Menachos 38 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today’s *shiur* on Menachos 38 begins on 37b and rules that the *halacha* follows the *chachamim* that all four *tzitzis* are one *mitzvah*, not four separate *mitzvos* like Rabbi Yishmael, and it explains the episode of Ravina walking behind Mar bar Rav Ashi on *Shabbos* when a corner-string tore and why *kavod habriyos* affects whether to inform him immediately. The *Gemara* limits *kavod habriyos docheh lo sa’aseh shebaTorah* to a *lav* of *lo sasur* and applies it in cases that are only *derabanan*, with an alternate version resolving that Mar bar Rav Ashi was walking in a *karmelis*. The new *perek* returns to *tzitzis* and establishes that *techeiles* and *lavan* do not prevent each other, compares this to *tefillin* where *shel yad* and *shel rosh* do not prevent each other, presents Rabbi’s view that they do prevent each other from “*u’re’isem oso*,” and then reconciles the *mishnah* even with Rabbi by making the issue one of order and *hidur*. The *Gemara* develops practical laws of torn strings (*geradumin*) and the minimum remaining length of *kedei la’anvan*, identifies the *tanna* who disagrees with Rabbi by allowing all-white when *techeiles* is unavailable, and closes with later authorities distinguishing *tashmishei mitzvah* like *tzitzis* from *tashmishei kedushah* like a *sefer Torah* regarding whether “*geradumin*” leniencies apply.
- Today’s learning begins from the *mishnah*’s *machlokes* whether *tzitzis* counts as four separate *mitzvos* or one *mitzvah*, and Rav Yehudah says in the name of Shmuel that the *halacha* is like Rabbi Yishmael. The *Gemara* rejects that and establishes that the *halacha* follows the *chachamim* that all four are considered one *mitzvah*. The practical outcome is that once one corner is missing and only three remain, the garment is *pasul* as *tzitzis*.
- Ravina walks behind Mar bar Rav Ashi on the *Shabbos* before the *regel* when they begin teaching *hilchos Yom Tov*, and one corner-string tears so that the *tzitzis* becomes *pasul* while in the *reshus harabim*. Ravina says nothing until Mar bar Rav Ashi arrives home, and then informs him where it happened, and Mar bar Rav Ashi responds that had he been told there he would have removed it. The *Rambam* explains that because Mar bar Rav Ashi is unaware, he is *misasek*, and this removes the *issur de’oraysa*, and even if *misasek* is *derabanan*, *kavod habriyos* allows not forcing him to remove his clothing immediately, as explained in שאלות ותשובות משנת ר' אהרן אורח חיים סימן ד'.
- The *Gemara* challenges why Mar bar Rav Ashi would remove it at all, since *kavod habriyos docheh lo sa’aseh shebaTorah* should allow him to keep it on. Rav Chatzkel Levenstein זצ"ל in אור יחזקאל grounds the rule in the greatness of a person as taught by the *midrash* on “קדושים תהיו,” where the Torah must say “כי קדוש אני קדושתי למעלה מקדושתכם” because one might think a person can reach that *madreigah*. The *Gemara* answers through Rav Sheva before Rav Kahana that this principle applies only to a case of *b’lav d’lo sasur*, meaning where the prohibition is rooted in obeying the *rabbanan*, and it gives the example from *Shabbos* of carrying bathroom stones that are *muktzeh* because *kavod habriyos* allows overriding that *derabanan*, but it does not override an *issur de’oraysa*.
- The *Gemara* brings an alternate version where Mar bar Rav Ashi argues directly that *kavod habriyos docheh lo sa’aseh shebaTorah*, and the earlier limitation to *lo sasur* returns as the problem. The *Gemara* resolves that case by saying the area is a *karmelis*, so the carrying is only *derabanan*, and therefore *kavod habriyos* applies. The *shiur* then concludes “הדרן לך הקומץ, הדרן לך הקומץ, הדרן לך הקומץ.”
- The new *perek* focuses again on *tzitzis* from “ועשו להם ציצית על כנפי בגדיהם לדורותם ונתנו על ציצית הכנף פתיל תכלת,” with *tzitzis hakenaf* typically being white to match the garment and with *techeiles* also required. Tosafos holds there are two white and two *techeiles* among the four threads that get folded into eight, the Rambam holds there is only half a thread of *techeiles*, and the Raavad holds there is one thread of *techeiles*. The *mishnah* rules “התכלת אינו מעכב את הלבן” and “הלבן אינו מעכב את התכלת,” and the summary explains that the *halacha* allows all white as understood by the Rashba and by Tiferes Yisrael, while the Rosh understands the *mishnah* to mean that if one color is missing then only two threads of the other are required, though the *psak* is not like that.
- The *mishnah* teaches “תפילין של יד אינה מעכבת של ראש” and “של ראש אינה מעכבת של יד,” because the *rishonim* explain they are two separate *mitzvos* and one fulfills whichever is available. The Pnei Menachem explains that *tefillin shel yad* corresponds to the heart and action and *tefillin shel rosh* corresponds to the mind and thought, and a Jew seeks completeness in both, but the *mishnah* teaches that failure to do one perfectly does not prevent doing the other.
- The *Gemara* suggests the *mishnah* is not like Rabbi, because a *beraisa* derives from “והיה לכם לציצית וראיתם אותו” that they prevent each other, and that is Rabbi’s view, while the *chachamim* say they do not prevent each other. The בית הלוי asks how wearing only white is not *bal tigra*, and he answers that the *aseh* of *tzitzis* overrides the *lav* of *bal tigra*. The עונג יום טוב rejects applying *aseh docheh lo sa’aseh* here because one is not obligated to wear a four-cornered garment, and he explains that *bal tigra* applies only when one completely eliminates a *mitzvah*, while all-white is not elimination but lack of the ideal form.
- The *Gemara* gives Rabbi’s reason from “ציצית הכנף” requiring *min kanef* and from “פתיל תכלת,” and it emphasizes that *techeiles* means wool dyed from the *chilazon*. Rabbi reads “וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ” in the singular to require both together, while the *rabbanan* use “*oso*” to allow each one independently, and the explanations given include that the verse teaches seeing the *tzitzis* and that it teaches *bedi’eved* validity.
- Rav Yehudah says in the name of Rav that the *mishnah* can follow Rabbi and it teaches “אלא לקדם,” that there is a *mitzvah* to precede white before *techeiles* when inserting the threads, and *bedi’eved* reversing the order is valid. The Shitah Mekubetzes quoting Rashi explains this as inserting the white threads first and then the blue, but the Shitah finds it difficult because the final *tzitzis* does not show which was inserted first. The Shitah explains instead that the halacha concerns which color is used as the longer wrapping thread, the *shamash*, and that the teaching is that the *shamash* should be white so the result remains noticeable.
- A *beraisa* states “מצוה להקדים לבן לתכלת” and that if *techeiles* precedes white one is “יצא” but with “חסרון מצוה,” and the *Gemara* explains this means one fulfills *tzitzis* but loses the *mitzvah* of precedence. The חשוקי חמד raises whether one can fix the wrong order by undoing and redoing, brings proofs about not undoing once begun from the שבות יעקב’s cases, and distinguishes between core *mitzvah* requirements and *hidur mitzvah* where repair may not apply.
- Rami bar Chama first explains “תכלת שאינה מעכבת את הלבן” as referring to a garment that is entirely *techeiles*, where one might think *techeiles* should be inserted first, yet reversing is acceptable. Levi calls Shmuel “אריוך” and presses him to explain the *mishnah*, and Shmuel answers that for a white garment one precedes white because “הכנף מין כנף,” and if one precedes *techeiles* it remains acceptable, while Rami bar Chama repeats that a fully *techeiles* garment precedes *techeiles* for the same reason. Rava rejects that color drives the rule with “מידי צבעא גרים?” and explains instead that the *mishnah* addresses *geradumin*, where one set of strings tears and the other remains, and it remains valid.
- The *Gemara* brings “דאמר בני רבי חייא: גרדומי תכלת כשרים” and compares this to “גרדומי אזוב” used for sprinkling in the purification of a *tamei meis*. Rabbeinu Tam in Tosafos explains that if one type tears, as long as the other type is complete it remains *kasher*, and Tosafos quotes the Ri that if two threads tore and there is not *kedei anivah* it is *kasher*, and according to *chachamim* even if all tore it is *kasher* if there remains *kedei anivah* because the length beyond that is *hidur mitzvah* as the Nimukei Yosef explains. Bar Pada says in the name of Shmuel that the measure is “כדי לענבן,” and the *Gemara* leaves unresolved whether that means tying all together or each one separately, and Rav Acha bar Rava tells Rav Ashi that thicker strings are even better because “מינכר מצותייהו.”
- The *Gemara* asks who is the *tanna* who disputes Rabbi’s view that they prevent each other, and it answers with a chain of transmission: Rabbi Yitzchak says in the name of Rabbi Nosson that he heard in the name of Rabbi Yosi HaGelili that he heard in the name of Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri that if one has no *techeiles* then one places all four strings of *lavan*. This establishes the *mishnah*’s approach that absence of one component does not invalidate the other in practice.
- The *shiur* applies the *geradumin* idea to *tzitzis* and *eizov* as *tashmishei mitzvah* and asks about comparing it to a *sefer Torah* whose letters fade. Rabbi Shlomo Kluger attempts to compare, but the חתם סופר in שאלות ותשובות חתם סופר יורה דעה סימן רנ"ו rules clearly that *geradumin* cannot be applied to *tashmishei kedushah*, and therefore fading letters render a *sefer Torah* not *kasher*. Rav Elchanan explains that in *tashmishei kedushah* the object itself is the *cheftza shel mitzvah*, so all details are required, while in other cases there is room for leniency like in the *Gemara* here.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions