ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 37
(a) In spite of the Beraisa that we just discussed, Rav Ashi learns from the
fact that "al Yadechah" is written with an extra 'Hey' - that Tefilin are
worn on the left arm (because "Yadechah" is the acronym of 'Yad Keiheh' [the
(b) Alternatively, the extra 'Hey' has connotations of weakness (as it is
the letter which denotes the feminine form).
(c) Rebbi Aba asked him how he knew not to Darshen "Yadchah she'be'Ko'ach"
(presumably based on the principle that 'Hey' and 'Ches' are
interchangeable). To which he replied - that since the Torah writes
"Yadechah" with a 'Hey', that is how we Darshen it.
(d) This is actually the opinion of the Tana Kama in a Beraisa. Acheirim
learns from "Yadechah" - that even a person without a left hand and lower
arm is Chayav Tefilin (because "Yadechah" with a 'Hey' implies even one that
(e) Acheirim repeats his opinion in another Beraisa too. The Tana Kama
there - exempts someone with no left arm at all from Tefilin (see Tosfos DH
'Ein Lo Zero'a').
(a) The Beraisa rules - that a left-handed person lays Tefilin on his left
(weaker) arm, which is what we would call his right one.
(b) We reconcile this with another Beraisa which requires him to wear his
Tefilin on the same arm as everybody else - by establishing the latter
Beraisa by someone who is able to use both hands (and we do not exempt him
altogether on the grounds that he has no weak hand).
(c) We learned in a Beraisa of de'Bei Menasheh that "al Yadechah" means on
the Kibores - which means the fleshy part of the arm above the elbow.
(d) And "bein Einecha" he explains as 'on the skull', which de'bei Rebbi
Yanai interprets as - the location above the forehead which is extremely
vulnerable on that of a year old baby (see also Tosfos DH 'Makom').
(a) Rebbi reacted to P'limu's She'eilah, on which head someone with two
heads should wear Tefilin (see Keren Orah) - by giving him the choice of
either going into exile or accepting a Shamta (a Cherem).
(b) The reason that he reacted in this way was - because P'limu was pulling
his leg (by asking impractical She'eilos).
(c) At that moment - a man entered to ask Rebbi a She'eilah concerning the
two-headed Bechor to whom his wife had just given birth.
(a) The father came to ask Rebbi - how much he needed to give the Kohen for
(b) The She'eilah was solved by a Beraisa cited by that old man. The Tana
rules in this very case - that the father is obligated to pay the Kohen ten
Sela'im (one for each head).
(c) The father of twins is Chayav to pay the Kohen only five Sela'im as
Pidyon ha'Ben ...
(d) ... because whereas there we have a principle 'I Efshar Letzamtzem' (it
is impossible for the two babies to have been born at exactly the same
moment), in this case there is only one baby, and the S'vara 'I Efshar
Letzamtzem' is not applicable. And the reason that he pays ten Sela'im is
because the Torah writes 'Chamesh Shekalim la'Gulgoles' (relating the amount
of Pidyon ha'Ben to the number of heads).
(a) The Beraisa cited by Rami bar Chama learns from the word "Ach" in the
Pasuk "Ach Padoh Sifdeh es Bechor ha'Adam" - that a baby that is killed
before the age of thirty days is not subject to Pidyon ha'Ben.
(b) In spite of the fact that the Torah only requires the redemption of a
baby who has survived thirty days to be redeemed, we might have thought
otherwise - because the baby in question was a healthy baby and would
presumably have survived thirty days.
(c) The problem this Beraisa creates with our current ruling is - that in
our case too, the baby cannot survive thirty days (vindicating Rebbi's
ruling against P'limu), in which case the father ought to have been Patur
from paying anything.
(d) We reconcile the two - by drawing a distinction between a baby that died
and one that is still alive. Note, that the Gemara's answer 'Sha'ani Hacha
de'be'Gulgoles Tala Rachmana' does not seem to answer the Kashya (see Tosfos
and Seifer Eizehu Mekoman).
(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns that "al Yadecha" means on the arm
and not on the hand - from the Hekesh to Tefilin shel Rosh, where the Torah
writes "bein Einecha" (which means high on the head).
(b) According to Rebbi Eliezer, this is not necessary. He learns it from the
preceding words "Ve'hayah Lecha le'Os" - from which we learn 've'Lo
la'Acherim le'Os', which would be nigh-on impossible to implement if Tefilin
were worn on the hand.
(c) Rebbi Yitzchak learns it - from the juxtaposition of the Pasuk
"Ve'samtem es Devarai Eileh al Levavchem ... u'Keshartem" - which teaches us
that Tefilin should be worn next to the heart (which the upper-arm is, but
the hand is not).
(d) Rebbi Chiya b'rei de'Rav Ivya therefore arranged his Tefilin - on the
arm, slightly inclined towards the heart.
(a) When Rav Ashi was sitting in front of Ameimar, he noticed that the
latter's shirt-sleeve was torn - so that the sleeve should not rub against a
sore on his arm.
(b) As a result of the tear, Ameimar's Tefilin shel Yad were visible. When
Rav Ashi queried him from "Ve'hayu Lecha le'Os", 've'Lo la'Acheirim le'Os' -
he replied that this merely comes to specify the location of the shel Yad,
but not that the Tefilin must actually be out of sight.
(c) "bein Einechem" implies literally 'between the eyes'. The Tana Kama in
the Beraisa learn that the Tefilin shel Rosh must be worn above the forehead
from the Gezeirah-Shavah - "bein Einechem" "bein Einechem" (from "Lo Sasimu
Korchah bein Einechem la'Meis", which clearly refers to a place on the head
where hair grows).
(d) According to Rebbi Yehudah, this is not necessary, because he learns it
from the Hekesh to Tefilin shel Yad. When he says 'Mah Lehalan be'Makom
ha'Ra'uy Litamei be'Nega Echad ... ', he means - that just as Tefilin shel
Yad are worn in a location where only one type of Tzara'as applies (i.e. the
arm, which is subject to Tzara'as via two white hairs only), so too, must
the Tefilin shel Rosh be in such a location (i.e. the head, which is subject
to Tzara'as via two yellow hairs only), and not between the eyes, which can
become Tzara'as through two white hairs on the skin, or through yellow hairs
on the eye-brows.
(a) The Tana Kama in our Mishnah considers the four Tzitzis to be one
Mitzvah; Rebbi Yishmael considers them four. The basis of the Kashya 'Mai
Beineihu' is - that both agree that the garment requires four Tzitzis, one
on each corner.
(b) When ...
1. ... Rav Yosef answers 'Sadin be'Tzitzis Ika Beinaihu', he means - that if
one attaches three Tzitzis including Techeiles (which is made of wool), to a
linen garment, he has performed the Mitzvah of Tzitzis, according to Rebbi
Yishmael; whereas according to the Tana Kama, not only has he not performed
the Mitzvah, but he has also transgressed the sin of Sha'atnez.
(c) According to Ravina, they argue over a statement of Rav Huna, who said
that someone who walks into the street on Shabbos wearing a Talis that has
Tzitzis which are not Kasher - is Chayav a Chatas.
2. ... Rava bar Ahina answers 'Talis Ba'alas Chameish Ika Beinaihu', he
means - that according to the Tana Kama, a garment of five corners requires
four Tzitzis (as we will learn in 'ha'Techeiles'), whereas according to
Rebbi Yishmael, it will require five Tzitziyos, one for each corner.
(d) Consequently, if someone goes into the street wearing a Talis with three
Tzitzis - he will be Chayav, according to the Tana Kama, but Patur,
according to Rebbi Yishmael.
(a) Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi rules that someone who cuts a corner of his
garment (turning it into a five-cornered garment, instead of a four-cornered
one), in order to exempt it from Tzitzis - has achieved nothing (because a
five-cornered garment is Chayav Tzitzis too, as we just learned).
(b) In a similar ruling, Rav Mesharshaya states that someone who folds the
corners of his garment and ties or glues them to the garment, has achieved
nothing. The garment remains Chayav Tzitzis - because tying or gluing in
this way is only temporary, and stands to be undone (Consequently, it is as
if it has not been tied).
(c) Alternatively, we might explain the expression 'Hai Ma'an de'Tzayreih
li'Gelimeih' to mean - that the owner folded the garment in two and tied or
glued it, before attaching Tzitzis to its four current corners. Here too,
seeing as the stitches are not permanent, the two Tzitziyos that hang from
the corners that have been tied, are considered to be hanging from the
middle of the garment.
(d) We support this ruling with a Mishnah in Keilim, which rules that
leather flasks which became receptacles by tying all four ends together -
are not subject to Tum'ah (because they are not considered receptacles).
(a) The Tana in Keilim precludes Arabian flasks from the previous ruling -
on the grounds that they are commonly made that way (and are therefore
subject to Tum'ah).
Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like Rebi Yishmael in our Mishnah (who
considers the four Tzitzis four Mitzvos). The last word on the subject
however is - 've'Leis Hilchesa Kavaseih'.
(b) For (non-Arabian) flasks to be subject to Tum'ah - one would have to
stitch the ends together.
(c) Rav Dimi from Neherda'a maintains that even sewing the ends of the
garment will not be effective in our case - because if the owner wanted to
remove the corners of the garment or to reduce its length permanently, he
would have cut off the excess material, and not just sewn it (and the fact
that he did not do so proves that the stitching is only temporary).
(d) The problem with our second explanation of 'Hai Ma'an de'Tzayreih
li'Gelimeih' (that he folded the garment, sewed it and attached Tzitzis)
is - that a Beraisa in 'ha'Techeiles' rules that a garment that is sewn in
this way is Chayav Tzitzis the way it is.
(a) When Ravina, following Mar bar Rav Ashi one Shabbos Chol-ha'Mo'ed,
noticed that one of his Tzitziyos was torn - he remained silent until he
arrived home, when he informed him of the mishap.
(b) The problem, despite the fact that according to Rebbi Yishmael, one is
permitted to go out with three Tzitziyos on Shabbos was - that we do not
rule him (as we just explained).
(c) Ravina later justified his silence to Mar bar Rav Ashi - on the basis of
Mar's principle 'Gadol Kavod ha'Beriyos, she'Docheh Lo Sa'aseh she'ba'Torah'
(and which he assumed, refers to any Lo Sa'aseh, even if it d'Oraysa).
(d) Mar bar Rav Ashi retorted with a quote from Rav bar Sh'va, who had cited
in front of Rav Kahana the Pasuk "Lo Sasur" - intimating that the Lo
Sa'aseh referred to by Mar is confined to that of "Lo Sasur", incorporating
Isurim de'Rabbanan (such as carrying Muktzah stones to a bathroom when
necessary, even though these are otherwise Muktzah).
(a) In the second Lashon, Ravina informed Mar bar Rav Ashi immediately. This
time Mar bar Ashi reacted - by querying his leniency, bearing in mind Rav
bar Sh'va's qualification.
***** Hadran Alach 'ha'Kometz Rabah *****
(b) To which Ravina replied - that they were currently standing in a
Karmelis, where carrying was indeed forbidden only mi'de'Rabbanan.