KEDUSHAH OF ADDITIONS TO HASH-M'S NAME [Hash-m's name: Kedushah: suffixes]
84a (Mishnah): If Kodesh became Pasul due to any of the following, if Alah, Lo Yered:
Linah (it was not offered within the proper time), Yotzei (it left its permitted place), Tum'ah...
(Beraisa): Linah of blood is 'Kosher' (i.e. if Alah, Lo Yered), for Eimurim are Kosher after Linah. Yotzei is Kosher, because this is permitted on a Bamah. Tamei is Kosher, because this is permitted for Korbanos Tzibur (if they cannot be offered b'Taharah).
Objection: Can we learn something done improperly (Linah of Eimurim, or Yotzei) from something proper (Linah of meat, or Yotzei on a Bamah)?!
Answer: Indeed, the Tana relies on "Zos Toras ha'Olah" (to include these).
86a (Mishnah): Just like the Mizbe'ach and ramp are Mekadesh what is proper for them, Klei Shares are Mekadesh what is proper for them.
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.
Acherim say, letters suffixed may not be erased, because Hash-m's name that precedes them makes them Kodesh.
(Rav Huna): The Halachah follows Acherim.
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.
Maharil (192): One may erase vowels or Ta'amim (marks showing the cantillation) of Hash-m's name. They are like a Perush that was given orally to Moshe Rabbeinu. Even though we learn much from them, it is like a mere Perush. The Sifri learns an Isur to erase a letter from Hash-m's name. Even though they are like the Neshamah of the letters (R. Bechaye Bereishis 18:3), based on Kabalah we should not erase any part of Torah, for every word, letter, crown, vowel and Ta'am hints to what names of Hash-m hint at. We do not add to what Chachamim forbade to erase. If the wrong vowel was written, even the next letter is erased, like it says in Maseches Sofrim (5:2. If one wrote Hash-m's name, and erred and wrote 'Yehudah', he converts the Dalet to a Hei (i.e. he adds a leg to it) and erases the Hei (after Hash-m's name is complete).) If one needed to write Hash-m's name, and intended to write 'Yehudah', and omitted the Dalet, he erases the entire naem and writes it again. However, there Hash-m's name was written without intent. We cannot learn to a case in which it was written properly, just the vowel or Ta'am is wrong. In any case we say that there is no Kedushah through a mistake, like it says that he makes the Dalet into a Hei. (The Dalet received Kedushah, and he merely completes it to be a Hei, because he intended for Hash-m's name.) We find that the Mizbe'ach and Kli Shares are Mekadesh only what is Kosher to go on or in them. In such cases (without Kedushah) we can say that Acherim (who forbid erasing letters suffixed to Hash-m's name) would agree (that a suffix may be erased).
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'. The seven names are Yud Kei Vov Kei, Shem Adnus, Kel, Eloka, Elokim, Shakai and Tzevakos. Some say also Echyeh Asher Echyeh.
Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah): I do not know why the Tur taught ha'Elokim. He already taught Elokim. It seems that no one says that the Hei in front is Kodesh! The Rambam rules that it is not Kodesh. Perhaps the text of the Tur should say 'Elokei ha'Elokim' (without Elokim). However, this is not when they are next to each other, for then only the first is Kodesh (Maseches Sofrim 4:4). The latter refers to judges and nobles.
R. Akiva Eiger: The Yerushalmi and Medrash Rabah say that both of them are Kodesh. This requires investigation.
Levush: ("V'Nitatztem Es Mizbechosam... v'Ibadtem Es Shemam (destroy altars... and the name of idolatry); Lo Sa'asun Ken la'Shem" forbids erasing even one letter of Hash-m's name. This includes letters suffixed to Hash-m's name, just like the verse commands destroying everything connected to idolatry.
Chasam Sofer (YD 274): In a Sefer Torah, it was written 'Elokeichem' in place of Elokeihem. The scribe said that in his city there is a tradition to make a Hei from a Chaf (through adding a leg). We will not rely on his tradition! In Shevu'os, we forbid to erase letters suffixed to Hash-m's name. All the Acharonim say that this is even if it was written mistakenly, since elsewhere it is read this way. Bnei Yonah says that whatever was written mistakenly is not Mekadesh. He would permit erasing the Chaf Mem. One may rely on him. The Gemara connotes that letters suffixed to Hash-m's name must become Kodesh. If not, Hash-m's name is not Kodesh, and one may erase it! Hash-m's name is automatically Mekadesh what follows it. If we rely on Bnei Yonah, we may erase the Chaf, but the Mem is not Kodesh, for it is the suffix of something written mistakenly.
Chasam Sofer (YD 260): Bnei Yonah says that a suffix becomes Kodesh if one intended to write it, and wrote it improperly. One may not erase it, for Hash-m's name was Mekadesh it. If it was written by mistake, even though he intended to be Mekadesh it, this is like being Mekadesh a Pasul animal for the Mizbe'ach. The name was not Mekadesh it. It may be erased. Some Teshuvos of Acharonim are unlike this. I say that this is like a Kli Shares or the Mizbe'ach, which is Mekadesh what it touches, but only what is proper for them. Therefore, if the wrong suffix was written, it is not Kodesh. However, the the inner Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh even what is not proper for it (Rambam Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashim 3:18)! Perhaps Hash-m's name is like the the inner Mizbe'ach. However, since we learn erasing Hash-m's name from the Isur to remove a stone from the Mizbe'ach, which discusses the the outer Mizbe'ach, which was attached to the ground (but the the inner Mizbe'ach was not), we learn from the the outer Mizbe'ach. The Magen Avraham (OC 152:6) says that the Isur applies in a Beis ha'Keneses only to what is attached. Indeed, one does not transgress for removing its benches, but one who destroys the benches transgresses, even if they are not attached. We learn from Makos 22a (it obligates for this Lav for cooking with Hekdesh wood). If so, the Isur of detaching applies also to the the inner Mizbe'ach.
Maharsham (2:134): A scribe erred and omitted the Kuf in Elokeichem, so it was written Elokim. A Rav ruled that he erased the Mem, and writes Chaf Mem. Beforehand, the scribe said 'I write "Hash-m Elokeichem" for Kedushas ha'Shem. 'He was tired from fasting, and dozed for a minute, and saw Elokim written. Perhaps he wrote the Mem before dozing, and he thought that he must write Elokim and wrote with intent for Elokim. Or, perhaps he thought that he already wrote the Chaf, or started writing the Chaf and mistakenly wrote a Mem. If he intended for Elokim, we cannot fix the parchment. Even though he said that he writes l'Shem "Hash-m Elokeichem", he did an act and wrote l'Shem Elokim. His act uproots his words. However, if he wrote the Mem by mistake, there is room for doubt. Tosfos (Bava Basra 5B DH u'Va) and the SMA (CM 78:15) say that it is not normal to forget something on the same day. All the more so, we are not concerned lest in one moment he forgot what he said that he must write. Presumably, he acted with his initial intent. Letters suffixed to Hash-m's name have a smaller Kedushah than the name itself.
Maharsham: The Maharil said that Hash-m's name is not Mekadesh what was written mistakenly, just like the Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh only what is proper for it. Even though he discussed vowels, he compares it to the Mizbe'ach. I saw in a Teshuvah that all agree that a scribe who writes for others does not Mekadesh. The Terumas ha'Deshen (296) rejected this. Since Hash-m's name is Kodesh without intent, it is automatic. It does not depend on intent. I say that if it is Kodesh without intent, this is because Stam is Lishmah (Radvaz 1:77). If it is clear that he intended otherwise, all agree that it is not Kodesh. If Sotah water will not test a woman, her Minchah was not Kodesh from the beginning, and it is Chulin (Sotah 6b). Rashi explains that a Kli Shares is Mekadesh only what is proper for it Only regarding Asham Taluy, one is Mekadesh (unconditionally) based on Safek, for he is worried about his sin. All the more so it is not Kodesh if beforehand he said that intends for a word that is wrong. Even though if Lan, Yotzei or Tamei came on the Mizbe'ach, we do not bring it down, this is because they are Kosher elsewhere. Here also, Hash-m's name is Kosher elsewhere, so it becomes Kodesh! However, we concluded that the Tana relies on Zos Toras ha'Olah. This does not apply here.
Pischei Teshuvah (10, citing Ri Chagiz): If one put a vowel other than Tzeirei under the Aleph in Aleph-Lamed ('Kel'), he disqualified it. It is no longer Kodesh. Is this like erasing Hash-m's name? What is the law regarding Shabbos? Since he did not do an action to the letters themselves, this is nothing. We must say that he discusses a name that became Kodesh, or not for the sake of fixing it.
Pischei Teshuvah (13, citing Pnei Aryeh 45): If a scribe mistakenly wrote 'Elokecha', the final Chaf does not get Kedushah. One may erase it whether he intended to write Mem, or even if he thought that he must write Elokecha here. One who wants to be stringent and say that the entire parchment must be buried must bring a proof. If he erred at the top of the parchment, the mistake is not evident. One could think that he wanted to write a Parshah that begins with Elokecha, even though he know that he intended for Elokim. This is Devarim sheb'Lev (intent that was not revealed), so it is Kodesh. He holds that letters suffixed to Hash-m's name are Kodesh mid'Rabanan, like the Taz, Masas Binyamin and Maharam Lublin, unlike the Levush.