kiseyvas Sefer Torah

The Mitzvah To Write A Sefer Torah

In this week's parshah the Torah writes:  "V'atah kisvu lachem es ha'shirah ha'zos…" – And now, write for yourselves this song (Devarim 31:19). Rashi explains that the song that the pasuk is referring to is the parshah of Ha'azinu. The Gemara in Sanhedrin 21B derives from this pasuk that every Jew is commanded to write an entire Sefer Torah. However, if the pasuk is referring to parshas Ha'azinu, how can the Gemara take from here a commandment to write the entire Torah?

The Rambam in Hilchos Sefer Torah 7:1 explains that since the halacha is that when one is writing Torah one cannot write only one parshah, one must write the entire Torah. Many Achronim were bothered by obvious questions. Why is it permitted to write the parshiyos for tefillin and mezuzos without writing the entire Torah? Why is it that only regarding the mitzvah of writing the song of Ha'azinu are we required to write the entire Torah?

The Chasam Sofer, in his Shailos U'teshuvos (Yoreh De'ah 254), answers that the Beis Yosef (in Orach Chaim 49) says that the reason why one is prohibited from writing only a single parshah of the Torah is because we derive many halachos from the juxtaposition of the parshiyos of the Torah. If one would write only a single parshah, one would not be able to properly learn from such a script. When the Torah commanded us to write the shirah, the aforementioned pasuk in Devarim 31:19 continues, "…v'lamdah es Bnei Yisrael simah b'fihem…" – and teach it to the Bnei Yisrael, place it in their mouths. Since the purpose of the mitzvah of writing the shirah of Ha'azinu is for us to learn from it, it must be written together with the rest of the Torah. The parshiyos of tefillin and mezuzah are not intended for one to learn from; rather, those parshiyos remain concealed. Therefore, regarding those mitzvos, one is permitted to write a single parshah without writing the entire Torah.

Reb Moshe Shmuel Shapiro, zt"l, suggests another answer to the above question. When one is writing the parshiyos for tefillin and mezuzos, the writing is not the same as when one generally writes Torah. The halacha that one may not write only one parshah only applies when one is writing Torah generally. When one is writing a parshah for tefillin or mezuzah, he is permitted to write a single parshah because he is not writing Torah for the sake of writing Torah. Rather he is writing for a specific purpose, namely tefillin and mezuzah. As opposed to when one is writing the parshah of Ha'azinu, there is no specific mitzvah that he is writing for. Instead it is considered regular writing of Torah, which is subject to the halacha of not writing Torah as single parshiyos.

The Shagas Aryeh in siman 34 asks another interesting question on the abovementioned Rambam. The Rambam said that since one cannot write Torah in single parshiyos, we must write the entire Torah. The Shagas Aryeh asks, "Does the reason that we cannot write single parshiyos so change the actual mitzvah that now the mitzvah is to write the entire Torah? Or does the mitzvah remain to only write the parshah of Ha'azinu, and one only must write the entire Torah so as not to transgress the prohibition of writing Torah as single parshiyos. One difference between these two options is that if one transgressed and wrote only the parshah of Ha'azinu, would he have fulfilled the mitzvah of kisvu … es ha'shirah ha'zos? Another difference is, if one had written the entire Torah and then everything except for parshas Ha'azinu became erased or torn. If the mitzvah remains to write only the parshah of Ha'azinu in these cases, one would have fulfilled his obligation in the mitzvah. If the Torah had intended for us to figure out, based on the prohibition to write single parshiyos, that the mitzvah is actually to write the entire Torah, one would have not fulfilled his obligation in these cases.

The Shagas Aryeh concludes that the Rambam's wording is indicative of his understanding that the actual mitzvah was to write the entire Torah. Additionally, the Sefer Hachinuch, from where he quotes the Rambam, only quotes that one is obligated to write the Torah in its entirety – and neglects to quote the reason why one cannot write single parshiyos. This would indicate that the Chinuch understood that the Rambam was of the opinion that the prohibition to write single parshiyos was merely an indication for us to understand that the mitzvah was not to write parshas Ha'azinu alone; rather we are to write the Torah in its entirety. Therefore the Chinuch did not deem it necessary to inform us how we know that the mitzvah includes the entire Torah, since it is not part of the actual mitzvah. As a result, according to the Rambam, if one wrote only parshas Ha'azinu, or only parshas Ha'azinu remained from the entire Torah, he would not have fulfilled his obligation in this mitzvah.

For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.

Ki Savo - Arvus: Does It Apply to Women

In parshas ki savo we read that Moshe divided the Binai Yisroel to receive brachos and klalos. He set six tribes on Har Grizim and six tribes on Har Aival, with the Kohanim, Leviyim, and the Aron in the valley. He told the Kohanim and leviyim to turn towards har Grizim and recite a blessing (i.e. Blessed is the man who does not make an idol…) and everyone should answer “Amen”. Then the Kohanim and Leviyim would turn towards har Aival and recite a klala (such as Accursed is the man who makes an idol…) and everyone would say “Amen”. The Gemarah in Sota 37b derives from this parsha the concept of arvus (responsibility)- that each member of klal Yisroel is responsible for the other members’ obligations.

One common application of the concept of arvus is found in the Gemarah in Rosh Hashana 29a. Generally one can only perform a mitzvah and make a bracha on it when he is obligated in it. Once he fulfills his obligation in the mitzvah he can no longer recite a bracha over its performance since he is no longer obligated in it. The Gemarah says that one can perform a mitzvah and recite a bracha on behalf of another person and fulfill his obligation in the mitzvah for them even though he has already fulfilled his own obligation. Rashi explains that this is because all of Klal Yisroel are araivim one to each other regarding their obligation in mitzvos. The Ran there adds that since we are all araivim for each other, even though one person has already performed his mitzvah, as long as another person has not yet fulfilled his mitzvah it is considered as if the first one has not yet completely fulfilled his obligation in the mitzvah. Therefore he can perform the mitzvah with on his friend’s behalf even with a bracha.

The Gemarah in Brachos 20b discusses whether a woman is obligated in the mitzvah of birchas hamazon midoraisa (from the Torah) or only midrabanan (from the Rabanan). The Gemarah says that if she is only obligated midrabanan she cannot recite brchas hamazon for a man who is obligated midoraisa. The R’Osh explains that this is because women are not included in arvus with men. There is a machlokes regarding the correct intent of this R’Osh.

The Dagol Mirvavah (written by the Nodeh B’Yehuda) takes the R’Osh literally; that women are not included in arvus with men. Rabbi Akiva Aiger understands that the R’Osh was only referring to the mitzvah of birchas hamazon. The R’Osh was discussing the opinion that said that women were not obligated in the mitzvah of birchas hamazon midoraisa. According to that opinion the R’Osh explained that women would not be included in the arvus with men who were obligated in the mitzvah of birchas hamazon midoraisa and thus would not be able to recite it on their behalf. However regarding all other mitzvos that women are obligated in, they would be included in the arvus with men.

One application of this machlokes is regarding Kiddush on Friday night. Once one has davened ma’ariv he has already fulfilled his obligation of kiddush midoraisa, since he mentioned ‘mikadesh hashabbos’ in his davening. However he is still obligated to recite kiddush again over a cup of wine midrabanan. Women are obligated in the mitzvah of kiddish midoraisa. When a man comes home Friday night after davening he is no longer obligated in the mitzvah of Kiddush midoraisah. His wife on the other hand (if she has not davened) is obligated in the mitzvah of kiddish midioraisa. The Dagol Mirvava says that in the view of the R’Osh, the husband would not be able to be motzi his wife in kiddish since she is not in arvus with him. Only if he had not davened, and thus was still obligated in the mitzvah midoraisa would he be able to be motzi her without arvus since he is obligated in the mitzvah on his own.

Rabbi Akiva Aiger argues that regarding the mitzvah of kiddush men and women are both included in arvus and therefore even if a man has already fulfilled his obligation he can still recite kiddish on behalf of a woman who is obligated midoraisa.

Additionally Rabbi Akiva Aiger points out that if the woman would merely say “Gut Shabbos” she would have fulfilled her obligation of kiddush midoraisa as well. Therefore even according to the Dagol Mirvava that they are not included in arvus together, after she says gut Shabbos, a man would be able to recite kiddish on her behalf.

{R.F.}