Siman 276

It has already been explained in siman 274 that at the beginning of the Torah one must say that he is writing for the sake of the sanctity of a sefer Torah—and nevertheless, this does not avail for the sanctity of the Name. For when he reaches any of the Names that may not be erased—he is obligated to sanctify each and every Name, by saying: "Behold, I am writing for the sake of the sanctity of the Name." For this is above the sanctity of the general sefer Torah. And in the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch it is explained that he must say with his mouth that he is writing for the sake of the sanctity of the Name. But the Tur wrote, and this is his wording: Even though he says at the beginning of the writing of the book that he is writing it for the sake of the sanctity of a sefer Torah, every time he writes a Name—he must think that he is writing for the sake of the sanctity of the Name. And if he did not do so—it is invalid. Thus far his words. This implies explicitly that he holds that since at the beginning of the book he spoke with his mouth—it is sufficient for the Name with thought even ab initio (Taz, subsection 1). And some say that he did not speak precisely (see Beit Yosef and Bach). However, the primary ruling follows the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch, but ex post facto it is valid with thought alone (Taz and Shach and Bach).

And know that from the language of our teachers it is clarified that for each and every name—one is obligated to sanctify, and at the very least in thought one should not rely on one for the other. And one should not ask regarding this from what we wrote at the beginning of siman 274 in the name of the Smag, that he should say at the start of the writing: "And all the mentions of the Name therein are for the sake of the sanctity of the Name" and it will be effective, perhaps he will forget to sanctify some name in its place, see there. And how would it be effective? For do we not require the sanctification of each name individually? For it is different there, since he says "and all the mentions"—behold he has sanctified them all, and it is effective ex post facto. However, in any event we learned from there that ex post facto it is effective to sanctify the mention of the Name even not at the time of its writing, and even a long time beforehand, for there it is effective when he sanctifies before the start of the writing of the Torah. And according to this, if he sanctified one name at the time of writing, and said "and I sanctify all the names that come after it"—it is also effective ex post facto, for what does it matter to me if he says this at the start of the writing or at the time of the writing of the name? And all this is ex post facto. But ab initio he should sanctify each name in its place (so it appears to me regarding these laws).

If one wrote the Name and did not sanctify it—it does not avail to pass the quill over it for its sake (Shach, subsection 2), for writing atop writing does not avail. And even though in Gittin (Gittin 20a) it is explained that the reason is because we require "This is my God and I will glorify Him," see there, and we find in several places that on account of "and I will glorify Him" it is not disqualified—this is not a general rule, for behold, there (Gittin 54b) it is proven explicitly that it is a complete disqualification. And so it is proven in Shabbat (Shabbat 104b), see there. And what is its remedy? We learned in Masekhet Soferim (Chapter 5, Halakha 3): If one needed to write the Name and wrote "Yehuda," and did not place a dalet in it—he erases it and writes the Name. Thus far his words. Consequently, a Name that was written without sanctity—one is permitted to erase it, and this is not considered erasing the Name. And more will be explained regarding this in section 25, that specifically for the purpose of correction is it permitted to erase it, see there.

There is one who wishes to say that only the Name of Havayah requires the sanctification of the Name. His words were rejected, for all Names that may not be erased, if one did not sanctify them—it is invalid (see Pitchei Teshuva subsection 2). This is also clarified from the Yerushalmi, and thus ruled our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch. This is the primary ruling. And know that some say even if one only sanctified the last letter of the Name, such as if he wrote two or three letters of the Name and forgot to sanctify them, and remembered at the last letter and sanctified it—it is valid, for its sanctification and its completion come as one. Furthermore: the primary sanctification is at the completion of the Name, for as long as it is not completed—it is not holy. It follows that the primary sanctification is at its finishing. This is specifically when he only forgot to sanctify it at its beginning, but his intention was for the writing of a Name and not for the sake of another word. But if his intention was for another word, such as if he imagined he had to write "Yehudah," and when he wrote the first three letters he remembered that it is the Name of Havayah, and wrote the final Heh for the sake of holiness—it is of no avail; since he intended for the sake of another word—he uprooted from them the sanctification of the Name (the Leket HaKemach and the Bnei Yona and the Melekhet HaShamayim and the Zivchei Tzedek). And all the more so if he finished the Name without intention, and remembered during the additions to the Name from behind it, such as "Eloheinu," "Elohekha," and the like, where he remembered during the Nun or the Khaf—it is of no avail at all. For since the essence of the Name was written without holiness, of what avail are the additions (Beit Aharon)?

And there are some of the great authorities who questioned this entirely, and they hold that even if one wrote the first letter of the Name without intention—it is no longer effective, for the intention is a requirement for every letter (Ikrei HaDat and Melechet HaKodesh). And it appears in my humble opinion that the primary view is like the first opinion. And the proof is from that which we say in Masechet Soferim (chapter five, halacha 2): If one intended to write the Name and wrote "Yehudah"—he makes the dalet into a heh, and erases the final heh. See there, and it is brought in the Shulchan Aruch at the end of this siman (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 276). And behold, it is certain that when he erred in writing a dalet in place of a heh—behold, he performed an action, and it is more severe than speech or thought. And the dalet certainly was not sanctified. And perforce one must say that when he afterwards made the left leg in the dalet and sanctified it—the two other sides were also sanctified. And all the more so when he wrote it according to its law, that the final letter sanctifies all the letters, and its end proves its beginning, and we say: the matter is revealed retroactively that they were sanctified with the sanctity of the Name. And see in section 32.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 276:2): If one wrote the "name of other gods" for the sake of holiness—it is not disqualified, for it is like one who consecrates blemished animals for the altar, which do not become holy. Thus far his words. That is to say, it is not disqualified in the sense that we would say since he consecrated it, it is forbidden to erase it, which would be a complete disqualification and require removing the parchment sheet. For it is not so, as it is impossible for holiness to take effect upon it, just as it is impossible to sacrifice blemished animals upon the altar. And this is worse than an erroneous consecration; on the contrary, one is obligated to erase it, for the matter is unsightly to leave it thus, as is understood. And it is obvious that this refers to one who did this inadvertently, for had he done so intentionally—he is a heretic, and all of his writing is disqualified by law. And behold, it is certainly true that even if he consecrated another word for the sake of the holiness of the Name—he is likewise permitted to erase it, for an erroneous consecration is not a consecration. And it is not specifically "other gods," rather it is impossible for the scribe to err in this; since it is another word, how could he err to consecrate it with the holiness of the Name? But with "other gods" or "another god" or "a foreign god"—he could err, imagining that this is a holy Name. But for the law, there is no practical difference. And the general rule is that whenever one consecrates with the holiness of the Name a word that is not the Name—the holiness does not take effect, and it is permitted to erase it.

And there is reason to doubt in a place where "Elokim" means a judge, such as in Mishpatim: "the master of the house shall be brought to the Elokim," and he erred and sanctified it with the sanctity of the Name, whether it is permitted to erase it or not? And if you find grounds to say that it is permitted to erase it, is he obligated to erase it or not? And it appears in my humble opinion that it is permitted to erase it, but he is not obligated to erase it. For the reason for the permission is like one who consecrates a female for an olah or for an asham or for a pesach, for this sanctity does not take effect upon it since it is not fit for this, as is explained in Temurah (Temurah 18b). And even though it is sanctified for its value, this is because that sanctity can exist, as is explained there. But here this is not applicable, obviously. And he is not obligated to erase it, for there is no disgrace in this as there is with "other gods," obviously. And since the sanctity of the Name did not take effect upon it, it follows that the Sefer Torah is kosher. And I saw several opinions of great authorities on this (see the book Mishnat Avraham, siman 21, section 55, who brought several opinions on this). And in my humble opinion it is clear as I have written, and so one should instruct.

If he was writing the Name, even if a great man greets him – he should not respond to him before he has finished the Name. And in the Rambam, chapter one, law 15, it is explained that the reason is because of "lishmah." We have already explained this at the beginning of siman 274, see there, for according to this reason, the law is the same for all words. However, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch hold that this is because of the honor of the Name, as I wrote there. Nevertheless, if he did respond – it is not disqualified by this. (Beit Yosef and Shach, subsection 4). And if he was writing two Names one after the other – it is permitted to interrupt between them, and when he returns to write the second Name – he must return and say that he is writing it for the sake of the sanctity of the Name, for ab initio one must sanctify it immediately prior to its writing. However, ex post facto it is not a hindrance, as I wrote in section 2. (That which the Shach there elaborated to prove, that what we learned in Masekhet Soferim chapter two, that if he interrupted in the middle of the Name it is disqualified, the intention is that he left a space in the middle of the word, and it does not refer to the interruption – he did not need to elaborate. For it is necessarily so, as this law is also found in Masekhet Soferim chapter five, law 6, exactly like the wording of the Shulchan Aruch, see there. And perforce that which is in chapter two is a different law. And see Beit Yosef and Bach. And examine and you will find it simple.)

When one dips the quill to write the Name—he should not begin writing the Name immediately, lest there be an excess of ink upon it and the script will not emerge straight, and also it is a disgrace to a letter of the Name if the ink should fall upon it. Rather, he should intend to leave one letter unwritten before the Name, and with that letter he shall begin to write. And if he did not do so—he should search for a letter that requires ink and fill it, and write the Name afterward. And he should not write a common letter beforehand, since the ink in the quill has been sanctified—it is forbidden to write a mundane letter with it. However, a letter of a Sefer Torah is permitted, even though it was filled for the sake of the sanctity of the Name; nevertheless, in this matter, it is not considered a reduction in sanctity. Therefore, it seems to me that he is permitted to write one letter beforehand, even if not in a Sefer Torah but in tefillin and mezuzot. Although the sanctity of a Sefer Torah is above them, nevertheless they are also holy, and this is not considered a reduction regarding the dipping of the quill.

If one wrote the Names with ink and threw ground gold upon them in order to beautify them—it is pasul, for the writing of the gold nullifies the writing of the ink. And the law is the same for all words, they are pasul as I wrote in siman 271, except that for all other words there is a remedy through scraping, which is not the case with the Name as it would be erasing the Name (Shach subsection 6). Furthermore, it appears to me that for all other words one does not need erasing, for he can write with ink over the gold. And even though writing upon writing is not effective, as I wrote in section 3, these words apply to the first writing. However, when the first was kosher and he spoiled it with the second writing—he can repair it with a third writing. But regarding the Name, it is impossible because of erasing. Furthermore: regarding other words, there is no one who would conceive of doing so, but regarding the Names, we find among those who are not Torah scholars—they wished to honor the Name in this manner, as it is brought in Masechet Soferim chapter one, halacha 9, see there.

If one erred and skipped a word or more – he may suspend it between the lines in the place where it was omitted. However, not in the space between column and column, for since this place is not a place of writing – it is not joined, except for two letters or a minority of a word, as I wrote in siman 273. And behold, even a complete word of two letters we did not permit there. And even though we explained there that post facto it does not invalidate – that is in the continuation of the writing and they are as one, which is not the case with an omission from the middle of the line, where this word's place is not here but rather we join it – it is obvious that it is not joined. And so it is explained in Masechet Soferim chapter five (halacha 8) which says: One who errs regarding a line – he may only suspend it opposite the lines. Thus far his words. And it appears to me that if the omission was one word at the end of a line – that he may write it in its place after the line between column and column. For this is like the post facto case explained in siman 273 that it is kosher even with a complete word. And the poskim did not explain this because it is simple, and we shall learn it from what I wrote there that post facto it is kosher (it appears to me).

And it is not specifically one word that he may suspend between the lines, but even several words and more than this. The Tashbetz wrote (Part One, siman 176, cited in the Bedek HaBayit) that even if he omitted an entire verse—he may suspend it between the lines, for one should not distinguish between a large omission and a small omission. And even if this line will not suffice for the omission—he may complete it also between the line beneath it and the third, and even though the reading will not be in order, as he will need to return after reading the omission to the line above it, nevertheless we have no concern regarding it because everyone sees that this is due to the omission, as the script is small and written between the lines, see there. And he brought proof from the Yerushalmi of the first chapter of Megillah, which says: If he erred and omitted one verse, if he has two or three lines—he repairs it and reads from it. Four—he does not read from it. See there. And that which is forbidden with four, it must be said that it is because it appears spotted. For so it is also stated there regarding a Sefer Torah that has three errors on every column—he repairs it, four—he does not repair it, see there.

In my humble opinion, this law requires further investigation. For it is certainly true that if one writes the second line before the first, it is invalid; for while we do not require writing in order in a sefer torah—this refers to the continuity of the writing, in that one can correct it even after the writing. But it is a simple matter that it must be as it was given from Sinai, and how is it possible that because he erred and skipped, we should permit the reversal of order? And regarding the Yerushalmi, one can say that this is its explanation: if he has space for two or three lines, meaning that with fine script he can write two or three lines between one line and another—he corrects it. But not four, because it appears spotted. And one can also explain it according to its plain meaning, such as where he can erase what was written afterward if there is no Name there. And regarding this it says that if the verse will not extend longer than three lines—he corrects it. That is, he erases three lines and writes in small script both what was missing and what he erased. And four lines would be as if spotted and is invalid.

And I have a proof for this from Masekhet Soferim, chapter five (halacha 8), which says: One who skips a line etc. scrapes one and writes two, or two and writes three, provided that he does not scrape three. Thus far his words. And this is its explanation: When he skipped an entire line – he scrapes one line and writes in its place two lines in small script, or erases two lines and writes in their place three lines. But he shall not erase three to write in their place four lines, because it appears spotted. And if so, also in the Yerushalmi its explanation is so: If he has two and three lines, meaning if it will suffice that he erases two lines to write in their place three lines – it is permitted to repair it. But four, meaning to erase three lines to write in their place four lines – it is forbidden to repair it for the reason that it appears spotted. And also in the Shulchan Aruch and Acharonim this law was not brought. Therefore, in practice it requires further study if one may rely on this. And see at the end of siman 279.

If he forgot to write the Name – he suspends it between the lines like other words. In what case does this apply? When he forgot all of it. But if he forgot part of the Name – he may not suspend part of it between the lines. Thus ruled the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch section 6 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 276:6) and above in siman 273 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 273). And thus ruled the Rif and the Rambam in the first chapter (Rambam, Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah, and Sefer Torah 1). And he wrote explicitly that suspending part of it is invalid post facto, and the opinion of the Tur is also thus (Taz subsection 4). There is one who wishes to say that the Tur holds that it does not invalidate post facto (Bach), but it is not compelling. And the primary ruling is that it is invalid even post facto. And even though that which was ruled as the halacha in the Gemara Menachot (Menachot 30b) like Rabbi Shimon Shezuri—who holds thus, that the entire Name may be suspended but part of it may not be suspended—it is proven in Chullin (Chullin 75b) that we do not hold accordingly, see there. Nevertheless, for another reason we hold accordingly, for this matter of suspending the Name, Rabbi Yose holds thus in Menachot there, and we hold like Rabbi Yose against Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda who do not hold thus, as is explained in Eruvin (Eruvin 46b). And also Rabbi Yose's reasoning is with him (end of the sixth chapter of Gittin). And also regarding the fact that part of it may not be suspended – it is necessary to say so, for the other Tannaim forbid even suspending all of it. And regarding Rabbi Yose, we do not find that he permits part of it. (And with this, the difficulty of the Shach subsection 7 is settled. And in Masechet Soferim chapter 5 halacha 4, one must emend the text like in our Talmud. And thus the Gra emended, see there. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

And one should be in doubt regarding the reason that one may not suspend part of the Name: whether the reason is because the writing of the Name must be in their order. For due to this reason one may not suspend in tefillin and mezuzot, as it is stated in the Yerushalmi Megillah there: One may suspend in scrolls but one may not suspend in tefillin and mezuzot. And all our teachers explained that this is because they must be in their order, and here too regarding Names it is so, as several of the poskim wrote, that in the writing of the Names they must be in their order just as in tefillin and mezuzot. And according to this, one may not suspend part of it when he forgot the first letters of the Name. But when he forgot the last letter or the last two letters – one may suspend, for behold now it is in their order, as is understood. Or whether there is another reason for this, because it is a disgrace to the Name to suspend part of it, when the entire Name is not written in one sequence. And according to this, in any case it is forbidden to suspend part of it. And so it is implied from the poskim, who did not make a distinction in this.

And in truth, I do not know what is commonly said by the scribes, that the Name must specifically be written in order. And there are some of the great authorities who wrote thus (see Pitchei Teshuva small subsection 20 in the name of Givat Shaul, and the questioner in Noda BiYehuda siman 76). From where do we have this to say so? For it is well understood regarding tefillin and mezuzot that we say in the Mechilta at the end of "Bo" that if one wrote them not in order they must be hidden away, for "and they shall be" — they shall remain in their established state, and as is explained in Orach Chaim siman 32, see there. And they explain that this also refers to the writing of the letters, as the Mordechai wrote, see there. And therefore they said in the Yerushalmi that one may not suspend letters in tefillin and mezuzot. But regarding Names, from where do we have this? And that which they said that for a partial Name one may not suspend — certainly it is not because of this, for if so, it should have said for the first part one may not suspend, as I have written. Furthermore: for behold, several Tannaim hold that even for the whole Name one may not suspend, and according to the Yerushalmi there, we hold thus. And there are also those who hold that one may not write the Name upon a place of erasure or upon a place of scraping, and is this also because of it not being in order? Rather, it is because it is not the honor of the Name to do so. And if so, here too regarding a part of it. And also in the famous earlier and later authorities, I have not found this law. Therefore, in practice, in my humble opinion, it requires great study, and see in section 31.

And there are some of our teachers who hold that one may not suspend even the entire Name, and it is better to erase the preceding word and write the Name over it. And the erased word he shall write between the lines, for suspension is a greater disgrace to the Name than writing it over an erased place. And so wrote the Tur in the name of Sefer HaTerumah, and this is his wording: And in Sefer HaTerumah it is written that initially one does not suspend the Name. Rather, if he erred and omitted it – he shall scrape away one word that precedes it, and write the Name upon the scraping, and suspend the word that he erased. Unless he erred and omitted two mundane words along with it – then he may suspend it with two mundane words. But ex post facto, if he suspended it alone – it is kosher. Thus far his words. And this is the approach of the Yerushalmi in Megillah ibid. And I wonder at what he wrote, "two mundane words," for in the Yerushalmi it says, for example, "I am Hashem your G-d," which is two Names and one mundane word, see there. It follows that even with one mundane word it is permitted. And in the Yerushalmi it is a question even regarding three Names one after the other, see there. And the reason is that when there are three words together in suspension – there is not such a disgrace in this.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, did not bring this opinion at all, but rather ruled anonymously like the Rif and the Rambam that it is permitted to suspend the entire Name. Nevertheless, they alluded to this, as they wrote after this law: It is permitted to write the Name upon a place of scraping or upon a place of erasure. Thus far their words. And "erasure" refers to that which was erased while it was still wet. And "scraping" is that which was scraped when it had dried. And it is preferable to erasure, for scraping is not as noticeable as erasure. And their intention is that it is better to scrape or to erase and write the Name in their place, rather than writing it suspended between the lines. And so wrote the great authorities, that when one can rectify by means of scraping and erasure—one should not rectify by means of suspension (Shach, subsection 8), and so the scribes have practiced (ibid.). And know that there is no difference in all the laws of suspension and erasure between a Sefer Torah and other books of Tanakh, and it is simple (ibid., subsection 10).

It is necessary that all the letters of the Name be within the page and not outside the page, meaning outside the column. And even though regarding other words we permitted in siman 273 for a minority of the word to be outside the column, nevertheless regarding the Name, even one letter is forbidden. And behold, above in siman 273, section 18, we were in doubt regarding this, whether it is a formal requirement even post facto. And I found that they wrote that the Rambam in a responsum (siman 89) wrote that even post facto it is invalid, and the entire parchment is replaced. And perhaps this is because of the reason we wrote there, see there. However, it is a great wonder: for if so, why did the Rambam not count it among the invalidations in the tenth chapter (Rambam, Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah, and Sefer Torah 10)? And there are some of the great authorities for whom it is obvious that it is valid post facto, and there are those who wrote that it is invalid, and there are those who are in doubt regarding this (see Pitchei Teshuvah, subsection 7). However, this is a clear proof from the fact that the Rambam did not count it among the invalidations. And the responsum attributed to him, "Mar bar Rav Ashi is not signed upon it." Furthermore, all the great poskim, had they held that it is invalid even post facto, they would not have remained silent about this. Therefore, it appears in my humble opinion to validate it post facto. And know that in all this there is no difference between the Name of Havayah and other Names, nor between a Sefer Torah and other books. And also regarding the letters appended to the Name from behind it which we treat as the Name—it is forbidden to bring even one letter outside the column. And there are scribes who are careful not to write the Name at the end of the page, as this is not respectful to the Name. And it is a beautiful custom and merely a stringency (Taz, subsection 5). And there are some scribes who afterwards make lines of ink, so that there will be something else after the Name. And Heaven forbid to do so, and one must prevent them from this (ibid.). But at the end of a line there is no concern at all. And there are those who diminish the letters because of this so that the Name will not be at the end of a line, and one must prevent them from this (Shach, subsection 11).

Seven names that may not be erased, and these are they: Havayah, Adonai, El, Elo-ah, Elohim, Shaddai, Tzevaot. And some say in place of El: "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh," meaning: both the first "Ehyeh" and the last. For this is not like "Lord of lords" or like "God of gods," where the second is mundane (the Gra, subsection 2). And so is the primary ruling, that "Ehyeh" is among the names that may not be erased (ibid.). And the same law applies to Yah, it may not be erased, and it is included in the name Havayah. And according to this, one should not count Elo-ah, as it is included in "Elohim." However, the name Aleph-Lamed is not included in "Elohim," as it is a word unto itself in other places as well, as it is written: "It is in the power (el) of my hand." And it is an expression of power and strength, and therefore it is counted unto itself (ibid.).

And we maintain that it is forbidden to erase even one letter from these names that are not to be erased. And so we have learned in the Sifrei, Parshat Re'eh: One who erases a single letter from the Name violates a negative commandment. Rabbi Ishmael said: Therefore it is stated, "And you shall destroy their name etc. You shall not do so to Hashem your G-d." See there. And we maintain in Shevuot (Shevuot 35a) that letters attached to the Name from before them, such as the "Heh" of "L'Hashem," the "Beit" of "B'Hashem," the "Kaf" of "K'Hashem," and those similar to them—are not sanctified with the sanctity of the Name. However, those attached from behind them, like "Elokecha," "Elokenu," and those similar to them—are sanctified with the sanctity of the Name. For since the Name has already been sanctified, those attached afterward are also caught up in their sanctity, and it is forbidden to erase them, and all the laws of the sanctity of the Name apply to them. And there is one who permits them regarding hanging between the lines, such as if he forgot the "Kaf-Mem" of "Elokechem" or the "Nun-Vav" of "Elokenu"—he may hang them (Taz, subsection 6). And in any event, post facto it certainly does not invalidate (ibid.). And the Rambam wrote in the sixth chapter of Yesodei HaTorah that erasure of the attached letters is only by rabbinic decree, see there. (The Yere'im forbids even those before them, but such is not the opinion of all the poskim.)

But other descriptive titles with which we praise the Holy One, Blessed be He, such as "Gracious and Merciful," "the Great, the Mighty, and the Awesome," "the Faithful," "Jealous," and "Strong," and the like—behold, they are like other holy writings, and it is permitted to erase them. And the Rambam wrote there: If one wrote Aleph-Lamed from "Elokim," or Yod-Heh from the Tetragrammaton—it may not be erased. And it is unnecessary to mention Yod-Heh which is a name unto itself, because this name is a part of the Explicit Name. But one who writes Shin-Dalet from "Shaddai," or Tzadi-Beit from "Tzevaot"—behold, this may be erased. Thus far his words. And the Ra'avad wrote regarding this, and this is his wording: This is nothing, for they only said this regarding A"L (so it must be said) from "Elokim" and Y"K from the Tetragrammaton. But Sh' and D' from "Shaddai" and Tz"B from "Tzevaot"—behold, these are erased. Thus far his words. And the commentators wondered: for the Rambam also ruled accordingly. And in my humble opinion, his intention is as follows: that the Rambam wrote Aleph-Lamed in its fullness, and likewise Yod-Heh. And to this he says that in such a case even with these it is permitted to erase them, rather the intention is when they are not in their fullness, A"L Y"K.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 10 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 276:10): Similarly, Aleph-Dalet from "Adonai" or Aleph-Heh from "Ehyeh" may be erased. And there are those who are stringent in this. Thus far his words. And this is the opinion of the Tosafot in Shevuot there, that even though this is not a name in its own right – they did not act leniently in this, because it is from the Unique Name. And they wrote this only regarding Aleph-Dalet, see there. And our teacher, the Rema, inferred from this also regarding Aleph-Heh, because "Ehyeh" is also thus, meaning from the Unique Names, as is known to the scholars of truth that these three names, Havayah and "Adonai" and "Ehyeh," are the primary Unique Names, and they include from the beginning of levels until the end of all levels. And it is impossible to elaborate on this. (So it appears to me. And the words of the Taz, sub-section 9, and the words of the Levush require further study. And be precise and you will find it easy.) He further wrote that the name written in prayer books, two yuds and one above them – it is permitted to erase it if it is for a need. Thus far his words. And in our editions it is printed with two yuds, and the law is also thus, as is understood. And it is explained that without a great need one should not erase them (see Shach, sub-section 14). And it appears to me that there is no difference in the law of erasing names between whether it was written in Ashurit script or in other types of scripts, for since it was written in the Holy Tongue for the sake of sanctity – it is holy. And if one wrote the name in other foreign languages, not in the Holy Tongue, the Tashbetz wrote (siman 2) that their law is like kinnuyim, and it is permitted to erase them for a need (and so wrote the Shach in siman 179, sub-section 11). And there is one who is in doubt that perhaps if he wrote in Ashurit script, and wrote it with intent, that one should be stringent (Chavat Yair). And women and the common folk who write the name of Hashem in the German language in letters, although they possess no sanctity, nevertheless there is a prohibition in the matter as they come to disgrace in bathrooms. And you have no disgrace greater than this, and one must prevent them from this. And many great ones cried out about this, and we explained this in Choshen Mishpat siman 27, see there.

A secular name, even if it is written like the holy names, such as "and you shall be like G-d" and the like—it is permitted to erase it. Similarly, a holy name that was not written for the sake of holiness—it is permitted to erase it specifically for the purpose of correction, but to cut it out and hide it away is permitted even not for the purpose of correction. However, if it was written for the sake of holiness—it is forbidden even to cut it out and hide it away for the purpose of correction. Similarly, if many names were written not for their sake in a Sefer Torah—it is forbidden to erase them even though it is for the purpose of correction, because it appears spotted (Shach, subsection 12). And in any place where it is forbidden to cut out or to erase—one hides away the entire parchment. And erasure for the purpose of correction does not involve the prohibition of "you shall not do so etc."

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 13: A vessel that had a Name written upon it – one cuts out the place of the Name and consigns it to the genizah. Thus far his words. And so it is in the Gemara (Shabbat 61b) where we say there: If a Name was written upon the handles of vessels or upon the legs of a bed – behold, one must cut it out and consign it to the genizah. See there, and certainly it was not written for the sake of sanctity, as is understood. And despite all this, they did not permit erasing it, since it is not for the purpose of repair, as I wrote in the previous section. And a silver plate that they hang on the necks of infants that has verses and Names on it, since it was made from the beginning for this purpose – its law is not like a vessel, but rather the whole of it requires genizah, for the whole of it is an accessory to sanctity, and there is no difference who engraved them (Devar Shmuel, siman 332).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that it is forbidden to write a Name ab initio if not in a book, as it may come to be treated with contempt. Therefore, we are careful not to write a Name in a letter. And there are those who are careful even with the word "Shalom" not to complete its writing. Thus far his words. For "Shalom" is a name of the Holy One, blessed be He (Shabbat 10b), even though it is not among the Names that may not be erased. For that which we say there is because we find that the Holy One, blessed be He, is called "Shalom," as it is written: "The Lord is Shalom" – yet there are many appellations for the Creator, may He be blessed: "Merciful and Gracious," etc. Rather, it is because all other appellations may also be applied to a person, but not "Shalom," for man is entirely strife (Maharsha ibid.). Therefore, our sages, of blessed memory, gave importance to this, such that they forbade mentioning "Shalom" in a bathhouse, see there. And for this very reason, it is proper not to write it in its entirety in mundane matters. However, most of the world is not careful in this, and also in the responsa of the Rosh, rule 3, he wrote that it is permitted, see there (Shach, subsection 16). And our teachers, the Tosafists in Sotah (Sotah 10a) say: These are those that may be erased and these are those that may not be erased. And wherever it teaches "these" – we do not say the Tanna taught some and omitted others, as is stated in Taanit (Taanit 14a). Therefore, it requires great study. Nevertheless, since it emerged from the mouths of our teachers, the Tosafists – it is proper to be stringent when there is no great need for it.

And one of the great authorities wrote that the caution regarding "Shalom" applies only to a greeting of peace, such as when one blesses him with peace or offers him peace, for the intention is from the Name of the Blessed One who is the Master of Peace, similar to the matter where Boaz said to the harvesters: "Hashem be with you." However, if one writes that there is peace in the city or between so-and-so and so-and-so and the like, which is a mere narrative of events that contains no holiness—it is permitted to write it in its entirety. And for this reason, it is permitted to say and to write "Emet," even though it is the seal of the Holy One, Blessed be He (Pitchei Teshuva, small subsection 28, in the name of the Radbaz). And according to this, all the more so for a man whose name is "Shalom," it is permitted to write his name in its entirety and to call him by his name in the bathhouse. And these are words of reason, and so one should conduct himself. And know that what they write in letters in place of the Name "Hashem," or "with the help of Hashem" or "if Hashem wills"—there is no holiness in this at all. However, for a degrading use it is certainly forbidden, since there is in this an intention toward Heaven. Therefore, they should be careful to burn such letters.

There are some among the great authorities who complain about the custom of drawing a menorah on parchment or paper, and writing upon them the verse "I have set Hashem before me always" and other verses, and in the end they are cast away in disgrace (Tevu'ot Shor). And similarly those who write verses and Names on the walls of synagogues, and afterwards when they become old and dust falls upon them—they come to be erased. And they should exert effort to prevent the masses from doing such things, and they should teach them that they are committing a transgression and not a mitzvah. And similarly upon the holy ark, not to write verses. And all the more so to make the year's date from Names, and similarly to embroider verses on a parokhet and a kapporet and Torah scroll mantles—one should prevent and warn not to do so. And all the more so the embroidery of verses on kerchiefs, which one must not do, and all the more so on silver cups. And there are those who forbid drinking from them if any Name of the holy Names is engraved upon it. (See Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 25 and subsection 26 from the responsa of Panim Me'irot and Noda BiYehudah.)

We learned in Masekhet Soferim (chapter five, halacha 7): One who erases a single letter from the Name—transgresses a negative commandment, etc. However, ink that dripped onto the writing—it is permitted to erase it, as his intention was only to correct. Thus far his words. And we learned from this that erasing in order to correct—is permitted. Therefore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 11 (Shulchan Arukh Yoreh Deah 276:11): If a letter adhered to its fellow in the letters of the Name—he should scrape it. Thus far his words. Since it is in order to correct it. And it seems to me that there is no difference whether he scrapes this while it is wet or while it is dry, for anything in order to correct—is permitted. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote: The Heh of the Name whose leg touches its roof, if it touches substantially until it appears like a Chet—it is permitted to erase or to scrape the leg and correct it. But if it touches only slightly—there is a doubt in the matter if it is permitted. Thus far his words. That is to say: that when it touches substantially—behold, the Name was not written properly, and there is no prohibition of erasing it. But when it touches slightly, there is a doubt lest it is proper and there is a prohibition of erasing it, or perhaps there is no issue of erasing in this touching. And when he scrapes the leg—he should scrape it from bottom to top. For conversely, as soon as he scrapes a little—it will have the form of a Heh upon it, as is understood (Rema MiPano, siman 37). And even though such a Heh is invalid, for the leg would be "chak tochot," nevertheless, it is not fitting to scrape while the form of the Name of Havayah is upon it in its entirety. And it is obvious that to leave it so—is invalid, because of "chak tochot" (it seems to me). And see what I wrote at the end of this siman.

And know that from the words of our teacher, the Rema, which we brought, it is clear that it is not necessary to write the Name of Havayah in their order, as I wrote in section 17. For behold, our teacher, the Rema, validates erasing and scraping the leg and fixing it, and behold, when he fixes it, it will be not in their order. And those who invalidate not in their order say that it refers to the final Heh of the Name of Havayah and not to the first Heh. And these are nothing but words of prophecy, and in any such case he should have specified. And his pure wording is always precise, and he would not place a stumbling block before the studious. And there is one who holds that regarding the Name of Havayah we require in their order, for so it is implied from the Zohar, but not regarding other names (Eliyah Rabbah in Orach Chaim siman 32). And it is clear that according to the law there is no invalidation even in the Name of Havayah, and so it is implied from the words of several giants of the world. (The Magen Avraham in siman 32 subsection 27 validates a printed Sefer Torah. And he was not concerned lest the second letter of the Name of Havayah be preceded by the first letter, as he was concerned there regarding tefillin and mezuzot. And so the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger here in his novellae, his opinion tends toward validating. And regarding other names he validates simply, and he brought the tractate Kanfei Yonah to validate even in the Name of Havayah. And the Zohar spoke of the ideal case, for certainly according to the mystical intentions of the Name of Havayah it is obvious that what comes first comes first. But after the fact, one should not invalidate a Sefer Torah on the grounds of not in their order regarding the names. So it appears to my humble opinion.)

One who writes "Yehuda" and did not place a dalet in it—he shall suspend the dalet above between the lines. And if he was supposed to write the Name and sanctified it, but erred in his writing by writing "Yehuda"—he makes a heh from the dalet and erases the final heh, for he did not sanctify the final heh (Levush). And even if he did sanctify it—it is not sanctified, since the dalet was written first (the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger). And he may erase the heh even before the correction of the dalet (Rema"f), because there is no sanctity at all in the heh. And see above, section 5.

It has already been explained that that which is secondary to the Name from behind it is also holy, and by rabbinic decree it is forbidden to erase it. However, to suspend it between the lines is permitted. And there is a dispute regarding the yod of "Elokei HaShamayim," whether it is from the root or whether it is from the secondary additions. And it appears primary that it is from the root (Taz subsection 7). And specifically "Elokei" with a tzeirei, but "Elokei" with a patach—it is certainly a prefix (ibid.). And according to this, if one wrote "Elokeinu" or "Elokeichem" and erred and omitted the yod, one great authority ruled that the nun-vav and the chaf-mem are not holy. For since the essence of the Name was written in error, how can the secondary additions become holy (ibid. in the name of Ma'aseh Rokeach)? And there is one who disagrees in this, and holds that since the name Aleph-Lamed-Heh even without a yod is a holy Name, if so, even without a yod the secondary additions are sanctified (Taz ibid.). And it appears primary like the first opinion, for Aleph-Lamed-Heh is read with a patach, but "Elokeichem" or "Elokeinu" which is with a tzeirei—it has no meaning at all without a yod (Avodat HaGershuni siman 95). And if one erred in the letters secondary to the Name, such as if he was supposed to write "Elokecha" and wrote "Elokeinu," or if he was supposed to write "Elokim" and wrote "Elokecha" and similar to this—they have no holiness, for since their holiness is only because they are secondary to the Name—if so, when they are in error they were not secondary at all (so it appears in my humble opinion, and so it is implied from the responsa Pnei Aryeh cited in Pitchei Teshuva subsection 13). And if he forgot the yod in "Elokim" and wrote Aleph-Lamed-Heh-Mem—he should erase the mem, for behold it has no holiness at all, and write yod-mem, and so too anything similar to this.

If one erred and wrote "Elokeichem" instead of "Elokeihem" or vice versa, there are some among the great authorities who forbade peeling off the kaf or the hei, on the grounds that he removes them from their sanctity; for when they are next to the Name they are holy, and upon their removal from there—they are removed from their sanctity (Noda BiYehudah siman 76). However, according to what I wrote in the previous section, the adjuncts were not sanctified at all when they were written in error, and I have likewise found great authorities who ruled so in practice (Chatam Sofer siman 260 in the name of the Gaon in Binyan Tzion).

One who needed to write a small name such as Y-K or E-L, and wrote the Havayah or "Elokim," there is one who instructed that it is permitted to erase the Vav-Heh or "-kim." For behold, regarding one who erases in order to correct, there are opinions whether it is permitted or not, and even according to those who forbid it, that is when he does not correct through the erasure itself but rather needs to correct further. But when the correction is effected through this erasure—it is permitted according to everyone (Pitchei Teshuva subsection 9 in the name of M"Ch). However, in my humble opinion, this requires further study, for it is certainly so that if one wrote a specific name entirely by mistake—it is certainly forbidden to erase it, for it should be no less than a name written by itself when it was written for the sake of sanctity, which is forbidden to erase, and if so, this name is no worse than a name written by itself. Therefore, it appears to me that it is forbidden.

And know that in Shabbat (Shabbat 120b) we say that indirect causation in the erasing of the Name is permitted, as it is written: "You shall not do so to Hashem your God" – doing is what is forbidden, but indirect causation is permitted. Therefore, if the Name was written on his flesh, and a mitzvah immersion happened to present itself to him – he descends and immerses even though the Name will be erased, see there. The Rambam brought this in the sixth chapter of Yesodei HaTorah, see there. And I wonder at the Tur and Shulchan Aruch who did not bring this law in any place, and behold, is there anyone who disagrees with this? And it appears to me that the law is with them, for this law is not found except in the aforementioned case, and this matter is not common at all. But in another matter it is not found, for it is certainly to cause the indirect causation, such as to place water near it so that it will pour onto the Name and erase it – it is obvious that it is forbidden, for this itself is complete doing. Therefore, the Gemara also did not depict this law except regarding immersion, as I have written.

And according to this, it is clear to me that in a place where there is an error and it is impossible to erase the Name according to the laws that have been explained – it is also forbidden to cause the erasure through germa. I have written this because I saw a certain great authority who permitted performing germa for the erasure of the Name (see Pitchei Teshuva, small subsection 19, in the name of the B.A.). In my opinion, it is a great prohibition, and Heaven forbid one should do so. I found a certain great authority who addressed the omission of this law by the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, and wrote that it is because we say in Megillah (Megillah 26b): A Sefer Torah that has worn out – they place it in an earthenware vessel, and bury it near a Torah scholar. It will be explained in siman 282. And since they only permitted it in an earthenware vessel so that it should endure for many days, and did not permit it without this, which would cause it to be erased immediately – learn from this that the halacha is not like that of Shabbat, and germa is also forbidden (Noda BiYehuda Tinyana, Orach Chaim section, siman 17 "from his son"). These are puzzling words, for the Rambam ruled both laws, and it is explicitly explained that they do not contradict one another. According to what I have written, there is no difficulty at all. Therefore, without an earthenware vessel – he is performing the germa, and it is forbidden as I have written.

One must be in doubt when ink fell upon the Name and covered it, and it is possible to pour the ink off from it such that the Name will be recognizable as before: whether it is disqualified because this is considered hak tochot as is understood, or perhaps since it was written according to its law – this is only like a covering that was revealed and it is kosher? And there are some of the poskim who disqualified it (Taz in Orach Chaim siman 32 subsection 15, and Beit Shmuel in Even HaEzer siman 125 subsection 11). And there are those from whose words it is explained that specifically when the writing was still moist, or the ink that fell dried as well and requires scraping, then it is like hak tochot. But when the writing dried and the ink that fell is still moist – it is like a mere covering (Levush there, and Magen Avraham subsection 23 who permitted in a case of a drop of wax and he removed it, see there. And what is the difference between this and that?). And so it is implied from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in Orach Chaim there section 17, who wrote: If a drop of ink fell etc. there is no remedy to scrape the ink etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote "to scrape," which is when the ink has dried. And even though in Even HaEzer there he did not mention this wording, he relied there on what he wrote in Orach Chaim there. And according to this, this law requires further study, and it is possible that one who relies on the lenient opinions in a time of pressing need has not lost out. And reason suggests so, for since it is in his hand to pour the ink – the letters were not rejected, as we say in Zevachim: Anything that is in his hand – is not considered rejected, see there. This is not the case when the ink has dried – the letters were completely nullified, and when he scrapes the ink – a new face has come here, and it is literally like hak tochot, and not like when it is still moist. And in practice, one must deliberate on this. And further laws of erasing and scraping were explained in Orach Chaim there. (See Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 18 in the name of the Noda BiYehudah Tinyana, regarding that which was explained that if a letter of the Name was attached to its fellow it is permitted to scrape it, that this is regarding an attachment at the time of writing which is certainly disqualified. But regarding an attachment afterwards – there is a concern because of erasing the Name, see there. And in my humble opinion, since his intention is to repair, and when the letters are separated from each other it is an enhancement – it is permitted. And also regarding what the Rema wrote that if it touches slightly there is a doubt if it is permitted to scrape, as I wrote in section 30, I saw in the name of the Maharal of Prague that it is permitted to erase.)