Menachos 38
Summary
- The text finishes the end of פרק הקומץ רבה in מנחות and transitions into פרק התכלת, focusing on ציצית and תפילין and the practical halachic consequences when elements are missing or invalid. It rules that the הלכה is not like רבי ישמעאל that the four ציציות are four מצוות, and it presents two versions of a story about a ripped ציצית on שבת that hinges on כבוד הבריות and the boundary between דאורייתא and דרבנן via *lo tasur*. It develops the יסוד that wearing a four-cornered garment without valid ציצית is framed as ביטול עשה rather than a direct prohibition, and it explains why כבוד הבריות can override only a דרבנן concern such as a כרמלית. It then opens פרק התכלת with the משנה that תכלת and לבן are not מעכב each other, explores major ראשונים on what “not מעכב” means and how many תכלת strings are ideal, and addresses רבי’s opposing view from *ure’item oto* before reconciling it through the ideas of order and *gerdumin*.
- A dispute appears between the תנא קמא who holds that the four ציציות are one מצוה and רבי ישמעאל who holds that they are four מצוות. Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel that the הלכה follows רבי ישמעאל, but the גמרא rejects that and rules that ציצית is one מצוה and the ארבע ציציות are מעכב each other. The שיטה מקובצת notes practical נפקא מינות previously discussed that follow from treating ציצית as one integrated מצוה.
- Ravina walks behind Mar bar Rav Ashi on שבתא דריגלא and a ציצית string tears, with two versions of whether Ravina told him immediately or only after they arrived home. One version implies that Mar bar Rav Ashi would have removed the garment because without valid ציצית it becomes a משאוי on שבת, and the גמרא challenges this from the principle that כבוד הבריות overrides a לא תעשה. The answer limits כבוד הבריות to overriding only דרבנן obligations categorized under *lo tasur*, not explicit דאורייתא prohibitions such as הוצאה in a full רשות הרבים. The alternate version resolves the incident by saying the case took place in a כרמלית דרבנן, so כבוד הבריות allows leaving the garment on rather than removing it in public embarrassment.
- Rashi explains שבתא דריגלא as the Shabbos when public teaching focuses on laws of the upcoming festival, tied to the rule of asking and teaching the laws of פסח thirty days before. The text contrasts this with the rule at the end of מגילה that משה instituted דרשה of the day’s matters on the festival itself. The ר"ן limits the “thirty days” idea to priority of answering questions that are *inyana deyoma* when two students ask, while other ראשונים treat the thirty-day period as a more substantive halachic framework. The בית יוסף and later מפרשים offer reconciliations such as distinctions between פסח and other מועדים, between הלכה and אגדה, and between בזמן המקדש and בזמן הזה, and the ביאור הלכה notes that the ר"ן and רשב"א appear as minority positions against many ראשונים.
- The sugya’s use of *lo tasur* prompts a broader presentation of how דרבנן authority is conceptualized. The Rambam in הלכות ממרים states that violating a rabbinic enactment violates the דאורייתא לאו of *lo tasur*, encompassing received traditions, derivations, and protective fences and enactments. The Ramban challenges this from the rule of ספק דרבנן לקולא versus ספק דאורייתא לחומרא, since making every דרבנן into דאורייתא blurs the categories. Later explanations are cited that distinguish willful rejection of rabbinic authority from ordinary violation, or that rabbinic law applies only in definite cases and not in ספק, expressed as *kehai gavna lo tiknu*. The משך חכמה on *lo tasur* is quoted as portraying rabbinic enactments as time-bound frameworks granted to חכמים, binding in obedience to their authority rather than possessing the inherent eternality of Torah law, and it connects this to the נתיבות in חושן משפט סימן רל"ד about whether שוגג in דרבנן requires the same kind of כפרה logic as שוגג in דאורייתא.
- The text asks why the Shabbos discussion centers on הוצאה as משאוי rather than on an alleged prohibition of wearing a four-cornered garment without ציצית. The מרדכי (תתקמ"ד) attributes to רבי שלמה מדרוש that wearing such a garment on שבת is forbidden as an עבירה בעשה, while the ר"י rejects this as contradicted by the sugya’s allowance in a כרמלית due to כבוד הבריות. The ר"י explains that the Torah commands a positive act to place ציצית when wearing, but it does not formulate a direct prohibition of wearing a four-cornered garment without ציצית, so when one cannot fix it on שבת there is no ציצית-based איסור driving immediate removal. The רמ"א (יג ג) rules that if one discovers on שבת in a כרמלית that the טלית is פסול, one does not remove it until reaching home, and even טלית קטן under clothing need not be removed, and it adds that if one is embarrassed to sit without a טלית one may wear it without a ברכה due to כבוד הבריות specifically on שבת when making ציצית is forbidden. The שאגת אריה (סימן לב) reinforces the יסוד that there is no intrinsic איסור in the act of wearing without ציצית, only חסרון of the מצות עשה, and it compares this to living in a house without מזוזה or מעקה as a framework of ביטול עשה rather than a standalone prohibition.
- The narrative reviews the four רשויות of שבת and outlines definitions from סימן שמה. The text defines רשות היחיד as an area enclosed by walls ten טפחים high with an area of at least four by four טפחים, including ditches and raised platforms with those measures. It defines רשות הרבים as streets and markets at least sixteen אמות wide that are not roofed, and it notes the further conditions of walls and gates, including the issue of gates not being locked at night. It cites the major *yesh omrim* based on Rashi that a place is not a רשות הרבים without ששים ריבוא passing daily, which yields a significant practical leniency, and it explains that many modern public spaces are treated as כרמליות, affecting when an עירוב can be built, since an עירוב cannot be built around a full רשות הרבים דאורייתא.
- The text closes פרק הקומץ רבה with הדרן עלך הכל מצוות and begins פרק התכלת, which treats ציצית and תפילין extensively. The מרגליות הש"ס quotes the ארץ צבי בשם הקאצקער that one who wants to learn הלכות תפילין should start from the beginning of מנחות, because חז"ל’s placement signals a necessary conceptual connection between מנחות and תפילין even if that connection is not immediately apparent.
- The משנה states that התכלת אינה מעכבת את הלבן והלבן אינו מעכב את התכלת, and the text presents a major מחלוקת ראשונים on what “not מעכב” means. Rashi reads it as requiring the full set of eight strings, with the option that all strings may be white if no תכלת is available or all may be blue if no לבן is available, so the lack of color does not invalidate but the count of strings remains. Tosafos and the רא"ש read “not מעכב” as parallel to תפילין של יד and של ראש, meaning that having only one type can mean fewer strings, and Tosafos notes that although this is a compelling peshat it is not the prevailing practice, which uses eight strings. A second dispute concerns the ideal number of תכלת strings: Rashi and Tosafos present a half-and-half model with four תכלת and four לבן, while the Rambam rules that one of the eight strings is תכלת and seven are לבן (הלכות ציצית א ו), and the Raavad objects that there should be two תכלת and six לבן. The text frames the Rambam as implying that לבן is the primary component with a smaller component of תכלת, while the half-and-half view portrays two equal components of one mitzvah structure.
- The משנה states that תפילין של יד and תפילין של ראש are not מעכב each other, so one who can wear only one wears the one available. The Rambam’s שורש י"א is brought to show that “not מעכב” does not automatically mean two mitzvos, since תכלת and לבן are not מעכב yet ציצית is still one מצוה, proven by the מדרש: יכול שאין שתי מצוות מצות תכלת ומצות לבן, תלמוד לומר: והיה לכם לציצית, מצוה אחת היא ואינה שתי מצוות. The text contrasts this with תפילין, which are counted as שתי מצוות even though they are not מעכב, and it notes an applied halacha that even those who recite two berachos on תפילין treat them in a way that if one has only של ראש, both berachos are said on the של ראש, showing that the berachah structure does not map simply onto “one berachah per mitzvah.” The text ties this to the conceptual distinction between independent mitzvos and a single mitzvah with primary and secondary components.
- A challenge is raised that the משנה seems not to follow רבי, because a ברייתא has רבי deriving from *ure’item oto* that תכלת and לבן are מעכב each other, while חכמים say they are not. רבי bases this on combining *min ha’kanaf* with *u’fasil techeiles* and reading *ure’item oto* as requiring both to be present, while רבנן read *ure’item oto* as applying to each independently. Rabbeinu Yonah is cited to explain that both ציצית (*ure’item oto*) and תפילין (*vera’u kol amei ha’aretz*) are tied to ראייה, which underlies the זמן of משיכיר for these mitzvos. The text quotes Rav Soloveitchik’s interpretation that לבן symbolizes clarity and human grasp while תכלת symbolizes what lies beyond comprehension, presenting רבי’s view that they are mutually dependent as a powerful human truth about life containing both clarity and struggle even though halacha does not follow רבי.
- Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav answers that even if the משנה follows רבי, it can mean that the order is not מעכב, since there is a מצוה להקדים לבן לתכלת and if one reversed the order one is יוצא but “חיסר מצוה.” The גמרא explains that “חיסר מצוה” means failing to do מצוה מן המובחר rather than invalidating the mitzvah, phrased as “חיסר מצוה ועשה מצוה.” The שיטה מקובצת questions how sequence of insertion into the holes could matter once the strings are in place and suggests that the relevant sequence might involve the wrapping or knotting order rather than mere insertion.
- An attempt is made to explain the phrase תכלת אינה מעכבת את הלבן as referring to a טלית שכולה תכלת, where the appropriate “min ha’kanaf” component would reverse, making it a מצוה to prioritize תכלת first, while reversing would still be valid בדיעבד. Rava rejects this by arguing that color should not determine the governing priority in this way, and that לבן as the standard framework should not become contingent on garment color. The sugya then offers a new reconciliation: the משנה is about *gerdumin*, cases where strings were originally valid but later became cut, so that if one set is cut yet the other remains, it does not invalidate.
- Bnei Rabbi Chiya are cited as teaching that *gerdumei techeiles* are valid and *gerdumei ezov* are valid, establishing a general concept of residual validity after partial loss. Shmuel sets the minimum remainder for *gerdumin* as *kedei le’anben*, enough to form a bow, and the גמרא leaves unresolved whether this measure is required in each individual string or only collectively among all the strings. The text notes a major dispute in the ראשונים: the ר"י allows validity even if all strings are shortened provided each retains *kedei anivah*, while Rabbeinu Tam is stricter and requires at least two complete strings, leading to practical concerns about identifying which hanging strands correspond to which original strings. The discussion is connected to שולחן ערוך סימן י"ב where the minimum viable length of remaining ציצית is treated.
- The תרומת הדשן reports a case where a town cut one אתרוג into pieces and distributed pieces to multiple communities who then recited a berachah on day one, and he rejects the practice and denies that it can be justified through *gerdumin*, because *gerdumin* applies when the object was initially prepared as a valid חפצא of mitzvah and only later diminished. The בית יוסף is cited as limiting the analogy further by distinguishing ציצית, where the פסוק *ve’asu lahem* emphasizes validity at the time of עשייה, from תפילין, whose squareness is a הלכה למשה מסיני that must be maintained at all times and therefore cannot be treated as a “gerdumin” case once the shape changes. The sugya also records Rav Ashi’s question about thickened, knotty remnants and Rav Acha bar Rava’s response that greater thickness only makes the mitzvah more recognizable.
- A chain tradition is cited through רבי יצחק בשם רבי נתן בשם רבי שמעון בן יוסי הגלילי בשם רבי שמעון בן יוחנן בן נורי that one who lacks תכלת places לבן, aligning with the view that the components are not מעכב. Tosafos challenges why a דרשה establishing that לבן precedes תכלת would not make the order מעכב, given that the principle of needing repetition to create an “invalidating” requirement is usually stated in קדשים. Tosafos answers that order requirements do not generate invalidation in this way and compares it to חליצה where sequence can be prescribed yet failure to follow order does not necessarily invalidate, leaving the sugya poised to continue beyond this point.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions