TB Menakhot 41 Should the deceased be buried wearing a kosher tallit?

Daf TB Menakhot 41 deliberate whether the mitzvah of tzitzit is incumbent upon the person or incumbent upon the garment. If it pertains to the garment, then every four cornered garment needs to have tzitzit even when it is in storage. If it pertains to a person, then only those garments a person wears needs the tzitzit.

Rambam decides “What is the nature of the obligation of the commandment of tzitzit? Every person who is obligated to fulfill this mitzvah, if he wears a garment requiring tzitzit, should attach tzitzit to it and then wear it. If he wears it without attaching tzitzit to it, he has negated [this] positive commandment. There is, however, no obligation to attach tzitzit to a garment which requires tzitzit, as long as it remains folded in its place, without a person wearing it. It is not that a garment requires [tzitzit]. Rather, the requirement is incumbent on the person [wearing] the garment.” (Mishneh Torah, Sefer Ahava, tzitzit, chapter 3 halakha 10)

The question arises whether shrouds need tzitzit. “Shmuel concedes in the case of an old man, where the garment was made as a shroud in his honor, that the shroud is exempt. What is the reason for this? The Merciful One states in the Torah that one must place ritual fringes on the corners of garments “with which you cover yourself” (Deuteronomy 22:12). This shroud is not made for the purpose of covering oneself.

“The Gemara comments: At that time, i.e., a person’s burial, we certainly affix ritual fringes to the shroud, because otherwise it would be a violation of: “Whoever mocks the poor blasphemes his Maker” (Proverbs 17:5). If we did not place them, it would be mocking the deceased, as if to taunt him that now he is no longer obligated in mitzvot.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Today there are three different traditions concerning bearing the dead with a tallit. According to the Shulkhan Arukh “One buries the dead only in a Talith that has Ẓizith.”

 The Rema gloss for Ashkenazim: Some say that Ẓizith are not required; and the accepted practice is to bury him with Ẓizith, only that one first disqualifies the Ẓizith or one twines around one of the corners [of the Talith].” (Yoreh De’ah, 351:2) (Sefaria.org translation)

The custom in Israel is one doesn’t bury the deceased with a tallit at all. (Gesher Hahayim)

TB Menakhot 38 Tekhalet-The Color Purple

The third chapter of massekhet Menakhot dealt with aspects of different mitzvot which are essential. For example, each letter in a Torah scroll is essential. If a letter is missing, the entire Torah scroll becomes pasul, unusable until repaired. The fourth chapter discusses those aspects of a mitzvah which aren’t essential at all. The fourth chapter begins: “MISHNA: The absence of the sky-blue (also described as violet-gg) [tekhelet] strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of ritual fringes with the white strings, and the absence of white strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the sky-blue strings. If one has only one, he wears it without the other. ” (Sefaria.org translation)

The commandment of tsitsit is found in Numbers 15:37-40. “And Adonoy spoke to Moses saying: Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them to make for themselves fringes on the corners of their garments throughout their generations; and they will place with the fringes of each corner a violet thread (tekhalet). And it will be to you for fringes, and you will look upon it and you will remember all the commandments of Adonoy, and you will perform them; and you will not turn aside after your hearts and after your eyes which cause you to go astray. In order that you will remember and perform all My commandments; and you will be holy unto your God. I am Adonoy, your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God: I am Adonoy, your God—” (Searia.org translation) Twice a day we were site this paragraph as the third paragraph of the prayer Shema.

The fringes or tassels on the corners of the garment are four threads that are folded in become eight when attached to the garment through a hole. The tekhalet threads must be wool and depending on the material of the garment the other two threads may be of any other material. The Mishna teaches that the tekhalet threads or the white threads are non-essential. The garment may have four tekhalel threads or four white threads.

Jacob Milgram in Excursus 38 in the New JPS Commentary on the book of Numbers comments in detail about the mitzvah of tsitsit. This excursus is very interesting and extensive. I have only quoted those paragraphs that seems to me most relevant concerning the tekhalet.

“The nature of tsitsit is illuminated by the literature and art of the Ancient Near East, which shows that the hem was ornate in comparison to the rest of the outer robe. The more important the individual, the more elaborate embroidery of his hem. His significance lies not in his artistry but in its symbolism as an extension of his owner’s person and authority…

“… Another legal context of the hem is illustrated by clay documents, on which the impression of a hem replaces a signature. Today a nonliterate might sign with his fingerprints; in ancient Mesopotamia, however, it was the upper-class that might use the hem.

“E. A. Speiser has made the attractive suggestion that the practice in the synagogue to this day oppressing the edge of the tallit to the Torah scroll is a survivor of this ancient custom. This act followed by the recitation of the blessings may well have originated as a dramatic reaffirmation of the participants commitment to the Torah. He thereby pledges both in words (blessing) and indeed (impressing his ‘signature’ on the scroll) to live by the Torah’s commandments.

“… The requirement of the tekhalet, the violet cord, gives further support to the notion that tsitsit signified nobility. The violet die was extracted from the gland of the murex snail (khizalon; Sif Deuteronomy 354, Shabbat 26a, Menakhot 42b)… (Blue is not an earth color. Unlike earth colors used as dies like red and brown, it is very rare. Because it was so rare, blue dye was very expensive. Only the nobility could afford it. That’s how the color blue became known as royal blue.-gg)

“Though the snails are plentiful, the amount of Daiichi yields is infinitesimal. In 1909, test by the Austrian chemist Paul Friedlander demonstrated that 12,000 snails were needed to provide 1.4 g of pure dye. No wonder that during the reign of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon (555-539 BCE), purple wall was 40 times more expensive than will die with other colors. In 200 BCE 1 g of the die caused $84, or 36,000 per pound. Diocletin paid the equivalent of $8460 for 320 g of pure silk from Sidon or #11,724 per pound. In 300 CE the demand raise the price of Sidonian in silk to $98,700 per pound (all figures are in 1984 dollars).

“The Bible apparently assumed that even the poorest Israelite could afford at least four violet threads, one for each tassel… Thus weaving a violent thread into the tsitsit enhances its symbolism as a mark of nobility. Further, since all Jews are required to wear it, it is a sign that Jews are people nobility. Their sovereign, however, is not mortal: Jews are princes of God.

“To recapitulate: The tsitsit are the epitome of the democratic thrust within Judaism, which equalizes not by leveling but by elevating. All of Israel is enjoined to become a nation of priests. In antiquity, the tsitsit (and the hem) where the insignia of authority, high breeding, and nobility. By adding the violet wooden court to the tsitsit, the Torah qualified nobility with priesthood: Israel is not to rule man but to serve God. Furthermore, tsitsit are not restricted to Israel’s leaders, be they kings, rabbis, or scholars. It is the uniform of all Israel.” (Pages 410-414)

“Tekhelet, or Biblical Blue, was once the most precious commodity in the ancient world. For reasons, some understood and some less so, about 1300 years ago, Tekhelet was lost, and the secrets of this wondrous blue color including he identity of the mysterious sea creature – the Chillazon – that produced the dye, slipped into obscurity. Jews continued to wear tzitzit, but with only white strings were unable to fulfil the mitzvah in its most complete form. Over the past few decades, research by both the scientific and halachic communities has led to the identification of the Chillazon as the Murex trunculus sea-snail and once again Jews can wear Tekhelet as commanded in the Torah.”

To learn more about the revival of the mitzvah of including tekhalet in our tallitot follow this link:

Torah.https://www.tekhelet.com/pdf/DafYomi-2026-Eng1.pdf

 

Three things I did know about tefillin TB Menakhot 32-36

TB Menakhot 32b  Scoring

Although I knew that the Torah scroll and the mezuzah scroll needed to be scored, I didn’t know that the scrolls inside the tefillin didn’t needed to be scored.

“§ The baraita indicates that if it were permitted to reduce the sanctity of an item from a level of greater sanctity to a level of lesser sanctity, one could make a mezuza from phylacteries that became worn. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But a mezuza requires scoring, i.e., the parchment must have lines etched in it before writing, as Rav Minyumi bar Ḥilkiya says that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya says that Rav says: Any mezuza that is not scored is unfit, and Rav Minyumi bar Ḥilkiya himself says concerning this: The scoring of a mezuza is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. With regard to phylacteries, by contrast, he does not teach that their parchment requires scoring.

“The Gemara answers that this is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yirmeya says in the name of our teacher, Rav: Phylacteries and mezuzot may be written when the scribe is not copying from a written text, and their parchment does not require scoring.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Gail Budiansky sent me the reason why tefillin doesn’t need scoring. “The reason is that the purpose of scoring is to straighten the writing, to preserve its beauty. Since tefillin are not designed to be read, as they are covered with hide and sewn up, this act is unnecessary. A mezuza, by contrast, can be open and read it at any time (Meiri citing Rambam). Others suggest that the reason is that the mezuza is examined and read carefully every seven years, whereas tefillin are checked only once every 50 years (Ran on Megilla 18b). Yet others say that the differences do to the fact that tefillin a written a very thin parchment, which might be torn scoring (Nimmukei Yosef) The Meiri says that in fact this is the effect, not because. Since tefillin do not require scoring, they are written on thin parchment.” (Notes, and Bavi Noe edition)    

TB Menakhot 34b Rash and Robben Tam’s tefillin

The shel rosh, the tefillin worn on the head, has for different compartments, corresponding to the four different times tefillin that are mentioned in the Torah. The four citations are “קַדֶּשׁ־לִ֨י-Sanctify Me” (Exodus 13:1-10); “-It shall come to pass when (God) brings you” (Exodus 13:11-16); “-Shema Yisrael” (Deuteronomy 6:4-9); and “-It will be that if you hearken” (Deuteronomy 11:13-21).

I knew that Rash’s shel rosh and his grandson’s Robben Tam’s shel rosh disagreed on the order of the four citations. The basis of this disagreement is found on TB Menakhot 34b.

“The Sages taught in a baraita: How does one arrange the four passages inside the phylacteries? The passage of: “Sanctify unto Me” (Exodus 13:1–10), and the passage of: “And it shall be when He shall bring you” (Exodus 13:11–16), are placed on the right; the passage of: “Listen, O Israel” (Deuteronomy 6:4–9), and the passage of: “And it shall come to pass, if you shall hearken diligently” (Deuteronomy 11:13–21), are placed on the left.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rashi understands this baraita to mean you place the parchments in the order they appear in the Torah starting on the right and moving chronologically until one reaches the far left compartment. Robben Tam understands this writer to mean you start with on the far right compartment with דֶּשׁ־לִ֨יקַ followed by והָיָ֞ה כִּֽי־יְבִֽאֲךָ֤ יְ-הוָֹה֙. Then you place in the farthest left compartment שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל moving right with וְהָיָ֗ה אִם־שָׁמֹ֤עַ. That means that וְהָיָ֗ה אִם־שָׁמֹ֤עַ and וְהָיָ֗ה אִם־שָׁמֹ֤עַ are in the middle two compartments.

The vast majority of Jews only put on Rashi’s tefillin; however, there are some Jews who put on both Rashi’s and Robben Tam’s tefillin understanding of this mitzvah to fulfill both understanding of this mitzvah.  

TB Menakhot 36a One blessing or two?

“§ Rav Ḥisda says: If one spoke between donning the phylacteries of the arm and the phylacteries of the head, he must recite the blessing again when donning the phylacteries of the head.

“The Gemara notes: One can infer that if he spoke, yes, he must recite a blessing when donning the phylacteries of the head, but if he did not speak, he does not recite a blessing. The Gemara challenges this: But Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Huna, sent a ruling in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: On the phylacteries of the arm one says the blessing: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who has sanctified us through His mitzvot and commanded us to don tefillin. On the phylacteries of the head one says the blessing: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who has sanctified us through His mitzvot and commanded us concerning the mitzva of tefillin. This indicates that one always recites a blessing when donning the phylacteries of the head.

“Abaye and Rava both say, to resolve this apparent contradiction: Rabbi Yoḥanan meant that if one did not speak, he recites one blessing; if he spoke, he recites two blessings, when donning the phylacteries of the head as well as when donning the phylacteries of the arm.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Based on the ambiguity of Rav Ḥisda’s statement two different traditions arose. The Sefardim only recite one blessing for both the shel yad, the shel rosh tefillin placed on the arm, in the shel rosh. They only recite “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who has sanctified us through His mitzvot and commanded us to don tefillin.” If a person talks in between placing the shel yad and the shel rosh, he repeats this blessing.

The Ashkenazim recite two blessings. : On the tefillin of the arm one says the blessing: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who has sanctified us through His mitzvot and commanded us to don tefillin. On the tefillin of the head one says the blessing: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who has sanctified us through His mitzvot and commanded us concerning the mitzva of tefillin.   If he talks between the placing the shel yad and the shel rosh, he repeats the first blessing again and then continues with the second blessing.

Ashkenazi Jews have the custom of reciting the phrase “בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד: -Blessed [is His] Name, Whose glorious kingdom is forever and ever” which annuls an unnecessary blessing. Since there’s a doubt whether the second blessing is absolutely needed, they take no chances and recite the above phrase.

I have been hacked

 

If you have received an email from me inviting you to a gathering on January 30, do not respond. I have been hacked.

 

Menakhot 9 Tosefot highlights a weak proof

Three times on today’s daf TB Menakhot 9 Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish find themselves on opposite sides of a disagreement. One of these disagreements concerns whether you’re allowed to mix the oil in the minkha offering outside the walls of the Temple courtyard. The mixing of the oil and the flour was a three-step process. Yetzika (יצִיקה)-the oil was placed at the very bottom of the bowl. Then the fine flour was added on top of it. Belilah (בְּלִילָה)-oil was placed on top of the flour and then it was mixed together.

“It was stated: If one mixed the oil of a meal offering into it outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is disqualified, and Reish Lakish says that it is valid. Reish Lakish says: It is valid, as it is written: “And he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense upon it” (Leviticus 2:1), and then it is written: “And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests; and he shall remove” (Leviticus 2:2).

“Reish Lakish explains: The Sages derived from here that from the removal of the handful onward the rites performed with the meal offering are solely a mitzva of the priesthood. Accordingly, the verse taught about pouring and mixing that they are valid when performed by a non-priest. And from the fact that the priesthood is not required for the mixing, it may be derived that it is also not required that its performance be inside the walls of the Temple courtyard.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Tosefot ד"ה וּמִדִכְהוּנָה notices that Reish Lakish’s argument is not a very strong one. One cannot draw the conclusion that just because a non-priest may do the mixing doesn’t mean the mixing can be done outside the Temple courtyard. A non-priest may slaughter the animal sacrifice (shekhita-שְׁחִיטָה), but it has to take place within the walls of the temple courtyard.

Tosefot provides two solutions. Conceptually shekhita may be permitted outside the Temple courtyard, but practically it is impossible for the following reason. Only a kohen may capture the blood spurting forth from the neck of the animal in a bowl and bring it to the altar. For obvious reasons, this has to be done immediately after the animal is slaughtered and within the Temple courtyard. Their second solution is already recorded earlier in the Gemara. Animal sacrifices are inherently different than minkha offerings. One cannot necessarily learn a law from each other.

As always, the halakha follows Rabbi Yoḥanan over Reish Lakish. See Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, Sefer  Avodah, Sacrifices Rendered Unfit, Chapter 11, Halakha 6.

TB Menakhot 7 How to succeed in learning

Today’s daf TB Menakhot 7 teaches us how to succeed in our learning. The Gemara relates the story of Rabbi Avimi and his student Rav Ḥisda.

“Rabbi Avimi was learning tractate Menaḥot in the study hall of Rav Ḥisda. It doesn’t make sense that Rabbi Avimi was studying in the study hall of his student Rav Ḥisda. Rav Ḥisda should have been studying his teacher’s study hall. It’s like saying that one of my Talmud professors came to study Talmud in one of my adult education classes.

“Avimi was in fact the teacher, but tractate Menaḥot was uprooted for him, i.e., he forgot it, and Avimi came before his student Rav Ḥisda to help him recall his learning. The Gemara asks: If Rav Ḥisda was in fact Avimi’s student, let Avimi send for him and Rav Ḥisda come to Avimi. The Gemara responds: Avimi thought that this would be more helpful in this matter.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rashi ד"ה מִסְתַיְיעָא מִילְתָא explains why Rabbi Avimi felt it would be more helpful for him to go to his student rather than his student come to him. He quotes TB Megillah 6b. “Because (If one says) I have labored and I have found success, believe him.” By going the extra mile in order to learn successfully, Rabbi Avimi thought the reversal of the normal procedure would be worth it.

Putting in the extra effort and working hard to achieve your goals in any endeavor will be a guarantee of success.

TB Menakhot 4- 5 What happens when the ’omer meal offering from which a priest removed a handful not for its own sake?

On the second day of Passover , the 16^th day of Nisan, an ’omer of barley was offered up on the altar. All new grains were permitted to be eaten after this minkhat ha’omer, the omer of meal offering, was placed on the altar. What happens when the ’omer meal offering from which a priest removed a handful not for its own sake? The Gemara provides three different answers.

Opinion #1 “Rav says: With regard to the omer meal offering, i.e., the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan (see Leviticus 23:9–14), if the priest removed a handful from it not for its own sake it is disqualified. It is disqualified since an omer meal offering came for a specific purpose, namely, to permit the consumption of the new crop, and this meal offering did not permit the consumption of the new crop because its rites were performed not for its own sake” (Sefaria.org translation) In other words, a brand-new minkhat ha’omer needs to be offered up and no new grain can be eaten until this is accomplished. (TB Menakhot 4a, Sefaria.org translation)

Opinion #2 “And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says, with regard to an omer meal offering from which a priest removed a handful not for its own sake, that it is valid and the handful is burned on the altar. But its remainder may not be consumed by the priests until a priest brings another omer meal offering on the same day and thereby permits the first offering for consumption, as the prohibition against consuming the new crop remains in effect.

“The Gemara asks: But if its remainder may not be consumed by the priests until they bring another omer meal offering, how can the handful removed from this omer meal offering be sacrificed upon the altar? Before the omer meal offering is sacrificed, the new crop is forbidden for consumption, and the verse states: “From the well-watered pastures of Israel; for a meal offering, and for a burnt offering, and for peace offerings” (Ezekiel 45:15), from which it is derived that one may sacrifice only from that which is permitted to the Jewish people.

“Rav Adda bar Ahava said in response: Reish Lakish holds that an offering is not considered one whose time has not yet arrived if it is to be brought on that day. Accordingly, since the new crop will be permitted for consumption on the same day that this handful was removed from the omer meal offering, it is already considered fit to be sacrificed upon the altar.” (TB Menakhot 5, Sefaria.org translation) Reish Lakish presents a middle position where the minkhat ha’omer is permitted on the altar (which is but a handful from the container with the barley) and the left over which is usually consumed by the priest cannot be eaten until a new minkhat ha’omer is offered.

Opinion #3 “The Gemara previously cited the opinion of Rav that an omer meal offering from which a handful was removed not for its own sake is disqualified. The Gemara also cited the opinion of Reish Lakish that this meal offering is valid but another omer meal offering is necessary to permit the new crop for consumption. And Rava says: With regard to an omer meal offering from which the priest removed a handful not for its own sake, it is valid and its remainder is consumed, and it does not require another omer meal offering to permit it for consumption. The reason is that improper intent is effective [mo’elet] to disqualify an offering only when it is expressed by one who is fit for the Temple service, and with regard to an item that is fit for the Temple service, and in a place that is fit for the Temple service.

“Rava elaborates: The condition that improper intent disqualifies only when expressed by one who is fit for the Temple service serves to exclude the intent of a blemished priest, who is disqualified from performing the Temple service. The condition that it disqualifies only when expressed with regard to an item that is fit for the Temple service serves to exclude the omer meal offering, which is generally unfit for the Temple service, as it is a novelty, in that it is brought from barley whereas most meal offerings are brought from wheat. And finally, the condition that it disqualifies only when expressed in a place that is fit for the Temple service serves to exclude sacrificial rites that were performed with improper intent while the altar was damaged. At such a time improper intent does not disqualify an offering, and therefore if the altar is repaired on the same day, the offering may be sacrificed upon the altar.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rava has the most lenient opinion. No do over is necessary at all because the minkhat ha’omer is kosher and the new grain now is allowed to be eaten. Rashi explains that barley under most circumstances is not fit for the Temple service. Consequently, we can conclude that Rava doesn’t believe that the minkhat ha’omer isn’t a real Temple service to permit the new grain. It’s just a mitzvah. What allows new grain to be eaten? As soon as the sun rises over the eastern horizon we may eat the new grain.

Rambam poskins according to Rava’s position because he is quoted last in this sugiya. (Sefer Avodah, Laws of sacrifices rendered unfit, chapter 14, halakha 3)