Menachot 31a (לא.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Pappa said:

Regarding 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 se'a, thereby losing the status of a keli and no longer becoming impure?

Beit Shammai say: It is measured from within,

if its interior contains more than forty se'a.

And Beit Hillel say:

It is

measured from outside,

as the thickness of the boards of its walls also joins the volume of its inner space to reach a measure of more than forty se'a.

And both agree that the thickness of the legs

on which the chest stands, whose thickness is greater than that of the boards, is not included, and neither is the

thickness of the levazbezin

[the frame surrounding the opening of the chest].

Rabbi Yosei says: They agree

that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel

include the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the levazbezin

as

measured,

except that the air

between them,

between the legs,

is not measured!

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: If the legs

of the chest are

higher

than the floor by

a handbreadth,

which is a significant space in its own right,

the

air

between them

of the legs is not measured together with it;

but if not,

meaning that the legs of the chest are lower than a handbreadth, then the air

between them is measured

and joins the measure to make more than forty se'a!

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

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Regarding wine:

As we learned

in tractate Tohorot:

Rabbi Meir says: Oil

is like the other liquids that contract ritual impurity. Therefore, if it becomes impure even through contact with something that is second-degree impure, it is at the level of first-degree impurity, because the Sages decreed that liquids should be

“first” forever!

And the Sages say: Even honey

is considered a liquid, and the Sages likewise decreed concerning it that even if it becomes impure through something that is second-degree impure, it is “first” forever.

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even wine

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

And we raise an objection:

By inference,

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

that the first tanna

himself

held

that

wine is not

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

And we answer:

Say instead: Rabbi Shimon says: Wine

alone is a liquid [even when congealed!], excluding oil and honey, which are not liquids when congealed! Concerning this, Ravin bar Ḥinena said in the name of Ulla that Rabbi Ḥanina ruled in this matter in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri: specifically congealed wine becomes “first,” but congealed oil and honey do not. [See Tosafot, who establish that the beraita is referring to congealed substances!]

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon Shezuri said: Once my fully

untithed produce

became mixed with

properly tithed non-sacred produce, and by Torah law the untithed produce is nullified in the majority of the non-sacred produce, except that the Sages decreed that untithed produce mixed with a majority of non-sacred produce remains rabbinically obligated in terumot and ma'asrot 68 .

And he could not separate from the mixture itself, since it contains properly tithed non-sacred produce, for which one cannot separate, and perhaps the untithed and non-sacred produce were not mixed in equal proportions 69 .

And I came and asked Rabbi Tarfon

how to rectify the mixture.

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

demai produce from an am ha'aretz,

and tithe from it!

And we explain:

He holds

that Rabbi Shimon Shezuri considers untithed produce

nullified by the majority by Torah law,

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

most ammei ha'aretz tithe,

and therefore the produce taken from an am ha'aretz is obligated in terumot and ma'asrot only rabbinically. Thus,

it is

the person separating from the demai for the mixture

like one who separates from an exempt item

by Torah law, while being rabbinically obligated,

for an exempt item

by Torah law, while being rabbinically obligated 70 .

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

Rabbi Tarfon should have said:

Go, take

produce

from a gentile,

whose produce is exempt by Torah law but obligated rabbinically!?

And we answer:

He holds

that Rabbi Tarfon maintains:

A gentile's acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael does not remove

the sanctity of the Land

from

the obligation of

tithe

on its produce. Therefore, produce purchased from a gentile is fully untithed produce by Torah law, and one cannot separate from it for the mixture, whose obligation is only rabbinic, because

it is

like one who separates

from an obligated item for an exempt item!

[See Tosafot concerning the threshing of a gentile's produce, which must exempt it.]

Some say

this is what

he said to him

Rabbi Tarfon said to Rabbi Shimon Shezuri:

Go, take

produce

from a gentile!

And we explain:

He holds

that Rabbi Tarfon maintains:

A gentile's acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael does remove the obligation of tithe, and it is

this separation, a separation

from an exempt item for an exempt item.

And we examine the matter:

Why did he not say to him: Take

produce

from the marketplace

from an am ha'aretz, since this would be a separation from an item exempt by Torah law for an item exempt by Torah law?

And we answer:

He holds that most ammei ha'aretz do not tithe,

and perhaps the person who sold him the produce had not tithed it, in which case it would be obligated by Torah law, while the untithed produce mixed into the mixture is exempt by Torah law. This would therefore be a separation from an obligated item for an exempt item.

Rav Yeimar bar Shelemya sent to Rav Pappa

the following question:

Regarding that which Ravin bar Ḥinena said in the name of Ulla, who said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri; and not only that, but wherever Rabbi Shimon Shezuri taught, the halakha follows him!

Does this mean that

also when his untithed produce became mixed with non-sacred produce,

we rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri?

He said to him: Yes,

the halakha follows him in this case as well!

Rav Ashi said: Mar Zutra said to me: Rav Ḥanina of Sura raised a difficulty

concerning this;

it is obvious

that we rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri in this case as well.