Shabbat Shalom. Regarding the laws of Sefer Torah, Rav made two statements. The first concerned the number of errors in a Sefer Torah. If a Sefer Torah has errors on every page, the law is that one may correct the errors and continue using it. However, if there are four errors on each page, the Sefer Torah must be placed in genizah, because there are too many errors to correct in that manner.
We had a question from a baraita against Rav’s ruling. The baraita says, “Three may be corrected; four must be placed in genizah.” This seems to contradict Rav, who said that one may correct a Sefer Torah even when it contains errors on every page, and that it is disqualified only when there are four errors on every page.
The Gemara explains that if one page of the Sefer Torah is complete, that page can affect the status of the entire Sefer Torah. Even if the other pages contain four, five, or six errors, one complete page can save the Sefer Torah. Once there are seven or eight errors on each page, however, even one complete page cannot save it. Seven errors on a page are already too many.
We then asked what Rav meant by a “complete” page. Does complete mean that the page contains no errors at all, or does it mean that it contains three errors or fewer? We already learned that three errors or fewer may be corrected. Perhaps, since the page can still be corrected, it is considered complete, and it can therefore save the rest of the Sefer Torah. Or perhaps “complete” means that there are no errors whatsoever.
This discussion concerns missing letters. The Sefer Torah is disqualified because letters are missing. Extra letters, however, are not necessarily a problem, because they can simply be erased, leaving the text straight and readable. When letters are missing, the scribe has to add them above the word. For example, if a word was written without a letter, the missing letter may be written above the word in order to complete it.
If there are four or more errors on every page, the Sefer Torah will look spotted and uneven. It will no longer be attractive. If the errors are extra letters, one can erase them and the Sefer Torah will still look normal. But when letters are missing and must be added above the words, the added letters make the Sefer Torah look spotted, and that presents a problem.
Even if one page contains twenty extra letters, that is not necessarily a serious problem. One can erase the extra letters, and the Sefer Torah will remain readable. Rabbi Abba’s father-in-law had a Sefer Torah with four errors on every page, but the errors were extra letters. Rabbi Abba showed it to Rav and asked what should be done. Rav answered, “I said that when the Sefer Torah has missing letters it is a problem. When it has extra letters, there is nothing to worry about.”
Rav made a second statement regarding the writing of a Sefer Torah. When a scribe completes one of the five books of the Torah, he may finish the book in the middle of the page. For example, if the final verses of Genesis or Exodus do not reach the bottom of the page, the scribe may end the book wherever the verses end.
The Gemara raised a question. We learned that one should not finish a Sefer Torah in the middle of a page in the way one finishes the individual scrolls called Chumashim. In earlier times, the individual books of the Torah were sometimes written on separate scrolls. When writing such a Chumash, one could finish the book in the middle of the page. But when writing a Sefer Torah, one should not finish the book in that manner. Instead, the scribe should write the lines progressively shorter: the first line should be long, the next line shorter, and each subsequent line shorter still, until the entire page is filled.
A diagram illustrates how this is done. The lines are not written as ordinary, equal-length lines. They begin long and become progressively shorter so that the entire page is used.
The Gemara answers that when Rav made his statement, he was speaking about Chumashim, not about a Sefer Torah. There would therefore be no question against Rav. However, Rav’s wording referred to a Sefer Torah, so the Gemara asks how we can say that he was discussing only Chumashim.
The Gemara therefore suggests that the word “Sefer” may refer to each individual book of the Torah. The word Chumash comes from the expression meaning “one fifth,” because the Torah consists of five books. According to this explanation, Rav meant that the first four books may end in the middle of the page, as in the individual Chumashim, while the final book must fill the entire page.
For example, the final words of Genesis are, “They buried Joseph.” Those words may appear in the middle of the page. The same applies to the ends of the first four books. But the final book, Deuteronomy, must end at the bottom of the page.
The Gemara presents another interpretation. One sage understood Rav’s statement to mean that a book may end in the middle of the page, while the Sages understood him to mean that it may end even in the middle of a line. According to the Sages, Rav was being even more lenient: the book may end not only in the middle of the page, but even in the middle of a line.
Thus, there is a dispute about what Rav meant. One interpretation permits ending in the middle of the page but not in the middle of a line. The other interpretation permits ending even in the middle of a line. In practice, the final book must reach the bottom of the page, while the first four books may end before the bottom.
The final eight verses of the Torah are read as one aliyah. They are not divided between two people. One person is called to the Torah and reads all eight verses in one continuous reading. These verses begin with “Moses died” and describe the death of Moses.
The Gemara observes that this practice appears to follow the view of Rabbi Shimon rather than the other view. Rabbi Shimon discussed the question of who wrote the final verses of the Torah. The verse says, “Moses, the servant of God, died.” How could Moses have written that verse while he was still alive? If Moses wrote it while he was alive, it would seem that he was writing something untrue.
Rabbi Shimon therefore says that until that point Moses wrote the Torah, but from that point onward Joshua wrote it. Moses could not have written that he had died while he was still alive. According to this view, Joshua wrote the final verses.
Another approach is that Moses wrote the entire Torah, including the final verses. Rabbi Shimon could not accept the possibility that Moses failed to write even one letter of the Torah. The Torah says that Moses placed the Sefer Torah beside the Ark. It is impossible to say that he placed it there if even one letter was still missing. Moses must therefore have written the entire Sefer Torah.
How, then, were the final verses written? One explanation is that God dictated the Torah to Moses. God would say the word “In the beginning,” Moses would repeat it, and then he would write it. God would say the next word, and Moses would repeat and write it. This is also the practice when writing a Sefer Torah: the scribe should pronounce the word before writing it. He says, “Now I am writing this word,” and then writes it.
For the final eight verses, however, God dictated the words, but Moses did not repeat them aloud. He simply wrote them. The Torah therefore says that he wrote them with tears. Since Moses did not actually pronounce the words “Moses died,” he was not saying something false. He was writing what God had dictated, without repeating it aloud.
We once explained another interpretation of the expression “with tears.” The word may be related to a word meaning a mixture. According to this explanation, God knew precisely which letters belonged in the Torah, but He gave Moses the letters of the final verses in a mixed or non-sequential form. Moses wrote all the letters, but they were not yet arranged into coherent verses describing his death. After Moses died, the letters were arranged into the final verses.
According to this explanation, Moses did write every letter of the Torah, but he did not write a statement about his own death. He merely wrote the letters that God gave him in a mixed arrangement. This is one way of understanding the expression “with tears.”
The Gemara then asks whether the practice of reading the final eight verses as one aliyah must follow the view of Rabbi Shimon. According to the first view, the reason for having only one person read those verses is to show that they are different from the rest of the Torah, since Joshua wrote them. We do not divide them between two people because we want to demonstrate that this section has a unique status.
According to Rabbi Shimon, however, Moses wrote the final eight verses. It would seem that they are no different from any other verses of the Torah, and perhaps they could be divided between two people. The Gemara answers that even Rabbi Shimon agrees that only one person should read them. Although Moses wrote the letters, he wrote these verses differently from the rest of the Torah because he did not repeat them aloud. Since they are different in that respect, we read them as one section and call up only one person, thereby showing that these verses are special.
A person who goes to the marketplace and buys a ready-made Sefer Torah has certainly fulfilled a mitzvah. He found a completed Sefer Torah and purchased it. Nevertheless, it is not considered the greatest form of the mitzvah, because he did not write it himself. He simply bought a completed object.
When a person writes the Sefer Torah himself, however, he receives the credit for the writing. The question is what to do when people want to fulfill this mitzvah but do not know how to write a Sefer Torah and do not want merely to purchase a ready-made one. One practice is to leave a few letters unfinished and then have the purchaser complete those letters.
Does the person who writes the final letters receive credit as though he wrote the entire Sefer Torah? The Torah teaches that even if a person writes one letter, it is considered as though he wrote the entire Torah. By writing that one letter, he completes and establishes the Sefer Torah.
That is why it is customary to leave the final few letters unwritten. The Sefer Torah is brought to the synagogue, and the people complete the final letter or letters. In this way, they are not merely buying a ready-made Sefer Torah from the marketplace; they participate in its completion and receive the credit associated with writing a Sefer Torah.
This demonstrates the value of writing a Sefer Torah. The Rosh, Rabbi Asher, held that the primary purpose of a Sefer Torah was originally to study from it. In earlier times, people did not have printed Chumashim as we do today. When they wanted to study the Torah, they would take out the Sefer Torah and study from it.
Today, however, we do not generally study directly from the Sefer Torah. We use it primarily on Shabbat and festivals for the public reading. The Rosh therefore says that today a person fulfills this mitzvah by printing books that people will actually use: prayer books, festival prayer books, books of Torah study, and copies of the Talmud.
When someone donates a complete Talmud to a synagogue and people sit down and study from it, that person fulfills the mitzvah in accordance with the view of the Rosh. According to Rabbi Asher, books from which people will study are the equivalent, in our time, of writing a Sefer Torah.
A Sefer Torah is composed of parchment sheets called yeriot, which are stitched together. Each sheet may be large enough to contain three columns. The question is how large each parchment sheet should be and how many columns it should contain.
The proper size is between three and eight columns on each sheet. One should not make the sheets smaller than that, because the stitching would be too frequent. One should also not make them larger, because the stitching would be too far apart. The beauty of a Sefer Torah includes the appearance of the stitching, so the sheets should be proportioned properly.
The guideline is that a sheet should contain at least three columns and no more than eight. If the sheets are too narrow, there will be too many stitches. If they are too long, the stitches will be too far apart. The proper balance is between three and eight columns per sheet.
One should also not write unusually small letters merely to fit eight columns onto a small sheet. The writing should not look like a personal letter or an ordinary document. The letters should be written in the proper form and size rather than being compressed to fit more columns onto the parchment.
At the same time, one should not write the letters so large that three columns cannot fit comfortably on a large sheet. If the letters are excessively large, the scribe may have difficulty knowing where one line ends and the next begins. Tosafot discusses this issue and explains that it depends in part on the style of writing. When the letters are written in a bold, clear script, they are easier to distinguish, and it is possible to write them somewhat larger without becoming confused.
There is also a measure for the number of letters in a line. The word that serves as the model is one of the longest words in the Torah, containing ten letters. A line should contain approximately three times that number, or thirty letters. The letters should not be written so large that the line contains substantially fewer letters than this measure.
If a sheet has nine columns, it should not simply be divided into three columns and six columns. The beauty and balance of the Sefer Torah are better preserved by dividing it into four columns and five columns. A division of three and six is unbalanced, because one sheet would be much smaller than the other. Four and five are closer in size and therefore preferable.
These guidelines concerning the size of the letters and the number of columns apply to the beginning and general body of the Sefer Torah. The final sheet is different. Even if only one verse remains, it may be written across a large sheet. The scribe may write the final verse in large letters so that it fills the entire sheet.
When we say that the parchment should be proportionate, we mean that one should not write tiny letters in order to fit eight columns onto a small sheet, nor enormous letters in order to fill three columns on a very large sheet. That is the proper practice throughout the Sefer Torah. On the final sheet, however, even one verse may be written large enough to fill the entire page.
The Gemara asks what is meant by saying that even one verse may fill the page. The answer is that the final verse may be written in such a way that it extends across the entire sheet and reaches the bottom. The final sheet may be narrow, and the verse may be written in very large letters, perhaps with only one word on each line, so that the entire sheet is used.
We now move from the writing itself to the rest of the layout. There are precise measurements for the empty spaces: the blank area above the writing, the blank area below it, the blank space on the sides, the space between columns, the space between lines, the space between words, and the space between letters.
The Gemara gives the measurements for the margins of the parchment. At the bottom, there must be at least one handbreadth. At the top, there must be at least three fingerbreadths. Between one column and the next, there must be enough room for two fingerbreadths.
The individual Chumash scrolls had different measurements. At the bottom, there were three fingerbreadths; at the top, two fingerbreadths; and between the columns, the width of a thumb. These rules applied to Chumashim and were not identical to the rules for a Sefer Torah.
Within the Sefer Torah, the space between lines must be the height of a line. The space between words should be approximately the height of a small letter, such as a yud. The space between individual letters should be approximately the width of a hair.
It is not always possible to satisfy every one of these measurements without affecting the writing. The scribe may need to adjust the size of the letters in order to leave the appropriate margins and spaces. The Gemara therefore says that these measurements should not cause the scribe to damage the quality of the writing.
If the scribe discovers that there is not enough space between the lines, he should not make the letters smaller merely to create more space. If the letters have already been written in the proper size, he should not distort them in order to compensate for a measurement. The same applies to the margins and to the space between the columns.
This also applies to the space between sections of the Torah. Sometimes one section ends on a line and the next section begins on that same line. A space equivalent to nine letters must be left between the two sections. But if the scribe realizes that he will not be able to leave that space without changing the writing, he should not begin writing smaller letters merely to create the required gap.
The point is that these measurements are important, but they are not to be achieved at the expense of the quality of the letters. The scribe should not ruin the appearance or form of the Sefer Torah by shrinking or enlarging the writing simply to satisfy one of these spaces.
Suppose the scribe reaches the end of a column and has a five-letter word remaining, but there is room for only three letters. He should not write two letters in the column and place the remaining three outside the column. Rather, he should write three letters inside the column and two letters outside it. The allowance is that up to two letters may extend beyond the column.
The Gemara then discusses a two-letter word. If the entire remaining word contains only two letters, the scribe should not place those two letters at the bottom of the column and extend them outside the column. Instead, he should begin the word at the top of the next column. The allowance for writing outside the column applies to a longer word, such as a five-letter word, where writing three letters inside and two outside prevents a large empty space. It does not apply to placing an entire two-letter word outside the column.
Another question concerns the divine Name. Suppose a scribe wrote a Sefer Torah and later realized that he had omitted the divine Name in a place where it was required. How may he correct the Sefer Torah?
One possibility is to erase the word that was written in that place and write the divine Name in its place. Another possibility is to write the divine Name above the existing word, suspended above the line. One opinion says that the word may be erased and the Name written over the erasure. Another opinion says that the scribe should wait until the ink has dried and then scrape the word away before writing the Name. A further opinion permits writing the Name above the line instead.
The issue is whether the scribe may erase the word while the ink is still wet or must wait until the ink dries. Scraping away dry ink leaves the parchment cleaner, while erasing wet ink is less precise. The discussion also concerns whether the entire divine Name may be suspended above the verse or whether only ordinary words may be written in that manner.
One view maintains that the divine Name should not be written over an erasure and should not be suspended above the word. If the scribe omitted the Name, the parchment should be placed in genizah, and the Sefer Torah should be started again. The divine Name must be written on clean, proper parchment and cannot be treated casually.
The Gemara cites a statement attributed to Rabbi Shimon ben Chizuri, but the names of the sages associated with the various opinions are not always stated clearly. One sage says that the Name may be suspended above the word, while another says that the word may be erased and the Name written in its place. The Gemara discusses which sage said which opinion.
There are different versions of the attribution. In one version, one sage said the first opinion and another sage said the second. In another version, the attributions are reversed. The Gemara therefore avoids relying on the names alone, because the names do not resolve the halachic question when the traditions have different versions.
Ulla once quoted a ruling of Rabbi Shimon ben Chizuri, but he did not initially specify which halachah of Rabbi Shimon ben Chizuri he meant. There are many halachot associated with Rabbi Shimon ben Chizuri, so the Gemara asks where this ruling is found.
The Gemara first suggests that the ruling may concern the case of a divine Name that was omitted from a Sefer Torah. Rabbi Shimon ben Chizuri is said to permit the entire Name to be suspended above the verse, but the Gemara rejects that possibility. The discussion of that case had already been recorded, including the opinions about erasing and suspending the Name. If Ulla had been referring to that matter, his statement should have appeared in that discussion.
The Gemara therefore searches for another ruling of Rabbi Shimon ben Chizuri. It suggests the law of an animal’s offspring. If an animal is slaughtered while pregnant, the offspring in its womb does not require a separate act of slaughter. The slaughter of the mother permits the organs and contents within it, and the fetus is treated as part of the mother.
Rabbi Shimon ben Chizuri makes a significant further statement. Even if the offspring remains alive for five years, grows, and works in the field, it may still be eaten without a separate act of slaughter, because it was already included in the slaughter of the mother. Although it may seem surprising to treat an animal that has lived independently for years as though it were part of the mother at the time of slaughter, that is the law being discussed.
The Gemara again rejects this as the source of Ulla’s statement. There is another teaching about this matter, and if Ulla had been referring to the law of the offspring, his statement should have been placed there when that law was recorded. Since it was not, the Gemara continues searching for the proper context.
Another possibility concerns a person who is being taken out to be executed. He tells an agent, “Write a bill of divorce for my wife.” Ordinarily, when a person tells an agent to write a bill of divorce, he has not necessarily instructed him to deliver it. But a person being taken to his death is nervous and distressed. His instruction to write a bill of divorce is understood to mean that the agent should write it and deliver it to his wife.
The same applies to a person who is setting out on a dangerous journey, such as a caravan journey. Since he is anxious about the journey, if he tells an agent to write a bill of divorce for his wife, we understand that he means the agent should write it and deliver it. The same is true of a person who is critically ill and believes that he may die. If he tells an agent to write a bill of divorce, the instruction includes both writing and delivery.
Perhaps Rabbi Shimon ben Chizuri’s ruling concerns one of these cases. Even though the person said only “write,” the circumstances indicate that he intended the document to be written and given to his wife. But the Gemara again notes that this ruling was already recorded elsewhere. If Ulla had been discussing that case, his statement should have appeared in that context.
The final possibility concerns produce purchased from an am ha-aretz. Such produce is called demai, because it is uncertain whether the required tithes were separated. If a person purchases the produce on Shabbat and has not separated the tithes, he cannot separate them on Shabbat, and he may therefore be unable to eat the produce.
He may nevertheless approach the seller on Shabbat and ask whether the tithes were separated. If the seller says that he separated them, the purchaser may rely on his statement for the purposes of Shabbat. The assumption is that a person does not lie about this matter on Shabbat, so the purchaser may rely on the seller and eat the produce.
Rabbi Shimon ben Chizuri adds a further leniency for demai. Suppose the purchaser separated the required tithe, but the separated tithe later became mixed back into the rest of the produce. Ordinarily, the mixture requires a hundred times the amount of the tithe in order to nullify it. If there is no such proportion, an ordinary Israelite may not eat the produce, because the tithe has a separate status and belongs to the priest or Levite as applicable.
In the ordinary case, if the produce is certainly obligated in tithes, and the separated tithe became mixed back into the pile without a sufficient proportion to nullify it, the owner may not eat the mixture. But in the case of demai, where it is uncertain whether tithes were required in the first place, Rabbi Shimon ben Chizuri permits the purchaser to ask the seller again, even during the week, whether he had separated the tithes.
This is a special leniency because the purchaser would otherwise suffer a significant loss. If the seller says that he separated the tithes, the purchaser may rely on him and eat the produce. Thus, although the general rule allows reliance on the seller’s statement on Shabbat, Rabbi Shimon ben Chizuri extends the possibility of relying on him during the week in this particular case involving demai and a mixture of the tithe.
The Gemara notes that these two halachot also contain an explicit statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Chizuri: the case of the ill or endangered person who instructs an agent to write a bill of divorce, and the case of demai whose separated tithe became mixed back into the produce. Since Ulla’s statement was not placed in either of those discussions, the Gemara concludes that he was not referring to those cases either.
We are therefore still searching for the precise halachah intended by Ulla when he quoted Rabbi Shimon ben Chizuri. The discussion will continue with the identification of that ruling.