Menachos 40
Summary
- The דף addresses whether a linen garment may have wool ציצית and rules הלכה כבית הלל that סדין בציצית is חייב, while explaining why wearing תכלת on linen in ירושלים is restricted because people are not בקיאין and because of specific גזירות. The גמרא evaluates proposed solutions like publicizing the היתר or teaching it, rejects them due to concerns of misunderstanding and confusion with *kala ilan*, then shifts to other concerns such as using a טעימה string and the problem of תעשה ולא מן העשוי if repairs create “premade” ציצית. The discussion expands to criteria for חיוב ציצית when garment material differs from corner material, the פסול of adding a fourth corner after attaching ציצית to three, and the relationship between תעשה ולא מן העשוי and cases like הטיל למוטלת, alongside debate about whether *bal tosif* frames that scenario. It concludes by clarifying that “טלית פטורה” in the statement about תכלת and כלאים refers to הטיל למוטלת, not lack of שיעור, and it references the standard of garment size for ציצית and the principle that there is no עראי in כלאים.
- Today's דף is מנחות דף מ' starting at the top of the עמוד, and it is sponsored לעילוי נשמת מרת מרים שרה בת יעקב משה, with the wish that her נשמה should have an עליה.
- The ברייתא teaches that for סדין בציצית, בית שמאי פוטרין and בית הלל מחייבין, and the הלכה follows בית הלל. רבי אלעזר בר צדוק says that putting תכלת in ירושלים is done only by מן המתמיהין, because observers react as though one is wearing שעטנז, and this is taken as challenging the practical wearing of wool on linen even under בית הלל’s ruling.
- רבי asks why they אסרו it in ירושלים if the הלכה is like בית הלל, and the answer is לפי שאין בקיאין, since people may generalize from permitted שעטנז in ציצית to forbidden שעטנז elsewhere. רבה בר חנה suggests having ten people wear it publicly in the marketplace to publicize the היתר, and the גמרא rejects this because it would only increase surprise and misunderstanding. The suggestion to teach it in the בית המדרש is rejected due to גזירה משום *kala ilan*.
- The concern is that *kala ilan* (indigo) looks like כשר תכלת, so people may use the cheaper dye and create a שעטנז problem. The גמרא asks why *kala ilan* should not be treated like white strings, and it answers that since אפשר במינו, one must use matching linen strings rather than wool, aligning the case with ריש לקיש’s rule that when עשה and לא תעשה conflict, one fulfills both if possible, and only if not possible does עשה override לא תעשה.
- The גמרא proposes checking merchants to ensure they sell real תכלת and not *kala ilan*, and the גמרא therefore offers a different reason: גזירה משום טעימה, the test string dyed to check color that is פסול because it was not done לשמה. The suggestion to send written notices to dyers is rejected with the claim דסקי לא סמכי, and רבא challenges this by noting that for חמץ בפסח and יום הכיפורים, which involve כרת, they do rely on letters to announce calendar changes in leap years. רבא then presents an alternative reason attributed similarly in ארץ ישראל בשם רבי זירא.
- Raba’s alternative explanation states שמא יקרע סדינו בתוך שלש, and after sewing it, one may leave hanging threads from the repair as “white” strings and then add תכלת, creating a violation of תעשה ולא מן העשוי because the strings are not made as ציצית. In that case the garment ends up with wool and linen together without valid ציצית, producing a שעטנז problem. רבי זירא is described as having undone the תכלת on his linen garment because of this concern.
- רבי זירא adds that there is also a גזירה משום כסות לילה, since a night garment is פטור from ציצית, and putting wool ציצית on a linen כסות לילה would create prohibited שעטנז because there is no ציצית obligation to justify it.
- Raba בשם רב סחורה אמר רב הונא rules that a cloth garment with leather corners remains חייבת, while a leather garment with cloth corners is פטורה, because עיקר בגד בעינן and leather is not חייב in ציצית. רב אחאי argues that one follows the כנף, based on ציצית הכנף, so cloth corners would obligate ציצית even if the main garment is leather.
- Raba בשם רב סחורה אמר רב הונא rules that if one put ציצית on a three-cornered garment and then completed it to four corners, it is פסולה משום תעשה ולא מן העשוי. A ברייתא about חסידים הראשונים is brought that they would put תכלת as soon as three fingerbreadths were woven, and the גמרא reinterprets it to mean they acted when only three fingerbreadths remained to completion, at which point the garment is already חייב, removing the challenge.
- The גמרא questions whether תעשה ולא מן העשוי applies, citing רב זירא that הטיל למוטלת כשרה, where one adds new ציצית to a garment already bearing ציצית and then cuts the old set. רבא answers that while adding constitutes *bal tosif*, it is not treated as a constructive מעשה for תעשה ולא מן העשוי, so the outcome remains כשר. רב פפא objects that the person may intend לביטולי rather than to add, which would remove *bal tosif* and restore the problem of a מעשה relevant to תעשה ולא מן העשוי.
- שמואל is quoted via רב זירא אמר רב מתנא that תכלת has no issue of כלאים even in a טלית פטורה, and the גמרא asks what “פטורה” means. A ברייתא defines the שיעור: if a קטן can cover his head and רובו and a גדול would wear it דרך עראי, it is חייבת; if not, it is פטורה, and the ברייתא adds וכן לענין כלאים. The explanation rejects reading this as permitting שעטנז based on עראי because אין עראי בכלאים, and רב נחמן בר יצחק interprets the “וכן” as referring to סדין בציצית. The גמרא concludes that “טלית פטורה” means הטיל למוטלת, and it resolves the apparent repetition by stating חדא מחדא חברתה איתמר.
- The presentation stops at this point with the plan to continue discussing ציצית, and it ends with the wish that everyone should have a גוט יום.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions