Menachos 41 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today’s *shiur* on Maseches Menachos Daf מ״א begins on דף מ' עמוד ב' with שמואל’s ruling that *tekheiles* in *tzitzis* does not create an איסור כלאים, even in cases called “טלית פטורה,” and the *Gemara* clarifies what “פטורה” means and when the היתר כלאים applies. The *Gemara* defines the minimum *shiur* for a garment to be חייב בציצית through “קטן מתכסה בה ראשו ורובו,” brings extensive ראשונים and פוסקים about which “קטן” and what measurements count, and applies these rules to שבת concerns of הוצאה when *tzitzis* function as a משאוי. The *Gemara* then addresses whether *tzitzis* is חובת גברא or חובת טלית through stories of a folded *tallis*, חסידים ראשונים, and a מלאך confronting רב קטינא, and it presents further rulings about כלי קופסא, תכריכים, tears near the corner, moving *tzitzis* from one garment to another, and which colors work for a טלית שכולה תכלת. The *sugya* closes with linked disputes between רב and שמואל about מתירין מבגד לבגד, lighting from candle to candle, and הלכה כרבי שמעון in גרירה, along with practical safeguards used by אמוראים when sending garments to laundering.
- Today’s *shiur* opens with אמר רב זירא אמר רב מתנא אמר שמואל that תכלת אין בהם משום כלאים, so linen garments with wool תכלת threads do not violate כלאים because ציצית has a Torah dispensation. A ברייתא adds ואפילו בטלית פטורה, and the *Gemara* asks מאי טלית פטורה and searches for the case that adds a חידוש beyond the already-known heter of כלאים in ציצית. Tosafos, quoting רבינו תם, says the חידוש is that there is no איסור כלאים even when wearing ציצית at night and even when wearing borrowed ציצית, and the *shiur* notes a ראשונים discussion about a woman wearing ציצית of כלאים.
- The *Gemara* rejects defining טלית פטורה as lacking שיעור by bringing a ברייתא that a טלית large enough for a קטן to cover ראשו ורובו and for a גדול to walk out in without embarrassment is חייב בציצית, even if the גדול would do so only דרך ארעי. The *Gemara* rules that if a קטן cannot cover ראשו ורובו with it, the garment is פטור even if a גדול might wear it דרך ארעי. The *shiur* states that the *Gemara* does not identify the age of the קטן and records a wide מחלוקת: the Rambam defines it as a child old enough to walk alone in the street, the Radbaz says five years old, the Chinuch cites the Rambam and says six or seven, the Nimukei Yosef ties it to embarrassment at walking unclothed, the Tur says nine, the סמ״ק ties it to הגיע לחינוך and the ב״ח explains that as six or seven, while the Magen Avraham says the סמ״ק means nine, and the Chayei Adam and Shulchan Aruch HaRav also say nine.
- The *shiur* presents the רמ״א’s approach that two conditions must be met—covering ראש ורובו של קטן and being wearable by a גדול in the street—and if only one is met there is no חיוב ציצית, making the standard subjective to what people comfortably wear. The Mishnah Berurah, quoting the ב״ח, is cited regarding how actual wearing patterns affect the determination. Another approach adopted by most ראשונים and פוסקים treats covering ראש ורובו של קטן as the decisive standard and then debates the measurements, including opinions of אמה על אמה, an אמה in front and an אמה in back, three-quarters of an אמה by half an אמה, and three-quarters by three-quarters, with the practical impact depending on whether an אמה is 24 inches or 18 inches.
- The רמ״א in דרכי משה is quoted that many wear a טלית קטן that does not meet the minimum שיעור, so they are not fulfilling the מצוה and therefore the ברכה should be made on the טלית גדול to avoid ברכה לבטלה. The Mishnah Berurah writes that during the week it is not forbidden to wear a too-small טלית without a ברכה, but on שבת it becomes a problem of מלאכת הוצאה because פסול ציצית turn into a משאוי, like the earlier *shiur* on דף ל״ח about פסול ציצית in the street on שבת. The Chazon Ish disagrees and distinguishes the cases by saying פסול ציצית are a משאוי because one is assumed to remove and replace them, while a person who wears a too-small טלית shows no indication of changing it, so it may not be considered carrying. The שאלות ותשובות ארץ צבי of the קוז'יגלובר רב זצ״ל argues from the דרכי משה that the focus is on inability to recite a ברכה, not on forbidding wearing, and treats that as a ראיה that wearing too small is not itself wrongdoing, while the *shiur* notes uncertainty about שבת under that approach.
- The *Gemara* asks what וכן לענין כלאים means and rejects the reading that a garment lacking the שיעור has no איסור כלאים, since the משנה says אין עראי בכלאים. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains that “וכן לענין כלאים” means the היתר כלאים of ציצית applies only where there is a valid חיוב ציצית; if the garment is too small and one is not מקיים מצות ציצית, the case reverts to איסור כלאים.
- The *Gemara* concludes that “טלית פטורה” refers to להטילה למבטלה, where a garment already has ציצית and one adds another set, and even though the new set is not currently used for קיום המצוה there is still no איסור כלאים because if the original were cut off the new would serve as כשר ציצית. The *Gemara* asks why Rav Zeira needs to state this again and answers חדא מכלל דחברתה אתמר, with ראשונים explaining that earlier wording implied the כלאים point or might otherwise be read as focusing only on תעשה ולא מן העשוי, so an explicit statement about כלאים is needed.
- A ברייתא teaches that a טלית כפולה is חייבת בציצית, understood by many ראשונים as a garment folded and worn like a scarf or shawl, requiring tzitzis on the front-facing corners. רבי שמעון פוטר, and all agree that if one folds and sews it, the new corners created by sewing require ציצית. The *Gemara* explains the case of תפרה as meaning either it was held with pins in a way considered permanent, or it was stitched with wide stitches, according to Rashi’s two explanations.
- The *Gemara* relates that רבא בר פונא visited רבא בר רב נחמן and saw him wearing a folded garment with tzitzis placed on the folds; when it unfolded the tzitzis ended up near his head, and he told him this is not the כנף mandated by the Torah. The Beis Yosef explains that the rebuke is delayed to demonstrate the concern that the fold can open and place tzitzis wrongly. When the tzitzis are removed and a different garment is put on, the *Gemara* challenges whether one thinks the obligation is only upon the wearer, and asserts חובת טלית הוא, implying even the removed four-cornered garment needs tzitzis fixed properly, while the *shiur* adds מפרשים who limit the obligation to garments one intends to wear.
- A ברייתא says חסידים ראשונים would attach tzitzis as soon as weaving reached within three אצבעות of completion, suggesting urgency once the corners become eligible. The *Gemara* rejects this as proof by saying that חסידים are simply stringent on themselves, and the *shiur* cites questions from the Sfas Emes about why this stringency is not brought in Shulchan Aruch. The Keren Orah answers that Shulchan Aruch rules tzitzis is a חובת לבושא rather than חובת טליתות so it does not record a חומרא built on a rejected view, and another approach says the חסידים acted early only to prevent later wearing without tzitzis, not because they believed in an obligation absent intent to wear.
- The *Gemara* says the view that tzitzis is a garment-obligation conflicts with a story where a מלאך confronts רב קטינא for wearing linen in summer and a non-four-cornered coat in winter and asks ציצית מה תהא עלה. Rav Ketina asks whether one is punished for failing to perform a מצות עשה, arguing tzitzis applies only if one has a four-cornered garment, and the מלאך answers that בזמן דאיכא רותחא ענשינן, punishing even for not taking the opportunity. The *Gemara* frames the logic that punishment fits better if there is a personal obligation, but then clarifies that the מלאך’s point is that one is evading the mitzvah by choosing clothing patterns that avoid obligation.
- The *shiur* states that many ראשונים—Tosafos, Tosafos Yeshanim, the Mordechai, and the Rosh—limit the מלאך’s critique to חז״ל’s era when four-cornered garments were common, and say there is no obligation nowadays to go out of one’s way to wear tzitzis, while still recommending that one should seek a ד׳ כנפות garment to fulfill the mitzvah. The Yesmach Moshe explains that although שכר מצוה בהאי עלמא ליכא, going beyond obligation brings reward in this world, so choosing to wear tzitzis today yields special שכר. The Chasam Sofer is cited that the four tzitzis correspond to the four expressions of redemption, like ארבע כוסות on Pesach, and wearing tzitzis leads to גאולה. The שאלות ותשובות מהרש״ם applies the principle to Sukkos, urging people not to avoid the sukkah by eating only foods not requiring it but to try to be obligated to sit in the sukkah. The Bina La’Itim suggests Hashem does not punish under such non-obligation due to רחמים, but the מלאך lacks that רחמים and therefore punishes for a missed opportunity.
- Rav Tuvya bar Kishna בשם שמואל rules that כלי קופסא—garments stored in a chest—are חייבים בציצית, reflecting that readiness for wear triggers obligation. Shmuel concedes that garments made as תכריכים by a זקן for his honor are פטורה because the Torah says אשר תכסה בה and these are not made for normal wearing, yet the *Gemara* says at the time of death they certainly attach tzitzis משום לועג לרש חרף עושהו. The *shiur* states the *Gemara*’s emphasis that tzitzis is שקולה כנגד כל המצות שבתורה and provides protection, and then reports Tosafos that this is not the מנהג to place tzitzis on תכריכים. Explanations are given that this was only when four-cornered clothing was common so omission was לועג לרש, or that it suited earlier generations excelling in תרי״ג מצוות, or that it ties to debates about whether מצוות apply in the era of תחיית המתים, and the *shiur* adds the common practice of burying in a tallis in some places while making the tzitzis פסול.
- Rava בשם Rav Yehuda rules that a torn tallis can be sewn if the tear is חוץ לשלש אצבעות from the edge, but within three it should not be sewn due to concern that leftover thread could be used for tzitzis and violate תעשה ולא מן העשוי. A ברייתא supports the framework and records a dispute where Rabbi Meir says לא יתפור within three and Chachamim say יתפור, and the Beis Yosef asks how a proof works when halacha generally follows Chachamim. The *shiur* cites solutions including a different *girsa* and the Hagahos Maimoniyos that for a גזירה one follows Rabbi Meir here.
- The ברייתא adds agreement that one should not attach even an אמה על אמה patch from elsewhere with תכלת and then hang tzitzis, because that creates a תעשה ולא מן העשוי problem. It also agrees that one may remove tzitzis from another garment and hang them on this one, ובלבד שלא תהא מופסקת, and the *shiur* explains that the clause teaches that the leniency of כדי עניבה applies only when tzitzis were originally valid and later tore, not when they were never the proper שיעור. The *shiur* notes an inference of מתירין מבגד לבגד and the *Gemara*’s response that even Rav may allow when the original garment is ruined, framed as דילמא דבי בלאי.
- A ברייתא states that for a טלית שכולה תכלת, all colors can serve as tzitzis threads, but one should not use קלא אילן because it resembles tekheiles and may mislead. A challenge brings a source that the non-tekheiles threads should be מינה, and that for a fully tekheiles garment one brings tekheiles plus “דבר אחר,” not קלא אילן, yet if one did bring קלא אילן it is כשר. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak resolves by distinguishing a four-thread garment where two tekheiles and two קלא אילן is פסול from an eight-thread garment where it remains acceptable. The ראשונים answer the בל תוסיף question by saying the issue arises in the tying and כריכות, and extra strands not bound into the act do not constitute adding.
- The *Gemara* concludes with an explicit dispute: רב says אין מתירים מבגד לבגד and שמואל says מתירים מבגד לבגד, and it parallels this with Chanukah where רב says אין מדליקין מנר לנר and שמואל allows. It also connects to דבר שאינו מתכוין with רב יהודה holding it אסור and רבי שמעון holding it מותר, where רב rejects הלכה כרבי שמעון בגרירה and שמואל accepts it. Abaye says רבה בר נחמני generally follows Rav except in three cases where he follows Shmuel: מתירין מבגד לבגד, מדליקין מנר לנר, and הלכה כרבי שמעון בגרירה, supported by Rabbi Shimon’s statement permitting dragging a bed, chair, or bench provided one does not intend to make a חריץ. The *shiur* adds that פוסקים treat inevitable outcomes as פסיק רישא and then cite the category פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה to explain permissibility where the result is unwanted.
- The *Gemara* describes practical conduct around laundering: רב יהודה gave his garment with tzitzis to a cleaner without fearing replacement with קלא אילן, רב הונא tied the tzitzis in a way to prevent them from coming off, and רבינא made a pouch at the corner to place the tzitzis inside so they would not tear or be replaced.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions