Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

In Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 26), the Rambam writes that the mitzvah is for the priests to bless the people “every day.” The Sages extended the scope of the requirement and obligated the priests to bless the people in all the above services (Ta’anit 26b).
The Rama (Orach Chayim 128:44) writes:
It is customary in these countries to recite the priestly blessing only on holidays, when people are in festive and joyous spirits...
In contrast, on other days—even on Sabbaths—[the priests] are disturbed, worrying about earning a livelihood and the delay of work.
Even on holidays, the priestly blessing is recited only in the Musaf Service, directly before the people leave the synagogue and rejoice in the holiday festivities.
The Rama’s decision is based on the view that the priestly blessing must be recited with feelings of joy and goodwill, and if those feelings cannot be aroused (see Zohar III 147a), it is proper that the blessing not be recited. Though in the Diaspora, the Ashkenazic community follows his view, in Egypt and in Eretz Yisrael, the priests have always fulfilled the mitzvah of blessing the people every day. Many Ashkenazic authorities, among them Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi and Rav Shlomo Kluger, desired to introduce this practice in the Ashkenazic community. However, they were not successful in doing so.

The Minchat Chinuch states, in the name of the Sefer HaCharedim, that just as it is a mitzvah for the priests to bless the people, it is a mitzvah for the people to be blessed. The Hafla’ah (Ketubot 24b) draws a parallel to the mitzvah of yibbum which is incumbent on both the man and woman involved.

Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 378) include this as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

Our translation of Nesiat Kapayim as “recite the priestly blessing” is not literal. The words actually mean “raise their hands,” referring to the way the priests hold their hands while reciting these blessings, as mentioned in Halachah 3.

Here, we see an example of how a Rabbinic decree can prevent the fulfillment of a Scriptural commandment.

Deuteronomy 10:8 describes how God designated the tribe of Levi “to stand before God, to serve Him and offer blessing in His name,” establishing a equation between service in the Temple and the recitation of the priestly blessing. Accordingly, just as a priest is forbidden to serve in the Temple while intoxicated (Leviticus 10:9), he is also forbidden to recite the priestly blessing in such a state (Ta’anit, loc. cit.).

When there is no suspicion that the priests are drunk.

See the following halachah for clarification.

Ta’anit (loc. cit.) records a difference of opinion on this question among the Sages. All the Sages agree that the priestly blessing is not recited during an ordinary Minchah. However, Rabbi Meir requires the priestly blessing to be recited on a fast day. On the other hand, Rabbi Yossi follows the view quoted by the Rambam. His position is accepted by the other Halachic authorities as well.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.

See Ta’anit 1:4-7 and Hilchot Ta’aniot, Chapter 2, which describe the situations which warrant the declaration of a communal fast.

I.e., fasts instituted to commemorate tragic events in our national history. These days are associated primarily with mourning. In contrast, the other fasts are days when we increase our supplication in an effort to evoke Divine mercy. For this reason, the Sages instituted the Ne’ilah prayer on these days alone (Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 579).

See Chapter 3, Halachah 6, which states: “The proper time of the Ne’ilah prayer is such that one completes it close to sunset.”

Which can be recited in the early afternoon to afford people the opportunity to eat afterwards, since it is forbidden to eat a meal in the afternoon before reciting Minchah (Tosafot, Ta’anit, loc. cit.).

Similarly, in Ashkenazic communities, when the priests do not recite the priestly blessing every day, the chazan should recite a remembrance of the priestly blessing in his repetition of the Shemoneh Esreh.

Because of this decision, in Ashkenazic communities, the chazan recites the priestly blessing in his repetition of the Shemoneh Esreh during these days (Hagahot Ma’amoniot).

I.e., it is feared that the people will suspect that his mother was a divorcee, and he is thus not able to serve as a priest.

I.e., in the synagogue prayer services. The recitation of the priestly blessing in the Temple is discussed in Halachah 9.

Sotah 38b states: “Any priest who does not ascend during the blessing R’tzey may not ascend afterwards.” Later, the Talmud qualifies this statement to mean that a priest must leave his place and move toward the front of the synagogue during (or before) the blessing R’tzey.

Reciting the short prayer mentioned in Halachah 12.

The term duchan refers to the steps before the heichal. (See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Berachot 5:4.) This term has become associated with the recitation of the priestly blessing to the extent that reciting the blessing is often popularly referred to as duchaning. In a synagogue where there are no steps before the ark, the priests still recite the blessings while standing before the ark.

The permanent ark; see Chapter 11, Halachah 2.

The Mishnah Berurah explains that the priests are not required to close their hands. The Rambam is merely clarifying that, at this point, they are not obligated to spread their hands, as they do when they bless the people.

The priestly blessing is recited at this point in the repetition of the Shemoneh Esreh, as the preface to the blessing praising God for granting peace to our people.

They recite the blessing mentioned in Halachah 12.

To the right (see Halachah 13).

So the blessing will be recited face to face, as required by Halachah 11.

On the verse (Song of Songs 2:9), “peeking through the windows,” Shir HaShirim Rabbah comments that the Divine Presence peeks through the windows between the priests’ fingers. In particular, the Sages note that the word “the windows” (החרכים) can be broken up as follows: ה חרכים—“five windows,” alluding to the unique manner in which the priests hold their hands while reciting the priestly blessing.

Sotah 38a derives the obligation of the priests to raise their hands from Leviticus 9:22: “Aharon lifted his hands toward the people and blessed them.”

Compare to the practice in the Temple mentioned in Halachah 9.

This statement has raised questions among the commentaries. The Kiryat Sefer explains that the priests recite Y’varechecha—the first word of the priestly blessing—directly after concluding the blessing (see Halachah 12) recited before blessing the people, without being prompted by the reader. They take the initiative, so that an interruption is not made between the recitation of the blessing before the performance of a mitzvah and its actual performance.
Study of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot, loc. cit.) shows that the Rambam himself had questions about this matter. In the first manuscripts, the Rambam writes that “the leader of the congregation recites Y’varechecha, and the priests read after him.” This is also the reading in the popularly published edition of that text. However, in the later manuscripts of the Commentary to the Mishnah (see Rav Kapach’s edition of that text), the Rambam changes his mind and states that the priests begin reciting y’varechecha.
In his Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 128), Rav Yosef Karo mentions these different views, and in his Shulchan Aruch (128:13) rules that the priests begin on their own initiative. The Rama differs and states that it is Ashkenazic practice that this word is also recited in response to the chazan.

As stated in the comments of the Sifri to the verse. The fact that the priests merely repeat the blessing emphasizes the concept (Chapter 14, Halachah 7) that the blessing is God’s, and the priests do no more than convey that blessing to the people (Kin’at Eliyahu).

The Kiryat Sefer states that responding “Amen” to the priestly blessing is a Scriptural obligation.
Note the difference between this law and the ruling when the chazan recites the priestly blessing in the absence of any priests (Chapter 15, Halachah 10). Note also the contrast to the people’s response to the priestly blessing in the Temple (Halachah 9).

The Rama (loc. cit.:45) mentions the custom of the priests chanting during the recitation of the blessings. This practice is followed only on holidays. In Eretz Yisrael, the priests do not chant when the priestly blessing is recited on other days.

Berachot 55b states that a person who has a dream which requires explanation should stand before the priests when they bless the people. Accordingly, it is customary to recite a prayer regarding dreams during the priestly blessing. (See Shulchan Aruch loc. cit.; 130:1 and commentaries.)

After the priests convey God’s blessing of peace, it is appropriate that the chazan begin the blessing requesting peace, alluding to Psalms 29:11: “God will bless His people with peace” (Megillah 18a).

To the right (see Halachah 13).

The priests are not allowed to close their fingers until they turn to face the ark (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 128:16). At this time, they recite a short prayer, as mentioned in Halachah 12.

See Halachah 6.

As mentioned in Halachah 3, based on Numbers 6:23: “This is how you should bless the children of Israel: ‘Say to them...,’” our Sages explained that before the priests bless the people, someone must “Say to them”—i.e., invite them to recite the blessing.
The Tur (Orach Chayim 128) states that the obligation to bless the people is not incumbent upon the priests until someone requests that they do so.

Our translation follows the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah, which reads לכהנים. Other texts read כהנים. This version translates as “The person who calls the priests is not permitted to call out, ‘Kohanim’....”
These textual differences reflect a difference of interpretation. The standard text relates that the chazan should not begin reading the blessing to the priests until one no longer hears the Amen which the congregation recited in response to the blessing recited by the priests (Halachah 12) before blessing the people.
According to the texts which read כהנים, the halachah teaches us that the chazan should not call the priests until the Amen recited by the congregation in response to the blessing Modim can no longer be heard. Both opinions are accepted as halachah by the Shulchan Aruch and commentaries (Orach Chayim 128:18).

Either the blessing recited before blessing the people, or the priestly blessing itself, depending on the above interpretations.

Either Y’varechecha or Kohanim, according to the respective interpretations.

In order that each of the statements and blessings can be clearly heard.

This refers to the blessing recited before blessing the people, and also each of the priestly blessing.

However, if a few individuals extend their pronunciation of “Amen” exceedingly, the recitation of the priestly blessing need not be delayed.

Shulchan Aruch HaRav (128:30) and the Mishnah Berurah (128:71) state that particularly at present, when the blessings are recited from a siddur, the chazan should respond Amen.

In front of the heichal.

Nor should the priests speak among themselves.

From the outstretched position in which they are held while the priestly blessing are being recited.

All these three statements are quoted from Sotah 39b. However, the Rambam changes the order in which these statements are found in the Talmud. Interestingly, the three statements are also quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 128:16) in yet a different order.

This version is found in the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah. The commentaries maintain that the text is in error, noting that Sotah 40a ascribes this decree to Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai.

This decree was instituted lest the sandal strap of one of the priests snap and he descend to fix it. Someone watching them might think that he was forced to descend because someone exposed a blemish in his lineage that prevented him from serving as a priest (Sotah, loc. cit.).

This statement is not included in Sotah (loc. cit.), and appears to have been added to negate the view of certain authorities, who allow a priest to recite the priestly blessing wearing boots. Nevertheless, even the Rambam allows the priests to wear socks (Rav Kapach). (See Shulchan Aruch and Rama, loc. cit. And 128:5).

Individually. A priest must concentrate his thoughts on blessing the people. Looking at any individual (or group) face to face might cause him to divert his thoughts from that intent.

By thinking of other matters. See also Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 128:21), which states that the priests should not sing different chants while reciting the blessings for this same reason.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 4.
The Levush develops this concept, explaining that implicit in the priests’ recitation of the blessing is the prayer that God will truly bless the people.

The Rambam’s statements are based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah 4:8. The Babylonian Talmud (Chaggigah 16a) states that a person who looks at the priests while they are reciting the priestly blessing in the Temple will lose his eyesight from gazing at the Divine Presence, which rests between the priests’ fingers.

Hence, while the priests are reciting the blessing, the people should not recite any Biblical verses or prayers (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit. 128:26). See Sotah 40a, which states, “Is there a servant who will not listen while he is being blessed?” Nevertheless, the Rama allows verses to be recited while the priests are chanting.

See Halachah 11.

See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 128:36, which explains that, at present, it is customary for both the priests and the congregation to pull their tallitot over their heads so that their attention will not be disturbed while the blessing is being recited. Nevertheless, the priests should extend their hands beyond their tallitot, so that there will be no separation between them and the people. The Rama (Orach Chayim 128:23) writes that the priests’ hands should be inside their tallitot and that is the common custom today.

As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 5, based on Numbers 6:23: “This is how you should bless the children of Israel: ‘Say to them...,’” our Sages explained that before the priests bless the people, someone must “Say to them”—i.e., invite them to recite the blessing. However, since the verse mentions “them,” Sotah 38a teaches that this invitation is not extended to a single priest.

In Halachah 3.

Rabbenu Tam protests against this statement, explaining that since the leader of the congregation is in the middle of the recitation of the Shemoneh Esreh, calling the priests—but not reading the blessings to them—would be considered an interruption, and therefore forbidden. Rather, another member of the congregation should call the priests.
The Rambam addresses himself to this question in one of his responsa and explains that there is nothing wrong with another member of the congregation calling the priests. However, there is no obligation to have this done. Since calling the priests is a necessary element of the repetition of the Shemoneh Esreh, it is not considered an interruption to the chazan’s prayers. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 128:10) quotes the Rambam’s view. Nevertheless, the Rama suggests that the chazan should recite silently the paragraph beginning Elo-heinu, v’Elo-hei avoteinu, and in that way ensure that his call to the priests is not an interruption.

Ashkenazic custom is that the chazan then continues, Am Kedoshecha ka’amur—“Your consecrated people, as it is said:..,” and then recites the blessing, word for word, for the priests (Rama).

After reciting the blessing that precedes the Priestly Blessing (Halachah 12). Some commentaries understand the Rambam’s words as supporting the opinion mentioned in Halachah 3, that the chazan does not read the word Y’varechecha to the priests.

In Halachah 3.

The Mishnah (Middot 2:6) and the Rambam (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:3) describe the duchan as three steps separating the Courtyard of the Israelites from the Priestly Courtyard.

Following the pattern established by Aharon, who blessed the people after completing the sacrificial offerings (Leviticus, Chapter 9).

As an act of deference to the Shechinah, which rests between their fingers (Rashi, Sotah 38a). Note the contrast to the practice outside the Temple, as described in Halachah 3.

Holding them in the same manner as described in Halachah 3.

The tzitz refers to the golden plate worn by the High Priest on his forehead on which God’s name is written.

See Halachah 3.

As is done outside the Temple.

Since it is improper to recite “Amen” in the Temple, there is no need to make an interruption between verses (Sotah 40b).

The recitation of the entire blessing.

Based on Nechemiah 9:5, this refrain was recited after each blessing recited in the Temple (Sotah, loc. cit.). The Ma’aseh Rokeach emphasizes that usually the person who recites a blessing in the Temple would add this refrain himself, and the listeners would respond: “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever.” However, since the priests themselves are forbidden to add to the priestly blessing (see Halachah 12), “Blessed be God...” would be recited by the people, and not by the priests.
Alternatively, because the people had already responded “Blessed be the name...” in response to each of the three recitations of God’s name in the priestly blessing, then, when the blessings are concluded, they recite “Blessed be God...” (Rishon Letzion, Berachot).

The priests, when reciting the priestly blessing.

As mentioned in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 6:2, there are seven names of God which must be treated with reverence. However, the name י-ה-ו-ה is granted a greater degree of respect than the six others.
In the Guide to the Perplexed (Vol. I, Chapter 61), the Rambam explains that all the other names for God, refer to Him as He manifests Himself in a particular quality and thus, have parallels in human terms. In contrast, the name, י-ה-ו-ה, refers to Him, as He stands above any relation to human terms.

I.e., any place outside the Temple premises.

The name י-ה-ו-ה.

Kiddushin 71a states: “I am not referred to as [My name] is written. My name is written י-ה-ו-ה and it is pronounced אדני.”
Exodus 3:15 states: “This is My name forever.” The word “forever” (לעולם) can be interpreted as לעלם—“to hide.” God’s essential name is to remain hidden from man.

Sotah 38a offers the following interpretation of Exodus 20:21: “Wherever I allow My name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you”: “In the place where I will come and bless you,”—i.e., the Temple, the source of Divine blessing for the entire world—“I will allow My name to be mentioned”—the name י-ה-ו-ה, may be pronounced.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sotah 7:4), the Rambam writes: “It is forbidden...to recite God’s explicit name or to speak about it at all..., except in the Temple.”

Shimon HaTzaddik was the last surviving member of the Anshei K’nesset HaGedolah, the body of Sages who, under the direction of Ezra, laid the spiritual foundation for the return to Zion after the Babylonian exile.

Yoma 39b relates that Shimon HaTzaddik’s death represented a turning point in the history of the second Temple. After his passing, five miracles that had reflected the manifestation of God’s presence in the Temple ceased.

And would recite a twelve-letter name of God instead (The Guide to the Perplexed, Vol. I, Chapter 62).

In the Guide to the Perplexed (loc. cit.), the Rambam writes that knowledge of this name would destroy these individuals’ faith.
Rashi (Kiddushin 71a) and Rabbenu Manoach state that these individuals would use the mystic power of the name for improper purposes.

In the Guide to the Perplexed (loc. cit.), the Rambam writes:
[The name, י-ה-ו-ה]: It was not known to all men how to pronounce it, and which way each of the letters should
be vocalized, whether any of the letters would be pronounced with a dagesh, and which one would be....
I think that when it says that the Sages would teach the four-letter name to their sons and disciples, this does
not mean the pronunciation of the name alone..., but also its uniqueness and Divine secret.

Kiddushin (loc. cit.) mentions another opinion, which states that this name would be taught twice in two years, but favors the opinion quoted by the Rambam, since ultimate discretion is appropriate for this great mystic secret.

Our text of Kiddushin (loc. cit.) does not mention “sons.” However, it is possible that the Rambam had a different text of that Talmudic passage.

Whether in the Temple or outside its premises.

Quoting the blessing as it is recorded in the Torah.

The Mishnah Berurah (128:50) states that all these instructions are absolute requirements. A priest who cannot fulfill them—e.g., an aged priest who cannot stand unsupported—should leave the synagogue before the priests are called to recite the blessings.

Generally, the Rambam’s use of the term mipi hashmu’ah, refers to Halachot LeMoshe MiSinai—laws learned as part of the oral tradition given to Moses on Mount Sinai (Yad Malachi).
This definition is somewhat difficult to accept in the present instance. A halachah LeMoshe MiSinai is not based on any specific verse in the Torah, while all the instructions in this halachah are derived by Sotah 38a based on different verses.

Sotah loc. cit., explains that the recitation of the priestly blessing is considered to be equivalent to service in the Temple. Just as the Temple service was conducted while standing, the priestly blessing should also be recited while standing.
The Eshkol states that the congregation should also stand. Though this is the common custom, it is not an absolute requirement (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 128:23, Mishnah Berurah 128:51).

As Aharon did when he blessed the people (Leviticus 9:23).

The expression “This is how” implies that the priests should recite the exact words mentioned in the verse (Sotah, loc. cit.).

As a sign of closeness and affection.

From the words “Speak to them” (Numbers, loc. cit.), Sotah, loc. cit., derives the law that the priestly blessing should be recited in a conversational tone, as a person speaks to a colleague. From this statement, the Sifri states that the blessing should be recited in a tone which is audible to the entire congregation. However, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 128:23 and the Mishnah Berurah 128:53 emphasize that the priests should not shout or chant in an overly loud tone.

The name י-ה-ו-ה.

Our translation is based on the responsum of the Nodah BiYhudah (Orach Chayim, Vol. I, 5). Note the Sh’vut Ya’akov (Vol. II, 1), who maintains that all these instructions are obligatory only in the Temple.

In the previous halachah.

Whether in the Temple or outside its premises.

Rosh HaShanah 28b states that a priest should not think: “Since the Torah has given me permission to bless Israel, I will add a blessing of my own.”

This is a general commandment, prohibiting making additions to any of the mitzvot of the Torah.

This prayer, the blessing recited before blessing the people, and the prayer recited afterwards, are quoted (with minimal differences) from Sotah 39a-b. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 128:9) states that the priests should prolong the recitation of this prayer until the congregation concludes the recitation of “Amen” after the blessing Modim. The Magen Avraham states that the priests should conclude their prayer at the same time the chazan completes the blessing, so that the response “Amen” will also apply to their prayer.

The Rama (Orach Chayim 128:9) states that Ashkenazic custom is to begin reciting this prayer when one stands before the heichal.

I.e., the priests pray that their lack of proper intention should not spoil the blessing.

These words are not found in our text of Sotah, loc. cit.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit., 128:11) and most later halachic authorities require the blessing to be recited after the priests turn to the people.

Since blessing the people fulfills a positive commandment, it is proper to recite a blessing beforehand, as we do before fulfilling most mitzvot.

Since this mitzvah can be fulfilled only by the priests, the blessing differs from the blessing recited before fulfilling other mitzvot.

The addition of the words “with love” is associated with the Zohar’s (Vol. III, 147b) teaching: “Any priest who does not love [God’s] people or is not beloved by His people should not bless the people.”

As explained in Halachah 3.

As explained in Halachah 4.

The Rama, Orach Chayim 128:15, states that the priests should prolong their recitation of this prayer so that they will conclude together with the chazan’s conclusion of the blessing Sim Shalom.

Since the blessing is dependent on God (see Chapter 12, Halachah 7), the priests’ actions are considered to be the fulfillment of a Divine decree (Maharsha, Sotah 39a).

Deuteronomy 26:15. In many communities, it is customary to add the last words of that verse, “a land flowing with milk and honey.”
The recitation of this prayer is not considered to be an addition to the priestly blessing, because the priests have already lowered their hands from the position in which the blessing is recited (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 128:40).

See Halachah 3.

See Halachah 4.

I.e., if the synagogue faces east, the priests should turn to the south and then to the west, and then recite the blessing. Afterwards, they should turn to the north and back to the east (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 128:26, Mishnah Berurah 128:61).

In the Temple or prayer service.

See Tosafot, Sotah 39a, which states that the priestly blessing was also recited after the afternoon sacrifice.

The Ulam refers to the Entrance Hall to the Temple building. There were twelve steps leading to it. (See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:4.). Note the apparent contradiction between the Rambam’s statements in this halachah and in Halachah 9, as explained in the commentary on Halachah 9. In Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 6:5, the Rambam also states that the priestly blessing was recited on the steps to the Ulam.

In Halachah 9.

In Halachah 1.

Whether in the Temple or outside its premises.

Although the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 5:4) states: “The chazan should be an Israelite,” the Rambam does not consider this to be a binding obligation.

See Halachah 3, which relates that the priests recite the words of the blessing after someone else who reads them.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 128:22) states that if there is no alternative and a priest serves as the chazan, an Israelite should read the blessings to the priests, and the chazan should remain silent in his place or recite the priestly blessing, as explained in Chapter 15, Halachah 10.
If there is no Israelite who can read the blessings to the priests, some authorities maintain that the priests should recite the blessings without having another person read them to them. However, other opinions maintain that the chazan should read the blessings to the priests even though he is himself a priest (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 128:34).

As explained in this halachah.

As explained in Halachah 2.

As explained in Halachah 3.

As explained in Halachah 4.

As explained in Halachah 4.

As explained in Halachah 5.

Note the discussion of this difficulty with regard to the choice of a chazan, Chapter 8, Halachah 12.

If the first word of the second priestly blessing, יאר is read with an ע instead of an א, the phrase יאר ה' פניו אליך becomes a curse rather than a blessing.

I.e., reading a shin as a sin. See Judges 12:6.

E.g., who read a chet like a hay.

The later authorities explain that if, as in many communities of the present day, the overwhelming majority of the people do not know how to differentiate between an ע and an א, a priest should not be disqualified because of this factor, since the meaning of the blessing is not changed (Magen Avraham 128:46). The Turei Zahav (128:30) states that even if a speech fault is common, but not overwhelmingly common—e.g., the substitution of a sin for a shin—a priest should not be disqualified, because such an error will not arouse the attention of the listeners. Nevertheless, this position is not accepted by all authorities.

Included in the category are people with other speech defects—e.g., a person who lisps.

Leviticus 21:16-23 mentions many physical deformities that prevent a priest from serving in the Temple. However, most of these deformities do not disqualify him from reciting the priestly blessings. As explained in this halachah, the only deformities which disqualify a priest from reciting the priestly blessings are those which will attract the people’s attention and prevent them from listening attentively to the blessings.
The Turei Zahav 128:27 questions this concept, noting that since an association was made between the recitation of the priestly blessings and service in the Temple, on the surface, priests with physical blemishes should also be prevented from reciting the blessings. The Turei Zahav explains that this association disqualifies a person only when the disqualifying factor—e.g., idol worship or intoxication—is a result of man’s own activities. If the disqualifying factor is a congenital condition—e.g., physical deformity—the priest may bless the people.

For all of these can be seen by the people while the priests recite the blessings. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 128:30-31) states that in places where the priests cover their faces and hands with their tallitot and wear socks while reciting the blessings, even these blemishes do not disqualify a priest from reciting the blessings.

And distract their concentration on the blessings.

For the same reasons as mentioned above. In places where the priests cover their faces, a priest with such a difficulty may also bless the people.

Generally, this refers to a person who lives within a city for at least thirty days (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit. 128:30).

Or if the people of the city are familiar with him (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit., 128:32).

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 128:35) adds “even inadvertently.” Many manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah also include that phrase.

The Rama (Orach Chayim 128:35) allows a priest who repents after committing such a sin to bless the people, so that “the door will not be closed to those who repent.”

The order of these phrases in the Bible is the opposite of the order in which they are quoted by the Rambam.

I.e., once a person has taken a life, God will not let him serve as a medium to convey blessing on the people.

See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:2-4, which states that a person should sacrifice his life rather than submit to pressure to worship false gods. Nevertheless, if he fails to make this sacrifice, he is not punished by an earthly court for his sin.

Or without knowing that the worship of this god was forbidden.

This verse describes the efforts of King Josiah to cleanse Judah from the pagan practices introduced by his father and grandfather.

Note the Rambam’s comments, Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 9:13:
Any priest who served false gods, whether willingly or inadvertently—even though he sincerely repents -
should never serve in the Temple.... If he transgresses and offers a sacrifice [in the Temple], his sacrifice is not
a “pleasing fragrance.”

Many of the later authorities maintain that this association is only a point of Rabbinic Law, and the mention of Biblical verses is merely an asmachta (allusion). However, there is no indication of such a concept in the Rambam’s words.

Without actually serving the false gods.

The Magen Avraham 128:54 states that even someone who converts to Islam—which does not involve idol worship—is not allowed to recite the priestly blessings.

In this instance, as well, the Rama (loc. cit.:37) allows a priest to bless the people if he repents.

The Mishnah Berurah 128:134 notes that a person who desecrates the sanctity of the Sabbath is considered as one who adopted paganism, and, therefore, should not be allowed to recite the priestly blessing.
Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chayim I, 33) states that present circumstances differ from those during the Mishnah Berurah’s era, and, at present, priests who violate the Sabbath laws are not judged as severely and may bless the people. Nevertheless, he agrees that if restricting such individuals from reciting the priestly blessings may motivate them to increase their Sabbath observance, they may be prevented from blessing the people.

See Halachot 6 and 7.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 128:34) states: A minor who has not manifested signs of physical maturity should not recite the priestly blessing alone. However, he may recite the blessing together with his brethren, the priests, to learn and become educated.
If he has manifested signs of physical maturity, he may recite the priestly blessing even while alone. However, he should do so only as a temporary measure, and not as a fixed practice, until he grows a full beard.

The Hebrew יין literally means wine. The Magen Avraham 128:55 notes that the Rambam speaks only about wine and does not mention other alcoholic beverages. Accordingly, he explains that a person who becomes drunk from other alcoholic beverages may recite the priestly blessing, unless he is so drunk that he has no control of himself.
It is significant that in Chapter 4, Halachah 17, when speaking about the prohibition against an intoxicated person praying, the Rambam states: “A person who is drunk should not pray.... When is a person considered drunk? When he cannot speak before a king.” See also Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 1:1-2, where the Rambam describes the prohibition against serving in the Temple while intoxicated and mentions, albeit with differences between them, both a person who drank wine and one who became intoxicated from other alcoholic beverages.
The Magen Avraham’s decision is not accepted by all authorities. (See Mishnah Berurah 128:141.)

This is the minimum measure of wine that is considered to be able to influence a person’s behavior.

Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 1:5 states that if a person drank only a revi’it of wine, it is assumed that the wine’s effects have worn off if he sleeps a little or walks a mil.

As mentioned in the previous halachah.

I.e., interrupting slightly between drinking the entire revi’it.

And serve in the Temple (Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 1:1).

In this instance, Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 1:5 states that sleeping or walking a mil is not sufficient to remove the effects of the wine, and one must wait until no signs of intoxication remain.
Because of the prohibition against reciting the priestly blessing while intoxicated, it is customary in Ashkenazic communities to recite the priestly blessing in the Morning Service and not during Musaf on Simchat Torah.

Interestingly, although the Rambam also mentions a revi’it in Chapter 2, Halachah 17, he chooses to define its volume here.

In modern measure, a revi’it is 86.4 milliliters according to Shiurei Torah.

See Hilchot Sefer Torah 9:9. In modern measure, a thumbbreadth is 2 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah, and 2.4 centimeters according to the Chazon Ish.

See Leviticus 8:23, 14:14.

In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro notes that in contrast to Chapter 4, Halachah 2, which mentions “the purification of the hands,” here, the Rambam refers to “ritual impurity.” He maintains that this choice of language was intended to imply that if a priest washed his hands in the morning, he need not wash them a second time unless they have become ritually impure. He also quotes a responsum of Rav Avraham, the Rambam’s son, who explicitly states that a priest may rely on his morning washing.
Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 128:6), Rav Yosef Caro quotes the opinion of Rashi and Tosafot (Sotah 39a), who require the priests to have their hands washed a second time as an additional measure of holiness.

The Zohar (Vol. III, 146b) states that the Levites should wash the priests’ hands. Since the Levites are themselves holy (Numbers 8:18), it is proper that they be the ones who convey this added holiness upon the priests. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) also mentions this practice.

See the notes to Chapter 4, Halachah 2.

See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash, Chapter 5.

The Targum to this verse also stresses its connection to the recitation of the priestly blessing.

A person born from relations between a priest and a woman whom he may not marry (see Leviticus 21:7).

See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 19:14, where the Rambam says: “A challal is just like any other non-priest.” The Pri Chadash writes that if a challal ascends to bless the people, he should be forced to descend.

In the previous five halachot.

I.e., he is suspected of sinning.

Based on Bechorot 45a, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 128:40,41) adds that a priest who violates the specific mitzvot associated with the priesthood (the forbidden sexual relations mentioned in Leviticus 21:7 and the prohibitions against contracting impurity stemming from a corpse) may not recite the priestly blessings until he repents.

Even though he has not repented for his transgressions.

From the Rambam’s statements, it appears that the disqualifying factors mentioned above remove the mitzvah entirely from a priest.

In other places, as well, we see the Rambam urging people to encourage the nonobservant to perform mitzvot. Note the conclusion of Iggeret HaShmad:
It is not fitting to push away or despise those who violate the Sabbath. Rather one should draw
them close and encourage them to perform mitzvot... Even if a person willingly sins, when he
comes to the synagogue to pray, he should be accepted and not treated with disrespect.
The Rabbis have based [this approach on the interpretation of] Solomon’s words (Proverbs 6:30)
“Do not scorn the thief when he steals”—i.e., do not scorn the sinners of Israel when they come
discreetly to steal mitzvot.

The Jerusalem Talmud, Gittin 5:9 relates:
Do not say: “So and so is an adulterer... how can he bless me?”
God replies: “Is it he that is blessing you? I’m the one Who is blessing you.”

In his commentary on the Torah, the Rashbam emphasizes that the text of priestly blessing itself express this point, stating, “May God bless you..., May God shine..., May God turn...”

Reciting the blessings.

Thus, if the heichal projects from the wall and people have places on either side, they must move from their places to be included in the priestly blessing.

By standing behind the priests, they show that the blessing is not important to them. Hence, they are not included (Rashi, Sotah 38b). Also, as mentioned in Chapter 14, Halachah 11, the priestly blessing must be recited while the priests are standing face to face with those being blessed (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 128:37).

Even those who are standing parallel to the place of the priests.

Sotah (loc. cit.) states: “Even an iron divider cannot separate between Israel and their Father in heaven.”

The Be’ur Halachah explains that the people who are standing to the sides of the priests, but in front of them, should face the heichal. In principle, those who are standing parallel to the priests should turn to the side and face the priests. However, since it is not proper that people standing next to each other in the synagogue should face different directions, they need not shift the positions of their feet. It is sufficient for them to tilt their heads slightly towards the priests.

As the Rambam mentions in the following halachah, even people who do not attend the synagogue can be included in the priestly blessing.

The priestly blessing is included among “the holy matters” that require a minyan. See Chapter 8, Halachot 4-6.

I.e., even if there will not be ten people to respond “Amen,” the priestly blessing can be recited.

Even though there will be no one to read the words of the blessings to them, as mentioned in Chapter 14, Halachot 3 and 14. The question of whether the chazan should also recite the priestly blessing is discussed in the following halachah.

Unless there are a minyan of priests to respond “Amen,” it is preferable that they all recite the blessings and none respond.

I.e., those outside the synagogue. Even though they were unable to attend the synagogue, since they were prevented by forces beyond their control, they are included within the blessing.

The Mishnah Berurah 128:99 states that even if there are no women or children present to answer “Amen,” the blessing may be recited.

I.e., if there are twelve priests, two recite the blessings and ten respond “Amen,” so that there will be a minyan responding “Amen.”

The Shulchan Aruch HaRav 128:38 states that in such an instance, the chazan should not call out “Kohanim,” since, according to many opinions, if the priests are not called to recite the blessings, they are not obligated to do so. Thus, the priests who did not recite the blessings will not be considered negligent in their fulfillment of the mitzvah.

The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 128:20, states that if other priests are present, a priest serving as the chazan should never recite the priestly blessing. The Pri Chadash takes issue with this decision, and allows him to recite the priestly blessings if he is confident that he will not err.

Lest he become confused after completing the priestly blessing and be unable to complete the Shemoneh Esreh (Berachot 34b).

Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 128:33 and the Mishnah Berurah 128:76, which state that at present, since the chazan prays from a siddur, he need not worry about being confused and may recite the priestly blessing.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states that in such a case, the chazan should move from his place slightly during the blessing R’tzey (see the following halachah) and after concluding the blessing Modim, ascend to the duchan and recite the priestly blessing.

Or according to Ashkenazic custom, in all services when the priestly blessing would be recited other than the Musaf Service of the festivals.

See the notes to Chapter 14, Halachah 4, for an explanation of the connection between the blessing Sim shalom and the priestly blessings.

To commemorate the recitation of these blessings.

Our translation is based on the Mishnah Berurah 127:8, which explains that the intent is that the priests themselves are a “consecrated people.”

Numbers 6:24-27.

The Hagahot Maimoniot explain that the recitation of this verse parallels the prayer recited by the priests after completing the blessings (Chapter 14, Halachah 12). It is Ashkenazic custom not to recite this final verse (Magen Avraham 127:4).

Nevertheless, there are some communities which recite “Amen,” based on the Tanya Rabbati 334.

The Magen Avraham emphasizes that reciting the priestly blessings a second time is not considered to be a transgression of the prohibition of adding to the Torah’s commandments. That prohibition is violated when one adds to the blessings themselves (see Chapter 14, Halachah 12), but not when one fulfills one mitzvah a number of times.

But he is not obligated to (Mishnah Berurah 128:106).

Each time he blesses the people, he should recite the blessing beforehand (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 128:41, Mishnah Berurah loc. cit.).

See Chapter 14, Halachah 3.

This applies even if he was prevented from leaving his place by forces beyond his control (Radbaz, Magen Avraham).

Shulchan Aruch HaRav 128:12 and the Mishnah Berurah 128:27 state that even if he reaches the duchan after the chazan completes R’tzey, as long as he reaches there before the priests begin reciting the blessing, he may join them.

The Rambam’s statements are based on Sotah 38b. There, the Talmud states that one “violates three positive commandments.” The Rambam amends that statement, explaining that although there is only one commandment for the priests to bless the people, the Torah mentioned the commandment in three different ways to emphasize the importance of its fulfillment. Thus, the failure to bless the people is considered as nullifying the observance of three commands.
In Sefer HaMitzvot (Shoresh 9), the Rambam cites this teaching as a classic example of a fundamental principle regarding the reckoning of the 613 mitzvot. Though the Talmud often states that many mitzvot are involved in the performance or transgression of a particular commandment, this does not mean that the mitzvah should be counted as more than one mitzvah when calculating the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Rather, the Talmud means to say that the performance of this mitzvah is considered as important as if many mitzvot were involved.

All these passages contain references to the mitzvah of tefillin.

The commentaries suggest that, in this instance, the Rambam cited the source for these passages because there is also a passage in the book of Deuteronomy that begins V’hayah Ki Y’viacha.

Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 422) explains that these four passages were chosen because they include the concepts of the oneness of God, the acceptance of His yoke and the yoke of His commandments, and the description of the exodus from Egypt. These are fundamental principles of the Jewish faith.

On parchment.

As described in Chapter 3.

Tosafot, Menachot 34b states the word is related to the root פלל, which means “dispute.” The Tur (Orach Chayim 25) inteprets the word as meaning “sign.” Tefillot Yisrael associates the term with the power of thought, citing Genesis 48:11. The Pri Megadim (Orach Chayim 25:20) understands the term as meaning, “mark of distinction.”

The commentaries note the difference between the two verbs, “placed” and “tied.” See also our notes to Chapter 4, Halachah 4. It is, nevertheless, worth noting that in the listing of the mitzvot in the introduction to the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam mentions “tying the tefillin on the head.”

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandments 12 and 13) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 421 and 422) consider these obligations to be two of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot. (See Menachot 44a.) Since they are two separate mitzvot, the performance of one is not dependent on the performance of the other, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 4.

For example, the yud has a short foot in its lower right-hand corner. If that foot is missing, it is considered to have been improperly formed. Therefore, not only it, but the entire passage is not acceptable.

If even one of the passages is not written in the proper manner, the person is not considered to have fulfilled the mitzvah at all. (See also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Menachot 3:7.)
Accordingly, it is proper to have one’s tefillin checked from time to time to make sure that none of the letters have faded. (See the notes to Chapter 2, Halachah 11.)

That detracts from its proper shape.

In this instance, as well, a disqualifying factor in a single point of a single letter prevents the entire mitzvah from being fulfilled.

The Ben Yedid explains that the difference in the phraseology used by the Rambam with regard to tefillin and mezuzot (“lacking a point”) and a Torah scroll (“lacking even one letter”) alludes to the difference in the phraseology used by the sources for these laws (Menachot 34a and Bava Batra 15a).

Though Rabbenu Nissim (Megillah, Chapter 2) appears to contest the Rambam’s statements on this issue, the Rambam’s view is accepted by most authorities. (See also Chapter 7, Halachah 9.)

Though all of the ten principles mentioned by the Rambam have their source in the Talmud, their organization into a list of ten is original.

Yad Malachi interprets the latter expression as a law which has all the authority of a Scriptural commandment, even though there is no allusion to it in the Written Law. (See also the Rambam’s Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah, Chapter 4.)

A person who wears tefillin which do not fulfill these requirements is not considered to have fulfilled the mitzvah at all.

These are listed below and discussed in the following halachot.

These eight conditions are mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachah 1, and discussed in the subsequent halachot of that chapter.

As opposed to other tints.

This translation is not precise. Note Halachah 7 for a more specific definition of the term קלף.

Shabbat 23a states that it is preferable to use olive oil.

See Shabbat, ibid., and commentaries, where it is explained that they would heat the above substances and hold a glass above them, upon which the vapors would condense. Afterwards, the soot would be collected.

Shabbat, ibid., states that it is preferable to use balsam sap.

In one of his responsa, the Rambam writes that it is customarily moistened with oil.

Niddah 20a teaches us that their ink was stored while dry.

From the statement in Shabbat forbidding ink to be soaked on the Sabbath, we can assume that the normal process is to soak it before using it.

Which endows the ink with a lasting quality. In contrast, the Rambam writes in one of his responsa that if one were to soak the ink in water, it would fade rapidly.
In the same responsum, he states that a liquid possessing qualities similar to gallnut juice can be obtained from pomegranate shells or the outer shells of other nuts.

Sotah 20a derives this concept from Numbers 5:23, which states, “He shall write and he shall blot out.” Proper ink should be able to be blotted out after being used for writing.

Note the Zohar (Vol. II, p. 159a), which requires that ink be made from substances that are derived from the plant kingdom.

Torah scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot.

Itself, and not in a mixture with other substances.

A substance produced by the rusting of metal. Rav Kapach understands the Rambam’s words as meaning either with gallnut juice or vitriol.

After the fact (בדיעבד).

I.e., if there are no specific substances which are excluded, as stated above.

Megillah 17a explicitly disqualifies a megillah written in red ink. From that and other sources, it appears that such ink was frequently used at that time, but was deemed unacceptable for use for a Torah scroll.

Note the Be’ur Halachah (32), which states that even blue ink is unacceptable.

Soferim 1:9 relates that a Torah scroll was written for Alexander with every one of the names of God written in gold. When the Sages heard about this, they said that the scroll should be entombed.
Besides excluding the use of gold-colored ink, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 32:3) explains that covering the ink with gold dust is not acceptable.

From this, we learn that all black inks are acceptable, regardless of their makeup. Though scribes continue to make ink in the traditional fashion, there is no prohibition against using commercially produced black ink.

Whose preparation is described in this halachah.

Whose preparation is described in the following halachah.

As mentioned in Halachah 10, the animal must be kosher.

Shulchan Aruch HaRav (32:10) states that if the hair is not entirely removed, the parchment is not fit to be used. Even after the fact, it is unacceptable. The Mishnah Berurah (32:23) quotes this opinion as well, but also mentions other opinions, which do not invalidate the parchment if some hair remains, as long as it had been placed in lime for a long enough time for the hair to have fallen off.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 32:8) mentions that lime is customarily used for this purpose.

In one of his responsa, the Rambam explains that the term g’vil is used to describe any coarse, uneven surface. Note a parallel usage in Bava Batra 3a.
If the hide is not prepared in this fashion, it is referred to as diftera, and a Torah scroll, tefillin, or mezuzah, written upon it is invalid. Even after the fact, such parchment is not acceptable, as stated in Halachah 14.

There is, however, no obligation to divide the parchment. If it has been processed correctly, it may be used for a Torah scroll without being separated, as stated in the following halachah.

Or wool of the animal.

Several of the Rambam’s responsa were addressed to communities where it was not customary to prepare hides in this manner. In these letters, the Rambam stresses that even after the hair is removed from the hide, it must be processed in this manner. Otherwise, it may not be used for either a Torah scroll, tefillin, or mezuzah.

Which means “peel.” It is given this name because it is a thin layer of skin which is peeled easily.

Duch is Aramaic for “place,” and sustos is Greek (Median, in other texts) for “flesh.” Thus, the word means “the place of the flesh” (Aruch).

From Bava Batra 14b, it appears that Moses wrote the Torah scroll which he placed in the holy ark on g’vil. Similarly, Gittin 54b mentions that Torah scrolls would be written on g’vil.

This side is smoother and better to write on.

If they are written on g’vil or duchsustos, they are unacceptable (Shabbat 79b).

I.e., on the portion of the k’laf where it is separated from the duchsustos.

As stated in the following halachah, it is preferable—but not obligatory—to write a mezuzah on this type of parchment.

I.e., on the portion of the duchsustos where it is separated from the k’laf.

The epidermis.

The side facing the inside of the body.

The Aruch states that this practice is alluded to by Proverbs 25:2: “The glory of God is in the concealment of a matter.” Only “the concealment of a matter,” the sides of the parchment which are naturally concealed, are fit to be used for “the glory of God,” the fulfillment of mitzvot.
It must be emphasized that the Yemenite manuscripts mentioned in the previous halachah, which reverse the definitions of k’laf and duchsustos, do not change the text of this halachah. Thus, according to these texts, when writing on the thin upper parchment, one should write on the epidermis, and when writing on the thick lower parchment, one should write on the part facing the inside of the body.
There is an advantage to this version. According to the standard texts, there is an apparent contradiction. Although one should write on the epidermis when writing on g’vil, it is improper to do so when writing on k’laf.

That a Torah scroll should be written on g’vil.

The entire scroll, however, must be written on one or the other of these types of parchment. If half was written on k’laf and half on g’vil, it is unacceptable (Chapter 7, Halachah 4; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 271:4).

Though this concept is not mentioned explicitly in the Talmud, the rabbis derive it from their understanding of Shabbat 79b and Menachot 32a.

Even in Talmudic times, Shabbat 79b mentions that on occasion it was preferable to write a mezuzah on k’laf, because the mezuzah would be preserved better than if it were written on duchsustos.

I.e., it is preferable to do it in this manner. It must be noted that at present, a single type of parchment is used for all three sacred objects. The parchment is not separated in two. A thin portion is removed from the upper layer, and the greater part of the—if not the entire—lower layer is rubbed off. The parchment produced in this manner is more attractive and also lighter (a factor significant with regard to a Torah scroll). (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 32:7; Rama, Yoreh De’ah 271:3, 288:6; Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De’ah 271:9.)

Shulchan Aruch HaRav 32:14 expands the scope of this law, stating that it is not befitting to write the name of God on parchment from a non-kosher animal. This applies even when the intent is not to use the parchment for a sacred purpose.

Shabbat 108a derives this concept from the exegesis of Exodus 13:9, “So that the Torah of God will be in your mouths.” They conclude: Only what is permitted to be “in your mouths”—i.e., species which are kosher—is acceptable for a Torah scroll. Even בדיעבד (after the fact), such parchment is not acceptable, as stated in Halachah 14.
As explained in Chapter 3, this requirement applies not only to the parchment, but also to all the other elements involved in making these sacred articles.

See Halachah 20 with regard to writing on parchment made from the skin of birds.

Shabbat (loc. cit.) offers the following parable to explain why even though such animals may not be eaten, it is permitted to use their hides. There were two people who were sentenced to death. One was executed by the king himself and the other by the executioner. Which is more noteworthy? Obviously, the one whom the king executed himself.
Similarly, in the present instance, the fact that these kosher animals were “executed by the king”—i.e., their death came about at God’s decree—distinguishes them from other animals which are never fit to be eaten.

Hilchot Keilim 1:4 states: “The skin of a fish is not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity and would be fit for tefillin to be written upon, were it not for its foul secretions.” This implies that the only problem is the secretions of the fish skin.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 32:8; Yoreh De’ah 271:1) states that when placing the skin in lime at the beginning of the process of making it into parchment, one should explicitly say that one is processing it for these purposes.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav (32:11) and the Mishnah Berurah (32:26-27) explain that parchment processed to be used as a Torah scroll may be used for tefillin (or for a mezuzah). Parchment processed for the sake of tefillin, however, may not be used for a Torah scroll, because a Torah scroll is on a higher level of holiness.

Even if no parchment that was processed with the proper intent is available, this parchment should not be used, as stated in Halachah 14.

Even if the gentile states that he is processing the parchment with the intent that it be used for these purposes, we do not rely on his word.

Note the comments of Rav Chayim Soloveitchik, who approaches the concept differently, and explains that the above phrase, “the gentile follows his own intentions...,” is a description of the gentile’s fundamental nature. It is not that we suspect that the gentile will not listen to the person who hires him, and his act is therefore not acceptable. Rather, because his nature is to “follow his own intentions,” he is disqualified from performing any act that requires a sacred intention.
According to this interpretation, the question of whether a gentile’s actions are accepted if he is supervised by a Jew must be understood as follows: The act of preparing the parchment for a Torah scroll is not, in and of itself, a sacred act, but merely a preparation for performing such an act. Accordingly, one might assume that it is sufficient for a Jew to command the gentile to process the scroll for the proper intent. The gentile would be considered like a machine which performs activities with no will of its own, and it would be as if the Jew performed the act himself. In conclusion, however, it is accepted that because the gentile acts independently, the intention of the Jew who hires him cannot be associated with his acts.

The scope of this ruling can be expanded:

E.g., the strands of tzitzit (Hilchot Tzitzit 1:11) or a bill of divorce (Hilchot Gerushin 3:16).

Rabbenu Asher does not accept the Rambam’s ruling with regard to these parchments. Though he accepts the general principle, he explains that this particular instance is an exception.
In other instances, the gentile must act according to the Jew’s intent for a prolonged period of time. Here, it is absolutely necessary to have the intent to use the parchment for tefillin or a Torah scroll only at the moment it is placed in the lime. We can assume that if a gentile is given instructions to place it in the lime with that intent, he will do so with that intent.
The Shulchan Aruch quotes both opinions in Orach Chayim 32:9. Yoreh De’ah 271:1, however, mentions only the Rambam’s opinion. In both places, the Rama states that it is customary to follow Rabbenu Asher’s opinion.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 32:12 and the Mishnah Berurah 32:28-29 quote Rabbenu Asher’s statements that a Jew should be present at the time the parchment is placed in the lime and that he should explicitly tell the gentile to put it in the lime to be used for a Torah scroll. Afterwards, he should assist the gentile somewhat in the process of preparing the parchment.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 3:6) states, “Parchment which was processed for use as a talisman is acceptable for a mezuzah.”
In one of his responsa, the Rambam explains that the reason for the difference in law between a mezuzah, on the one hand, and a Torah scroll and tefillin, on the other, stems from the fact that a Torah scroll and tefillin are mitzvot which each person is obligated to fulfill. In contrast, the mitzvah of mezuzah is an obligation that is not incumbent on a person unless he dwells in a house that requires one. (It must be noted, however, that there are opinions which maintain that this responsum was not written by the Rambam.)
This ruling is not accepted by the other authorities. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 288:5) states that one must seek a mezuzah that was written on parchment processed with this intention in mind. Only if it is impossible to find such a mezuzah, may one use a mezuzah which was not processed with this intent and even then, such a mezuzah may be used only temporarily.
(See also the notes to Chapter 3, Halachah 15.)

The parchment should be ruled with a stylus or a reed. It is improper to use a substance that leaves a mark. Each line of the parchment should be ruled and a border made on both sides. If unruled parchment is used for a Torah scroll or for a mezuzah, it is unacceptable (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 271:5, 288:8).

If, however, one wrote tefillin without ruling the parchment, the tefillin are acceptable even if the lines are crooked (Mishneh Berurah 32:21).

This explains why although a verse from the Torah must always be written on ruled parchment, we are not required to do so for tefillin.
Even though a mezuzah is also covered, ruling the parchment is required because it can be removed from its covering easily and must be checked twice in seven years. In contrast, there is no obligation to check tefillin and the parchments are almost never removed from their compartments (Kessef Mishneh, Rabbenu Nissim).

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 32:20, 29), however, emphasizes that one should carefully check the passages of the tefillin to make sure that they were written correctly. One who does not know the passages by heart should write from an existent text.

Even a person who knows the passages by heart may err, because sometimes the spellings of words are different from their pronunciations (Megillah 18b).
The Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De’ah 274:3) quotes a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if, after the fact, it is permitted to use a Torah scroll that was not written from an existent text.

The phraseology used in this halachah is a matter of question. Though our texts follow the standard published texts of the Mishneh Torah, the authoritative manuscripts substitute the word min for apikoros.
The difference between the two versions is significant. In Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8, the Rambam defines an apikoros as a person who denies the Torah and/or the prophetic tradition, while in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:7, he describes a min as a person who does not believe in God. When a min writes a Torah scroll, the names of God it contains do not possess any holiness, because he does not believe in God at all. In contrast, since an apikoros does believe in God, were he to write a Torah scroll the names he writes would possess a certain dimension of holiness.

In Hilchot Yesodei Torah 6:8, the Rambam explains why burning such a scroll does not violate the prohibition against destroying God’s name:
He does not believe in the sanctity of [God’s] name and did not compose it for a sacred
purpose. Rather, he considers this to be similar to any other text. Since this is his intent,
the names [of God he writes] do not become holy.
Significantly, the Rambam does not state that we presume that the scribe had the intention that the name of God refer to a false deity. Note, however, the Rambam’s statements in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 2:5: “[It can be assumed that] a min’s thoughts are concerned with false gods.” Shulchan Aruch HaRav 39:4 and the Mishnah Berurah 39:13 refer to the latter statement and explain that the passages should be burned, because the names of God refer to a false deity.
Shabbat 116a draws a parallel between the burning of such a Torah scroll and the scroll of a sotah (a woman accused of adultery). In the process of a sotah’s trial, a scroll on which is written a passage containing God’s name is blotted out. Our Sages conclude that just as God is willing to allow His name to be wiped out to establish peace between a man and his wife, so, too, He allows His name to be destroyed because of these individuals who disturb the peace that exists between Him and His people.

Or Jewish property.

It was quite common in the Second Temple period for Jews to betray their countrymen or their property to the Roman authorities. The severity of this transgression is emphasized by the Rambam, who includes a moseir in the 24 categories of individuals who do not have a portion in the world to come. (See Hilchot Teshuvah 3:6, 12.)
Similarly, in Hilchot Chovel UMazik 8:10, the Rambam states that a moseir may be killed to prevent him from betraying a Jew’s life or property to gentiles. Because of the severity of this transgression, the Rambam considers such an individual equivalent to an outright nonbeliever.

This includes even a minor who has reached the age when he is trained to wear tefillin (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 39:1).

Lest they be used. Since there is a possibility that the names of God they contain were written with the proper intent (and hence, they would possess a dimension of holiness), they are not burned.

Tefillin.

A mezuzah.

Gittin 45b.

Thus excluding slaves, women and minors, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 13.

Thus excluding Jews who do not believe in their heritage, gentiles, and mosrim.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 39:2) states that anyone who is disqualified from writing tefillin is also disqualified from performing any other activity necessary to prepare them.

Torah scrolls, tefillin, or mezuzot.

Since it is possible that the apikoros did not write them himself, they may not be burned.

And may not be used for sacred purposes, because it is possible that the apikoros (or one of his colleagues) wrote them.

More precisely, the term kuti used by the Rambam means “Samaritan.” This term refers to the mixture of gentiles brought by Sannecherib to occupy the land of the exiled ten tribes. At one point, the Samaritans converted and were considered to be Jews by the Sages. Towards the latter portion of the Second Temple period, it was discovered that they had remained idolaters. From that time onward, they were regarded as gentiles by the Sages, and the term kuti was used to refer to gentiles. (It must be noted that the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah use the term goy, “gentile,” rather than kuti.)

We presume that the gentile is offering sacred articles which he obtained from a Jew, and he did not make them himself.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 39:6, Yoreh De’ah 281:1) quotes this opinion. Yoreh De’ah (loc. cit.), however, also mentions a conflicting opinion, which forbids scrolls possessed by gentiles to be used. The Mishnah Berurah 39:16 explains that, at present, we can assume that the sacred articles are acceptable, because today a gentile would not know how to make them himself. Accordingly, we can assume that they were taken from a Jew.
Even the opinions which do not allow the sacred articles purchased from the gentiles to be used require that they be redeemed and entombed, because of our regard for the sacred articles and our fear that the gentiles would treat them sacrilegiously.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 39:7; Yoreh De’ah 281:1) suggests paying slightly more than their worth.

The Sages feared that if the Jews redeemed these sacred articles from the gentiles at more than their market value, the gentiles would make special efforts to steal them in order to receive these higher prices.
Gittin 45a establishes a similar principle with regard to human captives, stating, “Captives should not be redeemed for more than their worth.”

In this halachah, the Rambam restates principles that he had stated previously. His intent is to explain that the requirements which he had mentioned are not merely matters of preference. Rather, if they are not met, the sacred articles are disqualified entirely. Even בדיעבד (after the fact), they are not acceptable.

See Halachah 10.

See Halachot 6-7.

See Halachah 11.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 274:1) states that before a scribe writes a Torah scroll, he should state that he is writing it for the sake of the holiness of a Torah scroll. Making that statement at the outset is sufficient for the entire Torah scroll. If he fails to make this statement, the scroll is not acceptable. Similar rules apply to tefillin (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 32:19) and mezuzot.

I.e., when writing God’s name, one must be aware of its holiness and write it with that intent in mind.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah, loc. cit.) states that one must make a verbal statement of this intention. If not, the Torah scroll is unacceptable. The Siftei Cohen (276:1) differs and states that while making a verbal statement is preferable, as long as one intended to write the name with the desired intent, the Torah scroll may be used. The Rama (Orach Chayim 32:19) also states with regard to writing God’s name in tefillin, that if the scribe made a verbal statement that he is writing the Torah scroll for the desired purpose, after the fact, it is sufficient merely to have had the desired intent in mind when writing God’s name without expressing it verbally.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that the words “of Israel” are significant. A Jewish king is expected to comprehend the sanctity of a Torah scroll and, hence, will understand if he is not answered. Should a gentile king greet a scribe and his failure to answer create a threat to his life, he is allowed to reply.

The Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De’ah 276:4) rules that if the scribe does reply, the Torah scroll is not disqualified.

In succession—e.g., “God is our Lord. God is one,” in the Shema, where three names of God are written in succession.

When he begins to write again, the scribe should state that he is writing the name to express God’s holiness (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 276:3).

Lest too much ink collect on the pen and create an ink blot that must be rubbed out. In doing so, one might also rub out God’s name. This is prohibited, as stated in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 6:1-2.

Thus, if an error occurs, God’s name will not be affected.

Pit’chei Teshuvah 273:6 suggests writing another word above the line together with God’s name.

From the Rambam’s phraseology, it appears that even after the fact, the Torah scroll is not acceptable. Although this decision is accepted by the Turei Zahav (Yoreh De’ah 276:4), the Bayit Chadash mentions a more lenient view.

One should not, however, write the extra word in the margin between the columns of a Torah scroll (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 276:1).

Because there is no obligation that a Torah scroll be written in order. Indeed, one may intentionally write certain words or passages not in order.

Of God’s name or of any other word.

The commentaries explain that this is because these passages must be written כסדרן, “in order.” If not, they are invalid. In this instance, the word which is inserted will not have been written in order.

There is another alternative. One may rub out the words written after the omitted word (needless to say, provided that they do not include God’s name), and then rewrite the words that were rubbed out.

While still moist. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 32:24) states that it is preferable to wait until the ink dries and then scrape the letters off, rather than rub them out while the ink is still moist. In the latter instance, a mark of the ink is still left. Though it does not disqualify the religious article, it is not attractive.

See also Chapter 7, Halachah 13.

And desire to protect their work from being exposed to dust or other factors.

This does not show proper respect for the sacred articles (Eruvin 98a).

By no means, however, should they leave them open and uncovered, for this is also a sign of disrespect. The Bayit Chadash and the Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De’ah 277:1) extend this principle to all sacred texts, explaining that they should never be left open.

As mentioned in Halachah 15, if a scribe did not have the proper intent when writing one of God’s names, the scroll is not acceptable.

Becoming the property of another individual.

The Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De’ah 281:9) states that this law applies only when the scribe was paid for his services. If he wrote the scroll as a favor, his word is not accepted and the scroll is not disqualified.

Gittin 54b states that he may not collect his entire wage minus the payment due him for the names of God, because a Torah scroll is worthless unless God’s names were written with the proper intent.
The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 281:5) states that the scribe does not forfeit his entire wage. Although he is not paid the fee due him for a Torah scroll, he still should be paid for producing a text of the Chumash.
At that time, printing presses were uncommon and books were written as scrolls. Though such a scroll could not be used for a communal Torah reading, it would be useful for individual study. [Note the objections of the Turei Zahav (Yoreh De’ah 281:5) to this ruling.]

He would not suffer a major loss.

Hence, he was willing to suffer a loss of this nature in order to irritate the purchaser.

The Rambam omits a mezuzah, since, as he states in Halachah 11, a mezuzah need not be processed with a sacred intent in mind.

As required by Halachah 11.

We assume that he would not be willing to suffer such a major loss only to cause difficulty to a colleague.

In this instance, as well, he deserves the remuneration appropriate for writing a scroll useful for individual study.

This refers to the calligraphy used for the Hebrew alphabet that closely resembles the printed Hebrew we use today.

This leniency was not extended with regard to tefillin and mezuzot. Megillah 9a derives this concept from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:6: “And these words shall be totafot....” Our Sages explain that the expression “shall be” implies that they shall remain unchanged from their Hebrew original.

From the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Megillah 1:8, 2:1, it appears that the intent is not to write a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew, but rather a translation. The Rambam explains that the Septuagint—the translation of the Torah into Greek at the order of King Ptolemy (Megillah 9a; Soferim 1:7)—had become popular. Hence, it was permitted to be used for a Torah scroll.

I.e., contemporary Greek is very different from the classical tongue, to the extent that they can be considered to be two separate languages.

Significantly, however, in Hilchot Megillah 2:3, the Rambam does not state that Greek is unacceptable at present. Note also Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 690).

In our notes to the following halachah, we discuss the laws governing a letter which is not surrounded by parchment because of a hole that is located on its border.

There is no minimum amount of space required to be left between letters. Furthermore, one must be careful not to leave too much space, to the extent that it appears that the word is divided in two (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 274:4).

If the letters are attached, however, the difficulty may be corrected and, afterwards, the sacred article may be used (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 32:18).

This refers to a child who is able to recognize letters, but not words. Were he able to recognize words, one could assume that he might identify a letter, not by its shape, but because of the meaning of the word in which it is located (Rashi, Menachot 29b).

Tefillin and mezuzot must be written in order (Chapter 3, Halachah 5; Chapter 5, Halachah 1). Therefore, if a letter which cannot be recognized by a child is written in tefillin or mezuzot, the parchment may never be corrected. Changing the form of the letter is tantamount to rewriting it in its entirety (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 32:25).

This applies not only when the sacred article was originally written, but throughout the time it is being used. If a portion of a letter cracks, fades, is rubbed out, or is torn, in a manner which alters its form, the sacred article is unacceptable.
See also the Tur, Shulchan Aruch, and commentaries (Orach Chayim 36) for a detailed description of the proper form for each letter.

These two letters are very similar, the difference between them being that the leg of the vav is extended and that of the yud is not. Therefore, if a scribe would write a yud with a long leg or a vav with a short leg, difficulties may arise.

The difference between these two letters is primarily in the lower right-hand corner. In a kaf this corner is rounded, while in a beit it is square. Hence, a scribe’s imprecision could cause a difficulty.

The difference between these two letters is primarily in the upper right-hand corner. In a resh this corner is rounded, while in a dalet it is square. Hence, in this instance as well, a scribe’s imprecision could cause a difficulty.

Shabbat 103b mentions other pairs of letters which resemble each other, among them: a samech and a final mem, a zayin and a final nun, and a heh and a chet.

Shabbat, loc. cit., breaks the word וכתבתם (Deuteronomy 6:9), which refers to the command to write a mezuzah, into two words, וכתב תם which mean, “And you shall write perfectly.” Thus, the command to write a mezuzah—and, by association, tefillin—also serves as an imperative requiring that the writing be precise.

Rashi, Shabbat 108a, associates this ruling with the interpretation, וכתב תם, quoted from Shabbat 103b above. Writing which is “perfect” should not be broken by holes in the parchment.

As long as no ink seeps through the parchment, the writing can be considered as “perfect.”

This applies even if there is a slight hole in the parchment which can be seen when the parchment is held up to light (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 32:17; Mishnah Berurah 32:32).
[The latter principle has ramifications in contemporary society. Today, many scribes check mezuzot and tefillin using light tables and/or magnifying glasses. The cracks or perforations they find in this manner are not significant and cannot disqualify a parchment.]

Which has many small holes where its feathers were.

Nevertheless, it is not common for scribes to use parchment of this origin.

Halachah 19 deals with the requirement that the letters be surrounded by parchment while they are being written. This halachah mentions the ruling when the perforation is made afterwards.

Since, at the outset, the writing was “perfect,” the parchment is not disqualified because of a hole of later origin. Nevertheless, as will be explained, there are other halachic difficulties involved.

According to the Rambam, the letter is acceptable even though the hole touches the letter itself. Although the previous halachah states that a letter must be surrounded by parchment on all sides, that statement refers only to the external perimeter of the letter. There is no obligation that the letter be surrounded by parchment on the inside.
The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 32:15, quotes the Rambam’s opinion, but also mentions a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah 1:9), which requires that the letter be surrounded by parchment on the inside as well. Most Ashkenazic halachic authorities suggest accepting the stringency of the Jerusalem Talmud’s ruling.

Which remains connected to the body of the letter.

I.e., a yud.

I.e., its upper portion.

For example, when a perforation causes a vav to be separated into two portions, if its upper portion resembles a yud, it is unacceptable. If the length of the upper portion would prevent a child (see the previous halachah) from confusing it with a yud, it is acceptable.

Because it is not large enough to be of consequence. See also Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 32).