Menachos 35
Summary
- A study session on מנחות דף ל"ה (currently at ל"ד עמוד ב') moves from the ברייתא of כיצד סידרן into the high-stakes מחלוקת of תפילין דרש"י and תפילין דרבנו תם about the order of the ד' פרשיות, the scope of that dispute for של יד and של ראש, and the practice of wearing one or two pairs. A series of later sources weighs why some are מחמיר for רבנו תם but not for other minority views, challenges the very accuracy of the labels “תפילין דרש"י” and “תפילין דרבנו תם” as used today, and records practical guidance from the שלחן ערוך, שלחן ערוך הרב, and רב משה. The גמרא then continues with rules of פסול for swapped פרשיות, multiple הלכה למשה מסיני elements in the construction of תפילין, requirements and disputes about שחור רצועות and black בתים, the meaning of פנים וחוץ for coloring, and the need for תפילין to be מרובעות. It concludes with halachos of torn batim and snapped רצועות, the definition of a complete קשירה, length and handling of the straps, and the קשר as part of the שם שדי and “נויהן לבר,” alongside aggadic statements identifying “ויראו ממך” with תפילין שבראש and describing Hashem showing משה the קשר של תפילין.
- A ברייתא teaches the order as קדש לי והיה כי יביאך מימין שמע והיה אם שמוע משמאל, and that unusual phrasing of מימין and משמאל becomes central to the מחלוקת. Rashi understands the order in the בתים to follow the סדר in the תורה as קדש, והיה כי יביאך, שמע, והיה אם שמוע, and the Rambam also rules that way. Tosafos cites Rabbeinu Tam that “הויות are באמצע,” arranging them as קדש, והיה כי יביאך, והיה אם שמוע, שמע.
- The שיטה מקובצת states that according to Rabbeinu Tam, Rashi תפילין are פסול, and according to Rashi, Rabbeinu Tam תפילין are פסול, making the dispute practically weighty. The שיטה מקובצת says this is why it is טוב to make a ברכה only on תפילין של יד and not on תפילין של ראש, because he holds Rabbeinu Tam agrees with Rashi on של יד and differs only on של ראש. The שיטה מקובצת then cites Rabbeinu Baruch that Rabbeinu Tam חולק even on תפילין של יד, and it identifies this as the position of the Rosh as well.
- Tosafos challenges Rabbeinu Tam from a מדרש that sets the סדר like Rashi and says that if written שלא כסידרן they should be יגנזו. Tosafos answers that the מכילתא addresses only the סדר of writing the פרשיות, not the סדר of placing them in the בתים.
- A question is posed to the נודע ביהודה why people are מחמיר like Rabbeinu Tam regarding סדר הפרשיות but not like Rabbeinu Tam that the פרשיות must be placed בשכיבה ולא בעמידה. The נודע ביהודה answers that the שכיבה view is a דעת יחיד and is not a concern, while the סדר view has several ראשונים supporting it and is not merely a דעת יחיד.
- The Brisker Rav in עמק ברכה cites Rav Chaim on why people are חושש for Rabbeinu Tam yet are not חושש for the Raavad, who holds the order is like Rabbeinu Tam but starts מימין המניח rather than משמאל המניח, producing a mirror image. Rav Chaim explains that since one could theoretically flip the תפילין so the *ma’avarta* would be on the other side, the Raavad would consider one יוצא with Rabbeinu Tam anyway, and therefore the Raavad is not a separate concern in practice.
- Rabbi Eider in הלכות of תפילין פרק ב' footnote מ"א writes that “תפילין דרש"י ודרבנו תם” is only about סדר הפרשיות, because תפילין דרש"י דידן is not כשר אליבא דרש"י and is ממש פסול. He attributes this to Rashi in the first פרק of Sanhedrin, where Rashi holds that in והיה כי יביאך and in שמע the word לטטפת is חסר ו', while in והיה אם שמוע it is מלא, whereas our תפילין של רש"י have ולטטפת מלא in והיה כי יביאך. He adds that our תפילין of Rabbeinu Tam are also פסול לפי Rabbeinu Tam based on Rabbeinu Tam’s text in Sanhedrin ד עמוד ב by לטטפת, while our practice differs in where the ו appears.
- Many ראשונים recommend being חושש to both giants because each invalidates the other, and they say מקום יש בראש להניח שני תפילין so one can wear both simultaneously. Later אחרונים note that even the Taz says the meaning of מקום יש בראש להניח שני תפילין is unclear, including whether placement is side-by-side or front-and-back and what size batim that implies. The practical assumption becomes that attempting two at once risks neither being in the right place, so those who are מחמיר for Rabbeinu Tam wear them one after the other.
- The ראשונים report that old תפילין were found by the קבר of יחזקאל הנביא written in the order of Rashi and the Rambam. The Derisha argues this is not a proof against Rabbeinu Tam because they may have been buried in גניזה due to being פסול. The Bach rejects that, saying if one held like Rashi and found Rabbeinu Tam תפילין, one should switch the פרשיות rather than place them in גניזה. The שואל ומשיב in דברי שאול offers a different explanation of the מחלוקת involving a distinction between ארץ ישראל and חוץ לארץ and applies it to the find near קבר יחזקאל, though the explanation is described as difficult.
- The שלחן ערוך in סימן לד סעיף ב וג rules that a ירא שמים המוחזק בחסידות wears both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam. The שלחן ערוך הרב says wearing both is *yuhara* if one is not מוחזק בחסידות. The שערי תשובה writes that in a place where everyone wears both, it is not *yuhara* to do so.
- Rav Moshe responds to a letter from the Lubavitcher Rebbe urging him to wear Rabbeinu Tam. Rav Moshe argues that pursuing every shittah would lead to many pairs, and he cites a calculation בשם the Gra that full stringency would require sixty-four pairs: four orders of פרשיות, doubled by זקופות versus מושכבות, doubled by writing במקום שער versus במקום בשר, doubled by פתוחות versus סתומות, and doubled by disputes about ink. Rav Moshe writes in אורח חיים חלק ד סימן ט that in Luban he wore both pairs but did so *bli neder*, and he later wore Rabbeinu Tam only when he could find what he considered “good ones,” while Rashi is מעיקר הדין and Rabbeinu Tam is a חומרא. He notes his father wore Rabbeinu Tam all his life but accepted it without creating an obligation for his children, and he adds that he lacked a good *sofer* in America and at times could not afford it. Rav Moshe agrees to receive Rabbeinu Tam תפילין via the Rebbe’s *sofer m’uvhak* but insists that the *ksav* be כתב בית יוסף, contrasting that with חסידים’ emphasis on כתב אריז"ל and noting a third form, כתב ולש, as valid.
- Rav Chananel בשם Rav rules that one who switches the פרשיות has פסול תפילין. Abaye limits the פסול to swapping inner with outer, גביאתה לבריאתה and בריאתה לגביאתה, but says swapping outer with outer and inner with inner is acceptable. Rava rejects the distinction and explains that the issue is whether the correct פרשה “sees” the correct אויר, so even swapping within outer or within inner misdirects right-side versus left-side exposure, and therefore there is no difference.
- Rav Chananel בשם Rav teaches that the תיתורא of תפילין is הלכה למשה מסיני, and Abaye adds that the *ma’avarta* is also הלכה למשה מסיני. Abaye further states that the ש of תפילין is הלכה למשה מסיני and that the חריץ must reach the מקום התפר. Tosafos בשם *Shimusha Raba* states that the right-side ש has three heads and the left-side ש has four heads, and it adds ואיפכא לית לן בה. The מעדני יום טוב בשם the סמ"ג explains the four-headed form through a distinction between כתב בולט like a ספר תורה and כתב שוקעא like the לוחות, with the left form representing the latter via its internal אוירים. The Brisker Rav adds that the four-headed shape does not have a תורת אות and is instead a mandated צורה from הלכה למשה מסיני.
- Rashi explains that the חריץ between house and house must extend down to the תיתורא. Rav Dimi מנהרדעא rules that if the division is recognizable, it need not reach the תיתורא.
- Abaye requires checking the קלף lest a flaw prevent כתיבה תמה. Rav Dimi מנהרדעא says no prior check is needed because the קולמוס will detect a hole as it writes.
- Rav Yitzchak states that black straps are הלכה למשה מסיני. Tosafos notes that some made white batim because only רצועות are required black, while the Rambam and Rosh treat black batim as נוי תפילין and *zeh Keli v’anvehu*, and the שולחן ערוך rules it is a מצוה to make the batim black. The Mordechai and the Levush hold black batim are required, with the Levush framing it as הלכה למשה מסיני, and the דברי חמודות questions inventing a הלכה למשה מסיני not stated by the גמרא. The משנה ברורה cites later authorities who view black batim as מעכב בדיעבד and urges stringency when possible. The נודע ביהודה (אורח חיים מהדורא קמא סימן א) argues that if black batim are not required, painting them black seems forbidden as a חציצה because the בית must be רואה את האויר, and he resolves it by applying the principle from סוכה לח that כל לנוינו אינו חוצץ.
- A ברייתא says straps may be ירוקות, שחורות, or לבנות, but not אדומות מפני גנאי ודבר אחר, and Rashi explains the גנאי as suspicion of blood from one’s hands and “דבר אחר” as suspicion of נדה blood. The ברייתא records a תלמיד of Rabbi Akiva tying with לשון של תכלת and Horkanus son of Rabbi Eliezer tying with לשון של ארגמן, and it insists the sages would have protested had they seen. The גמרא resolves the contradiction with black straps by distinguishing כאן מבפנים כאן מבחוץ, allowing non-black on the inner side while requiring black on the outer. The Biur Halacha notes a major practical stringency if inversion invalidates the mitzvah and suggests an alternate reading that פנים וחוץ may refer to the sides of the hide rather than body-facing versus outward-facing. The Biur Halacha infers from the גמרא’s answer that the straps must be black along their entire length, and it raises ספק about whether the segment passing through the *ma’avarta* must be black. The גמרא asks why red is a concern if color applies only inside, and it answers that straps can flip, זימנין דמהפיכן לה.
- A תנא teaches that square תפילין are הלכה למשה מסיני, and Rav Papa specifies the requirement applies both בתפרן and באלכסונן, with Rashi warning that tight stitching can deform the shape. A teaching says round תפילין are a סכנה and have no mitzvah, with Rashi explaining the danger of striking a low doorway and the point entering the head. Rav Papa interprets the round form as flat like an אמגוזא rather than a pointed shape.
- Rav Huna rules that תפילין remain כשר as long as פני טבלא exists. Rav Chisda says if two walls tear they are כשר, while three are פסול, and Rava limits the leniency to non-adjacent tears, declaring adjacent tears פסול, with further leniency for עתיקתא over חדתתא. Abaye asks Rav Yosef how to define new versus old, and Rav Yosef gives tests based on whether the עור returns to its form after stretching, and alternatively whether pulling the strap causes the תפילין to follow.
- When Abaye’s strap snaps he asks if it may be tied, and Rav Yosef answers that “וקשרתם” requires קשירה תמה, with Rashi explaining either that an extra knot is not a יפה knot or that the strap must be whole rather than knotted. Rav Acha son of Rav Yosef asks Rav Ashi about sewing the strap and hiding stitches inside, and Rav Ashi replies פוק חזי מאי עמא דבר, with Rashi reading this as a push to stringency and Rabbeinu Tam reading it as support for leniency based on common practice. The Rosh limits the issue to the functional wrapping section and permits tying beyond it, while Sefer HaTerumah and Terumas HaDeshen forbid repair within the required שיעור. The שולחן ערוך (אורח חיים סימן לג סעיף ה) rules that within the tying areas for של ראש, for של יד, and through the three finger-wraps there is no repair by knotting or sewing, but beyond that excess length repairs are allowed.
- Rav Papa says cut straps are כשר, and the גמרא rejects it by distinguishing between shortened items of תשמישי מצוה, like גדומי תכלת and גדומי אזוב, and straps as תשמישי קדושה. Rav Schechter writes in ארץ הצבי בשם הרב that association with כתב של תורה defines תשמישי קדושה, while items without כתב are תשמישי מצוה. The sugya infers that straps have a שיעור and asks its measurement, bringing Rami bar Chama בשם Reish Lakish “עד אצבע צרדה,” with Rav Kahana demonstrating bent and Rav Ashi demonstrating straight, and it notes major disagreement among the ראשונים on what is being measured and which strap is meant. The גמרא records differing practices for handling extra strap length, including throwing it back, hanging it, and doing “like we do.”
- Rav Idi son of Rav Shmuel bar Shilas בשם Rav states that the knot of תפילין is הלכה למשה מסיני, and Rav Nachman adds ונויהן לבר. Rashi explains that the formation of the ש, ד, and י to create the שם שדי is part of this, and a report is given that Rav Soloveitchik opposed making a double ד on the knot of של ראש. A narrative says Rav Ashi’s strap inverted before Mar Zutra, who rebuked him for failing “נויהן לבר,” and Rav Ashi responds that it was not his intent.
- A ברייתא identifies “וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עליך ויראו ממך” with תפילין שבראש, and a story is related about the Gra explaining that it requires תפילין שבראש rather than merely תפילין שעל הראש. Rav Chana bar Bizna בשם Rabbi Shimon Chasida teaches that Hashem showed משה the knot of His תפילין from “והסירותי את כפי וראית את אחורי.” Rav Yehuda rules the knot must be למעלה so that ישראל יהיו למעלה ולא למטה, and it must be כלפי פנים so that ישראל יהיו לפנים ולא לאחור.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions