Menachot Daf 30 (מנחות דף ל׳)
Daf: 30 | Amudim: 30a – 30b | Date: 8 Shevat 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (30a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Conclusion regarding extraneous letters in a Torah scroll
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל יְתֵרוֹת לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
English Translation:
But if there are extraneous letters, we have no problem with it, and one may erase them. This is the first halakha that Rav stated, which is refuted in a baraita.
קלאוד על הדף:
This brief statement concludes a discussion from the previous daf about Rav’s rulings regarding Torah scroll writing. The Gemara notes that while missing letters are problematic, extraneous letters can simply be erased. The transition phrase signals that we are now moving to examine another ruling of Rav that was challenged by a baraita, showing the Gemara’s systematic method of reviewing Rav’s statements on scribal law.
Key Terms:
- יְתֵרוֹת (yeterot) = Extraneous or extra letters written by mistake
Segment 2
TYPE: מימרא / קושיא / תירוץ
Rav’s ruling on finishing a Torah scroll and its resolution
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִידַּךְ, דְּאָמַר רַב: הַכּוֹתֵב סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה וּבָא לִגְמוֹר – גּוֹמֵר, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּאֶמְצַע הַדַּף. מֵיתִיבִי: הַכּוֹתֵב סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה, בָּא לוֹ לִגְמוֹר – לֹא יִגְמוֹר בָּאֶמְצַע הַדַּף כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁגּוֹמֵר בַּחוּמָּשִׁין, אֶלָּא מְקַצֵּר וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד סוֹף הַדַּף! כִּי קָא אָמַר רַב – בְּחוּמָּשִׁין.
English Translation:
The other is that which Rav says: One who writes a Torah scroll and comes to finish writing it may finish writing it anywhere in the column, and this is the halakha even with regard to finishing it in the middle of the column. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who writes a Torah scroll and comes to finish writing it may not finish writing it in the middle of the column in the manner that one finishes writing one of the five books of the Torah written as an independent scroll. Rather, he should progressively shorten the width of the lines until he finishes the scroll at the end of the column. The Gemara answers: When Rav says that one may finish writing even in the middle of a column, he was referring to one of the five books of the Torah.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara examines Rav’s ruling that one may conclude a Torah scroll in the middle of a column, which appears to contradict a baraita requiring the scroll to end at the column’s bottom. The resolution distinguishes between a complete Torah scroll (which must end at the bottom of the column, with lines progressively shortened) and an individual chumash (one of the Five Books written separately), which may end mid-column. This distinction preserves the aesthetic dignity of a complete Torah while allowing more flexibility for individual volumes.
Key Terms:
- דַּף (daf) = Column of writing in a scroll
- חוּמָּשִׁין (chumashim) = Individual books of the Torah written as separate scrolls
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא / תירוץ
Clarifying whether Rav’s ruling applies to the entire Torah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה קָאָמַר? בְּחוּמָּשִׁין שֶׁל סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה. אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: ״לְעֵינֵי כׇּל יִשְׂרָאֵל״ בְּאֶמְצַע הַדַּף? הָהִיא בְּאֶמְצַע שִׁיטָה אִיתְּמַר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav say his statement with regard to a Torah scroll? The Gemara answers: He was referring to one of the five books that constitute a Torah scroll. Rav meant that when writing a Torah scroll, one may finish writing any of the first four books in the middle of a column. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rabbi Yehoshua bar Abba say that Rav Giddel says that Rav says: The words: “In the sight of all Israel” (Deuteronomy 34:12), which conclude the Torah, may be written even in the middle of the column? The Gemara answers: That ruling that was stated is with regard to finishing the Torah scroll in the middle of the line, i.e., in the middle of the width of the column.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara notices an apparent contradiction: if Rav’s leniency applies only to individual chumashim, why does he explicitly mention “sefer Torah”? The answer is that he refers to the internal divisions within a complete Torah scroll—the first four books may end mid-column. A further challenge arises from another statement of Rav permitting the Torah’s final words to appear mid-column. The resolution introduces a crucial distinction: “middle of the column” refers to ending mid-line (horizontally), not mid-column (vertically).
Key Terms:
- שִׁיטָה (shitah) = A line of writing within a column
- לְעֵינֵי כׇּל יִשְׂרָאֵל = “In the sight of all Israel” – the final words of the Torah
Segment 4
TYPE: מחלוקת / הלכה
Dispute and final ruling on ending the Torah scroll
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבָּנַן אָמְרִי: אַף בְּאֶמְצַע שִׁיטָה, רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: בְּאֶמְצַע שִׁיטָה דַּוְוקָא, וְהִלְכְתָא: בְּאֶמְצַע שִׁיטָה דַּוְוקָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites another opinion: The Rabbis say that one may finish writing a Torah scroll even in the middle of the line, but one may finish writing it at the end of the line as well. Rav Ashi says that one must finish writing the Torah scroll specifically in the middle of the line. And the halakha is that it must be ended specifically in the middle of the line.
קלאוד על הדף:
Three opinions emerge regarding where the Torah should end: (1) the anonymous Rabbis permit ending either mid-line or at line’s end; (2) Rav Ashi requires ending specifically mid-line. The Gemara rules like Rav Ashi—the Torah must conclude in the middle of the final line. This creates the distinctive visual appearance of a completed Torah scroll, where the last word is centered, symbolizing the centrality of Torah and ensuring it looks complete rather than abruptly cut off.
Key Terms:
- הִלְכְתָא (hilkheta) = The authoritative halakhic ruling
Segment 5
TYPE: מימרא
The last eight verses must be read by one person
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בַּר אַבָּא, אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל, אָמַר רַב: שְׁמֹנָה פְּסוּקִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, יָחִיד קוֹרֵא אוֹתָן בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת. כְּמַאן? דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
English Translation:
§ Rabbi Yehoshua bar Abba says that Rav Giddel says that Rav says: With regard to the last eight verses of the Torah (Deuteronomy 32:5–12), a single individual reads them in the synagogue, as that section may not be divided between two readers. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this said? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new topic is introduced with a significant halakhic statement: the final eight verses of the Torah (describing Moses’ death) must be read by a single person and cannot be divided between Torah readers. The Gemara immediately questions whose opinion this follows, noting it seems to contradict Rabbi Shimon’s view. This special treatment of the Torah’s conclusion hints at the unique nature of these verses and leads to the famous debate about who authored them.
Key Terms:
- שְׁמֹנָה פְּסוּקִים (shemonah pesukim) = The eight verses describing Moses’ death (Deuteronomy 34:5-12)
- יָחִיד (yachid) = A single individual (reader)
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא / מחלוקת תנאים
Rabbi Yehuda’s view: Joshua wrote the final verses
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא: ״וַיָּמׇת שָׁם מֹשֶׁה עֶבֶד ה׳״, אֶפְשָׁר מֹשֶׁה חַי וְכָתַב ״וַיָּמׇת שָׁם מֹשֶׁה״? אֶלָּא עַד כָּאן כָּתַב מֹשֶׁה, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ כָּתַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה.
English Translation:
As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And Moses the servant of the Lord died there” (Deuteronomy 34:5). Is it possible that after Moses died, he himself wrote: “And Moses died there”? Rather, Moses wrote the entire Torah until this point, and Joshua bin Nun wrote from this point forward; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And some say that Rabbi Neḥemya stated this opinion.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita presents a profound theological question: how could Moses write about his own death? Rabbi Yehuda (or Rabbi Nehemya) resolves this logically—Moses wrote until the account of his death, and Joshua completed the final eight verses. This view maintains the straightforward meaning of the text while acknowledging the practical impossibility of Moses writing posthumously. It also explains why these verses might be treated differently in public reading.
Key Terms:
- וַיָּמׇת שָׁם מֹשֶׁה = “And Moses died there” – the opening of the final section
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Shimon’s challenge: The Torah was complete
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֶפְשָׁר סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה חָסֵר אוֹת אַחַת? וּכְתִיב ״לָקֹחַ אֵת סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֶּה וְשַׂמְתֶּם אֹתוֹ וְגוֹ׳״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon said to him: Is it possible that the Torah scroll was missing a single letter? But it is written that God instructed Moses: “Take this Torah scroll and put it by the side of the Ark of the Covenant” (Deuteronomy 31:26), indicating that the Torah was complete as is and that nothing further would be added to it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon challenges Rabbi Yehuda’s view with a powerful scriptural argument. Before Moses died, God commanded him to place “this Torah” beside the Ark—implying it was already complete. If Joshua wrote the final verses later, the Torah Moses placed would have been incomplete, which seems incompatible with calling it “this Torah.” This argument upholds the doctrine of the Torah’s completeness and divine origin, even for the passages describing Moses’ death.
Key Terms:
- חָסֵר אוֹת אַחַת = Missing even a single letter
- סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֶּה = “This Torah scroll” – implying completeness
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Shimon’s solution: Moses wrote with tears
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, עַד כָּאן – הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אוֹמֵר וּמֹשֶׁה כּוֹתֵב וְאוֹמֵר, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אוֹמֵר וּמֹשֶׁה כּוֹתֵב בְּדֶמַע, כְּמָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם בָּרוּךְ מִפִּיו יִקְרָא אֵלַי אֵת כׇּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַאֲנִי כֹּתֵב עַל הַסֵּפֶר בַּדְּיוֹ״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon explains: Rather, until this point, i.e., the verse describing the death of Moses, the Holy One, Blessed be He, dictated and Moses wrote the text and repeated after Him. From this point forward, with regard to Moses’ death, the Holy One, Blessed be He, dictated and Moses wrote with tears without repeating the words, due to his great sorrow. As it is stated there with regard to Jeremiah’s dictation of the prophecy of the destruction of the Temple to Baruch ben Neriah: “And Baruch said to them: He dictated all these words to me, and I wrote them with ink in the scroll” (Jeremiah 36:18), but he did not repeat the words after Jeremiah.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon offers a deeply moving solution: Moses did write the entire Torah, including the account of his death, but with a crucial difference. Throughout the Torah, Moses would repeat each verse after God before writing it. For the final eight verses, however, Moses wrote “with tears” (בְּדֶמַע)—silently transcribing God’s words without repetition, overcome with sorrow at his approaching death. The proof comes from Baruch ben Neriah, who similarly wrote Jeremiah’s prophecies without repeating them. Some interpret “with tears” literally; others suggest it means the letters were jumbled or unclear.
Key Terms:
- בְּדֶמַע (b’dema) = With tears; alternatively interpreted as “mixed” or “indistinct”
- וְאוֹמֵר (v’omer) = And repeating (the standard method of transcription)
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא / תירוץ
Reconciling Rav’s ruling with Rabbi Shimon
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הוֹאִיל וְאִישְׁתַּנִּי – אִישְׁתַּנִּי.
English Translation:
The Gemara now states its inference: Shall we say that the ruling of Rav that the last verses of the Torah are read by only one reader is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, since according to Rabbi Shimon these verses are similar to all other verses of the Torah, as they were all written by Moses? The Gemara answers: You may even say that Rav’s ruling was stated in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon; since they differ from the rest of the Torah in one way, as Moses wrote them without repeating the words, they differ from the rest of the Torah in this way as well, and they may not be divided between two readers.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the original question: whose opinion does Rav follow in requiring one person to read the final verses? Initially it seemed this couldn’t follow Rabbi Shimon, who holds Moses wrote everything. But the Gemara resolves this elegantly: even according to Rabbi Shimon, these verses are different—they were written without Moses repeating the words. This qualitative difference (איִשְׁתַּנִּי) justifies treating them differently in public reading as well. A change in one respect can create a change in another.
Key Terms:
- אִישְׁתַּנִּי (ishtani) = It differs/was changed
Segment 10
TYPE: מימרא / אגדתא
The mitzva of writing a Torah scroll
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בַּר אַבָּא, אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל, אָמַר רַב: הַלּוֹקֵחַ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה מִן הַשּׁוּק – כְּחוֹטֵף מִצְוָה מִן הַשּׁוּק, כְּתָבוֹ – מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ קִיבְּלוֹ מֵהַר סִינַי. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אִם הִגִּיהַּ אֲפִילּוּ אוֹת אַחַת – מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו כְּאִילּוּ כְּתָבוֹ.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yehoshua bar Abba says that Rav Giddel says that Rav says: One who purchases a Torah scroll in the marketplace is akin to one who snatches a mitzva in the marketplace, as the proper manner in which to perform the mitzva of writing a Torah scroll is to write one for himself. And if he himself writes a Torah scroll, the verse ascribes him credit as though he received it at Mount Sinai. Rav Sheshet says: If he emended even a single letter of the Torah scroll, thereby completing it, the verse ascribes him credit as though he had written it in its entirety.
קלאוד על הדף:
This powerful aggadic statement establishes the supreme value of personally writing a Torah scroll. Purchasing a scroll is compared to “snatching” a mitzva—fulfilling the obligation in a lesser way. But one who writes it himself is credited as if receiving the Torah directly from Sinai! Rav Sheshet adds a practical leniency: even correcting a single letter grants full credit. This teaching forms the basis for the custom of each person writing a letter in a communal Torah, and emphasizes that Torah transmission requires personal engagement, not mere acquisition.
Key Terms:
- חוֹטֵף מִצְוָה (chotef mitzva) = Snatches a mitzva – fulfilling it in a suboptimal way
- הִגִּיהַּ (higiah) = Emended or corrected
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
Mnemonic and rules for parchment sheet size
Hebrew/Aramaic:
(סִימָן סגל״ם) תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עוֹשֶׂה אָדָם יְרִיעָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ דַּפִּין וְעַד בַּת שְׁמֹנָה דַּפִּין, פָּחוֹת מִיכֵּן וְיָתֵר עַל כֵּן לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה.
English Translation:
§ Before continuing its discussion of the halakhot of writing a Torah scroll, the Gemara presents a mnemonic for the upcoming halakhot: Samekh, gimmel, lamed, mem. The Sages taught: A person may prepare for a Torah scroll a sheet of parchment of any size from three columns and until eight columns, but one may not prepare a sheet of parchment that has less than three or more than eight columns.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now begins a detailed treatment of the technical specifications for Torah scrolls, introduced by a mnemonic (סגל״ם) to help remember the topics. The first rule establishes that each sheet of parchment (yeriah) must contain between 3 and 8 columns—not fewer and not more. This standardization ensures that Torah scrolls maintain a dignified, consistent appearance and are practical to handle. Sheets that are too small or too large would compromise both the scroll’s beauty and functionality.
Key Terms:
- יְרִיעָה (yeriah) = A sheet of parchment sewn together with others to form a scroll
- דַּפִּין (dappin) = Columns of writing
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
Reasons for column width and the lemishpechotekhem measure
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֹא יַרְבֶּה בְּדַפִּין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה אִגֶּרֶת, וְלֹא יְמַעֵט בְּדַפִּין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעֵינָיו מְשׁוֹטְטוֹת, אֶלָּא כְּגוֹן ״לְמִשְׁפְּחוֹתֵיכֶם לְמִשְׁפְּחוֹתֵיכֶם לְמִשְׁפְּחוֹתֵיכֶם״ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים.
English Translation:
And he may not increase the number of columns, e.g., by writing eight columns on a narrow sheet of parchment, since then each column has the appearance of a missive due to its narrow lines. And he may not decrease the number of columns, e.g., by writing three columns on a wide sheet of parchment, since then the lines will be so wide that the reader’s eyes will wander, as it will be difficult to find the beginning of a line. Rather, the ideal width of a line is, for example, where one can write “lemishpeḥoteikhem,” “lemishpeḥoteikhem,” “lemishpeḥoteikhem,” for a total of three times.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita explains the reasoning behind column width: too narrow and it looks like an ordinary letter (igeret), degrading the Torah’s honor; too wide and the reader’s eyes will “wander” (unable to track from line to line). The famous measure for ideal line width is the word “lemishpechotekhem” (לְמִשְׁפְּחוֹתֵיכֶם—“for your families”) written three times, approximately 27-30 letters. This practical standard balances readability with dignity and has guided scribes for millennia.
Key Terms:
- אִגֶּרֶת (igeret) = A letter or missive—considered undignified for sacred text
- לְמִשְׁפְּחוֹתֵיכֶם (lemishpechotekhem) = “For your families” (Numbers 33:54)—a 10-letter word used as a measure
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
Dividing an oversized parchment sheet
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ יְרִיעָה בַּת תֵּשַׁע דַּפִּים, לֹא יַחְלוֹק שָׁלֹשׁ לְכָאן וְשֵׁשׁ לְכָאן, אֶלָּא אַרְבַּע לְכָאן וְחָמֵשׁ לְכָאן.
English Translation:
If one happened to acquire a sheet of parchment that has space for nine columns, exceeding the eight-column limit, he should not divide it into two sheets of parchment with three columns here and six columns there; rather, he should divide it into two sheets of parchment with four columns here and five columns there, so that the two sheets will be similar in width.
קלאוד על הדף:
When a scribe acquires parchment large enough for nine columns (exceeding the eight-column maximum), he must cut it into two pieces. The baraita insists on dividing 4-5 rather than 3-6, so that both resulting sheets are similar in size. This reflects the principle of uniformity and aesthetics in Torah production—even practical necessity should not create disproportionate sheets that would make the scroll look irregular when assembled.
Key Terms:
- נִזְדַּמְּנָה (nizdamna) = Happened to acquire; came upon by chance
Segment 14
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך) / קושיא / תירוץ
Exception for the scroll’s final sheet
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בִּתְחִלַּת הַסֵּפֶר, אֲבָל בְּסוֹף הַסֵּפֶר – אֲפִילּוּ פָּסוּק אֶחָד וַאֲפִילּוּ דַּף אֶחָד. פָּסוּק אֶחָד סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: פָּסוּק אֶחָד בְּדַף אֶחָד.
English Translation:
In what case is this statement that the sheet must contain a minimum of three columns said? It is said with regard to sheets at the beginning and middle of the scroll. But at the end of the scroll, a sheet may consist of even one verse, and even one column. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind to say that a sheet may contain one verse? Rather, say that it may consist of even one verse on one column.
קלאוד על הדף:
The minimum three-column requirement applies to sheets at the beginning and middle of the scroll, but the final sheet may have just one column—even if it contains only a single verse. The Gemara catches an imprecise formulation (“one verse and one column”) and clarifies: it means one verse written on one column, not that the sheet could somehow contain a verse without a column. This leniency for the final sheet acknowledges the natural variation in where the text ends.
Key Terms:
- סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ (salka da’atakh) = Would it enter your mind?—a phrase introducing an objection to an implausible interpretation
Segment 15
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
Margin specifications for Torah scrolls and chumashim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שִׁיעוּר גִּלָּיוֹן מִלְּמַטָּה – טֶפַח, מִלְּמַעְלָה – שָׁלֹשׁ אֶצְבָּעוֹת, וּבֵין דַּף לְדַף – כִּמְלֹא רֶיוַח רוֹחַב שְׁתֵּי אֶצְבָּעוֹת, וּבַחוּמָּשִׁין מִלְּמַטָּה – שָׁלֹשׁ אֶצְבָּעוֹת, מִלְּמַעְלָה – שְׁתֵּי אֶצְבָּעוֹת, וּבֵין דַּף לְדַף – כִּמְלֹא רֶיוַח רוֹחַב גּוּדָל.
English Translation:
The measure of the margin of a Torah scroll is as follows: The size of the lower margin is one handbreadth [tefaḥ]. There is a requirement for a large margin there, so that a reader not inadvertently rest his arm on the writing. The size of the upper margin, which is less susceptible to that occurrence, is three fingerbreadths [etzba’ot], and the space between each column is equal to the full width of two fingerbreadths. And with regard to one of the five books of the Torah that is written as an independent scroll, the size of the lower margin is three fingerbreadths, the size of the upper margin is two fingerbreadths, and the space between each column is equal to the full width of a thumb-breadth [gudal].
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment provides precise margin specifications. A Torah scroll requires a one-tefach (handbreadth) bottom margin—large enough to protect the text from a reader’s arm resting on it. The top margin is three fingerbreadths, and between columns, two fingerbreadths. An individual chumash has smaller margins: three fingerbreadths below, two above, and one thumb-width between columns. These measurements distinguish between the more sacred complete Torah and individual volumes, while ensuring practical usability.
Key Terms:
- גִּלָּיוֹן (gilayon) = Margin; blank space on parchment
- טֶפַח (tefach) = Handbreadth (approximately 8-10 cm)
- אֶצְבָּע (etzba) = Fingerbreadth (approximately 2 cm)
- גּוּדָל (gudal) = Thumb-width
Segment 16
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
Spacing between lines, words, and letters
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבֵין שִׁיטָה לְשִׁיטָה כִּמְלֹא שִׁיטָה, וּבֵין תֵּיבָה לְתֵיבָה כִּמְלֹא אוֹת קְטַנָּה, וּבֵין אוֹת לְאוֹת כִּמְלֹא חוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה.
English Translation:
And the space between one line of a Torah scroll and the following line must be equal to the space of a full line, and the space between one word and the following word must be equal to a full small letter, and as for the space between one letter and the following letter, it is sufficient for it to be equal to a full hairbreadth.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita now specifies micro-level spacing. Between lines: the space of a full line (ensuring double-spacing, which aids readability). Between words: the width of a small letter (like a yud), providing clear word separation without wasting space. Between letters within a word: merely a hairbreadth—enough to distinguish letters without creating ambiguity about word boundaries. These precise standards ensure consistency across all Torah scrolls and enable accurate reading.
Key Terms:
- תֵּיבָה (teivah) = Word
- אוֹת קְטַנָּה (ot ketana) = Small letter (typically referring to yud)
- חוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה (chut hasa’arah) = A hairbreadth—the smallest discernible measure
Segment 17
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
Prohibition against shrinking letters to fit margins
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַל יְמַעֵט אָדָם אֶת הַכְּתָב, לֹא מִפְּנֵי רֶיוַח שֶׁל מַטָּה, וְלֹא מִפְּנֵי רֶיוַח שֶׁל מַעְלָה, וְלֹא מִפְּנֵי רֶיוַח שֶׁבֵּין שִׁיטָה לְשִׁיטָה, וְלֹא מִפְּנֵי רֶיוַח שֶׁבֵּין פָּרָשָׁה לְפָרָשָׁה.
English Translation:
The halakhot of the margins notwithstanding, a person may not reduce the size of the writing in a manner that the size of the writing is not consistent, not in order to ensure the correct amount of space for the lower margin, nor in order to ensure the correct amount of space for the upper margin, nor in order to ensure the correct amount of space between one line and the following line, nor in order to ensure the correct amount of space between one passage and the following passage, as this is not aesthetically pleasing.
קלאוד על הדף:
Despite the importance of proper margins and spacing, a scribe may not achieve them by shrinking letters. Consistency of letter size throughout the scroll takes precedence—even over maintaining perfect margins. A Torah with inconsistent lettering is considered unsightly (and potentially confusing). The scribe must plan ahead; if he reaches the end of a column and cannot maintain margins without shrinking letters, he has erred in his layout and must find another solution.
Key Terms:
- יְמַעֵט אֶת הַכְּתָב (yema’et et haketav) = Reduce/shrink the writing
- פָּרָשָׁה (parasha) = A section or passage of the Torah
Segment 18
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
Rules for words at the end of a line
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ תֵּיבָה בַּת חָמֵשׁ אוֹתִיּוֹת – לֹא יִכְתּוֹב שְׁתַּיִם בְּתוֹךְ הַדַּף וְשָׁלֹשׁ חוּץ לַדַּף,
English Translation:
If one happens upon a word that comprises five letters and cannot be written in its entirety within the column, he may not write two letters within the column and three outside of the column, in the margin.
קלאוד על הדף:
When a five-letter word won’t fit entirely within a column, the scribe faces a dilemma. This segment establishes that he may not split it with two letters inside and three in the margin. The principle is that the majority of a word should remain within the proper column boundaries. The continuation (on amud bet) will explain that three letters inside and two outside is permitted—keeping most of the word in its proper place while allowing minimal overflow.
Key Terms:
- תֵּיבָה בַּת חָמֵשׁ אוֹתִיּוֹת = A word of five letters
Amud Bet (30b)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
Completing rules for words at line’s end
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא שָׁלֹשׁ בְּתוֹךְ הַדַּף וּשְׁתַּיִם חוּץ לַדַּף. נִזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ תֵּיבָה בַּת שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת – לֹא יִזְרְקֶנָּה לְבֵין הַדַּפִּין, אֶלָּא חוֹזֵר וְכוֹתֵב בִּתְחִילַּת הַשִּׁיטָה.
English Translation:
Rather, he should write three letters in the column and two outside of the column. If he happens upon a word that comprises two letters and cannot be written in its entirety within the column, he may not cast it in the margin between the two columns; rather, he should return and write the word at the beginning of the following line.
קלאוד על הדף:
Continuing from the previous amud, the baraita completes the rule: for a five-letter word, the majority (three letters) stays inside the column, with two extending into the margin. However, a two-letter word presents a different problem—it cannot be split at all. The scribe may not “throw” such a short word into the margin; instead, he must move the entire word to the next line. This maintains the readability and integrity of the text, ensuring words aren’t fragmented or lost in margins.
Key Terms:
- לֹא יִזְרְקֶנָּה (lo yizrekena) = May not cast/throw it (into the margin)
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא / מחלוקת תנאים
Correcting a scribe’s omission of God’s name
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַטּוֹעֶה בַּשֵּׁם, גּוֹרֵר אֶת מַה שֶּׁכָּתַב, וְתוֹלֶה אֶת מַה שֶּׁגָּרַר, וְכוֹתֵב אֶת הַשֵּׁם עַל מְקוֹם הַגְּרָר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אַף תּוֹלִין אֶת הַשֵּׁם. רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: אַף מוֹחֵק וְכוֹתֵב.
English Translation:
§ One who mistakenly omitted the name of God and wrote the next word before discovering his error should scrape off that which he wrote, and suspend the words that he scraped off above the line, and write the name of God upon the place that had been scraped; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: One may even suspend the name of God above the line, without scraping off the word that was written in its place. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Not only may one scrape off the dry ink of the next word, but one may even wipe away the word while the ink is still wet and write the name of God in its place.
קלאוד על הדף:
A critical scenario in Torah writing: the scribe accidentally skipped God’s name and wrote the next word in its place. Four tannaitic opinions emerge. Rabbi Yehuda: scrape off the errant word, suspend it above the line, and write God’s name in its proper place. Rabbi Yosei goes further: the divine name itself may be suspended above the line. Rabbi Yitzḥak permits wiping wet ink. This debate balances respect for God’s name (which cannot be erased once written) with practical correction needs.
Key Terms:
- גּוֹרֵר (gorer) = Scraping off dried ink
- תּוֹלֶה (toleh) = Suspending (writing above the line)
- מוֹחֵק (mochek) = Wiping away (wet ink)
Segment 3
TYPE: מחלוקת תנאים (המשך)
Additional views on correcting divine names
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַשֵּׁם כּוּלּוֹ תּוֹלִין, מִקְצָתוֹ אֵין תּוֹלִין. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין אֶת הַשֵּׁם לֹא עַל מְקוֹם הַגְּרָר וְלֹא עַל מְקוֹם הַמְּחָק, וְאֵין תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ. כֵּיצַד עוֹשֶׂה? מְסַלֵּק אֶת הַיְרִיעָה כּוּלָּהּ וְגוֹנְזָהּ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: A scribe may suspend the entire name of God above the line, but he may not suspend part of the name of God above the line. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A scribe may not write the name of God either upon the place that had been scraped or upon the place that had been wiped away, and he may not suspend it above the line, as none of these options exhibit sufficient respect for the name of God. What should the scribe do? He should remove the entire sheet of parchment and inter it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two more opinions add nuance. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri permits suspending the complete divine name above the line but forbids suspending only part of it—the name must remain whole. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, in Rabbi Meir’s name, takes the strictest view: no corrections involving God’s name are acceptable. The entire sheet containing the error must be removed and placed in geniza (sacred storage). This reflects the profound reverence for the divine name—better to discard parchment than compromise its dignity.
Key Terms:
- גּוֹנְזָהּ (gonzah) = Inters it; places in geniza (sacred storage for worn sacred texts)
Segment 4
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים
Amoraic rulings on correcting divine names
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיתְּמַר: רַב חֲנַנְאֵל אָמַר רַב, הֲלָכָה: תּוֹלִין אֶת הַשֵּׁם. רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל, הֲלָכָה: מוֹחֵק וְכוֹתֵב.
English Translation:
It was stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to the final halakhic ruling: Rav Ḥananel says that Rav says: The halakha is that one suspends the name of God above the line. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel says: The halakha is that one may even wipe away the word while the ink is still wet and write the name of God in its place.
קלאוד על הדף:
The amoraim now weigh in on the practical halakha. Rav Chananel transmits Rav’s ruling that one suspends God’s name above the line (following Rabbi Yosei). Rabba bar bar Chana transmits Rabbi Yitzchak bar Shmuel’s ruling that one may wipe wet ink and rewrite (following Rabbi Yitzchak). These two positions offer scribes practical options: either suspend the name or, if the ink is still wet, wipe and rewrite. The halakha does not follow the strict geniza-requirement of Rabbi Meir.
Key Terms:
- אִיתְּמַר (itmar) = It was stated—introducing amoraic rulings
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא / תירוץ
Why the amora’im stated opinions rather than citing tanna’im
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֵימָא מָר הֲלָכָה כְּמָר, וּמָר הֲלָכָה כְּמָר, מִשּׁוּם דְּאָפְכִי לְהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And why is it necessary to state the actual opinions? Let this Sage, Rav Ḥananel in the name of Rav, say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of this Sage, Rabbi Yosei; and let this Sage, Rabba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel, say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of that Sage, Rabbi Yitzḥak. The Gemara answers: Since there are those who reverse the opinions of the tanna’im, they needed to state the opinions explicitly.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a stylistic question: why did the amoraim describe the actual halakha rather than simply saying “the halakha follows Rabbi Yosei” or “Rabbi Yitzchak”? The answer reveals an important principle of transmission: some versions of the baraita have the tannaitic opinions reversed (attributed to different rabbis). To avoid confusion, the amoraim stated the substantive ruling directly rather than citing names that might be mistakenly attributed.
Key Terms:
- אָפְכִי לְהוּ (afkhi lehu) = They reverse them—referring to variant textual traditions
Segment 6
TYPE: מימרא / כלל
Rabbi Chanina’s broad endorsement of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבִין בַּר חִינָּנָא, אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי, וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי, הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ.
English Translation:
Ravin bar Ḥinnana says that Ulla says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri; and moreover, not only is the halakha in accordance with his opinion with regard to this matter, but in any place where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri taught a halakha, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion.
קלאוד על הדף:
A remarkable statement: Rabbi Chanina declares that the halakha always follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri—not just in this case, but universally! Such blanket endorsements of individual tannaim are rare, suggesting Rabbi Shimon Shezuri’s opinions were considered exceptionally reliable. This triggers an extended Gemara discussion to identify exactly which of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri’s statements this principle applies to, since other amoraim have already ruled on some of his opinions.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי = Rabbi Shimon Shezuri—a tanna whose opinions are given blanket acceptance
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
Questioning which statement the ruling applies to
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַהָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר כׇּל הַשֵּׁם כּוּלּוֹ תּוֹלִין, מִקְצָתוֹ אֵין תּוֹלִין – וְהָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב חֲנַנְאֵל אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה תּוֹלִין אֶת הַשֵּׁם, וְרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה מוֹחֵק וְכוֹתֵב.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: To which statement of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri is this referring? If we say that it is referring to the statement here, where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: A scribe may suspend the entire name of God above the line, but he may not suspend part of the name of God above the line, that is difficult: But wasn’t it stated with regard to that baraita that Rav Ḥananel says that Rav says: The halakha is that one suspends the name of God above the line, and Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel says: The halakha is that one may even wipe away the word while the ink is still wet and write the name of God in its place?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins its investigation: which of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri’s rulings does Rabbi Chanina’s endorsement apply to? Perhaps to our case about suspending God’s name? But that seems problematic—we already have explicit rulings from Rav Chananel and Rabba bar bar Chana on this matter. If Rabbi Chanina meant this case, why state it separately? This launches a systematic search through Rabbi Shimon Shezuri’s other teachings in the Talmud.
Key Terms:
- אַהֵיָיא (ahaya) = To which [teaching is this referring]?
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא (המשך)
Why the statement would be redundant
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִם אִיתַהּ, הוּא נָמֵי לֵימָא.
English Translation:
And if it is so that when Rabbi Ḥanina said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri he was referring to this matter, then let Ravin bar Ḥinnana also say along with those amora’im that the halakha is that one suspends the entire name of God above the line, but not a part of the name.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara’s logic is clear: if Rabbi Chanina’s endorsement applied to our current discussion, then Ravin bar Chinnana (who transmitted it) should have stated it alongside the other amoraic rulings rather than presenting it as a novel, general principle. The fact that he presented it separately suggests it must apply to a different teaching of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri—one that hadn’t already received an explicit halakhic ruling.
Key Terms:
- אִם אִיתַהּ (im itah) = If it is so—a conditional phrase testing the assumption
Segment 9
TYPE: הצעה / דחייה
First alternative: The pregnant cow ruling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אַהָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר אֲפִילּוּ בֶּן חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים וְחוֹרֵשׁ בַּשָּׂדֶה – שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ.
English Translation:
Rather, say that Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri was referring not to the discussion here, but was stated with regard to this mishna (Ḥullin 74b): Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: If one ritually slaughtered a pregnant cow and the calf was then removed alive, the ritual slaughter of the mother is effective with regard to the calf as well. And even if the calf is five years old and plowing the field when one wants to eat it, the earlier slaughter of its mother renders it permitted, and it does not require ritual slaughter before it is eaten.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara proposes another teaching of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri: concerning a calf removed from its slaughtered mother. His remarkable ruling is that the mother’s slaughter covers the calf permanently—even years later when the calf is a full-grown ox plowing fields, it needs no separate slaughter! This reflects the principle that the fetus is considered part of the mother (עובר ירך אמו). Perhaps Rabbi Chanina’s endorsement applies here.
Key Terms:
- שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ = Its mother’s slaughter renders it permitted
Segment 10
TYPE: דחייה
This ruling already has a halakhic decision
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי, וְאִם אִיתַהּ – הוּא נָמֵי לֵימָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But wasn’t it already stated with regard to that mishna that Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri? And if it is so that when Rabbi Ḥanina said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri he was referring to this matter, then let Ravin bar Ḥinnana also say along with Ze’eiri that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.
קלאוד על הדף:
But this suggestion is also rejected. Ze’eiri already transmitted Rabbi Chanina’s ruling on the pregnant cow case! If Ravin bar Chinnana’s statement was about this same teaching, he would have simply joined Ze’eiri’s transmission. The fact that he presents it as adding new information proves it must apply to yet another teaching of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.
Key Terms:
- זְעֵירִי (Ze’eiri) = A prominent amora who transmitted many halakhic rulings
Segment 11
TYPE: הצעה
Second alternative: The divorce of a dying man
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אַהָא: בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים הַיּוֹצֵא בְּקוֹלָר וְאָמַר ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ. חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר: אַף הַמְפָרֵשׁ וְהַיּוֹצֵא בִּשְׁיָירָא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמְסוּכָּן.
English Translation:
Rather, say that Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement was with regard to this mishna (Gittin 65b): Initially the Sages would say: With regard to one who was taken out in a collar [kolar] to be executed and said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, these people should write and give her the document. Although he did not explicitly say the word give, this is understood to have been his intention, in order to release her from the obligation to perform levirate marriage or ḥalitza. They then said that this halakha applies even to one who sets sail and one who departs with a caravan to a distant place. A bill of divorce is given to his wife under these circumstances even if her husband said only: Write a bill of divorce for my wife. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even in the case of one who is dangerously ill who gives that instruction, they write the bill of divorce and give it to his wife.
קלאוד על הדף:
Another possibility: the laws of divorce when a husband is in mortal danger. Originally, if a condemned man (led by a collar to execution) said “write a divorce for my wife,” we infer he wants it delivered too. The Sages extended this to travelers on dangerous journeys. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri added: even a dangerously ill person’s instruction to “write” implies “give.” This protects women from being trapped in marriages (or requiring chalitza) if their husbands die.
Key Terms:
- קוֹלָר (kolar) = A collar or yoke placed on condemned prisoners
- מְסוּכָּן (mesukan) = Dangerously ill person
Segment 12
TYPE: הצעה נוספת
Third alternative: Teruma of demai
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי נָמֵי אַהָא: תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי שֶׁחָזְרָה לִמְקוֹמָהּ, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אַף בַּחוֹל שׁוֹאֲלוֹ וְאוֹכְלוֹ עַל פִּיו.
English Translation:
Alternatively, Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement was with regard to this halakha: In the case of teruma of the tithe of demai, which is separated from the produce received from an am ha’aretz, who is suspected of not separating tithes properly, that returned to its original place, i.e., it became mixed with the produce from which it had been separated, Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: In this situation, not only did the Sages permit one to ask the am ha’aretz whether he had set aside his tithes in the proper manner and to rely on his response on Shabbat, a day when it is not permitted to separate tithes, but one may ask him and eat based on his statement even on a weekday.
קלאוד על הדף:
A third teaching of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri concerns produce of uncertain tithing status (demai). If the separated teruma accidentally mixed back in, can one ask the am ha’aretz (common person suspected of lax tithing) if he actually tithed? On Shabbat, when one cannot tithe, asking is permitted out of necessity. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri extends this: one may ask and rely on the answer even on weekdays. His leniency reflects practical reality—better to rely on an imperfect witness than leave produce unusable.
Key Terms:
- דְּמַאי (demai) = Produce of uncertain tithing status
- עַם הָאָרֶץ (am ha’aretz) = A common person suspected of not tithing properly
Segment 13
TYPE: דחייה
These rulings already have decisions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי בִּמְסוּכָּן וּבִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי, וְאִם אִיתָא – הוּא נָמֵי לֵימָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But wasn’t it already stated with regard to those mishnayot that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri in the case of one who is dangerously ill, and in the case of teruma of the tithe of demai? And if it is so that when Rabbi Ḥanina said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri he was referring to these mishnayot, then let Ravin bar Ḥinnana also say along with Rabbi Yoḥanan that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.
קלאוד על הדף:
But Rabbi Yochanan already ruled on both the dangerously ill person and the demai cases! He explicitly stated that halakha follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri in both. So if Ravin bar Chinnana’s statement applied to either of these, he would have cited Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling rather than presenting it as novel information. The search continues for an as-yet-unruled teaching of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן = One of the greatest amoraim of Eretz Yisrael
Segment 14
TYPE: הצעה
Fourth alternative: Cowpea plants and tithing years
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אַהָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן כִּיפָּר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי: פּוֹל הַמִּצְרִי שֶׁזְּרָעוֹ לְזֶרַע, מִקְצָתוֹ הִשְׁרִישׁ לִפְנֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וּמִקְצָתוֹ אַחַר רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה – אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין תּוֹרְמִין וּמְעַשְּׂרִין לֹא מִן הֶחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן וְלֹא מִן הַיָּשָׁן עַל הֶחָדָשׁ.
English Translation:
Rather, say that Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement was made with regard to this halakha: Rabbi Yosei ben Keifar says in the name of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri: If one planted a cowpea plant for its seed, i.e., not to be eaten as a vegetable but for one to either eat or plant its seeds, and some of the plants took root before Rosh HaShana, while some of them took root only after Rosh HaShana, one may not separate teruma or tithes from this for that, as one may not separate teruma or tithes from the new crop for the old or from the old crop for the new.
קלאוד על הדף:
Another teaching concerns agricultural timing. Cowpea plants (Egyptian beans) planted around Rosh Hashanah may have some roots that took hold before the new year and others after. Since teruma and tithes must be separated from produce of the same year, one cannot tithe from this mixed batch for other produce. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri’s teaching acknowledges this practical problem—the farmer cannot know exactly which plants rooted when.
Key Terms:
- פּוֹל הַמִּצְרִי (pol haMitzri) = Egyptian beans/cowpea
- הִשְׁרִישׁ (hishrish) = Took root
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ / הוראה מעשית
The practical solution: mixing the stock
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה, צוֹבֵר גׇּרְנוֹ לְתוֹכוֹ, וְנִמְצָא תּוֹרֵם וּמְעַשֵּׂר מִן הֶחָדָשׁ שֶׁבּוֹ עַל הֶחָדָשׁ שֶׁבּוֹ, וּמִן הַיָּשָׁן שֶׁבּוֹ עַל הַיָּשָׁן שֶׁבּוֹ.
English Translation:
How, then, shall one act so that he not err and set aside teruma and tithes incorrectly? It is difficult to know when the plants took root. He shall pile the entire stock onto his threshing floor, into the middle of it, mix the stock together, and then separate teruma and tithes; and consequently it will turn out that he has separated teruma and tithes from the new crop in the mixture for the new crop in it, and from the old crop in the mixture for the old crop in it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon Shezuri provides an elegant solution: mix everything together on the threshing floor, then separate tithes. Since the teruma is proportionally taken from the whole pile, it will automatically contain the right proportion of “old” produce for the old portion and “new” for the new. This legal fiction (בילבול) solves the impossible task of tracking individual plants’ rooting dates. It demonstrates Rabbi Shimon Shezuri’s practical, problem-solving approach to halakha.
Key Terms:
- צוֹבֵר גׇּרְנוֹ (tzover gorno) = Piles his threshing floor; mixes the stock
- גֹּרֶן (goren) = Threshing floor
Segment 16
TYPE: דחייה
This ruling also already has a decision
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי, וְאִם אִיתָא – הוּא נָמֵי לֵימָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it already stated with regard to that baraita that Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri? And if it is so that when Rabbi Ḥanina said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri he was referring to this baraita, then let Ravin bar Ḥinnana also say along with Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.
קלאוד על הדף:
Yet again, this teaching already has an explicit ruling! Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani transmitted Rabbi Yochanan’s decision that halakha follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri regarding the cowpea mixing solution. The search pattern is now clear: we need a teaching of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri that has NOT yet received an amoraic halakhic ruling.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי = A prominent Babylonian amora
Segment 17
TYPE: מסקנה
Final answer: The chest and wine cases
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אַשִּׁידָּה, רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: אַיַּיִן, רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר:
English Translation:
Rather, Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement was with regard to a chest. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that it was with regard to wine. The Gemara elaborates: Rav Pappa said
קלאוד על הדף:
Finally, after ruling out all the previously-decided cases, the Gemara identifies the target: Rav Pappa suggests it concerns a “chest” (שידה), while Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says it concerns “wine.” The daf breaks off here (continuing on the next page), but these refer to other teachings of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri—likely regarding purity or other matters—that had not yet received explicit halakhic rulings. This demonstrates the Gemara’s meticulous method of identifying precisely where a general principle applies.
Key Terms:
- שִׁידָּה (shidah) = A chest or box (context continues on next daf)
- יַיִן (yayin) = Wine (context continues on next daf)