Chullin

It must therefore be that his ancestors left something undone whereby he [Hezekiah] might distinguish himself; so in my case, my ancestors left room for me to distinguish myself. From this is to be learnt that whenever a scholar reports a decision [however strange it may sound], he should not be made to move [mezihin] from his tradition. Others say. He should not be rejected [maznihin]. And others say: He should not be regarded as arrogant [mazhihin]. Those who say. He should not be made to move from his tradition, base it on the verse. And the breastplate be not moved [yizzah] from the ephod.1 Those who say: He should not be rejected, base it on the verse: For the Lord will not reject [yiznah] for ever.2 And those who say. He should not be regarded as arrogant, base it on the following:3 For we learnt: When the arrogant increased, disputes increased in Israel.4 To this, Judah, son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi, demurred: Is there anyone who holds the view that Bethshean was not part of Palestine? Is it not written: And Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Bethshean and its towns, nor of Taanach and its towns?5 — [When he raised his objection] there must have escaped his attention the statement of R. Simeon b. Eliakim who reported R. Eleazar b. Pedath in the name of R. Eleazar b. Shammu'a [as follows]: Many cities which were conquered by the Israelites who came up from Egypt6 were not re-conquered by those who came up from Babylon,7 for he held the view that the consecration of the Holy land on the first occasion [by Joshua] consecrated it for the time being but not for the future. They therefore did not annex these cities in order that the poor might have sustenance therefrom in the Seventh Year. 8 R. Jeremiah said to R. Zera: But R. Meir ate a mere leaf [of a vegetable]!9 — He replied: He ate it from a bundle, and we have learnt: Vegetables which are usually tied in bundles [become due for tithing] on being tied up.10 But perhaps R. Meir forgot [to tithe it]? — [This cannot be.] Surely, if the Holy One, Blessed be He, would not permit the beast of the righteous to sin in error, how much less the righteous themselves! But perhaps he set aside from other produce the tithe due for this [Vegetable]! — One would not suspect a haber of setting aside the dues for the produce that is before us out of produce that is not before us.11 But perhaps he had in mind to set aside the tithe from one end of the bundle, whilst he ate from the other end! — He replied: See how great a man testified concerning this! 12 What was the incident about the beast of the righteous? — Once, R. Phinehas b. Jair was on his way to redeem captives, and came to the river Ginnai. ‘O Ginnai’ , said he, ‘divide thy waters for me, that I may pass through thee’. It replied. ‘Thou art about to do the will of thy Maker; I, too, am doing the will of my Maker.13 Thou mayest or mayest not accomplish thy purpose;14 I am sure of accomplishing mine’. He said: ‘If thou wilt not divide thyself, I will decree that no waters ever pass through thee’. It, thereupon, divided itself for him. There was also present a certain man who was carrying wheat for the Passover, and so R. Phinehas once again addressed the river: ‘Divide thyself for this man, too, for he is engaged in a religious duty’. It, thereupon, divided itself for him too. There was also an Arab who had joined them [on the journey], and so R. Phinehas once again addressed the river, ‘Divide thyself for this one, too, that he may not say. "Is this the treatment of a fellow traveller?"’ It, thereupon, divided itself for him too. R. Joseph exclaimed: How great is this man! Greater than Moses and the sixty myriads of Israel! For the latter [the sea divided itself] but once, whilst for the former thrice! May it not be, however, for the former also only once?15 — Rather say. As great as Moses and the sixty myriads of Israel! R. Phinehas happened to come to a certain inn. They placed barley before his ass, but it would not eat. or by a passage from the Mishnah. exiles, and therefore those towns which were not included in the re-consecration were not part of Palestine. Bethshean was one of the cities not included. Palestine were purposely not included in the re-consecration of the land so that these might be cultivated even in the seventh year. permitted even in Palestine without first tithing it. There is, therefore, no proof that Bethshean was regarded as being outside Palestine. which he relies, may have been destroyed at the time that he purports to set it aside as tithe, and he would therefore be eating untithed produce. certainly be relied upon in his testimony. should remain parted and not resume their natural course.