---

SMG

Its written[i] ונתצתם את מזבחותם ושברתם את מצבותם ןאשריהם תשרפון באש ופסילי אלהיהם תגדעון ואבדתם את שמם מן המקום ההוא and right afterward, [the Torah continues] לא תעשון כן לה’ אלוקיכם. The Sifri derives from here [α] that one who breaks one stone from the Hayĉal or from the altar or the Azara transgresses [this] negative Mitzva. Rabbi Yishmael states, from where do we know that one who erases [even] one letter of the sanctified names transgresses [this] negative Mitzva? Because it says ואבדתם את שמם and then afterwards its written לא תעשון כן לה’ אלוקיכם. The Gemara[ii] provide the listing of sanctified names [β].

The Baal Halaĉos Gedolos [the BHG] [γ] writes[iii] one who writes the name of G‑d outside the correct place, meaning where it should not have been written (either because the context didn’t demand it or because it was written without any context) does not sanctify the entire page (on which it was written), as we learnt [a name of G‑d] which was written on the handles of vessels or on the sheets of a bed, should be cut out (יגוד) and placed in Geniza.

From this we can learn that if the name was written on the pages of a Sefer Torah or on Tefillin, even accidentally, the entire page has been sanctified thereby – so long as when writing it, the intention was to write the name – since [the writing of the name of G‑d] requires intent. As proven from the Gemara[iv], as we learnt there that one who needed to write the name of G‑d, and instead intended to write Yehuda (inserting an extra letter Daless to insure that the name of G‑d would not be written) but then accidentally forgot to add the letter Daless; the sages say that this has not been sanctified [δ], even if one corrects the writing by “passing over the quill[1]”. Rabbi Eliezer of Mintz brings [ε] a supporting proof for this from Gemara[v] where Rav Huna stated: One who sees a Sefer Torah being burnt, is obligated to tear kriya in mourning twice [ζ], once for the parchment, and once for the letters, as it says[vi] ויהי דבר ה’ אל ירמיהו אחרי שרוף המלך את המגילה ואת הדברים, and prior to that Yirmiyahu admonished[vii] ולא קרעו בגדיהם המלך וכל עבדיו – the king and courtiers did not tear kriya; which they should have.

---

[1] A repair technique in Safrus for letters which have been cracked or otherwise degraded – these can be repaired by tracing on top of the letter with fresh ink and refreshing the letter. Since the letter was originally written without the correct intent, one cannot simply add ink in order to write with the correct intent. (The assumption being refuted in the Gemara is that since the underlying letters are the same shape, there would be no perceivable difference.)

---

[i] Devarim 12:3

[ii] Gem. Shavuos 35a & Sofrim 4:1

[iii] section 75 page 141 and Gem. Eraĉin 6a

[iv] Gem. Shabbos 104b and Tractate Sofrim 5:3

[v] Gem. Moed Kattan 26a

[vi] Yirmiyahu 36:27

[vii] Yirmiyahu 36:24

---

AMUDAY SHLOMO

[α] [the SMG leans on the Midrash here] since it is not explicitly stated in the verse, which talks about even a single stone [monument being destroyed], rather the verse refers to [a group of stones which together form] a standard altar [being demolished]. [As these are comparable, it implies that the destruction of an altar requires the demolishing of all the stones, similar to a single-stone monument which is destroyed by shattering the stone,] however from the Sifri, the implication is the prohibition applies even to the removal of a single stone.

Furthermore, it seems the main thrust of the verse לא תעשון כן is not related to the prior verse, which talks about destroying idolatrous symbols, but rather to the next verse כי אם אל המקום אשר יבחר – which talks about only going to the Base Hamikdash to serve. This is also the way Rashi explains it[1]. The Sifri however is deriving from the juxtaposition of the verse to the verse prior.

[β] The listing of names – meaning those which may not be erased is as follows:

• אלף למד
• א-להים [&] א-להיכם
• א-היה אשר א-היה
• אלף דלת [נון יוד]
•  יוד הא
• [יוד & הי ויו הי]
• ש-די
• צבא-ות

These are the [names] which may be erased:

• הגדול הגבור והנורא
• האדיר
• החזק
• האמיץ
• העיזוז
• חנון ורחום
•  ארך אפים ורב חסד ואמת

[γ] The reason the SMG quotes the BHG here and doesn’t reference the ברייתא because it isn’t clear from the ברייתא that the same law applies when accidentally writing a single name on the parchment [designated for a Sefer Torah etc., which as noted later by the SMG causes the entire parchment to become sanctified]. And the example provided was ידות as an extreme example[2] which would have to be cut out and buried in Genizah. Instead, the BHG writes that the entire page has not been rendered sanctified, which language is more meticulous [and therefore was quoted by the SMG instead of the ברייתא].

[δ] [Maharshal asks a question, how does the SMG come to this conclusion?] Perhaps the example of the Gemara is not an example, but a specific case from which no general rule can be derived. It is possible to answer that since the sages determined that the “passing over the quill” method is also not sufficient to sanctify the word [when it was actually spelled out albeit without the proper intent], therefore we can automatically conclude that writing it incorrectly is not any better [than writing without intent], because if that were not the case [meaning if writing it incorrectly would be better than writing it without intent], why wouldn’t it be ok to simply overwrite that [name of G‑d] which was written and write Yehuda instead[3]? 

[the Gemara is presented as discussing a case where the scribe intended to write the wrong name – Yehuda, instead of writing correctly G‑d’s name. The Gemara asks, since the correct name was actually written, and the only problem is the intention of the scribe, why not have the scribe pass over the quill, this time with the correct intention. To which the conclusion is that the sages forbade this method of rectifying the intention of the scribe, and since the scribe initially had the wrong intention, the name has not been imbued with holiness, but it also cannot be fixed – since the current writing forms the name of G‑d. This leads into the next comment by Maharshal]

[ε] This proof is brought because it concerns the scroll of Yirmiyahu which they thought was a false prophet[4], and thus the names of G‑d written on that were done mistakenly – because there is no greater mistake than that [to transcribe a false prophecy using the name of G‑d]. Nevertheless, [even though they were discarding what they believed were heretical writings that were not written with holy intent] G‑d became angry with them, because they should have torn kriya even according to their opinion [that the name of G‑d had been mistakenly transcribed].

[Maharshal is continuing his logical argument that the reason the proof from Rabbi Eliezer of Mintz is being brought is because it too describes a case where the name of Hashem was mistakenly written and nevertheless the entire page had to be treated with respect.]

[ζ] In my opinion [says Maharshal], since the parchment was burnt, and the letters flew away as noted in the Gemara[i] [regarding Rabbi Ĉananya ben Teradyon who was burnt alive by the Romans while wrapped in a Torah scroll. His students asked him what he saw while being burnt alive, and he answered, ‘I see the scroll burning, but the letters are flying free’.] This is why[5] we do not tear [extra] kriya for two (2) names. And if you want to come ask, why are we tearing kriya for the letters which have flown away and returned Above in their holiness – [the answer is] we tear kriya for their forced separation [from the scroll]. Similarly, Elisha tore kriya upon his separation from Eliyahu [even though Eliyahu hadn’t died[6]].

---

[1] As noted below, Rashi actually explains both ways of viewing the flow of the verses, either as being connected to the next verse, or the preceding one. The first and primary explanation provided is as listed by Maharshal, but Rashi adds a second explanation as well.

[2] Perhaps there is a double meaning in why the unusual example of writing on the handles of the vessels is brought – something that people do not normally do – because the word ידות is very similar to the name of Hashem and provides another example. Perhaps the scribe was supposed to label the handle of the vessel with the word ידות, but instead the scribe mistakenly added a dot of ink under the letter ד forming it into a letter ה, and failed to connect the left leg of the letter ת which also causes it to be rendered as a letter ה resulting in the name of G‑d being spelled out.

[3] This could be accomplished by writing the letter ה at the end of the mistakenly written G‑d’s name by extending the right leg of the additional letter being added to attach to the floating left leg of the previously written letter ה – sort of like converting the letter from standard to italic script (or by detracting the left leg of what was a ה converting it to a ד). This would not be ok for other reasons – least of which is because the final letter would thereby be invading the space of the prior letter – but perhaps for the purposes of converting the name of G‑d into a different name it might be ok – and then it could be erased without qualm.

[4] They couldn’t bring themselves to believe that anyone could destroy G‑d’s house. Who could possibly be more powerful than the living G‑d?

[5] Theoretically, one could conclude that kriya should be torn for each of the names of Hashem contained within the burning scroll – but that is not done because the letters ‘fly’ away, and therefore there is only one occurrence of the destruction of G‑d’s name, when the letters are forced to fly away. The second kriya is torn for the scroll itself which had previously been sanctified.

[6] Perhaps we can derive something amazing here, the act of kriya performed by the mourner is not for the death of the body and its destruction – since at that moment it hasn’t occurred, and quite possibly will never occur, since all Jews are righteous. Instead kriya is performed because the soul has departed.

---

[i] Gem. Avoda Zara 18a

---

RASHI

Rashi on the verse in Devarim takes the prohibition further than the SMG. He notes that this verse means that one may not offer sacrifices to Heaven wherever, but must only use the sanctified Mizbayach. Since that contradicts the time period in which the Jewish people were allowed to offer sacrifices on personal במות, Rashi adds a quote from Gemara[i] which states definitively that the verse prohibits the erasure of G‑d’s name. Rashi continues:

as to the prohibition against demolishing a stone from the Mizbayach or Azarah; Rabbi Yishmael taught, would it really occur to one that Jewish people are demolishing the altars [of the Base Hamikdash]? Rasher, [the verse means] one may not act in the same manner as the idolators whereby their sins will cause the Mikdash of their forefathers to be destroyed.

---

[i] Gem. Makkos 22a

---

Discussion by SMS

It seems clear that Maharshal’s approach is that the name has a degree of holiness inherent to it, even when written without intent. However, to properly write the name of G‑d, one must do so with the proper intentions.

The simple way of viewing the order of the verses is that one follows the other logically, each building on the one prior and introducing the next. Accordingly, the verse לא תעשון כן both qualifies the prior verse as well as introduces the next one – especially since the next verse starts with the words כי אם.

Which is possibly why Rashi sees fit to add the first explanation on the verse as to the prohibition against offering on private altars. But seeing as this contradicts the practice of the Jewish people for many years when the Mishkan and Mikdash were not established, Rashi continues and adds other explanations on the verse – including the prohibition against erasure of G‑d’s name.

Accordingly, it can clearly be derived from the פשט.

---