Menachot 37b (לז:) — the Talmud in English

The verse states:

if he was killed within thirty days, the father is exempt from redeeming him, as it is written “

Only

you shall surely redeem”

—

and we expound: “Only” makes a distinction, teaching that one who was killed is exempt from redemption. Likewise, this firstborn who has two heads cannot survive and is like one who was mortally injured; why, then, is his father obligated to redeem him?

And we answer: The distinction derived from “only” cannot be applied here, since he is still alive and has not died. And as for the fact that he is obligated to pay ten sela rather than five,

here it is different

with regard to redemption,

as the Merciful One made it dependent on the skull:

the verse states, “Five shekels per skull,” and since he has two heads, he is obligated to pay ten, five for each head.

The Master said

earlier: “

‘Your hand’—this means the kiboret!”

From where do we know this?

As the Sages taught: “‘Upon your hand’—this means the elevation

of the hand,”

that is, the kiboret, which is adjacent to the shoulder.

You say that this means the elevation of the hand, or

perhaps you will say that the place where the tefillin are placed

is only upon

the palm of

your hand itself?

The Torah says: Place tefillin on the hand, and place tefillin on the head. Just as there

the head-tefillin have their place

on the elevation of the head,

as the Gemara will subsequently learn from the verse,

so here

the hand-tefillin have their place

on the elevation of the hand,

which is the place of the kiboret.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

There is no need to derive the place of the hand-tefillin from the head-tefillin. Rather, it is learned from here:

The verse

says

with regard to the hand-tefillin, “

It shall be for you as a sign,”

and we expound: “

‘For you as a sign,’ and not ‘as a sign for others.’

The place of the hand-tefillin is not on the palm, which is visible to all, but on the upper part of the arm, which is concealed.” 53

Rabbi Yitzḥak says: There is no need

for this teaching to determine the place of the hand-tefillin,

for the verse

says: “And you shall place these words of Mine upon your heart, and you shall bind them,”

and we learn

that the placing

is to be on the kiboret, which is

opposite the heart.

Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rav Avya, would direct and place it

the hand-tefillin

toward his heart,

for, in addition to placing the tefillin on the kiboret, which is opposite the heart, he would angle the tefillin themselves so that they leaned toward the heart [see Beit Yosef, section 27, s.v. “and he shall angle it”].

Rav Ashi was sitting before Ameimar, and he had a sore on his hand.

There was a wound on his hand, and for that reason he tore his robe opposite the wound so that the wound would not be pressed.

And the tefillin were visible,

so that the tefillin could be seen through the place of the tear.

He said to him:

Does my master not accept this teaching that we expound:

“‘For you as a sign,’ and not ‘as a sign for others’?”

Yet your tefillin are visible to everyone.

He said to him:

The intention is not that the hand-tefillin must not be visible at all. Rather, they must be

in a place

that is generally covered; that is what is meant by

“for you as a sign,” it has been stated.

And regarding what we said, that the head-tefillin have their place

on the elevation of the head, from where do we know this?

As the Sages taught: “‘Between your eyes’—this means the elevation of the head. You say that this means the elevation of the head, or

perhaps you will say that the place of the head-tefillin

is only between your eyes themselves?

It is stated here

with regard to tefillin,

“between your eyes,” and it is stated there, “You shall not place a baldness between your eyes for the dead.”

And we expound:

Just as there

with regard to the prohibition against making a bald spot, “between your eyes” refers to the

elevation of the head

that has hair, and it is

the place where one makes a bald spot, so here

with regard to tefillin, “between your eyes” means

the elevation of the head,

which is

the place where one makes a bald spot. 54

Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no need

for this derivation, since

the Torah says: Place tefillin on the hand, and place tefillin on the head,

and we expound:

Just as there

with regard to the hand-tefillin, the Torah says to place tefillin

in a place susceptible to becoming impure through one affliction only,

for the hand becomes impure through only one affliction, namely, when there is a white hair within the affliction,

so here

with regard to the head-tefillin, the Torah says to place tefillin

in a place susceptible to becoming impure through one affliction only,

namely, the elevation of the head, which becomes impure through one affliction when it has a yellow hair,

excluding

the place

“between your eyes,”

between the eyes,

where there is flesh and there is hair

of the eyebrows, and two signs of impurity are required for the affliction to render the area impure; it does not render it impure until

there is

a white hair

in the flesh between the eyes,

and there is also a yellow hair

in the place of the eyebrow hair!

We learned in the Mishna:

“The four ritual fringes impede one another, for all four constitute a single mitzva,”

while Rabbi Yishmael disagrees and maintains that the four of them constitute four mitzvot.

And we raise the following question:

What difference is there between them,

between the first tanna and Rabbi Yishmael? After all, according to both the first tanna and Rabbi Yishmael, one is obligated to have four ritual fringes, as it is written: “On the four corners of your garment”?

And we answer:

Rav Yosef said: The difference between them concerns a linen garment with ritual fringes.

If there is a linen sheet into which it is permitted to insert sky-blue ritual fringes, which are wool, then even though this constitutes sha'atnez, the Torah nevertheless permitted sha'atnez for the purpose of the mitzva of ritual fringes, and we say: Let the positive mitzva of ritual fringes come and override the prohibition against mixed garments. The practical difference between the first tanna—

and Rabbi Yishmael is if one inserted three ritual fringes, including sky-blue wool, into a linen sheet. According to the first tanna, in this manner he violates the prohibition against mixed garments, since he has not fulfilled the mitzva of ritual fringes at all, and the prohibition against mixed garments is not overridden. But according to Rabbi Yishmael, he fulfills the mitzva of ritual fringes in this manner, and the prohibition against mixed garments is overridden.

Rava bar Ahina said

in answer to the Gemara’s question, “What difference is there between them?”:

A garment with five

corners

is the difference between them.

If one cut one corner diagonally, making it into two corners, this garment is obligated in ritual fringes [as explained below, on page 43], and this is derived from the additional wording “with which you cover yourself.”

Accordingly, according to the first tanna, who said that all four are a single mitzva, this is the form of the mitzva. Therefore, the additional wording teaches that even a garment with five corners is a garment obligated in ritual fringes, but only four ritual fringes are to be placed on it, since they constitute one mitzva and this is its form. But according to Rabbi Yishmael, this garment is obligated in five ritual fringes, since in his view placing a ritual fringe on each corner is a mitzva in its own right.

Ravina said

in answer to the Gemara’s question, “What difference is there between them?”:

The ruling of Rav Huna is the difference between them, as Rav Huna said: One who goes out on Shabbat wearing a garment whose ritual fringes are not attached in accordance with its halakhic requirements is liable to bring a sin-offering.

If one went out wearing a garment that has ritual-fringe threads but is not fringed in accordance with its halakhic requirements, and he does not fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes because it lacks a sufficient number of threads, he violates the prohibition against carrying on Shabbat, because in this situation the ritual-fringe threads are a burden and are not subordinate to the garment. Accordingly, if one went out on Shabbat wearing a garment with ritual-fringe threads on only three of its corners, according to Rabbi Yishmael he is not liable to bring a sin-offering, because he fulfilled a mitzva even in this manner. According to the first tanna, however, he did not fulfill the mitzva at all, because there are no ritual-fringe threads on all four corners, and he is liable to bring a sin-offering, as one who carries out an object on Shabbat.

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, said: One who cuts his garment

and makes, on one of the corners, a cut resembling a notch, so that it appears to be two corners,

has accomplished nothing

with regard to exempting it from ritual fringes; the garment remains obligated in ritual fringes, because

he made it

into a garment

with five

corners, and the halakha is that a garment with five corners is obligated in ritual fringes.

Rav Mesharsheya said: One who folds his garment, and hangs the ritual-fringe threads on the corners of the fold, has accomplished nothing.

He has not fulfilled the mitzva of ritual fringes, because now the ritual-fringe threads are not on the corners, but in the middle of the garment; by folding the garment, the status of the original corners has not been nullified [even if he attached the garment after folding it].

What is the reason?

Because

it is considered as though he had opened it,

it is considered

as though he will ultimately unfold the garment. Therefore, even while it remains folded, the garment is considered as though it has been unfolded, and the threads are found to be positioned in the middle of the garment.

And we also learned

in a Mishna in tractate Kelim, with regard to susceptibility to ritual impurity, that anything without a receptacle is not considered a vessel. And we learned:

All tied leather bottles

whose bottoms are not sewn but are tied and knotted are

pure;

they do not become impure. Although they currently have a receptacle, they are viewed as though their knots had been untied,

except

for the leather bottles

of the Arabs,

whose practice is to tie their pierced leather bottles in this manner and who do not intend to untie them.

Rav Dimi of Nehardea said: One who sews his garment

after folding his long garment and sewing

it after folding it

has accomplished nothing,

and he cannot attach the ritual-fringe threads until he undoes the sewing, as we said regarding folding and gluing. For if it is indeed the case that he does not need

the length of the garment, because it is too long for him when unfolded,

let him cut it off and throw it away,

cutting off the excess and discarding it, and then attach the ritual fringes to its corners. Since he did not cut off the excess length of the garment, but instead took the trouble to fold it and sew it, this proves that he will ultimately undo the sewing and lengthen the garment. Therefore, its original corners retain the status of corners of the garment, and that status was not nullified even after the sewing. Yet now he cannot attach ritual fringes to all four corners, since they are folded and sewn.

We learned in the matnitin:

“Rabbi Yishmael says: The four of them are four mitzvot,”

for the four ritual-fringe threads on the four corners constitute four mitzvot.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael, that the four ritual fringes constitute four mitzvot.

And we conclude:

The halakha is not in accordance with him,

Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel, who ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael; rather, it follows the first tanna, that all four constitute a single mitzva.

Ravina was walking behind Mar bar Rav Ashi on the Shabbat before the Festival.

He was following him on the Shabbat preceding the Festival, when it was customary to expound the laws of the Festival. Ravina noticed

that the corner of the threads had been severed,

that the ritual-fringe threads of Mar bar Rav Ashi had been cut,

but he did not say anything to him.

Ravina said nothing to Mar bar Rav Ashi.

When he arrived

Mar bar Rav Ashi

at his house, he said to him—

Ravina:

“It was severed there,”

the threads had already been cut earlier.

He said to him,

Mar bar Rav Ashi to Ravina:

“If you had told me there, I would have cast it off!”

Had you informed me of this earlier, when the threads were severed, I would have thrown off the garment and removed it from myself at that very place, so as not to desecrate Shabbat. Since the threads were missing from one of the corners, the garment was a burden, because the halakha follows the first tanna.

The Gemara raises an objection against Mar bar Rav Ashi: Why did he say that, had he known that the threads of his ritual fringes had been severed, he would have removed his garment?

But the Master said:

Great is human dignity, for it overrides a prohibition of the Torah, and removing one’s garment in the public domain is certainly not consistent with human dignity.

And we answer:

Rav bar Sheva interpreted it before Rav Kahana:

He explained the ruling that great is human dignity and that it overrides a prohibition of the Torah,