Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 15) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 423) consider the mitzvah of mezuzah to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah 1:9) states that unlike a Torah scroll or tefillin, a mezuzah should be written in a single column.

Approximately one centimeter.

Also, a small amount of parchment should be left on the right side for the mezuzah to be rolled closed (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 288:1).

Although this is not the desired form.

I.e., wider above than below, the top lines being longer than the bottom ones.

This word is not found in our text of Menachot 31b, the source for this halachah.

I.e., wider below than above, the bottom lines being longer than the top ones.

Furthermore, if even one letter from a mezuzah was not written in order, the mezuzah is unacceptable (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 288:3).
The Ginat Veradim suggests that the Rambam requires only that the order of the two passages not be reversed, but is not concerned with the order of the letters within the passages themselves. This perspective, however, is not accepted by other authorities, who explain that surely, the Rambam requires order within the passages. He gave the above example only because he felt that it was more important to emphasize that even if the passages themselves were written in order, if their order was reversed, the mezuzah is not acceptable.

In his Responsa (213), Rabbi Akiva Eiger writes that if the parchments were sewn together before the passages were written upon them, the mezuzah is acceptable.

I.e., one may not cut the passage, Shema, from a worn Torah scroll and write the passage, V’hayah im shamo’a, on the empty space below it. One may not cut both passages from the Torah scroll since, as explained above, a mezuzah may not be written on two different parchments (Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De’ah 290:1).

Though it is possible to cut the two passages from the arm tefillin, it is forbidden to do so.

The empty parchment left as a border above and on the sides of the Torah scroll. The Or Sameach notes that Shabbat 116a questions whether or not these empty portions of parchment have become sanctified with the holiness of a Torah scroll, and does not resolve the issue. Because of the doubt involved, the Rambam rules that in situations where the question of their holiness is raised, one should always take the more stringent perspective. Therefore, in Hilchot Shabbat 23:27, the Rambam rules that such parchments should not be saved from a fire on the Sabbath if the violation of even a Rabbinic transgression is involved (accepting the possibility that they have not become consecrated). In this halachah, this approach requires accepting the possibility that they have been consecrated.

As explained in Chapter 10, Halachot 2-5 (see also Hilchot Tefillah 11:14), the holiness of a Torah scroll surpasses that of all other articles.

Our Sages have established the principle, “One may ascend to a higher level of holiness, but may not descend to a lower one.”

S’tumah means “closed.” According to the Rambam, it refers to a passage whose first word is always written in the middle of a line in the Torah. See Chapter 8, Halachah 2. In the Torah, V’hayah im shamo’a is s’tumah.

P’tuchah means “open.” According to the Rambam, it refers to a passage whose first word is always written at the beginning of a line in the Torah. See Chapter 8, Halachah 1.

. Note the contrast between this ruling and the Rambam’s decision in Chapter 2, Halachah 2, regarding tefillin: “If one wrote a passage which should be s’tumah as p’tuchah or a passage which should be p’tuchah as s’tumah, it is unacceptable.”
The Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 32) explains the difference as follows: In tefillin, there are passages which follow directly after each other in the Torah. Therefore, all the passages must be written as they appear in a Torah scroll. In contrast, the two passages contained in a mezuzah do not follow each other in the Torah. Therefore, there is no absolute requirement for the passages to be written as they appear in the Torah.
From the Rambam’s words, it appears that if no space was left between the passages Shema and Vehayah Im Shamoa, the mezuzah is disqualified. See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 32:50.

See Chapter 2, Halachot 8-9 and Chapter 7, Halachot 8-9.

The Rambam lists the letters in the following halachah. Significantly, the letters he mentions here are not the same as he mentions in Chapter 2 with regard to tefillin. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 288:7) rules that, in a mezuzah, just as in a Torah, one should place crowns on all the letters, שעטנ”ז ג”ץ.

In Chapter 2, Halachah 6, the Rambam writes that, when writing tefillin, the ayin of the word Shema and the dalet of the word echad should be enlarged as in a Torah scroll. It is customary to write these letters in the same manner in mezuzot.

As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 2, Halachah 9, based on Rabbenu Asher’s opinion, it is proper to add crowns if they have been omitted from the appropriate letters in a mezuzah.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 12, where this subject is discussed.

See Chapter 2, Halachot 6-7.

Making additions on the outside of the mezuzah is discussed in the following halachah.

Similarly, if a single letter is forgotten, the mezuzah is invalid (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 288:3).

This name serves also as an acronym for the Hebrew words, שומר דלתות ישראל, “Guardian of the gates of Israel” (Mishnat Chassidim).

In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro cites the Zohar (Vol. III, 266a) which states that Shaddai should be written opposite the word, V’hayah and he quotes this ruling in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 288:15). The Rama, however, follows the Rambam’s ruling and this is common practice.

See also the Rama (Yoreh De’ah 288:15) who states that it is also common to write the letters, כוזו במוכסז כוזו, opposite the words, י-ה-ו-ה א-להינו י-ה-ו-ה, on the outer side of a mezuzah. These letters are the letters which follow the letters in those names of God—i.e., the כ follows the י, the ז follows the ו.

In Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 11:12, the Rambam states:
A person who whispers an incantation over a wound and then recites a verse from the Torah, who recites a verse over a child so that he will not become scared, or who places a Torah scroll or tefillin over a baby so that it will sleep, is considered to be a soothsayer or one who casts spells. Furthermore, such people are included among those who deny the Torah, because they relate to the words of the Torah as if they are cures for the body, when, in fact, they are cures for the soul, as [Proverbs 3:22] states: “And they shall be life for your soul.”
The inclusion of these people among “those who do not have a portion in the world to come” is based on Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8, which makes such a statement about “those who deny the Torah.”

As stated in the previous halachah, any addition made on the inside of the mezuzah invalidates it. (Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch 288:15 states that it is forbidden to add to the inside of the mezuzah, but does not explicitly say that the mezuzah becomes invalidated.)

These are the subjects discussed in the two passages written within the mezuzah.

The Rambam’s statements have aroused questions from many commentaries who note that, in several places, the Talmud associates a mezuzah with Divine protection—e.g., Menachot 33b, the Jerusalem Talmud, Pe’ah 1:1.
The Kessef Mishneh resolves this difficulty explaining that, although a mezuzah affords Divine protection, that protection comes, in and of itself, in reward for the fulfillment of the mitzvah. There is no need for any additions on man’s part. Indeed, a person who makes additions to the mezuzah in an attempt to increase its influence demonstrates that he is concerned with “his own benefit” and “the vanities of the world” and not with the fulfillment of God’s mitzvah. Therefore, he deserves the Rambam’s severe words of criticism. See Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 19.

Our translation follows the standard text of the Mishneh Torah. The Kessef Mishneh mentions another version which states “at the beginning or the end of the line.” That version parallels the apparent source for the halachah, Menachot 31b.

This custom is also recorded by Rav Yitzchak Alfasi, and earlier, in the Halachot of Rav Yehudai Gaon. It is not clear when this custom was begun.

As the Rambam states, the intent is that the mezuzah be rolled. Folding a mezuzah is very undesirable, because it will cause the letters to crack.

Menachot 31b states that a mezuzah should be rolled from echad to Shema. The Rambam uses different terminology because, as stated in the previous halachah, the first line of the mezuzah does not end with echad.

I.e., when one unrolls the mezuzah, the initial word of the line appears first.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 289:4) states that one should affix it “with nails.” The intent is that the mezuzah should be firmly affixed so that it is not dangling from one side.

As mentioned in Halachah 8, one should not place it deeper than a handbreadth inside the doorpost.

As is done before the fulfillment of a positive commandment. This blessing should also be recited again when affixing a mezuzah which has fallen from the doorpost. There is a question whether a mezuzah should be recited when affixing it after removing it to have it checked (Pitchei Teshuvah 289:1).

Significantly, in Hilchot Berachot 11:12-13, the Rambam states that when one affixes a mezuzah for a colleague, the blessing should conclude, “concerning the affixing of a mezuzah.”

In the listing of the mitzvot at the beginning of these halachot and in Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 15), the Rambam also states that the mitzvah is to “affix a mezuzah,” although the verses which relate the command to affix a mezuzah state, “And you shall write....”
With regard to the blessings, see Hilchot Berachot 11:8, which states:
For every mitzvah whose performance fulfills one’s obligation, one recites the blessing when one performs it. Whenever a mitzvah has a further commandment involved after its performance, one should not recite a blessing until one performs the latter commandment. For example, when one makes a sukkah, a lulav,... tefillin, or a mezuzah, one does not recite a blessing when one makes them.... When does one recite the blessing? When one dwells in the sukkah, shakes the lulav,... wears the tefillin, or affixes the mezuzah.
Note also the comments of the Siftei Cohen 289:1, who writes that the blessing, Shehecheyanu, is not recited before affixing a .

I.e., rather than placing the mezuzah in a tube affixed to the doorpost, one places the mezuzah inside a pole which stands next to—but is not permanently affixed to—the doorpost.

Deuteronomy 6:9 states that a mezuzah must be placed “on your gates.” Unless the mezuzah is affixed to the gateway, it does not meet this criteria (Menachot 32b).

Deuteronomy, loc. cit., states that a mezuzah must be placed “on the doorposts of your houses” and not “inside the doorposts” (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 11:9).
The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, ibid. states that if one fears that the mezuzah will be stolen or defaced, it may be placed within the door. It should, however, be placed on the back of the doorpost, but not on the wall next to the doorpost. (See also Chapter 6, Halachah 12.)

See Exodus 26:26-29.

Rather, the mezuzah should stand directly upright. This opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 289:6). The Rama, however, notes the opinion of Rabbenu Tam, who favors the horizontal position, explaining that if it is placed vertically, it is unacceptable.
Accordingly, the Rama suggests affixing the mezuzah at a slant, thereby adhering to both views. This is the common custom at present in the Ashkenazic community.

This also is not “on the doorposts of your houses.”

Although if the reed with the mezuzah had been affixed to an existing doorpost, it would have been acceptable.

As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Tzitzit 1:16, Deuteronomy 22:12 states that one should “make fringes” on one’s garments. Menachot 40b states that this teaches us that we must make the tzitzit and not use those which are already made.
Menachot 33b states that the same principle applies here. Since the mezuzah was placed inside the pole before it became part of the doorpost, it is not acceptable.

E.g., at the entrance to a courtyard or to a city. (See Chapter 6, Halachah 8.)

Rashi, Yoma 11a, explains that if more stringent requirements were instituted, it is likely that they would be ignored. Every individual would rationalize that it is somebody else’s responsibility.

A small crack in a letter can render the mezuzah unacceptable.

As opposed to tefillin, whose checking is governed by different requirements. (See Chapter 2, Halachah 11.)

At present, it is customary to check mezuzot more frequently. The ink and parchment we use are different, and there is a greater tendency for letters to fade or crack. Also, there are many scribes whose calligraphy is not professional, and errors which render the mezuzah unacceptable are frequently discovered. [For the above reasons, it is also customary to wrap mezuzot in plastic to prevent the possibility of decay.]

Since mezuzah is a positive commandment whose fulfillment is not limited to a specific time, its fulfillment is incumbent on all Jews.

Who are exempt from the obligation to perform any mitzvot mid’oraita (“according to Torah law”).

As part of the Rabbinic command to educate them to perform mitzvot.

It would appear that if one purchases a dwelling—even in the Diaspora—one is obligated to affix a mezuzah immediately.

As explained in Chapter 6, Halachah 1, a person is obligated to place a mezuzah only on a permanent dwelling. Hence, until this time period has passed, these dwellings are not considered to be permanent.

Because of the importance of dwelling in Eretz Yisrael, even a temporary dwelling is of significance (Menachot 44a, Tur, Yoreh De’ah 286).

Even though the Torah states that a mezuzah must be placed on the entrance to “your house,” Bava Metzia 101b states that this refers to the person living inside, and not the owner.

The tenant.

Even if the tenant offers to pay the owner to find a mezuzah and affix it, the owner is not required to accept the offer.

Compare to Hilchot Tzitzit 3:10, which states that tzitzit “are not an obligation on the garment, but on the person who possesses and wears the garment.”
These statements, however, must be understood in the context of Hilchot Berachot 11:2, which states:
There are positive commandments which a person is required to pursue and make every effort to fulfill—e.g., tefillin, sukkah, lulav, and shofar. These are called obligations, since a person is obliged to fulfill them....
There are other mitzvot which are not obligations, but rather are left to the person’s volition—for example, a mezuzah and a guardrail. A person is not obligated to live in a house which requires a mezuzah so that he could fulfill the mitzvah of mezuzah. Should he desire, he may dwell in a tent or a ship for his entire life.
To summarize, according to the Rambam the mitzvah of mezuzah is incumbent on the person (gavra) and not on the house (cheftza). Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon him only when he lives in a house that requires a mezuzah.

For leaving the house without a mezuzah leaves it open to undesirable influences (Tosafot, Bava Metzia, loc. cit.). Alternatively, removing a mezuzah may bring harm to the person who removes it (Sefer Chasidim).

Or will be rented to a gentile.

Lest the gentile desecrate it. Note the comments of the Rama (Yoreh De’ah 291:2), who states that it is forbidden to give a mezuzah to a gentile to affix on his door. Nevertheless, if the Jew is frightened that refusing the gentile will generate severe negative feelings, he may leave him the mezuzah.

The Rambam’s choice of phraseology emphasizes the concept mentioned in the last halachah of the previous chapter: that the mezuzah is the obligation of the dweller and not the dwelling.

It appears that all these requirements are mid’oraita, postulated by Scriptural Law.

See Halachah 2.

Note the Turei Zahav 287:1 and the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 11:11, which state that if an entrance has a doorpost on the right side and a wall which continues on the left side, a mezuzah should be affixed without a blessing. If the doorpost is on the left side, and the wall continues on the right, there is no need for a mezuzah.

According to most authorities, the doorpost need not be an addition to the walls of the house. Even if the entrance to the house does not have a frame attached to it, but rather the wall of the house itself serves as the doorpost attached to it, a mezuzah is required. Note the statements of the Turei Zahav 287:1. (See also Halachah 3.)

A beam above the doorposts. According to many authorities, the ceiling of the house is not considered to be a lintel. (See also Halachah 4.)

See Halachah 5.

The Ra’avad, Rabbenu Asher, and others differ with the Rambam’s opinion. In a responsum attributed to the Rambam, his view is explained as follows: The Torah states that a mezuzah should be placed “on your gates.” This expression implies an entrance with doors.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 286:15) obligates us to place a mezuzah even on entrances which do not have doors. Nevertheless, in deference to the Rambam’s opinion, the Siftei Cohen 286:25 states that a person should not recite a blessing when affixing such a mezuzah. (See also Halachah 5.)

If the entrance is not at least this high, it is not fit to be used by adults. (See also Halachah 4.)

See Halachah 6.

This principle is not accepted by all authorities. See Halachah 7.

See Halachah 9.

See Halachah 9.

A cubit is approximately 48 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah.

Any smaller area would not be considered fit for a dwelling (Rabbenu Asher).

The Or Sameach explains the advantage of a rectangular shape based on Hilchot Tzara’at 14:6, which states that only a square or rectangular-shaped building is considered to be a house with regard to the impurity of tzara’at.

Rabbenu Asher does not accept the Rambam’s view. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 286:13) accepts the Rambam’s view, in deference to Rabbenu Asher’s opinion, the Siftei Cohen 286:23 states that one should not recite a blessing when affixing a mezuzah on such a dwelling.
The Merchevat HaMishneh does not agree with the Shulchan Aruch’s interpretation of the Rambam’s words, and explains that the Rambam is referring to a circular building whose circumference is large enough to contain a square four cubits by four cubits. Compare with Hilchot Sukkah 4:7.
As explained in Halachah 8, a mezuzah must be affixed to an entrance which leads to another entrance which requires a mezuzah even if the former entrance would not require a mezuzah in its own right. Accordingly, we must say that this halachah is speaking about an independent structure and not a room in a house.

An exedra was a very common structure in Greek and Roman architecture that was also frequently employed in Jewish homes. It resembled a porch with three sides enclosed and the fourth side left open. (At times, both the third and fourth sides were left open. See Hilchot Sukkah 4:8,9.)
It was covered by a roof which often contained an aperture to allow sunlight to enter. Decorative pillars were placed at each of the corners of the aperture.

According to the Kessef Mishneh, this decision applies even if doors are affixed to the pillars.

When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 286:6) states that if the exedra has a wall (even if it is low) on the fourth side as well, a mezuzah is required. According to this decision, most porches that have pillars at their entrance require a mezuzah.

If, however, a building has four walls, even though large openings are left in them, a mezuzah is required (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah, loc. cit.).

And not to serve as doorposts. See Menachot 33b.

Which stand straight and are not part of the arch.

Since it has both two doorposts of at least ten handbreadths each and a lintel.

The Rambam’s phraseology has aroused questions from the commentators. Though all agree that a mezuzah is not required, most maintain that the reason is not that the entrance does not have a lintel—for the arch takes the place of the lintel—but rather because the entrance is not of the required height, ten handbreadths.
The Turei Zahav 287:3 explains that were the doorposts to be ten handbreadths high, the archway would be considered as the lintel. Since they are not ten handbreadths high, the archway is considered to be part of the doorposts, and thus, the entrance is considered to be lacking a lintel.

Although a gate to a courtyard or a city requires a mezuzah even though the area enclosed by its walls is open, a house is different; unless it is covered by a roof, it is unfit to dwell inside and, hence, does not require a mezuzah. (See Yoma 11b, Rabbenu Asher, Hilchot Mezuzah.)

Throughout the Mishneh Torah, the expression “it appears to me” indicates a decision for which the Rambam has no explicit source in the Rabbinic texts of the previous generations.

The covered portion must be four cubits by four cubits (Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 286:14). Note, however, the Or Sameach, which does not require the covered portion to be this size.

See also the Pit’chei Teshuvah 286:13, which states that a part of a house which is customarily built without a roof requires a mezuzah.

Though this statement, based on the following passage from Menachot 33a, is accepted by all halachic authorities (see Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 289:3), its interpretation has been a source of controversy, based on the difference of opinion (see Halachah 1) between the Rambam and other authorities whether an entrance without doors requires a mezuzah or not.
The Talmud states: “The exilarch built a house. He requested of Rav Nachman: ‘Affix a mezuzah for me.’ Rav Nachman told him: ‘Attach the doors first.’”
The commentaries maintain that, according to the Rambam, Rav Nachman was telling the exilarch that if the doors were not attached before the mezuzah was affixed, it is invalid. Since an entrance without doors does not require a mezuzah, affixing it before the doors would create a problem. Other authorities explain that Rav Nachman made this statement only because it was necessary to determine the direction the doors would open in order to establish the proper side of the doorway on which to place the mezuzah.

There was a wall around the complex of the Temple Mount separating it from the remainder of the city of Jerusalem. It had five gates, as described in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:2.

Within the Temple, there were many different chambers and courtyards; they are described in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, Chapter 5.

Which are referred to as “sanctuaries in microcosm” (Megillah 29a).

Since students often eat and sleep in a house of study, it is customary to place mezuzot there (Tur, Yoreh De’ah 286). In the present era, it is an accepted practice to place mezuzos on all the doors of synagogues, because they are also used for communal needs other than prayer. The Shulchan Aruch (286:10) suggests affixing a mezuzah without reciting a blessing beforehand.

Yoma 11b derives this concept from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:9: “And you shall write them on the doorposts of your homes.” The Temple is not “your home,” a private dwelling, and therefore does not require a mezuzah.
The Chatam Sofer (Yoreh De’ah, Responsum 281) asks: Since the Chamber of Parhedrin was the only portion within the Temple Courtyard used as a person’s dwelling, why does the Rambam state that these entrances do not require mezuzot because they are consecrated? Since they are not used as a dwelling, why would one think they require a mezuzah?
The Chatam Sofer explains that the Temple is a dwelling—in fact, the ultimate dwelling, the resting place of the Divine Presence. Nevertheless, since it is not a dwelling for humans, it does not require a mezuzah.

The Nimukei Yosef (Halachot Katanot) explains that synagogues in villages would generally have apartments for guests, because the villagers’ homes were usually not large enough to accommodate them. In contrast, in large cities, there were generally enough people willing to invite guests to their homes, and thus it was unnecessary for a synagogue to have a guest apartment.

The central gate to the Temple Courtyard. (See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:5.)
The Gate of Nicanor required a mezuzah because it was the gate directly before the Chamber of Parhedrin. As explained in Halachah 8, the gate of a courtyard which leads to a dwelling requires a mezuzah. Based on this rationale, Rav Kapach asks why the gates before the Gate of Nicanor did not require a mezuzah, since they led to a gate which led to a dwelling.

The other six gates to the Temple Courtyard.

The Kessef Mishneh and others note that the Rambam’s text differs from his source (Yoma, loc. cit.), which reads “the Gate of Nicanor and the Chamber of Parhedrin, which was further within.” He does explain, however, that the Rambam’s version is acceptable: Since all these gates lead to the Chamber of Parhedrin, they therefore require a mezuzah.
Rav Kapach supports this interpretation, noting that the Chamber of the Hearth also served as a dwelling for the priests, and hence, the gate to it would require a mezuzah. According to this interpretation, this gate is also included, while according to our text of the Talmud, it is not.

This term means “officer of the king,” and was used as a derisive reference to the High Priests of the Second Temple period, who were not righteous and would purchase this position from the ruling authorities for lavish bribes (Yoma 8b).

Note Yoma 10b, which states that the obligation to place a mezuzah on the gate of Nicanor and the Chamber of Parhedrin applies only during these seven days and not throughout the entire year. Nevertheless, since as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 11, one should not remove a mezuzah after leaving a dwelling, the mezuzah should remain there afterwards as well (Rav Kapach).

See Yoma 2a; Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:3.

Rav David Arameah notes that there are commentaries who point to a contradiction between these statements and Hilchot Melachim 7:5, where the Rambam states that a soldier who is excused from the battlefield for building a new house (see Deuteronomy 20:5), is released for constructing one of these structures.
He explains, however, that the Rambam’s phraseology clearly indicates how this difficulty can be resolved. In Hilchot Melachim, the Rambam states that these structures are “fit to dwell in.” In this halachah, he states that they are not “set aside for their use.”
A house requires a mezuzah only when a person dwells in it. Accordingly, since these structures are not used for that purpose, they do not require a mezuzah. To receive an exemption from military service, by contrast, all that is necessary is to build a house “fit to dwell in.” Since it is possible to use these structures for that purpose, the exemption is granted.

I.e., for human habitation. This principle is not accepted by all authorities. Based on the opinion of the Tur and others, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 286:1-2) requires that a mezuzah be affixed to such structures.

Provided they are not also used as dwellings by humans.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 286:2) emphasizes that if the women stand there naked, it is improper for a mezuzah to be affixed.

For this reason, according to the Rambam, if one dresses there, a large walk-in closet requires a mezuzah. Other authorities are more stringent and require a mezuzah even if one does not dress there.

Even if they possess roofs, four walls, and doors. Note the decisions of the Tur (Yoreh De’ah 286) and other Ashkenazic authorities, which obligate placing a mezuzah on these structures if they conform to all the other necessary requirements.

Based on the following halachah, this decision would apply even if these structures also lack other requirements a building must have for a mezuzah to be placed upon it.

Not only on the door between them and the dwelling, but even on an entrance which leads to them from the outside (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 286:8).

E.g., the gates to the old city of Jerusalem.

Even though the areas to which they lead are not covered by roofs and are not dwellings.

Yoma 11a relates that the obligation to affix mezuzot on such structures is derived from the inclusion of the word, “And on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:9). This implies that even structures which are not themselves “homes” should have mezuzot on their entrances.

We have translated the term batim loosely. Manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah substitute the term “entrances.”

For example, a gate to a courtyard opens to a gate to an alleyway, which leads to a further alleyway, which leads to a courtyard.

The Rambam rarely mentions references to any source other than the Tanach. In this instance when he does, the definition of the source to which he refers is a matter of question.
Most commentaries cite the Rambam’s source as Menachot 33b. The passage there, however, speaks of a gate leading from a room to a garden or from a room to a courtyard. The Kiryat Melech cites a reference in Chapter 2 of the tractate of Mezuzah, which describes precisely the situation mentioned by the Rambam.

Which is characterized by a foul smell, since feces are often used in the processing of leather.

Yoma 11b explains that this exclusion is implied by the commandment to place a mezuzah on our “homes.” Only a dignified dwelling, like a home, requires a mezuzah.

If, however, one would dwell in such a structure for the entire year, a mezuzah would be required.

Although the commentaries accept this law in principle, they question the Rambam’s source. Among the possibilities offered are the Midrash Tannaim, Parshat Va’etchanan, and the Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah 4:12.
The latter source compares tefillin to mezuzah and explains that the mitzvah of tefillin has an advantage, because it is fulfilled by those who travel in the desert or journey upon the sea. From this, one can conclude that the mitzvah of mezuzah is not fulfilled at sea.

The same principle applies to other dwellings of a temporary nature. Based on this principle, the Birchai Yosef (Yoreh De’ah 286) exempts patients in a hospital or inmates in prison of the obligation to have a mezuzah on their doors.

In Talmudic times, a potter would set up two booths, an inner booth, where he would live and store his belongings, and an outer booth, where he would work and exhibit his wares (Sukkah 8b). The inner booth requires a mezuzah.

Sukkah (loc. cit.) asks: Although the outer booth is not a dwelling and, therefore, does not itself, require a mezuzah, perhaps a mezuzah should be affixed to it because it leads to the inner booth? Our Sages explain, as above, that it is not a permanent structure, and only an entrance of a permanent nature can be considered an “entrance to an entrance” and is required to have a mezuzah (Kessef Mishneh). Note the Ra’avad and Rashi, who interpret the passage from Sukkah differently.

Note the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 11:14, which states that this law applies only to stalls used for business fairs that are left vacant after the fair is over. If, however, merchandise is continually left in a store, a mezuzah is required.

Or room.

That meets the ten qualifications mentioned above.

Even if a doorway is never used. As long as the potential for using it exists, a mezuzah is required. If, however, the doorway is barred closed so that it will not be used, no mezuzah is necessary.

On the surface, this statement is unnecessary. Clearly, such an entrance would require a mezuzah. Perhaps the Rambam is implying that a mezuzah is required even though the opening lies horizontally in the roof of the house. There is a difference of opinion on this matter, and the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 11:20 requires a mezuzah only on an entrance that stands upright.

There is no maximum number of mezuzot in a house.

The Kessef Mishneh states that this law is self-evident, based on the Rambam’s statements in Halachah 8. The commentaries explain, however, that the above halachah describes a situation where many entrances require a mezuzah because of another room. In this instance, each of the rooms itself requires a mezuzah.

Which do not require a mezuzah, as mentioned in Halachah 6 above.

Because the fact that it is an entrance to one’s own house is considered of predominant importance.

Or more particularly, between two rooms in the same house.

This principle is called heker tzir (Menachot 33a).

I.e., the side to which the door opens. This halachah is very significant with regard to contemporary homes, which possess many rooms, and it is necessary to determine the side of the entrance on which the mezuzah should be placed. The Rambam explains that this is determined by the direction to which the door opens: The mezuzah is placed on the right side of the entrance to the room to which the door opens.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 289:3) quotes the Rambam’s decision. The Turei Zahav 289:4 and the Siftei Cohen 289:6 mention two other factors:
a) The order in which one enters the rooms from the entrance to the house. The room which is closer to the entrance to the house is considered as leading to the room which is further removed, and the mezuzah is placed on the right side of the entrance to the latter room;
b) The importance of the rooms. The room which is less important is considered as leading into the room which is more important, and the mezuzah is placed on the right side of the entrance to the latter room.
These principles are also significant if an entrance has no doors or has sliding doors. The above concepts apply only to rooms within a house. If the door leads to the public thoroughfare, the mezuzah is always placed on the right-hand side as one enters the house.

Menachot 32b explains that the Hebrew uvish’arecha, translated as “and on your gates,” can also be rendered “and within your gates.” See the notes to Chapter 5, Halachah 8, which explain that, when there is no other alternative, the mezuzah may be affixed on the outer part of the doorpost facing outwards or inside the entrance, on the back of the doorpost. See also Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 289:2, and Siftei Cohen 289:4.

Menachot 33b gives two reasons for this position: a) so that one will encounter God’s name as soon as one enters one’s home; b) so that the protective influences aroused by the mezuzah will affect a greater portion of the home

Menachot 33a derives this concept from the fact that the Torah teaches the mitzvah of mezuzah directly after the mitzvah of tefillin. Just as tefillin are placed on the upper portion of one’s arm, a mezuzah should be placed on the upper portion of the entrance. (Note the Nekudot HaKessef 289, who objects to this decision.)

Note the Ra’avad, who states that when a doorway is very high, the mezuzah should be placed at the height of one’s shoulders. (See Siftei Cohen 289:4.)

Rabbenu Asher and the Ashkenazic authorities maintain that the mezuzah may be placed next to the lintel.

This law applies even when a house is owned by a left-handed person (Rama, Yoreh De’ah 289:2).

Yoma 11b explains that the word veitecha, “your house,” can also be read as: b’viatcha, “as you enter,” implying that the mezuzah should be positioned as one enters a house or room.

It is not considered as if one has fulfilled the mitzvah at all.

Yoma, loc. cit., explains that although Deuteronomy 6:9 uses the singular form for “your house,” it does not exclude houses belonging jointly to many people.
The Kessef Mishneh relates that it would have been more appropriate to mention this law at the beginning of the chapter; nevertheless, the Rambam mentions it here because it is derived from the same Talmudic passage as the preceding law.
Note the Rama, Yoreh Deah 11:19, who states that an entrance which one shares with a gentile does not require a mezuzah. Others differ and require a mezuzah.

During the day and at night. Though the Rambam maintains that a person fulfills the mitzvah at the time he affixes the mezuzah on his entrance (see Chapter 5, Halachah 7), the fulfillment of the mitzvah has a continuing influence on the person who fulfills it.

As the Rambam states in Hilchot Berachot 11:2, a person is not obligated to live in a house which requires a mezuzah. Nevertheless, since most of our dwellings do require mezuzot, speaking about the obligation of mezuzah as incumbent upon us is appropriate.

Both men and women (Chapter 5, Halachah 10).

Which is implied by the verse, Shema Yisrael, which teaches us God’s oneness (Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1:7).

As mentioned in the command, “And you shall love God, your Lord,” which is also contained in the mezuzah.

Compare with Hilchot Teshuvah 3:4.

Note Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 4:9:
The form of this soul... is from God.... It knows and comprehends knowledge which is above matter, knows the
Creator of all things, and exists forever. In his wisdom, Solomon [gave this description]: “The dust will return
to the earth... And the spirit will return to God who granted it.”
See also Hilchot Teshuvah 8:3:
The soul, as mentioned in this context... refers to the knowledge of the Creator which it has grasped according
to its potential.... This life—because it is not accompanied by death—is called “the bond of life.”
See also similar statements in the Rambam’s introduction to Chapter 10 of the tractate of Sanhedrin, in his Commentary to the Mishnah, and in his Iggeret T’chiyat HaMeitim.

Menachot 43b associates these three mitzvot with the verse (Ecclesiastes 4:12): “The three-plied cord will not easily be severed.”

This does not mean that the person’s free-choice will be taken away from him, but rather that, because of these reminders, he will always be aware of the values that are true and genuine and never slip into sin.

Who are brought into being by his fulfillment of the mitzvot.

Note Likkutei Sichot, Ekev 5746, which questions why the Rambam quotes this statement in Hilchot Mezuzah. Seemingly, it would have been more appropriate to have mentioned it in Hilchot Tefillin, the first of the halachot which deal with these three mitzvot, or in Hilchot Tzitzit, the final halachot.
Indeed, its placement in Hilchot Tzitzit would have been appropriate, for there the Rambam concludes with the concept of remembering the mitzvot. (Significantly, the passage in Menachot from which this statement is quoted actually concerns the mitzvah of tzitzit.)
Likkutei Sichot explains that with regard to tefillin, it is the holiness of tefillin which affects a person (see Chapter 4, Halachah 25). Similarly, tzitzit remind a person because “the Torah made its performance equivalent... to all the other mitzvot” (Hilchot Tzitzit 3:12)—i.e., the reminders are other factors aside from the actual performance of the mitzvah. In contrast, it is the content of the mezuzah itself which constantly reminds the person. When a person sees a mezuzah, the mezuzah makes him aware of “the unity of God...,” and this awareness influences his behavior.

Frequently, the Rambam concludes groups of halachot in the Mishneh Torah with this expression. It is, however, questionable why he does so in the present instance, since the three halachot, Tefillin, Mezuzah, and Sefer Torah, are considered as a single entity. It can be explained, however, that since the mitzvah of mezuzah aids a person constantly to be aware of God (as explained in the last halachah), after completing the explanation of its laws, it is appropriate to give thanks to God for His assistance (Likkutei Sichot, loc. cit.).

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 18) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 613) count this mitzvah as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

With this expression, the Rambam excludes women and minors. The Sefer HaChinuch (loc. cit.) explains that although this mitzvah is not associated with a specific time, since women are not obligated to study Torah, they are also not required to fulfill this mitzvah. Note the Sha’agat Aryeh (Responsum 35), who objects and obligates women in this mitzvah.

Although this command was addressed to Moses, the fact that the plural form of the word “write” is used indicates that the command was addressed to the entire people.

The song Ha’azinu.

The above is a quote from Sanhedrin 21b. The Talmud, however, does not explain how this verse serves as a commandment to write a Torah scroll. The following interpretation is the Rambam’s.

See Halachah 14.

The Sefer HaChinuch (loc. cit.) explains that this was intended so that there would be many Torah scrolls available to allow everyone the opportunity to study. Alternatively, a person will be far more motivated to study in a new scroll which he produced himself.

Taking the effort to write the scroll oneself indicates that, had the person lived at the time the Torah was given, he also would have joined the Jews in traveling to Mount Sinai to receive it (Nimukei Yosef, Menachot).

A scroll that conforms to all the particular halachic requirements.

I.e., he should hire a scribe or purchase a Torah scroll. Menachot 30a states: “A person who purchases a Torah scroll in the public market is like someone who grabs a mitzvah in the marketplace.” Rashi maintains that purchasing a Torah scroll fulfills a mitzvah, but the mitzvah is not as complete as if one had written the scroll oneself. The Rama, however, states (Yoreh De’ah 270:1) that if a person merely purchases a Torah scroll without checking it, he does not fulfill the mitzvah at all.
Note the statements of the Tevuot Shor, which explain that if another person can perform a mitzvah in a more complete manner than one is able to do oneself, it is preferable to commission him to do so as one’s agent. In this instance, since most people cannot write a Torah scroll as attractively and halachically accurately as a professional scribe, it is preferable to hire such a person to write one’s scroll.

Unless the scroll is checked, it cannot be used (see Halachah 12). Checking also involves effort.
In his Hilchot Sefer Torah, Rabbenu Asher explains that, at present, this mitzvah is also fulfilled by writing (and, by extension, printing) chumashim, texts of the Talmud, and other books of Torah law and thought. This concept is also quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 270:2).
The Turei Zahav (270:4) explains that Rabbenu Asher’s intention was not that there is no longer a mitzvah in writing a Torah scroll (for it is impossible that a change in circumstance will nullify a Biblical command), but that the original mitzvah has been extended to include these other texts.
Since even according to Rabbenu Asher’s view, there is a mitzvah for each person to write a Torah scroll for himself, it is difficult to comprehend why we do not see many individuals trying to fulfill this mitzvah. This question is particularly pertinent in light of the Rambam’s statements at the conclusion of the list of positive commandments in Sefer HaMitzvot, where he describes the writing of a Torah scroll as a mitzvah which a person is obligated to fulfill.
It is possible to explain that since many people are not capable of actually writing a Torah scroll themselves and do not have the financial resources to purchase one and check it, they fulfill this mitzvah through purchasing letters in a Torah scroll written by the community (Pit’chei Teshuvah 270:1; Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 24).

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 17) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 503) count this mitzvah as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

This scroll must be written while the king is in office. If he wrote it beforehand, even if he knew that he would inherit the throne, he does not fulfill this mitzvah.

The Rambam does not state “which he wrote while a commoner.” His choice of phraseology implies a leniency. Were the king to inherit a scroll from his family, he need not write two scrolls (one to fulfill the mitzvah of writing a Torah scroll and one “for the sake of his sovereignty”). Writing a single scroll is sufficient (Kessef Mishneh, Hilchot Melachim 3:1).

Writing this scroll makes the king conscious that there exists an authority above his own (Sefer HaChinuch, loc. cit.).

The Rambam’s source is the Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 2:6). A Torah scroll must be checked for accuracy against an existing scroll. There was a scroll kept in the Temple Courtyard for this purpose.

The intent is not that it should be hidden away, but that—in contrast to the scroll he writes as king—it need not accompany him at all times. Rather, like a Torah scroll kept by a common person, it should be kept in a storage closet.

Sanhedrin 21b states that the king should “wear the scroll on his arm like an amulet, as it is written, ‘I have set God before me at all times. Since He is at my right hand, I will not be budged’ (Psalms 16:8).”

But not with him, lest it become soiled by food.

He alone. This scroll is reserved for the king’s personal use. None of his subjects may study from it (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 4:4).

Thus fulfilling the mitzvah incumbent upon every Jew.

Fulfilling the mitzvah incumbent upon him as king. Deuteronomy 17:18 explicitly states that the scroll associated with his royal position should be his “second Torah scroll.”

The Or Sameach suggests amending the text based on the Sifri, which requires the king to have his Torah scroll with him at night (except when sleeping). As support for this change, the Tzafnat Pane’ach quotes Hilchot Melachim 3:5: “He should be involved in Torah study and the needs of Israel by day and by night, as it is said: ‘It should accompany him and he should read it all the days of his life.’”

Even during the day. Deuteronomy 17:19 states, “It should accompany him and he should read it.” Sanhedrin 21b concludes: Where he can read it, it should accompany him; excluding places like those mentioned above, where it is not permitted to recite words of Torah. (See Hilchot Melachim 3:1.)

See Chapter 1, Halachah 12.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 7, for a definition of these terms.

Because the portions appear as two different scrolls.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 8, it is preferable to write a scroll on g’vil. Nevertheless, as explained in the notes there, at present, it is customary to write on k’laf.

Shabbat 133b interprets Exodus 15:2: “This is my God and I will glorify Him,” to mean “perform mitzvot before Him in a beautiful manner... make a beautiful Torah scroll... with beautiful ink, a beautiful pen, and a skilled scribe.”

A yud.

On one hand, the words (and similarly, the letters mentioned below) should not be too close to each other lest one be unable to differentiate between them. Conversely, leaving too large a gap between them is not attractive.

See the conclusion of Chapter 8.

Leaving this space between the lines makes the text easier to read.

The longest word in the Torah. The Rambam and similarly, Menachot 30a, write this world in a full form, containing a vav, and thus containing ten letters. Nevertheless, according to our tradition, the word never appears with a vav in the Torah and thus contains only nine letters.

The Hagahot Maimoniot states that this is approximately a handbreadth.

The Siftei Cohen (272:3) states, however, that this figure is not a hard and fast rule, and everything depends on the penmanship of the particular scribe. (See also Tosafot, Menachot 30a.)

The Rambam’s phraseology differs slightly from his source, Menachot, loc. cit., which states: “One should not write [a scroll] with many columns, [i.e., with short columns], lest it appear like a letter.”

I.e., a person will become confused which line he is on (Menachot, loc. cit.).

I.e., write it narrower than usual.

This refers to the following situation. A passage ends in the middle of the line and the next passage is s’tumah (see Chapter 8, Halachah 2). Thus, space for nine letters must be left between the two passages. The scribe should not write the letters narrower than usual to allow him to fit them in the space which is left. Instead, at the outset, he should plan the scroll in a manner in which such difficulties will not arise.
The Turei Zahav (273:2) writes that if the scribe does not plan properly and is forced to write narrower letters, the scroll is not disqualified.

Note the K’nesset HaGedolah, which questions whether the scroll is disqualified if written in this manner. From the Rambam’s phraseology here and in Halachah 9, it appears that he considers this a preference, but not an absolute requirement. This view is stated in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 273:5).

Thus, the majority of the word is within the margins.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 273:3) articulates the Rambam’s thoughts, explaining that the scribes should leave empty spaces rather than elongate the letters (for doing so distorts their shape). At present, the latter practice has, nevertheless, become common.

Although one is allowed to write two letters of a five-letter word outside a column’s margins, it is not proper to write an entire word there even if it consists of only two letters (Kessef Mishneh).

Even though it will cause him some difficulty in spacing out the following line.

In one of his responsa, the Rambam states that this should not be done with God’s name. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 276:8).

As stated above, according to our tradition, the longest word in the Torah has only nine letters.

Though there are no words with more than nine letters in the Torah, the Megillah contains one eleven-letter word. The same rules that apply to writing a Torah scroll apply in its composition.

Though the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 273:4) quotes the Rambam’s decision as halachah, the Siftei Cohen 273:4 (based on the opinion of Rabbenu Asher) maintains that one should not write more than two letters outside a column’s margins. Significantly, in the laws of tefillin (Orach Chayim 32:33), the Shulchan Aruch also quotes Rabbenu Asher’s view.

Note the commentary at the conclusion of the previous halachah.

Note the Pitchei Teshuvah (273:1), which states that one should not conclude any of the first four books of the Torah on the final line of a column.

The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 272:4) states that one may also write the words with taller letters which take up several lines each.

This differs from Rashi’s interpretation of Menachot 30a, which maintains that one should write the lines in pyramid form.

These are the final words of the Torah. Concluding in the middle of the line is a clear indication that these are the Torah’s final words (Turei Zahav 272:6).

According to tradition, each letter appears once in the Tanach in a form smaller than all the other letters, and once in a form larger than all the other letters.

At times, shapes resembling asterisks are place above letters in the Torah. Each time letters are written in such a manner, several exegetical interpretations are offered explaining the deviation from the norm.
The Hebrew word nekudot is also used to refer to the signs which serve as vowels in the Hebrew language. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 274:7) disqualifies the use of a text which includes these signs.

See the Chatam Sofer, Responsum 265.

Rarely are these factors mentioned in the Talmud or the early codes. Rather, traditions regarding these letters were handed down from scribe to scribe.

I.e., on which letter to place a crown(s).

The number of crowns is not uniform.

Menachot 29b states that when Moses ascended to heaven, he found God attaching crowns to the letters of the Torah. When he questioned God concerning their purpose, God told him that, in the future, there would be a man (Rabbi Akiva) who would derive mountains upon mountains of laws from each particular crown.
There is a serious difference of opinion between the Rambam and Rabbenu Asher regarding the crowns. Rabbenu Asher maintains that crowns should be placed on the letters שעטנ"ז ג"ץ. The Rambam maintains that the letters on which the crowns are placed is a matter of tradition extending back to Moses. In practice, Menachot 29b states that when Moses ascended to heaven, he found God attaching crowns to the letters of the Torah. When he questioned God concerning their purpose, God told him that, in the future, there would be a man (Rabbi Akiva) who would derive mountains upon mountains of laws from each particular crown.
There is a serious difference of opinion between the Rambam and Rabbenu Asher regarding the crowns. Rabbenu Asher maintains that crowns should be placed on the letters שעטנ"ז ג"ץ. The Rambam maintains that the letters on which the crowns are placed is a matter of tradition extending back to Moses. In practice,

There is a difference of opinion in this regard between the Rambam and Rabbenu Asher, who maintains that a Torah scroll lacking crowns is disqualified. As explained in the commentary on Chapter 2, Halachah 9, the Shulchan Aruch advises adding all the necessary crowns before using the scroll.

See Halachah 6 regarding these three factors.

See the conclusion of Chapter 8. If the letters touch, they must be separated before the Torah scroll may be used (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 274:4).

See Halachot 11-13.

See Halachah 11 and Chapter 8, Halachah 3.

In the previous halachah.

As mentioned in the commentary on Chapter 2, Halachah 3, there are times when the Hebrew vowels cholam and shuruk are written with a letter vav, and times when that letter is omitted. Similarly, there are times when the vowel chirik is written with a yud, and times when that letter is omitted.
The expression malei, rendered as “full form,” refers to the form that includes the extra letter. Chaseir, rendered as “short form,” refers to the form that lacks the extra letter.

Although in its present condition, the scroll cannot be used for a public Torah reading, as explained in the following two halachot, the scroll is not necessarily totally disqualified. In certain circumstances, it can be corrected and then used.

There are several instances when, although one word is written in the Torah scroll, a different word is recited when the Torah is read publicly. Both the written text of the Torah and the traditional way in which it is read have their source in the revelation at Sinai (Nedarim 37b).

In these instances, both the words share approximately the same meaning; however, the term that is read in public is slightly less harsh than the term actually written in the Torah.

See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 275:6).

See Chapter 8, Halachot 1 and 2.

I.e., the song of celebration after the crossing of the Red Sea or the song Ha’azinu.

See the conclusion of Chapter 8.

See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 275:1-5).

In Talmudic times, even children would learn from scrolls. These scrolls, however, could not be used for the communal Torah readings; they have the same level of holiness as sacred texts that are printed today. Compare to Halachah 14.

The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 279:1) quotes the ruling of the Hagahot Maimoniot, who applies this principle to the other books of the Tanach and, also, to other sacred texts, such as the Talmud. (See also Rashi, Ketubot 19b.)

Lest the error it contains cause a person to err regarding a law or Torah concept.

As apparent from Bava Metzia 118a, this is a period that our Sages generally granted to correct various problems.

As mentioned in the following halachah.

As mentioned in Chapter 10, Halachah 3.

Or fewer.

For a scroll with more corrections than this will not be attractive (Menachot 29b).

The Kessef Mishneh interprets this to mean that the majority of the letters of the scroll are written properly, even if there are three or more errors in most of the columns. This interpretation is quoted as halachah by the Siftei Cohen 279:4. The Ziv Mishneh differs, and interprets this as meaning that the majority of the columns of the scroll are written properly.

Or more.

Tosafot, Menachot, loc. cit., emphasizes that this leniency is granted only when the column was written correctly at the outset. If this column also had been corrected, it may not serve as the basis for the correction of the entire scroll.

If so many words are written between the lines, the scroll will not be attractive. It is therefore disqualified.

The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 279:4) suggests rewriting the other words on the line with a slightly elongated script, so that an empty space will not be left.

See Ketubot 103b, which relates how Rabbi Chiyya wrote five Torah scrolls and gave each one to a different child to learn from, in order to preserve Torah study among the Jewish people.

As mentioned in Hilchot Tefillah 12:23, these scrolls may not be used for the communal Torah readings, nor must they be awarded the same degree of respect as a kosher Torah scroll.

In one of his responsa, the Rambam explains that this prohibition also applies to embroidering or engraving passages from the Torah.

See Halachah 1 and commentary which use this law as the basis for the derivation of the mitzvah to write a Torah scroll.

Containing verses from the Torah.

As mentioned in Ketubot, loc. cit., when Rabbi Chiya wrote the five scrolls, he gave each child a complete scroll. Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi (in his notes on Gittin 60a) differs with the Rambam and allows passages from the Torah to be written for instruction. Even though this is forbidden by the letter of Torah law, the Rabbis allowed such scrolls to be written to enable people who could not afford to have an entire book of the Torah written for them to teach their children.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 283:2) quotes the Rambam’s decision, while the Siftei Cohen (283:3) accepts Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi’s position.
Surely, writing passages from the Torah for other purposes is forbidden. In the above-mentioned responsum, the Rambam criticizes people who write passages from the Torah as amulets or for other similar purposes.

Our translation is based on the responsum mentioned above. The Rambam’s intent is that each line contains only three words and that no line is positioned directly below (or in any other organized pattern), so that the passage will not appear as a single entity.
The source for this law is Gittin 60a, which relates that Queen Heleni had a golden tablet made on which was inscribed the passage for a sotah, so that the priests would not have to copy it from a Torah scroll on every occasion. Because of the prohibition against writing passages from a Torah scroll separately, this tablet was written in the above manner. (Note a somewhat different description of this tablet in the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Sotah 2:4.).

See, however, the following halachah, which describes the status of such a scroll.

As stated above, Halachah 7.

Our text of Bava Batra, 13b, which serves as the source for this halachah, appears to indicate that four lines should be left between each book of the Prophets as well. Note, however, Sofrim 2:4, which, like the Rambam, mentions leaving only three lines. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 283:1) quotes the Rambam’s decision.

Although they are considered in their entirety as a single book of the Bible, this distinction between the works of each prophet should be made.

Based on Bava Batra, loc. cit., the Kessef Mishneh maintains that there is an error in the published version of the text and that it should read as follows:
One should also leave three lines between each book of the twelve [minor] prophets. [Alternatively, within the
works of the prophets,] one may complete [a book] at the end [of a column] and start [the following one] at
the beginning [of the following column], so that should one desire to cut, he may do so.
Rav David Arameah sees no reason to amend the text, and explains that the space is left between the books, “so that should one desire to cut, he may do so.”

The division of Samuel and Kings into two books was first introduced by the Vulgate, the Church’s translation of the Bible into Latin.

Although chronologically, Isaiah preceded Jeremiah and Ezekiel, because of thematic connection, Bava Batra 14b favors the order quoted by the Rambam. The Book of Kings ends with a description of the destruction of the First Temple. This is also the theme of the majority of Jeremiah’s prophecies. The Book of Ezekiel begins with the theme of destruction and exile, but concludes with visions of Mashiach’s coming. Afterward, it is followed by the Book of Isaiah, which focuses primarily on the Messianic redemption.

Although some of the minor prophets—e.g., Hoshea and Amos (see the Rambam’s introduction to the Mishneh Torah)—chronologically preceded Isaiah, because of the size of their books they were included as a unit (Bava Batra, loc. cit.).

These three books are arranged in chronological order, according to the opinion that maintains that Job lived in the time of King Solomon.

Rashi, Bava Batra, loc. cit., explains that King Solomon wrote these three books in this order, completing the Song of Songs in his old age.

These texts are also in chronological order. According to the Talmud, the books of Ezra and Nechemiah are a single text. (See also Sanhedrin 93b.)

Which was written by Ezra in Babylon (Bava Batra 15a).

See Chapter 1, Halachah 12.

This law is derived from an incident recorded in the Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah 3:2.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 284:2) emphasizes that this prohibition applies only when one writes using the Assyrian script, with which a Torah scroll is written. Should one write with other letters (e.g., Rashi script or the letters used in contemporary Hebrew script), there is no prohibition.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 284:2) emphasizes that this prohibition applies only when one writes using the Assyrian script, with which a Torah scroll is written. Should one write with other letters (e.g., Rashi script or the letters used in contemporary Hebrew script), there is no prohibition.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah, loc. cit.) states that one may quote several words from a verse in a letter. The Siftei Cohen, however, quotes authorities who differ, and forbid this if the verse is written using the Assyrian script.

See the previous halachah.

I.e., it is a sacred article, but does not possess the same degree of holiness as a scroll that is used for the public Torah reading.
The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 283:1) emphasizes that this ruling applies only to scrolls. There is no difference in the level of holiness between a printed text of the five books of the Torah and one of the entire Bible.

A scroll that does not contain all the five books is not considered on the same level as a Torah scroll (Halachah 14). Similarly, the inclusion of additional books detracts from the scroll’s sanctity.
The principle that the presence of an additional entity is comparable to the lack of one is also found in the laws of kashrut. (See Hilchot Shechitah 6:20.)