Both the Shulchan Aruch Harav and the Mishnah Brurah use similar terminology when describing the importance of the shin being "pointy" on the bottom and all three branches of the letter shin meeting at a point or "chad" at the bottom of the letter. There is a strong foundation in Halacha for this and for the bottom of the shin to be flat like a moshav (base) is considered questionable (Pri Megadim) and definitely not Kosher Lechatchillah. It is worse if the moshav is very wide, but it is still questionable if it is lechatchillah if there is a thick noticeable base rather than a chad. Even for Sephardim, who lechatchillah make an angular base, it is still important that the base is indeed on a (significant) angle. If the base is flat, even if all three branches of the shin come out of the base connected , as in the top picture, it is problematic. It is worse in the bottom picture below where the right head/ branch comes out of the right part of the base and the m
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 32:1 says that the Kedusha of the Shel Rosh is greater than that of the Shel Yad and therefore al pi kabala you should write the shel rosh first.
ReplyDeleteI mean to say in the actual parshiyos, "Shema, etc" (all 4). Not between Shel Yad and Shel Rosh.
ReplyDeleteLechora the parsha with the most sheimos would have the most kedusha. This is the reason that tefillin have more kedusha than mezuzah for example.
ReplyDeleteOne nafka mina would be - when doing a bedikah and reusing the matleisim, should you be makpid to use each matlis for the same parsha it came from.
ReplyDeleteI beleive its the kamos which is koveiah Kedusha Chamurah, not the amount of sheimos.
(By the way, R' Aaron - is it the Shulchan Aruch HaRav that is mechadish that the Kedusha of the Shel Rosh is greater than that of the Shel Yad?)
It's From the Ari Hakadosh
DeleteI was being sarcastic. Its a gemorah in Menochos 34:, Rambam 3:17, Shulchan Aruch 32:1, etc. etc.
Deletewhat the Ariz"l says is to "write" the shel rosh first, because of kedusha chamurah.
Correct, writing the Rosh first is from Ari Z"L because it has a higher level of kedusha, I thought that's what you were talking about here based on Aron's first comment (ie. i'ts not SA HArav who is mechadesh to write first due to higher kedusha)
DeleteAccording to the Ariza”l one should write the parshios shel rosh, insert them in the bayis, close the bayis, paint it black etc., and only afer the shel rosh is complete, write the parshios shel yad. I don’t know of anyone that does it that way.
DeleteIf only the parshios are written, without inserting them into the battim it may be better (even according to the Ariza”l) to write the shel rosh first. It’s the shin on the bayis shel rosh that makes it kedusha chamurah. Therefore if you aren’t doing the whole process, the parshios shel rosh aren’t as of yet a higher level of kedusha than the parshios shel yad. If anything the parshios shel yad are of a greater kedusha at this stage, since all four parshios are on one klaf, and the shel rosh is four separate klafs.
Yes, the above is correct according to the Arizal. However, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter which is done first as the shel yad and shel rosh are two completely different and independent mitzvot. To try and ascribe greater kedusha to an unfinished religious object seems to be inappropriate at this stage, particularly since the eventual kedusha is established at the first moment of wearing of the particular tefilah for the sake of the mitzvah.
DeleteYes, the above is correct according to the Arizal. However, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter which is done first as the shel yad and shel rosh are two completely different and independent mitzvot. To try and ascribe greater kedusha to an unfinished religious object seems to be inappropriate at this stage, particularly since the eventual kedusha is established at the first moment of wearing of the particular tefilah for the sake of the mitzvah.
DeleteI have seen brought down (I can't remember the mekor offhand- maybe Kol Yaakov?) that the matleisim should be used for the parsha it came from. However, it seems we are not makpid on this, but there is no reason to purposely not use them for the same parsha. Certainly if they get mixed up by accident they can be reused with any parsha.
ReplyDeleteI was taught to be makpid about this although I never saw the makor. If you could please post it I would appreciate this
DeleteKol Yakov 32:204* Ol Derech Keresh shezacha bitzafon yinaten tamid betzafon.
ReplyDeletethanks
ReplyDelete