On which arm, where on the arm and where on the head does one put on tefillin? There is agreement on each one but disagreement about from where it is derived. The gemara discusses the debate regarding tzitzit whether all 4 corners is one mitzva or each one is a separate mitzva. The gemara discusses the ramifications of this argument.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Menachot 37
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַחוֹרָם אוֹמֵר: מָצִינוּ יָמִין שֶׁנִּקְרָא יָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיַּרְא יוֹסֵף כִּי יָשִׁית אָבִיו יַד יְמִינוֹ״. וְאִידַּךְ – ״יַד יְמִינוֹ״ אִיקְּרִי, ״יָד״ סְתָמָא לָא אִיקְּרִי.
Rabbi Yosei HaḤorem says: This is no proof, as we have found that the right hand is also called yad, as it is stated: “And when Joseph saw that his father was laying his right hand [yad yemino]” (Genesis 48:17). The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, who maintains that the right hand is not called yad, how does he respond to this proof? He maintains that the right hand is called “his right hand [yad yemino],” but it is not called a yad without further specification.
רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וּקְשַׁרְתָּם״ ״וּכְתַבְתָּם״ – מָה כְּתִיבָה בְּיָמִין, אַף קְשִׁירָה בְּיָמִין, וְכֵיוָן דִּקְשִׁירָה בְּיָמִין – הַנָּחָה בִּשְׂמֹאל הִיא. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַחוֹרָם, הַנָּחָה דְּבִשְׂמֹאל מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵהֵיכָא דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי נָתָן.
Rabbi Natan says: This proof is not necessary, as it says: “And you shall bind them for a sign upon your arm” (Deuteronomy 6:8), and then it states: “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house” (Deuteronomy 6:9). This teaches that just as writing is with the right hand, as most people write with their right hands, so too, the binding of phylacteries must be performed with the right hand. And since binding is with the right hand, this means that donning is on the left arm, as one cannot bind the phylacteries with the same hand upon which he is donning them. The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yosei HaḤorem, who holds that the right hand is also called yad in the Torah, derive that donning phylacteries is on the left arm? The Gemara answers: He derives it from where Rabbi Natan derives it.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מִ״יָּדְכָה״ כְּתִיב, בְּהֵ״י כֵּהָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְאֵימָא ״יָדְךָ״ שֶׁבְּכֹחַ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי כְּתִיב בְּחֵי״ת?
Rav Ashi said: The requirement that phylacteries be donned on the left arm is derived from the verse: “It shall be for a sign upon your arm [yadkha]” (Exodus 13:16), which is written with a letter heh at the end. This is expounded as though it stated: Your weak [keha] arm. Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: But one can say that yadkha should be interpreted as yadko’aḥ, with a letter ḥet at the end instead of a heh. If so, this would mean: Your arm that is of strength [shebeko’aḥ], which is the right arm. Rav Ashi said to Rabbi Abba: Is this word written with a ḥet?
כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״יָדְכָה״ בְּהֵ״י – זוֹ שְׂמֹאל, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: ״יָדְךָ״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַגִּידֵּם. תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אֵין לוֹ זְרוֹעַ – פָּטוּר מִן הַתְּפִילִּין, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: ״יָדְכָה״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַגִּידֵּם.
The Gemara notes that Rav Ashi’s opinion, that the halakha that phylacteries are donned on the left arm is derived from the term yadkha, is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: Yadkha is written with a heh, indicating weakness, and this is referring to the left arm. Others say: “Your arm,” i.e., yadkha, serves to include one without a complete arm, i.e., one whose arm ends at the elbow, in the obligation to don phylacteries, as the remaining part is also categorized as a weak arm. It is taught in another baraita: If one does not have a left arm, i.e., not even above the elbow, he is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries. Others say: Yadkha serves to include one without a left arm even above the elbow, teaching that he must don phylacteries on his right arm.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אִטֵּר מַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין בִּימִינוֹ, שֶׁהוּא שְׂמֹאלוֹ. וְהָתַנְיָא: מַנִּיחַ בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ שֶׁהוּא שְׂמֹאלוֹ שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם! אֲמַר אַבָּיֵי: כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא בְּשׁוֹלֵט בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו.
The Sages taught in a baraita: A left-handed person dons phylacteries on his right arm, which is equivalent to his left arm, i.e., his weaker arm. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that a left-handed person dons phylacteries on his left arm, which is the left arm of every other person? Abaye said: When that baraita is taught, it is referring to one who has equal control with both his hands, i.e., an ambidextrous person. Since such an individual also uses his right hand, he dons phylacteries on his left arm.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי מְנַשֶּׁה: ״עַל יָדְךָ״ – זוֹ קִיבּוֹרֶת, ״בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״ – זוֹ קׇדְקֹד. הֵיכָא? אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: מְקוֹם שֶׁמּוֹחוֹ שֶׁל תִּינוֹק רוֹפֵס.
The school of Menashe taught with regard to the verse: “And you shall bind them for a sign on your arm, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8): “On your arm”; this is the bicep. “Between your eyes”; this is the crown of the head. The Gemara asks: Where exactly on the crown of the head are the phylacteries placed? The school of Rabbi Yannai say: Phylacteries are placed on the place where the bone above the baby’s brain is soft after birth.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ פְּלֵימוֹ מֵרַבִּי: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי רָאשִׁים, בְּאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן מַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אוֹ קוּם גְּלִי, אוֹ קַבֵּל עֲלָךְ שַׁמְתָּא. אַדְּהָכִי אֲתָא הָהוּא גַּבְרָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִיתְיְלִיד לִי יָנוֹקָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ תְּרֵי רֵישֵׁי, כַּמָּה בָּעֵינָא לְמִיתַּב לְכֹהֵן? אֲתָא הָהוּא סָבָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ: חַיָּיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה סְלָעִים.
§ The Sage Peleimu raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: In the case of one who has two heads, on which of them does he don phylacteries? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Either get up and exile yourself from here or accept upon yourself excommunication for asking such a ridiculous question. In the meantime, a certain man arrived and said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: A firstborn child has been born to me who has two heads. How much money must I give to the priest for the redemption of the firstborn? A certain elder came and taught him: You are obligated to give him ten sela, the requisite five for each head.
אִינִי? וְהָתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה אֵת בְּכוֹר הָאָדָם״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אֲפִילּוּ נִטְרַף בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But Rami bar Ḥama teaches: Since it is stated with regard to the redemption of the firstborn: “The firstborn of man you shall redeem” (Numbers 18:15), I would derive that even if he was ravaged, e.g., by an animal, within thirty days of his birth, one should redeem him. To counter this, the verse states:
״אַךְ״ – חִלֵּק, שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דִּבְגוּלְגּוֹלֶת תְּלָא רַחֲמָנָא.
“Yet the firstborn of man you shall redeem”; the addition of the word “yet” serves to differentiate and teach that there is a firstborn who is not redeemed, namely, one that was ravaged. A child with two heads is like one that was ravaged, as he will certainly not live. The Gemara answers: Here it is different, as the Merciful One makes the redemption of the firstborn dependent on his skull, as it is stated: “You shall take five shekels apiece, by the skull” (Numbers 3:47), which indicates that there is a case in which a firstborn with more than one skull must be redeemed.
אָמַר מָר: ״יָדְךָ״ זוֹ קִיבּוֹרֶת, מְנָלַן? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עַל יָדְךָ״ – זוֹ גּוֹבַהּ שֶׁבַּיָּד. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: זוֹ גּוֹבַהּ שֶׁבַּיָּד, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא עַל יָדְךָ מַמָּשׁ? אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: הַנַּח תְּפִילִּין בַּיָּד וְהַנַּח תְּפִילִּין בָּרֹאשׁ, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּגוֹבַהּ שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ – אַף כָּאן בְּגוֹבַהּ שֶׁבַּיָּד.
The Gemara returns to its discussion of the baraita: The Master says: “On your arm”; this is the bicep. The term yad can mean either hand or arm. Therefore, the Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As the Sages taught: “On your arm [yadkha]”; this is the upper part of the arm. Do you say that this is the upper part of the arm, or is it only literally on your actual hand, i.e., on the palm of the hand? The Torah says: Don phylacteries on the yad and don phylacteries on the head; just as there, with regard to the head, it means on the upper part of the head, as will be explained, so too here, it means on the upper part of the arm.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהָיָה לְךָ לְאוֹת״, לְךָ לְאוֹת וְלֹא לַאֲחֵרִים לְאוֹת. רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְשַׂמְתֶּם אֶת דְּבָרַי אֵלֶּה עַל לְבַבְכֶם … וּקְשַׁרְתָּם״, שֶׁתְּהֵא שִׂימָה כְּנֶגֶד הַלֵּב.
Rabbi Eliezer says: This proof is not necessary, as the verse states: “And it shall be for a sign for you upon your arm” (Exodus 13:9), which teaches: It shall be a sign for you, but not a sign for others, i.e., one must don the phylacteries of the arm in a place where they are not seen by others. This is the arm, which is usually covered, whereas the hand is usually visible. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: This proof is not necessary, as the verse states: “Therefore you shall place these words in your heart and in your soul, and you shall bind them” (Deuteronomy 11:18). This teaches that placing the words, i.e., donning the phylacteries, shall be opposite the heart, on the bicep.
רַבִּי חִיָּיא וְרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא מְכַוֵּין וּמַנַּח לֵיהּ לַהֲדֵי לִיבֵּיהּ. רַב אָשֵׁי הֲוָה יָתֵיב קַמֵּיהּ דְּאַמֵּימָר, הֲוָה צִירְיָא בִּידֵיהּ וְקָא מִתְחַזְיָין תְּפִילִּין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא סָבַר לַהּ מָר ״לְךָ לְאוֹת״ וְלֹא לַאֲחֵרִים לְאוֹת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בִּמְקוֹם ״לְךָ לְאוֹת״ אִיתְּמַר.
The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, would direct the placement of his phylacteries of the arm and don them opposite his heart. Rav Ashi was sitting before Ameimar, and there was a cut in the sleeve covering Ameimar’s arm, and as a result his phylacteries were visible, as they were not covered by a garment. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Doesn’t the Master hold that the phylacteries shall be a sign for you but not a sign for others? Ameimar said to him: This does not mean that phylacteries must be hidden; rather, this was stated in order to teach that they must be donned in a place that is a sign for you, i.e., the bicep, which is generally not seen, but it does not matter if in practice the phylacteries are visible.
גּוֹבַהּ שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ, מְנָלַן? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״ – זוֹ גּוֹבַהּ שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר זוֹ גּוֹבַהּ שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ מַמָּשׁ? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״לֹא תָשִׂימוּ קׇרְחָה בֵּין עֵינֵיכֶם לָמֵת״. מָה לְהַלָּן בְּגוֹבַהּ שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ, מְקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה קׇרְחָה – אַף כָּאן בְּגוֹבַהּ שֶׁל רֹאשׁ, מְקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה קׇרְחָה.
With regard to the statement of the baraita that the phylacteries of the head are donned on the upper part of the head, the Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As the Sages taught: “Between your eyes” (Exodus 13:9); this is the upper part of the head. Do you say that this is the upper part of the head, or is it only literally between your eyes? It is stated here: “Between your eyes,” and it is stated there: “You shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead” (Deuteronomy 14:1), Just as there, the phrase “between your eyes” is referring to a place on the upper part of the head, as that is a place where one can render himself bald by removing his hair, so too, the place where phylacteries are donned is on the upper part of the head, a place where one can render himself bald.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: ״הַנַּח תְּפִילִּין בַּיָּד״, ״הַנַּח תְּפִילִּין בָּרֹאשׁ״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לִיטָּמֵא בְּנֶגַע אֶחָד, אַף כָּאן בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לִיטָּמֵא בְּנֶגַע אֶחָד.
Rabbi Yehuda says: This proof is not necessary, as the Torah says: Don phylacteries on the arm and don phylacteries on the head. Just as there, with regard to the phylacteries of the arm, it is referring to a place which is fit to become ritually impure with only one type of leprous mark, that of the skin, so too here, with regard to the phylacteries of the head, it is referring to a place which is fit to become ritually impure with only one type of leprous mark, that of a place of hair (see Leviticus 13:29–37).
לְאַפּוֹקֵי ״בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״, דְּאִיכָּא בָּשָׂר וְשֵׂעָר, דְּאִיכָּא שֵׂעָר לָבָן, וְאִיכָּא נָמֵי שֵׂעָר צָהוֹב.
Rabbi Yehuda continues: This serves to exclude the area which is literally “between your eyes,” as there is flesh and the hair of the eyebrows present there, and therefore there is a possibility of leprosy through the growth of a white hair, which is impure according to the halakhot of leprosy of the skin (see Leviticus 13:3), and there is also a possibility of leprosy through the growth of a yellow hair, which is impure according to the halakhot of leprosy of the head or the beard (see Leviticus 13:30).
אַרְבַּע צִיצִיּוֹת מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, שֶׁאַרְבַּעְתָּן מִצְוָה אַחַת. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: סָדִין בְּצִיצִית אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the four ritual fringes on a garment, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, as the four of them constitute one mitzva. Rabbi Yishmael says: The four of them are four discrete mitzvot, and the absence of one does not prevent fulfillment of the rest. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinions of the first tanna and Rabbi Yishmael? Rav Yosef said: The difference between their opinions is with regard to a linen sheet with woolen ritual fringes that has fewer than four ritual fringes. The first tanna maintains that since one is not performing a mitzva, he may not wrap himself in the sheet, due to the prohibition of diverse kinds, i.e., the prohibition against wearing clothing made from a mixture of wool and linen threads. Conversely, Rabbi Yishmael permits one to wrap himself in it, as each ritual fringe is a separate mitzva, and the mitzva of ritual fringes overrides the prohibition against wearing diverse kinds.
רָבָא בַּר אֲהִינָא אָמַר: טַלִּית בַּעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
Rava bar Ahina said: The difference between their opinions is with regard to a cloak with five corners. It is derived that a cloak of this kind requires ritual fringes (see 43b), but it is unclear whether ritual fringes must be placed on each corner. If each fringe is a discrete mitzva, then the obligation applies to the fifth corner as well, but if it is one mitzva then it applies only to four of the corners of this garment.
רָבִינָא אָמַר: דְּרַב הוּנָא אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הַיּוֹצֵא בְּטַלִּית שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְצוּיֶּיצֶת כְּהִלְכָתָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת – חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.
Ravina said: The difference between their opinions is with regard to the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: One who goes out unwittingly to the public domain on Shabbat with a four-cornered cloak that does not have all of the requisite ritual fringes attached to its corners is liable to bring a sin offering, because the remaining fringes are not an integral part of the garment. Since they do not enable the wearer to fulfill the mitzva, they are considered a burden, which may not be carried into the public domain on Shabbat. The first tanna agrees with this ruling, whereas Rabbi Yishmael maintains that since each corner with ritual fringes is the fulfillment of a mitzva, one is not liable to bring a sin offering due to carrying on Shabbat for wearing it into the public domain.
אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: הַאי מַאן דְּבַצְּרֵיהּ לִגְלִימֵיהּ – לָא עֲבַד וְלֹא כְּלוּם, שַׁוְּיֵיהּ טַלִּית בַּעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ.
Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: One who cuts the corner of his garmenthas not done anything of consequence with regard to exempting the garment from the obligation of ritual fringes, as he has rendered it a cloak with five corners, to which the obligation of ritual fringes applies.
אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: הַאי מַאן דְּצַיְּירֵיהּ לִגְלִימֵיהּ – לָא עֲבַד וְלֹא כְּלוּם. מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּכְמַאן דְּשַׁרְיֵיהּ דָּמֵי. וּתְנַן נָמֵי: כׇּל חֲמָתוֹת הַצְּרוּרוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל עַרְבִיִּים.
Rav Mesharshiyya similarly says: One who ties his garment has not done anything of consequence with regard to exempting the garment from the obligation of ritual fringes. What is the reason? It is considered as though the garment is untied, since the knot can be loosened at any time. And we learned likewise in a mishna (Kelim 26:4): All bound leather jugs, i.e., those whose bottoms are not sewn but tied, are ritually pure, i.e., they are not susceptible to ritual impurity. This is because they are not considered receptacles, as these knots will be untied, except for leather jugs of Arabs, who would tie them with a permanent knot.
אָמַר רַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא: הַאי מַאן דְּחַיְּיטֵיהּ לִגְלִימֵיהּ – לָא עֲבַד וְלֹא כְּלוּם, אִם אִיתָא דְּלָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ – לִיפְסוֹק וְלִישְׁדְּיֵיהּ.
Rav Dimi of Neharde’a similarly says: One who sews his garment, i.e., he folded over a long garment and sewed the edges together, has not done anything of consequence with regard to the obligation of ritual fringes, and he must place ritual fringes on the original corners. The reason is that if it is so that he does not need the folded part, which is why he is sewing it, let him cut it and throw it away.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אַרְבַּעְתָּן אַרְבַּע מִצְוֹת. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּוָתֵיהּ.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yishmael says: The four of them are four discrete mitzvot, and the absence of one does not prevent fulfillment of the rest. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. The Gemara states: But the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.
רָבִינָא הֲוָה קָא אָזֵיל אַבָּתְרֵיהּ דְּמָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי בְּשַׁבְּתָא דְּרִיגְלָא, אִיפְּסִיק קַרְנָא דְּחוּטֵיהּ, וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי. כַּד מְטָא לְבֵיתֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מֵהָתָם אִיפְּסִיק. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי אֲמַרְתְּ לִי מֵהָתָם שְׁדֵיתֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates: Ravina was walking behind Mar bar Rav Ashi on the Shabbat of the Festival when the corner of Mar bar Rav Ashi’s garment on which his ritual fringes were hanging tore, and yet Ravina did not say anything to him. When he arrived at Mar bar Rav Ashi’s house, Ravina said to him: Back there, along the way, the corner tore. Mar bar Rav Ashi said to him: If you would have told me then, I would have thrown off the garment there, as once one of the ritual fringes is torn no mitzva is performed with the rest, and it is prohibited to walk in the public domain on Shabbat wearing such a garment. This is in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who disagrees with the ruling of Rabbi Yishmael.
וְהָא אָמַר מָר: גָּדוֹל כְּבוֹד הַבְּרִיּוֹת שֶׁדּוֹחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה?
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t the Master say: Great is human dignity, as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah? This includes the prohibition against carrying on Shabbat in the public domain. That being the case, why would he remove his garment in public?
תַּרְגְּומַהּ רַב בַּר שְׁבָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא,
The Gemara answers: Rav bar Shabba interpreted that statement before Rav Kahana:
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Avodah Zarah 33: Correctives (or not) for Idolatrous Encounters in Daily Life
07.21.2025 | כ״ה בתמוז תשפ״ה
Yevamot 60: A Lot of Questions and a Spiritual Truth Test
05.06.2022 | ה׳ באייר תשפ״ב
Din & Daf: Redeeming Captives- Obligation, Evolution and Dilemmas
07.03.2024 | כ״ז בסיון תשפ״ד
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Barbara Goldschlag
Silver Spring, MD, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, United States
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Modi’in, Israel
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
Miriam Tannenbaum
אפרת, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
Leeza Hirt Wilner
New York, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Shira Krebs
Minnesota, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Denise Neapolitan
Cambridge, United Kingdom
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Yafit Fishbach
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
About a year into learning more about Judaism on a path to potential conversion, I saw an article about the upcoming Siyum HaShas in January of 2020. My curiosity was piqued and I immediately started investigating what learning the Daf actually meant. Daily learning? Just what I wanted. Seven and a half years? I love a challenge! So I dove in head first and I’ve enjoyed every moment!!
Nickie Matthews
Blacksburg, United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Karena Perry
Los Angeles, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
Menachot 37
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַחוֹרָם אוֹמֵר: מָצִינוּ יָמִין שֶׁנִּקְרָא יָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיַּרְא יוֹסֵף כִּי יָשִׁית אָבִיו יַד יְמִינוֹ״. וְאִידַּךְ – ״יַד יְמִינוֹ״ אִיקְּרִי, ״יָד״ סְתָמָא לָא אִיקְּרִי.
Rabbi Yosei HaḤorem says: This is no proof, as we have found that the right hand is also called yad, as it is stated: “And when Joseph saw that his father was laying his right hand [yad yemino]” (Genesis 48:17). The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, who maintains that the right hand is not called yad, how does he respond to this proof? He maintains that the right hand is called “his right hand [yad yemino],” but it is not called a yad without further specification.
רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וּקְשַׁרְתָּם״ ״וּכְתַבְתָּם״ – מָה כְּתִיבָה בְּיָמִין, אַף קְשִׁירָה בְּיָמִין, וְכֵיוָן דִּקְשִׁירָה בְּיָמִין – הַנָּחָה בִּשְׂמֹאל הִיא. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַחוֹרָם, הַנָּחָה דְּבִשְׂמֹאל מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵהֵיכָא דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי נָתָן.
Rabbi Natan says: This proof is not necessary, as it says: “And you shall bind them for a sign upon your arm” (Deuteronomy 6:8), and then it states: “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house” (Deuteronomy 6:9). This teaches that just as writing is with the right hand, as most people write with their right hands, so too, the binding of phylacteries must be performed with the right hand. And since binding is with the right hand, this means that donning is on the left arm, as one cannot bind the phylacteries with the same hand upon which he is donning them. The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yosei HaḤorem, who holds that the right hand is also called yad in the Torah, derive that donning phylacteries is on the left arm? The Gemara answers: He derives it from where Rabbi Natan derives it.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מִ״יָּדְכָה״ כְּתִיב, בְּהֵ״י כֵּהָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְאֵימָא ״יָדְךָ״ שֶׁבְּכֹחַ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי כְּתִיב בְּחֵי״ת?
Rav Ashi said: The requirement that phylacteries be donned on the left arm is derived from the verse: “It shall be for a sign upon your arm [yadkha]” (Exodus 13:16), which is written with a letter heh at the end. This is expounded as though it stated: Your weak [keha] arm. Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: But one can say that yadkha should be interpreted as yadko’aḥ, with a letter ḥet at the end instead of a heh. If so, this would mean: Your arm that is of strength [shebeko’aḥ], which is the right arm. Rav Ashi said to Rabbi Abba: Is this word written with a ḥet?
כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״יָדְכָה״ בְּהֵ״י – זוֹ שְׂמֹאל, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: ״יָדְךָ״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַגִּידֵּם. תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אֵין לוֹ זְרוֹעַ – פָּטוּר מִן הַתְּפִילִּין, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: ״יָדְכָה״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַגִּידֵּם.
The Gemara notes that Rav Ashi’s opinion, that the halakha that phylacteries are donned on the left arm is derived from the term yadkha, is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: Yadkha is written with a heh, indicating weakness, and this is referring to the left arm. Others say: “Your arm,” i.e., yadkha, serves to include one without a complete arm, i.e., one whose arm ends at the elbow, in the obligation to don phylacteries, as the remaining part is also categorized as a weak arm. It is taught in another baraita: If one does not have a left arm, i.e., not even above the elbow, he is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries. Others say: Yadkha serves to include one without a left arm even above the elbow, teaching that he must don phylacteries on his right arm.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אִטֵּר מַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין בִּימִינוֹ, שֶׁהוּא שְׂמֹאלוֹ. וְהָתַנְיָא: מַנִּיחַ בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ שֶׁהוּא שְׂמֹאלוֹ שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם! אֲמַר אַבָּיֵי: כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא בְּשׁוֹלֵט בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו.
The Sages taught in a baraita: A left-handed person dons phylacteries on his right arm, which is equivalent to his left arm, i.e., his weaker arm. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that a left-handed person dons phylacteries on his left arm, which is the left arm of every other person? Abaye said: When that baraita is taught, it is referring to one who has equal control with both his hands, i.e., an ambidextrous person. Since such an individual also uses his right hand, he dons phylacteries on his left arm.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי מְנַשֶּׁה: ״עַל יָדְךָ״ – זוֹ קִיבּוֹרֶת, ״בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״ – זוֹ קׇדְקֹד. הֵיכָא? אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: מְקוֹם שֶׁמּוֹחוֹ שֶׁל תִּינוֹק רוֹפֵס.
The school of Menashe taught with regard to the verse: “And you shall bind them for a sign on your arm, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8): “On your arm”; this is the bicep. “Between your eyes”; this is the crown of the head. The Gemara asks: Where exactly on the crown of the head are the phylacteries placed? The school of Rabbi Yannai say: Phylacteries are placed on the place where the bone above the baby’s brain is soft after birth.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ פְּלֵימוֹ מֵרַבִּי: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי רָאשִׁים, בְּאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן מַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אוֹ קוּם גְּלִי, אוֹ קַבֵּל עֲלָךְ שַׁמְתָּא. אַדְּהָכִי אֲתָא הָהוּא גַּבְרָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִיתְיְלִיד לִי יָנוֹקָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ תְּרֵי רֵישֵׁי, כַּמָּה בָּעֵינָא לְמִיתַּב לְכֹהֵן? אֲתָא הָהוּא סָבָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ: חַיָּיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה סְלָעִים.
§ The Sage Peleimu raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: In the case of one who has two heads, on which of them does he don phylacteries? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Either get up and exile yourself from here or accept upon yourself excommunication for asking such a ridiculous question. In the meantime, a certain man arrived and said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: A firstborn child has been born to me who has two heads. How much money must I give to the priest for the redemption of the firstborn? A certain elder came and taught him: You are obligated to give him ten sela, the requisite five for each head.
אִינִי? וְהָתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה אֵת בְּכוֹר הָאָדָם״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אֲפִילּוּ נִטְרַף בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But Rami bar Ḥama teaches: Since it is stated with regard to the redemption of the firstborn: “The firstborn of man you shall redeem” (Numbers 18:15), I would derive that even if he was ravaged, e.g., by an animal, within thirty days of his birth, one should redeem him. To counter this, the verse states:
״אַךְ״ – חִלֵּק, שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דִּבְגוּלְגּוֹלֶת תְּלָא רַחֲמָנָא.
“Yet the firstborn of man you shall redeem”; the addition of the word “yet” serves to differentiate and teach that there is a firstborn who is not redeemed, namely, one that was ravaged. A child with two heads is like one that was ravaged, as he will certainly not live. The Gemara answers: Here it is different, as the Merciful One makes the redemption of the firstborn dependent on his skull, as it is stated: “You shall take five shekels apiece, by the skull” (Numbers 3:47), which indicates that there is a case in which a firstborn with more than one skull must be redeemed.
אָמַר מָר: ״יָדְךָ״ זוֹ קִיבּוֹרֶת, מְנָלַן? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עַל יָדְךָ״ – זוֹ גּוֹבַהּ שֶׁבַּיָּד. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: זוֹ גּוֹבַהּ שֶׁבַּיָּד, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא עַל יָדְךָ מַמָּשׁ? אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: הַנַּח תְּפִילִּין בַּיָּד וְהַנַּח תְּפִילִּין בָּרֹאשׁ, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּגוֹבַהּ שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ – אַף כָּאן בְּגוֹבַהּ שֶׁבַּיָּד.
The Gemara returns to its discussion of the baraita: The Master says: “On your arm”; this is the bicep. The term yad can mean either hand or arm. Therefore, the Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As the Sages taught: “On your arm [yadkha]”; this is the upper part of the arm. Do you say that this is the upper part of the arm, or is it only literally on your actual hand, i.e., on the palm of the hand? The Torah says: Don phylacteries on the yad and don phylacteries on the head; just as there, with regard to the head, it means on the upper part of the head, as will be explained, so too here, it means on the upper part of the arm.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהָיָה לְךָ לְאוֹת״, לְךָ לְאוֹת וְלֹא לַאֲחֵרִים לְאוֹת. רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְשַׂמְתֶּם אֶת דְּבָרַי אֵלֶּה עַל לְבַבְכֶם … וּקְשַׁרְתָּם״, שֶׁתְּהֵא שִׂימָה כְּנֶגֶד הַלֵּב.
Rabbi Eliezer says: This proof is not necessary, as the verse states: “And it shall be for a sign for you upon your arm” (Exodus 13:9), which teaches: It shall be a sign for you, but not a sign for others, i.e., one must don the phylacteries of the arm in a place where they are not seen by others. This is the arm, which is usually covered, whereas the hand is usually visible. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: This proof is not necessary, as the verse states: “Therefore you shall place these words in your heart and in your soul, and you shall bind them” (Deuteronomy 11:18). This teaches that placing the words, i.e., donning the phylacteries, shall be opposite the heart, on the bicep.
רַבִּי חִיָּיא וְרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא מְכַוֵּין וּמַנַּח לֵיהּ לַהֲדֵי לִיבֵּיהּ. רַב אָשֵׁי הֲוָה יָתֵיב קַמֵּיהּ דְּאַמֵּימָר, הֲוָה צִירְיָא בִּידֵיהּ וְקָא מִתְחַזְיָין תְּפִילִּין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא סָבַר לַהּ מָר ״לְךָ לְאוֹת״ וְלֹא לַאֲחֵרִים לְאוֹת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בִּמְקוֹם ״לְךָ לְאוֹת״ אִיתְּמַר.
The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, would direct the placement of his phylacteries of the arm and don them opposite his heart. Rav Ashi was sitting before Ameimar, and there was a cut in the sleeve covering Ameimar’s arm, and as a result his phylacteries were visible, as they were not covered by a garment. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Doesn’t the Master hold that the phylacteries shall be a sign for you but not a sign for others? Ameimar said to him: This does not mean that phylacteries must be hidden; rather, this was stated in order to teach that they must be donned in a place that is a sign for you, i.e., the bicep, which is generally not seen, but it does not matter if in practice the phylacteries are visible.
גּוֹבַהּ שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ, מְנָלַן? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״ – זוֹ גּוֹבַהּ שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר זוֹ גּוֹבַהּ שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ מַמָּשׁ? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״לֹא תָשִׂימוּ קׇרְחָה בֵּין עֵינֵיכֶם לָמֵת״. מָה לְהַלָּן בְּגוֹבַהּ שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ, מְקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה קׇרְחָה – אַף כָּאן בְּגוֹבַהּ שֶׁל רֹאשׁ, מְקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה קׇרְחָה.
With regard to the statement of the baraita that the phylacteries of the head are donned on the upper part of the head, the Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As the Sages taught: “Between your eyes” (Exodus 13:9); this is the upper part of the head. Do you say that this is the upper part of the head, or is it only literally between your eyes? It is stated here: “Between your eyes,” and it is stated there: “You shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead” (Deuteronomy 14:1), Just as there, the phrase “between your eyes” is referring to a place on the upper part of the head, as that is a place where one can render himself bald by removing his hair, so too, the place where phylacteries are donned is on the upper part of the head, a place where one can render himself bald.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: ״הַנַּח תְּפִילִּין בַּיָּד״, ״הַנַּח תְּפִילִּין בָּרֹאשׁ״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לִיטָּמֵא בְּנֶגַע אֶחָד, אַף כָּאן בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לִיטָּמֵא בְּנֶגַע אֶחָד.
Rabbi Yehuda says: This proof is not necessary, as the Torah says: Don phylacteries on the arm and don phylacteries on the head. Just as there, with regard to the phylacteries of the arm, it is referring to a place which is fit to become ritually impure with only one type of leprous mark, that of the skin, so too here, with regard to the phylacteries of the head, it is referring to a place which is fit to become ritually impure with only one type of leprous mark, that of a place of hair (see Leviticus 13:29–37).
לְאַפּוֹקֵי ״בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״, דְּאִיכָּא בָּשָׂר וְשֵׂעָר, דְּאִיכָּא שֵׂעָר לָבָן, וְאִיכָּא נָמֵי שֵׂעָר צָהוֹב.
Rabbi Yehuda continues: This serves to exclude the area which is literally “between your eyes,” as there is flesh and the hair of the eyebrows present there, and therefore there is a possibility of leprosy through the growth of a white hair, which is impure according to the halakhot of leprosy of the skin (see Leviticus 13:3), and there is also a possibility of leprosy through the growth of a yellow hair, which is impure according to the halakhot of leprosy of the head or the beard (see Leviticus 13:30).
אַרְבַּע צִיצִיּוֹת מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, שֶׁאַרְבַּעְתָּן מִצְוָה אַחַת. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: סָדִין בְּצִיצִית אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the four ritual fringes on a garment, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, as the four of them constitute one mitzva. Rabbi Yishmael says: The four of them are four discrete mitzvot, and the absence of one does not prevent fulfillment of the rest. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinions of the first tanna and Rabbi Yishmael? Rav Yosef said: The difference between their opinions is with regard to a linen sheet with woolen ritual fringes that has fewer than four ritual fringes. The first tanna maintains that since one is not performing a mitzva, he may not wrap himself in the sheet, due to the prohibition of diverse kinds, i.e., the prohibition against wearing clothing made from a mixture of wool and linen threads. Conversely, Rabbi Yishmael permits one to wrap himself in it, as each ritual fringe is a separate mitzva, and the mitzva of ritual fringes overrides the prohibition against wearing diverse kinds.
רָבָא בַּר אֲהִינָא אָמַר: טַלִּית בַּעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
Rava bar Ahina said: The difference between their opinions is with regard to a cloak with five corners. It is derived that a cloak of this kind requires ritual fringes (see 43b), but it is unclear whether ritual fringes must be placed on each corner. If each fringe is a discrete mitzva, then the obligation applies to the fifth corner as well, but if it is one mitzva then it applies only to four of the corners of this garment.
רָבִינָא אָמַר: דְּרַב הוּנָא אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הַיּוֹצֵא בְּטַלִּית שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְצוּיֶּיצֶת כְּהִלְכָתָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת – חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.
Ravina said: The difference between their opinions is with regard to the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: One who goes out unwittingly to the public domain on Shabbat with a four-cornered cloak that does not have all of the requisite ritual fringes attached to its corners is liable to bring a sin offering, because the remaining fringes are not an integral part of the garment. Since they do not enable the wearer to fulfill the mitzva, they are considered a burden, which may not be carried into the public domain on Shabbat. The first tanna agrees with this ruling, whereas Rabbi Yishmael maintains that since each corner with ritual fringes is the fulfillment of a mitzva, one is not liable to bring a sin offering due to carrying on Shabbat for wearing it into the public domain.
אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: הַאי מַאן דְּבַצְּרֵיהּ לִגְלִימֵיהּ – לָא עֲבַד וְלֹא כְּלוּם, שַׁוְּיֵיהּ טַלִּית בַּעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ.
Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: One who cuts the corner of his garmenthas not done anything of consequence with regard to exempting the garment from the obligation of ritual fringes, as he has rendered it a cloak with five corners, to which the obligation of ritual fringes applies.
אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: הַאי מַאן דְּצַיְּירֵיהּ לִגְלִימֵיהּ – לָא עֲבַד וְלֹא כְּלוּם. מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּכְמַאן דְּשַׁרְיֵיהּ דָּמֵי. וּתְנַן נָמֵי: כׇּל חֲמָתוֹת הַצְּרוּרוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל עַרְבִיִּים.
Rav Mesharshiyya similarly says: One who ties his garment has not done anything of consequence with regard to exempting the garment from the obligation of ritual fringes. What is the reason? It is considered as though the garment is untied, since the knot can be loosened at any time. And we learned likewise in a mishna (Kelim 26:4): All bound leather jugs, i.e., those whose bottoms are not sewn but tied, are ritually pure, i.e., they are not susceptible to ritual impurity. This is because they are not considered receptacles, as these knots will be untied, except for leather jugs of Arabs, who would tie them with a permanent knot.
אָמַר רַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא: הַאי מַאן דְּחַיְּיטֵיהּ לִגְלִימֵיהּ – לָא עֲבַד וְלֹא כְּלוּם, אִם אִיתָא דְּלָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ – לִיפְסוֹק וְלִישְׁדְּיֵיהּ.
Rav Dimi of Neharde’a similarly says: One who sews his garment, i.e., he folded over a long garment and sewed the edges together, has not done anything of consequence with regard to the obligation of ritual fringes, and he must place ritual fringes on the original corners. The reason is that if it is so that he does not need the folded part, which is why he is sewing it, let him cut it and throw it away.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אַרְבַּעְתָּן אַרְבַּע מִצְוֹת. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּוָתֵיהּ.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yishmael says: The four of them are four discrete mitzvot, and the absence of one does not prevent fulfillment of the rest. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. The Gemara states: But the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.
רָבִינָא הֲוָה קָא אָזֵיל אַבָּתְרֵיהּ דְּמָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי בְּשַׁבְּתָא דְּרִיגְלָא, אִיפְּסִיק קַרְנָא דְּחוּטֵיהּ, וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי. כַּד מְטָא לְבֵיתֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מֵהָתָם אִיפְּסִיק. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי אֲמַרְתְּ לִי מֵהָתָם שְׁדֵיתֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates: Ravina was walking behind Mar bar Rav Ashi on the Shabbat of the Festival when the corner of Mar bar Rav Ashi’s garment on which his ritual fringes were hanging tore, and yet Ravina did not say anything to him. When he arrived at Mar bar Rav Ashi’s house, Ravina said to him: Back there, along the way, the corner tore. Mar bar Rav Ashi said to him: If you would have told me then, I would have thrown off the garment there, as once one of the ritual fringes is torn no mitzva is performed with the rest, and it is prohibited to walk in the public domain on Shabbat wearing such a garment. This is in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who disagrees with the ruling of Rabbi Yishmael.
וְהָא אָמַר מָר: גָּדוֹל כְּבוֹד הַבְּרִיּוֹת שֶׁדּוֹחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה?
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t the Master say: Great is human dignity, as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah? This includes the prohibition against carrying on Shabbat in the public domain. That being the case, why would he remove his garment in public?
תַּרְגְּומַהּ רַב בַּר שְׁבָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא,
The Gemara answers: Rav bar Shabba interpreted that statement before Rav Kahana:
Follow
