Megillah 22a — the Talmud in English

And if you say that

two should be read

verses

from this

“And on the day of Shabbat,” and

three from this

“And on your New Moons,” if so,

two verses remain for them in the section,

and one does not leave in a section fewer than three verses!

He said to him: This—

I have not heard.

But

something similar to it—

I have heard.

For we learned

with regard to the ma’amadot:

On the first day—

they read

“In the beginning,”

and

“And let there be an expanse.”

And it was taught concerning it: “In the beginning”—

with two,

with two readers.

“Let there be an expanse”—

with one.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: It is understandable that “Let there be an expanse,”

it is possible to read

with one, for there are three verses.

But

the verses of

“In the beginning,”

how is it possible to read them

with two,

when they

are five verses, and it was taught: One who reads from the Torah—

may not read fewer than three verses.

If so, how shall we act?

And it was said concerning it: Rav said—

he skips.

That is, the first reads three verses, and the second goes back and reads the third verse that the one before him read.

And Shmuel said:

the first reads half of the third verse and

stops,

and the second reads the other half of the verse.

And we raised a difficulty:

Rav said he skips; for what reason did he not say

like Shmuel, that he

stops?

And we explain: Because he

holds

that

every verse that Moses did not divide—

we do not divide it.

And we ask:

And Shmuel said

that

we divide it?!

But Rabbi Hananya the Scripture-reader said

I had great anguish

with Rabbi Hanina the Great, and he did not permit me to stop—

except for the children of the school, since they are made for study!?

And we reconcile:

There,

with the children of the school,

what is the reason

they permitted it?

Because it is impossible

without this, for they are unable to read the entire verse

! Here too—

it

is impossible

to read for two readers according to the rule without stopping.

And Shmuel,

who

said he stops, for what reason did he not say that he skips?

A decree on account of those who enter

after the first has read: when they hear the second reading this verse, they will say: The first read only two verses.

And on account of those who leave

after the first has read three verses, for they will say: The second will read only two verses.

He raised an objection: A section of six verses—

it is read by two.

And one of five verses—

it is read

by one.

If the first read three, the second reads

the

two

remaining

from this section, and one from another section.

And some say: three

verses from the other section,

because one does not begin a section with fewer than three verses.

And if it is so

as we said above, then this is difficult for both of them! For

according to the one who says he skips—

let him skip,

so that the second goes back and reads the verse with which the first finished; and

according to the one who says he stops—

let him stop!?

And we reconcile:

There it is different—

for it is possible in this manner,

since he can read from the other section, for there it is speaking of the reading on Monday and Thursday, when everything concerns the day.

Rabbi Tanhum said in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: The halakha is in accordance with the one who says,

that it is necessary to read three verses from another section.

And Rabbi Tanhum said in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: Just as one does not begin a section with fewer than three verses—

a decree on account of those who enter, who did not hear that he read from the preceding section and will say that he read only two verses,

so one does not leave in a section fewer than three verses—

a decree on account of those who leave, who will think that the reader after him will read only the two remaining verses.

And we ask:

Is it obvious! Now, if with regard to the beginning,

to begin a section with fewer than three verses,

where the first tanna is lenient

and says that it is sufficient that he read one verse,

the one who says “some say” is stringent

and says that he must specifically read three verses;

with regard to leaving, where the first tanna is stringent,

for it is taught, “And one of five—in one,” and we do not say that he should read three and stop,

is it not all the more so that the one who says “some say” is stringent

in this matter,

!?

And we reconcile:

It might enter your mind that those who enter

during the reading

are common,

and therefore the one who says “some say” was stringent concerning beginning, that he should not begin with fewer than three verses. But

those who leave are not common, for

they

put away the Torah scroll—

and they leave!

And it might enter your mind that we do not decree that one should not leave fewer than three verses in a section, since those who leave are not common, and they will not err to say that the second read only two verses;

it teaches us

that we do decree.

And we raise a difficulty:

And the first tanna—what is different about leaving

fewer than three verses in a section,

that he does not

leave them—

because of those who leave; beginning

with fewer than three verses

also

should we decree that he not do so—

a decree on account of those who enter!?

They say: One who enters

the synagogue and hears that the second read three verses, while the first read only two verses from this section—

he will ask

how the first read only two verses, and they will tell him that he read from the preceding section. But one who leaves will not ask, and will err to think that only two verses are read.

Rabba son of Rava sent to Rav Yosef:

with regard to the reading of the ma’amadot,

what is the halakha,

does he skip or stop?

He sent to him: The halakha—

he skips, and

the

middle reader skips them,

for he goes back and reads the verse that the first read. For if he does not skip, he will have to read fewer than three verses in the second section. And if he reads three verses from the second section, then he will have read all of it.

We learned in our Mishna:

This is the rule: Every

day

on which there is an additional offering, etc.

They read four.

A question was raised before them: On a communal fast, with how many

readers do they read from the Torah?

Shall we say that specifically

on the New Moon and on a Festival, when there is an additional offering—

they read

four, but here, when there is no additional offering—

not; or perhaps, since

here too there is

at least an additional prayer,

namely

the prayer “Answer us,”

should they read four?

Come and hear

from the Mishna. For we learned:

On New Moons and on the intermediate days of a Festival—

they read four.

It implies:

But on a communal fast—

they read

three!

Say the first clause: On Monday, Thursday, and on Shabbat at the afternoon prayer—

they read three.

It implies:

But

on a

communal fast—

they read

four!

Rather,

it is necessarily so:

from this—

it is impossible to infer anything.

Come and hear,

that they read four on a fast:

For Rav

happened to come to Babylonia on a communal fast. He arose and read from the scroll. He opened—

he recited the blessing, he concluded—

but he did not recite the blessing. Everyone fell on their faces

[they all fell on their faces].

And Rav—

did not fall on his face

[and below we explain all these things that he did].

And now,

since Rav

read as an Israelite,

for he was neither a koen nor a Levite, and if so, he read as the third,

for what reason did he conclude but not recite the blessing? Was it not because he intended that

a different

person should read after him

as the fourth? We see that they read four on a communal fast!

And we reject:

No. Rav—

read as a koen,

although he was not a koen.

For Rav Huna

who was an Israelite—also

read as a koen, for the kohanim honored him by having him read first from the Torah

[as explained in tractate Gittin 59b].

And we ask: What are you comparing?

It is understandable that Rav Huna—

read as a koen, for even Rav Ami and Rav Asi, who were distinguished kohanim of the Land of Israel

were—

forced

themselves to be

subservient to Rav Huna.

But Rav—there was Shmuel

in Nehardea, which is in Babylonia,

who was a koen, and who was accustomed to be above him

[it was Shmuel’s practice to be above Rav]!?

And we reconcile: In truth,

Shmuel too—

was subservient to Rav. And it was Rav who accorded him

to Shmuel

honor

in this, that he was accustomed to be above him.

And when he accorded him

honor—

in his presence,

but

not in his presence—

he did not accord it to him.

And here it was not in his presence, for Shmuel was not in Babylonia but in Nehardea.

And we say:

This too is logical—

that Rav read as a koen. For if it enters your mind that he read as an Israelite, why did he recite the blessing before it?

For only the one who opens and the one who concludes recite blessings, as we see that he concluded but did not recite the blessing, because of the one who came after him!?

And we reject: Do not prove from this, for it is speaking

after

the

ordinance

was instituted that all recite blessings before and after it; therefore he recited the blessing.

And we ask:

If so,

since it is speaking after the ordinance,

should he also recite the blessing after it?

And we reconcile:

It is different where Rav was sitting, for entering

would

enter

the synagogue after the reading had begun,