Menachos Daf 31 - R' Shimon Shezuri, Tear in Sefer Torah
Summary
- An extended search continues for the original context in which רבי חנינא rules הלכה כרבי שמעון שזורי, moving through several candidate cases in טומאה and in תרומות ומעשרות, and then returning to הלכות סת״ם with rules for repairing a torn ספר תורה and formatting a מזוזה. The narrative includes competing identifications of the relevant ruling (שידה or יין), a ברייתא about טבל mixed into חולין and how to remedy it, and multiple explanations from רש״י, תוספות, רבינו תם, the רמב״ם, תוספות יום טוב, and later פוסקים about how to understand the cases and their practical ramifications. The sugya then establishes criteria for when sewing a tear in a ספר תורה is permitted and with what materials, and it concludes with detailed halachic layout requirements for a מזוזה, including whether it may resemble a *shira* format and where the final words על הארץ are placed.
- Dr. David Landman, his wife and children sponsor the shiur לעילוי נשמת his mother גולדה בת שמחה עליה השלום. The Basaleli family also sponsors לעילוי נשמת אלישע בן שלמה whose יארצייט is today תהא נשמתו צרורה בצרור החיים.
- The sugya keeps looking for where רבי חנינא initially states that the הלכה follows רבי שמעון שזורי, after earlier possibilities do not fit. The Gemara frames two main candidates: רב פפא identifies the source as the case of אשידה, while רב נחמן בר יצחק identifies it as the case of יין, and the analysis proceeds to define each case and the associated position of רבי שמעון שזורי.
- A ברייתא taught by רבי יוסי בן כיפה in the name of רבי שמעון שזורי rules that *pul ha-mitzri* planted for seed is tithed based on the time it takes root, so if part took root before ראש השנה and part after, one may not separate from one on the other because one may not tithe from the new on the old or the old on the new. The remedy is to mix the produce thoroughly and separate from the mixture so that the separation proportionally covers both the new portion and the old portion, relying on יש בילה, that the mixture distributes evenly. The Gemara rejects identifying this as רבי חנינא’s original context because רבי שמואל בר נחמני בשם רבי יוחנן already states הלכה כרבי שמעון שזורי there, and the text does not also attribute the same ruling to רבי חנינא.
- The case of אשידה is tied to a משנה in כלים about when a wooden container large enough to hold forty סאה is no longer treated as a movable כלי and therefore is not מקבל טומאה, based on the דרשה that tumah applies to what is מטלטל מלא וריקן like a sack. בית שמאי measures the שיעור from the inside, while בית הלל measures from the outside including wall thickness, and תפארת ישראל explains that including the walls fits the rationale of weight and movability, while the חזון איש attributes the dispute to differing received traditions of how the forty סאה measure is defined rather than to a purely logical argument. The משנה sets limits on what parts are measured, and רבי יוסי presents a version in which בית שמאי and בית הלל agree that the thickness of the legs and rim is included though the airspace between legs is not. רבי שמעון שזורי adds that if the legs are at least a טפח high the space between them is not measured because it is a significant space, but if the legs are less than a טפח then the space between them is measured as part of the container.
- The presentation notes that the רמב״ם and ברטנורא define שידה as a box or closet, while רש״י in שבת defines it as a wagon with surrounding partitions that people ride in. תוספות challenges the wagon definition because an item used primarily for sitting should be subject to מדרס tumah even if it exceeds forty סאה, since מדרס is not learned from the sack comparison, and תוספות therefore prefers the box definition or alternatively argues that a wagon is primarily for transport and not considered a designated sitting implement for מדרס.
- The sugya presents a משנה in טהרות in which רבי מאיר says oil is always treated as a ראשון לטומאה, and the חכמים add honey, while רבי שמעון שזורי says wine, leading the Gemara to reframe the text so that רבי שמעון שזורי’s position is that wine qualifies in this way while oil and honey do not. רש״י explains that the dispute concerns which liquids are included in the rabbinic decree that liquids become a ראשון לטומאה even from a שני, rooted in the principle that anything that can invalidate תרומה makes liquids become first-degree tumah due to a decree connected to liquids that touched a שרץ. רבינו תם rejects the idea that oil or honey are not liquids and reinterprets the case as congealed forms, so the question is whether congealed oil, honey, or wine retains liquid status for tumah, while the רמב״ם in פירוש המשניות describes a liquid that became impure while liquid, congealed, and later re-liquefied, retaining its status as a liquid and its tumah. תוספות יום טוב explains that the Gemara’s initial question about excluding wine is more understandable on רש״י’s liquid reading than on the congealed reading, because it would otherwise be plausible that congealed wine is too degraded to be considered a liquid.
- A ברייתא in the name of רבי שמעון שזורי recounts a personal case where טבל became mixed into חולין, and although מדאורייתא it is בטל ברוב, מדרבנן even a *mashehu* of טבל renders the mixture prohibited. The explanation given is that just as its permission is achieved with a tiny act of separation, so too its prohibition functions with a tiny amount, and תוספות cites a Yerushalmi explanation that טבל is a דבר שיש לו מתירין and therefore not בטל. רבי שמעון שזורי consults רבי טרפון, who instructs him to buy דמאי from the market and separate from that onto the mixture, because the mixture’s remaining obligation is only דרבנן and most עמי הארץ do tithe so דמאי is treated as a rabbinic-level obligation, making the separation align as a דרבנן-on-דרבנן remedy.
- The Gemara asks why רבי טרפון did not instead advise buying produce from a non-Jew, and it answers that he holds אין קנין לעובד כוכבים בארץ ישראל להפקיע מיד מעשר, so such produce remains obligated מן התורה and would not match the mixture’s rabbinic obligation. The reasoning is linked to the דרשה from והארץ לא תמכר לצמיתות כי לי הארץ in גיטין that קדושת הארץ remains, and the Yerushalmi offers additional framings including the permanence of sale and an analogy between עבדים and אחוזה. תוספות raises that even under אין קנין, produce may be exempt מן התורה if the non-Jew performed the *digun* (מרוח), based on דגנך being read as “your processing,” and it answers by treating the situation as requiring an exact calibration among levels within דרבנן rather than simply any generic rabbinic obligation, paralleling the idea that a lower-level דרבנן cannot fulfill a higher-level דרבנן as elaborated by טורי אבן in מגילה. An alternative version states that רבי טרפון advises buying from a non-Jew because he holds יש קנין לעובד כוכבים להפקיע מיד מעשר, and he does not advise דמאי because he holds most עמי הארץ do not tithe so d’mai would remain a Torah-level concern.
- רב יימר בר שלמיא asks רב פפא whether the sweeping statement attributed to רבי חנינא, that not only is the halacha like רבי שמעון שזורי but wherever he taught the halacha follows him, applies even to the case of טבל mixed into חולין, and רב פפא answers yes. רב אשי, citing מר זוטרא and רבי חנינא מסורא, explains that the point of the question is whether “כל מקום ששנה” means only his teachings in Mishnah or also his teachings in *baraitot*, making the inquiry about the scope of the rule rather than about its literal wording.
- Rav Zeira בשם Rav teaches that a tear that runs through two lines may be sewn, while a tear that runs through three lines may not be sewn. Mar Zutra tells Rav Ashi בשם Rava that the prohibition for three lines applies only to *atikta* parchment, while on *chadata* there is no concern, and the practical definition becomes parchment treated with gallnuts versus untreated parchment because treatment darkens the parchment and makes the repair more conspicuous. The Gemara limits permitted repair to sewing with *gidin* and rejects other threads, and it leaves unresolved whether a tear between pages or between lines without entering the written area may be repaired. The presentation reports that the רמב״ם permits such a repair while the טור forbids it, and בית יוסף explains the dispute as hinging on whether the baseline rule is דאורייתא or דרבנן and how to treat an unresolved doubt, while the ב״ח treats the stringency as warranted even if the rule is rabbinic due to the gravity of קדושת ספר תורה; the רא״ש reports that מהר״ם מרוטנבורג rejects patching with glue on grounds of durability and the requirement to use *gidin*, while the רא״ש is presented as understanding that glue repair is logically plausible.
- Rav Zeiri בשם Rav rules that a mezuzah written with two words per line is valid, and the Gemara asks about a pattern of two, three, and one word per line. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak validates it as resembling a *shira* style, and a challenge from a baraita declaring invalidity for writing a text as *shira* is answered by limiting that baraita to a Sefer Torah rather than a mezuzah. רבי יוחנן is cited as validating a mezuzah in the two-three-one pattern provided it is not shaped like *kuba* or like a tail, meaning it may not be arranged as a pyramid narrowing upward or as an inverted pyramid, even while the two-three-one arrangement is acceptable.
- Rav Chisda requires the words על הארץ to be written on the last line of the mezuzah as the only words on that line. One view places them at the end of the line so that they align under כימי השמים, while another places them at the beginning of the line leaving blank space after them. רש״י explains each placement as expressing the phrase כימי השמים על הארץ either by visually aligning “shamayim” above “aretz” or by separating them to reflect the distance between heaven and earth, and the presentation cites a מהרש״א as brought by טהרת הקודש describing the mezuzah as both protecting and lengthening life and also distancing a person from sin.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions