here with his remarks on Hilchot Edut 13:1²⁴Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Edut 13:1.. In Edut, the Kessef Mishneh implies that pesulei edut (disqualifications of witnesses) derived from drasha are d'Oraita because "מה שאנו דורשים בפירוש הכתוב והוא נלמד מפשט הכתוב הוי כמפורש" (what we derive in the explanation of the verse and is learned from the simple meaning of the verse is considered explicit)²⁵Kessef Mishneh on Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Edut 13:1:1 s.v. מאימתי.. This seems to contradict his approach in Hilchot Tzitzit. The Nachal Eitan resolves this by noting that the drasha for pesulei edut is not subject to machloket Amoraim like the drasha for tzitzit strands. Thus, the lack of machloket allows the pesulei edut drasha to be considered closer to peshat and therefore d'Oraita, whereas the tzitzit drasha, being contested, remains Divrei Sofrim. This demonstrates the Rambam's nuanced approach: not all drashot are created equal in their d'Oraita status.

Psak/Practice

The machloket regarding the d'Oraita/d'Rabbanan status of the minyan of eight strands significantly impacts the practical halacha.

Shulchan Aruch and Subsequent Authorities

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 11:12)²⁶Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 11:12. rules that if one includes more than eight strands, the tzitzit are invalid. This strict ruling implies a fixed, precise number. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (11:1)²⁷Shulchan Aruch HaRav 11:1. goes even further, stating that doing so violates the prohibition of bal tosif (adding to a mitzvah). Such a severe prohibition would typically only apply if the minyan of eight is d'Oraita. This suggests that later poskim, while acknowledging the Rambam's view, often lean towards the position that the minyan is d'Oraita or, at the very least, a Rabbinic enactment with such stringency that it effectively functions as d'Oraita in practice. The Mishnah Berurah (11:60)²⁸Mishnah Berurah 11:60., while quoting opinions that differ on the bal tosif aspect, generally upholds the requirement of eight strands.

Meta-Psak Heuristics

Regardless of the d'Oraita/d'Rabbanan debate, the minyan of eight strands is universally accepted in practice. The Rabbinic takanah (ordinance) has become so entrenched that it is treated with the same stringency as a Torah law. This illustrates a meta-psak heuristic: where Chazal establish a clear practice with strong asachta from a pasuk, even if technically Divrei Sofrim by a specific epistemological framework (like the Rambam's), it attains a de facto d'Oraita status in communal observance and legal stringency. The absence of techelet today means that the white strands are the sole fulfillment of the mitzvah, making their proper count even more critical.

Takeaway

The Rambam's chiddush that the minyan of tzitzit strands is Divrei Sofrim reveals his exacting epistemological framework. This distinguishes d'Oraita from d'Rabbanan based on textual explicitness and interpretive consensus, a nuanced approach that shapes his entire Mishneh Torah.