Talmud - Menachot 30b מנחות ל׳ ב׳

Rather, he should write three letters in the column and two outside of the column. If he happens upon a word that comprises two letters and cannot be written in its entirety within the column, he may not cast it in the margin between the two columns; rather, he should return and write the word at the beginning of the following line.

§ One who mistakenly omitted the name of God and wrote the next word before discovering his error should scrape off that which he wrote, and suspend the words that he scraped off above the line, and write the name of God upon the place that had been scraped; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: One may even suspend the name of God above the line, without scraping off the word that was written in its place. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Not only may one scrape off the dry ink of the next word, but one may even wipe away the word while the ink is still wet and write the name of God in its place.

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: A scribe may suspend the entire name of God above the line, but he may not suspend part of the name of God above the line. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A scribe may not write the name of God either upon the place that had been scraped or upon the place that had been wiped away, and he may not suspend it above the line, as none of these options exhibit sufficient respect for the name of God. What should the scribe do? He should remove the entire sheet of parchment and inter it.

It was stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to the final halakhic ruling: Rav Ḥananel says that Rav says: The halakha is that one suspends the name of God above the line. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel says: The halakha is that one may even wipe away the word while the ink is still wet and write the name of God in its place.

The Gemara asks: And why is it necessary to state the actual opinions? Let this Sage, Rav Ḥananel in the name of Rav, say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of this Sage, Rabbi Yosei; and let this Sage, Rabba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel, say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of that Sage, Rabbi Yitzḥak. The Gemara answers: Since there are those who reverse the opinions of the tanna’im, they needed to state the opinions explicitly.

Ravin bar Ḥinnana says that Ulla says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri; and moreover, not only is the halakha in accordance with his opinion with regard to this matter, but in any place where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri taught a halakha, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion.

The Gemara asks: To which statement of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri is this referring? If we say that it is referring to the statement here, where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: A scribe may suspend the entire name of God above the line, but he may not suspend part of the name of God above the line, that is difficult: But wasn’t it stated with regard to that baraita that Rav Ḥananel says that Rav says: The halakha is that one suspends the name of God above the line, and Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel says: The halakha is that one may even wipe away the word while the ink is still wet and write the name of God in its place?

And if it is so that when Rabbi Ḥanina said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri he was referring to this matter, then let Ravin bar Ḥinnana also say along with those amora’im that the halakha is that one suspends the entire name of God above the line, but not a part of the name.

Rather, say that Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri was referring not to the discussion here, but was stated with regard to this mishna (Ḥullin 74b): Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: If one ritually slaughtered a pregnant cow and the calf was then removed alive, the ritual slaughter of the mother is effective with regard to the calf as well. And even if the calf is five years old and plowing the field when one wants to eat it, the earlier slaughter of its mother renders it permitted, and it does not require ritual slaughter before it is eaten.

The Gemara asks: But wasn’t it already stated with regard to that mishna that Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri? And if it is so that when Rabbi Ḥanina said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri he was referring to this matter, then let Ravin bar Ḥinnana also say along with Ze’eiri that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.

Rather, say that Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement was with regard to this mishna (Gittin 65b): Initially the Sages would say: With regard to one who was taken out in a collar [kolar] to be executed and said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, these people should write and give her the document. Although he did not explicitly say the word give, this is understood to have been his intention, in order to release her from the obligation to perform levirate marriage or ḥalitza. They then said that this halakha applies even to one who sets sail and one who departs with a caravan to a distant place. A bill of divorce is given to his wife under these circumstances even if her husband said only: Write a bill of divorce for my wife. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even in the case of one who is dangerously ill who gives that instruction, they write the bill of divorce and give it to his wife.

Alternatively, Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement was with regard to this halakha: In the case of teruma of the tithe of demai, which is separated from the produce received from an am ha’aretz, who is suspected of not separating tithes properly, that returned to its original place, i.e., it became mixed with the produce from which it had been separated, Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: In this situation, not only did the Sages permit one to ask the am ha’aretz whether he had set aside his tithes in the proper manner and to rely on his response on Shabbat, a day when it is not permitted to separate tithes, but one may ask him and eat based on his statement even on a weekday.

The Gemara asks: But wasn’t it already stated with regard to those mishnayot that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri in the case of one who is dangerously ill, and in the case of teruma of the tithe of demai? And if it is so that when Rabbi Ḥanina said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri he was referring to these mishnayot, then let Ravin bar Ḥinnana also say along with Rabbi Yoḥanan that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.

Rather, say that Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement was made with regard to this halakha: Rabbi Yosei ben Keifar says in the name of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri: If one planted a cowpea plant for its seed, i.e., not to be eaten as a vegetable but for one to either eat or plant its seeds, and some of the plants took root before Rosh HaShana, while some of them took root only after Rosh HaShana, one may not separate teruma or tithes from this for that, as one may not separate teruma or tithes from the new crop for the old or from the old crop for the new.

How, then, shall one act so that he not err and set aside teruma and tithes incorrectly? It is difficult to know when the plants took root. He shall pile the entire stock onto his threshing floor, into the middle of it, mix the stock together, and then separate teruma and tithes; and consequently it will turn out that he has separated teruma and tithes from the new crop in the mixture for the new crop in it, and from the old crop in the mixture for the old crop in it.

The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it already stated with regard to that baraita that Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri? And if it is so that when Rabbi Ḥanina said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri he was referring to this baraita, then let Ravin bar Ḥinnana also say along with Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.

Rather, Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement was with regard to a chest. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that it was with regard to wine. The Gemara elaborates: Rav Pappa said

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Menachot 30b explores Torah scroll scribal rules, detailing proper column spacing and how to correct an accidentally omitted divine name.