Menachos 37
Summary
- The text learns the halachos of תפילין placement and obligation from multiple דרשות, including how the word יד relates to שמאל, how *keshirah* follows *ketivah*, and how ידך can be read as יד כהה. It applies these principles to an איטר, a שולט בשתי ידיו, and cases of missing limbs, and it defines the מקום הנחת תפילין on the arm and head through several sources. It then turns to ציצית, frames the dispute whether four ציציות form one מצוה or four מצוות, gives practical נפקא מינות including שעטנז, a five-cornered garment, and שבת carrying, and concludes with a case where a corner tears on שבת and the balance between כבוד הבריות and the line between דאורייתא and דרבנן.
- A ברייתא derives that ידך in והיה לך לאות על ידך refers to שמאל by contrasting יד with ימין in pesukim from ישעיהו, שופטים, and תהלים, so that סתם יד means left. Rabbi Yosei ha-Ḥorem argues that ימין is also called יד from וירא יוסף כי ישית אביו יד ימינו, and the first view answers that only יד ימינו is called יד but יד סתמא is not. Tosafos rejects the idea that “החורם” is a derogatory nickname based on a sunken nose and instead treats it as a place-name.
- Rabbi Nasan derives הנחה בשמאל from the *hekesh* of וקשרתם וכתבתם, since כתיבה is with the right hand and therefore קשירה is with the right hand, leaving placement for the other arm. Tosafos raises ספק about someone who writes with the right hand while most actions are with the left, and suggests he may be like a שולט בשתי ידיו who places on the left. Rav Ashi derives the left arm from מידך כתיב בה, reading it as יד כהה, and rejects reading it as “יד כח” because the word is written with a ה and not a ח.
- A תנא holds that יד כהה teaches שמאל, while others read ידכה to include גידמים. A separate ברייתא states that one who has no זרוע is פטור מן התפילין. Tosafos reconciles the sources by distinguishing between lacking the entire upper arm versus only the lower part where the מקום הנחת תפילין remains, while the שיטה מקובצת cites a Yerushalmi reading that others include a case where he places on the right when the arm is missing.
- One ברייתא rules that an איטר places תפילין on his right arm, which is his left, while another says he places on the left like everyone. Abaye resolves that the latter refers to a שולט בשתי ידיו, who places on the left.
- A ברייתא learns על ידך as קיבורת, and another derivation reads it as the גובה שביד rather than the palm by comparing the יד placement to the head placement. Rabbi Elazar derives the upper arm location from והיה לך לאות as לך לאות ולא לאחרים לאות, defining a מקום that is naturally covered, while Rav Ashi explains that the statement is about the place being fit to be concealed rather than a requirement that it always be physically hidden. Rabbi Yitzḥak derives placement opposite the heart from ושמתם את דברי אלה על לבבכם וקשרתם, and Rav Ḥiyya son of Rav Avya angles the תפילין toward his heart to align with this requirement.
- The text defines בין עיניך as קדקוד, and identifies its location as מקום שמוחו של תינוק רופס. A ברייתא derives that בין עיניך means the גובה שבראש by linking it to לא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם למת, since קרחה applies where hair grows. Rabbi Yehudah derives the מקום of תפילין של ראש by analogy to תפילין של יד as a מקום הראוי לטמא בנגע אחד, excluding between the eyes where both flesh and hair make it subject to multiple categories of נגעים.
- Plimo asks Rabbi which head receives תפילין for someone with two heads, and Rabbi reacts with a threat of גלות or שמתה for raising a mocking question. A case then arises of a baby born with two heads, and an elder teaches that פדיון הבן requires ten סלעים. The Gemara challenges this from the exclusion of “אך” that exempts a case where the child dies within thirty days, and answers that here the Torah ties the obligation to לגלגולת, so two skulls create two obligations even if the child is a טריפה that will not survive a year.
- The text states that four ציציות מעכבות זו את זו and that all four are one מצוה, and contrasts this with Rabbi Yishmael who treats them as four מצוות. It identifies three נפקא מינות: Rav Yosef says a linen garment with wool techeiles creates a שעטנז difference if one corner is left without ציצית; Rava bar Aḥina says a five-cornered garment differs depending on whether the mitzvah is defined as four corners or each corner independently; and Ravina ties the dispute to Rav Huna’s rule that going out on שבת with a טלית שאינה מצוייצת כהלכתה makes one חייב חטאת because the strings become a משא when they are not serving a mitzvah.
- Rav Shisha bar Rav Idi rules that cutting a corner to create additional corners does not help, since it simply makes the garment a טלית בעלת חמש that is still obligated. Rav Mesharshiya rules that tying up or rounding a corner does not help because it is treated as if it will be untied, supported by a Mishnah in Keilim that tied leather jugs are not real receptacles except for those of ערביים who keep them tied permanently. Rav Dimi of Nehardea adds that even hemming does not remove the corner’s status, since if the person truly wanted permanence he would cut it off rather than sew it in a reversible way.
- Shmuel rules הלכה כרבי ישמעאל, but the text rejects that psak and follows the view that the four corners are one mitzvah. A story describes Mar bar Rav Ashi on שבת when a corner and its ציצית tear; one version has Ravina informing him only after reaching home, and Mar bar Rav Ashi says he would have removed the garment immediately if told earlier. The Gemara answers the challenge of כבוד הבריות by limiting “גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה לא תעשה שבתורה” to the לאו דלא תסור, and an alternate version places the case in a כרמלית so that כבוד הבריות can override the דרבנן concern.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions