Menachot 31

Sugya Map

The sugya on Menachot 31a presents a tripartite structure, each segment exploring a distinct halakhic domain and the authority of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.

• I. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri's Authority & Scope:

  • Issue: What is the scope of Rabbi Ḥanina's ruling that halakha k'Rabbi Shimon Shezuri? Specifically, does it extend to baraitot or only mishnayot? The Gemara first offers two interpretations of Rabbi Ḥanina's original statement regarding Rabbi Shimon Shezuri's opinion in specific cases.
  • Nafka Mina(s):
    • The practical halakha regarding the measurement of a shidah (chest) for ritual impurity, particularly concerning the inclusion of legs and rims.
    • The halakha regarding the tum'at status of liquids (oil, honey, wine), specifically whether wine is considered a liquid that can transmit tumat rishon.
    • The halakha regarding tevel (untithed produce) mixed with chulin (tithed produce), and the permissibility of tithing from demai (doubtfully tithed produce) or produce from a gentile. The core nafka mina here is whether the halakha k'Rabbi Shimon Shezuri applies to his statement in a baraita concerning bitul b'rov (nullification in a majority) for tevel.
  • Primary Sources: Menachot 31a; Mishna Kelim 18:1; Mishna Teharot 3:2; a baraita quoted on Menachot 31a concerning Rabbi Shimon Shezuri's ma'aseh with Rabbi Tarfon.

• II. Dinei Sofrim – Torah Scroll & Mezuzah Repairs/Formatting:

  • Issue: The permissible extent of repairing a torn sefer Torah parchment and the appropriate formatting for writing a mezuza.
  • Nafka Mina(s):
    • The kasherut of a sefer Torah after repair (sewing a tear).
    • The kasherut of a mezuza with non-uniform line lengths.
  • Primary Sources: Menachot 31a.

• III. Dinei Sofrim – Mezuzah Specifics:

  • Issue: Precise halakhot for the physical writing and preparation of a mezuza, including the placement of specific words and the wrapping method.
  • Nafka Mina(s):
    • The kasherut or hiddur of a mezuza based on the placement of "על הארץ."
    • The correct method of wrapping a mezuza scroll.
    • The kasherut of parshiyot petuchot/setumot in a mezuza.
  • Primary Sources: Menachot 31a; Devarim 6:4-9 ("שמע ישראל"); Devarim 11:13-21 ("והיה אם שמוע"); Devarim 11:21 ("על הארץ").

Text Snapshot

Our focus here illuminates the precise dikduk and leshon nuances in the sugya's discussion of mezuzah writing, especially regarding line formatting and the placement of "על הארץ."

• Mezuzah Line Formatting:

  רַבִּי זְעֵירָא אוֹמֵר רַב חֲנַנְאֵל אוֹמֵר רַב: מְזוּזָה שֶׁכְּתָבָהּ שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם — כְּשֵׁרָה. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שְׁתַּיִם שָׁלשׁ וְאַחַת מַאי? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: כֹּל שֶׁכֵּן, דְּאִיקְפַּד בָּהּ כְּשִׁירָה. מֵיתִיבֵי: כְּתָבָהּ כְּשִׁירָה, אוֹ כָּתַב שִׁירָה כְּשִׁירָה — פְּסוּלָה. כְּשֶׁהִיא מַתְנִיתָא, בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה הִיא.

  (Menachot 31a)

  • Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The Gemara uses the term "כשירה" (like a poem/song) in two contexts:
    1. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak's assertion: "דְּאִיקְפַּד בָּהּ כְּשִׁירָה" (that he prepared it as a poem). Here, "איקפד" implies a deliberate, artistic arrangement, akin to the unique poetic structure of Shir HaYam. Rav Naḥman sees this as a hiddur or at least permissible.
    2. The baraita's objection: "כְּתָבָהּ כְּשִׁירָה, אוֹ כָּתַב שִׁירָה כְּשִׁירָה — פְּסוּלָה." This uses "כשירה" to refer to the Shir HaYam (Song of the Sea, Shemot 15) itself, and states that writing any text (even the Shir HaYam) in that specific poetic format is pasul (invalid) if done improperly, or implies that writing a mezuza in the style of a poem is invalid. The Gemara's resolution hinges on distinguishing between the halakhot of a Sefer Torah and a mezuza.

• "על הארץ" Placement:

  וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: "עַל הָאָרֶץ" — בְּשׁוּרָה אַחֲרוֹנָה. יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: בְּסוֹף הַשּׁוּרָה. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: בְּרֹאשׁ הַשּׁוּרָה.

  (Menachot 31a)

  • Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The dispute revolves around the interpretation of the phrase "כִּימֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם עַל הָאָרֶץ" (Devarim 11:21).
    1. "בְּסוֹף הַשּׁוּרָה": This aligns with the interpretation of "כְּדֶרֶךְ הַשָּׁמַיִם שֶׁהֵם גְּבוֹהִים עַל הָאָרֶץ" (Menachot 31a), implying a vertical alignment or hierarchy. Placing "על הארץ" at the end of the line, beneath "השמים" from the previous line (if it were the final word), visually represents the heavens being "above" the earth.
    2. "בְּרֹאשׁ הַשּׁוּרָה": This aligns with "כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַשָּׁמַיִם מְרוּחָקִים מִן הָאָרֶץ" (Menachot 31a), emphasizing the distance between heaven and earth. Placing "על הארץ" at the beginning of the new line, far from "השמים" of the preceding line, visually reinforces this spatial separation. The subtle dikduk of "על" (upon/above) and its contextual meaning within the simile is central to the machloket.

Readings

Rashi – Unpacking the Literal and Figurative

Rashi, as always, provides the foundational understanding of the sugya, elucidating both the literal meaning of the terms and the underlying logic of the Amoraim's interpretations.

• On Mezuzah Line Formatting: Rashi clarifies that "שתים שתים" (two by two) means "שתי תיבות בכל שורה" (two words on each line)¹. When Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says "כֹּל שֶׁכֵּן, דְּאִיקְפַּד בָּהּ כְּשִׁירָה" (all the more so, as he prepared it as a poem), Rashi explains "כשירה" as "כצורת השירה הכתובה בתורה דהיינו שירת הים" (like the form of the song written in the Torah, which is Shir HaYam)². He further clarifies that "דרך כתיבת שירה הוא שאין כל השורות שוות" (the way of writing a song is that not all lines are equal)³. This highlights the aesthetic intention behind Rav Naḥman's terutz. When the baraita objects, stating "כְּתָבָהּ כְּשִׁירָה...פְּסוּלָה" (if one wrote it like a poem...it is invalid), Rashi reiterates that "כשירה" refers to "כמין שירה שאין כל השורות שוות" (a type of poem where not all lines are equal)⁴. Rashi's chiddush here is providing the lexical key to understand "כשירה" as referring specifically to the irregular, poetic format of Shir HaYam, rather than a generic poem, setting the stage for the Gemara's distinction between Sefer Torah and mezuza.

• On "על הארץ" Placement: For the phrase "על הארץ בשורה אחרונה" (Menachot 31a), Rashi identifies the source verse as "והארכת ימים על האדמה וגו'" (Devarim 11:21)⁵. He then explains the two interpretations for its placement:

  1. "בסוף השורה": This reflects the understanding of the verse "כדרך השמים שהם גבוהים על הארץ" (just as the heavens are high above the earth)⁶. Rashi here hints at a visual-spatial representation, where the word "ארץ" would ideally be positioned "below" "שמים" from the preceding line.
  2. "בראש השורה": This reflects "כדרך שהשמים מרוחקים מן הארץ" (just as the heavens are distant from the earth)⁷. Here, Rashi emphasizes the separation aspect, meaning the words "על הארץ" should be spatially removed from the words "השמים" of the previous line. Rashi's chiddush is articulating the precise drashot that underpin the Amoraic dispute, showing how dikduk and biblical exegesis drive halakhic practice in safrut.

Tosafot – Deconstructing the Shidah

While the immediate sugya branches into Dinei Sofrim, the initial discussion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri's authority begins with the mishna in Kelim 18:1 regarding a shidah (chest). Tosafot on Menachot 31a (s.v. שידה דתנן) engages in a detailed lomdishe analysis of Rashi's definition of a shidah.

Rashi, following the Kuntres in Shabbat 44a, defines a shidah as a "מרכבת נשים" (a women's carriage)⁸. Tosafot raises a significant kushya: If it's a women's carriage, it should be susceptible to tum'at midras (impurity through pressure from a zav or zava). Objects specifically designated for human use are susceptible to midras impurity, even if they are pashutei klei eitz (simple wooden vessels)⁹. If it's midras, it should also be susceptible to tum'at met (impurity from a corpse), as "כל המיטמא מדרס מיטמא טמא מת" (anything susceptible to midras impurity is also susceptible to tum'at met)¹⁰. However, the mishna in Kelim 18:2 explicitly states that a shidah provides protection in an ohel ha'met (tent of a corpse), implying it is tahor (ritually pure) and does not contract tum'at met¹¹. This contradiction is stark.

Tosafot offers several terutzim to reconcile this:

1. Alternative Definition: Perhaps a shidah is primarily "עשויה להניח בה כלים" (made to place vessels within it)¹². This would remove it from the category of midras.
2. Nature of Midras: Even if used for transporting people, it might not be considered midras because it's not "עבידא להיות נשען עליה" (made for leaning upon), but rather "ללכת ממקום למקום" (to go from place to place)¹³. This is akin to ashkinash (a type of large shoe or platform) which is tahor from midras because it's not made for the hana'at midras (benefit of leaning/sitting), but for walking¹⁴.
3. Large Vessels: In the case of a sfinah (ship), which is also mentioned in Kelim as being tahor if it holds 40 se'ah, Tosafot suggests it refers to "ספינות גדולות שעיקרן עשויות לתת לתוכן פרקמטיא" (large ships whose primary purpose is to carry merchandise)¹⁵, not primarily for human transport.

Tosafot's chiddush lies in its rigorous challenge to Rashi's interpretation, demonstrating how a seemingly straightforward definition can have far-reaching halakhic implications across different massekhtot. By questioning the shidah's function, Tosafot refines our understanding of what constitutes a keli susceptible to tum'at midras and ultimately preserves the consistency of halakha.

Friction

The Kushya: "כשירה" in Mezuzah vs. Sefer Torah

The strongest kushya in the sugya arises from the apparent contradiction regarding the "כשירה" (poetic) writing style for a mezuza. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak asserts that a mezuza written with varied line lengths (2-3-1 words per line) is "כֹּל שֶׁכֵּן, דְּאִיקְפַּד בָּהּ כְּשִׁירָה" (all the more so, as he prepared it as a poem), implying this is a valid, perhaps even preferred, method¹⁶. This directly clashes with a baraita which objects: "מֵיתִיבֵי: כְּתָבָהּ כְּשִׁירָה, אוֹ כָּתַב שִׁירָה כְּשִׁירָה — פְּסוּלָה" (They raised an objection: If one wrote it like a poem, or wrote a poem like a poem – it is invalid)¹⁷.

This kushya is potent because it presents a clear s'tira (contradiction) from a baraita, a source of tannaitic authority, against an Amoraic ruling. The baraita seems to unequivocally declare such a writing style pasul, regardless of whether it's a mezuza or the Shir HaYam itself. If "כשירה" refers to the irregular line structure, then Rav Nachman's lenient ruling for mezuzot is directly challenged. How can a style that is praised by one Amora be deemed invalid by a tannaitic source?

The Terutz: Distinguishing Sacred Contexts

The Gemara resolves this kushya with a concise, yet profound terutz: "כְּשֶׁהִיא מַתְנִיתָא, בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה הִיא" (When that baraita is taught, it is referring to a Sefer Torah)¹⁸.

This terutz introduces a critical halakhic distinction between a Sefer Torah and a mezuza. The baraita's stricture against writing "כשירה" applies only to a Sefer Torah, where the standard is one of rigid uniformity and specific, prescribed layouts for poetic sections like Shir HaYam (Shemot 15) and Shirath Ha'Azinu (Devarim 32). In a Sefer Torah, any deviation from the precise column and line structure, unless explicitly mandated for a poetic form, invalidates the scroll. The baraita is therefore prohibiting writing any text in a Sefer Torah in an irregular "poetic" style, except for the Shir HaYam itself, and even then only in its exact traditional format.

For a mezuza, however, the halakhic standard is more lenient. While a mezuza must be written with kavanah and according to specific halakhot of safrut, it does not carry the same stringency regarding line breaks and aesthetic uniformity as a Sefer Torah. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's statement thus reflects the acceptable, even hiddur-level, practice for a mezuza, where variations in line length are not only permitted but can be seen as a form of artistic expression ("איקפד בה כשירה"), so long as they don't form problematic shapes like a "tent" or "tail" (as the sugya later clarifies)¹⁹.

This terutz is a classic example of resolving apparent contradictions by identifying different halakhic categories and standards based on the object's sanctity and function. The Sefer Torah, read publicly and embodying the entire Torah, demands greater precision and uniformity. The mezuza, a private scroll for a doorway, has a different, albeit still sacred, set of requirements.

Intertext

The sugya on Menachot 31a, particularly concerning Dinei Sofrim for mezuzot and Sifrei Torah, finds rich parallels and cross-references in both Tanakh and Sifrei Halakha.

Tanakh: The Poetic Forms

The very notion of writing "כשירה" (like a poem) directly references the unique formatting found in Tanakh itself, specifically Shir HaYam (Shemot 15:1-19) and Shirath Ha'Azinu (Devarim 32:1-43). These passages are traditionally written with distinctive brick-like or half-brick-like patterns in a Sefer Torah, deviating from the standard column format.

• The Gemara's discussion of "כשירה" in relation to the baraita implies that while Shir HaYam is written poetically, other parts of the Torah are not. The baraita thus prohibits applying this special format indiscriminately.
• The verses of the mezuza themselves, Shema Yisrael (Devarim 6:4-9) and Vehaya Im Shamoa (Devarim 11:13-21), are the core text. The dispute over "על הארץ" (Devarim 11:21) highlights how even the smallest dikduk in a biblical phrase can inform a halakhic practice of safrut. The comparison to "כִּי כִּגְבֹהַּ שָׁמַיִם עַל הָאָרֶץ" (Psalms 103:11) to justify the placement of "על הארץ" demonstrates the use of gezeira shavah or smichut parshiyot in a homiletic sense to derive halakhic nuance, even if not a formal drasha.

Shulchan Aruch: Codification of Practice

The Amoraic discussions in Menachot 31a are directly codified in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 36, which deals with the laws of mezuzah.

• Varied Line Lengths: The psak on varied line lengths in a mezuza is found in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 36:10:

  מְזוּזָה שֶׁכְּתָבָהּ שְׁתֵּי תֵּיבוֹת בְּשׁוּרָה, וְשָׁלֹשׁ וְאַחַת, כְּשֵׁרָה. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִכְתְּבֶנָּה כְּמִין אֹהֶל, אוֹ כְּמִין זָנָב. (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 36:10) This directly reflects the sugya's conclusion that such varied line lengths are kosher, with the added caveat from the Amoraim (Rabba bar bar Hana/Rav Aha bar bar Hana in the name of Rabbi Yochanan) that it should not form a "tent" (progressively widening) or a "tail" (progressively narrowing) shape²⁰. This demonstrates how the Gemara's initial leniency is adopted into halakha, tempered by concerns for aesthetic integrity and hiddur mitzvah.

• "על הארץ" Placement: The machloket regarding the placement of "על הארץ" is also codified, with a definitive psak:

  יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים, שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין עַל הָאָרֶץ בְּשׁוּרָה לְבָדָהּ, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: בְּסוֹף הַשּׁוּרָה. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: בְּרֹאשׁ הַשּׁוּרָה. וְהַהֲלָכָה כְּסְבָרָא הָאַחֲרוֹנָה, שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין בְּרֹאשׁ הַשּׁוּרָה. (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 36:10) The Shulchan Aruch rules in accordance with the opinion that "על הארץ" should be written at the beginning of the final line, reflecting the interpretation of the heavens being "distant" from the earth. This shows how the Amoraic debates, rooted in peshat and drash, are distilled into practical halakha.

Psak/Practice

The sugya on Menachot 31a lands in practical halakha primarily concerning Dinei Sofrim for mezuzot and Sifrei Torah, as codified in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 36 and Yoreh De'ah 274.

1. Mezuzah Line Lengths: The psak is that a mezuza with varied line lengths (e.g., two words, then three, then one) is kosher (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 36:10). This reflects the Gemara's terutz that the strictures against "כשירה" writing apply only to a Sefer Torah, not a mezuza. However, a crucial limitation is added from the Amoraic discussion: the lines must not progressively widen to form a "tent" (ohel) or progressively shorten to form a "tail" (zanav)²¹. This indicates a meta-psak heuristic: while mezuzot are more lenient than Sifrei Torah in some aspects of safrut, an excessive deviation that creates an unnatural or visually distinct shape is still problematic, possibly due to hiddur mitzvah or avoiding dmei'in (appearing like something else).

2. Placement of "על הארץ": The Shulchan Aruch rules that l'chatchila (ideally), the words "על הארץ" (Devarim 11:21) should be written at the beginning of the final line of the mezuza²². This follows the opinion that interprets the phrase "כִּימֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם עַל הָאָרֶץ" as emphasizing the distance between heaven and earth. The Mishnah Berurah further clarifies that while this is the preferred method, if it was written at the end of the line, the mezuza is still kosher b'dieved (valid post-facto)²³. This illustrates how Amoraic machloket can result in a l'chatchila preference in halakha without necessarily invalidating other opinions b'dieved.

3. Distinction between Sefer Torah and Mezuzah: The fundamental meta-psak heuristic derived is the differential halakhic stringency between a Sefer Torah and a mezuza. Halakhot of safrut are generally stricter for a Sefer Torah due to its comprehensive sanctity, public reading, and representational status of the entire Torah. A mezuza, while holy, has a more limited scope and function, leading to certain leniencies in its writing parameters. This principle allows for seemingly contradictory tannaitic and amoraic statements to coexist by applying them to different halakhic categories.

Takeaway

The sugya on Menachot 31a masterfully demonstrates how halakha is meticulously crafted from textual nuance and Amoraic debate, with a keen eye for distinctions between sacred objects. It underscores that even minute details in Dinei Sofrim are often rooted in profound scriptural interpretations and contribute to the profound mesorah of our texts.

---

¹ Rashi, Menachot 31a s.v. שתים שתים. ² Rashi, Menachot 31a s.v. כשירה (איקפד בה כשירה). ³ Rashi, Menachot 31a s.v. איקפד בה כשירה. ⁴ Rashi, Menachot 31a s.v. כתבה כשירה. ⁵ Rashi, Menachot 31a s.v. על הארץ בשורה אחרונה. ⁶ Rashi, Menachot 31a s.v. כדרך השמים. ⁷ Rashi, Menachot 31a s.v. כדרך שהשמים. ⁸ Tosafot, Menachot 31a s.v. שידה דתנן. ⁹ See Bekhorot 38a regarding midras susceptibility. ¹⁰ Niddah 49b. ¹¹ Mishna Kelim 18:2, brought in Menachot 31a. ¹² Tosafot, Menachot 31a s.v. שידה דתנן. ¹³ Tosafot, Menachot 31a s.v. שידה דתנן. ¹⁴ Shabbat 66a; Rashi, ibid. s.v. אשקינש. ¹⁵ Tosafot, Menachot 31a s.v. שידה דתנן. ¹⁶ Menachot 31a. ¹⁷ Menachot 31a. ¹⁸ Menachot 31a. ¹⁹ Menachot 31a. ²⁰ Menachot 31a; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 36:10. ²¹ Menachot 31a; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 36:10. ²² Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 36:10. ²³ Mishnah Berurah, Orach Chaim 36:10, s.k. 19.