Menachos Daf 38 - Techeiles and Lavan Me'akeiv Each Other?
Summary
- An opening overview frames מנחות דף ל״ח at the start of פרק התכלת as focused on whether תכלת and לבן in ציצית, and תפילין של יד and תפילין של ראש, are מעכב one another as parts of one מצוה or as independent חיובים. The narrative then challenges whether the משנה aligns with רבי, who learns from וראיתם אותו that תכלת and לבן are מעכבין זה את זה, and develops two reconciliations that read the משנה as addressing either סדר נתינה (putting לבן before תכלת) or גרדומי ציצית (strings snapping and leaving remnants). The presentation interweaves major positions of Rishonim and later authorities on how many strings are תכלת versus לבן, what is gained or lost by wearing תכלת, and how much remaining string qualifies as כדי לעונבן, culminating with “אמר רבא שמע מינה תלת” about both the materials and their ברכות not being mutually מעכב.
- A morning שיעור introduces מנחות דף ל״ח עמוד א׳ at the beginning of פרק התכלת and is sponsored by Doctor David Ladner in honor of his wife and children and לעילוי נשמת his mother גולדה בת שמחה עליו השלום. A roadmap sets out the משנה on whether תכלת/לבן and תפילין של יד/של ראש are מעכב, the גמרא’s question whether the משנה is against רבי and two ways to reconcile them, the meaning of חיסר מצוה when inserting ציצית in the wrong order, and the דינים of גרדומי ציצית from mid-עמוד ב׳ through the end.
- A claim is attributed to the רמב״ם בפירוש המשניות that in the time of the משנה these דינים were מפורסם לכל, so they were not spelled out in משניות and the גמרא supplies the detail. A difficulty is raised from the existence of many משניות about daily practices such as קריאת שמע, yet the conclusion remains that this yields a “bonus” in מנחות to learn ציצית, תפילין, and מזוזה through the גמרא’s elaboration.
- A פסוק is quoted, ועשו להם ציצית על כנפי בגדיהם לדורותם ונתנו על ציצית הכנף פתיל תכלת, and ציצית הכנף is taken to teach that חוטים must be ממין הבגד, a point flagged for later discussion. A dominant assumption is that most טליתות were white, and רש״י is presented as reading “ממין הבגד” to mean חוטי לבן, with פתיל תכלת adding a techeiles string.
- A position is attributed to the רמב״ם in ספר המצוות that תכלת and לבן together are a single מצוה. A counterposition is attributed to the רמב״ן בהשגות that they are two separate מצוות, and this is tied to the idea that they are not מעכב one another so one can be יוצא with one without the other even across long periods without access to תכלת.
- A future מחלוקת is previewed in which בית שמאי derives from גדילים תעשה לך that “גדילים” implies four strings folded over to make eight, while בית הלל holds three strings. The asserted פסיקה is like בית שמאי that four strings are required.
- A consistent line is presented that רש״י and תוספות hold two תכלת and two לבן among the four strings. A different approach is attributed to the רמב״ם בהלכות ציצית פרק א׳ הלכה ו׳ that only one of the eight (half of one of the four) is תכלת and functions primarily as the winder around the לבן, while the ראב״ד is described as close to the רמב״ם but counting one of the four rather than one of the eight. A popular practice is reported from sellers that the ראב״ד’s method is most common, while שולחן ערוך is described as assuming the Rashi/Tosafos model in the laws of גרדומים, leading to reported practice of רב בלסקי זכרונו לברכה and רב שכטר שליט״א to use two out of the four.
- A conceptual explanation is attributed to רב סולובייצ׳יק that Rashi/Tosafos treat תכלת as an ingredient within the ציצית itself, while Rambam/Raavad treat the מצוה of תכלת as wrapping around the לבן rather than constituting part of the primary strings. The presentation then adopts the assumption of Rashi/Tosafos—two לבן and two תכלת—for the remainder, particularly for the later discussion of גרדומים.
- A formulation is given that התכלת אינה מעכבת את הלבן and הלבן אינה מעכבת את התכלת, allowing fulfillment with only לבן when תכלת is absent, and even the unusual case of only תכלת when לבן is unavailable. A parallel ruling is stated that תפילין של יד אינה מעכבת של ראש and של ראש אינה מעכבת של יד, and this is linked to the idea of two independent מצוות, while the בה״ג is quoted via the רמב״ן as counting תפילין as a single מצוה yet still holding they are not mutually מעכב.
- A question from תוספות challenges why one would add extra strings of לבן when תכלת is missing rather than simply fulfill only the available component, and תוספות answers by grounding the number of strings in גדילים תעשה לך independent of color. A view attributed to the רשב״א is that without תכלת one inserts only two strings, while a view attributed to the רא״ש in a תשובה says מן הדין two suffice, and the universal practice of four white strings is explained as זכר למצות תכלת. The stripes on the טלית are also described as זכר למצות תכלת but not part of the מצוה.
- A דיוק is attributed to the תפארת ישראל that the משנה says התכלת אינה מעכבת rather than “חוטי התכלת אינן מעכבין,” indicating that all the strings are required and only the coloring is not מעכב the לבן.
- A challenge is stated as לימא מתניתין דלא כרבי based on a ברייתא where רבי learns from the singular וראיתם אותו that תכלת and לבן are מעכבין זה את זה, while חכמים say אין מעכבין. A reason is given for רבי that הכנף implies ממין כנף and פתיל תכלת adds wool techeiles, and the singular וראיתם אותו binds both into one. A reason is given for the רבנן that וראיתם אותו can mean each component independently.
- A reading is attributed to רש״י here that since רוב טליתות של פשתן הן ולבנות, the חיוב of white strings is treated as universal, while another רש״י on דף מ״א עמוד ב׳ is cited as allowing strings matching the garment’s color. The longstanding practice of a white טלית is presented as ensuring the לבן requirement is fulfilled, and “rainbow colored ציצית” is rejected as a שינוי from accepted practice.
- A common question is posed about what one loses by trying contemporary תכלת, and an answer is reported that if the dye is wrong one might fail “הכנף ממין כנף” for strings that should match the garment. A response is raised that the matching requirement may apply only to חוטים intended as לבן and not to those that are meant to be תכלת, since proper fulfillment includes blue strings even when everything is correct.
- A claim is stated that תכלת is always wool and does not take to anything but wool. A textile framework is given from פסוקים and דרשות that בגדי כהונה involve only צמר or פשתים, that בד is פשתן, and that dyed elements like תכלת וארגמן are צמר, leading to the classic problem of שעטנז in ציצית on a linen garment and the role of עשה דוחה לא תעשה.
- A reconciliation is attributed to רב יהודה אמר רב that the משנה’s “not מעכב” refers not to lacking a component but to the סדר: מצוה להקדים לבן לתכלת, and if one inserted תכלת before לבן, יצא אלא שחיסר מצוה. A derivation is given from the order of the פסוקים, with ציצית הכנף before פתיל תכלת, and רבינו גרשום is cited as treating this as a הידור rather than מעיקר הדין. A challenge from תוספות argues that if a דין is derived from a פסוק it should be מעכב, and an answer is developed that סדר is rarely מעכב, with a ראיה from חליצה.
- A question is asked about the phrase חיסר מצוה and rejects reading it as failure to fulfill לבן while fulfilling תכלת, because the entire goal is to reconcile רבי without making the components mutually מעכב here. A conclusion is attributed to רב יהודה אמר רב that the person fulfills the full מצוה, and חיסר מצוה means losing מצוה מן המובחר by not following the preferred order.
- A difficulty is raised that this reading explains only one clause and asks why the משנה also says תכלת אינה מעכבת את הלבן. A solution is attributed to רמי בר חמא that the second clause addresses a טלית שכולה תכלת, where the expected order would reverse, and the משנה teaches that inserting in the “wrong” order is still not מעכב.
- A קשיא is attributed to חידושים המיוחסים להרשב״א that if הכנף ממין כנף yields techeiles strings for a techeiles garment, the source for לבן seems to disappear. A proposed resolution states that הכנף ממין כנף teaches both a universal requirement of לבן based on רוב טליתות לבנות and a separate rule that the first strings inserted match the garment’s color.
- A conversation is reported where לוי asks שמואל אריוך to explain the משנה and receives an answer that it concerns סדין בציצית, where מצוה dictates inserting לבן first and inserting תכלת first is not a problem. A repeated challenge asks what the “תכלת אינה מעכבת את הלבן” clause means, and רמי בר חמא again answers with טלית שכולה תכלת and reversed order. A decisive objection is attributed to רבא, מידי צבעא קגרים, rejecting dependence of the order on garment color when the entire framework relies on רוב טליתות being white, and this pushes to a different reconciliation.
- A reconciliation is attributed to רבא that the משנה speaks about גרדומין, where strings snap and remnants remain, and either losing the techeiles strings while lavan remains or losing the lavan strings while techeiles remains does not invalidate. A support is quoted as אמרי בני רבי חייא: גרדומי תכלת כשרים, גרדומי אזוב כשרים, extending the logic to the bundle of hyssop used for sprinkling.
- A major dispute is framed with רבנו תם in תוספות requiring that one full מין remain intact—either all techeiles or all lavan—in order for שיורי ציצית to be כשר. A practical implication is stated that with four strings doubled into eight, one ensures two full strings remain intact, and the discussion links this to keeping track of which four correspond to which. A conclusion is given that the שולחן ערוך rules like this approach, and it is tied again to the assumption of two תכלת and two לבן underlying the halachic application of גרדומים.
- A שיעור is attributed to אמר בר המדורי אמר שמואל that validity requires enough remaining string כדי לעונבן, enough to make an עניבה. A ספק is posed whether this requires the ability to tie all eight together or each string independently, and it remains תיקו. A further question from רב אשי asks whether thick strings that cannot be tied, but would be tieable if thinner, qualify, and רב אחא בריה דרבא answers that thicker strings are more recognizable and therefore all the more so satisfy the point of the שיעור, treating “עניבה” as a measure of recognizability rather than a required act.
- A concern is attributed to the בעל העיטור that if the test imagines thin strings, the definition of “thin” becomes indeterminate, and he proposes imagining the thinnest possible, like a hair. A counterdefinition is attributed to בית יוסף that the measure follows the חוטים that מנהג העולם uses for ציצית.
- A source is brought to identify the opposing view as רבי יצחק אומר משום רבי נתן שאמר משום רבי יוסי הגלילי שאמר משום רבי יוחנן בן נורי: אין לו תכלת מטיל לבן, establishing that absence of techeiles still yields meaningful fulfillment through lavan. The earlier dispute is reiterated that most Rishonim understand this as inserting all four strings as white, while the רשב״א understands it as inserting only two.
- A transition is made to continue from אמר רבא on דף ל״ח עמוד ב׳ with “שמע מינה תלת,” deriving that תכלת and לבן are not mutually מעכב, that ברכת תכלת is not מעכבת ברכת לבן and vice versa, and that even when it is one מצוה, mutual עיכוב does not necessarily follow.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions