Menachot Daf 37 (מנחות דף ל״ז)
Daf: 37 | Amudim: 37a – 37b | Date: 18 Shevat 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (37a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yosei HaḤorem’s challenge: the right hand is also called “yad”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַחוֹרָם אוֹמֵר: מָצִינוּ יָמִין שֶׁנִּקְרָא יָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיַּרְא יוֹסֵף כִּי יָשִׁית אָבִיו יַד יְמִינוֹ״. וְאִידַּךְ – ״יַד יְמִינוֹ״ אִיקְּרִי, ״יָד״ סְתָמָא לָא אִיקְּרִי.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yosei HaḤorem says: This is no proof, as we have found that the right hand is also called yad, as it is stated: “And when Joseph saw that his father was laying his right hand [yad yemino]” (Genesis 48:17). The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, who maintains that the right hand is not called yad, how does he respond to this proof? He maintains that the right hand is called “his right hand [yad yemino],” but it is not called a yad without further specification.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara continues the discussion from the previous daf about which arm tefillin are placed on. The earlier derivation was that “yad” (hand/arm) unmodified always means the left. Rabbi Yosei HaḤorem challenges this by citing Genesis 48:17, where Jacob’s right hand is called “yad yemino.” The rebuttal is a precise linguistic distinction: the right hand is called “yad yemino” (his right hand) — i.e., “yad” with a qualifier — but “yad” standing alone (סתמא) always refers to the left. This type of close textual analysis of word usage across the Torah is characteristic of Talmudic legal exegesis.
Key Terms:
- יָד (yad) = Hand or arm; unmodified, it refers to the left
- סְתָמָא (stama) = Without further specification; unmodified
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Natan’s alternative proof: writing and binding juxtaposition
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וּקְשַׁרְתָּם״ ״וּכְתַבְתָּם״ – מָה כְּתִיבָה בְּיָמִין, אַף קְשִׁירָה בְּיָמִין, וְכֵיוָן דִּקְשִׁירָה בְּיָמִין – הַנָּחָה בִּשְׂמֹאל הִיא. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַחוֹרָם, הַנָּחָה דְּבִשְׂמֹאל מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵהֵיכָא דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי נָתָן.
English Translation:
Rabbi Natan says: This proof is not necessary, as it says: “And you shall bind them for a sign upon your arm” (Deuteronomy 6:8), and then it states: “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house” (Deuteronomy 6:9). This teaches that just as writing is with the right hand, as most people write with their right hands, so too, the binding of phylacteries must be performed with the right hand. And since binding is with the right hand, this means that donning is on the left arm, as one cannot bind the phylacteries with the same hand upon which he is donning them. The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yosei HaḤorem, who holds that the right hand is also called yad in the Torah, derive that donning phylacteries is on the left arm? The Gemara answers: He derives it from where Rabbi Natan derives it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Natan offers an elegant logical proof that doesn’t depend on the meaning of “yad” at all. The Torah juxtaposes “binding” (tefillin) and “writing” (mezuzah) in adjacent verses. Since writing is done with the right hand (the dominant hand), binding tefillin must also be done with the right hand. But you cannot tie something onto the hand you are tying with — so the tefillin must be placed on the left arm, which the right hand then binds. The Gemara notes that even Rabbi Yosei HaḤorem, who disputed the earlier proof, ultimately agrees with this derivation. All opinions converge: tefillin go on the left arm.
Key Terms:
- קְשִׁירָה (keshirah) = Binding; the act of tying the tefillin straps
- הַנָּחָה (hanacha) = Donning/placing; the placement of the tefillin box
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Ashi’s derivation: “yadkha” with heh means the weak arm
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מִ״יָּדְכָה״ כְּתִיב, בְּהֵ״י כֵּהָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְאֵימָא ״יָדְךָ״ שֶׁבְּכֹחַ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי כְּתִיב בְּחֵי״ת?
English Translation:
Rav Ashi said: The requirement that phylacteries be donned on the left arm is derived from the verse: “It shall be for a sign upon your arm [yadkha]” (Exodus 13:16), which is written with a letter heh at the end. This is expounded as though it stated: Your weak [keha] arm. Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: But one can say that yadkha should be interpreted as yadko’aḥ, with a letter ḥet at the end instead of a heh. If so, this would mean: Your arm that is of strength [shebeko’aḥ], which is the right arm. Rav Ashi said to Rabbi Abba: Is this word written with a ḥet?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi introduces a third, independent derivation based on close orthographic reading. The word “yadkha” (your arm) in Exodus 13:16 ends with a heh, which Rav Ashi reads as a wordplay: “yad keha” — your feeble/weak arm. For a right-handed person, the weaker arm is the left. Rabbi Abba challenges: perhaps the heh should be read as a ḥet, yielding “yad ko’aḥ” — your strong arm (the right)! Rav Ashi dismisses this crisply: the Torah writes a heh, not a ḥet. The exchange demonstrates how a single letter can determine halakha, and how precise textual reading prevents misinterpretation.
Key Terms:
- כֵּהָה (keha) = Weak, feeble; reading the heh of yadkha as indicating weakness
- כֹּחַ (ko’aḥ) = Strength, power; the rejected alternative reading
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא
Tannaitic dispute: the gidem (amputee) and tefillin obligation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״יָדְכָה״ בְּהֵ״י – זוֹ שְׂמֹאל, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: ״יָדְךָ״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַגִּידֵּם. תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אֵין לוֹ זְרוֹעַ – פָּטוּר מִן הַתְּפִילִּין, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: ״יָדְכָה״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַגִּידֵּם.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes that Rav Ashi’s opinion, that the halakha that phylacteries are donned on the left arm is derived from the term yadkha, is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: Yadkha is written with a heh, indicating weakness, and this is referring to the left arm. Others say: “Your arm,” i.e., yadkha, serves to include one without a complete arm, i.e., one whose arm ends at the elbow, in the obligation to don phylacteries, as the remaining part is also categorized as a weak arm. It is taught in another baraita: If one does not have a left arm, i.e., not even above the elbow, he is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries. Others say: Yadkha serves to include one without a left arm even above the elbow, teaching that he must don phylacteries on his right arm.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presents two tannaitic beraitot that debate the halakhic status of a gidem — someone whose arm is amputated. The first tanna reads “yadkha” with heh as simply indicating the left arm. “Acherim” (Others) expands the scope: the extra heh comes to include even someone with a partial arm (ending at the elbow) in the tefillin obligation. A second baraita presents the opposite debate: the first tanna exempts someone who lacks an arm entirely, while Acherim maintain even such a person must don tefillin (presumably on the remaining limb). These disputes have real halakhic consequences for people with disabilities and their ritual obligations.
Key Terms:
- גִּידֵּם (gidem) = A person with an amputated or incomplete arm
- אֲחֵרִים (Acherim) = “Others”; a designation for certain tannaim whose views are recorded anonymously
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Left-handed and ambidextrous individuals: which arm for tefillin?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אִטֵּר מַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין בִּימִינוֹ, שֶׁהוּא שְׂמֹאלוֹ. וְהָתַנְיָא: מַנִּיחַ בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ שֶׁהוּא שְׂמֹאלוֹ שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם! אֲמַר אַבָּיֵי: כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא בְּשׁוֹלֵט בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: A left-handed person dons phylacteries on his right arm, which is equivalent to his left arm, i.e., his weaker arm. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that a left-handed person dons phylacteries on his left arm, which is the left arm of every other person? Abaye said: When that baraita is taught, it is referring to one who has equal control with both his hands, i.e., an ambidextrous person. Since such an individual also uses his right hand, he dons phylacteries on his left arm.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves an apparent contradiction between two beraitot about left-handed individuals. The first says a left-handed person dons tefillin on his right arm (which is his weaker, “left” arm functionally). The second says he dons on his left arm. Abaye resolves this by distinguishing between a truly left-handed person (who wears on the right) and an ambidextrous person (who wears on the left, following the majority of people). The underlying principle is clear: tefillin always go on the weaker arm, regardless of which hand that is for any given individual.
Key Terms:
- אִטֵּר (iter) = A left-handed person
- שׁוֹלֵט בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו (sholet bishtei yadav) = Ambidextrous; one who uses both hands equally
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Location of tefillin: bicep and crown of head
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנָא דְּבֵי מְנַשֶּׁה: ״עַל יָדְךָ״ – זוֹ קִיבּוֹרֶת, ״בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״ – זוֹ קׇדְקֹד. הֵיכָא? אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: מְקוֹם שֶׁמּוֹחוֹ שֶׁל תִּינוֹק רוֹפֵס.
English Translation:
The school of Menashe taught with regard to the verse: “And you shall bind them for a sign on your arm, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8): “On your arm”; this is the bicep. “Between your eyes”; this is the crown of the head. The Gemara asks: Where exactly on the crown of the head are the phylacteries placed? The school of Rabbi Yannai say: Phylacteries are placed on the place where the bone above the baby’s brain is soft after birth.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having established which arm, the Gemara now specifies the exact locations on both body parts. The school of Menashe provides the key teaching: “on your arm” refers to the kiboret (bicep muscle), not the palm or forearm, and “between your eyes” refers to the kodkod (crown of the head), not the forehead or bridge of the nose. The school of Rabbi Yannai adds anatomical precision: the head tefillin go where the baby’s fontanelle is soft — the anterior fontanelle at the crown. This is a remarkably specific anatomical reference used to define a halakhic location.
Key Terms:
- קִיבּוֹרֶת (kiboret) = The bicep; the bulging muscle between shoulder and elbow
- קׇדְקֹד (kodkod) = Crown of the head
- רוֹפֵס (rofes) = Soft, pulsating; describing the fontanelle of an infant
Segment 7
TYPE: אגדתא
Peleimu’s question about a two-headed person; pidyon haben case
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ פְּלֵימוֹ מֵרַבִּי: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי רָאשִׁים, בְּאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן מַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אוֹ קוּם גְּלִי, אוֹ קַבֵּל עֲלָךְ שַׁמְתָּא. אַדְּהָכִי אֲתָא הָהוּא גַּבְרָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִיתְיְלִיד לִי יָנוֹקָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ תְּרֵי רֵישֵׁי, כַּמָּה בָּעֵינָא לְמִיתַּב לְכֹהֵן? אֲתָא הָהוּא סָבָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ: חַיָּיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה סְלָעִים.
English Translation:
§ The Sage Peleimu raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: In the case of one who has two heads, on which of them does he don phylacteries? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Either get up and exile yourself from here or accept upon yourself excommunication for asking such a ridiculous question. In the meantime, a certain man arrived and said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: A firstborn child has been born to me who has two heads. How much money must I give to the priest for the redemption of the firstborn? A certain elder came and taught him: You are obligated to give him ten sela, the requisite five for each head.
קלאוד על הדף:
This famous aggadic passage serves as a transition from the laws of tefillin placement to the broader topic of unusual physical conditions. Peleimu asks what seems like an absurd hypothetical — on which head does a two-headed person don tefillin? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi threatens him with excommunication for frivolity. But in a dramatic twist, a man actually arrives with a two-headed firstborn, asking about pidyon haben. An elder rules he must pay ten sela (five per head). The story teaches that seemingly absurd legal questions may have real-world applications, and that halakha must address even the most unusual cases. The Talmud values intellectual curiosity even when it appears impractical.
Key Terms:
- פְּלֵימוֹ (Peleimu) = A sage known for asking unusual questions (see also Kiddushin 81a)
- שַׁמְתָּא (shamta) = Excommunication; a disciplinary measure
- פִּדְיוֹן הַבֵּן (pidyon haben) = Redemption of the firstborn son; five sela are paid to a kohen
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: a non-viable child doesn’t require redemption
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִינִי? וְהָתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה אֵת בְּכוֹר הָאָדָם״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אֲפִילּוּ נִטְרַף בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But Rami bar Ḥama teaches: Since it is stated with regard to the redemption of the firstborn: “The firstborn of man you shall redeem” (Numbers 18:15), I would derive that even if he was ravaged, e.g., by an animal, within thirty days of his birth, one should redeem him. To counter this, the verse states:
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the ruling about the two-headed baby. Rami bar Ḥama teaches that a baby who will not survive thirty days does not require redemption — the word “akh” (yet) in the Torah limits the obligation. Since a two-headed baby is presumably not viable, it should be classified like a treifah and exempt from pidyon haben entirely. This challenge sets up the resolution at the beginning of amud bet, where the Gemara will distinguish between viability and the skull-based calculation of redemption money.
Key Terms:
- נִטְרַף (nitraf) = Ravaged/mauled; a child who will not survive
- פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה (padoh tifdeh) = “You shall surely redeem”; the Torah’s command regarding firstborn redemption
Amud Bet (37b)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: redemption is calculated per skull
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״אַךְ״ – חִלֵּק, שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דִּבְגוּלְגּוֹלֶת תְּלָא רַחֲמָנָא.
English Translation:
“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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the challenge with a key distinction. While normally a child that won’t survive thirty days is exempt from pidyon haben, here the Torah specifically links redemption money to skulls (גולגולת), as stated in Numbers 3:47: “five shekels apiece, by the skull.” This phrase anticipates the unusual case of multiple skulls and mandates payment per skull regardless of viability. The resolution demonstrates how the Torah’s seemingly redundant language provides solutions to edge cases that arise in practice.
Key Terms:
- אַךְ (akh) = “Yet”; a limiting word in the Torah that excludes certain cases
- גוּלְגּוֹלֶת (gulgolet) = Skull; the basis for calculating pidyon haben payment
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Source for tefillin on the bicep, not the palm
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now asks: how do we know “yad” means the upper arm (bicep) rather than the literal hand (palm)? The answer uses a comparative logic between the arm and head tefillin. Just as “between your eyes” doesn’t literally mean the forehead but rather the upper part of the head, so too “on your arm” doesn’t mean the palm but rather the upper part of the arm. This parallel interpretation ensures both tefillin are placed on the “elevated” parts of their respective limbs. The Rambam codifies this as the definitive placement (Hilkhot Tefillin 4:2).
Key Terms:
- גּוֹבַהּ שֶׁבַּיָּד (govah sheba’yad) = The upper/elevated part of the arm; the bicep area
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Two additional proofs for bicep placement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two Tannaim offer independent proofs that tefillin go on the bicep. Rabbi Eliezer derives it from “a sign for you” — the tefillin should be a private sign, placed where it’s normally concealed (the upper arm under the sleeve), not a public display (the visible palm). Rabbi Yitzḥak connects “place these words on your heart” with “and bind them” — the binding (tefillin) should be opposite the heart, which places it on the bicep of the left arm. These multiple convergent proofs from different verses all point to the same location, demonstrating the Talmudic principle that important halakhot have multiple scriptural supports.
Key Terms:
- לְךָ לְאוֹת (lekha le’ot) = A sign for you; teaching that arm tefillin should be placed in a concealed area
- כְּנֶגֶד הַלֵּב (keneged ha’lev) = Opposite the heart; the bicep area when the arm is at one’s side
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Ameimar’s visible tefillin: location vs. concealment
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A practical exchange clarifies an important distinction. When Ameimar’s tefillin become visible through a tear in his sleeve, Rav Ashi asks whether this violates “a sign for you, not for others.” Ameimar explains: the drasha determines where tefillin are placed (on a normally-concealed part of the body, i.e., the bicep), but once properly placed, there is no prohibition against them being seen. The verse defines location, not visibility. This distinction — between the legal requirement for placement and incidental exposure — is a nuanced halakhic principle with practical implications.
Key Terms:
- צִירְיָא (tzirya) = A tear or cut in a garment
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Head tefillin placement: gezerah shavah from baldness
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara establishes the head tefillin location through a gezerah shavah (verbal analogy). The same phrase “between your eyes” appears both in the tefillin passage and in the prohibition against making a bald spot for the dead. Since the baldness prohibition clearly refers to the hairy part of the head (the crown) — you can’t make a bald spot between your literal eyes, as that area has no hair — the tefillin placement must also refer to the crown of the head, not the bridge of the nose or forehead. This is a classic example of how one verse illuminates the meaning of an identical phrase elsewhere. The Rambam notes (Hilkhot Tefillin 4:3) that placing tefillin on the forehead is “the way of the Sadducees” — heretics who rejected the Oral Torah.
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה (gezerah shavah) = Verbal analogy; a principle of Torah interpretation linking identical phrases
- קׇרְחָה (korchah) = A bald spot; creating one for the dead is prohibited
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yehuda’s proof from leprosy laws
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda offers an alternative proof using the laws of negaim (leprous marks). The arm tefillin is placed on the bicep, an area of bare skin susceptible to only one type of nega — skin leprosy (white hair on bare skin). By analogy, head tefillin should also be placed where only one type of nega applies — the hairy scalp, where the relevant nega is nethek (a type of hair/beard leprosy manifested by yellow hair). This creative cross-referencing between tefillin and leprosy law demonstrates how different areas of halakha can inform each other.
Key Terms:
- נֶגַע (nega) = A leprous mark or skin affliction as defined in Leviticus 13
- נֶתֶק (nethek) = A type of leprosy specific to hair-covered areas
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Why “between your eyes” is excluded: two types of nega
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְאַפּוֹקֵי ״בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״, דְּאִיכָּא בָּשָׂר וְשֵׂעָר, דְּאִיכָּא שֵׂעָר לָבָן, וְאִיכָּא נָמֵי שֵׂעָר צָהוֹב.
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda completes his proof by explaining why the literal area “between the eyes” — the bridge of the nose and brow area — is disqualified. That area contains both bare skin and eyebrow hair, making it susceptible to two different types of nega: white hair on skin (skin leprosy) and yellow hair in eyebrows (head/beard leprosy). Since the requirement is a place with only one type of nega (paralleling the arm), the brow area is excluded, and only the hairy scalp qualifies. This elegantly eliminates the literal reading.
Key Terms:
- שֵׂעָר לָבָן (se’ar lavan) = White hair; a sign of skin leprosy (Leviticus 13:3)
- שֵׂעָר צָהוֹב (se’ar tzahov) = Yellow hair; a sign of head/beard leprosy (Leviticus 13:30)
Segment 8
TYPE: משנה
New topic: Are the four tzitzit one mitzva or four?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַרְבַּע צִיצִיּוֹת מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, שֶׁאַרְבַּעְתָּן מִצְוָה אַחַת. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: סָדִין בְּצִיצִית אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara transitions to a new topic from the mishna: the relationship between the four tzitzit on a garment. The first tanna holds they constitute a single mitzva — all four are required, and if one is missing, there is no mitzva at all. Rabbi Yishmael disagrees: each fringe is an independent mitzva. Rav Yosef identifies a practical consequence: a linen garment with wool tzitzit (which would normally violate kilayim, the prohibition on mixing wool and linen) is permitted because the mitzva of tzitzit overrides kilayim. But if only three fringes are present, does the override still apply? According to the first tanna, no — there’s no mitzva, so the kilayim prohibition is in full force. According to Rabbi Yishmael, yes — each fringe independently constitutes a mitzva.
Key Terms:
- מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ (me’akvot zo et zo) = Each prevents fulfillment with the others; interdependent requirements
- סָדִין (sadin) = A linen sheet or garment
- כִּלְאַיִם (kilayim) = Forbidden mixture of wool and linen
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Second practical difference: a five-cornered garment
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבָא בַּר אֲהִינָא אָמַר: טַלִּית בַּעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava bar Ahina proposes a second practical difference: does a five-cornered garment require tzitzit on all five corners? If each fringe is a separate mitzva (Rabbi Yishmael), then the fifth corner also needs tzitzit. If four fringes constitute a single mitzva (first tanna), then only four of the five corners need tzitzit, and the fifth is exempt. This case illustrates how the underlying theoretical dispute about the nature of the mitzva generates real practical differences in unusual garment configurations.
Key Terms:
- טַלִּית בַּעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ (tallit ba’alat chamesh) = A garment with five corners
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Third practical difference: carrying on Shabbat with incomplete tzitzit
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבִינָא אָמַר: דְּרַב הוּנָא אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הַיּוֹצֵא בְּטַלִּית שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְצוּיֶּיצֶת כְּהִלְכָתָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת – חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina identifies the most severe practical consequence of this dispute. Rav Huna teaches that wearing a garment with incomplete tzitzit in a public domain on Shabbat incurs a sin offering (chattat), because the remaining fringes are considered a burden (masui), not part of a mitzva. This is because according to the first tanna, incomplete tzitzit = no mitzva at all, so the strings are just decorative thread being carried on Shabbat. But according to Rabbi Yishmael, each existing fringe is independently a mitzva, so there is no “carrying” violation. The stakes of this theoretical debate are thus quite high — the difference between innocence and a sin offering.
Key Terms:
- חַטָּאת (chattat) = Sin offering; brought for unintentional violation of a Torah prohibition
- מְצוּיֶּיצֶת כְּהִלְכָתָהּ (metzuyetzet kehalakhatah) = Properly fitted with tzitzit according to law
Segment 11
TYPE: מימרא
Cutting a corner doesn’t exempt the garment
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: הַאי מַאן דְּבַצְּרֵיהּ לִגְלִימֵיהּ – לָא עֲבַד וְלֹא כְּלוּם, שַׁוְּיֵיהּ טַלִּית בַּעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheisha addresses someone trying to evade the tzitzit obligation by cutting off a corner. The result is counterproductive: cutting one corner of a four-cornered garment creates five corners (the original three plus two new ones from the cut), and a five-cornered garment still requires tzitzit. You cannot escape the mitzva by altering the garment — the obligation follows the garment’s essential shape. This ruling underscores the principle that halakha looks at substance over form.
Key Terms:
- בַּצְּרֵיהּ (batzreih) = Cut or diminished; removed a corner
Segment 12
TYPE: מימרא
Tying a corner doesn’t change the garment
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Mesharshiyya extends the principle: tying a garment’s corners together to reduce the number of distinct corners is ineffective because a temporary knot doesn’t create a permanent change. Since the knot can always be undone, it is as if it doesn’t exist. He supports this with a parallel from Kelim: leather jugs that are merely tied shut aren’t considered vessels (and thus aren’t susceptible to tumah) because the knot is impermanent — except for Arab jugs, which use permanent knots. The general principle: temporary modifications don’t change an object’s halakhic status.
Key Terms:
- חֲמָתוֹת (chamotot) = Leather jugs or wineskins
- צְרוּרוֹת (tzerurot) = Tied/bound; a temporary closure
Segment 13
TYPE: מימרא
Sewing a fold doesn’t change corner count
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא: הַאי מַאן דְּחַיְּיטֵיהּ לִגְלִימֵיהּ – לָא עֲבַד וְלֹא כְּלוּם, אִם אִיתָא דְּלָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ – לִיפְסוֹק וְלִישְׁדְּיֵיהּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Dimi addresses a third method of evasion: folding a garment over and sewing it to change the apparent corner configuration. This too is ineffective. His reasoning is practical: if you truly don’t need the extra fabric, cut it off. The fact that you merely sewed it rather than removing it shows you might undo the fold later, meaning the garment retains its original dimensions. The tzitzit obligation follows the garment’s true form, not its temporarily altered shape. Together, segments 11-13 establish a clear principle: you cannot circumvent the mitzva of tzitzit through physical modifications to the garment.
Key Terms:
- חַיְּיטֵיהּ (chaiteih) = Sewed it; stitched it together
- לִיפְסוֹק וְלִישְׁדְּיֵיהּ (lifsok ve’lishdyeih) = Let him cut it and throw it away
Segment 14
TYPE: מסקנא
Halakhic ruling: the law is NOT like Rabbi Yishmael
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אַרְבַּעְתָּן אַרְבַּע מִצְוֹת. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּוָתֵיהּ.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
An unusual halakhic formulation: Shmuel initially ruled like Rabbi Yishmael (each fringe is a separate mitzva), but the Gemara immediately overrides this, stating definitively that the halakha does not follow Rabbi Yishmael. This means the four tzitzit constitute a single mitzva, and the absence of even one invalidates the entire obligation. The Gemara records Shmuel’s original ruling to demonstrate that it was considered and rejected. This “halakha… ve’leit hilkhata” formulation is relatively rare and signals a strong consensus against the rejected position.
Key Terms:
- לֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּוָתֵיהּ (leit hilkhata kevatei) = The halakha is not in accordance with his opinion
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Mar bar Rav Ashi’s torn tzitzit on Shabbat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This narrative provides a real-world demonstration of the halakha just established. Mar bar Rav Ashi walks on Shabbat with his garment, and one tzitzit corner tears. When Ravina later informs him, Mar bar Rav Ashi expresses dismay: he would have removed the garment immediately. Why? Because once one fringe is gone, the garment has no mitzva status (following the first tanna). Without the mitzva, the remaining fringes are a burden, and walking with them in the public domain on Shabbat is prohibited carrying. This anecdote confirms that the halakha follows the first tanna and not Rabbi Yishmael — the four tzitzit are one mitzva.
Key Terms:
- שַׁבְּתָא דְּרִיגְלָא (shabbata de’rigla) = The Shabbat of the Festival; Shabbat during a holiday period
- שְׁדֵיתֵיהּ (shedeiteih) = I would have thrown it off; removed the garment
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: human dignity overrides Torah prohibitions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא אָמַר מָר: גָּדוֹל כְּבוֹד הַבְּרִיּוֹת שֶׁדּוֹחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a powerful counter-principle: kevod ha’briyot (human dignity) is so important that it can override even Torah prohibitions. If so, why would Mar bar Rav Ashi remove his garment in public, which would be embarrassing and undignified? The principle of human dignity should allow him to continue wearing it despite the carrying issue. This question pits two fundamental values against each other — the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat versus the dignity of not being forced to undress in public — and the resolution continues on the next daf.
Key Terms:
- כְּבוֹד הַבְּרִיּוֹת (kevod ha’briyot) = Human dignity; a principle that can override certain prohibitions
- לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה (lo ta’aseh) = A negative commandment; a Torah prohibition
Segment 17
TYPE: תירוץ
Beginning of the answer: Rav bar Shabba’s interpretation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּרְגְּומַהּ רַב בַּר שְׁבָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא,
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Rav bar Shabba interpreted that statement before Rav Kahana:
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer to the challenge begins here but continues on the next daf. Rav bar Shabba’s interpretation before Rav Kahana will likely limit the scope of “kevod ha’briyot” — either by distinguishing between types of prohibitions it can override or by explaining that the situation with the garment doesn’t actually cause public embarrassment in the way the principle requires. This open-ended conclusion is typical of the Talmud’s structure, where sugyot span daf boundaries.
Key Terms:
- תַּרְגְּומַהּ (targumah) = He interpreted it; he explained it