Write a Sefer Torah
Verse: ועתה כתבו לכם את השירה הזאת
Command: Write a Sefer Torah for yourself
Devarim 31:19
Type: Positive
SMG Mitzva # 24
Cross-Ref: {link} Laws of Writing a Sefer Torah, והיה כשבתו על כסא ממלכתו וכתב לו
SMG
There is a positive Mitzvah for every single man [α] of the Jewish people to write a Sefer Torah for himself as is derived in the Gemara[i] from the verse[ii] ועתה כתבו לכם את השירה הזאת – which means write for yourselves the Torah which has this song in it [the song of האזינו], since the Torah is not written as individual Parshas – as is explained in the Gemara[iii]. And even if your fathers have left you a Sefer Torah, there is [still] a Mitzvah to write from one’s own [resources and / or efforts]. And in Gemara[iv] we learnt that if one edited even one letter [in an existing Sefer Torah], that is considered by the Torah as if he had written [the entire Sefer Torah] – Rabeinu Yitzĉok explains this [Gemara in Tosefos אם] as referring to a person who purchased a Sefer Torah with errors [β] [that needs to be corrected before being kosher].
[i] Gem. Sanhedrin 21b
[ii] Devarim 31:19
[iii] Gem. Gittin 60a
[iv] Gem. Menaĉos 30a
AMUDAY SHLOMO
[α] The Ashiri writes:
that this was only said for the earlier generations, who would write a Sefer Torah and use it for studying. However, now that the Sefer Torah is written to be placed in the Base Ha’knesess in order that [it be used] to be read from in public, it is [instead] a Mitzvah to write[1] the five (5) Ĉumashim of the Torah, and Mishna and Gemara and its explanations[2] etc. Therefore, they are the books which have a Mitzvah to be written and not to be sold.
[β] This is the language of the Gemara:
Rabbi Yehoshua bar Abba said in the name of Rav Gidel who said in the name of Rav, ‘one who buys a Sefer Torah from the market is as if he hijacked[3] a Mitzvah from the marketplace. [However,] if he wrote it, then the Torah considers him as if he received [the Torah] from Mount Sinai.’
Rav Sheshes said, ‘if he edits even one letter, the Torah considers him as if he had written it.’
Tosefos clarifies [Rav Sheshes’s comment to be referring to fixing a letter from the faulty] Sefer Torah purchased from the marketplace. In doing so, this is not considered as if he hijacked a Mitzvah, since this [Sefer Torah] was by his friend in a state of transgression – since he allowed a Sefer Torah to remain unedited – therefore [by saving the Sefer Torah from such a state] I consider such a person to have written for himself a Sefer Torah.
[1] The Ashiri lived before the advent of the printing press, during which time it was common for people to write their own handwritten Gemaras, Mishnayos and Ĉumashim. Rashi’s own commentary is typically called the Kuntress – notebook, since that is what it was, a notebook which was circulated and copied by the students in the Yeshivas as a study aid.
[2] Commonly written in personal pamphlets in shorthand which were used as reference points to remind the reader of what he had committed to memory from the oral Torah. This is how Rashi received the appellation the Kuntress (the notebook), from his grandchildren to Tosefos, as they had full access to his handwritten notes – and would refer to it as their primary method of understanding the Gemara.
[3] The term used is an unusual word חוטף – perhaps it is a play on words, since the word חוטף is also used with reference to certain vowels in Hebrew as not being at their full strength. Thus, although the Mitzva is performed, it isn’t performed best by buying it in the market.
This can be understood better in light of Maharshal’s quote of the Ashiri that the Mitzva is to learn the contents, not to have it written, thus by writing it, one inherently learns what is being written. On the other hand, if he buys one that is nearly complete, and simply fixes a letter, he hasn’t learnt the rest of the book – and while technically completing the Sefer Torah is as if it was written in its totality by that person, here the Mitzva comes with a learning component which has not been completed.
RASHI
Rashi on the verse את השירה הזאת states unequivocally that this refers to the section from[i] האזינו השמים until וכפר אדמתו עמו. Accordingly, the פשט does not lend itself to sourcing this Mitzvah from this verse.
[i] Devarim 32:1-43
Discussion by SMS
Rashi clearly disagrees and indicates that the פשט of the verse is that the Song of האזינו was to be written and taught to the Jewish people as a separate work from the writings of the Sefer Torah. Indeed[i], this was incorporated into the weekly service in the Mishkan and Base Hamikdash, in which a portion of האזינו was sung weekly to complete the entire song every six (6) weeks[1]. Presumably it was written like a musical sheet which was used by the Levi’im – and lost with the destruction of the Base Hamikdash. Since the Levi’im trained for five (5) years before being allowed to perform, it is highly doubtful that many copies were needed since they would probably memorize the songs pretty quickly – especially if they had grown up hearing them all their lives.
Although there are certainly clear indications that the quote from Gemara Sanhedrin seems to be referring to the positive commandment on a king to write an additional Torah [see positive Mitzvah 25] – there is also the possibility of interpreting Rashi’s approach to include the requirement for a regular person to write a Sefer Torah – which includes the section of האזינו. However, we will demonstrate that this is not Rashi’s intent:
The Mishna writes that he [the king] has to write a Sefer Torah for himself, on which the Braisa comments, so long as he [the king] doesn’t benefit from the one written by his fathers – meaning only then must he write his own. Rava explains the Braisa that even though a person’s [note the change in subject from a king to a regular person] father bequeathed a Sefer Torah, nevertheless, he has to write from his own [resources] as it says: ועתה כתבו לכם את השירה הזאת.
Abaya asked him; the Braisa is talking about a king, not a commoner.
The Gemara disregards Abaya’s question since the verse for the king[ii] states וכתב לו את משנה – meaning he has to write two (2) Sefer Torahs for himself, one he keeps with him, and one he places in the treasure chamber.
The Gemara then goes off on a tangent discussing how Sefer Torah’s were written, and when and why the typography changed[2].
Presumably, the Gemara takes the position that when the Torah uses the term משנה, this incorporates the obligation to write two (2) Sefer Torah’s, which leaves the verse ועתה כתבו לכם את השירה הזאת open for interpretation as to the requirement for commoners to write one (1) Sefer Torah.
Rashi though does not take that view. Notwithstanding his commentary on the word משנה being in line with the Gemara – that a king has an obligation to write two (2) Sefer Torahs, nevertheless, when it comes to ועתה כתבו לכם את השירה הזאת he does not take the position that this means a commoner must write a Sefer Torah – as we noted previously above. However, Rashi on the Gemara’s response to Abaya makes an interesting statement – what is the difference between a king and commoner? If it were a commoner, it would be enough to have one (1) Torah. Which of course implies that Rashi is explaining the Gemara to require a commoner to write one (1) Torah.
However, a careful examination of the argument structure will show that is not the case. The Gemara’s purpose here is to exclude Abaya’s question and explain why Rava’s explanation of the Braisa is correct. The Braisa notes that the person – a prince at the time, which while he is royalty in the common tongue, in terms of the Torah obligation he is a as common as anyone else, not being king yet – inherited a Sefer Torah from his fathers. Following Rashi’s logic that a commoner need not write one, the same applies to the prince, so long as he is a prince, his father’s Torah is sufficient – and that is enough for him.
Recall, that one (1) Torah was always with the king. The other remained in the palace and was presumably accessed by the king’s family to study from – as in those days, the Sefer Torah was not kept for reading only, but was actively learnt from. So long as he remains a prince, that is all that needs be done. However, once the prince becomes king, according to Rava’s understanding of the Braisa – as explained by Rashi – he may not benefit from the one bequeathed by his ancestors but must write a second one of his own.
The Gemara quoted by the SMG for the purposes of establishing that an individual section is not written out, and therefore, the verse ועתה כתבו לכם את השירה הזאת can only mean a requirement to write the entire Torah – for how else would the specific song be written… – actually goes as follows:
The people of the Galilee sent a question to Rabbi Ĉelbo as follows: ‘Is it ok to read in the ‘Ĉumashim’ in Shul for the congregation?’ As Rashi notes, that the custom was to write each of the five (5) books in the form of a Megillah, which was called a Ĉumash. Rabbi Ĉelbo was unable to answer[3]. He [Rabbi Ĉelbo] went to ask Rabbi Yitzĉok NafĈa, who also was unable to answer – so they asked the question in the study hall, where the students and rabbis debated the issue and determined the Halaĉa is based on the rule from Rabbi Shmuel bar Naĉmayni in the name of Rabbi Yoĉanan [who ruled] a Sefer Torah which is missing a section, may not be read from.
The Gemara though rejects the conclusion from that group of students because the ruling from Rabbi Shmuel bar Naĉmayni in the name of Rabbi Yoĉanan refers to a Sefer Torah which is lacking, not one which has been divided into sections from the outset.
Rabba and Rav Yosef ruled concurrently that one is prohibited from reading from a Ĉumash, but only because of the honor of the congregation[4].
On initial analysis, the Gemara seems to operate from a taken-for-granted assumption that it is in fact ok to write a partial Sefer Torah, and in fact that was the custom to write individual Ĉumashim – hence the people’s question: may such a partial Sefer Torah be used in Shul. Which would seem to contradict the SMG’s usage of the Gemara to prove that since one cannot write a partial Sefer Torah, therefore the verse must mean the entire Sefer Torah must be written – the contradiction being that this is in fact was is done. Furthermore, the Gemara seems only concerned with whether such Ĉumashim may be used to satisfy the obligations of public Torah readings and is not concerned as to whether they may or should be written.
However, this is not a question for the SMG, because the Gemara continues by asking a question about a similar Halaĉic ruling – that one may need read the Haftorah from a scroll of Haftorahs, in which only the various Haftorahs were written, and not the entirety of the book of prophets in which it was drawn from. On this ruling, the Gemara asks how is it possible such a book was written in the first place? Rashi comments on this explaining the question to mean that only complete works may be written out, and not ‘less than a complete book by itself’.
This would mean that although a Ĉumash could be written, a single parsha (and really not even a full parsha since the parsha of האזינו has an additional nine verses that aren’t part of the song. Since a single parsha cannot be written out, this supports the SMGs interpretation of the verse ועתה כתבו לכם את השירה הזאת as meaning that the entire Sefer Torah must be written.
Regarding the ‘hijacking’ of a Mitzvah by purchasing a Sefer Torah from the marketplace, there too we find a couple of sections in the Gemara that require explanation.
The Gemara starts with [β] Rabbi Yehoshua bar Abba said in the name of Rav Gidel who said in the name of Rav, the final eight (8) verses of the Torah must be read by a single[5] individual. The Gemara comments, this opinion does not follow Rabbi Shimon who derived from the verse[iii] לקוח את ספר התורה הזה that the entire Torah was written by Moshe – even the section that described his passing – because it would be impossible for a Sefer Torah to be written when lacking even one (1) letter, and certainly when lacking eight (8) complete verses. How then did Moshe write this? Up to that point, G‑d Almighty spoke to Moshe who enscribed what he was told. However, from this point on, Moshe used tears[6] instead of ink.
The Gemara then follows up on this with a related quote from Rabbi Yehoshua bar Abba said in the name of Rav Gidel who said in the name of Rav regarding the hijacking of a Mitzvah when one acquires the Sefer Torah from the marketplace. On this Rashi comments that hijacking a Mitzvah is nevertheless a Mitzvah done, ‘but if he would have written it, it would be a more better Mitzvah.’
This comment from Rashi would seem to imply a contradiction to his explanation on the Torah in which there is no Mitzvah to write a Sefer Torah. One can attempt to incorporate Tosefos’s explanation that the Mitzvah here is to salvage the old Sefer Torah from its state of disrepair, but that doesn’t explain why Rashi adds that ‘if he would have written it, it would be a more better Mitzvah.’
One can also attempt to say that this might be a Rashi introduced in error, and it is not authentic, especially considering the strange [and nearly grammatically incorrect] terminology employed. Such an approach is not necessary though. A far more simplistic approach is available.
On the verse[iv] regarding the obligation for a king to write two (2) Sefer Torahs, the Torah writes וכתב לו את משנה התורה הזאת על ספר Rashi comments on the words את משנה התורה and writes: ‘Two (2) Sefer Torahs, one that is placed in his treasure house, and one that would come and go with him. Unkelos translates it as פתשגן, explaining [the word] משנה from the terms repeating and speaking.’
In Megillas Ester, where the word פתשגן appears twice, Rashi comments on it both times. The first[v] when dire edicts were being issued, he writes ‘פתשגן is an Aramaic word, which means the story in writing – דרישמאנט in old French[7].’ The second time[vi], not satisfied with the first explanation, when Mordeĉai is issuing his own edicts to have the Jews defend themselves, Rashi comments on פתשגן which he defines as ‘an explicit letter.’
What is strange with both the explanation of משנה and the later explanation on פתשגן is that Rashi seems to break from his pattern of assuming the student has retained the knowledge imparted in earlier lessons. In fact – especially with the word משנה – Rashi seems to go out of his way to explain nearly every instance of the word.
Three (3) times the word appears with regard to Yosef:
- On the verse[vii] וירכב אתו במרכבת המשנה אשר לו – Rashi comments the chariot for Yosef was the second-in-command chariot[8].
- On the verse[viii] וכסף משנה קחו בידכם – Rashi comments that the replacement funds were double the original. Meaning not only were the original funds to be returned, but they were to assume the prices had doubled, and they were to bring sufficient funds to account for hyper-inflation.
- On the verse[ix] ומשנה כסף לקחו בידם ואת בנימין – Rashi comments concerning the grammar of the verse, that obviously the doubling of funds cannot also apply to a doubling of Binyamin and determines the addition in the verse of Binyamin is being added to the word לקחו.[9]
Not satisfied with doubling down on explaining the word משנה twice by Yosef, Rashi comments again on this word in the next section– with regard to the Manna from heaven:
- On the verse[x] והיה משנה על אשר ילקטו – Rashi comments that it will be double, for both today and tomorrow. Not satisfied with that, Rashi again doubles down and explains in great detail that the word here means abundance, twice as much as they would normally receive.
- On the verse[xi] לקטו לחם משנה – Rashi again makes sure we know the word means double, and then adds a Midrash that the bread wasn’t just doubled, but it was also משונה – changed in that it tasted even better than during the week.
And finally with regard to both a slave [explained here] and king [וכתב לו את משנה התורה הזאת], the word משנה is used, and once again Rashi makes sure to explain it means more than one (1):
- On the verse[xii] כי משנה שכר שכיר – Rashi explains the double duty of the Jewish slave; he must work by day – performing the labor his master gives him, and by night – impregnating any Canaanite maidservants his master gives him.
It seems clear, that Rashi is establishing a pattern that the word משנה doesn’t just mean two (2) – for if the number two is needed, the Torah can write the word שני or שנים. Instead, this word is a doubling of quantity as well as some other qualitative measure.
With regard to the obligation of the king to have two (2) Sefer Torahs, it is not enough that a second one must be written, Rashi also introduces the idea brought by Unkelos that the second Torah must be written and spoken (read from).
Which of course leaves us with a question, if the word משנה teaches us that a second Torah must be written, and it adds the qualitative function of speaking as well, where do we derive that the first Torah must be written?
As I noted previously, the answer to this can be found in the most simplistic approach – the requirement that a second Sefer Torah is to be written, includes automatically the requirement that the first one has already been done!
This explains why although Rashi is unable to derive a requirement to write a Torah from the verse ועתה כתבו לכם את השירה הזאת, he still maintains that such a Mitzvah exists, for how else would there be a requirement that a king needs to write a second one if he was never required to write the first one?
This seems indisputable.
On the Prohibition of Writing Down the Oral Torah
It should be noted, all opinions agree, that the requirement to write the Torah is limited to the five (5) books of the Written Torah, and until Rebbe compiled the Mishna, to combat the troubles of our exile and waning power of our minds, it was forbidden to write down the Oral Torah[10], as it says in the verse שימה בפיהם.[11]
[1] The Rambam writes the song was divided into the same section in which the Aliyos for the week of האזינו are divided. The acronym of the first letters of each Aliya forms the words הזיו לך – the Light belongs to You. האזינו, זכור, ירכיבהו, וירא ה’, לו חכמו, כי אשא.
[2] See my supplemental work on positive Mitzva 25 concerning the typography of the Alef Base, and how and why it changed – and how the changes incorporated the same symbolism of the original script.
[3] since he had not received the tradition as to what the Halaĉa was, he couldn’t answer – hence the Gemara’s terminology לא הוה בידיה.
[4] Hence the modern Halaĉic ruling that when there isn’t a Minyan, they do read from the Ĉumash instead of a Sefer Torah.
[5] Halacha allows for the division of the parsha into more than the traditional number of readers, provided that each reader called up reads three (3) verses. With the exception of the final eight (8) verses in the whole Torah which may not be assigned to more than one (1) reader.
[6] Possibly this is meant literally like invisible ink, which would only show up later when heated. The requirements to write in ink though would have to be examined to see if such indelible ink would be allowed for writing a Sefer Torah…
[7] I was unable to trace the etymology of this transliteration in old French. Even my father who has a master’s degree in French, was unable to trace it. So, we will have to explore the Aramaic:
The Aramaic translation of משנה למלך in Ester 10:3 is פתשגר – which implies something that is second to the king but retains some of the original authority. Similarly, the Targum in Shemos 23:20 שולח מלאך – the sending of an angel – translates as משגר מלאכא.
A similar usage of שגן can be found in the targum of Divrei Hayamim I 12:33 where the Targum talks about the children of the tribe of Yissachar being extremely wise, and knowing to establish the source of שגין, start of the months and leap years. And in Midrash Tehillim on the verse 7:2 ה’ אלקי בך חסיתי, the Rabbanan comment that שגה אדם בדברי תורה, דברי תורה משגין אותו – if a person makes a mistake in the words of Torah, the Torah will correct him – based on the verse in Iyov ואף אמנם שגיתי, אתי תלין משוגתי – and if I have erred, that which is with me shall hold in abeyance my error.
When combining all this together with the context, it would seem that the accurate definition of פתשגן is: ‘a copy, with some of the original authority, in which scriveners’ errors are (to be) corrected.’
[8] Similar to the current US Vice President’s mode of transportation by air being designated Air Force 2.
[9] Rashi doesn’t actually explain what the word משנה adds here, but based on the pattern and context of what was happening, one can easily surmise that the brothers felt that while they would be purchasing the same overall quantity of food, because there was now another buyer on hand – namely Binyamin – the cruel Egyptian viceroy was sure to charge per head, in addition to increasing the price for inflation. Accordingly, they brought sufficient funds to offset even that type of price gauging.
[10] Just as it was forbidden to rely on memorization of the written Torah.
[11] When I was in grade school, in Toras Emes, I was told this verse teaches us we have an obligation to learn the song of האזינו by heart – and in fact, this was the first section of the Torah that I deliberately studied by heart.
[i] Rambam laws of תמידים ומוספים 6:9
[ii] Devarim 17:18
[iii] Devarim 31:26
[iv] Devarim 17:18
[v] Ester 3:14
[vi] Ester 8:13
[vii] Beraishis 41:43
[viii] Beraishis 43:12
[ix] Beraishis 43:15
[x] Shemos 16:5
[xi] Shemos 16:22
[xii] Devarim 15:18