Siman 288

It has already been explained at the beginning of siman 271 that Sifrei Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot require tanning for their sake, and that the opinion of the Rambam is that a mezuza does not require tanning for its sake. All the Rishonim wondered at him. The sages of Lunel asked him, and he returned to them an answer that is not sufficient. And we explained there in section 3 with the help of Heaven that this matter is explicit in the Yerushalmi Yoma (chapter three, halacha 6): Parchment that one tanned for the sake of an amulet—it is permitted to write a mezuza upon it. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids it, and he ruled like the first Tanna. See there for the reasoning of the matter. However, for the halacha, we hold like the majority of our teachers, that a mezuza also requires tanning for its sake. And if not—it is pasul. And so we hold.

And upon which hide does one write the mezuzah? The Rambam wrote in the first chapter, law 8: It is a law given to Moses at Sinai etc., and that they should write the mezuzah upon doksosotos, and they write on the side of the hair etc. and even though such is the law etc. and so too if one wrote the mezuzah upon klaf or upon gevil – it is kosher. Doksosotos was only stated as a preference. Thus far his words. And so ruled the Rif and the Rosh. And Ri, the author of the Tosafot, disqualifies it on gevil, as the Tur wrote. And for the halacha, we hold like the many. However, nowadays there is no practical difference in this, as I wrote in siman 271, for among us we do not split the hides, and a sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot – all of them are written upon klaf. And this is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 6, that our klaphim are kosher for everything, see there.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 288:5): It requires tanning for its sake ab initio. However, in a place where if he waits for parchment tanned for its sake he will be prevented from the mitzvah – he should write it on the parchment that is found which was not tanned for its sake, and fulfill the mitzvah immediately, while he seeks parchment tanned for its sake. Thus far his words. And his intention is: to rely on the Rambam, who does not require tanning for its sake for a mezuzah as I have written. And it is obvious that he should fix it without a berakhah, and strive to find parchment tanned for its sake. But some say not to do so, since most of the poskim disqualify this – there is no benefit in it. And he might also think that he has fulfilled the obligation of mezuzah. Therefore, it is better to leave it so without a mezuzah, and to find parchment tanned for its sake (Bach and Taz, subsection 2).

Not to write out of order, as with tefillin. That is to say: one must write it specifically according to the order written in the Torah, and if out of order—it is pasul. Therefore, one must be careful not to forget even a single letter, and if he forgot—there is no remedy for it. For regarding a mezuzah, suspending a letter or erasing and writing the letter after the writing of the letter that follows it is of no avail, unless he can scrape away everything written after the error and write upon the place of the scraping the place of the error and that which follows it, so that it shall be in order. And likewise it is pasul if he preceded by writing "Ve-hayah im shamoa" before "Shema," for even regarding the parashiyot we require them to be in order. And so it is stated in the Mekhilta at the end of Parashat "Bo" regarding tefillin: If he wrote them out of order—they shall be hidden away. And the same law applies to a mezuzah. And so it is in the Yerushalmi, the first chapter of Megillah, that one may not suspend letters in tefillin and mezuzot because they must be in order, as it is written: "And they shall be"—they shall remain in their state. (See Taz, subsection 1, who wrote that it is proven from Tosafot that regarding parashiyot—we do not require them to be in order. And the Nekudot HaKesef already rejected his words in siman 290, see there.) And suspension is forbidden even when in order.

And its law regarding the ink, the writing, and the tagin of shaatnez getz—is like a sefer torah. And according to the opinion of the Rambam, the primary tagin of shaatnez getz are in a mezuzah, as we explained in siman 273, section 11; see there. And it requires sirtut as an absolute requirement. And if one wrote without sirtut—it is pasul. And this is a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai. And the Rambam wrote in the fifth chapter, law 3: if one did not make tagin, or if one added to them or subtracted from them—he has not rendered it pasul. Thus far his words. And there are those who are concerned to rule it pasul when one omitted the tagin (Magen Avraham in Orach Chaim at the end of siman 36 in the name of the Bach). And it is permitted to make the tagin even after the writing, and there is no concern of "not in their order" in this (ibid.). And how many letters are permitted to extend outside the line—its law is like a sefer torah, above in siman 273. And regarding the letters of the Name: even one letter—it is forbidden, as I wrote there. And all the laws of the letters and chak tochot—are like in tefillin, and they were explained in Orach Chaim, siman 32.

The Rambam wrote at the beginning of the fifth chapter: How does one write the mezuzah? One writes the parashiyot "Shema" and "Vehaya Im Shamoa" on one column on a single parchment. And one makes for it a margin at the bottom and a margin at the top, like half a fingernail. And if he wrote it on two or three columns—it is kosher, provided that he does not make it like a tail, or like a circle, or like a kubba. And if he made it like one of these—it is invalid, etc. If he wrote it on two skins, even though he sewed them—it is invalid. Thus far his words. And according to the opinion of Rashi in Menachot, even on two columns—it is invalid. And the Mordechai wrote that there is proof for this from the Yerushalmi, see there. And according to the opinion of the Tosafot, even on two skins if he sewed them—it is kosher. And the primary rule for the halacha is like the Rambam. And most of the poskim hold accordingly, and so it was stated without qualification in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 1, see there. And "like a kubba" is "like a tent," which is narrow at the top and wide at the bottom. And "like a tail" is wide at the top and narrow at the bottom (Tur).

And he should be careful to write all its lines equal, so that one is not longer than its fellow. And if he lengthened one line more than the one before it, and in the one below it he shortened more than the one before them and the one before that—it is kosher. Provided that he does not make it like a tent, or like a tail, or like a circle, as I have written. And "upon the earth" he should write at the beginning of the last line, and no more (Menachot 31b). And I do not know if this is an absolute requirement even ex post facto. And it appears that ex post facto it is not disqualified. And at the beginning of the mezuzah from the side, he should leave a space without writing, in order to roll it on the blank part after it is wound. For its winding is from its end to its beginning, which is from "one" toward "Hear," and the blank part is needed to roll it upon (and this is not the custom). And at its end from the side, there is no need to leave any space at all, only enough for a margin of parchment for the letters. And he must write it with the right hand as with tefillin. And the law of a left-handed person—everything is as with tefillin, and it was explained in Orach Chaim there. And he may write it by heart, not from the text, as with tefillin, because they are fluent in the mouth.

It is the custom to make it twenty-two lines, and these are the beginnings of the lines: "Shema," the Name of Hashem after "V'ahavta," "et hadevarim," "levanekha," "u-veshokhbekha," "bein," "ve-hayah," "mitzvah," "bekhol," "yoreh," "esev," "pen," "ve-hishtachavitem," "ha-shamayim," "va-avadtem," "ve-samtem," "otam," "otam," "ba-derekh," "u-vish'arekha," "asher," "al ha-aretz." The first "letotafot" is missing a letter, the second "letotafot" is full with a vav. "Le-ot al yadekha," even though "yadekha" is a plural expression—nevertheless it is missing a yod after the dalet. The first "mezuzot" is with one vav, the second "mezuzot" is with two vavs. "Tiroshkha" is missing a vav after the resh. "Ha-tovah" is missing a vav after the tet. And so too "la-avotekhem" is missing a vav after the beit (Tur). All of this is by tradition reaching back to Moses from Sinai. One must be careful with the full and missing spellings as with tefillin and a Sefer Torah. If one filled a missing letter or omitted a full letter—it is invalid. (And in the Shach, subsection 8, there is an error in the word "levavekha," and it should say "levanekha.")

We conclude in Menachot (Menachot 32a) that regarding the parshiot of a mezuzah – it is a mitzvah to make them closed. And if one made them open – it is acceptable. And so wrote the Rambam in the fifth chapter, and he explained the reason why an open one is kosher: because it is not adjacent to it in the Torah, for "Shema" is in "Va'etchanan" and "Vehaya Im Shamoa" is in "Ekev." And this reason is in the Gemara there, and this is its explanation: for behold, in the Torah they are closed, meaning that after "Shema," regarding the parsha that follows it, it is closed, and the parsha of "Vehaya Im Shamoa" – it is entirely closed, both regarding the parsha before it and regarding the parsha after it. But in "Shema," the closure is only after it and not before it, see there in the Chumash. And according to this, it would be proper for them to be closed in a mezuzah as well. However, "Vehaya Im Shamoa" is not adjacent to "Shema" in the Torah; therefore, post facto, there is no concern even with open ones (so it appears to me).

It is clear that this is only relevant between "Shema" and "Vehaya im shamoa." For after "Vehaya im shamoa"—there is nothing following it, and neither a petucha nor a setuma is relevant. And behold, according to the opinion of the Rambam, we are able to make a setuma between "Shema" and "Vehaya im shamoa" according to the second form that we brought in siman 275 according to the opinion of the Rambam, which is to leave a small space after "u-vish'arekha" and to begin "Vehaya im shamoa" in the middle of the line. And not literally in the middle, but rather not at the beginning of the line as in the first form, which is to leave a space of nine letters after "u-vish'arekha." And to begin "Vehaya" at the end of the line is impossible, for it has already been explained in section 8 that "Vehaya" is at the beginning of the seventh line. And according to the Rosh in the name of Rabbeinu Tam, which we explained there in section 4, we are also able to include it under the name "sedura," which is like a setuma; see there. And so too according to the Yerushalmi that we brought there in section 6, it would be a setuma. But according to the version of the Rosh in the Yerushalmi there in section 7, on the contrary, this form would be a petucha. And so too according to Masechet Soferim that we brought there in section 5, it is impossible to align the setuma here. And perforce, according to their words, it is a petucha, and it is also kosher ex post facto. However, we hold the words of the Rambam as primary, as I wrote there in section 8. And according to his system, it is properly a setuma. And it has already been explained that the sirtut is indispensable, and therefore one is obligated to rule it for its sake, which is for the sake of a mezuzah (the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger in the name of the Bach).

The Rambam wrote in the fifth chapter, law 4: It is a widespread custom to write on the mezuzot on the outside, opposite the space between one parasha and the other, "Shaddai." And there is no loss in this, since it is on the outside. But those who write on the inside names of angels, or holy names, or a verse, or seals—behold, these are among those who have no portion in the World to Come. For these fools, it is not enough for them that they nullified the mitzvah, but they treated a great mitzvah, which is the oneness of Hashem and His love and His service, as if it were an amulet for their own benefit, as occurred to their foolish hearts. Thus far his words. And one must also prevent those who place holy names and names of angels, and call this "protection," and place them above their doorways and their windows. And this is insolence toward Heaven, for the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded us to affix a mezuzah alone, and they add further things. And this is the way of the ignorant, and women, and those lacking knowledge. And it is a mitzvah to protest against them.

This is the wording of the Shulchan Aruch, section 15 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 288:15): It is forbidden to add anything to it. However, on the outside one writes "Shaddai" opposite the word "Ve-hayah" which is on the inside, and some say opposite the space between the parashiyot. And so we practice. And one leaves a hole in the case opposite the name "Shaddai" so that it will be visible from the outside. Furthermore, it is customary to write on the outside "Kuzu Bemoksaz Kuzu" opposite "Hashem Elokeinu Hashem." And one shall invert these letters from the writing of the mezuzah, so that each letter will reach opposite the letter for which it is substituted in the alphabet. But on the inside, one must not add anything to the two parashiyot. Thus far his words. And so it is in the Tur (Tur Yoreh Deah 288), see there.