Siman 273

We say in Menachot (Menachot 30a): The measure of the margin in a Sefer Torah from below is a tefach, and from above is three fingerbreadths of the thumb (Rambam). And that which we learned in Masekhet Soferim (Chapter 2, Halacha 4): One leaves in a Torah from below a space of a tefach, and from above two parts of a tefach – it is an error. And one must say three parts of a tefach (and so the Gra emended). And if he wished to add – he may add, provided that the spaces are not more than the writing (ibid.). And between column and column one leaves the full space of two fingerbreadths of the thumb. The Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that therefore one must leave at the beginning of every parchment and its end the width of a fingerbreadth and enough for sewing. It turns out that when one sews the parchments together, there will be between every column and column in the entire book a width of two fingerbreadths. Thus far their words. That is to say, when they sew the parchments together – perforce the edge of one parchment is placed slightly over the second, for in this manner it is easy to sew them to one another. And if so, if they only leave the width of a fingerbreadth in this one and the width of a fingerbreadth in that one – it will be less than two fingerbreadths. Therefore they said: the width of a fingerbreadth and enough for sewing. And more will be explained regarding this in siman 278 with the help of Heaven. And there is no concern if in one there is more and in one there is less, as long as between both of them there is the measure.

And this law is not indispensable, as the Tur and Shulchan Aruch wrote at the end of this siman (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 273). For all these matters are only for the mitzvah, and if one deviated—it is kosher. And the reason for this law is because this is the beauty of the Sefer Torah, to have a blank margin above, below, and on the sides. And also because perhaps one will need to grasp the body of the parchment—he should not grasp the place of the letters so that he does not blur them. Therefore, we require a large measure below because the constant handling is below, and above less because above the handling is not so much. And between each and every page even less because there the handling is much less, and therefore two fingers are sufficient, in the manner of those who grasp with two fingers of both hands. Therefore, in small Sifrei Torah where it is impossible to make this measure, they make small margins, only everything is in this proportion: below more than above, and above more than between page to page (it seems to me).

Between one line and another there must be a space of a full line, and between one word and another the space of a small letter, and between one letter and another the space of a hairbreadth (Gemara ibid.). And this certainly appears to be indispensable, for every letter must be surrounded by parchment, as will be explained in siman 274. And similarly, between one word and another, if there does not remain the space of a letter, they are one word. But between one line and another, it appears to me that it is not indispensable, but rather that this is not a beauty for a sefer Torah. And a proof for this is from the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, for here they wrote the law of between line and line; but the law of between word and word and between letter and letter they wrote in siman 274 and not in this siman. And a reason is required as to why. Rather, it is because regarding the laws in this siman they wrote at the end that they are not indispensable, and therefore they were unable to write this here, for those are certainly indispensable as I have written. And if one made more than a full line—certainly there is no disqualification here. But between one letter and another, if one left the space of a letter—it appears to me that it is disqualified, for they appear like two letters. And between word and word, it appears to me that if one left more than the space of a small letter—it is not disqualified unless one left the measure of nine letters, for that is like two parshiyot and is disqualified (so it appears in my humble opinion). And so it is implied from the wording of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in siman 274, section 4, see there (and see Masechet Soferim at the beginning of the second chapter).

The Tur and Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 1 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 273:1) that between every Chumash and Chumash one must leave four blank lines without writing, and begin the Chumash from the fifth line. And one should leave at the beginning and the end enough to wrap around the pole, and an additional two finger-breadths that shall remain between the pole and the parchment. Thus far their words. And behold, in the Yerushalmi Megillah (chapter 1, halacha 9) it is explained that one must finish the Chumash specifically in the middle of the page, and begin the Chumash that follows it also specifically on that same page, see there. And so wrote the Tosafot (in Bava Batra 13b, s.v. "u-mesayem"). And that which they said there in the Gemara, "and he finishes at the bottom and begins at the top" – refers to a Navi and not to the Torah. And the reason is because regarding a Navi we say there that if one wishes to cut one Navi from the other – he may cut. But regarding the Torah, where one may not cut Chumash from Chumash – it is necessary that the beginning of the next Chumash start on the same column where the first one finished, so that he does not come to cut Chumash from Chumash. However, post facto, if he began the second Chumash from the top of the column – we have no concern with it.

The Rambam and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch did not mention this Yerushalmi at all. It appears that they hold that that which they said in the Gemara, "and he finishes at the bottom and begins at the top" — applies to the Torah as well, and they rejected the Yerushalmi in favor of our Shas. And know that from Rashi there it is explained that when he finishes at the bottom and begins at the top, he does not need to leave vacant lines at all, see there. And the Tosafot disagree on this, and they hold that even in such a case, one must leave four vacant lines at the bottom at the end of the book. And this is the opinion of the Rambam and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch as well, since they stated their words without qualification. And if he did not leave them at the end of the column — he should leave four vacant lines at the beginning of the second column, and begin the second Chumash on the fifth line. And so it is explained from the Semak, who wrote, and this is his wording: And between Chumash and Chumash one must leave four blank lines, even when he finishes at the end of the column. Thus far his words. And his intention is that he should leave the four lines at the top of the second column. And this is in the Torah, but in the Nevi'im, when he finishes at the bottom and begins at the top — he does not need to leave vacant lines at all, for since he is permitted to cut one Navi from another Navi, and if he cuts it, it would be unsightly if this leaf were different from its fellows. And so it is explained in the Tosafot there. Therefore, ab initio, one should certainly act according to the words of the Yerushalmi, and such is the custom.

And if he did not leave empty lines at all between one Chumash and another, and began the second Chumash in that place which must be empty, it seems to me that there are distinctions of law in this. For it is true that these four lines are not indispensable, as is clear from the words of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, who wrote at the end regarding all the laws of this siman that they do not invalidate ex post facto. And also the Rambam in the tenth chapter did not count it among the invalidations, and so wrote the Tashbetz (in siman 175). Nevertheless, it seems to my humble opinion that one line is indispensable even ex post facto. For it is certainly so that if he did not leave a space at all—it is obvious that it is invalid, as it is no less than the break between one parsha and another. Rather, even if he left enough for a parsha setuma or petucha—it is invalid, for there is no parsha here at all but rather another book. And at the very least there must be a recognition that they are two books, just as there must be a break between one parsha and another. And the Tashbetz wrote there that if there is no space like that between one parsha and another—it is invalid, see there. And it is clear from his wording that when there is a space like that between one parsha and another—it is valid. But in my humble opinion, even in such a case it is invalid, for this is not a parsha but another book. And perforce there must be some recognition at any rate that it is another book, just as a recognition is required between one parsha and another that it is another parsha. And here too regarding a book, for what is the difference? And this is included in what the Rambam wrote in the tenth chapter regarding the invalidations of a sefer Torah, when one changed the forms of the parshiot, see there. And here too there is a change in the forms of the final parshiot of this book and the first ones of the second. (And in the Noda BiYehuda Tinyana, Yoreh Deah siman 179, his son agreed with the Tashbetz, see there. But in my humble opinion, one line even ex post facto is indispensable.)

It is a great principle that for the sake of matters that are not indispensable, one should not crowd the letters and make them very small or make them very large. For this is more of a lack of beauty for the sefer Torah when the script is not equal and straight throughout the entire sefer Torah equally. However, in a place where there is an indispensable requirement according to the law even ex post facto—one must necessarily do so. But in a place where it is not indispensable ex post facto, but only ab initio for the sake of the beauty of the sefer Torah, if so, what have you seen [to prefer this], and it is better to write in his usual manner. And if this matter is not achieved—behold, it is not indispensable ex post facto.

We say in Menachot there (Menachot 30a): A person should not diminish the script, neither because of the space below nor because of the space above; neither because of the space between line and line, nor because of the space between parasha and parasha. See there. Rashi explained: He should not diminish by making small letters in the upper and lower lines because of the space of the margin, or because of the space between line and line. For example, if he ruled two lines in the middle of the page where there is not the required space—he should not diminish the script because of that space. Thus far the wording of Rashi, of blessed memory. And regarding the space above and below, this is also the explanation: when he ruled the upper line close to the three fingers of space above, or the lower line close to the four below. And if he writes as is his habit, then the required vacant space will not remain. And it comes to teach us that he should not change the script for this. And there are those who explained that the intention is that he should write in his usual manner, and the stated measurements will not remain, for this is not an essential requirement, as I have written (Taz, subsection 2 and Derisha).

And I am astonished: for if so, how will they explain the space between one parashah and another? For this is certainly a requirement that invalidates, as will be explained in siman 275. And there, perforce, the explanation is as the Nimukei Yosef wrote, and this is his wording: Rather, one should exert oneself not to come to this. Thus far his words, and from his words it is explicitly implied that it refers to the entire matter, see there. For while it is true that this does not invalidate, nevertheless, ab initio when it has not yet been written, why should he not write properly? And if it is because all the markings will be spoiled—it is better that the markings be spoiled, and the enactment of our sages, of blessed memory, not be spoiled. Furthermore: for markings can be smoothed over so that they are not noticeable, and other markings can be made properly. Therefore, it appears in my humble opinion that the explanation is indeed so: that he should strive not to come to this. And such is the intention in the Rambam and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch. However, it is true that if he finds before him a necessity between one of these two, whether to diminish the letters, or that there should not remain a margin above and below and between line and line according to the measure—it is better that the measure not remain and he should not diminish the letters. But between parashah and parashah, it is a necessity to diminish the letters if it is impossible in another manner. And the scribes have practiced that the reduction should be in the thickness of the letter, and not in the length and width of the letter, for in this the change is not so visible. And they likewise do this so as not to extend outside the line, and conversely: if he sees that there is not enough in the letters to extend until the end of the line—they widen the letters a bit in order to extend until the end of the line, in order to equalize the ends of the lines. For this is the primary beauty, that all the lines be equal. And one should not elaborate on this. And the wise man has his eyes in his head to see the equality of the forms in the entire Sefer Torah in all that is possible.

The Rambam wrote in the seventh chapter, law 8: One must be careful with the large letters, and with the small letters, and with the dotted letters, and the unusual letters such as the "wound" pehs, and the crooked letters, as the scribes have transcribed one from the mouth of another. And one must be careful with the tagin and their number: there is a letter that has one tag upon it, and there is a letter that has seven tagin upon it. And all the tagin are like the shape of zayins, and they are thin as a hairbreadth. And all these things were only stated for the optimal fulfillment of the mitzvah. And if he changed this arrangement, or did not be precise with the tagin and wrote all the letters according to their proper form, or if he brought the lines closer or distanced them, or lengthened them or shortened them, since he did not attach letter to letter and did not omit, and did not add and did not ruin the form of a single letter, and did not change the petuchot and setumot – behold, this is a kosher scroll. Thus far his words.

It is a wonder that he did not mention the statement of Rava in Menachot (Menachot 29b) that the letters shaatnez getz require three zionin. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote this in Orach Chaim siman 36, as they wrote all the laws of the letters there. And he wrote there that if one did not make the tagin, it is not pasul. The Rambam did not mention them, and more than this is evident from his words in chapter five, law 3, that this was only said regarding a mezuzah, as he is dealing there with the laws of mezuzah. He wrote, and this is his wording: The first parsha has seven letters, upon each letter of them are three zionin, and they are: shin, ayin, nun, and the two zayins of "mezuzot," and the two tets of "totafot." And the second parsha has six letters, upon each letter of them are three zionin, and they are: the gimel of "deganecha," and the two zayins of "mezuzot," and the two tets of "totafot," and the tzadik of "ha'aretz." And if he did not make tagin, or if he added or subtracted—he did not make it pasul. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicitly evident that he holds that the zionin of shaatnez getz are only in a mezuzah. And so I saw in the Hagahot Maimoniyot, chapter one, letter kof, that the opinion of the Rambam is that only in a mezuzah is ziun required; see there. And perhaps it is because the beginning of the sugya in Menachot there is regarding a mezuzah.

And also regarding tefillin, the Rambam did not require crowning the letters shaatnez getz, for in the second chapter he wrote in law 9 (Rambam Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah, and Sefer Torah 2) that the first parashah—which is "Sanctify to Me every firstborn"—contains only one letter that requires three zeyunim, and that is the closed mem of "miyamim," see there. Yet there it is full of many shaatnez getz letters, and also in the other parashiyot he counted other letters, see there. And it appears in my humble opinion clear that this is the view of the author of the Shimusha Rabba, which the Rosh and the Nimukei Yosef cited at the end of the laws of tefillin, and this is his wording: The entire alphabet of letters that have tagin is fifteen, and these are they, etc., and those of the mezuzah are seven: shaatnez getz, etc. And the Rosh and all the Rishonim wrote, and this is their wording: And these zeyunim that are explained here—these are the large tagin. But regarding the small tagin, why should he mention shaatnez getz? For in every place where these letters exist, they require small tagin. Thus far their words. And the difficulty is evident. But according to the words of the Rambam, it fits well with simplicity, and I do not understand how the Rosh and the Nimukei Yosef did not mention the words of the Rambam in this matter at all. And it requires further study.

However, the opinion of most of the Rishonim is that sha'atnez getz, both in tefillin and in a Sefer Torah, require three zionin, and so all the scribes have practiced, and Heaven forbid one should change it. And how are the zionin? There are opinions regarding this, but the scribes have practiced all three of them on top of the shin at the head of the left leg, and likewise with the ayin, and tet, and tzadik, whether bent or straight, and likewise the bent nun and straight nun—all of them require three zionin. And the opinion of the Rosh and the Tur at the end of siman 274 (Tur Yoreh Deah 274) is that if one omitted the tagin on sha'atnez getz—it is pasul since they were mentioned in the Gemara, see there. And such is the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam. But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, disagrees with this, for we have not found that the tagin should invalidate post facto, and such is the opinion of the Rambam regarding mezuzah, see there. And so wrote Rabbeinu Yerucham in the name of Rav Hai Gaon. Therefore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, did not bring the opinion of the Tur at all in Orach Chaim there, and it appears that most of the poskim held accordingly for the halacha. However, it is certainly necessary to correct them and make the tagin. And there is no invalidation in this regarding tefillin and mezuzot on account of being out of order even according to the opinion of the Tur, since the essence of the letter is complete (it appears to me).

And regarding that which has been explained, that one should leave space at its beginning and its end in order to roll it onto the pole, one should not ask: Behold, in the previous siman it was explained that the Sefer Torah in the Ark had only one pole at its end. For it is not comparable, as the Sefer Torah in the Ark was not intended for constant reading, and therefore one pole at its end was sufficient, and the entire Torah was rolled upon it. This is not the case with our Sefer Torah, which we read from constantly, and of necessity it is rolled from its beginning to its end. Therefore, it requires two poles. And the Tashbetz wrote (siman 53) that if the parchment upon the pole became ruined—one may take a new piece of parchment, whatever size is needed to roll upon the pole, and sew it to its head. And even though from the outset one should not do this, to join it by means of sewing, nevertheless, when it has been ruined, it is permitted.

It has already been explained that the essence of the beauty is the equality of the letters and the lines. The discerning scribe must see to it that not even a single letter extends beyond the line. However, if it is impossible otherwise, such that it is necessary that one letter or more extend beyond the line—except for the letters of the Name, may He be blessed—one may not extend even a single letter beyond the line. And so our sages, of blessed memory, said in Menachot (Menachot 30b): If a word of five letters happened to come his way—he should not write two within the page and three outside the page. If a word of two letters happened to come his way—he should not cast it between the pages. That is to say: outside the scoring of the margin of the page. And even though we permitted writing two letters outside the page from a word of five, we did not permit an entire word (Rashi). And the Name must be entirely within the page (Tosafot). But one letter within the line and one letter outside the line—is permitted (Shach, subsection 2, and Ma'adanei Yom Tov). And there are those who forbid even in such a case (Levush), but it is not the primary view.

And it should be scrutinized: that this which is forbidden to write three letters outside the margin is only when they are the majority of the word, such as in a word of five letters. But in a word of six letters – it is permitted to write three within the line and three outside the line. For if it were not so, why did the Shas need to say "if a word of five happened to him" – let it inform us even regarding a word of six. And it should also be scrutinized: that this which is forbidden to write the majority of the word outside the line is only when the majority are three letters, as in a word of five letters. But when the majority are only two letters, such as from a word of three – it is permitted to write one letter within the line and two outside the line. For if it were not so, why did it need to say "a word of five"? Let it say "of three." And according to this, the prohibition is only with a majority of the word and three letters. But a majority of the word where there are not three letters, or three letters where there is not a majority of the word – it is permitted. And only a complete word is forbidden even with two letters.

This is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3, that a word of three letters may have two written outside the column, even though the minority of it is inside. And in section 4 he wrote: If a word of ten letters, or fewer or more, happened to come before him, and there did not remain enough of the line to write all of it within the column, if he can write half of it within the column and half of it outside the column – he writes it. And if not – he leaves the space vacant, and begins from the start of the line. Thus far his words. And the Rambam wrote that whenever he cannot write within the column – he should leave it vacant. And he should not stretch the letters to make them larger than their fellows in order to fill until the end of the column, but rather he should leave the space vacant. And his reason is because this is a greater lack of beauty when the letters are different from one another, than if the space were vacant and the ends of the lines were not equal. And see in section 19.

And that which we forbade even with two letters outside the margin when they are a complete word, our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: And even if two letters are from a large word, and they appear like a word unto themselves – he shall not write them on the margin. Thus far his words. Meaning: even if in truth they are not a word unto themselves but they appear like a word unto themselves, such as the word "Devarim" where the last two exist in the Torah as a word unto themselves, namely "yam" – it is forbidden, and so too anything similar to this. And it does not appear so from the words of the Tur and all the poskim (Shach, subsection 3). And the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that all these matters are only for the performance of the mitzvah in the most choice manner, and if he deviated – it is kosher. Thus far their words. And it implies that even if he wrote a large word and all of it is outside the margin – it is also kosher ex post facto. And so it stands to reason, for being outside the margin is no worse than hanging between the lines, which is permitted. And according to this, also regarding the Name, according to what will be explained that it is permitted between the lines – it is permitted ex post facto also outside the margin. But according to what will be explained that part of the Name between the lines is invalid even ex post facto, and if we compare this to that, it is forbidden also with part of the Name outside the margin, and if so, one could say all the more so that all of it outside the margin is forbidden ex post facto. And in this it is not similar to between the lines, as is understood. And this requires further study, and see in siman 276, section 20, what I wrote there.

And know that that which we wrote, that three letters when they are not the majority of the word is permitted ab initio outside the line—this is the opinion of the Rambam. However, the Rosh is in doubt regarding this, for perhaps they did not permit three letters outside the line at all, as the Tur wrote in his name, see there, because the matter is unseemly with many letters outside the line. And there are those who ruled accordingly in halacha (Shach subsection 4). And they wondered about our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who here ruled like the Rambam and in Orach Chaim siman 32 section 33 ruled like the Rosh, where he wrote, and this is his wording: He shall make the lines equal etc. and at least he should be careful not to write three letters outside the line etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he did not distinguish between whether they are the majority of the word or whether they are not the majority of the word (ibid.). And there is one who answered that his main intention there was to teach that two letters are permitted even in the majority of a word (Magen Avraham subsection 46). And there is one who answered and distinguished between root letters and prefix/suffix letters, that we only count the root when they are six letters—it is permitted with three outside the line. And in tefillin we have not found this (Pitchei Teshuva in the name of Kenesset Yechezkel). And it is not at all clear: for in any such case he should have specified. And what difference is there between this and that? Behold, the reason is because of beauty. And from the essence of the matter this is no difficulty at all, for he relied on that which will be explained in the details of the laws in a Sefer Torah, for there is the primary location of this law. Furthermore: because most line-endings of tefillin do not contain a word of six letters, except for a few of them, as is explained in the Levush Orach Chaim siman 35. Therefore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, was not concerned to be precise in this. And regarding the essence of the law, one of the great authorities (Bach) already wrote that we do not abandon the certainty of the Rambam because of the doubt of the Rosh. And the primary ruling is like the Rambam, and the Sugya of the Shas supports him, as we explained in section 16 with the help of Heaven.

A sefer Torah in which one of the sheets has one more line than the other sheets—there is no invalidation in this, only that it is not beautiful. However, one line fewer appears like a parashah petuchah, according to the laws that will be explained in siman 275, and it turns out that there is a parashah in a place where it is not required, and this is a complete invalidation. Therefore, one should not read from it until it is repaired (see Pitchei Teshuvah, small subsection 4). And if the sheets were not sewn properly in an even manner, with one sheet higher and one sheet lower—certainly it must be repaired. But nevertheless, this is not an invalidation, and if they brought it out to read—they may read from it, for it was written according to its law. (See there that the Noda BiYehudah ruled accordingly. And regarding what he wrote: "if they do not have another book," in my humble opinion it seems that if they already brought it out to read from it—they may read from it. And Heaven forbid to degrade it and take another in its place, for all the people see that it is kosher, only that the sewing was not level.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 10: If one forgot to write the Name in its entirety—he suspends it between the lines. But if part of the Name is on the line and part of it is suspended—it is invalid. And regarding other words, if he forgot—he writes part of the word on the line and part of it above. See there. And there are many matters regarding this subject, and it will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 276, for that is its place.

The Rambam wrote in the seventh chapter, law 10: There are other matters that were not stated in the Gemara, but the scribes have practiced them, and they have a tradition in their hands from man to man. These are: that the number of lines on each and every page should be no fewer than forty-eight and no more than sixty. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, at the end of siman 275, wrote that some say forty-two lines, see there. And according to the version before us in Masechet Soferim, there are forty-two, and sixty, and seventy-two, and ninety-eight, see there. And we have only either the words of the Rambam or the words of our teacher, the Rema. Many and great ones have agreed to forty-two lines, and wrote that such is the tradition in the hands of the scribes. And so it is according to the wisdom of Kabbalah corresponding to the "Name of Forty-Two," and your sign is "the Lord is among them [bam] at Sinai in holiness." And the scribes further practiced to leave a vacant, ruled line at the bottom at the end of the page. And all these matters do not invalidate post facto, since this was not mentioned in the Gemara.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: There are scribes who are meticulous to write the letters of B-Y-H S-H-M-V at the beginning of the columns. Similarly, some are meticulous to write a vav at the beginning of every column, and they call this "vavei ha-amudim." One should not be meticulous in any of this. And even one who is meticulous should be careful not to crowd or expand the writing at times because of this, for all these matters have no root upon which to rely. Thus far his words. However, several great authorities wrote that one should be careful regarding these six, that they should be at the head of the page. And some wish to disqualify even ex post facto (Shach, subsection 6, in the name of the Hagahot Mordechai). Certainly, there is no reason to disqualify ex post facto, since it is not mentioned in the Gemara. But ab initio, one should certainly be careful. And the mnemonic is: "To Him who rides upon the clouds, by His name B-Y-H" (our teacher, Rabbeinu Bahya). The bet is "Bereshit." The yod is "Yehuda, ata yodukha akhekha," and so the scribes have practiced. And even though some say that "yodukha" is at the head of the page, since "Yehuda" is a parsha, if "yodukha" were at the head of the page, there would be only eight letters in "Yehuda ata" and it is a petucha; according to this, in the opinion of the Rambam, there would be only eight letters in the line, for "Yehuda" must be written at the beginning of the line and there would be eight letters in this line, and how could this be (Hagahot Maimoniyot)? Also, the Ba'al HaTurim and our teacher, Rabbeinu Bahya, wrote that the yod is "Yehuda." The heh is "Haba'im akhareihem" in Beshalach. The shin is "Shemor lekha" in Ki Tissa. And there is one who says "Shemor ve-shamata" of Re'eh. And there is one who says "Shoftim ve-shotrim." And there is one who says "Shenei ha-se'irim" of Acharei Mot. The primary view is like the first opinion, and such is the custom. The mem is "Ma tovu" of Balaam. And some say "Motza sefatekha tishmor." The vav is "Ve-a'ida bam" of Vayeilekh. (See Shach, subsection 5, who wrote that there is another vav besides "Ve-a'ida," and he brings proof from the Mordechai, see there. But the Noda BiYehuda, siman 77, and likewise the Gaon Rabbi Zalman Mirkes have already written that this is not so, and the intention of the Mordechai was regarding "Ve-a'ida," see there.)

And regarding the matter of "vavei ha-amudim," there are many and great ones among the earlier and later authorities who cried out like a crane against this, for through this they ruin all the columns by altering the letters, because they must estimate so that a vav appears at the head of every column. However, it has been a long time since a certain scribe's correction was published, beautiful and pleasant, arranged according to "vavei ha-amudim" without any crowding of letters. And the scribes have already become accustomed to write according to it. And certainly it is correct and proper to do so, and there is great significance in this.

There are many large and small letters in the Masorah, and in the Mordechai it is implied that this is a halacha given to Moses at Sinai. Nevertheless, it is obvious that one should not disqualify a sefer Torah because of this, since it is not mentioned in the Gemara. However, it is obvious that it should be corrected. And it is accepted that there are large and small letters for the entire aleph-beit. Some say that this is throughout the entire Tanakh, but in the Torah there are only eleven large letters, and they are: the beit of "Bereshit." The gimel of "vehitgalach." The dalet of "echad" in "Shema Yisrael." The hei of "Ha-L-Shem tigmulu." The vav of "gachon." The yod of "ve'ata yigdal na" in "Shelach." The lamed of "vayashlichem" in "Nitzavim." The nun of "notzer chesed" in "Ki Tisa." The final nun of "et mishpatan" of the daughters of Zelophehad. The ayin of "Shema Yisrael." The resh of "le'el acher" in "Ki Tisa." Thus they are enumerated in the Masorah Gedolah. And the small ones are: the aleph of "Vayikra" at the beginning of Torat Kohanim. The hei of "behibaram" in "Bereshit." The yod of "teshi" in "Ha'azinu." The kaf in "Chayei Sarah": "velivkotah." The kof of "katzti vechayai" regarding Rebecca. And the mem of "mokedah" in "Tzav." (And some have written that in the Torah alone there are all the aleph-beit and mantzepach large and small, but the minds of the great authorities are not comfortable with this. And also in the name of the Arizal they wrote that it is not so. And certainly the Masorah Gedolah does not say so. And such is the custom of the scribes.)

We learn in Masechet Soferim (chapter six, halacha 3): There are ten dots in the Torah: "May the Lord judge between me and you [u-beinecha]," the (second) yod of "u-beinecha" is dotted. "And they said to him [elav], where is Sarah your wife," and the aleph, yod, vav of "elav" are dotted (Bava Metzia 87a), meaning that there is a dot over every letter. And so it implies explicitly in the Midrash there. "And he did not know when she lay down or when she rose up [u-bekumah]" (of the elder daughter, and it is written full with a vav) and the vav is dotted. "And he fell on his neck and kissed him [va-yishakehu]," it is entirely dotted. "And his brothers went to pasture the flock [et tzon] etc.," "et" is dotted (implying that the aleph and the tav are both dotted). "Which Moses and Aaron [ve-Aharon] counted" (Numbers 3:39), "Aharon" is dotted (implying that the vav is not dotted; and in Bechorot 4a it says dotted over "ve-Aharon," and so it is in the Masorah, see there). And in the Midrash it says that the vav of "ve-Aharon" is dotted. "Or on a distant [rechokah] journey," the heh is dotted. And in the Midrash there it says that the chet is dotted, see there. "And we have laid waste even unto Nophah, which [asher]," the resh is dotted. "A tenth [isaron], a tenth" of the festival on the first holiday, the vav of the second "isaron" is dotted. "The hidden things etc. for us and for our children [lanu u-levaneinu] forever [ad olam]," the ayin of "ad" is dotted. Thus far his words, and so it is in Avot De-Rabbi Natan chapter 34, and in the Midrash on Numbers. However, in Avot De-Rabbi Natan it says that the dotting is over "lanu u-levaneinu" and over the ayin of "ad," see there, and so it is explicitly in the Gemara in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 43b), and so it is in the Masorah and in the commentary of Rashi on the Chumash. However, the Baal HaTurim wrote as in Masechet Soferim, see there. And it is obvious that one should not make the dots like yods but rather mere dots. And if he omitted a dot, it is permitted to read from it, but he must make the missing dot.

It is stated in Masekhet Soferim (chapter nine): The bet of "Bereishit" requires four tagin, and its letters are extended (meaning large) more than all other letters, etc. Thus far his words. And in the Masorah, only the bet of "Bereishit" was counted among the large letters, as I wrote in section 25. It is further stated there that "vayishchat" must be extended, but in the Masorah it is not present. Furthermore, it is not known to which "vayishchat" he intended, for there are three in Parashat Tzav. It is further stated there: "darosh darash," that the first is at the end of a line and the second is at the beginning of a line. And so it is implied in the Masorah Ketanah which says: "darosh" from here and "darosh" from here. And so wrote the Minchat Shai, see there. Therefore, one must be careful in this.

It is further stated there: "Shema Yisrael" must be written at the beginning of the line, and all its letters are plain (large). And "Echad" must be at the end of the line. Thus far his words. In the Masorah, only the Ayin and the Dalet were counted among the large letters, as I wrote in section 25. And that "Shema" is at the beginning of the line—this is obvious, for it is a petuchah, and every petuchah parsha is at the beginning of the line according to the opinion of the Rambam, as I wrote in siman 275. And that "Echad" is at the end of the line—I do not know if the soferim are careful in this. And it is necessary to warn them, since no one is found who disagrees with this. It is further stated there that the "Yisrael" at the end of the Torah must be plain, and the Lamed upright. But the custom is not so. And the rest of the matters there are as in the Masorah, see there.