Menachos 40 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today's שיעור on מסכת מנחות דף מ עמוד א presents a linen four-cornered garment as a test case for the rules of ציצית, תכלת, and שעטנז, and it sets בית שמאי against בית הלל on whether wool תכלת may be placed on a linen בגד. The narrative builds the halachic logic from סמיכות פרשיות and the כלל of עשה דוחה לא תעשה, then explains why practice in ירושלים avoided תכלת on פשתן through multiple גזירות, including קלא אילן, lack of לשמה, תעשה ולא מן העשוי, and כסות לילה. The שיעור continues into collateral sugyos about what materials define a בגד for ציצית, how leather corners interact with cloth garments, and how later פוסקים treat synthetic and woven-leather garments. The end returns to תעשה ולא מן העשוי through a case of attaching ציצית to a three-cornered garment and later completing it to four corners, with a back-and-forth about whether later changes validate earlier tying.
- Today's שיעור begins with the question of a four-cornered piece of linen and whether it is חייב בציצית. The שיעור states that whenever the תורה speaks about תכלת it means wool, and it frames this through the rules of בגדי כהונה, where שש indicates linen and otherwise implies wool, and where the פסוק in יחזקאל about יום כיפורים teaches that the כהן גדול wears linen and that צמר is excluded in that setting. The גמרא’s linen garment becomes the case where תכלת as wool would create wool-and-linen together, and the analysis turns to whether ציצית overrides that mixture.
- The שיעור states that the תורה places לא תלבש שעטנז צמר ופשתים יחדו next to גדילים תעשה לך, and it derives that כלאיים is permitted for ציצית. The שיעור presents בית שמאי as saying not to put wool ציצית on a linen בגד and explains a מחלוקת ראשונים about whether בית שמאי forbids only wool תכלת while allowing linen לבן, or whether בית שמאי פוטרין מציצית entirely so even לבן should not be put on. The שיעור gives explanations for the stricter reading, including a concern that permitting linen לבן leads to adding תכלת, and an approach that aligns בית שמאי with רבי that one component is מעכב the other, so without תכלת there is no לבן. The שיעור records a fundamental מחלוקת between רש״י and רבנו תם, with רש״י treating a linen garment as not חייב בציצית מדאורייתא according to בית שמאי, while רבנו תם holds it is חייב מדאורייתא and the avoidance is מדרבנן, justified as שב ואל תעשה.
- The שיעור states that בית הלל מחייבין because סמיכות teaches that the ציצית עשה overrides the שעטנז לא תעשה. The שיעור invokes יבמות דף ד, teaching that סמיכות is applied when it is מוכח and the repetition is מופנה, and it explains that גדילים תעשה לך is out of its expected context while the כלאים prohibition is already taught elsewhere and thus appears again to enable this דרשה. The שיעור concludes that the גמרא rules והלכה כבית הלל and that this becomes a source for the כלל עשה דוחה לא תעשה.
- The שיעור brings רש״י’s question why the language is בית שמאי פוטרין rather than אוסרין. The שיעור answers in the name of רש״י that the core question is whether ציצית is a חיוב בגד or a חיוב גברא, and בית שמאי treats it as a חיוב on the wearer, so an unused garment is not “אסור” but rather exempt in practice from a wearable obligation. The שיעור also ties פוטרין to the approach that the white threads themselves are not inherently prohibited, so “אוסרין” would be inaccurate where the immediate issue is not a direct איסור on לבן.
- The שיעור quotes אמר רבי אלעזר בר צדוק, וכל המטיל תכלת בירושלים אינו אלא מן המתמיהין and challenges how this fits with הלכה כבית הלל. The שיעור brings the attempt to solve the confusion by publicizing the היתר, either through ten תלמידי חכמים in the marketplace or through דרשה בפרקא, and it rejects this as ineffective because the ציבור already knows שעטנז is אסור and will not grasp the exception. The שיעור then presents the concern as משום קלא אילן, because a dye that looks like תכלת could lead to wearing שעטנז without the mitzvah of true תכלת, making the mixture unjustified.
- The שיעור asks why קלא אילן is not simply treated as לבן and therefore still a fulfillment, and it answers that עשה דוחה לא תעשה applies only where there is no alternative. The שיעור cites ריש לקיש that whenever עשה and לא תעשה conflict, if you can fulfill both you do so, and only when unavoidable does the עשה override. The שיעור applies this by saying that when תכלת is not authentic or not required, one can use linen threads and avoid כלאיים, so reliance on עשה דוחה לא תעשה is rejected. The שיעור reports תוספות’ question from the earlier allowance of linen לבן on a wool garment and gives תוספות’ answers, including that where wool תכלת is already present the principle does not apply the same way, that one passage may be דאורייתא and the other מדרבנן, and that one sugya may dispute the other, and it records the שאגת אריה’s הרחבה about whether “no alternative” means inherently impossible for the mitzvah or merely unavailable to the person in practice.
- The שיעור proposes ולבדקו through a test to distinguish תכלת from קלא אילן, and it answers with a גזרה משום טעימה, where threads might be produced for testing and not לשם מצות ציצית, undermining the mitzvah and therefore the היתר of overriding שעטנז. The שיעור suggests marking such threads with a דיסקא and rejects reliance on it with אדיסקא לא קיימי וליסמוך. The שיעור brings רבא’s comparison to calendar notifications for חמץ בפסח and יום כיפור, where letters were relied upon despite איסור כרת, and it argues that reliance should be acceptable for an עשה בעלמא; the חזון איש explains the comparison through the willingness to create an עיבור and rely on letters, and he reframes the point as weighing reliance where the concern is a לא תעשה without כרת.
- The שיעור records a transmitted ruling, ואיתימא דרבא ובארץ ישראל משום דרבי זירא כוותיה, that the reason to avoid ציצית on linen is שמא יקרע סדינו בתוך שלש. The scenario is that a tear near the edge is repaired with linen stitching, and those repair threads could be treated as ציצית threads, producing פסול because of תעשה ולא מן העשוי since the threads were not placed for the purpose of ציצית. The שיעור states that the fix would require removal and proper reattachment, and it adds תוספות’ point that repair leniencies relate differently to wool garments where no שעטנז issue arises. The שיעור notes that if the tear is above three אצבעות there is no concern, and it reports that רב זירא removed ציצית from his linen garment in response to this גזירה.
- The שיעור adds another reason, גזירה משום כסות לילה, grounded in וראיתם אותו and the exemption of כסות לילה from ציצית. The שיעור presents רבנו תם’s definition as תלוי in the garment’s intended use, the רמבם’s definition as תלוי in when it is worn, and the רן’s blended position that a day garment worn at night is פטור while a night garment remains פטור even by day. The שיעור explains that the שעטנז היתר through עשה דוחה לא תעשה operates only when the mitzvah is being fulfilled, and wearing the garment at night would remove the mitzvah while leaving the mixture. The שיעור notes תוספות’ observation about רב זירא and רבי זירא and the רשבא’s reconciliation that the two names can refer to one person whose explanations develop between בבל and ארץ ישראל, with the reasons complementing rather than contradicting.
- The שיעור states that the ראש writes that despite normally following בית הלל, here one should follow בית שמאי, and he warns that making a ברכה on ציצית for a linen garment may be a ברכה לבטלה. The שיעור brings רב עקיבא איגר’s question about doing a mitzvah act that חז״ל prohibited, such as blowing שופר on שבת ראש השנה, and he holds the act can still fulfill the mitzvah. The שיעור cites the חלקת יעקב כבד דקשיאתא צט as extending the linen ציצית model to claim that when חז״ל said not to do an act, doing it is not considered a mitzvah fulfillment and should not receive a ברכה.
- The שיעור states that only wool or linen qualify as a halachic בגד for ציצית and then records the ruling about mixed construction: a cloth garment with leather corners is חייב, while a leather garment with cloth corners is פטורה because עיקר בגד בעינן. The שיעור notes רב אחאי’s dissent that would follow the corner material. The שיעור attributes to the רמב״ם and שולחן ערוך that leather garments are exempt even מדרבנן, and it cites the ערוך השולחן reading of או בגד או עור as teaching that עור is not considered a בגד. The שיעור records רב צבי פסח פראנק זצ״ל in הר צבי distinguishing between a single hide versus woven leather strands, asserting that a woven garment is a בגד and would be חייב, and it extends that logic to woven synthetics like polyester. The שיעור then presents רב משה זצ״ל in אגרות משה disagreeing, exempting leather and synthetic garments even if woven because the material can form a garment without weaving, and he warns that a polyester טלית on שבת in רשות הרבים may be a carrying issue if it is not a mitzvah garment; the שיעור notes that the ציץ אליעזר holds woven synthetics are מחויב.
- The שיעור cites אמר רב סחורה אמר רב הונא that if one ties ציצית onto a three-cornered garment and only later adds a fourth corner, the ציצית are פסולה because they were attached when there was no חיוב. The שיעור challenges this from חסידים ראשונים who would attach תכלת once the cloth reached three אצבעות and resolves by re-reading it as attaching when the garment is within three אצבעות of completion and already functionally a garment for the mitzvah. The שיעור then compares to רב זירא’s case of adding a second set of ציצית over an existing set and later removing the original, which remains כשר, implying no תעשה ולא מן העשוי. The שיעור brings רבא’s claim that the second tying is initially בל תוסיף and therefore not a מעשה until removal of the first set creates the חיוב, and it brings רב פפא’s objection that the person may intend to invalidate the first set and therefore there is no בל תוסיף and the tying is a real act. The שיעור ends with the tension that this reasoning would undermine רב הונא’s פסול for the three-cornered case, and it states that the גמרא at this point is disagreeing with רב הונא.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions