Megillah 18b (יח:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Mona says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: Even in cases of interruptions, if he paused

during the reading for the amount of time that it would take

to complete the entire reading —

he must return to the beginning.

Rav Yosef said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Mona, who said this in the name of Rabbi Yehuda.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef:

Regarding what we said, that if one paused

for the amount of time it takes to complete the entire reading,

he returns to the beginning: Does this mean that he paused for the time it takes to complete

from the place where he stopped

now

until the end, or perhaps

for the time it takes to complete

from the beginning

of the Megilla

until the end?

He said to him: From the beginning to the end. For

if you say that the intention is that he paused from the place where he stopped until the end,

then you have made your words dependent on varying measures!

For the measure of “the amount of time it takes to complete the entire reading” is not the same for everyone: one person pauses for that amount of time at one place in the Megilla, while another pauses for that amount of time at another place.

Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Mona.

And Shmuel said: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Mona.

In Sura they taught it as follows,

as we said above.

In Pumbedita they taught it as follows: Rav Kahana said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Mona.

And Shmuel said: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Mona.

Rav Bibi taught the opposite: Rav said: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Mona, and Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Mona.

Rav Yosef said: Take Rav Bibi’s version in your hand ,

for

this

is Shmuel who is concerned with the opinion of a

single

individual.

As we learned in a Mishna: A woman awaiting levirate marriage,

whose husband died without children, and who is consequently subject to levirate marriage, when he had several brothers, and the law is that it is a mitzva for the eldest to perform levirate marriage,

whose brother

the brother of the levir, who was the eldest of the brothers,

betrothed her sister

the sister of the woman awaiting levirate marriage, after she had fallen before them for levirate marriage.

In the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira they said: They say to him

to the brother who betrothed her:

Wait

before marrying her

until your elder brother performs an act

with his sister-in-law, either performing levirate marriage or performing halitza.

But before his elder brother performs an act, she is considered the wife of each of the brothers by virtue of the levirate bond. Therefore, he is forbidden to marry her sister because she is the sister of his wife.

And the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda, holding that since there are two brothers, her levirate bond is not imposed upon each of the brothers so as to make her equivalent to his wife. Consequently, he is permitted to marry her sister.

And

Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

We see that he is concerned with the opinion of a single individual.

The Sages taught: If the

in the Megilla

scribe

omitted letters or verses, and the reader read them as a meturgeman recites his translation,

that is, he read them by heart, just as a meturgeman recites his words by heart —

he has fulfilled his obligation.

The Gemara raises an objection: If there were in it

in the Megilla

blurred

or torn letters, if their form is recognizable—

it is fit; but if not—

it is unfit.

We see that reading by heart is not effective!? And we answer:

This is not difficult. That

which we said is unfit applies when

throughout

the Megilla the letters are blurred or torn.

Whereas

that

which we said is fit when letters or verses were omitted applies when the omission occurred only

in part of it . .

The Sages taught:

If

the reader omitted one verse ,

he may not say: I will read

now

the entire remainder

from this point onward

and afterward I will read

that

verse; rather, he reads from that verse onward.

If one entered the synagogue and found

that the

congregation had already read

already

half

of the Megilla,

he may not say: I will read

now

the half

that remains

with the congregation, and afterward I will read the first half

first;

rather, he reads it from beginning to end . .

We learned in our Mishna:

One who dozes has fulfilled his obligation, etc.

What are the circumstances of one who dozes?

Rav Ashi said: He is asleep

[asleep]

but not fully asleep; awake

[awake, as we translate “and he awoke” as “and he became awake”]

but not fully awake ,

such that they call him—

and he responds

[and answers].

But he does not know how to restore a reasoning

when they question him,

but when they remind him

of the reasoning—

he remembers . .

We learned in our Mishna:

If one was writing it, expounding it, or correcting it, if he directed his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation, etc.

We inquire:

What are the circumstances? If he arranges verse after verse

by heart

and writes it

afterward,

if he directed his heart—

what of it,

for

it is by heart!?

But

if he writes verse after verse—

and reads it

the verse that he wrote, and afterward continues writing—

has he fulfilled his obligation

in this manner?

But Rabbi Helbo said that Rav Hama bar Gurya said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says

that one must read it

in its entirety. And even according to the one who says

that it is sufficient to read it

from “A Jewish man,”

nevertheless

it must be entirely written

before him when he reads it, whereas here, when he read it, the entire Megilla was not written before him!?

Rather,

here we are dealing with a case

in which a complete Megilla was placed

before him

and he

copies from it by

reading from it verse after verse—

and writing it

that verse . In such a case he has fulfilled his obligation, since he is reading from a complete Megilla.

Let us say

that our Mishna

supports the position of Rabba bar bar

Hana, as Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: It is forbidden

for a scribe

to write even a single letter not from a written text.

For this is what is necessarily demonstrated by our Mishna: it can only be explained as referring to one who writes from a written text!

And we reject this: It cannot be proven.

Perhaps

there truly is no prohibition against writing without copying from a written text, but our Mishna is dealing with a case

in which this happened to be the circumstance,

where a Megilla was before him and he copied from it. And the Mishna comes to teach us that if he directed his heart to fulfill his obligation through the reading, he has fulfilled his obligation.

With regard to the substance of the matter, Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: It is forbidden to write even a single letter not from a written text.

The Gemara raises an objection: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: An incident occurred involving Rabbi Meir, who went to intercalate the year in Asia, and there was no Megilla there, so he wrote it

from memory—

and read it.

We see that it is permitted to write a Megilla without copying from a written text!?

Rabbi Abbahu said: Rabbi Meir was different, as the verse

which says

“And your eyelids should look straight before you” was fulfilled in him.

was fulfilled in him.

Just as

Rami bar Hama said to Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti: What is the meaning of “And your eyelids should look straight before you”?

He said to him: These are words of Torah ,

concerning which it is written: “When you close your eyes to it

—it is gone.”

That is, if you close your eyes to it, it is forgotten by you in the blink of an eye.

And nevertheless, they are straight before Rabbi Meir.

Rav Hisda found Rav Hananel writing scrolls without copying from a written text.

He said to him: The entire Torah is fit to be written from your mouth, but this is what the Sages said: It is forbidden to write even a single letter not from a written text.

And we wonder:

Since he said to him

Rav Hisda

“The entire Torah is fit to be written from your mouth,” it follows that they are straight before him! But Rabbi Meir wrote

without copying from a written text because they were straight before him?

And we answer: The case of Rabbi Meir occurred in a time of pressing need, since there was no written Megilla there, and

a time of pressing need—

is different.

That is, Rav Hisda disagreed with Rabbi Abbahu and held that even when the text is straight before one, one may not write without copying from a written text.

Abaye permitted the household of bar Havu,

who sold phylacteries,

to write phylacteries and mezuzot without copying from a written text.

In accordance with whom?

In accordance with this tanna. For it was taught: Rabbi Yirmeya says in the name of our master: Phylacteries and mezuzot—

may be written without copying from a written text, and they do not require ruling.

And the halakha is

that this is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai:

phylacteries—

do not require ruling ;

mezuzot—

require ruling . .

Both this and that

phylacteries and mezuzot—

may be written without copying from a written text.

What is the reason?

Because

they are well-rehearsed,

as these passages are familiar to everyone .

We learned in our Mishna:

“If it was written with sam, etc.”

And we explain: What are these substances?

Sam –

samma

it is [zarnikh. Rashi].

Sikra –

Rabba bar bar Hana said: Its name is sikrata.

And it is a red dye with which they paint shields.

Kumos –

that is

kuma,

tree sap.