Menachot 48 - Shabbat February 28, 11 Adar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
info_outline
Menachot 47 - February 27, 10 Adar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
info_outline
Menachot 46 - February 26, 9 Adar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
info_outline
Menachot 45 - February 25, 8 Adar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
info_outline
Menachot 44 - February 24, 7 Adar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
info_outline
Menachot 43 - February 23, 6 Adar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
The braita explains that there is no way to test techelet (blue dye), and therefore one should only purchase it from an expert. Initially, the Gemara suggested this meant there was no way to distinguish between authentic techelet and kala ilan (a vegetable-based fake). However, this was rejected because there are indeed chemical tests available, as the Gemara explains. Ultimately, the conclusion is that there is no way to test if the strings were dyed "for the sake of the mitzva" (l'shma) or merely "for a tasting" (to test the color). The Gemara then addresses: From whom may one buy tzitzit...
info_outline
Menachot 42 - February 22, 5 Adar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
The rabbis disagree on the required length of tzitzit strings, which implies that a specific length is necessary. However, this appears to contradict a ruling by the elders of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel that there is no requisite amount. This contradiction is reconciled by explaining that their statement refers to the maximum length. A braita emphasizes the importance of the strings hanging down, as proven by the usage of the word "tzitzit" in a different context (Yechezkel 8:3). How are tzitzit prepared? Specifically, how far from the garment's edge should they be, and how many...
info_outline
Menachot 41 - Shabbat February 21, 4 Adar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
info_outline
Menachot 40 - February 20, 3 Adar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree regarding the law of a sadin (a linen garment) in the context of tzitzit. While Beit Shammai exempts a linen garment from the obligation of tzitzit to avoid the prohibition of shaatnez (mixing wool and linen), Beit Hillel holds it is obligated. Their reasoning is based on the textual juxtaposition of the laws of shaatnez and tzitzit, which teaches that the positive commandment (aseh) of tzitzit overrides the negative prohibition (lo taaseh) of shaatnez. Although the halakha follows Beit Hillel, Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Tzadok testifies that anyone who...
info_outline
Menachot 39 - February 19, 2 Adar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Rava explains that the top knot on the tzitzit (after all the windings) must be of Torah origin. If it were not, the attachment would be considered temporary, and there would be no need for the Torah to permit the use of mixed types (shatnez—wool and linen) in tzitzit. Raba bar Rav Ada transmitted in the name of Rav that if a single thread is torn at its base (the top of the tzitzit), the tzitzit are no longer valid. When Rav Nachman taught this, Rava raised a challenge from a braita, but Rav Nachman reinterpreted the source in a way that resolved the contradiction. Raba stated in the name...
info_outlineThe dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon on whether pouring of the oil of a meal offering requires a kohen is based on different ways of interpreting the verses in Vayikra 2:1-2. The Rabbis maintain that the requirement for a kohen is only mentioned from the act of scooping, or kemitza, allowing a non-kohen to handle the pouring and mixing of the oil. Rabbi Shimon, however, views the connective language in the verse as a link that binds the entire process together, necessitating a kohen for every stage. At first the Gemara suggested that Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning was based on “a phrase can relate to both the upcoming and previous action,” but after showing that in a different issue, Rabbi Shimon did not employ that principle, they explain the “vav”(“and”) connects the previous section to the kohen.
Rav explains that if the words torah and chukka appear in a verse, that signifies that a failure to perform a detail exactly as described invalidates the entire offering. Through a series of challenges involving the nazir, the metzora, and the service of Yom Kippur, the Gemara refines this: if either term is employed, it indicates it is an essential detail. However, after raising a difficulty from all sacrifices, Rav’s statement is further refined: the term chukka is the primary indicator of indispensability, whereas torah on its own is not.
Repetition serves as another marker of necessity in the eyes of Rav, who argues that when the Torah returns to a subject multiple times, it is to emphasize that the detail is essential. This leads to a clash with Shmuel about whether or not is it essential that the scooping (kemitza) be performed by hand. Rav considers the method essential because it is repeated in the context of the Tabernacle’s inauguration. Shmuel, however, holds that a one-time historical event is not a binding source for future generations.
A difficulty is raised against the principle of Rav that if something is repeated, it is indispensable, as the act of hagasha, bringing the mincha offering to the Altar, is repeated and yet is listed in the Mishna as not essential. The Gemara responds by explaining that the second mention is needed for a different purpose – to pinpoint the exact location on the Altar where the mincha offering is to be brought.