Menachot

but three in the column and two outside.1 If [when he has come to the end of the line] he has to ‘write a word of two letters, he may not insert it between the columns but must write the word at the beginning of the next line. If [the scribe] omitted the Name of God [and had already written the next word], he should erase the word that was written and insert it above the line, and should write the Name upon the erasure. This is the opinion of R. Judah. R. Jose says, He may even insert the Name above the line. R. Isaac says, He may even wipe away2 [the word that was written] and write [the Name in its place]. R. Simeon of Shezur says, He may write the whole Name above the line but not a part of it. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says in the name of R. Meir, He may write the Name neither upon an erasure nor upon a word that has been wiped away, neither may he insert it above the line. What must he do then? He must remove the whole sheet and hide it away. It was stated: R. Hananel said in the name of Rab, The halachah is that he may insert the Name above the line. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Isaac b. Samuel, The halachah is that he may wipe away [the written word] and write [the Name in its place]. Why does not R. Hananel say that the halachah follows this Master,3 and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah say that it follows the other Master?4 — Because there is another reading which reverses the names. 5 Rabin b. Hinena said in the name of ‘Ulla who had it from R. Hanina, The halachah is in accordance with R. Simeon of Shezur.6 Moreover, wherever R. Simeon of Shezur stated his view the halachah is in accordance with it. In what connection was this ruling [of R. Hanina] stated? Should you say in connection with the above: ‘R. Simeon of Shezur says, He may write the whole Name above the line but not a part of it’; but since it has been reported in that connection that R. Hananel said in the name of Rab, The halachah is that he may insert the Name above the line, and that Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Isaac b. Samuel, The halachah is that he may wipe away [the written word] and write [the Name in its place], if then [R. Hanina's ruling was stated in connection with the above Baraitha], he should have also stated his view [together with the others]!7 — Rather it was stated in connection with the following: ‘R. Simeon of Shezur says, Even if it8 is five years old and is ploughing in the field it is still rendered clean by reason of the slaughtering of its dam’.9 But since it was reported in that connection that Ze'iri said in the name of R. Hanina, The halachah follows R. Simeon of Shezur, if this were so then he also should have said it there!10 — Rather it was stated in connection with the following: At first it was held: If a man whilst being led out in chains [to execution] said, ‘Write out a bill of divorce for my wife’, it was to be written and also to be delivered to her.11 Later they laid down that the same rule applied to one who was leaving on a sea journey or setting out with a caravan. R. Simeon of Shezur says, It also applies to a man who was dangerously ill. Or [it was stated] in connection with the following:12 If the terumah13 which had been separated from the tithe of demai13 produce fell back into its place,14 R. Simeon of Shezur says, Even on a weekday one need only ask [the seller] about it and eat it by his word.15 But since it was reported in that connection that R. Johanan said, The halachah follows R. Simeon of Shezur in the case of ‘The dangerous ill man’ and in ‘The terumah separated from the tithe of demai produce’,16 if this were so then he too should have said it there. — Rather it was stated in connection with the following: R. Jose b. Kippar says in the name of R. Simeon of Shezur, If Egyptian beans had been sown only for seed17 and part of them had taken root before the New Year and part after the New Year, one may not then separate terumah and the tithes from one part on behalf of the other, for one may not separate terumah and tithes from new produce on behalf of the old or from old produce on behalf of the new. What then should one do? One should collect the whole crop into one heap [and then separate the terumah and the tithes from it], so that the new produce in the terumah or tithe would be deemed to be taken in respect of the new produce that is left in the heap, and the old produce in the terumah or tithe would be deemed to be in respect of the old produce that is left in the heap. But since it was reported in that connection that R. Samuel b. Nahmani said In the name of R. Johanan, The halachah follows R. Simeon of Shezur, if this were so, then he too should have said it there! — In fact, said R. Papa, it was stated in connection with the case of the ‘Chest’. R. Nahman b. Isaac said, It was stated in connection with the case of the ‘Wine’. R. Papa said margin; but if there is not sufficient space for three letters he must write the whole word in the next line. surface. report the actual decision. have stated his tradition of the halachah alongside with Ze'iri in Hul. l.c. delivered to her but omitted to say so owing to his perturbed state of mind. Git. 65b. have to be sold to the priest at a low price, so that the loss to the owner is considerable. bought from an ‘am ha-arez who was not trusted with regard to the separation of the tithes), the Rabbis permitted the owner to enquire of the seller about it and to rely upon his word if the seller assured him that he had separated the various dues. If this occurred on the Sabbath it would certainly be permitted to ask the seller about the produce and to rely upon his word, for the honour of the Sabbath (v. Dem. l.c.), but according to R. Simeon of Shezur this is permitted even on a weekday.