(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


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 the middle.

(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 Aliyah).

(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 eight Pesukim?

(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 was crying).

(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 it first.

(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).
2. ... as few as three Amudim on a large parchment - because then the eye tends to skip lines.
(c) The width of a Amud, measured by words - ought to accommodate three times the word "le'Mishpechoseichem".

(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 ...
2. ... and between two Amudim - a thumb-breadth.
(c) Between two ...
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 Amud.

(b) Nor does the Beraisa permit making a line small because the space in between ...

1. ... it and the line above or below it will be too narrow ...
2. ... or because the space between that Parshah and the next one is too narrow.
(c) If there is not sufficient room on the line to accommodate a word of ...
1. ... five letters - one may not write two letters inside the Sirtut (the lines that mark the Amud), and three letters outside it.
2. ... two letters - one may not write it outside the Sirtut (in spite of the previous ruling).
(d) In the ...
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 name appears.

(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 Yibum).

(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 cases.

(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).

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,