מנחות 37 — parallel

37:1

R. Jose ha-Horem says, But we also find the right hand referred to as ‘hand’, for it is written, And when Joseph saw that his father was laying his hand, the right one! And the other? It is referred to as ‘the hand, the right one’, but never as ‘the hand’. R. Nathan says, All this is unnecessary, for since it is written And thou shalt bind them and And thou shalt write them, as writing is with the right hand so the binding shall be with the right hand, and if the binding is to be with the right hand then obviously [the hand-tefillah] must be put on the left hand. Whence does R. Jose ha-Horem learn that it must be put on the left hand? — He derives it from that same passage from which R. Nathan derives it. R. Ashi said, He derives it from thy hand, which, being written with the letter he at the end, indicates the weaker hand. Thereupon R. Abba said to R. Ashi, perhaps it means, the stronger hand? — He replied, Is it written with the letter heth? This is further disputed by Tannaim. It was taught. Thy hand, written with the he, indicates the left hand. Others say, Thy hand, includes a man that has but the stump of the arm. Another [Baraitha] taught: One that has no [left] arm is exempt from tefillin. Others say, ‘Thy hand’, includes a man that has but the stump of the arm. Our Rabbis taught: A left-handed man puts his tefillin on his right hand for that is his left. But it has also been taught that he must put it on his left hand which is also the left of all people! — The latter was taught of a person who is ambidextrous. A Tanna in the school of Manasseh taught: Upon thy hand, that is, on the biceps muscle; between thine eyes, that is, on the skull. On what part? It was said in the school of R. Jannai, Where the skull of a babe is still tender. Pelemo enquired of Rabbi, If a man has two heads on which one must he put the tefillin?’ ‘You must either leave’, he replied, ‘or regard yourself under the ban’. In the meantime there came a man [to the school] saying, ‘I have begotten a first-born child with two heads, how much must I give the priest?’ An old man came forward and ruled that he must give [the priest] ten sela's. But this is not so! For Rami b. Hama learnt: From the verse. The firstborn of man thou shalt surely redeem, I might conclude that this would apply even when the firstborn was rendered trefah within thirty days [of his birth]. Scripture therefore added,

—

37:2

Howbeit, limiting thereby [the general application]! — In this case it is different since the Divine Law declared [the law of redemption] to be governed by the expression ‘per head’. The Master said, ‘Upon thy hand, that is, on the biceps muscle’. Whence is this derived? — Our Rabbis taught: Upon thy hand, that is, the upper part of the hand. You say it is the upper part of the hand, but perhaps it means actually upon the hand? Since the Torah ordains that one must put tefillin upon the hand and also upon the head, as in the latter case it is to be upon the upper part of the head so in the former it is to be upon the upper part of the hand. R. Eliezer says, This is unnecessary; for the verse says, ‘And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand’, implying that the sign shall be unto thee but not unto others. R. Isaac says, This too is unnecessary; for it is written, And ye shall lay up these My words in your heart . . . and ye shall bind them, implying that it must be placed over against the heart. R. Hiyya and R. Aha the son of R. Ivia used to place it exactly over against the heart. R. Ashi was once sitting before Amemar. The latter had an injury on his arm and his tefillin were exposed; whereupon R. Ashi said to him, Does not the Master hold ‘it shall be for a sign unto thee but not unto others’? — That, he replied, was stated only to indicate the place, namely, where it is a sign unto thee only. Whence is it derived that it must be upon the upper part of the head? — Our Rabbis taught: ‘Between thine eyes’, that is, the upper part of the head. You say it is the upper part of the head, but perhaps it means actually between the eyes? It is written here, ‘Between thine eyes’, and it is written there, Nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead; as in the latter case it means the upper part of the head where baldness can be made, so in the former case too it means the upper part of the head where baldness can be made. R. Judah says, This is unnecessary; for since the Torah ordains that one must put tefillin on the hand and also on the head, as in the former case it is put on a place which can be declared unclean as a leprous spot by one symptom only, so in the former case it must be put on a place which can be declared unclean as a leprous spot by one symptom only; one must therefore rule out the place between the eyes where flesh and hair are to be found, [and so can be declared unclean by two symptoms,] either by [the appearance of] white hair or yellow hair. OF THE FOUR FRINGES, THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS, SINCE THE FOUR TOGETHER FORM ONE PRECEPT. [R. ISHMAEL SAYS, THE FOUR ARE FOUR SEPARATE PRECEPTS.] What is the practical difference between the two? — R. Joseph said, They differ in respect of a linen garment with [woollen] fringes. Rabbah b. Abina said, They differ in respect of a five-cornered garment. Rabina said, They differ in respect of R. Huna's dictum. For R. Huna said, If a man went out in the street on the Sabbath wearing a garment not provided with proper fringes as required by law, he is liable to a sin-offering. R. Shisha the son of R. Idi said, If a man cut off [one corner of] his garment, he has gained nothing, for he has simply made it into a five-cornered garment. R. Mesharsheya said, If a man folded up his garment, he has gained nothing, for it is regarded as spread out. We have also learnt: Water-skins that [have been pierced and] have been tied up again are not susceptible to uncleanness, excepting those tied up with an Arab knot. R. Dimi of Nehardea said, If a man sewed together [the folded corners of] his garment, he has gained nothing, for if he has no use for the corners he should cut them off and throw them away. R. ISHMAEL SAYS, THE FOUR ARE FOUR SEPARATE PRECEPTS. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name that the halachah agrees with R. Ishmael. The halachah, however, is not in accordance with him. Rabina was once walking behind Mar son of R. Ashi [in the street] on one of the Sabbaths preceding the Festival, when suddenly a corner of [Mar's] garment with its fringe had torn away, but Rabina told him nothing about it. When he came home and Rabina told him that it had torn away there [in the street], he said, ‘Had you told me of it I should then and there have cast it off’. But has not a Master said, Great is the dignity of man since it overrides a negative precept of the Torah? — Rab b. Shabba explained it before R. Kahana

—