Menachot 42

Sugya Map & Text Snapshot

Sugya Map

This multifaceted sugya in Menachot 42a-b meticulously dissects various halachot concerning tzitzit, covering both their physical requirements and the requisite spiritual intentions.

• Issue 1: Dimensions of Tzitzit
  • Nafka Mina: Determines minimum and maximum acceptable lengths for tzitzit strings.
  • Primary Sources: Baraita (Menachot 42a), Mishna Sukkah 29b (for lulav analogy).
• Issue 2: Placement of Tzitzit on the Garment
  • Nafka Mina: Defines the precise location for attaching tzitzit relative to the corner and edge.
  • Primary Sources: Baraita (Menachot 42a), Rav Giddel citing Rav, Rabbi Yaakov citing Rabbi Yochanan, Rav Pappa (Menachot 41b), Ravina.
• Issue 3: Method of Attaching Tzitzit
  • Nafka Mina: How many strings are inserted, and whether they are looped or simply hung.
  • Primary Sources: Rav Acha bar Yaakov, Rav Yirmeya of Difti, Mar son of Ravina (Menachot 42a).
• Issue 4: Blessing on Tzitzit Production and Ma'aseh Mitzvah
  • Nafka Mina: Whether a bracha is recited when making tzitzit, leading to a fundamental discussion of gmar mitzvah (completion of the mitzvah).
  • Primary Sources: Rav Nachman, Rav Adda bar Ahava, Rav Yehuda citing Rav, Rav Chisda, Rav Yosef, Baraitot (circumcision, sukka, tefillin), Daru bar Pappa citing Rav, Rabbi Yochanan (Menachot 42a-b).
• Issue 5: Lishma Requirement for Tzitzit Strings and Dye
  • Nafka Mina: Validity of tzitzit spun or dyed without specific lishma intent.
  • Primary Sources: Rav Yehuda citing Rav, Shmuel, Baraita (Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel) (Menachot 42b).
• Issue 6: Testing Tekhelet and Reliability of Scribes
  • Nafka Mina: How to verify tekhelet authenticity and whom to trust for safrut.
  • Primary Sources: Abaye, Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda, Baraita (R' Chanina b. Gamliel, R' Yochanan b. Dahavai) (Menachot 42b).

Text Snapshot

The Gemara opens with a foundational definitional statement:

"הברייתא פירושה שאין לה שיעור למעלה אבל יש לה שיעור למטה" (Menachot 42a:1). This clarifies that tzitzit strings have no maximum length, but crucially, they do have a minimum. The proof is drawn from the analogous case of a lulav, where "אין לו שיעור" (Sukkah 29b) is similarly interpreted. The lashon "כיוצא בו" indicates a direct analogical deduction.

Later, the sugya pivots to the contentious issue of reciting a bracha upon creating tzitzit:

"אמר ליה רב נחמן לרב אדא בר אהבה מאי קא מיצטייץ? הכי אמר רב: ציצית אינן צריכות ברכה" (Menachot 42a:17). Rav Nachman's pointed question, "מאי קא מיצטייץ?" ("What is this 'twang' I hear?"), highlights his challenge to Rav Adda bar Ahava's recitation of a bracha "לעשות ציצית" (to make tzitzit), citing Rav's view that no such bracha is required. This sets the stage for a profound halachic discourse on the nature of brachot on ma'aseh mitzvah.

Readings

Rashi: Defining Shiurim and the Sage's Humiliation

Rashi, with characteristic concision, provides the bedrock understanding for the sugya's initial discussions. Regarding the shiurim (measures) for tzitzit, Rashi elucidates the baraita's "אין לה שיעור":

"אין לה שיעור למעלה - דכמה דבעי ליהוי ארוך" (Rashi, Menachot 42a s.v. אין לה שיעור למעלה). "ויש לה שיעור למטה - דמשולשת ד' בעינן אבל בציר מהכי לא והדקתני משהו דבמשהו נמי מתכשרי גרדומי" (Rashi, Menachot 42a s.v. ויש לה שיעור למטה).

Rashi clarifies that "אין לה שיעור למעלה" means there is no upper limit to the length of the tzitzit strings; one may make them as long as desired. Conversely, "יש לה שיעור למטה" signifies a definitive minimum. He further explains this minimum as requiring sufficient length to form the gedil (twisted cord) and leave four etzba'ot (fingerbreadths) of untwisted string. This is implicitly linking to halachot found elsewhere (e.g., Menachot 38a), where the practical minimum is detailed. Rashi's chiddush here lies in providing the immediate practical halacha for the minimum, concretizing the Gemara's conceptual distinction. His parenthetical comment about "משהו" (something) for gardumim hints at contexts where minimal remnants suffice, distinguishing it from the tzitzit minimum.

Rashi also illuminates the dramatic interchange between Rav Samma, Ravina, and Rav Ashi:

"איכסף - רב סמא" (Rashi, Menachot 42a s.v. איכסף). "א"ל - לרב סמא" (Rashi, Menachot 42a s.v. א"ל). "חד מינייהו - מבני ארץ ישראל ורבינא מא"י הוה" (Rashi, Menachot 42a s.v. חד מינייהו).

Here, Rashi explains Rav Samma's embarrassment after incorrectly challenging Ravina. Ravina's terutz (that the gudel requirement for tzitzit placement applies l'chatchila but not b'dieved if the garment tears) demonstrated his superior understanding. Rav Ashi's subsequent comforting words to Rav Samma, "חד מינייהו כתרי מינן" ("one of them [from Eretz Yisrael] is like two of us [from Babylonia]"), are interpreted by Rashi as a direct reference to Ravina's origin in Eretz Yisrael. This chiddush by Rashi provides not just a translation, but a cultural commentary, highlighting the perceived intellectual stature of the Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael among their Babylonian counterparts.

Rif: Shiurim and the Nuances of Tying

The Rif (Rabbi Yitzchak Alfasi), in his signature style, presents the halachic conclusions of the sugya, streamlining the dialectical discussions. His treatment of tzitzit shiurim directly reflects the Gemara's ultimate resolution:

"ציצית אין לה שיעור כיוצא בו לולב אין לו שיעור מאי לאו אין לו שיעור כלל לא (דף מב.) אין לו שיעור למעלה אבל יש לו שיעור למטה והכי נמי מסתברא מדקתני לולב אין לו שיעור מאי אין לו שיעור אילימא אין לו שיעור כלל והתניא כל לולב שיש בו פחות משלשה טפחים וכדי לנענע בו כשר אלא אין לו שיעור למעלה אבל יש לו שיעור למטה הכא נמי אין לו שיעור למעלה אבל יש לו שיעור למטה" (Rif, Halakhot Ketanot, Menachot 12b:1).

The Rif succinctly re-states the Gemara's argument, dismissing the initial interpretation of "אין לו שיעור" as implying no measure whatsoever. Instead, he affirms that it means "אין לו שיעור למעלה" (no maximum) but "יש לו שיעור למטה" (a minimum). His chiddush here is in distilling the lengthy Gemara discussion into a clear, decisive halachic ruling, directly establishing this interpretation of shiurim for future poskim.

Crucially, the Rif includes the various Amoraic practices for tying tzitzit:

"רב אחא בר יעקב עביד להו ארבעה ועייף להו מיעף עייל להו בגלימא ואביק להו מיבק קסבר בעינן תמניא בגלימא כי היכי דליהוו גדיל גדילא במקום פתילים רב ירמיה מדפתי עביד תמניא דאינון שיתסר ולא אביק להו מיבק מר בריה דרבינא עביד כדידן" (Rif, Halakhot Ketanot, Menachot 12b:1).

The Rif meticulously recounts Rav Acha bar Yaakov's method of using four strings, folding them, inserting the fold into the garment hole (yielding eight strands), and then looping them. Rav Acha's reasoning, as stated, is to ensure eight strands are present for the gedil and petilim. He contrasts this with Rav Yirmeya of Difti, who used eight strings (sixteen strands) without looping, and Mar son of Ravina, who tied "כדידן" (like ours), i.e., four folded strings, forming eight strands, tied in the conventional manner. The Rif's chiddush is in presenting these variant practices as legitimate Amoraic traditions, thereby providing the foundation for the diverse customs of tzitzit tying. By concluding with "מר בריה דרבינא עביד כדידן," the Rif subtly indicates the preferred or most common minhag that would later become normative.

Friction

The most compelling kushya within this sugya centers on the fundamental question of when a bracha is recited upon the creation of a cheftza shel mitzvah. This tension arises from two statements attributed to Rav:

"הכי אמר רב: ציצית אינן צריכות ברכה" (Menachot 42a:17) – Rav states that making tzitzit does not require a bracha. However, Rav Yehuda cites Rav with another ruling: "מניין שציצית של גוי פסולות? שנאמר: 'דבר אל בני ישראל ועשו להם ציצית' — בני ישראל יעשו ואין גוי עושה" (Menachot 42a:19) – Rav posits that tzitzit made by a gentile are pasul (unfit).

Rav Chisda attempts to reconcile these, proposing a meta-halachic principle:

"כל מצוה שהיא כשרה בנכרי, בישראל אינו צריך לברך. כל מצוה שהיא פסולה בנכרי, בישראל צריך לברך" (Menachot 42a:20). According to Rav Chisda's logic, since Rav rules gentile-made tzitzit as pasul, a Jew making them should require a bracha. This directly contradicts Rav's explicit statement that tzitzit require no bracha on their making. This is the strongest kushya, as it presents a direct internal contradiction within Rav's own rulings, mediated by a seemingly universally applicable principle.

The Gemara proceeds to challenge Rav Chisda's principle with brit milah, sukka, and tefillin, demonstrating its inconsistencies. It then offers a refined principle as the primary terutz:

"אלא מאי אית לך למימר? כל מצוה שגמר עשייתה הוא גמר מצותה, כגון מילה... בישראל צריך לברך. וכל מצוה שאין גמר עשייתה גמר מצותה, כגון תפילין... בישראל אינו צריך לברך" (Menachot 42b:13). This terutz hinges on the distinction of gmar mitzvah (completion of the mitzvah). If the act of creation itself completes the mitzvah (e.g., milah), a bracha is recited. If the creation is merely preparatory for a later mitzvah performance (e.g., tefillin, where the mitzvah is laying them), no bracha is recited on the making. Applying this to tzitzit: "ובציצית פליגי: מר סבר חובת טלית הוא, ומר סבר חובת גברא הוא" (Menachot 42b:14). The dispute between Rav Adda bar Ahava (who recites a bracha) and Rav (who does not) is thus attributed to whether the obligation is on the talit (cloak) – making the tzitzit completes the mitzvah – or on the gever (person) – the mitzvah is completed only when worn. Rav's view aligns with the latter, resolving the contradiction.

An alternative terutz is presented by Rav Mordechai, which circumvents the kushya by rejecting its premise:

"מרדכי אמר ליה לרב אשי: אתו מתניתו הכי, אנן מתנינן הכי: אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: מנין שציצית של גוי כשרות? שנאמר: 'ועשו להם ציצית' – אחרים עושין להם" (Menachot 42b:15-16). Rav Mordechai offers an alternative girsa (version) of Rav's statement, asserting that Rav actually held gentile-made tzitzit are valid. This interpretation of "ועשו להם" as "others may make for them" nullifies the original contradiction, as if gentile tzitzit are valid, Rav Chisda's initial principle (even with its flaws) would imply no bracha is needed, aligning with Rav's first statement.

Intertext

The sugya's exploration of the lishma (for the sake of the mitzvah) requirement for tzitzit strings and tekhelet dye offers a rich intertextual parallel to other cheftzei mitzvah. The Gemara records a dispute concerning the spinning of tzitzit threads:

"אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: העושה קוצים, נימין, גרדין – פסולין. סירכות – כשרות. וכשאמרתי דברים אלו לפני שמואל אמר לי: אף סירכות פסולות, דבעינן טויה לשמה" (Menachot 42b:18). Rav rules that tzitzit made from existing garment threads (kotzim, nimin, geradin) are pasul because they lack lishma intent in their creation. Sirchot (unspun wool swatches), however, are kosher. Shmuel disagrees, requiring "טויה לשמה" (spinning for the sake of the mitzvah) even for sirchot. This is immediately supported by a baraita concerning tefillin cases, where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel requires "הכנה לשמה" (preparation for the sake of the mitzvah) for patching materials.

This concept resonates deeply across halacha. For Sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot, the Gemara (Gittin 54b; Menachot 30b) explicitly states they are pasul if written by non-Jews or those lacking proper status. Rambam codifies the explicit lishma requirement for the scribe:

"כל ספר תורה תפילין ומזוזה שכתבן עובד כוכבים או קטן או חרש שוטה וקטן... הרי אלו פסולין ולא עוד אלא שצריך שיכתוב לשמה ואם לא כתב לשמה פסול" (Rambam, Hilchot Tefillin 1:13). The Rambam's ruling that the very act of writing must be lishma, otherwise the cheftza is pasul, directly parallels Shmuel's stringent view for tzitzit spinning and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's for tefillin cases. This underscores a foundational principle: for objects whose sanctity is intrinsic to their use in a mitzvah, the preparatory acts of creation must be imbued with specific intent.

Furthermore, the lishma requirement extends to the tekhelet dye itself:

"ושמע מינה בעינן צביעה לשמה" (Menachot 42b:21). The Gemara deduces that tviya lishma is required for the tekhelet dye, meaning the dyeing process must be undertaken for the specific purpose of the mitzvah, not merely for testing or other uses. This is further nuanced by the Tannaitic dispute regarding "כלל תכלת" (Exodus 28:31), implying an exclusive first use of the dye, which points to a heightened degree of lishma or dedication. The tzitzit sugya thus serves as a critical source for understanding the pervasive and multi-faceted application of lishma within the framework of cheftzei mitzvah.

Psak/Practice

The sugya in Menachot 42a-b yields several practical halachot and meta-psak heuristics that are normative in Jewish practice.

Regarding dimensions of tzitzit: The psak follows the Gemara's conclusion that tzitzit have no maximum length, but a minimum. The specific minimum length for the untwisted portion of the strings is four etzba'ot (fingerbreadths), as codified by Rambam (Hilchot Tzitzit 3:6) and Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 11:14).

For the placement of tzitzit: The psak mandates placing the hole for the tzitzit a gudel (thumb's width) from the edge, within three etzba'ot of the garment's corner. Ravina's ruling, that this is l'chatchila but b'dieved it remains valid if the garment tears closer, is accepted (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 11:10).

The method of attaching tzitzit: Of the various Amoraic customs, the psak aligns with Mar son of Ravina's practice ("כדידן"), which involves folding four strings through the hole to create eight strands, then tying them in the conventional manner. This is the widespread minhag and is codified in Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 11:13).

The intricate debate on the blessing for ma'aseh mitzvah: The Gemara's final resolution, distinguishing between gmar asiyata and gmar mitzvata, is a crucial meta-psak heuristic. The conclusion is that we do not recite a bracha "לעשות ציצית" (to make tzitzit). Instead, the bracha "על מצוות ציצית" is recited when one dons the garment, as the mitzvah is on the wearer, not the maker (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 8:8). This principle is consistently applied to tefillin and sukka.

The lishma requirement for tzitzit strings and tekhelet dye: The psak adheres to Shmuel's stringent view, requiring tviya lishma (spinning for the sake of the mitzvah) for the tzitzit strings (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 11:2). Similarly, tekhelet dyeing must be lishma, and testing dye renders it pasul if performed in the same batch, following Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 13:3-4).

Takeaway

Menachot 42a-b fundamentally shapes halachot pertaining to tzitzit, deeply exploring the interplay between the physical creation of a cheftza shel mitzvah and the essential kavanna (lishma), while establishing a foundational meta-halachic principle for brachot based on the completion of the mitzvah.