This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Ravin, the son of Chinina, said in the name of Ulla in the name of Rabbi Chanina that the law follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri in “this” issue and anywhere else he issued a ruling. Rav Papa and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak each identify a possible case where Rabbi Chanina ruled like Rabbi Shimon Shezuri. One suggests it was regarding how to measure 40 se’ah in a large box for purposes of impurity. The other suggests it was regarding the stringent ruling of the impurity of liquids – specifically, to which liquids this unique type of impurity extends.
The Gemara brings a situation where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri mixed untithed produce with tithed produce and was told by Rabbi Tarfon to buy produce from the market to tithe upon it. In a different version, Rabbi Tarfon told him to buy produce from non-Jews. This advice is analyzed through two lenses: whether a market purchase is considered tithed by Torah law because most am ha’aretz tithe, or whether land ownership by non-Jews in Israel removes the Torah obligation of tithing the produce. Rav Papa confirms to Rav Yemar bar Shelamya that the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri even in this specific case.
A statement by Rav regarding a tear in the parchment of a Sefer Torah is also analyzed. Rav rules that a tear spanning two lines may be sewn, but a tear of three lines may not. This is qualified by Rabba Zuti, who distinguished between “new” and “old” parchment, which is defined not by age but by whether or not it was processed with gall. Furthermore, the sewing must be done with sinews (gidin) and not plain thread. A question is left unresolved regarding whether these measurements apply if the tear occurs between columns or between lines.
Regarding the writing of a mezuza, Rav Chananel in the name of Rav states that if it is written with two words on a line, it is valid. Rav Nachman explains that it can be written like a shira (song) – for example, two words, then three, then one. When questioned by a braita, he distinguishes between the requirements of a Sefer Torah and a mezuza. The Gemara clarifies that while a mezuza can be written in shira format, it must not be formatted like a “tent” or a “tail” (narrowing or widening).
There is a discussion regarding the final words of the mezuza, “al ha’aretz.” Should they be placed at the end of the line or at the beginning? The two views reflect different symbolic meanings: one highlights the height of heaven above the earth, while the other highlights the distance between them.
Rav Chelbo mentions Rav Huna, who would roll the mezuza scroll from the end to the beginning and made the paragraphs “closed” (setumot). This is challenged by a ruling of Rabbi Meir, who made the paragraph breaks “open” (petuchot).
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
Menachot 31
אַשִּׁידָּה, דִּתְנַן: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים נִמְדֶּדֶת מִבִּפְנִים, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים מִבַּחוּץ, וּמוֹדִים אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין עוֹבִי הָרַגְלַיִם וְעוֹבִי הַלְּבִזְבְּזִין נִמְדָּד.
that Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement was with regard to a chest, as we learned in a mishna (Kelim 18:1): A wooden chest that is large enough to contain forty se’a is not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, since it is no longer considered a vessel. In determining its capacity, Beit Shammai say that it is measured on the inside, and Beit Hillel say that it is measured on the outside so that the volume of the walls of the chest itself is included in the measurement. And both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concede that the volume of the legs and the volume of the rims [halevazbazin] are not measured.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מוֹדִים שֶׁעוֹבִי הָרַגְלַיִם וְעוֹבִי הַלְּבִזְבְּזִין נִמְדָּד, וּבֵינֵיהֶן אֵין נִמְדָּד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיוּ רַגְלַיִם גְּבוֹהוֹת טֶפַח – אֵין בֵּינֵיהֶן נִמְדָּד, וְאִם לָאו – בֵּינֵיהֶן נִמְדָּד.
Rabbi Yosei says: They concede that the volume of the legs and the volume of the rims are measured, but the space enclosed between the rims and the legs is not measured. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: If the legs were one handbreadth high then the space between the legs is not measured, since the area has an independent significance, but if the space is not one handbreadth high, the space between the legs is measured as part of the chest. It is with regard to this statement that Rabbi Ḥanina said the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.
רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: אַיַּיִן, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: שֶׁמֶן תְּחִלָּה לְעוֹלָם, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אַף הַדְּבָשׁ, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אַף הַיָּיִן. מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר יַיִן לָא? אֵימָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר: יָיִן.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement was with regard to wine, as we learned in a mishna (Teharot 3:2): Rabbi Meir says: Oil, an example of a liquid, that contracted impurity, is always considered to have first-degree ritual impurity, even if it came into contact with an item that was impure with second-degree ritual impurity, which, according to the standard halakhot of ritual impurity, should result in it having third-degree ritual impurity. And the Rabbis say that this is the halakha even with regard to honey. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: This is the halakha even with regard to wine. The Gemara asks: By inference, is that to say that the first tanna holds that wine is not considered a liquid? Rather, say as follows: Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Wine is considered a liquid, but oil and honey are not.
תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי: פַּעַם אַחַת נִתְעָרֵב לִי טֶבֶל בְּחוּלִּין, וּבָאתִי וְשָׁאַלְתִּי אֶת רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, וְאָמַר לִי: לֵךְ קַח לְךָ מִן הַשּׁוּק וְעַשֵּׂר עָלָיו.
§ The Gemara relates another statement of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon Shezuri said: Once, my untithed produce became mixed together with a greater quantity of non-sacred, i.e., tithed, produce, and I came and asked Rabbi Tarfon how I should separate tithes from the untithed produce that was mixed with the tithed produce. And he said to me: Go and take from the market doubtfully tithed produce, which requires the removal of tithes by rabbinic law, and separate tithes from it on behalf of the untithed produce that is mixed with the tithed produce.
קָסָבַר דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּרוּבָּא בָּטֵל, וְרוֹב עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ מְעַשְּׂרִים הֵן, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּתוֹרֵם מִן הַפְּטוּר עַל הַפְּטוּר.
The Gemara explains: Rabbi Tarfon holds that by Torah law the minority of untithed produce is nullified in the majority of tithed produce and is therefore exempt from tithes; it is by rabbinic law that it is not nullified and one is obligated to separate tithes from it. And additionally, he holds that the majority of those who are unreliable with regard to tithes [amei ha’aretz] do separate tithes, in which case by Torah law one is not obligated to separate tithes from produce purchased from the market. And therefore, if Rabbi Shimon Shezuri receives produce from an am ha’aretz, he is considered by Torah law to be separating tithes from exempt produce on behalf of exempt produce, while all of it is obligated in tithes by rabbinic law.
וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: ״לֵךְ קַח מִן הַגּוֹי״, קָסָבַר: אֵין קִנְיָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיעַ מִיַּד מַעֲשֵׂר, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ מִן הַחִיּוּב עַל הַפְּטוּר.
The Gemara suggests: But let Rabbi Tarfon say to him: Go and take produce from a gentile. Since it is exempt from tithes by Torah law but requires tithing by rabbinic law, he could then separate tithes from this produce on behalf of the untithed produce that is nullified by the tithed produce. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Tarfon holds that a gentile has no acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael to abrogate the sanctity of the land, thereby removing it from the obligation to tithe its produce. And therefore, if Rabbi Shimon Shezuri were to take produce from a gentile, he would be considered to be separating tithes from produce that is obligated in tithes by Torah law on behalf of exempt produce, which one may not do.
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לֵךְ קַח מִן הַגּוֹי״, קָסָבַר יֵשׁ קִנְיָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיעַ מִיַּד מַעֲשֵׂר, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ מִן הַפְּטוּר עַל הַפְּטוּר.
There are those who say that Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Go and take produce from a gentile and separate tithes from it on behalf of the untithed produce that is intermingled in the majority of tithed produce. Accordingly, Rabbi Tarfon holds that a gentile has acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael to abrogate the sanctity of the land, thereby removing it from the obligation to tithe its produce. And therefore, if Rabbi Shimon Shezuri takes produce from a gentile, he is considered, by Torah law, to be separating tithes from exempt produce on behalf of exempt produce, while all of it is obligated in tithes by rabbinic law.
וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: ״קַח מֵהַשּׁוּק״, קָסָבַר: אֵין רוֹב עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ מְעַשְּׂרִין.
The Gemara suggests: But let Rabbi Tarfon say to him: Go and take produce from an am ha’aretz in the market and separate tithes from it on behalf of the mixed untithed produce. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Tarfon holds that the majority of amei ha’aretz do not separate tithes, in which case he is considered to be separating tithes from produce that is obligated in tithes by Torah law on behalf of exempt produce.
שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב יֵימַר בַּר שֶׁלֶמְיָא לְרַב פָּפָּא: הָא דְּאָמַר רָבִין בַּר חִינָּנָא אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי, וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ, אַף בְּנִתְעָרֵב לֵיהּ טֶבֶל בְּחוּלִּין?
Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya sent the following question to Rav Pappa: That which Ravin bar Ḥinnana said that Ulla says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri, and moreover, any place where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri taught a halakha, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, was that said even with regard to the case of one whose untithed produce became mixed together with non-sacred, i.e., tithed, produce, or was Rabbi Ḥanina referring only to cases where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri stated his opinion in the Mishna, but not in a baraita?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲמַר לִי מָר זוּטְרָא, קָשֵׁי בַּהּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא: פְּשִׁיטָא!
Rav Pappa said to him: Yes, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri even with regard to untithed produce that was mixed together with tithed produce. Rav Ashi said: Mar Zutra said to me: Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura raised a difficulty with this: Isn’t it obvious?
מִי קָאָמַר בְּמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ? ״כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנָה״ קָאָמַר.
Does Rabbi Ḥanina say that wherever Rabbi Shimon Shezuri taught a halakha in our Mishna the halakha is in accordance with his opinion? Rather, he says that any place where he taught a halakha the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, and this applies even to baraitot.
אָמַר רַב זְעֵירָא, אָמַר רַב חֲנַנְאֵל, אָמַר רַב: קֶרַע הַבָּא בִּשְׁנֵי שִׁיטִין – יִתְפּוֹר, בְּשָׁלֹשׁ – אַל יִתְפּוֹר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה זוּטֵי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מִדִּיפְתִּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, הָא דְּאָמְרִינַן ״בְּשָׁלֹשׁ אַל יִתְפּוֹר״ – לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בְּעַתִּיקָתָא, אֲבָל חַדְתָּתָא – לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
§ Rav Ze’eira says that Rav Ḥananel says that Rav says: If a tear in the parchment of a Torah scroll extends into two lines, one can sew the parchment to render the scroll fit, but if it extends into three lines then one cannot sew it to render it fit. Rabba Zuti said to Rav Ashi: This is what Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said in the name of Rava: That which we say, that if the tear extends into three lines one cannot sew it to render it fit, we say only with regard to old sheets of parchment. But in the case of new sheets of parchment, we have no problem with it.
וְלָא עַתִּיקָתָא עַתִּיקָתָא מַמַּשׁ, וְלָא חַדְתָּתָא חַדְתָּתָא מַמַּשׁ, אֶלָּא הָא דְּלָא אֲפִיצָן, הָא דַּאֲפִיצָן, וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּגִידִין, אֲבָל בִּגְרָדִין – לָא.
The Gemara adds: And old does not mean literally old, and new does not mean literally new. Rather, those sheets of parchment that are not processed with gall are labeled as old and cannot be sewn, whereas those sheets of parchment that are processed with gall are labeled as new and can be sewn. And this statement, that one can sew the parchment and render it fit, applies to sewing it with sinew; but if one sews the parchment with thread [bigradin], it is not rendered fit.
בָּעֵי רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר אַבָּא: בֵּין דַּף לְדַף, בֵּין שִׁיטָה לְשִׁיטָה, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
Rav Yehuda bar Abba asks: If the tear occurred in the space between one column and another column but it was of the length that had it occurred inside a column it would have extended more than three lines, and similarly, if the tear occurred between one line and another line horizontally, but not tearing through any letters, what is the halakha? No answer was found, and therefore the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
אָמַר רַבִּי זְעֵירִי, אָמַר רַב חֲנַנְאֵל, אָמַר רַב: מְזוּזָה שֶׁכְּתָבָהּ שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם, כְּשֵׁרָה. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ וְאַחַת, מַהוּ? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ כְּשִׁירָה. מֵיתִיבִי: עֲשָׂאָהּ כְּשִׁירָה, אוֹ שִׁירָה כְּמוֹתָהּ – פְּסוּלָה! כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה.
§ Rabbi Ze’eiri says that Rav Ḥananel says that Rav says: A mezuza that one wrote two by two, i.e., two words on each line, is fit. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one wrote two words on one line, and three words on the following line, and one word on the line after that, what is the halakha? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: All the more so that it is fit, as he prepared it as one writes a poem in the Torah scroll. The song sung by the Jewish people at the sea after the Exodus is written in lines whose length is not uniform. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If one wrote it as one writes a poem in the Torah, or if one wrote a poem in the Torah as one writes it, it is unfit. The Gemara answers: When that baraita is taught, it is referring to a Torah scroll, not a mezuza.
אִתְּמַר נָמֵי: אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מְזוּזָה שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ וְאַחַת – כְּשֵׁרָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂנָּה כְּקוּבָּה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂנָּה כְּזָנָב.
It was stated by amora’im as well: Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say it was Rav Aḥa bar bar Ḥana who says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to a mezuza that one prepared with two words on one line, and three words on the following line, and one word on the line after that, it is fit, provided that he does not prepare it like the shape of a tent, i.e., progressively widening the lines, starting with a line of one word, then a line of two words and a line of three, and provided that he does not prepare it like the shape of a tail, progressively shortening the lines, from three words to two to one.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: ״עַל הָאָרֶץ״ בְּשִׁיטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה, אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בְּסוֹף שִׁיטָה, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בִּתְחִלַּת שִׁיטָה.
§ Rav Ḥisda says: One writes the last two words of a mezuza, al ha’aretz, meaning “above the earth” (Deuteronomy 11:21), by themselves on the final line, without the preceding word. The Sages disagreed as to how this is done. Some say that one writes this phrase at the end of the final line, and some say that one writes it at the beginning of the final line.
מַאן דְּאָמַר בְּסוֹף שִׁיטָה, כִ״גְבֹהַּ שָׁמַיִם עַל הָאָרֶץ״, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּתְחִילַּת שִׁיטָה, כִּי הֵיכִי דִּמְרַחֲקָא שָׁמַיִם מֵאֶרֶץ.
The Gemara explains their dispute: The one who says that one writes it at the end of the final line interprets the verse: “That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land which the Lord swore unto your fathers to give them, as the days of the heaven above the earth,” in a similar manner to the verse: “For as the heaven is high above the earth” (Psalms 103:11). Consequently, if one writes “above the earth” at the end of the final line, it will appropriately be below the term “the heaven” at the end of the previous line. And the one who says that one writes it at the beginning of the final line explains the phrase “as the days of the heaven above the earth” as meaning: Just as the heaven is far from the earth. Consequently, if one writes “above the earth” at the beginning of the final line, it is far from the term “the heaven” at the end of the previous line.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ: חֲזֵינָא לֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא דְּכָרֵיךְ לַהּ מֵ״אֶחָד״ כְּלַפֵּי ״שְׁמַע״, וְעוֹשֶׂה פָּרָשִׁיּוֹתֶיהָ סְתוּמוֹת.
Rabbi Ḥelbo said: I saw Rav Huna wrap a written mezuza from the word eḥad to the word shema, i.e., rolling it from left to right, as the first verse written in a mezuza is: “Listen [Shema], O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one [eḥad]” (Deuteronomy 6:4). And he prepared the two passages of the mezuza in the closed manner, i.e., starting the second passage (Deuteronomy 11:13–21) on the same line that he finished writing the first passage (Deuteronomy 6:4–9).
מֵיתִיבִי: אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: רַבִּי מֵאִיר הָיָה כּוֹתְבָהּ עַל דּוּכְסוּסְטוֹס כְּמִין דַּף,
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir would write a mezuza on dokhsostos, the inner layer of animal hide, not on parchment, which is from the outer layer, and he would prepare it like a column of a Torah scroll, i.e., long and narrow.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
Blacksburg, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
Menachot 31
אַשִּׁידָּה, דִּתְנַן: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים נִמְדֶּדֶת מִבִּפְנִים, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים מִבַּחוּץ, וּמוֹדִים אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין עוֹבִי הָרַגְלַיִם וְעוֹבִי הַלְּבִזְבְּזִין נִמְדָּד.
that Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement was with regard to a chest, as we learned in a mishna (Kelim 18:1): A wooden chest that is large enough to contain forty se’a is not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, since it is no longer considered a vessel. In determining its capacity, Beit Shammai say that it is measured on the inside, and Beit Hillel say that it is measured on the outside so that the volume of the walls of the chest itself is included in the measurement. And both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concede that the volume of the legs and the volume of the rims [halevazbazin] are not measured.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מוֹדִים שֶׁעוֹבִי הָרַגְלַיִם וְעוֹבִי הַלְּבִזְבְּזִין נִמְדָּד, וּבֵינֵיהֶן אֵין נִמְדָּד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיוּ רַגְלַיִם גְּבוֹהוֹת טֶפַח – אֵין בֵּינֵיהֶן נִמְדָּד, וְאִם לָאו – בֵּינֵיהֶן נִמְדָּד.
Rabbi Yosei says: They concede that the volume of the legs and the volume of the rims are measured, but the space enclosed between the rims and the legs is not measured. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: If the legs were one handbreadth high then the space between the legs is not measured, since the area has an independent significance, but if the space is not one handbreadth high, the space between the legs is measured as part of the chest. It is with regard to this statement that Rabbi Ḥanina said the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.
רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: אַיַּיִן, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: שֶׁמֶן תְּחִלָּה לְעוֹלָם, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אַף הַדְּבָשׁ, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אַף הַיָּיִן. מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר יַיִן לָא? אֵימָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר: יָיִן.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement was with regard to wine, as we learned in a mishna (Teharot 3:2): Rabbi Meir says: Oil, an example of a liquid, that contracted impurity, is always considered to have first-degree ritual impurity, even if it came into contact with an item that was impure with second-degree ritual impurity, which, according to the standard halakhot of ritual impurity, should result in it having third-degree ritual impurity. And the Rabbis say that this is the halakha even with regard to honey. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: This is the halakha even with regard to wine. The Gemara asks: By inference, is that to say that the first tanna holds that wine is not considered a liquid? Rather, say as follows: Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Wine is considered a liquid, but oil and honey are not.
תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי: פַּעַם אַחַת נִתְעָרֵב לִי טֶבֶל בְּחוּלִּין, וּבָאתִי וְשָׁאַלְתִּי אֶת רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, וְאָמַר לִי: לֵךְ קַח לְךָ מִן הַשּׁוּק וְעַשֵּׂר עָלָיו.
§ The Gemara relates another statement of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon Shezuri said: Once, my untithed produce became mixed together with a greater quantity of non-sacred, i.e., tithed, produce, and I came and asked Rabbi Tarfon how I should separate tithes from the untithed produce that was mixed with the tithed produce. And he said to me: Go and take from the market doubtfully tithed produce, which requires the removal of tithes by rabbinic law, and separate tithes from it on behalf of the untithed produce that is mixed with the tithed produce.
קָסָבַר דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּרוּבָּא בָּטֵל, וְרוֹב עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ מְעַשְּׂרִים הֵן, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּתוֹרֵם מִן הַפְּטוּר עַל הַפְּטוּר.
The Gemara explains: Rabbi Tarfon holds that by Torah law the minority of untithed produce is nullified in the majority of tithed produce and is therefore exempt from tithes; it is by rabbinic law that it is not nullified and one is obligated to separate tithes from it. And additionally, he holds that the majority of those who are unreliable with regard to tithes [amei ha’aretz] do separate tithes, in which case by Torah law one is not obligated to separate tithes from produce purchased from the market. And therefore, if Rabbi Shimon Shezuri receives produce from an am ha’aretz, he is considered by Torah law to be separating tithes from exempt produce on behalf of exempt produce, while all of it is obligated in tithes by rabbinic law.
וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: ״לֵךְ קַח מִן הַגּוֹי״, קָסָבַר: אֵין קִנְיָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיעַ מִיַּד מַעֲשֵׂר, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ מִן הַחִיּוּב עַל הַפְּטוּר.
The Gemara suggests: But let Rabbi Tarfon say to him: Go and take produce from a gentile. Since it is exempt from tithes by Torah law but requires tithing by rabbinic law, he could then separate tithes from this produce on behalf of the untithed produce that is nullified by the tithed produce. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Tarfon holds that a gentile has no acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael to abrogate the sanctity of the land, thereby removing it from the obligation to tithe its produce. And therefore, if Rabbi Shimon Shezuri were to take produce from a gentile, he would be considered to be separating tithes from produce that is obligated in tithes by Torah law on behalf of exempt produce, which one may not do.
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לֵךְ קַח מִן הַגּוֹי״, קָסָבַר יֵשׁ קִנְיָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיעַ מִיַּד מַעֲשֵׂר, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ מִן הַפְּטוּר עַל הַפְּטוּר.
There are those who say that Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Go and take produce from a gentile and separate tithes from it on behalf of the untithed produce that is intermingled in the majority of tithed produce. Accordingly, Rabbi Tarfon holds that a gentile has acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael to abrogate the sanctity of the land, thereby removing it from the obligation to tithe its produce. And therefore, if Rabbi Shimon Shezuri takes produce from a gentile, he is considered, by Torah law, to be separating tithes from exempt produce on behalf of exempt produce, while all of it is obligated in tithes by rabbinic law.
וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: ״קַח מֵהַשּׁוּק״, קָסָבַר: אֵין רוֹב עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ מְעַשְּׂרִין.
The Gemara suggests: But let Rabbi Tarfon say to him: Go and take produce from an am ha’aretz in the market and separate tithes from it on behalf of the mixed untithed produce. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Tarfon holds that the majority of amei ha’aretz do not separate tithes, in which case he is considered to be separating tithes from produce that is obligated in tithes by Torah law on behalf of exempt produce.
שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב יֵימַר בַּר שֶׁלֶמְיָא לְרַב פָּפָּא: הָא דְּאָמַר רָבִין בַּר חִינָּנָא אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי, וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ, אַף בְּנִתְעָרֵב לֵיהּ טֶבֶל בְּחוּלִּין?
Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya sent the following question to Rav Pappa: That which Ravin bar Ḥinnana said that Ulla says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri, and moreover, any place where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri taught a halakha, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, was that said even with regard to the case of one whose untithed produce became mixed together with non-sacred, i.e., tithed, produce, or was Rabbi Ḥanina referring only to cases where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri stated his opinion in the Mishna, but not in a baraita?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲמַר לִי מָר זוּטְרָא, קָשֵׁי בַּהּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא: פְּשִׁיטָא!
Rav Pappa said to him: Yes, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri even with regard to untithed produce that was mixed together with tithed produce. Rav Ashi said: Mar Zutra said to me: Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura raised a difficulty with this: Isn’t it obvious?
מִי קָאָמַר בְּמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ? ״כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנָה״ קָאָמַר.
Does Rabbi Ḥanina say that wherever Rabbi Shimon Shezuri taught a halakha in our Mishna the halakha is in accordance with his opinion? Rather, he says that any place where he taught a halakha the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, and this applies even to baraitot.
אָמַר רַב זְעֵירָא, אָמַר רַב חֲנַנְאֵל, אָמַר רַב: קֶרַע הַבָּא בִּשְׁנֵי שִׁיטִין – יִתְפּוֹר, בְּשָׁלֹשׁ – אַל יִתְפּוֹר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה זוּטֵי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מִדִּיפְתִּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, הָא דְּאָמְרִינַן ״בְּשָׁלֹשׁ אַל יִתְפּוֹר״ – לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בְּעַתִּיקָתָא, אֲבָל חַדְתָּתָא – לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
§ Rav Ze’eira says that Rav Ḥananel says that Rav says: If a tear in the parchment of a Torah scroll extends into two lines, one can sew the parchment to render the scroll fit, but if it extends into three lines then one cannot sew it to render it fit. Rabba Zuti said to Rav Ashi: This is what Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said in the name of Rava: That which we say, that if the tear extends into three lines one cannot sew it to render it fit, we say only with regard to old sheets of parchment. But in the case of new sheets of parchment, we have no problem with it.
וְלָא עַתִּיקָתָא עַתִּיקָתָא מַמַּשׁ, וְלָא חַדְתָּתָא חַדְתָּתָא מַמַּשׁ, אֶלָּא הָא דְּלָא אֲפִיצָן, הָא דַּאֲפִיצָן, וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּגִידִין, אֲבָל בִּגְרָדִין – לָא.
The Gemara adds: And old does not mean literally old, and new does not mean literally new. Rather, those sheets of parchment that are not processed with gall are labeled as old and cannot be sewn, whereas those sheets of parchment that are processed with gall are labeled as new and can be sewn. And this statement, that one can sew the parchment and render it fit, applies to sewing it with sinew; but if one sews the parchment with thread [bigradin], it is not rendered fit.
בָּעֵי רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר אַבָּא: בֵּין דַּף לְדַף, בֵּין שִׁיטָה לְשִׁיטָה, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
Rav Yehuda bar Abba asks: If the tear occurred in the space between one column and another column but it was of the length that had it occurred inside a column it would have extended more than three lines, and similarly, if the tear occurred between one line and another line horizontally, but not tearing through any letters, what is the halakha? No answer was found, and therefore the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
אָמַר רַבִּי זְעֵירִי, אָמַר רַב חֲנַנְאֵל, אָמַר רַב: מְזוּזָה שֶׁכְּתָבָהּ שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם, כְּשֵׁרָה. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ וְאַחַת, מַהוּ? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ כְּשִׁירָה. מֵיתִיבִי: עֲשָׂאָהּ כְּשִׁירָה, אוֹ שִׁירָה כְּמוֹתָהּ – פְּסוּלָה! כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה.
§ Rabbi Ze’eiri says that Rav Ḥananel says that Rav says: A mezuza that one wrote two by two, i.e., two words on each line, is fit. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one wrote two words on one line, and three words on the following line, and one word on the line after that, what is the halakha? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: All the more so that it is fit, as he prepared it as one writes a poem in the Torah scroll. The song sung by the Jewish people at the sea after the Exodus is written in lines whose length is not uniform. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If one wrote it as one writes a poem in the Torah, or if one wrote a poem in the Torah as one writes it, it is unfit. The Gemara answers: When that baraita is taught, it is referring to a Torah scroll, not a mezuza.
אִתְּמַר נָמֵי: אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מְזוּזָה שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ וְאַחַת – כְּשֵׁרָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂנָּה כְּקוּבָּה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂנָּה כְּזָנָב.
It was stated by amora’im as well: Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say it was Rav Aḥa bar bar Ḥana who says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to a mezuza that one prepared with two words on one line, and three words on the following line, and one word on the line after that, it is fit, provided that he does not prepare it like the shape of a tent, i.e., progressively widening the lines, starting with a line of one word, then a line of two words and a line of three, and provided that he does not prepare it like the shape of a tail, progressively shortening the lines, from three words to two to one.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: ״עַל הָאָרֶץ״ בְּשִׁיטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה, אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בְּסוֹף שִׁיטָה, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בִּתְחִלַּת שִׁיטָה.
§ Rav Ḥisda says: One writes the last two words of a mezuza, al ha’aretz, meaning “above the earth” (Deuteronomy 11:21), by themselves on the final line, without the preceding word. The Sages disagreed as to how this is done. Some say that one writes this phrase at the end of the final line, and some say that one writes it at the beginning of the final line.
מַאן דְּאָמַר בְּסוֹף שִׁיטָה, כִ״גְבֹהַּ שָׁמַיִם עַל הָאָרֶץ״, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּתְחִילַּת שִׁיטָה, כִּי הֵיכִי דִּמְרַחֲקָא שָׁמַיִם מֵאֶרֶץ.
The Gemara explains their dispute: The one who says that one writes it at the end of the final line interprets the verse: “That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land which the Lord swore unto your fathers to give them, as the days of the heaven above the earth,” in a similar manner to the verse: “For as the heaven is high above the earth” (Psalms 103:11). Consequently, if one writes “above the earth” at the end of the final line, it will appropriately be below the term “the heaven” at the end of the previous line. And the one who says that one writes it at the beginning of the final line explains the phrase “as the days of the heaven above the earth” as meaning: Just as the heaven is far from the earth. Consequently, if one writes “above the earth” at the beginning of the final line, it is far from the term “the heaven” at the end of the previous line.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ: חֲזֵינָא לֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא דְּכָרֵיךְ לַהּ מֵ״אֶחָד״ כְּלַפֵּי ״שְׁמַע״, וְעוֹשֶׂה פָּרָשִׁיּוֹתֶיהָ סְתוּמוֹת.
Rabbi Ḥelbo said: I saw Rav Huna wrap a written mezuza from the word eḥad to the word shema, i.e., rolling it from left to right, as the first verse written in a mezuza is: “Listen [Shema], O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one [eḥad]” (Deuteronomy 6:4). And he prepared the two passages of the mezuza in the closed manner, i.e., starting the second passage (Deuteronomy 11:13–21) on the same line that he finished writing the first passage (Deuteronomy 6:4–9).
מֵיתִיבִי: אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: רַבִּי מֵאִיר הָיָה כּוֹתְבָהּ עַל דּוּכְסוּסְטוֹס כְּמִין דַּף,
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir would write a mezuza on dokhsostos, the inner layer of animal hide, not on parchment, which is from the outer layer, and he would prepare it like a column of a Torah scroll, i.e., long and narrow.
