Siman 271

It was taught at the beginning of Masekhet Soferim: One may not write sefarim, tefillin, or mezuzot on the skins of an impure domestic animal, nor on the skins of an impure wild animal, etc. And it is a halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai that one writes on the skins of a pure domestic animal and on the skins of a pure wild animal, etc. It is a halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai that one rules lines with a reed and writes with ink. And there is support from the verse: "And I wrote upon the book with ink." See there. And most of the laws of a sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot—all are from halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai. However, that which is forbidden to write on the skin of an impure domestic or wild animal we learned from the verse, as it is written: "In order that the Torah of Hashem shall be in your mouth"—from that which is permitted in your mouth, meaning: from a species that is permitted in your mouth (Shabbat 108a). And even their nevelot and tereifot—it is permitted to write upon them, for that which is killed by the hand of Heaven is no worse than that which is killed by the hand of man. Therefore, even if a person stabs them or uproots them, it is also permitted, since it is from a species that is permitted in your mouth (Tosafot ibid.).

There is one who is uncertain whether it is permitted to write upon skins of prohibited benefit, such as those worshipped as idols: whether we say in this case that "mitzvot were not given for benefit" or not (Pri Megadim in the opening to Orach Chaim regarding tefillin). However, this matter is explicitly stated in Masechet Soferim as a prohibition, and thus it is stated there in the first chapter: One may write upon skins of a nevelah and upon skins of a tereifah, and we are not concerned that perhaps they are "pierced-heart" skins. One may take skins from any place for scrolls, for tefillin, and mezuzot, and we are not concerned that perhaps they are "pierced-heart" skins, see there. And "pierced-heart" skins are those worshipped as idols, as is stated in the chapter "Ein Ma'amidin"; behold it is explicit that prohibited benefit is forbidden. And the reason is simple: for since it is written "write for yourselves" – we require something that is fit for him, as with an etrog (Sukkah 35b). And according to this, even if one stole or robbed skins and wrote upon them – he has not fulfilled his obligation, for we require "yourselves," unless he acquired it through a change of form or through despair and a change of domain (it appears to me). And so too, one may write upon the skin of a pure bird. And even though there are in their skins something like holes, the place where the feathers grow, nevertheless, any hole that the ink passes over – is not called a hole (Shabbat 108a). But the skin of pure fish – it is forbidden to write upon, because they are full of filth (ibid.). And in the Gemara there, it was a question that was not resolved, and consequently we follow the stringent view. (In the Gemara it says whether their filth ceases or not, and the matters require explanation. And the Rambam in the first chapter, halacha 10, wrote that the filth does not cease through its processing, see there. And it requires further study. Examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

The Rambam wrote in the first chapter, law 11: Gevil for a sefer Torah, and klaf for tefillin or for a sefer Torah—one must process them lishmah. And if one processed them not lishmah—they are pasul. Therefore, if a star-worshipper processed them—they are pasul, even if one said to the star-worshipper to process this hide for the sake of the scroll or for the sake of the tefillin—they are pasul, for the star-worshipper acts on his own intent, not on the intent of the one who hired him. Therefore, anything that requires an action lishmah, if a star-worshipper performed it—it is pasul. But a mezuzah does not require processing lishmah. Thus far his words. (And the early authorities wondered from where he derived that a mezuzah does not require processing lishmah? And the sages of Lunel asked him regarding this, and he replied that it is not a mitzvah except because of the house, as he wrote in several places. And regarding this too they wondered about him. And the truth is that this is explicit in the Yerushalmi Yoma chapter three, halacha 6: Hide that was processed for the sake of an amulet—it is permitted to write a mezuzah upon it. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids it, and he ruled like the first Tanna. For also regarding plating them with gold he ruled not like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as he holds like Rashi Sanhedrin 48b, and distinguishes between the batim of the tefillin and the parshiyot themselves. And therefore regarding mezuzah, even though it is similar to the parshiyot themselves, nevertheless since the first Tanna and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree in both—he ruled in both like the first Tanna. And in the Responsum this was not mentioned, see there in the Shiltei Gibborim. And examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

And that which we learned in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 48b): If he plated them with gold or overlaid them with the skin of an impure animal—they are pasul; with the skin of a pure animal—they are kosher even if he did not process them lishmah. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even the skin of a pure animal is pasul until it is processed lishmah, see there—the Rambam explains it as referring to the battim and not the parshiyot. And he also ruled in the third chapter, law 15, like the first Tanna, and this is his wording there: The skin with which one covers the tefillin etc. and the skin of the strap—require processing lishmah. But regarding the skin with which one covers—it does not require etc. Thus far his words. Rashi also explained it so, see there. And many of the Rishonim explain that it refers to the parshiyot, and they ruled in truth like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that they require processing lishmah, and if not, they are pasul, as is proven in Gittin (Gittin 54b). And consequently, it is also pasul regarding mezuzah like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the Yerushalmi of Yoma that we cited. (And the Rosh and the Tur cited in the name of Rav Moshe Gaon that post facto it is kosher even in a Sefer Torah without processing lishmah, see there. It appears to me that they explained the Baraita as referring to the parshiyot, and they ruled like the first Tanna and the Rabbanan, for the two academies who disagree with him hold in the explanation of the Baraita either like Rashi and the Rambam that it refers to the battim, or that it refers to the parshiyot and they ruled like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel from that which is in Gittin. And this is why they said that we have a precision to reject the words of Rav Moshe Gaon, see there. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

And regarding that which the Rambam wrote, that a star-worshiper is disqualified because he acts with his own intent, this was derived for him from what they said in Gittin (Gittin 23a) regarding the writing of a get for its sake, that it is disqualified because he acts with his own intent, see there. Nevertheless, the Tur wrote, and this is his wording: The Rambam wrote: if a Cuthite processes it—it is disqualified, even if an Israelite says to him "process these skins for the sake of a Sefer Torah." And our teacher Baruch wrote that if he processes it and an Israelite stands over him and assists him—it is permitted. And so wrote the author of the Ittur, that it is sufficient with a Cuthite when he processes them for its sake. And such is the conclusion of my master, my father, the Rosh, of blessed memory. And so wrote Rav Natronai: if it is possible for an Israelite to process them for its sake—it is a choice fulfillment of the mitzvah. And if not, he should go to a Cuthite and say to him "I need parchment for a Sefer Torah." And when he processes them for the sake of a Sefer Torah, an Israelite should assist him a little, and in such a manner it is considered processing for its sake. Thus far his words.

And his words are not understood: for in the permission of our teacher, Baruch, it is written specifically when the Israelite stands over him and assists him. But the Ittur did not require this, so how could he write that the Ittur wrote thus? And the words of Rav Natronai are like the words of our teacher, Baruch. And there is one who wrote that the intention of our teacher, Baruch, was not regarding assistance with hands, but rather assistance with speech, to instruct him how to place it into the lime for the sake of the commandment (Perishah). And there is one who wrote that that which he said, that the Israelite should assist him—it is only initially as a mere preference, but after the fact we have no concern with it (Bach). For in several places we say that an assistant performs no substantial act (ibid.). And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work on Orach Chaim siman 32 (Tur Orach Chaim 32) wrote that the intention of the Ittur was also specifically when he assists him, see there. And the forced nature of these explanations is evident.

In my humble opinion, it appears that without an Israelite standing over him, it is impossible to validate it at all. For this is clearly implied in Gittin ibid., for shall we rely on his trustworthiness? Furthermore: from where would he know the matter of "lishmah" if the Israelite is not standing over him and teaching him? And a proof for this: for in the great Or Zarua, siman 534, he wrote in the name of Riva that the tanning of a star-worshiper is invalid even with an Israelite standing over him. And he brings proof from Gittin ibid., that even with an Israelite standing over a star-worshiper, he acts with his own intent. Thus far his words. And he follows the approach of the Rambam. However, in any event, we have heard that without standing over him, there is no one who holds at all that we should rely on the statement of the star-worshiper, who said that he tanned it lishmah. Therefore, even the Ittur and the Rosh intended specifically when standing over him, and they did not feel the need to explain this, as it is a simple matter. And that which our teacher Baruch wrote, "and assists him" – it is so of its own accord. For since he stands over him and teaches him how to act, perforce he assists him and says to him, "when you place it in the lime, say such and such," and automatically he also takes hold of the skins. And it is not because this is effective, for an assistant is of no consequence, and the star-worshiper is the one who acts, but rather this is the way to act when teaching him how to act (so it appears to me).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 1 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 271:1) brought only the opinion of the Rambam. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And if a star-worshiper processes them – the Israelite should assist slightly at the beginning when placing it into the lime, and he should say that he is doing so for the sake of the sanctity of a sefer Torah. Thus far his words. And it appears that he holds that in such a case even the Rambam admits, since he did not write his words with the phrasing "there are those who say." And this is the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book in this siman, see there. For he holds that this assistance has substance, as this is not called merely assisting since in his action alone it is sufficient. And he holds that those who permit it permit it even without the assistance of an Israelite, as the Rosh wrote that here it is not relevant to say that he acts for his own sake, since it is but a moment when he places it in the lime and says "for the sake of the sanctity of a sefer Torah" – he certainly obeys and acts according to the intent of the Israelite. This is not the case regarding a get, which requires a lengthy process; in that case the Gemara said that he acts for his own sake. However, for the halacha, our teachers the authors of the Shulchan Aruch did not adopt the words of the Rosh but rather the words of the Rambam, but they hold that in such a case even the Rambam admits. (And the Shach, subsection 5, brought the words of the Bach, that after the fact it is not a hindrance, regarding the Rema, see there. And it requires further study. And examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

He further wrote that he should mark those skins, so that the star-worshipper does not exchange them. And we are not concerned afterwards that perhaps he exchanged them and forged the marks after him. Thus far his words. That is to say: that we are not concerned that he might exchange them intentionally, for we have a general rule that a star-worshipper is not suspected of exchanging unless he has a benefit from this. And we are not concerned with him causing a stumbling block, as I wrote in siman 118. Therefore, when he made marks, we are not concerned that he will exchange and make these marks on another skin. Rather, when there are no marks – we are concerned that perhaps he will exchange by mistake. For benefit is not relevant here, for if he exchanges for a skin smaller than this – will the Israelite not recognize it and he be caught as a thief? And to exchange for a skin like this, there is no benefit, obviously, and therefore marks alone are sufficient (so it appears in my humble opinion). And in Orach Chaim siman 32 section 10, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote the reason is because the star-worshipper is afraid to exchange and make marks lest the Israelite recognize them, see there. And it must be said that there it deals with a case where he would benefit from the exchange (Shach subsection 6).

And know that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great work that when at the beginning of the tanning the Israelite places the hides into the lime lishmah—the star-worshiper may afterwards complete the tanning, and this is "lishmah" even according to the opinion of the Rambam, see there. And there is one who disagrees with him, and holds that specifically when the Israelite completes the tanning—for then he only needs to say at the beginning of the tanning that he tans them lishmah. But when the star-worshiper completes it—we fear perhaps when the star-worshiper completes it he will tan it shelo lishmah in thought, therefore ab initio one should not complete the tanning by means of a star-worshiper when it is possible by means of an Israelite (Bach). And in my humble opinion the primary view is like our teacher, the Beit Yosef, for we do not find anywhere that we should fear that the star-worshiper will say or think the opposite, but rather he acts without specific intent. And this matter our teachers the authors of the Tosafot explained to us in Gittin (Gittin 23a), and this is their wording: And the Ri says that that which was said that he acts according to his own mind, that means that he acts without specific intent etc. Thus far their words. And with greater explanation they wrote this in the chapter "Ein Maamidin" (Gittin 27a), and this is his wording: And when an Israelite placed them initially in the tanning for the sake of holiness—he leaves it to the star-worshiper to remove and prepare it, and he no longer needs to stand over him or assist him. Thus far his words (and the Magen Avraham brought it in siman 32, subsection 13). And it is explained that even ab initio he does not need more.

The Tur wrote that our teacher Baruch was in doubt whether processing lishmah requires specifically speech, or if thought alone is sufficient—that he should think lishmah, just as regarding terumah where thought is sufficient. And he wrote in the name of the Rosh that therefore it is good that he should express it with his lips, and say at the beginning of the processing when he places it into the vat: "I am processing these skins for the sake of the sanctity of a Sefer Torah," and he needs no more. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote similarly in section 1 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 279:1). And also from this wording it is explicitly explained that the primary lishmah is at the beginning of the processing and no more, as I have written. And there is one who wrote that what they wrote "at the beginning of the processing" did not come to exclude the end, for on the contrary, everywhere an action is called after the one who completes it, and if so, at the completion it certainly avails. Rather, they came to say that even at the beginning it avails (Taz, small subsection 3). And in my humble opinion it is not so. For in the matter of a physical action, certainly the primary work is called after its end. But in a spiritual matter of bringing down sanctity, the primary thing is at the beginning of the action, and the entire action is drawn after it. And so it is regarding tzitzit in Orach Chaim siman 11. And so it is regarding the slaughtering of consecrated offerings, as we say at the beginning of Zevachim that anyone who acts—acts based on the initial intent. And so the Tosafot wrote there (starting with "Ha"), and this is their wording: Since he spoke at the beginning of the slaughtering, must he speak every moment? See there. And I am very concerned if he speaks only at its end, unless we say its end proves its beginning, as is found in Zevachim there. Furthermore: since the primary processing is done by the idolater, it is perforce necessary that the Israelite say at the beginning of the processing that he is doing it lishmah, and by means of this the entire processing is drawn after it, as I have written. And some say that post facto thought is sufficient (Radbaz and Rema and Be'er HaGolah). And so it is implied from the wording of the Rosh.

The Tur wrote that the preparation of the parchment and its sirtut do not need to be for the sake of the commandment. Thus far his words. That is to say: even though the writing must be for the sake of the commandment, nevertheless, the preparation of the parchment and its sirtut, which is merely a preparation, does not need to be for the sake of the commandment, for preparation is of no legal consequence. And one of the great authorities was stringent that the sirtut requires being for the sake of the commandment (Pitchei Teshuva, small subsection 8, in the name of Bnei Yonah). And perhaps he was concerned for the opinion of Rashi in Sanhedrin ibid., that Rava holds that preparation is of legal consequence. And although the primary ruling is according to the words of the Tur, nevertheless, the widespread custom is to perform the sirtut and the preparation of the parchment for the sake of sanctity. And so it is implied from Tosafot Gittin (Gittin 45b, s.v. ad) that such was the widespread custom in their days, see there. And even regarding a get they practiced so, as our teacher, the Rema, wrote in Even HaEzer in siman 131 (Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer 131), see there. And all the more so regarding a sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot.

The Tur wrote a response of a Gaon regarding skins that were not processed lishmah: If you have the ability to return the thin sheets (the parchment) to a state of being stretched, and to pass lime over it lishmah—behold, you have fulfilled the obligation of processing lishmah. Thus far his words. And it appears that this is the explanation: behold, after the skin is placed for some days within the lime, it shrinks, and they stretch it and tie the edges all around to something, in order that it be stretched very well. And it is known that the longer it is placed within the lime, the more whitened it becomes. Therefore, they ruled that passing lime lishmah is effective even after the processing, since with the second lime it will become more whitened. And that which they wrote "passing lime" is not meant specifically, but rather to place it in lime. And that which they wrote "to a state of being stretched," even though this is not the essence of the processing, it appears that their intention is that it is not effective to place it within the lime for a brief moment, as this is nothing, but rather to place it within the lime for a long time until it shrinks and requires stretching (so it appears in my humble opinion in the explanation of the matters). And there is no proof from this that processing at the end is effective, for here it is a different processing.

It is a simple matter that tanning is only the placing into the lime. However, the stretching that follows, and the scraping of the hair, and the smoothing with a stone, the pumice and the like—is nothing at all. And if the placing into the lime was not lishmah, and these things he did lishmah—it is of no use whatsoever. And so too the opposite: if the liming was lishmah, and these things were not lishmah—we have no concern with it. And there are those who, after the tanning, smear the hide with white paint, and through this the parchment is smooth and shining, and this too is not part of the tanning process. And there is one who was entirely concerned regarding this paint, lest there be an intervention between the writing and the parchment, and it would be found that it was written not upon the parchment. But in truth there is no concern in this, for there is no substance to the paint. Therefore, if there truly is substance to it, meaning that it is possible to scrape the paint and there would be substance to it—it is certainly forbidden to write upon it, for this is not writing upon the parchment but rather upon the paint and it is pasul (Panim Me'irot and Bnei Yonah, see Pitchei Teshuva subsection 3). And there are those who wish to validate gwilim that were brought from a place where there is a doubt if they were tanned lishmah, by reason of a double doubt: perhaps they were made lishmah; and if you should say not lishmah, perhaps the halacha is like Rabbeinu Meshullam Gaon whom the Tur cited, who validates in the case of not lishmah. And this is not at all clear: for since it is a settled halacha in all the poskim that it is pasul in the case of not lishmah—one should not make a doubt from this at all. Therefore, in a case of doubt it is pasul (and so wrote the Pnei Aryeh, cited there in subsection 6).

It is a clear matter that if one processed it for the sake of the sanctity of a sefer Torah – it remains in its fitness forever. And even if he says afterward that he nullifies the speech, and his desire is to write upon it secular matters or matters of disqualification – it is nothing. We do not say that speech comes and nullifies speech, for the first speech is considered like an action; since through the speech the act of processing was sanctified – this speech is like an action. Our teachers, the Tosafot, wrote this reasoning at the end of the sixth chapter of Gittin (Gittin 66a) regarding the giving of money into the hand of a woman, that even though it is considered like an action, nevertheless speech comes and nullifies speech according to Rava, for the halakha is like him; and not like Resh Lakish who considers this like an action, see there. There it is because the kiddushin were not yet completed, for he betrothed her for after thirty days, as Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote there regarding Resh Lakish (in the heading "for it is like an action," see there). But here regarding processing, where the action was completed through the speech – it is like a complete action according to everyone. For even a thought regarding tumah or terumah is like an action, as the Torah decreed, see there (in the Gemara and Tosafot, heading "is it something"); all the more so speech through which the action was completed. And it is also not relevant here to say even that some action should remove it from the status of an action as in the case of tumah there, because there the second action actually nullifies the first action in practice. And here this is obviously not relevant.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in Orach Chaim siman 32, section 8: It is good to express with his lips at the beginning of the processing that he is processing it for the sake of tefillin or for the sake of a Sefer Torah. But if he processed it for the sake of a mezuzah—it is invalid. Thus far his words. And there it deals with the matter of tefillin, and because the sanctity of a mezuzah is lighter than tefillin, and certainly than a Sefer Torah, therefore processing for the sake of a mezuzah is not effective for writing tefillin or a Sefer Torah upon it. And consequently, the same law applies to a Sefer Torah: when it was processed for the sake of tefillin—it is invalid for writing a Sefer Torah. And so wrote our teacher, the Rema, in Darkei Moshe in this siman, see there. And one should not ask: if so, when he processed it for the sake of a Sefer Torah, how is it permitted to write tefillin and mezuzot upon it? Is he not lowering it from its sanctity? For in this there is no concern, because it is merely a designation, and it is permitted to change it to a lighter sanctity. But for a mundane matter, it is forbidden to change it. (Levush there and Magen Avraham subsection 10. And see there in the Pri Megadim that as long as no action was performed on the body of the parchment to write upon it, it is called "designation," only that it is a significant designation. And with this, the words of the Tosafot in Gittin 45b and in Sanhedrin 48b settle well so that they do not contradict one another. And such is their intention in Menachot 42b, see there. Examine and you will find it simple.)

And according to this, it is forbidden to write mundane matters or to make a common use of leather that was processed for the sake of some sanctity. And many of the scribes are not careful in this, and they sell pieces of klaf for mundane matters. Therefore, one of the great authorities instructed that they should process all the leathers for the sake of a Sefer Torah, but to stipulate at the time of the action that it shall be in their power to change it for mundane matters. For a stipulation is effective in this, as this is like one who consecrates upon a condition, and this is not related to breira (the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger and the Avodat HaGershuni). Therefore, the scribes must be careful in this and stipulate. And perhaps since this is their way, it is as if they stipulated, as we say in Shevuot (Shevuot 11b) that regarding a common matter, the heart of the beit din stipulates upon them, see there. And it requires further study whether one may rely on this when he did not stipulate explicitly.

How is the tanning performed? In the Rambam there, it is explained that one first removes the hair, and afterwards salts it with salt, and afterwards tans it with flour, and afterwards with gallnuts, and the like from things that contract the hide and strengthen it. And this is what is called gevil. Thus far his words. And it is not specifically these, for the same law applies to anything that tans well. This is the wording of the Tur: And they must be tanned with gallnuts. But if it is not tanned with gallnuts, it is diphtra and is invalid. However, our teacher Tam would say that our lime tanning is considered like gallnut tanning. Thus far his words, and he did not mention the salt and the flour at all. And it is not an essential requirement, and we only require that it be tanned well with things that contract the hide and strengthen it. And so it is explained from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 2: There is one who says that we require the klaf specifically to have a white appearance. Therefore, if one passed saffron water over the parchment so that it became green—it is invalid. And this has no root or basis in the Shas and poskim. And perhaps he only said this as a mere beautification, because a white appearance is an appearance of chesed. And such is indeed the custom of the world; however, according to the essential law, it is not an essential requirement. (And see Tosafot Sanhedrin 21b, starting with "Ketav.")

There are three skins: gevil, klaf, and duchsustos. It is called "gevil" when the skin is not split in its thickness into two, but rather they scrape the hair, and they prepare the side of the hair and do not prepare the side of the flesh, and they write on the side of the hair and not on the side of the flesh. And it is called "klaf" when they split the skin into two. The outer part of the hair side is called "klaf," and they write on the inner side that faces the flesh. And the inner part that is on the side of the flesh is called "duchsustos." And it is a Greek term, and its explanation is: the place of flesh. And they write on it on the outer side that faces the hair. And the general rule is that on both of them one writes on the place where it was split. And there are those who wrote in the name of the Rambam the opposite. And they had before them an erroneous version of the Rambam, and the main point is as I have written (Beit Yosef).

And if he wrote on the klaf on the hair side, or on gevil and duchsustus on the flesh side – it is pasul. All of this is halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai (the Rambam ibid.). And the Rambam wrote: Even though it is halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai to write a sefer Torah on gevil, tefillin on klaf, and a mezuzah on duchsustus, nevertheless, if he wrote a sefer Torah on klaf – it is kosher. Gevil was only mentioned to exclude duchsustus, for if he wrote a sefer Torah upon it – it is pasula. Similarly, if he wrote the mezuzah on klaf or on gevil – it is kosher. They only said on duchsustus as a mitzvah. Thus far his words. And the Tur rules a sefer Torah kosher even on duchsustus. Similarly, if he deviated and wrote on klaf on the hair side, which is the outer side, or on duchsustus on the inner side – post facto it is kosher in a sefer Torah, see there. And his reasoning: since a sefer Torah is kosher on everything, it follows that it is kosher on whichever side he wrote. And in the Yerushalmi of the first chapter of Megillah and in Masechet Soferim chapter one, it is explained like the Rambam, and so agreed most of the poskim. (And regarding the Tur, one must say that he holds like the Mordechai, who wrote that we hold like Rabbi Acha in Shabbat 79b, who rules it kosher in the case of a deviation. See there, and see Beit Yosef.)

However, for us there is no practical difference in all of this. For we are not experts in the division of the hides, rather we scrape the hide from the side of the hair, its upper layer, in a manner that even if they were to divide it in two, they would also scrape it. However, from the side of the flesh they scrape a great deal, until nothing remains but the parchment alone. This is what the Tur wrote, that our parchments have the law of klaf, and are written on the inner side that faces the flesh. Thus far his words. And if one wrote on the outer side that faces the hair—according to the Rambam it is invalid and according to the Tur it is valid. And according to this, we write everything on our klaf: a Sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot. And one should not say that since the primary mitzvah is to write a Sefer Torah on gevil and a mezuzah on duchsustus, as is implied by the wording of the Shas and Masechet Soferim and as the great Rishonim wrote (the Ran in Shabbat there in the name of our teacher Chananel), that they do not permit a Sefer Torah ab initio except on gevil; if so, how do we do so ab initio on klaf? For the truth is that our klaf is more choice than gevil and more beautiful than gevil. For from gevil nothing was removed except the hair, and on the second side nothing was removed and it is not beautiful, and it is also excessively heavy. This is not the case with klaf, which is defined and prepared on both sides very well, and it is beautiful and light. Therefore, even ab initio, it is more of a mitzvah than gevil.

And this is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 271:3), and this is his wording: And our klafim are more choice than gevil, and we write upon them ab initio on the flesh side. And we do not write now upon gevil. And if one deviated and wrote upon our klafim on the hair side – it is pasul. However, there are those who are lenient in this. Thus far his words. And this is the opinion of the Tur who is lenient as I have written. But most of the poskim rule it pasul according to the opinion of the Rambam as I have written (the Gra, subsection 13). And know that the world holds the skin of a fetus to be a mitzvah of the highest quality. And I do not see any correct reason for this, for is it because they have not seen the air of the world that they have more hiddur? And have we come to be wiser than the reasons of the Torah? And we have nothing but what the sages said. And likewise there are those who seek hiddur specifically from those slaughtered in a kosher manner. And in my humble opinion, there is also in this an excessive wisdom, and perhaps also, Heaven forbid, like one who casts doubt on the words of our sages, of blessed memory. For after our sages, of blessed memory, said that they are as kosher as those slaughtered – they have one and the same law entirely. Unless they do so because they are better for writing, or stronger, and the like.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 4 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 271:4): If one wrote part of it on gevil and part of it on klaf—it is pasul. But if one made half of it gevil and half of it tzeva'im (gevil of a deer or another pure animal), even though it is not the preferred fulfillment of the mitzvah—it is kosher. Thus far their words. And this is from Yerushalmi Megillah, chapter one, and Masechet Soferim, chapter two. And there we learned: One shall not make half of it gevil and half of it klafim, etc.—and it implies to the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch that this is a requirement for validity, and if one did so—it is pasul. And so the Rambam in chapter ten (Rambam Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah, and Sefer Torah 10) among the twenty disqualifications that exist in a Sefer Torah counted when part of it is on gevil and part of it is on klaf, see there. And it implies explicitly that even if one entire Chumash is gevil and one entire Chumash is klaf—it is pasul, for we require the entire Torah to be of one type. And perhaps this is a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai. For one cannot say the reason is because it is not beautiful, as we have not found that beauty should be a requirement for validity ex post facto, for "and I will glorify Him" is only for the preferred fulfillment of the mitzvah. And so it implies somewhat in the Yerushalmi there, Halacha 9, see there.

It is stated in Masekhet Soferim chapter one, halakha 5: One may not write on diphtra, nor on erased paper, etc. – and this implies that on paper that is not erased, one may write. And so wrote the Tosafot in Shabbat (Shabbat 79b, s.v. Tefillin, see there). And these matters are astonishing, for from the Rambam and all the poskim it is clear that a sefer Torah is written only on hides. And behold, at the beginning of Masekhet Soferim it is stated as a halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai that we write on hides, etc. And furthermore: that regarding the Megillat Sotah we disqualify paper (Sotah 17b) because it is written "in a book," see there. And certainly so regarding a sefer Torah (and they were forced to say that there it deals with erased paper). And the Tosafot themselves in Menachot wrote that it is an error in Masekhet Soferim where it is written "erased" (Menachot 31a, s.v. Ha). And so one must emend the text: "nor on paper" (the Gra also in his glosses deleted "erased," see there), and such is the primary ruling in halakha.

It is stated in the Yerushalmi there: It is a halacha given to Moshe at Sinai that one writes on skins, and one writes with ink, and one rules lines with a reed. And so it is at the beginning of Masechet Soferim. And "sirgul" means sirtut, and therefore the sirtut is indispensable in a sefer Torah. And so ruled the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch, that without sirtut—it is pasul. And that which they said, "one rules lines with a reed"—is not specifically so, for the intention is only that he should not rule lines with something that colors. But he may rule lines with a knife, and with anything he wishes (Tur). And there are some of the great ones among our teachers who wrote that the sirtut in a sefer Torah is not indispensable post facto (our teacher, Tam, in the Tosafot of Menachot there), and it is only to straighten the writing. But all the poskim disagreed with him, and such is the primary ruling. And the main laws of sirtut will be explained in siman 284.

It has already been explained that one may only write with deyo, and this is a law given to Moses at Sinai. And what is deyo? The Rambam wrote in the first chapter, law 4: How is deyo made? One collects the smoke of oils, or of pitch and wax and the like, and kneads them with tree resin and a little honey, and moistens it extensively, and crushes it until it is made into thin cakes. And one dries it and stores it. And at the time of writing, one soaks it in gallnut water and the like and writes with it, so that if you were to erase it, it would be erased. And this is the deyo with which it is a mitzvah of the highest standard to write scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot. And if one wrote all three of them with gallnut water and vitriol, which remains and is not erased—they are kosher. Thus far his words. And behold, in Shabbat it is stated: All oils are good for deyo, and olive oil is the best of them, whether for kneading or for smoke. And all smokes are good for deyo, and olive oil is the best of them. And all resins are good for deyo, and balsam resin is the best of them all, see there. And according to this, I am astonished: since the Rambam wrote regarding deyo that it is a mitzvah of the highest standard, why did he omit that olive oil is a mitzvah of the highest standard, and balsam resin is the best of them all? This requires further study.

And he wrote further: If so, what was excluded by the law given to Moses at Sinai that they must be written with deyo, to exclude other types of colors such as red and green and the like? For if one wrote in scrolls or in tefillin and mezuzot even a single letter in other types of colors or in gold – behold, these are invalid. Thus far his words. From this wording it is implied that the primary matter of deyo is that it must be specifically black, and not any other appearance. And in the tenth chapter (the Rambam, Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah, and Sefer Torah 10) he reckons among the list of invalidations when it is written without a black that is lasting; see there. And his intention is that we require two things: black and lasting. That is to say: that the writing shall be permanent. And according to this, it appears from his words that there is no meticulous requirement regarding what they make deyo from, and one may make it from anything he desires, provided that it is black and lasting.

And this is the opinion of the Hagahot Maimoniyot in the first chapter (the Rambam, Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah, and Sefer Torah 1) in the name of our teacher Simcha, and this is his wording: And I am of the opinion that any black dye that is durable upon the parchment is called "deyo," for we have not found a law given to Moses at Sinai that it should only be valid with congealed deyo or gallnut deyo, etc. Thus far his words. And he brought proof from the Jerusalem Talmud, the second chapter of Gittin, see there. And he also brought this from the Tosafot in the second chapter of Shabbat. However, in our editions, this is not found in the Tosafot.

Nevertheless, the words of the Rambam in the tenth chapter, who requires specifically that it be durable, require clarification. For it implies that this is a virtue, yet on the contrary, the ink should be able to be erased, as he himself wrote in the first chapter. And kankantum cannot be erased, and in the Gemara Eruvin and Sotah there is one who forbids writing a sefer Torah with kankantum for this reason, that it cannot be erased. And there was already one who ruled so, and the Rambam wrote in the Commentary on the Mishnah in Sotah there that he erred, for according to the conclusion the prohibition is only regarding the parashah of the Sotah in the Temple, because there we require writing that can be erased, and kankantum cannot be erased. But in the writing of a sefer Torah it is permitted, and therefore he said in the first chapter: And if he wrote them etc. with gallnut water, and kankantum which is durable and is not erased—they are kosher. That is to say: and all the more so in a case where it is erased. If so, how did he write in the tenth chapter that it is invalid when written without durable black? And it must be said that by this "durable," his intention is not that it cannot be erased, but rather that it should be durable and not fleeting as long as we do not erase it by hand. This is to exclude black dye that does not persist, which fades and disappears on its own. (So it appears in my humble opinion in the clarification of his words. Examine closely and you will find it simple.)

This is the wording of the Tur: And it is not written except with deyo. And our teacher Tam explained that it is not called "deyo" except for that which they make from known types of wood, which they cook and make from their waters. But not those that they make from afatzim, and it is pasul for a sefer Torah. And my lord, my father the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote that it is kasher, since it is made with kumus. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters: The Tosafot wrote in several places that our teacher Tam inferred from that which we learned in a Mishnah in Gittin (19a): With everything one may write: with deyo etc. and it was taught on this: if one wrote it with water of teria or aftza – it is kasher. Understand from this that afatzim is not deyo, and a sefer Torah requires deyo, as they said: if one wrote it without deyo – it shall be hidden away. And the Rosh rejected this, for the water of aftza alone is certainly not deyo, but when one places into it kumus, which they call goma, it is complete deyo. And it is found that in this the Rosh disagrees with the Rambam, for according to the Rambam one does not need goma within the afatzim, and according to the Rosh one needs it. So wrote several of the great authorities. And in my humble opinion they do not disagree: for with afatzim alone the deyo is not black, and perforce one needs some thing for the afatzim to blacken it. And therefore the Rosh wrote the kumus which blackens. And the Rambam said in this place kankantum, which is vitriolo as the Tosafot and the Aruch wrote, and this is what we call kupfer wasser, for this blackens. And the Mishnah in Gittin ibid. counted them as one, with kumus and with kankantum. And therefore the Rambam and the Rosh and the Tur stand in one system (and so it is implied in the Beit Yosef, see there). However, goma does not blacken as well as kankantum, and if so, on the contrary, that of the Rambam is much better.

One must be precise regarding the matter of the ink in the words of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch. For here in section 6, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, transcribed the words of the Rambam, and our teacher, the Rema, wrote that initially it is good to be careful not to make the ink except from things that come from a tree. Thus far his words. And so it is implied in the Zohar Terumah, see there. And in Orach Chaim siman 32, section 3, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: And he shall write them with black ink, whether it contains gallnut water or does not contain gallnut water. Thus far his words. And this does not contradict his words here; on the contrary, he wrote concisely according to the opinion of the Rambam that there is no concern, provided that it be black. And that which he wrote "whether it contains gallnut water etc." – this is to exclude those who hold that we require it specifically from things that come from a tree, and this is gallnuts. Regarding this, he lets us know that there is no difference in this matter.

But our teacher, the Rema, there contradicts himself regarding what he wrote here. For there he wrote: And initially one should be stringent to write with ink made from wood smoke, or oils soaked in gallnut water, as will be explained in Yoreh Deah siman 271. Thus far his words. But here he wrote: Initially to make it from things that come from the tree. And in truth, his words here are baffling, for how could he write against the Shas in Shabbat, that initially one should make it from the smoke of oils? And even though it is stated in the Zohar Terumah (page 159a): And all matters of ink are wood. And furthermore black ink etc. Thus far his words, and "okam" is black—nevertheless, how could he set aside the words of the Gemara and grasp the words of the Zohar? And it is also difficult to say that the Zohar would disagree with the Shas. And we have a tradition that they do not disagree except in a place where there is also a dispute in the Shas.

And therefore, in truth, it appears in my humble opinion clear that there is no dispute here and there are no contradictions here. And the matter is thus: for it is true that according to the opinion of the Rambam there is no requirement except that it be black, as I have written, and the ink may be from whatever it may be. However, it appears explicitly that there is something in the ink that is indispensable. And the proof is that in the Gemara it is stated: one wrote with ink upon sikra, and "sikra" is a type of dye, and perforce ink is not a dye. And if there is no requirement except for black, could there not be a black dye, as indeed in our times all the inks in all the countries are merely black dye. And the ink of the scribes is made from gallnuts that they boil and place in them gum and copper water, which is kankantum. (And in the first chapter of Masekhet Soferim, Halakha 5: We do not write etc. not with shakhor and not with shikhor etc., and we do not put kankantum in the ink. Thus far his words. And this is certainly not the halakha, as I wrote in section 29).

However, it appears that this matter is a tradition in the hands of the sages of the Shas and the Zohar, that ink must be from things whose growth is from the tree, and it is not merely a dye. Therefore, they chose the smoke of oils, for oil comes from the tree of olives, and through the fire smoke rises and they scrape it, and this is ink. However, in truth, not everyone is expert in this, as they wrote that we have not seen that this was the practice (Magen Avraham there, subsection 2). And the great authorities wrote in this wording: Now the scribes do not write with this ink of smokes because it spoils and is easily erased (Birkei Yosef in the name of great authorities). And since we are not expert in this, it is naturally impossible to do so. Therefore, they practiced with gallnuts, which is also from the tree, and they cook it just as the smoke was by means of fire. And the opinion of the Ramban is that the cooking is indispensable, and therefore the early authorities required specifically gummi, which is a resin dripping from the tree, as this is also a thing that comes from the tree. And the copper water is to blacken it well. According to this, even the words of our teacher, the Rema, do not contradict one another, for in Orach Chaim, which is earlier, he wrote according to the essential law of the Gemara to make it from smoke etc., and when he reached Yoreh Deah in this siman, he wrote "with things that come from the tree." And these are the very same things, only because we are not expert in making it from smoke, we therefore do as they did but in a different manner: that we cook the gallnuts and put in gummi, which are things that come from the tree. And the statement of the Zohar is also thus, that ink depends on two things: on a thing that comes from the tree, and on blackness. And in the time of the Shas, when they were expert in smoke, the absolute blackness was also from the tree. And now that we are not expert in this, the essence of the ink we make as they did, namely with things that come from the tree, and by means of the fire when they cook the gallnuts and put in gummi. However, for the blackness, they also take the copper water. (And with this, all that several of the great authorities toiled over is settled well, and see the Pri Megadim there. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And so too it is forbidden to write any name from the books of Tanakh without ink. And some say that we do not require ink except for a Sefer Torah. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words appears to me: for behold, it is a decided law in Shabbat (Shabbat 103b) that when one writes them without ink—they must be hidden away, and this refers to all of Tanakh. And you have no greater disgrace than this, to write the Name and hide it away. Therefore, it is forbidden to write any name from Tanakh without ink. However, there are some of our teachers in the Tosafot of Menachot (Menachot 31a) who wrote that this is only for a Sefer Torah, and not for Nevi'im and Ketuvim. And this is the opinion of the "some say." But the Tosafot there rejected this, see there. And it is implied from this that if one writes a name that is not from Tanakh, but rather from prayers and the like—it is permitted even without ink, for this does not require being hidden away. And this requires further deliberation.

There are old Sifrei Torah where the letters have become a color leaning toward redness or greenness. If the appearance has merely faded—there is no concern in this, for such is the way of every color when it ages—it becomes faded. However, if it has completely turned to red, certainly one may not read from it, for the essence of the ink is the blackness, as the Rambam wrote. And in Niddah (Niddah 20a) we learned: Black like charat. What is "charat"? Ink. See there. And if one can pass the quill over them and repair them—it is very good, as I wrote in Orach Chaim there, section 27. And even if the letter is not recognizable at all, which in tefillin is pasul, nevertheless in a Sefer Torah it is kosher. For in tefillin they must be written in their order, which is not the case in a Sefer Torah. However, regarding passing a quill over Names, one must deliberate, for perhaps it is still a kosher script, and it would turn out that he is erasing the Name.

One must write with his right hand, as with tefillin in Orach Chaim siman 32, for we derive the tying with the right at the end of the chapter "HaKometz Rabba" (Menachot 37a) from that which is written: "And you shall bind... and you shall write" – just as writing is with the right, as all people write with their right, so too tying is with the right. And consequently, since tying is with the right – writing is also with the right, and we learn Sifrei Torah and mezuzot from tefillin. According to this, a left-handed person who places tefillin on the right and ties with his left – his writing is also with the left.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 7 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 271:7): There are those who say that one should write with a reed quill and not with a feather. Thus far his words. And it is true that we say so in Taanit (Taanit 20b), that the reed merited that they take from it a quill to write with it Sifrei Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot, see there. And from this very wording it is proven that this is not an obligation, but rather that this was the custom. And the proof: for behold, in Masekhet Soferim it explains all the laws of writing a sefer Torah, and it did not mention what to write with, see there. And now it is not the custom to write with a reed, because we are not able to write with a reed, and we write with feathers of pure birds which are very good for writing. Nevertheless, it is not proper to write with an iron quill: first, because it punctures. And furthermore, because the Torah prolongs life, and iron shortens it. And even for chiddushei Torah it is correct not to write with an iron quill for this reason.

Many of the great authorities ruled that the act of printing is like writing (Taz subsection 8, and Magen Avraham siman 32 subsection 37, and Beit Shmuel siman 125 subsection 3, and Mishnah Berurah). And there are some of the great authorities who disqualified it (Chavat Yair siman 184, and Bnei Yonah, and Maharashdam siman 184). And behold, as we see, the act of printing is thus: they set up letters the size of the page, and smear the letters of the entire page with black ink, and afterwards they place the paper upon the entire page, and the ink of the letters adheres to the paper on the entire page all at once. And it is like actual writing, for what difference is there to me if one writes with the ink upon the parchment, or places the parchment upon the ink? Unless one holds that the ink of dye is not ink as I have written, and the ink of printing is merely dye. But according to what appears from the words of the Rambam and the Rosh, if only it is black—it is kosher as I wrote in section 27, unless we say that the placing of paper upon the ink is not called "writing." And this is certain, that now that they do so with a machine where the paper rolls over the letters, and the machine goes by itself without a person moving it—certainly this is not "writing," for it is obvious that a person must write, and not when it is written by itself. And it is obvious that in printing there is no intention for sanctity as is understood. But nevertheless, it is certainly holy, if not with the sanctity of a sefer Torah. But at least there is sanctity in them, and it is forbidden to burn them or to use them for a degrading use, and there is no doubt in this.