Siman 275

Regarding the forms of the petuchot and setumot, opinions have multiplied. This is the wording of the Rambam at the beginning of the eighth chapter: A parasha petucha has two forms: if he finished in the middle of the line—he leaves the rest of the line vacant, and begins the parasha that is petucha from the start of the second line. In what case are these words said? When there remains from the line a space the size of nine letters. But if there only remains a little, or if he finished at the end of the line—he leaves the second line without writing, and begins the parasha petucha from the beginning of the third line.

A parasha setuma has three forms: If he finished in the middle of the line—he leaves a space of the required measure, and begins writing at the end of the line one word (or more) from the beginning of the parasha that is setuma, so that the space is found in the middle. And if there did not remain enough of the line to leave a space of the required measure and to write one word at the end of the line—he shall leave it all vacant, and leave a small space at the beginning of the second line, and begin writing the parasha setuma from the middle of the second line. And if he finished at the end of the line—he leaves at the beginning of the second line the measure of the space, and begins writing the setuma from the middle of the line. You find yourself saying that a parasha petucha always begins at the beginning of the line, and a parasha setuma always begins from the middle of the line. Thus far his words. And it is understood that "middle" is not literal, but rather that the setuma should not begin at the head of the line. And regarding the space of nine letters, it appears that what remains at the end of the line joins with the space he leaves at the beginning of the line (as the Taz wrote in Orach Chaim siman 32, end of subsection 26, see there).

And behold, the petuchot are well-called "petuchot" according to both forms. That is to say: that before it, half a line or a full line is open where there is no writing at all. And the setumah of the first form is well-called "setumah," because it is closed from its beginning and from its end. But regarding the other two forms where the beginning of the line is open, why is it called "setumah"? And it must be said that the closure is only regarding the end of the line; when there is writing there, it is called "setumah." And even though the middle form is also a bit open at its end, nevertheless, since the line that follows it begins in the middle of the line and is written until its end, it is called "setumah" after it, because it is the primary one. For if it were petuchah, it would begin at the start of the line (it seems to me).

The Rosh in the laws of Sefer Torah (siman 13) wrote, and this is his wording: Our teacher Tam wrote: Which is "petuchah"? Any where there remains from the conclusion of the parashah until the end of the line the measure of three words of three letters each—this is a petuchah. And if there does not remain until the end of the line this measure—one leaves one entire line blank and begins on the third. This is a petuchah. And "setumah": Any where one wrote the beginning of the line and the end of the line, and leaves a blank space in the middle sufficient to write there a name of two letters or more—this is a "setumah." And "sedurah": Where one wrote the line until its half or until its third, and begins to write on the line below it corresponding to the upper line—this is a "sedurah." This, our teacher Tam found in an ancient correction. Thus far his words. And behold, regarding petuchah it is like the words of the Rambam, but regarding setumah he has told new things, that a break of two letters alone is sufficient. And also "sedurah" is not found in the Rambam, and according to the Rambam this is a setumah. And also the Tosafot in Menachot (Menachot 32a) wrote in the name of our teacher Tam like the Rosh. and perhaps he holds that therefore it is called "setumah," meaning literally closed: that it does not have a large break; and that its beginning and its end are closed, meaning written. And "sedurah" means that the lines are ordered one corresponding to the other, for in the place where the upper one ends, from there the second begins. However, the essence of this name is not known to us, for there is nothing in the Torah but petuchah and setumah. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book wrote that it is also like a setumah, see there.

And in Masekhet Soferim at the end of the first chapter, the matters are completely different, and this is its wording: Which is "petukhah"? Any that did not begin at the start of the line. And which is "setumah"? Any where he left a space in the middle of the line. And how much should he leave at the start of the line for it to be called "petukhah"? Enough to write a name of three letters. And how much should he leave in the middle of the line for it to be called "setumah"? Enough to write a name of three letters. If he finished the entire parashah at the end of the page—he should leave one line above. And if he left space at the bottom enough to write a name of three letters—he begins from above. Thus far its words. And according to this, the break, whether in a "petukhah" or in a "setumah," is only three letters. And the "petukhot" of Masekhet Soferim would be a setumah according to the Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam. And it appears that Masekhet Soferim holds that the term "petukhah" is when it is open from its start, and that which it said: If he finished etc. he should leave a line etc.—it appears that this is a "setumah" according to it. But according to the Rambam, it is a petukhah. And likewise in leaving space at the bottom and beginning from above—it is a "setumah" according to it and a petukhah according to the Rambam, as I have written.

And in the Yerushalmi of the first chapter of Megillah (halacha 9) it is stated: Open from its beginning – closed. Open from its end – open. Open from here and from here – closed. Thus far his words. This is the version before us, and it is interpreted according to the words of the Rambam. And this is its explanation: When it is open from its beginning, meaning when it starts in the middle of the line and at its beginning it is open without writing – it is a closed parasha. And conversely: Open from its end, meaning when he finishes in the middle of a line and leaves it open without writing until its end, and begins at the start of the second line – this is an open parasha. And "open from here and from here," meaning when he left a portion at the end of the line and a portion at the beginning of the line – this is a closed parasha. And this is exactly like the Rambam, of blessed memory.

But the Rosh had a different version of the Yerushalmi, and from this the law changed entirely. This is the wording of the Rosh: And in the Yerushalmi of the first chapter of Megillah it says: Open from its beginning – open. Open from its end – open. This implies that from any side it is called "open." And so it stands to reason that the division of the parashiyot are two: one setumah and one petuchah. The "setumah" is when the space between the parashiyot is closed from here and from there. And whenever the space is open from one side, whether above or below, it is called "petuchah." And if he finished a parashah setumah at the end of a line (meaning that the parashah after it is setumah) – he should leave a blank line and begin on the third line. And it is a parashah setumah since it is not open at the beginning of the line nor at the end of the line. And a "blank line" is like a space in the middle of a line. Thus far his words. And according to the Rambam, on the contrary, it is a petuchah.

And behold, even though the Rosh, of blessed memory, explained it through reasoning, nevertheless the world has accepted as primary the words of the Rambam, of blessed memory, because he labored and toiled in this. As he wrote there, and this is his wording: Since I saw great confusion etc. divided on these matters etc. I saw fit to write etc. and the book we relied upon etc. is the book known in Egypt etc. and everyone used to rely upon it because Ben Asher corrected it, and he was exacting with it for many years, and corrected it many times etc. and upon it I relied for the Sefer Torah that I wrote according to its law. Thus far his words. And behold, he saw there the petuchot and setumot that agree with his opinion. And regarding this and its like it is said: A deed is a great [proof]. And all the more so since the Yerushalmi, according to the version before us, agrees with his opinion. And he was not concerned with Masechet Soferim, or he had a different version there. And all our Sifrei Torah are written according to the opinion of the Rambam, and so is the widespread custom and it is not to be changed.

However, according to our custom, we fulfill both opinions. As our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great work, and this is his wording: One who fears Heaven should fulfill all of them. He should always act in a manner such that for a pethuchah parashah, he finishes the parashah before it in the middle of the line, and there remains at its end a space of nine letters, and he begins to write at the beginning of the line below it. And for a sethumah parashah, he should always finish the parashah before it at the beginning of the line, and leave a space of nine letters, and begin to write at the end of that same line. And he should not deviate to make another form, whether for a pethuchah or for a sethumah. And in this way it is kosher according to both the Rambam and the Rosh etc. and he can estimate etc. so that the parashiyot come out in this manner. Thus far his words. And such is the custom. However, if it happened that it is impossible to do so – they should act according to the Rambam for the reason we have written.

The Rambam wrote there: A scroll that is not corrected regarding full and deficient spellings—it is possible to fix it and correct it. But if he erred in the spacing of the parashiyot, and wrote an open parashah as a closed one, or a closed one as an open one, or if he paused and left a space in a place where there is no parashah, or if he wrote in his usual manner and did not pause with a space in the place of a parashah, or if he changed the form of the lines—behold, this is pasul. And it has no remedy other than to remove the entire page in which he erred. Thus far his words. And the Tur understood that the Rambam forbids fixing it. And he wrote that the Rosh wrote that since a remedy is effective for an error of deficient or extra letters, certainly it is so regarding the space between parashah and parashah; see there. In my humble opinion, it appears that the intent of the Rambam was not that it is forbidden to fix it, but rather to say that it is difficult to fix it, for he would need to erase a great deal. And as the Rosh himself wrote, and this is his wording: Except that I do not know how he will fix the distortion of the open and closed parashiyot, for he would need to erase a great deal before it and after it. And perhaps the Name will happen to be there. And he would also need to diminish the script, and this matter is forbidden. Thus far his words. And if so, why shall we not say that the intent of the Rambam was also thus? And however it may be, such is the primary halachah, and so ruled our teacher, the Rema, in section 1 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 275, 1).

This is the wording of our teacher, the Rema: And some say that it is permitted to repair it as with any other error, and so the scribes are accustomed to repair it if it is possible to erase without affecting the Name. For one may not cut out the Name and make holes in the parchment. Thus far his words. And there is one who explained that the prohibition is to make holes in the parchment. And his words were rejected, for if so, even another word would be prohibited, and this is not so. Rather, the prohibition to cut the Name from its place is a disgrace to the Name (Shach subsection 3 and the Maharal Habib), and therefore it is also prohibited to peel it (ibid.). And that which he wrote "and make holes in the parchment" – comes to exclude, that if the Name was written on a patch, one is permitted to cut it and hide it away (ibid.). And the matters are puzzling, for why is there no disgrace in this? For is the disgrace to the cutting of the parchment? Behold, the disgrace is to uproot the Name from its place! And furthermore: even if it is written on a patch, once it was attached – it is attached. And therefore it appears to my humble opinion that even in such a case it is prohibited, and so one of the great authorities agreed (see Pitchei Teshuva subsection 4 in the name of Yaavetz, who disagreed with the Shach, see there). And that which he says "and make holes in the parchment," this is what he means: that there are two prohibitions here. The first is to cut the Name and it is a disgrace. And the second is to make holes, meaning: that it will always be noticeable that from here they cut the Name. And the main point: everything is because of the disgrace to the Name. And the great authorities agreed that to peel the Name is certainly prohibited, both because of disgrace and also lest he ruin the Name, and he will be found erasing the Name. And one should not pay heed to those who permit peeling in this law.

And all this is regarding a Name that was written properly, but for another reason it is necessary to remove it. However, if the Name was not written properly, such as if he wrote it twice and one is redundant, or if he needed to write the Name Havayah and wrote Adonut or vice versa, and anything similar to this where he did not write the Name he needed to write; since it was written in error—it is permitted to cut it out. But he should not cut it out alone, rather with some other words, for in such a case there is not so much disgrace. And he should hide it away, and over this place he should place a patch (Me'atzevet in the name of the Gaon R.A.B., and Hatam Sofer siman 272 brought in Pitchei Teshuvah there). And even though there is one who hesitates regarding this (see there in the name of Shivat Tzion), nevertheless, such is the primary ruling in law. However, one should distance himself from scraping. And not only because of the scraping itself, but because it is forbidden to write another word in its place, for the Name sanctified the entire thickness of the parchment. And even to write another Name on this place, who knows which is more holy? Therefore, one must distance himself from scraping. And know that all this is if the Name was written properly, only that it was written in error in this place. But if the Name itself was written in error, there are other laws regarding this. And it will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 276 that when the Name itself was written in error—it is more lenient, as I have written there.

And the manner of the petuchot and setumot: It has already been explained that one should act ab initio to satisfy both opinions, the Rambam and the Rosh. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled accordingly in section 2 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 275:2). Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that if one cannot manage this, he should not deviate from the words of the Rambam in this matter, for the later authorities relied upon him and wrote that his words are the primary view. Nevertheless, if a Sefer Torah is found that is not written according to his words, it should not be disqualified, for there are great authorities who have other opinions in this matter. Thus far his words. And we have already explained all the opinions with the help of Heaven. It has already been explained that just as in a place where there must be a parashah and he did not leave space for nine letters it is disqualified, so too the opposite: if he left space for nine letters vacant in a place where there is no parashah, it is also disqualified. There is one who wishes to say that the Tur validates in such a case, but his words were rejected by all the great authorities (Shach subsection 1, and Taz and Knesset HaGedolah). The measure of nine letters is like three times the word "asher." However, if he left space for nine small letters, it may be validated ex post facto (Beit Yosef). Less than this should not be validated. And even though Masechet Soferim validates with three letters as I have written, this matter was not accepted at all. It is as if a Heavenly voice went out that the halacha is like the Rambam (and see Shach subsection 4 and Derishah). So it appears from the words of all the great later authorities. The nine letters are measured according to the script of that specific Sefer Torah (Tiferet Zvi). There is one who wrote that if the scribe wrote one word before the parashah between the lines so that there would remain nine vacant letters for the petuchah, and had he written it within the line there would not have remained nine vacant letters—nevertheless, it is valid (Beer Heitev in the name of Shevut Yaakov). This stands to reason, for since the hanging word is valid, there is a measure of nine letters. Although ab initio he should not have done so, nevertheless, what he has done is done. There is a doubt in a place where it is impossible to write on that spot, such as where there is a stain or a tear or a seam or a patch, and he does not wish to write on a patch, and there is in this break enough for nine letters, whether such a break in the middle of a parashah disqualifies? It appears that it does not disqualify, for it is evident that the break is not because of a parashah (and so wrote the Pitchei Teshuvah in the name of Benei Yonah). Nevertheless, in the place of a parashah, even in such a case it constitutes a break. There is one who is doubtful regarding this (ibid.), but there is no doubt at all in this, for it certainly constitutes a break, as there is a distinction between one parashah and another. (And see what I wrote in section 16, that perhaps it is valid with three letters.)

One of the great authorities wrote that when one left a space of nine letters vacant in the middle of a parashah, and there is no counsel to repair it – he should excise a bit of the vacant space until there does not remain a complete parchment of nine letters. And the excised place is not taken into account, for there it is not fit for writing, as I have written (the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger). In my humble opinion, this requires further study: for if so, how did the Rambam and the poskim write that it is disqualified by this? For this repair could always be performed, and they should have said it is disqualified until he excises, etc. Furthermore: for it is clear that when there is a hole in a Sefer Torah – there is no greater disgrace than this. And they must place a patch there, and if so, the parchment returns to its strength. And most of them write upon a patch. Therefore, this law requires further study.

Regarding petuchot and setumot, one must follow the Rambam, of blessed memory, who enumerates in the eighth chapter (Rambam, Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah, and Sefer Torah 8) all the petuchot and all the setumot. However, regarding what he wrote there in Parshat Tzav, "And He spoke etc. any fat of an ox or a sheep etc." that there is also a parsha there, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, already wrote in his book Kesef Mishneh that it is an error, and there is no parsha there at all, and that he found such in a corrected Rambam (and so wrote the Shach in subsection 6, and so wrote the Minchat Shai). And similarly in Parshat Ki Tavo it is written in the Rambam: "And Moses and the elders of Israel commanded" is a petucha, "And Moses spoke" which follows it is a setuma – our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote there that he found in a corrected book that it is also a petucha. And similarly "Cursed be he who lies with his father's wife" there is a parsha in the Rambam, but in truth there is no parsha there at all. And so he found corrected in the Rambam, see there. And I wonder at the Minchat Shai, for regarding "Cursed be he who lies" he brought the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and agreed with him, yet slightly before this regarding "And Moses spoke" he did not bring it and it was recorded as a setuma. And it requires further study. And I do not know how they conduct themselves in this, for in the matter of writing a Sefer Torah regarding malei and chaser and regarding petuchot and setumot, we follow the book Minchat Shai, for his entire work was established upon this, and he was very precise in this, and all the scribes follow him.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 3 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 275:3): If one wrote the Song like the rest of the script, or if one wrote the rest of the script like the Song – it is pasul. And specifically if one wrote the Song like the rest of the script without spacing. However, if one changed the spacing from that which is customary – it is not pasul, provided that there is an ariach over a levina. Thus far his words. And the levina is three tefachs, and the ariach is half a levina, a tefach and a half (and in the Taz, subsection 6, there is a printing error, see there). And know that in the Rambam there is a point requiring investigation in this matter. For in the seventh chapter, law 10, he enumerated laws that were not stated in the Gemara but rather are accepted by the scribes, and he wrote afterward that if one changed them – it is not pasul, and he enumerated among them the space between parasha and parasha as nine letters: "asher-asher-asher." Yet it has already been explained that this is a disqualifying factor post facto. And he himself in the tenth chapter, when he enumerated the disqualifications, enumerated in the seventeenth disqualification when one changed the form of the parashiot. And it is difficult to say that this refers only to making a petucha a setuma or vice versa. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work wrote that his intention is as follows: that it is not a disqualifying factor if one did not leave enough space for three times "asher," but rather even if one left enough space for nine small letters – it is also kosher, see there. But in any such case, he should have specified and not left it vague. And perhaps his intention is that nine letters is not a disqualifying factor post facto, but even less than this. For in Masechet Soferim he only required three letters, as I have written. And so it implies somewhat from what he wrote in the eighth chapter, law 3, among the disqualifications, and this is his wording: Or if he wrote in his usual manner and did not pause with a space between parasha and parasha etc. Thus far his words. And he did not say "with a space of nine letters" – learn from this that this measure is not a disqualifying factor post facto. (And also from the Shach, subsection 4, it is clarified that post facto three letters are sufficient. And so it implies in the Derisha, see there.) And in section 13 we wrote that with less than nine it is pasul, for so it is clarified from the words of the Shulchan Aruch and the Acharonim. And it requires investigation for the practical halacha.

And thus one writes Shirat HaYam: At the top of the column before the shira one writes five lines, and this is their beginning: "habaim," "bayabasha," "Hashem," "met," "b'Mitzrayim." And afterward one writes the shira in thirty lines; the first line is in its usual manner, and for the rest of the lines the order is as follows: one line they leave in the middle a space like one gap the size of a parsha, which is nine letters (Beit Yosef in the name of Rivash), and afterward another line they leave the gap in two places in the middle, until the line is found divided into three. And the gap shall be nine letters in the combination of the two breaks (ibid.). And the line after it one gap, and the one after it two gaps, and so on until the end of the shira. And it results that there is a gap opposite the writing, and writing opposite the gap. And this is the "ariach" and "levina" that has been explained. And after the shira there are five lines until the end of the column, and their beginning: "vatikach," "achareihen," "sus," "vayeitziu," "vayavo'u." And the lines that are before the shira and after the shira do not invalidate if one changed them. And so too in the shira of "Ha'azinu" that will be explained—that which precedes and that which follows does not invalidate.

And the song of "Ha'azinu" is as follows: first, at the top of the column, there are six lines, and their beginnings are: "Ve'aidah," "Achar," "Haderech," "Be'acharit," "Lehach'iso," "Kehal." And afterward, they write the song in seventy lines, and every line has a space in the middle the size of nine letters. Thus, every line is divided into two. And after the song until the end of the column, there are five lines, and their beginnings are: "Vayavo," "Vayedaber," "Asher," "Hazot," "Asher." And in the Rambam it is found that in place of "Vayedaber" – "Ledaber," and such is the primary view (Shach subsection 8). And regarding the number of lines of the songs, it appears that here too, if he changed them – he has not disqualified it, like that which precedes and that which follows.

It appears that if one changed the form of Shirat HaYam to be written like the form of the song of "Ha'azinu" – it is certainly pasul. For this is explained in the Gemara at the end of the first chapter of Megillah, that all songs are written "a small brick over a large brick and a large brick over a small brick," except for this song of the ten sons of Haman and the kings of Canaan, which are "a small brick etc.," so that there shall be no rising from their downfall, see there. However, when one changed the form of "Ha'azinu" to the form of Shirat HaYam – I have a great doubt, for in the Gemara they did not exclude this song from all the songs. And especially according to the reason in the Gemara, it is a matter of wonder, as is understood. And granted that this is so according to the Masorah, and so it is implied in Masekhet Soferim chapter twelve (halacha 10), which says there that Shirat HaYam and the song of Deborah are written "a small brick over a large brick etc.," and it does not count the song of "Ha'azinu." Nevertheless, since in the Gemara it is not implied so – perhaps it is kosher post facto. And it requires further study for the law, and I have not found anyone who remarked on this. (And it is a great wonder, for according to the reason in the Gemara "so that there shall be no rising," how is it possible to write it so? and it appears to me that behold in the Sifrei, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nehemiah argued over many verses of "Ha'azinu": "For they are a nation void of counsel," "Were it not that their Rock etc.," "For their vine is of the vine of Sodom etc.," "And He will say: Where are their gods etc." For Rabbi Yehuda expounds them regarding Israel, and Rabbi Nehemiah expounds them regarding the Babylonians, see there. And according to this we shall say that the Shas holds like Rabbi Yehuda, and the Masorah and Masekhet Soferim hold like Rabbi Nehemiah. And according to this the reason fits well, and judge and you will find it easily. And afterwards I found in the Ran there that he cited from Masekhet Soferim: "Ha'azinu" that one made as a song, and a song that one made as "Ha'azinu" – one should not read from it, see there. And before us this is not found in Masekhet Soferim. And he was pressed in the wording of the Gemara, that this is the explanation: all the songs that have in them a small brick and a large brick etc., see there. However, since the Ran, of blessed memory, rules it pasul – we establish it so. And it requires further study.)

If one wrote a full spelling as deficient, or a deficient spelling as full; or if one wrote a word that has a keri and ketiv and wrote it according to its reading, such as writing "yishkavena" instead of "yishgalena" or "uvatechorim" instead of "uva'afolim" in the rebuke of Ki Tavo, and the like—it is pasul. And there are several places where the Masorah disagrees with the Shas, and we are accustomed to follow the Masorah. This refers to what is in Zevachim (Zevachim 37b) regarding "karnot-karnot-karnot" in Parashat Vayikra regarding the sin offering of an individual, see there, yet in our texts according to the Masorah, even the third is "karnat." And in Niddah (Niddah 33a) "vehanosei" is deficient of a vav. The Tosafot wrote that in the Masorah it is full with a vav, but Rashi, of blessed memory, erased it, see there. And know that in the Yerushalmi, the fifth chapter of Sukkah, it says: "I am Hashem your G-d who brought you out"—deficient of a yod. Yet in our texts it is full with a yod. And in the commentary of Rashi on Bereishit (Bereishit 25:6) "hapilagshim" is written deficient, yet in our texts it is written full. And in Terumah, Rashi explained "ve'et kol asher atzaveh otcha"—an extra vav, yet in our texts it is actually written "et" and not "ve'et." And in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 4b) Rashi explained that "uletotafot" in "Vehayah ki yeviacha"—is deficient, yet in our texts it is written full. And in Midrash Bereishit (Parashah 77) it says "hanoteret"—is written deficient, yet in our texts it is written full. And in Arachin (Arachin 32a) the Tosafot wrote that Rashi wrote "asher lo chomah" with a vav-alef, and they wrote that the keri is with an alef and the ketiv is with a vav. Yet in our texts it is the opposite: the ketiv is with an alef and the keri is with a vav. And the Tosafot in Megillah (Megillah 22a) wrote that "Vayechal" is two verses adjacent to the parashah, and similarly "Vehikravtem" of Pesach. Yet in our texts "Vayechal" is four verses, and "Vehikravtem" is three verses. "Vayehi beyom kalot Moshe" in Parashat Naso, it says in the Midrash, Zohar, and Pesikta that it is written deficient, yet in our texts it is full. The sages of Israel have already dealt with this at length. See there in Minchat Shai who brought to resolve that there is no contradiction between one and the other, and he dealt with this at length. However, in any event, the soferim follow the Masorah.

And it is simple that just as the entire Torah is invalid if it is missing one letter, so too if it has an extra letter. And one of the great authorities proved that this specifically refers to an extra letter within the word, but an extra letter by itself between words or between parshiot, while it must be corrected, nevertheless the sefer Torah is not invalid (Noda BiYehudah siman 74). And regarding the inverted nuns, opinions are numerous. And the Maharshal in a responsum (siman 73) wrote that he saw twelve forms regarding this, see there. And the clearest of them all is that in the body of the words one should not make any change at all, only before "And it came to pass when the ark traveled" one should make an inverted nun like this: ן~. And that is to leave over nine letters after the previous parsha, and make an inverted nun as I have written. And he should leave over space for three letters, and begin "And it came to pass when the ark traveled etc." And after the verse "And when it rested he would say etc." he should also leave over nine letters, and write an inverted nun as I have written. And he should leave over space for about three letters, and begin the parsha that follows it (Noda BiYehudah ibid.). And such is the simple custom and one must not change it.

Rashi in the Chumash on "and Terah died in Haran" wrote: an inverted nun. But in the Masorah Rabbati it is not present, and also the custom is not so. See there in the Minchat Shai. And regarding the vav of "Behold, I give him My covenant of peace," it is transmitted that the vav of "shalom" is severed, and opinions on this have multiplied. The clarified way is to make a short vav, and not like the form of a yod but rather shorter than other vavs, and it should break a bit, and below a small line. To this the great ones agreed. And in the verse of "he that is crushed by wounding shall not enter," some read it with a he and some with an aleph. And it is already the custom according to the Minchat Shai to write it with a he, and this is the custom in most of the dispersions of Israel. However, in the province of Raisin, one of the unique great ones of the generations before us arose, and explained at length to write specifically with an aleph. And so the majority of the scribes of Raisin have practiced after him until this day. And his primary reason is that "dakah" with a he is a feminine form, like "rakah," "dakah," "levonah zachah." And they also appear thus in the plural form, like "rakot," "dakot." But with an aleph it is a noun, like "and with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit," "You turn man to contrition." And it does not appear in the plural form except with an aleph, like "to revive the heart of the contrite ones." And in "crushed by wounding" it is also a noun (the genius, the pious, our teacher the Rabbi Shneur Zalman, his soul is in Eden).

Nevertheless, it seems in my humble opinion that with a heh it is more appropriate. For when we examine all of Scripture regarding the organs upon which orlah and milah depend, when speaking of the person it is in the masculine form, whether regarding orlat basar or orlat halev, as it is written in Yechezkel: "uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh," "uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh." And in Yirmeyahu: "for all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Yosef are uncircumcised of heart." And in the Admonition it is said: "their uncircumcised heart." However, when speaking of the organ alone, it is in the feminine form: "And you shall circumcise the orlah of your heart." And in Yehoshua: "and he circumcised the children of Israel at the Hill of the Aralot." And in Yirmeyahu: "behold, their ear is an orlah," "upon all who are circumcised with an orlah." And it is not written "uncircumcised of their ear" or "upon all who are circumcised with an arel." And behold, in this verse of "patzua daka" it is written "u-khrot shafkha," and "shafkha" is a feminine form. Therefore, "daka" is also a feminine form, as it does not refer to the person but rather to the organ, when the organ is wounded or crushed or poured out.

There are words that the scribes are accustomed to write on one line, even though they are two words, and these are they: "Tuval Kayin," "Beit El," "u-Malki Tzedek," "Beer Sheva," "Ben Oni," "Baal Hanan," "Tzafnat Paneach," "Poti Phera," "Et Vahev," "Mishumo El," "ve-charah af," "ve-charah api." And all this is ab initio. But if he wrote them on two lines—it does not invalidate. However, "Khedorlaomer" is one word even ex post facto, and it invalidates. And regarding "Kes Yah," there is a dispute in Pesachim (Pesachim 117a) whether they are one word or two words, see there. And the decision is that they are two words, because in the Masorah this is counted among the verses that have five words of two letters each: "Ki yad al kes Yah." And even though in the Gemara there the majority of opinions are that it is one word, and they brought that this is a dispute between the Easterners and the Westerners, see there in Minchat Shai. Therefore, one should be careful to write them on one line. And if he wrote them on two lines—there are those who validate it ex post facto, and there are those who require them to be corrected. And how shall they correct it, since the name Y-H cannot be erased? He should erase the word "Kes" which is at the end of the line, and extend the lamed of "al" until the end of the line, and the word "Kes" he should write at the beginning of the second line outside the margins. And even though one may not write a complete word outside the margin, as I wrote in siman 273, nevertheless, where there is no alternative—it is fine. Furthermore, since according to many they are one word—behold, two letters are permitted outside the margin, as I wrote there. And if they brought it out to read, and it has not yet been corrected—it is permitted to read from it (so it appears in my humble opinion).

And in Masechet Soferim chapter five (halacha 10) it is stated: These are the names that are divided: "Beit El", "Beit Aven", "Beer Sheva", "Tzafnat Paneach", "Poti Phera", "Ben Oni", "Yedid Yah", "Hallelu Yah", "Vechara Af", "Vechara Api". Rabbi Yose says: They are not divided. But all agree that they do not divide "Amiel", "Amminadab", "Zuriel", "Zurishaddai". These are the names that are not divided: "Israel", "Gatam", "Potiphar", "Nebuchadnezzar", "Zuriel", "Zurishaddai". Thus far his words, and this is as I have written.