Menachos 38
Summary
- Today’s *daf* is Menachot 38, and the *shiur* opens *Perek HaTechelet* with the *Mishnah* that *techelet* does not invalidate *lavan* and *lavan* does not invalidate *techelet*, and likewise *tefillin shel yad* does not invalidate *shel rosh* and *shel rosh* does not invalidate *shel yad*. The *Gemara* challenges this from Rabbi’s view that the components are mutually *me’akev*, and it resolves the tension by reinterpreting the *Mishnah* as addressing order and, later, *geradumin* when strings are cut. The *shiur* presents major *Rishonim* and *Acharonim* on how many strings are *techelet* and *lavan*, what is done when *techelet* is unavailable, and how much must remain for cut *tzitzit* to stay *kasher*.
- Today’s *shiur* is sponsored by Mimi and Charles Gerschbaum in memory of משה וייס, משה שרגא בן רב נתן עליו השלום. Today’s *shiur* is also sponsored by Henry Olinsky לזכר נשמת יחיאל מיכל בן חיים שניאור זלמן הלוי זכרונו לברכה, Milton Kramer, and the both נשמות should have an עליה. Today’s *shiur* is also sponsored anonymously לזכות גמר חתימה טובה for the מתפללים of BK&W and for all of כלל ישראל. אמן.
- The *Mishnah* states that *techelet* is not *me’akev* *lavan* and *lavan* is not *me’akev* *techelet*, so a person can fulfill the *mitzvah* of *tzitzit* even without *techelet* and does not lose the entire obligation of wearing a four-cornered garment. The *Mishnah* also states that *tefillin shel yad* is not *me’akev* *shel rosh* and *shel rosh* is not *me’akev* *shel yad*, so if a person only has one he wears what he has. The *shiur* draws a comparison that when both are available, choosing to omit one constitutes a ביטול מצות עשה דאורייתא, just as omitting *shel yad* when it is available is a ביטול מצות עשה דאורייתא, and omitting *techelet* when it is available is a ביטול מצות עשה דאורייתא of *techelet*.
- Rashi explains that although there is a *mitzvah* to place two strands of *techelet* in *tzitzit*, neither color prevents fulfillment, and even four *techelet* or four *lavan* suffices. Rashi’s framework treats the *tzitzit* as four folded strings appearing as eight, with two strings intended as *techelet* and two as *lavan*, and Tosafot follows that half should be *techelet* and half *lavan*. The *shiur* states that this also appears to align with the Shulchan Aruch as reflected in its rulings about *geradumin*, and it attributes this practice to Rav Belsky זכרונו לברכה and to יבדל לחיים טובים Rav Schachter.
- The Rambam holds that only half of one of the four strings is dyed *techelet*, so among the apparent eight ends only one is *techelet*, and the *techelet* functions as the winding strand, *petil techelet*. The *shiur* presents a version attributed to the Raavad that three strings are *lavan* and one full string is *techelet*, and it notes its popularity while questioning why it is favored and stating that the first volume of the speaker’s *sefer* argues that this may not even be the Raavad’s position or that such a position necessarily exists.
- Rashi holds that when one type is missing, one uses four of the available type, so without *techelet* one places four *lavan* strings. Tosafot initially argues that if only one type is available one should only need two strings, and it brings a proof toward Rashi from a later *Gemara* about *kilayim* and *kela ilan*, where the *Gemara* says the invalid blue is “לא גרע מחוטי לבן,” implying that extra *lavan* can function when *techelet* is absent. Tosafot rejects the inference by comparing it to having a minimum of two *aravot* while allowing more, and it explains Rashi by invoking the requirement of *gedilim* as four strings as a separate rule that applies regardless of whether both species are present.
- The Rambam writes: התכלת אינו מעכב את הלבן והלבן אינו מעכב את התכלת כיצד? הרי שאין לו תכלת, עושה לבן לבדו, which the Beit Yosef reports in the name of מהר"י אבוהב as implying only two *lavan* strings. The Beit Yosef rejects that *diyuk* by arguing that since the Rambam does not require two *techelet* and two *lavan* in the first place, four strings are required anyway even when substituting *lavan*. The *shiur* frames this as part of a broader need to learn these *sugyot* because *techelet* is a *mitzvah de’oraita*.
- A *beraita* records Rabbi deriving from “וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ” that the components are mutually *me’akev*, while the *Chachamim* say they are not. Rabbi’s reasoning combines “הכנף מין כנף” with “פתיל תכלת,” and he reads the singular “אותו” as requiring both together. The *Chachamim* read “וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ” as applying to each component independently.
- Rav Yehuda בשם Rav reconciles the *Mishnah* with Rabbi by limiting it to a rule of precedence, “לקדם,” so that the correct order is to place *lavan* before *techelet*, but reversing the order still works. A *beraita* states: מצוה להקדים לבן לתכלת, ואם הקדים תכלת ללבן יצא אלא שחיסר מצוה, and Rav Ada bar Ahava explains that “חיסר מצוה” means failing to do *mitzvah min hamuvchar* while still fulfilling the obligation. Tosafot challenges why an order derived from a *pasuk* is not *me’akev* and answers that the Torah does not typically make sequence alone invalidating, paralleling *chalitzah* where reversing *rekikah* and *chalitzah* still produces a valid outcome.
- The *shiur* states that the Rif and the Rambam do not record the rule of placing *lavan* before *techelet* as Rashi frames it. The Keren Orah explains that the Rif omits laws not practiced when *techelet* is absent, while the Rambam’s omission is harder because he writes laws for all times. The Chazon Ish, the Brisker Rav, and other *Acharonim* are cited as explaining that the Rambam understands *hakdamah* as referring to the windings rather than inserting strings into the garment, with the first winding needing to be *lavan* even if most windings are *techelet*.
- Rami bar Chama suggests that “*techelet* is not *me’akev* *lavan*” refers to a tallit entirely *techelet* where *techelet* should precede because “הכנף מין כנף,” and Levi asks Shmuel to explain the *Mishnah* along those lines. Rava rejects this by arguing “מידי צבע קא גרים,” and Rashi explains that *techelet* is written after “כנף” to indicate it is always later, since most garments are white and the order remains consistent even in atypical cases.
- Rava explains that the *Mishnah* addresses *geradumin*, where one set of strings is cut but the other remains, and it remains valid when the *tzitzit* initially had both components. The בני רבי חייא teach: גרדומי תכלת כשרין וגרדומי אזוב כשרין, extending the concept to the hyssop bundle used for the *parah adumah* procedure. Shmuel defines the minimum as “כדי לענבן,” enough length to tie a slip-knot.
- The *Gemara* leaves unresolved whether “כדי לענבן” is measured by tying all the strings together or each string individually. Rav Ashi asks whether thickness affects the measure, since thin strings tie more easily than thick ones, and Rav Achai bar Rav Ashi responds that it is unreasonable to invalidate thicker, more noticeable strings, so the measure should not become stricter due to thickness.
- The *Gemara* identifies a chain of attribution for the view that absence of *techelet* does not prevent fulfillment, stating: רבי יצחק אומר משום אנשים שאמרו משום רבי יוסי הגלילי שאמר משום רבי יוחנן בן נורי אין לו תכלת מטיל לבן. The *shiur* presents this as the explicit position that when *techelet* is unavailable one places *lavan* in its place.
- The Rambam rules that if one made *lavan* and *techelet* and the *lavan* was cut down to the edge leaving only *techelet*, it remains *kasher*, and he adds that if the strings were reduced to only “כדי עניבה” it is *kasher*, but if a string is cut entirely at its root even one string invalidates it. The Kesef Mishneh notes multiple internal difficulties in reconciling the Rambam’s statements. The Beit Yosef presents three explanations of the Rambam and concludes he cannot determine the Rambam’s intent, so he rules like the Ri and the Rosh that if all strings have “כדי עניבה” remaining the *tzitzit* are *kasher*, while preferring stringency for Rabbeinu Tam that at least two strings remain whole and the other two have “כדי עניבה,” and he ties this to Rabbeinu Tam’s assumption of two *techelet* and two *lavan*. The *shiur* ends by stating that this underlies the Shulchan Aruch’s ruling and that the learning will continue on Monday.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions