Menachot 35a — the Talmud in English

Abaye said: We said

that when he exchanged the sections, the phylacteries are invalid

only

if he exchanged an

inner

section, placed in the inner compartment,

with an outer one,

an outer section, placed in one of the two outer compartments. And this is when he placed the section “And it shall be when He brings you” [which must be placed in the inner compartment] inside the outer compartment, where the section “Sanctify” must be placed; or when he exchanged an

outer

section and placed it in the place of an

inner

one, as when he placed the section “Sanctify” in the inner compartment, in place of the section “And it shall be when He brings you.”

But

if he exchanged

inner for inner,

exchanging the order of the two inner sections and placing the section “Hear” in place of the section “And it shall be when He brings you,” or if he exchanged

outer for outer

and placed the section “Sanctify” in place of the section “And it shall be when you heed,”

there is no concern,

to be concerned about this change, and the phylacteries are valid.

Rava said to him

to Abaye:

What is different

about exchanging

inner for outer

and likewise exchanging

outer for inner, which is not

validating them, because

this

outer section

needs to see air

—to see the air, meaning that it must be in the outer compartment adjacent to the air [as opposed to the inner compartment, distant from the air]—

does not see

the air, and likewise

this

inner section,

which does not need to see air, does see

the air when it is placed in the outer compartment? If so, also when he changes and exchanges the place of an

outer section for another outer section,

or changes the place of an

inner section for another inner section,

another one,

also

it should be invalidated, because

this

section

that needs to see the air on the right sees

the air on the left,

and the section that needs to see the air

on the left sees the air on the right?!

Rather,

Rava concludes:

it makes no difference

whether he exchanged an outer one for an inner one or whether he exchanged an inner one for an inner one or an outer one for an outer one: they are invalid!

And Rav Ḥananel said in the name of Rav: The titura ,

that is, the lower surface of the compartments

of the phylacteries,

which closes the openings of the compartments and is made from the leather of the compartment [one of the walls of the compartment being long and folding over as a closing surface beneath the other walls]—

a law given to Moses at Sinai!

that it must be made.

Abaye said: The ma'avarta of the phylacteries ,

which is the protrusion of the phylacteries’ leather, where the long leather of the compartment folds to become the lower surface, and in which an opening is made so that the phylactery strap can pass through [and it is called “ma'avarta” because the phylactery strap passes through it]—

a law given to Moses at Sinai!

that it must be made.

And Abaye said: The shin of the phylacteries

made from the folds of the leather on the two outer compartments of the head phylactery—

a law given to Moses at Sinai!

that it must be made.

And the groove must reach

between one compartment and the other in the head phylactery until

the place of the seam

of the titura to the compartment, that is, to the bottom of the compartment!

Rav Dimi of Nehardea

said: It is not necessary for the groove to reach below; rather,

once

the groove was

recognizable

somewhat higher up,

it is not necessary!

And Abaye said: This klaf

parchment

of phylacteries must be examined

whether it is fit for writing,

perhaps there is a defect in it

of a puncture, and the writing will no longer be ketiva tama, beautiful and complete, since ink is not written where there is a puncture,

and I require complete writing

in the sections of the phylacteries,

but there is none!

Rav Dimi of Nehardea said:

It is not necessary to examine the parchment, because

the quill examines it;

if the letter appears complete and no hole is visible in it, it is valid, and we are not concerned about a hole in the parchment.

Rabbi Isaac said:

The phylactery straps must be

black, a law given to Moses at Sinai!

It was objected:

The compartments

of the phylacteries are tied only with their kind,

that is, with leather straps ,

whether

those leather straps were

green, whether

they were

black, whether white,

but red straps

he shall not make,

for two reasons:

The first,

because of disgrace:

perhaps those who see will say that this person suffers from itching on his skin, and the phylactery straps were colored red by the blood of his wounds; and this is disgraceful.

And the second, because of

another matter,

so that they will not say that he had relations with his wife during her menstruation and the straps were colored by menstrual blood.

And the baraitha continues:

Rabbi Judah said: There was an incident involving a student of Rabbi Akiva who tied his phylacteries with strands

of wool

of tekhelet, and he did not say to him

Rabbi Akiva

anything!

And Rabbi Judah proved from this: Is it

possible

that

that righteous man,

Rabbi Akiva,

saw his student

put on phylacteries שלא according to halakha

and did not protest against him?

Rather, it is proved from here that even woolen strands are valid for tying the phylacteries, and specifically leather straps are not required.

The Sages said to him,

to Rabbi Judah:

Yes,

it is possible that Rabbi Akiva did not protest against him, and nevertheless there is no proof, because Rabbi Akiva

did not see him

tying his phylacteries with strands of tekhelet;

and if

he had

seen him, he would not have allowed him

to do so.

And the baraitha continues:

There was an incident involving Hyrcanus, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, who tied his phylacteries with strands of purple, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus did not say to him

to his son

anything!

And Rabbi Judah proves from this incident: Is it

possible

that

that righteous man,

Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus,

saw

his

son

putting on phylacteries שלא according to halakha

and did not protest against him?! The Sages said to him:

The Sages

Yes,

it is possible that he did not protest against him—not because he held that it was correct to do so—but

he did not see him

tying his phylacteries with strands of purple;

and if he had seen him, he would not have allowed him

to do so!

And now they raise an objection against Rabbi Isaac, who said that black straps are a law given to Moses at Sinai:

In any event, it teaches

in the baraitha that phylactery straps are valid

whether

they are

green, whether black, or whether white?!

And we answer:

It is not difficult!

Here, where the tanna in the baraitha validated even straps that were not dyed black, it is speaking of straps dyed

on the inside ,

on the inner side of the straps; whereas

here,

where Rabbi Isaac invalidated them, it is speaking of straps dyed

on the outside,

for externally the straps must specifically be dyed black.

And we challenge this:

If

you established the baraitha as referring to straps dyed

on the inside,

why should he not dye them also red, since

what disgrace

is there in color on the inner side, and what suspicion of

another matter

is there in it, when the inner side is not visible?! And we answer: There is still concern for disgrace and for another matter, because

sometimes they turn over for him,

and the red color becomes visible to people!

A tanna taught:

Phylacteries must be

square,

that is, the phylactery compartments [examine Rashi’s wording and the words of Tosafot carefully!] must be square in their length and width [but not in their height]—

a law given to Moses at Sinai!

Rav Pappa said:

The squareness of the phylacteries must be

in their stitching,

so that when he sews the leather of the titura [which closes the openings of the compartments], he must take care not to pull the sewing thread too much, so that the leather of the compartment will not contract and the squareness be nullified.

Likewise, the squareness must be

in their diagonals,

that is, the length must equal the width, and they must not be rectangular, with the length greater than the width. [The reference to “diagonal” means that every measure of length also has its fixed “diagonal” in a square; the diagonal of a square is greater than the measure of its side by two-fifths. Therefore, if the diagonal of the compartment measures one and two-fifths of the side of the compartment, it is square; otherwise it is a rectangle or a rhombus.]

Let us say that this supports him

Rav Pappa, who requires the place of the stitching to be square. For we learned in tractate Megilla:

One who makes his phylactery

of the head

round,

without a base, but made like an egg, there is

danger

in placing it on his head, lest when he suddenly enters through an opening without paying attention, he strike his head against the threshold of the opening and the round phylactery enter his head.

And there is no

fulfillment, by placing the round phylactery, of the

mitzva

of putting on phylacteries, because it is round! And it is proved according to Rav Pappa that the phylacteries must be square in the lower surface adjacent to the wearer’s head!

And we reject this:

Rav Pappa said:

From that Mishna there is no proof, for there it speaks of a round phylactery

made

round

like a nut,

like a nut [Rashi in Megilla 24b], whose base is pointed [and therefore it is dangerous], and one does not fulfill the mitzva of phylacteries with it because the pointed base of the phylactery is not fit for placing phylacteries. But phylacteries whose bottom is round, and which do not have a pointed base, might have been said to be valid for placing, despite being rounded; Rav Pappa innovated that this too is invalid.

Rav Huna said:

Phylacteries in which there are punctures in the leather between the compartments are valid

as long as the surface of the tablet remains intact 24 .

As long as the outer leather remains whole, they are

valid.

Rav Ḥisda said: If two

walls

are torn,

walls of two compartments, the phylacteries are still

valid,

but if

three

walls of the compartments are punctured, the phylacteries are

invalid.

Rava said: We said

that when there are two walls of two compartments, the punctures and tears do not invalidate

only

when the punctures were

one not opposite the other,

so that one tear is not visible through the other tear;

but

if they were

one opposite the other,

in two adjacent walls, the phylacteries are

invalid

even with only two tears!

And Rava added:

And this opposite

one another

which we said is invalid

also we said only concerning new ones,

when the leather of the compartments was new, so that the punctures and tears testify that the leather is intrinsically defective;

but

if the two adjacent tears occurred

in an old one,

in old leather,

there is no concern

to invalidate it, because the leather itself is not considered defective; rather, the tears occurred in it because of its age 27 .

Abaye said to Rav Yosef:

how

does it appear,

hide,

and how does it appear,

hide,

old?

He said to him,

Rav Yosef:

Everywhere that it hangs on the knife,

when he grasps the hide and strips it,

and then contracts,

and when he relaxes it and leaves it, it returns and contracts as it was before; this is hide

old,

for even when it expands, it returns and contracts.

But the other,

which does not expand and afterwards return and contract, this is hide

new!