Menachos 39 - NBTD
00:00 - Good Morning
00:12 - 38B
05:02 - 39A
17:27 - 39B
25:43 - Have a Wonderful Day!
Quiz - Kahoot.MDYdaf.com
Summary
- Good morning רבותי! לעילוי נשמת סימי מרוסי רוז בת מרדכי. The *gemara* analyzes *gidumin/geradumin* in *tzitzit* and rules that even when the remaining ends are too thick to make an *anivah* slipknot, the *mitzvah* is still recognizable and valid. The *gemara* rejects Rabbi’s view that *techelet* and *lavan* are mutually *me’akev* and accepts the chain of *tannaim* that if there is no *techelet* one places *lavan*. It derives core rules about knots, wrappings, and beauty of *tzitzit*, including that some knot is *de’oraita* and that the preferred proportion is one-third *gedil* and two-thirds *anaf*, with bounds on the number of windings and starting and ending with white. It then explains the dispute about an all-*gedil* *tzitzit* without hanging strings and concludes the material rules: wool and linen strings exempt every garment, while other materials exempt only their own kind, and it challenges and answers Rav Nachman’s claim that silk garments are exempt.
- The *gemara* raises Rav Ashi’s question about *gidumin* when the strings are so thick that one cannot make an *anivah* slipknot of about two fingers. Rava bar Rav Ada answers Rav Ashi that such thickness is even better because the *mitzvah* is more recognizable, since the *chulyot*, the *gedil*, and the remaining hanging portion are clearly visible after the *kesher*. The presentation defines *gidumin* as strings cut down to the end by the knot and frames the practical issue as how to measure the required remainder when an *anivah* is physically impossible.
- The text states that Rabbi holds that without *techelet* one cannot wear *lavan* and without *lavan* one cannot wear *techelet*, because one is *me’akev* the other. It identifies a dissenting tradition: Rabbi Yitzchak says in the name of Rabbi Natan, who says in the name of Rabbi Yosi HaGelili, who says in the name of Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri, that if one does not have *techelet* one places *lavan*, and the two are not *me’akev* each other.
- Rava infers that one must tie on each *chulyah* because if there were only one knot, a small protruding end would cause the knot to open and the *tzitzit* would be *pasul*, so the validity of *gidumin* implies backup knots. The *gemara* answers that the בני רבי חייא who validate *gidumei techelet* and *gidumei eizov* may be speaking only where additional knots prevent unraveling, so the proof for mandatory multiple knots is not conclusive. Rava then concludes that the *kesher elyon* is *de’oraita*, explaining that without a knot one would not create *sha’atnez* and there would be no need for the Torah’s allowance of *sha’atnez* in *tzitzit*, since “התכוף תכיפה אחת אינו חיבור.” The text applies this to practice by stating that if a linen garment with wool *tzitzit* loses one entire corner and is left with only three, the wearer has *sha’atnez* and must remove it immediately, while four corners remain permitted because *aseh docheh lo ta’aseh*.
- Rav Huna brei d’Rav Idi says in the name of Rav that if the string is cut *me’ikaro* it is *pesulah*, with *me’ikaro* explained as torn at the top near the garment. Rava challenges Rav Nachman from a *baraita* that distinguishes between the beginning, when making the *tzitzit*, and the end, when “שיורו וגרדומיו כל שהוא,” initially suggesting that *shiurim* and *geradumim* indicate two different tear-cases. The *gemara* rejects that reading and explains that it is one clause, “שיורי גדומים כל שהוא,” and that the dual language teaches that the remainder must be enough *shiur* for *anivah*.
- Rava reports a ruling “משמיה דרב” that “חוט של כרך עולה מן המניין,” allowing the wrapping string (*shamash*) to be one of the four inserted strings, and Rav Yosef corrects that this statement is from Shmuel, not Rav. A corroborating report says Rava bar Rav Huna relates that Rabbi Yashiyah of Usha taught “חוט של כרך עולה מן המניין.” Rava then cites “משמיה דשמואל” that “תכלת שכרך רובה כשרה” and even one *chulyah* is valid, while the aesthetic ideal is “שליש גדיל ושני שליש ענף.” Rabbi defines the measure of a *chulyah* as “כדי שיכרוך וישנה וישלש,” and another teaching sets bounds that one should not reduce below seven windings and not add beyond thirteen, corresponding to “שבעה רקיעים” and “שבעה רקיעים וששה אויר שביניהם.”
- The *gemara* states, “כשהוא מתחיל מתחיל בלבן,” and the text explains this as starting with the white closest to the garment and finishing with white, invoking “מעלין בקודש ולא מורידין” and presenting this as evidence of the greater *chashivut* of white relative to blue. The text brings *Tosafot* citing Rashi’s explanation that *tzitzit* are “שקולה כנגד כל המצוות” because *tzitzit* equals 600 and with eight strings and five knots totals תרי״ג. It quotes Rashi’s line “שהתכלת דומה לים וים דומה לרקיע” and explains the stepwise association from blue to sea to sky to *kisei hakavod*.
- Rav and Rabba bar Rav Huna see a man wearing a garment “דכוליה תכלת” who placed *tzitzit* but made it entirely *gedil* with no *anaf* hanging. Rav praises the garment, “יפי גלימא,” but says “ולא יפי תכלת,” while Rabba bar Rav Huna says “יפי גלימא ויפי תכלת.” The dispute turns on “דכתיב גדיל וכתיב פתיל,” where Rabba bar Rav Huna treats fulfilling either term as sufficient, while Rav holds “לעולם פתיל בעינן” and reads “גדילים” as teaching the number of strings, deriving “גדיל שנים” and “גדילים ארבע,” and interpreting “עשה גדיל ופסליהו מתוכו” as requiring hanging strings to emerge from the braided section.
- Shmuel in the name of Levi teaches that wool strings exempt a linen garment, and the *gemara* asks whether linen strings exempt a wool garment, offering competing rationales based on *techelet* and on the Torah’s allowance of *sha’atnez* in *tzitzit*. It concludes from a report of Rav Yehuda that “חוטי צמר פוטרים בשל פשתן ושל פשתן פוטרים בשל צמר,” and it states the rule that wool and linen exempt בכל מקום, even on silk. This challenges Rav Nachman who says “השיראים פטורים מן הציצית,” and Rava cites a source listing silk types—“השיראים והכלך והסריקין”—as all obligated in *tzitzit*, to which Rav Nachman answers that the obligation is *derabbanan*. The *gemara* objects that if silk is only *derabbanan*, it is unclear how *kilayim* could be permitted there, and it answers by reading “או צמר או פשתן,” and then anchors the final framework with Rava’s reconciliation: “כתיב הכנף מן הכנף” and “כתיב צמר ופשתים,” so “צמר ופשתן פוטרים בין במינן ובין שלא במינן,” while other species exempt only their own kind. It explains Rav Nachman’s approach as following the school of רבי ישמעאל, deriving from the Torah’s unspecified “בגד” and its specification in *nega’im* of “צמר או פשתים” that the archetypal “בגד” is wool or linen.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions