Siman 32

The mitzvah of tefillin is that one shall write these four parashiyot: "Kadesh Li Kol Bechor" until "miyamim yamimah," "Ve-hayah Ki Yeviacha" until "bechozek yad hotzianu Hashem mi-Mitzrayim," the parashah of "Shema" until "u-vish'arecha," and "Ve-hayah Im Shamoa" until "al ha-aretz." In the shel rosh, one writes each parashah on a parchment by itself, and in the shel yad, one writes them all on one parchment. And it was taught in the Mechilta at the end of parashat "Bo": If one wrote them not in their order—they shall be sequestered. And this "not in their order" includes three things: The first is regarding the location, meaning that in the shel yad he placed "Shema" adjacent to "Kadesh" and the like. And similarly in the shel rosh: he placed "Shema" adjacent to "Kadesh." And the second is regarding the writing of the parashiyot, meaning that if he wrote "Ve-hayah Ki Yeviacha" before "Kadesh"—it is pasul, for one must write according to the order we explained. Therefore, if the last parashah was invalidated—he returns and writes it. But if the first was invalidated—they are all pasul, meaning: not that they themselves are pasul, but that he has nothing with which to join them unless he has another first parashah that was written before the three parashiyot, for then he joins it and they are kosher. And the third is regarding the letters, for if he erred in one letter and needs to erase it or fix it—all the letters after it until the end of the parashah are invalidated. For the writing must specifically be in their order, the earlier first and the later last. And this is what they said in the Yerushalmi, first chapter of Megillah (halacha 9): One may not suspend letters in tefillin and mezuzot. Meaning: for in a Torah scroll, if he omitted one letter—he suspends it between the lines. But in tefillin and mezuzah it is not so, because it would be not in their order. And in these laws they are more stringent than a Torah scroll, because it is written: "Ve-hayu"—they shall be in their state of being. Meaning: according to the order as it is written in the Torah.

And according to this, if one letter in the parasha was erased or damaged—it is pasul. And specifically when it is erased completely, but if its impression is recognizable—it is kosher, and he passes over it with a quill. And more will be explained regarding this. And if the damage is minor, meaning that the letter was damaged but its form is still upon it, such as if the yuds of the alephs were severed and nevertheless the form of alephs is upon them—he repairs them and they are kosher. And if a small break occurred in the roof of a beit or the like, if the break is small to the extent that the form of a beit is still upon it—he repairs it and it is kosher, for this is not called "not in their order." And more will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven. And likewise, "not in their order" is only relevant to a deficiency and not to an excess. And this matter the Rambam wrote in chapter 2, law 3, and this is his wording: And one must be careful with full and deficient spelling..., for if he wrote the deficient as full—it is pasul until he erases the excess. And if he wrote the full as deficient—it is pasul, and it has no remedy. Thus far his words, and the reason is simple: for every excess is as if it is not there, and "not in their order" is not relevant to it, and he erases it and it is kosher. Only one must be precise that if the excess is in the middle of the word, that there should not be a large break in the middle of the word, and he stretches the preceding letter or the one after it as much as possible (and so wrote the Magen Avraham at the end of subsection 33, see there). And likewise if he wrote an extra word—he erases it and it is kosher. Provided that there does not remain a space like nine small letters, for then it is pasul because it is the break of a parasha. (And even though Rabbeinu Tam holds that the break of a parasha is three letters—we do not hold accordingly, as the Magen Avraham wrote there.)

In the writing of the parashiyot of the yad and of the rosh, which comes first – there is no hindrance in the matter, for in this the rule of "in their order" and "not in their order" does not apply, as both are equal. However, some say that since the of the rosh is higher in sanctity than the of the yad – he should write the of the rosh first. But our teacher, the Rema, ruled the opposite, that ab initio he should write the of the yad before the of the rosh. And his reason appears to be because the of the yad is written in the Torah first. And another reason appears to me: that since in the of the yad all the parashiyot are written on one parchment as I have written, because the Torah thus decreed "And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand" – it must be one sign (Menachot 34b). And if so, this parchment at the time of its writing is more sanctified than any parchment of the rosh, for there is not in any parchment more than one parashah. Furthermore: that the writing of the tefillin is not explicitly stated and was included in the binding, and it is as if it were written "And you shall bind and you shall write." And if so, just as in the donning the of the yad comes first, so too in the writing. However, it is not a hindrance, and it is possible that for this reason the Torah left their writing unspecified because it is not a hindrance.

And so too regarding the writing of the letters, regarding each letter individually, the concept of "in their order" does not apply. That is to say: even though every letter itself has a prior and a later part—for example, in a heh, one must first write the dalet and afterwards the yod, and similarly with all the letters—nevertheless, if he preceded the later part, it is of no concern, for as long as the letter is not finished, it is nothing (Pri Megadim). And so too if he wrote part of a letter, and afterwards wrote the preceding letter, and then returned and completed the subsequent letter, it is not "not in their order" for the reason that has been explained (ibid.). And so it seems to me that if he did not provide the tagin for the letters that require tagin, and wrote the subsequent letters, this is not "not in their order," and he may provide the tagin afterwards. And such is the law regarding the thorns of the letters—he may make them afterwards, for since the essential forms of the letters were written in their order, it is of no concern. (And the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 1 that the dalet of "echad" must be large, like four very small daletin, but not like the daletin of the parashiyot. Pri Megadim.)

There are those who wrote to be careful to write all the parashiyot of the yad and of the rosh consecutively, and that he should not interrupt with speech at all. At the very least, between the first parasha and the second there should be no interruption, and likewise between the third and the fourth. And if he interrupted between the second and the third, when he begins to write the third – he should pass the quill over the first word of the first and second parasha, and afterward write the third (Sha'arei Teshuva, subsection 4, in the name of the Kavanot). And behold, this is not according to the law but is merely a beautification. And certainly it is proper to beautify such a great mitzvah. Also, that he should write them in purity, that he should immerse from the impurity of keri. And he should write the parashiyot consecutively, those of the yad and likewise those of the rosh. But regarding an interruption between those of the yad and those of the rosh – I do not know of a concern, for they are two mitzvot. And all of this is not a requirement for validity at all, as I have written.

The writing must be specifically with deyo. What constitutes "deyo" we have explained in Yoreh Deah siman 271 from section 26 until section 35, and the words of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, which seemingly contradict themselves from there to here in section 3. We explained there that the essence of the law depends on three things: that it be black, lasting, and its source be from a tree. Therefore, in the time of the Shas, they would make it from the smoke of oils of fruits which are from a tree. Now we are not experts; therefore, we make it from gallnuts which are from a tree, and gum, and copper water, and this is kankantum.

And this is what our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 3: They shall be written with black ink, whether it contains gallnut water or does not contain gallnut water. And initially, one should be stringent to write with ink made from the smoke of wood or oils soaked in gallnut water. Thus far their words. Meaning: for previously they wrote that the primary requirement is the blackness, for in the opinion of the Rambam only this is indispensable, as I wrote there. However, in truth, a substance that comes from the tree is indispensable, even though the Rambam did not mention this. And so it is explicit in the Zohar Terumah (page 159), and this is its wording: And all matters of ink are from the tree. And furthermore, black ink, see there. And this is why they wrote that initially one should be stringent to make it from smoke soaked in gallnut water, for both are from trees. However, we are not experts in this, and therefore in Yoreh Deah there they explained only that it should be from the tree. And this is like what we do with gallnuts and gummi, for both are from the tree: for gummi is also from the tree, as it is resin that drips from a tree, and kankantum for blackness, and this is copper water. (And with this, everything that the Magen Avraham in subsection 2 and the Pri Megadim found difficult is resolved well, see there. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

If one wrote even a single letter with other types of colors or with gold—where one mixes ground gold with water and writes with it—they are completely invalid. For a correction is of no use since it must be "in their order," and this letter that was not written with ink is as if it were not written at all. And if one threw gold dust upon the letters in order to beautify them—one removes the gold and the underlying writing remains, and it is valid. And as long as one has not removed it—it is invalid. Therefore, if one threw the gold even upon a single letter of the Names—it has no remedy, because it is forbidden to remove the gold as it is like erasing the Name, and while the gold is upon it the letter is invalidated. Therefore, they require genizah. (And in any case, "not in their order" does not apply when one removes it.)

It is necessary that no letter should touch its neighbor. Rather, every letter must be surrounded by parchment on its four sides (Gemara 29a). And even the last letter must be surrounded by parchment on all sides. The reason was not explained, and it appears to me that this is a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai. There is one who wrote that it is due to the reason of "perfect writing" (the Ha-Gra-z). But it appears to me that "perfect writing" applies only to the body of the letter. Furthermore: for in the Mordechai at the beginning of the laws of a sefer Torah, he brought opinions that in a sefer Torah there is no requirement for a surrounding of parchment, and so it appears from the Nimukei Yosef at the beginning of the laws of mezuzah, see there. Also the Rif did not bring this regarding a sefer Torah. And if it were due to the reason of "perfect writing" – does a sefer Torah not also require "perfect writing"? Rather, certainly this is a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai, and he holds that it was not stated regarding a sefer Torah. However, we hold that in a sefer Torah it is also a requirement that invalidates, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 271. And so the Rambam ruled in the first chapter, law 19, see there. (And from the wording of the Tur it seemingly implies like the Ha-Gra-z, and so wrote the Taz and the Perisha. But the Bach wrote according to our words, and wrote that the Tur lists matters individually and did not bring proofs. And it is clear that his reason is from the proofs we have brought.)

And in the Yerushalmi Berakhot (chapter two, end of halacha 3) it is stated: If one blurred the letters—there is a Tanna who teaches it is kosher, and there is a Tanna who teaches it is pasul. Rabbi Idi... (meaning they do not disagree): it is kosher from below, and pasul from above. For example, "artzeinu tifartenu"—"artzcha" requires [investigation], "tifartcha" requires [investigation], see there. And its explanation is as follows: regarding letters equal in length, the law is clear that if the attachment is from above—it is pasul, and from below—it is kosher; because even without the attachment, the form of the letter remains. However, regarding letters that are not similar in their length, such as "artzcha," "tifartcha," where the khaf extends downward further than the tzadi and the tav, and they were attached at the end of the tzadi and the tav, while on the khaf it is in the middle—it requires inquiry. Meaning: it is a doubt and we rule stringently, and so wrote the Rashba in a responsum (siman 611). And his version of the text in the Yerushalmi was not like our version, and he, of blessed memory, explained that from above scraping does not help, as it is "chak tochot" since the letter was not yet finished. But from below scraping helps, see there. And from the words of all the poskim it is explicitly implied that scraping helps in every case, for this is not comparable to "chak tochot" since he only scrapes between the letters. And so wrote explicitly the Hagahot Maimoniyot chapter one (letter 80) and in the Mordechai at the beginning of the chapter "HaKometz Rabba," that when one is engaged in separating the letters—it is not like "chak tochot," see there. Only the Mordechai is stringent even regarding from below until one scrapes, since our Talmud does not make such a distinction, see there (and so wrote the Taz, subsection 3).

Regarding the halachic ruling, it appears that scraping certainly helps, as is explained from the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch section 25 and section 26, that even in a case of a connection in the letters of the Name – it is permitted to scrape. And such is the opinion of most of the poskim. However, regarding a connection from below, if one is obligated to scrape – certainly on a weekday one should scrape. But on Shabbat and Yom Tov, since scraping is forbidden, one should rely simply on the Yerushalmi, and not to bring out another because of the affront to this Torah. (See Magen Avraham subsection 3 who tends to be stringent, and in the name of the Radak he brings to be lenient, see there. Therefore, when it is impossible to scrape – one should rely on this. And if the tagin touch one another – one should scrape, but it is not disqualified by this. And that which he wrote that according to the Rambam it is disqualified, I wonder: for did not the Rambam in the second chapter and in the seventh chapter write that the tagin are not indispensable at all, see there. And the Meiri explicitly validates it, as the Magen Avraham wrote. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 4: And he shall write with a perfect script, so that even the point of a yod is not missing, and it shall be crowned with tagin according to its law. And ab initio he should write with a somewhat thick script, so that they are not quickly erased. And so too it is a mitzvah to beautify them from without and from within. Thus far his words. And even though in Shabbat (103b) we say: "And you shall write them" – a perfect script, that he should not write alephs as ayins... nevertheless, even the absence of the point of a yod is not a perfect script, for a perfect script is when the letter is written in its entirety. Furthermore: even there, of necessity, the intention is not literally alephs as ayins, for if so, you do not need the verse "And you shall write them," since this is not the letter that must be written. Rather, the intention is that it appears somewhat like an ayin, such as if he extended the lower yod of the aleph truly upward, and the upper yod of the aleph truly downward, and it appears somewhat like an ayin as is understood, even though in truth it is an aleph but it is not in its perfection. And if so, even with the absence of a point, it is not in its perfection. And more will be explained regarding this in siman 36, section 6; see there.

And know that there are three points on the yod: the first on its right curves slightly and it is the primary one; and the second opposite it on the left, much smaller than it, and it is not curved; and the third from above on the left side is a small point, as will be explained in siman 36. And behold, it appears that these two are also indispensable, except that it is possible to repair them even after the writing of the tefillin, for there is no issue of "not in their order" since the essence of the letter exists (and so wrote the Pri Megadim in the Taz, subsection 3). But if the right point is missing entirely, it appears that it does not avail if he writes it afterward, for behold, without it the form of a yod is not upon it (Beit Yosef, and Taz siman 36, subsection 1). And the scribes are not careful regarding the left point, and one must rebuke them, for according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam in the Tosafot to Menachot (29a), this is the point of the yod that is indispensable, see there.

And know that from his wording, in that he wrote the law of the tagged letters with the law of the "thorns," it appears on the surface that both are indispensable. This is according to the opinion of the Tur in Yoreh Deah siman 273. However, behold, in Tur siman 36, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled according to the opinion of the Rambam that the taggin are not indispensable, and he did not provide any gloss upon it. We have already written in Yoreh Deah siman 274 section 14 that we hold like the Rambam, see there. And it must be said that his intention was not to equate them entirely, and the reason he did not write that this is only "ab initio" as he wrote regarding thick writing—is because they are not comparable: for there it is only an "ab initio" enhancement, like "beautifying them" which he wrote, and not from the essential law. But the taggin are from the essential law even according to the Rambam, as it is the law of the Gemara, and one is obligated to fix them. It is only that we do not disqualify without the taggin. And he does not deal with this law here, but rather in siman 36.

The Tur wrote: And one must write with his right hand even if he is ambidextrous. And for a left-handed person—his left is his right. Thus far his words, and the reason: for "perfect writing" can only be done with the right hand (Levush). Furthermore: for it is written "And you shall bind [...] and you shall write"—just as binding is with the right, so too writing is with the right (ibid.). And this is explained in Menachot (37a). Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great book that even post facto it is invalid if one wrote with the left if he is not ambidextrous, and that the Hagahot Maimoniyot (chapter two) ruled likewise in the name of the Semak. And the Bach ruled likewise, see there.

And according to this, it appears clear that what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: One must write with his right hand even if he is ambidextrous. And if he wrote with the left—it is pasul if it is possible to find others written with the right… Thus far his words, which implies that if it is impossible to find others—they are kosher ex post facto. And it is clear that his intention is only regarding one who is ambidextrous. But when he is not ambidextrous—it is pasul, for if not so, he would be contradicting himself. Furthermore: from where do we have reason to say so, since the Hagahot Maimoniyot and the Semak rule them pasul, and it is explained so in the Gemara? Therefore, I am wondered at the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch (Levush, and so it is implied from Magen Avraham subsection 4) who interpret this even regarding one who is not ambidextrous. And there are those who wrote not to recite a berakhah over them, but nevertheless he should don them (Pri Megadim, and Beit Shmuel in Even HaEzer siman 123 subsection 4). And in my humble opinion, they are completely pasul. And also regarding the matter of Shabbat, one is not liable when he writes with his left hand, as is explained in Shabbat (103a) see there. And so too a left-handed person when he wrote with the right hand of all other people—they are pasul, as is implied there in Shabbat see there. And know that there is one who says that one who performs his work with the right and writes with the left or vice versa—should not be a sofer, for since there is a doubt as to what is called "his right hand," as is explained in siman 27 that there is a dispute in this regarding the donning of tefillin, and if so, it is a doubt of a Torah law regardless of which hand he writes with (Pri Megadim in Eshel subsection 5). And these are words of reason. And one who writes with his mouth—it is completely pasul (Magen Avraham subsection 5).

It is a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai that a mezuzah requires sirtut for every single line. Tefillin do not require sirtut for every single line, but only for the top line, for it is forbidden to write without sirtut. And he shall draw a line at the top, the bottom, and the sides, so that when he writes all the rows—he will write them evenly. In the Yerushalmi, the first chapter of Shabbat, it is meticulous not to perform sirtut, as it says there: Anyone who is exempt from a matter and performs it is called a "hedyot," and it says this regarding another matter, and automatically the same applies to this law (Tosafot 32b). However, this is when one does so as a chumra. But if he knows of himself that he is unable to straighten the lines without sirtut—he may perform sirtut for all the lines. He should only be careful not to perform sirtut with lead, because the place of the sirtut remains colored. And so it is taught in the Yerushalmi Megillah (first chapter, halacha 9): One rules with a reed, and this is sirtut. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 6: And some say that one must always perform sirtut at the top, the bottom, and from the sides, even though he knows how to write without sirtut. And such is the custom. Thus far his words. And it is not understood: For even according to the first opinion it is so, for the first line is a necessity as I have written. And if it is because of the other three—everyone also agrees to this, as is explained from the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol and Sefer HaTerumah (see Beit Yosef). And it must be said that since from the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, there, it appears that he only required the top line, for this he says in the phrasing of "and some say." (See Magen Avraham, subsection 8, who was precise: Are there not several chumrot that we are stringent with, and yet is one called a "hedyot"? See there. And it seems to me that certainly whenever there is no opinion for the chumra, or some fence—certainly one should not be stringent. And most chumrot are because of the opinions. Be precise and you will find it easy and you will forget. And so it is implied from the Pri Megadim, see there.)

And know that the Rambam wrote in the first chapter, law 12: It is a law given to Moses at Sinai that one may not write a sefer Torah or a mezuzah except with sirtut. However, tefillin do not require sirtut, because they are covered. Thus far his words, meaning: they are not visible to the eye of the reader, like a sefer Torah or a mezuzah which are checked periodically, and if he writes crookedly, everyone will see. But the tefillin are not visible, and we are not concerned if they are written crookedly. And according to his words, even the first line does not require it, for he holds that that which our sages, of blessed memory, said—that it is forbidden to write without sirtut—this refers to something visible to all. And that which we wrote previously is the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam and most of the poskim. And it appears to me that they follow their own reasoning, for Rabbeinu Tam holds that even a sefer Torah does not require sirtut, as the Tur wrote in Yoreh Deah in siman 271, see there. Therefore, it is impossible for him to explain like the Rambam regarding tefillin because they are covered, for behold, even in a sefer Torah it is so. And the Rambam is consistent with his own reasoning that a sefer Torah requires sirtut, therefore he explained regarding tefillin because of the covering. And Rabbeinu Tam explained that the first line is required. And according to this, regarding the law, if he wrote the parashiyot of tefillin without any sirtut at all, meaning that even the top line he did not score, and he also wrote the lines crookedly—he may rely on the opinion of the Rambam and don them until he obtains other tefillin. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, here and in Yoreh Deah there, was stringent like both opinions, for here he required sirtut for the top line, and there he required sirtut for all the lines in a sefer Torah. For such is the primary law, as I wrote there in section 25, see there.

It is a halacha given to Moses at Sinai: tefillin must be on klaf, and not on dukhsustos and not on gevil. And one writes on the klaf on the side of the flesh. And if one changed to write on the side of the hair, and certainly if one wrote on dukhsustos or gevil – it is pasul. And what is "klaf", and what is "dukhsustos", and what is "gevil"? It was explained in Yoreh Deah siman 271 that it is called "gevil" when the hide has not yet been split at all in its thickness into two, but rather they scraped the hair and prepared it slightly there, and on the side of the flesh they do not prepare it at all. And it is called "klaf": when they split the hide in its thickness, the outer part that is toward the hair is called "klaf", and the inner part attached to the flesh is called "dukhsustos". Therefore, when we say "one writes on the klaf on the side of the flesh", the intention is on the side that is closer to the flesh, which is to say, on the side where it was split, and before it was split it was attached to the dukhsustos. And this is according to their custom in the time of the Shas, when they would split the hides.

But our klafim, where the hide is not split, rather they scrape significantly on the side attached to the flesh, so that the duchsustos portion falls away of its own accord and only the klaf remains. And they write on this side that was scraped significantly, for regarding the hair side where they scrape its upper layer—it is only as much as is necessary to prepare it and smooth it. And all our klafim have the status of klaf, for the scribes are expert in recognizing if some duchsustos still remains. That is, it is very smooth, whereas the klaf is not so smooth. And if perhaps a thin layer remains—they scrape it with a knife, and this matter is known to the scribes. And they must be careful not to scrape significantly from the hair side so that only the duchsustos remains, for in such a case it is pasul, as I have written.

The klaf must be processed with gallnuts or with lime. It must be processed lishmah, and one must express with his lips that he is processing it "for the sake of tefillin." At the beginning of the processing he should say this, or he may process it for the sake of a Sefer Torah. However, if he processed it for the sake of a mezuzah—it is invalid for tefillin, as the sanctity of tefillin is more stringent than the sanctity of a mezuzah. Nevertheless, from a Sefer Torah for tefillin is valid, even though the sanctity of a Sefer Torah is more stringent than tefillin, for anything without an action, but merely a verbal designation—one may change from a stringent sanctity to a light sanctity. If a gentile processed it and an Israelite stands over him—according to the Rambam it is invalid even if the Israelite told him to process it lishmah. According to the Rosh it is valid if an Israelite stands over him and assisted him slightly in the work. And so we practice. We have explained the details of these laws in Yoreh Deah siman 271 from section 5 until section 12, see there. And there it was explained whether specifically a verbal declaration lishmah is required or if thought is sufficient. It was also explained that when one processed it not lishmah, if there is a remedy for this to return and process it lishmah. It was also explained that specifically at the beginning of the processing there must be the "lishmah," see there.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 10: When they mark the holes with an awl in the form of letters, even though it is easy for the gentile to forge them – we are not concerned. For he is afraid lest the Israelite recognize it by visual recognition. Thus far his words. Meaning: that it is the way of the scribes, when they leave the skins during the processing in the hand of the gentile – they make marks on the skins so that he will not exchange them. And simple holes are nothing, until he makes holes in the form of letters. And even though in this too it is easy to forge, by placing a skin over this skin and making those same holes on this skin, nevertheless he is afraid lest they not match perfectly. And we have already explained in Yoreh Deah there, section 9, that this refers to a place where the gentile benefits from the exchange. For if not so – behold, he is not suspected of causing a stumbling block. (And with this is answered what the Eliyah Rabbah wondered in subsection 18 regarding the scribes who make smaller marks than this, see there. And see Magen Avraham subsection 13 who raised a difficulty from Yoreh Deah siman 118 section 3. And I did not understand, for behold here too he certainly recognizes the script. And what he wrote in the name of Hagahot Maimoniyot, that if he gave it initially for processing for the sake of sanctity he does not need more, we explained in Yoreh Deah there).

The klaf must be from the skin of kosher domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, as it is written: "So that the Torah of Hashem shall be in your mouth" — from that which is permitted in your mouth. And even other books that contain names — it is forbidden to write them on impure things (Magen Avraham, subsection 11). And in my humble opinion, it appears that even without names — it is forbidden to write words of Torah on impure things. And who can produce pure from impure? However, on kosher skins — it is permitted to write, even on their nevelah or tereifah (Shabbat 108a), since it is of the species permitted "in your mouth." But from the skin of a fish — it is forbidden even in kosher ones, because its filth is great (ibid.). And the klaf must be whole, so that there are no holes in it that the ink does not pass over, that is, so that the letter does not appear divided in two. However, that which appears like a division when held against the sun — we have no concern with it (Bach and Magen Avraham, subsection 15). And there are those who divided the types of klaf into levels: that the most choice of all is the skin of a fetus, and that of a wild animal more than that of a domestic animal, and kosher ones are preferable to tereifot. And I do not know from where we have this to innovate a matter that our sages, of blessed memory, did not say so. And we have already written of this in Yoreh Deah, siman 271.

The diligent scribes make three types of parchment: the thicker one to write the parashah of "Shema" in it, as it is small; and one thinner than it for the parashah of "Vehayah Ki Yeviacha," which is larger. And for the parashah of "Kadesh" and the parashah of "Vehayah Im Shamoa," which are long—they make very thin parchment. And through this, the battim of the head will be filled equally, and this is a beauty for the tefillin. (And in the Shulchan Aruch, section 14, there is a printing error, see there. And also in the Beit Yosef there is this error.) And there are those who leave larger margins in the small parashiyot than in the large parashiyot, and they make the thickness of the parchments equal.

The Rambam at the end of the first chapter, after he wrote the law that every letter must be surrounded by parchment on all its sides, and that every letter must be according to its proper form such that a child can read it and the reader may read it fluently, wrote, and this is his wording: Skin that was perforated – one shall not write over the perforation. And any perforation that the ink passes over – it is not a perforation… If the skin was perforated after it was written, if it was perforated inside the letter, such as inside a heh or inside a mem, and so too with the rest of the letters – it is kosher. If it was perforated in the leg of a letter until it was severed, if there remained of it the fullness of a small letter – it is kosher, provided that it does not resemble another letter. And if there did not remain of it the fullness of a small letter – it is invalid. Thus far his words. (And it is explained in Menachot 29a: "perforated inside of a heh" according to the second wording of Rashi, that "its inside" is the part that is within it. And the Rosh in the laws of Sefer Torah siman 15 decided according to the first wording of Rashi, that "its inside" is the left leg of the heh. And he questioned the second wording regarding why it specified a heh, see there. And it appears to me that it specified it because of its leg, for this is only in a heh. And so too in the Yerushalmi Megillah first chapter halacha 9, regarding its leg it specified a heh, and regarding its inside a bet, see there. And in Menachot, since it is a single statement – it specified a heh because of its leg.)

And behold, from the words of the Rambam it is explicitly explained that regarding the law of being surrounded by klaf, there is a distinction between before the writing of the letter and if it was perforated afterward. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote this reasoning in his great work in the name of Seder Get Ashkenazi, and wrote that it appears explicitly so from the Rambam, see there. And so he wrote in the Shulchan Aruch at the end of section 16, and this is his wording: That which we validate when a letter is severed—specifically when it was severed after being written in a valid state. But if from the beginning when it was written there was a hole there and it was severed by it, or if the leg of a long kaf or the like reaches the end of the klaf without being surrounded by klaf from its beginning—it is invalid. Thus far his words. And one should not ask: If so, why did he write in Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim section 4 that a letter should not touch its fellow, but rather every letter must be surrounded by gwil? Thus far his words. And similarly in section 25 and section 26 he wrote that one may separate attached letters, see there. And he should have explained that this is only at the time of their writing, but if they became attached afterward—one does not need to separate them, because being surrounded by gwil is only required at the time of writing and not when they became attached afterward, as in the case of a hole. For it can be said that they are not comparable: First, in the case of attachment one can repair it, which is not the case with a hole. Furthermore: the attachment of one letter to another is more severe because they appear as one letter, and this is invalid even if they became attached afterward. And you should know that it is so, for behold the Rambam in the tenth chapter, among the twenty invalidations he enumerated there, enumerated the touching of letters to one another. And why did he not enumerate being surrounded by gwil? Rather, it is certainly because being surrounded by gwil only invalidates at the beginning of the writing, while attachment invalidates even afterward. (And with this, the difficulty of Maharal ibn Chabib which the Beit Yosef brought is answered, as to why the Rambam did not enumerate being surrounded by gwil, see there. And according to what I have written, it works out well. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

However, it is clear that the Tur, and the Sefer HaTerumah, and the Smag, and the Mordechai, and the Hagahot Maimoniyot—do not hold of this distinction between before the writing and after the writing. For the Tur wrote: And if after it was written it was perforated within the letter—it is kosher. And some say even if its entire interior was perforated. And in the Yerushalmi it is implied that it also requires being surrounded by parchment on the inside. Thus far his words, and so wrote the poskekim whom we have cited. And if it should enter your mind that they distinguish between before the writing and afterward—he should not have said that the Yerushalmi requires also a surrounding of parchment from the inside, for even our Talmud holds so. Rather, he must hold that after writing it is not required, and he should have said that the Yerushalmi requires a surrounding of parchment even after writing. Furthermore: why should we create a dispute between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi? Let us say that the Yerushalmi is dealing with the time of writing, and indeed we shall say so according to the opinion of the Rambam. And if it is because it is implied to them that the Yerushalmi is dealing also with after writing—he should have said so, since this is the essence of the dispute. Rather, it is certain that they do not hold of this distinction at all.

And one should not ask: If so, how did the Tur and the poskim write regarding a hole in the inner leg of the heh that if any amount remains it is kosher, and regarding a hole in the right leg that when the size of a small letter remains it is kosher—is there not a lack of hiqquf gevil here? For it is for this reason that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and the Seder Get Ashkenazi were precise to distinguish between before the writing and after it, as is explained in his great book. However, in truth, it appears in my humble opinion that there is no need for this distinction, for regarding the matter of hiqquf gevil, we also join the part of the letter that is after the hole. And there is clear proof for this, for behold Rashi, of blessed memory, in Menachot (29b) explained regarding "the leg of the vav of 'vayeharog' was severed," and Rashi explained that the vav occurred in the place of a hole, see there. Behold, according to him, there was a hole at the time of the writing (and so wrote the Derishah, ot 5, and remained with a difficulty, see there). Rather, certainly it is not a difficulty at all: for we require the size of a small letter without the interruption of the hole, for if not so, the name "letter" is not upon it. But forever we also reckon that which is after the hole, and it is considered muqqaf gevil. …

And according to this, the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in the Shulchan Aruch are very puzzling. For in section 15 he wrote according to the wording of the Tur, and at the end of section 16 he wrote according to the words of the Rambam. And they are contradictory to one another, and they have already wondered about him regarding this (Taz, subsection 14, and Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 27). And it seems to me that he actually holds like the Rambam. And that which he wrote the wording of the Tur was because according to the opinion of the Tur, our Talmud holds that from the inside it does not require a surrounding of gwil, and in order not to rule so, he copied his wording. For even according to the opinion of the Tur the halacha is not so, since in the Yerushalmi it is explicit that it is required. And certainly according to the words of the Rambam everyone holds so. And since regarding the din there is no practical difference in this, he copied his wording in order to be concise, as is his way. (And what the Taz wrote, that the Tur holds like the first resolution of the Beit Yosef to distinguish between an attachment and a hole—is puzzling. For if so, even if it was perforated on the outside it would not disqualify, certainly on the inside. And so the Pri Megadim wondered. And the rest of the words of the Pri Megadim in subsection 14 and in subsection 8 I do not understand; see there, for his wording is garbled.)

It has already been explained that the opinion of the Tur is that if the right leg of the He was perforated, there must remain the measure of a small letter. However, in the inner leg, even with a minute amount it is kosher. And this is the opinion of the Rosh. But other poskim require even in this the measure of a small letter, namely a Yud. And if it was severed in its thickness, if there remains like a thin thread, it is kosher. And such is the halacha (Magen Avraham, subsection 16).

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 16: If one of the simple letters was severed, such as a vav, a zayin, or the like, if a child who is neither wise nor foolish knows how to read it—it is kosher. And if not—it is pasul. And one does not need to cover the other letters for him as is the custom. However, if we see that the form of the letter does not remain according to its proper correction, or if the leg of the aleph was severed—it is pasul even though the child reads it correctly. Thus far his words. (It must be stated thus according to what the Taz emended at the end of subsection 9, see there. And the words of the Magen Avraham in subsection 18 are difficult. And the clear explanation is as the Yad Ephraim wrote, that what he wrote "Achad"—his intention was he-chet-dalet, see there.)

The explanation of the matter is as the Rivash wrote (siman 120), and this is his wording: The reading of a child is only effective where the invalidity is because this letter resembles another letter. However, where the invalidity is because its form is severed—it is not effective… And similarly, one should not validate the aleph where the left leg does not touch the middle line because the child reads it as an aleph, for due to the separation he would not err to say that it is another letter… Thus far his words. And so wrote the Maharik, shoresh 69, regarding the law of alephs whose yods do not touch the body, and similarly the point of the peh that does not touch its roof, and this is his wording: And it is simple that one should not validate it through the reading of a child, for these things were only said when the letter is severed and its measure is diminished, such as a shortened vav where we are in doubt if it reached the length of a vav or if it is the measure of a yod. And for this, the reading of a child is effective when he reads it as a vav, since he did not read it as a yod. But where it is obvious that the letter does not remain in its form, what will the reading of a child avail, when our eyes see that the letter is not in its form? Thus far his words (and the Taz brought them in subsection 9). And with this, the words of the Shulchan Aruch have been explained.

And according to this, in the case of a short vav that resembles a yod, or a long yod that resembles a vav, or a short zayin that resembles a yod, or a long zayin that resembles a simple nun, or a rounded bet that resembles a bent kaf, or a squared kaf that resembles a bet, or a dalet whose head is short and resembles a vav, or a vav whose head is wide and resembles a dalet, or a dalet whose side is long and resembles a simple kaf, or a simple kaf whose side is short and resembles a dalet, or a gimel whose lower head is attached and resembles a bent nun, or a bent nun whose lower head is not attached and resembles a gimel, or a he whose left leg is attached and resembles a het, or a het whose left side is not attached and resembles a he, or a he whose left leg is not clearly recognizable and resembles a dalet, or a vav whose line is in the middle and resembles a zayin, or a zayin whose line is on the side and resembles a vav—in all these and their like, the reading of the child is effective. But regarding alephs, shins, ayins, and tzadis where the heads are not attached to the lines—the reading of the child is not effective. And so too in all letters similar to this. (See Sha'arei Teshuvah, subsection 23, in the name of Ginat Veradim, that a simple kaf at the end of a line where he extended the roof until it resembles a dalet or a resh, that there is room to be lenient in a time of pressing need because it is evident that they extended it to complete the line, see there. And there is no reasoning in this, and even in a time of pressing need it is invalid if the child reads it as a dalet or a resh. And the rest of his words will be explained in siman 36.)

What is a child who is "not wise"? One who does not understand the context, for when he understands, he will say it because of the context and not because of the form of the letter. And not a fool, but one who knows the form of the letters well. And that which they wrote, that one does not need to cover for him from before it or from after it, the reason is simple: for since he does not understand the continuity of the context, why must we cover it for him? Nevertheless, some say that one must cover before it but not after it (Magen Avraham subsection 19). And the reason: for we fear perhaps he understands the context a little, for if not so, there is no concern in this. And such is the custom, to cover what is before it. And know that this, that we rely upon the reading of the child regarding a short vav, this is regarding one that is completely short. But regarding one that is severed in the middle—we do not rely upon him when he says it is a vav, because his saying so is due to the combination. Therefore, one must cover the bottom part for him (Taz subsection 10). And even though there are those who disagree on this, and they hold that we do not fear that he will say it due to the combination (see Eliyah Rabbah), nevertheless, the primary rule is as I have written. And know that in all this there is no difference whether the letter was spoiled after the writing, or whether the scribe wrote it thus, for in all of them we rely upon the reading of the child (Taz ibid.). This is not like the one who disagrees, and holds that we only rely upon the reading of the child regarding a letter that was spoiled and not regarding what the scribe wrote from the beginning (see Bach), for there is no reason to distinguish in this.

If a drop of ink fell into the letter and ruined the letter, whether it fell during the time of writing or whether it fell after the writing, and whether it ruined it such that the form of the letter was lost from it, or whether by means of the drop it appears like another letter—for example, if a drop fell inside the letter dalet and it resembles a hei, or inside the break of the leg of the hei and it resembles a chet, and so too anything similar to this—the letter is disqualified. And even if the drop is missing only the point of the yod, it is disqualified. However, if it is missing the tagin, we have no concern with it, and we rely on the Rambam that the tagin are not indispensable, as I wrote in section 14. And so too regarding other points of the letters, when a drop falls upon them we have no concern with it, since the body of the letter remains. And if there is a doubt whether the form of the letter was lost or not, or if it resembles another letter, we rely on a child who is neither wise nor foolish, and as he says, so it shall be. And know that there is no difference between ink and paint, for also any type of paint that fell disqualifies if it ruined the letter. Except for wax, when it falls on the letter it does not disqualify it, for it is merely like a covering, and one scrapes it off and it is kosher. And whether it is permitted to scrape it off on Shabbat, it will be explained in siman 340 that it is forbidden, for regarding the prohibition of stoning it is considered like erasing. Nevertheless, regarding the reading of the Sefer Torah, when this occurs on Shabbat they may read from it, for it is considered merely like a covering. But ink and paint, even if they are still moist and the letter is dry, nevertheless it is not applicable to say "covering" regarding this, for since it was spilled and ruined it, it is as if the letter was erased, and it requires repair as will be explained. And before its repair it is completely disqualified. Therefore, in tefillin and mezuzot, when ink fell on a letter and ruined it, and many letters were already written after this letter, they are disqualified. And repair does not avail, for it would be "not in their order," unless he is able to erase all the letters that were written after this letter, such as if there is no Name among them.

And how is its repair? For it does not avail to scrape the ink in the place where it fell and restore the letter to its proper form. For this would be "chak tochot," meaning: for the Torah said "and you shall write them" and not "and you shall engrave them," and it is called "engraving" when one engraves around the letter and the letter is formed of its own accord. And this is the case with a drop of ink when it spoiled the letter, and now he repairs it by scraping the ink around the letter – it is "chak tochot" and is invalid by Torah law. Rather, he must scrape the entire letter completely and go back and write it. And so too if through the drop it became like another letter, such as if the leg of the heh was extended to its roof – scraping the drop does not avail, for it is "chak tochot." Rather, he must scrape the entire leg and go back and write it. And so too if the drop made a peh out of a bet – erasing the drop does not avail. Rather, he must scrape the entire roof with the drop, and go back and make a roof. However, a drop that made a heh out of a dalet, it appears that scraping the drop avails, for behold it stands on its own, and it did not spoil the dalet but only changed it into a heh. And now he removes it from it and the dalet is as before. And this requires further study, and for the halacha it appears in my humble opinion as I have written.

If one needed to write a letter, and a drop of ink fell and formed something like half a letter – he should not complete the letter by joining it to the drop, for this is not writing. Rather, he must erase it, as we require the entire letter to be formed through writing (Magen Avraham, subsection 23). And even though regarding a get there are those who are lenient in such a case, as I have written in Even HaEzer siman 125 – it is not comparable, for regarding a get there is no requirement for sanctity, only "lishmah." And the primary element in the essential part of the get is from the Torah as is explained there, and therefore we are not concerned about this. This is not the case regarding Sifrei Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot, for every letter and part of a letter requires sanctity, and if a part of a letter is missing they are completely invalid – it is obvious that in such a case it is invalid, for this part of the letter was not written, and it is obvious that it possesses no sanctity. (So it appears to me. And the Magen Avraham at the end of subsection 23 requires further study, see there. And the law is clear as I have written.)

And so too if he erred and wrote a dalet in place of a resh, or a bet in place of a kaf—there is no remedy to erase the corner to fix the letter so that it will be rounded, for this is "chak tochot." Rather, he shall add ink to the corner and make it rounded, for this is actual writing. And so too the opposite: when he wrote a resh in place of a dalet, or a kaf in place of a bet—there is no remedy to carve out the rounding and make it a corner, for this is "chak tochot." Rather, he shall add ink to the rounding and make it like a corner, and similarly regarding other letters. And this is when he did not write after it, for if he wrote after it, no correction is effective, for it is "shelo kesidran." Unless he erases them as well if there is no Name between them (all this is explained from Taz, subsection 16, and from Magen Avraham, subsection 24). And know that when the disqualification is due to "chak tochot"—passing the quill over the letter is not effective.

An open mem whose opening became attached and closed, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 18 that it is of no avail to scrape the attachment and open it, for it is like "chak tochot" since he does not perform an action on the body of the remaining letter. This is not like the "there is one who says" that this is not "chak tochot" because it is like two attached letters where scraping between them is effective (see Magen Avraham subsection 25 in the name of the Re'em). For it is not so, as ultimately it is one letter. However, he also does not need to scrape the entire mem, as there is one who holds so (the Ram Alashkar and the Radach, see Beit Yosef). Rather, it is sufficient to scrape the nose of the mem, which is the vav of the mem, to scrape all of it, for the mem is as if composed of a bent nun with a vav. Therefore, since the nun was written in a valid manner—it shall remain in its place. And he shall scrape the vav, and write another vav. And even if it was closed after the writing of all of it, and if so, behold the vav was also made in a valid manner, nevertheless, it is necessary to perform an action on the body of the letter as I have written, and the vav alone is sufficient for him. But this is only regarding a mem, because its making is in two writings: a nun and a vav as I have written. But a resh that he made like a dalet, and he comes to scrape it—he must scrape all of it. And it is not sufficient to scrape the roof alone or the leg alone, for since the entire letter was made as one, and all of it was made in an invalid state, therefore he must scrape both of them. And similarly with other letters. Therefore, if at first he wrote a resh properly, and afterwards he erred and made a tag for it—it is sufficient for him to scrape the roof with the tag or the leg with the tag, since it was made in a valid manner and is similar to a mem (Magen Avraham ibid.). And there are those who are stringent even in this, and one who is stringent, may a blessing come upon him. But the primary law is as I have written (and see what I have written in siman 36, section 17).

And since it has been explained regarding the mem, that because its making is not done at one time, one does not need to erase it all, therefore it is simple regarding the legs of the heh and the kof that touched the roof—it is sufficient that he erase the leg alone and return and remake it. And he does not need to erase it all since the roof was written according to the law, and they are two separate forms. And so too the yods in the aleph, where it is necessary that only the thin lines be connected to the long line, if they are connected more than the measure, which is to say that the entire width of the yods is connected, and the aleph is invalidated. And erasing does not help with the connection alone, for this is "chak tochot," but rather he shall erase the yods and fix them, and he does not need to erase the long line since they are not made at one time. And such is the law regarding the yods of the shin, and the ayin, and the tzadik, and the peh, and the legs of the tav, if they touched more than what is necessary—he shall erase them and fix them. And it has already been explained that the connection of a letter to a letter, whether at the time of writing or after writing—is invalid. However, in this case separation helps, for it is not "chak tochot" since each letter by itself is recognizable in its proper form. Therefore, he separates them and it is kosher. And so too if the leg of the kaf peshuta or other long straight letters reach the end of the parchment without a surrounding of parchment—he is permitted to erase a bit, for this is not like "chak tochot." And this fact that in a connection of a letter to a letter erasing helps, this is when the letters were not ruined. But when they were ruined—nothing helps except erasing the body of the letters. And some say that even when the connection spreads across the entire length of the letters—nothing helps except erasing the body of the letters. And it is not so (Magen Avraham, subsection 27). And so too if the leg of the heh was connected only like a hairsbreadth, and the child recognizes that it is a heh—it is permitted to erase the connection (ibid.). And such is the law regarding the thin thorns of the yods of the aleph when they touch—we have no concern with it. And in this manner regarding all the letters. (That which the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 26 in the name of the Maharam Galante. And the rest of his words will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 36, for there is their place.)

Regarding the matter of the child's recognition of the letters that has been explained, it has occurred several times that they show it to a child and he says such, and afterward they show it to another child and he does not say like the first; it appears to my humble opinion that one should not pay heed to the second. For since our sages, of blessed memory, commanded to show it to a child—as the first one says, so shall it stand. For if not so, the matter would never be clarified, for just as there are differences of opinion among adults, so too among minors according to their intellects. And similar to this our sages, of blessed memory, said: wherever the Torah believed one witness—he is as two. However, if two children say the opposite of the first, it appears that we follow them. And if they ask many youths, this one says thus and this one says thus—we follow the majority. And in a case of half and half, we follow the stringency (so it appears to me in these laws).

At the beginning of writing the parashiyot, he should say with his mouth: "I am writing for the sake of the sanctity of tefillin, and all mentions of the Name therein are for the sake of the sanctity of the Name" (Pri Megadim). And besides this, every time he writes the mentions of the Name, he must say for each mention that he is writing for the sake of the sanctity of the Name. And when he writes two mentions of the Name or more as one without interruption—one sanctification is sufficient. And some say that it is enough when he intends in his thought that he is writing the mention of the Name for its sake, for since he expressed it with his mouth at the beginning of the writing—this is sufficient. And one may be lenient ex post facto, but initially he must express it with his lips. And if he wishes to doze—he should not write, for he does not write then with intention. And before writing the Name, he should examine the quill so that it is not full of ink, so that he does not come to a situation of erasing. Therefore, when he dips the quill, he should write one letter before the Name, and afterwards he should write the Name and sanctify the ink with that letter. And if he did not leave a letter before the Name, nevertheless he should examine some letter or tag that requires correction and perform the correction, and afterwards he should write the Name. (And there are great and awesome secrets in the writing of the Name, and it is explained in the Ataret Zekenim and in the Pri Etz Chaim. And not every mind can bear this, and happy is the scribe who merits this. And in this regard, it is proper that every scribe be careful to be pure from a seminal emission, and to write in seclusion. And the main thing is to set to heart that he is writing tefillin. And in our many iniquities, failures have increased among the scribes, and every God-fearing man is obligated to see that his tefillin should not be written for him by youths, but rather by a man of years and a God-fearing man.)

The scribe must be precise regarding missing or extra letters, for if one letter is missing or extra – they are invalid. It follows that those who don the them recite a blessing in vain every day, and remain every day without the mitzvah of tefillin. The punishment of the scribe is very, very great. Therefore, one who engages in the writing of tefillin must be God-fearing and tremble at the word of Hashem, and after he writes each parashah – he should read it well with intent and precision two and three times, and he should return and read it before he places it in its compartment so that he does not switch one parashah with another. It is good to test the quill before beginning the writing, so that there is not too much ink upon it and he ruins it. Likewise, he should be careful before he writes every Name to read everything he has written to see if there is no error in them, so that the Name does not come to genizah through him. It is a great hiddur if he is able to isolate himself and write all the parashiyot without interruption, and with proper and desired thought before Hashem.

And if it is found that he omitted a letter—it has no remedy, for a correction is of no avail as it would be "not in their order" and they are invalid, because it is written: "And they shall be"—they shall remain in their original state. And if there is one extra letter—it has a remedy by means of scraping it out. And this is if the extra letter is at the end of the word or at its beginning, but in the middle of the word, surely a gap will remain when he scrapes it out, and it will appear like two words. Unless it is possible to lengthen the preceding letter or the one following it, such as if the preceding letter is from the letters whose roof is wide—he should lengthen them a bit more, and similarly from the one following it. And the poskim were in doubt if after the scraping he can extend the preceding letter below and not above, such as if he wrote "mitzvot" full and needed to erase the vav, and he extended the tzadi from below and it appears as one word, but from above it appears as two words. And similarly if the preceding letter was a bent nun, that he can extend the lower leg and not the upper one, for if he extends the upper one as well it will appear like a bet (Taz subsection 20 and Magen Avraham subsection 33). And since there is a doubt—we follow the stringent view. And it seems to me that this depends on the sight of the eye, or they should ask a child who knows how to join letters into a complete word whether they are two words or one word. And also at the beginning of the writing he should be careful not to extend the lower leg of the nun and the tzadi more than the upper leg, so that the letter following it will not be distanced from the preceding one and they will appear as two words. And if it happened so and he brought the following letter inside it, such as if he needed to write nun yud or tzadi yud, and he extended the lower leg and brought the yud inside the lower leg, meaning that he brought it close to the upper leg and automatically it is within the lower leg—it is kosher, for behold they clearly appear as two letters (ibid.). And if he found an extra word—he should erase it even though a vacant space will remain; nevertheless, since there is not the measure of nine letters, which is the measure of a parashah as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 275—we have no concern with it (ibid.). And there is one who validates double words even without erasure, and it is a wonder to say so (ibid.). And when he erases—he should erase the second one, for the first was written according to its law. And post facto if he erased the first—it is kosher. (And regarding what the Magen Avraham wrote there that he can pull the roof of the heh even though the leg will not be at its end, see there—it requires further study. And examine carefully and you will find it easy.) (From this it is explained that with an extra letter there is no concern of "not in their order." And it requires a reason, and it can be said that it is similar to a connection between the letters. And examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

It is permitted to write even names upon a place of scraping or upon a place of erasing. And it is called "scraping" when one scraped it while dry, and it is called "erasing" when one erased it while moist. Nevertheless, one should be careful ab initio not to erase it while it is still moist, but rather wait until it has dried and scrape it. For then it will be scraped easily and no impression will remain of it, which is not the case when it is moist. And it is forbidden to suspend any letter between line and line in tefillin, even in a manner that would be according to their order. And so we say in the Yerushalmi Megillah, first chapter (halacha 9): One may not suspend in tefillin and mezuzot. (Even though the primary reason according to what the poskim wrote is because of "not according to their order," nevertheless, ultimately the matters do not depart from their plain meaning. And so wrote the Sha'arei Teshuva, subsection 36, in the name of several responsa, see there.)

There is a great principle to know regarding the matter of repairing letters in the parshiyot of tefillin: when it is permitted to repair them such that it is not considered "not in their order," and when their repair is of no avail because it is "not in their order." The details of the laws are as follows: if the form of the letter has changed entirely, it is "not in their order" and is pasul. And even if its form has not changed, but because of this flaw it requires the scraping of part of the letter—for example, if the leg of the aleph touched the face of the aleph with a complete attachment in a manner that requires scraping the entire leg; and similarly if the face of the aleph, meaning the upper yod, was entirely attached to the roof beneath it and it requires scraping; or if the legs of the heh and the kof touched the roof—in all of these one must scrape the leg and therefore they are pasul. For even though they currently possess their form, nevertheless, after the scraping they will lose their form, and when he repairs them afterward it is "not in their order" and they are pasul.

And a letter regarding which there is a doubt if it is among the simple letters like vav, zayin, and the like, if the form of a vav or zayin remains even without the lower part according to the recognition of a child—it is obvious that he may repair it and it is kosher. And if its form does not remain without the connection of the lower part, if the break is large in a manner that its form is lost from it— the reading of the child is of no avail, and it is "not in their order" and invalid. But when the break is small in a manner that its form is still upon it, even though it is invalid as it is now, nevertheless, he may repair it and it is kosher and this is not "not in their order." (I learned this from yods that do not touch in Shulchan Aruch section 25, as we will explain.)

And likewise, if some of the yodin that are atop the alephin, shinim, and ayinin were not touching the body of the letter, yet they are not so far from the body of the letter that the letters do not appear properly formed, and also the child says so—even though they are pasul as they are now and he has already written many letters after them—nevertheless, he may repair them, and there is no issue of "not in their order" in this. And likewise to separate attached letters—likewise "not in their order" does not apply, since the letters possess their form. Unless through the attachment the form of the letters was changed, for then it is "not in their order" and they are pasul. And we have already explained this.

And so too regarding the division of a letter into two letters, such as a tzadi that he wrote as a yod-nun and it is recognizable to the observer that it is a yod-nun, such as where he distanced them from one another in the manner of two letters and the child also says so, and in this manner regarding a shin that they wrote as an ayin-yod, and a chet that they wrote as two zayins—it is "not in their order" and they are invalid. But if according to the appearance it is a tzadi, meaning that the yod and the nun are completely adjacent to one another except that there is a small separation between them but it does not have the form of two letters, and so too regarding a shin and a chet in this manner, and the child also says so, even though they are invalid as they are now—nevertheless, he may repair them and they are valid, for there is no issue of "not in their order" in this. (So it appears to me to interpret what he wrote in the Shulchan Aruch, section 25, regarding a letter divided into two letters, see there. Examine it closely and you will find it simple.)

And that which he wrote in the Shulchan Aruch at the end of section 25, that there is one who says that the same law applies if the humps of the chet above do not touch each other, but their separation is not clearly evident, even though the child reads it as two zayinin – it is permitted to join them. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters is as follows: for according to the principles that have been explained, when only the form of the letter is upon them, meaning that the separation is very close, even though the letter is currently invalid, nevertheless regarding the matter of "not in their order" – it does not invalidate. And it is understood of itself that such a letter would be read correctly by the child. But when the child does not read it correctly – it is invalid, for according to the law of the Gemara the primary factor is the reading of the child. And according to this, when the humps of the chet do not touch each other the law is also thus, for it depends on whether the form of the letter is upon it. And it follows that when the child reads it as two zayinin – this is a sign that the form of the letter is not upon it. And even if in our eyes it seems that the form of the letter is upon it – it is nothing. And regarding this he says that there is one who says that regarding the hump of the chet it does not depend on the reading of the child but only on the sight of our eyes, for this fact that the child reads it as two zayinin – this is because he is not accustomed to such a chet (and this is the intent of the Magen Avraham in subsection 37). And thus we establish the law, that in this case if their separation is not so evident – it is valid and he repairs them.

It has already been explained that letters that are attached to one another—one may separate them. And even regarding the letters of the Name when they are attached—one may separate them. And this is not like erasing the Name, for behold, he does not erase the body of the letter, but rather that which is between letter and letter. Therefore, one must be very careful not to erase even a bit of the letter itself, so that he does not violate the prohibition of erasing the Name.

Just as in the law of "not in their order" there is a disqualification of the letters from the beginning of the writing, so too there is this law when letters were erased after the writing, even after a long time. And if even only one letter was erased completely—the entire parashah is invalid, for it is impossible to repair it, as if so it would be "not in their order." However, this is when it was erased completely. But when it was erased slightly, meaning that the primary ink was removed from it, but nevertheless the impression of the letter is recognizable from dark ink in a manner that a child reads it normally—it is permitted to pass a quill over the letter and repair it to improve the script. And it is not "not in their order" since the impression of the ink is recognizable on the letter, for in such a case even now the letter is valid, but he repairs it so that it does not deteriorate further. And the matter is simple that this is specifically when the impression of the ink is recognizable on the letter. But if the ink jumped off completely, and there only remained the impression of the letter from the rust of the ink, that is to say, from that which the ink ate into the body of the parchment, from which an impression remains—it is nothing and is invalid. And it is forbidden to repair it, for it would be "not in their order." And one needs great expertise in this to understand if this is ink or merely rust (see Magen Avraham, katan 39). And this is when the ink deteriorated afterward. But if at the time of the writing the ink was not black, but rather slightly white or slightly red such that its appearance was darkened—it is invalid. And passing a quill does not help if the ink is not black, and it would be "not in their order." But if it is black and he wants to blacken it more—we have no issue with it and it is permitted. And it appears to me that if the entire parashah is written without blackness—he can pass a quill over the entire parashah, for behold there is no "not in their order" here since the entire parashah is so. (And that which the Magen Avraham wrote in katan 38—that is when there are good letters.) And know that regarding "not in their order"—there is no difference between one letter and many letters.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 28: One must be careful that the head of the lamed does not enter the space of the heh or the chet, even without touching. Thus far his words, and from his wording it is implied that this is merely a matter of caution. However, some disqualify even ex post facto (Bach, and Taz subsection 22, and Eliyah Rabbah). But in truth his words are correct, for certainly if he changed the form of the letter until a child does not recognize it, it is disqualified, but this is not common except when it enters a dalet, as it becomes like a heh. Therefore, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in Even HaEzer siman 125 at the end of section 18, and this is his wording: And if the form of the letter was changed, such that he extended the head of a lamed into the cavity of a dalet, so that it then appears like a heh – it is disqualified. Thus far his words. But when it enters a heh or a chet, it is not common that it should change entirely, for it does not take on the form of another letter upon its entry, and it is not disqualified unless he nullifies it as a letter entirely, and this is not common. Therefore, he wrote here only a language of caution. (And so wrote the Beit Shmuel there subsection 34, and the Chelkat Mechokek subsection 38. And so wrote the Magen Avraham subsection 40, and such is the primary ruling. And also the Ramban, whom the Ran cited in the second chapter of Gittin as disqualifying, did not disagree with Tosafot ibid. 2b who qualify it. For the Ran is dealing with a case where he changed the letter and its form was lost, and Tosafot are not dealing with such a case. And also regarding the Taz it is possible to say so, and it is not certain that they disagree. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

We have learned in Masekhet Soferim (chapter 1, halacha 12) that one is not permitted to write unless he knows how to read. And we say in Menachot (32b) that tefillin and mezuzot are written not from the text; that is to say, that regarding a Sefer Torah, he should not write from memory lest he err. Rather, another book should be placed before him, and he shall look at it and write. But tefillin and mezuzot are written from memory, because he is fluent in them and will not err. Therefore, if he knows that he is not fluent—he should only write from the text. And if he is fluent in part of it and not fluent in part of it—that which he is fluent in he may write from memory, and that which he is not fluent in he shall write from the text (Magen Avraham, subsection 41). And regarding a Sefer Torah, we hold that one must read every word before its writing, and it is possible that also regarding tefillin and mezuzot it is so even when he writes from memory. And it is possible that since he is fluent in them—he does not need to (see there, subsection 42). However, if he is not fluent and writes from the text—he certainly must read every word, for it is like a Sefer Torah as is explained in Yoreh Deah at the beginning of siman 274. And logic tends more toward requiring it also for them even when one is fluent. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 31 that if he does not write from the text—he shall not write from memory when another person dictates it to him, unless he repeats it and reads it with his own mouth. Thus far his words. And there is room for doubt if his intention is specifically regarding one for whom they are not fluent in his mouth from memory. But one who is fluent in them—does not need to read beforehand. Or perhaps even for one who is fluent, and he comes to teach us a greater novelty: even for one who is fluent and also another person dictates to him, nevertheless he must repeat and read it himself. Therefore, in practice one should be stringent in all cases to read before the writing. (See Beit Yosef, and there is no clear determination from there. Examine it and you will find it simple.) And in Yoreh Deah there, section 6, we explained further on this, see there.

One must leave a blank space above equivalent to the roof of a lamed, and a bit more blank space so that it will be surrounded by parchment. And there are those who require a blank space above the roof of about half a fingernail, as this is the "scribe's clip" mentioned in the Gemara (32a) regarding a mezuzah, see there. And the same law applies to tefillin, and thus the great authorities agreed (Bach, and Taz, and Magen Avraham subsection 43). And below one must leave a space equivalent to the measure of a final kaf and a final nun, and a bit more blank space so that it will be surrounded by parchment. And there are those who require about half a fingernail like above, and so one should practice. However, from the sides, according to the law, no space is required at all. Nevertheless, the scribes are accustomed to leave a bit from the sides as well, and it is a beautiful custom, for in this there is more beauty.

And one must leave between every word the space of a small letter, and between every letter the space of a hairsbreadth, and between every line the space of a line, as in a sefer Torah in Yoreh Deah siman 274. And some say that the space of a line is only in a sefer Torah which is made for reading and not in tefillin and mezuzot, and so the scribes have practiced, that they are not exacting in this (Magen Avraham subsection 44). And even in a sefer Torah it is explained there that all this is only ab initio, see there (Taz subsection 24). And our teacher, the Rema, wrote at the end of section 32 that one also must leave a small blank space between every verse. Thus far his words. And they wondered about him: for in the Rivash it is explained that if one did so it is not disqualified, but to require this—certainly it is not so (Magen Avraham subsection 45). However, in the book "Baruch She'amar" he requires leaving a little space between every verse, see there. And certainly this was his intention (Eliyah Rabbah subsection 51). And this is ab initio, and it seems that we do not practice so. (And also in Yoreh Deah in the laws of a sefer Torah he did not mention this.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 33: He should make the lines equal, so that one does not enter and one does not protrude. At the least, he should be careful not to write three letters outside the line. And if he wrote them—he did not disqualify it. And two letters that are a single word—he should not write outside the line. And the letters of the Name must all be within the page, and none of them should protrude at all outside the page. Thus far his words. And we have already written in Yoreh Deah siman 273 section 19 that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, was brief here, and relied on what he wrote in Yoreh Deah there. And such is the essence of the law, that two letters, even when they are the majority of a word—it is permitted, unless they are the entire word. And three letters when they are the majority of a word—it is forbidden, and when they are not the majority of a word—it is permitted. And in section 18 we explained there that post facto it is not disqualified even with a complete word outside the line, see there. However, regarding the letters of the Name we were in doubt: for perhaps even post facto it is disqualified even with a portion of it, as it is similar to suspension which is disqualified, see there. And there in siman 276 section 2 we decided that post facto even with the Name it is kosher. But it is obvious that this is not a hiddur. (And so it is implied from the Magen Avraham subsection 47. And what he wrote there in the name of the Ri of Posen to rectify by erasing the upper lines—this is not applicable to tefillin, for it would be "not in their order." And so wrote the Machatzit HaShekel, see there.)

The Rambam wrote at the beginning of the second chapter: How does one write the tefillin of the head? One writes four parshiyot on four pieces of klaf… and for the hand, one writes on one piece of klaf… and one must be careful with the parshiyot, for if one made a closed parsha open or an open parsha closed – he has invalidated them. And the first three parshiyot are all open, and the last parsha is closed. Thus far his words. And behold, this law is not explained in the Gemara regarding tefillin but rather regarding a sefer Torah. And it must be said that the intention of the Rambam is such, and this is its explanation: for it is known that one must be careful with the parshiyot of the Torah, that if one made a closed parsha open or vice versa – it is invalid. And since such is the law in a sefer Torah, and these three parshiyot "Kadesh," "Ve-haya Ki Yeviacha," "Shema" are all open in the Torah – one must consequently also in the tefillin make them open. And the fourth, which is "Ve-haya Im Shamoa," is closed in the Torah – one must also in the tefillin make it closed.

According to this, the Rambam did not decree that regarding tefillin any change is invalid. And it can be said in truth, just as they said in Menachot (32a) regarding mezuzah, that it is a mitzvah to make the two parshiyot of "Shema" and "Vehaya Im Shamoa" setumot, as they are written in the Torah. And for this reason, if one made them petuchot—it is fine, because in the Torah they are not adjacent to one another, for "Shema" is in "Va'etchanan" and "Vehaya Im Shamoa" is in "Ekev." Therefore, there is no hindrance in the matter. According to this, the first two, "Kadesh" and "Vehaya Ki Yeviacha," which are adjacent in the Torah and are petuchot—there is a hindrance even in tefillin even ex post facto. But between "Vehaya Ki Yeviacha" and "Shema," and between "Shema" and "Vehaya Im Shamoa," which are not adjacent in the Torah—it is certainly a mitzvah to make them as in the Torah. That is, between "Vehaya" and "Shema" it must be petucha, and between "Shema" and "Vehaya Im Shamoa" it must be setuma. However, ex post facto it is kosher even with a change, since they are not adjacent in the Torah. And many great ones explained that the intent of the Rambam when he wrote that if one changed them he invalidated them—refers to tefillin. In my humble opinion it is not so, for behold, this is not clarified in the Gemara. Furthermore: if so, he should have first written that these must be petuchot and the last one setuma, and if one changed it is invalid; how could he write the invalidation before writing the law? Rather, it is certainly as I wrote, that this refers to the law clarified in the Gemara regarding a Sefer Torah. (And with this, that which the Beit Yosef and the Bach questioned from mezuzah is answered, that it is not a hindrance because they are not adjacent in the Torah, and they were very pressed, see there. And according to what I wrote, it works out well with simplicity. And it seems that this is the opinion of Maharam Padua in the Responsa of Maharshal siman 37. And the Taz, subsection 25, exerted himself to distinguish between tefillin and mezuzah, and I do not know why we should be pressed in this, and to alarm the world over the customs of changes in tefillin. And according to what I wrote, this is not a hindrance. And if so, all the customs are kosher ex post facto. And also the Tur did not write a hindrance ex post facto, see there. And blessed be Hashem who taught us to find merit for the community of Israel. Examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 36: He shall make all its parashiyot open, except for the last parashah written in the Torah, which is "Ve-hayah im shamoa," which he shall make closed. And if he deviated – it is pasul. Thus far his words, and he follows his reasoning in his great work that such is the intention of the Rambam. And according to what I have written, even the intention of the Rambam was not that it is indispensable. And I have not found among any of the Rishonim one who says explicitly that if he deviated it is pasul.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote there that for this reason it is the custom that the parashah of "Kadesh Li," "Ve-haya Ki Yeviacha," and the parashah of "Shema" begin at the start of the line. At the end of "Kadesh" and at the end of "Ve-haya Ki Yeviacha," they leave a space sufficient to write nine letters. At the end of "Shema" they do not leave a space, and if they do leave one, it is less than the amount required to write nine letters. The parashah of "Ve-haya Im Shamoa" begins in the middle of the top line, and one leaves a space before it sufficient to write nine letters. It turns out that three parashiyot are petuchot, both according to the opinion of the Rambam and according to the opinion of the Rosh, and the last parashah is setumah according to the opinion of the Rambam. Thus far his words. These laws of petuchot and setumot are explained in Yoreh Deah siman 275. It is explained there that according to the opinion of the Rosh, this form that begins in the middle of the line is a petuchah. And how is it a setumah according to the Rosh if it is impossible to leave nine letters and write the other parashah at the end of the line, which is a setumah according to everyone? He should leave one line entirely empty, and then begin at the start of the line. According to the Rambam, this form is a petuchah, see there. This is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, says: that since in tefillin it is impossible to fulfill the requirements of both of them regarding the setumah of "Ve-haya Im Shamoa," we act according to the Rambam, for the primary ruling is according to him, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah ibid.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who permit all of them to be open. And in these lands, it is the custom to place even the parasha of "Vehaya Im Shamoa" at the beginning of the line like the other parashiot. Thus far his words. And they have already wondered at this: for how can we make "Vehaya Im Shamoa" open ab initio, which is invalid according to the opinion of the Rambam? And even according to what we explained, that even according to his opinion it is not invalid, nevertheless, all the poskim wrote that it must be closed, so how can we make it open ab initio? And granted that it is not within our power to make it closed according to everyone's opinion, nevertheless, let us make it closed according to the opinion of the Rambam. Therefore, the way of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is clearer.

And one of the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch devised a method so that it would be setumah according to all opinions: namely, to leave less than the space of nine letters at the end of "Shema," and to leave a blank space at the beginning of "Ve-hayah im shamoa" also less than nine letters, and to begin "Ve-hayah im shamoa" there (Taz, subsection 26). And most of the great ones of Israel agreed to this, and so they do in most of the dispersions of Israel. And the reason: for this form is setumah according to everyone. For we join this to that, and it is as if the break is in one line, and the second parashah begins at the end of that same line, which is setumah according to everyone as I have written. And we have already written in Yoreh Deah there that what the Rambam wrote there, that a setumah is from the middle of the line—it is not exactly so, but rather anything that does not begin at the start of the line, see there. And according to the Rosh it is explained there as well that anything that concludes in the middle of the line and begins in the middle of the line in the row beneath it—it is setumah. And we explained there in section 6 that according to the Yerushalmi Megillah (first chapter, halachah 9), anything where there is a space at the end of a line and the beginning of a line—it is setumah. And so it is explicitly stated in the Semag, mitzvah 23, and this is his wording: And in the Yerushalmi of Megillah... open from here and from here—it is setumah. And I received the explanation thus: not that it should be completely open from its beginning the measure of nine letters..., and not that it should be completely open from its end... but rather you should divide the measure of the opening to here and to here, less than nine letters at the end of "u-vish'arekha" and less than nine letters at the beginning of "Ve-hayah im shamoa"... and this is a complete setumah, since there is no measure of an opening neither at the beginning nor at the end. Thus far his words regarding mezuzah, and the same law applies to tefillin. (And the scribes of Reissen followed the practice according to the Gra"z to leave the measure of nine letters at the end of "Shema" and the measure of nine letters at the beginning of "Ve-hayah im shamoa." But in all the provinces they did not practice so, but rather like the opinion of the Taz, as I have written. And the Gra"z in his Shulchan Aruch did not mention a thing of this. And he wrote like the Taz, see there.)

And know that there are those who wrote that regarding the law of petuchot and setumot in tefillin—one need only be careful with the shel yad, as all of them are written on one parchment. However, regarding the shel rosh this is not applicable, because each parsha is on a parchment of its own and in a compartment of its own (Magen Avraham, subsection 49, in the name of the Semak, and see Beit Yosef). But from the words of the Rambam it is clear that even regarding the shel rosh it is so, for he began with the shel rosh as well. And regarding this he wrote: "And one must be careful...", and as I wrote in section 58—behold, it refers to both of them. And so it is implied from the language of the Rosh and the Tur and all the poskim, who wrote without qualification that it refers also to the shel rosh. And such is the simple custom, and one should not change it. And know that the parsha of "Kadesh" which begins at the start of the line and has nothing before it, nevertheless, it is like a petucha since it is the first. And this is like in the Torah: the first parsha, "Bereishit," which begins at the start of the line (Beit Yosef in the name of Mahari Abohav).

And regarding the tefillin of our teacher Tam, where "Shema" is the last, and in its writing it is written before "Vehaya Im Shamoa" as will be explained in siman 34 how it should be done, the matter is simple: for according to our teacher, the Beit Yosef, "Kadesh" and "Vehaya Ki Yeviacha" are at the beginning of a line, and at the end of "Kadesh" he should leave a blank space of nine letters, and at the end of "Vehaya Ki Yeviacha" he should not leave a blank space or should leave less than nine letters. And the parasha of "Vehaya Im Shamoa" begins in the middle of a line or he should leave a measure of nine letters, and at its end he should leave nine letters. And the parasha of "Shema" he shall start from the beginning of the line. And according to what was explained in section 63 (according to the Taz), he should leave at the end of "Vehaya Ki Yeviacha" less than nine letters, and at the beginning of "Vehaya Im Shamoa" less than nine letters (Ba'er Heitev subsection 53), for "Vehaya Im Shamoa" must be setumah just as it is in the Torah. And there is one who says that since it is written prior to "Shema" it does not require this, but rather all of them are petuchot (Noda BiYehudah siman 5). And it is not the primary view. Rather, it is as I have written, and so the scribes have practiced and one must not change.

The leather of the batim must be from the skin of kosher domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, even from their nevelot and terefot. However, not from non-kosher species, for we require them to be from a species permitted "in your mouth," just as with the parashiyot. And one is also permitted to make them from klaf, for this too is called leather. And likewise, one may make them from the skin of a fetus. And similarly, the straps have the same law as the batim. For the general rule of the matter is: everything involved in the making of the tefillin—the klafim, the leathers, and the gidin—must all be only from kosher species. And if one made them from non-kosher species, they are pasul. And there is one who says that one should not make the batim from klaf unless he places the klaf in the water of tree barks called lo"a, with which they tan the leathers. And it is good to be stringent ab initio (Magen Avraham, subsection 50). And all of our scribes make them from leathers, because from klaf it is difficult to make them, as is known.

And if it is necessary to perform tanning "lishmah" for the batim, there are opinions: for the Rambam in the third chapter, law 15, wrote: The leather with which one covers the tefillin and from which one makes the straps, they are leather… of pure animals… and if one made them from the leather of impure animals, or if one covered the tefillin with gold – they are pasul. And the leather of the strap requires tanning lishmah. But regarding the leather with which one covers – it does not require tanning at all. Even if one made it from matzah (this is leather as it is) – it is kosher. And in many places they were accustomed to make them from matzah leather. Thus far his words. And the Tur in the name of the Rosh ruled that it requires tanning lishmah, and that Rav Kohen Tzedek ruled likewise. And so ruled the Sefer HaTerumah and the Semag, and the halakhah follows the many. Therefore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 37: It must be tanned lishmah where possible. Thus far his words, meaning: and where it is not possible – it is better to rely on the opinion of the Rambam and not exempt oneself from tefillin entirely, and he should don them without a berakhah. (Bach and Eliyah Rabbah, not like the Magen Avraham subsection 51, since many disagree with him.) And even though we have not found in the Rambam that he does not require tanning lishmah, nevertheless you hear from it automatically that since he does not require tanning at all – it follows automatically that even when one tans, it does not require lishmah, for it is no worse than if he did not tan them at all (and nevertheless there is a distinction to be made).

The Rambam wrote at the beginning of the third chapter: There are eight laws regarding the making of tefillin, and all of them are a law given to Moses at Sinai. Therefore, all of them are essential, and if one changed one of them – it is invalid. And these are they: That they must be square, and likewise their sewing must be in a square and their diagonal must be in a square, so that they have four equal corners. And that there must be on the leather of the head-tefillin the form of a shin on the right and on the left. And that one must wrap the parshiyot in a cloth. And that one must wrap them with hair over the cloth, and afterward they are placed into their houses. And that they must be sewn with gidim. And that one makes for them a passage from the cover leather, so that the strap enters it until it passes through and goes within its loop. And that the straps must be black. And that their knot must be a known knot in the form of a dalet.

How are the tefillin of the head made? One takes a square piece of wood, its length equal to its width and its height. If its height was more than its length or less than it—it is of no consequence. We are only particular that its length be equal to its width. One carves grooves into it so that it forms four heads. One takes leather and moistens it with water, and places the wood into it, and inserts the leather between each and every groove. One presses it while it is moist from here and from there, until one makes in it the form of a shin that has three heads on the right of the one donning the tefillin, and the form of a shin that has four heads on the left of the one donning. One leaves the leather on the wood until it dries, and afterward one removes the leather from upon the wooden mold. It is then found that the leather has four vacant houses, and one inserts a parasha into each and every house. One folds back part of the leather from below, and sews it from its four corners. One leaves from the leather below a place where the strap may enter like a loop, and this is called the "ma'avoret."

And how do they make the tefillin of the hand? They take a square piece of wood, its length equal to its width, and its height shall be about a finger, or slightly more or slightly less. And they cover it with wet leather, and leave the leather on the mold until it dries. And he removes the leather, and places the four parashiyot in the place of the wood. And he folds back part of the leather from below, and sews it from its four corners. And they leave from the leather a loop for the place of the straps, and this is the ma'avarta. And all of this is from the words of the Rambam, chapter three, see there.

From his words it is explained that the entire tefillin, with the titura which is the bottom cover and with the ma'avarta, whether of the head or of the hand – are all from one hide. And so it is explained from the wording of Rashi in Menachot (35a, starting with the words "titura," see there). And this is implied explicitly in the Shimusha Rabba, see there. But the Rosh (siman 7) wrote, and this is his wording: And from the wording of Rashi it is implied that the batim and the titura are from one hide. But the world does not practice so, because the hide of the batim is thin, and the hide of the titura is thick… Thus far his words. And how do they do it? The Tur wrote, and this is his wording: And there are those who take a thick and strong hide and fold it in two, and they cut in the upper fold a square hole according to the square of the batim, and they insert the batim into it. And that which remains of the thin hide of the batim on the four sides – they spread it here and there between the two folds of the thick hide, and they sew it with them. And it is called the "titura." And from that same thick hide they also make the ma'avarta. And it is good to do so, because since it is thick and strong – the seat of the tefillin, its sewing, and its squareness are preserved. Thus far his words.

And from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, it is also implied as such, for in section 38 he wrote: He shall make four batim from one hide for the shel rosh, and one bayit for the shel yad. Thus far his words, and he wrote only regarding the essence of the batim and not regarding the titura. And in section 44 he wrote: The titura of the tefillin is a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai. And this means that he shall place a hide below to cover the opening of the batim, and it appears like a bridge plank which is called "titura." And the ma'avarta of the tefillin is a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai, and this means that the hide of the titura shall be long on one side, and he shall make the ma'avarta in it. How so? He shall cut it from two sides so that it shall not be as wide as the width of the titura, in order that the squareness of the titura shall be recognizable. And through that ma'avarta the retzuah passes, and for that reason it is called "ma'avarta." And also in the tefillin shel yad he shall make a titura and a ma'avarta. Thus far his words; behold, he wrote that he shall place a hide below, which implies a hide on its own. For if it were not so, he should have said that he should leave over from the hide below in order to cover the opening of the batim with it, as the Rambam wrote with this wording. Nevertheless, he did not write so explicitly because the Rambam did not write so. Rather, the custom of the world is as the Rosh wrote, and therefore he left the matters unspecified. And certainly, one who desires mehudar tefillin—he shall make them all from one hide. And so do the mehadrin in all our regions.

And know that there are those who say that even regarding the battim themselves, one may make them from several skins and sew them together, for sewing is considered a connection (Magen Avraham, subsection 52, in the name of the Agudah and Sefer HaTerumah, see there). And they wrote that this is implied in the Tosafot in Menachot (32a, starting with the words "Dilma"), who wrote that even regarding the parashiyot one may glue them according to the method of Rashi, see there—and all the more so regarding the battim. And they wrote that even though we say in the Yerushalmi that tefillin and mezuzot are only written on a single skin—this is when he did not sew the skins to one another, see there. And according to this, we must say that what Rashi explained regarding the titura, that it is from a single skin, as I wrote in section 71—this is not indispensable. And if so, we can say that also the opinion of the Rambam is not indispensable. Nevertheless, the custom of the world is that the battim are from one skin literally, and only the titura is a skin unto itself. And those who are meticulous also make the titura from a single skin, as I have written.

The length and width of the battim and their height—there is no measure for this by the strict law. However, the Geonim said that the titura should not be less than two fingers, in length and width and likewise the height. And so it is explained in Shimusha Rabba. And there it is explained that it is not indispensable, and this is his wording: One brings a good piece of wood, two fingers by two fingers. And if it was more—it is fine. And if it was less—it is not invalid. Thus far his words, and so the Tosafot wrote at the beginning of the tenth chapter of Eruvin in the name of the Midrash. And there is support for the matter in that the Tzitz was two fingers in width, as it is stated at the beginning of Sukkah and at the beginning of Arachin. It implies somewhat that the measure of tefillin is like the measure of the Tzitz, see there. (See Beit Yosef and Magen Avraham, subsection 56, who wrote that the sages and the head of the beit din should make the shel rosh higher than three fingers, so that everyone will see. And a Torah scholar and a student before his teacher—they place small ones like a finger and a half and cover them under the miter, so as not to equate themselves with their teachers, see there. And among us, we do not practice this. And it also implies from Tosafot there that one should not make the width and length of the titura of the shel rosh more than four fingers, for the place of tefillin is not more than four fingers, see there. And according to this, one should cry out against those who make large tefillin, which do not rest upon the place of tefillin on the head, and they do not fulfill the mitzvah of tefillin.)

And it has already been explained that there must be an equal square both above and below in the titura. This is the wording of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 39: Tefillin, whether of the head or of the hand – it is a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai that they must be square in their stitching and in their diagonal, that is, that their squareness be precise in its length as in its width, so that they will have that diagonal. For our sages, of blessed memory, said: Every cubit in a square is a cubit and two-fifths in its diagonal. And one must square the place of their base and also the battim. However, regarding the height of the battim – one need not be particular if it is more than their width and their length. Thus far his words. And even though the calculation of a cubit and two-fifths in the diagonal is not entirely precise according to the calculation of the mathematicians as is known, nevertheless the Torah decreed that they should measure according to this calculation, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 30, section 13, see there. (And the difficulty of Tosafot in Eruvin 14a is answered.) And know that even if we say that it is impossible for a human being to be exact to make a literal square, nevertheless the Torah said: Do according to what is in your power to be exact, and with this you fulfill the mitzvah. And so our sages, of blessed memory, said in Bekhorot (17b) regarding the measurements of the Altar and the vessels of the Beit HaMikdash where the Torah stated a measurement, and this is the wording of the Gemara: The Merciful One said "do," and in whatever way you are able to do, it is pleasing to Him, see there. And here too regarding tefillin, it is so.

It is found that the tefillin must be square above and below in the titura and in their sewing. That is to say: that one should not pull the sewing thread excessively, so that it does not contract and the squareness be ruined (Rashi 35a). Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 39: If he made them square and afterwards their squareness was ruined, there is one who says that he must square them. Thus far his words. That is to say: even though regarding tzitzit we say in siman 11 that if the threads of the warp were severed until less than a thumb's breadth remains from the corner they are kosher, see there—this is because regarding tzitzit the Torah was only particular at the time of making, as it is written: "And they shall make for themselves tzitzit," see there. However, the squareness of tefillin is a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai, and they must be so at every moment. And ab initio one should strive that in the shel rosh all the batim should be equal, but this is not a requirement for validity.

And what is called "damage to the squareness"? It seems to me, for example, if they contracted slightly in length or width, or if a small amount was missing and the like. And there are those who wish to say that when the corners are slightly damaged in their sharpness, and it appears somewhat rounded at its corners, it is called "damage to the squareness." But in my humble opinion, it does not appear so. First: for the squareness is not damaged by this, as the sharpness was removed from the length and the width equally. And if you say that these are rounded tefillin and not square—this is certainly more of a wonder, for the tefillin are square as before; for is it so that if the sharpness of the corners is not properly sharp, the name "square" is lost? (This is stated) in wonderment. And in my opinion, this is what our sages, of blessed memory, said regarding the square and its diagonal, as has been explained, and it is in Menachot (35a). And it is difficult: it is obvious that since it was made square, its diagonal will automatically be proper? And it is true that Rashi explained there that its length should not exceed its width, see there. But the Rambam at the beginning of the third chapter wrote: and their diagonal in a square, until they have four equal angles. Thus far his words, and his intention is clear: that the main point is that the angles be equal. And if so, even if the sharpness of the corners was slightly damaged, what of it? Nevertheless, the angles are equal. Furthermore: for the Torah was not given to the ministering angels, and damage to the angles is inevitable. And it is true that there are some scribes who are great experts in their craft regarding the batim so that they will not be damaged, but the vast majority do not have the ability to do so. Furthermore: they take a great deal of money for their batim, such that it is not within the ability of every person to obtain them. And the end of the matter is that I have seen even with them that over the course of time they are slightly damaged, for so it is by necessity. Therefore, I say that Heaven forbid one should apply the name "pasul" to this, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not come with tyranny toward His creatures. And this is like what they said in Bechorot (17b) regarding squareness: do whatever you are able, and as I wrote in section 75. And those who seek excessive stringencies—the sages are not pleased with them.

The groove between each bayit in the shel rosh must reach down to the bottom, that is, to the place where the titura is sewn. However, if it does not reach down to the bottom, it is kosher. This is specifically provided that the groove is recognizable to all, so that its four heads are visible to all, for if not so, they are pasul. It is necessary that each and every bayit stands on its own; that is to say, they should not be attached to one another such that it is impossible to separate them easily, for if not so, it is only one bayit. One must rebuke the scribes who attach the batim to one another. And one should not say that through the absence of their attachment the square shape is ruined, for it is not so: for we calculate the square shape according to their actual proximity to one another, and what does this have to do with that (see Chayei Adam and Chatam Sofer siman 5). And in Menachot (34b) they said explicitly that if their groove is not recognizable, they are pasul; see there. And so it is explicit in the Rambam there that there must be a distinction between each bayit, see there.

Regarding the blackness of the batim, we do not find this in the Gemara. Only regarding the straps did they say that it is a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai that they must be black (ibid. 35a). But regarding the batim, we do not find this. Therefore, the Rambam wrote there in law 14 that the katzitzah may be green or white. Nevertheless, he wrote that it is a beauty for the tefillin that everything be black, the katzitzah and the entire strap; see there. And this is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 40, and this is his wording: The leather of the batim—it is a mitzvah to make it black. Thus far his words. His intention with "mitzvah" is "This is my God and I will glorify Him," and it is a mitzvah but not an obligation. And such is the simple custom to blacken them. Therefore, if they became somewhat white over the course of time—we have no concern with it. And for this reason, if there is a sofer in his place—he should give them to him to blacken them, but it is not an essential requirement. And there are sofrim who coat them with a thick coating in order for them to have a shine, and one should rebuke them if there is even a small amount of substance in the coating. And the greats of the generations have already cried out against this. And now we have not seen them do so. (And from Tosafot, Shabbat 28b, it is clear that they hold that blackness is required by law; see there. And see the Bach.)

It has already been explained that the shin of the tefillin is a law given to Moses at Sinai, on the head tefillin from the folds of the leather, one on its right and one on its left. The Geonim received a tradition that on the right of the wearer it is of three heads, and on his left it is of four heads. And if he reversed them—he has not invalidated them. And likewise if he made both of them of three heads or of four heads, since in the Gemara it is explained simply as "shin," and both are included in "shin." And even though I have not found this explicitly stated, nevertheless it appears so to me. Many reasons were said regarding these shinin, as is explained in Zohar Pinhas (page 228b), that they correspond to the seven thousand years. And there are further reasons in the commentators (see Beit Yosef, and Taz subsection 35, and Magen Avraham subsection 59). And the heads of the shinin—some make them round, and some make them square. And the yudin in the shinin must touch below at the base of the shinin, not like the one who says that in the shin of four heads the yudin should not touch below (see Magen Avraham ibid.). And the groove of the shin, which is the point at the bottom—shall reach until the place of the seam. And he shall not extend the shin below the seam, but rather the base of the shin should also be visible upon the seam.

And behold, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 42 wrote that one should make the shins from the creases of the leather, which is to say that one creases the letter shin into the leather while it is soft. But if one made it like the work of a mold—it would be "chak tochot." And even though since the shin is embossed, the mold presses the letters themselves and not the surroundings of the letters, and it would be "chak yerichot" which is valid as is explained in Gittin (20a), nevertheless, since the leather is soft, the area surrounding the embossed shin is also pressed and it becomes like "chak tochot." However, some say that "chak tochot" is not invalid for this shin, for specifically regarding a matter where "writing" is stated—this is not writing. But regarding these shins, "writing" was not stated, but rather it is a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai that it must have the form of a shin. If so, even "chak tochot" constitutes the form of a shin. This is the wording of our teacher, the Rema, in his book Darchei Moshe: One should not deviate from the custom of the elders, who would make them with a crease of the leather. However, if one made them with a mold or wrote them with ink on the white housing—it is not in our power to invalidate them. Thus far his words.

When he has finished the construction of the batim – he shall roll each parasha from its end to its beginning. And similarly with the shel yad, which are on one parchment – he shall roll from its end to its beginning, so that the one who opens it will read in order. And he wraps them in a small parchment and in a kosher parchment. And it is a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai that he must wrap around it hair from a pure domestic or wild animal, and this is a requirement even ex post facto. However, the wrapping in parchment is not a requirement ex post facto if he has no other tefillin (Bach and Magen Avraham subsection 60). And similarly, if he rolled them from their beginning to their end – it is not a requirement ex post facto. And only in this case, he can indeed rectify it and roll them according to the law. And the custom among us is to wrap hair upon the parasha itself, and afterwards we wrap a kosher parchment over it, and we return and wrap hair over it. And the reason seems to me: because the wrapping of the hair is a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai, and the wrapping of the parchment was not explicitly stated, and perhaps the hair is required specifically upon the parchment of the parasha itself. But since according to the tradition of the Geonim one requires parchment over the parashiot and the hair over the parchment, as is brought in Shimusha Rabba – therefore we do both.

And the hair shall be of a calf, in order to atone for the incident of the calf. However, if he did not find that of a calf—he wraps with that of a cow or that of an ox. And he washes the hair well at first until it is clean. And the tradition has come down that a small portion of this hair must be visible outside the batim, at the location of the parashah of "And it shall come to pass if you surely hearken" on the side facing the parashah of "Sanctify." It follows that in the tefillin of Rashi the hair emerges not far from the edge, and in the tefillin of our teacher Tam they emerge in the middle. And according to the Zohar the hair should not emerge to the length of a barleycorn, but rather less than this. (See Magen Avraham subsection 61 who raised a difficulty: Behold, hair does not contract tumah. And it seems to me that this is also the intent of the Zohar. And this is the explanation: that hair does not contract tumah unless it is joined to another thing, as here where it is wrapped on the parchment and serves the parchment. And if the parchment becomes tamei—the hair is also tamei. And as we learned in the thirteenth chapter of Kelim, mishnah 6: wood that serves metal—is tamei, see there. And when there is not a barleycorn's length in it even by way of joining—it does not contract tumah, for the status of tumah does not exist for less than a barleycorn. Examine and you will find it simple.)

One shall place each parasha in its own bayit, and it must be upright in its bayit and not lying down. And even though according to the method of our teacher, Tam, it must specifically be lying down, as is explained in the Tosafot to Menachot (33a, starting with the words "Ha"), nevertheless, we hold according to the method of Rashi there that it must specifically be upright. And even though regarding the order of the parashiyot they were concerned for the method of our teacher, Tam—this is because several Geonim from the early authorities hold so, as will be explained in siman 34, which is not the case regarding the law of them being upright. And how shall he stand them up? So that the upper line shall be at the top, and the bottom line toward the opening of the batim, and the beginning of the parasha shall be placed toward the right of the reader, so that if he comes to open them and read them—they will be placed before him according to their law, that he may open them and read them in order. And it appears that all of this is indispensable, and especially since they can rectify this (and see Magen Avraham, subsection 62).

And similarly for the shel yad – one writes the four parshiyot on one skin, and rolls them from their end to their beginning, and wraps parchment over them and hair over it. And according to our custom, one also wraps hair over the parchment of the parshiyot. And one inserts them into its bayit upright just as in the shel头. And it was taught in Menachot (34b) that post facto, even if one wrote them on four parchments and placed them in one bayit – he has fulfilled the obligation, and he does not need to attach the parshiyot to one another with adhesive. Furthermore, even if he placed them in four battim like the shel rosh, if he patched a skin over it from above over the four battim, so that now only one skin is visible from the outside – he has fulfilled the obligation. And so we learned there: that if one does not have tefillin shel yad and has two of the shel rosh, he patches a skin over one of them and places it. And so ruled the Rambam in the third chapter and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 47. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And the custom is to attach them with adhesive, so that it shall all be like one parchment. And they should be careful to take kosher adhesive. Thus far his words, and I do not understand: for since he placed them in four battim – how can he attach all four parshiyot? For behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, did not mention four parshiyot in one bayit but rather in four battim, see there – and how can he attach them? And it must be said that it does not refer to the previous law exactly. Rather, he wrote that if it happened that he wrote them on four parchments – he should attach them, and not insert them thus in their separation. And the reason for this law is: that which the Torah insisted that the shel yad be one "sign" – this means that from the outside only one "sign" shall be seen, and regarding the inside we are not concerned. And know that this which we said, that one makes a shel yad from a shel rosh – this is with new ones that he has not yet worn. But if he has worn them – it is forbidden to change from a more stringent sanctity to a lighter sanctity. And when he has not worn them – designation is not a significant act (Gemara ibid.).

And so too the opposite regarding the tefillin shel rosh, we learned there that if one wrote them on a single skin and placed them in four compartments—he has fulfilled the obligation. And there is no need for there to be a space between them, and he places a thread or a cord between each and every one, see there. And so it is in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, section 47. And this fact that there is no need for a space between them—this refers to a large space between each and every parasha. However, a small space is necessarily required, for he must place each parasha in its own compartment (Nimukei Yosef). And the thread and the cord are for the recognition of the separation. And there are those among the early authorities who inferred from this that the upright positioning of the parashiot is not a requirement post facto, for here they must necessarily be lying down, as is understood (see Beit Yosef). However, in truth there is no proof, and therefore Rashi explained there that after he wrote them on one skin—he should cut the skin from above... fingers, and the skin will be attached from below, see there. That is to say: he should insert each parasha into each compartment from beneath the compartment upright, and they will be separated above and joined beneath them. And there is one who further explained that the cutting should be above the writing, for example where there is a large margin above the writing, and all the writing is on one parchment. For if not so, it is not relevant to say "one parchment" (Taz, subsection 36). Nevertheless, in any event, according to this they can be upright. And the Rambam did not write this law at all, and it requires further study.

It appears to me from what the Rambam wrote there in law 11: And if their grooves are not recognizable—they are invalid. And one must pass through each and every groove, upon the leather, a thread or a cord, to distinguish between one compartment and another. And it is a common custom to pass a sinew from the sewing sinews through each and every groove of the three. Thus far his words. Meaning: that in all tefillin they do so at the time of their making, and afterward they remove this. Just as in all crafts where it is necessary that they do not join one to another—they do so at the time of the work, and after the completion of the work they remove this, like the wood in the tefillin which they remove afterward, as I wrote in section 69, see there; and like the work of the Altar in Zevachim (54b), see there. And according to this, the space that we learned in the Baraita there is in all tefillin, and likewise the thread or cord. And this is not like all the poskim who interpret this as being when they were all on one parchment. And that which we learned there: "And if he wrote them on one skin and placed them in four compartments, he has fulfilled the obligation"—the Rambam would interpret that this is its meaning: that you should not say that one must specifically write on four skins. Rather, even if he wrote them on one parchment, and afterward cut them completely, parchment from parchment—he has fulfilled the obligation, since at the time of their insertion into the compartments, each one was on its own. And if so, there is no novelty here at all (so it appears to me clear with the help of Heaven).

The Tur and Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 48: If one overlaid the battim with gold or with the skin of an impure animal—they are pasul. Thus far his words, and this is a baraita in Sanhedrin (48b). And they explain: "overlaid them with gold"—meaning upon the battim, and not that he made the battim themselves of gold. However, Rashi in Menachot (42b) explained regarding one who patched with impure skin—that he made battim from impure skin, see there. And consequently, gold also means this. And the proof is that regarding gold, Rashi explained the reason: that we require a case of skin, see there—behold, even regarding gold he explained that he makes the battim of gold, and not that he covered the battim with gold. And one of the great ones has already been awakened to this (Noda BiYehuda siman 1). Nevertheless, it seems to me that it was obvious to the Tur and Shulchan Aruch that both matters were included in the intent of the baraita: the first being the making of the battim themselves from gold or from an impure source, and the second that he covered the battim with gold or with an impure source. And the proof for this is from the wording of Rashi in Gittin (45b), who wrote: he made a covering for their pocket, see there. And it is one reason: for when he overlaid gold or an impure source upon the battim—the lower part is nullified because the upper part is not seen at all. Furthermore: the outer battim do not see the air. Furthermore: even regarding tumah, the overlay nullifies the essence of the vessel, as the Rambam wrote in the Laws of Vessels, chapter four, law 4, see there. (And it is simple that this is when he attached them to the battim. But the cases that they make for the battim, which they remove from the battim—it is nothing. And even if they were on the tefillin at the time of their donning—this is not a nullification of the tefillin. Rather, it is not beautiful nor fitting to do so. And there are those who do not remove the case of the yad from the tefillin even during the prayer, and it is not correct to do so. Examine and you will find it easy.)

It is a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai that tefillin must be sewn with the gidin of a pure domestic or wild animal. However, one should not sew with the gidin of a bird because they are weak, and also the difference between gidin and meat is not recognizable in them. It is good to sew with the gidin of an ox. One takes the gidin from the heel of the animal, as they are white. If they are hard, one softens them with stones until they become like flax, and then spins them and twists them, and they are very strong (Magen Avraham, subsection 65). One does not take gidin from a gentile, because we are concerned that perhaps they are from an impure animal. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 50 that in a place where gidin are not available, one sews with "talidors" made from parchment until gidin become available to them. Thus far his words. And it is not understood: since the halacha was stated to sew with gidin, how can we permit parchment (Noda BiYehuda, Tinyana, siman 2)? It must be said that he reasons that the halacha was stated such that even the sewing must specifically be from pure sources, and consequently, it is the way to sew with gidin. However, the gidin are not indispensable, and therefore in a time of pressing need, one may rely on the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and sew with thin, dried intestines. Some forbid this as these are not gidin (Sha'arei Teshuva, subsection 69 in the name of the Noda BiYehuda), and one should be stringent as perhaps the halacha was stated specifically regarding gidin, and so the poskim held. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 66, that one should not buy gidin from a gentile even when it is known that they are from a pure animal, because since this is a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai, their preparation requires "lishma," and with a gentile there is no "lishma.")

One shall sew three stitches on each side. The sewing thread shall encircle from both directions, from above and from below. The stitches shall be right next to the bayit and not in the ma'avarta, and one shall pass the sewing thread between each and every bayit. (See Taz subsection 38, and see what I wrote in section 87.) There must be twelve stitches in the shel yad, and likewise in the shel rosh. However, if one only made ten stitches or fewer than this—it is not disqualified. There is one who says that these twelve stitches must all be with one thread and the thread shall not be severed, and if it is severed—they are disqualified. That is to say: until he returns and ties it (Taz subsection 39). Nevertheless, if the thread is short and he cannot complete all the stitches with it—he shall complete the sewing with another thread (Magen Avraham subsection 68). And it seems to me that when he sees that it will not suffice—he should tie another thread to its end. And one should not deviate.

One should insert the strap into the ma'avarta, and make a knot in the form of a dalet on the shel rosh, and in the form of a yod on the shel yad, to complete the letters Sh-D-Y with the shin on the shel rosh. And thus they said in Shabbat (62a) that the shin, dalet, and yod of tefillin are a halacha transmitted to Moses at Sinai (and see Tosafot ibid.). Therefore, they should see to make this Name in order: first the shin, and afterwards the dalet, and afterwards the yod. And if one changed the order, it does not invalidate. However, ab initio one should be careful in this. (And that which the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 69 to make the dalet from two sides—they do not practice so. And similarly, that which our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 52 that it is customary to pass leather over the bayit of the shel yad across the width of the arm, and its width should be like the width of the bayit, thus far his words—his intention in this is not understood at all. And in the Tur there is also something similar to this, and there he explained to pass the strap over the bayit of the shel yad. That is to say: over the ma'avarta at the time of tying in order to strengthen it, as the Sephardim do. And it is likewise evident that this is the intention of our teacher, the Rema. However, his wording is puzzling: what is this that he said "and its width should be..."? And perhaps there is a printing error here.)