Gemara

Menachos 24a - Question (Benei R. Chiya): If an Isaron (i.e. a Minchah) is in a Kli in two parts (they do not touch each other) and a Tevul Yom touched one of them, what is the law (is the other Pasul)?

A Mishnah teaches that a Kli joins Kodesh that is inside. Is this only when it is connected, or even when it is in two parts?

Answer (R. Chiya): The Mishnah does not say that a Kli connects (connoting that the Kodesh is connected, and the Kli causes it all to be considered like one), rather, a Kli joins (even if the Kadosh is disconnected)!

Pesachim 19a: R. Chiya bar Aba holds that Tziruf (joining) is only mid'Rabanan He argues with R. Chanin;

(R. Chanin): Tziruf is mid'Oraisa. "Kaf Achas" teaches that everything in the bowl (of Ketores) is considered like one.

Shevu'os 35b (Beraisa): Any letters appended to Hash-m's name, whether before or after it, may be erased;

If 'Lamed', 'Beis', 'Vav', 'Mem', 'Shin', 'Hei', or 'Kaf' is prefixed to Hash-m's name, it may be erased.

The letters 'Nun-Vav', 'Hei-Mem', or 'Chaf-Mem' suffixed to 'Elokei' may be erased.

Others say, letters suffixed may not be erased, because Hash-m's name that precedes them makes them Kodesh.

(Rav Huna): The Halachah follows Others.

Rishonim

Rambam (Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 6:3): One may erase any letter prefixed to Hash-m's name, e.g. Lamed in la'Shem, Beis in bei'Lokim. They do not have Kedushas ha'Shem. One may not erase a letter suffixed to Hash-m's name, e.g. 'Chaf' of 'Elokecha' or 'Chaf-Mem' of 'Elokeichem'. They are like other letters of Hash-m's name, of His name is Mekadesh them. Even though they became Kodesh and one may not erase them, one who erases them is lashed only mid'Rabanan.

Rosh (Shevu'os 4:23): One may erase letter prefixed to Hash-m's name, e.g. Lamed in la'Shem, Beis in ba'Shem. The Halachah follows Acherim, who say that one may not erase a letter suffixed to Hash-m's name, e.g. 'Chaf' of 'Elokecha' or 'Chaf-Mem' of 'Elokeichem' for Hash-m's name was Mekadesh them.

Tosfos (Erchin 6a DH Yagud): If Hash-m's name was written on a beam and cut off, one may not benefit from where the name was. When one erases Hash-m's name from a Sefer Torah or Tefilin, he may not write in its place.

Poskim

Shulchan Aruch (YD 276:9): One may not erase even one letter of the seven names that may not be erased, nor from letters suffixed to Hash-m's name, e.g. 'Chaf' of 'Elokecha' or 'Chaf-Mem' of 'Elokeichem'.

Bedek ha'Bayis: If a scribe is skilled to peel off Hash-m's name, e.g. from Duchsustus (parchment with two layers), may he do so and bury the name? The Tashbatz (1:149) forbids l'Chatchilah, lest he will not peel it totally, and he will come to erase. Also, perhaps the ink entered the thickness of the parchment, and after peeling, half the name will be above (peeled off) and half below (in the parchment). Also, if we permit skilled scribes, also unskilled scribes will come to do so. Perhaps it is forbidden even not in the place of Azkaros (names of Hash-m), for we do not find that one may fix a mistake through peeling, only through scraping off dry ink or erasing moist ink. Tashbatz concluded that he did not protest against those who peel, since Semak (160, Hagahah 2) mentions peeling and he did not forbid. For Azkaros, it is better to cut off the entire Azkarah and glue parchment in its place. The Yerushalmi supports this. Alternatively, they can leave a hole; this does not disqualify (Menachos 29a). This is better than peeling. We say that a scribe who wrote the Azkaros Lo Lishmah lost his wages (Gitin 54a). Even though it could be fixed, one who hires a scribe did not intend for such a Sefer Torah.

Taz (6): One may erase letters before Hash-m's name. It seems that since letters suffixed to Hash-m's name merely cling to Kedushah, one may suspend them (write them between lines), e.g. if he forgot the 'Chaf-Mem' of 'Elokeichem'. This is not considered suspending part of Hash-m's name, for it merely received some of the Kedushah of His name. Even if one wants to be stringent about this l'Chatchilah, b'Di'eved he cannot disqualify it.

Noda bi'Yehudah (1 YD 76): Is the Isur of erasing letters suffixed to Hash-m's name mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan? It seems that this depends on the argument of whether Tziruf is mid'Oraisa. The Rambam (Hilchos Avos ha'Tum'ah 12:7) rules that it is only mid'Rabanan. Likewise, a word joins (its suffix) for Kodesh only mid'Rabanan. The Rambam in Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah connotes like this. He says that one is lashed only mid'Rabanan for letters suffixed to Hash-m's name, but one is lashed mid'Oraisa for His name itself. The Gemara suggests like this. It says 'Hashem's name was already Mekadesh it.' This connotes it is only because it is Tafel (secondary) to Hash-m's name that was already Mekudash, and it is all one word, it is improper to erase it. The Taz explicitly says that the Isur is only mid'Rabanan, and permits suspending a suffix. Ri ha'Levi (81), Avodas he'Gershoni (95) and Me'il Tzedakah (55) agree that suffixes do not have the Kedushah of Hash-m's name. Therefore, one may peel off the Chaf Mem and write Hei Mem in their place. I do not say to peel off just the Chaf and write Hei in its place, for then Hash-m's name is written out of order. I am unsure whether or not we are concerned for this for suffixes to Hash-m's name. Masas Binyamin (57) permits hanging the Yud of Elokeinu. I am unsure, for the Rambam wrote that suffixes get full Kedushah of Hash-m's name.

R. Nesanel of Prague: Kedushah of suffixes is not due to Tziruf. If it were, even prefixes would be Kodesh! In any case, I agree that the Isur to erase a suffix is mid'Rabanan. However, I do not consent to peel. Even the opinion that permits peeling Hash-m's name would forbid here. There, the name retains its Kedushah. Here, the letters suffixed have Kedushah as long as they are attached to Hash-m's name. When they are peeled off, they lose it. Ri ha'Levi permitted to peel off the Chaf because it was too long. It did not get Kedushas ha'Shem. Surely, Hash-m's name is not Mekadesh an irrelevsant letter without any meaning. Even Hash-m's name itself, if the leg of the final Hei touches the roof, one may scrape it, like the Rema (Sa'if 11) says.

Shach (275:3): The Shulchan Aruch connotes that one may not cut out a Pasul Azkarah, for it makes a hole in the parchment. The Levush says so. This is wrong. If so, the Isur would apply not only to Azkaros! The Rosh (Teshuvah 3:7) connotes that it is due to honor of Hash-m's name.

Noda bi'Yehudah (ibid.): The Magen Avraham (32:26) says that even though the Rosh (3:7) forbids cutting out Hash-m's name, even to fix it, one may peel it off and write in its place. Tashbatz was concerned lest half the name remain above, and half below. He should be more concerned for Tosfos (Erchin 6a), who forbids writing where Hash-m's name was! Perhaps Tashbatz forbids when a mark remains, even according to those who permit peeling. Regarding a suffix, it seems that even Tashbatz would permit. He is stringent only about Hash-m's name. We are stringent about a Safek Torah Isur (lest he erase it). Regarding a suffix, we are lenient, for it is a Safek about a mid'Rabanan law. Similarly, we may peel off a suffix without concern lest half remain above and half below when. Also, Tashbatz did not protest, and the Rema and Ri ha'Levi permit. We do not abandon the latter, who were:sure, due to the Tashbatz' Safek. Why didn't the Taz say that we can fix the wrong suffix in 'Elokeinu' this way? We can say that he discussed a Sefer Torah written on a thin parchment, or when no expert is around. Here, there is a thick parchment and a skilled scribe. However, Ri ha'Levi discussed 'Elokecha' in which the roof of the final Chaf was extended. Initially, he commanded to peel off the entire name with a sharp knife, and bury it, like skilled scribes do. He concluded to erase the top of the Chaf and leave the leg, and write a new roof. Why didn't he (initially) command to peel off just the Chaf, since he holds that it is only mid'Rabanan? He was not concerned for interrupting Hash-m's name, for he concluded to erase the roof! Perhaps it was an old Sefer Torah, and since the name itself was on old parchment, if the suffix would be on peeled parchment, the Sefer Torah would look spotted. Scraping part of the letter does not make it look spotted. With a new parchment, there is no reason not to peel. Some permit erasing even Hash-m's name in order to fix, for the Lav was not said in this case. Even though we do not hold like them, for suffixes perhaps all agree that that we may peel, and the (initial) name and what is written in place of it will both be Kodesh.

Chasam Sofer (YD 260): A scribe wrote Elokeinu in place of Elokeichem. May one peel off the Nun-Vov and write Chaf-Mem in its place? The Tashbatz forbids, lest the parchment tear, and this is erasing. Or, perhaps the ink entered the thickness of the parchment, and after peeling, half the name will remain in the parchment and half will be peeled off. However, he did not protest against those who peel. The Shach (275:3) forbids Stam. Semak and the Magen Avraham (32:26) permit. I agree that the Kedushah of suffixed letters is only mid'Rabanan. We learn from the Isur of erasing Hash-m's name from "(v'Nitatztem Es Mizbechosam...) v'Ibadtem Es Shemam" (destroy altars... and the name of idolatry). Surely, if one erased letters suffixed to the name of idolatry, but left the name, he did not do anything. If one erased the name of idolatry, but left the letters suffixed to it, he did the Mitzvah. Since the next verse says "Lo Sa'asun Ken la'Shem (do not do so to Hash-m)", this implies that the Isur is (similarly) only for the name itself. The Isur of the suffix is mid'Rabanan. I say that Chachamim learned from additions to the Azarah. A Tamei who enters gets Kares, like for entering the Azarah itself (Shevu'os 14a). "Lo Sa'asun Ken la'Shem" forbids (also) removing a stone from the Mikdash, or from additions to the Azarah. Additions to Hash-m's name are similar. However, it is not truly mid'Oraisa. Additions to the Azarah become totally like the Azarah; one may eat or slaughter Kodshim there. Letters suffixed to Hash-m's name never become totally like Hash-m's name.

Chasam Sofer (ibid.): If a suffix was written in the right place with intent, one should not peel it, like the Noda bi'Yehudah said. If it was written in the wrong place, one should not erase it, for perhaps Hash-m's name is Mekadesh even what is not proper for it. One may peel it. There is no concern lest he come to erase Hash-m's name, for it is a Safek about a mid'Rabanan law. We are not concerned for reducing the Kedushah, for even when it was attached to the name, it was not relevant to it or read with it. The name was Mekadesh it only to forbid erasing it. Also, it disqualifies and lowers the Kedushah of the entire parchment. Removing the suffix elevates all the other Kodesh names on the parchment, for then one can complete the name in Kedushah.

Pischei Teshuvah (9): Mishnas Chachamim (Reish Lav 3) was unsure about one who needed to write a small name of Hash-m, e.g. Yud-Kei or Kel, and he wrote Yud-Kei Vov Kei or Elokim, or if he added letters at the end of a Kodesh name where they are not needed. He brought supports to permit erasing the letters at the end. Even the Poskim who forbid erasing in order to fix, forbid only when he will fix after erasing. When the erasing itself fixes, this is not called erasing, rather, fixing. In our case, the name was not initially disqualified, just it was written in the wrong place. One may erase it. However, if an entire extra name was written in a Sefer Torah, one may not erase it. Some forbid even to cut out the name. Even though erasing it fixes, we can distinguish fixing a Sefer Torah from fixing the name. (This is a faint distinction, for when a large name was written, also this is fixing only the Sefer, but not the name (the name is already Kodesh - PF).)