ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 38
***** Perek ha'Techeiles *****
(a) Our Mishnah discusses the Techeiles and the Lavan of Tzitzis. Two
threads of the Tzitzis must be dyed Techeiles.
(b) Techeiles and Lavan - are not Me'akev each other ...
(c) ... meaning - that if all four threads are either of one or of the
other, one is Yotze (see also Tosfos DH 'ha'Techeiles').
(d) The shel Yad and the shel Rosh - are not Me'akev each other either.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "al Tzitzis ha'Kanaf" - that the Tzitzis must be
of the same kind as the (corner of the) garment.
(b) That means in practical terms - that they must be white (since most
garments in former times were made of white linen).
(c) From the fact that after "al Tzitzis ha'Kanaf" and "P'sil Techeiles",
the Torah writes "u'Re'isem Oso" Rebbi learns - that Techeiles and Lavan
*are Me'akev each other*.
(d) The Rabbanan counter that - by pointing to the word "Oso" - which is
singular, implying that they *are not*.
(a) To reconcile our Mishnah with Rebbi, Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, based on a
Beraisa, establishes 'Me'akeves' - with regard to the order of precedence
(i.e. that even if one tied the Techeiles thread first, the Tzitzis are
(b) According to the Beraisa, when tying the threads, Lavan should precede
Techeiles - because it is written first in the Pasuk.
(c) When the Beraisa concludes 've'Im Hikdim Techeiles le'Lavan Yatza, Ela
she'Chisar Mitzvah', the Tana cannot mean that he is lacking the Mitzvah of
Lavan - because then he would not be Yotze according to Rebbi.
(d) Consequently, Rav Yehudah Amar Rav explains it to mean - that although
he has performed the Mitzvah of Lavan and Techeiles, he is lacking the
Mitzvah of giving the Lavan precedence.
(a) We just explained how Lavan is not Me'akev Techeiles, even according to
Rebbi. Rami bar Chama explains 'ha'Techeiles Einah Me'akeves es ha'Lavan' -
by establishing the case by a garment that is made of Techeiles (so that
'Miyn Kanaf' refers to Techeiles, and that is what one ought to have started
with [but did not]).
(b) This is also how Levi and Shmuel explained the Sugya, with Rami bar
Chama explaining 'ha'Techeiles Einah Me'akeves es ha'Lavan'. Levi
initially told Aryoch (meaning 'king' and referring to Shmuel, since the
Halachah is always like him in money-matters) not to sit down until he had
explained our Mishnah to him.
(c) Rava objected to Rami bar Chama's explanation. What he meant when he
said 'Midi Tziv'a ka'Garim' was - that we do not go by the color of any
particular garment to determine 'Miyn ha'Kanaf', but after the majority of
garments, which as we explained, tended to be made of white linen.
Consequently, one is always obligated to begins with Lavan and not with
(d) So he interprets 'ha'Techeiles Einah Me'akeves es ha'Lavan, ve'ha'Lavan
Eino Me'akev es ha'Techeiles' in our Mishnah - with regard to Gardumin, even
according to Rebbi. What the Mishnah therefore means is - that whether the
Lavan threads tore and the Techeiles remained, or vice-versa, the Tzitzis
are Kasher, because one is not Me'akev the other.
(a) This explanation is based on the ruling of B'nei Rebbi Chiya, which we
discussed in the previous Perek (regarding Gardumei Techeiles and Gardumei
Eizov). bar Hamduri quoting Shmuel gave as the Shi'ur of Gardumei
Techeiles - sufficient thread to tie into a single knot.
(b) The two possible interpretations of 'K'dei le'Anvan' are - either enough
to tie all the remaining threads together into a knot, or enough to tie each
(c) We do not know which is the correct one - because the She'eilah remains
(a) Rav Ashi asked what the Din will be in a case where the threads are too
thick to tie into a knot -though it would be possible to do so if they were
of a regular thickness. He asked whether that is considered 'K'dei Le'anvan'
(and is therefore Kasher), or nor.
The Tana who argues with Rebbi is Rebbi Yitzchak ... in the name of Rebbi
Yochanan ben Nuri. He says that someone who has no Techeiles - should use
(b) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava resolved Rav Ashi's She'eilah - by pointing out
that there where thin Tzitzis would be Kasher, thick ones certainly are,
seeing as they possess the advantage of being more discernible.
(a) Bearing in mind that Rava disagrees with the previous presumption that
Gardumei Techeiles must require a Shi'ur (see Tosfos DH 'K'dei Le'anvan'),
his basis for saying that each Chulya (group of rings) requires a knot is -
because otherwise, how could the b'nei Rebbi Chiya declare Girdumei
Techeiles Kasher, seeing as once the Tzitzis tear right down to the top
knot, it is bound to come undone. Now if there were no more knots except for
the one by the Kanaf, all that would then remain would be threads (P'sil)
without the encircled part (the G'dil), which would be Pasul.
(b) We refute Rava's proof however - by establishing the b'nei Rebbi Chiya
when the owner opted to tie knots for each Chulya (but that does not make it
(a) We learn from the juxtaposition (Semuchin) of the Pesukim "Lo Silbash
Sha'atnez" and "Gedilim Ta'aseh Lach" - that the Mitzvah of Tzitzis (tying
Tzitzis [incorporating Techeiles]) on a garment of linen [Sadin be'Tzitzis])
overrides the Isur of Kil'ayim.
Some take Kesher Elyon to mean specifically the knot next to the garment.
And the reason that Rabah refers specifically to that knot and not to the
knot at the end of the Tzitzis is - because the latter is far from the place
were the Tzitzis joins the garment and would therefore not constitute
(b) Rabah (or Rava) proves from there that the top (double) knot must be
d'Oraysa - because if it was not, why would we require a Pasuk to permit
Sadin be'Tzitzis, seeing as without the knot, one only sticks the Tzitzis
into the garment once (and 'Tekifah Achas' is not considered joined), in
which case there is no Isur Sha'atnez to begin with.
(c) Despite the fact that it does really makes no difference where one ties
the knot, Rabah refers specifically to 'Kesher Elyon' - because if one were
to tie only one knot, that is where one would logically tie it, in order to
retain the G'dil.
(d) We need a proof that 'Kesher Elyon d'Oraysa', because, even though
without it, the G'dil will not hold permanently - it might hold for a day or
two if one arranges the rings tightly (particularly if one adds a single