Menachos 37 - Cycle 14
Summary
- A *baraita* derives that the *tefillin shel yad* goes on the left arm from the Torah’s phrasing “והיה לך לאות על ידך,” supported by *pesukim* that distinguish *yamin* as the right hand and *yad* as the left unless specified. The *Gemara* brings additional derivations, including Rav Natan’s comparison of “וקשרתם” to “וכתבתם” and Rav Ashi’s reading of “ידכה” as *yad keheh*, the weaker hand, and it addresses cases of amputees, left-handed and ambidextrous people, and how *Rishonim* and later *poskim* weigh writing-hand versus weaker-hand. The *sugya* then defines the placement of the *tefillin shel yad* on the *kiboret* and the *tefillin shel rosh* on the head where a baby’s skull is soft, includes the episode of a two-headed baby in the context of *pidyon haben* and “לגלגולת,” and moves to the dispute whether the four *tzitziyot* are one *mitzvah* or four, with practical differences for linen garments, five-cornered garments, and carrying on *Shabbat* when *tzitzit* are invalid.
- A *baraita* teaches that “והיה לך לאות על ידך” means the *tefillin* is placed on “זו שמאל,” and the *Gemara* challenges whether it could mean the right hand. A proof is brought from “אף ידי יסדה ארץ וימיני טפחה שמים” that when the *pasuk* refers to the right hand it calls it “ימיני,” so “יד” indicates the left. A second proof is brought from *Shirat Devorah* where “ידה ליתד תשלחנה” and “וימינה להלמות עמלים” distinguish *yad* from *yamin*, and a third proof is brought from “למה תשיב ידך וימינך מקרב חיקך כלה,” again contrasting *yad* and *yamin*. The ספר מעדני יום טוב explains that the first *pasuk* involves the “יד השם,” so the second is needed because it speaks of human hands, yet he still questions the need for a third *pasuk*.
- Rabbi Yosi haChorem says the derivation must address that “ימין” can also be called “יד,” as in “וירא יוסף כי ישית אביו יד ימינו על ראש אפרים,” showing “יד ימינו.” The *Gemara* answers that when the right hand is meant it is called “יד ימינו,” but “יד סתמא” does not refer to the right.
- Rav Natan says “אינו צריך” the earlier proofs, because the *pasuk* juxtaposes “וקשרתם לאות על ידך” with “וכתבתם,” so just as writing is done with the right hand, tying is done with the right hand, which implies the placement is on the left. The מרדכי explains this follows רוב people who write with the right hand.
- Rav Ashi reads “ידכה” as “יד כהה,” the weaker hand, and rejects reading it as “ידך שבכח” because the Torah writes with a ה׳ rather than a חית. The *Gemara* ties this to a *tannaitic* dispute: one opinion learns “ידכה” means *smol*, while חכמים learn it is “לרבות את הגידם.” Another *baraita* says if someone “אין לו זרוע” he is “פטור מן התפילין,” while אחרים say “ידכה לרבות את הגידם,” and תוספות (ד״ה אין) says the cases differ, with total absence exempting and partial remaining limb obligating placement on what remains.
- A *baraita* rules that an *iter* places *tefillin* on his right arm, and another source says he places it on his left like everyone else. Abaye resolves that the second refers to someone “ששולט בשתי ידיו,” who places on the left like others.
- Tosafot asks about one who writes with the right hand but does other activities with the left, so Rav Natan would follow writing and require left-arm placement, while Rav Ashi would follow weakness and potentially require right-arm placement if the right is weaker. Tosafot suggests such a person may be treated as “שולט בשתי ידיו” and place on the left. The Rosh and many *Rishonim* say the determinant is the weaker hand, while Tosafot cites Rabbeinu Yechiel that the determinant is the writing hand; the Shulchan Aruch quotes both without deciding, and the Rema writes the *minhag* follows Rabbeinu Yechiel. The מרדכי says one born right-handed does not change status even if trained otherwise, and the דגול מרבבה limits this to intentional training, but if illness weakens the once-strong hand and shifts use, the person begins placing on the other hand. The שאלות ותשובות האלף לך שלמה prefers focusing on the writing hand, and the שאלות ותשובות שואל ומשיב addresses an ambidextrous person forced to write with the right though he writes better with the left and implies placement should be on the right. The שאלות ותשובות חורש שי states the determination follows how one is born.
- The שאגת אריה analyzes whether one who cannot wear *tefillin shel yad* should still wear *tefillin shel rosh* and concludes they are two separate *mitzvot*, so *tefillin shel rosh* is still worn.
- A teaching of Tana d’vei Menashe says “על ידך זו קיבורת” and “בין עיניך זו קדקד,” and the *Gemara* defines *kadkod* as “מקום שמוחו של תינוק רופס.” The text records a major discussion in *poskim* about the correct location for *tefillin shel rosh* and how to interpret “מקום יש בראשו של אדם לשני תפילין” as side by side versus one behind the other. The דברי חיים holds it means side by side and used this in a famous *teshuvah* opposing using a mirror to align the *tefillin*, relying on the breadth of the valid area and implying the *tefillin* should be higher.
- Plimo asks רבי about one who has two heads and which head receives *tefillin*, and רבי orders him to accept punishment by exile or *shamta*. A man then arrives reporting a two-headed firstborn and asks the amount for *pidyon haben*, and a סבא, identified as Eliyahu HaNavi, rules “חייב ליתן לו עשרה סלעים.” The *Gemara* challenges from *beraitot* that a nonviable infant is exempt and cites Tosafot’s assumption “כל יתר כנטול דמי,” but answers “שאני הכא דבגלגולת תלא רחמנא” because the Torah states “ולקחת חמש שקלים לגלגולת,” so two heads require double. The text adds that “לגלגולתם” appears by counting Yisrael but not Levi’im because Levi’im have no *pidyon haben*, and it brings Tosafot’s report of a *midrash* about Ashmedai bringing a two-headed person to Shlomo haMelech with inheritance implications, along with the Shitah’s test of pouring hot water on one head to show one person feels both, and the קרן אורה’s note linking the exile response to the desert.
- The text warns that in twin boys the first to emerge is the *bechor* for *pidyon haben*. The ספר חשוקי חמד addresses a case where the ceremony was done on the wrong twin and rules the *pidyon* should be redone with the kohen returning the money and repeating without a *berachah*, because the child’s presence is not essential and an analogy is drawn to being shown the wrong place for an *aliyah* without requiring a new *berachah*.
- A *baraita* explains “על ידך זו גובה שביד” and rejects the palm by comparing hand *tefillin* to head *tefillin*, since the head is “בגובה שראש” so the arm is “בגובה שביד.” Rabbi Eliezer derives it from “לך לאות ולא לאחרים לאות,” and Rabbi Yitzchak derives it from “ושמתם… על לבבכם… וקשרתם… על ידכם” teaching “שתהא שימה כנגד לב.” The בית יוסף, citing the מרדכי בשם שימושא רבא, rules the *tefillin shel yad* should be covered because of “לך לאות ולא לאחרים לאות,” while the ר״ן distinguishes that *tefillin shel rosh* should be visible from “וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עליך… אלו תפילין שבראש,” and some *poskim* caution not to fully cover the *shel rosh* with the *tallit*. The ספר יחי יוסף frames this as “הנסתרות לה' אלקינו” alongside “הנגלות לנו ולבנינו,” aligning hidden and public *avodat Hashem* with the covered *shel yad* and visible *shel rosh*.
- Rav Chiya brei d’Rav Avya places the *shel yad* precisely near his heart. Rav Ashi sits before Amimar with a wound that exposes the *tefillin*, and Amimar answers that “במקום לכם אות איתמר,” meaning the required location is one that is typically covered, and exposure due to circumstance does not invalidate.
- A *baraita* teaches “ולזכרון בין עיניך זו גובה שבראש” and rejects literal placement between the eyes by *gezerah shavah* to “לא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם למת,” which refers to the place on the head where a bald spot is made. Rav Yehudah gives another derivation comparing *shel yad* and *shel rosh*: the head placement is “במקום הראוי לטמא בנגע אחד,” excluding between the eyes where both skin and hair could create two types of סימני נגע.
- The *Mishnah* states “ארבע ציציות מעכבות זו את זו” as one *mitzvah*, while Rabbi Yishmael treats them as four *mitzvot*. Rav Yosef says the difference is “סדין בציצית,” where partial fulfillment affects whether *sha’atnez* is permitted because it is only permitted when performing a *mitzvah*. Ravina says the difference is “טלית בעלת חמש,” with חכמים requiring four on the four most distant corners, while Rabbi Yishmael would require five. Ravina also presents the difference as Rav Huna’s rule that one who goes out on *Shabbat* with a garment not properly fringed is “חייב חטאת,” because invalid *tzitzit* are not part of the garment and constitute carrying; the text explains that even Rabbi Yishmael agrees one should not initially wear a three-fringe garment on *Shabbat*, but if discovered invalid the permission to continue differs. The משנה ברורה (סימן י״ג סעיף קטן ב׳) urges great care that *tzitzit* worn on *Shabbat* be *kasher*, while רבי עקיבא איגר and the פרי מגדים cite leniencies when the garment is not obligated and the attachments are *batel* as decoration, and the discussion is compared to wearing extra sewn-on buttons on *Shabbat*, with Rav Ovadia Yosef taking a lenient approach and שמירת שבת כהלכתה recommending stringency while citing lenient views.
- Rav Sheshet brei d’Rav Idi rules that cutting a corner does not exempt *tzitzit* because it merely makes the garment “טלית בת חמש.” Rav Mesharshiya says folding a corner also “לא עבד ולא כלום” because it is “כמאן דשרי דמי,” supported by the *Mishnah* that tied pouches are *tahor* because they will be untied, except for Arabs who tie permanently. Rav Dimi מנהרדעא says stitching the corner likewise “לא עבד ולא כלום,” and the remedy for one who truly wants to remove the corner is “ליפסק ולישדי,” to cut it off completely.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions