ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 30
MENACHOS 30 - anonymously dedicated by an Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah in
Baltimore, Maryland, formerly of Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
(a) The second Tiyuvta we ask on Rav concerns his statement permitting a
Sofer to conclude the Seifer-Torah in the middle of the Amud. The Beraisa -
instructs the Sofer to ensure that he concludes the Torah at the foot of the
Amud, by tapering the lines as he approaches the end.
(b) We reconcile Rav with the Beraisa however - by confining his statement
to the Chumashim (Bereishis, Sh'mos ... ), which the Tana himself permits
finishing in the middle of the Amud?
(c) When Rav said 'Seifer-Torah', he was referring to the Chumashim in the
Seifer-Torah (with the exception of Seifer Devarim).
(a) We reconcile the statement of Rebbi Yehoshua bar Aba ... Amar Rav
'le'Einei Kol Yisrael be'Emtza ha'Daf' with the previous statement - by
establishing the former (not with regard to the middle of the page, as we
explained until now but) to the middle of the line.
(b) According to the Rabbanan, with this last ruling, Rav means 'even in the
middle of the line'. But Rav Ashi interprets it to mean - specifically in
(c) The Halachah is - specifically in the middle of the line, like Rav Ashi.
(a) According to Rebbi Yehoshua bar Aba ... Amar Rav - the last eight
Pesukim in the Torah must be read by one person (i.e. may comprise only one
(b) Rebbi Yehudah (or Rebbi Nechemyah) in a Beraisa comments that the Pasuk
"Va'yamas Sham Moshe Eved Hashem", recording his death - could not have been
written by Moshe, It (together with the remaining seven Pesukim) must
therefore have been written by Yehoshua.
(c) The objection Rebbi Shimon raises to that, based on the Pasuk "Lako'ach
es Seifer-ha'Torah ha'Zeh ... " is - how Moshe could refer to 'this
Seifer-Torah' (implying that it was complete), when it was still missing
(a) Rebbi Shimon therefore explains - that Moshe wrote the last eight
Pesukim too, only a. he did not verbalize them before writing them (as he
did the rest of the Torah), and b. he wrote them with tears (or whilst he
(b) And he proves from the Pasuk "Va'yomer Lahem Baruch, mi'Piv Yikarei
Eilai es ha'Devarim ha'Eileh, va'Ani Kosev al ha'Seifer bi'Deyo" - that when
writing something that is heart-breaking, it is not necessary to verbalize
(c) In spite of the fact that, according to Rebbi Shimon, Moshe wrote the
entire Torah, we can nevertheless reconcile Rebbi Shimon with Rebbi Yehoshua
bar Aba ... Amar Rav's statement - because, since it was different in one of
the two above-mentioned ways, its Din differs too.
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua bar Aba ... Amar Rav also compares someone who purchases
a Seifer-Torah from the market, to someone who grabs a Mitzvah from the
market. But someone who writes one however - he considers as if he had
received it directly from Har Sinai.
(b) Rav Sheishes adds that if someone corrects even one letter of a
Seifer-Torah - it is as if he had written it.
(a) The Beraisa gives the minimum number of Amudim per Yeri'ah (folio) as
three, the maximum - as eight.
(b) One should not write ...
1. ... as many as eight Amudim on a small Yeri'ah however - because then it
resembles a letter (which is written is this way).
(c) The width of a Amud, measured by words - ought to accommodate three
times the word "le'Mishpechoseichem".
2. ... as few as three Amudim on a large parchment - because then the eye
tends to skip lines.
(d) If a Sofer wrote a Yeri'ah of nine Amudim, he should cut it - into two
Yeri'os, comprising four and five Amudim (rather than three and six), since
this is a more even division.
(a) The Tana qualifies the previous ruling, confining it to the beginning of
the Seifer, but at the end (regarding the last Yeri'ah) - he permits even
one Pasuk or one Amud, if that is how it works out.
(b) The Tana's statement 'Afilu Pasuk Echad, va'Afilu be'Daf Echad' is
incorrect - inasmuch as it clashes with what we learned earlier, that the
Seifer-Torah must conclude at the foot of the page, and how can one Pasuk
possibly fill an entire Yeri'ah?
(c) So we amend it to - 'Afilu Pasuk Echad be'Daf Echad'.
(d) One must leave a space of a Tefach at the foot of the page - and ...
1. ... one of three Etzba'os (half a Tefach) on top of the page ...
2. ... and of two Etzba'os finger-breadths) between two Amudim.
(a) A 'Chumash' is - any of the five Books.
(b) One is obligated to leave a space at the foot of the Amud of a Chumash
of three Etzba'os ...
1. ... on top of the page - two ...
(c) Between two ...
2. ... and between two Amudim - a thumb-breadth.
1. ... lines - one leaves a space, the width of a line.
2. ... words - one the width of a small letter (a 'Yud').
3. ... letters - one the width of a hair's-breadth.
(a) The Beraisa then prohibits making the writing of the top line small in
order to accommodate the space on top of the Amud, or making the writing of
the bottom line small in order to accommodate the space at the foot of the
(b) Nor does the Beraisa permit making a line small because the space in
1. ... it and the line above or below it will be too narrow ...
(c) If there is not sufficient room on the line to accommodate a word of ...
2. ... or because the space between that Parshah and the next one is too
1. ... five letters - one may not write two letters inside the Sirtut (the
lines that mark the Amud), and three letters outside it.
(d) In the ...
2. ... two letters - one may not write it outside the Sirtut (in spite of
the previous ruling).
1. ... former case" - one should write three letters inside the Sirtut, and
two letters outside it. And ...
2. ... the latter case - one should write the word on the next line.
(a) If the Sofer omitted the Name of Hashem, Rebbi Yehudah requires him to
scratch out the word that he wrote - and to re-write it above the line,
inserting the Name of Hashem where the other word had been.
(b) Rebbi Yossi permits him - to suspend the name of Hashem above the line.
(c) Rebbi Yitzchak permits even 'Mochek ve'Kosev' - which means to wipe away
the ink whilst it is still wet and write the Name of Hashem in the space,
whereas 'Gorer ... ve'Kosev' (which Rebbi Yehudah permits) means scraping
away the ink after it has dried ... .
(d) Rebbi Shimon Shezuri permits suspending the full Name of Hashem, but not
part of it. Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar is the most stringent of all -
permitting none of the above options, when it comes to the Name of Hashem.
According to him, if one erred regarding the Name of Hashem, one is
obligated to remove the entire Yeri'ah and place it in Sheimos.
(a) Rav Chananel Amar Rav rules Tolin es 'Hashem'. Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar
Rebbi Yitzchak bar Shmuel rules - 'Mochek ve'Kosev'.
(b) They did not rule like Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Yitzchak respectively -
because some opinions switch the opinions of the two Tana'im.
(c) Ravin bar Chinena Amar ... Rebbi Chanina rules like Rebbi Shimon Shezuri
adding - that what's more, the Halachah is like Rebbi Shezuri wherever his
(d) Rebbi Chanina cannot be referring to Rebbi Shimon Shezuri in our Sugya -
because why did he not then voice his opinion when Rav Chananel Amar Rav
argued with Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yitzchak bar Shmuel?
(a) So we suggest that Rebbi Chanina is referring to Rebbi Shimon Shezuri's
ruling regarding a ben Peku'ah - an animal fetus that is found to be alive
after the mother has been Shechted.
(b) Rebbi Shimon Shezuri rules there - that even five years later, when the
ben Peku'ah is plowing in the field, it may be eaten (without Shechitah), on
the basis of its mother's Shechitah.
(c) We are forced to retract from that too, as we shall see. So we try the
Mishnah in T'vul-Yom, where the Tana Kama adds to the case of a prisoner who
is being taken out to be killed, someone who goes overseas and who joins a
caravan traveling abroad. In all three cases, the Tana Kama rules that if
the man declared 'Kisvu Get le'Ishti' - one follows his instructions, even
though he did not say 'Kisvu u'Tenu' because we assume that all three really
mean what they say, because they want to avoid their wives having to make
(d) Rebbi Shimon Shezuri adds - a case of a man on his death-bed.
(a) Or perhaps he is referring to the Mishnah in D'mai, where Rebbi Shimon
Shezuri permits Terumas Ma'aser shel D'mai (one hundredth) which fell into
the crops from which it was separated - on the mere testimony of the
Am-ha'Aretz from whom he bought it (and who claims that he Ma'asered it).
(b) The Reisha of the Mishnah permits someone who buys fruit from an Am
ha'Aretz, and who forgot to Ma'aser it as D'mai before Shabbos arrived, to
eat it on Shabbos (due to the Mitzvah of Oneg Shabbos), based on the
testimony of the seller that it is Ma'asered - because Chazal prohibited the
separation of Ma'asros on Shabbos.
(c) Come Motza'ei Shabbos however - the purchaser may no longer rely on the
Am-ha'Aretz's testimony, since there is nothing to stop him from Ma'asering
the crops then.
(d) Rebbi Shimon Shezuri is more lenient regarding 'Terumas Ma'aser shel
D'mai she'Chazrah li'Mekomah' than in the Reisha - because, since one in a
hundred is not Bateil, the crops would otherwise be totally forbidden.
(e) We reject the previous three suggestions, as well as the one that
follows - because if Rebbi Chanina was referring to any of them, then he
ought to have issued his ruling in conjunction with Ze'iri Amar Rebbi
Chanina, Rebbi Yochanan or Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan
respectively, who specifically ruled like Rebbi Shimon Shezuri in those
(a) Our final rejected suggestion is the Beraisa where Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar
quotes Rebbi Shimon Shezuri concerning Egyptian (haricot) beans which were
sown for the seeds (making them a legume), part of which took root before
Rosh Hashanah, and part, afterwards. The problem with this is - that Rosh Ha
shanah determines the new year for Ma'asros (dividing those that took root
before it and those that take root after it), and it is forbidden to Ma'aser
from one's year's crops on to another year's crops, so there is no way that
one can possibly Ma'aser them directly.
(b) There would be no problem if they were sown for eating - because that
would make them a vegetable, and the year for vegetables is determined by
the time of picking (and not by when they took root).
(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Shezuri solves the problem - by suggesting that one
mixes them together thoroughly and separates one lot of Ma'asros, assuming
(since D'mai is mi'de'Rabbanan) that the Ma'asros that he took contained
beans from this year's crop and beans from last year's crop, in proportion
to the respective total crops.
(d) There too, Rebbi Chanina ought to have joined forces with Rebbi Shmuel
bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan, as we already explained. Rav Papa
therefore concludes that Rebbi Chanina is referring to 'Shidah'. According
to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, he is referring to 'Yayin' (both of which are
about to be explained).