Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah and Sefer Torah, Chapter 1 (Auto Translated)

Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah, and Sefer Torah – Introduction and Chapter 1

Introduction: Why Tefillin Before Sefer Torah?

Rabbosai, we are learning with the holy Rambam, we are beginning something new today. Until now we have learned about what one says, now we are going to learn about what one writes, or what one places on the head or on the wall.

Hilchos STaM, tefillin mezuzah and sefer Torah. Not STaM, because STaM is sefer Torah, tefillin, mezuzah. Here it says first tefillin, TMaS, tefillin, mezuzah, sefer Torah.

Reb Yitzchak asked why does he begin with tefillin, mezuzah, and then sefer Torah. I said that tefillin is very connected with tefillah, it’s something one does every day. It says in Chazal, which the Rambam brings later, that one should read Krias Shema when one has tefillin, and so on.

Yes, there are certain stringencies in tefillin over sefer Torah. There are also stringencies in sefer Torah over tefillin. Ostensibly, I don’t know if it goes in the order of holiness, tefillin is not holier than a sefer Torah.

Ostensibly the answer is what you say, because Sefer Ahavah, which you said better before, Sefer Ahavah is mitzvos that one says every day. The mitzvah of tefillin is not exactly a mitzvah of every day, it’s a mitzvah one reads about, a general mitzvah to write, but not exactly a mitzvah of every day. Or every day, but sefer Torah has something to do with the community, and tefillin has something to do with individuals.

Digression: The Mitzvah of Writing a Sefer Torah and Our Donor

So, it’s a mitzvah, we are going to learn about the mitzvah of writing a Torah, it also costs money. Also to learn the Torah costs money. Therefore, we speak of our donor, HaRav Rabbi Yoel, the Machon Kulam, who fulfills the mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah through buying us sefarim, and he buys the… I don’t know what you call a sefer, a video, it has some din of writing, because it gets written into the computer. It has the same concept, and is mezakeh the rabbim. Not chas v’shalom, one cannot derive a halachah from here, but to greet and warm up is certainly good.

Enumeration of Mitzvos: Five Positive Commandments

Yes, Hilchos Tefillin u’Mezuzah v’Sefer Torah, the Rambam counts, yesh b’chlalan, as the eternal Rambam wants to establish the 613 mitzvos as we have already mentioned, he says which mitzvos there are in total among the three types of mitzvos, tefillin, mezuzah, and sefer Torah.

The Rambam says, five.

– One, lilbosh tefillin al harosh.

– Two positive commandments.

It’s interesting that in Sefer Ahavah I once checked, I don’t remember all of them, there are almost no negative commandments, I remember perhaps there are some negative commandments in this Sefer Ahavah.

Ah, that’s what you don’t see from love. Very good. Love is what one does yes, not what one doesn’t do. Shevuos is what one doesn’t do. Here we have only a list, yes. Eight positive commandments, eleven positive commandments, that’s the whole thing. Yes, very good. Okay, very good, that is indeed the division of Ahavah.

Tefillin – Two Separate Mitzvos

Very good. There is the mitzvah of tefillin, two separate mitzvos, on the head and on the arm. Very good. How the two together, it’s very interesting, the Rambam shows this, I looked in Sefer HaMitzvos earlier, he has another way, which it says in the Gemara that tefillin are not me’akev zeh es zeh, in Menachos, it says there tefillin shel rosh eino me’akev es shel yad.

The Gemara says simply, because one is one mitzvah and this is a second mitzvah. The Rambam says, you see that they are two separate mitzvos. What’s the question? It’s true, we should look at what concerns us, we put both together, but they are both two mitzvos. Therefore we make two berachos, and see what the Rambam says however.

Mezuzah

Yes. Then, the next mitzvah is the mitzvah of mezuzah, likvo’a mezuzah b’pischei hasha’arim, to place a mezuzah. They say that the mitzvah is to place the writing on the mezuzah of the doorposts, because mezuzah means doorpost. Yes, in the Torah it means the doorpost. Mezuzah became a synonym for the amulet, for the tefillin essentially. It’s placing tefillin on the head and on the door of the house. But it’s called likvo’a mezuzah, it’s interesting. B’pischei hasha’arim. Very good, that’s the mitzvah of making a mezuzah.

Sefer Torah – Two Mitzvos

Then there are two mitzvos of sefer Torah, one mitzvah, lichsov kol ish sefer Torah, two mitzvos of writing a sefer Torah, and that is that every Jew should write a sefer Torah for himself, the mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah. And then for a king there is a special mitzvah that he should write a second sefer Torah.

Usually for a person who only has the mitzvah of one Torah, if he writes another one, he has fulfilled the same mitzvah again, perhaps he hasn’t fulfilled a new mitzvah. But the king has a new mitzvah that he should write a second sefer. Yes, so to speak it comes out that he has two sifrei Torah. But ultimately it’s not one mitzvah that the king should make two Torahs. He has a mitzvah that he has just like a Jew. Now that he is a king he has another mitzvah to write another Torah.

So I also think, that if he hasn’t yet fulfilled, let’s say he became a king in his youth, he hasn’t yet bought the sefer Torah, he needs to make one, one, and with that he still hasn’t fulfilled the sefer sheni l’melech.

The Common Denominator: What Connects Tefillin, Mezuzah, and Sefer Torah?

Very good. By us we wanted to focus on the introduction, and we have already learned this a few times, actually, we already said that the halachos, ah, in Sefer Ahavah, Hilchos Avodah Zarah, for example, is halachos also tefillah, berachos, kri’as Shema. Tefillah, berachos, Kri’as Shema are two separate mitzvos. The Rambam put them together in one tractate, and we said the reasoning. We said that it’s one topic or one subject, tefillah, berachos, Kri’as Shema are all things that one does in the beis hamidrash, so in that order.

And here also, the connection of all these things is that all these things that one writes, one writes portions of the Torah, or the entire Torah. It was a wonder why he wanted to write it, since the Rambam wrote Hilchos Ksivas Sefer Torah.

Ah, very good, what I wanted to say. The reason is because the common denominator of all three is that they need to be written by a sofer STaM.

The Internal Structure of the Halachos

But in practice internally it’s more or less the first five, as was said? The first five chapters are Hilchos Tefillin, then from 6-7 is Hilchos Mezuzah, then from chapter 7 and on is Hilchos Sefer Torah.

But the beginning is essentially general halachos. He’s going to say a bit, he’s going to begin with tefillin in chapter 1, but he’s going to say as you say, laws of writing, where some laws are different in mezuzah and sefer Torah, but it’s a thread, he says it all at once. What does a sofer STaM mean? Ksiav Ashuri, a shirtut.

Chapter 1, Halachah 1: The Four Parshiyos of Tefillin

Why Doesn’t the Rambam Begin with an Introduction?

The Rambam says thus, he begins with… first one is going to learn what one writes in the tefillin. Ah, what one writes in the tefillin and what one writes in the mezuzah. And from here goes the halachah, which he’s going to say, ah, I have you, you wrote well.

The first two halachos here are going to be like this: There are tefillin, mezuzah, sefer Torah, all are written portions of the Torah. A sefer Torah is the whole thing, tefillin four parshiyos, a mezuzah two parshiyos. And he’s now going to say which things they are.

The Mishnah tells us that tefillin contains four parshiyos, and the Rambam goes right in. He wants to say that therefore when one writes this it must be the whole thing. That’s the main halachah he says here, both by mezuzah, both by tefillin, both by sefer Torah, even one letter is me’akev, it must be complete the four parshiyos. That’s the same halachah for all three things, only each one according to its matter what it is, one must say what it is and that it must be the whole thing. That’s the halachah.

Many times the Rambam begins with a small introduction, like for example he began Hilchos Tefillah, nachalas avos u’zechus avos, and the others. He doesn’t tell us here that the Torah tells us to put on tefillin, and Chazal tell us that tefillin is four parshiyos. He jumps right in to something like the second level. He doesn’t begin at all with such a kind of introduction as you say, the four parshiyos sections that have such a beautiful historical introduction, but usually in most other halachos he begins with mitzvas aseh like this, here he doesn’t begin.

Discussion: The First Chapters as Introduction

But it can be, I’m thinking now perhaps, that in a certain sense it does make sense here, because the four parshiyos is where it says that one should put on tefillin. Yes, but he’s going to say later that it’s a mitzvah to put on tefillin, but you need to know first what tefillin is before you can put it on.

So in a certain sense, the chapter is the introduction, or the first two chapters, until he goes chapter 3 I think, or chapter 4, only in chapter 4 it’s going to say… I also remember in Hilchos Sukkah for example he also begins like this. Ah, sukkah. You need to know first with what one may make a sukkah, and then you can talk about dwelling in the sukkah. Right, not about dwelling, about leisheiv basukkah. Sitting in the sukkah, or… sitting in the sukkah. It says first with which materials one can make a sukkah.

First, what is a sukkah? Technically there are also halachos, you can say that it’s a mitzvah to dwell in a sukkah, and what is a kosher sukkah. But the Rambam thinks as if, you need to have a sukkah first, and then when you have a sukkah you can sit in it, the laws of sitting.

So he says here, first you need to have tefillin, you know what tefillin is, he’s going to tell you when one puts it on, what one does with it. So perhaps according to this it makes exactly yes sense, you can say that this is the introduction.

He didn’t begin just to say Hilchos Ksivas Sefer Torah, he began to say what is a sefer Torah. Because in other words, in which mitzvah is the halachah? It’s not a mitzvah, it’s the conditions of the cheftza d’kedushah. What makes it a kosher tefillin?

Right, but the Rambam also doesn’t count such a basic thing as that it’s halachah l’Moshe miSinai that tefillin must have the four parshiyos.

Eh, he’s going to say. Ah, because that’s a… that’s a… bringing a source, how does one know that one must write the parshiyos?

Discussion: The Source for the Four Parshiyos

Does it say in the Torah at all that there are four parshiyos? It says in a Mishnah, it says yes, the four parshiyos. On the four parshiyos it says “u’chsavtam osam al mezuzos beisecha u’vish’arecha”. It says “u’chsavtam” means he’s talking about itself, “u’chsavtam” the thing that I’m talking about now, this piece, this parshah you should write.

Yes, the Rambam doesn’t bring that here, perhaps later he brings that, yes, about this. He doesn’t bring at all the… how the… okay. But you need to remember, the chapter doesn’t even talk about this. I mean that a bit in chapter 1 he talks about the parshiyos, in chapter 3 he talks about the order of the parshiyos. He never brings the point that you say, he talks about this at all. But the topic of the chapter is not really that, you’re right, the scope is small.

You didn’t introduce that someone is going to… there were however those who disagreed with the Sages, I know Tzedokim who wrote other things indeed in their tefillin. But the Rambam it seems is not worried about that.

Because the Tzedokim probably held that tefillin means an amulet, and which amulet means that one puts anything.

No no, that’s not correct. That’s what the Rashbam came up with in the Torah. The actual Tzedokim and those things wrote simply other things in their tefillin. So I don’t know, they held that tefillin means an amulet, and which amulet one can already… it doesn’t say, yes, the Rambam doesn’t talk about this.

It doesn’t say in the pasuk “u’chsavtem parshah zo”, it says “u’chsavtem”. I can say write the Ten Commandments, I don’t know what.

The Sages said that totafos means four parshiyos, tat and pas, yes. They said that totafos means four parshiyos, and they said which four parshiyos. The four parshiyos where the mitzvah of tefillin is mentioned.

Right, but it’s not necessarily. Why should one write the mitzvah of tefillin? Perhaps one should write just important mitzvos, I don’t know. One could have learned differently. That’s the mesorah, the Sages understood it this way, they received it.

But the Rambam doesn’t go into this, you’re right, he could have written. Perhaps the Rambam wasn’t worried. Many times the Rambam is worried that someone will say another interpretation. Here it seems that it goes from the other interpretations, he wasn’t worried about it.

But this is certain that the chapter doesn’t talk about this. The chapter is described what is tefillin, what is a…

The Four Parshiyos – The Rambam’s Language

He says thus, “arba parshiyos elu hen parshas kadesh li u’parshas v’hayah ki y’vi’acha shebesefer Shemos”, this week is v’hayah ki y’vi’acha Hashem el ha’aretz, there are there apikorsim or I don’t know what.

Is that the week v’hayah ki y’vi’acha from the parshah that talks about tefillin, peter chamor, and those things. From Shema, v’hayah im shamo’a, the four parshiyos.

They, he counts them, the Rambam here counts them according to the order as it says in the Torah, right?

Yes. Kadesh li, so according to the order as it is

Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah, and Sefer Torah – Chapter 1 Halachah 1 (Continued)

Why Doesn’t the Rambam Write the Mitzvah of Tefillin?

Speaker 1: Because, you could say not necessarily, why should one write the mitzvah of tefillin? Perhaps one should write just important mitzvos. I don’t know, one could have learned differently, that’s the mesorah, the Sages understood it this way, they received it. But the Rambam doesn’t go into this.

Speaker 2: You’re right, he could have written.

Speaker 1: Perhaps the Rambam wasn’t worried, many times the Rambam is worried that someone will say another interpretation. He doesn’t rule out that it goes from the other interpretation, he wasn’t worried about it. But this is certain that the chapter doesn’t talk about this. The chapter is described what is tefillin, what is a…

Halachah 1: The Four Parshiyos of Tefillin

The Rambam’s Words

Speaker 1: He says thus: Arba parshiyos elu, she’hen parshas kadesh li, u’parshas v’hayah ki y’vi’acha, shebesof sefer Shemos, u’Shema, v’hayah im shamo’a.

Speaker 2: And the confused ones, v’hayah ki y’vi’acha, Shema, whatever, they had a different knowledge, or a different word.

Speaker 1: Is that the v’hayah ki y’vi’acha from parshas Bo, which talks about tefillin, peter chamor, and all those things, u’Shema v’hayah im shamo’a. The four parshiyos, yes, they… he counts them, the Rambam here counts them according to the order as they stand in the Torah, right?

Speaker 2: Yes, kadesh li, according to the order as they stand.

Speaker 1: Yes, yes, soon in chapter 3 one will see what is the order that one must place. But here he simply counts them as they come in the Torah.

Nichtavos Bifnei Atzman

Speaker 1: Hen shenichs’tavos bifnei atzman – they are written separately, it doesn’t mean one doesn’t cut them out from a written sefer Torah or something.

U’makifin osan b’or – one surrounds them with hide.

V’nikra’in tefillin – one takes the four parshiyos, one covers them with hide, later he will say more precisely how one covers them with hide, v’nikra’in tefillin. That’s the meaning of tefillin. That is, this is called tefillin.

Discussion: Why Is It Called Tefillin?

The Problem with the Word “Totafos”

Speaker 1: We searched for why it’s called tefillin, it’s very interesting. The Rambam, again, even you’re right, the Rambam should have perhaps gone into this. Perhaps the answer is as we spoke about the Radbaz in the previous halachah, that things that are simple what everyone does, everyone knows, the Rambam didn’t go into this. I don’t know if it’s a good answer, but I haven’t seen until now any better answer.

But we struggled, in the Torah it says “u’kshartam l’os” and “v’hayu l’totafos”. “Os” you know what it is, a sign, a mark, a sign. But “totafos” nobody knows what the meaning is. The Gemara says, the meaning of “tat” in Kaspi, “pas” in African, I don’t know what is the Hebrew translation. “Totafos” is so it’s called the thing, “totafos”, go translate me something.

And the Targum… so it’s called such a thing totafos. One had to find somewhere else the totafos. Somewhere in the entire war of King Solomon they displayed a crown and his totafos. I don’t know what, but it fell in by mistake once. Such a thing doesn’t fall in by mistake.

Speaker 2: It’s indeed, it can’t be.

Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah and Torah Scroll – Chapter 1 (Continued): “The Tip of a Letter”, Ten Things in Tefillin, and Laws of Ink and Parchment

Speaker 1: It’s not mentioned anywhere anyway. We searched for it, that we see nofes tzufim and totafos have a connection, but it’s not the language, rather it’s through a gematria. There are a few more words. Rav Shraga Frank wrote a book, I don’t remember what it’s called, with all the words that appear only once in the entire Tanach, a few hundred words that appear only once. It happens, because precisely here there is no other opportunity to mention the totafos, what should I do? What can one do about this? You don’t have a dictionary.

The Targum Onkelos – Tefillin

Speaker 1: So, what am I looking for here? Ah, tefillin. Yes, so we saw that… ah, ah, the Targum comes. Look if you put on… Yesterday we learned that one must learn shnayim mikra v’echad targum, because we don’t know what totafos is. So one must say… Now you know, not two things, because you also don’t know what tefillin is. The Targum means to say both tefillin, because you see how it is. The Targum did indeed clarify. The Targum said that we know what totafos means, and there is an interpretation that it means tefillin.

Speaker 2: Yes, but it’s not a translation, it’s just another… It’s just a dispute between one term and another.

Speaker 1: In the Torah it was called totafos, and in lashon chachamim, in the drashos of the sages it’s called tefillin. Therefore he tells you what it is. Now you know what it is because you go to shul, but if you were a non-Jew you wouldn’t know what it is.

So therefore until today one doesn’t know what it is.

The Tur – From the Language of Plilim

Speaker 1: The Tur argues that tefillin is from the language of plilim, from the language like a judgment, “v’nasnu b’flilim”, an argument upward with the Almighty, a conversation with the Almighty. Like tefillah. Tefillah fits that way, but apparently he understood that totafos, or tefillin, is from the language of os (sign). Like it says “l’os”, and in the Torah it says “os”, so this is like a proof, it’s a proof that “shem Hashem nikra alecha”, or that there is a God, whatever. It’s like a proof, it brings an argument for something. Yes, for him it’s from the language of plilim that it’s a proof, it’s from the language of os or edus (testimony). That’s how the Tur understood.

The Simple Interpretation – Tefillin Means Amulet

Speaker 1: Others argue, this seems to us a more simple interpretation, that the word tefillin, or tefillah, one is called tefillah and two tefillin, was in ancient times, that’s what they called something like an amulet, something that encompasses such sorts of things. It’s a name for the object. They wanted to order on Amazon a small piece of paper that is wrapped with a thick piece of leather, that’s called tefillin. And the Torah says that one should take the parshiyos and make such an amulet with them.

It seems that it was a kind of phenomenon of an amulet, like a person puts something on, as we see in the Gemara in the laws of Shabbos, one puts something on and goes with it. And it exists until today, a person who has something that is important to the person, or it’s sentimental, or because he feels it’s a protection. The Torah says, take the parshiyos in the Torah that speak about faith and about the Exodus from Egypt, make them into an amulet.

So apparently that’s the translation.

Proof from the Septuagint – Phylacteries

Speaker 1: Also in English they say “phylacteries”, and that comes from the Greek, the Septuagint, where the great sages wrote about tefillin, they wrote “phylacteria”, which is in Greek, and in Greek phylacteria means amulet. So it seems that the translation is amulet, and tefillin also seems to be such a word.

So it seems that you’ve brought two examples, one from Onkelos and one from the Greek translation, that indeed in lashon hakodesh there really isn’t a good way to explain what it is, but one brings in a word from another language. You still don’t know what this is.

What Does Amulet Mean?

Speaker 2: No, but you see that Jews didn’t consume much the amulet, because it’s not brought much, we don’t encounter it in the Torah.

Speaker 1: Ah, other amulets?

Speaker 2: No, this is the Jewish amulet.

Speaker 1: No, the only thing we encounter is in Maseches Shabbos there in Chazal. You see that in the Torah there weren’t any other amulets except the totafos.

We do find in Chazal the language kameia, the verb, the verb kameia, or the noun kameia, sometimes on tefillin. So we see that they understood that it’s essentially… In other words, this tells us in order to answer a question. Often a person can ask a question that tefillin is a strange thing, one learns hide, one puts in paper, it doesn’t fit in at all, because we’re not accustomed at all to such sorts of things. For example, a Sefer Torah everyone understands, there is something like a book, it’s a sort of book, it’s made in the old-fashioned way etc., everyone understands. But tefillin, the world doesn’t know at all what it is.

Now we’ve discovered that tefillin is an amulet. What does an amulet mean? One takes a piece of parchment, writes in it an important thing, puts it… It’s like many people have in their wallet a picture of their father who no longer lives, yes? That’s a kind of amulet. An amulet doesn’t mean that it protects me from harmful spirits, it protects me from forgetting. It protects me from… It brings me remembrance, yes, “l’zikaron bein einecha”. There are people who have a certain kind of chain, I know who has it from the hostages, baruch Hashem he’s already out. Something is very important to them, it’s a normal thing, people put bumper stickers today or all other kinds of ways of identifying themselves. An amulet is either an amulet from harmful spirits, or is simply a testimony that they identify with the Almighty and they identify with Judaism.

But therefore it’s called tefillin, because tefillin is simply translated as amulet. Such a sort of amulet, perhaps such a sort of amulet that is primarily not for protection. But the mekubalim say yes, I mean perhaps the Rambam wouldn’t be happy that tefillin, why are they called tefillin, because yes, the mekubalim say yes Chazal say so, yes, there are places. But the Rambam says earlier that one may not use a Sefer Torah as an amulet. He goes on to say why this is so, about this.

What Does One Do with the Tefillin?

Speaker 1: The Rambam says further, what does one do with this? But the Rambam doesn’t say… Here the Rambam does indeed make a surprise, he says, this is called tefillin. This wasn’t the word tefillin. Tefillin is the box with the parshiyos. And what does one do with this? One puts it on the head, “v’haya lecha l’os al yadecha”, and “u’kshartam l’os al yadecha”, one binds it around the hand.

Binding by the Shel Yad vs. Shel Rosh

Speaker 1: The Rambam doesn’t say “u’kshartam al harosh”, but on the hand he brings the language of binding. Also by the mitzvah, notice, “v’haya lecha l’os al yadecha ul’totafos bein einecha”. Interesting. And by “u’kshartam”, by “u’kshartam” stands the shel yad. The shel rosh, the shel rosh of the head one places it, it’s not bound. Interesting. The head is flat enough, one can place it. It makes a knot. One puts it through straps, but the straps aren’t the main tefillin, the straps are the… It’s a part of the tefillin.

But here he doesn’t mean to say the mitzvah, how the mitzvah is. He means to say that this is what tefillin is, such a thing that one does this with.

Even the Tip of One Letter Invalidates

The Law

Speaker 1: The law that he wants to say is this, that even the tip of one letter from the four parshiyos invalidates all of them from the Torah, until they are written complete according to their proper form.

Dispute of Rishonim: What is “Kotzo Shel Yud”?

Speaker 1: So here there is an interesting matter. The Rambam says the language “kotzo shel os achas”. Now, in the Gemara, the language of the Gemara was “kotzo shel yud”. Even “kotzo shel yud”. There is a great dispute among Rishonim what is the meaning of “kotzo shel yud”.

The Opinion of Rashi – The Simple Interpretation

Speaker 1: It means a tiny corner of a yud. Like for example a yud has like two parts, yes? On the right side comes down a small piece, and on top is a line. So the simple translation, as Rashi translated, that the kotz means that piece. If you only make a dot on top, you won’t know that it’s a yud at all, it’s invalid, it’s not a yud. That’s the simple translation, kotzo shel yud.

An Even Simpler Interpretation – The Form of the Letter

Speaker 1: And there are those who want to say even simpler, that kotzo shel yud can mean that simply the squareness of it. In other words, there are letters, for example by yud, it’s not exactly so, but a samech with a mem, a final mem with a samech is the same thing, only the difference is the roundness. Or also a dalet with a reish, we make a dalet and we add another piece, but there was once also an opinion that the dalet and reish is the same thing, only the reish is rounder and the dalet is pointed. So that’s the kotz, that it must be, and not that you can confuse it with another letter. But that’s the simple interpretation even a kotz invalidates, and that is apparently the Ramban, that a kotz echad means simply the upper part.

The Opinion of Rabbeinu Tam – The Left Kotz

Speaker 1: But Rabbeinu Tam held that this doesn’t make sense, because certainly he held that this is simple, even a kotzo shel yud, certainly you must have a yud, not no yud. Therefore Rabbeinu Tam was mechadesh that a yud has another piece, on the left side one makes, that’s how all Ashkenazim do, in our yud one puts down a bit, in a Sefer Torah a bit comes down a small hair like that, and that’s called the kotzo shel yud that invalidates. At the end, that is at the beginning is massive, a yud goes, looks like this, goes, on the left side, next to the… yes, something comes out a piece.

There are others who translate that kotz means the tagin, but that’s called kotzo of Rabbeinu Tam, because Rabbeinu Tam was mechadesh a new, a new principle, a chiddush in the script, because it doesn’t say kotzo shel yud, it says going a kotzo shel yud.

A Simple Interpretation – Yud is the Smallest Letter

Speaker 1: Ah, simple, I have another simple interpretation, I want to remember, I remember. You should forgive me that I say so many things, we’ll learn further. A yud is the smallest letter. Therefore one says even a yud, because a kotzo shel yud is the smallest of the smallest. In English also there is an expression, even “one iota”, I don’t know if you’ve ever heard. “Iota” is simply Greek for yud. That yud in Greek is “iota”. One writes it a bit differently in Greek, that one more or less draws a small line, and it’s simply the same…

Speaker 2: Did you recently write a book called “Kitzur Shulchan Aruch” or what?

Speaker 1: No, I’m just telling you. I didn’t write. I’m just telling you an interesting thing. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch and Menoras HaMaor is the same point. That’s the law, that it must be correct.

Very good. Even if one of the letters is missing it has come a Torah, because the understanding is that it has all of the yud.

Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah and Torah Scroll – Chapter 1 (Continued): “Kotzo Shel Yud”, Ten Things in Tefillin, and Laws of Ink and Parchment

Law 1 (Continued) – “Kotzo Shel Yud” and “One Iota”

Speaker 1: One iota, yes. Iota is simply a Greek word for a yud. That a yud in Greek is an iota. It means, one writes it a bit differently in Greek, it’s also more or less a small line, and it’s simply the same letter. Is there a book called “Kitzur Shel Yud” or what?

Speaker 2: No, I’m just telling you, it’s interesting to see. “Kitzur shel yud” and “one iota” is the same point. That’s a law, it must be complete. Very good. Even if one of the letters is missing it’s not a Torah, because it must be what has all four parshiyos, must be complete.

The Rambam on Mezuzah and Sefer Torah

Speaker 2: The Rambam by the way, you know that the writing of four parshiyos he doesn’t say, he says an entire Sefer Torah, even if one letter is missing. One minute, let’s see, first let’s see. In short, I looked it up. The same law by both. And so the two parshiyos of mezuzah, which are “Shema” and “V’haya im shamoa”, even one letter from the two parshiyos, even half a kotz, even one corner is missing, it’s not Torah until they are complete.

That is the same law, just as mezuzah must be written without any deficiency, the same is regarding mezuzah and the same thing regarding a Sefer Torah. Ah, and so a Sefer Torah that is missing even one letter, is invalid. But regarding a Sefer Torah he doesn’t say even “kotzo shel os”, interesting. Perhaps a Sefer Torah is a bit less, it may be missing a kotz? There are even commentators who don’t agree. We see the Kesef Mishneh struggles, what is the source of the Rambam that a Sefer Torah that is missing one letter is invalid? It doesn’t say explicitly in the Gemara.

Discussion: The Source for Invalidity of a Sefer Torah Missing One Letter

Speaker 1: The Rambam simply took it from the Gemara.

Speaker 2: Yes yes, but it’s a midrash, it’s not a Gemara in halachah. He brings that perhaps one can learn from there, “even a Sefer Torah missing one letter”. But from there one only learns that… It already says. From that midrash it’s implied that they held that it’s a simple reasoning, it should remain in its proper form.

Speaker 1: True. No one disputes that one should write all the letters in the Torah.

Speaker 2: The question is, the question arises halachah l’maaseh also, if one goes to shul and sees one letter is missing, whether one must stop reading the Torah. The Rambam apparently says explicitly that it’s invalid. There are certainly commentators, other Rishonim and Acharonim who dispute the Rambam. I think, I saw recently that there is a responsum from the Bach, he also argued that since we are not expert in chaseir and yaseir, there is also a Shagas Aryeh about this. Therefore, if it happened to be a yud that is chaseir or yaseir… And because we don’t know anyway what the truth is, therefore one cannot say that it’s invalid. As the Bach argues, it’s the main thing in the Gemara it only says “if there is one invalid”, implying that not. So, but the Rambam certainly held that it’s invalid. But not to not… But even the Rambam it seems that there is a difference, that one is not so knowledgeable. One doesn’t know.

Okay, until here is in general. Now we’ll learn more laws of the writing.

Law 3 – Ten Things in Tefillin, All Are Halachah L’Moshe MiSinai

Speaker 2: Yes. The Rambam says, yes? This is already on tefillin specifically. Yes, but soon we’ll see that there are things that are also on Sifrei Torah. “There are ten things in tefillin”, as we read a few laws back, he made a number, so many so many laws it’s important to remember, ten laws there are by tefillin. “All of them are halachah l’Moshe miSinai”. I mean does the language “ten” appear in the Gemara, or did the Rambam make the list?

Speaker 1: It doesn’t say, he made it himself.

Speaker 2: Okay. “All of them are halachah l’Moshe miSinai, and all of them are indispensable, and if one changed in one of them behold the tefillin are invalid.” If one did differently with one of the ten things.

What Does “Halachah L’Moshe MiSinai” Mean by Tefillin

Speaker 2: Yes, and so we see that by tefillin there are things that are halachah l’Moshe miSinai. And the reason is apparently, because as the Rambam explained in his introduction, halachah l’Moshe miSinai doesn’t mean that there is no proof, it means that it’s something that isn’t written, it’s only something that was seen. And it’s reasonable that tefillin is something that was, one saw that one must do it this way, and therefore the sages said which parts of what it was one must continue to do this way, but it’s not something that one must write. Because as it doesn’t say in the Mishnah almost about the laws of tefillin, it only says literally two three laws, because tefillin, one goes to the beis midrash, one sees tefillin, so one must say halachah l’Moshe miSinai, that one knows that this is from Moshe Rabbeinu, one went with such tefillin, so one must do so.

Digression: Comparison with Esrog

Speaker 2: For example, esrog, laws of esrog one can derive from the verse, because also esrog, “hadar” the Rambam explains, it’s something that comes from before, one goes to bring it, so one must derive it from the verses. But the essence that it’s an esrog, today the Rambam says that it’s halachah l’Moshe miSinai. There is indeed a derasha on this, but also this is little, it’s once a year, and it’s more. But tefillin one puts on every day. So what are the ten things, the ten laws?

Two of the Ten: Ink and Parchment

Speaker 2: He’s not going to say all ten. Shnayim she’ikar ksivasam. Two of them relate to writing, we’re talking here in this chapter, the chapter is about writing, writing the parshiyos, and also b’ksivah uvirtzuah covering with leather, as we said before, we cover it over with leather, writing is that the straps should be tied, the strap of leather. There are eight laws. Says the Rambam, v’harei hen hashnayim she’ikar ksivasam, these are the two laws that relate to writing the tefillin. One, shekol ksivan eino nichtav ela b’dyo, one must specifically write with ink and not with another type of writing. And the second, sheyihu kol haketuvim al haklaf, they should be written on parchment and not on another… Says the Rambam, I’m going to explain to you now in the next few laws what ink means and what parchment means.

Halacha 4 – How is the Ink Made

Speaker 2: Yes? He says here, it’s very interesting. Here are technical things that I’m not expert enough to know exactly what he means, we’ll say what it says, and if the custom is different one should continue doing what the custom is, I don’t know. Keitzad maaseh hadyo? What is the meaning? Seemingly the logic, if we want to talk about the logic of this, the logic of all these things is simply that it should be well written. It’s a good ink. What does dyo mean? We say dyo means ink, but you see that dyo originally means a certain type of thing, it writes better, it’s clearer, or whatever. One needs that it should be written better, that is seemingly the reasoning for it. But there’s such a parchment, sometimes they used to write on papyrus, papyrus lasts less than parchment, it’s such a, yes, it’s such a thing.

Discussion: Did Ink and Parchment Develop Over the Years?

Speaker 2: He says, it seems to me that the parchment and the ink developed over the years. It’s interesting, the Gemara sets down the best method of writing that exists at a certain time, in its time, or perhaps the Gemara of that law is already a few hundred years before him.

Speaker 1: Why not Moshe Rabbeinu? Why not say parchment? No, doesn’t it say in the Torah, is the word dyo or klaf ever written?

Speaker 2: No, and secondly, before that we say it’s halacha l’Moshe miSinai.

Speaker 1: Right, we say halacha l’Moshe miSinai, one must do it this way. There have always been different types of levels of serious writing. He says, zefes and sha’avah or whatever, these are things that in certain regions these types of materials grow, and at a certain time they began to mix them and so forth. But this is the halacha that has always been. You should do it specifically with this material.

Speaker 2: Yes, the question here is a question. Let’s learn, let’s see what the Rambam says. Because you see that here there’s more detail that we need to understand.

The Recipe for Ink

Speaker 2: Yes, says the Rambam, yes, keitzad maaseh hadyo? Mekabtzin he’ashan shel shemanim o shel zefes vesha’avah. Smoke, that comes when a fire burns, from oils or from zefes and sha’avah, it releases a strong type of ash, a blackness. But the blackness itself is burnt, you can’t make it into ink.

One mixes it, vegovlin oso, one kneads it, biseraf ha’ilan, with some syrup that comes from trees, umidvash. Velochatsin oso ve’osin harbe. What does lochatsin oso mean? One kneads it.

Speaker 1: Lochatsin is like we saw in hilchos Pesach? It means that one puts hot water on it? Something like that?

Speaker 2: No, chalitah is that, no.

Speaker 1: Ah, lochatsin. Yes, lulsa chitin. Ah, it means one puts water, something like that. One makes it wet.

Speaker 2: Some kind of dough?

Speaker 1: One makes it wet.

Speaker 2: Some kind of expression lochatsin I remember from hilchos Pesach.

Speaker 1: Yes, you’re right, you said that chalitah.

Speaker 2: Lochatsin oso, yes, one soaks it in water.

Speaker 1: One puts water, something like that.

Speaker 2: One soaks it. Vedachin oso, then one grinds it, ad sheyiheyeh asuy ke’igulin. One makes from this such crackers like, such small pieces. Umeyabshin oso, one dries it, umatzni’in oso, one puts it away. And when one needs it, one uses it for writing with this.

Says the Rambam further, uvish’as ksivah, when one takes it out and wants to write with it, one puts it to soak a bit b’mei afatzim vechayotza bo.

Discussion: What is Afatzim?

Speaker 1: What is afatzim, do you know?

Speaker 2: I don’t know.

Speaker 1: It’s English, how do you say afatzim? What’s the translation?

Speaker 2: It’s a type of flower or a type of fruit.

Speaker 1: And it helps very much, it makes the ink good. I mean it makes the ink good, you can see that, yes.

Speaker 2: What can I see? I imagine that the Rambam says it’s a type of flower or…

Speaker 1: Why not? It’s black, it becomes hard, he makes a hard.

Why Mei Afatzim? – So That One Can Erase

Speaker 2: He says why the mei afatzim vechayotza bo is so important, she’im tirtzeh limchok, yimachek. The mei afatzim helps that if one needs to erase something, one can erase it. It makes the ink less permanent. Okay.

Says the Rambam, “vehu hadyo shemitzvah min hamuvchar lichtov bo sefarim tefillin umezuzos”. This is the best ink. “Ve’im kasav sheloshtan” – if he wrote…

Speaker 1: He says that afatzim is a fruit. Some kind of mei peiros kind of thing, I don’t know. Okay. Gidulei ha’aretz, gidulei ha’aretz that grow from the earth. Something that grows. A weed that grows on… Okay.

B’dieved: Mei Afatzim and Kankantus – Kosher

Speaker 2: Okay, this is the ink that is mitzvah min hamuvchar to write sefarim tefillin umezuzos. “Ve’im kasav” – if he wrote one of the three, sefarim tefillin umezuzos, not with the ink from ash, but he used mei afatzim with kankantus… yes, another type of ink. Mei afatzim, what we just learned, that one mixes into the ink. But now we learn that one can write with that itself. “She’hu omed ve’eino nimchak” – ah, it’s different. That means, the ink is more erasable. It’s more l’chatchilah because one can erase it. And he says that by a sotah it says “umachah”, it’s something that erases. So we take from this that it’s more l’chatchilah because it erases. That’s the proper ink. Perhaps that one wants to erase it, it fell in. There’s some logic in this. Okay.

If one made it with mei afatzim and kankantus, which one cannot erase, it’s also kosher. Very good.

Innovation: “Dyo” Means a Broader Definition

Speaker 1: Ah, very good. Here is the answer to your question that you asked whether dyo means exactly some certain technology that existed. It appears from the Rambam, I don’t know how the Rambam understood, but it appears from the Rambam from this law, even from b’dieved, that dyo means a strong good ink. The dyo that is l’chatchilah, perhaps that’s what it was by Moshe, or perhaps what is the best, is what we just gave the recipe for. But b’dieved, anything is good, as long as it’s “kesav shachor hamiskayyem”.

It’s halacha l’Moshe miSinai that a sefer Torah should be written with very good ink, whatever very good ink means. Yes, technically the Rambam brings here. I bring here the Rambam, how Chazal worked out the best ink. It’s not just an example. How Chazal worked it out, they also didn’t hold that this is what Moshe Rabbeinu used. They held that Moshe Rabbeinu used the white anointing oil. I don’t know. But they were certain that Moshe Rabbeinu certainly used…

Hilchos Tefillin Umezuzah Vesefer Torah – Chapter 1: Ink and Hides

Halacha 4: Ink – The Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai

The Rambam’s Recipe for Ink

It’s halacha l’Moshe miSinai that a sefer Torah should be written with very good ink. Whatever very good ink is called. Yes, technically it means a certain specific thing. The Rambam brings here what Chazal worked out as the best ink. It’s not just an example.

They held that this is what Moshe Rabbeinu used. They held that Moshe Rabbeinu used the water of Eretz Yisrael. They were certain that Moshe Rabbeinu certainly valued the Torah enough that he took the best ink that he had.

Very interesting. It’s interesting that it’s not me’akev, but yes, the meaning of the word dyo, that when it says in the Gemara dyo, it means the recipe that the Rambam brings. Dyo is not just a black thing. But the halacha is not, they had a reasoning from the Torah that the original sefer Torah needs to erase in water, from the story of sotah. So they searched how can there be a good ink that one can also erase. They held that this is the… it’s probably this was indeed the custom.

But what he says, in total the Rambam adds that the definition of the halacha is not on the physical piece of ink, the definition is that it should be a davar hamiskayyem, a good ink. So I mean that today the sofrim don’t use the Rambam’s recipe.

The Rambam’s Question: What is the Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai?

The Rambam asks, if so, okay, look, in the last piece he also says it more clearly. Im ken, mah hi oso halacha shene’emar bah shehi kosvim b’dyo? Once you say that I tell you halacha l’Moshe miSinai is dyo, and that’s what dyo means, but the minute I tell you that it’s not specifically, so what is indeed the halacha l’Moshe miSinai? That one should write well? The entire Torah one should do well, I mean. Ah, it’s a kal vachomer, one should do everything in order, according to the mitzvos.

He says, ela sheyihyu bitziv’onim, that it should be black. So dyo means black, basically. Kegon odem ve’odem yotzei bahem, she’im kasav basefarim o batefillin o bamezuzos afilu os achas b’tzeva acher, o bezahav, another metal, harei elu pesulim. So basically, when it says halacha l’Moshe miSinai that it must be dyo, we mean to say halacha l’Moshe miSinai that it must be a black color.

Very good. That’s how the Rambam learns, as it says in the Gemara, how he took this whole piece, that’s how he understands it. Okay. It’s not so clear, the Rambam learned it this way. It’s not explicit things. Okay.

Question: Why Didn’t Chazal Say “Shachor”?

It’s very interesting, because the simple question on this is, this is the halacha l’Moshe miSinai that it’s shachor, they knew how to say black. No, dyo, but it can be, it’s a good quality, if so we want a good quality. No, but we want good quality for dyo. It’s like you went into a store, one wanted to buy a black one, they said yes. One wanted to buy a green one, they said red, I don’t know, whatever. That means, we need to know whether the word means exactly the material that existed, or the idea. The Rambam says so, he has from this proofs from the Gemara and so forth, it’s not simply very clear.

Halacha L’maaseh: Today’s Sofrim

What do you mean take responsa? I remember that today’s sofrim generally don’t write with the Rambam’s recipe, and not only that, if I remember in the poskim it says that one doesn’t conduct oneself to make exactly the old recipe, one conducts oneself mainly like the Rambam’s explanation that a good state yes that is the main thing. But not certain. The Rambam has a lengthy discussion about how exactly one should make the ink. A responsum. Okay, I don’t see here the Rambam saying the halacha l’maaseh, I don’t know how it went.

Halacha 6-7: Three Hides – Gevil, Klaf, Duchsustus

The Process of Making Gevil

Okay, further. Now we’re going to learn the laws of the parchment on which one writes, the hide. Says the Rambam, sheloshah oros hen. We learned before that it must all be klaf, first we need to know what klaf means. Says the Rambam thus, there are three types of hides on which one writes. The Rambam is going to explain, there aren’t three hides, there are many types of hides. He’s going to say three parts, three types of hides that one writes on. A regular animal has these three types of hides. He’s going to say how it goes. Gevil, something called gevil. It could be like in the Gemara one says gevil according to the one who says, whatever, and gevil according to Reish Lakish, and klaf and duchsustus. Three, that’s what they’re called.

The Rambam explains, keitzad? One skins the hide from an animal or from a beast, and one removes all the hair, m’avir hase’ar, yes, one makes it smooth, I mean that’s what it’s called, one takes off the hair. Ve’achar kach molchin oso b’melach, then one puts it, one salts it. Ve’achar kach me’abdin oso b’kemach, then one works it out with flour. All these things make the hide better. Ve’achar kach b’afatza, one uses after salt and flour one uses afatza. Interesting that one uses afatza in ink and in the hide. It’s afatza b’afatza. Yes, there’s a lot of afatza. I don’t know what the afatza is, but whatever it is, it’s afatza b’afatza. Vechayotza bahen midevarim shemekavtzin es ha’or umechazkin oso, very interesting. Hide is completely spread out, and one wants to make it tight, one brings it together, that it should be contracted, that it should be strong, umechazkin oso, zeh hanikra gevil.

The Process of Cutting to Klaf and Duchsustus

The whole piece of hide, the hide when it’s still the whole layer, after being well worked out but not yet cut at all, worked out one must, that one must be able to do. When it’s worked out it’s called gevil. And then one does the process of cutting the hide and making thinner layers. How does one do it? Ve’im lakchu or achar she’ibduhu vechalku oso lishnayim, one cuts it in thickness, that means one cuts inside the hide, kemo she’ha’abdanin osin, as the people who work with hide do. What do they do sometimes? He means like the abdanin, if you want to know the technique how to cut, it’s a thin thing, how to cut it in width, like in between, one must ask from the abdanin how to do it. I haven’t cut a piece in the thickness of the hide, it’s a complicated thing, one must ask from the abdanin how to do it, ad sheya’asu shnei oros.

What happens then is that the hide is divided in half, there’s a thinner layer, this is mul hase’ar, the outer part, outside of the animal, ve’echad av vera she’hu mul habasar, this is from inside the animal, there where it must touch the flesh. And one works it well, just as one works it out with salt, ve’achar kach b’kemach, ve’achar kach b’afatza, again the same thing, one uses the same three materials to work it out. So now, now you’ve made from gevil, the father gevil now had two babies, klaf and duchsustus. Hachalek she’hu mul hase’ar, the part of the hide the leather that is near the hide, the outer part is called the exterior, vezeh shelemaalah min habasar nikra klaf.

Halacha 8: On Which Hide Does One Write What

The Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai

And the halacha l’Moshe miSinai is thus, that what? Halacha l’Moshe miSinai, the next halacha is sheyihu kosvim sefer Torah al hagevil.

Now what does one do with all these divisions? He says, the custom is, the halacha is, on gevil. What does gevil mean? The whole hide when it still has all the divisions, the whole thickness before one cut it, that’s called gevil. So the halacha l’Moshe miSinai is that the sefer Torah should be written on a thicker hide that still has both divisions, on gevil. And on which side of the gevil? The gevil has the two divisions. He says, one does this in the place there where it will later be called the exterior, kosvim bimkom hase’ar. One writes on the side of the hair.

The same halacha l’Moshe miSinai also says that tefillin one shouldn’t write on such a thick hide that is still called gevil, but one can already cut the hide after one has cut it, on klaf. One should write tefillin on klaf. One writes tefillin on the klaf. What does klaf mean? This is the innermost part, and one writes it from inside. Kosvim bimkom habasar, the innermost part. The same thing, one uses the halacha that one should use the other part of the gevil, not the part that one uses for tefillin. One uses the exterior, and now one writes kosvim bimkom hase’ar, the outer part. From inside one never writes. One writes either from the outside or from the inside. Each part, if it’s the whole, on which side does one write? On the outside. If it’s both, then the inside one writes on the inside.

Laws of Writing on the Wrong Side

It’s very interesting. Kol hakosev baklaf bimkom se’ar, one who uses klaf, and one must write on the innermost place, and he writes on the hair side, it’s invalid. O shekasav bagevil bimkom habasar, it’s invalid, because he didn’t write it on the correct side.

A Reverse Logic: Why Sefer Torah on Gevil?

It’s interesting, for a Sefer Torah one needs to have a gevil made from hide. Back then, one could have understood that perhaps for a Sefer Torah one could use less, the thinner one. If you want to save, it’s a great savings when you say that for a Sefer Torah a thinner hide is sufficient. But here they do exactly the opposite. For a Sefer Torah they wanted to have such a heavy, large Sefer Torah with very thick parchment, and for klaf and mezuzos the thinner one is sufficient. But it makes a difference, it requires the destruction of the little mezuzos, destruction of the hide. It could be that one Sefer Torah is enough for several thousand Jews, a large beis medrash. Okay, even though there is a mitzvah that each person should write a Sefer Torah, but tefillin is much more, where each person needs to put them on every day.

Halacha 9: Bedieved – Sefer Torah on Klaf

The Rambam’s Ruling

Okay, so let’s bring it out. The halacha l’Moshe miSinai, which we don’t know exactly what the matter is. The matter is not that this was the best order of how to make it. You’re not an expert on klaf, I ask the sofer. Do you believe with complete faith that you see one hundred percent? We’ll talk about this halacha l’maaseh in a second. Let’s bring out what the Rambam says.

The Rambam rules halacha l’Moshe miSinai. He says that the order, a Sefer Torah, if you have the three types of hide, and you write the three types of STA”M on the other three of them, that is the halacha l’Moshe miSinai. But if one didn’t do so, rather wrote a Sefer Torah on the klaf, one wrote a Sefer Torah on the thinner one, on the klaf itself, yes, it is kosher. But not beautiful. But on what can one not write? One cannot write any Sefer Torah on duchsustus. And gevil was only given for below the duchsustus. Gevil was given, one wanted to remember that not duchsustus. If one wrote on it a Sefer, it is invalid. On duchsustus one cannot write any Sefer Torah. That’s the side, in other words.

And similarly if one wrote a mezuzah on the klaf or on the gevil. A mezuzah in general can be written on whichever side one wants. What we learned that a mezuzah must be made on duchsustus, and yes, that is and duchsustus was only given for mezuzah. It’s a mitzvah to write. What about tefillin? He doesn’t say. When you learned that duchsustus is invalid, you perhaps thought that duchsustus is not the same material, perhaps it’s a weaker material. But you see that mezuzah is specifically on duchsustus. It’s not quality, it’s not that it’s weaker. It’s a technicality, that one must switch the side. As I told you, this goes inside, this goes outside. There’s a great reason for each one.

Halacha L’maaseh: Processing in Our Time

Now we need to know, halacha l’maaseh is first of all the Rambam says that all klaf, all the types, need to be processed with mei afatzim and the like. But halacha l’maaseh we don’t conduct ourselves this way. And we do processing, but whatever the customary processing is in our time. Rabbeinu Menucah brings that the Rambam already asked the Rambam himself, he says that no one knows how to make the…

Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah and Sefer Torah – Chapter 1 (Continued): Klaf in Our Time, Hide of Kosher Animals, and Processing L’shmah

Halacha 3 (Continued) – Klaf in Our Time: In Practice We Conduct Ourselves Differently

But halacha l’maaseh we don’t conduct ourselves this way. That is, we do processing, but whatever the customary processing is in our time.

Rabbeinu Menucah: The Rambam’s Response Regarding Processing with Mei Afatzim

Rabbeinu Menucah brings that the Rambam already asked the Rambam himself, he says that no one knows how to make the klaf on the sides that the Gemara apparently requires, because klaf means, part of the definition of all these things is that they should be processed with mei afatzim. That’s what’s implied in the Gemara. But we don’t know how to do the processing with mei afatzim. Perhaps nowadays there is a wise person who already knows.

The Rambam says, this is what one should do, he should not write any Sefer Torah because of this. This is because of Sefer Torah. The Rambam brings a responsum from Eshkol, in my opinion it also says there that Rabbeinu Tam says such a thing, that he doesn’t require the afatzim. He already held that the halacha should be required, but not in practice.

The Practice in Our Time: We Write Everything on the Same Klaf

The same thing, the entire distinction between klaf and gevil, furthermore, we don’t conduct ourselves this way at all. We write, whoever looks in his tefillin and Sefer Torah, we write everything on the same. And secondly, we don’t cut the klaf at all.

What we do is, the normal klaf that one buys in the store is a bit scraped, it’s not the entire thickness of it. And on which side does one write? One writes from the… what’s it called… from which side do we write? We write from the place of the flesh, I think.

In short, there are many versions that we have in the klaf, and not specifically in the Gemara, but even in the Rambam there are different versions. There are certain versions that arouse that according to the simple understanding of the halacha it comes out that our klaf is not correct.

The Poskim’s Answer: Our Klaf is Closer to Klaf Than to Duchsustus

But the poskim have already said that our klaf is closer to the klaf here than the duchsustus, and the duchsustus it was clear that it’s only lechatchila that it should be black.

What does closer mean? Yes, but our klaf is from hide. It’s from hide, but it’s not made the same way. We don’t cut the hide in two, and also, we don’t cut off an entire… we make it thinner than the… an animal is very thick, and they make it very thin from it. They cut off the coarseness from it, and I don’t know exactly what they do. When one makes a small… we call it klaf for some reason.

Comparison to Ink: The Main Thing is Beautiful and Good

In any case, apparently the previous answer as he brings through that the halacha is that the main thing is that it should be beautiful, it should be good and beautiful, and they don’t want any problem. All these halachos are like the Rambam learned about ink. Indeed, halacha l’Moshe miSinai means that this is the best, but… no, but by ink he told us more, he told us that the main word is that it should be black ink. Here he tells us, he doesn’t say that it should be the best type of paper that exists.

True, true. It’s much more detailed. And also you can’t say that the Torah only wanted it to be the best, because specifically the duchsustus and specifically the gevil and specifically the klaf.

I know that the Rambam says, it’s not clearly explicit in the Gemara, but he learned that the hair side is not the correct side to write, and simply what we see is that it’s a mitzvah to write this way. Perhaps because we see that it stretches, there’s a matter that it should be weaker, I don’t know.

Baal HaMaor and Rabbeinu Tam: Everything is Kosher, We Do What Has Been Done

In any case, this is also what the Baal HaMaor says, I think, that the halacha is that everything is kosher, everything is kosher the whole thing for the mitzvah, but Rabbeinu Tam said that our ink has a din of klaf, and we write it from the side of the flesh. In short, there are different ones, there are today’s people who have chumros and they do differently, but Rabbeinu Tam already said that we do what has been done already.

“Puk Chazi Mai Ama Dvar” – “Ask the Sofer”

This is how the halacha l’Moshe miSinai goes. The Ramban says, “puk chazi mai ama dvar,” and “ask the sofer.” Ask what the sofer says, do what the sofer says. Done. That’s how I conduct myself. There are other people who do better and they know better what the sofer… halacha l’Moshe miSinai doesn’t pass over to lists, it passes over from sofer to sofer, just as from mouth to mouth and rav to rav, for those to whom it’s relevant.

Yes, but it’s clear that there are others who have done differently. I think that the Rambam says that the known sofer speaks with the next known sofer, there’s no dispute. They do like the Rambam, and Rabbeinu Tam said that we do differently. Done, done.

One Thing is Invalid: “If One Wrote on the Klaf on the Side of the Duchsustus – It’s Invalid”

In practice, don’t make the mistake that it must be that it’s kosher. Done, but we’ve learned the halacha is, and the Rambam also apparently says that it’s bedieved, but one thing the Rambam says, yes, it’s invalid: if one writes on the wrong side the Torah, it’s invalid.

Aha, that’s already coming. That’s what he just said, “if one wrote on the klaf on the side of the duchsustus, it’s invalid”. A Torah may not be on the duchsustus. If someone wants to argue that today’s klaf has a din of duchsustus, then according to the Rambam this is invalid. Also on this, on this halacha also there are other opinions and distinctions, saying that it is indeed kosher bedieved.

Reasoning: Perhaps the Entire Distinction Doesn’t Apply

Okay, until now we’ve learned which part of the hide, what klaf means, the parts that one must write. But it could be that even according to halacha, if you can’t recognize a distinction between today’s klaf and gevil… one can recognize a distinction, the question is whether it can’t invalidate something, because today’s ones aren’t something a din, something a halacha, a din such that it would have been next to the flesh. It’s a name of a weaker material klaf. If the process of it is so different, that all of them are good materials, aside from how it’s made… I know the holy Aruch HaShulchan, he also brings this.

—

Halacha 10 – Hide of a Kosher Animal

Okay, now we’re going to learn the earlier halacha. There are arguments, one can argue that the halacha doesn’t have to be. Also by the way, I know what’s better and what do I know. It could always be that one doesn’t know how to make that way, because it comes out better for us this way, because it knew what to be, it could be the sofrim of today foresee one tomorrow. Anyway…

Now we’re going to learn that tefillin and Sifrei Torah must be made l’shmah, that’s what we hold before this, we hold here l’shmah. But it says here something earlier, I wrote l’shmah, yes, here another halacha. Another din of what the klaf should be.

The Rambam’s Words

The Rambam says: “One only writes scrolls, tefillin and mezuzos on hide of kosher animals, beasts and birds”. It must be klaf from kosher living creatures. “One who comes writes on hide of kosher animals, beasts and birds”. It must be kosher.

The Rambam says, it doesn’t mean that it must be kosher, that it must be from an animal that was slaughtered, even their neveilos and treifos are good. It should just be from the kosher species.

Kosher Fish – Practical Problem

The Rambam says further: A kosher fish doesn’t have this problem, it’s not any impurity. But there’s another reason, on the skin of a kosher fish one cannot write, because it’s slimy, it’s very dirty, it’s not a hide that one can clean. Beautiful ethical poskim, when processing it, in processing, the institution I don’t know what. Different from other hides of… a fish is fishy, it can’t be a kosher fish.

Examples: Crocodile, Sea Lion

For example I thought to myself, that here we see good quality leather that’s from crocodiles, a crocodile is not a fish, a crocodile is an animal, perhaps from some… yes, perhaps from some sheretz hamayim, some beast. Is he talking here about a kosher fish? And there’s also certain danger. A sea lion also has a very slippery good hide. I wouldn’t want to make tefillin from it.

But when one learns halacha one can indeed talk about who. I’m actually indeed ready to talk about who. Ah, whatever, I mean… Okay, it’s not relevant what you rule. Torah law, certain examples there’s such a hint, not relevant.

—

Halacha 11 – Processing L’shmah

The Rambam says further. So now they say, we learn that the processing must be done for the sake of a Sefer Torah. What needs to be l’shmah?

The Rambam’s Words

The Rambam says, “The hides of a Sefer Torah and the klaf of tefillin, one makes them for a Sefer Torah”. It’s not simple you buy it in the market, but one must make it. “One must process them for their sake”, one must make it for their sake. “And if one processed them not for their sake”, if one processed it not for their sake, not for the sake of tefillin or Sefer Torah, but simply when one makes leather, without knowing to see why to use it, it’s invalid.

A Non-Jew Cannot Make L’shmah

The Rambam says, it comes out from this such a halacha, that a Jew must do it, because it must be l’shmah, a Jew must see why it is. “Therefore if a non-Jew processed them they’re invalid”, if the non-Jew processes it it’s invalid. “Even if we told him to process this hide for the sake of a scroll or for the sake of tefillin”, even if you tell him that this hide is needed for a scroll or for tefillin, it’s still invalid. Why? “Because the non-Jew does it according to his own mind, not according to the mind of the one who hires him”.

The Rambam’s Reasoning: “He Does It According to His Own Mind”

The non-Jew doesn’t think about tefillin and mezuzos when he works on it, even if you ordered him. He doesn’t think about you at all, he thinks about himself. He does everything according to his own mind. A non-Jew doesn’t understand to do for another. He doesn’t humble himself that he has in mind the holy Shechinah, that he has fear of Heaven. He knows that he’s doing it for tefillin and for Sefer Torah, but a non-Jew who works for a Jew, he knows that he’s doing it for himself. A non-Jew doesn’t understand the concept of doing for another. He does it according to his own mind. He does it because he wants to.

Discussion: Distinction Between a Non-Jew and a Jewish Worker

So if for example you have a cheap Jewish worker, and you tell him, “I need it,” the Jewish worker also thinks about himself, he thinks about his eight dollars an hour. That’s not the point. What’s the point? You need to pay for the Jewish worker. A non-Jew does it according to his own mind, because he only does his work. Everyone only does the work.

No, no, no. A non-Jew doesn’t understand the concept of doing for another Jew. A Jew understands this, a non-Jew doesn’t understand. He does it according to his own mind. “Not according to the mind of the one who hires him”. I mean, a non-Jew doesn’t understand to do for another.

General Rule: “Anything That Requires an Action L’shmah, If a Non-Jew Did It – It’s Invalid”

Therefore, in truth this is the halacha, this is generally speaking. What does it say by other things also? It’s different. For example… no, there is, the Rambam says that he holds that it’s nothing regarding a Sefer Torah. No, no, that’s the word. It’s an eruv or some drops. No, that’s the word. No, that’s a… l’shmah means that he says the thing.

Cheresh Shoteh V’katan – Standing Over Him

It says, he brings the Rambam further, it says in the laws of gittin also this way. There’s a cheresh shoteh v’katan for example, standing over him and he writes, it is indeed kosher. Because he does it according to the mind of the one standing. What does this mean? A non-Jew doesn’t do according to the mind of the one standing, a non-Jew does for himself. A Jew who is not pious, a Jew also does for a Sefer Torah. A non-Jew doesn’t have for a Sefer Torah, perhaps he has himself in a star. A person is not a non-Jew that one for you knows, yes, it’s not simple that it’s enough. Okay, but a mezuzah yes.

Mezuzah Doesn’t Require Processing L’shmah

We have a rule, anything that requires an action l’shmah, if a non-Jew did it it’s invalid. Every thing that requires an action l’shmah, if a non-Jew made it it’s invalid. It’s also presumably a sukkah apparently. A sukkah must be l’shmah, but… the action of s’chach, yes. Ah, also not. Perhaps for the sake of shade.

But the Rambam says further, but a mezuzah doesn’t require processing l’shmah. A mezuzah doesn’t need l’shmah. You don’t know processing, it’s processed. Processing, processing. Do you know how to write? It’s processed, from the Torah it says in the accepted traditions. Not avodah. Avodah is another thing, but here it says ibbud. Yes, yes. To process this hide, not to work on this hide. Yes, yes, l’abed.

The Rambam’s Response: Why Mezuzah Doesn’t Require Processing L’shmah

And the… they asked, the sages of Lublin asked the Rambam, why doesn’t a mezuzah require processing l’shmah, he said, he doesn’t know why, it says in the Gemara by this one, and it doesn’t say by that one!

Good, it appears that a mezuzah is weaker, it’s also could be from the rejections that are invalid for that one. You say I’ll make a tzad hashaveh, it’s both a similar thing? He says no, it’s not the same thing, that Sefer Torah and tefillin is an obligation of… ah, he says this, a mezuzah is an obligation of the house.

Because he doesn’t have a house, he doesn’t need… not he doesn’t have a house. Most people have houses. I mean to say, he doesn’t have an obligation to make a mezuzah, he only has an obligation to put a mezuzah if he has a door. It’s very interesting. Look at the language inside. Yes, but look at the language.

The Rambam’s Innovation: Processing L’shmah is So That He Should Make It Beautiful

Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah and Sefer Torah – Chapter 1, Laws 5-9: Lishmah, Sirtut, Not from Written Text, and the Scribe

Law 5 (Continued) – Lishmah in Processing: The Rambam’s Responsum

The Rambam says something a bit different. Sorry, sorry, sorry. The Rambam says, why does one need processing lishmah? “So that he will be diligent in its processing and make it well”. It’s a new position, sorry, it’s a new approach in learning that… that’s what the Rambam says in a responsum. Yes, he brings the language of the Rambam. That is, I thought that processing lishmah is some kind of holiness. It’s the simple side that one needs to know to make it well.

Speaker 1:

But isn’t it what he says that a non-Jew, the non-Jew has no regard for tefillin. Even if he’s going to make it well, he thinks out a more expensive hide, he seeks to make it better. He doesn’t have the… he won’t make it as well. A Jew makes it with greater fear of Heaven. Therefore, says the Rambam, it doesn’t bother us that it will become a vessel. Why? Because “he dwells and has a house.”

Ah, apparently he means, I understand what he means to say. He doesn’t bring it so well. Because a Sefer Torah one must, and tefillin one lays, one needs to have a Jew.

Speaker 2:

No, no, no, it’s a simple thing. It’s a fulfillment mitzvah. A Sefer Torah and tefillin is an obligation. Every Jew must have a Sefer Torah. One gives him a Torah, when one writes it. When one writes or buys. A mezuzah is not an obligation, but like tzitzit, if you have a house. Exactly. It’s not an obligation, it’s not such a strong mitzvah. You’re not obligated to have a garment, you’re not obligated to have a house. Most people have houses, but it’s not such a… That is, a less severe mitzvah for him because of this.

The Great Innovation: What Does “Lishmah” Mean

Speaker 2:

But it was revealed as a great innovation, that when it says here that one makes the mitzvah lishmah, he means to say that one should do a good job. It’s not just some mystical thing. So says the holy Rambam in his responsum, which the Kesef Mishneh and all bring down on the side.

Okay good. But one won’t use it anyway in practice, halachah l’maaseh. The practical difference is apparently the understanding.

Discussion: A Non-Jew Can Also Do a Good Job

Speaker 1:

I mean, at a company today they produce the best tefillin.

Speaker 2:

No, but I’m saying an understanding that lishmah, what does one mean to say by a non-Jew? A non-Jew also makes… he goes into a huge company. It’s not that a non-Jew doesn’t make well. He’ll make it so that it’s the best of the best.

The work lishmah only means… I’m saying, when one writes on the matzah bakery “for the sake of the mitzvah of matzah,” it’s not that one should just think, “I’m keeping in mind, I’m keeping in mind.” One should think, “I’m making something serious here, I’m making this for the mitzvah, it must be certainly kosher, I’m making sure it’s not chametz.” One should do it with seriousness. Just as the intention for prayer also means, you should know what you’re doing now.

It’s simple, but here it’s more that you want to do a good job. The processing, the working of the hide, there’s someone who does a weak job, it just falls apart after two years. He does a good job, it lasts a hundred years. That’s the meaning of lishmah.

Okay, I’m going to take a break, I’m going to need to stop and bring my baby. Let’s see.

—

Law 6 – Sirtut (Scratching Lines)

Speaker 2:

So, we spoke that one must make a hardal. Now one can see more laws of the parchment or the writing, whatever you want to call it. Another halachah l’Moshe miSinai, not to buy a Sefer Torah… This is like between the parchment and the writing.

It’s a halachah l’Moshe miSinai, “One does not write a Sefer Torah or mezuzah except with sirtut”. A Sefer Torah and mezuzah require sirtut. Tefillin it’s not me’akev that one should actually do sirtut, but we do scratch. That is, one makes a line with a ruler, one makes a straight line. They call it the word “sargel” there.

The Reason for Sirtut

Speaker 2:

And this is why? It should be beautiful, instead of the… dancing around. But tefillin is not me’akev, unlike a Sefer Torah one reads, and a mezuzah also looks like it’s something that one can see it. It hangs, but something one can see it, one can read it. Rabbi Yechiel Meir argues that one must leave the mezuzah open, one should be able to read it. But one must be able to see it, so it looks here.

But it looks like sirtut, because one reads, it looks like it helps more for the reader than for the writer. The scribe makes that he can hit very well, he’s not… It should be beautiful, not that it should dance around. It helps for the reader to follow the line, especially when it’s written small.

One speaks that the amulets were just written. Yes, it’s nicer, it’s simply nicer, but it’s nicer for the beauty of reading. But it’s not me’akev. It looks like the way all the amulets were, was that it was strongly closed, one didn’t open it. It makes sense that one shouldn’t be able to see much inside. Even.

There are those who argue differently that a mezuzah one must check, unlike tefillin, unlike a Sefer Torah.

Okay.

—

Law 7 – Writing Shelo Min HaKetav (From Memory)

Speaker 2:

Now, another law, another distinction, also the distinction of tefillin and mezuzot from Sefer Torah. Here it’s reversed, here tefillin is the same as mezuzot, and different from Sefer Torah.

He says, another law, it’s permitted to write tefillin and mezuzot shelo min haketav. If the scribe remembers the two portions, he can write it from his head. Why? Because everyone knows this portion, because everyone knows the portions well. But a Sefer Torah is forbidden.

Which Portions?

Speaker 2:

The portions of “Shema” and “V’hayah im shamoa.” One says it, “Kadesh” and “V’hayah ki yevi’acha.” We have a custom in the siddur it says that one should say it every day, but it’s not a law that one must say it. It looks like it was still the custom that one says it.

Speaker 1:

No, it’s also simple, the one who writes tefillin and mezuzot keeps writing tefillin and mezuzot.

Speaker 2:

But he says “shehakol,” everyone knows it. Again, ah, “shehakol gorsin parshah zo.” If he means to say, all scribes, all who write.

Speaker 1:

It could be simply that it’s a smaller portion, one can review it.

Speaker 2:

No, it makes sense, the scribe already knows the four portions, because he writes it multiple times. A Sefer Torah, it takes him several years. It’s not simple that a scribe knows the entire Torah because he’s already written ten Sifrei Torah. No, it makes sense, this is limited, he writes it many times. He writes hundreds of tefillin and mezuzot.

Well, it says here “shehakol gorsin.”

Speaker 1:

Are you asking how one says it?

Speaker 2:

Our custom is to say this with the tefillin. It looks like here is the source of that custom. And one also reads it on Pesach. No one hears the Torah reading on Pesach… actually that’s the dispute from yesterday whether one hears the Torah reading.

Okay.

Sefer Torah – Forbidden Shelo Min HaKetav

Speaker 2:

But a Sefer Torah it’s forbidden to write even one letter shelo min haketav. This is a decree of the verse. Even if there’s someone a Torah scholar who remembers the entire Torah, but one may only write it from written text. But tefillin and mezuzot, just as everyone knows it, one may write it shelo min haketav.

Rabbeinu Yonah: Sefer Torah Is a Decree

Speaker 2:

The innovation is certainly, let’s understand clearly, even… So says Rabbeinu Yonah, it’s clear that even Torah, even if you are indeed a great genius and a Torah scholar and you know the entire half doesn’t help, because no one knows it, it’s a decree. And the reason is simply a decree that the Torah should remain accurate. Right?

Unlike in tefillin, if you’re a Torah scholar and you know what you know, this is something that’s not most people, therefore there’s a leniency that comes in, because people can know it.

Distinction of Tefillin Regarding Mezuzah

Speaker 2:

He says well Rabbeinu Yonah, that the distinction of tefillin regarding mezuzah is, usually one doesn’t look in the mezuzot. There’s no mitzvah that one should bind the mezuzot. The tefillin one goes to learn in kashrut, the law of the Mishnah, that it must be closed, it can’t be open.

The next law of the Tannaim, of the ten things, with the proper tefillin and mezuzah already max”r, and not Sefer Torah.

—

Structure of Chapter 1 and Chapter 2

Speaker 1:

Okay, and now another law, I don’t know why Sefer Torah, and the things are for tefillin. Now Sefer Torah is the… now has he already finished with his ten things?

Speaker 2:

No, he said two of them, and the next chapter I think he goes back to the… ah, he’s already into chapter laws of the parchment, or in the parchment or in…

Speaker 1:

Yes, so it looks, I need to check better. Because he said that, yes, the other eight are in the writing, he’s going to learn soon in chapter 2 or 3 somewhere. Now one learns all from laws of writing, and also it has very many details what’s the same as Sefer Torah and what’s different.

—

Law 9 – Sefer Torah, Tefillin, Mezuzot Written by Invalid People

Speaker 2:

So now like this, here the law is all the same, right? All Sifrei Torah, tefillin, mezuzot, the same law, that if a heretic wrote them, they’re burned, one burns them. We’ve already seen this law actually in the laws of sanctification of God’s name, yes? Because a heretic doesn’t sanctify the names, he doesn’t believe in the whole thing, therefore one may burn it, one must burn it.

Non-Jew – Invalid but Genizah

Speaker 2:

But a non-Jew, here there’s a distinction, a non-Jew… There are two laws, there’s the law of how one treats holy writings, whether it’s kosher or not kosher. But we have here an extra law that one shouldn’t leave any name for the act of heresy.

Speaker 1:

Yes.

Speaker 2:

So that one shouldn’t leave any name is like it’s a leniency regarding the regular law of preserving… The Sefer Torah wasn’t used. For a mitzvah of a heretic one must… Is it a mitzvah to exclude permission, or a mitzvah? It’s a law, it’s not a practical law, it’s some excellence. An excellence above the regular law of…

Speaker 1:

Yes, okay.

Speaker 2:

…of honoring something that’s written. But a non-Jew didn’t receive any holiness.

Speaker 1:

Ahh. Okay. Like a genizah. That means that a non-Jew also didn’t receive any holiness.

Let’s Read the Law

Speaker 2:

So it says here, let’s read what it says here. A heretic one burns. May one burn? Perhaps one should burn? Should burn. Ah, a non-Jew or an apostate Jew.

What are the opinions? What is an apostate Jew? An apostate for the entire Torah? Or apostate means he serves idolatry?

Speaker 1:

Not, he’s a heretic. So presumably he means that he declared himself a Christian, such a sort of thing.

Speaker 2:

Yes, that means he’s…

Speaker 1:

Yes. An apostate to idolatry.

Speaker 2:

Yes, but not… but not a heretic. A heretic is worse.

Speaker 1:

A heretic is worse, yes.

Informer, Slave, Woman, Minor

Speaker 2:

Or a slave, or a woman, or a minor. These are invalid. An informer? An informer, yes, an informer. Ah, he must also be the other. An informer is such a thing. An informer is out of the Jewish people. A wondrous thing. Yes, yes. These are invalid. It’s out of the Jewish people. It’s a death by Heaven, isn’t it?

Speaker 1:

Ah, it’s a death by Heaven.

Speaker 2:

A slave, woman, minor I understand, they’re not obligated. One must be obligated, that’s the proper writing. And it says about both of them that they’re purely like a non-Jew, she is like a non-Jew. About an informer also so? It says about the informer, one who informs on his fellow to the hands of non-Jews, informs on his fellow who is like a non-Jew. Ah, an informer is like a non-Jew.

Speaker 1:

No, no, no, other things. Ah, ah, ah. That means, a non-Jew, those that a non-Jew can’t make any holiness, that I understand, because he’s not obligated. Just like a slave, a woman, a minor. But an apostate Jew and an informer, it looks like it’s a penalty that one counts with him. His tefillin are invalid. One doesn’t say that he’s a heretic.

Why Are Apostate and Informer Invalid?

Speaker 2:

Not a heretic, simply he writes for the sake of idolatry. When he writes the Name, he means something specifically opposite. Or it could be that you don’t trust that he did it lishmah. Just as we said for the sake of itself Yosef.

Speaker 1:

Yes, but here we’re speaking of the writing, not of the processing of the hide.

Speaker 2:

Okay, I’m reading all this. It says that we only validate the kosher ones and all who are not from the seed of kosher Israel and believers in God or who are strangers. And he believes with complete faith. The holy Baal Shem Tov says, “Yeshno.” What does “Yeshno” mean? Not just the limited thing, Reb Yechiel, but he’s a part in this. He must believe that he becomes, the language in the laws of sanctifying, and been that he looks at that a tefillin is a tefillin, and the second is another segulah, and another segulah is another segulah.

Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah and Sefer Torah Chapter 1 – Writing by a Non-Jew, Heretic, and Intention

Law 6 (Continued) – Non-Jewish Writing, Heretic, Genizah, and Burning

Speaker 1: But to this we’re speaking of the writing, not of the processing of the hide. He speaks mainly here of the mention of the Name.

Ah, it already says “that which is written in writing”, “all who are careful about binding and believe in it”, that there are those who are careful and believe, because “song for all in which there is”, he says “there is” means not just the limited memory obligation, but he’s a part in this.

He must believe, just as the language in the laws of sanctification of the Name was, that he looks at that a tefillin is indeed tefillin, a second tefillin is another something a segulah, is something such a… It looks like such an informer, it’s a kind of Maharal-like word, it can’t be that you take the tefillin seriously, I know you, you inform on Jewish people to the non-Jew, and you’re a Jew, you take seriously the holiness, which is interesting.

It’s very similar to the law we had by the parchment, that they think that the non-Jew does it for himself, he doesn’t take it seriously. Right, but here is holiness, here is indeed yes, not there we said that he must make it well, here is truly yes, the holiness doesn’t take effect on tefillin or a Sefer Torah, because he’s a non-Jew or even a minor.

The Law of Books Found by a Heretic or Non-Jew

Speaker 1: So far we’ve seen thus, one knows that they wrote it, then if it’s a heretic one burns it, a non-Jew it requires genizah. What if one finds it by a heretic, one doesn’t know, does one take it like by a heretic, “and we don’t know who wrote them”, it could be a Jew wrote it, it could be a non-Jew, by a heretic they should be put in genizah, because out of doubt one doesn’t burn, but…

Discussion: What Does “Yignazu” Mean – Stringency or Leniency?

Speaker 2: Because I want to know, when is the stringency? When one says yignazu, does it mean that one must respect it like names, or genizah is not burning, an excellence not? And a heretic, we’ve already seen the law by him. When is the stringency, what’s a leniency or a stringency?

Speaker 1: No, it’s not a leniency, we must burn it if it has no holiness.

Speaker 2: No, a non-Jew… in the margin one must put in genizah, but one may not burn. And one doesn’t fulfill, but one can’t…

Speaker 1: That means yignazu means that they have some law of holiness but one must put it in genizah, one can’t burn it. One may not burn.

Speaker 2: No, it’s some name, something like that. It’s interesting. Someone told me that when they’re shelo lishmah it’s certainly clear, yignazu means that they’re good, but so much one must, it shouldn’t be worse than a Chumash, something like that. Some holiness it has.

Speaker 1: But a heretic we want one should publicize or one shouldn’t have any… It’s a political act of bringing down the heretic. A heretic is such a threat, a heretic is a…

Speaker 2: But also, yes, both, both. You see, I understand that. I mean like this. It’s such a measure. One must see if there’s more than this.

The Distinction Between a Heretic and Non-Jew When Finding Books

Speaker 1: Now, if one finds it by a heretic, by a heretic yignazu, what’s the distinction from a book? It could be the heretic wrote it, it could be a non-Jew or another wrote it. By a heretic non-Jew, one doesn’t burn it. Ah, that’s the answer apparently to our question. One doesn’t burn it, one doesn’t have to burn it.

Speaker 2: I don’t know, I don’t know exactly what you mean. Both it’s… It’s both. I haven’t…

Speaker 1: If it’s written by a non-Jew, kosher. If one finds it by a non-Jew…

A heretic could be that he writes. Heretics have an interest specifically to write mezuzot and tefillin. But non-Jews, just non-Jews, it’s just a mistake written.

Enactment: Not to Buy STaM from Non-Jewish Thieves

Speaker 1: And here there is an important halacha which is not exactly a halacha in hilchos sta”m (laws of Torah scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzos), but rather a takana (enactment) for the benefit of the community, that one should not buy sefarim (books), mezuzos, tefillin that were stolen from non-Jews for more than the money. He says, now suppose you have kosher ones from a non-Jew. He says, now a person will think, “Ah, I have here a good place to buy from non-Jewish thieves.” He says, one may not buy from non-Jewish thieves when they sell it for more than the price, shelo lehargil osam lignov v’ligzol (so as not to accustom them to steal and rob), that they should not become accustomed. This is like in Gittin, like pidyon shvuyim yoser al dmeihem (redeeming captives for more than their value). It is, a person thinks he is doing a mitzva, he is redeeming the tefillin from a non-Jew. On the contrary, secondly, the more one redeems, the more one gives him an incentive to steal more, and Jews will indeed do the mitzva of redeeming.

Discussion: How Much May One Pay?

Speaker 2: Yes, one may buy from a non-Jew, on the contrary, he is selling it. It’s not a question. The problem is that one pays a bit less than the value. A bit less.

Speaker 1: No, a bit less, because the value makes… It’s still enough of a great reason for a non-Jew to steal.

Speaker 2: No, because first of all I already know that the tefillin is so expensive. If one will pay two thousand dollars, well, you have enough money. This makes, a geniza that is not worth so much, who knows where it comes from. But just like pidyon shvuyim, it’s a mitzva, one may not leave with the non-Jews the sanctity of a sefer Torah. But he will start to tear for the money, and Jews will still pay because it’s a mitzva. This is not a way.

Speaker 1: So now, and we learned earlier, this is the Chazis Teiva that we learned earlier.

Halacha 13 – A Sefer Torah That Was Not Written According to the Laws: Invalid Bedi’eved

Speaker 2: I don’t know why, what does he want to say?

Speaker 1: He says that if one wrote a Torah on the hide of a non-kosher animal, or on a hide that was not processed, or a hide that was processed not for its sake, these are invalid. These are all the laws that were already said earlier.

Speaker 2: I don’t know, it’s invalid. Earlier one could have thought that it’s only lechatchila (initially) that one must do it, so it says that it’s invalid even bedi’eved (after the fact)?

Speaker 1: I don’t understand. I need to look into it, it seems. That is to say, to know that there are things that are indeed only invalid lechatchila. Like he says that perhaps here he needs to write that it’s invalid bedi’eved, because if not, just because it’s permitted, it could be that bedi’eved it indeed has the sanctity of a sefer Torah. Which is not so with the hide of a non-kosher animal, or a hide that was not processed, or that was processed not for its sake, is completely invalid. It’s a bit interesting, he should have written it earlier, he wrote the laws.

Here Begins a New Section – Laws of Bedi’eved

Speaker 1: So really, here everything… So let’s understand, this group of laws, one can make here today another chapter. Here begin laws of bedi’eved, not bedi’eved, which sifrei Torah are kosher even though they were not made properly. Until now we learned what one must do, now one can learn a new thing.

Speaker 2: There is not mentioned here shirtut (scoring lines), yes? He didn’t say that if he wrote without shirtut it’s invalid.

Speaker 1: No, it’s not there, it doesn’t seem so. It’s all mitzvos. Now, from here… It’s also not a halacha l’Moshe miSinai that it requires shirtut.

Speaker 2: Right, but from here, from halacha 13, it seems it begins laws of when one finds a Torah that was not written according to the laws, what is the halacha. Now we will learn another thing.

Halacha 15 – Intent in Writing Sta”m and Mentioning the Name

Speaker 1: What is the reason of the Ri? There was no intent. One who writes a sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzos, at the time of writing he had no intent, he didn’t have it in mind. He didn’t know that he was writing this for the sake of the sanctity of a sefer Torah, for the sake of tefillin. And in the place where one needs to write the mention [of God’s name], he wrote the Name not for its sake. I’m not sure what this means hazkara (mention) not for its sake. He didn’t know that it’s the Name of God? He didn’t think so? He didn’t grasp that it’s the Name of God? Something like that? It’s invalid.

Discussion: What Does “Kavana” Mean?

Speaker 2: No, kavana (intent) never means focused mind. Kavana means that he knows what he is doing. He does it with kavana, he knows what he is doing. But it could be that he copies, he is completely distracted, he hears music, he must have something to someone. A copy machine has no kavana, but not a person, a person does have. If you ask him, “Which verse did you just finish writing?”, if he couldn’t tell you, it means that he is completely not there.

Speaker 1: I’m not sure about that. He is completely distracted, he is in another America.

Speaker 2: I’m not sure about that. This is by the way laws of focus. I think the word is, he doesn’t have in mind that he is writing a sefer Torah. I don’t know, I’m a copier, whatever is written I copy.

Speaker 1: No, the answer is not that for us it seems crazy because it’s a whole business of a parchment. But in earlier times people wrote many books. So there is someone who is a scribe, and they give him to write also sifrei Torah and other things. He writes perhaps contracts, I don’t know. And if he doesn’t know that it’s at all something serious, he doesn’t focus, it’s mixed up, let’s say, papers on the wall, and he writes them over. That’s how I thought. I don’t believe that kavana ever means focus. Although, the next halacha one sees indeed, “One who writes the Name”, since…

Kavana Is Not Focus – A Philosophical Definition

Speaker 1: It’s really a very great practical matter. How is it practical? It’s what is the meaning of kavana. There is no doubt about this. When there lies a large format with the handles, and you go agree, automatically the whole environment says… Here it says that it’s not for its sake. But there is a format, let’s say, like when a person is in shul with a megilla in his hand, there is a narrow flag that he must have. There is no doubt about this in halacha. There is a minimum of the word kavana that one must have. It’s true that one thinks that kavana means focus. It’s true that it’s a good thing to focus when one does a mitzva, but kavana doesn’t mean that.

Speaker 2: The ways, yes, but can indeed be with… But the Name, the Name is the point. It could be, it could be that he means for example… This is a practical difference, for example he writes, one must sanctify the Name, he writes alef-dalet-nun-yud, and he means Adonai, he means Lord, simply he doesn’t know that he is writing the Name, he doesn’t know what he is doing, he means that he is writing a person. But even that is not good enough, because he didn’t at all, there is no doubt that this means that. He doesn’t know, he can’t know, for the sake of Heaven. That’s why one may interrupt him. Like with honor, we learned earlier, this is indeed the greatest honor that must be. But not necessarily, he should not answer him in the middle of writing, because he should… This means kavana of…

Speaker 1: This has to do with honor? I think that this is an honor of the Name of God.

Speaker 2: There are two laws, there is a matter of kavana, and there is a matter of honor of Heaven. And it’s indeed combined. Simply so.

Speaker 1: Ha, yes, it’s clear so.

One May Interrupt Between Names

Speaker 2: Behold between two or three Names, out, one interrupts between Ani Ma’amin and the Name, then he can indeed, because there is no matter that one may not interrupt between writing the Names. The word is, I’ll tell you, people are…

Speaker 1: That between the Name and Elokim he may between the Name and Elokim…

Speaker 2: Someone today will say, for example, there is a sofer who, I know, he listens to music or the radio, I don’t know what, while writing. There is no question, he has no lack of kavana. It could be that it’s not seriousness, which one must write with seriousness, it’s another, the honor of the Name, but it’s not invalid.

Speaker 1: This includes also the one who interrupted to speak to the king, it’s not invalid. But it will be able to mix up, then he can further think that he is writing a mundane name.

Speaker 2: No, he must take it seriously, that’s the connection. But essentially, this is what I wanted to think to you, because you will see the next few laws.

Example of Driving – What Kavana Means

Speaker 1: Because for example, every day a person drives, and while driving one must have full kavana that one should not crash into people. And everyone does all new things, and that means kavana.

Speaker 2: No, one may not. When one doesn’t do it, this stands in the law of driving, that one may not drive, and one must have kavana.

Speaker 1: No, again, you can’t do everything exactly, you can’t turn around in the middle of it. But us one can talk on the phone or… Kavana doesn’t mean like people say, OCD means that one must read the megilla.

Kavana is, I say it many times, kavana means that if someone asks, this is the answer to the question what you are doing. If you ask what you are doing, this is the answer. There is a person who is so distracted, he doesn’t know what he is doing. But kavana is not the meaning of what lies in your head. This is my such a nice formulation that I stole from a philosopher in another context, but he says that people think kavana is “intention”. Intention doesn’t mean – it’s making an x-ray of my head and seeing what lies there. Not that is the meaning. I ask you what this is, and this is your answer, the “description” of what this is – that is the meaning of kavana. A good meaning, I think. It fits better, in most laws it fits better.

But there indeed is, precisely one can see a few more laws that have to do with honor, one sees that it’s not only kavana.

—

Laws of Honor in Writing the Name

Immersing the Quill to Write the Name

Speaker 1:

For example, immersing the quill to write the Name. When one writes, one dips the pen into the… yes, into the ink, into the dyo, to write the Name, when one makes the Name. Why? Because usually the first bit that one paints is a bit thicker, it’s not so nice. It can easily happen a mistake in writing, it shouldn’t smudge such a good letter, that it shouldn’t smudge on the Almighty’s Name. It’s often an honor, because one must make a preparation forbidden from before the sanctity of the Name, so the poskim bring.

Suspending It Between the Lines – When One Forgot a Word

Speaker 1:

And therefore he writes first the previous one, and afterwards, there is an opinion, to write the Name. Suppose one forgot to write the Name of God, the thing happened nothing. What does he do? Toleh osah bein hashitos (suspends it between the lines), he writes it in between the two lines. No, this he may do. One may.

Distinction Between the Name of God and Other Words in Suspension

Speaker 1:

That is, here one sees, if a word is missing, one sees, one may write it in like one does when one writes a manuscript, one gives a little line from above so one should grasp where it belongs. One who erases the Name in the line partially suspends it – invalid. One cannot make already a disgusting sefer Torah that he wrote. Regarding the Name, but with other words it is indeed. One writes part of a word in the line and part above, one may give such a small hook down, although it’s not so nice, but for simple words there is no problem. But with a Name, it’s a sefer Torah. Ah, but from this it’s not necessarily so.

Suspending Even One Letter vs. Forgetting Even One Letter

Speaker 1:

One suspends even one letter, however if one forgets even one letter – he buries what he wrote and writes another. What is the difference? Not clear. Although with a sefer Torah the need is very great, because it’s a long book, and it’s very easy that in a whole sefer Torah there should indeed be a mistake.

Writing in Order – Investigation Regarding Sefer Torah vs. Tefillin

Speaker 1:

So this is the Kessef Mishne. Many commentators say that here there is a law of writing in order, and they understand that in order means that it must be written one after another. You skipped a word, now you write the word after the previous word. There are those who argue, the Rambam doesn’t say that law here, one can learn differently. And this they indeed say, here people take that a sefer Torah one doesn’t need to write in order. It’s certain that one doesn’t have to write in order, the question is whether tefillin one must indeed. This is the investigation here. But here, so learn the Acharonim the other commentators. It could also be that simply what he says, that tefillin must be nice, a small parsha, write it over.

Writing the Name on a Scraped Place or Erased Place

Speaker 1:

Okay, and another law is, if one comes to write the Name on a scraped place, or on an erased place, the same thing, that you smoothed a piece, or you scratched the parchment, because the ink was already stuck, and something was done, there is no problem to say that here one may not write the Almighty’s Name, because the parchment is not so straight or so nice. One may. It’s a leniency.

Turning Over the Sheet – Honor of Sefer Torah

Speaker 1:

Already, one who writes tefillin, sefarim tefillin and mezuzos, after writing, they don’t want it to become dirty or children should touch there, they want to turn over the sheet so the written side should be to the table. The law says that one may not, it’s not an honor for the sefer Torah, rather one spreads over it a cloth or folds it. Only one covers it with something. Or folds it, what we’re talking about here, yes, you cover it with itself, you make it folded, kofel means fold.

But what is different in this thing is that it already has sanctity, because it’s still in the middle of writing. Before one used it, or much one can think that this one uses, this makes the importance. One writes it for its sake, also when one writes it for its sake. When you print it, one will indeed say that is written in the book. It’s clear that perhaps even the parchment that was prepared has some sanctity, that the designation helps for that year.

—

Trustworthiness of the Scribe – When He Says He Didn’t Write For Its Sake

The Simple Meaning: He Is Not Trusted to Invalidate

Speaker 1:

A sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzos that the scribe said “I will write the Name”, “I will write the Name”, “I will write the Name”. What happens with a scribe, one paid him the hundred thousand dollars that it costs to write a sefer Torah, and one has him, he is just such a victim type, he calls himself “I did not write the sanctity in them for their sake”. After he left from there. One has now learned that one must write for its sake, and the thing was not fixed, the thing is no one knows, it’s a matter of the heart. The law says, “He is not trusted to invalidate”. He is not trusted to invalidate his own sefer Torah. One who comes upon him initially, one should not pay him, but one will make him that he should first of all, it’s a good motivation he should not do it. The community will suffer nothing, they will indeed not need to pay him. Why?

Reasoning: Perhaps He Only Intended to Cause the Buyer to Lose His Payment

Speaker 1:

So he explains, he gave it to him to invalidate it, “perhaps he only intended to cause the buyer to lose his payment.” Seemingly, when he says this, it’s simple that he should be clever. But a person makes such a statement because he wants to harm the person who bought it from him. But he doesn’t know exactly, meaning, what does he think he’s going to lose? He’s going to lose the labor of writing all the names. With the names he exerted himself extra. No, he didn’t, he claims that he didn’t. No, but names is where one must exert oneself, where it must be lishmah, and he says “I didn’t write it lishmah.” He thinks he’s going to lose all the letters. Let’s say one must rewrite the letters, one simply pays him for all the letters so they shouldn’t pay him now. But he doesn’t know that the truth is that the entire sefer Torah will be invalid. One can’t fix it. One can fix it, one can erase each one and rewrite. One cannot erase the name of Hashem.

Therefore, what is therefore? Since he doesn’t grasp it, but one will believe him that he doesn’t mean it seriously. He doesn’t mean the whole thing seriously, but you know what? You said such a thing, I won’t pay you any money because you made it invalid. This is presumably some incident that once happened and it became a halacha, like many gemaras. One doesn’t know, it appears that it’s a nice halacha.

Distinction: When he says that the hides are not lishmah – then he is indeed believed

Speaker 1:

However, says the Rambam, “therefore if he testifies about himself that he didn’t write the hides for their sake,” there are both. He says that the whole thing, not only that he didn’t do it lishmah, but that the hides are not good. Since the entire reason why we don’t believe him to invalidate the Torah is because he doesn’t know that this invalidates the entire Torah, because this is a halacha that not everyone knows. But the hides, everyone knows that he loses his entire work. Therefore, one may not take the loss of payment, he is believed that he loses the entire payment. Also to take to invalidate them, “so that all the letters should be erased for nothing.” Everyone knows that without this the whole thing is not kosher. Therefore, this is an interesting halacha, one must understand the laws of testimony better to enter into the learning of it, but such is the halacha. Then he is indeed already.

—

Ashurit Script – Writing a Sefer Torah in Greek

The Simple Meaning: Tefillin and Mezuzot – Ashurit Script; Sefer Torah – Greek Only (Formerly)

Speaker 1:

Another halacha about how one must write it, or another section, the last section of halachot about the letters, the completeness of the letters. The first halacha is that tefillin and mezuzot must certainly be written in Ashurit script. Ashurit script means what we call the alef-bet, which comes from Ashur. Now, however in books, in a sefer Torah, “the Torah in books they only wrote in Greek alone.” It was with you in the Mishnah it says that in books – this is the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel which the Rambam rules – that only in the Greek language may one write a sefer Torah.

Says the Rambam however, the reason why one may write in Greek is, as it says there in Chazal, because the Greek language was very comfortable for Jews, and Jews knew exactly what it says in the sefer Torah in Greek, it was correct. But, so says the Gemara, so rules the Rambam, but one no longer writes in Greek, why? “Greek has already been forgotten from the world,” the Greek language is no longer so popular, “and has become corrupted,” it has also become mixed up, as the Rambam says in language, “or people go changing language,” like waking up that it’s no longer a good language, “therefore today we don’t write all three,” and therefore the halacha has also changed regarding a sefer Torah, and all three we only write in Ashurit script.

Discussion: Question on the Rambam – Greek Still Exists

Speaker 2:

Yes, it’s certainly true that I would never see anyone write a sefer Torah in Greek, but I don’t understand what the Rambam says “forgotten,” does he mean to say in the Rambam’s times, where the Rambam lived, they still knew Greek. In Greece they still know Greek.

Speaker 1:

But with the introduction it fits very well, because when Chazal permitted Greek it was for a reason, because after they translated the Torah into Greek in the days of Ptolemy the king, it was… no, the opposite. When the Shulchan Aruch speaks of that halacha, actually, Ptolemy the king came, he wanted, and they only permitted then to write a sefer Torah in Greek, why? Because it held that Greek is a beautiful language, it’s fitting for a sefer Torah to make in Greek. So it says in the Gemara, so it says. There is also in Chazal that the world was very… the people were very sad. The Jews began to learn Torah in Greek after it was written. Not about that. The permission was to write in Greek. And the Rambam comes and he says that today there is no Greek.

Speaker 2:

The permission is only on the correct… what is the Rambam’s logic?

Speaker 1:

The Rambam’s logic is not what you say. The Rambam’s logic is, the permission is only on the correct Greek. On the false Greek…

Speaker 2:

I don’t understand what the Rambam says. I can buy today on Amazon the correct Greek, as correct as that other book from long ago, in the time of Ptolemy the king himself. They were able to write the sefer Torah in Greek. The Rambam didn’t know any Greek, that’s his problem.

Speaker 1:

First of all, speak with respect. We’re dealing with the Rambam. But he says, it’s not a reality in the world. It’s not a reality in the world.

Speaker 2:

In Greece they speak Greek to this very day. And in Netanya they once spoke Arabic.

Speaker 1:

No, the Rambam doesn’t say that there’s a community of Salonika that held Greek is a sefer Torah. He says yes, he says one intention. He says he no longer says anything. Greek is the only one for Jews that all Greek language… He says it’s not a thing. It has nothing to do with knowing Greek. The Rambam doesn’t say that one must know Greek. The Rambam doesn’t say that one must know Greek. Look in the Perush HaMishnayot, you’ll see that the Rambam… Let’s learn the Perush HaMishnayot, perhaps it will make it clearer.

The Rambam’s Logic in Perush HaMishnayot

Speaker 1:

“The distinguished Greek, which is a beautiful language from all languages, which was known among Israel, as we see according to most of the translation for Ptolemy the king.” Why did it become known? “That that translation became publicized among them until that language became among them like the language of poetry.” The Rambam says that Ptolemy the king’s sefer Torah went through seventy sages, and we know for certain that it was the correct translation. Therefore it’s like poetry, because I trust it. But not so you’re going to be similar with your book.

Speaker 2:

He doesn’t say so.

Speaker 1:

Therefore it’s like poetry, because I trust it.

Speaker 2:

He doesn’t say so. He doesn’t say with yours. He says with your Greek. I have your Greek. I have it.

Speaker 1:

Not with Rav Zundel’s. I have it. We’re not talking about another generation. We’re talking about Ptolemy the king’s book. Seemingly the Rambam says it no longer exists. Why? It exists.

Speaker 2:

Ptolemy the king’s book exists. He didn’t know that it still exists after Ptolemy the king’s.

Speaker 1:

The translation was written, the Christians copied it in all generations after Hillel the Elder.

Speaker 2:

But my sense is that what the Rambam writes is true for his generation and his place, that no one can copy it.

Discussion About Writing a Sefer Torah in Greek – and Laws of Completeness of Letters

Discussion: The Rambam’s Position on Greek (Continued)

The Rambam’s Actual Position

Therefore he wrote this. The reality that the Rambam writes is true for his generation and his place, no one can. Also it’s true that I haven’t found anyone. Even today there also isn’t, but there’s no matter that will maintain then.

One doesn’t need to maintain, this is a condition that even the Rambam doesn’t say. There’s no condition that one must understand. There’s no matter of writing the Torah in a language that no one understands. I didn’t say that there’s a matter of it.

Speaker 2:

Why does one read the sefer Torah in the holy tongue that no one understands?

Speaker 1:

Good stories, one understands it a bit. There it doesn’t say… well, learn Greek, you’ll understand.

Okay, okay. I thought the Rambam makes an appeal, one asks the people to send in, and one will make a hachnasas sefer Torah, and one writes a sefer Torah in Greek. Stop it! What should we obsess about here?

Again, when the Rambam would have said… it’s not very true. The Rambam says that in Greek there is one known language of the Tanach, that which was written for Ptolemy the king, which Chazal speak about. I say that this is one hundred percent maintained. That one still exists. I say that there are a few mistakes that they put in. Now one can trust us.

And the Rambam now has the same piety as you, that he won’t make any prayer… wait here, Master of the Universe, people are holding in one saying, I don’t know what they want. One of the Torahs that I just said doesn’t stand. The Rambam doesn’t say that one must do at the end of Ptolemy the king. The Rambam says that Greek doesn’t exist in the world. Now they come and say that the plan isn’t correct. It’s true that the Rambam, where he lives…

What It Says in the Rambam

One minute, first I’ll say what it says here. “The translation was translated into Greek for Ptolemy the king, and we don’t have Greek until we know if it changed or not, and we only have the translation of Onkelos and Yonatan ben Uziel, and also the Jerusalem translation, and also the early translation like Yoshiyahu.”

I don’t know what you want from me. The Rambam says there is no Greek, he doesn’t say “if there is an original translation of Ptolemy the king.” Also in Perush HaMishnayot it doesn’t say the whole thing that you said. It doesn’t say that he said “learn plain modern folk Greek.”

The Rambam’s Opinion About Writing in Greek

But yet the Rambam revealed that there is an opinion that one can write a sefer Torah in Greek. Very good, that I tell you. Very good, that I tell you. There is no learning to think because it doesn’t say that one must try to say that everyone must know Greek, and it’s also not that one must try to say that one must have the second time.

Okay, that’s what I argue with the Perush HaMishnayot. Okay, okay, you say this thing, it’s not correct. Not in Perush HaMishnayot does it say what you say, and not here does it say what you say. The Rambam says a fact which is not correct. There stands a fact which is not a fulfillment of will, which is not correct. There are Greeks who still speak Greek. And there also is, if you want to say that one must have the original translation – which the Rambam doesn’t say! The Rambam doesn’t say that one must have the original translation of Ptolemy the king. He only says that one must follow Greek, and he doesn’t say that, he says that Greek is not the nature of the world. For this one doesn’t need to be the Rambam from folk to be.

“We Don’t Write” Doesn’t Mean “Invalid”

The Rambam wants to say the halacha here. The Rambam doesn’t say a custom, he doesn’t say they had the custom not to write Greek. I agree that it’s not the custom, I’m not making another sefer Torah, it’s a custom because it doesn’t work out. But if someone wants to write, let us know that it will be kosher according to the Mishnah. He doesn’t say invalid. He says “we don’t write.” “We don’t write” doesn’t mean invalid. He doesn’t say the word invalid, because one must first think that it had a law.

The Rambam said, if it’s Ptolemy the king’s sefer Torah. He doesn’t say in Perush HaMishnayot that the Mishnah doesn’t say what you say either. It doesn’t say that you must have that Ptolemy the king. It says the opposite, that since there was a day when it was beloved. He doesn’t say that one must have that one. The halacha doesn’t say, and also in the Gemara the halacha doesn’t say.

The Rambam Didn’t Know Greek

Okay, in any case, the Rambam, the opinion that R’ Nachum says, that one must bring the Rambam, that a whole year here, it’s simply not correct. The Rambam never heard of a Targum Yonatan, he doesn’t know that it exists. He couldn’t read any Greek letter. And when there’s a Greek word in the Mishnah, he translates it falsely. He didn’t know any Greek, the Rambam. The Sefer Aruch knew Greek, the Rambam didn’t know any Greek.

So when he says this opinion, if he could have, he would have said differently. One doesn’t need to apply, the Rambam didn’t have to know everything, he was a great tzaddik, and he didn’t know. The halacha seemingly changed. Because he didn’t have any Greek minyan. Further, what should be from no side? No, the custom continues so.

Summary of the Discussion

Okay, enough. He only says that one must read the language like the people. No, even let’s say the places where the halacha says it must not be, it can be a dispute, you shouldn’t be the language that the people speak, it’s a terrible uprooting.

And he says good advice. Hello, now is good advice. I’m talking about the halacha. Now, until here is the language.

—

Halacha 20 – Completeness of the Letters

Mukaf Gevil – Each Letter Must Be Surrounded

Now we’re going to learn about the completeness of the letters, okay? There’s a halacha that each letter should be whole, should be mukaf gevil. Says the Rambam, “And one must be careful in writing them that a letter not stick to a letter, for any letter that doesn’t have air surrounding it from its four directions is invalid.” Stuck together, must be nicely surrounded.

A Child Who Is Neither Wise Nor Foolish

And another halacha, “Any letter that a child who is neither wise nor foolish cannot read, is invalid.” A letter that is not so well written, and what is the measure? That one takes a child who is not very smart and not a great fool, and one looks if he identifies the letter. If a child cannot identify it, it’s invalid.

Just as regarding food, one who has a weak understanding of food is a dog. If a dog still eats it, it’s still called food. Okay, and we only need a holy boy. If a boy still reads it, it’s simple that it’s still a letter. It’s a child. I say, a human… But I say, the wisdom… The wise one… He is must… I mean that you’ll be right.

The wisdom of the child is simple that, if he’s wise, he knows the verse. He already knows that it must be so. But it’s a marginal situation. The distinction between wise and foolish because he actually reads over the line. He reads each one expertly, he doesn’t yet read the word. Very good.

The Form of the Letters – Distinction Between Yud and Vav

“And one must be careful with the form of the letters that the yud not resemble a vav.” Or… the vav yud. One sees from here that the tail of the yud, is not the tail of the yud from Rabbeinu’s plan. One, if yes already grasps the distinction between the yud and the vav because the yud has a tail. Right, it’s that from the many here, not like the Beit Yosef, which says whole halachot from the forms of letters and the details, but it’s not the vav a distinction and should be able.

A Hole in the Parchment – L’chatchila

If there’s a hole, you don’t write on the format, you write on the hole, a holey format.

“One should not write on a hole at all,” he says, what does a hole mean? Sometimes a tiny hole forms. He says, “And all the more so a hole where the ink passes to the other side,” a hole where the ink goes over to the other side, “that one should not write on it,” one should not write on it. “Even though there is only a small tear beneath it,” even if there’s only a small crack under it. “And the hole doesn’t interrupt the writing at all,” and the hole doesn’t mean that there’s a hole, “nevertheless l’chatchila no.”

Bird Skin

“And therefore it appears l’chatchila,” he says, “that on bird skin one should not write,” that one should not write on bird skin, “even though usually it has small holes,” because usually it has holes, there are wings in it, but it’s small enough that one can write. It had where the feathers were, there are little holes. Ah, the feathers, yes.

A Hole B’dieved – After One Has Written

“A hole in the skin after it was written,” is so, it’s the opposite, a hole formed after one has already written. Here we speak l’chatchila, l’chatchila one should not write where there’s a hole. Here we speak b’dieved, one wrote a sefer Torah on good parchment, and a hole formed. Very good.

“If a hole is within the letter, such as within a hei or within a mem,” if it’s in the middle of a letter where the hole doesn’t change the meaning, very good, “and so with other letters, it’s kosher.” It doesn’t change the meaning. It’s a hei and a mem, a hole forms here in the middle, in the middle of a hei and a mem there’s a hole anyway.

A Hole in the Leg of a Letter

“But if it was perforated in the leg of a letter until it was severed”, if a bit of a letter has been chipped off, then it is kosher, but only with a condition, if it remains like a small letter. That means, for example he means to say, for example a vav, a piece of the vav has been chipped off. It’s not enough, he says, “and this is provided it does not resemble a yud”, if it has become a yud, there is a problem. If it still remains a bit longer than a yud, “but if there remains from it the size of a small letter, it is kosher, and if not, it is invalid”.

Practical Question – A Tear in the Middle of a Line

So, what if there’s a bit of a tear in the middle? He doesn’t say properly. Because on Shabbos I saw in the Sefer Torah, in one of the Torahs that isn’t here, such a piece was torn in the middle of a line. It’s like it’s an old Torah, but it doesn’t say here properly what the guidance for it truly is. It’s not perforated within the letter itself, it’s perforated, but it’s severed. But it’s not a perforation, it’s torn. What does perforated mean? I need to understand. Okay, excellent. I need to ask the rabbis what the guidance is. Okay.

—

A yasher koach, yes, as far as I’m concerned.