1 but when there are additional letters it does not matter. The other ruling of Rab is this: Rab said, He who is writing a scroll of the Law and has reached the end may finish off even in the middle of the column. And an objection is raised from the following: He who is writing a scroll of the Law and has reached the end may not finish off in the middle of the column as one does with other books, but he should reduce each line as he goes on until he reaches the end of the column! — Rab was referring to other books. But he says ‘a scroll of the Law’! — He meant the books of the Law. But this cannot be so, for R. Joshua b. Abba cited R. Giddal who said it in the name of Rab, The words ‘in the sight of all Israel’ are to be written in the middle of the column! — He means the middle of the line. It was stated: The Rabbis say, [One may finish] even in the middle of the line; but R. Ashi says, [One may finish] only in the middle of the line. And the law is: Only in the middle of the line. R. Joshua b. Abba cited R. Giddal who said it in the name of Rab, The last eight verses of the Torah must be read [in the Synagogue service] by one person alone. Whose view is followed here? It surely is not R. Simeon's, for it was taught: It is written, So Moses the servant of the Lord died there. Now is it possible that Moses whilst still alive would have written, ‘So Moses . . . died there’? The truth is, however, that up to this point Moses wrote, from this point Joshua the son of Nun wrote. This is the opinion of R. Judah, or, according to others, of R. Nehemiah. Said R. Simeon to him, Can we imagine the scroll of the law being short of one letter? Is it not written, Take this book of the Law, and put it etc.? We must say that up to this point the Holy One, blessed be He, dictated and Moses repeated and wrote, and from this point the Holy One, blessed be He, dictated and Moses wrote with tears [in his eyes], as it says of another occasion, Then Baruch answered them, He pronounced all these words to me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book. Must we then say that the view stated is not in accordance with R. Simeon? — You may even say that it follows the view of R. Simeon, for since they differ [from the rest of the Torah] in one way, they differ in another. R. Joshua b. Abba again cited R. Giddal who said in the name of Rab, He who buys a scroll of the Law in the market is regarded as one that has seized a precept in the market, but he who writes it, him the Scripture regards as if he had received it at mount Sinai. R. Shesheth said, Even if he corrected but one letter he is regarded as if he had written it. (Mnemonic ‘A.G.L.M.). Our Rabbis taught: A man should use sheets [of parchment] which contain from three to eight columns; he should not use one which contains less columns or more. And he should not put in too many columns for it would look like an epistle, nor too few columns for the eyes would wander; but [the width of the column should equal] the word lemishpehothekem written three times. If a man happened to possess a sheet with nine columns, he should not divide it [into two sheets of] three and six columns, but [into sheets of] four and five columns. These rules apply only [to sheets] at the beginning [or in the middle] of the scroll, but at the end of the scroll even one verse or one column [may take up the whole sheet]. One verse! Surely you cannot mean that! — Say rather: One verse in one column. The width of the margin below shall be one handbreadth, above three fingerbreadths, and between one column and the other the space of two fingerbreadths. In books of the Law the margin below shall be three fingerbreadths, above two fingerbreadths, and between one column and the other the space of a thumb-breadth. Between each line there must be the space of a line, between each word the width of a letter, and between each letter a hairbreadth. A man should not reduce the size of the script on account of the margin above or below, or on account of the space between one line and another, or the requisite space between one section and another. If [when almost at the end of a line] he has to write a word of five letters he must not write two letters in the column and three outside,ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷ
2 but three in the column and two outside. 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. 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. R. Jose says, He may even insert the Name above the line. R. Isaac says, He may even wipe away [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. 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? 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. 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, and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah say that it follows the other Master? — Because there is another reading which reverses the names. 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. Moreover, wherever R. Simeon of Shezur stated his view the halachah is in accordance with it. 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]! — Rather it was stated in connection with the following: ‘R. Simeon of Shezur says, Even if it is five years old and is ploughing in the field it is still rendered clean by reason of the slaughtering of its dam’. 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! — 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. 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. Or [it was stated] in connection with the following: If the terumah which had been separated from the tithe of demai produce fell back into its place, R. Simeon of Shezur says, Even on a weekday one need only ask [the seller] about it and eat it by his word. 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’, 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 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 saidˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿ