Menachos 42
Summary
- Today’s שיעור on מנחות דף מ״ב continues from תנו רבנן כמה חוטין on מ״א עמוד ב׳ and presents the halachic structure of ציצית: how many strings are inserted, how the גדיל and ענף are measured, and how close the נקב must be to the edge of the בגד. The גמרא then frames whether ציצית has a שיעור by comparing it to לולב, clarifying that “אין לו שיעור” means no maximum but does include a minimum. The sugya proceeds to rules about separating the strands, placing ציצית on the קרן or גדיל, and the required distance of the hole from the edge, including a story with רבינא, רב סמא, and רב אשי. It then explores whether a ברכה is said when making ציצית and tests an attempted כלל about which acts of making a mitzvah require a ברכה, connecting the issue to סוכה, מילה, and תפילין, and finally turns to whether ציצית needs טוויה לשמה and whether תכלת dyeing requires צביעה לשמה, including the test-dye procedure and its halachic implications.
- Today’s שיעור is once again sponsored by Henry Olinsky לזכר נשמת יחיאל מיכל בן חיים שניאור זלמן הלוי זכרונו לברכה Milton Kramer, and the נשמה should continue to have an עליה in the זכות of our learning.
- The ברייתא teaches that בית שמאי require ארבעה חוטין inserted into the טלית and folded to make eight, while בית הלל require שלשה חוטין inserted and folded to make six. The explanation given is that בית הלל read גדיל as one חוט, גדילים as two חוטין, and then add פתיל תכלת as one more, totaling three before folding. The שיעור of “כמה תהא משולשת” is presented as the length of the ענף, with בית שמאי saying four אצבעות and בית הלל saying three אצבעות. The relationship of שליש גדיל ושני שלישי ענף yields total lengths of six אצבעות for בית שמאי and four and a half אצבעות for בית הלל, with בית הלל’s three אצבעות defined as one-quarter of a טפח each.
- Rav Pappa states that a טפח דאורייתא equals four *agudal* widths, six *ketanah* widths, and five *tilta* widths. Rav Huna requires ארבעה within ארבע אצבעות from the edge and an ענף of ארבע אצבעות, while Rabbi Yehuda requires שלושה within שלוש and an ענף of שלוש. Rav Pappa rules הלכתא ארבעה בתוך שלוש ומשולשת ארבע, setting the placement within three אצבעות of the edge and an ענף length of four אצבעות.
- The גמרא challenges whether ציצית truly has a fixed שיעור by citing a teaching that ציצית means יוצא and therefore only “משהו,” and by reporting that זקני בית שמאי and זקני בית הלל declared ציצית has no שיעור and similarly לולב has no שיעור. The גמרא rejects the reading that this means no שיעור at all and explains it as אין לו שיעור למעלה אבל יש לו שיעור למטה. The proof is from לולב, since the משנה requires a minimum of three טפחים כדי לנענע בו, demonstrating that “אין לו שיעור” cannot mean no minimum. The same structure is applied to ציצית, allowing unlimited length above but requiring a minimum below, aligned in this presentation with the four אצבעות minimum for the ענף.
- A ברייתא defines ציצית as ענף and supports it from the verse ויקחני בציצית ראשי, understanding ציצית as loose strands emerging from a unified attachment like hair. Abaye rules that one must separate the strands, keeping them distinct and not left knotted. The comparison is made to כציציתא דארמאי, described as hair that is braided near the roots and hangs loose toward the end. The בעל העיטור limits the separation requirement to distinguishing תכלת from לבן and treats separation without תכלת as only זכר לתכלת, while the רוב ראשונים treat separation as intrinsic to the form implied by the word ציצית.
- A ברייתא states that placing ציצית on the קרן or on the גדיל of the garment is כשרה, while רבי אליעזר בן יעקב declares it פסול in both cases. Rav Gidel in the name of Rav requires that ציצית be נוטפת על הקרן, deriving it from על כנפי בגדיהם, and the גמרא aligns this with רבי אליעזר בן יעקב. The *Yere’im* derives from על כנפי and not בכנף that the ציצית must hang over the corner rather than be placed directly “in” the corner, and he infers an ideal way for the ציצית to hang off the side so gravity brings it against the corner.
- Rabbi Yaakov in the name of Rabbi Yochanan requires distancing the hole מלא קשר אגודל from the edge of the garment. The g’mara reconciles this with Rav Pappa’s requirement of within three אצבעות by presenting the need for both limits: one might think closeness is always better without Rabbi Yaakov, and one might think farther is always better without Rav Pappa. The result is that the ציצית must be between one *agudal* and three אצבעות from the edge, establishing a minimum distance and a maximum distance.
- Rav Sama observes that Ravina’s garment corner tore so that the placement became less than מלא קשר אגודל, and he challenges Ravina based on Rabbi Yaakov’s rule. Ravina answers that the requirement is stated only at the time of making, “בשעת עשייה נאמרה,” so later tearing does not invalidate what was properly made. Rav Sama becomes embarrassed, and Rav Ashi consoles him with “חד מינן כתריי מינייהו,” presented here as contrasting חכמי ארץ ישראל with חכמי בבל and associating Ravina with the sharper tradition. The narrative then expands the conceptual distinction between learning styles of בבל and ארץ ישראל, explaining sharper חריפות in בבל and a clarity associated with אוירא דארץ ישראל מחכים, and how combining these modes produces special strength.
- Rav Acha the son of Rav Yaakov inserts four strings and doubles them before inserting, creating a loop and then threading through it, holding that one needs eight strings “in” the garment at insertion to realize גדילים במקום פתיל. Rabbi Yirmiyah of Difti inserts eight strings which fold into sixteen and does not remove them. Mar the son of Ravina follows the common method of inserting four that fold into eight.
- Rav Nachman encounters Rav Ada bar Ahava inserting strings and reciting a blessing, and he challenges this by citing Rav that ציצית אינה צריכה ברכה for the act of making. After Rav Huna’s death, Rav Chisda raises an apparent contradiction in Rav by citing Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav that ציצית made by a non-Jew is פסול, derived from דבר אל בני ישראל ועשו להם ציצית, בני ישראל יעשו ולא עובדי כוכבים. Rav Yosef explains the assumed principle driving the challenge: any mitzvah valid if made by a non-Jew does not require a blessing when made by a Jew, while any mitzvah invalid if made by a non-Jew does require a blessing when made by a Jew.
- The גמרא questions whether that principle is universal by invoking מילה, which is presented as כשרה by an עובד כוכבים in a ברייתא that prefers an ארמי over a כותי due to concern of לשם עבודה זרה, with רבי יהודה reversing due to concern of שפיכות דמים. The g’mara responds that Rav himself invalidates מילה done by an עובד כוכבים, with derivations from ואתה את בריתי תשמור and from המול ימול. The sugya then reformulates the underlying rule: when the action of making is itself the גמר מצוה, such as מילה, a Jew recites a blessing even if others could perform it, and when the making is not the גמר מצוה, such as תפילין, a Jew does not recite a blessing even if non-Jews are disqualified.
- The g’mara presents סוכה as support for the earlier formulation by citing that a סוכה made by עובדי כוכבים, נשים, בהמה-use, or כותים is כשרה so long as it is מסוככת כהלכתה. It then cites the teaching that the builder recites *shehechiyanu* when making the sukkah, while the ברכת המצוה is recited when sitting in it, and it states that there is no blessing of “לעשות סוכה.” The g’mara then states that תפילין undermines the original rule because תפילין are פסולות if written by categories including an עובד כוכבים, based on וקשרתם וכתבתם, yet one still does not recite a blessing on making תפילין, only on donning them.
- The g’mara explains the dispute about blessing on making ציצית as hinging on whether ציצית is חובת טלית, where affixing completes the obligation and thus warrants a blessing, or חובת גברא, where the obligation is realized when wearing and making is not completion. The presentation attributes Rav Chisda to the חובת טלית framing and Rav Nachman to the חובת גברא framing.
- Rav Mordechai tells Rav Ashi that “you” teach Rav’s tradition as פסול by a non-Jew, but “we” teach Rav as holding that ציצית by a non-Jew is כשרה, deriving from ועשו להם ציצית as “יעשו להם אחרים.” Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav also invalidates ציצית made from הקוצים, הנימין, or הגרדין—threads emerging from the garment itself—while validating those made from סיסין, threads sourced externally even if not originally made for the mitzvah. Shmuel rejects that leniency and invalidates even סיסין, requiring טוויה לשמה for the threads.
- The g’mara aligns Rav and Shmuel’s dispute with a תנאי dispute about תפילין: gold-covered or leather from a non-kosher animal is פסול, while leather from a kosher animal is כשר even without עיבוד לשמה, according to the first view. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel requires עיבוד לשמה even for kosher leather. The sugya treats this as parallel to whether ציצית requires טוויה לשמה.
- Abaye asks Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda how תכלת is dyed, and he answers that they bring דם חילזון and סמנין, place them in a pot, remove a small amount into an eggshell or small vessel, and perform a test dyeing on wool. The tested dye is discarded and the test wool is burned, and the g’mara infers that test dyeing is פסול and that צביעה must be done לשמה, and it explains that the פסול of testing is because of the need for לשמה. A תנאי dispute then appears: Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel rules טעימה פסולה from “כליל תכלת,” while Rabbi Yochanan ben Dehavai permits even a second appearance from the dye, deriving from “ושני תולעת.” The שיעור concludes with the statement that tomorrow will continue from תנו רבנן.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions