| Per la visualizzazione del menu e del sito e' necessaria l'attivazione dei javascipt |
| | | siman: | Siman 32 . The Procedure of Writing Tefillin | | argument: | 32:1. The mitzvah of tefillin is to write [in them] four paragraphs, i.e. "[And God spoke to Moses, saying:] Sanctify unto me every firstborn ... in its season, from year to year" [Shemos 13:1-10], "And it shall be, when [God] brings you ... because with a mighty arm God took you out of Egypt" [Shemos 13:11-16], (1) and the portion of "Hear [O Israel, The Lord our God, the Lord is One; i.e. Shema] ... and on your gates" [Devarim 6:4-9], and the portion of "And it will be, if you listen ... above the earth" [Devarim 11:13- 21]. {Rama: And one must (2) write them (3) in this order, i.e. write first [chronologically] that which appears earlier in the Torah; and if one went out of order, the tefillin are (4) not usable. Ideally [l'chatchilla] one should write the arm-tefillin (5) before the head- tefillin.}
M.B.1: And the portion of "Hear" - And one must write the 'daled' of "echad" [the last letter of "One"] as large as four smaller 'daleds'. It is possible that we do not measure by the script of each particular tefillin [thus requiring the 'daled' to be four times as large as the surrounding letters], but it is sufficient for this 'daled' to be the size of four tiny 'daleds'. Therefore, the custom is to write this 'daled' only slightly larger than the other 'daleds' in that script.
M.B. 2: Write them - i.e. all the paragraphs, whether within the [four paragraphs of the] head-tefillin or within the arm-tefillin.
M.B. 3: In this order - because it is written "And these words shall be etc." [Devarim 6:5], i.e. as they are written in the Torah so shall they always be. And all the more so, one should be careful for this reason to insure that each paragraph itself is written in order; i.e. that not even one letter should be omitted, because there is no way to fix such an error afterwards, as explained later in paragraph 23. [The Shulchan Aruch there explains that if one fixes such an error by adding in the missing letter, he has thereby written the tefillin out of order and ruined them - AB]
M.B. 4: Not usable - i.e. the tefillin made with these portions are unusable, but the portions themselves have not been invalidated. e.g. if he began by writing "And it shall be when God brings you .." [he cannot then write the portion "Sanctify ..." and make a usable tefillin with them, but] he can use it together with a "Sanctify ..."-portion from another set of tefillin, if he knows certainly that that other set was written earlier than the portion he wrote; but if he has no certain knowledge, then we are strict about doubtful cases of Torah law. Likewise, if he wrote the portions in order, but later one of the three first portions became invalidated, the portions which follow it are now effectively useless, but there is a possibility of including portions from an earlier source as explained above.
M.B. 5: Before - Because the arm-tefillin are mentioned first in the verse. And some say the opposite is true [i.e. that the head-tefillin should be written first], because the holiness of the head-tefillin is greater than that of the arm-tefillin. And our custom is in accordance with the gloss of the Rama, and post facto [b'dieved] all opinions agree that we are not concerned about this requirement. It is written in the Sefer Ha-Kavanos that ideally [l'chatchilla] one should be careful to write all the portions of the head-tefillin or the arm-tefillin together and not interrupt between them with any talking; see the Shaarei Teshuvah [no. 3, for a detailed discussion of the best thing to do if this is not possible].
32:2. For the head-tefillin one should write each portion on a separate scroll, and for the arm-tefillin one should write all [four] of them (6) on one scroll.
M.B. 6: Because it says "And they shall be for a sign on your arm" [Shemos 13:16] [in the singular form] meaning one sign, i.e. one compartment; and just like it must be only one sign on the outside, so too it should ideally [l'chatchilla] only be one sign on the inside, i.e. one scroll. But in the head-tefillin, which consists of four separate compartments [as the plural form is used for it in Devarim - AB], the portions should be written on four scrolls. All of this is only in the ideal case [l'chatchilla], as will all be explained later in paragraph 47. One should realize, though, that [even] the arm-tefillin should only be written in four columns, each portion on a separate column.
bednarsh@yu1.yu.edu ( Assaf Bednarsh )
sha-32.03
Siman 32: The Order of Writing Tefilin (continued)
32:3. He should write them (7) with black ink, whether or not the ink contains gall-nut. {Rema: a priori one should be stringent to write the Tefilin with ink that is made from (8) wood or oil soot that is soaked in gall-nut solution, as is explained in Yore De'ah Siman 271.} If he wrote even (9) one letter with (10) any other color ink, or with gold, the Tefilin are not good. If he sprinkled gold dust on the letters, (11) he should remove the gold dust and leave the [black] writing beneath it, and the tefillin will be Kosher. But if he sprinkled the gold dust on a letter from Hashem's name there is no remedy - it is forbidden to remove the gold since it is like erasing the name of G-d, and therefore the tefillin must remain invalid.
MB 7: With Black Ink - Look in the Be'ur Halacha about ink that looks similar to blue (where he rules strictly, suggesting that one should not use it).
MB 8: Wood Soot - This means without adding _kuma_ or _kankantum_ (kuma is gum [arabic?] and kankantum is vitriol, which is copper water), because a priori the ink has to be erasable, and when these substances are added the ink is more permanent. However, although this is the best way to do the Mitzvah, according to the actual Halacha even the Rema agrees that it is permissible to make the ink from gall, kuma and kankantum. Such is the custom today, to make the ink from a mixture of all three, and by cooking them which makes the ink even better. Look in the Magen Avraham, who writes that in his day he didn't see anyone make the ink from either wood or oil soot [but it is possible they made the ink from soot from thorn bushes, like he quotes in the name of the Maharil]. And the Sefer Get Mekushar and the Sefer Birchei Yosef both ruled that we should follow our custom (with gall, kuma and kankantum) because the ink made with wood or oil soot gets ruined and erased very easily - which is why we aren't accustomed now to make tefillin with them. Ink made from gall nuts without kuma or kankantum, or from kankantum alone, is not good even post facto. So wrote the Gr"a later in Siman 691, and look in the Be'ur Halacha. It is permissible to write Tefilin and Mezuzos with ink made from _Stam Yeinam_ (this refers to wine which was handled by a non- Jew, but was not used as part of a service for an avodah zarah). Ink does not have to be made for the sake of doing the Mitzvah.
MB 9: One Letter - Not only one complete letter, because the same holds true even for part of a letter, such as the point of the Yud ("Kutzo shel Yud" - often used as a reference to the smallest fraction of a single letter).
MB 10: Any Other Color Ink - that are not black, such as red or green and other colors.
MB 11: He Can Remove the Gold Dust - Even though the tefillin are invalid as long as he did not remove the gold dust, because the top layer of ink nullifies the bottom layer, [nonetheless the tefillin are valid once the top layer has been removed]. Removing the top layer does not create a problem of writing the tefillin out of order [Tefilin and Mezuzos must be written in the proper sequence, as the Rema said in 32:1 - meaning one cannot write the last words of tefillin and then go back and fill in a few words in the middle], because he isn't writing, but merely _removing_ - and the bottom writing is left automatically.
32:4. It is necessary for each letter to not touch (12) its neighbor, but rather (13) each letter must be "mukaf gevil" (surrounded by parchment). {Rema: And he should write a (14) 'complete' writing - even the (15) tip of the Yud shouldn't be missing, and letters should be crowned (16) properly. And preferably he should write them slightly thick so that the Tefilin should not be erased quickly, and it is also proper to beautify them from without and within.
MB 12: Its Neighbor - And if the letter is large and touches at its end, in such a way that if the portion that is touching is scraped away the shape of the letter would still exist, some say that the tefillin are Kosher "as is," while others say they are invalid until repaired. The later commentaries agreed that we have to be strict here, and therefore we must scrape away the part that is touching. Repair of letters [in cases such as this one] is valid even with Tefillin and Mezuzos [which must be written in the correct sequence, as we noted above in MB 11] since the shape of the letter remains unchanged.
MB 13: Each Letter - Even the last letter on a row must be surrounded by parchment on all four sides. This is a definite requirement even post facto, like later at the end of 32:16. Even if the tip of the Yud is not surrounded by parchment the Tefilin are also posul, as is described in Tractate Menachos page 29. The specifics of this law are found later in 32:16 (the original printing reads 32:17, which is an error) and Siman 36.
MB 14: 'Complete' Writing - Meaning that a Beis should not look like a Kaf and a Zayin should not look like a Nun or vice versa, or anything similar to this (letters that are similar must be clearly written so as to make them properly distinguishable).
MB 15: Tip of the Yud - This is the left tip of the Yud, and definitely if it is missing the right leg it is posul. For a description of the format of a Yud, look later in the laws of the shapes of the letters in Siman 36 and at what the Pri Megadim wrote there. [The Yud must have a little leg coming down from the left side of the horizontal bar. A rough sketch:
|___ ' | | / ]
MB 16: Properly - In the letters of 'ShAaTNe"Z Ge"Tz' (Shin, Ayin, Tes, Nun, Zayin, Gimmel, Tzadi) (These letters must have little crowns sticking up from the left most upper horizontal portion of the letter). This is only a priori, but post facto these letters are permissible even if they are not crowned as in 36:3. Look there for all the details of the laws of crowning the letters.
32:5 He must (17) write with his right hand even if he is ambidextrous, and if he wrote with (18) his left the tefillin are invalid if he can find others written with the right hand. A left-handed person's left hand (19) is called his "right" hand for these laws.
MB 17: Write with his Right - Because the normal way of writing is not with the left hand. Similarly, corrections made with one's left hand in the writing are invalid. However, it seems that the Tefillin are acceptable if he uses his left hand to separate letters that were touching. This is similar to the ruling that permits such activities post facto, in Siman 39, by people who are not allowed to write Tefillin.
MB 18: His Left - This ruling applies to someone who is strictly right-handed, but if someone who is ambidextrous wrote the Tefilin with his left hand, they are permissible. Even in the case where the person is strictly a righty, and wrote them with his left hand, and there are no other Tefilin available, he may put on these Tefilin - but should not make a blessing. A scribe that writes with his right hand and does all other activity with his left hand, or vice versa, should preferably not be accepted as a scribe, but if he wrote tefillin already they are acceptable - look in the Pri Megadim for the reason.
MB 19: Is His Right Hand - Therefore, if he wrote with his right hand the Tefilin are posul, just as if a righty wrote with his left hand, as described earlier, if one can find other Tefilin. The Re"mah describes the case of someone in Egypt who held the quill in his mouth and wrote the Tefilin. In that case he ruled the Tefilin are unacceptable because writing is not normally done with the mouth. The Magen Avraham wrote that in this case even if there are no other Tefilin available these Tefilin are unacceptable. Look in the Sefer Mishnas Avraham who writes in the name of the Get Mekushar and other authorities that say that this or writing with one's foot is similar to writing with the left hand.
Binyamin Rudman
Siman 32. Hilchot Tefillin The Order of Writing Tefillin (cont'd)
32:6. One need not draw a guiding line except for the (20) top row - but if he can't make straight rows without a guiding line, (21) he should make one for each row. One should not make the guiding line (22) with lead, because then the guiding line will remain colored. {Rama: There are those who say that one needs to always draw a guiding line on top, on bottom, and on the sides, even if he can make straight rows without a guiding line - and this is how it should be done. (Baruch Sheamar, Mordechi, Sefer Hatrumah, and Sma"g [Sefer Mitzvot Gadol])
MB 20: top row - because unlike Mezuzos, there was no law given orally to Moshe at Sinai requiring a guiding line for Tefillin. It is just that you are not allowed to write 3 words from a verse without a guiding line. Therefore a guiding line for the top row is sufficient, because usually a person can practice and write straight rows after writing the first row straight. He [the Shulchan Aruch] began, "One need not" because if one wishes to write a guiding line for all the rows in order to write them straight and nicely, then he may. If one did not make a guiding line even for the top row see the Beur Halacha. [According to the Beur Halacha it would be a disagreement between Rabeinu Tam and the rest of the poskim. Rabeinu Tam would say that the tefillin were pasul, whereas the rest of the poskim would say that they are Kosher. I understand from the Beur Halacha that he thinks it would be O.K. -- AB]
MB 21: he should make a guiding line - meaning that is the way it should be done. However if he didn't make guiding lines and the rows came out crooked the tefillin are still kosher.
MB 22: with lead - the same is true for ink or paint or anything similar - and one should not draw even between the rows. And all this is before the fact, but if lines have already been drawn then we should not be strict about it - so wrote the Lechem Chamudot and the Eliyahu Raba. And in the responsa of Dvar Shmuel, Siman 362, he doubts this very much in a case where the guiding line is black, because then the letters are connected by the guiding line unless he wrote below the guiding line.
32:7. It is a law given to Moshe on Sinai that tefillin should be written on klaf and not on duchsustus or on gvil. [These terms are explained immediately by the Shulchan Aruch.] One should write on the klaf where the flesh was and if he did otherwise then it is pasul. What is klaf and what is duchsustus? When working an animal skin, it is split in half, the outer part towards the hair is called klaf and the inner part stuck to the flesh is called duchsustus [and the whole skin before splitting is called gvil]. According to this, when it is said that one should write on the klaf where the flesh was, this means on the place closer to the flesh, i.e., where it was connected to the duchsustus. And our scrolls which are not split are considered klaf, and one should write on the side closer to the flesh, [the reason why it it is considered klaf is] because what we scrape off the outer part where the hair is, is only to prepare it and to make it smooth and even if the skin was split we would need to do this and on the side of the flesh we scrape off so much that all that is left is klaf.
32:8. The klaf must be processed (23) in afatzim [gall-nuts] or lime [the kind used in plaster] and it must be processed for the sake of tefillin. It is good to say (24) orally (25) at the beginning of the processing that he is doing so for the sake of tefillin or (26) for the sake of a Sefer Torah; if he processed it for the sake of a mezuza (27) it is pasul.
MB 23: in afatzim or lime - and this is needed because it is not considered klaf without this, just diftra. And one should put the leather in the lime until the hair comes off by itself, and not by scraping; if he took it out [of the lime] beforehand he shouldn't write on it because it is still considered diftra and is pasul. There are those who disagree and say the a scribe who took out the leather after 4 days and the hair still didn't come off by itself it seems that it should be O.K. since it is not dependent on the hairs at all, but rather since it was already in the lime and is well prepared it is not considered diftra.
MB 24: with his lips - and if he only thought then after the fact it is O.K.
MB 25: at the beginning - and there is no more need to say it out loud or even think that the processing is for it's sake, just at the beginning and even if the processing takes several days because anyone who does something does it according to his first thought. The beginning of the processing is when he puts the leather in the lime and not when he puts it in the water beforehand because this isn't considered processing.
MB 26: for the sake of a sefer torah - since its holiness is greater then tefillin and 100 zuz [or dollars, as the case may be] is included in 200. and even so we can then use the klaf for tefillin or mezuzot even though their holiness is less, but for non-holy use it can not be used unless he specifically made a condition at the beginning of the processing that he may use it for a non-holy purpose then it may be used. And it is best that the scribe, when putting the leather in the lime, should say, "I am putting this leather in the lime for the sake of the holiness of a sefer torah, but I am making a condition that if I want I may use it for whatever I want." and not like some scribes say, "for the sake of a sefer torah or tefillin or mezuzot or any other use" because there are doubts among the achronim if this helps and see the Beur Halacha. [There he writes that the problem is that in the second statement what the scribe is saying is that what I decide later will determine for what sake I processed the leather and this does not work in laws from the torah. However since the need to process for the sake of tefillin is only a rabbinical law, therefore there is a doubt.]
MB 27: it is pasul - and it can only be used for a mezuza whose holiness is less then that of tefillin. If he processed for the sake of tefillin then it can be used for a mezuza but not for a sefer torah. If he processed the leather for straps [of tefillin] then it can't be used to write the parshiyot [the scrolls put inside the tefillin] if he later made klaf out of the leather since the klaf of tefillin are holier then the straps and even to make the housings of the tefillin it would seem to be no good since they are holier than the straps (Pri Megadim and see there more what he wrote about this).
Avi Bloch
Today's issue is dedicated l'aliyas nishmas [as a merit for the soul of] Pesach ben Shimon Ephraim Olesker.
* ** ** The World Connection Jewish Learning Program *********** Jewish Education in CyberSpace ** ** *********** A Program of Project Genesis ** ** worldcon@israel.nysernet.org *
Siman 32 - The Laws of Writing Tefillin (cont.)
32: 9. If a non-jew tanned [the leather skins inorder to make parchment] according to Rambam they are invalid (28) even if a jew told him to do it for the sake of [parchment for Tefillin] and according to Rosh they are kosher if a jew stood next to him and helped him. {Rama (29) slightly with the work (30) and so is the custom and look earlier in Section 11 Paragraph 2)}
MB 28: even if - The Rambam takes the view that a non-jew works for his own interest and even if the non-jew says that he listens to the jew, his heart and mouth are inconsistant. However, the Rosh takes the view that since the jew is standing over him at the start when he puts the skins into the pot and tells him at that time to put the skins into the pot for the sake of [the tefillin] AND we only need the non-jews attention to this for the moment he puts the skins into the pot, so for this very short period the non-jew listens to the jew and puts them in with this in mind. But if the jew who is standing over him only has this in mind it doesn't help and even if he says so explicitly but as long as he stands too far away and doesn't show him it doesn't help even according to the Rosh.
MB 29: slightly - even if he only helped at the end of the tanning and even if this help was done together with the non-jew it is still kosher. And all this is for the Mitzvah but after the fact according to the Rosh it is kosher even if he didn't help at all because the non-jew works for the purpose of the jew who orders him to do it for the sake [of the Tefillin].
MB 30: and so is the custom - And the custom, according to the words of the Later Authorities, a priori should be that the jew himself puts the skins into the pot for the sake [of Tefillin] and should say to the non-jew that the rest of the job that he is going to do he should also do for the sake of [Tefillin]. Then, the non-jew can take them out himself and prepare them and the jew doesn't need to stand over him and help him any more.
If the jew put the skins into the pot himself for the sake of [Tefillin] without saying anything to the non-jew, the Pri Megadim writes, that this requires further investigation because according to Beis Yosef in Yoreh Deah Paragraph 271 it is kosher even according to the view of the Rambam and the Bach forbids its use. However, according to the Nodeh B'yhudah in Paragraph 175 and the Gaon R'M Bannett [in his commentary] on the Mordechai at the end of the Laws of Sefer Torah one can be lenient after the fact. If the jew helped the non-jew slightly at the end and with this he completed the tanning process and didn't tell the non-jew at all that he should do it for the sake of [Tefillin] this definately does not help - helping has no substance in itself. And this applies only if this completion was done together with the non-jew but if the jew finished it himself without the help of the non-jew, for example, if the jew removed the skins from the pot prior to their completion and then put them back into the pot for the sake of [Tefillin], the Taz in Yoreh Deah and the above mentioned Gaon R'Bannett are lenient and one should not make an objection to someone who follows their lenient view as we have explained in the Biur Halacha.
32:10. When one marks the holes with an awl in the shape of letters (to be able to identify the leather) even though it is easy for the non-jew to forge we don't need to worry about this because he is afraid that the jew may be able recognise (31) by an overall general impression (T'vius Ayin) [that these skins are not his].
MB 31: by an overall impression - either he gave it with identification marks or that these holes seem to have been made later than his originals. Some say that one should inscribe something on the inside of the head [piece] at a point where it is unusual to tan so that it will remain even after the tanning process and not use an awl because of the possibility of forging. After the fact one can be lenient like the Shulchan Aruch.
32:11. Skins that have not been tanned for the sake of [use for Tefillin], with regard to there being a possibilty that they can be re-tanned for the sake of Tefillin will be explained in Tur Yoreh Deah Section 271.
Kol Tuv Jonathan Chody jonathan@quantime.co.uk
Siman 32: The Writing of Tefillin [continued].
32:12. The parchment should be made of the skin of a pure (kosher) domestic animal, wild animal, or bird, even if they may not be eaten because they were not properly slaughtered or were not fit to live out the year, but may not be made from the skin of an impure (non-kosher) domestic animal, wild animal or bird because it is written [in the torah] 'in order that the teaching of Hashem be in your mouth' which implies that the tefillin be made of a species that may be eaten by the mouth. It may also not be made from the skin of a fish even if it's pure (kosher) because it has a lot of secretions [that could blur the writing, or smell].
32:13. The parchment should be whole so that there be no holes where the ink will not stick so that a letter [written over the hole] should not appear to be split in (32) two.
MB 32: In two - If it is so small that when he passes the pen over it the hole is sealed with ink and the hole cannot be felt by the pen, he may write on it. Even if some ink fell off in that place and a small hole can be seen when the parchment is held up to the sun, it is fit. However, if it is so holey that the ink does not pass over it, it is unfit, because the letter appears split in two by the hole. If the hole is in the middle of the thickness of the letter - in its roof or its thigh - and ink surrounds it on all sides, it is unfit even if it looks like a letter until the hole. This is the law before the writing, but if after the writing the letter split in two because of a hole, if there is the shape of a letter until the place of the hole it is fit, as will be explained nearby in Seif 16 (Siman 32:16). Look in the Biur Halacha.
32:14. Diligent scribes make three types of parchment: Very thick parchment to write the paragraph of Shma which is short, (33) thinner parchment to write the paragraph of 'Vehaya im shomoya' which is longer, and for the paragraphs of 'Kadesh' and 'Vehaya ki yeviacha' which are long, they make very thin parchment. Using this technique the tefillin compartments are made equally full, which is an adornment for tefillin.
MB 33: Thinner parchment for the paragraph of 'Vehaya im shomoya' - This is a copyist's error. It should say, "Thinner parchment for the paragraph of 'Vehaya ki yeviacha' which is longer, and for the paragraphs of 'Kadesh' and 'Vehaya im shomoya' which are long, they make very thin parchment." RM"Y (I don't know who the abbreviation refers to.) wrote that their scribes use a different solution; all the parchments have the same dimensions and thicknesses, but they leave margins for the short paragraphs.
Shmuel Weidberg shmuel@io.org
[I _thought_ I had someone for the past Shabbos, but there seems to be a cross in our e-mail. The following is the text of the Shulchan Aruch, with only a minimal comment from the Mishna Brura. As I mentioned a week ago, much of Section 32 deals with laws mainly relevant to scribes, rather than the average person. It is therefore appropriate for us to gloss over much of the material in place of a full commentary. This is also true because the discussion of some of these laws is quite long - this section, for example, covers three pages of small text in the Mishna Brura. -- YM]
Siman 32. The Laws of Writing Tefillin (cont.)
32:15. If after writing a portion, the parchment becomes torn inside a Heh or Mem [both of which have white space in the middle of the letter], this parchment is still Kosher, even if the entire white space in the middle of the letter is torn away. However, the Jerusalem Talmud implies that even inside a letter there is a requirement that it be surrounded by parchment. If the inside leg of a Heh becomes torn - even so that only a tiny bit remains, the Rosh says this is Kosher. ____ | [Heh: | | | | ] {Rama: However, the other decisors require that there be enough remaining to be the leg on a very small letter, and so is the law.}
If the right, or outer leg becomes torn, if enough remains to form a small letter, it is Kosher, but otherwise it is invalid.
32:16. If one of the letters becomes torn into two parts {Rama: the straight letters, such as the leg of a Vav or Zayin, or a leg, or a similar case}, if a small child of average intelligence can read it normally, it is Kosher, and if not it is invalid [posul]. And it is not necessary to follow our custom, which is to cover the remaining letters in the sentence [in order to prevent the child from recognizing the letter only in context. The Mishna Brura mentions several authorities who do require that all preceding words be covered, but not this word or the others that follow].
{Rama: However, if we can see that the normal shape of the letter has been torn away, then it is posul even if a child can read it normally.}
We validate torn letters only when they were first written properly, and then became torn into two parts. However, if the scribe wrote the letter over a hole which interrupted the letter, or the long leg of a final Kaf [ ___ or a similar letter reached to the edge of the parchment when it [ | was written, without being surrounded by parchment at least [ | initially, then the text is invalid. [ | ]
32:17. If a drop of ink fell inside a letter, and the letter is no longer recognizeable, then it does not help to scrape away the ink leaving the letter behind - because this is "engraving" rather than writing, and invalid, because we require "and he wrote" and not "and he engraved." And so too if the scribe erred and wrote a Dalet in place of a Reish, or a Beis in place of a Kaf, it does not help to erase the additional section, because this too is engraving32:21. Each parshah [i.e. paragraph], after [the scribe] writes it, (104) he should read it [to check that it contains no mistakes] well, with concentration and care, twice and a third time. And he should read it through again before he places it in the tefillin-box, to avoid a [checked] parshah being switched with an [unchecked] parshah.
MB 104: He should read it well - because if he finds that a letter is missing in one parshah, not only is that parshah unusable, but likewise all the parshahs that follow it, because [if he fixed the faulty parshah or replaced it by writing a new parshah] they would have been written out of order [i.e. before the fixed/replaced parshah], as explained above in the beginning of the Siman [Seif 1].
32:22. It is good [for the scribe] to test out the quill (105) before he begins to write the parshah, so that there should not be too much ink on it and he will lose out [i.e. ruin the parshah by blotching]. And likewise, he should be careful before he writes every name [of G-d] to read all (106) that he has written [so far], so that [the name of G-d] does not come to be hidden away [i.e. discarded (respectfully)] (107) because of him.
MB 105: Before he begins - He does not mean only at the beginning of the parshah, but rather before [the scribe] begins to write [any letters] _in_ the parshah.
MB 106: That he has written - in that parshah, but not the previous parshah.
MB 107: Because of him - And when he dips the quill [in ink] to write the Name, he should not start with the Name right away, in order that he not ruin it with too much ink [if there is too much ink on the quill], or maybe a hair got stuck on [the quill] and the writing will not come out straight; and also he needs [a chance] to sanctify the ink on the quill before he writes the Name. Therefore, he should make sure to not write the last letter before the Name, and begin to write [after dipping the quill] with that letter [so he can use that letter to test for any problems]. If he didn't [leave the last letter], he should look for some letter or crown of a letter that needs more ink, and fill it in and then write the Name. And if he needs more ink before he finishes the Name, he should dip [the quill] in the letters before the Name which are still moist [instead of dipping it in the inkwell; to avoid the problems of too much ink or a hair] and [use that ink to] finish the Name. But he should not dip [the quill] in the actual letters of the name [because it would be disrespectful]; and some are lenient and allow dipping [the quill] in the actual letters of the Name, and do not consider this degrading since it is for the purpose of finishing the Name [and not for the purpose of something less holy]. And if the letters before the Name are no longer moist, then he should dip [the quill in the inkwell] anew and look for a letter or crown which needs more ink, as explained above. All of this [discussion] is a good thing to follow, but post facto [its neglect] does not invalidate [the writing].
32:23. If [the scribe] finds that he left out [even] one letter, it cannot be (108) rectified, because if [he fixes the mistake by going back and adding in the missing letter] it will have been written out of order and [therefore] invalid, because it is written "And [these words] shall be" [Devarim 6:6], i.e. (109) as they are, they shall be. If he wrote (110) an extra letter, it can be rectified by (111) scraping [i.e. erasing] it if it is at the end or beginning of a word; but not if it is in the middle of a word, because when he erases it, [the word] will (112) look like two [separate] words.
MB 108: Rectified - by adding in [the missing letter]. This is if from [the place of the mistake] until the end of the parshah there are Names which are forbidden to erase, because otherwise he can erase [from the missing letter] until the end [and rewrite it in order].
MB 109: As they are, they shall be - i.e. in the order they are written in the Torah, they should be written [by the scribe].
MB 110: An extra letter - And if he wrote an extra word, he should erase it and he can leave the space blank (if there is no letter [at the end of] the preceding word which he can extend to fill that space [as explained below]), and blank space does not invalidate [the parshah] as long as it is not the size of the space which separates paragraphs [in the Torah or scrolls] which is the width of nine letters [but if the space was that wide, then it would be considered a mistaken beginning of a new paragraph]. And sometimes it can be fixed even in this case [where the extra word is very long], if he can extend the [last] letter of the previous word and thereby reduce the size of the nine-letter space. Additionally, in a case where the tefillin would be invalid due to the blank space [i.e. it is nine letters long], even if the previous word ends in a "heh" or "kuf" he can extend the roof [i.e. top horizontal line of the "heh" or "kuf"] in order to reduce the blank space; even though therefore the foot [i.e. vertical line in the bottom left corner] will not be at the [left] end of [the letter] [and we normally require it to be at the left end and not in the middle], this is not required post facto [or in a difficult situation such as this]. The Pri Megadim wrote that if he [mistakenly] doubled a word, it is better to erase the second, because the first was written properly [and therefore does not deserve to be erased]. But if before the first there is a letter which can be extended, it is better to erase the first [and extend the preceding letter to cover the blank space; even though the blank space would not be the size of nine letters], to take into account the opinion of Rabbenu Tam that the size of a paragraph break is three [and not nine] letters.
MB 111: Scraping - And the parshah is not [thereby] invalidated because of carving [Tefillin must be written on the parchment, not carved out of a block of ink already found on the parchment - AB], because he is not doing anything to the actual words or letters [so this is not considered carving, but merely rectifying a side problem].
MB 112: Look like two words - And sometimes it can be rectified by erasing it and extending the preceding letter to fill up its space, e.g. if he wrote "la'avosecha" [mistakenly] "full", with a 'vav' after the 'beis', he can erase [the 'vav'] and extend the preceding 'beis' to fill its space. Likewise, if the correction follows a 'kaf' or 'daled' or 'resh', which can be slightly extended to fill the space of the erased extra letter. But if the extendable letter follows the extra letter, so that it is impossible to extend it backwards without first erasing part of it, e.g. the word "se'or" from the Torah which he [mistakenly] wrote "full", with a 'vav' following the 'alef', where it is impossible to extend the 'resh' [following the 'vav'] backwards unless he erases its "foot" [vertical line] first and thereby nullifies its identity [as a 'vav'], and when he then completes the 'resh' [after extending it] he will be writing [it] out of order; there is no way to fix it, unless he can fill the place [of the missing letter] by slightly thickening the preceding and following letter [as] this [thickening] is not considered an [invalidating] change to the letter. This is not so if the extendable letter precedes the extra letter, because one can extend these letters a lot [forwards] without detracting from them at all. But there is doubt about the first [appearance of the word] "matzos", which should be "empty" [i.e. without a 'vav'] and he wrote it "full" and then erased the 'vav', if then extending the horizontal line at the bottom of the [preceding letter] 'tzadik' helps, or if as long as he has not extended the top of the letter it still looks like two words even though he drew the letters close on bottom. Likewise, "nosain" which should be "empty" [without a 'vav'] and likewise "hotziacha" which he [mistakenly] wrote "full" with a 'yud' between the 'tzadik' and the 'alef', in all these cases there is doubt whether it can be fixed by extending the bottom of the preceding letter. In any case, any [word] which looks like two words is invalid. But if originally he extended the bottom of a 'nun' or 'tzadik' and wrote the next letter in [the space above that extension], e.g. in 'panai' or 'artzi', it is valid, since they were written as one word [and we don't suspect that it looks like two words]. But in any case, a priori it is not proper to do so, i.e. have one letter in the airspace of another letter, because some are strict about this. 32:24 It is permitted to write on a spot that had previously been (113) scraped clean of ink or erased. It is even permitted to write the Name of G-d. The ink should not be erased until has dried properly because then it can be scraped well and will not leave a mark.
MB 113: Scraped - Scraping is after the ink had dried and erasing is before the ink has dried. That which it says that the ink should not be erase until it has dried is only good advice. Look in the Pri Megadim who writes that if a mark of the ink remains it is questionable if even post facto that the Tefilin are permissible. This applies even to a regular word (not G-d's name) and it is forbidden to write on a spot that has an ink stain.
As we have seen previously Tefilin must be written in the order that they appear in the Torah. This means that the four paragraphs of the Tefilin must be written in the order that they appear, that the words in the paragraph must be written in the order that they appear in the paragraph and that the letters in a word must be written in the proper sequence. If the Tefilin were written out of sequence the Tefilin are not permissible at all. This also means that if after the Tefilin were completed and the Tefilin were ruined (a letter was erased - completely) the letter cannot be reinserted because the Tefilin will not have been written in sequence. There are certain circumstances where a letter may have been ruined but not completely erased. Under certain circumstances the Tefilin may be fixed. The MB writes an introduction to the upcoming paragraph which discusses these laws. Following is a synopsis of what the MB writes:
The MB breaks up the possibilities into three possibilities:
1) If part of a letter was erased and the letter does not look like the original letter. This is true whether or not the letter now looks like a different letter. In this case even if a child can recognize the letter the Tefilin are no good since WE know that the letter lost its proper form, and if there was more text after the letter the Tefilin are Posul and cannot be fixed.
2) If the letter didn't lose its form but there was a slight split in the letter. An example is if the three vertical portions of a Shin were detached from the base - but they are still there. In this case if an average child can recognize the letter (when covering the letters that come prior to it) the Tefilin may be repaired and will not be considered to be written out of proper sequence. However, before they are repaired the Tefilin are not usable.
3) If the letter meets the criteria outlined in (2) above but the only means of repairing the letter is by erasing it the Tefilin cannot be repaired. This is because when the letter is erased to repair it the Tefilin will now be written out of order. An example is when the left foot of a Hei touches the roof of the Hei, the thin piece of ink cannot just be scraped because of the prohibition of "Chok Tochos" (which is that when the letter is formed by scraping ink out of a spot to form a letter). This would happen when scraping away the spot of ink attaching the left leg of a Hei to its roof.
Following is the Shulchan Aruch: (Not all the MBs are translated)
32:25 (114) Any letter which is written improperly (115) and doesn't have its distinctive look, like when the (116) leg of an Aleph touches its diagonal piece or the top of the Aleph touches the diagonal, or if the leg of the Hei or Kuf (117) touch the roof; or if a single letter is split into two letters like a (118) Tzadi that looks like a Yud and a Nun or a Shin that looks like a (119) Yud and an Ayin or a (120) Ches that looks like two Zayin. If these are fixed after more text is written after the mistake the Tefilin cannot be fixed due to the problem of proper sequence. However, to separate two letters that are touching is permissible since the letter has its own form and when it is detached nothing was written. The same is true if (121) some of the verticals on the Alephs, Shins and Ayins or the legs of the Tavs are slightly detached from the main portion of the letter and an (122) average child can recognize the letter the Tefilin may be repaired. This is true even if there is more text already written after these letters, because the letter already has its distinctive shape and when fixing it one is not writing out of sequence. (123) There are those that rule that if the piece connecting the top of the Ches together is (124) slightly broken (125) it may be repaired even if an average child reads the letter as two Zayins.
MB 114: This is the introduction up above.
MB 115: This is because the only way to repair the letter is by erasing portions of it (rule 3) and this would then entail writing the Tefilin out of proper sequence.
MB 118: The MB discusses this in context of rule 1. The MB points out that if what is missing is part of the letter that is not intrinsic to its unique shape, such as the left leg of the Yud, the Tefilin may be repaired without being considered to have been written out of sequence.
MB122 - This means that even if the separation is obvious but the child recognizes it the letter may be repaired. However, if the split is so minute that it is not obvious the letter does not have to be shown to a child and may be repaired. In this case if it was shown to a child and the child does not recognize the letter, repairing the letter would be considered repairing it out of sequence.
MB 124 - If the break was obvious the letter cannot be repaired under any circumstance as described earlier.
MB125 - This is because the child is not used to seeing this type of Ches (because the Ches in Tefilin is written like two Zayins with two diagonal lines connecting the sides like this:
/\ --- --- | | | |
and the child would think that it is two Zayins even if the sides were completely attached). Therefore, the Tefilin may be fixed in this case.
32:26 If the letters of Hashem's name are (126) touching they may be (127) detached.
MB 126: Touching - This is true whether they are touching at the top or the bottom of the letters. This is only true if they were attached at the time of writing, but if they were attached after that then it cannot be fixed. Look in the Beur Halacha.
MB 127: Detached - This is not considered erasing since this is fixing the Name. This is especially true if the Name is attached to a letter from a different word, but care must be taken to erase the other letter and not to erase the last drop of ink that is attached to the Name of Hashem. |
| | |
