Menachot 37b — the Talmud in English

The verse teaches

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

Only

redeem shall you redeem,” and we expound: “only”

divides

—that one who was killed is exempt from redemption. And likewise this firstborn, who has two heads, cannot live, and he is like one mortally wounded; why, then, is he obligated to redeem him?

And we answer: From “only” dividing, one cannot learn to this case, since he is still alive and has not died. And this one, who is obligated to pay ten sela, and not five,

is different here

with regard to redemption,

for the Merciful One made it dependent on the skull

as it is written, “five shekels per skull.” Since he has two heads, he is obligated to pay ten, five for each head.

The master said

above: “

‘Your hand’—this is the biceps!”

From where do we know this?

For the Sages taught: “‘Upon your hand’—this is the height

that is on the hand,”

that is, the biceps, which is near the shoulder.

You say that this is the height on the hand, or

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

is only upon

the palm of the

hand itself?

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

with regard to the head-tefillin, their place is

at the height on the head,

as the Gemara learns below from the verse,

so here too

the place of the arm-tefillin is

at the height on the hand,

which is the place of the biceps.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

There is no need to learn the place of the arm-tefillin from the head-tefillin. Rather, this is learned from here:

it is

the verse

saying

with regard to the arm-tefillin: “

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

Rabbi Yitzhak says: There is no need

for this teaching in order to learn the place of the arm-tefillin,

for it is

the verse

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

and we learn

that the placing shall be

on the biceps, which is

opposite the heart.

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

the arm-tefillin

alongside his heart,

for in addition to placing the tefillin on the biceps, which is opposite the heart, he would incline the tefillin themselves so that they would be directed toward the side of the heart [see Beit Yosef, section 27, s.v. “and he shall incline”].

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

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

And the tefillin were visible

and the tefillin were visible through the place of the tear.

He said to him:

Does the master not agree with that which we expound: “

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

But your tefillin are visible to everyone.

He said to him:

The intention is not that the arm-tefillin should not be visible, but only that the tefillin should be

in a place

that is covered for the most part, which is only

“for you as a sign,” it was stated.

And this which we said, that the place of the head-tefillin is

at the height on the head—from where do we know this?

For the Sages taught: “‘Between your eyes’—this is the height on the head. You say that this is the height on the head, or

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

is only between your eyes itself?

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 of making a bald spot, “between your eyes” refers to the place of

the height on the head

that has hair, and it is

the place that makes a bald spot, so here too

with regard to tefillin, “between your eyes” means

the height on the head,

which is

the place that makes a bald spot 54 .

Rabbi Judah says: There is no need

for this teaching, for

the Torah said: “Place tefillin on the hand; place tefillin on the head,”

and we expound:

Just as there

with regard to the arm-tefillin, the Torah said to place tefillin

in a place fit to become impure through one affliction

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

so here too

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

in a place fit to become impure through one affliction,

which is the height on the head, which becomes impure through one affliction when there is yellow hair in it,

to exclude

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 become impure; it does not become impure until

there is

white hair

in the flesh between the eyes,

and there is also yellow hair

in the place of the eyebrow hair!

We learned in the Mishna:

The four tzitzit prevent one another, for all four of them are one mitzva,

and Rabbi Yishmael disagrees and holds that all four of them are four mitzvot.

And we inquire about it:

What difference is there between them

between the first tanna and Rabbi Yishmael? For both according to the first tanna and according to Rabbi Yishmael, he is obligated in four tzitzit, as it is written, “On the four corners of your garment”?

And we answer:

Rav Yosef said: A linen sheet with tzitzit is the difference between them. If there is a linen sheet into which it is permitted to insert tzitzit of tekhelet, which is wool, even though this is shaatnez, nevertheless the Torah permitted shaatnez for the purpose of the mitzva of tzitzit, and we say: let the positive commandment of tzitzit come and override the prohibition of mixed garments. And in this there is a practical difference between the first tanna

and Rabbi Yishmael: if he inserted three tzitzit, including tekhelet, into a linen sheet, according to the first tanna he transgresses the prohibition of mixed garments in this manner, since he does not fulfill the mitzva of tzitzit at all, and the prohibition

of mixed garments is not overridden; but according to Rabbi Yishmael, he fulfills the mitzva of tzitzit in this manner, and the prohibition of mixed garments is overridden.

Rava bar Ahina said

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

A garment having five

corners

is the difference between them.

If he cut one corner diagonally, and it became two corners, this garment is obligated in tzitzit [as explained below, page 43], and this is learned from the additional expression, “which you cover yourself with.”

From now, according to the first tanna, who said that all four are one mitzva, this is the form of the mitzva. Therefore, the additional expression teaches that a garment with five corners is also a garment obligated in tzitzit, but only four tzitzit are to be placed on it, for they are one mitzva, and this is its form. But according to Rabbi Yishmael, this garment is obligated in five tzitzit, because in his opinion placing tzitzit on each corner is an independent mitzva.

Ravina said

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

The case of Rav Huna is the difference between them, for Rav Huna said: One who goes out with a garment that is not fringed according to its law on Shabbat is liable for a sin-offering.

If he went out with a garment that has tzitzit threads, but it is not fringed according to its law and he does not fulfill the mitzva of tzitzit because it does not have enough threads, he transgresses the prohibition of carrying out on Shabbat, because the tzitzit threads in this situation are a burden and are not subordinate to the garment. Therefore, if he went out on Shabbat in a garment that had tzitzit threads on only three of its corners, according to Rabbi Yishmael he is not liable for a sin-offering, because he fulfilled the mitzva even in this manner; but according to the first tanna he did not fulfill the mitzva at all, because there are no tzitzit threads on all four corners, and he is liable for a sin-offering, as is one who carries out on Shabbat.

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

such that he cut from one of the corners a piece that looks like a notch, and it appears as two corners,

has accomplished nothing

to exempt it from tzitzit, and the garment remains obligated in tzitzit, because

he made it

into a garment

having five

corners, and the halakha is that one having five corners is obligated in tzitzit.

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

He has not fulfilled the mitzva of tzitzit, for now the tzitzit threads are not on the corners, but in the middle of the garment, because by folding the garment the name “corners” has not departed from the corners [and even though he attached the garment after folding it],

what is the reason?

Because

it is as though he had released it

—it is considered so,

since he will ultimately release the garment, and for this reason, even while he has not yet released it, the garment is considered as though it had been released from the fold, and the threads are found standing in the middle of the garment.

And we also learned

in the Mishna in tractate Kelim, with regard to receiving impurity, that anything that has no 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

and do not become impure, even though now they have a receptacle, for we view them as though their knot had been released,

except

for the leather bottles

of the Arabs,

whose practice is to tie the pierced leather bottles in this manner, and they do not stand to be released.

Rav Dimi of Nehardea said: One who sews his garment

after folding his garment, which had been long, and sews it after folding it,

has accomplished nothing,

and he cannot place the tzitzit threads until he releases the sewing, as we said concerning folding and fastening. For

if it is indeed the case that he does not need it

the length of the garment, because it is too long for him when it is not folded,

let him cut it off and throw it away,

let him cut off the remainder and throw it away, and hang the tzitzit on its corners. And from the fact that he did not cut the excess of the long garment, but instead took the trouble to fold it and sew it, it is proven that this garment will ultimately be released and lengthened. Therefore its original corners are considered the corners of the garment, and the designation “corner” has not departed from them even after the sewing. And now he cannot place tzitzit on all four corners, since they are folded and sewn.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yishmael says: All four of them are four mitzvot,

for the four tzitzit threads on the four corners are four mitzvot.

Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel:

The halakha is according to Rabbi Yishmael, that the four tzitzit are four mitzvot.

And we conclude:

And the halakha is not like him

like Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel, who ruled according to Rabbi Yishmael, but rather like the first tanna, that all four of them are one mitzva.

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

He was walking behind him on the Shabbat before the Festival, on which they would customarily expound the laws of the Festival. Ravina saw

that the corner of the threads had been cut off

that the tzitzit threads of Mar bar Rav Ashi had been cut,

and he did not say anything to him. When

Mar bar Rav Ashi

reached

his house,

he said to him

Ravina:

It was cut from there

that the threads had already been cut earlier.

He said to him

Mar bar Rav Ashi to Ravina:

If you had told me that it had been cut from there, I would have thrown it off!

If you had revealed this matter to me earlier, when the threads were cut, I would have thrown off the garment and removed it from myself already in that place, so as not to desecrate Shabbat. Since the threads were lacking on one of the corners, it is a burden, because the halakha is according to the first tanna.

And they raise an objection against Mar bar Rav Ashi: why did he say that if he had known that the threads of his tzitzit had been cut, he would have removed his garment?

But the master said

that great is human dignity, which overrides a negative commandment of the Torah, and removing the garment in the public domain is certainly not human dignity?

And we answer:

Rav bar Shava explained it before Rav Kahana:

he explained the law that great is human dignity, which overrides a negative commandment of the Torah,