Megillah

[This is not right], since we do not read less than three verses together at the beginning of a paragraph.1 Shall the reader read two from one and three from the other? Then only two verses are left [to the end of the second paragraph]! — He replied: On this point I have not heard [any pronouncement], but I have learnt the rule in a somewhat similar case, as we have learnt: ‘On Sundays, [the ma'amad2 read the paragraph] "In the beginning" and "let there be a firmament",3 and to this a gloss was added, "In the beginning" is read by two and "let there be a firmament" by one’, and we were somewhat perplexed by this. For that [the paragraph] ‘let there be a firmament’ can be read by one we understand, since it has three verses, but how can ‘In the beginning, be read by two, seeing that it has only five verses, and it has been taught, ‘He who reads in the Torah should not read less than three verses’? And it was stated [in answer] to this [question] that Rab says he should repeat,4 and Samuel says he should divide a verse. Rab said he should repeat. Why should he not say ‘divide’? — He was of opinion that any verse which Moses had not divided, we may not divide, whereas Samuel held that we may divide. But surely, R. Hananiah the Bible teacher5 said, I was in great pain in the house of R. Hanina the great, and he would not allow me to make [additional verse] divisions save for the school children, because they are there to be taught? — Now what was the reason there [why he was allowed to make divisions]? Because it could not be avoided; here6 too it cannot be avoided. Samuel said that he divides. Why did he not say that he repeats? It is a precaution to prevent error on the part of those coming in and going out.7 An objection [against both these views]8 was brought from the following: ‘A section of six verses may be read by two persons, a section of five verses must be read by one. If the first reads three verses, the second reads the remaining two from this section and one from the next; some, however, say that he reads three from the next, because not less than three verses should be read at the beginning of a section’.9 Now if it is as you said,10 then according to the one who says he should repeat, let him repeat, and according to the one who says he should divide, let him divide? — It is different here,11 because this method is open to him.12 R. Tanhum, said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: The halachah follows the alternative opinion13 mentioned. R. Tanhum also said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: Just as at the beginning of a section not less than three verses should be read, so at the end of a section not less than three verses should be left. Surely this is obvious! Seeing that in regard to the beginning of a section where the First Tanna is not so strict the alternative opinion is strict, is it not certain that in regard to the verses left [at the end of the section] where the First Tanna is strict the alternative opinion will also be strict? — You might argue that it is usual for people to come in [to synagogue during the reading of the law],14 but it is not usual for them to go out and leave the scroll of the law while it is being read;15 therefore we are told [that we do not argue thus]. But now with regard to the First Tanna: Why does he forbid [less than three verses] to be left [at the end of the section]? On account of people going out of synagogue,16 is it not? Then with regard to the beginning also he should take precautions on account of people coming in? — I can answer that a person coming in enquires [how much has been read].17 Rabbah the son of Raba sent to enquire of R. Joseph: What is the law?18 He sent him back word: The law is that the verse is repeated, and it is a middle reader 19 who repeats. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHENEVER THERE IS A MUSAF etc. The question was raised: How many read on a public fast day?20 Shall we say that on New Moon and the intermediate days of the festival when there is an additional sacrifice four read, but here where there is no additional sacrifice this is not the case? Or shall we argue that here also there is an additional prayer?21 — Come and hear: ON NEW MOONS AND ON THE INTERMEDIATE DAYS OF FESTIVALS FOUR READ’, from which we conclude that on public fasts only three read. Look now at the preceding clause: ‘ON MONDAYS AND THURSDAYS AND ON SABBATH AT MINHAH THREE READ’, from which we may conclude that on a public fast four read! The truth is that we cannot decide from here. Come then and hear [this]: ‘Rab happened to be at Babylon22 during a public fast. He came forward and read in the scroll of the law. Before commencing he made a blessing but after finishing he made no blessing. The whole congregation [afterwards] fell on their faces,23 but Rab did not fall on his face’. Let us now see. Rab read as a lay Israelite.24 Why then did he say no blessing after finishing? Was it not because another was to read after him? — No. Rab read as kohen,25 for R. Huna also read as kohen.26 I can understand R. Huna reading as kohen, because even R. Assi and R. Ammi who were distinguished kohanim of Eretz Israel showed deference to R. Huna.27 But as to Rab there was Samuel [his Babylonian contemporary] who was a kohen and who took precedence of him?28 — Samuel also showed deference to Rab, and it was Rab29 who of his own accord paid him special honour30 and this he did only in his presence, but not when he was not present. It is reasonable also to assume that Rab read as kohen, because if you presume that he read as a layman, why did he say a blessing before reading? — It was after the regulation31 had been made. If so, he should have said a blessing after reading also? — Where Rab was present there was a difference, because people came in [late] vowels, stops and accents, as the tanna (v. Glos. s.v.) was a professional memorizer of the Mishnah or Baraitha. read. only those two will have been read by the next reader. Cf. n. 7. paragraph, he inquires whether the previous reader read only the preceding two verses or more. city of Babylon, and in contradistinction to Nehardea where Samuel had his seat, v. Obermeyer p. 306].