{"id":13615,"date":"2011-04-14T09:00:16","date_gmt":"2011-04-14T09:00:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/production.ou.org\/life\/other\/masechet_menahot_37a43b\/"},"modified":"2015-10-09T06:22:30","modified_gmt":"2015-10-09T11:22:30","slug":"masechet_menahot_37a43b","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/torah\/masechet_menahot_37a43b\/","title":{"rendered":"Masechet Menachot 37a-43b"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Coming Week’s Daf Yomi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz<\/em><\/p>\n

This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim (original ideas) of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud.<\/em><\/p>\n

Menachot 37a-b: Tefillin<\/em> on the arm and on the head<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

According to the Torah<\/a> Tefillin<\/a><\/em> are worn on the “hand” and “between the eyes” (see Shemot<\/a> 13:9<\/a>). The Gemara<\/a> defines the Tefillin<\/em> of the “hand” as being placed on the kiboret<\/a><\/em> – the muscle between the elbow and the shoulder – and the Tefillin<\/em> “between the eyes<\/a>” as being placed on the skull, the soft area of a baby’s head.<\/p>\n

Various derivations are offered explaining why halacha<\/a><\/em> rules that neither “hand” nor “between the eyes” are understood literally by the Sages. When the Gemara suggests that perhaps “Tefillin<\/em> of the hand” should be actually placed on the hand, and that “between the eyes” should be understood literally, it is not only a theoretical discussion. According to the Mishnah<\/a> in Masechet<\/a> Megillah<\/a><\/em> (24a<\/a>) during the time of the Mishnah there were Jewish sects that disagreed with the traditional interpretations of the Sages and actually performed the commandment of Tefillin<\/em> in a literal manner. Among these sects, apparently, were early Christians.<\/p>\n

Through the ages there were, nonetheless, different interpretations of the Sages’ definition, as well. We know of groups that understood the term kiboret<\/em> as meaning the fleshy part of the lower part of the arm, between the elbow and the wrist, and actually wore Tefillin<\/em> in that fashion. Rabbeinu Tam<\/a> came out strongly against this understanding and proved that only the upper part of the arm could be considered the kiboret<\/em>.<\/p>\n

With regard to placing the Tefillin<\/em> of the head on the spot where a baby’s head is soft, when a baby is born the bones of the skull are separated. The area where these bones will eventually meet are open so that the brain is not covered with bone, but there is room for the skull to grow and develop. The Gemara’s reference to the area where the baby’s skull is soft refers to the soft area towards the front of the head, which ordinarily closes up by the time the baby is one-and-a-half years old.<\/p>\n

\n

Menachot 38a-b: Dyeing one’s tzitzit<\/em><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The fourth perek<\/em> of Masechet<\/a> Menachot<\/a>, Perek ha-Tekhelet<\/em>, which begins on today’s daf<\/em> continues discussing a number of loosely related commandments that have two or more parts. Unlike the previous perek<\/em>, which dealt with commandments whose different parts depend on one another, (e.g. the four parshiyot<\/em> in Tefillin<\/a><\/em> or the four tzitziyot<\/a><\/em> on a four-cornered garment) this perek<\/em> focuses on mitzvot<\/a><\/em> that do not depend on each other, so that each part is viewed as a separate commandment that can be fulfilled in-and-of itself (e.g. the Tefillin<\/em> of the arm and the Tefillin<\/em> of the head, or the tekhelet<\/em> of tzitzit<\/em> and the tzitzit<\/em> themselves).<\/p>\n

The Torah<\/a> mentions the color tekhelet<\/em> on many occasions, but it is not really a shade of color; rather it is the dye from which this color is made. Various discussions in the Gemara<\/a> make it clear that the blue dye of the tekhelet<\/em> was taken from a living creature called a hilazon<\/em>. Because of the many Gemarot that describe<\/a> the hilazon<\/em>, it is difficult to identify one particular animal that meets all of the criteria, and there are many different opinions regarding its classification. \u00a0The consensus of most opinions is that the hilazon<\/em> is the snail “Murex trunculus<\/a>” that is found on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea in the north of Israel. This creature has a unique liquid dye (that is not the animal’s blood), which, when mixed with other materials, produces the blue tekhelet<\/em> color described in the Torah. Already during Talmudic<\/a> times the use of tekhelet<\/em> became a rarity, and within a short time its true source was forgotten.<\/p>\n

It appears that the color of the tekhelet<\/em> dye was a dark blue containing shades of green, which is why the sources compare it both to the sea and to grass.<\/p>\n

\n

Menachot 39a-b: Of knots and twists in tzitzit<\/em><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The standard method of tying tzitzit<\/a><\/em> today is to take four strings, placing them through the hole at the bottom of each corner of the four-cornered garment so that they are eight strands, with one strand longer than the rest. Five knots are made, with the longer strand twisted around the rest between each of the knots.<\/p>\n

Rabbah<\/a> argues that one of the knots is a Torah<\/a> obligation – the kesher elyon<\/em>, or “top knot.” His proof for this is that the Torah offers specific dispensation that allows woolen tzitzit<\/em> with tekehlet<\/em> (see yesterday’s daf<\/em>, or page<\/a>) to be placed on a linen garment, the prohibition of sha’atnez<\/em> (which prohibits the mixing of wool and linen) notwithstanding. Were there no requirement to actually knot the tzitziyot<\/em> onto the garment, then this could be done by simply inserting the woolen tzitziyot<\/em> which would not be prohibited according to the laws of sha’atnez<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Rashi<\/a> on our page suggests that the kesher elyon<\/em> actually refers to the knot at the bottom of the series of knots and twists, which is the “top knot<\/a>” in comparison to the strings that descend from it. He views this knot as significant because those strings would not last if they were not tied together. Tosafot<\/a>, however, quote Rashi as holding the exact opposite position – that the kesher elyon<\/em> is, in fact, the knot that is tied closest to the garment. This opinion does appear in Rashi in Masechet<\/a> Sanhedrin<\/a><\/em> (88b<\/a>). According to this view, after the four strings are folded through the hole in the garment and appear as eight strings, it is when they are tied together – with a single, double or triple knot – that they actually become tzitzit<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Many rishonim<\/a><\/em> disagree with the traditional view that the knots are made using all eight strings; they rule that the knot is made only with the longer string that is twisted around the others. According to this approach, the kesher elyon<\/em> is the first time that the longer string is tucked under the twists, creating a knot.<\/p>\n

\n

Menachot 40a-b – Counterfeiting tekhelet<\/em><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

We have learned (see daf, or page 38<\/a><\/em>) that although the Torah<\/a> mentions the color tekhelet<\/em> on many occasions, it is not really a shade of color; rather it is the dye from which this color is made. It is clear, however, that the blue dye of the tekhelet<\/em> was taken from a living creature called a hilazon<\/em>.<\/p>\n

There were similar color dyes available in the time of the Mishnah<\/a> – so similar, in fact that it was difficult to distinguish between the true tekhelet<\/em> and the counterfeit tekhelet<\/em>. The Gemara<\/a> refers to a dye called kala ilan<\/em>, which means “dark blue,” or, perhaps, the word kala<\/em> itself means “dark blue” and the word ilan<\/em> – “tree” in Hebrew – was added in order to indicate that it was dye that was produced from a vegetative source rather than from a living creature.<\/p>\n

It appears that the kala ilan<\/em> referred to in the Gemara is True indigo, or indigofera tinctora L.<\/a><\/em> True indigo is a shrub one to two meters high. It has red, pink or violet flowers. It may be an annual, biennial, or perennial, depending on the climate in which it is grown. The plant is a legume, so it is rotated into fields to improve the soil in the same way that other legume crops such as alfalfa and beans are.
\nThe blue dye is obtained from the processing of the plant’s leaves. This plant was the single most important source of blue dye for woven fabrics, and it grew mainly in India, although it also could be found in other areas including the Middle East. Only in recent years has synthetic indigo overtaken this traditional method of producing blue dye.<\/p>\n

It appears that although kala ilan<\/em> and tekhelet<\/em> were very similar in appearance, kala ilan<\/em> was much cheaper to produce than the tekhelet<\/em>, and it was almost impossible to distinguish between them.<\/p>\n

\n

Menachot 41a-b – Neglecting the commandment of tzitzit<\/em><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Generally speaking, there is no Biblical punishment for neglecting to perform a positive commandment; only transgressing negative commandments are grounds to be punished according to the Torah<\/a>.<\/p>\n

With regard to tzitzit<\/a><\/em> it would appear that there should be no punishment if someone did not choose to wear them. In this context the Gemara<\/a> relates the following story:<\/p>\n

An angel once found Rav Kattina wearing a linen wrap, and he exclaimed, \u2018Kattina, Kattina, a wrap in summer and a cloak in winter (apparently, neither of these had four corners, and so they were not obligated in tzitzit), and what is to happen to the law of tzitzit?\u2019 \u2018And do you punish\u2019, asked Rav Kattina, \u2018a person who neglects to perform a positive precept?\u2019 \u2018In a time of wrath\u2019, replied the angel, \u2018we do\u2019.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Maharal<\/a> explains that the reason the Torah does not ordinarily mete out punishment for neglecting a positive commandment is because the person did not actually engage in inappropriate behavior, he merely missed an opportunity to reach the higher spiritual level offered by the mitzvah<\/a><\/em>. In a “time of wrath,” however, a person is punished because of the lack of effort towards self-improvement.
\nThe Maharsha<\/a> suggests that during a “time of wrath” it is incumbent upon the religious leadership to strive to fulfill even more mitzvot<\/em> that will serve as protection to the community. If they neglect to do so, they will be punished for their negligence.<\/p>\n

Tosafot<\/a> point out that the local Jewish courts have the ability to mete out punishments to people who do not perform positive commandments, and we can assume that Heavenly courts do as well. They argue, however, that that punishment only applies in cases where the individual is obligated in a mitzvah<\/em> like sukkah<\/a><\/em> or lulav<\/a><\/em> and neglects to perform it. The case of tzitzit<\/em> is different, because the obligation only exists if the person wears a four-cornered garment. It was not that Rav Kattina neglected the commandment; he was never obligated in the mitzvah<\/em>, since he did not wear clothing that needed tzitzit<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n

Menachot 42a-b: Who can write STa”M (Sefer Torah, Tefillin<\/em> and Mezuzot<\/em>)?<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Rav Chinana the son of Rava from Pashranya taught: A Sefer<\/a> Torah<\/a>, Tefillin<\/a> <\/em>and Mezuzot<\/a><\/em> that were written by a min<\/em> (heretic), kuti, goy, eved <\/em>(non-Jewish slaves), isha <\/em>(women), katan<\/em> (minors) and Yisrael meshumad<\/em> (apostate) are invalid, based on the passage in Sefer Devarim<\/a><\/em> (6:8-9<\/a>) that connects laying Tefillin<\/em> and writing mezuzot<\/em>. This passage is understood to teach that only those obligated in laying Tefillin<\/em> can be involved with writing them.<\/p>\n

The Ritva<\/a> explains that this teaching is applied to Tefillin<\/em> and mezuzot<\/em> about which the passage is speaking, as well as Sefer Torah<\/em> which has a higher level of sanctity.
\nNone of the abovementioned individuals are obligated in laying Tefillin<\/em>:<\/p>\n