Siman 270

It is a positive commandment for every individual of Israel to write for himself a sefer Torah of his own, even if his ancestors left him a sefer Torah, as it is said: "And now, write for yourselves this song" (Sanhedrin 21b). That is to say: write for yourselves a Torah which contains this song, because one may not write the Torah in separate parshiyot (the Rambam, Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah, and Sefer Torah). And it is impossible to say that the commandment is only for the song alone; rather, this is its explanation: write for yourselves the entire Torah until the conclusion of the song, and "Vezot HaBerakhah" is also included in the general category of the song. And it appears that we hold this to be so, for otherwise I would have said that the commandment of writing is only until "Ha'azinu," for there the commandments and the rebukes conclude, but from "Ha'azinu" until its end there are only words of prophecy regarding the future. It comes to teach us that one must write until its very end. Therefore it said "write for yourselves" – even this song (it appears to me). And a sefer Torah that is missing one letter is invalid. (All this we have explained according to the explanation of the Rambam. And in my humble opinion, it appears that "the song" is the Torah, and sometimes its intent is only for the song alone, as the verses prove, which begin: "Write for yourselves this song etc. and Moshe wrote this song etc. and taught it to the children of Israel. And it was, when Moshe finished writing the words of this Torah etc. until their completion etc. take this book of the Torah etc. and Moshe spoke etc. the words of this song until their completion." And behold, previously it is written "and he taught it to the children of Israel." Rather, the first refers to the song, and the second to the entire Torah. Therefore it is written "until their completion" just as previously regarding the words of the Torah. For the Torah is the song of the world, and there are specific songs: the Song of the Sea, the Song of Ha'azinu. Examine and you will find it simple.) (And in Nedarim 38 it implies this explicitly, see there.)

It is stated in Menachot (Menachot 30a): One who purchases a sefer Torah from the market is like one who snatches a mitzvah from the market. If he wrote it, Scripture accounts it to him as if he received it from Mount Sinai. And if he corrected even one letter, it is accounted to him as if he wrote it. Rashi explained: Like one who snatches a mitzvah—and he has performed a mitzvah; but if he wrote it, it is a much greater mitzvah. Thus far his words. And in the Tosafot they wrote: If he corrected one letter in a sefer Torah that he purchased from the market, he is no longer considered like one who snatches a mitzvah. For it was with his fellow in transgression, as he was maintaining a sefer that was not corrected. And we account this as if he wrote it. Thus far their words. And we have learned from the words of our teachers that even by purchasing a sefer Torah one has fulfilled the mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah, except that in writing it, it is a much greater mitzvah. And if he corrected one letter, it is literally as if he wrote it. And according to this, it is possible to fulfill the obligation of this mitzvah by purchasing a sefer Torah from others.

And according to this, I am astonished at our teacher, the Rema, who wrote: If one hired a scribe to write a sefer Torah for him or if he purchased it, and it was erroneous and he corrected it – behold, it is as if he wrote it. But if he bought it as is and did not correct anything in it – it is like one who snatches a mitzvah from the marketplace, and he does not fulfill his obligation with this. Thus far his words. From where does he have it to say that he does not fulfill his obligation with this? For all the Rishonim wrote like Rashi and Tosafot. (And see Taz at the end of subsection 1, who wrote that this is against the words of Rashi. And the Gra, subsection 3, wrote that the words of Rashi are primary, see there. But from where did he take this law? And the words of the Levush are' astonishing, for he combined both together, the words of the Rema and the words of Rashi, see there. Perhaps because the Rambam did not bring this, it implies that he holds that without writing he has not fulfilled his obligation. For it is thus explained from his words where he wrote: And if he wrote it with his hand – it is as if he received it from Mount Sinai. And if he does not know how to write – others write for him. And anyone who corrects a sefer Torah, even a single letter – it is as if he wrote it entirely. Thus far his words. And it appears explicitly that he omitted that case of one who buys a sefer Torah, and it is explained that he holds that with this one does not fulfill his obligation, like the opinion of the Rema. And even according to their opinion, it seems to me that one who purchases from the hand of a scribe who writes a sefer Torah to sell, that he has fulfilled his obligation. And the proof is from Pesachim 35a regarding the loaves of the Todah offering and the wafers of a Nazir: If he made them to sell in the marketplace – one fulfills the obligation with them, see there. And also for the law, the primary view is like the opinion of Rashi, as the Gra wrote. And examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

And with that which has been explained, that even if his ancestors left it to him it is a mitzvah to write from his own, it seems clear that if his ancestors did not finish it or if there were errors in it and he corrected them, he has fulfilled the obligation. For they are no worse than another, as it has been explained that if one corrected even a single letter in it – it is as if he wrote it himself. And I saw one of the great authorities who wrote that even if his ancestors did not leave it written to him except for any small amount, even a single word, and he completed it, he has not fulfilled the obligation (Sha'agat Aryeh, end of siman 34). And these words are a wonder in my eyes. (And all his words there I do not understand. And the explanation is thus: that since it cannot refer to the song alone, perforce the intention is for the entire Torah, as the verses conclude there "the words of this Torah until their completion." And with this, that which remained a wonder is also answered, that perhaps it refers to Mishneh Torah, for it is permitted to write a Chumash, see there. And according to what I have written it works out well. Examine and you will find it simple.)

Whether women are obligated in the writing of a sefer Torah is not clarified in the poskim. And one of the great authorities wrote that they are obligated (Sha'agat Aryeh siman 35), for the writing of a sefer Torah is not dependent on Talmud Torah, as it is a mitzvah unto itself. And a clear proof for this: if the mitzvah were only for the sake of Talmud Torah, why does one not fulfill the obligation with a sefer Torah that his father left him? And if it is because they are not commanded regarding all the mitzvot, behold, even Israelites are not commanded regarding the mitzvot of the Kohanim. And if it is because they are disqualified from writing a sefer Torah, as will be explained, and if it should enter your mind that they are obligated in their writing – why are they disqualified from their writing? But even this is no proof, for behold, in mezuzah women are obligated and despite this they are disqualified from writing them. Rather, it is a decree of the Torah and this matter is not related to that.

Indeed, he wondered about the Rambam, for from his words in the enumeration of the mitzvot it is apparent that women are not obligated. For he wrote after all the positive mitzvot that there are sixty mitzvot practiced in this time, and in fourteen of them women are not obligated, and he counts among them mitzvah eighteen that they are not obligated in, and mitzvah eighteen is the mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah (ibid.). And I wonder about this: for on the contrary, from the Rambam it is explicitly apparent that women are obligated in it, for inside the enumeration of the mitzvot, regarding every mitzvah that they are not obligated in, he writes explicitly "and women are not obligated in this mitzvah," and regarding this mitzvah he did not write so, see there. Understand from this that they are obligated. And in the lettered indicators at the end of the positive mitzvot many errors fell, for he wrote that there are sixty mitzvot practiced in this time and there are not sixty there. And he wrote that in fourteen women are exempt and there are only twelve there, see there. And according to what I have written, that eighteen is also an error, and three are missing. And the truth is indeed so, that there is missing there mitzvah thirty-seven regarding the impurity of relatives for kohanim in which women are not obligated, and mitzvah eighty from redemption of the son in which women are not obligated, and mitzvah two hundred and fifteen to circumcise the son in which women are not obligated. And the Rambam explained all of them inside, but at the end in the indicators they are not found, see there. And according to this, on the contrary, it is proof that the Rambam also holds so. (And there are some of the great ones who followed after the words of the Sha'agat Aryeh and wrote so, that the Rambam wrote that women are not obligated in the writing of a sefer Torah, and it is an error as we have clarified with the help of Heaven. However, the Ra'ah in the Chinuch wrote that women are exempt, see there.)

The Rosh and the Tur wrote that this was only said for the earlier generations, who would write a sefer Torah and study from it. But nowadays, when we write a sefer Torah and place them in the synagogue to read from them in public—it is a positive commandment upon every Jew whose hand can afford it to write the Chumashim of the Torah, and Mishnah and Gemara and their commentaries, to meditate upon them, he and his sons. For the commandment of writing the Torah is in order to study from it, as it is written: "And teach it to the children of Israel, put it in their mouths." And through the Gemara and its commentary, he will know the explanation of the mitzvot and the laws clearly. Therefore, these are the books that a person is commanded to write, and also not to sell them, except to study Torah or to marry a woman. Thus far their words.

There are those who explained their intent that it is not their intent to exempt in this time from the writing of a sefer Torah, but rather their intent is that now there is also a mitzvah in these. For how could we nullify the positive commandment of "And now, write for yourselves this song" (Beit Yosef and Bach, and Taz subsection 4, and Ma'adanei Yom Tov)? And there is clear proof for this that the writing of a sefer Torah is not for the sake of study, for we say in the Gemara that even though his ancestors left one to him, it is a mitzvah to write from his own. And if the essence of the mitzvah is for the sake of study—behold, he has that from which to study. Rather, it is certainly a mitzvah in its own right (Sha'agat Aryeh siman 36). And there are those who say that it is not so, and their intent is to exempt nowadays from the writing of a sefer Torah, for the essence of the mitzvah is for the sake of study. And now we do not study from sifrei Torah, but rather from Chumashim, Mishnayot, and Gemara (Derisha and Shach subsection 5).

And the wording of the Rosh and the Tur implies this explicitly. For if it were according to the first interpretation, they should have said that nowadays there is **also** a mitzvah in Mishnah and Gemara. Furthermore, they explicitly wrote that the essence of the mitzvah is in order to learn from them. Furthermore, they concluded their words: "And therefore these are the books that a person is commanded to write," for it is explicitly clear that only they are a mitzvah and not a sefer Torah. And like the words of the Rosh and the Tur, Rabbeinu Yerucham wrote in the name of the Geonim, see there. However, from what they said in the Gemara—that what his ancestors left him does not suffice—it is a great difficulty against their words. But in truth, when we examine this closely, there is no difficulty here at all, for certainly it is an explicit verse that the purpose of the writing is in order to teach, as it is written: "And teach it, etc." Rather, the Torah decreed that he himself must write what he needs to learn. And therefore, nowadays as well, he must personally purchase Mishnayot and Gemara.

However, it appears in my humble opinion that even for this we have no need. For in truth, the Rosh and the Tur did not bring this statement at all that "even though his fathers left it to him, it is a mitzvah to write of his own," see there (and the Bach was pressed on this). And it appears to me that they interpreted a different interpretation in this. For thus it is stated in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 21a): Rava said: Even though they left him etc. Abaye raised an objection to him: "And he shall write for himself a sefer Torah for his name," that he should not beautify himself with those of others. A king, yes; a commoner, no. No, it is necessary for two Torahs etc. see there. And it is not understood: for if the objection is only that he does not fulfill his obligation with that of his father, what is answered by "No, it is necessary for two Torahs"? And what of it? For two Torahs for a king are like one Torah for a commoner, and it still implies a king, yes; a commoner, no? And it appears to me that Abaye raises two objections: for in truth, aside from this statement of Rava, we do not find in the Shas that there is an obligation upon everyone to write a sefer Torah. For that which is in Menachot that we brought, that one who buys a sefer Torah from the market is like one who snatches a mitzvah, [but if he wrote it] it is as if he received it from Mount Sinai – it is not explained there that there is an obligation in this, but rather that there is a reward for this. For the essence of the mitzvah is from the verse "And now write for yourselves etc.", and this is not brought there in Menachot. Therefore Abaye objects with two: "A king, yes; a commoner, no" – meaning: specifically a king is commanded in the writing of a sefer Torah and not a commoner, and certainly a commoner fulfills his obligation with those of others. And to this he answers "for two Torahs" regarding the root of the objection, that the commoner is not commanded at all in the writing of a sefer Torah. To this he answers that actually the commoner is commanded, only the king is commanded in two Torahs. And regarding this we learned: "And he shall write for himself a sefer Torah for his name." But regarding what Rava said, that even though his fathers left it to him it is a mitzvah to write of his own – it was refuted by the Baraita, that only a king should not beautify himself with those of others, but not a commoner. And therefore they omitted this.

There are some among the great authorities who were uncertain whether two people fulfill their obligation when they write a sefer Torah in partnership. And in my humble opinion, it seems clear that they do not fulfill it. First: for every positive commandment that the Torah commanded is upon each individual of Israel alone. And every mitzvah that the Torah permitted in partnership, such as two people sitting in one sukkah—there is an exposition for this in Sukkah (Sukkah 27a), see there. Furthermore: for regarding lulav it is written "for you," and each individual alone must have his own lulav and etrog, as is written at the beginning of the chapter "Lulav HaGazul." And here too it is written: "Write for yourselves," and it is required for each individual alone. And there is further proof from that which we brought from Sanhedrin, which challenges Rava from a Mishnah that a king writes for himself a sefer Torah for his own sake and from a Baraita, see there. And if we say that a commoner fulfills it with one of partnership, let it say that this is the difference between a king and a commoner, that a king does not fulfill it with one of partnership and a commoner fulfills it? And further proof from one of the earlier great authorities, who wrote that one who writes a sefer Torah and hands it over to a beit din so that it shall belong to the hekdesh of the beit knesset—has not fulfilled the obligation (Turei Even in Sanhedrin ibid.). And if it should enter your mind that one fulfills it in partnership, why has he not fulfilled the obligation? Behold, he also has a portion (and so wrote the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger). And further proof: for behold, even with that of his ancestors he has not fulfilled it, where now it is entirely his, certainly so in partnership. And behold, according to the opinion of the Rambam that it is a mitzvah in its own right, it is certainly so. However, according to the opinion of the Rosh and the Tur that the mitzvah is only for the sake of study, perhaps one could say that two fulfill it with one sefer Torah. Nevertheless, the primary point seems to me that one does not fulfill it in partnership. And that which is the way of the world that one group writes a sefer Torah—it is merely a mitzvah and a merit, but not that through this they fulfill the obligation of the mitzvah. (And according to the Rosh that the mitzvah is for the sake of study, it seems certain that women are exempt.)

According to what we have written in the name of one of the great authorities, that one who writes a sefer Torah and delivers it to a beit din does not fulfill his obligation, it follows that the same law applies if he wrote a sefer Torah and it was lost or stolen, that he is obligated to write another. However, several authorities disagreed on this, and they hold that since he wrote it once, even if he delivered it to the public and even if it was lost – he has fulfilled his obligation (Pitchei Teshuva, small subsection 3, in the name of the Bnei Yonah and P.D. and K.N.). And it seems to me that this also depends on the opinions we have explained: for according to the Rambam he has fulfilled his obligation, but according to the Rosh, for whom the essence of the mitzvah is for the sake of study – he certainly has not fulfilled it, for how shall he study from it when it is not with him? And according to this, for the Rosh, for whom the essence of the mitzvah is the Chumashim and Mishnah and Gemara, if he wrote them or bought them and they were stolen from him, or he delivered them to the public – he is obligated to buy others so that he may study from them.

There is one of the great authorities who wrote that it is possible that currently we are exempt from this mitzvah, because we are not expert in the deficient and redundant spellings, as we say in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 30a). And only by rabbinic law are we obligated (Sha'agat Aryeh, siman 36). And I wonder greatly at this, for the Rambam and all the poskim brought this law now as a Torah law. Furthermore: if so, we could exempt ourselves from several mitzvot in which there are many doubts, such as the mitzvah of tefillin and the like. Rather, it is certain that one must follow the majority, and such is the halacha. And here too, many books have been composed on the masorah regarding deficient and redundant spellings, and the krei and u'ktiv, and one must follow the majority. And there is further clear proof from that which is asked in Bechorot (Bechorot 17a), according to the one who holds that it is impossible for a human being to be exact, how did Hashem command to make the Ark and vessels with such and such a measurement, when it is impossible to be exact? And it answers: The Merciful One said "do," and with whatever you are able to do—it is pleasing to Him, see there. And here too it is so: The Merciful One said to write a sefer Torah according to our ability, and it is pleasing to Him (so it appears to me clear as the law).

It is forbidden to sell a sefer Torah even if one has another sefer Torah, because it is a disgrace to the sefer Torah. And thus the sages taught in Megillah (Megillah 27a): Our Rabbis taught: A person shall not sell a sefer Torah, even though he does not need it. Furthermore, even if he has nothing to eat and he sold a sefer Torah – he never sees a sign of blessing. And the intention is not that he is cast into starvation, for there is nothing that stands before pikuach nefesh. Rather, the intention is that through hardship he is able to take from tzedakah, and the collectors do not have the power to say to him "sell the sefer Torah." For even his household vessels and utensils they do not require him to sell, and he takes from tzedakah, as I wrote above in siman 253. And all the more so a sefer Torah (Bach). And all the more so if he can live with hardship without tzedakah and without selling the sefer Torah (this is the intention of the Rema). And know that even though the wording of the Shas is only that he does not see a sign of blessing, nevertheless it is clarified from the poskim that there is also a prohibition. (And the Taz, subsection 2, raised a difficulty from Pesachim at the beginning of the fourth chapter, see there. And it is not a difficulty at all, for there is another answer there and we rule accordingly, see there. And furthermore: that even if we do not excommunicate – there is a prohibition. And examine closely and you will find it easy.)

And even to sell an old sefer Torah and buy a new one is forbidden (ibid.). And some have written the reason is due to negligence, for perhaps he will not buy the new one. And according to this, if the new one is ready in the scribe's house, and nothing is lacking except the payment of money, it is permitted (Beit Yosef and Levush, and Taz subsection 3). And some disagree, for even in such a case it is forbidden, since this is not an elevation for the sefer Torah being sold, and whenever there is no elevation it is forbidden, as I wrote in Orach Chaim siman 153 (Bach and Derisha, and Shach subsection 3). And there is no proof from there, for there itself there is a dispute regarding this, as is written there in the Shulchan Aruch section 4 (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 153, 4), see there. And the Rambam in the eleventh chapter of Tefillah (Rambam Hilkhot Tefillah 11) explicitly permits it for equal sanctity, see there (and see there in the Magen Avraham subsection 4, and in the Taz subsection 1). And according to the opinion of those who forbid, it is not specifically to sell an old one and buy a new one, for even if he already bought the new one from his own funds until he sells the old one and receives its money, it is also forbidden, since there is no elevation in this (Shach ibid. in the name of the Bach). And the principles of these laws, their place is in Orach Chaim there, and there it was explained with the help of Heaven.

And our sages, of blessed memory, permitted (ibid.) selling a sefer Torah to study Torah or to marry a woman, if he has nothing else to sell. And all the more so for the redemption of captives or for medicine for a life-threatening illness. There are those who prohibit selling a sefer Torah through announcements and by casting lots for who will merit it, which in our language is called a "lottery." And there are those who permit it, as this is not a disgrace to the sefer Torah. However, regarding books, it is certainly permitted in both matters, and such is the common custom. And that which was explained, that for the study of Torah and to marry a woman it is permitted to sell, it is not specifically when he himself needs this or his son or his grandson, for the same law applies even for the sake of others it is permitted. On the contrary, the mitzvah is greater as he performs a great charity through this. And it appears that just as it is prohibited to sell a sefer Torah, so too it is prohibited to give a sefer Torah as a gift. For it is thus proven in Megillah (Megillah 26b) that a gift is like a sale, see there. And since here it is prohibited to sell, it follows that a gift is also prohibited (it appears to me).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great work in the name of the Rambam in this language: Specifically a sefer Torah made for reading in public. However, individual books are sold, to do with the proceeds whatever they wish. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, explained that this is regarding a sefer Torah of an individual there is no prohibition, but rather that he does not see a sign of blessing. But regarding that of the public there is a prohibition, and so wrote the Mordechai in Megillah there in the name of the Raviah. And based on this, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in Orach Chaim there, section 10, two opinions regarding a sefer Torah of an individual, see there. But there are those who explained that the distinction is between a sefer Torah and other books (Bach), and it was explained in Orach Chaim there, see there. (The Taz at the end of subsection 1 wrote that one who buys a sefer Torah from a star-worshipper, it is as if he wrote it. And specifically when he knows that it is kosher, for if not so, one does not buy from him. And Reuven who wrote a sefer Torah for Shimon without Shimon's request – there is reason to doubt if Shimon fulfilled with this the obligation of writing a sefer Torah. And it appears that he did not fulfill it, and so wrote the author of M"Ch, cited in Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 7, see there. And be precise and you will find it easy.) (And everything I have written in this siman is regarding a kosher sefer Torah specifically.)