Menachot 31a — the Talmud in English

Rav Pappa said: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

It is a chest, as we learned

in tractate Kelim:

The chest,

which is a large box: how is it measured if it contains more than forty seah, and thereby exits the status of a vessel and does not become impure?

Beit Shammai say: It is measured from within,

if there is in its interior above forty seah.

And Beit Hillel say:

It is measured

from outside,

for the thickness of the boards of its walls also joins the volume of its inner space to the measure of more than forty seah.

And both these and those agree that the thickness of the legs

upon which the chest stands—which is greater than the thickness of the boards—and also not

the thickness of the levazbezin

[the frame around the mouth of the chest].

Rabbi Yosei says: They agree

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel

that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the levazbezin

indeed

is measured,

but the air that is

between them,

between the legs,

is not measured!

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: If the legs

of the chest are

higher

than the floor

a handbreadth,

which is a significant space in itself,

the

air

between them

of the legs is not measured together with it,

but if not,

that the legs of the chest were lower than a handbreadth, then also the air

between them is measured

and joins the measure of more than forty seah!

The Gemara further explains where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri spoke about wine.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: About wine:

As we learned

in tractate Tohorot:

Rabbi Meir says: Oil

is like the other liquids that receive impurity; therefore, if it became impure even from something that is second-degree impurity, it is of the degree of first-degree impurity, because the Sages decreed concerning liquids that they should be

“first” forever!

And the Sages say: Even honey

is considered a liquid, and concerning it too the Sages decreed that even if it became impure from a second-degree impurity, it is “first” forever.

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even wine

is a liquid, and its degree of impurity is “first” forever.

And we raise a difficulty:

By implication,

that Rabbi Shimon Shezuri added to the words of the first tanna that even wine is considered a liquid, it follows

that the first tanna

himself

holds

that

wine is not

considered a liquid. But this is astonishing: is it possible that someone would hold that wine is not a liquid?

And we answer:

Say: Rabbi Shimon says: Wine

alone is a liquid [even when it is congealed!], excluding oil and honey, which are not liquids when they are congealed! And concerning this Ravin bar Hinena said in the name of Ulla that Rabbi Hanina ruled in this matter in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri: specifically congealed wine becomes “first,” but not congealed oil and honey. [See Tosafot, which establish the beraita as dealing with congealed matter!]

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon Shezuri said: Once tevel became mixed for me

completely

with

prepared non-sacred produce, and by Torah law the tevel is nullified in the majority of the non-sacred produce, except that the Sages decreed that tevel that became mixed with a majority of non-sacred produce is, by rabbinic enactment, liable for terumot and tithes. 68 .

And he cannot separate from the mixture itself, for prepared non-sacred produce is in it, and it is impossible to separate on its account; and perhaps the tevel and the non-sacred produce were not mixed in equal measure. 69 .

And I came and asked Rabbi Tarfon

how to rectify the mixture.

And he said to me: Take for yourself from the market

demai produce from an ignoramus,

and tithe from it!

And we explain:

He holds

that Rabbi Shimon Shezuri holds that tevel

by Torah law is nullified in the majority,

and the obligation of tithes from the mixture is only rabbinic; and with regard to produce from the market,

the majority of ignoramuses tithe,

and therefore the produce taken from an ignoramus is liable for terumot and tithes only by rabbinic law,

and it is

the one separating from the demai for the mixture

like one who offers teruma from what is exempt

by Torah law and is liable by rabbinic law

for what is exempt

by Torah law and is liable by rabbinic law. 70 .

And we examine the matter: there is another way to rectify the mixture. Let him say to him,

And we examine this: but there is another way to rectify the mixture,

and let him say to him

Rabbi Tarfon:

Go, take

produce

from a gentile,

whose produce is exempt by Torah law and liable by rabbinic law!?

And we answer:

He holds

Rabbi Tarfon

that a gentile’s acquisition in the Land of Israel does not take away

the sanctity of the Land

from

the obligation of

tithe

of its produce, and therefore produce purchased from a gentile is complete tevel by Torah law, and he cannot separate from it for the mixture, whose obligation is only rabbinic, because

it is

like one separating

from what is liable for what is exempt!

[And see Tosafot concerning the threshing of a gentile, which must exempt it.]

There are those who say

thus

he said to him

Rabbi Tarfon to Rabbi Shimon Shezuri:

Go, take

produce

from a gentile!

And we explain:

He holds

Rabbi Tarfon

that a gentile’s acquisition in the Land of Israel does take away the obligation of tithe, and it is

this separation, a separation

from what is exempt for what is exempt.

And we examine this:

And let him say to him: Take

produce

from the market,

from an ignoramus, for it would be a separation from what is exempt by Torah law for what is exempt by Torah law.

And we answer:

He holds that the majority of ignoramuses do not tithe

and perhaps the one who sold him the produce did not tithe, so it would be liable by Torah law, while the tevel mixed into the mixture is exempt by Torah law. And this would be a separation from what is liable for what is exempt.

Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya sent to Rav Pappa

the following question:

This that Ravin bar Hinena said that Ulla said that Rabbi Hanina said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri; and not only that, but everywhere that Rabbi Shimon Shezuri taught, the halakha is in accordance with him!

Is it the case that

also when tevel became mixed with non-sacred produce

we rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri?

He said to him: Yes,

also in this matter the halakha is in accordance with him!

Rav Ashi said: Mar Zutra said to me: Rav Hanina of Sura raised a difficulty concerning this

he raised a difficulty about this

Rav Hanina of Sura,

what was the question of Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya?

It is obvious

that also in this matter we rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.