Siman 283

We learn in Bava Batra (Bava Batra 13b): Our Rabbis taught: A person may join the Torah, Prophets, and Writings as one, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The Torah by itself, the Prophets by themselves, and the Writings by themselves. And the Sages say: Each and every one by itself (meaning: each prophet by himself). And Rabbi Yehuda said: It happened with Boethus ben Zonin, that he had eight prophets (and they are all the books of the Prophets, Rashi) joined as one according to the word of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. And some say: He only had each one by itself (like the Sages). Rabbi said: It happened that they brought before us the Torah, Prophets, and Writings joined as one, and we validated them. Thus far his words. It is further stated there: Our Rabbis taught: One who wishes to join the Torah, Prophets, and Writings as one — may join them. Thus far his words.

One must consider what prohibition exists in this? Our teacher, Gershom Meor HaGolah, in his commentary (in the new editions of the Shas) wrote: Because when one occupies himself with Nevi'im and Ketuvim—the Torah becomes like a servant to them, see there. Rashi did not explain anything. Our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote, and this is their wording: One attaches etc., even though it is impossible that he will not place Nevi'im and Ketuvim on top of the Torah etc.—these words apply to two separate scrolls etc. (and as I wrote at the end of the previous siman). Ri says: Torah by itself, no, because it is forbidden to place this upon that etc., for we do not find that it is forbidden except for Nevi'im and Ketuvim upon Torah. But Nevi'im upon Ketuvim or the reverse—no. Rather, this is the reason: so that it should not all appear like Torah or all like Nevi'im, just as the sages said that every prophet should be by himself. And perforce the reason is so that it should not appear as all one prophet. So it appeared to the Rashba. Thus far his words.

In my humble opinion, the matters are not understood: for what of it if everything appears like the Torah, or like the Prophets, or like one prophet? And what suspicion is there in this, or what disgrace is there in this? And if it is because they might say he possesses only the Torah, or the Prophets, or one prophet—what of it? Is there a prohibition in this? Furthermore: since he himself is not particular about this, why should we care? And it appears to me that their intention is: so that they should not say that they added to the Torah, or to the Prophets, or to the prophet. And the halacha is like Rabbi Meir, for Rabbi stands according to him, and he instructed thus as a practical halachic ruling. And the second braita is anonymous, according to Rabbi Meir. And the Mordechai and the Hagahot Oshri wondered there: do not Rabbi Yehuda and the sages disagree with Rabbi Meir? See there. And it is not a difficulty at all, as I have written. And know that according to the reasoning of our teacher Gershom Me'or HaGolah, it is not understood what the reasoning of the sages is regarding the Prophets, that each one requires its own separate scroll. And it must be said that they hold that this too is a disgrace, that one prophet should serve another.

However, in any event, from these words of our teachers it is explained, in my humble opinion, that the Torah remains in its sanctity in its attachment with Nevi'im and Ketuvim. For if it should enter your mind that it is not in its sanctity, and one may not read from it in the tzibbur, if so, why must they seek forced reasons for Rabbi Yehuda, who forbids attaching Torah to Nevi'im and Ketuvim? Let them say the reason is because it lowers the Torah from its sanctity, which is a great and correct reason? And also Nevi'im and Ketuvim, which he forbids joining together, let us say the reason is that it lowers the Nevi'im from their sanctity? For the sanctity of Nevi'im is greater than the sanctity of Ketuvim, as Ketuvim are only by Ruach HaKodesh and not by prophecy. And so wrote the Ran in the name of the Ramban in the fourth chapter of Rosh Hashanah, that the sanctity of Nevi'im is greater than Ketuvim, see there. And also for the Sages it would have been possible to say the reason is because every prophet has a level unto himself, as we say that Yeshayahu is comparable to a city dweller, etc., and there are Nevi'im Rishonim and there are Acharonim. Rather, it is certain that every thing stands in its sanctity. And a further proof: that we do not require for reading in the tzibbur that there be only this thing that they are reading now, for behold in Megillah (Megillah 19a) we say: One who reads from a Megillah written among the Ketuvim—he has not fulfilled his obligation, for the reason that we require an "iggeret" unto itself. And when it is among the Ketuvim—it is not an "iggeret," as Rashi explained there. And therefore they said there that if it is missing, or has a little extra—we have no concern with it, see there. Behold it is explained that because of attachment to others—we have no concern with it. And furthermore: for if it should enter your mind that by this they lower the Torah from its sanctity, how do Rabbi Meir and Rabbi permit it? And is it permitted to lower Torah from its sanctity? Rather, it is certain that this is not a lowering.

But the Rambam wrote in the seventh chapter, law 15, and this is his wording: It is permitted to join the Torah, Prophets, and Writings into one volume etc. This volume that contains the Torah, Prophets, and Writings—its sanctity is not like the sanctity of a sefer Torah, but rather like a chumash of the chumashim; the law of the addition is like the law of the deficiency. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch. And behold, according to the words of the Rambam, the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda and the sages is simple, because it is forbidden to lower the Torah from its sanctity. But if so, what is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi? And perhaps it can be said that the Rambam explains that if it were not for reading from it in public—the dispute would not be relevant at all, and as I wrote, the reasonings of the Tosafot and our teacher Gershom Me'or HaGolah are almost not understandable at all. Rather, this is the explanation: Rabbi Meir permits reading from it in public, for this is not a lowering of sanctity. And Rabbi Yehuda forbids reading from it in public. And so the sages forbid reading from a Prophet in public if it is joined to other Prophets, for every Prophet has his own level. And the Baraita "that joins etc."—follows everyone, meaning: that there is no prohibition in the matter, except that according to Rabbi Yehuda and the sages it is forbidden to read from it in public, for they are like mere chumashim. And the Rambam ruled like Rabbi Yehuda and the sages. And it must be said according to his words that it deals with a case where he wrote them initially with the intent to join them as one, for if he wrote the Torah by itself and sewed it all—it is certainly forbidden afterwards to join it to Prophets and Writings, for he would be lowering it from its sanctity. But according to the words of the Tosafot and our teacher Gershom Me'or HaGolah, there is no concern in this. And I wonder at all the poskim who did not sense that the way of the Tosafot is far from the opinion of the Rambam. And in practice, it is obvious that one should be concerned for the opinion of the Rambam, and not join the Torah when it is completed to Prophets and Writings. (And the Tosafot and our teacher Gershom Me'or HaGolah were not concerned that the addition is considered like a deficiency, for the addition is not in the body of the Torah itself.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that all this applies to Chumashim made in a scroll like a Sefer Torah. But with ours which are bound – there is no distinction between a Chumash and a Navi. Thus far his words. That is to say: certainly all holy books are sacred, but this is a general sanctity. However, regarding the specific levels of sanctity where one is above the other, and a Sefer Torah is above them all – this is when they were written for the sake of the sanctity of a Sefer Torah on klaf according to the law. But ordinary books like ours, and certainly with printed books – they do not possess specific levels of sanctity; rather, the sanctity of all of them is equal. Also regarding the matter of placing one upon the other – they do not possess an advantage one over the other, as I wrote at the end of the previous siman. And there is no distinction between the Written Torah and the Oral Torah, for all are sacred, and one may place them upon each other (so it appears to me).

And know that in Masekhet Soferim chapter three, it brought this dispute from Bava Batra there, and brought the incident of Rabbi who validated it. And afterward it says: In what case are these things said? Regarding diphtra. But regarding gevil (so it must be said), the Torah is on its own and the Prophets are on their own. Thus far his words. And it appears that this is its explanation: that specifically diphtra, which is invalid to write a sefer Torah upon—it is permitted to attach them, because it does not possess the sanctity of a sefer Torah. But gevil—it is forbidden, because it constitutes a reduction in sanctity when one connects them together, like the words of the Rambam. But all the poskim did not bring this, because in the Shas this was not mentioned at all. And it requires further study.

And one leaves four lines between each Chumash. We have already explained the details of the laws regarding this in siman 273, see there. And between each prophet and the next, three lines. And likewise between each prophet of the Trei Asar. Thus wrote the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch, and it is likewise explicitly stated in Masechet Soferim chapter two (halacha 4), see there. However, the version of Rashi in Bava Batra there is: that only in Trei Asar are there three lines, but in all the prophets one requires a space of four lines like in a Sefer Torah. And it likewise implies explicitly in the Yerushalmi, the first chapter of Megillah (halacha 9), which says: between book and book four lines, and in Trei Asar three lines, see there. And it is explained explicitly that "between book and book" applies even to the prophets. And certainly one should act according to the opinion of the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch. And all of this is not indispensable, as I wrote there in siman 273, see there.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 1 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 283:1): It is permitted to write the entire Torah Chumash by Chumash on its own, and they do not possess the sanctity of a complete sefer Torah. And there is one who says that they are like a sefer Torah in all matters, except that one does not read from them in public. Thus far his words. And the first opinion is the view of the Rambam and the Tur. And the "there is one who says" is the view of the Rashba in a responsum (siman 144), as he wrote in his great book, see there. And in my humble opinion, the matter is astonishing to create a dispute in this. For behold, it is an explicit Gemara in Gittin (Gittin 60a) that one does not read from Chumashim in public due to the honor of the congregation, see there. But were it not for the honor of the congregation—it would be permitted to read from them. If so, it is necessary that they possess the sanctity of a sefer Torah like the words of the Rashba, and who would disagree with this?

In the Rambam and the Tur there is another intention in this, and this is the wording of the Rambam in the seventh chapter, law 14: It is permitted to write the Torah, each Chumash by itself, and they do not possess the sanctity of a sefer Torah. However, one may not write a scroll by itself that contains parshiyot. And one may not write a scroll for a child to learn from. But if his intention is to complete a Chumash upon it—it is permitted. Thus far his words. And his intention is not that he writes the entire Torah, each Chumash by itself, for in such a case there is certainly the sanctity of a sefer Torah, except that one does not read from it in public, and it is in such a case that the Rashba deals. But the Rambam deals with one who writes one or two Chumashim, and not all the Chumashim. Therefore he did not say "It is permitted to write the entire Torah etc.," for he is not dealing with that. And since he said that one may not write scrolls, he says that a complete Chumash is permitted, as he concludes: "But if his intention is to complete a Chumash upon it—it is permitted." Thus far his words. Behold, he is dealing with a single Chumash. And this is the wording of the Tur: It is permitted to write the entire Torah, Chumash by Chumash by itself, and they do not possess the sanctity of a complete sefer Torah. Thus far his words. That is to say: that one does not read from it in public. Or his intention is like the Rambam, as I have written.

Regarding that which the Rambam prohibits writing scrolls, the Tur wrote that the Rif permitted and the Rambam prohibits, and the Rosh agreed with the Rambam (for such is the conclusion of the Shas there, that the Torah was given sealed and not in scrolls). However, he wrote: And it is possible that the Rif saw fit to be lenient, because it is not possible for every poor person in Israel to write a complete Torah for his son. Thus far his words. That is to say: a complete Chumash. And so ruled the great Rishonim and Acharonim, that it is permitted because of "it is a time to act etc.", and without this they would come to the cancellation of Torah. (Bach and Shach subsection 3, and Taz subsection 1. And that which they wrote that it is only permitted for learning, from the Bach and Shach it does not imply so, see there. But nowadays when everything is in print – there is no practical difference in this. And the halacha is like the Rambam, and we do not print less than a complete Chumash.)

The Rambam wrote: If one wrote a megillah three words to a line—it is permitted. Thus far his words. That is to say: even though we forbade writing megillot, nevertheless, by means of a change—it is permitted, such as if he only writes three words in a line and three in the line below it. And it is not called beautiful, and the change is recognizable—it is permitted. And one should not ask: if so, why did the Rif permit it because of "it is a time to act," for behold, he could do it in this manner? For it can be said that since it is not called beautiful—it would again result in the neglect of Torah, and there is in this the concern of "it is a time to act, etc."

Since by the law it is forbidden to write scrolls, but they permitted it because of the neglect of Torah study, however, in a place where the neglect of Torah study is not relevant—it is forbidden. Therefore, one should rebuke those who write verses on the walls of the synagogue and the beit midrash (Taz). And likewise, it is forbidden to embroider verses on a tallit. Furthermore, there is an additional prohibition in this, for the tallit has no sanctity and it is permitted to enter filthy places with it, and how shall he enter with the verses? (See Shach, subsection 6, who wrote only this reason, and rejected the reason of the prohibition to write scrolls. And according to his words, it is permitted on walls. But the primary ruling is like the Taz, for even the Rosh agreed with the Rambam. And know that seemingly this is only regarding the Torah, but Nevi'im and Ketuvim—it is permitted to write parashiyot, for "the Torah was given sealed" is only relevant to the Torah, as is explained in Gittin ibid. However, previously when it says there: This book of haftarot is forbidden to read from on Shabbat, what is the reason? Because it was not permitted to be written? And Rashi explained: less than one complete book, see there. Behold, even in Nevi'im it is forbidden to write scrolls. And it is not understood, for behold, "sealed" Torah was only stated regarding the Torah, as Rashi explained there. And likewise the entire sugya is only regarding the Torah, see there. And it must be said that we learn Nevi'im from Torah, for even the prophet did not write his book until his prophecies were completed. And it requires further study from Bava Batra 15a, that Elazar and Phinehas finished the Book of Joshua, and Gad the Seer and Nathan the Prophet finished the Book of Samuel, see there. And it requires great study. And examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

Our sages, of blessed memory, said in Bava Batra (Bava Batra 14b): The order of the Prophets is: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, the Twelve. And the order of the Writings is: Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel, the Scroll of Esther, Chronicles. And they did not follow the chronological times in this, for Isaiah preceded Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Rather, because Kings ends with destruction, and Jeremiah is also destruction—we place them adjacent to one another, as the reasons for the adjacency to one another are explained in the Gemara there. And so too regarding the Writings, see there. And know that the open and closed sections in the Prophets and Writings have not been clarified for us, for they were not clarified in the Masorah, and also the Rambam did not clarify them. And know that there are those who forbid writing mundane matters in Ashurit script, but the practice is not so. And the reason is as our sages, of blessed memory, said: Mundane matters may be spoken in the holy tongue—and consequently the same law applies to Ashurit script. And also regarding what has been explained that it is permitted to join the Torah, Prophets, and Writings as one, it is explained in the Gemara that in such a case one does not make two rollers, but only one roller at its end, and at its beginning one leaves blank parchment to wrap around the entire circumference. (And regarding writing Ashurit in mundane matters—it will be further explained in the next siman.)