1990. Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud. London: Soncino.
R. JUDAH SAID: WE FIND A SHORT NAME [FORMING PART] OF A LONG NAME. Are they then similar: the
Mem of
Shem is closed, whereas that of Shimon is open? -Said R. Hisda: This proves that if a closed [Mem] is written open, it is valid. An objection is raised: U-kethabtam: it must be kethibah tammah [perfect writing];
thus one must not write the
Aleph as an ‘
Ayin, the ‘
Ayin as an
Aleph, the
Beit as a
Caf, or the
Caf as a
Beit,, the
Gimel as a
Tsade or the
Tsade as a
Gimel,the
Dalet as a
Resh or the
Resh as a
Dalet, the
Heyas a
Chetor the
Chetas a
Hey, the
Vav as a
Yud or the
Yud as a
Vav, the
Zayin as a
Nun or the
Nun as a
Zayin, the
Tet as a
Pey or the
Pey as a
Tet, bent letters straight or straight letters bent, the Mem as a
Samech or the
Samech as a
Mem, closed [letters] open or open letters closed.
An open section [parashah] may not be written closed, nor a closed section open. If one writes it as the ‘Song’, or if one writes the ‘Song’ as the general text, or if one writes it without ink, or if one writes the ‘Names’ in gold, they [the Scrolls thus written] must be ‘hidden’. -He [R. Hisda] holds with the following Tanna. For it was taught, R. Judah b. Bathyra said: In reference to the second [day] ‘We-niskehem [and their drink-offerings]’ is stated; in reference to the sixth, ‘u-nesakehah [and the drink-offerings thereof]’; in reference to the seventh, ‘ke-mishpatam [after the ordinance]’: this gives
Mem,
Yud,
Mem [i.e.,] mayim [water], whence we have a Biblical intimation of the water libation. Now since if an open letter is written closed, it is valid, a closed [letter] is the same, [viz.,] if a closed letter is written open, it is fit. But how compare! If an open [letter] is written closed (Shabbat 103b).
