Menachos 41
Summary
- A שיעור on מנחות דף מ״א moves through the ציצית סוגיא of סדין בציצית, כלאים, and the framework of עשה דוחה לא תעשה versus a broader היתר, while repeatedly testing whether ציצית is a חובת גברא or a חובת טלית and drawing practical lines about what garments require ציצית, how corners and folds define כנף, and how far one should go to place oneself into the חיוב of a מצוה. A central tension emerges between approaches that treat כלאים בציצית as הותרה לגמרי and approaches that limit היתר to the moment of קיום המצוה, alongside a striking story of a מלאך confronting רב קטינא for consistently avoiding a practical ציצית חיוב. The sugya then turns to concrete שיעורים and construction details—minimum garment size, folded garments, sewing and pinning, transferring ציצית between garments, thread counts, placement near the corner, and the minimum dangling length—while tying these to positions of שמואל, רב, רבי שמעון, רבי מאיר, בית שמאי, בית הלל, and later פוסקים. A sponsorship note opens and closes the שיעור: the שפייכר family thanks Hashem for the birth of a daughter כנרת יפה and asks to be זכה to raise her to תורה, חופה, ומעשים טובים.
- A sponsorship is announced by the שפייכר family with immense gratitude to Hashem for the birth of a daughter כנרת יפה. A blessing is given that they should זכה to raise her to a life of תורה, חופה, ומעשים טובים, followed by מזל טוב.
- A teaching is cited: אמר רבי זירא אמר רב מתנה אמר שמואל תכלת אין בה משום כלאים ואפילו בטלית פטורה. A possible reading that טלית פטורה means a garment lacking the שיעור is challenged by a ברייתא that defines a child-sized threshold for ציצית חיוב and then applies “וכן לעניין כלאים,” which רב נחמן בר יצחק explains as referring to סדין בציצית. A different reading is adopted: “פטורה” refers to הוטל למוטלת, and רש״י explains that when רחמנא permits כלאים בציצית, it is permitted לגמרי.
- A תוספות בשם רבנו תם reads שמואל’s phrasing as teaching that כלאים of תכלת is permitted even when it is not זמן ציצית, including at night, because כלאים של ציצית is a total היתר in the category of הותרה. A comparison is drawn to other debates about הותרה versus דחויה such as טומאה בציבור and פיקוח נפש, and a parallel dispute is referenced between the רמב״ם and ראב״ד about כלאים in בגדי כהונה שלא בשעת עבודה. A רמב״ם in הלכות ציצית is quoted that נשים ועבדים וקטנים are פטורים מן התורה, that a קטן who knows how to wrap is חייב מדרבנן, and that women who wear ציצית do so without a ברכה, while the ראב״ד limits women’s wearing to ציצית שאין בה כלאים and cites an opposing view allowing a ברכה. A discussion of רב יוסף in קידושין דף ל״א is used to frame the תוספות position that one can make a ברכה even when not obligated, and the כסף משנה is quoted as treating the limitation about כלאים as obvious.
- A רמב״ן in יבמות דף ו׳ ע״ב is cited as presenting a view that כלאים בציצית might be a unique full היתר even where אפשר לקיים שניהם, and then rejecting that view because ציצית is the source from which the rule of עשה דוחה לא תעשה is learned for the rest of התורה. A reference is made to the שאגת אריה סימן ל׳ opening with a question about differing ראב״ד positions on כלאים בציצית versus כלאים בבגדי כהונה.
- A ברייתא defines a חייבת בציצית garment as one that a קטן can cover ראשו ורובו with and that a גדול would wear דרך עראי, while a smaller one is פטורה, and the רמב״ם is quoted as defining the שיעור by a child who can walk alone in the marketplace without escort. The ראב״ד praises that formulation as consistent with the גדול יוצא בו עראי line. A practical note is given from the משנה ברורה on סימן ט״ז that אנשי מעשה are careful that the garment measures an אמה in front and an אמה in back and an אמה width, excluding the neck-hole.
- A ברייתא rules that טלית כפולה is חייבת בציצית, while רבי שמעון פוטר, and רש״י explains that opening it would place the ציצית in the middle rather than on a כנף. A מחלוקת in the בית יוסף and דרכי משה is described about whether רבי שמעון’s פטור is only from placing ציצית on the folded “temporary corners” or a broader exemption, with the סטייפלר explaining that when worn doubled, the four corners function as only two and cannot create a proper עיטוף. Both sides agree that if it is folded and sewn it is חייבת, and the חידוש is extended to a non-sewn fastening such as נקטה בסיכי, with ציכצי noted as a parallel category in שבת for quasi-connections.
- A story follows in which רבה בר הונא sees רבא בר רב נחמן wearing a folded garment with ציצית on the folds; when the garment is opened, the ציצית ends up near the head, and he protests that this is not “כנף” as written in the תורה. רבא בר רב נחמן removes it and switches garments, and he is told that this does not solve the issue if the obligation is חובת טלית rather than merely triggered by wearing.
- The sugya frames ציצית as either חובת גברא, obligating a person when wearing a qualifying garment, or חובת טלית, obligating the garment itself even when not worn. A possible proof for חובת טלית is brought from חסידים הראשונים who placed תכלת already when three threads were woven, and it is rejected as a special חומרא of חסידים.
- A rare narrative pits the angelic critique against avoidance behavior: the מלאך finds רב קטינא wearing סדינא in summer and a rounded-corner סרבלא in winter and challenges him that ציצית של תכלת is being neglected. Rav Kattina asks whether there is punishment for an עשה, and the מלאך answers that בזמן דאיכא רתחא ענשינן. The sugya resolves that the complaint is that he צדקית למפטר נפשך מציצית, and תוספות ties the demand to the notion that the mitzvah must still be fundamentally modeled as a חובת גברא to justify urging a person to place himself into a חיוב situation.
- A שפת אמת is cited comparing the idea of pursuing a situational חיוב to the claim that one is not told to buy land to become obligated in תרומות ומעשרות, and a גמרא in סוטה י״ד is invoked about משה רבינו yearning to enter ארץ ישראל so that mitzvos dependent on the land could be fulfilled through him. A second comparison is drawn to the critique in ברכות ל״ה ע״ב of later generations who bring produce through unusual entrances to avoid מעשר. A framing from רבינו יונה in שערי תשובה ג ח ב is cited, presenting תפילין, מזוזה, and ציצית as central to קבלת עול and קדושה while warning that failing to desire ציצית despite its situational nature can bring punishment in times of צרה, based on מנחות דף מ״א.
- A statement is brought: אמר רב טובי בר קיסנא אמר שמואל כלי קופסא חייבין בציצית, and an exception is given that a זקן who made garments for his honor after death is פטור because “אשר תכסה בה” excludes what is not made for covering in life. A further line says that at that time they would place ציצית on the dead, yet this is linked to avoiding לועג לרש חרף עשהו. A תוספות in ברכות י״ח ע״א is cited with two approaches: the dead may have ציצית but are not מצווים ועושים so the living still shame them, or contemporary practice removes or invalidates the ציצית, with רבינו תם explaining that changed social practice in wearing ציצית affects the nature of לועג לרש; the שולחן ערוך in יורה דעה ש״נ א is cited as requiring burial with ציצית, while the רמ״א records a מנהג to bury with פסול ציצית by cutting or invalidating a corner. An ערוך השולחן report is quoted about two גדולי הדור whose burial in kosher ציצית did not occur due to providential disruptions, with the identities given in parentheses as the גר״א and the בעל יסוד ושורש העבודה. A תוספות in נדה ס״א is cited that ציצית is שקולה כנגד כל התורה כולה.
- A ruling is cited: אמר רחבה אמר רב יהודה that if a טלית is torn, חוץ לשלוש it may be sewn, but תוך שלוש it may not, with רש״י explaining concern that a leftover thread might be reused for ציצית without being made לשם ציצית. A ברייתא frames this as a מחלוקת where רבי מאיר forbids sewing within three and חכמים permit it, and both agree that one may not attach even an אמה על אמה from elsewhere with ציצית already present because it is תעשה ולא מן העשוי. A permission is given to bring תכלת from elsewhere and tie it on, provided the threads are not מופסקת, which is explained via שיטה מקובצת as excluding reliance on גרדומין when transferring to a new garment.
- A question is raised whether one may infer that ציצית can be moved מבגד לבגד, and the concern of בזיון to the first garment is stated, with a distinction made for a worn-out garment. A further proof attempt from the קלא אילן discussion is rejected as describing only what happens if someone did it. A formal dispute is then stated: רב forbids transferring ציצית מבגד לבגד and שמואל permits it, and this is linked to the psak in שולחן ערוך סימן ט״ו allowing transfer to another garment while forbidding removal with no constructive destination, with later notes that upgrading to nicer or longer ציצית is treated as a permitted reason.
- A triad is listed where הלכה is set like שמואל against רב: מתירין מבגד לבגד, מדליקין מנר לנר in חנוכה, and הלכה כרבי שמעון בגרירה on שבת, framed as אביי’s report that these are the three exceptional areas.
- A practice is described that רב יהודה entrusted his garment to a קצרא without suspicion of thread substitution, while רב חנינא tied his ציצית into a ball as a סימן and רבינא tucked them into a hem-like marker to recognize them upon return.
- A ברייתא records בית שמאי requiring four threads and בית הלל requiring three, and similarly disputes how much must be משולשת, with a reference to a שיעור of a טפח defined by finger measures. Rav Pappa specifies טפח דאורייתא as ד בגודל, or equivalently measurements by other fingers. Rav Huna requires ד בתוך ד and משולשת ד, Rav Yehuda requires ג בתוך ג and משולשת ג, and the הלכתא is given as ד בתוך שלוש and משולשת ארבע.
- A closing repetition restates that the שיעור is sponsored by the שפייכר family with immense gratitude to Hashem for the birth of a daughter, כנרת יפה, with a blessing that they merit to raise her to a life of תורה חופה ומעשים טובים.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions