Writing Stam

Introduction

The mitzvos that nowadays require the most effort, time and/or money to fulfil even on the basic level, are those involving writing. It usually takes a sofer a few hours to write a mezuza, a few days to write the parshiyos for a pair of tefilin and six months to a year to write a sefer torah (not including the time taken to prepare the parchment, and the batim and straps of the tefilin).

This was not always the case. The gemara tells us that one who finds tefilin in the street may appraise them and wear them himself. Tefilin are considered an easily replaceable item, and if the true owner is discovered it will be simple to buy him a new pair from the sofer. By contrast, sifrei torah are harder to come by and one who finds a lost one must look after it for the owner.[1]

Clearly, this halacha is not relevant based on the way tefilin are bought and kept today. No religious or traditional Jew sees his tefilin as being easily replaceable. This change is a direct result of the fact that today the only items that are handwritten en masse are those with kedusha – the unique amount of work that goes into them leads to the high sale price.

The main purpose of this post is to examine whether the various advances in technology, starting from the first printing presses and continuing to modern printers, could be utilised to make the process more efficient, in the same way that has been done with non-sacred items. If this were possible, it would save a tremendous amount of precious time and resources.[2]

Early Rulings

This question is not a new one. The Taz (R' David Segal, Poland 1586-1667) writes that he has heard people saying that printed sefarim do not have kedusha, as printing is not considered writing. He rules in no uncertain terms that this is wrong, as even engraving is considered writing, and printing is certainly writing and not engraving.[3]

The Magen Avraham (R' Avraham Gombiner, Poland 1637-1683) also seems to agree to this in principle, but argues that printed tefilin and mezuzos are not kosher for a technical reason. Unlike sifrei torah, tefilin and mezuzos must be written in the correct order, a requirement which printing (of his time) could not guarantee to fulfil.[4] He concludes that even sifrei torah should not be printed l'chatchila, but does not provide a rationale for this.[5]

Some poskim of the same period write that printing is not considered writing at all, but again it is hard to find an explanation for this. The Rama miPano (Italy 1548-1620) claims that although printed gitin (divorce documents) are kosher, sifrei torah, tefilin and mezuzos are different. As these items must be written with ink,[6] this ink must also be applied to the paper using classical writing methods.[7] Needless to say, this line of reasoning is not conclusively compelling.

Modern Application

Of course, modern printing methods require fresh evaluation of the issues described above. It would certainly be possible to facilitate printing of tefilin and mezuzos in the correct order.

On the other hand, R' Ovadya Yosef writes that even according to the view of the Taz, that use of the old-style printing press is considered writing, this is only because this method used hand power. Printing powered by electricity is not writing and would be invalid.[8]

R' Ovadya does not bring a proof to his assertion, and this is understandable. The concept of performing any action through an automatic process, fully controlled by humans but using a non-human force, simply did not exist before the development of electronics. It is therefore down to our intuition to decide whether this is considered writing, and while my own intuition says that printing is now the standard method of writing, I cannot prove this.

Pouring Ink

On a conceptual level, assuming that hand power is not required and that therefore old-style impact printing could be used, it is interesting to consider whether non-impact printing (performed by inkjet and laser printers) also counts as writing. As the ink is sprayed on to the page and no writing implement makes contact, this form of printing is a step further away from traditional writing.

There is also a potential source in Chazal to question the validity of this form of printing. The Yerushalmi says that the requirement for gitin to be written precludes pouring ('וכתב' ולא ושפך). The context is the use of an ink that becomes invisible when dry, but can become visible again by pouring ink on it.[9] However, R' Chisdai Kreskas (Spain, 1340-1410) writes that no form of pouring ink can be considered writing, based on the words of the Yerushalmi.[10]

Non-impact printing is essentially pouring ink, so based on the ruling of R' Chisdai Kreskas, one could argue that it is not considered writing. However, I would suggest that this is not necessarily the case. While simply pouring ink is certainly not a normal form of writing, non-impact printing is the method used for producing the majority of paper documents in our time. It is logical to assume that 'writing' can evolve, and that it should not be defined by the norms of 2,000 years ago.[11]

A Compromise?

Even if we accept R' Ovadya's line of thinking, it would be possible to save significant resources by using older printing methods that are powered directly by humans. A typewriter could be designed to be compatible with parchment and kosher ink, and this would only be halachically problematic according to the logic of the Rama miPano quoted above.

The problem is that the position of the Rama miPano seems to have become accepted. Allowing printed or typed stam (the acronym for sifrei torah, tefilin and mezuzos) would require a revolution, only practically possible with the support of a significant number of the leading Torah authorities.[12]

The Price to Pay

The cost of ruling stringently here is not just the financial burden that the religious community have to bear in order to keep the relevant mitzvos. Many families simply cannot afford to pay the high prices for tefilin and mezuzos, and in the effort to save money will buy these items from unreliable sources.

Furthermore, among all the accepted stringencies regarding the writing of Stam, there is one major leniency relied upon by the vast majority of religious Jewish males (at least). Every one of us is obligated to write (or commission the writing of) our own Sefer Torah, a mitzvah that few fulfil literally.[13]

The majority of us must rely either on an exemption due to it being beyond our means,[14] or on a creative idea of the Rosh. The Rosh claims that as the purpose of the mitzvah is to facilitate learning, the mitzvah is nowadays fulfilled by writing Chumashim, Mishnayos, Gemara and commentaries.[15] The acharonim dispute whether the Rosh meant to exempt us from writing personal sifrei torah or just to add further obligations to write more,[16] and we seem to rely on the lenient interpretation.

In my view, it would certainly be better for us to fulfil the mitzvah by printing (or at least typing) Sifrei Torah – maybe one day this will become a reality.

---

[1] Bava Metsia 29b

[2] Inevitably, some will counter that the time and effort put into these mitzvos is part of what the Torah wants, and that we should not look to lessen this. In my view, while there is merit to this argument, if it is possible to fulfil these mitzvos more easily, this should certainly be facilitated. This is somewhat akin to the fact that although the poskim strongly encourage baking one's own challa for Shabbos (see Rema, Orach Chaim 242 and Biur Halacha there; see also Or l'Tziyon volume 2, 47:1), no-one suggests forbidding the bakeries from selling challa.

[3] Taz, Yoreh Deah 271:8

[4] At the time, printing typically involved arranging several lines of metal letters into a frame, and then pressing these letters onto the paper.

[5] Magen Avraham 32:57

[6] See Shabbos 103b; Yerushalmi Megila 1:9

[7] Responsa of the Rama miPano, siman 93

[8] Shu"t Yechave Da'as 6:57

[9] Yerushalmi Gitin 2:3

[10] Chidushei Rabbeinu Kreskas, Gitin 9b

[11] See Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim 3:52, where R' Moshe Feinstein uses similar logic to argue that cooking in a microwave is Biblically prohibited on Shabbos. Although he understands that cooking without fire is only a derivative (תולדה) of the primary melacha of cooking, this is only because cooking in the Mishkan was done with fire, and the primary melachos of Shabbos are only those actions done in the Mishkan. See also Mishpetei Uziel, Yoreh Deah siman 78, who agrees that printing is Biblically prohibited on Shabbos as a derivative of writing (he invalidates printed mezuzos, based on the ruling of the Rama miPano).

[12] Even if individual sofrim were willing to go against the grain, without significant demand for printed Stam, it would likely not be profitable. Furthermore, the more 'open-minded' community are almost entirely dependent on Chareidim (or 'Chardalim') for writing Stam, and this has its costs.

[13] Most poskim write that women are exempt from this mitzvah, in the same way that they are exempt from learning Torah and from wearing tefilin. See Minchas Chinuch, mitzvah 613, for a brief discussion.

[14] One should not spend more than a fifth of ones money in order to fulfil any positive mitzvah – see Keusvos 50a and Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 249:1.

[15] Hilchos Sefer Torah siman 1

[16] See Beis Yosef, Yoreh Deah siman 270; Shach there s'if katan 5.