Menachot

in connection with the ‘Chest’, for we have learnt:1 A chest, say Beth Shammai, should be measured on the inside;2 but Beth Hillel say, On the outside.3 They agree, however, that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the rim should not be included in the measurement. R. Jose says, They agree that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the rim should be included, but that the space between them should not be included. R. Simeon of Shezur says, If the legs were a handbreadth high the space between them should not be included, but if less, it should be included in the measurement. R. Nahman b. Isaac said in connection with ‘Wine’, for we have learnt:4 R. Meir says, Oil [when rendered unclean] is always unclean in the first degree.5 The Sages say, Honey also. R. Simeon of Shezur says, Wine also. Are ‘we to infer that the first Tanna holds that it is not so with wine?6 — Render: R. Simeon of Shezur says, [Only] wine. It was taught: R. Simeon of Shezur related, Once my untithed produce got mixed up with tithed produce,7 so I went and asked R. Tarfon about it and he advised me, Go and buy some [demai8 produce] in the market and separate the tithes from it on behalf of the mixture too.9 He10 evidently was of the opinion that11 the majority of ‘amme ha-arez8 separate the tithes, so that in this case he would be taking the tithe from what is exempt [from the tithe by the law of the Torah] in respect of what is also exempt [by the Torah]. But why did he not advise him, Go and buy produce from a gentile?12 — Because he holds that a gentile cannot own land in the land of Israel so fully as to release it from the obligation of tithe13 so that he would be taking the tithe from what was subject [to tithe by the Torah] in respect of what was exempt. Another version states: He advised him, Go and buy produce from a gentile. Evidently he was of the opinion that a gentile can own land so fully in the land of Israel as to release it from the obligation of tithe, so that in this case he would be taking the tithe from what is exempt [by the Torah] in respect of what is exempt too. And why did he not advise him, God and buy’ [demai produce] in the market? — Because he holds that the majority of amme ha-arez do not separate the tithes.14 R. Yemar b. Shelemya sent the following question to R. Papa: Does the ruling of Rabin b. Hinena who cited ‘Ulla in the name of R. Hanina, namely, that the halachah was in accordance with R. Simeon of Shezur; and moreover, that wherever R. Simeon of Shezur stated his view the halachah was in accordance with it, include that case where untithed produce got mixed up with tithed produce? He replied, It does. R. Ashi said, Mar Zutra told me that R. Hanina of Sura was puzzled at the question. It is obvious, said he; for it is no longer deemed to be a ‘vessel’. with what was unclean in the first or second degree, it will always be unclean in the first degree. Cf. Pes. 14b. produce, and is not subject to any further tithe at all. It is, however, subject to tithe by Rabbinic law. The interpretation adopted here is the second given by Rashi, which is indeed preferred by him. majority of ‘amme ha-arez separate the tithes), but is subject to it only by Rabbinic law. It is therefore identical with the produce of the mixture. here in the text are omitted in all MSS., and are struck out here by Sh. Mek. from the tithe, but is subject to it only ‘by Rabbinic law. exempt by the law of the Torah