A Torah scroll is a very long piece of parchement with two poles ("atzei chayim") at either end, while a Megillat Esther is a not-as-long piece of parchment with one pole at the end of the book.

http://bit.ly/KUSLRO http://bit.ly/KBHw20

Why the difference? Two poles seems the most convienient, as it allows you to save your place when you close it. Why not do that for the Megillah as well?

  • 2
    This may have something to do with the Megillah being a "letter". – HodofHod Jun 3 '12 at 16:17
  • @HodofHod A source that suggests that would be most interesting! – Double AA Jun 3 '12 at 16:30
  • Well, it's the reason why Chabad doesn't use any polls at all.... – HodofHod Jun 3 '12 at 17:04
  • @HodofHod Given the sources in msh210's answer, either that is much older than Chabad or it is a post facto justification. – Double AA Jun 3 '12 at 17:32
  • Oh, I didn't suggest that Chabad is the originator, only that the reason I've always heard for why there's no poll, and that it's folded while read, is that it's a letter. Could be post facto or not, I'm not sure what the source for the reason is. – HodofHod Jun 3 '12 at 17:35

(Note that not every m'gila has a pole at one end. Some do, though, as you note. See Mishna B'rura 691:16.)

Aruch Hashulchan (Orach Chayim 691:7) explains:

A sefer Tora (Torah scroll) requires two poles because we read from it constantly; for n'viim and k'suvim one pole suffices.

I suspect the intent is that a sefer Tora needs the greater stability that the poles provide because it's used so often; see also the comments on this answer. (AHS notes further (there) that one possible reason for a m'gila to have no pole at all (rather than one) is that it's used so very infrequently.)

  • +1 I wonder though if you look at the earlier sources if you'll find a more concrete and explicit distinction. Right now it's still a little speculative extrapolation on your part. – Double AA Jun 3 '12 at 7:04
  • Not that I see as of yet. – msh210 Jun 3 '12 at 7:17
  • 1
    As a more practical manner the m'gila is unrolled in its entirety when it is read. This is easier with one or no poles. – soandos Jun 3 '12 at 9:03
  • I suspect that the Aruch HaShulchan is saying that because it is used constantly, it would be a pain to have to roll it all the way up every time you stepped away from it, which is something you'd have to do if it only had one pole. If it has two poles, you can close it while still maintaining your place. – Menachem Jun 5 '12 at 1:30
  • plus, there is a lot more to roll in a sefer torah – Menachem Jun 5 '12 at 1:43

It seems that Torah scrolls didn't always have 2 poles but that it was added for greater maneuverability. See this Hakirah article (p.210 - 211) for some speculation on when and why this change was made.


Haran suggests the bars were adopted from Rome. The second bar was added to avoid having to unwind and rewind the scroll at every use, and was used in Rome by at least the first century CE.

Based on literary sources, Haran argues that a single bars was used for all scrolls until near the end of the Talmudic era, when double bars became standard. There is no recorded reason for the change and it is likely that it was done for pragmatic reasons.

See "Torah and Bible Scrolls in the First Centuries of the Christian Era", Shnaton 10:100-101. (In Hebrew.)

Torah and Bible Scrolls in the First Centuries of the Christian Era

  • Wait, so you mean that when they got towards Vezot Haberacha they would spend 10 minutes beforehand unrolling and 10 minutes afterwards rerolling, every Monday and Thursday and twice on Shabbos? That's very inconvenient. – Heshy Mar 7 '17 at 20:19
  • @Heshy It is not clear how they were rolled. It is possible that it could have been rolled without a bar. I am also not sure if there always was a tradition to have the entire torah in a single scroll. – Argon Mar 7 '17 at 21:43
  • Which bar does Haran suggest was first and which was added later? – Double AA Oct 29 '17 at 1:59
  • @DoubleAA I am unable to find him saying which one explicitly. As one may expect, the literary sources are largely silent about this. Ostensibly, it was the left one. Take a look at the facsimile of page 101 I posted. – Argon Oct 30 '17 at 0:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .