Menachos 40 - NBTD
00:00 - Good Morning
00:04 - 39B
04:16 - 40A
15:29 - 40B
28:40 - Have a Wonderful Day!
Quiz - Kahoot.MDYdaf.com
Summary
- A sugya on דף ל״ט עמוד ב׳ and דף מ׳ עמוד א׳ moves from Rav Nachman’s ruling that garments not made of צמר or פשתים are פטור from ציצית to a dispute within תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל about whether “בגד” in the תורה is limited to צמר ופשתים or includes many materials such as צמר גמלים, צמר ארנבים, נוצה של עזים, and grades of silk like והכלך והסריקון והשיראון. The narrative then turns to linen ציצית with תכלת and the tension between עשה דוחה לא תעשה, סמוכים, and practical decrees, concluding with multiple applications of תעשה ולא מן העשוי in ציצית and related scenarios, alongside debates about intent, testing dyes, and how to define what counts as the “main” garment for חיוב ציצית.
- A Rav Nachman says that a בגד not made out of צמר או פשתים is פטור from ציצית, including silk clothing. A Rav Nachman bases this on תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל: since בגדים are stated in the תורה סתם, and the תורה specifies in one place “בבגד צמר או בבגד פשתים,” the כלל ופרט rule “כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שיש בפרט” defines “בגד” as צמר ופשתים. A This definition is carried “ממנו,” as a בנין אב, to ציצית and other places where “בגד” appears, leading to the conclusion that only wool or linen garments are חייב בציצית and silk is פטור.
- A The other תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל derives the opposite result from the word “או בגד,” expanding beyond בגד צמר to include צמר גמלים, צמר ארנבים, נוצה של עזים, and the silk categories והכלך והסריקון והשיראון. A Under this approach, any type of garment becomes חייב in ציצית, and the sugya transitions from the end of דף ל״ט עמוד ב׳ into a new topic on דף מ׳ עמוד א׳.
- A A beraita addresses סדין בציצית, with “ציצית” here meaning the תכלת component, because תכלת can only be made from wool, creating שעטנז if inserted into a linen garment. A Beit Shammai forbids placing the blue wool string into a linen garment, arguing that even though עשה דוחה לא תעשה exists, nobody is required to wear linen and one can instead wear a wool garment and avoid the conflict. A Beit Hillel obligates it, relying on סמוכים between the פרשיות of ציצית and שעטנז to show that שעטנז is not a concern in this case, and the text states והלכה כדברי בית הלל.
- A A Elazar ben Rabbi Tzadok says that one who places תכלת in ירושלים is “אינו אלא מן המתמיהין,” because people stare at him. A רבי asks that if the halacha follows Beit Hillel, “למה אסרוה,” and an answer is given that people are not בקיאין. A Rava bar Rav Chana challenges this by suggesting that ten תלמידי חכמים could publicize the practice by walking in the marketplace, and the sugya also proposes teaching it in a public gathering, but it introduces a decree “משום קלא אילן,” indigo used to counterfeit תכלת.
- A A concern is raised that counterfeit blue dye leads to non-fulfillment of תכלת while still inserting wool into linen, producing שעטנז without the מצוה. A The sugya asks “ולא יהא לבן,” since the fake blue could be treated as white and white wool strings would seemingly be permitted, but it answers with Reish Lakish’s rule: “כל מקום שאתה מוצא עשה ולא תעשה אם אתה יכול לקיים את שניהם מוטב ואם לאו יבוא עשה וידחה לא תעשה.” A Since linen strings can be used on a linen garment, one must avoid wool unless it is genuine תכלת, so fake תכלת cannot justify overriding שעטנז.
- A The sugya suggests בדיקה methods, including a test involving מי רגליים, but concludes with a decree “משום טעימה,” because dye producers test color by dipping a small string and that string lacks the required לשמה intent for ציצית. A It proposes writing letters, “ולכתבו אדיסקי,” to instruct manufacturers to discard test strings, and it asks whether such letters are trustworthy. A Rava responds that reliance on letters is accepted even for calendrical matters involving כרת, like חמץ בפסח and יום הכיפורים, and therefore all the more so for this עשה.
- A Rava gives a different reason attributed also to מערבא בשם רבי זירא: “שמא יקרע סדינו בתוך שלש ויתפרנו,” creating a תעשה ולא מן העשוי problem if sewing threads near the corner become part of what one would use for ציצית. A The principle is stated as “התורה אמרה תעשה ולא מן העשוי,” requiring the ציצית to be made as ציצית rather than arising from pre-existing material. A A side note reports that רבי זירא removed his תכלת from his garment, and a dispute is noted whether “רבי זירא” and “רב זירא” refer to the same person, with רש״י saying they are the same.
- A Rav Zira adds “גזירה נמי משום כסות לילה,” fearing that one will wear the garment into night when ציצית is not required. A The text notes a מחלוקת ראשונים about what כסות לילה means, including a view attributed to רש״י that the חיוב depends on time (day versus night) rather than the type of garment.
- A A ruling is given that a garment of fabric with leather corners is חייבת in ציצית, while a leather garment with fabric corners is פטור, because “עיקר בגד בעינן.” A Rava argues “אזיל בתר כנף,” determining obligation by the corner material rather than the garment’s main body, so fabric corners make it חייב בציצית even if the rest is leather.
- A Rav Huna teaches that one who “הטיל לבעלת שלוש והשלימה לארבע” has פסולה ציצית because the strings were inserted before the garment became obligated, and this is labeled “תעשה ולא מן העשוי.” A A practical extension is suggested where a garment tears severely and is repaired while the ציצית remain, raising similar concerns.
- A A challenge cites “חסידים הראשונים” who, once they wove “שלוש,” would insert תכלת even before the garment was fully wearable, implying that early insertion could still be valid. A רש״י resolves the corner count by saying only two corners are considered real because the upper corner is destined to disappear as weaving continues. A The sugya answers by revising the text to “כיוון שפסק בה שלוש,” meaning the garment is essentially finished and only three fingerbreadths remain, making the insertion timely and valid.
- A The concept of תעשה ולא מן העשוי is reinforced by the sukkah case where one tunnels into a haystack, producing a פסולה sukkah because the סכך was not placed intentionally. A Yet Rav Zira states “הטיל למוטלת כשרה,” where adding new strings to a corner that already has כשר ציצית and then removing the original can yield a valid result. A Rava explains that since the added set initially violates בל תוסיף, it is not considered a halachic מעשה, and the effective מעשה occurs when the first set is removed, creating the valid ציצית at that moment.
- A Rav Pappa challenges Rava by questioning the assumption about intent: “ממאי דגברא לאו יסופי קא מכוין,” suggesting the person may have intended not to add but to nullify the first set. A If the intent is לבטולי, then the action is not dismissed as “doing nothing,” and “ובבל תוסיף ליכא מעשה איכא,” making the analysis depend on what the person meant to accomplish. A The shiur ends with “האב א גוואלדיגער שבת.”
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions