Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim, siman 32, with the commentary of the Mishnah Berurah

Concerning writing tefillin.

1. The mitzvah of tefillin is to write four portions, which are "Kadesh li kol bekhor" until "le-moadah mi-yamim yamimah" [Ex 13:1-10]; "Ve-hayah ki yeviakha" until "Ki behozek yad hotzianu haShem mi-Mitzrayim" [Ex 13:11-17]; the Shema¹ ¹ up to "U-vish-arekha" [Deut 6:4-9]; and "Ve-haya im shamoa" to "al ha-aretz" [Deut 11:13-22]. They must be written² ² in this order,³ ³ such that the first written comes first in Torah. If one changes this, it is invalid.⁴ ⁴ Ideally one writes the shel yad before⁵ ⁵ the shel rosh.

2. Each portion in the shel rosh is written on a separate piece of parchment, and the four portions of the shel yad are written on a single piece of parchment.⁶ ⁶

3. One writes them with black ink,⁷ ⁷ whether it contains gall-nut juice or not. Ideally, one should be stringent, and write with ink made with ash from trees⁸ ⁸ or oil, which has been soaked in gall-nut juice, as is explained in Yoreh Deah 271. If one wrote even one letter⁹ ⁹ with any other colour¹⁰ ¹⁰ or with gold, they are invalid. If one sprinkled gold dust on the letters, he can brush away the gold¹¹ ¹¹ and the writing which remains is valid. But if he sprinkled gold dust on the letters of a Divine Name, there is nothing he can do: it is forbidden to remove the gold, because this constitutes erasure of a Divine Name.

4. No letter should be stuck to its fellow;¹² ¹² each letter¹³ ¹³ must be surrounded by blank parchment. And the writing must be perfect,¹⁴ ¹⁴ not lacking even the point of the yud,¹⁵ ¹⁵ and should have taggin as appropriate.¹⁶ ¹⁶ Ideally one writes with quite substantial letters, so that they won't wear away too quickly. It is also proper to write them beautifully, from the outside and from the inside.

5. One must write with his right hand,¹⁷ ¹⁷ even if he is ambidextrous; if he writes with his left hand¹⁸ ¹⁸ they are invalid if it is possible to obtain tefillin written with the right hand. If one is left-handed, his left hand counts as "right"¹⁹ ¹⁹ for the purpose of this discussion.

6. It is only necessary to rule the top line,²⁰ Note 20 but if he doesn't know how to keep his writing straight, he should rule all the lines.²¹ Note 21 One does not make the lines with lead,²² Note 22 because the place where the line was will remain coloured. Some opinions say that it is necessary to rule the lines at top, bottom and sides, even if he is able to keep his writing straight, and this is the custom.

7. It is halakha from Moses at Sinai that tefillin are written on klaf and not on duchsustos or gevil. One writes on klaf on the flesh side, and if he diverges from this, it is invalid. What is klaf and what duchsustos? When the skin is processed, it is split into two; the outer layer, on the hair side, is klaf, and the inner side which was attached to the flesh is duchsustos. Hence, when we say "we write on klaf on the flesh side" we mean the side which was closest to the flesh - the part which was connected to the duchsustos, while they were still joined. Our parchments, which are not split, fall into the category of klaf, and we write on the flesh side, since that which is scraped off the upper - hair - side is just part of the necessary processing and scraping, which must be done even when the hide is split into two. A great deal is scraped away from the flesh side, until only the klaf remains.

8. The klaf must be processed with gallnut juice or lime,²³ Note 23 and it must be done lishmah. It is best that he should verbalise²⁴ Note 24 his intent that it be processed for tefillin or a sefer Torah²⁵ Note 25 at the beginning²⁶ Note 26 of the processing, but if he processed it for a mezuzah, it is invalid.²⁷ Note 27

9. If a non-Jew did the processing, Rambam says it is invalid even if²⁸ Note 28 a Jew told him to process it lishmah, and Rosh says it is valid if a Jew supervised him and helped. With some²⁹ Note 29 of the processing, and this is the custom.³⁰ Note 30 See siman 11 sec. 2.

10. When he makes identifying marks such as letters with an awl, he need not worry that they may be forged, even if they are easy to forge, because the non-Jew will be aware that the Jew may recognise it anyway.³¹ Note 31

11. The question of whether hides which were not processed lishmah can be rescued and made lishmah is discussed in the Tur, Yoreh Deah 271.

12. Klaf must be made from ritually pure species of cattle, bird or beast, even ones which were not ritually slaughtered. It may not be made from the ritually impure species, as it is said "In order that God's Torah shall be in your mouth" - from a species which is permitted as food. It is not made from fish skin, even if it is ritually pure, because it doesn't stop smelling bad.

13. The klaf should be whole, without holes which are so large the ink cannot cover them, so that letters will not appear divided in two.³² Note 32

14. Painstaking scribes make three types of klaf: a thicker one for writing "Shema" since it is short, a slightly thinner³³ Note 33 one for writing "Ve-haya im shamoa" which is slightly longer, and "Kadesh" and "Ve-haya ki yeviakha," which are long, are written on very thin klaf. This is so that each box will be filled equally, which is the nicest way of doing tefillin.

15. If, after it had been written,³⁴ Note 34 a hole formed in the middle of ה³⁵ Note 35 or מ, it is valid, even if the hole filled the entire space.³⁶ Note 36 The Yerushalmi, however, teaches that even the inside³⁷ Note 37 of the letter must be surrounded by blank klaf. If the hole formed³⁸ Note 38 in the inside leg of ה, it is valid according to Rosh even though only the smallest part remains. But other posekim require that as much as a small letter³⁹ Note 39 remain, and this is the rule.⁴⁰ Note 40 If the right⁴¹ Note 41 leg became holed,⁴² Note 42 and as much as a small letter⁴³ Note 43 remains,⁴⁴ Note 44 it is valid, and if not, it is invalid.

16. If one of the letters broke⁴⁵ Note 45 - the straight letters,⁴⁶ Note 46ו or ז or the leg of ן⁴⁷ Note 47 and similar - it is valid if a child⁴⁸ Note 48 who is neither particularly smart⁴⁹ Note 49 nor particularly ignorant⁵⁰ Note 50 can read it. If not, it is invalid. It is not necessary to cover⁵¹ Note 51 the other letters, as is the custom. However, if we can see that the letter⁵² Note 52 does not have its correct form, it is invalid even if a child reads it correctly. This validating a broken letter⁵³ Note 53 applies only when the letter was initially written correctly and then became broken,⁵⁴ Note 54 but if when it was first written⁵⁵ Note 55 there was a hole⁵⁶ Note 56 there dividing the letter, or if the leg⁵⁷ Note 57 of ך (etc.) ran into the edge of the klaf, so that it was never⁵⁸ Note 58 surrounded⁵⁹ Note 59 by blank klaf, it is invalid.⁶⁰ Note 60

17. If a drop of ink⁶¹ Note 61 fell into⁶² Note 62 a letter such that it was no longer recognisable,⁶³ Note 63 scraping⁶⁴ Note 64 off the drop⁶⁵ Note 65 to reveal the letter does not help, because it is hak tokhot,⁶⁶ Note 66 and is invalid because it says "and write" not "and carve."⁶⁷ Note 67 This is also the rule if one mistakely wrote dalet instead of reish or beit instead of khaf; one cannot correct it⁶⁸ Note 68 by scraping off the surplus,⁶⁹ Note 69 because it is hak tokhot.

18. Similarly, if the opening of an open mem got stuck⁷⁰ Note 70 closed,⁷¹ Note 71 it does not help to scrape away the stuck part and open it,⁷² Note 72 because this is hak tokhot.⁷³ Note 73 One corrects it⁷⁴ Note 74 by scraping away the whole snout, so that the form of a nun kefufa⁷⁵ Note 75 remains, and then he rewrites the scraped part. One could be stringent about the reish⁷⁶ Note 76 which was made like dalet,⁷⁷ Note 77 and say that it is not sufficient to scrape the leg alone or the roof alone and rewrite as reish, because it was made invalid between the two of them, and therefore they should both be scraped. If a letter got stuck to another, either before or after it was completed,⁷⁸ Note 78 it is invalid, but scraping away the join⁷⁹ Note 79 does not constitute hak tokhot⁸⁰ Note 80 since the letter itself was written correctly.⁸¹ Note 81 If the leg of hey⁸² Note 82 or kuf got stuck⁸³ Note 83 to the roof, one erases⁸⁴ Note 84 the leg⁸⁵ Note 85 and rewrites it; he need not erase the entire letter, since the roof was written correctly. If the leg of aleph touched its roof,⁸⁶ Note 86 or the inner face⁸⁷ Note 87 touched the roof below it, it is invalid, and cannot be corrected by separating them;⁸⁸ Note 88 this is hak tokhot. Instead, he must scrape everything⁸⁹ Note 89 which was written while the letter was in an incorrect state and rewrite. This is also the rule for the yuds⁹⁰ Note 90 in shin, tzaddi, ayin and peh:⁹¹ Note 91 if they touch the body in more than the place where they should be attached (Beit Yosef).

19. When he starts⁹² Note 92 to write,⁹³ Note 93 he should say⁹⁴ Note 94 out loud⁹⁵ Note 95 "I am writing⁹⁶ Note 96 with intent for the holiness of tefillin." Besides this, every time⁹⁷ Note 97 he writes a divine Name, he must say that he writes with intent for the holiness of the Name. Some say that it is sufficient he should only have in mind the holiness of the Name, if he said it out loud when he started writing⁹⁸ Note 98 (Rosh, hilkhot tefillin & sefer Torah, and Tur, Yoreh Deah and Orah Hayyim). We may be lenient post facto.⁹⁹ Note 99 If one becomes drowsy, he should not write since he will not be capable of the proper concentration (Or Zarua).

20. One must be very careful of the haser and yeter spellings, since if one adds or omits¹⁰⁰ Note 100 a single letter¹⁰¹ Note 101 they are invalid. Then not only will their owner make blessings in vain every day, but will fail to perform the mitzvah of tefillin every day, and the punishment of the scribe shall be great.¹⁰² Note 102 Therefore, one who writes or makes tefillin must be Heaven-fearing and tremble at the word of God.¹⁰³ Note 103

21. After he has written each portion, he should read it very carefully¹⁰⁴ Note 104 two or three times, and should read it again before he puts it into the housing so as not to get them in the wrong order.

22. A scribe should test his quill before he starts¹⁰⁵ Note 105 to write, so that it should not have too much ink on it and splodge off. Likewise, before he writes a Name he should say all that he has written,¹⁰⁶ Note 106 so that it will not become invalid by his hand.¹⁰⁷ Note 107

23. If one finds that he omitted a letter, there is nothing he can do¹⁰⁸ Note 108 about it, since any fixing would be writing out of sequence, and then they would be invalid, since it says "Ve-hayu" - they shall be as they were.¹⁰⁹ Note 109 If he wrote an extra letter,¹¹⁰ Note 110 it may be erased¹¹¹ Note 111 if it is at the beginning or end of a word, but not if it is in the middle since that word would then look like two words.¹¹² Note 112

25. There is no remedy if one wrote a letter¹¹⁴ Note 114 incorrectly, such that it did not have its form¹¹⁵ Note 115 – such as the leg of the aleph¹¹⁶ Note 116 touching¹¹⁷ Note 117 the roof; the face of aleph touching the roof below; the leg of hey or kuf touching; one letter divided into two letters, such as tzaddi as yud and nun,¹¹⁸ Note 118 shin as ayin and yud,¹¹⁹ Note 119 or het as two zayins¹²⁰ Note 120 – and subsequently wrote more after it, since this is writing out of order, and they are invalid. However, separating two letters which were stuck together after he had subsequently written on is permitted, since the letters had their form, and separating them is not like writing. This is also the rule if a small part of the yuds of aleph,¹²¹ Note 121 shin and ayin, or the leg of tav, did not touch the body of the letter; if a child¹²² Note 122 recognised them he may correct them even if he had written letters after them, since it does not count as writing out of order if they had their form. One opinion says¹²³ Note 123 this is also the rule for the hump of het if it doesn't connect the two sides: provided they are not obviously¹²⁴ Note 124 disconnected, they may be connected¹²⁵ Note 125 even if a child read them as two zayins.

26. If the letters of the Name became stuck together,¹²⁶ Note 126 it is permitted to separate them.¹²⁷ Note 127

27. If letters or words have become a bit worn,¹²⁸ Note 128 but their imprint is sufficiently clear that a child recognises it, one may rewrite the letters over the top, and this does not constitute writing out of order.

24. One may write, even a Name, on a place where a word was scraped off¹¹³ Note 113 or erased.

28. One must take care that the head of lamed not enter¹²⁹ Note 129 into the empty space of hey¹³⁰ Note 130 or het,¹³¹ Note 131 even if it would not touch them.¹³² Note 132

29. If he does not know the portions very well by heart,¹³³ Note 133 he must write from a copy.¹³⁴ Note 134

30. It is not appropriate for one to write unless he knows how to read.¹³⁵ Note 135

31. If one is not writing from a copy,¹³⁶ Note 136 but another is reading¹³⁷ Note 137 the text to him, he may not write unless he repeats the words¹³⁸ Note 138 himself after the reader.

32. One must leave a gap at the top¹³⁹ Note 139 the size of the roof of lamed so that it will also be surrounded by blank klaf (Responsa of Maharil, 134/137, and B"S). Below, the size of khaf or nun peshuta,¹⁴⁰ Note 140 and at the beginning and end he need not leave anything at all.¹⁴¹ Note 141 However, it is the scribal custom to leave a little¹⁴² Note 142 at the beginning and end (Igur, Rokeah). One must leave a space the size of a letter¹⁴³ Note 143 between each word, and a space the size of a line¹⁴⁴ Note 144 between each line, and a space the width of a hair¹⁴⁵ Note 145 between each letter, as in a sefer Torah and as explained in the Tur, Yoreh Deah. It is also necessary to leave a small space¹⁴⁶ Note 146 between each verse.

33. He should make all the lines of equal length, so that none are overly long¹⁴⁷ Note 147 or short. He should take care not to write more than three letters¹⁴⁸ Note 148 outside the line, but if he does,¹⁴⁹ Note 149 it is not invalid.¹⁵⁰ Note 150

34. If two letters form a word,¹⁵¹ Note 151 they may not be written outside the line.

35. The letters of the Name¹⁵² Note 152 must¹⁵³ Note 153 be entirely inside the column - no part¹⁵⁴ Note 154 of them may protrude.

36. All its portions¹⁵⁵ Note 155 are petuha except¹⁵⁶ Note 156 the last one, "ve-haya im shemoa," which is setuma. If one does it differently,¹⁵⁷ Note 157 they are invalid (although some say it is all right¹⁵⁸ Note 158 if they are all petuha¹⁵⁹ Note 159). [source] Our¹⁶⁰ Note 16 custom¹⁶¹ Note 161 is to put "Ve-haya im" at the beginning of a line also, like the other portions. Therefore, we put "Kadesh li," "Ve-haya ki," and "Shema" at the beginnings of lines.¹⁶² Note 162 At the end of "Kadesh li" and "Ve-haya ki" we leave a gap the size of nine letters,¹⁶³ Note 163 and we don't leave a gap at all at the end of "Shema," or if we do leave a gap, it is smaller than nine letters. "Ve-haya im" starts in the middle of the top line, and we leave nine letters' worth of space before it. The three petuha portions are petuha according to both Rambam and Rosh, and the last portion is setuma according to the Rambam.¹⁶⁴ Note 164

37. The leather for the housings¹⁶⁵ Note 165 must be from a ritually pure¹⁶⁶ Note 166 species of bird or animal, and can be from ones which weren't ritually slaughtered. It is better to make it from leather or klaf¹⁶⁷ Note 167 shalil [foetal].¹⁶⁸ Note 168 Likewise the straps may be made from leather or klaf¹⁶⁹ Note 169 shalil (Mordechai p.94). It must be processed lishmah¹⁷⁰ Note 170 where this is possible.¹⁷¹ Note 171

38. One makes four housings from one hide¹⁷² Note 172 for the shel rosh, and one housing for the shel yad.

39. It is a halakha from Moses at Sinai that tefillin, both the shel rosh and the shel yad, must be squared¹⁷³ Note 173 in the sewing and the diagonals, that is to say they should be square¹⁷⁴ Note 174 in width and length, so that the diagonal will be¹⁷⁵ Note 175 as described by the sages: a square cubit has a diagonal of one and two-fifth cubits. The base¹⁷⁶ Note 176 and the housing¹⁷⁷ Note 177 must both be square.¹⁷⁸ Note 178 But if the height of the housing is more than the length and width, he need not worry (Beit Yosef in the name of Ashiri, SMa"K, Mordechai and Rambam ch. 3). If they were made square and after time lost their squareness,¹⁷⁹ Note 179 there is an opinion¹⁸⁰ Note 180 which says they should be made square¹⁸¹ Note 181 again. And each of the four housings should be¹⁸² Note 182 the same, so that one is not bigger than the other.

40. It is a mitzvah¹⁸³ Note 183 to make the leather of the housings¹⁸⁴ Note 184 black¹⁸⁵ Note 185 (see siman 33¹⁸⁶ Note 186). The grooves between the housings must extend to touch the stitches, but if they don't touch it is valid provided¹⁸⁷ Note 187 the grooves are recognisable,¹⁸⁸ Note 188 so that its four parts are clearly visible.

41. There is no given size for the width, length¹⁸⁹ Note 189 or height of the tefillin.

42. It is a halakha from Moses at Sinai¹⁹⁰ Note 190 that the shin shape¹⁹¹ Note 191 which is made in the leather of the shel rosh should be embossed¹⁹² Note 192 by creasing the leather,¹⁹³ Note 193 one on the left and one on the right. The one on the wearer's right¹⁹⁴ Note 194 has three heads, and one on the wearer's left has four heads. If he reverses them, it is not invalidated¹⁹⁵ Note 195 (Mordechai, SMa"K, Tosafot perek Ha-kometz).

43. The groove of the shin,¹⁹⁶ Note 196 that is, the bottom point, should extend to touch the stitches.¹⁹⁷ Note 197 The yud of the shin¹⁹⁸ Note 198 must touch the base¹⁹⁹ Note 199 of the shin (SMa"G). The shin shouldn't extend too far, so that the base of the shin²⁰⁰ Note 200 is also visible at the stitching (Barukh she-Amar).

44. It is halakha from Moses at Sinai that tefillin should have a titura - that is, one should put leather²⁰¹ Note 201 underneath, to cover the entrances to the housings. It looks like the plank of a bridge, which is why it is called titura. It is halakha from Moses at Sinai that tefillin should have a ma-abarta - that is, the titura should be longer²⁰² Note 202 on one side, from which extra part is made the ma-abarta. How? By cutting into it on two sides so that it's narrower than the titura, so that the titura still looks square²⁰³ Note 203. The straps pass through the ma-abarta, which is why it is called ma-abarta. The shel yad also has a titura and ma-abarta. Each portion is rolled from the end to the beginning,²⁰⁴ Note 204 and wrapped²⁰⁵ Note 205 in a little piece of klaf²⁰⁶ Note 206. Some are careful to use only kosher klaf.²⁰⁷ Note 207 It is halakha from Moses at Sinai²⁰⁸ Note 208 that a hair from a ritually pure beast should be wrapped around the bundle. The custom²⁰⁹ Note 209 is to wrap a hair around the portion, and then wrap a piece of kosher klaf around it, and finish up with another hair. (Igur, siman 45.) We generally use calf-hair,²¹⁰ Note 210 but if one can't get calf, he uses cow or ox, and one washes the hair thoroughly before use to make sure it is clean. A little of this hair²¹¹ Note 211 protrudes²¹² Note 212 from the housings.

45. One puts the portions into the housings such that they are standing upright.²¹³ Note 213

46. The upper margin goes in first, that is, the top line, and the lower margin towards the opening²¹⁴ Note 214 of the housing. The beginning of the section goes in to the right of the reader, so that they will be correctly²¹⁵ Note 215 placed if he should read them (Trumat ha-Deshen, Beit Yosef in the name of Orhot Hayyim).

47. If one wrote all the portions on one piece of klaf, they are valid, even if²¹⁶ Note 216 there is no gap between them, provided there is a thread or a string²¹⁷ Note 217 between each of the housings. One writes all the portions of the shel yad on one piece of klaf, and rolls it from end to beginning, wraps it in klaf and calf hair, and puts it into the housing, as for the shel rosh. If he wrote them on four pieces of klaf and puts them in four housings,²¹⁸ Note 218 he discharges his obligation in the mitzvah, but he must put leather over the four housings (that is, a cover) so that they look like one. The custom²¹⁹ Note 219 is to glue them together so that they look like one piece of klaf, and one must take care to use kosher glue.²²⁰ Note 220 (Barukh she-Amar, siman 57.)

48. If one covered the housings with gold or with leather from a ritually impure²²¹ Note 221 beast, they are invalid.

49. It is halakha from Moses at Sinai that tefillin be stitched with sinews²²² Note 222 from a ritually pure²²³ Note 223 beast, and it is best to use ox sinew.²²⁴ Note 224

50. One should not buy sinew from non-Jews, because they are considered likely to be²²⁵ Note 225 from ritually impure animals. If sinews aren't available, one should make do with טאליאדורש²²⁶ Note 226 made from klaf, until he can find²²⁷ Note 227 some sinews.

51. One makes three stitches on each side,²²⁸ Note 228 and the sewing-thread goes round it in two directions,²²⁹ Note 229 passing between each section of the housing. However,²³⁰ Note 230 if he made ten stitches or less, it is still valid. (Mordechai.) There is an opinion which says that all twelve stitches should be made with one thread.²³¹ Note 231

52. One passes the straps through the ma-abarta, and makes a knot²³² Note 232 like a dalet²³³ Note 233 for the shel rosh and a knot like a yud for the shel yad, to make the word "Shaddai" with the shin on the shel rosh. It is the custom to put a piece of leather the width of the housing over²³⁴ Note 234 the shel yad, laterally with respect to the arm. (Tur.) One should not make the knots until²³⁵ Note 235 he has made the shin on the tefillin, and then he should make the dalet and the yud in that order, in the order of the letters of the Name.

Note 1 1) the Shema... One writes the dalet of "Ehad" very large, as large as four small dalets. It is possible that this does not mean four small dalets of that particular script, but provided four very small dalets could fit in, it is sufficient. For this reason we simply write the dalet larger than the other dalets of that script.

Note 2 2) They must be written...All the portions, both shel yad and shel rosh.

Note 3 3) In this order... It is written "Ve-hayu ha-devarim ha-eyleh" - they shall be just as they are. One must take care that each individual portion be written sequentially for this very reason, such that not even one letter is lacking, since he will not be able to complete the text by inserting it later. See note 23.

Note 4 4) invalid...The tefillin made with these portions. The portions of themselves are still valid, so that if one had started to write "Ve-haya ki yeviakha" he could append it to "Kadesh" from other tefillin, provided he knew for certain that it had been written before this one - if it was not so, apply the principle of strincengy when there is doubt about a Torah law. This is the rule if they were written in order but one of the first portions became invalidated - it invalidates all those which were written after it; it is also the rule regarding appending to other portions.

Note 5 5) before...Because it comes first in the verse. Some say it should be the other way round, because the shel rosh is more holy than the shel yad. Our custom is to follow the Rema, but post facto everyone agrees that one need not worry. The Sefer ha-Kavvanot writes that ideally one should take care to write all the portions of the shel rosh and shel yad one after the other, without pausing between them for even one word; see the Shaarei Teshuva.

Note 66) a single piece of parchment...It is written "It will be a sign on your hand" - one sign, that is to say one box, and since it is one sign without it is ideally one sign within, so it is on a single piece of parchment. Since in the shel rosh there are four boxes, it is necessary that the portions be written on four pieces of parchment. This is the ideal way to do it; as is explained in par. 47. Know also that the portions of the shel yad are to be written as portions, in four columns, each portion in a different column.

Note 77) black ink...Ink which appears like charcoal; see Beur Halakha.

Note 88) ash from trees...That is, without adding kuma [gum arabic] or kankantom (which in Ashkenaz is called copper water) [that is, aqua cuprosa, copperas - iron (II) sulphate solution], because ideally we want ink which can be erased, and with kuma or kankantom it cannot be erased. This is the ideal way to make ink, but in practice even the Rema agrees that ink may be made with gall-nut juice, kuma and kankantom. Today we make ink by mixing the three and cooking them, which is even better (see the responsa Mishkanot Yaakov, sec. 37). See Magen Avraham, who writes that in his day he never saw any of the authorities making ink from the ash of trees or oil (although they may have made ink from the soot of thorns, as he concludes in the name of Mahari"l). This is also how Get Mekushar and Birkei Yosef rule: to make ink as is our present custom, because ink made with tree or oil ash breaks up and wears away very easily, so we don't use it today. Ink which is made only with gallnut juice - not with kuma (in Ashkenaz, this is guma) - or only with kankantom, is invalid even post facto, according to Beur ha-Gra 691; see there and in Beur Halakha. One may write tefillin and mezuzot with wine which has been handled by a non-Jew [and therefore may not be consumed by a Jew]; see Sha'arei Teshuvah n. 4. Ink does not have to be made specifically for the purpose of this writing.

Note 99) one letter...Not literally; this applies for even a small part of the letter, such as the point of the yud.

Note 1010) any other colour...Than black - red, green and so on.

Note 1111) brush away the gold...Even though while the gold remains the letter is invalid - because the upper layer invalidates the lower layer - brushing away the gold does not constitute writing out of order, because he does not write when he brushes to reveal the lower layer.

Note 1212) to its fellow...If the letter is large, and is stuck by its end in such a way that were the stuck part scraped, the form of the letter would remain, there are those who permit [it to remain without scraping] and those who forbid. The ahronim rule stringently; therefore we scrape. This manner of fixing is valid even in tefillin and mezuzot, since the original form of the letter was not changed.

Note 1313) each letter...Even the last letter of the line must be surrounded on all four sides by blank parchment; this invalidates even post facto - see below in sec. 16. If even the point of the yud lacks a surrounding of blank parchment, it is invalid - see Menahot 29. For the details of this ruling, refer to sec. 17 and siman 36.

Note 1414) perfect...He shouldn't make ב and כ indistinguishable, or ז and נ, etc.

Note 1515) the point of the yud...This refers to the left point of the yud. It is certainly invalid if it is missing the right leg. For the proper formation of the yud, see the rules of the letter forms in siman 36, specifically the reference to Peri Megadim.

Note 1616) as appropriate...On the letters ש, ע, ט, נ, ז, ג, ץ. This is the ideal way; post facto, most posekim agree that it is valid even if it does not have taggin. See siman 36 sec. 3, where the rules of taggin are explained in detail.

Note 1717) with his right hand...Because writing is not done with the left hand [so if you do it with your left hand, potentially it isn't writing]. This applies also to any corrections in the writing - if done with the left hand, it is invalid. However, it seems that separating letters which touch each other may be done with the left hand, since we permit invalid persons to do this work, in any case post facto, see sec. 39.

Note 1818) his left hand...If he only writes with his right hand. If he is ambidextrous, they are valid even if he wrote with his left hand. Even if he only writes with his right hand, he may put them on if there are no others available, but should not make a blessing. If someone writes with his right hand but does everything else with his left, or vice versa, he should not become a sofer, but he is not forbidden; see the Peri Megadim.

Note 1919) counts as "right"...Therefore, if he wrote with his right hand, it seems to me that they are invalid just as ones from the left hand are normally, if there are others available. Rema noted a case of a scribe who held the quill with his mouth to write, and he declared them invalid, because no-one writes like that. Magen Avraham says these are invalid even if there are no others available. See Mishnat Avraham in the name of Get Mekushar and other posekim, who liken this case, or one who writes with his feet, to one who writes with his left hand.

Note 2020) the top line...Since it isn't halakha from Moses at Sinai that tefillin must be written with lines, as it is for mezuzah, the only issue is the prohibition of writing more than three words from a verse without lines. Therefore, it is sufficient to rule the top line only, since most people know how to make their writing go straight without ruling extra lines. We say "only necessary" so that if he wants to rule all the lines to make his writing particularly straight and fine, he may. If one didn't even rule the top line – see Beur Halakha.

Note 2121) rule all the lines...That is to say, ideally, because of "This is my God, and I will glorify Him." post facto, even if he didn't rule lines and the writing was wobbly, the tefillin are not invalid.

Note 2222) lead...Nor with ink or red or any such, and this is forbidden even between the lines. This is the ideal way, but post facto one need not be stringent, according to Lehem H amudot and Eliyahu Rabba. Devar Shemuel, responsum 362, is extremely dubious about making lines with any kind of black colouring, because the letters will become connected by the black line unless he writes below the line; see there.

Note 2323) gallnut juice or lime...This is crucial, since without it the product is not klaf but diftera. He leaves the hides in the lime until the hairs come off of their own accord, without being scraped. If he takes them out before this, he should not write on them, because they are still diftera, and invalid. There is one dissenting opinion: if they hides have been in the lime four days and the hair has not yet come off, and circumstances press, he need not concern himself about this, since the hair is not the definitive factor; since the hides have been laid in lime an appropriate amount of time, it is no longer diftera; see there.

Note 2424) verbalise...Or at any rate think it.

Note 2525) a sefer Torah...Since it is more holy than tefillin, and one hundred is contained in two hundred, so one may then use it for tefillin or mezuzot even though they are less holy. One may not use it for non-holy purposes, however, unless he stipulated at the beginning of the processing that should he wish to use it for non-holy purposes he has the right so to do. The correct procedure is for the scribe to say, upon putting the hides into the lime, "I am putting these hides into lime for the holiness of a sefer Torah, and I stipulate that if I should wish, I shall be able to use them for any purpose." Some scribes say "for the holiness of a sefer Torah, or tefillin, or mezuzot, or any other purpose," but the ahronim doubt the validity of this stipulation, so it is not proper to do it this way. See Beur Halakha.

Note 2626) the beginning...He need only verbalise - or think - his intent that the hide be processed lishmah at the start of the process, even though it continues for many days, since everything after that is presumed to be done with the same intention. The beginning of the process is considered to be putting the hides into lime, not the soaking which happens prior to this, since soaking isn't yet processing per se.

Note 2727) invalid...And may be used only for mezuzot, as it is of lesser holiness than tefillin. If he processed it for tefillin, he may use it for a mezuzah but not for sifrei Torah, and if he processed it for tefillin straps, he may not write the portions on it should he later process it into klaf, because their holiness is greater. There are some who say that he may not even use it to make the housings, because they are more holy than the straps (Peri Megadim, and see there what he wrote about this).

Note 2828) even if...He holds that a non-Jew will do it for his own intent, and even though he says he heard the Jew, his speech and his thoughts are at odds. Rosh holds that the Jew is supervising him at the beginning of the process when he puts the hides into the lime, and says to him that he should put them in lishmah; we only require the non-Jew's mental commitment at the exact time he puts the hides into the lime, and he is concentrating adequately at that precise moment. However, if the supervising Jew only thought to himself that it was being done lishmah, it does not work, and even if he said it explicitly but stands far off and does not make him know, it also doesn't work, even according to Rosh.

Note 2929) some...Even if he only helped right at the end of the processing, and even if this help was only working alongside the non-Jew, it is valid. This is the ideal way; in pressing circumstances it is valid, according to Rosh, even if he didn't help at all, because the non-Jew processed it lishmah in accordance with the instructions and intent of the Jew.

Note 3030) this is the custom...According to the ahronim, the ideal process is this: the Jew himself puts the hides into the lime lishmah, and says to the non-Jew that when he does the subsequent processing it should likewise be done lishmah, after which the non-Jew may remove the hides from the lime and do the rest of the work without being supervised or helped by the Jew. If the Jew put the hides into the lime lishmah but did not say anything to the non-Jew, Peri Megadim says this requires study as to its validity. (Beit Yosef in Yoreh Deah 271 thinks it is kosher even according to Rambam, and Ba"h forbids.) Accordingly, in the opinions of Noda biYehudah 175 - see there - and the commentary of Maharam Banet on the Mordechai at the end of hilkhot sefer Torah, we may be lenient in pressing circumstances. If the Jew helped the non-Jew a bit at the end, and this completed the processing, but he didn't say anything to the non-Jew about its being lishmah, it doesn't work at all, since helping isn't really doing. This applies if he didn't complete the work himself but only helped a bit, but if the Jew finished it himself without the help of the non-Jew, for instance if the Jew took the hides out of the lime before they were done and put them back in lishmah, Taz in Yoreh Deah and Maharam are lenient, and and we shouldn't object to people who follow their opinions, see Beur Halakha.

Note 3131) recognise it anyway...By making his marks in a particular way, or by noticing that these marks are fresher than the ones he made. Some say that he should mark it at the head, on the inside, where it isn't usual to prepare it so the marks will remain after the preparation, and he should not mark them with an awl at all because of this possibility of forgery, but in pressing circumstances one may be lenient as per Shulhan Arukh.

Note 3232) in two...It is very small; if when the quill passes over it, the hole is closed by the ink and the pen does not feel the hole, he may write on it. He may write on it even if some of the ink fell off that place and the hole is visible when held to the light. However, if the holes are such that they do not close by the ink going over them, it is invalid, because the letters will thus appear to be divided in two. The letter is also invalid if the hole is placed in the body of the letter - its leg or its roof - surrounded by ink on all sides, even if it had the form of the letter up until the hole. All this applies before writing; if a hole forms in a letter after it is written and divides it into two, it is valid if the form of the letter remains before the hole, as is explained in sec. 16, and see Beur Halakha.

Note 3333) slightly thinner...This is a scribal error: it should read "...for writing "Ve-haya ki yeviakha" which is slightly longer, and "Kadesh" and "Ve-haya im shamoa" which are long..." (Beur ha-Gra, Yad Aharon). R' M. I. wrote that their scribes used another method: all the slips of klaf were the same length and width, but they left big margins around the shorter portions.

Note 3434) after it had been written...We shall introduce two ideas, and then expound. (1) Each letter must have the correct form for that letter, and if it does not it is invalid, and no-one disagrees with this, whether it was initially written incorrectly or became damaged afterwards. (2) Any letter which is not surrounded by blank klaf on all four sides is invalid, and regarding this rule there are two considerations. (a) We mean the case when it was not surrounded by blank klaf before it was written. If after it was written a hole or tear formed near to the outside of the letter, and the letter was thereby no longer surrounded by blank klaf, it is valid, as is explained in sec. 16 of the Shulhan Arukh. (b) Most posekim hold that being surrounded by klaf is only necessary on the outside of the letters, not on the inside, except for the Yerushalmi which is stringent. Now we shall explain the Shulhan Arukh "if a hole formed after it was written, &c." - the reason is that the inside of the letter does not need surrounding by blank klaf, and therefore it is valid even if the hole existed before the writing. This is if a hole formed after it was written, because ideally we don't write over a hole even if the hole is in the middle of the blank space and doesn't fill it entirely - but certainly if he erred and wrote, even if the hole was there before the writing, it is valid, and doesn't require fixing.

Note 3535) in the middle of ה...This is the case for any letter which has three sides and a blank space within, but ך, ו and so on don't have a blank space within.

Note 3636) the entire space...Even if the hole touches the body of the letter - provided even a thin line remains on the outside, it is valid, since there is no minimum width for the lines of the letters.

Note 3737) even the inside...And if the inside works just like the outside and there was a hole in the middle before it was written, it is invalid - see Taz and Peri Megadim in the name of Levush, who is stringent like the Yerushalmi. Know that the Yerushalmi requires surrounding with blank klaf on all sides, within as well as without; therefore, if there was a hole on the inside, near the letter, before it was written, and the letter was therefore not surrounded by blank klaf, one may scrape from the thickness of the line, inside, to make it surrounded by blank klaf - see Beur Halakha s.v. "But in the Yerushalmi..."

Note 3838) the hole formed...This is also the rule if some of the ink wore away but no hole formed. Rosh disagrees, and validates only ה if the smallest part remains, whether above the hole or below, because he thinks there is no minimum size for the dot which hangs there; even if one initially wrote such a short leg it is valid according to Rosh. But all other letters - ח and so on - even Rosh would agree that the left leg has the same regulations as the right leg.

Note 3939) require as much as...This is a case where being surrounded with blank klaf is not a problem, such as when the hole formed after the writing - cf par. 16 - it must be, because otherwise it would be invalid even if more than a small letter remained, even according to Rosh.

Note 4040) this is the rule...From which we see that he isn't ruling like this just to be stringent, but he really thinks the halakha is as these posekim say, so we must be very careful about scribes who don't do it right. In tefillin and mezuzot, which require writing in order, it seems that it cannot be fixed even if a child reads the letter; we see that it doesn't have the form of the letter, and cannot be called ה according to these posekim - see par. 25. In any case we can be lenient about correcting it, because it's comparable to a khaf peshuta being made square, which Peri Megadim permitted.

Note 4141) right...Of ה. The Peri Megadim wrote "It seems to me that this is the rule for the other letters, like ד, ל, ף, ץ, ק, ר, ת, ח (it seems that it applies to both the right and left legs of ח) - if as much as a yud remains of the right leg, it is sufficient." See below in siman 36, on the laws of letter forms, in ל, ף, ץ, ק, and ת.

Note 4242) became holed...This is the rule also if the letter became broken without a hole, or it part of the letter became erased. The Shulhan Arukh is talking about its length, but it is also the rule if its width became broken, either by holing or erasure - if a thin black line remained, like a thin ו or י, it is valid, because there is no minimum width for the lines of the letters. But if a hole formed, either in its width or its length, the hole must have formed after the writing for it to be valid, see par. 16.

Note 4343) as much as a small letter...That is, yud with its lower point, since we rule (Beit Yosef siman 36) that it is not yud without the lower point.

Note 4444) remains...Above the hole; one cannot also count whatever remains below the hole. It is invalid even if an average child reads it correctly, because we see that the proper form of the letter does not remain, as is explained nearby in the name of Taz. However, if as much as a small letter remains above the hole (or above the break, if the letter broke in the middle), it is valid, and does not need to be shown to a child. This is also the rule if one initially wrote the leg very small; it is valid. See Yad Ephraim and Beur Halakha.

Note 4545) broke...This can be explained in two ways - it is either because of a hole, which cannot be kosher unless the hole came after the writing, as previously discussed; or because the ink came away from the letter in that place, and it is this situation to which the ruling of the Shulhan Arukh applies, even if it was made that way originally.

Note 4646) the straight letters...And accordingly it doesn't help if as much as a yud remains, because it would look like yud and be invalid; this is why we need to use a child.

Note 4747) the leg of ן...as it should read [some editions have א in Rema's gloss]. That is, the straight ן, and suchlike - ך etc - if its leg is short, and it looks a bit like ד or ר.

Note 4848) if a child...See Taz, who wrote that this breaking is one where a bit broke off the very end of the letter, and only the first part of it before the break remained, so if we can't tell whether the remaining length was sufficient we determine it using a child. But if there remained something below the break - that is, the break was across the width of the leg, and a part of the leg remained on the other side of the break, a child can't be used, because the child will read the bottom part with the top part, but he mustn't do this - it is like when the leg of the aleph is separated - it is necessary to cover the part after the break. It's not like the case here in the Shulhan Arukh, where it isn't necessary to cover over the rest of the letters - for our case here he would certainly agree that it is necessary to cover, and thus conclude the ahronim (and it's not like what's written in Yeshuot Yaakov, to be lenient like Meiri says. Beur ha-Gra in 36 also learns like Taz, that one can't join the part below to the letter).

Note 4949) particularly smart...Such that he comprehends the context and deduces how the broken letter should read, and it will be clearer. He isn't called "smart" if he is good at recognising letters but doesn't comprehend what's written before them - he is certainly valid.

Note 50 50) particularly ignorant...That is, he doesn't know how to read the letters. Anyone who knows how to read the letters, even though he isn't very good at their forms - if he says it doesn't have the form, it's invalid.

Note 5151) not necessary to cover...Thus Levush. But Magen Avraham, in the name of R' Yosef Tirani, wrote that one must cover the preceding letters, because if he starts from the beginning of the text he will be aided by memory - one must cover the preceding letters even if the child has not learned that section. One need not cover the subsequent letters in any case.

Note 5252) the letter...For instance, an aleph whose yuds didn't touch it, or the tongue of peh if not connected to the roof, and all other non-straight letters which have breaks in them; these are all invalid, whether they were written that way initially or became that way subsequently. A child is of no avail unless the letter was reduced in size such that it appeared very similar to another letter, for instance if vav became truncated and it was not clear whether it remained vav or had become yud. In this case a child may be used to clarify the matter, since if it remains long enough to be vav he will not read it as yud. This is also the rule with nun peshuta and khaf peshuta if it is not clear whether they are long enough, and with khaf kefufa when similar to beit, and suchlike cases when it is not clear which letter form it has. But in cases where we can see that the letter does not retain its form, what good will the eyes of a child do when our own eyes can see that it is invalid? Therefore, we cannot validate an aleph whose left leg is not connected to the middle line even if a child reads it as aleph, since the break is not going to make him say that it is a backwards ayin. This is also the rule with the peshuta letters: if we see that they clearly do not have their form, anything a child says is irrelevant. A child is only relevant if we ourselves cannot tell whether a letter has its necessary dimensions. All this is when it has not been corrected; on correction, see Beur Halakha.

Note 5353) broken letter...This is the rule for the case permitted in sec. 15 above, when a hole formed in the leg of hey, but when the space inside became holed, the Shulhan Arukh permitted it even if the hole preceded the writing, and only said "if it was after it was written..." regarding the hole in the leg.

Note 5454) then became broken...The reason is that we only require surrounding by blank klaf at the time of writing, and therefore even if the hole connected the letter to a nearby letter, it is valid. However, Derekh ha-Hayyim, in his Hilkhot Kriat ha-Torah rule 27, rules stringently; see Beur Halakha. Know also that when letters touch each other, even if one knows for sure that they became that way after they were written, it is also invalid (Derekh ha-Hayyim there, and it is also learned from Beit Shemuel in Even ha-Ezer 125:29 - see there - he thinks that we should also bear in mind Beit Yosef's first approach s.v. "Ve-im tomar," that we should not distinguish between joined letters which weren't surrounded by blank klaf at the time of writing and letters which became joined after that.

Note 5555) first written...If we aren't sure when the hole formed, we assume it formed after the writing, since generally speaking the scribe would have seen it had it been there while he was writing, unless it was very small.

Note 5656) a hole...That is, particularly a hole or a tear even if the break isn't noticeable, because it wasn't surrounded by blank klaf when it was written. But a general break is permitted, and does not require fixing, since the letter had its required size before that point, see par. 15-16. If one finds thin lines in the required part of the letter - see Beur Halakha to par. 25.

Note 5757) leg...And all the more so if the roofs or middles weren't surrounded by blank klaf when they were written - we mention the leg as an extreme example: when one writes the end of the leg, the form of the letter is correctly made, but even so, it continues to be in a state of " being written" up until he lifts his hand from the letter; all this is considered to be "when it was written," and requires surrounding by blank klaf.

Note 5858) never...But if the klaf became cut afterwards, so the letter was not surrounded by blank klaf, it is valid.

Note 5959) surrounded...Even if it is of appropriate length, such that were the end scraped away the letter form would remain, it is still invalid (Magen Avraham, note 22, and see also note 3).

Note 6060) invalid...And if he wishes to correct it, he scrapes a little so that it is surrounded by blank klaf. Attaching a patch does not constitute surrounding with blank klaf, since we require the surrounding to be actually in the body of the sefer Torah/tefillin/mezuzah.

Note 6161) ink...This is also the rule if another colour changed the form of the letter, but if wax fell onto the letter, even so much that the letter was not recognisable, he may remove it, because wax does not invalidate writing; see Beur Halakha.

Note 6262) into...Whether the drop touches the body of the letter or not. This is also the rule if the drop fell inside the line of the letter and spread itself outside the confines of the letter such that it was no longer recognisable.

Note 6363) no longer recognisable...Whether the drop turned it into another letter, such as beit into peh, or whether it turned it into something which was not a letter at all. This is the rule for all the other letters; even if the drop obliterated only the tip of the yud - whether left or right - it is invalid. If one is not sure whether it retains its form, he may show it to a child of average intelligence.

Note 6464) scraping...Even if he then rewrites it over the top; after he has done hak tokhot it does not help, see Magen Avraham.

Note 6565) the drop...Even if the drop was still wet and the letter had dried - we can't say it's just covering it up, since the form of the letter had been invalidated before the correction.

Note 6666) hak tokhot...That is to say, he carves inside and around the letter, and what was not scraped away remains in the form of a letter.

Note 6767) and not "and carve..." It [the process of correction described above] is also called carving, because he doesn't do anything to the body of the letter, but scrapes away also from the letter until it doesn't have is form any more, and after that corrects it, and in tefillin and mezuzot only if he had not written any letters after it, since they require writing in order. This ruling of the Shulhan Arukh applies only when the original writing became unrecognisable, but if the form was still there he may scrape away the drop. It doesn't matter whether it fell into the blank space alone or if it also got onto the letter and made it fatter or longer; it does not constitute hak tokhot so long as the letter form remains. Technically, this doesn't even need to be corrected, but it's nicer to correct it, and accordingly one may make this correction in tefillin and mezuzot, even though they require writing in order; see Beur Halakha.
Know also that the Shulhan Arukh's ruling applies even after the letter was completed, and all the more so if the drop fell before the letter was completed but he finished writing it before it correcting it, so that it was corrected before it was recognisable - everyone agrees that this cannot be corrected by scraping the drop, because it was never a letter at all but became one because of the scraping, and this is absolutely hak tokhot. But if he scrapes away the drop and then wants to finish the letter, there are different opinions in the posekim. Rada"kh thinks that he may not: since the drop fell onto a part of the letter it no longer counts as writing, and the correction is actually scraping; how does it help to finish the letter by writing? And all the more so if the drop fell onto the klaf so as to form part of a letter; one may not complete the letter by writing. Beit Yosef and Rema (in Even ha-Ezer 125:4) are lenient even in this last ruling, holding that it is not hak tokhot unless the letter was completed by scraping, but the ahronim oppose them and are stringent as per the last ruling, unless he moved the drop around while it was still wet to have it form a complete letter, which counts as writing.

Note 6868) cannot correct it...That is, one cannot correct it by scraping. One may add ink to round it, and so too if one erred and wrote reish instead of dalet or khaf instead of beit and they were thick letters, he cannot scrape them to leave dalet or beit, but he may add ink to them to create dalet or bet. So too if he erred and wrote nun peshuta instead of zayin; he may not trim it down to zayin because that is absolutely hak tokhot, but must scrape it entirely. So too if he wrote hey instead of dalet; he may not scrape the leg of the hey to leave dalet - this is comparable to a drop falling into beit or samekh and spoiling it, where it does not help simply to scrape away the blot; this does not contribute to forming the actual letter, and this case is similar. Rather, he must scrape away part of the roof to leave vav, or part of the leg until it isn't dalet at all, and only then may he correct it.
The general principle is that scraping is not a valid way of making writing, and this is hak tokhot. But extra writing is valid, to thicken dalet into reish or reish into dalet when he writes the tag. It is the other way round for the concept of writing in order: scraping is permitted, for instance when one letter is stuck to another - as discussed above - because this does not contribute to forming the actual letter, and writing is not permitted. Adding ink to alter the form of the letter is permitted only when one hadn't written anything else after that.

Note 6969) scraping off the surplus...It doesn't help him to extend the roof and the foot after that, since it has the form even if he doesn't.

Note 7070) got stuck...And became invalid thereby; if it was stuck by a line as thin as a hair, see below in the discussion of hey, and see Beur Halakha.

Note 7171) closed...Like a closed mem, which occurs only at the end of a word, not in the middle. So too with all the doubled letters - mem, nun, tzaddi, peh, khaf - the first is used at the beginning and in the middle of words, and the second at the end, and any change invalidates.

Note 7272) open it...This is the rule for any letter whose form was spoiled - at the time of writing or afterwards - and restored by scraping, like an overly long dalet which looks like khaf peshuta, and similar cases: it does not help to scrape, because this does not do any action to the remaining part. He must scrape the whole leg (it seems to me; see note 68) and then correct it. If he extended the roof very far, until it was clearly dalet, he may then shorten the leg, but if he wrote hey instead of dalet - recall that we said above he must erase the entire leg or roof of the dalet and it is not sufficient to scrape the leg of the hey - this approach will not work. That is, he cannot extend the roof of the dalet, because if he hadn't done it it would still have had that form, and this does not constitute correction.

Note 7373) hak tokhot...Because it doesn't constitute formative action in the letter; it's just scraping out the opening. For the same reason, if one wrote het instead of two zayins, he may not scrape out just the roof, but must scrape enough that the zayins lose their form entirely. So too if one accidentally made khaf peshuta resembling dalet - which according to many authorities is invalid, as we explain in siman 36 - it is of no avail to round off the corner, because this is hak tokhot. Instead, he should add ink to it and round it this way. It seems that this does not cause writing out of order, because it has its form even if he does not correct it.

Note 7474) corrects it...All the directions in this paragraph apply only if one hadn't written anything after that letter - in tefillin and mezuzot - because they constitute writing out of order, unless it is explicitly stated otherwise.

Note 7575) the form of a nun kefufa...Mem petuha is made from two letters: first a nun kefufa, and then a stroke resembling vav. Therefore, the part making it invalid is the vav, and this must be scraped, but the nun was written correctly and need not be scraped. This is the rule for other letters which have multiple components, such as gimel, which became invalid through one of the components; only this component need be scraped, in contrast to letters such as reish made like dalet, which is made by one stroke and accordingly the entire letter is invalid and must be scraped.

Note 7676) reish...Or a vav which was made like reish, and similar letters which are made with one stroke.

Note 7777) like dalet...This also applies if the roof of khaf peshuta was made so long it resembled dalet or reish; see Beur Halakha. Scribes are frequently at error in this.

Note 7878) completed...Was already the appropriate length, for instance if one was writing "lo" and the vav got stuck to the lamed while it was still short (and similar cases), and even if a tiny part touched such that the form of the letter was not altered, it is invalid because it is no longer surrounded by blank klaf. If the letters spread out because of wet ink so much that they appear to have run into each other, but actually are not touching, they are valid, but if they touch, it is invalid even though it happened after the writing. See Even ha-Ezer 125:16 in Rema and Beit Shemuel, and above in Beur Halakha to par. 16. See Mishnah Berurah below, 143:25, for the procedure when one is reading from a sefer Torah and finds two letters stuck together.

Note 7979) scraping away the join...This is also the rule if the legs of the letters, or their roofs or middles, touch at the end so that they are not surrounded by blank klaf; they may be scraped a little. It is no worse than when one letter is stuck to another, in which case scraping is permitted. Further, this correction does not constitute writing out of order (see below, par. 25), because it doesn't add anything to the letter itself. One may even scrape within the Divine Names, if the letters were completed and were stuck to from below.

Note 8080) hak tokhot...Provided the form of the letter was not altered by being stuck, but if the form changed such that a child could not read it - and all the more so if it had turned into another letter entirely, such as vav sticking substantially to nun kefufa and forming tet, so that a child would read it as tet - scraping away the join is not valid. It is similar to the case of the closed-up mem which was hak tokhot, and so one must also scrape away the nun, because its form was also changed by becoming stuck, and so too in similar cases.

Note 8181) correctly...This case is not similar to that of par. 17, where the letter was initially written correctly and then became spoiled by a drop of ink to such a degree that it was unrecognisable: here, each letter is discernible even before being scraped. It follows that if the entire length of the letter became stuck to its fellow, scraping does not validate it. Peri Hadash is lenient; see Shaarei Ephraim and Netiv Hayyim.

Note 8282) hey...One must scrape the entire leg even if the join was only as wide as a hair, such that a child could tell it was hey, because if something does not have the form that was given to it at Sinai, it is not a letter. Likewise, a child does not validate a kuf.

Note 8383) got stuck...But if there is a gap, even so thin as a hair, it is valid.

Note 8484) erases...Merely separating them is of no avail, since this is hak tokhot.

Note 8585) the leg...That is to say, entirely, whether the invalid letter was hey or kuf; see Beur Halakha.

Note 8686) its roof...Since the lower and upper yuds shouldn't touch the roof more than at their thinnest parts, as is explained in Mishnah Berurah to siman 36, in the rules of letter forms.

Note 8787) inner face...The upper yud. It loses its form only when the entire yud is stuck; if there is a part left unstuck it is valid, even if it is not as thin as it ought to be. Provided some part remains, it is valid and does not require correction.

Note 8888) separating them...That is, by scraping away only the part which touches, to leave the letter looking as it ought.

Note 8989) everything...That is, he must erase the entire leg, and it is not sufficient simply to separate them unless he has invalidated it entirely from the letter form, since the whole leg was made invalidly. So too if the lower yud of aleph became stuck: he must erase the entire yud and write it afresh. Some are stringent because of this, and if the upper yud becomes stuck to the aleph will erase the whole aleph - anything written after this was automatically invalid because of it, but it is not clear whether one needs to be this stringent; see Beur Halakha.

Note 9090) yuds...That is, the yuds were made as straight lines without the form of yud, but it doesn't hurt it for the lines to become a little thicker.

Note 9191) peh...This is also the rule if the left leg of tav was made straight and didn't' poke out underneath. See Levushei Sarad, who remained uncertain as to why it needed to be erased, since one could continue it afterwards and thicken the yud of the shin until it was correct, and similarly with this case of tav. See there. Peri Megadim reasons similarly - in Mishbetzot ha-Zahav sec. 20 - that this procedure works even for aleph, and see the end of Levushei Sarad. In any case, all this applies for the tav and similar cases only when he has not written other letters after it, since if he has any fixing at all will constitute writing out of sequence, it not having the form of tav, and therefore be invalid.

Note 9292) starts...They are invalid if even one letter was not written lishmah, and rewriting them over the top doesn't help (Yoreh Deah 274). "Starts" indicates that when he comes to write a set of portions, he should say that he is writing the set of portions lishmah. This works, strictly speaking, even if he takes a break between portions, although it is better that he should say it at the beginning of each portion.

Note 9393) to write...It seems that correcting letters which had become broken also requires declaration of intent, since without it they are invalid, not having the proper letter forms.

Note 9494) say...If another person writes, he must also say it, even if he starts writing in the middle of a job.

Note 9595) out loud...It is not enough that he should have it in mind, even post facto; see Eliyahu Rabba and Peri Megadim, also see the novellae of R' Akiva Eiger.

Note 9696) "I am writing..."Some say that he should add "...and all the Divine Names for the holiness of the Name," in case he forgets to say it when he gets to them. See Beur Halakha.

Note 9797) every time... If he writes two Names without a break, once is sufficient for both.

Note 9898) started writing...That is he writing for the holiness of tefillin, and then even if he didn't mention the Names it is all right because at any rate he mentioned holiness. If he didn't say it explicitly but only thought it, or didn't sanctify the Names even in his thoughts, it is no good even post facto.

Note 9999) post facto...But for preference he should say "for the holiness of the Name" explicitly every time he comes to write a Name, even if he said "and all the Divine Names..." This is how the ahronim rule.

Note 100100) adds or omits...Even if the reading of the word is not altered thereby, such as malei and haser spellings, as we shall see.

Note 101101) a single letter...It is invalid if he omits so much as the point of a yud, as per Menahot 29a.

Note 102102) great...Besides the grave sin of stealing.

Note 103103) tremble at the word of God...Here I quote a highly relevant section of Levush: "Unlike today's scribes, whose apprentices write tefillin proficiently, and the scribe then checks to see that the haser and yeter spellings are all correct before putting them into the housings and selling them. They count the profits from this as their payment for teaching the apprentices, and justify themselves, saying 'We are very generous to teach the scribal arts, the work of God, to poor boys for nothing'! But I say that their gain is their loss, and they are not good people to do this to their people, for the child is young and does not know left from right; he doesn't have kavannah [mindfulness] at all, they just make pretty letters without any sanctity or mindfulness of the commandment whatsoever. Such a scribe is punished greatly, because he fails the people who lay these tefillin (see above, par. 19). Furthermore, to make his stock sound valuable, the scribe will tell everyone that he wrote them himself, with kavannah, and so on. Those who act in this way will come to be judged severely, and of him it is said 'Cursed is he who does the Lord's work deceitfully.' A scribe should distance himself from such practices, and it will be well with him, since the kavannah spoken for tefillin is not centred on the owner of the tefillin, in contrast to a get, which must be made for a specific couple, but on the holiness of the tefillin alone" - see there - and he concludes "those who have the power to appoint scribes should appoint, in each city, men of truth who hate bribes and know Torah, fear God and tremble at his words, just as we appoint kosher butchers, so that we shouldn't assume that all scribes are on the make, who just make pretty tefillin. While it is proper to want to make pretty tefillin, this should be for the purpose of the mitzvah: it is only good if they also have sanctity, but they don't care about that." Barukh she-Amar wrote "One should write attractive, flawless letters, without breaks, with great concentration and patience. He should not rush his writing to increase his profit, since this profit will become a loss; he will be disgraced and will forfeit his soul in causing others to sin. All who write tefillin as good and fit as they possibly can will have their reward doubled and doubled again, and will be saved from the judgement of Gehinnom." Sefer Hasidim, ch. 85, wrote "'Your righteousness endures forever' - this is one who increases the merit of the many, such as one who teaches tefillin fixing to God-fearing persons who will fix those of others." See par. 39, on when someone may write tefillin.

Note 104104) read it very carefully...Since if he finds one missing letter in one portion, not only that one is invalidated, but all those which came after it since they were not written in order; see the beginning of the chapter.

Note 105105) before he starts...That isn't to say the start of the portion particularly, just any time he starts writing in the portion.

Note 106106) that he has written...In that portion, not in the ones before it.

Note 107107) by his hand...When one dips his quill to write the Name, he shouldn't start writing it immediately, lest it be spoiled by excess of ink, or lest there is a hair on the quill which will stop it writing straight. Also, he needs to sanctify the ink on the quill before writing the Name, so he should be careful to stop writing one letter before the Name, and start writing in this letter. If he didn't leave a letter, he should look for a letter or tag which needs more ink, and complete it, and then write the Name. If he runs out of ink before completing the Name he should dip his quill into letters before the Name which are still wet, and complete the Name. He should not dip into the letters of the Name themselves, although some are lenient since it does not count as a desecration, being intended for completing the Name. If there are no wet letters to dip into, it seems to me that he should dip afresh and find a letter or tag which needs ink. All this is good to aim for, but does not invalidate it post facto.

Note 108108) nothing he can do... To fill in the missing letter. This is the case when the subsequent text contains Names which may not be erased; if it doesn't, he may erase it.

Note 109109) they shall be as they were...They are written in the same order as in which they are written in the Torah.

Note 110110) an extra letter...If he wrote a superfluous word, he can erase it, and may leave the place blank [if he can't find a letter in the words before it to extend and fill the gap (ed. of MB)]. The blank place doesn't invalidate it provided it isn't big enough to be a break between parshiyot, that is, nine letters, and sometimes even this may be rescued, for instance by extending the letter in the preceding word to make the size of the gap less than nine letters. If (and only if) the tefillin would be made invalid by the gap, and the last letter of the preceding word is hey or kuf, he may extend the roof to reduce the gap, even though lengthening its roof leaves its foot somewhere which is not the end of the roof. Peri Megadim writes that if one repeated a word, it is better to erase the second word than the first, since the first was written correctly, but if there is a letter before the first word which can be extended, he should erase the first, so as to satisfy the opinion of Rabeinu Tam that even three letters constitute a break between paragraphs.

Note 111111) erased...It doesn't constitute hak tokhot, since it is not doing anything formative to the [remaining] words or letters.

Note 112112) two words...Sometimes it is possible to correct it by scraping the letter and extending the letter before it to fill up the gap, for instance if one wrote לאבתיך as לאבותיך, he can erase the vav and extend the beit before it to fill its place. So too if the gap was after khaf or dalet or reish, which can be extended a little to fill the place left by removing the surplus letter. If the extendable letters are after the gap, though, they cannot be extended backwards without first removing a bit, for instance the word שאר, if he wrote it שאור - this can't be corrected by extending the reish because you would first have to remove its leg, which would nullify the letter form, and when one rewrote it [stretched] it would constitute writing out of order, which can't be remedied. He may be able to thicken the letters before and after the gap, which does not change the forms of the letters. This isn't the case if the letter before the extra letter was one which can be extended, since these can be extended a long way without detracting from them at all. The first occurrence of the word "matzot" (Ex 12:18) should be written without vav, but it is doubtful whether one may erase the vav and extend the tzaddi's foot; perhaps it continues to appear as two words unless the top of the letter is extended, even if the bottom of the letter was close. So too "notein," which is supposed to be without vav, and "hotziakha" which is supposed to have no yud between the tzaddi and the aleph - it is doubtful that one may amend them by extending the foot of the letter before - anything which looks like two words is invalid. However, if he had originally written nun or tzaddi with a long foot, and written the next letter very close to it, such as פני or ארצי, it would be all right because it was written as one word. One shouldn't let one letter swallow another, because some people are stringent about this.

Note 113113) place where a word was scraped off...Scraping is when he scraped it off after having let it dry, and erasing is what he does while it is still wet. It says one shouldn't do this, but that is by way of good advice. See Peri Megadim, who wrote that if any trace of ink remained, even post facto, it is suspect and one may not write on the place even if it is only an ordinary word and not a Name.

Note 114114) a letter...This section deals with writing out of order, which is a complex topic. I shall summarise in three sections. (A) When a letter is damaged, whether it was made that way initially or became that way later (Peri Megadim in his opening). If it obviously hasn't got its form, e.g. yud without its right leg or shin missing a yud - anything where a component of the letter is missing such that the form is invalidated - even if it doesn't look like another letter, and he'd written on, there's nothing he can do, even if a child happens to identify it correctly, there's nothing he can do, because it's out of order. All the more so if it came to resemble another letter, e.g. dalet looking like reish, or beit like khaf, or h et with a gap between the left leg and the roof so it looks like hey, tzaddi whose yud doesn't connect so it looks like yud and nun, etc etc, which we don't show to a child and fixing can't help. (B) If the damage or omission hasn't caused it to lose its form entirely, for instance if there is a thin gap in the middle of some letter but it has the fundamentals of its form, or if the yuds of aleph and shin, or the leg of tav, didn't touch the body but a suitable child recognised it - even so the letter is not valid, because it doesn't have its proper form. However, they may be repaired without its constituting writing out of order. (C) Even though it retains the fundamentals of its form and a child reads it correctly, the type of fixing which entails scraping and rewriting (for instance if something made a letter invalid) may not be employed [Ed. MB. For instance, if the legs of hey and kuf touch above - even if the join is only as thick as a hair - it is fixed by scraping the entire leg and rewriting, since simply separating them counts as hak tokhot, and likewise the leg of aleph to the roof, and so on. See par. 18.] It would be impossible to correct it if he had written more letters after it since he would have to scrape away all that had been written after the invalid letter; any correction he made after continuing to write would be writing out of order.
We shall now explain the paragraph: "A letter..." also applies if the letter became spoiled afterwards.

Note 115115) did not have its form...That is, everyone can see that it doesn't have the proper form. Also, if the leg or the face of aleph touched the roof or the legs of hey or kuf touched above, but it was still basically recognisable for the letter, and a child read it properly - even so, it can only be fixed by scraping the invalid part off, as per par. 18. Consequently, the form of the letter becomes completely nullified, and fixing it after that constitutes writing out of order.

Note 116116) the leg of the aleph...This applies to all the examples given in Rema's gloss to par. 18 above.

Note 117117) touching...Even if only by as much as a hair's breadth.

Note 118118) tzaddi as yud and nun...That is, the yud was separated from the nun to such a degree that it appeared as two letters, and similarly in other cases. Therefore, it may not subsequently be corrected even if a child happened to read it correctly, since it clearly resembles two other letters, and correcting this will constitute writing out of order. This also applies if it doesn't appear like other letters per se, but nevertheless clearly does not have its proper form, for instance a yud without the right leg or an aleph without the upper yud, and so on: it cannot be corrected. However, if one had not made the left leg of the yud, even though it is not technically yud according to most posekim, see siman 36, and as such is invalid, it may be corrected even out of order since it is still basically yud, even though it is missing its point.

Note 119119) ayin and yud...This is also the rule for mem petuhah, if one wrote khaf and vav but omitted the little join between them.

Note 120120) het as two zayins...Even if one made the hump, and the only place they don't touch is right at the top; if the separation is clearly visible it is invalid, because it looks like two zayins.

Note 121121) yuds of aleph...So too if some letter had a break in the middle (Peri Megadim, opening to Eshel Avraham).

Note 122122) a child...Therefore, even if the break is apparent (that is, visible directly one sees the letter), it may be corrected, since the child's having read it correctly proves that it still basically has its form. (R' Akiva Eiger in his novellae disagrees with Peri Megadim, who is stringent here; see Beur Halakha.) However, if one doesn't notice the break unless he looks for it, it need not be shown to a child - but if a child happened to see it and read it incorrectly, one should heed him and be stringent: he may not correct it (Peri Megadim).

Note 123123) One opinion says...This is not a disagreement, but a legal innovation.

Note 124124) obviously...If it is obvious, it won't have its basic form any more: see note 120.

Note 125125) they may be connected...Children aren't used to this kind of het, and read it as two zayins even when it is made correctly.

Note 126126) became stuck together...Whether above or below. This applies only if they became stuck during writing; if they became stuck after writing one may not separate them. See Beur Halakha.

Note 127127) to separate them...This doesn't count as erasing, because one thereby fixes. If they became stuck to other letters, it is all the more permitted to remove the other letters from those of the Name, provided he is extremely careful that his knife not touch the last little bit which is stuck into the Name (Beur Hetev, in the name of Shiurei Knesset ha-Gedolah, and what he wrote about "in pressing circumstances" is not justified there.)

Note 128128) a bit worn...That is, if some of the ink has gone. If the ink wasn't black to start with, but pale or red, one must rewrite over them, and this counts as writing out of order. The Shulhan Arukh isn't talking about that sort of thing, because here the ink is still valid, and the additional writing is by way of pre-emptive reinforcement. One may only do this when some of the original colour remains: if all the ink has come off, leaving only a mark where it deposited rust, rewriting over the top counts as writing out of order. Consequently, if the bottom of vav flaked off and left only the red mark, one needs to show it to a child to determine whether what is left counts as vav, and the red mark part at the bottom needs to be covered over so he won't deduce what the letter is meant to be - see above, n. 48. Note also that in Peri Megadim's opinion it counts as writing out of order even if traces of the ink remain but are red, and the black layer had come off the top, since red isn't acceptable for tefillin. Hatam Sofer, on the other hand, in his novellae to Yoreh Deah 256, disagrees with this: if the red colour was due to the ink aging, it is valid since it was written with ink. The rule is that it be written with ink, from which we see that as long as they were written with ink it is fine; ink almost always fades and goes reddish eventually, to the colour (brown). It is therefore permitted to rewrite - and almost certainly the Names also, since adding a layer of ink does not count as erasing the Name. If it had become actually red - this is not how inks generally behave - or if it became tinged with red very soon after writing it cannot be fixed, because it cannot have come about as a result of the usual aging process, and we must therefore say that it came about owing to some defect in the ink. Presumably the ink was made with different substances, and the sefer was therefore invalid from the outset because it was not written with [kosher] ink. In this case, one may not rewrite the Names; see there for his extensive reasoning.

Note 129129) not enter...Not even the smallest part of the head should enter into the line above. Likewise, khaf peshuta and so on should not enter into the line below, into tet or ayin, etc.

Note 130130) empty space of hey...Nor into aleph or tav or anything, and all the more so dalet or resh, which would make it look like hey - see below.

Note 131131) or h et...So too if the head of lamed entered into khaf peshuta, see note 132. (See the responsa of Maharia"m of Brisk, ch. 8, and Ra'a is lenient in a responsum.)

Note 132132) not touch them...Since if they touch, it's invalid even without any of the other circumstances, lacking a surrounding of blank klaf. The phrasing of the Shulhan Arukh indicates that one should take care whilst writing, but post facto it does not invalidate, provided it does not enter in such a way as to change the form of the letter - for instance, if it only entered the tiniest bit. However, if it entered substantially such that the form of the letter was changed, it is invalid - i.e. when the lower line was covered, concealing the body of the lamed, and a child did not recognise the letter - and fixing it constitutes writing out of order. This applies all the more so if the head of lamed stretched into the empty space of dalet or reish to make it appear as hey: it is invalid, and since the letter is very clearly changed, it makes no difference if a child reads it correctly.

Note 133133) very well by heart...When one is just beginning to write them, he is not usually expert in the precise wording and spelling.

Note 134134) from a copy...or from hearing someone else read, so that he won't make a mistake. If he knows one part very well, he may write that part from memory. See Ba"h, who says that it's better to write from a copy no matter what.

Note 135135) knows how to read...Since if he can't read, he is very likely to make a mistake and not even realise it.

Note 136136) from a copy...It follows that if one is writing from a copy, he need not speak the words out loud. This applies when he knows them well, since we don't need to worry about him making mistakes. (Thus Magen Avraham and Eliyahu Rabba: this doesn't pose a problem for Yoreh Deah 274:2, and see Peri Megadim who explains what Magen Avraham meant.) However, most ahronim rule that one should always speak the words out loud before writing. Ba"h explains that the purpose of writing sifrei Torah, tefillin and mezuzot in this way is so that when he speaks each word, the holiness in the air will settle in the letters as he writes them. All this is the preferred approach; post facto it does not invalidate, provided he made no mistakes.

Note 137137) reading...Even if he also knows it by heart.

Note 138138) repeats the words...Each and every word before he writes it, so that he will not make a mistake. This applies all the more if he is writing from his own memory with no reading at all.

Note 139139) at the top...above the line, as big as the roof of lamed: it seems to me that this is for medium-size writing, even if he is using a small script (cf Menahot 32a, where they say he should leave as much as a book clasp. The rishonim explain it to be as much as needed to write the roof, etc. If the width was variable, the two statements appear to contradict each other, unless one reads the gemara as talking only about medium-size writing).

Note 140140) peshuta...Plus a little bit so that it will be surrounded by blank klaf. All this is so that if he happens to write it, there will be space. There are those who say he should leave an additional half-fingernail's breadth above the roof of lamed and below the khaf or nun peshuta, but this is only preferable.

Note 141141) anything at all...Just enough that it is surrounded by blank klaf.

Note 142142) a little...A little bit more than enough to surround it with blank klaf. Some are stringent, and aim to leave enough klaf at the beginning to wrap around the entire roll, as for a mezuzah.

Note 143143) a letter...A small letter, that is, yud. post facto, this does not invalidate unless it appears as one word to the child.

Note 144144) a line...Some say that this is only necessary in a sefer Torah, and this is the custom among scribes who are careless about this.

Note 145145) a hair...Ideally. But post facto, it doesn't invalidate unless it appears like two words, as explained in Yoreh Deah 277 regarding a sefer Torah.

Note 146146) a small space... Magen Avraham brings many ahronim, and Beur ha-Gra also, saying that the space between verses need not be larger than the space between words (Sha"kh does not think so, see Yoreh Deah 274:6).

Note 147147) overly long...By even one letter, because of "This is my God, and I will glorify Him."

Note 148148) three letters...He doesn't specify further, so it follows that he should not write the three letters outside the line even if they form less than half the word. In Yoreh Deah 273 he rules like Rambam: one need only be concerned if the majority of the word protrudes from the line, and if the word has eight letters, one may write half of it outside the line; see Sha"kh there, who advises the stringency we see here. See also Eliyahu Rabba, who holds that one should at any rate be stringent with tefillin since the margins are so small.

Note 149149) if he does...Whether at the beginning or at the end.

Note 150150) not invalid...Even if he wrote a whole word outside the line, provided it is clear that it is to be read with that line and not with the next column.

Note 151151) a word...If the word has three letters, he may write two of its letters outside the line even though they constitute the greater part of the word - Yoreh Deah 273, and see Beur Halakha.

Note 152152) letters of the Name...Including the other Names which may not be erased.

Note 153153) must... Magen Avraham, in the name of R' Yitzhak of Pozna (and Olat Tamid and Eliyahu Rabba, among other ahronim), ruled that this is the ideal way, but post facto one need not be stringent. However, he also ruled that if it happened in a sefer Torah, one should erase the lines above (assuming they do not contain Names) and stretch them out to line them up with the protruding Name; since a potential solution exists, one may not apply the post facto leniency. If one cannot erase and stretch the above lines because they contain a Name or are in tefillin and mezuzot and would thus be out of order, the leniency is applicable and he may leave them as they are. Some are stringent even post facto, among them R' Akiva Eiger and Derekh ha-Hayyim, but if the last letter of the line above is beit, dalet, reish, etc., which can be stretched, everyone agrees that he may stretch it, whether in a sefer Torah, tefillin or mezuzot, so that it lines up with the protruding Name, and this doesn't constitute writing out of order. If he had written one line, and the letters of the Name protruded from the second line, he should rule new lines so that all the subsequent lines will line up with the end of the protruding Name, and need not concern himself with the first line. Most ahronim concur that one need not be stringent post facto about letters which are suffixes of the Name, should they protrude beyond the line.

Note 154154) no part...Even one letter. It is possible that while most of the letter counts as a whole letter, a lesser part is negligible. If an entire Name was written outside in the margin, it is valid post facto. It is unlike the case where only one letter protrudes because a protrusion is similar to a word suspended above the line, and we learn in Yoreh Deah 276 that a part of the Name may not be suspended above the line; that is not the situation here. Thus Benei Yonah. R' Akiva Eiger in his novellae to this siman, rules stringently - see there - but Beur ha-Gra shows clearly that one may be lenient like Benei Yonah.

Note 155155) All its portions...That is, of the shel yad, when the terms "petuha" and "setuma" are applicable because they are all written on one piece of klaf - when one makes a gap nine letters long at the end of the last line of the first portion, and starts the next portion at the head of the line of the second column, the second portion is called petuha, as in a sefer Torah, where all opinions agree that a portion starting at the beginning of a line is called petuha if is a space as big as nine letters before it in the preceding line or at the end of the last line of the preceding column. In the shel rosh they are on four pieces of klaf and we don't need to worry about petuhot and stumot, but it is the custom to be meticulous about them anyway, according to many ahronim, and see what Beur Halakha writes in the name of Peri Megadim.

Note 156156) petuha...except the last one, because the first three - that is, "Kadesh," "Ve-haya ki," and "Shema" - are petuha in the Torah, and "Ve-haya im" is setuma. Therefore, tefillin should be written in this way too; he leaves a gap of nine letters at the end of the last line of "Kadesh" so that "Ve-haya ki," starting at the beginning of the first line of the second column, will be petuha as it is in the Torah, and similarly after "Ve-haya ki," so that "Shema" will be petuha. But "Ve-haya im" is made setuma, as explained below. Now, in the Torah "Kadesh" is petuha because the preceding line ends with a gap of nine letters, and here "Kadesh" is the first portion and there is no preceding line; it can still be called petuha because it starts at the beginning of a line and there is nothing written before it at all - it is not written after a setuma, so it may be called petuha.

Note 157157) differently...Whether he made a petuha setuma or a setuma petuha.

Note 158158) some say it is all right...post facto, because in the Torah "Ve-haya im" is setuma, but even if the gap between it and "Shema" is made petuah, and not stum as is the gap before it in the Torah, it doesn't count as a significant change because in the Torah there is an enormous gap between it and "Shema," which we may consider petuah. The ahronim conclude thus.

Note 159159) all petuha...Conversely, if he made any of the three setuma, everyone agrees it is invalid, according to the ahronim. They also wrote that if he made "Ve-haya im" petuha it is valid on this reasoning, but only if he made "Ve-haya im" petuha; if there was no gap at all between it and "Shema," either in its column or "Shema"'s column - that is, it started at the beginning of the top line, with no gap at the beginning of that line or at the end of the last line in "Shema," or there was a gap but it wasn't of an appropriate size (i.e. nine letters) - it is a significant change from how it appears in Torah, and is invalid according to all opinions, even in this portion. He need not leave any gap at the end of "Ve-haya im," and it is the custom to finish with "al ha-aretz" at the end of the last line.

Note 160160) Our custom...although ideally one makes it setuma, even according to those who permit making them all petuha. Therefore this custom is not proper, but Rema records it since in any case it is valid after it is done, and one cannot make it setuma in accordance with all opinions. It is proper to maintain the custom, so as not to make the rishonim look bad. Magen Avraham writes thus, in the name of Lehem H amudot, but Levush and Gr"a think it is better to follow the Shulhan Arukh.

Note 161161) custom...They are all made petuha in Rabeinu Tam tefillin also, and even if one wrote "Ve-haya im" after "Shema" (see below, 34:3) he leaves a gap of nine letters after "al ha-aretz," and starts "Shema" at the beginning of the line.

Note 162162) beginnings of lines...Since this makes it petuah according to all opinions, provided he leaves a gap of nine letters at the end of the last line in the preceding column. If he didn't start writing at the beginning of the line, but left a gap, even one of less than nine letters, it is setuma according to Rambam, and invalid even post facto. Peri Megadim (26) wrote that even one or two letters' space at the beginning of "Kadesh," "Ve-haya ki," or "Shema" could potentially render them invalid; this requires consideration. Ma'amar Mordechai suggests that one need not be stringent post facto, but ideally one should be very careful about it. (If he left enough space even to write the word "asher," it seems to me that stringency is appropriate even post facto, since the space is large enough for six or more small letters. This is the opinion of Mahatzit ha-Shekel. Taz thinks that all the rishonim would agree that the amounts of space at beginning and end are counted together in this context, so it would qualify as setuma if there was a gap of less than nine letters at the end of the previous column and the same at the beginning of this column because they would add together. Therefore, if one were to read Rambam's instruction to leave a small gap like Peri Megadim, he would have to leave an extremely small space.) It follows that if one saw that he had started writing even one letter inside the line, he should make the other lines correspondingly short.

Note 163163) nine letters...The ahronim wrote that ideally the space is large enough to write "asher" three times. Therefore, one would need to add two letters to the nine-letter gap, for the letter-size spaces between the words, but post facto, we may be lenient and allow nine small letters (i.e. yud), as implied by the wording of the Shulhan Arukh. Peri Megadim says that the letters are measured according to the size of the script employed, for both petuha portions and setuma portions.

Note 164164) setuma according to Rambam...We do it this way even though it is petuha according to Rosh, because it's impossible to make a setuma in tefillin in a way which satisfies everybody: we make setumas in a sefer Torah by finishing the previous paragraph in the middle of a line, leaving a nine-letter gap, and starting the new paragraph on the same line. Everyone agrees that this is setuma, because this paragraph begins closed and the previous paragraph ends closed, but it isn't possible in tefillin where each paragraph occupies a separate column. If one wanted to leave a blank line at the beginning of "Ve-haya im" and start it at the beginning of the second line, not everyone agrees this is setuma - only Rosh, not Rambam, who would call that pehuta. Since it isn't possible to make it setuma according to all opinions, we go with the opinion of Rambam, because this what we do in a sefer Torah when we can't make a setuma which everyone agrees on (see Yoreh Deah 275). Taz advises that to make a setuma in accordance with all opinions, one should make the first two portions just as per the Shulhan Arukh, leave a gap of less than nine small letters at the end of "Shema," and leave a similar gap of less than nine small letters at the beginning of "Ve-haya im." Thus a nine-letter gap is only obtained by combining, which counts as setuma according to everybody. This solution is cited by Rema of Fano and in Beur ha-Gra, and may be deduced from Peri Megadim, who did likewise. Know also that even if one left a gap of nine large letters at each end, post facto it is also valid, as according to Rambam it is setuma and according to Rosh it is petuha, and we saw above in note 158 that having them all petuha is considered permissible - this was the practice of many respected authorities. One should follow the custom of his community. See Beur Halakha.

Note 165165) leather for the housings...And the titura and ma-abarta, since they are put together and sewn with the housings.

Note 166166) ritually pure...It is written "In order that God's Torah shall be in your mouth" - from that which is permitted to your mouth. Since the shin on tefillin denotes the Name Shaddai, it comes under the heading of God's Torah. We don't distinguish in this between the shel yad and the shel rosh.

Note 167167) klaf...It still counts as leather, even though it is very thin.

Note 168168) shalil...The skins of foetuses also count as leather. They are classed as meat so far as food goes, but their leather is just as desirable as bird leather.

Note 169169) klaf...Provided they are blackened, since it is halakha from Moses at Sinai that the straps be black.

Note 170170) processed lishmah...If it was processed specifically for straps, it may not be used for housings, since they have a greater degree of sanctity.

Note 171171) where this is possible... Rambam held that leather for the housings does not require any processing whatsoever, since it is stronger if it is not processed, and since it is valid for use without processing it must certainly be valid for use without processing lishmah. Most posekim disagree with him, and mandate processing, and processing lishmah, so the Shulhan Arukh rules that it should be processed lishmah where possible. However, if one cannot find leather processed lishmah for the housings, he may rely on Rambam's opinion, and should do this rather than refrain altogether from the mitzvah of tefillin; if he subsequently obtained leather processed lishmah, he should bury the first set of housings and make new ones. The ahronim disagree as to whether the tefillin made with leather not processed lishmah merit a blessing or no; Birkei Yosef concludes with Magen Avraham that they do merit a blessing. See Beur Halakha.

Note 172172) one hide... Magen Avraham treats pieces of hide sewn together as one hide, and Hatam Sofer (Orah H ayyim 5) is likewise inclined to be lenient with pieces of hide sewn together. However, he is stringent about pieces which are only glued together. Hayyei Adam and Or Zarua appear to think that gluing together counts the same as sewing together, and this is the widespread custom. In any case, one would ideally make them from one complete piece of hide, since there are stringent views which say that pieces, whether sewn together or glued together, are not sufficient. In any case, Hayyei Adam thinks that the four housings should be separated one from the next and not stuck together, and one should not - as do some - glue them together and just make marks resembling the dividing grooves on the outside. Whether these may be permitted post facto requires investigation, since it can't work either way: if we think that gluing creates one hide we have only a single housing divided by partitions, which is invalid, but if we think that gluing does not create one hide we have four housings with four grooves, but the glued hide counts as if it were in pieces, and so the tefillin will have been made from two pieces of hide and will be invalid. It is really better that even when they are made from one piece of hide the four compartments be separated, in case sticking them together counts as a join. The Gr"a's tefillin were made separated in this way, see Beur Halakha.

Note 173173) squared...If they aren't squared, they're invalid even post facto (Rambam, hilkhot tefillin ch. 3), but if he has no other tefillin he should lay these ones without a blessing - see Beur Halakha.

Note 174174) should be square...Where they are sewn. It is clear to me that the sewing must be squared both above and below, and while the post facto ruling is not so clear, one would ideally take care about it.

Note 175175) will be...In a real square, whose width is exactly the same as its length, the diagonal is two-fifths more than the length of the side, no matter how long the side is, and here too it must be truly square. If it isn't truly square the diagonal will not be two-fifths longer than the side, but some other measure, so one must measure the four sides to check that it is square. He does this by measuring two perpendicular sides to check that they are equal. It is possible that they will be equal in the middle and unequal towards the sides, so he should also measure both diagonals to check that they too are equal.

Note 176176) the base...The titura. That is to say, one cuts the ma-abarta from both sides so that the titura will appear square, as described in para. 44. One must be very careful about all this, as it invalidates even post facto; he must also be very careful about the sewing, because scribes make large holes and the thread skews sideways, so that the stitches don't form a square, but this one goes in and this one goes out. The titura must be squared at both top and bottom. In these days, many people, even those who are very exacting about observance, aren't particular that their tefillin be properly squared; there are those who only make sure the top is squared and neglect the titura and the stitches, even though this is easily remedied.

Note 177177) the housing...Unlike those few who make the shel yad rounded on top, and only square the titura underneath - both shel yad and shel rosh should be squared. The four compartments of the shel rosh are not each individually squared, but form a square between them. They must be square all the way up, and the square must be formed from the compartments themselves, not from anything stuck on top. See note 185.

Note 178178) square...Most posekim hold that this is halakha from Moses at Sinai. It too must be truly square, just like the sewing. It is virtually impossible to make the housings perfectly square, but one should do everything in his power to try and make them so. See Ikarei Dinim.

Note 179179) lost their squareness...Became distorted, so that one faced east and the other west, or if it was damaged such that it became rounded, or if the titura or sewing stopped being square.

Note 180180) there is an opinion...This is not by way of disagreement, but is idiomatic; see note 123.

Note 181181) made square...Since squareness is halakha from Moses at Sinai, it is required at all times. One need not measure his tefillin daily to check that they are still square; we assume that they remain square provided no damage is visible. If the titura warped, and thus appeared to have lost its squareness despite actually being square, he should return it to its proper shape.

Note 182182) should be...post facto they are valid even if one is wider than another.

Note 183183) mitzvah...We deduce that post facto it does not invalidate, although there are posekim who hold that it is halakha from Moses at Sinai, like the straps, and therefore does invalidate even post facto. Beur ha-Gra appears to hold this way, as does Yeshuot Yakov. Eliyahu Rabba and Shiurei Knesset ha-Gedolah also appear to hold that one should be stringent if at all possible - if it is really not possible one may rely on those who are lenient rather than refrain from performing the mitzvah of tefillin.

Note 184184) the leather of the housings...One should ensure that the shin in particular is black; sometimes the black flakes off with age.

Note 185185) black...It is good if the black can be a colouring rather than a discernible substance, so that the tefillin will simply be coloured black. In any case, if they were blackened with a gloss which does not peel off, one should be lenient post facto, even if it can be picked off in little flakes. See para. 48 in Beur Halakha, in the name of Peri Megadim - he also thinks that one should not be stringent about it. On the other hand, scribes these days have started to use lacquer, which peels off completely, intact, and looks like black paper, which is invalid (from Nishmat Adam, and the author of Beit Meir agrees with him, against Noda be-Yehudah; see there).

Note 186186) siman 33...in the gloss to para. 4, and see Mishnah Berurah there; Rema agrees with the Shulhan Arukh that it is merely a nice thing to do. But see note 183 - it requires consideration.

Note 187187) provided...But if they aren't visible from the outside, it is no good, even if there are in fact four compartments each containing one portion.

Note 188188) the grooves are recognisable...But if they are just scored or drawn it is no good at all, since everyone agrees that there must be some separation between the compartments, so that the grooves are actually discernible. Hayyei Adam repudiates those who glue the compartments together and then cover the whole thing with gloss or plaster except for a mark drawn in the plaster, because it is also preferable that the groove reach all the way to the bottom. See Beur Halakha. Scribes who cover the four compartments with leather and score grooves in it to make it look like four compartments are definitely making invalid tefillin, since this makes a shel yad.

Note 189189) width, length...Although it is proper to make each side (including the titura) larger than two fingers' width, as per the gaonim. See Olat Tamid, who holds that if the titura measures only one finger-width square it is invalid even post facto, and Beur Mordechai rules likewise; Eliyahu Rabba finds support for such tefillin, but nevertheless concludes that all persons should take care that the titura be two finger-widths wide. Besides, it is very often the case that the parchments inside such small tefillin are exceedingly inferior because there is so little space. I have personally seen this many times. One who cares for his soul should avoid such tefillin.

Note 190190) halakha from Moses at Sinai...Like the squareness explained earlier, the shin must be mended if it becomes so damaged that it is unrecognisable.

Note 191191) shin shape...We deduce from the ahronim that the resemblance of shin we make on tefillin is sufficient; it does not need to be an halakhically correct shin like in the writing, and a resemblance is good enough. It is the custom in some places to take the extra effort and make a proper shin.

Note 192192) embossed...If one made the shin by cutting it out of a piece of klaf and glueing it on, it is invalid.

Note 193193) creasing the leather...That is, one creases the leather with pincers, doubling and folding the leather until it forms the arms of the shin. It is possible to form the shin with a press, which has a shin engraved in it, and leaves an embossed shin when it is pressed into the leather. Taz and Magen Avraham seem to think that this is not the ideal way to do it, but Knesset ha-Gedolah quotes a responsum of R' Menahem Azariya to prove that this is the preferred way. The shin made with a press looks very much nicer than one made with pincers, as it has all the ins and outs and taggin, and this is how most people do it nowadays.

Note 194194) the wearer's right...Whether he is right-handed or left-handed - the terms are used here universally.

Note 195195) not invalidated...But if he made both of them with three heads, or both of them with four heads, it is invalid, and all the more so if he omitted the shin altogether.

Note 196196) groove of the shin...On both the left and the right.

Note 197197) touch the stitches...That is, the titura itself. Post facto, it is not invalid provided it has a shin on it.

Note 198198) yud of the shin...There are respected authorities who discriminate between the right and left shins, in that they say one should take care that the yuds of the left shin do not touch its base. However, Magen Avraham rules that we treat the right and left shins the same, and require that the two yuds touch the base of the shin. Peri Megadim agrees that this is how it should be done, and also Birkei Yosef in the name of Rabbi Y - see there - and the other ahronim rule likewise. Peri Megadim also wrote that the yuds should be true yuds and not merely straight lines.

Note 199199) touch the base...Since if they don't, it can't be called a shin, and is invalid even post facto. If one of the yuds in the left shin touches and one doesn't, it is invalid - see Beur Halakha.

Note 200200) the base of the shin...Its point. The reason is that the entire shin should be visible, in accordance with the verse "All the peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of God (shem ha-Shem nikra)," of which Rabbi Elazar said: this is the tefillin shel rosh, as the first letters of "shem ha-Shem nikra" are shin-yud-nun, or shin. Post facto, if the base extends into the titura and the form of the shin is thereby spoiled, the matter requires consideration; see Beur Halakha.

Note 201201) put leather...Even those who hold that the tefillin must be made of one complete piece of hide don't hold that the titura and ma-abarta also be made of one hide; it is valid even if it is a completely separate piece, and this is what the Shulhan Arukh is talking about. Of course one should be stringent if possible, in accordance with those opinions which think it necessary. See Beur Halakha.

Note 202202) longer...One may sew it together if it split.

Note 203203) looks square...The rules about being square apply also to the titura; see para. 39.

Note 204204) from the end to the beginning...When it is to be put into the housing, just as a mezuzah is rolled from "echad" to "Shema," and not the other way round, as explained in Yoreh Deah 288.

Note 205205) wrapped...Ideally. But if they weren't wrapped, and if there are no other tefillin available, he may use them. See Mahatzit ha-Shekel and Beur Halakha.

Note 206206) piece of klaf...He should use a little piece of cloth if he has no klaf (Peri Megadim); see Beur ha-Gra.

Note 207207) kosher klaf...I.e. not from ritually impure species, but they will permit cloth. See Beit Yosef, who explains that if one uses klaf, it should be kosher klaf, just as for the housings and straps. Beur ha-Gra questions this ruling.

Note 208208) halakha from Moses at Sinai...And so if he omits wrapping it with hair, it is invalid, even if he wrapped it with klaf.

Note 209209) the custom...Some say that the hair should be wrapped around the portion and followed with klaf, and some say the other way round, so we do it like this to satisfy both opinions. See Beur ha-Gra, who says that technically it doesn't matter which comes first.

Note 210210) calf...So as to remember the sin with the calf, and refrain from sinning; also to atone for this sin. Eliyahu Rabba wrote that consequently it is proper to make all the parts of the tefillin from calf, in reference to those who make the straps from goat.

Note 211211) a little of this hair...See Magen Avraham and the novellae of R' Akiva Eiger, who conclude that the protruding length should be less than the length of a grain of barley.

Note 212212) protrudes...Some say that it should come out by "Kadesh," and some say it should come out by "Ve-haya im," so it's best to bring it out from "Ve-haya im" and make it point towards "Kadesh."

Note 213213) upright...As it is read, and as a sefer Torah is placed in its ark. post facto, if they were in lying down, the tefillin are not thereby invalidated, according to Beit Yosef in the name of Rabbi Y ben H aviv and Ba"h, and see Magen Avraham. In any case, one should correct it for next time by taking them out and putting them back in properly.

Note 214214) towards the opening...Otherwise the letters would be upside-down to the reader.

Note 215215) correctly...We see that they are placed in the boxes in such a way that if someone stood opposite the wearer, the sequence would start on his right, so that he would read them in their original order: "Kadesh" on the far right, then "Ve-haya ki" and the other portions, as explained in para. 34. The ends of the rolls - that is, the beginnings of the portions - should therefore also be on his right.

Note 216216) even if...That is to say, if there was enough space between the portions to cut them apart and still have everything surrounded by blank klaf, it is certainly all right, even though they were actually written on one piece of klaf. The ahronim wrote that if [he writes them one one piece of klaf and] there is no gap between them they will not be able to stand up in the housings, but even so they are valid since their standing up is nice but not essential. (This is apparent from Beit Yosef's citation of Mahariya and R' Y ben Haviv; Ba"h agrees, and see Magen Avraham citing Darkhei Moshe.)

Note 217217) string...Since the portions were written on one piece of klaf, it is necessary to make some kind of division between them, with thread or string or sinew, similar to how we make a division between each compartment to show that they are separate. If each portion was written on a separate piece of klaf, one need not make a division between the compartments, although some posekim say the division is always necessary. It is correct to do it, as the Shulhan Arukh writes in para. 51: "passing between each section..." Either way, Taz thinks that post facto the absence of this thread does not invalidate, the first opinion being the one which counts.

Note 218218) four housings...All the more so if he put them in one housing, which is the preferred method.

Note 219219) The custom...That is, even though he has certainly fulfilled his obligation by putting them in one compartment, it is nevertheless much nicer to glue them together. The ahronim write that ideally one writes all the portions on one piece of klaf, but if one had written them on four pieces it counts as a post facto situation already, and he may put them into the tefillin. If one found a mistake in the fourth portion, it likewise counts as a post facto situation and he may rewrite the fourth portion on another piece of klaf and glue it on.

Note 220220) kosher glue...From a ritually pure animal. Peri Megadim writes that this is nice but not absolutely necessary; since we don't need to worry about the sticking, it being non-essential, neither do we need to worry about the glue.

Note 221221) ritually impure...If one made leather from a ritually pure animal and then applied to it leather from a ritually impure animal, it is still invalid, even if he cut away the invalid leather so as to reveal the shins (Peri Megadim). See Beur Halakha.

Note 222222) sinews...Taken from the heel, since these are white. If they are hard, they are softened with stones until they resemble flax, and then are spun and twisted. Magen Avraham thinks (in note 66) that the spinning is to be done lishmah, but Eliyahu Rabba and Peri Megadim take issue with this.

Note 223223) ritually pure...Even if not ritually slaughtered and fit to eat.

Note 224224) ox sinew...If he has no ox, he may take it from a smaller animal, but he may not take it from a ritually impure animal even in pressing circumstances; this invalidates. It is not clear whether one may use the sciatic nerve [which may not be eaten].

Note 225225) considered likely to be...But only if he goes to a non-Jewish establishment to buy them, knowing that some of the non-Jews take sinews from ritually impure animals. If one went to a merchant in a fixed location, he can't apply the balance of probability and say that since most merchants' wares are acceptable this merchant is more than likely acceptable; we don't apply that sort of reasoning to things which have fixed identities. On the other hand, if the merchant brought them to the market, he is no longer in the context of a fixed location, so we don't consider him in the context of all non-Jewish merchants, we just think about him himself, and apply probability: since most sinews are from acceptable animals, these ones probably are, so we can use them. . The exception is if he has a shop in the market, since this counts as a permanent location. All this applies only while they are unspun; Magen Avraham forbids buying spun sinews from non-Jews, even if he knows them to be from an acceptable animal, because sinews must be spun lishmah (use of sinew being halakha from Moses at Sinai), which non-Jews are ritually incapable of doing. We have already mentioned that Eliyahu Rabba and Peri Megadim doubt that sinews require spinning lishmah.

Note 226226) "טאליאדור"...These are strings made from klaf, and in pressing circumstances may be substituted for sinews, since they come from the same kind of source, and may be used to sew sifrei Torah, tefillin and mezuzot. [In Beit Yosef he spells it טליידורש]

Note 227227) until he can find...Better this than fail to perform the mitzvah entirely. When he finds some sinew, he should undo the strings and sew them with sinew. Some ahronim hold that one should not use them even in pressing circumstances, because sinews were mandated at Sinai; these strings are leather, and no-one ever said you could use leather for sewing. Accordingly, if there are no sinews available, he should not make a blessing on them. Likewise, one should not sew with gut (this is thin and dry and resembles sinew), because the halakha from Moses at Sinai specifies sinew. Neither should one use bird sinews, because it is not clear which parts are sinews and which strings or veins, and we are specific that only sinew should be used.

Note 228228) on each side... Beit Yosef compares them to the twelve tribes of Israel. One need not sew actually inside the housing, but may sew close to it. One should not sew in the style of a tailor, leaving no margins at the seams, but should leave some space at the edge around the sewing. The leather of the housings should extend underneath in all four directions, past the holes for the stitches, so that the housings will be stitched along with the titura. Some scribes make the leather of the housings short, so that it doesn't go out as far as the holes for the stitches, and so isn't sewn with the titura at all, but is simply held by pressure inside the opening of the titura. Barukh She-amar wrote that he had declared many tefillin invalid because of this - the leather of the housings must be sewn with the titura.

Note 229229) two directions...That is to say, the sewing goes round in two directions, once forward and once backward, so he is sewing two seams, one going out to the back and one coming in to the front.

Note 230230) However...Likewise, it is valid post facto even if he didn't pass it between each of the housings; see note 217 above.

Note 231231) one thread...If it breaks, some say it may be knotted together, and some say it should be removed entirely and re-sewn with a new thread, since by breaking it shows that it is inferior, prone to breaking, and not worth using at all. However, if it was too short to begin with, all agree that one may tie on a new thread with which to complete the sewing. Peri Megadim says that if there is no other sinew available, he may tie together the thread which broke. All this applies only during the sewing; if it broke after the sewing, refer to siman 33 para. 2.

Note 232232) makes a knot...The tefillin knot is halakha from Moses at Sinai, and therefore probably ought to be done lishmah, and not by a child (Peri Megadim).

Note 233233) like a dalet...Some make it in the form of a mem setuma, that is to say like two dalets, the leg of one against the head of the other. Tiferet Aryeh cites a responsum of Teshuvah me-Ahavah, and agrees with his conclusion that a knot in the form of dalet is technically preferable. The knot should not be inclined to slip about; see Beur Halakha. Eliyahu Rabba wrote of a case where, upon removing his tefillin, someone saw that the knot of the shel yad was undone, ruling that he should put them back on and say the Shema (since one can perform the mitzvah at any time of the day), but without a blessing; his reasoning was like that of Rashi, who holds that the yud knot is halakha from Moses at Sinai, and therefore the person had not yet fulfilled his obligation.

Note 234234) over...This is because the shel yad is worn under the clothes, which rub against it and spoil it, so it is protected by means of this strap. It is not the custom among us - see Eliyahu Rabba.

Note 235235) until...This is how it is proper to do it, but if the shel rosh became untied, he need not retie the shel yad also.

Footnoting is a bit annoying when translated to a web layout, have you noticed? The bottom of the page is no longer handily in view. Rather, the side is. So I think it makes sense to have the footnotes on the side. The only way I know to do this is using Javascript; you appear to have it turned off. If you turn it back on, you'll find the footnotes easier to use. But I have provided you with an alternative, because I'm nice like that.

About Jen

Scribery

Barbie

Blog

For Communities

Goods & Services

Women and safrut

For Scribes

Ketubot

Oddities

Contact

Content:

Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim, siman 32, with the commentary of the Mishnah Berurah

Concerning writing tefillin.