Menachot Daf 31 (מנחות דף ל״א)
Daf: 31 | Amudim: 31a – 31b | Date: 9 Shevat 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (31a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Identifying Rabbi Shimon Shezuri’s ruling — the chest case
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַשִּׁידָּה, דִּתְנַן: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים נִמְדֶּדֶת מִבִּפְנִים, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים מִבַּחוּץ, וּמוֹדִים אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין עוֹבִי הָרַגְלַיִים וְעוֹבִי הַלְּבִזְבְּזִין נִמְדָּד.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara continues its search for the case where Rabbi Ḥanina ruled that the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri. This segment proposes it relates to measuring a large wooden chest for ritual impurity purposes. A chest holding 40 se’a is too large to be considered a “vessel” and thus cannot become impure. The debate between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerns whether to measure interior or exterior volume — with practical implications for whether a borderline-sized chest can contract impurity.
Key Terms:
- שִׁידָּה (Shidah) = A large wooden chest or storage container
- אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה (Arba’im Se’a) = Forty se’a — the volume threshold above which a wooden vessel is not susceptible to impurity
- לְבִזְבְּזִין (Levazbazin) = Decorative rims or edges on furniture
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri’s positions on measuring
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מוֹדִים שֶׁעוֹבִי הָרַגְלַיִים וְעוֹבִי הַלְּבִזְבְּזִין נִמְדָּד, וּבֵינֵיהֶן אֵין נִמְדָּד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיוּ רַגְלַיִם גְּבוֹהוֹת טֶפַח – אֵין בֵּינֵיהֶן נִמְדָּד, וְאִם לָאו – בֵּינֵיהֶן נִמְדָּד.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon Shezuri introduces a nuanced distinction: the space beneath the chest (between the legs and the ground) only counts as part of the chest’s volume if the legs are less than a tefach high. If the legs are a full handbreadth or more, that space has independent significance and is not included. This practical distinction determines whether borderline-sized chests are susceptible to impurity. The Gemara identifies this as one possible case where Rabbi Ḥanina rules the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.
Key Terms:
- טֶפַח (Tefach) = A handbreadth — approximately 8-10 cm
- בֵּינֵיהֶן (Beineihen) = The space between [the legs]
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Alternative identification — the wine case
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak proposes an alternative case: the status of wine for ritual impurity purposes. The discussion concerns which liquids, when they become impure, are always elevated to first-degree impurity (a stringency). Rabbi Meir says only oil; the Rabbis add honey; Rabbi Shimon Shezuri adds wine. The Gemara reinterprets Rabbi Shimon Shezuri’s position — he may actually disagree about oil and honey while agreeing about wine.
Key Terms:
- תְּחִלָּה (Techila) = First-degree impurity — the highest level of derived impurity
- שֶׁמֶן (Shemen) = Oil
- דְּבַשׁ (Devash) = Honey
- יַיִן (Yayin) = Wine
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Shimon Shezuri’s personal story about mixed produce
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment introduces a fascinating personal anecdote from Rabbi Shimon Shezuri. He accidentally mixed untithed produce (tevel) with tithed produce (chulin). When he asked Rabbi Tarfon what to do, he received surprising advice: buy doubtfully-tithed produce from the market and use that to separate tithes. This works because once the untithed minority is nullified in the tithed majority, the entire mixture is only rabbinically obligated in tithes.
Key Terms:
- טֶבֶל (Tevel) = Untithed produce — forbidden to eat until tithes are separated
- חוּלִּין (Chulin) = Non-sacred/tithed produce — permitted for consumption
- נִתְעָרֵב (Nit’arev) = Became mixed together
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Explaining Rabbi Tarfon’s reasoning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קָסָבַר דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּרוּבָּא בָּטֵל, וְרוֹב עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ מְעַשְּׂרִים הֵן, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּתוֹרֵם מִן הַפְּטוּר עַל הַפְּטוּר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara unpacks the legal logic behind Rabbi Tarfon’s advice. Two key principles are at work: (1) by Torah law, a minority is nullified in a majority, so the tevel mixed into chulin is Biblically exempt; (2) most amei ha’aretz actually do tithe, so market produce is also Biblically exempt. Both are only rabbinically obligated. Therefore, one can separate from rabbinically-obligated produce for rabbinically-obligated produce.
Key Terms:
- דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא (De’oraita) = By Torah law
- בְּרוּבָּא בָּטֵל (Be’ruba batel) = Nullified in the majority
- עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ (Amei Ha’aretz) = Those unreliable regarding tithing
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
Why not buy from a gentile?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: ״לֵךְ קַח מִן הַגּוֹי״, קָסָבַר: אֵין קִנְיָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיעַ מִיַּד מַעֲשֵׂר, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ מִן הַחִיּוּב עַל הַפְּטוּר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rabbi Tarfon’s advice: why not simply buy from a gentile, whose produce is only rabbinically obligated? The answer reveals a significant halachic principle — Rabbi Tarfon holds that a gentile’s purchase of land in Eretz Yisrael does not remove the land’s sanctity. Therefore, produce grown on gentile-owned land is still Biblically obligated in tithes, making it unsuitable for this purpose.
Key Terms:
- אֵין קִנְיָן לְגוֹי (Ein Kinyan Le’goy) = A gentile has no [effective] acquisition
- לְהַפְקִיעַ (Lehafki’a) = To abrogate/remove
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Alternative version — buying from a gentile
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לֵךְ קַח מִן הַגּוֹי״, קָסָבַר יֵשׁ קִנְיָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיעַ מִיַּד מַעֲשֵׂר, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ מִן הַפְּטוּר עַל הַפְּטוּר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presents an alternative version of Rabbi Tarfon’s advice: he actually told Rabbi Shimon Shezuri to buy from a gentile. This version holds the opposite principle — a gentile’s land purchase does remove the Biblical obligation to tithe. Both versions agree on the underlying logic: one must separate from rabbinically-obligated produce for rabbinically-obligated produce.
Key Terms:
- יֵשׁ קִנְיָן לְגוֹי (Yesh Kinyan Le’goy) = A gentile does have [effective] acquisition
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
Challenging the alternative version
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: ״קַח מֵהַשּׁוּק״, קָסָבַר: אֵין רוֹב עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ מְעַשְּׂרִין.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tests the alternative version: if Rabbi Tarfon advised buying from a gentile, why not advise buying from the market instead? The answer: in this version, Rabbi Tarfon holds that most amei ha’aretz do not tithe, so market produce is Biblically obligated and cannot be used. This shows how the two versions disagree on two distinct points: gentile land acquisition and am ha’aretz tithing practices.
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Question about the scope of Rabbi Ḥanina’s ruling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya poses a crucial question: does Rabbi Ḥanina’s sweeping endorsement of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri apply only to his Mishnaic teachings, or also to his statements in baraitot? The case of mixed tevel and chulin appears in a baraita, not the Mishna. This question has practical implications for how broadly we apply Rabbi Shimon Shezuri’s authority.
Segment 10
TYPE: מסקנא
Confirming the broad application
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲמַר לִי מָר זוּטְרָא, קָשֵׁי בַּהּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא: פְּשִׁיטָא!
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa confirms: the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri even in baraita cases. Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura finds the question obvious — the phrase “any place where he taught” clearly includes all sources, not just the Mishna. This establishes Rabbi Shimon Shezuri’s unique status: his opinions carry blanket authority across all Tannaitic literature.
Amud Bet (31b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Clarifying the scope of the ruling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִי קָאָמַר בְּמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ? ״כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנָה״ קָאָמַר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara makes the point explicit: Rabbi Ḥanina’s formulation “any place where he taught” (כל מקום ששנה) deliberately uses broad language. If he meant only Mishna, he would have said “in our Mishna” (במשנתינו). This linguistic precision confirms that Rabbi Shimon Shezuri’s authority extends to all his teachings.
Segment 2
TYPE: מימרא
Rav’s ruling on tears in Torah scrolls
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara transitions to laws of Torah scroll repair. Rav establishes a threshold: tears extending through two lines can be sewn, but tears through three lines cannot. Rava qualifies this — the restriction applies only to old parchment. New parchment can be sewn even with longer tears. This distinction recognizes that old parchment is more likely to tear further after repair.
Key Terms:
- קֶרַע (Kera) = A tear
- שִׁיטִין (Shitin) = Lines [of text]
- יִתְפּוֹר (Yitpor) = One may sew
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Defining old and new parchment
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלָא עַתִּיקָתָא עַתִּיקָתָא מַמַּשׁ, וְלָא חַדְתָּתָא חַדְתָּתָא מַמַּשׁ, אֶלָּא הָא דְּלָא אֲפִיצָן, הָא דַּאֲפִיצָן, וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּגִידִין, אֲבָל בִּגְרָדִין – לָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara clarifies the terminology: “old” and “new” refer not to age but to processing method. Parchment processed with gall (a tanning agent) is more durable and labeled “new.” Unprocessed parchment is labeled “old” because it degrades more easily. Additionally, only sinew may be used for sewing — thread is unacceptable for Torah scroll repair.
Key Terms:
- עַתִּיקָתָא (Atiktata) = Old [parchment]
- חַדְתָּתָא (Chadtata) = New [parchment]
- אֲפִיצָן (Afitzan) = Processed with gall
- גִּידִין (Gidin) = Sinews
- גְּרָדִין (Gradin) = Thread
Segment 4
TYPE: בעיא
Unresolved question about tears between columns
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר אַבָּא: בֵּין דַּף לְדַף, בֵּין שִׁיטָה לְשִׁיטָה, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda bar Abba raises an interesting question: what if a tear occurs in the margins — between columns or between lines — but is long enough that it would have crossed three lines had it been in the text area? Since no actual text is affected, perhaps the restriction doesn’t apply. The question remains unresolved (teiku), leaving this as a matter of doubt.
Key Terms:
- בֵּין דַּף לְדַף (Bein Daf Le’daf) = Between column and column
- תֵּיקוּ (Teiku) = The question stands [unresolved]
Segment 5
TYPE: מימרא
Writing a mezuza two words per line
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
§ 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 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara shifts to mezuza formatting. Rav rules that writing two words per line is acceptable. The question arises about irregular line lengths (2-3-1 words) — mimicking the poetic format of the Song at the Sea. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak permits this for a mezuza, even though such formatting is forbidden in a Torah scroll. Different rules apply to different sacred texts.
Key Terms:
- מְזוּזָה (Mezuza) = Doorpost scroll
- שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם (Shtayim Shtayim) = Two by two [words per line]
- כְּשִׁירָה (Ke’shira) = Like a poem/song
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yochanan’s mezuza ruling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan confirms the flexibility in mezuza formatting but adds two restrictions: the mezuza cannot be shaped like a tent (progressively widening) or like a tail (progressively narrowing). These shapes would be aesthetically inappropriate for a sacred text. The alternating pattern (2-3-1) is acceptable because it doesn’t create a uniform geometric shape.
Key Terms:
- כְּקוּבָּה (Ke’kuba) = Like a tent [shape]
- כְּזָנָב (Ke’zanav) = Like a tail [shape]
Segment 7
TYPE: מימרא
Placement of “al ha’aretz”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: ״עַל הָאָרֶץ״ בְּשִׁיטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה, אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בְּסוֹף שִׁיטָה, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בִּתְחִלַּת שִׁיטָה.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda establishes that “al ha’aretz” (the final words of the mezuza) must appear on the last line by themselves. A dispute exists about placement: should these words be at the end of the line or the beginning? This becomes significant in the next segment where the reasoning is explained.
Key Terms:
- עַל הָאָרֶץ (Al Ha’aretz) = “Upon the earth” — the final words of the mezuza
- שִׁיטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה (Shita Acharona) = The final line
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Explanation of the placement dispute
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאן דְּאָמַר בְּסוֹף שִׁיטָה, כִ״גְבֹהַּ שָׁמַיִם עַל הָאָרֶץ״, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּתְחִילַּת שִׁיטָה, כִּי הֵיכִי דִּמְרַחֲקָא שָׁמַיִם מֵאֶרֶץ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dispute reflects two different understandings of the verse’s metaphor. One view emphasizes that heaven is “above” the earth — so “al ha’aretz” should be directly below “hashamayim” (at line’s end). The other view emphasizes that heaven is “distant from” the earth — so “al ha’aretz” should be far from “hashamayim” (at line’s beginning). The physical layout of the mezuza reflects theological interpretation.
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Huna’s mezuza practices
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ: חֲזֵינָא לֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא דְּכָרֵיךְ לַהּ מֵ״אֶחָד״ כְּלַפֵּי ״שְׁמַע״, וְעוֹשֶׂה פָּרָשִׁיּוֹתֶיהָ סְתוּמוֹת.
English Translation:
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 on the same line that he finished writing the first passage.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Chelbo reports Rav Huna’s practice: when rolling the mezuza, he rolled from “echad” toward “Shema” (left to right). He also wrote the two parshiyot in the “closed” (setumah) format — starting the second passage on the same line where the first ends, with only a small gap between them. This contrasts with “open” (petucha) format where a new passage begins on a fresh line.
Key Terms:
- כָּרֵיךְ (Kareich) = Wrap/roll
- סְתוּמוֹת (Setumot) = Closed [paragraph format]
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge from Rabbi Meir’s practice
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: רַבִּי מֵאִיר הָיָה כּוֹתְבָהּ עַל דּוּכְסוּסְטוֹס כְּמִין דַּף,
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rav Huna’s practice by citing Rabbi Meir’s different approach: Rabbi Meir wrote mezuzot on dokhsostos (inner hide layer) in a long, narrow column format like a Torah scroll. This seems to contradict the flexible formatting rules discussed earlier. The sugya is cut off here, but the tension between different valid practices is clear.
Key Terms:
- דּוּכְסוּסְטוֹס (Dokhsostos) = Inner layer of animal hide
- כְּמִין דַּף (Kemin Daf) = Like a column [of a Torah scroll]