Siman 274

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 274) wrote: The scribe must say when he begins to write a sefer Torah: "This I am writing for the sake of the sanctity of a sefer Torah," and it suffices for the entire book. And the Tur concludes that if he did not do so – it is invalid. Thus far their words. And thought is not sufficient, as I wrote in siman 271 regarding the matter of tanning for its sake. And even when he has spoken, nevertheless regarding the Divine Names, he must sanctify each individually for the sake of the sanctity of the Name, and it will be explained in siman 276. And the Smag wrote that also at the beginning of the book when he says "This I am writing for the sake of the sanctity of a sefer Torah," he should further say: "and all Divine Names within it for the sake of the sanctity of the Name." And this will be of benefit if he subsequently forgets to sanctify the Name in its place (Taz subsection 1).

And know that in the Rambam this law—that one must write for the sake of the sanctity of a sefer torah—is not found. Not only that, but it is explicitly explained from his words that only regarding the Names is it necessary for their sake. This is his wording in the first chapter, law 15: One who writes a sefer torah, or tefillin, or a mezuzah, and at the time of writing he did not have intent, and he wrote one of the Names within them not for their sake—they are invalid, etc. Thus far his words. And in the tenth chapter, among the twenty invalidations that he enumerated, he also wrote: that he wrote the Names not for their sake. Thus far his words. Behold, explicitly he did not require "for its sake" except regarding the Names. And I am wondered that the poskim did not notice this. And in truth, in the Shas it is not found except regarding the Names that they require "for their sake," and in the entire Torah we have not found it. Furthermore: since he wrote, "Therefore, one who writes the Name, etc., and they greet him, he shall not respond," thus far his words, and this is in the Tosefta and in the Yerushalmi, the fifth chapter of Berakhot, and since he hung the reason on "for its sake"—if so, in all words it should be forbidden to interrupt. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, who wrote this law in siman 276, did not hang this on "for its sake" but rather on the honor of the Name. But the Rambam, who hung this on "for its sake"—it implies that in the entire Torah it is not necessary. And it requires further study, for how is it possible to say so? For if the tanning of the skins requires "for its sake," all the more so the writing, as it is stated in Gittin.

And it appears in my humble opinion to say that his reason is that since he processed the skins lishmah—it follows that the writing, when unspecified, stands as lishmah. And a proof for this is from the beginning of Zevachim, where we say that the slaughter of consecrated animals, when unspecified, stands as lishmah, and the reason is because he already consecrated them. And here too, since he already consecrated the parchment, its unspecified state stands as lishmah. And the sanctity of the Name is different, as it requires another sanctification specifically for the Name of God, and the general sanctity of a sefer Torah does not suffice for it. Therefore, he must say explicitly, "for the sake of the sanctity of the Name." And also from the sugya in Gittin there, there is some proof for this; see there carefully. However, for the halachah, we certainly do not hold this way, but rather like the majority of the poskim. And I wonder at our teacher, the Beit Yosef, that he did not write like the Tur, that if he did not do so, it is pasul. And perhaps he had some intention in this, because he did not find this law in the Rambam. But if so, he should have mentioned this in his great work, and it requires further study. And in Gittin (Gittin 45b) it asks: And does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel require processing lishmah, but not require writing lishmah? in wonderment. — This implies that throughout the entire Torah it requires lishmah. And it is possible the Rambam would explain that it refers to the Names alone. But from there, regardless, there is no proof, for it refers to where a gentile wrote them, and regarding him it certainly is not relevant to say that unspecified it stands as "lishmah," as is understood.

And also according to the opinion of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, one must be precise: How can he fulfill his obligation with his statement at the beginning of the Torah that he is writing it lishmah, for the entire Sefer Torah, when he writes it over many days and with many interruptions? It should not be superior to a blessing over a commandment, where when one interrupts significantly, he requires another blessing. Rather, one must certainly say even according to their words that since at the beginning he said "lishmah," then afterwards even that which is unspecified stands as lishmah. And if so, it is not a wonder for the Rambam to say that the tanning is the beginning. And it is not comparable to the Names, for every Name is a sanctity unto itself. Therefore, one must sanctify every one of the Names.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 274:2): He must have another book before him from which he copies, for it is forbidden to write even one letter not from the writing. And he must read every word before he writes it. Thus far his words. For so did Moshe our teacher write the Torah from the mouth of the Almighty, as the Holy One, blessed be He, would say, and Moshe would say and write (Bava Batra 15b). And they raised an objection against him: for in Orach Chaim siman 32 regarding tefillin, he wrote in section 29 (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 32:29): If the parashiyot are not fluent in his mouth—he must write from the writing. And in section 31 he wrote (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 32:31): If he does not write from the writing—he shall not write by heart what another dictates to him, unless he himself repeats and reads it with his mouth. Thus far his words. And it is explicitly explained that specifically when he does not write from the writing is he obligated to repeat and read with his mouth, but when he writes from the writing he does not need to read with his mouth. And why did he rule here that even when writing from the writing he must read with his mouth? And so ruled our teacher, the Rema, there in siman 691 regarding the Megillah (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 691) that he must write it from the writing, and utter every word with his mouth before he writes it just as with a sefer Torah. Thus far his words. And these contradict that of siman 32 (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 32) (Magen Avraham there, subsection 4). And some say that tefillin are different (the Gra there, and the Magen Avraham in siman 32, subsection 42). And I do not know the difference between this and that, and it requires further study.

In my humble opinion, it appears that this is also the case regarding tefillin: that even if one writes from a text, he must say each word with his mouth before his writing; since we find that our teacher Moshe did so even though for him it was like writing from a text, as the speech of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is like writing from a text, and nevertheless Moshe was required to repeat and say it. And that which he wrote there in section 31 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 274:31) that if he does not write from a text he shall not write by heart, but another reads to him etc.—this is its explanation: that we should not say that the reading of the other is like his own reading, but rather we specifically require his own reading. And the proof is: for behold, our teacher Moshe did not fulfill the obligation through the reading of the Holy One, Blessed be He. But in a place where there is no reading of another, it is obvious that he must read by himself even when he writes from a text. And one should not ask: if we learned from Moshe, we should require the reading of another and also his own reading, as was the case with Moshe? For it is not so, as the reading of the Holy One, Blessed be He, was of necessity, for if not so, Moshe would not have known what to write, and the reading of the Holy One, Blessed be He, was like writing from a book. But his own reading is a requirement in every case. And so it appears to me as the law in practice. (And the Tur did not write this law here, as he relied upon what he wrote in Orach Chaim there. And the Bach was pressed on this, see there. And so it is explicitly explained in Tosafot Menachot 30a, starting with the words "And Moshe," see there.)

Some say it is proven in the Yerushalmi that if one wrote not from the text, one should not read from it ab initio, except in a time of pressing need (Ran, second chapter of Megillah). And some say that one may read from it ab initio, for this is not a disqualifying factor ex post facto (Beit Yosef in the name of the Maharam, and see Shach). And one may bring proof also from the Rambam, who did not count this among the disqualifications. And likewise, if one did not say every word with his mouth—this is not a disqualifying factor ex post facto. And the proof: for the final eight verses in the Torah, Moshe would not repeat them with his mouth, as is explained there in the Gemara. Deduce from this that ex post facto there is no disqualification.

It is necessary that every letter be surrounded by parchment on its four sides, so that one letter does not touch its fellow, but rather there should be [a space] like a hairsbreadth between them. And they should not be separated significantly from one another, so that one word does not appear like two. And there should be between word and word like the fullness of a small letter, and he should not bring them too close so that two words do not appear like one. And if he deviated such that he distanced the letters until the word appears like two, or he brought two words close until they appear like one—it is pasul. And likewise if a letter touched a letter, and every letter is not surrounded by parchment—it is also pasul. However, when there is a slight separation even less than a hairsbreadth—it is sufficient. And likewise between word and word, if there is only a slight separation, even if the separation is not like the fullness of a small letter, if only a child who is neither wise nor foolish reads them as two words—it is sufficient (Bach and Taz and Shach, subsection 4). But if the child reads them as one word—it is pasul; even though the first word ends with a closed mem, and the like, where it is recognizable that this is the end of a word—nevertheless it is pasul (the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger). For understanding does not avail in this, as the writing must be as is proper, like the touching of a letter to a letter, even though it is recognizable that they are two letters, it is nevertheless pasul. And here too it is so. (And see Orach Chaim siman 32 in the Rema at the end of section 32.)

And one must also be careful that the form of every letter be in its proper shape. And if it resembles another letter, or if it does not have the shape of this letter even if it does not resemble another, or even if it has the shape of this letter and even a child reads it as such but it is not a single body—for example, if the yods of the aleph do not touch the middle line, and similarly if the roof of the beit does not touch its side wall, and similarly regarding all the letters except for the heh and the kof, whose form from Sinai is such that they are two bodies, and when they are a single body they are pasul—but all other letters, when they are not a single body, are pasul. And similarly if the dalet resembles a resh, or the beit a kaf, or the reverse—it is pasul and must be corrected. And in all this there is no difference whether at the time of writing he did not write properly, or he wrote properly and it was spoiled afterward by a tear, or a hole, or a blurring of ink and the like—it is pasul. And it is forbidden to read from this sefer Torah until they correct it.

And these are the letters that the scribe must be careful with, because it is easy to err in them: Regarding the aleph, one must be careful that the yuds touch the middle line. And so too the heads of the shins, and the ayin, and the tzadi, and the open mem, that its vav should touch its kaf. And regarding the beit, one must be careful with the tag behind it to square it, so that it does not appear like a kaf. And conversely, the kaf should be rounded so that it does not appear like a beit. And so too with the dalet and resh. And the closed mem, to make it square so that it is not like a samekh, and the samekh, to make its bottom rounded so that it is not like a closed mem. And the beit requires a small tag on its head towards the left side (Tur). And in Menachot (Menachot 29b) it is stated that the heh has a tag. Rashi explained: a small tag at the end of its roof above. And Rabbeinu Tam explained that this refers to the point behind it to square it, so that it is not rounded from behind. And the Tur wrote that it is good to be careful according to the words of both of them.

It is further stated there in Menachot: I saw meticulous scribes, that they make a hump for the roofs of the letter chet. Rashi explained: that on the left side it has a sort of staff like this: ח.~. Our teacher Tam explained that in the middle of its roof it is slightly high like the hump of a camel like this: ז^ז~. And so it is implied in Shabbat (Shabbat 104a) where it says: such as if one removed the roof of a chet and made it into two zayins. And so the common custom is according to the words of our teacher Tam. And one must be careful not to lengthen the leg of the yod so that it does not appear like a vav, and conversely, not to shorten the leg of the vav so that it does not appear like a yod. And one should not lengthen the leg of the zayin so that it does not appear like a long nun, and conversely, not to shorten the leg of the nun so that it does not appear like a zayin. And regarding all the letters where there is a doubt if it is this letter or another letter – one asks a child. And it appears to me that if the children contradict one another, then we act according to our own perception. However, if one asks one child – one should act according to what he says, and there is no need to ask another.

It is further stated there that the yod has its head bent. Our teacher Tam explained that this is what they said there (Menachot 29a): the point of the yod. For Rashi explained that this is the right leg, and our teacher Tam explained that on the left side of its head a small point descends like this: י~. And according to Rashi, one must say that the bending is that the head is not made like the head of the vav or the zayin which is square, but rather with a bit of a curve like the bending of a head. And the Tur brought from the Pesikta: The World to Come was created with a yod: just as a yod has one point below, a hint to the dead who descend to Gehenna, and one above, a hint that they are destined to ascend. And according to this, the yod has a tag above and is also bent below, like this: י~. And the tet: our teacher Tam wrote that its right head must be bent downward like this: ט~.

The Tur wrote in the name of the Rosh: The forms of the letters are not identical in all countries. The script of our land (Ashkenaz) is very different from the script of this land (Spain). There is no disqualification in this difference, provided that one does not make Heis into Cheits, or Beits into Khafs, as is explicit in the Gemara. Thus far his words. And among us there are also differences: there is a script called Vellish, and most Sifrei Torah are not written in this script. There is also a difference in certain letters between the form of the Beit Yosef and the form of the Arizal. It is known to the scribes, and was explained in Orach Chaim in the laws of tefillin. Both are valid according to the law, only these followed this custom and those followed that custom. For anything that is not explained in the Gemara is not a source of invalidation. And these are the ones explained in the Gemara in Shabbat (Shabbat 103b):

"And you shall write them" – that it shall be a perfect writing (complete according to its law, Rashi), that one should not write alephin as ayinin or ayinin as alephin, betin as kaphin or kaphin as betin, gamin as tzadin or tzadin as gamin, daltin as rishin or rishin as daltin, hehin as chetin or chetin as hehin, vavin as yodin or yodin as vavin, zayinim as nunin or nunin as zayinim, tetin as pephin or pephin as tetin, bent letters as straight ones or straight ones as bent ones, memin as samekhin or samekhin as memin, closed letters as open ones or open ones as closed ones. An open parasha – he shall not make it closed; a closed one – he shall not make it open. If he wrote it as a shira (with gaps of a large brick and a small brick), or if he wrote the shira like it (without gaps etc.), or if he wrote not with ink, or if he wrote the Names of God in gold – behold, these must be sequestered; see there. And one must be careful with the formation of the letters and their crowns, as has been explained at length in Orach Chaim siman 32 and siman 36. And it has already been explained in siman 273 that regarding the lack of tagin, even on the letters shaatnez getz, it is not disqualified. The Rosh disqualifies, but we hold like the Rambam that it does not disqualify (and so wrote the Taz, subsection 5). And so too the dots that are above the letters in the place where they are needed, if he omitted them – it is not disqualified, but rather he must make them.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 7 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 274:7): A vocalized sefer is invalid, even if the vocalization was removed from it. Similarly, a sefer that contains verse punctuation is invalid. Thus far his words. For every sefer Torah must be as it was given from Sinai, without points and without verse punctuation. For there is the reading and the tradition, and one who made points has nullified the tradition. Therefore, even if he removed them, it is invalid, because it is evident that the scribe was not concerned for the tradition (Taz, subsection 6). And it is called verse punctuation when he made points between one verse and another. And if he erased the points, it is possible that it is valid (ibid.), for they are not in the letters themselves. And specifically when he made points between one verse and another is it invalid. But if he did not make points but rather distanced one verse from another slightly, as long as there is not the measure of a parashah, which is nine letters, it is valid. And know that in a get they write the lines intertwined, so that the lines mix with one another. But in sifrei Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot, one should not do so ab initio. And if he did so, it is not an invalidation. (And when he made points after its writing, he may erase them.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 5 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 274:5) that one may take ink from a written letter when he needs ink, or when he wishes to roll the scroll. Thus far his words. That is to say: so that it will dry quickly. And there is no concern of weakening a mitzvah in this, as it is forbidden to light from a Chanukah candle for this reason. For there, the second candle draws from the first and weakens it. But here, once the word has been written—it is not weakened by taking the excess ink. And even from the letters of the Name one may take the ink (Shach, subsection 5). However, all this is only to write a sacred matter with it. But to write mundane matters with the ink that was taken—it is forbidden due to the degradation of a mitzvah (ibid.). And know that all this is when there is truly much ink on the letter beyond what is necessary. But if there is only the required amount—it is certainly forbidden to take from it, for he will weaken the letter, and there is in this the weakening of a mitzvah. And even if regarding a Chanukah candle we are not concerned with the weakening of a mitzvah, as there is one who holds this way in the Gemara (Shabbat 22a), and the flow of the Shas there implies that it holds this way, see there—this is regarding a candle where the weakening is not noticeable, for the light remains as it was. But here, where the weakening will be noticeable—it is certainly forbidden. (See Taz, subsection 4, and see Nekudot HaKesef. And according to what I have written, it works out well simply. Examine it and you will find it easy.) And we only permitted it when there is an abundance of ink, for in such a case it is not called the weakening of a mitzvah. And the remaining laws of letters will be explained in Orach Chaim in the laws of tefillin with the help of Heaven.