Siman 280

We say in Menachot (Menachot 31b): A tear that comes within two lines – he shall sew. Within three – he shall not sew. For example, if the Sefer Torah was torn at the bottom or at the top, and the tear entered up to two lines within the writing; and it did not ruin the letters, such as if the tear passed between the letters – he shall sew with gidin from the outside. But when the tear passed three lines – it is unseemly and he shall not sew, but rather he shall remove the sheet. And afterward it explains that which was said, "within three he shall not sew": We only said this regarding an old one, for the age of the tear makes it unseemly. But in a new one – we have no concern with it. And not "old" – literally old, and not "new" – literally new, but rather this one is processed with gallnuts [afitzan], and this one is not processed with gallnuts. Rashi explained: "processed with gallnuts" – it is old, and "not processed with gallnuts" – it is new. And the Rambam explains the opposite: that "processed with gallnuts" has the law of new for them, and so wrote the Rosh, the Tur, and the Nimukei Yosef, and they did not mention the opinion of Rashi at all. And the Rambam explained "that which is processed with gallnuts," meaning that the gallnut processing is still recognizable in them and they are like new. And "that which is not processed with gallnuts," that the gallnut processing is not recognizable, see there. And he was forced to explain thus, because every Sefer Torah must be processed with gallnuts. However, the Tosafot wrote that there are other tanning methods that are like gallnut processing, such as preparation with lime as we do.

And it was asked of them in the Gemara there: Between column and column, what is the law? Between line and line, what is the law? The matter remains undecided. Rashi explained: Between column and column – if it was torn until it was opposite the writing. For if it were in the writing – it would be more than three lines. Thus far his words. The explanation of his explanation: That it was torn from above or from below between column and column, and the tear went until three lines or more opposite the writing. And "between line and line," it must be said that the tear was from the side and entered between line and line, for in any other manner you cannot find it, obviously. And it appears to me that "between line and line" was the inquiry even between the first line and the second, because this is more unseemly. For "between line and line" it is not relevant to distinguish between two and three, for ultimately the tear is between this line and the line beneath it.

The Tur ruled stringently. The Rambam ruled leniently, because he holds that this is only rabbinic, and a rabbinic doubt is ruled leniently. However, the Rambam reads instead of "between line and line": "between word and word," see there. According to this, it must be said that the tear was above or below, and entered three lines between word and word. The first law deals with where the tear entered the middle of the words between letter and letter, and did not ruin the letters. For this is certain: if the tear ruined them, such that it omitted one letter or part of it or changed its form—it is invalid regardless. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote according to the Rambam, see there. And our klaf, which is very white—its law is like new and gall-treated ones (Shach, subsection 3).

Specifically when the tear is from the top of the parchment and enters until between the lines. However, if it was torn in the middle of the parchment, even between many lines, and at its top it is whole—there is no concern, for even with many lines he may sew (Bach and Shach subsection 1). And likewise if it was torn at the top of the parchment, and the tear did not enter at all between the lines, but rather the margin alone was torn whether above or below—they may read from it even without repair (ibid. subsection 2). Nevertheless, initially he should repair whatever is possible (ibid.), for this too is not an adornment, as is understood. And know that since our sages, of blessed memory, said "within two lines he shall sew"—it implies that with one line he does not need to sew at all. And there is one who requires it even with one line (Bach). And it is not compelling, and according to the law he does not need to (Shach).

And know that our teacher, the Rema, wrote that even with gallnuts they did not permit sewing except for a tear that occurs within three lines, but not more; see there. And it is true that the Rivash wrote thus (siman 30), for even though from the language of the Gemara which said "but in a new one we have no concern regarding it" it implies even more, nevertheless, since the reason is because it is unsightly—certainly more than three is unsightly even in new ones. And so it is implied from the language of the Rambam who wrote: "and even within three—he may sew." And it implies: but not more. But in truth, this is no precision at all, for such is the way of the language that when it says that in an old one it is forbidden within three, it says that in a new one even within three it is permitted, and the same law applies to more. And the Rivash himself retracted, as is written in the Tashbetz (part three, siman 207), and this is his wording: And know that an incident occurred here regarding a certain Sefer Torah that was torn more than three lines, and the Rivash disqualified it. And I was of the view to validate it, and he sent to me etc. not specifically three, for such is the way of the Talmud etc. and he agreed with me in validating it. And behold, we read from it. Thus far his words. And an act is a great proof, and our teacher, the Rema, did not see this (Nekudot HaKesef). And so it is in the Hagahot Mordechai of Gittin in the name of the Rash of Sens, and thus we establish, and such is the common custom. (And what he wrote in Tashbetz part two, siman 269—that is the opinion of the Rivash. Therefore he noted there to part three; see there.)

And although there are some among the great authorities who were stringent in this, nevertheless, since the source of the law is from the Rivash and he himself recanted, and an incident occurred in his presence, and the Tashbetz permits it simply. And our teacher Shimshon, the author of the Tosafot, also holds thus, and this is the wording of the Mordechai: The Sar of Sens responded: And that which you asked regarding a book that was torn etc. for these books of ours – even in three [lines] he may sew. And since we permit in three, the same law applies in four or five, and even many etc. Thus far his words. And more than this, one of the great Sephardic authorities instructed as is written in the book Birkei Yosef, and this is his wording: A sefer Torah that was torn from the top of the parchment, and the tear entered until four or five lines into the body of the letters and included the Unique Name, and the Yud was divided with the tear on one side and the rest on the other side. And in the synagogue of a poor congregation, and they have no other sefer Torah, and it is not within their power to replace the parchment – they should repair it with sewing. For there are many who are lenient regarding sewing in four or five lines. And the letters through which the tear passed entirely, and the preceding letters – he should erase them until he can write everything upon the erasure, and the place of the tear shall remain. And no hand shall touch the Name, since the tear did not pass through the body of the letter. Thus far his words. (And besides this, it appears in my humble opinion from the words of the Rambam, that all these laws are for the commandment and not as a requirement. For the Rambam wrote this law at the end of the ninth chapter, and afterwards at the beginning of the tenth chapter he enumerated twenty things that disqualify a sefer Torah, and he did not enumerate this disqualification. And afterwards he wrote, and this is his wording: And the rest of the matters are for the commandment and not as a requirement. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that this is not a requirement.)

And when they sew, they sew only with gidim. This is the wording of the Gemara there: And these words apply to gidim. But with gardin – no. And Rashi explained in the vernacular as "pindes," and we do not know what it is. And in Sukkah (Sukkah 9a), Rashi explained: the remnants of the weaving at the end of the garment. And thus the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch ruled, that they should sew only with gidim. And one must wonder about our teacher, the Rema, who wrote: And there are those who say that it is the custom to sew them with silk, and such is the custom nowadays. But the primary ruling is to sew them with gidim if possible. Thus far his words. And how is it possible to permit silk, since in the Gemara they said explicitly "gidim" specifically? And the authorities have already wondered about those who permit it (the Beit Yosef and the Gra).

And in my humble opinion, his words are very correct: for if it should enter your mind that this requirement for gidim is like the sewing of the sheets of a sefer Torah to one another, which is a Law given to Moses at Sinai, if so, why did they say "but with gardin – no"? Why specify gardin, when it should be any material? The Gemara should have said: one may only sew with gidim. Rather, it is certain that the Law was not stated regarding this, and the reasoning is as follows: for the Law was stated regarding essential matters, and not regarding a cause, as is understood. Therefore, that which the Gemara said, "and these words apply to gidim" – has a different intention. For behold, gardin is the remnant of the weaving, as I have written. And it is very weak, and when one sews with it, it will quickly tear. And they required one to sew with a strong material like gidim, and regarding this it said: "but with gardin – no." That is to say: but not with weak threads. And from this itself we may infer that with strong ones it is permitted, and you have nothing stronger than silk, as is known. And a proof for this is from the words of the Rosh in a Responsum (Kelal 3), who wrote, and this is his wording: The tear may be sewn not with gidim, for it is a repair of the klaf. And gidim were only mentioned regarding the sheets. Thus far his words. And his intention is as I have written. And also, it is not relevant in this case to require it to be from that which is permitted "in your mouth," since it is only to repair the tear and join it. Therefore, it is also permitted with glue, as will be explained.

Our teacher, the Rema, further wrote: And some say that it is permitted to stick parchment onto it from the outside as long as it is permitted to sew them, and to stick the tear together by this means. And similarly, if something is missing, one writes on the stuck parchment. And such is the custom. Thus far his words. And he was brief, as is his way. And in truth, there is a very great dispute regarding this matter: some forbid entirely placing a patch in a sefer Torah and writing on the patch, and some permit it. And even those who forbid—this is when a portion of a sheet is missing, and the patch completes it and he writes upon it. But regarding a mere tear, just as it is permitted to sew it—so too it is permitted to place a patch from the outside so that they stick to one another. And so it is explicitly stated in Masechet Soferim (end of chapter two): A law given to Moses at Sinai: a sefer Torah that was torn—one patches a patch upon it from the outside. See there. However, regarding writing on the patch, there is a dispute there prior to this, and this is its wording: One may not stick with glue, and one may not write upon a patch, etc. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Meir: One may stick with glue, and one may write upon a patch, etc. Thus far its wording. And afterwards it wrote that "if it was torn, one patches, etc." And it seems to me that this is the explanation: One may not stick the tear with glue, meaning: with glue alone without a patch it is forbidden, lest from use the glue will be ruined and it will tear. Rather, one should place a patch over the place of the tear from the outside, and stick it with glue as it concludes later. And then it says: and one may not write on a patch, meaning: regarding a tear we permitted a patch, but regarding a hole or a deficiency where we would need to write on the patch—it is forbidden. And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in the name of Rabbi Meir permits both things. And those who forbid hold that the halacha is like the first Tanna, and those who permit hold that the halacha is like Rabbi Meir. And perhaps because Rabbi Meir was a scribe, and served in this capacity under Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva, as is found in the first chapter of Eruvin, see there. Furthermore: in the Yerushalmi, first chapter of Megillah, it says: and one patches with a patch and sticks with glue. But there are those who explained it regarding tefillin, for the entire subject there is regarding tefillin, see there. And this explanation of mine is clarified, in my humble opinion, from the wording of the Rosh in the laws of sefer Torah (siman 14).

And behold, the Rosh there wrote that he asked his teacher, the Maharam of Rothenburg, if it is permitted to stick the tear together with glue. And he forbade it to him for this reason: because in a Sefer Torah, this [side] pulls here and that [side] pulls there and they tighten it during rolling—there is a concern that it will separate. But the Rosh permitted it, and the Tur brought this dispute. And I wonder at our teacher, the Rema, who wrote: And some say that it is permitted to stick parchment over it, etc. And in my humble opinion, regarding a patch over the tear, everyone agrees that it is permitted, and the dispute is only regarding glue without a patch, and regarding writing upon the patch. And perhaps he understood from the language of the Rosh that it is all one, as is seemingly implied by the flow of his wording. But in my humble opinion it is not so, see there. And in the responsa of the Maharik (siman 122) he elaborated on this, that the Maharil forbade it and he permitted it, see there. And so there are others who forbid and permit.

Regarding the law, the great later authorities wrote in this language: That it appears the primary view is like those who prohibit; however, since the early ones were accustomed to reading from such a sefer Torah before the giants of the world, and they did not protest against them – therefore, no great person should protest or issue a ruling of prohibition for others. But one who is stringent for himself with his own sefer Torah – behold, he is praiseworthy, and a blessing shall come upon him (Bach and Shach, subsection 7). However, if one wrote part of a letter on the parchment sheet and part on the patch – it is certainly pasul. For when the patch is separated, there will be two halves of letters. There is one who permits (Taz, end of subsection 4), but it is not compelling. And one should rule like those who prohibit. They were further stringent that there should be an encirclement of parchment for the letter on the sheet from the parchment itself, and not from the patch. And it seems to me that the scribes have so practiced. And this is simple: that the writing on the patch must be after it is attached to the sefer Torah. But if he writes on it beforehand and afterwards attaches it – it is pasul because of "thou shalt make, and not from that which is already made" (the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger). And we have already written that one must be careful that the tear does not enter into the letter and does not change the form of the letter, for in such a case it is simple that it is pasul. And attaching does not avail in this, as is understood.

And how is this matter rectified? Certainly there is no rectification for this, and he shall erase the entire letter and place a small patch in this location. And even if the letter was split, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that if any letter was split by the tear – it is invalid, and it does not help that he adheres it from behind. Thus far his words. And it is not similar to what he wrote in Orach Chaim siman 32 section 16, that if one of the simple letters was broken it is valid. For there it deals with a case where the form of the letter was not changed, even though it is divided and not adhered. And that is to say that without the broken part – it still retains the status of that letter. (As the Taz wrote there in subsection 10. And the intention of the Levush and the Shach in subsection 8 requires study, see there. And perhaps they hold like the reasoning of the Bach there, that when it was written according to its law, a child is effective. And it is implied from his words that they join the broken part. And this is the opinion of the Meiri, as the Machatzit HaShekel wrote there in subsection 19 in the name of the Eliyah Rabbah, see there. And examine closely and you will find it simple.)

He further wrote: And so too one should be careful not to insert the needle into the writing, but rather outside of the writing. Thus far his words. That is to say: when he sews the tear, he should not insert the needle into the writing, so as not to ruin some letter by this, but rather he should precisely place the insertion between letter and letter. And it is even better if he can precisely place it between word and word, where there is a small space the size of a small letter, for between letter and letter one needs great care so that the letter is not ruined, as is understood. And it appears to me that according to the words of those who forbid writing on a patch, if some letter was split or is missing or was ruined such that it has no remedy—he must perforce erase the entire word and place a patch there, and not write anything upon it. And that word he shall crowd between the rest of the preceding or following words, such that he erases several words and returns and crowds this word between them. Therefore, if there is some Name among them, which is impossible to erase—he must perforce replace the sheet. And I do not see another remedy for this. And according to those who permit writing on a patch—he may write even a Name there. And so it is implied from the unspecified language of the poskim (so it appears to me).

The Tur (Tur Yoreh Deah 280) and the Shulchan Aruch section 2 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 280:2) wrote: A Sefer Torah from which sheets have worn out, and one comes to replace them—he should not take two and return two, but rather he should take three and return three. The explanation: Even if only one or two have worn out from it—he must replace three, because it is impossible for those he replaces to be completely similar to the others. Therefore, there must be at least three that are similar, and then there is not such a disgrace in their differences. Thus far the wording of the Tur, and the wording of the Shulchan Aruch is similar to this. And that which he returns—he should return according to the measure of the first script (the Rosh). And it is good that the first sofer should write them if possible (Shach subsection 9). And it appears that post facto this does not disqualify (Taz subsection 5).

In my humble opinion, these matters are astonishing: to replace good sheets and hide them away because of another sheet that is damaged. I have already seen it written that one of the great authorities ruled ab initio that one only needs to replace the damaged sheet (Ba'er Heitev in the name of the Hakham Tzevi). Now, the source of the law is from Tractate Soferim, chapter two (halacha 7), and this is its wording: A sheet that has worn out—one should not remove two and return two, but rather one removes three and returns three. And that which he returns—must be according to the measure of the first script. Thus far its words. In my humble opinion, this refers to columns, for every sheet is no less than three columns, and it can be more, up to eight, as I wrote in siman 272. And this is what it says: "A sheet that has worn out—one should not remove" two columns, if the third column is not damaged, and cut two columns to make them new, such that the sheet would consist of two columns and one from a single column, for post facto this is not a hindrance as I wrote there—one should not do so. Rather, one removes three and returns three. That is to say: if the sheet consists of only three columns—he should replace all of it. And if it is more—he should not cut more than three columns if he does not need more due to the damage. But not to replace a good sheet because of another sheet that is damaged.