Sefer Torah

NARR 215-218

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

136. The Conditional Loan of a Torah

QUESTION: The Nassau Community Temple possesses a Torah which was given or lent to a congregation in Connecticut. Subsequently the family agreed to lend this Torah to Temple Judea, the congregation to which their children belonged, on condition that the Torah follow the children if they disaffiliated. There is no documentation of the terms of this loan. Eventually Temple Judea merged with the Nassau Community Temple and the family left the congregation. They wished to retrieve the Torah at that point but as a dedication ceremony had already been scheduled they were willing to participate in that ceremony which took place a decade and a half ago. Now the family has once more pressed its claims for the Torah which they wish to place with their present congregation in Lynbrook. In return for this they are willing to make a substantial gift to the Nassau Community Temple. They now claim some documentation of the original transaction in the form of a letter from an individual who was present during the conversations with the rabbi of Temple Judea two decades ago. The Torah in question has been in continual use by Nassau Community Temple. What disposition should be made? (Rabbi Linda Henry Goodman, West Hempstead NY)ANSWER: Various issues connected with this problem have been fully discussed precisely as you indicated in your letter by Solomon B. Freehof (Contemporary Reform Responsa #22). He concluded (1973) that the Torah belonged to the congregation which now held it even though it became part of that congregation through a merger. The transfer by the officers of the original congregation was appropriate and can not be questioned now. We are concerned about the terms of the “loan” which were not entirely clear then, nor has the new evidence brought absolutely certainty to this matter. The only new factor is the letter of an individual who was present at the initial conversation. She testified to the fact that this was a loan which would continue only as long as the children were members of the congregation. We, of course, honor this testimony and have high regard for the individual involved. It, however, does not answer all the questions which might be raised about this issue. Tradition and Reform would follow the responsum of Joseph Colon (Responsa Mahariq #159). He indicated that unless the custom of lending a Torah, while maintaining permanent family possessions, was widespread the claim of ownership by the congregation should be followed. In another responsum (#70) he decided in favor of the individual who claimed ownership as the custom of that community was that of an individual lending the Torah to a synagogue. That, however, is not our custom in North America; the vast majority of synagogues own their Torahs as gifts. As the Torah has been in continual use by the congregation for two decades and as the claims of the family remain somewhat in doubt despite the attestation of a new witness. In other words, we do not really know whether the father intended to place long term conditions upon the use of the Torah, especially as the congregation (Temple Judea) to which it was lent was new and was being served by a student rabbi. As its future was in doubt the condition he may have imposed would have been understandable. The removal of the Torah in those early years particularly during the lifetime of the individual, who provided it, would have been permissible, but now two decades later when all of the matters involved are somewhat beclouded it should not occur and we agree with the decision of Solomon B. Freehof. Let me suggest another solution which may avoid intercongregational conflict and help the family in question. The two congregations could simply exchange one Torah for another. In other words the congregation to which the family now belongs may wish quietly to provide the Nassau Jewish Community Center with a Torah in an unannounced exchange for the disputed Torah. That might satisfy everyone’s honor and avoid further conflict. As indicated in Solomon B. Freehofs’ responsum such a movement of a Torah from one congregation to another in accordance with the wishes of the congregations or their officers would be perfectly permissible. An alternative solution to the problem might be binding arbitration through a bet din which could be convoked to look into this entire matter. Before, however, moving in that direction we should ask ourselves whether it is really worthwhile, a decade and a half later, to continue a quarrel about the ownership of a Torah. Surely there must be enough good will on both sides to either exchange Torahs as suggested above or to simply conclude the issue.April 1988

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 218-220

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

**137. A Torah Permenantly Displayed in a Museum Case**

QUESTION: May a Torah be displayed in a museum case on a permanent basis? The synagogue museum is located in the foyer of the synagogue. It is visited by a large number of Jews and non-Jews. The Torah in question has been damaged and can no longer be used at services. It has survived the Holocaust and so is considered as a silent witness to these tragic events. (Charles Goldman, Toronto Ontario)ANSWER: A Torah or any Hebrew book which contains the name of God is considered sacred. When it can no longer serve the original purpose it should be buried or disposed of in such a way that no desecration or inappropriate use of it will be made (Meg 26b; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 282:10; Orah Hayim 154.5). Traditionally Torah scrolls, prayerbooks, and Bibles were buried in the congregation’s cemeteries or in some countries placed in storage areas in the synagogue which were designated for this purpose. For example the Geniza in Cairo which contained documents and books spanning a period of more than four centuries. Torahs particularly were put away and removed from the synagogue as soon as they became defective so that they would not be read at a service in error. The principle involved was that of honoring the book and the name of God rather than permanently removing the work from circulation. There has never, for example, been any reservations about displaying ancient Hebrew manuscripts in museums either Jewish or non-Jewish, as for example the Isaiah Scroll in the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem. We must, however, ask whether a Torah is in a special category. Certainly viewed historically it is not. It is simply the earlier form of the book before the invention of books with separate pages. However, through the centuries in which the Torah scroll remained virtually the only book in this form it has acquired through custom a special status. It has always been maintained in a separate container, either the permanent ark of the synagogue, the movable container of the Sephardic tradition or the still earlier mobile arks. This was an effort to safeguard it; even a pasul Torah remained sacred (Sab 115b); it could continue to be kept in the ark though this was usually not done in order to avoid accidental use (Jacob Ettlinger Binyan Zion 1.97; Magen Avraham to Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 154.8; Gedaliah Felder Yesodeh Yeshurun 2.142). Special rules also evolved about handling the Torah and the honor due to it at religious services. Furthermore being asked to participate in the Torah service was both a mitzvah and a special honor and thereby gave a unique status to the book itself (W. Jacob (ed) American Reform Responsa #39). The display in a museum case would certainly be appropriate as it continues to honor the Torah. We should view this as an educational tool which will bring about a better understanding of the Torah. There may be some problems with the museum’s location in the foyer of the synagogue. After all that is an area generally used for gatherings not only before and after services, but also for many social occasions not of a religious nature and so the behavior in the foyer will not always necessarily be decorous. It would therefore be appropriate to place the Torah in such a fashion that it is not directly accessible from the foyer and can only be seen upon entering the museum area itself. If that is not possible than it might be well to construct the case in which it is displayed in such a fashion that a curtain akin to that normally found in a Torah ark (parokhet) can be closed when the museum is not open or when the synagogue foyer is used for general assembly purposes. In this fashion the continued honor of the Torah will be maintained and people’s sensitivity toward this Torah which has survived the Holocaust will be heightened.June 1989

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 110-112

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

41. Fabric Used in a Torah Mantle

(1977)

QUESTION: May a Torah mantle be made of a fabric which contains a blend of two different fibers? May the Talit of the deceased boy in whose memory the Torahmantle will be given be used as part of the mantle? (Rabbi Stephen H. Pinsky, Tenafly, New Jersey)

ANSWER: The concern expressed here deals with Shaatnez and the Biblical prohibition against the wearing of fabrics which contain a mixture of wool and linen (Lev. l9:19; Deut. 21:11). This matter has been of little concern to Reform Jews and also puzzled our traditional ancestors. The commandment was given without any reason. Maimonides felt that it was intended to avoid imitation of heathen practices (Moreh Newchim 3.37). Nahmanides considered this as a prohibition against man’s attempt to improve upon God’s creation (Commentary to Lev. 19:19), but none of these interpretations proves satisfying. The Biblical ordinance which dealt only with wool which had been carded, woven, and twisted (Kil. 9.8, where the term Sha-atnez is explained) was extended by the Rabbis to include wool for which any of these operations had been done (Nidda 61b). We should, however, note that the Rabbinic prohibition was limited to the wool of sheep, rams, and lambs; it did not include camel or goat wool, or any other wool. If these were mixed with sheep wool, but remained dominant, then it was not considered as “wool” (Kil. 9.1). The prohibition against such mixtures was temporarily extended to silk and hemp because of their appearance (Kil. 9.3; Yad, Hil. Kil-ayim 10.2), but this restriction was later removed (Sh.A., Yoreh De-a 298.1). From this it is clear that the restrictions of Sha-atnez are very limited and certainly would not apply to any of the modern artificial fibers or to any other mixtures.

Even in the matter of wearing such fabrics the prohibition was concerned with their being woven or sewn together, but it was perfectly permissible to wear a woolen cloak over a linen garment, though an item of Sha-atnez could not be worn or slept upon, “even on top of ten other garments.” Such an item might be carried (Beitsa 15a) and may be used in curtains or cushions which do not touch the bare body (Kil. 9.2) and warm it. Therefore, chair-seats and bedspreads should not contain Sha-atnez as they will form a warm contact with the body (Yoma 69a). Yet, felt soles on shoes with heels were permitted, as they were stiff and would not warm the feet (Beitsa 15a), as were various kinds of Sha-atnez rags (Misheh Torah, Hil. Kil-ayim 10.19). The general rule being that items which warmed the body were prohibited while those which did not, or provided only random contact, were permitted. Sha-atnez was excluded from tablecloths as well as from the cover on the reading desk in the synagogue, as it might warm the hands (Sh.A., Yoreh De-a 300.9, Isserles note). It was also excluded specifically from the binder around a Torah (Kil-ayim 9.3; Mishneh Torah, Hil. Kil-ayim 10.22); there is some controversy with the majority permitting the use, but R. Eliezer prohibited it, and the law followed R. Eliezer (Bartenura, ad loc.). We should note that the ancient priestly garments were exempt from these restrictions (Ex. 39:290). Similarly, the Tsitsit on a Talit may interweave wool and linen, or woolen Tsitsit may be attached to a linen garment (Yev. 4b, 5b). In other words, in these sacred appurtenances the restrictions did not apply.

Tradition would then permit any mixture for a Torah mantle except wool and linen. We, as Reform Jews, would permit this mixture (Sha-atnez) as well, for the following reasons: (a) it was permitted by the Mishnaand prohibited only by R. Eliezer; (b) it fits into our general pattern of life, which has rejected these prohibitions.

There might be some question about the use of a Talit for a Torah mantle as it is sometimes buried with the dead, but is this obligatory? The Shulchan Aruch states that we bury the dead in a Talit, and there is some controversy whether the Tsitsiyot should remain on it or not (Yoreh De-a 351.2). The Tur provided the varying opinions on this matter. Nahmanides felt that the Tsitsiyot should remain; another authority felt that they should be snipped off; and a third said that the Talit was placed on the dead during the funeral procession, but then removed at graveside. In other words, burial with a Talit is optional. In fact, in Israel the custom is the reverse, and no one is buried with his Talit (Gesher Hachayim II, pp. 122ff; S.B. Freehof, Modern Reform Responsa, pp. 269ff). A Talitmight, therefore, well be available after an individual’s death, and there should be no hesitation about using it.

The disposal of a worn-out Talit or Tsitsit presented few problems as they were considered “utensils of mitzvot” (Tashmishei Mitzvot), not “holy utensils” (Tashmishei Kodesh) (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 21.3). Like the items connected with the Sukka, they could be cast off, but it was to be done with care, i.e., Tsitsiyot were removed from the Talit, rendering it unsuitable. It was recommended that the Tsitsiyot be used in some good fashion as bookmarks (Turei Zahav, ad loc.). The pieces of a Talit rendered unfit could be used even to fashion clothing for a Gentile (Ba-er Heitev, ad loc.). All of this clearly indicates that a parallel use, as for a Torahmantle, would certainly be appropriate.

We must still inquire about the suitability of various items for inclusion in a Torah mantle. Very little has been written about this in the usual sources, and most concern with Torah and Ark decorations dealt with gold and silver objects (Yad, Hilchot Tefila 10.4; Tur, Yoreh De-a 282; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 154.6, Isserles). We can more properly rely on the mantles which have come down to us, especially on the large collection now in the Jewish Museum of Prague, which has been well described by H. Volavkova in The Synagogue Treasures of Bohemia and Moravia. This collection clearly indicates that all kinds of brocades, textiles, and precious fabrics were used in Ark curtains and Torah mantles. The variety was endless and represented the economic circumstances of the donor; and so we find decorative embroidered kitchen towels, sections of old wedding dresses, rococo waistcoats, as well as Japanese embroidery (Synagogue Treasures, p. ix). A great number of fabrics were also freely used. We should also recall the custom of preparing “Wimples,” Torah wrappers, from linen diapers. This was done in the Rhineland and Bavaria. It would, therefore, be appropriate to use a Talitor a segment of it in this fashion.

There is nothing in our Reform practice which would keep a Talit or any mixture of fabrics from being used to make a Torah mantle. The Talitof the deceased boy may be used. Such special gifts to the synagogue have been encouraged for centuries.

Walter Jacob

See also:

S.B. Freehof, “Sha’atnez with Regard to Tzitzis,” Reform Responsa for Our Time, pp. 296ff.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 115-117

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

70. Marking a Torah*

QUESTION: A

number of Torah Scrolls have been stolen from synagogues in various cities across the

country. Is it possible to mark a Torah in order to indicate ownership? What can be done

in the framework of tradition? (V. Kavaler, Pittsburgh, PA)ANSWER: We should

remember that tradition from early times has been quite specific about the manner of writing a

Torah (Shab. 108a; Meg. 19a; Shab. 79b; M. Sofer 2.9; Men. 30a, etc.). These laws have

later been restated by the codes (Yad Hil. Sefer Torah; Shulhan Arukh

Yoreh Deah 270 ff). These statements deal with the nature of the parchment, the type of writing

permitted, the composition of the ink, the form of writing, divisions into paragraphs, etc. In

addition, there is a long list of matters which cause a Torah to be unfit (pasul). In

theory, every adult male Jew must write a Torah during his lifetime. In case he is unable

to fulfill this mitzvah, he may designate someone else to write it, while he merely

completes the last letters. These regulations clearly state that nothing additional can be written

on the Scroll itself, or even on the sheet at the beginning or at the end, which is partially blank.

Nothing may be written on the back. A palimpset, i.e., a parchment which has been once used,

may not be used for the purpose of writing a Torah. The restrictions on marking the

Torah are absolute . It would be possible, however, to mark the wooden

staves at both ends of the Scroll. They have frequently contained the names of donors as well as

the city and congregation to which the Torah has belonged. This would be an easy way to

identify a particular Torah. This course of action would not solve the problem

of theft, for it would be a simple matter to remove the staves or the writing on the staves and

then dispose of the Torah. It has been suggested that a Scroll be marked in

some way that is not obvious, either ink visible only through infrared light or through attaching

some agents to the current ink formula which would make it readable through infrared, ultraviolet

or other technical means. If such methods change the basic formula of the ink, or write upon the

Scroll itself (although in an invisible fashion), they would make it pasul. If, however,

certain portions of the ink with which a Torah is normally written can be given trace-

elements or some others means of identification, such a sophisticated method of identification

would be acceptable. The problem with these methods is that they can be

incorporated into a new Torah, but not into an an already existing Torah, unless

this is done during repair work. Furthermore, devices needed to read them are not readily

accessible. It would be simpler to make exact photographs of sections of the Torah, as

every scribal version is slightly different; even small differences will show, especially in a major

enlargement. This would provide accurate tracing devices and identify a Torah. It would,

however, not make it possible for a potential purchaser to see whether a Torah has been

stolen. The maintenance of a central registry of Torah which have been stolen

from our synagogues is desirable, but that is cumbersome and unlikely to be useful in the near

future. It would be easiest and most appropriate that any synagogue which is offered a

Torah from a questionable source make a thorough inquiry about its origin. Every attempt

should be made to identify such a Torah. If danger of theft is acute, then we would

suggest that the Torah be visibly marked with the name of the congregation on the first

and last sections. This would restrain the thief and, on the other hand, would enable the

congregation to replace those segments when the danger had passed. It is unlikely

that a potential thief would follow the same procedure, as that would clearly indicate that the

Torah had been obtained illegally. Few other devices are available to us

except to take the obvious precautions of locking the Ark and the synagogue so that theft

becomes more difficult.January 1981

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 106-110

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

40. Ownership of a Sefer Torah

(Vol. LXXXIV, 1974, pp. 50-53)

QUESTION: In the city in question there were two congregations, one of which was unable to maintain itself. Most of its members joined the other congregation as individual families, although it was not a formal merger. These individuals turned over to the larger congregation the various religious articles belonging to the defunct congregation, including some Sifrei Torah. Now a woman who had once belonged to the defunct congregation, but who now belongs to another in another city, demands that one of the Sifrei Torah given to the larger congregation be restored to her. Her reason is that her father had donated this Torah in memory of her mother, and that the members who now joined the larger congregation had no right to turn this Torah over to it. The rabbi of the larger congregation suggested that she speak to those members of the now-defunct smaller congregation and ask them for that Sefer Torah. She did so, but they did not wish to give it to her. The question is: What rights of ownership does this woman have in the Sefer Torahin question? (Rabbi Sidney Ballon, Nassau Community Temple, West Hempstead, New York)

ANSWER: The question involved here has, tragically, become highly relevant these days, due to the fading of our inner cities. The defunct congregation spoken of here may have faded for causes other than the decay of the environment, but the problem involved is the same as the one now widely relevant–namely, who has the right to dispose of the sacred objects of a defunct congregation?

Since there is a claimant, in this case the daughter of the donor of the Sefer Torah in question, her rights should be considered first of all. In general, the question of the ownership of a Sefer Torahunder the circumstances mentioned has come up in various forms rather frequently in the legal literature. By and large, the various opinions expressed over the centuries have come to a fairly clear consensus.

On the face of it, the situation is completely covered by the rules in the laws of Tsedaka in the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 259. There it is stated as a general principle (section I) that a donor may change the purpose of the gift or the recipient of the gift. But this right to change the recipient or the purpose exists only before the gift has come into the hands of the proper officials (Gaba-im). If, for example, a donor sets aside money for one charity, and still has possession of the money which he has set aside, he may change his gift to any other charitable purpose; but if he has already turned the money over to the officials (in this case, the officers of the synagogue), he can no longer change the purpose or the recipients (see Yoreh De-a 259.1).

By this general rule, it would seem obvious that since the Torah was in the possession of the synagogue to which her father had given it, she, her father’s daughter, no longer has the right to give it to any other recipient. Yet, it must be stated that this general negation of her rights to change purpose or recipient is in itself weakened by two considerations: One, there is at least one opinion (Israel Rappaport, Mahari Hakohen, Yoreh De-a 47) that all synagogues are to be of equal status, and that, therefore, giving it to one synagogue after intending to give it to another is not deemed to be, by this one authority, an invalid or non-permitted change. The only question in this case would be whether she still has any rights of ownership at all on this Torah, once it had been given to the synagogue.

The other mitigation of the rule (prohibiting any change after it had been officially received) is the custom mentioned by a number of scholars, that in certain communities it had become an established custom for people to have Sifrei Torah written and to deposit them in the synagogue, remembering always that it is their Sefer Torah, without at all intending to transfer the ownership to the synagogue. According to this custom, then, the Torah, although used in the synagogue, is deemed to be still the property of its original owners, and they can take it, sell it, or give it to somebody else. (See this custom of retaining ownership as described in the responsa She-erit Yosef by Joseph B. Mordecai, Aldorf, 1767, Responsum #41. He describes this custom of retaining ownership of the Torah and agrees that the owner has the right to sell it for a debt.) The other description of such a custom is much older. In the responsa of Joseph Colon (Maharik, first edition, #161, near the end; in the later edition, p. 173, col. 2), the questioner likewise describes such a custom in which people gave or lent the Torahto the synagogue and carefully insisted that they still owned it.

To this situation Joseph Colon (Italy, 15th century), who is one of the prime authorities, gives the following answer, which has become, one might say, classic: He says that once the Torah has been used in the synagogue and had the mantle on it, it is sacred and belongs to the sanctuary and cannot be sold or transferred, except by the decision of the officers and the community. In this case, the members of the congregation are, therefore, the only ones who have the right to transfer the Torah. As for the statement of the questioner to Maharik that they had the custom of retaining ownership of the Torah, he dismisses this argument. He says that no custom is valid enough to overturn a law unless it is a widespread custom and one established by scholars (Vatikin). This opinion of Joseph Colon is repeated almost exactly by the 16th-century Polish authority, Solomon Luria (Maharshal) in his Responsa, #15.

The case of the questioner is almost precisely the case in this question asked today, namely: the sons of the man gave or loaned the Torah and now are moving to another city and want to give or loan the Torah to the synagogue in this other city. Solomon Luria is even more specific in his answer than Joseph Colon. He says that once the mantle was on the Torah it can no longer be returned or be sold, even if the man who gave it claims he never intended to give it outright. Such a claim would be valid only if, before he gave it, he had declared formally–in the presence of two witnesses– that he is not giving the Torah as an outright gift, but is merely loaning it to the congregation. If he had not made such a formal declaration previously, then now that the Torah had been used (once the mantle is put upon it), he may never take it back, whatever may have been the unspoken intention. The opinion of these great authorities is respected by Joseph Caro in his Beit Yosef to the Tur, Yoreh De-a 259, and also by Joel Sirkes (ibid.). Isserles to Yoreh De-a (ibid.) comes substantially to the same conclusion.

If, then, it is clear that the donor or his descendants do not have the right of the disposal of this Sefer Torah, who does have the right? The law speaks of “shiv-a tovei ha-ir,” “The seven good men of the city”–as we say today, “Twelve good men and true”– i.e., the officers. Sometimes it speaks of the membership (benei ha-ir). In either case, we have the right to assume that those who decided to carry over their congregational life to the congregation which now has the Torah include what was left of the officers and many of the members. They are the ones (and the only ones) who have the right of disposal of the sacred objects. In fact, they were consulted by the claimant, and they decided to give the Torah to your congregation. Their decision is valid. Moreover, their decision is strengthened by the fact that they did not sell the Torahbut gave it to another congregation, thus maintaining its sanctity.

If they had decided to give the Torah to the claimant, this decision would also have been valid, since she intended to place the Torah in another congregation, and thus its sanctity would not be diminished. But they decided otherwise. Perhaps they wanted to avoid the danger that all the other original donors of sacred objects might now claim their gifts and thus the objects would be scattered. They wanted the Sifrei Torahof their former congregation to be in the congregation

where they now worship. Whatever was their motivation, the decision was theirs to make.

To sum up, the situation is as follows: If there was a well-established custom in the community that people would loan their Sifrei Torah to the synagogue with the express intention to keep their ownership of them, such a custom–if established in consultation with learned authorities–might have some validity. But even that is doubtful. Further, if the woman’s father had made a specific declaration that the Torah in question was not given outright to the synagogue, but was only a loan in order to be read in the services–only then could it now be reclaimed. But since this Torah has now been transferred to the larger congregation by the majority, and perhaps also the officers remaining in the now defunct congregation, this transfer is a valid act. The weight of tradition is on the side of the opinion that this Torahmay not be removed from the synagogue in which it is now placed.

Solomon B. Freehof

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 40-41

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

**26. Ornamental Torah Binders**

QUESTION: The congregation some time ago commissioned some ornate hand stitched Torah covers and has arranged for Torah binders of a similar nature. The binders are beginning to look worn. May they be displayed in a museum? How should we ultimately dispose of them? (Sarah Nemeroff, Rochester NY)ANSWER: The objects which surround the Torah should be beautiful. The rimonim and the breastplate have been discussed in detail (Yad Hil Sefer Torah 10.4; Tur and Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 282.16; Orah Hayim 138.18). The Torah binders themselves were not discussed, and often consisted simply of a piece of cloth designated for this purpose. However, all objects connected with the Sefer Torah possess some of the sanctity of the Torah. Anything directly associated with the Torah should be buried when it is no longer usable (Meg 26b; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 153.2). Of course, the more distant the object, the less the sanctity, so an ark is different than the covering of the Torah. When the covering or the binder around the Torah are no longer useable they should be buried or used as shrouds for the deceased. The objects which you have described are now too frail for use as Torah binders; they can serve an educational purpose through museum a display. Such a setting also accords them proper reverence. Later they should be buried.January 1989

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 112-115

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

69. A Printed Sefer

Torah

QUESTION: A new Jewish community in Soviet Russia wishes

to know whether a photocopy of a Sefer Torah may be used at regular services. The congregation does not possess a Torah Scroll now; it may be possible for one to be brought to them by visitors from the United States, however, the risk of confiscation is very great. While it would be relatively easy to replace a photocopied Torah, it would be difficult and expensive to replace a Torah Scroll. May a photocopied scroll be used during this time of emergency and persecution? (Rabbi M. Staitman, Pittsburgh, PA)

ANSWER: We should, of course, do everything possible to help our fellow Jews

in the Soviet Union physically and spiritually. The Torah Scroll possesses great symbolic value for all Jews alongside its practical use in the synagogue service. As the Soviet Jews can not meet in a regular synagogue, but conduct services in apartments or other temporary sites which are constantly changed, the normal furnishings and appurtenances of the synagogue are difficult to arrange. Everything connected with the service must be readily movable. A Torah Scroll, therefore, becomes even more important to such a congregation.

The actual problem revolves around the nature of the text and

permission to recite the traditional blessings which should not be recited in vain (levatalah), and the “honor of the congregation.”

The question of a

photocopied Torah takes us to a Talmudic state ment which deals with engraving (haqiqah) and inquires whether this may be considered the equivalent of writing (ketivah Git. 20a). The question asks whether the letters are sunken into the text or raised from it. The ancient discussion gained new prominence and the debate was renewed with the invention of printing, as the early printer’s type created a depression in the paper and that was akin to engraving, which was not considered akin to “writing.”

Despite questions about

printed texts they have been shown reverence; even though they do not possess the sanctity of the Torah, they are to be buried just as worn out Torah Scrolls (Ezekiel Katzenellenbogen, Keneset Yehezqel #37, etc.). The problem of depressed letters does not exist with modern printing or photography. We could, therefore, say that a photographed Torah which precisely reproduces spaces, lines and the letters, possesses a high level of sanctity on these grounds, although not on the same level as a Sefer Torah itself.

However, questions concerning the sanctity of photography versus printing have

been raised on other grounds. Photography is clearly more automatic and less manual than printing; printing is, of course, less manual than writing by hand as performed by a scribe. If personal, manual involvement determines sanctity, then the photographed item would be less holy. Though some feel that a photographed text possesses less sanctity, this line of reasoning has not been followed further. Books produced by this method (and almost all modern books are so produced) are considered sacred and must be buried when worn out if they contain the divine name. (Benjamin Weiss, Even Yeqarah Tinyana #39; Shalom Mordechai Shwadron, Responsa, Maharhsam, 3.357; Wolf Leiter, Bet David#8).

We may,

therefore, follow Solomon ben Aderet who permitted the reading from a humash in place of a Torah. In his time the humash in question was in the form of a scroll (but was not written precisely as a Torah). He allowed this while prohibiting the use of a humash in book form (Responsa, Vol. I, #805). Earlier, Maimonides had also stated that the most important matter connected with the Torah reading was the reading itself rather than the nature of the scroll from which the reading might be made. Therefore, if only an imperfect Torah were available, it could be used (Maimonides, Responsa, #42). We should add, however, that later in his Mishneh Torah, Maimonides stated that only those scrolls which fulfilled all the technical requirements were appropriate for use in a regular service (Yad Hil. Sefer Torah, 10.1). This was the path followed by the Shulhan Arukh as well (Orah Hayim 143.1 ff; Bet Yosef to Tur, 143). Isserles, on the other hand, was willing to be more lenient and permitted the use of an imperfect Sefer Torah when none other was available (Comments to Orah Hayim, 143.5). We should note that a rabbi of Marrakesh was asked whether Jews who traveled across the Sahara by caravan could use a humash for Torah reading (Joseph Mesas Mayim Hayim, #79). He concluded that if their journey lasted only a few weeks, they should not read the Torah during those Sabbaths, but if their journey lasted for many weeks, it was preferable to read from a humash but not to pronounce the traditional blessings.

The second issue discussed by tradition deals with the honor of the

congregation (kavod hatzibur). It was considered inappropriate for a congregation to read from a humash or an imperfect Torah scroll (Git. 60a) for this reason, yet is also clear that a congregation has the right to forego its honor (Solomon ben Aderet, Responsa, Vol. 1, #805; Isserles to Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 143.5).

The major codes of Maimonides and Caro do not permit a Torah

reading at a public service except from a perfect handwritten Torah. They, of course, deal with a normative congregation in normal times. On the other hand, Maimonides in his responsum, Aderet and Isserles permitted such a Torahreading.

The problem

of reading from a photographed text finally involves not the reading itself but the issue of reciting a blessing in vain (levatalah). We must weight that consideration against the importance of reading the Torah as well as the symbolism connected with the Torah, even a photocopied Torah. Clearly, in the prolonged emergency which affects Soviet Jews, we would agree with Maimonides’ responsum that the mitzvah of reading a Torah far outweighs the nature of the scroll. The burden of a berakhah levatalah is rather minimal when compared with that of the lack of public Torah reading and symbolic union with the remainder of the Jewish people on each occasion when the Torah is read. We would, therefore, agree to the use of a photographed Sefer Torah under these emergency conditions in the Soviet Union.

August 1986

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 242-243

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

72. Repairing a Damaged Sefer Torah

(Vol. XLVI, 1936, pp. 126-127)QUESTION: During a fire, which recently destroyed part of our Temple, our two Sifrei Torah were injured. One was partially smoked up, and the second was partially scorched. Is it consistent with Jewish tradition to use these Sifrei Torah by replacing Yeri-ot in those sections that suffered injury?ANSWER: According to Yoreh De-a, ch. 280, para. 2, when a Yeri-a is worn out, it should be replaced in conjunction with two Yeri-ot adjoining it, so that the handwriting of at least three Yeri-ot should look alike. However, certain authorities do not insist on this, and advocate the renewal of the affected Yeri-a only. But it is advisable to instruct the Sofer to see to it that the new Yeri-a should approximate the rest of the Sefer Torah as much as possible.J. Mann and Committee

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 243-244

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

73. Ritual for Disposal of Damaged Sefer Torah

(Vol. XXXIV, 1924, pp. 74-75)

QUESTION: I am very anxious to know the ritual in connection with the remains of a Sefer Torahwhich has been injured by fire. My impression is that they are to be buried, but I do not know the form. Since we have three such relics, I am quite anxious to dispose of them in the proper manner. Will you kindly let me know both the form and the ritual which are customary?

ANSWER: In regard to the mode of disposal of the burnt Sefer Torah fragments, tradition prescribes no set ritual. However, it offers a helpful guidance. The Talmud lays down the law that a worn-out Scroll may be placed in a jar and buried beside a scholar. This was to express the idea that the Sefer Torah, though torn, is still identified with the student: “Sefer Torah shebala, gonezin oto etsel talmid chacham, uvichli cheres, shene-emar, ‘Unetatem bichlei cheres lema-an ya-amdu yamim rabim”‘ (B. Megila 26b). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De-a 282.10, and Orach Chayim 154.5) accepts this view (see also Sha-arei Teshuva to Orach Chayim, ad loc.). The reason for burying Scrolls is to avoid their further destruction by burning or otherwise being misused. Where there is fear that vandals may take them out of the graves and burn them, it is permitted to put them in earthen vessels and hide them in a secret place (Responsaof R. Solomon b. Simon Duran, 1400-1457, no. 62).

The rule of burying the old Scrolls which became spoiled or torn was in course of time extended to all Hebrew books which became torn or spoiled. This, indirectly, probably led to the well-known practice of having special places called Geniza, where such books were temporarily kept before being buried (see Eisenstein’s Otsar Dinim Uminhagim, p. 77). In almost all Jewish centers, there are Genizot in the synagogues–under the Bima, within the walls, or in the garrets. As the place grew overcrowded, the content was carried to the cemetery for burial. Among the Sefardim of Palestine it is customary to bury the accumulated Genizot with considerable ceremony. They use the occasion for prayers for relief from drought and other forms of distress (see Lunz, Jerusalem I, Wien, 1882, pp. 15-16). In Algiers, the burial of the Geniza usually takes place on Rosh Chodesh Iyar (Minhagei Algier,p. 132). In many Russian and Polish communities, too, torn Scrolls and worn out books are buried in the ground. A tent is then placed over the grave to show that it is a holy place. Of course, Psalms and prayers are recited at such occasions.

Guided by these practices, we think that in your case–when the Scrolls were injured at the occasion when the Temple burned down–it is fitting to place your burnt Sefer Torah in an earthen jar or a box, and to deposit it in the cornerstone of your new Temple. Psalm 74, referring to the burning of the sacred meeting places, will be fitting for the occasion; also selections from R. Meir of Rothenburg’s dirge on the “Burning of the Law” may be recited. A translation of this dirge is found in Nina Davis’s Songs of Exile, pp. 83-91. Your sermon might be built on the statement of R. Hanina b. Teradyon, one of the Ten Martyrs, who, when wrapped in a Sefer Torah and placed on the pyre, exclaimed: “Scrolls are burning, but the letters fly upward” (“Gevilim nisrafim ve-otiyot porechot”; B. Avoda Zara 18a). Should this ceremony be observed apart from that of laying the cornerstone, or at a special occasion at the cemetery, you might conclude it with reading well known passages (see Berachot 64a) and the reciting of Kaddish Derabanan.

Jacob Z. Lauterbach

See also:

S.B. Freehof, “Posul Torah in the Ark,” Contemporary Reform Responsa, pp. 114ff; “Preserving a Torah Fragment,” Reform Responsa for Our Time, pp. 80ff; “Torah in Museum Case or in Ark,” Contemporary Reform Responsa, pp. 110ff

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 232-233

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

154. Use of the Torah for Fundraising

QUESTION: A number of congregations have engaged in a “Torah writing project.” Each letter of the Torah is paid for through a donation of one dollar toward the congregation. This is a fund-raising project utilizing the Torah. The Torah itself will be written by a scribe in the traditional manner. Is this method of using the Torahfor fund-raising appropriate?

ANSWER: We should remember that the Torah gains a special status when transferred to a synagogue, then the officers of the community possess jurisdiction over it (Joseph Colon, Mahariq, Vol. 2, p. 173). This has become the classic view toward a Torah, unless an individual formally (before two witnesses) states that his presentation of a Torah is only a loan and not a gift, it remains the property of the synagogue and may not be removed, transferred or sold by any individual (Bet Yoseph, Tur, Yoreh Deah 259; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 259). This, then, makes it clear that a Torah once acquired is completely the possession of the synagogue, and the officers have great discretion in what is done with it.

The same section of the Shulhan Arukh discusses what may be done with items given to the synagogue. The degrees of sanctity attached to objects is described, and there is general agreement that a Torah may be sold to provide for the poor and to support the study of the Torah. This includes the education of adults as well as children. The Shulhan Arukh, of course, discusses a Torah which has already been completed. The discussion does indicate that fund-raising through the project described may be in keeping with tradition.

We should also remember that there is considerable tradition for making a gift when called to the Torah (nedavah), and in many Orthodox congregations the sum pledged is publicly stated, alongside with a blessing recited for the individual’s family or anyone else whom he may propose. Fund-raising for the general support of the congregation has thereby been undertaken in this most sacred segment of the service. We have eliminated this practice as objectionable and an unnecessary intrusion to the spirit of the service, yet this indicates that the reading of the Torah, at least, may be used for fund-raising.

During the period when the Torah is written, the scribe must per form the task with special dedication, so he is instructed to concentrate on the sacredness of his task (Meg. 18b). When writing the name of God, he must be pure and show proper devotion (Yad Hil. Tif. Mez. 1-10; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 270 ff). Thus, a certain degree of sanctity is attached to the process of writing, yet the separate sections of the Torah are not given any special status until they are combined into a scroll. This is true of sections which have been completed and are free of error and those which contain errors. The latter are buried as any other book which contains the name of God.

The manner used for raising funds to obtain a Torah has not been discussed in detail. An individual may pay for a Torah and could “finish the writing of a Torah” by assisting in completing the last letters and, thereby, fulfill the mitzvah of writing it. A number of individuals may participate in that process and share the cost. There would, therefore, be nothing in our tradition which would prevent using this method of fund-raising as long as it is done in the proper spirit, especially if emphasis is given to the educational value of the project, as well as its financial assistance to the congregation.

November 1980

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.