מנחות לא

מנחות לא

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.