Menachot 74

(במדבר יח, טו) אך חלק שאני הכא דבגולגולת תלא רחמנא

Howbeit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. Heb. , having a limiting force, and so excluding certain cases.');">¹</span> limiting thereby [the general application]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly in the case of a child with two heads, since it cannot continue to live, the father should be exempt entirely from the payment of redemption money!');">²</span>

אמר מר ידך זו קיבורת מנלן דת"ר (שמות יג, ט) על ידך זו גובה שביד אתה אומר זו גובה שביד או אינו אלא על ידך ממש אמרה תורה הנח תפילין ביד והנח תפילין בראש מה להלן בגובה שבראש אף כאן בגובה שביד

- In this case it is different since the Divine Law declared [the law of redemption] to be governed by the expression 'per head'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. III, 47. Consequently as this child has two heads and is now living there must be a payment of ten sela's for his redemption.');">³</span> The Master said, 'Upon thy hand, that is, on the biceps muscle'.

רבי אליעזר אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר (שמות יג, ט) והיה לך לאות לך לאות ולא לאחרים לאות ר' יצחק אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר (דברים יא, יח) ושמתם את דברי אלה על לבבכם וקשרתם שתהא שימה כנגד הלב

Whence is this derived? - Our Rabbis taught: Upon thy hand, that is, the upper part of the hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the muscle of the arm.');">⁴</span> You say it is the upper part of the hand, but perhaps it means actually upon the hand?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the palm of the hand.');">⁵</span>

ר' חייא ורב אחא בריה דרב אויא מכוין ומנח ליה להדי ליביה רב אשי הוה יתיב קמיה דאמימר הוה ציריא בידיה וקא מתחזיין תפילין אמר ליה לא סבר לה מר לך לאות ולא לאחרים לאות אמר ליה במקום לך לאות איתמר

Since the Torah ordains that one must put tefillin upon the hand and also upon the head, as in the latter case it is to be upon the upper part of the head so in the former it is to be upon the upper part of the hand. R'Eliezer says, This is unnecessary; for the verse says, 'And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand', implying that the sign shall be unto thee but not unto others.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if actually put on the hand it would immediately be noticeable by all. It must consequently be put high up on the arm which part is usually covered with the sleeve.');">⁶</span>

גובה שבראש מנלן דת"ר בין עיניך זו גובה שבראש אתה אומר זו גובה שבראש או אינו אלא בין עיניך ממש נאמר כאן בין עיניך ונאמר להלן (דברים יד, א) לא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם למת מה להלן בגובה שבראש מקום שעושה קרחה אף כאן בגובה של ראש מקום שעושה קרחה

R'Isaac says, This too is unnecessary; for it is written, And ye shall lay up these My words in your heart. and ye shall bind them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XI, 18.');">⁷</span>

ר' יהודה אומר אינו צריך אמרה תורה הנח תפילין ביד הנח תפילין בראש מה להלן במקום הראוי ליטמא בנגע אחד אף כאן במקום הראוי ליטמא בנגע אחד

implying that it must be placed over against the heart.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., upon the muscle of the arm, at a point nearest the heart.');">⁸</span> R'Hiyya and R'Aha the son of R'Ivia used to place it exactly over against the heart.

לאפוקי בין עיניך דאיכא בשר ושער דאיכא שער לבן ואיכא נמי שער צהוב:

R'Ashi was once sitting before Amemar. The latter had an injury on his arm and his tefillin were exposed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For his coat had been cut away around the arm so as to give greater freedom to his injured arm.');">⁹</span>

ארבע ציציות מעכבות זו את זו שארבעתן מצוה אחת: מאי בינייהו אמר רב יוסף סדין בציצית איכא בינייהו

whereupon R'Ashi said to him, Does not the Master hold 'it shall be for a sign unto thee but not unto others'? - That, he replied, was stated only to indicate the place, namely, where it is a sign unto thee only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on the upper part of the arm. It need not, however, be at all times covered and hidden from view.');">¹⁰</span> Whence is it derived that it must be upon the upper part of the head? - Our Rabbis taught: 'Between thine eyes', that is, the upper part of the head.

רבא בר אהינא אמר טלית בעלת חמש איכא בינייהו

You say it is the upper part of the head, but perhaps it means actually between the eyes? It is written here, 'Between thine eyes', and it is written there, Nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 1.');">¹¹</span>

רבינא אמר דרב הונא איכא בינייהו דאמר רב הונא היוצא בטלית שאינה מצוייצת כהלכתה בשבת חייב חטאת

as in the latter case it means the upper part of the head where baldness can be made, so in the former case too it means the upper part of the head where baldness can be made. R'Judah says, This is unnecessary; for since the Torah ordains that one must put tefillin on the hand and also on the head, as in the former case it is put on a place which can be declared unclean as a leprous spot by one symptom only,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A leprous spot on any part of the body that is free from hair, as the hand, is deemed to be unclean by the appearance of white hairs therein');">¹²</span>

אמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי האי מאן דבצריה לגלימיה לא עביד ולא כלום שוייה טלית בעלת חמש

so in the former case it must be put on a place which can be declared unclean as a leprous spot by one symptom only;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A leprous spot on any part of the body that is free from hair, as the hand, is deemed to be unclean by the appearance of white hairs therein');">¹²</span> one must therefore rule out the place between the eyes where flesh and hair are to be found, [and so can be declared unclean by two symptoms,] either by [the appearance of] white hair or yellow hair.

אמר רב משרשיא האי מאן דצייריה לגלימיה לא עבד ולא כלום מאי טעמא דכמאן דשרייה דמי ותנן נמי כל חמתות הצרורות טהורות חוץ משל ערביים

OF THE FOUR FRINGES, THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS, SINCE THE FOUR TOGETHER FORM ONE PRECEPT. [R'ISHMAEL SAYS, THE FOUR ARE FOUR SEPARATE PRECEPTS.] What is the practical difference between the two?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the first Tanna and R. Ishmael are agreed that the four fringes are indispensable.');">¹³</span>

אמר רב דימי מנהרדעא האי מאן דחייטיה לגלימיה לא עבד ולא כלום אם איתא דלא מיבעי ליה ליפסוק ולישדייה:

- R'Joseph said, They differ in respect of a linen garment with [woollen] fringes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In ordinary circumstances such a garment may not be worn, save where the precept of zizith is concerned. Where, however, one fringe was missing, the entire precept, according to the first Tanna has gone, and the cloak is therefore forbidden as containing diverse kinds, wool and linen; but according to R. Ishmael it is permitted, since each fringe is a separate precept.');">¹⁴</span> Rabbah B'Abina said, They differ in respect of a five-cornered garment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A five-cornered garment must be provided with fringes (v. infra 43a) , but they differ as to the number of fringes necessary; according to the first Tanna there must be four fringes only, since four make up the precept, whilst according to R. Ishmael each corner must have a fringe, since each fringe is a separate precept.');">¹⁵</span>

רבי ישמעאל אומר ארבעתן ארבע מצות: אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי ישמעאל ולית הלכתא כותיה

Rabina said, They differ in respect of R'Huna's dictum. For R'Huna said, If a man went out in the street on the Sabbath wearing a garment not provided with proper fringes as required by law, he is liable to a sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For bearing an unnecessary burden on the Sabbath, since the fringes were not in accordance with the law. Now if the garment had only three fringes, according to the first Tanna the precept is not thereby fulfilled, hence by reason of R. Huna's dictum the fringes are regarded as an unnecessary burden on the Sabbath; but according to R. Ishmael, the precept is thereby performed, so that R. Huna's ruling would not apply to this case.');">¹⁶</span>

רבינא הוה קא אזיל אבתריה דמר בר רב אשי בשבתא דריגלא איפסיק קרנא דחוטיה ולא אמר ליה ולא מידי כד מטא לביתיה אמר ליה מהתם איפסיק א"ל אי אמרת לי מהתם שדיתיה

R'Shisha the son of R'Idi said, If a man cut off [one corner of] his garment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either he cut away a square piece at the corner, leaving behind two right-angled corners, thus making the garment five-cornered; or, he cut away one corner diagonally, leaving two obtuse-angled corners.');">¹⁷</span> he has gained nothing, for he has simply made it into a five-cornered garment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which must also be provided with fringes.');">¹⁸</span>

והא אמר מר גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה את לא תעשה שבתורה

R'Mesharsheya said, If a man folded up his garment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he turned up each corner of the garment in order to render the garment exempt from fringes (and in the subsequent case of R. Dimi, he sewed down these corners) (Rashi 2) ; or, he folded the garment (and according to R. Dimi he sewed the fold) and inserted the fringes in the new corners formed by the fold (Rashi 2) .');">¹⁹</span> he has gained nothing, for it is regarded as spread out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore even now it must be provided 'with fringes in its corners.');">²⁰</span>

תרגומה רב בר שבא קמיה דרב כהנא

We have also learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kel. XXVI, 4.');">²¹</span> Water-skins that [have been pierced and] have been tied up again are not susceptible to uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the knot is only temporary and will be untied, the water-skin is regarded even now as a pierced vessel, and is therefore not susceptible to uncleanness.');">²²</span> excepting those tied up with an Arab knot.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For these remain so permanently.');">²³</span> R'Dimi of Nehardea said, If a man sewed together [the folded corners of] his garment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 4.');">²⁴</span> he has gained nothing, for if he has no use for the corners he should cut them off and throw them away.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But as long as the corners are not cut off the garment must be provided with fringes.');">²⁵</span> R'ISHMAEL SAYS, THE FOUR ARE FOUR SEPARATE PRECEPTS. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name that the halachah agrees with R'Ishmael.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With all the practical results that follow from that view, as stated above.');">²⁶</span> The halachah, however, is not in accordance with him. Rabina was once walking behind Mar son of R'Ashi [in the street] on one of the Sabbaths preceding the Festival,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it was usual to preach on the laws of the Festival four Sabbaths before the Festival. V. Pes. 6a.');">²⁷</span> when suddenly a corner of [Mar's] garment with its fringe had torn away, but Rabina told him nothing about it. When he came home and Rabina told him that it had torn away there [in the street], he said, 'Had you told me of it I should then and there have cast it off'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since the garment was not now properly provided with fringes (R. Ishmael's view not being accepted as law) it is regarded as an unnecessary burden carried on the Sabbath.');">²⁸</span> But has not a Master said, Great is the dignity of man since it overrides a negative precept of the Torah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as it would be undignified for a man of his eminence to remove his garment in the street he is permitted to carry it on the Sabbath.');">²⁹</span> - Rab B'Shabba explained it before R'Kahana