1) WHERE THE “HALACHAH” FOLLOWS R. SHIMON SHEZURI

(a) Answer #5 (Rav Papa): He said this (the Halachah follows R. Shimon Shezuri here and in all places) concerning the Mishnah about a chest.
(b) Answer #6 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): He said this concerning the Mishnah about wine.
(c) (The Mishnah concerning a chest – Beis Shamai): (Wooden vessels are equated to a sack, they are Mekabel Tum’ah only if they are moved when empty and when full – this excludes a vessel whose volume is at least 40 Sa’im.) We measure the volume of the interior;
(d) Beis Hillel say, we measure the volume from the outside (i.e. the walls are included);
(e) R. Yosi says, all agree that (Shitah Mekubetzes – not only the walls, but even) the volume of the legs and rims themselves is included;
1. The volume between the legs or within the rims is not included.
(f) R. Shimon Shezuri says, if the legs are a Tefach tall (they are important, they are not Batul to the chest), what is between them is not included; if they are less than a Tefach, what is between them is included.
(g) (The Mishnah concerning wine – R. Meir): Oil is a drink, (therefore, by Rabbinic decree) whenever it is Tamei, it is a Rishon l’Tum’ah (Tosfos – this entire Mishnah refers to liquids that congealed);
(h) Chachamim say, even honey is a drink;
(i) R. Shimon Shezuri says, even wine is a drink.
(j) Question: Do the previous Tana’im say that wine is not a drink?!
(k) Correction: Rather, R. Shimon Shezuri says, wine is a drink (but not oil or honey).
(l) (Beraisa – R. Shimon Shezuri) Version #1: Once, Tevel became mixed with (a greater quantity of) Chulin; R. Tarfon told me to buy in the market (Demai, from an Am ha’Aretz), and to separate Ma’aser from it on the Tevel in the mixture;
1. (Because Tevel is the minority, mid’Oraisa it is Batul, the mixture is Chulin;) R. Tarfon holds that the majority of Amei ha’Aretz take Ma’aser, therefore mid’Oraisa, Demai is also exempt, he tithes from what is exempt on what is exempt (the obligation to take Ma’aser on both of these is only mid’Rabanan).
(m) Question: Why didn’t R. Tarfon tell him to buy from a Nochri? (His produce is also exempt mid’Oraisa!)
(n) Answer: R. Tarfon holds that even if a Nochri buys land in Eretz Yisrael, it retains its Kedushah, the produce must be tithed mid’Oraisa, one may not separate from what is liable to exempt produce that is exempt (mid’Oraisa).
(o) Version #2: R. Tarfon told him to buy produce from a Nochri, and to separate from it on the Tevel in the mixture;
1. He holds that if a Nochri buys land in Eretz Yisrael, it loses its Kedushah, the produce is exempt from tithes (mid’Oraisa), he tithes from what is exempt on what is exempt.
(p) Question: Why didn’t R. Tarfon tell him to buy Demai?
(q) Answer: R. Tarfon does not hold that the majority of Amei ha’Aretz take Ma’aser, rather, it is like an even doubt, Ma’aser must be taken mid’Oraisa, one may not separate from what is liable to exempt produce that is exempt.
(r) (Rav Yemar bar Shalmiya): (Ravin bar Chinena taught that the Halachah follows R. Shimon Shezuri in all places – does this include this Beraisa?
(s) Answer (Rav Papa): Yes.
(t) Question (Mar Zutra citing R. Chanina of Sura): Why was Rav Yemar unsure – Ravin did not say, the Halachah always follows R. Shimon Shezuri in the Mishnah – he said, in all places!
31b—————————————31b
2) A TEAR IN THE PARCHMENT

(a) (Rav Ze’ira): If a tear in the parchment goes through two lines, it may be fixed; if it goes through three lines, it may not be fixed;
(b) (Rabah Zuti): A tear through three lines may not be fixed in an old parchment (Rashi – because it does not look nice; Nimukei Yosef – because it is prone to tear again), in a new parchment it may be fixed;
1. It does not depend just on old or new;
2. Version #1 (Rashi): Rather, if the parchment was Afitzan (processed with gallnuts), it is dark, this is like an old parchment; if it was not Afitzan, this is like new.
3. Version #2 (Nimukei Yosef): Rather, if the parchment was Afitzan, it is strong, like a new parchment; if it was not Afitzan, this is like old.
(c) A tear must be fixed with sinews, not with thread.
(d) Question (Rav Yehudah bar Aba): What if the tear is between columns or between lines?
(e) This question is not resolved.
3) THE SHAPE OF THE WRITING IN A “MEZUZAH”
(a) (R. Ze’iri): If two words were written on every line of a Mezuzah, it is Kosher;
(b) Question: What if two words were written on a line, three on the next, and one on the next?
(c) Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): All the more so this is Kosher, for (there is a precedent for this -) this is like a Shirah (a part of the Torah in which parts of the lines are left blank).
(d) Question (Beraisa): If text that should be written normally was written like a Shirah, or vice-versa, this is Pasul.
(e) Answer: That refers to a Sefer Torah, but in a Mezuzah it is Kosher.
(f) (Rabah bar bar Chanah): If two words were written on a line, three on the next, and one on the next, it is Kosher;
1. If it was written like Kubah (1,2,3, it gets progressively wider) or a tail (3,2,1) it is Pasul.
(g) (Rav Chisda): “Al ha’Aretz” (the last two words) must be (the only words) on the last line.
1. Some say that it should be at the end of the line, some say that it should be at the beginning of the line;
2. The first opinion learns from “Chi’Gvo’ah Shamayim Al ha’Aretz” – “Al ha’Aretz” should be at the end of the line, in order that it will be right underneath the previous two words “Ki’Mei ha’Shamayim”;
3. The second opinion intends to maximize the distance between “Al ha’Aretz” and “Ki’Mei ha’Shamayim” (the blessing is that our days will be as great as this distance).
(h) (R. Chelbo): I saw Rav Huna roll his Mezuzah from “Echad” (which is towards the end of the first line, i.e. from the left) towards Shma (on the right); the Parshiyos were *closed*. (In an *open* break between Parshiyos, there is a large space extending to the end of the line).