Continuing the Minchas Eluzer's
teshuva about the gap, or lack thereof, at the start of
parshat Vayechi. The first segment is
available here.
My rough translation of the
teshuva now continues:
And behold, this which they leave in this, as the beginning of parshat Vayechi, and so too in all places where there is the end of a
parsha which is etched in Chumash for the 7 readings, even in a place where there is no
petucha or
setuma at all, and they leave a gap of something like 2 or 3
yuds at times.
And according to the opinion of Rabbenu Tam, the Rosh, and the Tur, and so is it explicit in masechet Sofrim, that the measure of a
setuma is 3 letters, as is brought in Beis Yosef siman 275. And see the Derisha there, what he writes upon the Tur who ruled like the Roash in the name of Masechet Soferim in the measure of the
stuma as 3 letters. And he asks there from what is implied, that also by
p'tucha, the measure is three letters. And {if so}, why does the Tur rule like the Rosh that by a
petucha, it needs to be 9 letters?
And he answers that it is possible that in this the Tur relied on Rabbenu Tam brought in the
siddur hakadmonim, that a
petucha is the measure of three words or three letters each. And he leaves it as something that requires further investigation in the Drisha.
And in my humble opinion, the words of the Tur are still difficult ever more in this. For if we says that he relied on the words of the
siddur hakadmonim, which Rabbenu Tam brought, that a
petucha needs to be 9 letters, if so, it is also made clear there that a
setuma there is of
two letters. And why does the Tur rule that a
setuma needs to be three letters. And perforce, we are pressed to say that the Tur is stringent like both of them, both that which is explained in the
siddur hakadmonim in the matter of the
petucha, as well as what is written in
masechet Soferim that a
setuma is 3 letters. And this can work only when it is stated that one may not place between one verse and another anything at all. But it is not so if we say that one can place a little {gap} between one verse and the next, in accordance with the opinion of the Rema which we will bring later on, with the aid of Heaven, except that you do not leave like the measure of a
setuma.
If so, it is a stringency which leads to a leniency. For in truth, the measure of a
setuma according to the
siddur hakadmonim (in accordance with which the Tur ruled in terms of a
petucha, as written above) is only 2 letters, and when it is stated that a
setuma is 3 letters, if so, it is permitted to place two letters gap between one verse and the next verse (and as is in truth brought as a
girsa in
masechet soferim according to the opinion of the Baruch SheAmar). And in truth this is a
setuma {rather than an acceptable inter-pasuk gap}. And if so, this is a stringecy which is a leniency.
Rather, certainly they did not have the custom at all to place a space between one verse and the next verse. And this is a proof to the words of the Magen Avraham who argues on the Rema in siman 32, as we will mention later on. And therefore, the Tur did not worry that this will bring to a leniency via this stringency,
since it is uncommon that they leave a gap the measure of two letters in the middle, and to make a gap for nothing.
And also that which the Bet Yosef wrote in siman 275 there according to the opinion of the Rambam, that he requires 9 letters {gap} also by
setuma, that the Rambam writes there himself that there are things which are not stated in the Talmud, but was received via the hands of the scribes, one man from the mouth of the previous man, and such as the space of 9 letters -- that all of
these matters are for fulfilling the precept at its best {
mitzvah min hamuvchar}, and if he changed, he did not invalidate. End quote of the Rambam.
And based on this, the Bet Yosef wrote there that where is does not invalidate, this is specifically where he did not leave a gap of less than 3 times "
asher" {??}, but wherever there is not a gap of 9 letters, even of
small letters, then it is invalid as well. End quote of the Bet Yosef.
And in the poverty of my opinion {or in my humble opinion}, I have not merited to understand the words of our holy master the Bet Yosef in what he wrote there. For the Rambam wrote not like Masechet Soferim, for he wrote that the measure of a
petucha and a
setuma are 3 letters. It appears from this that he holds that that which is written in Masechet Soferim that a
setuma is such to write there of 3 letters, this is primary, and not like what the Mordechai wrote there in the name of Masechet Soferim that a
setuma is three
words consisting of three letters each. And if so, the Rambam, who requires 9 letters, wrote afterwards that this is only that which was received via the scribes, and it does not invalidate based on that.
And if so, what basis do we have to invalidate, according to the opinion of the Rambam, when there is not 9 small letters, since this has no source at all in Masechet Soferim, this requirement of 9 letters, but rather it specifies three letters according to the words of the Bet Yosef, not like the
girsa of the Rosh. And the Mordechai wrote that one should not invalidate, after the fact {
bedieved} when it is not found such, for it is not according to the law {as an absolute requirement}. If so, what basis do we have to invalidate a
sefer Torah from its holiness?
And we cannot say that we are being stringent here {as a
chumra}, for behold, there are times, when it is not possible to erase {letters} and extend the
setuma, such as where it is written proximate to it some Name, and via this, the
sefer Torah will come to be invalidated. Perforce, I have
not merited to understand at all the opinion of the Bet Yosef, unless it be stated that he leans towards the doubt like the words of the Mordechai which he brings from Masechet Soferim, which is 9 letters. And it does not appear so from his language.
However, to be practically lenient
lehalacha against our master the Bet Yosef, who would dare? It will be as it will be. Even so, to be lenient in the other direction, and to say that that when he left an empty space in a certain place, to say that since there is not in this 9
yuds, this is not a
setuma and it does not invalidate, this we certainly cannot say, since in Masechet Soferim it is explained that it {a
setuma} is 3 letters. If so, what basis do we have via this accepted custom, according to the Rambam? -- for the Rambam himseld wrote upon it that one should not stand upon it a basis in terms of after the fact {
dieved} -- and all the more so to be lenient based on this against the law in Masechet Soferim which is detailed there. And even though the Mordechai brings in the name of Masechet Soferim the measure of a
setuma as 9 letters, and thus in the words of the Masechet Soferim, there are variant
girsaot, and we do not know which one is original.
However, at any rate, there is a doubt, and if so, there is to wonder about why this is not brought down in Shulchan Aruch, that one should not leave a measure of 3 letters in a place which is not a
setuma, for this is the measure of a
setuma according to the opinion of Masechet Soferim, and for stringency, certainly we should not deviate from the measure of Masechet Soferim, as mentioned.
And see in sefer Be'er Yaakov, siman 32 in Orach Chaim (page 4b, in the statement beginning "
achar katavti zot), that which he answers according to the opinion of the Taz there. In in truth, my mind is unsettled why this is not mentioned in Shulchan Aruch, that one should not leave a space of 3 letters. For behold, there in Bet Yosef he brings in the name of the Rosh only that the Yerushalmi is primary against Masechet Soferim in a place that the Yerushalmi argues, but in a place where they do not argue on it, but only the custom which the Rambam brought, and he himself wrote that it does not hinder {its being valid}. If so, to be lenient in this against Masechet Soferim, where do we have?
And I have seen in the Shiyarei Knesset haGedolah, siman 275, in hagahot of the Tur,
seif katan 2, what he writes in the matter of a
setuma or
petucha in a place it is not required. And he is already argued against in She`elot uTeshuvot Devar Moshe (chelek 1) to Maharam Ameralaow zz"l, siman 60 of Yoreh Deah, that this that the Kenesset haGedolah wrote was his own opinion. Behold, it comes out explicitly in the Rambam (perek 10 from hilchot sefer Torah, halacha 3) that if he leaves blank in a place where there is not a
petucha or
setuma, it is invalid. And in Kenesset haGedolah he brings there to the Radvaz, see there what he writes on this in Devar Moshe there [and this is in Razvaz in chelek 4, siman 82 (folio 153)].
And it appears from the Radvaz that he is able to leave between one word and the next a space of three letters. And it astounding that he is not stringent like the opinion of Masechet Soferim, as written above. And if it is stated like the words of the Bach, in siman 275, that he derives from the words of
the Rivah that he argues on the Rambam, and holds that even if he leaves a space the measure of a
setuma or a
petucha in a place where there is not {supposed to be} a
setuma or
petucha at all, there is no harm in it, and it is valid. And based on this, we may answer why it was not brought in Shulchan Aruch in the matter of leaving 3 letters {gap}. And also the position of the Radvaz is that since, after the fact {
bedieved} it is valid.
However, this is not so, for the Taz pushed off his words and wrote that there is no legal decisor who argues on the Rambam in this. And so wrote the Shach,
seif katan 1, there, that the words of the Bach are not compelling. And in Panim Meirot (chelek 1, siman 13) he writes as well, and concludes that in matter of legal decision, the opinion is settled like the words of the Taz who argues on the Bach in this. If so, this still needs delving, as we wrote above.
Even so, certainly it is forbidden to place,
ab initio, a space of three letters, for this is the space of a
setuma according to the position of Masechet Soferim, and the Rishonim and the Tur who ruled like this. And also not the space of two letters, for this is the space of a
setuma according to the position of the Rabbenu Tam in the name of
siddur hakadmonim. And so is written in sefer Melechet Shamayim on
stam {sefer Torah, tefillin, mezuzot} (at the end of rule 12) to be careful in this not to leave even the measure of two letters
leyud-gimel (it appears his intent is to the words of the
siddur hakadmonim). And so is explained in the sefer Keset haSofer, siman 16,
seif katan 7, and in the rest of books about
sta"m.
to be continued in another post...
And so too the Rashbam, the son of his {=Rashi's} daughter, wrote upon the verse מִטֶּרֶף בְּנִי עָלִיתָ {from parshat Vayechi, from Yaakov's blessing, in Bereishit 49:9:
