Menachos 38
Summary
- The text opens a new פרק in מנחות דף מ״ח by contrasting the previous פרק’s cases of mutual *me’akev* with this פרק’s rule that certain components are not *me’akev*, focusing on ציצית and later touching תפילין. It presents a dispute between רבי and the חכמים about whether תכלת and לבן block each other, then resolves how the משנה can fit even according to רבי by framing it as a law about סדר הקדמה and about residual גרדומין. It defines the minimum remaining length for גרדומין as כדי לענבן, leaves an ambiguity about whether that tying measure applies collectively or individually, and rules that thick strings that cannot be tied are still כשר because the מצוה remains recognizable. It identifies an earlier tannaitic chain permitting לבן when תכלת is unavailable, challenges an inference about needing knots on each חוליא, and concludes with רבא’s inference that a knot in ציצית is דאורייתא based on the need for a special allowance of שעטנז בציצית.
- Today's sponsorship לעלוי נשמת מרשא מרים בת ר' יעקב משה הרניש נשמה should have an עליה.
- The new פרק states that התכלת אינה מעכבת את הלבן והלבן אינה מעכבת את התכלת, so ציצית remains valid even if the balance of colors is not ideal. The משנה states that תפילין של יד אינה מעכבת של ראש ושל ראש אינה מעכבת של יד.
- The גמרא proposes that the משנה is not like רבי because a ברייתא derives from וראיתם אתו that the components are *me’akev* each other, which is רבי’s position, while חכמים say אין מעכבין. Rabbi’s reasoning links הכנף to מין כנף and then combines that with פתיל תכלת and וראיתם אתו to require both לבן and תכלת together in one corner. The רבנן read וראיתם אתו as meaning each component can stand alone.
- Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav says the משנה can follow רבי by reading “not *me’akev*” as referring to precedence, not absence. A ברייתא teaches that מצוה להקדים לבן לתכלת, and if one put תכלת before לבן יצא אלא שחיסר מצוה, which Rav explains as failing to do מצוה מן המובחר rather than failing the מצוה itself. The reason given is that הכנף implies מין כנף and since the garment is typically white, לבן comes first, so reversing the order still leaves both לבן and תכלת present and therefore fulfills the requirements.
- Rami bar Chama explains the clause as applying to a טלית שכולה תכלת where one might think תכלת should come first because כנף מן כנף, and placing לבן first would still not invalidate. Levi addresses Shmuel as אריוך and demands an explanation, and Shmuel answers by applying the rule to a סדין בציצית with the same principle of placing לבן first due to מין כנף, while allowing the reversed order. Rami bar Chama again attributes the other side to a טלית שכולה תכלת, but Rava rejects the idea that color drives the rule by asking מידי צבעא קגרים? and insists that the principle remains that לבן comes first.
- Rava says the משנה’s “not *me’akev*” applies to גרדומין, where if תכלת is cut and לבן remains or if לבן is cut and תכלת remains, it is still כשר. Bnei R' Chiya teach גרדומי תכלת כשרין and גרדומי אזוב כשרין. Rav in the name of Rav Shmuel sets the שיעור as כדי לענבן, and the גמרא leaves unresolved whether this means enough length to tie all strands together or each strand individually, ending with תיקו.
- Rav Ashi asks about strings so thick that they cannot be tied even though thinner ones could be tied. Rav Acha brei d’Rava answers that it is certainly כשר because דמינכר מצותייהו, making the מצוה recognizable.
- The גמרא identifies the opposing tannaitic position through a chain of attribution: ר' יצחק אומר משום ר' נתן שאמרו משום ר' יוסי הגלילי שאמרו משום ר' יוחנן בן נורי, אין לו תכלת מטיל לבן. This establishes that when תכלת is unavailable one places לבן, aligning with the view that the components are not mutually *me’akev*.
- Rava infers from גרדומי תכלת כשרין that one must tie a knot on every חוליא וחוליא so that tearing up to one knot does not cause the entire ציצית to unravel. The גמרא rejects the proof by suggesting it may simply be a case where the person happened to have tied multiple knots, without establishing a universal requirement.
- Rava infers that קשר עליון דאורייתא, meaning that a knot in ציצית is a Torah requirement. He argues that if knots were only rabbinic, there would be no need for a special דרשה permitting שעטנז בציצית, because a single stitch is not a *chibur* as taught in כלאים: התוכף תכיפה אחת אינו חיבור. The need for a special allowance shows that ציצית requires a true connection through a knot, and the session ends with stopping here and continuing tomorrow on ציצית.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions