Safrut and the Daf

(1) In today’s and yesterday’s daf, we’ve been discussing laws of writing a Sefer Torah and other sefarim. For instance, Bava Batra 14a:

וּרְמִינְהִי: תְּחִלַּת סֵפֶר וְסוֹפוֹ – כְּדֵי לָגוֹל. כְּדֵי לָגוֹל מַאי? אִי כְּדֵי לָגוֹל עַמּוּד – קַשְׁיָא הֶקֵּף; אִי כְּדֵי לָגוֹל הֶקֵּף – קַשְׁיָא עַמּוּד!

The Gemara raises a contradiction between this baraita and another baraita that teaches: Enough parchment should be left at the beginning of the scroll and at its end for winding. The Gemara clarifies: For winding around what? If it means for winding around the pole to which the beginning of the scroll is fastened, this is difficult in light of what is taught in the first baraita, that at the end of the scroll enough parchment should be left for winding around the entire circumference of the scroll. And if it means for winding around the entire circumference, this is difficult in light of what is taught in the first baraita that at the beginning of the scroll enough parchment should be left for winding around the pole.

In the daf yomi chabura, they were discussing aspects of this law, and what could motivate it. Also, what is the width of a pole? This led to an overlap with a Safrus class I recently signed up for. We started by learning the halachot of writing, and will soon begin the practical writing.

This by way of introduction to that Safrus class, by Rav Eliezer Adam. The previous sessions, on Zoom, have been recorded, so it is still possible to join and catch up. And they have a special where it is $290 to sign up. There’s a Zoom component, some study, some exercises, and to-be an optional in-person component in the Teaneck / Englewood area. I’m enjoying it so far.

The link to the course is here, and here’s a flyer.

(2) The maggid shiur in today’s daf yomi at Rinat “erred” by mentioning the Sefer Torah of Ezra, rather than that of the Courtyard, sefer Azara, and was corrected. On 14b:

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: סֵפֶר עֲזָרָה לִתְחִלָּתוֹ הוּא נִגְלָל. וְאַכַּתִּי, תְּרֵי בִּתְרֵי הֵיכִי יָתֵיב? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דְּכָרֵיךְ בֵּיהּ פּוּרְתָּא, וְכַרְכֵיהּ לְעֵיל.

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: The scroll of the Temple courtyard, which was kept in the Ark, was wound to its beginning, i.e., it had only a single pole, so that its circumference was only two handbreadths. The Gemara asks: But still, how does an item that is two handbreadths wide fit into a space that is precisely two handbreadths? It would be impossible to fit it in. Rav Ashi said: A small section of the scroll was wound separately and then placed on top of the scroll.

The difference is that the Hebrew word ends with a heh, עזרה, while the name ends with an aleph, עזרא. Even if it is Sefer Ezra, it would be the Sefer Torah that Ezra the Sofer wrote (and stored in the Azara?), not the Ketuvim book of Ezra.

Rashi is clear which it is, the Sefer Torah that Moshe wrote and which was stored in the Azara.

ספר עזרה - ספר שכתב משה ובו קורין בעזרה פרשת המלך בהקהל וכהן גדול ביה"כ:

If we look at variants, the three printings are divided. Our Vilna Shas has Azara, Venice is (deliberately?) ambiguous writing by using an apostrophe in place of the last letter, and Pizaro has Ezra.

Moving to manuscripts, here are the first three.

Florence 8-9 has Sefer Torah shel Ezra. Hamburg 165 seems like an overcorrection because of potential or actual confusion, so writes it as Sefer Torah sheAsah Moshe, that Moshe wrote, and there is nary a mention of Ezra or the Temple Courtyard. Munich 95, our only complete Talmud manuscript, does something strange. Rav Acha bar Yaakov’s statement appears twice. In the first, it is is ספר עזר׳ תור׳, which to have a flipped order. In the second, it is ספר תור׳ עזר׳ which would be in the correct order. The apostrophe prevents determination if it is Ezra or Azara.

Another three manuscripts:

Oxford is clear that it is Azara. Escorial avoids the issue, just making it a Sefer Torah. I’ll get back to Paris. Finally, Vatican 115b has Sefer Azara.

In terms of Paris 1337, this is a fun one, because we have a correction from one to the other. Thus, the scribe first wrote it with an aleph, then rubbed it out and replaced it with a heh:

(3) A reader asked me about an old parshablog post on Korach. Rashi begins by saying פרשה זו יפה נדרשת במדרש רבי תנחומא, “This parsha is darshened will in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma.” The Taz objects that you aren’t supposed to say that one Torah teaching is better than another! The Taz answers, but I give my own answer. Namely, Rashi is channeling his sources. Up to this point, he has been giving us Sifrei. However, for two perakim, Rashi abandons Sifrei and gives us Midrash Tanchuma. Why? Because the Sifrei is absent on these two perakim! So יפה נדרשת means that it is consistently darshened, not that he prefers one midrashic source over the other.

I’ll reply to the reader privately and separately, but what about the existence of Midrash Rabba on these perakim? Midrash Rabba is a composite work, with Bereishit Rabba much earlier. Bamidbar Rabba is much later, and isn’t really a source for Rashi. Much likely stems from the work of Rashi’s contemporary, Rav Moshe HaDarshan. So, Rashi should be looking at earlier works, like Sifrei and Tanchuma.