Menachos 44
Summary
- Rabbi Meir teaches that *tekhelet* is chosen for *tzitzit* because its blue color evokes the sea, the sky, and the *Kisei HaKavod*, fulfilling the Torah’s goal of “וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת כָּל מִצְוֹת ה׳” by triggering awareness of the *Shechinah*. He teaches that neglecting the white strings carries a greater punishment than neglecting *tekhelet* because white is easier to obtain and fulfill, and Tosafos adds that *tzitzit* functions as a *chotam* that marks Jews as *avadim* of Hashem. Rabbi Meir also requires one hundred *berachos* daily and three daily morning blessings, and the text weaves in Tosafos and *Daas Zekeinim Baalei Tosafos* with *remezim*, *gematrios*, and a tradition about David HaMelech’s enactment. The Gemara’s story of the man saved from sin by his *tzitzit* illustrates concrete reward in this world and frames *tzitzit* as a protection against “וְלֹא תָתוּרוּ,” with Sforno and other sources emphasizing its power to restrain the heart and eyes. The daf then moves into halachos of borrowed *talis* and rented homes regarding *tzitzit* and *mezuzah*, statements about obligations like *tefillin*, *tzitzit*, *duchening*, and *mezuzah*, and finally returns to Menachos with rules about *minchas nesachim*, the order of bringing *minchah* and *nesachim*, and the principle that one blood application on the outer *mizbeach* achieves atonement.
- Rabbi Meir asks why the Torah chooses *tekhelet* over all other colors and answers that *tekhelet* resembles the sea, the sea resembles the sky, and the sky resembles the *Kisei HaKavod*. A verse describes “וְתַחַת רַגְלָיו כְּמַעֲשֵׂה לִבְנַת הַסַּפִּיר וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם לָטֹהַר,” and another verse says “כְּמַרְאֵה אֶבֶן סַפִּיר דְּמוּת כִּסֵּא,” so seeing *tekhelet* is meant to connect a person to the *Kisei HaKavod*. A person’s encounter with *tekhelet* is meant to trigger the purpose of *tzitzit* stated as “וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת כָּל מִצְוֹת ה׳,” and the color’s symbolism intensifies that remembrance by pointing to the *Shechinah*.
- Rabbi Meir says the punishment for neglecting the white strings is greater than the punishment for neglecting *tekhelet*. A parable compares two servants, one told to bring a clay signet and one told to bring a gold signet, and the one who fails the easier clay task is punished more. The text explains that white is easier to fulfill than *tekhelet*, and even when *tekhelet* existed it was expensive, “דמיו יקרים,” like gold. Tosafos says the parable is exact because *tzitzit* is itself a *chotam*, and wearing *tzitzit* is described as bearing “חותמו של הקדוש ברוך הוא” as *avadim* who mark themselves as belonging to Hashem.
- Rabbi Meir obligates a person to recite one hundred *berachos* each day, deriving it from “וְעַתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל מָה ה׳ אֱלֹקֶיךָ שֹׁאֵל מֵעִמָּךְ,” read as “אַל תִּקְרֵי מָה אֶלָּא מֵאָה.” On Shabbos and *Yom Tov*, Rabbi Chiya brei d’Rav Avya completes the count using fragrances and foods, “באספרמקי ומגדי,” through *berachos* of enjoyment. Tosafos gives a *remez* that “מה” in *Atbash* becomes “י״צ,” which is “עולה ל ק,” equaling 100. The text relates that in the time of David HaMelech a plague caused 100 deaths daily and his enactment of 100 *berachos* stopped it, and it links this to “נְאֻם הַגֶּבֶר הֻקַם עָל,” with “על” as 100. *Daas Zekeinim Baalei Tosafos* brings “הִנֵּה כִּי כֵן יְבֹרַךְ גָּבֶר,” with “כִּי כֵן” equaling 100, and it says “מודים” equals 100 so *kavannah* in “מודים” is treated as if one said 100 *berachos*.
- The text frames 100 as expressing *shleimus* and contrasts it with “אינו דומה מי ששונה פרקו מאה פעמים למאה ואחד פעמים,” arguing that the point of 101 is not that *shleimus* is 101 but that one more beyond what seems complete creates an incomparable gain. It cites a practice attributed to the *Chasam Sofer* to say “משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם” 101 times rather than 90, connecting 101 to the “Jewish number” in the teaching about 100 and 101 repetitions. The conclusion presented is that 100 is still *shleimus*, yet Torah demands continuing beyond perceived completion, “הפך בה והפך בה.”
- Rabbi Meir requires three daily blessings: “שעשני ישראל,” “שלא עשני אשה,” and “שלא עשני בור.” Tosafos defines a *bor* as someone lacking *Mikra*, *Mishnah*, and *derech eretz*, and says this blessing is not recited because it is “לא שכיח.” Rav Acha bar Yaakov hears his son recite “שלא עשני בור” and directs him to recite “שלא עשני עבד” instead. The Gemara asks whether “עבד” is the same as “אשה” regarding mitzvos and answers “עבד זיל טפי מאשה,” so both blessings are still warranted.
- The practice reported is to say “שלא עשני גוי,” “שלא עשני עבד,” and “שלא עשני אשה,” and not to say “שעשני ישראל.” The Magen Avraham, Bach, and Taz explain this from Eruvin 13, where the *bas kol* concludes “נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא,” making “שעשני ישראל” inappropriate as a morning gratitude for being created. The text brings *Nishmas Adam*’s question about the wording “נוח לו לאדם” and a resolution attributed to R. Shlomo Kluger that the negative conclusion applies to the *yachid*, while blessings like “יוצר האדם,” “ברכו אלקינו שבראנו לכבודו,” and “בורא נפשות רבות וחסרונן” speak to creation from the perspective of the *tzibbur* and the *umah* as a whole.
- The Gemara defines the *chilazon* as having a body resembling the sea and a form “בריאתו דומה לדג.” It “עולה אחת לשבעים שנה,” which is treated as indicating rarity, and “ובדמו צופים תכלת,” making it costly, “לפיכך דמיו יקרים.” The text notes variant descriptions in Rashi regarding whether it rises from land or sea and references R. Akiva Eiger’s pointers to parallel Rashis.
- Rav Nasan says that for every “מצוה קלה” the reward in this world can be known, but the reward in the next world is unknowable, “עין לא ראתה אלקים זולתך.” The Gemara presents a man careful with *tzitzit* who travels to a prostitute charging “ד׳ מאות זהובים,” and as he undresses “כשבא לפשוט ציציותיו” his four *tzitzios* strike him and stop him, and both fall to the ground. He explains that *tzitzit* is a mitzvah with “אני ה׳ אלקיכם” written twice, meaning “אני הוא שעתיד ליפרע ואני הוא שעתיד לשלם שכר,” and his four *tzitzios* appeared as “כד׳ עדים.” The woman demands his name, city, rebbe, and beis midrash, then divides her wealth “שליש למלכות,” “שליש לעניים,” and “שליש נטלה בידה,” and comes to the beis midrash of R. Chiya asking to convert, “צווה עלי ויעשוני גיורת.” R. Chiya accepts her sincerity after hearing the story and permits her to marry him, and the beds that had been arranged “באיסור” become arranged “בהיתר,” which the Gemara calls “זה מתן שכרה בעולם הזה ולעולם הבא איני יודע כמה.”
- The Keren Orah says it is not coincidental that *tzitzit* saves from *arayos* and ties it to “וְלֹא תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם.” The Sforno reads “וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ” as remembering “שאתם עבדים לקל יתברך,” with *tzitzit* “כחותם המלך בעבדיו,” and says this causes a person to stop pursuing desires of wealth, honor, and lust. The Ibn Ezra says those who wear a *talis* during prayer do so because of *Krias Shema* and the parashah of *tzitzit*, but he argues one is more obligated to wrap in *tzitzit* at other times “למען יזכור ולא ישכח ולא יעשה עבירה בכל שעה,” because “כי בשעת התפילה לא יעשה עבירה.” The text adds a thought linking *tekhelet*’s chain to the *Kisei HaKavod* with “דמות דיוקנו של יעקב אבינו,” and it connects this to Yosef HaTzaddik seeing “דמות דיוקנו של אביו,” alongside the Or HaChaim’s report בשם חכמי האמת that picturing one’s father helps restrain temptation, “דיוקן האב תגביר כח הקדושה בבן ותמנעהו מבא אל התיעוב,” preserved as “ושמעתי משם אנשי אמת, כי דיוקן האב תגביר כח הקדושה בבן ותמנעהו מבא אל התיעוב, והוא אמרו סמוך למצוות עריות איש אמו ואביו תיראו. ולזה מי שתקפו יצרו יצייר בין עיניו יולד אותו ויהיה לו למשיב נפש.”
- Rav Yehudah rules that a borrowed *talis* is exempt from *tzitzit* for thirty days and obligated thereafter. A *baraisa* parallels this with *mezuzah*: one living in a *pundaki* in Eretz Yisrael or renting a house in *chutz la’aretz* is exempt for thirty days and obligated thereafter, while one renting in Eretz Yisrael must affix a *mezuzah* immediately “משום ישוב דארץ ישראל.” Rashi explains that once a *mezuzah* is placed it cannot be removed, and the enactment encourages Jewish continuity of residence.
- Rav Chisda initially claims the *tefillin shel yad* and *tefillin shel rosh* not impeding each other applies only when one possesses both, then retracts because lacking one mitzvah does not cancel the other, and his initial concern was “גזרה שמא יפשע.” Rav Shesh says one who does not wear *tefillin* violates “בשמונה עשה,” one without *tzitzit* violates “בחמישה עשה,” a kohen who does not ascend to *duchan* violates “בשלושה עשה,” and one without *mezuzah* violates “בשני עשה,” with the counts tied to the relevant verses and parshiyos. Reish Lakish says one who wears *tefillin* merits long life, citing “ה׳ עֲלֵיהֶם יִחְיוּ וּלְכָל בָּהֶן חַיֵּי רוּחִי וְתַחֲלִימֵנִי וְהַחֲיֵנִי.”
- The Mishnah states that the flour and oil do not impede the wine and the wine does not impede the flour and oil in *minchas nesachim*, so each component can be brought when the other is unavailable. The Mishnah also states that gifts on the outer *mizbeach* do not impede each other, and the explanation follows the principle that on the outer *mizbeach* one application can suffice. A *baraisa* derives from “וּמִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם” that one brings the *minchah* and then the *nesachim*, while Rabbi derives from “זֶבַח וּנְסָכִים” that one brings the *zevach* and then the *nesachim*. The Gemara assigns “וּמִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם” to the rule “מנחתם ונסכיהם בלילה” and “מנחתם ונסכיהם אפילו למחר,” and assigns “זבח ונסכים” to Ze’iri’s rule “אין נסכים מתקדשים אלא בשחיטת הזבח,” then grounds the shared practice for offerings that accompany a *zevach* in the phrase “עֹלָה וּמִנְחָה,” leaving the dispute for *bamah* offerings brought independently. The Rabbis hold that just as with a *zevach* the order is *minchah* then *nesachim*, so too when brought alone, while Rabbi holds that when brought alone *nesachim* come first because “מתאמרה שירה עליהו.” The Gemara gives a source that one outer-*mizbeach* blood application achieves atonement from “וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ עַל מִזְבַּח ה׳ אֱלֹקֶיךָ,” reading “ישפך” in the singular as establishing that one is sufficient.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions