1that Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement was with regard to a chest, as we learned in a mishna ( Kelim 18:1): A wooden chest that is large enough to contain forty se’a is not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, since it is no longer considered a vessel. In determining its capacity, Beit Shammai say that it is measured on the inside, and Beit Hillel say that it is measured on the outside so that the volume of the walls of the chest itself is included in the measurement. And both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concede that the volume of the legs and the volume of the rims [ halevazbazin ] are not measured.
2Rabbi Yosei says: They concede that the volume of the legs and the volume of the rims are measured, but the space enclosed between the rims and the legs is not measured. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: If the legs were one handbreadth high then the space between the legs is not measured, since the area has an independent significance, but if the space is not one handbreadth high, the space between the legs is measured as part of the chest. It is with regard to this statement that Rabbi Ḥanina said the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.
3Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement was with regard to wine, as we learned in a mishna ( Teharot 3:2): Rabbi Meir says: Oil, an example of a liquid, that contracted impurity, is always considered to have first -degree ritual impurity, even if it came into contact with an item that was impure with second-degree ritual impurity, which, according to the standard halakhot of ritual impurity, should result in it having third-degree ritual impurity. And the Rabbis say that this is the halakha even with regard to honey. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: This is the halakha even with regard to wine. The Gemara asks: By inference, is that to say that the first tanna holds that wine is not considered a liquid? Rather, say as follows: Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Wine is considered a liquid, but oil and honey are not.
4§ The Gemara relates another statement of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon Shezuri said: Once, my untithed produce became mixed together with a greater quantity of non-sacred, i.e., tithed, produce, and I came and asked Rabbi Tarfon how I should separate tithes from the untithed produce that was mixed with the tithed produce. And he said to me: Go and take from the market doubtfully tithed produce, which requires the removal of tithes by rabbinic law, and separate tithes from it on behalf of the untithed produce that is mixed with the tithed produce.
5The Gemara explains: Rabbi Tarfon holds that by Torah law the minority of untithed produce is nullified in the majority of tithed produce and is therefore exempt from tithes; it is by rabbinic law that it is not nullified and one is obligated to separate tithes from it. And additionally, he holds that the majority of those who are unreliable with regard to tithes [ amei ha’aretz ] do separate tithes, in which case by Torah law one is not obligated to separate tithes from produce purchased from the market. And therefore, if Rabbi Shimon Shezuri receives produce from an am ha’aretz , he is considered by Torah law to be separating tithes from exempt produce on behalf of exempt produce, while all of it is obligated in tithes by rabbinic law.
6The Gemara suggests: But let Rabbi Tarfon say to him: Go and take produce from a gentile. Since it is exempt from tithes by Torah law but requires tithing by rabbinic law, he could then separate tithes from this produce on behalf of the untithed produce that is nullified by the tithed produce. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Tarfon holds that a gentile has no acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael to abrogate the sanctity of the land, thereby removing it from the obligation to tithe its produce. And therefore, if Rabbi Shimon Shezuri were to take produce from a gentile, he would be considered to be separating tithes from produce that is obligated in tithes by Torah law on behalf of exempt produce, which one may not do.
7There are those who say that Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Go and take produce from a gentile and separate tithes from it on behalf of the untithed produce that is intermingled in the majority of tithed produce. Accordingly, Rabbi Tarfon holds that a gentile has acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael to abrogate the sanctity of the land, thereby removing it from the obligation to tithe its produce. And therefore, if Rabbi Shimon Shezuri takes produce from a gentile, he is considered, by Torah law, to be separating tithes from exempt produce on behalf of exempt produce, while all of it is obligated in tithes by rabbinic law.
8The Gemara suggests: But let Rabbi Tarfon say to him: Go and take produce from an am ha’aretz in the market and separate tithes from it on behalf of the mixed untithed produce. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Tarfon holds that the majority of amei ha’aretz do not separate tithes, in which case he is considered to be separating tithes from produce that is obligated in tithes by Torah law on behalf of exempt produce.
9Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya sent the following question to Rav Pappa: That which Ravin bar Ḥinnana said that Ulla says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri, and moreover, any place where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri taught a halakha , the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, was that said even with regard to the case of one whose untithed produce became mixed together with non-sacred, i.e., tithed, produce, or was Rabbi Ḥanina referring only to cases where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri stated his opinion in the Mishna, but not in a baraita ?
10Rav Pappa said to him: Yes, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri even with regard to untithed produce that was mixed together with tithed produce. Rav Ashi said: Mar Zutra said to me: Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura raised a difficulty with this: Isn’t it obvious?