Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 16, 2018 | 讝壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Menachot 37

On which arm, where on the arm and where on the head does one put on tefillin? There is agreement on聽each one but disagreement about from where it is derived. The gemara聽discusses the debate regarding tzitzit whether all 4 corners is one mitzva or each one is a separate mitzva. The gemara聽discusses the聽ramifications of this聽argument.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讞讜专诐 讗讜诪专 诪爪讬谞讜 讬诪讬谉 砖谞拽专讗 讬讚 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬专讗 讬讜住祝 讻讬 讬砖讬转 讗讘讬讜 讬讚 讬诪讬谞讜 讜讗讬讚讱 讬讚 讬诪讬谞讜 讗讬拽专讬 讬讚 住转诪讗 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬

Rabbi Yosei Ha岣rem says: This is no proof, as we have found that the right hand is also called yad, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd when Joseph saw that his father was laying his right hand [yad yemino]鈥 (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 鈥渉is right hand [yad yemino],鈥 but it is not called a yad without further specification.

专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜拽砖专转诐 讜讻转讘转诐 诪讛 讻转讬讘讛 讘讬诪讬谉 讗祝 拽砖讬专讛 讘讬诪讬谉 讜讻讬讜谉 讚拽砖讬专讛 讘讬诪讬谉 讛谞讞讛 讘砖诪讗诇 讛讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讞讜专诐 讛谞讞讛 讚讘砖诪讗诇 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讬讻讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 谞转谉

Rabbi Natan says: This proof is not necessary, as it says: 鈥淎nd you shall bind them for a sign upon your arm鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:8), and then it states: 鈥淎nd you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house鈥 (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 Ha岣rem, 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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讬讚讻讛 讻转讬讘 讘讛讬 讻讛讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讬诪讗 讬讚讱 砖讘讻讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讘讞讬转

Rav Ashi said: The requirement that phylacteries be donned on the left arm is derived from the verse: 鈥淚t shall be for a sign upon your arm [yadkha]鈥 (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鈥檃岣, with a letter 岣t at the end instead of a heh. If so, this would mean: Your arm that is of strength [shebeko鈥檃岣], which is the right arm. Rav Ashi said to Rabbi Abba: Is this word written with a 岣t?

讻转谞讗讬 讬讚讻讛 讘讛讬 讝讜 砖诪讗诇 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讚讱 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讙讬讚诐 转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讜 讝专讜注 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转驻讬诇讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讚讻讛 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讙讬讚诐

The Gemara notes that Rav Ashi鈥檚 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鈥檌m, 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: 鈥淵our arm,鈥 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讟专 诪谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘讬诪讬谞讜 砖讛讜讗 砖诪讗诇讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪谞讬讞 讘砖诪讗诇讜 砖讛讜讗 砖诪讗诇讜 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘砖讜诇讟 讘砖转讬 讬讚讬讜

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鈥檛 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.

转谞讗 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讛 注诇 讬讚讱 讝讜 拽讬讘讜专转 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讱 讝讜 拽讚拽讚 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讜讞讜 砖诇 转讬谞讜拽 专讜驻住

The school of Menashe taught with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall bind them for a sign on your arm, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:8): 鈥淥n your arm鈥; this is the bicep. 鈥淏etween your eyes鈥; 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鈥檚 brain is soft after birth.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 驻诇讬诪讜 诪专讘讬 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 专讗砖讬诐 讘讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 诪谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讜 拽讜诐 讙诇讬 讗讜 拽讘诇 注诇讱 砖诪转讗 讗讚讛讻讬 讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬转讬诇讬讚 诇讬 讬谞讜拽讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转专讬 专讬砖讬 讻诪讛 讘注讬谞谉 诇诪讬转讘 诇讻讛谉 讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讬转谉 诇讜 注砖专讛 住诇注讬诐

搂 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.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪转讜讱 砖谞讗诪专 驻讚讛 转驻讚讛 讗转 讘讻讜专 讛讗讚诐 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讟专祝 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But Rami bar 岣ma teaches: Since it is stated with regard to the redemption of the firstborn: 鈥淭he firstborn of man you shall redeem鈥 (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:

讗讱 讞诇拽 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讘讙讜诇讙讜诇转 转诇讗 专讞诪谞讗

鈥淵et the firstborn of man you shall redeem鈥; the addition of the word 鈥測et鈥 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: 鈥淵ou shall take five shekels apiece, by the skull鈥 (Numbers 3:47), which indicates that there is a case in which a firstborn with more than one skull must be redeemed.

讗诪专 诪专 讬讚讱 讝讜 拽讬讘讜专转 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注诇 讬讚讱 讝讜 讙讜讘讛 砖讘讬讚 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讝讜 讙讜讘讛 砖讘讬讚 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讱 诪诪砖 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讛谞讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘讬讚 讜讛谞讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘专讗砖 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讙讜讘讛 砖讘专讗砖 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讙讜讘讛 砖讘讬讚

The Gemara returns to its discussion of the baraita: The Master says: 鈥淥n your arm鈥; 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: 鈥淥n your arm [yadkha]鈥; 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.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讬讛 诇讱 诇讗讜转 诇讱 诇讗讜转 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬诐 诇讗讜转 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜砖诪转诐 讗转 讚讘专讬 讗诇讛 注诇 诇讘讘讻诐 讜拽砖专转诐 砖转讛讗 砖讬诪讛 讻谞讙讚 讛诇讘

Rabbi Eliezer says: This proof is not necessary, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be for a sign for you upon your arm鈥 (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 Yitz岣k says: This proof is not necessary, as the verse states: 鈥淭herefore you shall place these words in your heart and in your soul, and you shall bind them鈥 (Deuteronomy 11:18). This teaches that placing the words, i.e., donning the phylacteries, shall be opposite the heart, on the bicep.

专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诪讻讜讬谉 讜诪谞讞 诇讬讛 诇讛讚讬 诇讬讘讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 拽诪讬讛 讚讗诪讬诪专 讛讜讛 爪讬专讬讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讜拽讗 诪转讞讝讬讬谉 转驻讬诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诪专 诇讱 诇讗讜转 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬诐 诇讗讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐 诇讱 诇讗讜转 讗讬转诪专

The Gemara relates: Rabbi 岣yya and Rav A岣, 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鈥檚 arm, and as a result his phylacteries were visible, as they were not covered by a garment. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Doesn鈥檛 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.

讙讜讘讛 砖讘专讗砖 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讱 讝讜 讙讜讘讛 砖讘专讗砖 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讝讜 讙讜讘讛 砖讘专讗砖 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讱 诪诪砖 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讱 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 诇讗 转砖讬诪讜 拽专讞讛 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讻诐 诇诪转 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讙讜讘讛 砖讘专讗砖 诪拽讜诐 砖注讜砖讛 拽专讞讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讙讜讘讛 砖诇 专讗砖 诪拽讜诐 砖注讜砖讛 拽专讞讛

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: 鈥淏etween your eyes鈥 (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: 鈥淏etween your eyes,鈥 and it is stated there: 鈥淵ou shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:1), Just as there, the phrase 鈥渂etween your eyes鈥 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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讛谞讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘讬讚 讛谞讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘专讗砖 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讛专讗讜讬 诇讬讟诪讗 讘谞讙注 讗讞讚 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讛专讗讜讬 诇讬讟诪讗 讘谞讙注 讗讞讚

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鈥37).

诇讗驻讜拽讬 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讱 讚讗讬讻讗 讘砖专 讜砖注专 讚讗讬讻讗 砖注专 诇讘谉 讜讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 砖注专 爪讛讜讘

Rabbi Yehuda continues: This serves to exclude the area which is literally 鈥渂etween your eyes,鈥 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).

讗专讘注 爪讬爪讬讜转 诪注讻讘讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 砖讗专讘注转谉 诪爪讜讛 讗讞转 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 住讚讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

搂 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.

专讘讗 讘专 讗讛讬谞讗 讗诪专 讟诇讬转 讘注诇转 讞诪砖 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

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.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讬讜爪讗 讘讟诇讬转 砖讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讬爪转 讻讛诇讻转讛 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讘爪专讬讛 诇讙诇讬诪讬讛 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 砖讜讬讬讛 讟诇讬转 讘注诇转 讞诪砖

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.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚爪讬讬专讬讛 诇讙诇讬诪讬讛 诇讗 注讘讚 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讻诪讗谉 讚砖专讬讬讛 讚诪讬 讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 讻诇 讞诪转讜转 讛爪专讜专讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 讞讜抓 诪砖诇 注专讘讬讬诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讞讬讬讟讬讛 诇讙诇讬诪讬讛 诇讗 注讘讚 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讬驻住讜拽 讜诇讬砖讚讬讬讛

Rav Dimi of Neharde鈥檃 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.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注转谉 讗专讘注 诪爪讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讛

搂 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.

专讘讬谞讗 讛讜讛 拽讗 讗讝讬诇 讗讘转专讬讛 讚诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘砖讘转讗 讚专讬讙诇讗 讗讬驻住讬拽 拽专谞讗 讚讞讜讟讬讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讻讚 诪讟讗 诇讘讬转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛转诐 讗讬驻住讬拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讬 诪讛转诐 砖讚讬转讬讛

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讜讛讗 讗诪专 诪专 讙讚讜诇 讻讘讜讚 讛讘专讬讜转 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘转讜专讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn鈥檛 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?

转专讙讜诪讛 专讘 讘专 砖讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗

The Gemara answers: Rav bar Shabba interpreted that statement before Rav Kahana:

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 37

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 37

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讞讜专诐 讗讜诪专 诪爪讬谞讜 讬诪讬谉 砖谞拽专讗 讬讚 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬专讗 讬讜住祝 讻讬 讬砖讬转 讗讘讬讜 讬讚 讬诪讬谞讜 讜讗讬讚讱 讬讚 讬诪讬谞讜 讗讬拽专讬 讬讚 住转诪讗 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬

Rabbi Yosei Ha岣rem says: This is no proof, as we have found that the right hand is also called yad, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd when Joseph saw that his father was laying his right hand [yad yemino]鈥 (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 鈥渉is right hand [yad yemino],鈥 but it is not called a yad without further specification.

专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜拽砖专转诐 讜讻转讘转诐 诪讛 讻转讬讘讛 讘讬诪讬谉 讗祝 拽砖讬专讛 讘讬诪讬谉 讜讻讬讜谉 讚拽砖讬专讛 讘讬诪讬谉 讛谞讞讛 讘砖诪讗诇 讛讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讞讜专诐 讛谞讞讛 讚讘砖诪讗诇 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讬讻讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 谞转谉

Rabbi Natan says: This proof is not necessary, as it says: 鈥淎nd you shall bind them for a sign upon your arm鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:8), and then it states: 鈥淎nd you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house鈥 (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 Ha岣rem, 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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讬讚讻讛 讻转讬讘 讘讛讬 讻讛讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讬诪讗 讬讚讱 砖讘讻讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讘讞讬转

Rav Ashi said: The requirement that phylacteries be donned on the left arm is derived from the verse: 鈥淚t shall be for a sign upon your arm [yadkha]鈥 (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鈥檃岣, with a letter 岣t at the end instead of a heh. If so, this would mean: Your arm that is of strength [shebeko鈥檃岣], which is the right arm. Rav Ashi said to Rabbi Abba: Is this word written with a 岣t?

讻转谞讗讬 讬讚讻讛 讘讛讬 讝讜 砖诪讗诇 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讚讱 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讙讬讚诐 转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讜 讝专讜注 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转驻讬诇讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讚讻讛 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讙讬讚诐

The Gemara notes that Rav Ashi鈥檚 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鈥檌m, 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: 鈥淵our arm,鈥 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讟专 诪谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘讬诪讬谞讜 砖讛讜讗 砖诪讗诇讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪谞讬讞 讘砖诪讗诇讜 砖讛讜讗 砖诪讗诇讜 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘砖讜诇讟 讘砖转讬 讬讚讬讜

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鈥檛 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.

转谞讗 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讛 注诇 讬讚讱 讝讜 拽讬讘讜专转 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讱 讝讜 拽讚拽讚 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讜讞讜 砖诇 转讬谞讜拽 专讜驻住

The school of Menashe taught with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall bind them for a sign on your arm, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:8): 鈥淥n your arm鈥; this is the bicep. 鈥淏etween your eyes鈥; 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鈥檚 brain is soft after birth.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 驻诇讬诪讜 诪专讘讬 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 专讗砖讬诐 讘讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 诪谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讜 拽讜诐 讙诇讬 讗讜 拽讘诇 注诇讱 砖诪转讗 讗讚讛讻讬 讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬转讬诇讬讚 诇讬 讬谞讜拽讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转专讬 专讬砖讬 讻诪讛 讘注讬谞谉 诇诪讬转讘 诇讻讛谉 讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讬转谉 诇讜 注砖专讛 住诇注讬诐

搂 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.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪转讜讱 砖谞讗诪专 驻讚讛 转驻讚讛 讗转 讘讻讜专 讛讗讚诐 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讟专祝 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But Rami bar 岣ma teaches: Since it is stated with regard to the redemption of the firstborn: 鈥淭he firstborn of man you shall redeem鈥 (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:

讗讱 讞诇拽 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讘讙讜诇讙讜诇转 转诇讗 专讞诪谞讗

鈥淵et the firstborn of man you shall redeem鈥; the addition of the word 鈥測et鈥 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: 鈥淵ou shall take five shekels apiece, by the skull鈥 (Numbers 3:47), which indicates that there is a case in which a firstborn with more than one skull must be redeemed.

讗诪专 诪专 讬讚讱 讝讜 拽讬讘讜专转 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注诇 讬讚讱 讝讜 讙讜讘讛 砖讘讬讚 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讝讜 讙讜讘讛 砖讘讬讚 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讱 诪诪砖 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讛谞讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘讬讚 讜讛谞讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘专讗砖 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讙讜讘讛 砖讘专讗砖 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讙讜讘讛 砖讘讬讚

The Gemara returns to its discussion of the baraita: The Master says: 鈥淥n your arm鈥; 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: 鈥淥n your arm [yadkha]鈥; 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.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讬讛 诇讱 诇讗讜转 诇讱 诇讗讜转 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬诐 诇讗讜转 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜砖诪转诐 讗转 讚讘专讬 讗诇讛 注诇 诇讘讘讻诐 讜拽砖专转诐 砖转讛讗 砖讬诪讛 讻谞讙讚 讛诇讘

Rabbi Eliezer says: This proof is not necessary, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be for a sign for you upon your arm鈥 (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 Yitz岣k says: This proof is not necessary, as the verse states: 鈥淭herefore you shall place these words in your heart and in your soul, and you shall bind them鈥 (Deuteronomy 11:18). This teaches that placing the words, i.e., donning the phylacteries, shall be opposite the heart, on the bicep.

专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诪讻讜讬谉 讜诪谞讞 诇讬讛 诇讛讚讬 诇讬讘讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 拽诪讬讛 讚讗诪讬诪专 讛讜讛 爪讬专讬讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讜拽讗 诪转讞讝讬讬谉 转驻讬诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诪专 诇讱 诇讗讜转 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬诐 诇讗讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐 诇讱 诇讗讜转 讗讬转诪专

The Gemara relates: Rabbi 岣yya and Rav A岣, 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鈥檚 arm, and as a result his phylacteries were visible, as they were not covered by a garment. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Doesn鈥檛 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.

讙讜讘讛 砖讘专讗砖 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讱 讝讜 讙讜讘讛 砖讘专讗砖 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讝讜 讙讜讘讛 砖讘专讗砖 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讱 诪诪砖 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讱 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 诇讗 转砖讬诪讜 拽专讞讛 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讻诐 诇诪转 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讙讜讘讛 砖讘专讗砖 诪拽讜诐 砖注讜砖讛 拽专讞讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讙讜讘讛 砖诇 专讗砖 诪拽讜诐 砖注讜砖讛 拽专讞讛

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: 鈥淏etween your eyes鈥 (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: 鈥淏etween your eyes,鈥 and it is stated there: 鈥淵ou shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:1), Just as there, the phrase 鈥渂etween your eyes鈥 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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讛谞讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘讬讚 讛谞讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘专讗砖 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讛专讗讜讬 诇讬讟诪讗 讘谞讙注 讗讞讚 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讛专讗讜讬 诇讬讟诪讗 讘谞讙注 讗讞讚

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鈥37).

诇讗驻讜拽讬 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讱 讚讗讬讻讗 讘砖专 讜砖注专 讚讗讬讻讗 砖注专 诇讘谉 讜讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 砖注专 爪讛讜讘

Rabbi Yehuda continues: This serves to exclude the area which is literally 鈥渂etween your eyes,鈥 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).

讗专讘注 爪讬爪讬讜转 诪注讻讘讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 砖讗专讘注转谉 诪爪讜讛 讗讞转 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 住讚讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

搂 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.

专讘讗 讘专 讗讛讬谞讗 讗诪专 讟诇讬转 讘注诇转 讞诪砖 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

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.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讬讜爪讗 讘讟诇讬转 砖讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讬爪转 讻讛诇讻转讛 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讘爪专讬讛 诇讙诇讬诪讬讛 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 砖讜讬讬讛 讟诇讬转 讘注诇转 讞诪砖

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.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚爪讬讬专讬讛 诇讙诇讬诪讬讛 诇讗 注讘讚 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讻诪讗谉 讚砖专讬讬讛 讚诪讬 讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 讻诇 讞诪转讜转 讛爪专讜专讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 讞讜抓 诪砖诇 注专讘讬讬诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讞讬讬讟讬讛 诇讙诇讬诪讬讛 诇讗 注讘讚 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讬驻住讜拽 讜诇讬砖讚讬讬讛

Rav Dimi of Neharde鈥檃 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.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注转谉 讗专讘注 诪爪讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讛

搂 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.

专讘讬谞讗 讛讜讛 拽讗 讗讝讬诇 讗讘转专讬讛 讚诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘砖讘转讗 讚专讬讙诇讗 讗讬驻住讬拽 拽专谞讗 讚讞讜讟讬讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讻讚 诪讟讗 诇讘讬转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛转诐 讗讬驻住讬拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讬 诪讛转诐 砖讚讬转讬讛

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讜讛讗 讗诪专 诪专 讙讚讜诇 讻讘讜讚 讛讘专讬讜转 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘转讜专讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn鈥檛 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?

转专讙讜诪讛 专讘 讘专 砖讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗

The Gemara answers: Rav bar Shabba interpreted that statement before Rav Kahana:

Scroll To Top