Menachos 31 - Cycle 14
Summary
- He begins *Masekhet Menakhot* 31 and resumes from the bottom line of 30b, repeating that Rabban bar แธคanina says in the name of Ulla in the name of Rabbi แธคanina that the *halakha* follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri, and that wherever Rabbi Shimon Shezuri teaches, the *halakha* is like him. He explains the Gemaraโs renewed attempt to identify which ruling this refers to, presenting two candidatesโ*shida* and wineโand then develops extended *halakhic* detail in *tumah* for large wooden chests and in *tumah* rules for liquids. He brings a *baraita* about *tevel* mixed with *แธฅullin* and Rabbi Tarfonโs advice, tying it to the dispute over whether a non-Jewโs ownership in Eretz Yisrael exempts produce from *maโaser* and to major practical ramifications for *shemita* and the divergent practices of Yerushalayim and Bnei Brak. He then moves to laws of repairing a torn *Sefer Torah* and to the formatting and line-structure rules of a *mezuzah*, including how to place the final words *al haโaretz* and the interpretive meanings offered for different placements.
- He states that the Gemara previously failed to identify the referent of the rule that wherever Rabbi Shimon Shezuri teaches the *halakha* follows him, and that the Gemara now tries again. He reports Rav Papaโs claim that it refers to the ruling of *shida*, and Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅakโs claim that it refers to the ruling of wine.
- He explains that the *Mishnah* in *Masekhet Kelim* 18:1 addresses a wooden chest, with most *Rishonim* understanding *shida* as a storage chest while Rashi understands it as a wooden wagon-carriage with walls that people sit in. He reports Tosafotโs objection that if it is a sitting carriage it would be *mekabel tumah* as *midras* regardless of size, so Tosafot explains it as a storage chest. He states the principle derived from โืืื ืืื ืขืฅ ืื ืืื ืื ืขืืจ ืื ืฉืง,โ that just as a *sak* is carried full and empty, so too an item must be transportable full and empty to be *mekabel tumah*, and he says that a very large chest is not transportable when full and therefore is not *mekabel tumah*. He gives the threshold that if it is one *amah* by one *amah* by three *amot* high it is no longer *mekabel tumah*, and he presents Beit Shammai measuring from the inside and Beit Hillel measuring from the outside, with the *Tiferet Yisrael* explaining Beit Hillel in terms of weight and transportability. He reports the แธคazon Ishโs approach that *shiโurim* are *halakha leMoshe miSinai*, so the measurement framework is treated accordingly.
- He describes the measurement method cited by the *Shita Mekubetzet* of immersing the box in a large body of water and measuring displacement, with forty *seโah* of displaced liquid indicating the chest is too large. He states that the *Mishnah* says Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the border (*lezabzan*) are not included, while Rabbi Yose says they agree those are included. He presents the *Shita Mekubetzet*โs question how Rabbi Yose can claim Beit Shammai agrees to include legs when Beit Shammai measures only the inside, and he answers with Rabbi Yoseโs view that Beit Shammai actually measures the outside and then additionally includes the legs and border. He states Rabbi Yoseโs further ruling that the space between the legs is not measured, and Rabbi Shimon Shezuriโs distinction that if the legs are a *tefaแธฅ* high the space between them is not measured, but if they are less than a *tefaแธฅ* the space between them is measured. He concludes that Rav แธคaninaโs statement that the *halakha* follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri applies to this ruling about when the space between the legs is included.
- He states Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅakโs view that the referent is the *halakha* of wine in *tumah* and *taharah*. He lays out levels of *tumah* from *av hatumah* down to *rishon*, *sheni*, *shelishi* for *terumah* and *reviโi* for *kodashim*, and he says that a *sheretz* can be *metamei* people, vessels, foods, and liquids, while a *rishon* cannot be *metamei* people and vessels but can be *metamei* foods and liquids. He states the special rule for liquids that whether a liquid contacts an *av*, *rishon*, or *sheni*, the liquid becomes a *rishon*, and that a liquid that is a *rishon* makes other liquids *rishon* as well.
- He quotes the *Mishnah* in *Masekhet Taharot* 3:2 that Rabbi Meir says oil is always *tแธฅila* (a *rishon*), the Sages add honey, and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri adds wine, with Rashi reading this as classifying these as liquids. He brings Rabbeinu Tamโs reading that the case is congealed oil and congealed wine, with Rabbi Meir teaching congealed oil remains liquid for *tumah*, the Sages adding congealed honey, and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri adding congealed wine. He presents the Rambamโs twist that even through cycles of congealing and liquefying it retains the status of liquid. He cites Tosafotโs framing and applies it to *แธคanukkah* practice, reporting a responsum of Rav Wosner ztโl in *Sheโelot uTeshuvot Shevet HaLevi* that congealed olive oil in pre-filled cups is close enough to olive oil for the preference of lighting like the *Beit HaMikdash*, and that Tosafotโs understanding supports that congealed *shemen zayit* has the full *halakha* of *shemen zayit* so it may certainly be used.
- He states the Gemaraโs question that Rabbi Shimon Shezuriโs โeven wineโ implies the first view excludes wine, which is difficult because wine is certainly a liquid, and he reports the Gemaraโs answer that Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says โwineโ and holds oil and honey are not liquids. He brings the *baraita* where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says *tevel* once became mixed with *แธฅullin* and he asked Rabbi Tarfon what to do. He explains the underlying principles that *min haTorah* *rov* nullifies, but the Rabbis say even a *mashehu* can prohibit, and he adds Tosafotโs reason connected to *davar sheyesh lo matirin* not becoming nullified. He frames the problem of separating *maโaserot* without taking *min ha-patur al ha-แธฅiyyuv*.
- He reports that Rabbi Tarfon tells him to buy produce from the *shuk* and tithe from it onto the mixture, explaining it as *demai* and relying on the claims that *min haTorah* the *tevel* is nullified in the majority and that most *amei haโaretz* tithe, leaving only a rabbinic concern of *demai* and making it *min ha-patur al ha-patur*. He then gives the Gemaraโs question why Rabbi Tarfon did not tell him to buy from *ovdei kokhavim*, and he answers with Rabbi Tarfonโs view that *ein kinyan le-oved kokhavim beโEretz Yisrael le-hafkiโa midei maโaser*, grounding it in verses such as โืืืืจืฅ ืื ืชืืืจ ืืฆืืืชืืช ืื ืื ืืืจืฅโ and explanations that Eretz Yisrael retains its *kedusha* and that a non-Jewโs purchase is not fully permanent. He adds the analogy from โืืืชื ืืืชื ืืืชื ืืื ืืื ืืืจืืื ืืจืฉืช ืืืืืโ comparing land to Canaanite slaves to argue non-Jews lack full ownership capacity in Eretz Yisrael, so produce bought from a non-Jew remains obligated *deโoraita* and would create *min ha-แธฅiyyuv al ha-patur*.
- He reports an alternate version where Rabbi Tarfon did tell him to buy from non-Jews because he holds *yesh kinyan le-ovdei kokhavim beโEretz Yisrael le-hafkiโa midei maโaser*, and he states the inverse question there of why not buy from the *shuk*, answered by the view that *ein rov amei haโaretz meโasrin* so *demai* would be *deโoraita* and would become *min ha-แธฅiyyuv al ha-patur*. He cites Tosafot asking the basis for the view of *yesh kinyan*, bringing the teaching โืืื ื ืืื ืืื ืขืืื ืืืืืืโ from โืจืืฉืืช ืืื ื ืชืืจืืฉื ืืืฆืืจื ืชืชื ืื,โ and a Yerushalmi reading of โืืฆืืืชืืชโ as implying a full sale. He adds Tosafotโs question that even if a non-Jew cannot exempt land ownership, *miruaแธฅ* done by a non-Jew could exempt, and he presents the *Turei Even*โs answer that even if *miruaแธฅ* by a non-Jew lowers the level of obligation, it is still not identical to complete exemption, so differing levels block taking from that produce onto the mixture.
- He states that this dispute about *yesh kinyan* versus *ein kinyan* has major ramifications for *shemita* and whether produce grown on land truly owned by non-Jews is subject to *shemita* restrictions. He attributes to the Beit Yosef the view that truly non-Jew-owned land does not have *din shemita*, and to the Mabit the view that *ein kinyan* means it does not escape *shemita*. He states that Yerushalayim follows the Beit Yosefโs approach while Bnei Brak follows the แธคazon Ishโs practice aligning with the Mabit.
- He reports Rav Yeimar bar Shelamyaโs question to Rav Papa whether the rule that the *halakha* follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri everywhere includes the *baraita* case of *tevel* mixed with *แธฅullin* or is limited to a *Mishnah*. He states Rav Papaโs answer that it does apply, and Rav Ashiโs support via Mar Zutra that Rabbi แธคanina said โืื ืืงืื ืฉืฉื ื,โ not โืืฉื ืชื ื,โ so it includes a *baraita* as well.
- He states Rav Safra says in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan in the name of Rav that a tear spanning two lines may be sewn, while a tear spanning three lines may not be sewn, and he specifies that this refers to a tear between letters, since a tear through a letter invalidates the scroll. He brings the Roshโs report that he asked Maharam miRotenburg whether one may patch or glue, and Maharam forbids it because multiple readers tug the scroll and because only certain sewing materials are permitted. He reports the Roshโs disagreement that the Gemaraโs concern is mainly aesthetics of excessive sewing, while patching or gluing can look perfect and therefore is permitted.
- He reports Rava Zutra telling Rav Ashi in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya miDifte in the name of Rava that the โthree lines do not sewโ rule applies only to an old scroll, while on a new scroll one may be lenient. He ties the old-scroll restriction to โืื ืืื ืืื ืืืโ and the principle of beautifying mitzvot, and he adds Rashiโs explanation that darker old parchment makes sewing more noticeable, while whiter parchment conceals it, alongside Rabbeinu Yehonatanโs explanation that old parchment is brittle and prone to further tearing. He then states the Gemaraโs refinement that โoldโ and โnewโ mean parchment treated with *afatsin* versus not treated, and he reports Rashiโs reading that *afatsin* makes it darker and thus โold,โ while Rabbeinu Yehonatan reads *afatsin* as strengthening and thus permitting sewing, with the แธคazon Ish challenging how to align the *afatsin* reading with the earlier โnot literally old/newโ formulation. He states the limitation that sewing is done only with *gidin* from a kosher animal and not with other material.
- He reports the question of Bar Yehuda bar Abba about a tear between pages or between lines and states the Gemara leaves it as *teiku*.
- He reports Rav Zevid says in the name of Rav แธคananel in the name of Rav that a *mezuzah* written two words per line is kosher, since the width requirement of writing *le-mishpeแธฅoteikhem* three times applies to a *Sefer Torah* and not to a *mezuzah*. He presents the question about a *mezuzah* written in a pattern of two words, then three, then one, and he reports Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅakโs ruling that it is certainly kosher because it resembles the style of *shira*. He then cites the objection that writing a *Sefer Torah* like a *shira* or a *shira* improperly is invalid, and he answers that this invalidation is specifically by *Sefer Torah* and not by *mezuzah*. He adds the confirmation reported from Rabbi Yoแธฅanan that a *mezuzah* written as โืฉืชืื ืืฉืืฉ ืืืืชโ is kosher, with the condition that it not be written like *kuba* or like *zanav*.
- He states Rav แธคisdaโs ruling that *al haโaretz* should be the only two words on the last line of the *mezuzah*, and he reports two views on whether it should be placed at the end of the line under *kiymei hashamayim* or at the beginning under *latet lahem*. He explains the rationale that aligning it under *kiymei hashamayim* reflects that the heavens are above the earth, while placing it at the beginning maximizes the distance between *shamayim* and *aretz*. He cites *Sefer Taharat HaKodesh* quoting the Maharsha that the placement reflects whether one emphasizes the *mezuzah*โs promise of *arikhut yamim* or its protective role against transgression, linking long life to *kiymei shamayim al haโaretz* and separation from sin to โืืจืืืง ืืืจื ืืืขืจื, ืืจืืืง ืืื ื ืคืฉืขืื ื.โ
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions