Menachos 40
Summary
- The text reviews the end of מנחות דף לט עמוד ב about which garments are חייב in ציצית מדאורייתא, presenting the מחלוקת רבא and רב נחמן and its reflection in the מחבר and the רמ״א, and then explains practical נפקא מינות from the משנה ברורה and later פוסקים about whether to prefer wool garments and how to treat ספקות and כבוד הבריות. It then begins מנחות דף מ עמוד א with סדין בציצית, framing בית שמאי and בית הלל as disagreeing over whether כלאים is permitted in ציצית via סמוכין, and develops why ירושלים avoided תכלת in linen due to confusion, קלא אילן, and ultimately תעשה ולא מן העשוי. The text continues with רבי זירא’s additional גזירה משום כסות לילה, a separate rule about garments and corners made of בגד versus עור, and several applications of תעשה ולא מן העשוי including a case of adding a fourth corner and a case involving בל תוסיף.
- Rבא holds that all בגדים are חייב in ציצית, and he holds that חוטים of צמר ופשתים work for every בגד while חוטים of other materials only work for a בגד of the same מין. Rav נחמן holds that the Torah’s term בגד means צמר ופשתים, so only those are חייב מדאורייתא and other materials are only מדרבנן. Shulchan Aruch in סימן ט סעיף א rules that only צמר ופשתים are חייב מדאורייתא in ציצית and other materials are מדרבנן, while the רמ״א rules that all בגדים are חייב מדאורייתא.
- The ארצות החיים brings a ראיה to the רמ״א from a משנה in כלאים פרק ט משנה א that lists הלכות limited to בגדי צמר ופשתים but omits ציצית, implying ציצית is not limited to צמר ופשתים. The ערוך השלחן argues the ראיה is weak because the משנה lists laws that do not apply even מדרבנן to other garments, while everyone agrees other garments are at least חייב מדרבנן in ציצית, so either ruling still leaves difficulty explaining why ציצית is omitted.
- The משנה ברורה in סימן ט ס״ק ג lists three נפקא מינות between a garment being חייב מדאורייתא versus מדרבנן in ציצית. A person may prefer to wear a wool garment to fulfill a דאורייתא rather than a דרבנן. A ספק about the garment is treated as ספק דאורייתא לחומרא versus ספק דרבנן לקולא. A case where ציצית is cut off in public may allow continued wearing due to כבוד הבריות if the חיוב is only מדרבנן, while a דאורייתא obligation may forbid continuing to wear a ד׳ כנפות without ציצית.
- The משנה ברורה in ס״ק ה cites the אליה רבה and the ארצות החיים that לכתחילה one should use a garment that is חייב מדאורייתא according to all שיטות. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in הליכות שלמה פרק ג הערה כה is quoted as advising stringency even in summer to be יוצא כל הדעות. Rav Shternbuch in תשובות והנהגות חלק א סימן יח suggests the idea of בעידן רתחא may apply specifically to מצוות דאורייתא and therefore supports being careful to wear a garment that is דאורייתא according to everyone, and he gives additional reasons to recommend wool ציצית.
- Rav Moshe in אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק ב סימן א writes that Ashkenazim follow the רמ״א and do not routinely become מחמיר like the מחבר whenever there is a מחלוקת, while endorsing that a בעל נפש who is מחמיר receives ברכה, and he notes that he personally was strict even in summer. Rav Nebenzahl quotes in the name of his father that the חזון איש wore cotton, with the concern that if a garment loses the status of a בגד then one accomplishes nothing. Rav Moshe in אורח חיים חלק ג סימן א writes that a garment is still called a מלבוש even if it does not provide comfort, comparing it to a suit jacket and assuming it still counts as a בגד for issues like שעטנז. The גרא in מעשה רב סימן יז is described as wearing cotton ציצית, and ארחות רבינו חלק א page יח reports the סטייפלר also wore cotton, showing that many גדולי עולם relied on the רמ״א to wear cotton.
- On דף מ עמוד א the ברייתא states סדין בציצית with בית שמאי פוטרין and בית הלל מחייבין, and רש״י explains that בית שמאי effectively forbids placing ציצית on linen because תכלת is dyed wool and would create כלאים, while בית הלל obligates it because סמוכין teaches that כלאים is permitted in ציצית. Rashi explains the language of פטור וחיוב is used because ציצית is a חובה on the בגד even if it is not worn, and the איסור/היתר of כלאים depends on whether the garment is obligated in ציצית. Rashi adds that the same disagreement applies to a wool garment regarding whether לבן may be linen, but the case of סדין is chosen because it necessarily involves כלאים since תכלת is wool and תכלת is treated as עיקר מצות ציצית.
- Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Tzadok says that one who places תכלת in ירושלים is among those who appear strange, because observers think he is wearing כלאים, and רש״י reads this as opposing בית הלל in practice there. The Gemara explains the avoidance as stemming from people not being בקיאין to derive סמוכין and fear that they would permit כלאים elsewhere. Rashi addresses how Chazal can suspend a דאורייתא עשה by citing יבמות and the principle that a בית דין can require שב ואל תעשה for a מצות עשה with reason without being considered עוקר דבר מן התורה, and תוספות in יבמות explains that the חיוב ציצית begins only after עיטוף so the ביטול is treated as passive. The text contrasts this with כלאים, where the איסור is at the act of לבישה, and it cites the שאגת אריה סימן ל asking how עשה דוחה לא תעשה works if the לא תעשה precedes the עשה, with the טורי אבן answering that when the עשה cannot be fulfilled without that step it is treated as בעידנא.
- Raba bar Rav Huna suggests having ten תלמידי חכמים wear linen with ציצית publicly to publicize the היתר, and the Gemara answers that this would only increase suspicion. The Gemara suggests teaching it in a public דרשה and accepts that publicity could work, but it explains the actual reason for the restriction as a גזירה משום קלא אילן, since people might use an imitation dye and thereby create wool-on-linen כלאים שלא במקום מצוה. The Gemara asks why קלא אילן is worse than לבן and answers that when one can avoid the conflict, one must, citing Reish Lakish that if one can fulfill both עשה and לא תעשה one must do so, and only otherwise does עשה override לא תעשה.
- The Gemara proposes testing the dye, rejects it as גזירה משום טעימה because widespread testing would ruin vats of תכלת, proposes sending written instructions, and debates whether letters can be relied upon, with Raba arguing that for חמץ בפסח and יום הכפורים people rely on such letters about calendar intercalation. Raba then presents the explanation attributed in מערבא to רבי זירא that the concern is שמא יקרע סדינו בתוך ג׳ ויתפרנו, creating a תעשה ולא מן העשוי problem that removes the מצוה and leaves pure כלאים. Rashi explains שרא רבי זירא לסדיניה as רבי זירא removing his ציציות from a linen garment out of this concern.
- The text derives from the statement דלא יהא אלא לבן that strings of a different color from the garment are כשר, and it cites the רמ״א’s מנהג that חוטי ציצית remain white even when the garment is colored. Rav Shechter in גינת אגוז סימן ב׳ writes that even if one dyes the strings any color when the garment is white, בדיעבד one is certainly יוצא, because the Gemara says one who used קלא אילן is also יוצא since it is no worse than לבן. Rav Shechter concludes that if one has ספק תכלת it is better to use it to dye some strings even though it changes the רמ״א’s מנהג of white strings, because the potential קיום מצוה דאורייתא outweighs that מנהג.
- Rabbi Zeira adds another reason not to place ציצית on linen as a גזירה משום כסות לילה, because at night one is not obligated in ציצית and would then be wearing כלאים without the mechanism of עשה דוחה לא תעשה.
- Raba reports in the name of Rav and Rabbi Zeira that if the main garment is בגד and the corners are עור it is חייב, while if the main garment is עור and the corners are בגד it is פטור, because עיקר בגד בעינן and עור is not חייב in ציצית. The text ties this to discussion of synthetic materials such as nylon and mesh garments, raising whether they have the status of בגד or resemble עור, and it reports that Rav Shechter argued mesh ציצית may fail as a בגד due to פרוץ מרובה על העומד. Rav Acha is presented as חולק and ruling based on the כנף rather than the main garment.
- Rav S’chora in the name of Rav Huna rules that if one placed ציצית on a three-cornered garment and then completed it to four corners it is פסולה due to תעשה ולא מן העשוי. The Gemara challenges from a report that חסידים הראשונים would place תכלת once they wove three, and it answers that this means once they reached the last three אצבעות they would place it immediately so that when finished it would be within the required distance and not be תעשה ולא מן העשוי.
- The Gemara asks whether תעשה ולא מן העשוי applies given רבי זירא’s statement that one who places an additional set of ציצית and then cuts off the first set is כשר. Raba answers that while the second set is placed one is standing in בל תוסיף and that act is not considered a מעשה, and the cutting off of the first set is what constitutes the עשייה that validates the remaining ציצית.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions