## Menachot Daf 37b

###### Menachot 37b:1
[Menachot 37b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/37b:1)

״אַךְ״ – חִלֵּק, שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דִּבְגוּלְגּוֹלֶת תְּלָא רַחֲמָנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**“Yet** the firstborn of man you shall redeem”; the addition of the word “yet” serves to **differentiate** and teach that there is a firstborn who is not redeemed, namely, one that was ravaged. A child with two heads is like one that was ravaged, as he will certainly not live. The Gemara answers: **Here it is different, as the Merciful One makes** the redemption of the firstborn **dependent on** his **skull,** as it is stated: “You shall take five shekels apiece, by the skull” (Numbers 3:47), which indicates that there is a case in which a firstborn with more than one skull must be redeemed.


###### Menachot 37b:2
[Menachot 37b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/37b:2)

אָמַר מָר: ״יָדְךָ״ זוֹ קִיבּוֹרֶת, מְנָלַן? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עַל יָדְךָ״ – זוֹ גּוֹבַהּ שֶׁבַּיָּד. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: זוֹ גּוֹבַהּ שֶׁבַּיָּד, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא עַל יָדְךָ מַמָּשׁ? אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: הַנַּח תְּפִילִּין בַּיָּד וְהַנַּח תְּפִילִּין בָּרֹאשׁ, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּגוֹבַהּ שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ – אַף כָּאן בְּגוֹבַהּ שֶׁבַּיָּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to its discussion of the *baraita*: **The Master says: “On your arm”; this** is the **bicep.** The term *yad* can mean either hand or arm. Therefore, the Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this? **As the Sages taught: “On your arm [*yadkha*]”; this** is the **upper** part **of the arm. Do you say** that **this** is the **upper** part **of the arm, or** is it **only literally on your** actual **hand,** i.e., on the palm of the hand? **The Torah says: Don phylacteries on the *yad* and don phylacteries on the head; just as there,** with regard to the head, it means **on** the **upper** part **of the head,** as will be explained, **so too here,** it means **on** the **upper** part **of the arm.**


###### Menachot 37b:3
[Menachot 37b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/37b:3)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהָיָה לְךָ לְאוֹת״, לְךָ לְאוֹת וְלֹא לַאֲחֵרִים לְאוֹת. רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְשַׂמְתֶּם אֶת דְּבָרַי אֵלֶּה עַל לְבַבְכֶם ... וּקְשַׁרְתָּם״, שֶׁתְּהֵא שִׂימָה כְּנֶגֶד הַלֵּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer says:** This proof is **not necessary, as** the verse **states: “And it shall be for a sign for you** upon your arm” (Exodus 13:9), which teaches: It shall be **a sign for you, but not a sign for others,** i.e., one must don the phylacteries of the arm in a place where they are not seen by others. This is the arm, which is usually covered, whereas the hand is usually visible. **Rabbi Yitzḥak says:** This proof is **not necessary, as** the verse **states: “Therefore you shall place these words in your heart** and in your soul, **and you shall bind them”** (Deuteronomy 11:18). This teaches **that placing** the words, i.e., donning the phylacteries, **shall be opposite the heart,** on the bicep.


###### Menachot 37b:4
[Menachot 37b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/37b:4)

רַבִּי חִיָּיא וְרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא מְכַוֵּין וּמַנַּח לֵיהּ לַהֲדֵי לִיבֵּיהּ. רַב אָשֵׁי הֲוָה יָתֵיב קַמֵּיהּ דְּאַמֵּימָר, הֲוָה צִירְיָא בִּידֵיהּ וְקָא מִתְחַזְיָין תְּפִילִּין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא סָבַר לַהּ מָר ״לְךָ לְאוֹת״ וְלֹא לַאֲחֵרִים לְאוֹת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בִּמְקוֹם ״לְךָ לְאוֹת״ אִיתְּמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya,** would **direct** the placement of his phylacteries of the arm **and don** them **opposite his heart. Rav Ashi was sitting before Ameimar,** and **there was a cut in** the sleeve covering Ameimar’s **arm, and** as a result his **phylacteries were visible,** as they were not covered by a garment. Rav Ashi **said to** Ameimar: **Doesn’t the Master hold** that the phylacteries shall be **a sign for you but not a sign for others?** Ameimar **said to him:** This does not mean that phylacteries must be hidden; rather, this **was stated** in order to teach that they must be donned **in a place** that is **a sign for you,** i.e., the bicep, which is generally not seen, but it does not matter if in practice the phylacteries are visible.


###### Menachot 37b:5
[Menachot 37b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/37b:5)

גּוֹבַהּ שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ, מְנָלַן? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״ – זוֹ גּוֹבַהּ שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר זוֹ גּוֹבַהּ שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ מַמָּשׁ? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״לֹא תָשִׂימוּ קׇרְחָה בֵּין עֵינֵיכֶם לָמֵת״. מָה לְהַלָּן בְּגוֹבַהּ שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ, מְקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה קׇרְחָה – אַף כָּאן בְּגוֹבַהּ שֶׁל רֹאשׁ, מְקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה קׇרְחָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the statement of the *baraita* that the phylacteries of the head are donned on the **upper** part **of the head,** the Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this? **As the Sages taught: “Between your eyes”** (Exodus 13:9); **this** is the **upper** part **of the head. Do you say** that **this** is the **upper** part **of the head, or is it only literally between your eyes? It is stated here: “Between your eyes,” and it is stated there:** “You shall not cut yourselves, **nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead”** (Deuteronomy 14:1), **Just as there,** the phrase “between your eyes” is referring to a place **on** the **upper** part **of the head,** as that is **a place where** one can **render** himself **bald** by removing his hair, **so too,** the place where phylacteries are donned is **on** the **upper** part **of the head, a place where** one can **render** himself **bald.**


###### Menachot 37b:6
[Menachot 37b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/37b:6)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: ״הַנַּח תְּפִילִּין בַּיָּד״, ״הַנַּח תְּפִילִּין בָּרֹאשׁ״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לִיטָּמֵא בְּנֶגַע אֶחָד, אַף כָּאן בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לִיטָּמֵא בְּנֶגַע אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda says:** This proof is **not necessary,** as **the Torah says: Don phylacteries on the arm** and **don phylacteries on the head. Just as there,** with regard to the phylacteries of the arm, it is referring **to a place which is fit to become ritually impure with** only **one** type of leprous **mark,** that of the skin, **so too here,** with regard to the phylacteries of the head, it is referring **to a place which is fit to become ritually impure with** only **one** type of leprous **mark,** that of a place of hair (see Leviticus 13:29–37).


###### Menachot 37b:7
[Menachot 37b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/37b:7)

לְאַפּוֹקֵי ״בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״, דְּאִיכָּא בָּשָׂר וְשֵׂעָר, דְּאִיכָּא שֵׂעָר לָבָן, וְאִיכָּא נָמֵי שֵׂעָר צָהוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yehuda continues: This serves **to exclude** the area which is literally **“between your eyes,” as there is flesh and** the **hair** of the eyebrows present there, and therefore **there is** a possibility of leprosy through the growth of **a white hair,** which is impure according to the *halakhot* of leprosy of the skin (see Leviticus 13:3), **and there is also** a possibility of leprosy through the growth of **a yellow hair,** which is impure according to the *halakhot* of leprosy of the head or the beard (see Leviticus 13:30).


###### Menachot 37b:8
[Menachot 37b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/37b:8)

אַרְבַּע צִיצִיּוֹת מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, שֶׁאַרְבַּעְתָּן מִצְוָה אַחַת. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: סָדִין בְּצִיצִית אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the **four ritual fringes** on a garment, the absence of **each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, as the four of them** constitute **one mitzva.** Rabbi Yishmael says: The four of them are four discrete mitzvot, and the absence of one does not prevent fulfillment of the rest. The Gemara asks: **What** is the difference **between** the opinions of the first *tanna* and Rabbi Yishmael? **Rav Yosef said:** The difference **between** their opinions **is** with regard to a linen **sheet with** woolen **ritual fringes** that has fewer than four ritual fringes. The first *tanna* maintains that since one is not performing a mitzva, he may not wrap himself in the sheet, due to the prohibition of diverse kinds, i.e., the prohibition against wearing clothing made from a mixture of wool and linen threads. Conversely, Rabbi Yishmael permits one to wrap himself in it, as each ritual fringe is a separate mitzva, and the mitzva of ritual fringes overrides the prohibition against wearing diverse kinds.


###### Menachot 37b:9
[Menachot 37b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/37b:9)

רָבָא בַּר אֲהִינָא אָמַר: טַלִּית בַּעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava bar Ahina said:** The difference **between** their opinions **is** with regard to **a cloak with five** corners. It is derived that a cloak of this kind requires ritual fringes (see 43b), but it is unclear whether ritual fringes must be placed on each corner. If each fringe is a discrete mitzva, then the obligation applies to the fifth corner as well, but if it is one mitzva then it applies only to four of the corners of this garment.


###### Menachot 37b:10
[Menachot 37b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/37b:10)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: דְּרַב הוּנָא אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הַיּוֹצֵא בְּטַלִּית שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְצוּיֶּיצֶת כְּהִלְכָתָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת – חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said:** The difference **between** their opinions **is** with regard to the opinion **of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: One who goes out** unwittingly to the public domain **on Shabbat with** a four-cornered **cloak that does not have** all of **the requisite ritual fringes** attached to its corners is **liable** to bring **a sin offering,** because the remaining fringes are not an integral part of the garment. Since they do not enable the wearer to fulfill the mitzva, they are considered a burden, which may not be carried into the public domain on Shabbat. The first *tanna* agrees with this ruling, whereas Rabbi Yishmael maintains that since each corner with ritual fringes is the fulfillment of a mitzva, one is not liable to bring a sin offering due to carrying on Shabbat for wearing it into the public domain.


###### Menachot 37b:11
[Menachot 37b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/37b:11)

אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: הַאי מַאן דְּבַצְּרֵיהּ לִגְלִימֵיהּ – לָא עֲבַד וְלֹא כְּלוּם, שַׁוְּיֵיהּ טַלִּית בַּעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: One who cuts** the corner of **his garment has not done anything** of consequence with regard to exempting the garment from the obligation of ritual fringes, as **he has rendered it a cloak with five** corners, to which the obligation of ritual fringes applies.


###### Menachot 37b:12
[Menachot 37b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/37b:12)

אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: הַאי מַאן דְּצַיְּירֵיהּ לִגְלִימֵיהּ – לָא עֲבַד וְלֹא כְּלוּם. מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּכְמַאן דְּשַׁרְיֵיהּ דָּמֵי. וּתְנַן נָמֵי: כׇּל חֲמָתוֹת הַצְּרוּרוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל עַרְבִיִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mesharshiyya** similarly **says: One who ties his garment has not done anything** of consequence with regard to exempting the garment from the obligation of ritual fringes. **What is the reason? It is considered as though** the garment is **untied,** since the knot can be loosened at any time. **And we learned likewise** in a mishna (*Kelim* 26:4): **All bound** leather **jugs,** i.e., those whose bottoms are not sewn but tied, **are ritually pure,** i.e., they are not susceptible to ritual impurity. This is because they are not considered receptacles, as these knots will be untied, **except for** leather **jugs of Arabs,** who would tie them with a permanent knot.


###### Menachot 37b:13
[Menachot 37b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/37b:13)

אָמַר רַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא: הַאי מַאן דְּחַיְּיטֵיהּ לִגְלִימֵיהּ – לָא עֲבַד וְלֹא כְּלוּם, אִם אִיתָא דְּלָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ – לִיפְסוֹק וְלִישְׁדְּיֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Dimi of Neharde’a** similarly **says: One who sews his garment,** i.e., he folded over a long garment and sewed the edges together, **has not done anything** of consequence with regard to the obligation of ritual fringes, and he must place ritual fringes on the original corners. The reason is that **if it is so that he does not need** the folded part, which is why he is sewing it, **let him cut** it **and throw it** away.


###### Menachot 37b:14
[Menachot 37b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/37b:14)

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אַרְבַּעְתָּן אַרְבַּע מִצְוֹת. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּוָתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Yishmael says: The four of them are four** discrete **mitzvot,** and the absence of one does not prevent fulfillment of the rest. **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael.** The Gemara states: **But the *halakha*** is **not in accordance with his** opinion.


###### Menachot 37b:15
[Menachot 37b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/37b:15)

רָבִינָא הֲוָה קָא אָזֵיל אַבָּתְרֵיהּ דְּמָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי בְּשַׁבְּתָא דְּרִיגְלָא, אִיפְּסִיק קַרְנָא דְּחוּטֵיהּ, וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי. כַּד מְטָא לְבֵיתֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מֵהָתָם אִיפְּסִיק. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי אֲמַרְתְּ לִי מֵהָתָם שְׁדֵיתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Ravina was walking behind Mar bar Rav Ashi on the Shabbat of the Festival** when **the corner** of Mar bar Rav Ashi’s garment **on** which **his ritual fringes** were hanging **tore, and** yet Ravina **did not say anything to him. When he arrived at** Mar bar Rav Ashi’s **house,** Ravina **said to him: Back there,** along the way, the corner **tore.** Mar bar Rav Ashi **said to him: If you would have told me** then, **I would have thrown off** the garment **there,** as once one of the ritual fringes is torn no mitzva is performed with the rest, and it is prohibited to walk in the public domain on Shabbat wearing such a garment. This is in accordance with the opinion of the first *tanna*, who disagrees with the ruling of Rabbi Yishmael.


###### Menachot 37b:16
[Menachot 37b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/37b:16)

וְהָא אָמַר מָר: גָּדוֹל כְּבוֹד הַבְּרִיּוֹת שֶׁדּוֹחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But didn’t the Master say: Great is human dignity, as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah?** This includes the prohibition against carrying on Shabbat in the public domain. That being the case, why would he remove his garment in public?


###### Menachot 37b:17
[Menachot 37b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/37b:17)

תַּרְגְּומַהּ רַב בַּר שְׁבָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rav bar Shabba interpreted** that statement **before Rav Kahana:**