ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 31
(a) 'Ela Amar Rav Papa a'Shidah'. The Mishnah in Keilim rules that a hive of
straw or of canes ... or a cupboard that holds forty Sa'ah of liquid - is
not subject to Tum'ah.
(b) According to Beis Shamai, these are all measured from the inside; Beis
Hillel say - from the outside (even though the inside measures less).
(c) Rebbi Yossi maintains that the thickness of the legs and of the rim are
counted in the forty Sa'ah - but not, the space in between them.
(d) Rebbi Shimon Shezuri qualifies Rebbi Yossi's ruling - confining it to
where the legs are at least a Tefach tall; but if they are less, then the
spaces are counted too.
(a) 've'Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak Amar a'Yayin'. In the Mishnah in Taharos,
Rebbi Meir considers olive-oil a Rishon le'Tum'ah. The Chachamim add -
(b) The problem with Rebbi Shimon Shezuri, who says 'Af Yayin' is - the
implication that the Chachamim preclude wine from this ruling (whilst the
truth of the matter is that everyone includes wine).
(c) We therefore amend it from 'Af Yayin' to - 'Yayin' (in which case, it is
Rebbi Shimon who disagrees with the previous opinions, but not vice-versa.
(d) Rebbi Shimon Shezuri argues with the previous opinions - because in his
opinion, olive-oil and honey are simply not considered to be liquids.
(a) Rebbi Shimon Shezuri in a Beraisa, once asked Rebbi Tarfon what to do
with Tevel of D'mai that fell into Chulin - seeing as the Chulin prevented
him from separating Ma'asros from the Tevel.
(b) Despite the fact that, min ha'Torah, the Tevel was Bateil, it was not a
case of 'min ha'Petur al ha'Petur' - since mi'de'Rabbanan, D'mai is Chayav,
it was a case of 'min ha'Petur (even mi'de'Rabbanan) al ha'Chayav'
(c) Rebbi Tarfon instructed him to - purchase Chulin from the market, which
was Patur min ha'Torah just like his Tevel was, and to Ma'aser from it on to
his Tevel (a case of min ha'Petur al ha'Petur).
(d) He instructed him to purchase crops from the market, and not from
Nochrim - because he held 'Ein Kinyan le'Akum be'Eretz Yisrael, Lehafki'a
mi'Yad Ma'aser' (making it a case of min ha'Chiyuv al ha'Petur').
(a) According to the second Lashon, Rebbi Tarfon instructed Rebbi Shimon
Shezuri to - purchase from a Nochri - because he held 'Yesh Kinyan le'Akum
be'Eretz Yisrael Lehafki'a mi'Yad Ma'asros', making it min-ha'Petur al
(b) He did not rather instruct him to buy from the market - because he
disagreed with the principle 'Rov Amei-ha'Aretz Me'asrin' ...
(c) ... creating a problem - that, due to the fifty percent chance that the
Am-ha'Aretz did not Ma'aser the crops, it might be a case of min ha'Chiyuv
al ha'Petur or vice-versa (because perhaps one of them did Ma'aser and the
other one didn't).
(a) The problem with this explanation is that in that case, even if he
purchased the crops from a Nochri (as per Rebbi Tarfon's instructions) -
perhaps the Am ha'Aretz who sold him the Tevel of D'mai did not Ma'aser the
crops, in which case it would end up being 'min ha'Petur al ha'Chiyuv'.
(b) So we amend the case of Rebbi Shimon Shezuri - from Tevel of D'mai to
Tevel Vaday, which is Bateil min ha'Torah (one in two) but Chayav
mi'de'Rabbanan (who said that Tevel Asur be'Mashehu).
(c) Consequently, Rebbi Tarfon's instructions, according to ...
1. ... the first Lashon - were to purchase crops from the market, which in
similar vein, are Patur min ha'Torah (because 'Rov Amei-ha'Aretz Me'asrin
Hein'), but Chayav mi'de'Rabbanan.
(d) Rebbi Tarfon did not instruct Rebbi Shimon Shezuri to separate Ma'asros
from the crops themselves - because, although the Tevel was Asur
mi'de'Rabbanan, this was due to an external factor (the fact that the Tevel
was not Bateil), and not because of a Mitzvah to Ma'aser mi'de'Rabbanan,
which in fact, the Chachamim did not institute.
2. ... the second Lashon - were to purchase from a Nochri, which is Patur
min ha'Torah (because of 'Yesh Kinyan le'Akum ... '), and Chayav
(a) When Rav Yeimar bar Shalmaya asked Rav Papa whether Ravin bar Chinena
... Amar Rebbi Chanina incorporated this latter case of 'Nis'arev Li Tevel
be'Chulin', when he ruled like Rebbi Shimon Shezuri, wherever his name
occurs - he replied that he did.
(b) Mar Zutra quoting Mar Zutra from Sura, asked Rav Ashi - how Rav Yeimar
bar Shalmaya could pose such a question. Why was it not obvious from the
fact that Rebbi Chanina said (not 'in our Mishnos', but) 'wherever'?
(a) Rav Ze'ira ... Amar Rav draws a distinction between a tear that reaches
a depth of two lines - which can be stitched, and one that reaches three -
which cannot (in fact, the entire Yeri'ah must be removed and placed in
(b) Rabah Zuti ... quoting Rava, qualifies Rav's ruling - by confining it to
an old Seifer-Torah, but not to a new one, in which case, it may be sown,
even if it reaches a depth of three lines.
(c) 'Atikta' does not mean necessarily old, says Rava, nor does 'Chadti'
necessarily mean, new - but treated with gall-nuts or not treated with
(d) The reason for Rav's Chumra is - because gall-nuts darken the parchment,
making it look old, and a tear looks more blatant on old parchment.
(a) Rava also qualifies the concession to stitch a tear in a Seifer-Torah -
by confining it to using sinews, but not fringes (from the weaving-loom).
(b) When Rav Yehudah bar Aba asks ...
1. ... 'Bein Daf le'Daf Mahu', he means to ask - what the Din will be if the
tear begins at the top of the Amud, and runs as far as the K'sav (which is a
greater distance than the equivalent of three lines).
(c) The outcome of both She'eilos is - 'Teiku'.
2. ... 'Bein Shitah le'Shitah Mahu', he means to ask - what the Din will be
if the tear occurs in between two lines (parallel to the actual K'sav).
(a) Rebbi Ze'iri Amar Rav - validates a Mezuzah that is written only two
words per line.
(b) They asked what the Din will be if it is written in a sequence of three,
two and one words per line. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak replied - that this is
certainly Kasher, as it resembles a Shirah.
(c) We reconcile this with the Beraisa, which rules 'As'ah ke'Shirah O
Shirah Kamosah, Pesulah' - by establishing the latter by a Seifer-Torah
(exclusively [which must be divided into regular K'sav and the K'sav of a
Shirah, in accordance with tradition]).
(d) Rabah (or Rav Acha) bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan too, validates a
Mezuzah whose lines are written in the sequence of three, two and one words
to a line. When he goes on to invalidate one that is written ...
1. ... like a tent, he is referring to - one written in the sequence one,
two and three.
2. ... like a tail, he is referring to - one that is written in the sequence
of three, two and one.
(a) Rav Chisda requires - "al ha'Aretz" exclusively (the final words of the
Mezuzah) should be written on the last line.
(b) Some say that they belong at the end of the line; others say - at the
(c) Both opinions are based on the Pasuk "ki'Gevohah Shamayim al ha'Aretz".
The reason of those who say that "al ha'Aretz" must be placed ...
1. ... at the end of the line is - because, in keeping with the Pasuk, the
word "ha'Shamayim" belongs directly on top of 'ha'Aretz".
2. ... at the beginning of the line - because the Pasuk also implies - that
the two are far apart.
(a) According to Rav Chelbo, Rav Huna would roll a Mezuzah - from ''Echad''
(b) And when he also testified that he wrote the first Parshah 'S'tumah', he
meant - either that the middle of the last line was empty, but that there
was writing at the beginning and at the end, or that the beginning of the
line was empty, but the end contained K'sav.