Menachot 60

אלא שלש בתוך הדף ושתים חוץ לדף נזדמנה לו תיבה בת שתי אותיות לא יזרקנה לבין הדפין אלא חוזר וכותב בתחילת השיטה

but three in the column and two outside.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If therefore there is sufficient space for three letters he may write the word allowing two letters to encroach upon the margin; but if there is not sufficient space for three letters he must write the whole word in the next line.');">¹</span> 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.

הטועה בשם גורר את מה שכתב ותולה את מה שגרר וכותב את השם על מקום הגרר דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי אומר אף תולין את השם רבי יצחק אומר אף מוחק וכותב

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.

ר"ש שזורי אומר כל השם כולו תולין מקצתו אין תולין ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר משום ר"מ אין כותבין את השם לא על מקום הגרר ולא על מקום המחק ואין תולין אותו כיצד עושה מסלק את היריעה כולה וגונזה

R'Jose says, He may even insert the Name above the line. R'Isaac says, He may even wipe away<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whilst the ink is still moist. The writing upon such a surface would not be as clear and distinct as upon an erased surface.');">²</span>

איתמר רב חננאל אמר רב הלכה תולין את השם רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יצחק בר שמואל הלכה מוחק וכותב

[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.

ולימא מר הלכה כמר ומר הלכה כמר משום דאפכי להו

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?

אמר רבין בר חיננא אמר עולא א"ר חנינא הלכה כר"ש שזורי ולא עוד אלא כל מקום ששנה ר"ש שזורי הלכה כמותו

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.

אהייא אילימא אהא ר"ש שזורי אומר כל השם כולו תולין מקצתו אין תולין והא איתמר עלה אמר רב חננאל אמר רב הלכה תולין את השם ורבה בר בר חנה אמר רב יצחק בר שמואל הלכה מוחק וכותב

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. R. Jose.');">³</span>

ואם איתא הוא נמי לימא

and Rabbah B'Bar Hanah say that it follows the other Master?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. R. Isaac.');">⁴</span> - Because there is another reading which reverses the names.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the opinions assigned to R. Jose and R. Isaac are reversed; hence it was necessary when stating the halachah to report the actual decision.');">⁵</span>

אלא אהא ר"ש שזורי אומר אפי' בן חמש שנים וחורש בשדה שחיטת אמו מטהרתו

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Upper Galilee.');">⁶</span> Moreover, wherever R'Simeon of Shezur stated his view the halachah is in accordance with it.

הא איתמר עלה זעירי א"ר חנינא הלכה כר"ש שזורי ואם איתא הוא נמי לימא

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]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., with R. Hananel and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah.');">⁷</span>

אלא אהא בראשונה היו אומרים היוצא בקולר ואמר כתבו גט לאשתי הרי אלו יכתבו ויתנו חזרו לומר אף המפרש והיוצא בשיירא ר"ש שזורי אומר אף המסוכן

- Rather it was stated in connection with the following: R'Simeon of Shezur says, Even if it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. an animal which was extracted alive out of the womb after the slaughtering of its dam.');">⁸</span> is five years old and is ploughing in the field it is still rendered clean by reason of the slaughtering of its dam'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 74b.');">⁹</span>

אי נמי אהא תרומת מעשר של דמאי שחזרה למקומה ר"ש שזורי אומר אף בחול שואלו ואוכלו על פיו

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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if R. Hanina's ruling was stated in connection with the above quoted Mishnah then Rabin b. Hinena should also have stated his tradition of the halachah alongside with Ze'iri in Hul. l.c.');">¹⁰</span> - 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though he gave no instructions that it was to be delivered to his wife. It is assumed that he intended it to be delivered to her but omitted to say so owing to his perturbed state of mind. Git. 65b.');">¹¹</span>

והא איתמר עלה א"ר יוחנן הלכה כר"ש שזורי במסוכן ובתרומת מעשר של דמאי ואם איתא הוא נמי לימא

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.

אלא אהא רבי יוסי בן כיפר אומר משום ר"ש שזורי פול המצרי שזרעו לזרע מקצתו השריש לפני ר"ה ומקצתו אחר ר"ה אין תורמין מזה על זה לפי שאין תורמין ומעשרין לא מן החדש על הישן ולא מן הישן על החדש

Or [it was stated] in connection with the following:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Demai IV, 1.');">¹²</span> If the terumah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹³</span>

כיצד יעשה צובר גרנו לתוכו ונמצא תורם ומעשר מן החדש שבו על החדש שבו ומן הישן שבו על הישן שבו

which had been separated from the tithe of demai<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹³</span> produce fell back into its place,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it was mixed up with ordinary 'common' produce. The mixture now may be eaten only by priests and would have to be sold to the priest at a low price, so that the loss to the owner is considerable.');">¹⁴</span>

הא איתמר עלה אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כרבי שמעון שזורי ואם איתא הוא נמי לימא

R'Simeon of Shezur says, Even on a weekday one need only ask [the seller] about it and eat it by his word.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the special circumstances, because of the loss involved and the produce being demai (i.e., produce that had been 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.');">¹⁵</span> 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',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 55a, and Hul. 75b.');">¹⁶</span>

אלא אמר רב פפא אשידה רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר איין רב פפא אמר

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 seed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case they become subject to terumah and tithes from the moment they take root; v. R.H. 13b.');">¹⁷</span> 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