Siman 279

Our sages, of blessed memory, said in Ketubot (Ketubot 19b) that a sefer Torah that is not corrected—it is forbidden to keep it for more than thirty days. And after this time—one is obligated to repair it. And it is not specifically a sefer Torah, for our sages, of blessed memory, said "a book" without qualification. However, the poskim said "sefer Torah" because in it there is a great ruin, for they recite blessings in vain. But there is a prohibition regarding all books, whether books of Tanakh, or the Talmud and poskim, because through a mistake—it is possible to come to a stumbling block in ruling. And our sages, of blessed memory, said that one who keeps it more than thirty days violates a negative commandment of the words of tradition: "Let not unrighteousness dwell in your tents." And if it is not possible to repair it because of the multitude of mistakes—he shall hide it away. And the early authorities said that one should not correct any book of the books of the Talmud and the poskim based on his own reasoning, for perhaps he will arise and explain a correct explanation according to the old version. And many cried out about this, and said that if a version that is written does not seem correct to a Torah scholar—he should correct it in his commentary, but not inside the book (see the introduction to Sefer HaYashar by our teacher, Rabbenu Tam).

There is one who wished to judge the laws of nullification regarding a sefer Torah as with all other prohibitions. For example, if an invalid sefer Torah was mixed among many valid ones, and it is difficult to identify the invalid one, that we should say it is nullified by the majority, and it is permitted to read from each one (Pitchei Teshuvah in the name of "there are those who say"). And Heaven forbid to say so, for what is the relevance of nullification here? For over the course of time the errors will certainly be found when they read all of them. And regarding a prohibited matter where the prohibition will certainly be revealed—nullification is not applicable. Aside from this, mixture is not applicable here, for they have no connection to one another. Furthermore: regarding a matter where the prohibition can be clarified—even regarding prohibitions there is no nullification. And here it is possible to clarify, by seating proofreaders to read all the sifrei Torah. And some wish to permit it on the grounds of a double doubt: perhaps this is not the invalid one, and if you say this is the invalid one—perhaps the error is not in that specific Chumash (ibid. in the name of the Be'er Lechai Roi, and the Chatam Sofer agreed to this). And this too is not clear: for is it so that if there is no error in that specific Chumash, it is a clear halakhah that it is permitted to read from it? For most poskim do not hold so. Furthermore: from whichever way you look at it: for according to the view that permits, this is not a double doubt but rather a single doubt: a doubt if it is valid or a doubt if it is invalid, for it is all one category. Furthermore: what shall we do if a case occurs where they read from all of them on one Shabbat? For of necessity there are now blessings said in vain. Therefore it seems to my humble opinion clear that it is forbidden to read from any of them, until they seat proofreaders to check all of them. And so one should rule. And "sit and do not act" is preferable, and it is better not to read at all than to enter into the matter of blessings said in vain.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 279:2): If they read from a sefer Torah in public and a mistake was found in it – they bring out another sefer Torah. And he begins from the place where the mistake was found, and they complete the seven [callings] based on those who read in the first one. And if the mistake was found in the middle of the Torah reading – he finishes his reading in the fit sefer. And he recites the blessing after it but does not recite the blessing before it, for the blessing he recited before it over the invalid sefer Torah, and likewise the reading they read in it – are credited to them post facto. Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there is no difference in this whether the mistake was found in the first sefer Torah, or whether the mistake was found in the second one in which they read the obligation of the day for the maftir. Thus far his words. And this refers to a Shabbat on which they bring out two sifrei Torah, for then they read a different matter for maftir, and therefore it has the law of the seven called ones. And so it is on a Yom Tov. But on all the Sabbaths where the maftir reads what the one before him read, if the mistake was found in the seventh – they do not bring out another sefer Torah at all. Rather, the seventh finishes the parashah and recites the blessing after it, and he shall conclude with the haftarah, and the maftir shall not read in the Torah at all. And this is not a hindrance (Magen Avraham in Orach Chaim siman 143, subsection 4, see there).

And just as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote here, he likewise wrote in Orach Chaim siman 143, section 4, see there. And from this language it is implied that what he wrote—"and if the error is found in the middle of the Torah reading, he completes it in a kosher scroll and recites the blessing after it"—there is no distinction between whether he already read three verses in the invalid one or whether he had not yet read three verses. For in any case, he does not recite the final blessing over the invalid one, but rather from that point forward he begins in the valid one. But our teacher, the Rema, wrote there, and this is his wording: And if they already read three verses with him, and it is possible to stop (meaning it is not two verses adjacent to a parashah), they stop there and he recites the blessing after it, and they complete the count in the other sefer Torah that they bring out. Thus far his words. And although the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is not so, nevertheless, since it is not explicitly stated to the contrary, he did not write it in the language of "there are those who say" as is his way. And they wondered about him in vain. (See Taz ibid., and so wrote the Shach here in subsection 3.)

However, many and great authorities disagreed entirely with this ruling, saying how is it possible to read from a kosher sefer Torah without a blessing before it? And it cannot be said that he fulfills his obligation with the blessing he recited over the invalid one—this is not so, since at the time of the blessing he did not intend for this sefer Torah at all. It is like one who recites a blessing over a fruit and did not intend to eat another fruit at all—certainly when he eats the other, he requires another blessing. Therefore, they ruled that he should always recite the final blessing over the invalid one, and afterwards the olim complete the reading in the kosher one, and they recite the blessing before it as well. And it is not only if he already read three verses in the invalid one, but even if he has not yet read three verses, or if he read and it is impossible to stop here, such as if it is two verses from an open or closed parsha—he completes until the parsha in the invalid one. And the error he reads by heart, even if an entire line is missing he reads it by heart (Bach) and recites the blessing after it, and afterwards they complete in the kosher one if the olim have not yet been completed (Bach and Magen Avraham ibid., and the Maharal of Prague). And so we conduct ourselves in all the dispersions of Israel. And there are those who pressed themselves to uphold the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Taz and Shach), but the simple custom is as I have written, and so we do as practical halacha. And know that this is simple: if he recited the blessing before it and they immediately saw the invalidity in the sefer Torah before he began to read—they do not read from it at all, and the blessing is lost. And they take out a kosher sefer Torah and read from it, and they perform a blessing before it as well (Pitchei Teshuva subsection 6 in the name of Chut HaShani).

And one should not ask regarding the essence of this law: How do they fulfill the obligation of reading through what they read in the invalid scroll? Know that in truth the Rosh, the Tur, and the Rashba ruled that they do not fulfill the obligation, and they must read from a valid scroll from the beginning of the parashah. And so it is implied from the Rambam. However, in this we rely on the words of the Rambam in a responsum where he ruled (in siman 19) that one recites the blessing over an invalid Sefer Torah, and that so was the custom of the Geonim of the world (brought in the Beit Yosef). And so wrote the Kol Bo in the name of the Geonim of Narbonne (ibid.). But regarding reading from now on we do not rely on this, only regarding the reading that they already read, because of the burden on the congregation. Furthermore: that this is better than reading from the beginning, and making all the blessings that they blessed previously to be in vain, Heaven forbid. And the halakhah and all the Geonim of the world instruct so. And the laws of missing and extra letters were explained in Orach Chaim there.

And if there is no other sefer Torah, and they have not yet called up seven readers—they may complete the seven readers with the invalid one (Magen Avraham there, subsection 8, in the name of Maharam Lublin, see there). And on Shabbat at Mincha, they shall not complete the three readers, since it was only instituted for the sake of the "market-sitters," as is stated at the end of the chapter "Merubeh" (ibid.). But on Monday and Thursday, they shall complete the three readers. And it appears that for the Maftir on Shabbat, where the Maftir repeats the previous reading—they shall also not read, and the seventh shall be the Maftir (it appears to me).

And all this is when the error is found in the middle of the reading. But a congregation that has only one sefer Torah and it has a disqualification, if they are permitted to take it out and read from it when there is no other—it is understood that according to the responsum of the Rambam and the Geonim of Narbonne, it is permitted. And according to the Rosh and the Tur and most of the poskim, it is forbidden. And the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, in Orach Chaim there tends toward prohibition, as he wrote and this is his wording: And in a time of pressing need when the congregation has only a disqualified sefer Torah, and there is no one there who is able to repair it, some say that one should read from it in the congregation and recite the blessing over it, and some disqualify it. And if one Chumash is complete without error—one may be lenient to read from that Chumash even though there is an error in the others. Thus far his words. Behold, he decided for prohibition except in the case of one complete Chumash, and in it occurs the parashah that they need to read. And so one should instruct.

We say in Menachot (Menachot 29b): A sefer Torah that has three errors on every page—it is permitted to repair it. Four—it is forbidden to repair it. What is the reason? Because it appears spotted. And these words apply to omissions. But regarding additions—we have no concern with it. That is to say: when there are additional letters that require scraping—it is permitted even with many errors on each and every page, for he shall scrape them, and with scraping it does not appear spotted. But with omissions, where one must suspend the omissions between the lines, or scrape the preceding letters and make small letters so that the space will suffice also for this letter—with more than three it appears spotted.

And they said there that if there is one complete column, or only three errors which may be corrected, this column saves the entire scroll. For even if there are four errors in the other columns—it is permitted to correct the entire scroll for the sake of that column. And it says further there: and this is provided that "the majority of the scroll is written well," see there. And it is not understood at all: for even one column saves, so what is this that it says "the majority of the scroll"? And Rashi did not explain anything regarding this. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work explained that this is the explanation: that specifically when the errors in each and every column are not more than the majority of the letters, then one column saves when it does not have four errors. But if the corruption is in the majority of the letters—the complete column does not avail to save it, and it requires genizah. And according to this is the intent of his words in the Shulchan Aruch section 4 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 279:4). And he explained this also in the language of the Rambam and the Tur, see there. (As the Shach wrote in subsection 4, see there and in the Beit Yosef.)

In my humble opinion, these matters are perplexing: for if so, what measure is there for this? For example, if in ten columns most of the letters have errors, and in all the rest of the sefer Torah there are no errors—behold, there is much more than one page that saves them. And since you say that only one page saves them, perforce one must say that aside from this page, most of the letters in the entire sefer Torah are corrupted, and then the page does not save them. And now, if half of the book has no error, and the second half mostly contains errors, and when you combine them in total the majority of the sefer Torah will not be an error, for then one page saves them—behold, there is here much more than one page. And if so, how can you find a case where its minority is error and its majority is valid, and that there should be only one valid page in it? And aside from this, the reasoning is perplexing that when most of the letters of the sefer Torah were written in error, one page should avail to save them.

And also the wording of the Rambam in the seventh chapter, law 12, does not indicate this, and this is the wording of the Rambam: A sefer Torah that has three errors in each and every page—he shall correct it. And if there were four—it shall be hidden away. And if the majority of the book was corrected, and the remainder has four errors in each page, and there remained even one page from that flawed remainder without four errors—behold, this shall be corrected. Thus far his words. And according to the explanation of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, the wording of "and the remainder etc. in each page" does not fit well, as is understood. And in the Tur one must direct his explanation, and this is the wording of the Tur: And this is provided that the majority of the book is correct. But if its majority is flawed—he shall not correct it even if it has one page that is entirely complete. Thus far his words. However, the essence of his explanation is perplexing, as I have written.

Therefore, it appears in my humble opinion that this is the explanation: And that is as it is written, "the majority of the book is fine." That is to say: that the majority of the pages of the sefer Torah have no errors at all. Therefore, he used the language "fine" and not "complete" as regarding a single page, for there it is permitted even with three errors as I have written. But regarding its majority, we require it to be entirely and properly proofread, for example, if there are one hundred pages in the entire sefer Torah – it is necessary that a total of fifty-one of them have no corruption at all. And regarding the total of forty-nine, one page is required that does not have four errors, for then even if in the remaining forty-eight there are four errors or more – it is permitted to repair them. And this is what the Rambam wrote: "the majority of the book is proofread." That is to say: the majority of the pages of the book are entirely proofread, and the rest is the minority of the book in pages. And the intention of the Tur is also thus. And so shall the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in the Shulchan Aruch be interpreted, which is like the wording of the Rambam, see there. (And in the Yerushalmi, the first chapter of Megillah, this conclusion that he wrote "its majority" etc. is not present; it only asks there from a Baraita that with more than eighty-five errors one may not repair. And it answers: here is regarding a large book, here is regarding a small one, see there. And in our Talmud, this number is taught regarding another matter at the beginning of the chapter "Kol Kitvei," see there. And the halacha is like our Talmud. Examine and you will find it easy.)

It has already been explained that regarding additions—we are not concerned with them, because one can scrape them away. However, when he scrapes—he should slightly widen the letter before it and the letter after it, so that the place of the scraping does not become a break in the word. And this is indispensable, for a word that appears like two words is a complete disqualification, as I wrote in siman 274, see there. Conversely, I am in doubt regarding omissions if he went ahead and corrected the errors; even though it appears spotted, nevertheless, I do not know if it should be disqualified ex post facto, or if he suspends them between the lines, why should it be disqualified ex post facto? For since we hold that one may suspend in a sefer Torah—there is no limit to this. And granted that it is not beautiful, nevertheless, to disqualify it entirely is a wonderous matter, and the Rambam did not count it among the disqualifications. Therefore, it appears to my humble opinion that if there is no other sefer Torah, and they already corrected it—it is permitted to read from it. And know that the permission for one page that was explained is only when the page was so from the beginning. But if he wishes to make one entire page anew—it is not effective (Tosafot ibid.). And even several new sheets will not be effective, for we require this exact number as it is. And see what I wrote in section 16.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: A sefer Torah in which three errors were found—it is forbidden to read from it until it is corrected, for it is established as being erroneous. Thus far his words. And there are those who raised a difficulty regarding this based on what I wrote above in siman 84 regarding worms, that for something coming from the outside we do not apply this establishment of status, but only for something that grows from within it, see there. And here it is like something coming from the outside. But it is not a difficulty at all: for on the contrary, here it is like something growing from within it, for we see that this scribe is established as prone to error. And there is one who says that if two scribes or more wrote this sefer Torah—we do not establish the status from one scribe to another (Pri Megadim in siman 84, subsection 32, in the name of the A.M.). And there is also one who says that this is only when all three were found together before the correction. But if one or two were found and he corrected them—the third is no longer joined to them (Pitchei Teshuva, subsection 7, in the name of B.N.Y.). And likewise, this is only when this sefer Torah has not yet been proofread by a proofreader. But when it has already been proofread—we do not concern ourselves with three errors (ibid.). But in my humble opinion it is not so, for ultimately, since this sefer Torah is established with three errors—it automatically lacks an establishment of fitness, for the proofreader has lost his establishment of fitness. And likewise, even with the writing of several scribes—ultimately this sefer lacks an establishment of fitness. And all the more so since we see tangibly that it is impossible for a corrected sefer Torah to emerge from the hands of the scribes, and without proofreading one may not read from it in any manner. And after the proofreading, if three errors are found even not at once—behold we have seen that he did not proofread properly, and one should not read from it until it is proofread anew from its beginning to its end. And one should not be lenient in this, for we have seen many failings in this. And so one should rule. (The Pri Megadim also disagrees with the A.M. And the Eliyah Rabbah in Orach Chaim at the end of siman 173 disagrees with the ruling of the B.N.Y.)

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 5 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 279:5): If he skipped two lines or three—he should not erase three lines to write in their place four or five lines to include what he skipped, because he diminishes the script and it appears spotted. And it is better to remove the sheet. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And nevertheless, the scribes are accustomed to repair it, as I wrote above at the beginning of siman 275 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 275). Thus far his words. That is to say: for there it was explained regarding petuchot and setumot. And there too the reason is that it appears spotted, as I wrote there. And this is proof for what we explained in section 14, that whenever the invalidation is because it appears spotted—it is not invalid post facto. And this law of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch is explicit in Masechet Soferim (Chapter 5, Halacha 8): One who errs in a line etc. scrapes one etc. or two etc. provided that he does not scrape three, see there. And we have already explained this in siman 276 section 14, see there. However, post facto it does not hinder, as our teacher, the Rema, wrote.