The celestial lights shine upon the letters from which the sanctity of the Torah, the sanctity of Torah scrolls, phylacteries and mezuzot, all holy writings, are drawn. Commensurate with the sanctity with which they are written the inspiration [of holiness] and the illumination upon the letters is enhanced. Accordingly, a Torah scroll that contains a single defect is defective in its entirety for there is no proper illumination upon it that would draw sanctity from it to the nation through the power of reading from it.
R. MOSES CHAIM LUZZATTO, KALAH PITHEI HOKHMAH, INTRODUCTION
A completed Torah scroll represents the culmination of close to a year of painstaking labor on the part of a scribe who must copy each word from an already existing scroll. The scribe must be proficient in the myriad regulations governing the fashioning of the various letters of the alphabet and must be vigilant in assuring that his calligraphy produces not only an aesthetically pleasing result but that each letter conforms to the requirements of Halakhah. Little wonder, then, that the price of a new Torah scroll, including the cost of the parchment that must be specially prepared for this sacred purpose, now ranges from a minimum of $30,000 to well over $70,000. One twelve-inch Torah scroll recently sold for $90,000. The price of that Torah reflected the lengthy period of time required to write a diminutive scroll.
Megillot, tefillin and mezuzot must be written in a similar manner but, since less writing is involved, the cost is commensurately lower. Megillot sell for between $800 and $2,000. Tefillin parchments, exclusive of the leather containers in which the parchment scrolls are encased, cost between $350 and $1,500. Mezuzot range in price between $40 and $280.
The disparity in cost largely reflects the reputation of the particular scribe and the beauty of his calligraphy. Beauty, it is said, is in the eye of the beholder. The beauty of a Torah scroll, to a significant degree, lies in a combination of objective factors including rationalization of lines and margins, symmetry of size with regard to the letters, as well as elements of style that generally are appreciated only by an expert.
I. The Silk Screen Method
Halakhah prescribes that each letter of a Torah scroll be formed by a qualified scribe. That requirement effectively bars use of printing or of photographic processes.1See infra, note 9. However, recently, Rabbi Yitzchak Abadi, formerly of Lakewood, N. J., and now a resident of Har Nof in Jerusalem, has developed a novel method for use in producing Torah scrolls, megillot, tefillin and mezuzot. If acceptable, utilization of that method would dramatically reduce the cost of those sacred artifacts.
The newly-developed process represents an adaptation of the silk screening commonly employed in various forms of commercial art. Silk screening is one of the oldest methods of printing words and images. The origin of silk screening can be traced back to early Egyptian and Chinese civilizations and was probably first developed sometime in the fifth century of the common era. Today, the process, often referred to as serigraphy, is most commonly used by commercial artists because it allows for printing upon virtually any material. Screen printed materials include most plastic containers used for food and industrial products, cosmetics, signs, tee shirts and caps.
The screen printing process is quite simple. The fabric or mesh of which the screen is made is similar to a window screen but is much finer. Although the screen was originally made of silk, it can also be made of nylon, wire, cotton or, even more commonly at present, polyester. The stencil placed over the screen consists of a thin lacquer sheet. Ink or a coloring agent is deposited onto the screen and pressure is applied by means of a squeegee in order to pull the ink or dye over those parts of the screen not blocked by the stencil. The ink or coloring agent then passes to the surface below the screen known as the substrate. Thus, the letter or design formed on the substrate is defined by the stencil.
The process developed by Rabbi Abadi, as described in the Tammuz 5762 issue of Or Torah and the Av-Elul 5762 issue of Kovez Bet Aharon ve-Yisra'el involves use of a piece of tightly woven silk that is stretched upon a wooden frame. Minute holes in the material are arranged in the shape of the letters of an entire column or of several columns of a Torah scroll. The silk screen is then placed over parchment and ink is poured on an unperforated area of the silk along the entire length of the right side of the screen.2The description of the process presented in these sources is probably somewhat inaccurate. The usual form of silk screening as described in the literature employs a stencil placed over the screen. The screen itself bears no letter or design. The ink is then applied to the stencil and penetrates the exposed portion of the screen. Rabbi Abadi himself, in his recently published Or Yiẓḥak, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 53, indicates that the process utilizes a plastic stencil with letters formed by small, closely-placed holes.
Although unmentioned in these sources but duly noted by Rabbi Abadi in his Or Yiẓḥak, the parchment used in this process is scored in the proper manner, i.e., indentations in the form of straight lines (sirtut) are impressed upon the parchment before commencement of the screening process. Although it might be assumed that scoring is required simply as a means of assuring that the lines will be straight, many authorities regard the need for sirtut to be a statutory requirement of Mosaic origin and to be necessary in all circumstances. See R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yeḥaveh Da‘at, VI, no. 57.
Teshuvot Radvaz, no. 156, cited by Pitḥei Teshuvah, Yoreh De‘ah 271:13, and Bnei Yonah, Kiẓur Arukh, no. 271, p. 2a, cited ibid., 271:14, apparently regard sirtut to be necessary only in order to assure that the lines will be straight. As noted by R. Shabbetai Feinberg, Afikei Meginim (Vilna, 5669) 32:43, Bi’urim, sec. 35(4), possible ramifications of the conflicting views with regard to that question are whether the sirtut must endure after the writing has been completed, whether spaces between words also require sirtut and perhaps even whether sirtut may be supplied after the lines have been written. Afikei Meginim cites Hȧgahot Mordekhai, Halakhot Ketanot, sec. 561, who expresses doubt with regard to the nature of the requirement for sirtut and Tosafot, Sotah 16b, who advance the possibility that sirtut may be added after the writing has been completed.
Curiously, R. Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, IV, no. 40, sec. 10, acknowledges that use of sirtut is designed to serve a concrete purpose and thus would not be necessary when, for example, a photographic process is employed but then seems to declare that, since sirtut is indeed a statutory requirement, any process in which sirtut would be superfluous is ipso facto invalid. According to Iggerot Mosheh, that consideration would be sufficient, in and of itself, to disqualify a silk screen process. There is, however, no hint of that consideration in the many discussions of the propriety of employment of printing presses for this purpose dating from the early part of the sixteenth century (see infra, note 9) or in the recent discussions of the silk screen method.
Nevertheless, a rather different formulation of that argument appears in one earlier source. R. Jonah Landsopher, whose responsa collection, Teshuvot Me’il Ẓedakah, is familiar to rabbinic scholars, also authored a work devoted to the laws of writing Torah scrolls, tefillin and mezuzot bearing the title Bnei Yonah (Prague, 5562). Bnei Yonah, Pilpul Arukh, no. 271, p. 14b, asserts that “in printing an entire folio the sirtut would be superfluous with the result that the law of sirtut would not be an eternal commandment and far be it that we should say the commandments are limited in duration.” As formulated by Bnei Yonah, that argument is readily rebutted: The requirement for sirtut is indeed binding for posterity with regard to handwritten scrolls but was never required in a happenstance, foreseen or unforeseen, in which sirtut would serve no purpose. Iggerot Mosheh’s formulation of the argument is not open to similar challenge. A broad-faced implement, similar to a squeegee, made of rubber or plastic, is then used to force the ink across the screen from right to left with the result that the ink enters and fills the gaps that have been left between the woven strands of the screen. The ink is allowed to dry and, with the removal of the screen, a full column or multiple columns of writing appear. The process is repeated for each section of the Torah scroll and, ultimately, the parchment columns subjected to this process are sewn together in the usual manner. Many individuals will readily recall using stencils as children either to trace the outlines of the alphabet or to fill in entire letters with crayon. The silk screen process, in effect, produces letters through the intermediacy of a stencil-like device.
There are reports that a quantity of megillot prepared in this manner have been sold in the United Sates. An announcement of planned production of Torah scrolls and a solicitation of deposits has been posted on a web site for some time. Each Torah scroll was offered for sale at a price of $18,000 and required an initial deposit of $10,000. The estimated completion date for the first thirty Torah scrolls was given as November 2002. Nevertheless, to date, there have been no reports of actual delivery of any Torah scrolls produced in this manner.3There are unconfirmed reports that some years ago an employee of the Israeli Ministry of Religions clandestinely employed a similar process in producing mezuzot. The scheme was uncovered when an astute purchaser recognized that there were no variations whatsoever between different mezuzot, a phenomenon that is virtually impossible with regard to handwritten mezuzot.
II. Reaction to the Silk Screen Method
Reports of the sale of silk screened megillot evoked the harsh censure of leading Israeli halakhic authorities. Letters signed by R. Joseph Shalom Eliashiv, R. Samuel ha-Levi Woszner, R. Nissim Karelitz and the members of the Bet Din of Jerusalem's Edah ha-Haredit declaring megillot, Torah scrolls, mezuzot and tefillin prepared in such manner to be unfit for use were published in the Israeli weekly Yated Ne'eman, 24 Kislev 5763. A similar letter dated 5 Kislev 5763 signed by R. Ovadiah Yosef has also been circulated. The letter signed by R. Nissim Karelitz and published in the Yated Ne'eman is in the form of a statement signed by three other noted rabbinic figures and is dated 16 Kislev 5763. Much earlier, an identical letter was circulated dated Tammuz 5762. In addition to the signatures appearing in the Yated Ne'eman, the earlier letter also bears the signatures of Rabbi Eliashiv and Rabbi Karelitz, who apparently later issued their own individual letters, as well as the signature of R. Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg, Rosh Yeshivah of Yeshivat Or Torah in the Mattersdorf section of Jerusalem. A journalistic report and critique of the process appeared in Shabbat Kodesh, the magazine section of the Yated Ne'eman, Parashat Mikez 5763.
A detailed analysis of the objections voiced with regard to the silk screen process is presented in an article by R. Menachem Yehudah ha-Levi Gross that appeared both in the Tammuz 5762 issue of Or Torah, a Torah journal published by a Sephardic Torah institution in Jerusalem, Yeshivat Porat Yosef, and in the Av-Elul 5762 issue of Kovez Bet Aharon ve-Yisra'el published by the Torah Institutes of Karlin-Stolen. The Av 5762 issue of Or Torah features a relatively brief responsum by R. Ovadiah Yosef, dated 8 Sivan 5772, addressed to a son of R. Samuel Woszner making many of the same points. Rabbi Yosef's comments were penned in response to an unpublished analysis of the issues drafted by the younger Rabbi Woszner and transmitted by him to Rabbi Yosef. It is apparently that responsum by R. Ben Zion Ya'akov Woszner that was later published together with Rabbi Yosefs reply in Or Yisra'el, Tevet 5763. Additional letters signed by R. Samuel Woszner, R. Raphael Blum and the Bet Din of the Edah ha-Haredit also appear in the same issue of that Torah journal.
The various letters of condemnation are univocal in substance; they differ only with regard to the tone and degree of vehemence, ranging from Rabbi Woszner's exhortation to fulfill the halakhic obligation to flee from this "act of corruption," Rabbi Eliashiv's declaration that "one who rules permissibly in the matter, the distributors, their merchants and sub-merchants are in the category of sinners and those who cause the multitudes to sin," to R. Ovadiah Yosef's comparatively mild conclusion that the proponent of this novel method "has nothing at all upon which to base himself." However, even that statement is preceded with the declaration, "The matter demonstrates that the fear of God is not upon their shoulders. Woe to them on the Day of Judgment!"
An anonymous apologia in the form of a pamphlet titled Ha-Emet ve-ha-Shalom Ahevu countering the alleged infraction of the regulations governing the writing of Torah scrolls and the like was published in Bnei Brak (5763). A similar exposition also appears in Rabbi Abadi's recently published work, Or Yizḥak, no. 53. Although the process is defended in Ha-Emet ve-ha-Shalom, the anonymous author states in his preface in bold type that "it is certainly clear to us that this thing should not be done, as has been ruled by R. Joseph Shalom Eliashiv." However, the tenor of the concluding section of the work and of Rabbi Abadi's responsum is quite different.
III. Halakhic Objections
1. "Spilling" as Opposed to Writing
The textual locus of the primary objection—and ostensibly of the proposal itself—is the statement of the Gemara, Gittin 19a, presented in the context of procedures to be employed in drafting of a bill of divorce: "Witnesses who do not know how to sign, we tear a blank paper on their behalf and they fill the torn spaces with ink." Deuteronomy 24:1 provides that a husband desirous of divorcing his wife must "write her a bill of divorcement." The Gemara, Gittin 19a, cites a beraita containing two opinions with regard to the procedure to be followed in situations in which the witnesses do not know how to affix their signatures. One opinion rules that a non-durable substance should be employed to outline the letters of their signatures. The witnesses, using those letters as guidelines, should write their names over that substance with ink. The second opinion maintains that "we tear a blank piece of paper on their behalf and they fill in the torn spaces with ink."
Rashi presumes that the expression "we tear" (mekar'in) is not to be understood literally and that the term "paper" does not refer to a piece of paper superimposed upon the get itself. Rather, the reference is to the paper upon which the bill of divorce itself has been drafted and the "tearing" to which reference is made is, in actuality, a form of etching, i.e., letters forming the names of the witnesses are scratched into the paper and the illiterate witnesses append their signatures by drawing a pen over the indentations in the paper.
Rambam, Hilkhot Geirushin 1:23, rules that illiterate witnesses may be assisted by having others form the letters of the witnesses' names with "spittle or something similar that does not make a durable impression" and allowing the witnesses to write over that substance. Rambam's codification is followed by Shulḥan Arukh, Even ha-Ezer 130:16 and Hoshen Mishpat 45:4. Rambam fails to record that "tearing" blank paper is also an acceptable expedient. If Rambam regarded the two talmudic opinions to be in conflict with one another and intentionally excluded the expedient of "tearing" a piece of paper it would follow that there is no basis for an assumption that a procedure involving tearing a piece of paper is a halakhically recognized form of writing. However, Bet Yosef, Even ha-Ezer 130, asserts that "tearing" blank paper is acceptable even according to Rambam. According to Bet Yosef, the two opinions recorded by the Gemara are complementary and Rambam simply recorded the expedient he regarded as representing the greater novellum.
Nevertheless, even assuming that "tearing" a piece of paper is an acceptable expedient, Rashi explains that "tearing" really means scratching the shape of the letters on the document in order to enable the witnesses to fill in the indentations. According to Rashi's understanding of the text, there is no indication whatsoever that spilling ink over a stencil from which letters have been excised constitutes a halakhically acceptable form of writing.
Tosafot, however, challenge Rashi's interpretation on the obvious grounds that the term "mekar'in" connotes actual tearing rather than etching. Tosafot cite Rabbenu Hannanel who explains the beraita literally: a piece of paper is employed to fashion a rudimentary stencil by cutting out letters and the witnesses then ink in the cut out spaces representing the letters of their names. That is also the understanding of Rabbenu Nissim, Ritva and Shiltei ha-Gibborim in their respective commentaries, ad locum, as well as of Ramah cited by Tur Shulḥan Arukh, Even ha-Ezer 130:16. Tosafot ha-Rosh further cites an objection raised by the Palestinian Talmud, Gittin 2:3. In order to prevent a challenge to the authenticity of the get, the signatures of the witnesses must be validated either by comparison of those signatures with already authenticated signatures or by testimony of witnesses who recognize the signatures. According to Tosafot ha-Rosh's interpretation of the relevant passage contained in the Palestinian Talmud, the Palestinian Talmud raises an extremely cogent objection: How can signatures be verified if they are not idiosyncratic but instead are stylized by means of a stencil? Such signatures, argues the Palestinian Talmud, will have the characteristics of the pattern prepared by the person who cut the stencil rather than of the witnesses. The Palestinian Talmud's response is that the witness must be mindful not to ink in the space in its entirety but to use the torn paper merely as a guide in forming the letters of their names with the result that there will indeed be a distinctive pattern to the manner in which the letters are formed.
Since Tosafot, Gittin 4a, declare that all regulations governing the "writing" of a get are attendant upon the signatures of a get as well, it might then be argued that filling in the cut out areas of a stencil or silk screen does constitute "writing" in the halakhic sense of the concept. Moreover, since there is no need for authentication of the handwriting of a Torah scroll, the cut out areas might also be inked in in their entirety. Nevertheless, filling in spaces on a stencil is readily distinguishable from simply passing ink over a stencil and allowing the blanks spaces to absorb the ink. The former involves an act of "writing" in that each letter is individually formed by a series of acts entirely similar to those of conventional writing with the stencil merely serving as a guide; the latter involves only spilling ink without any need for an act designed to fashion letters or even for the intent to do so. That distinction is expressly formulated in the name of Tosafot both by Hiddushei Ritva ha-Yeshanim and Rabbenu Crescas who state that the expedient of a torn paper may be utilized "only in the manner of writing but not by spilling ink on the paper, for that is not 'writing.' "4R. Ovadiah Yosef asserts that Tosafot’s citation of the Palestinian Talmud must be understood in similar vein, i.e., as stating that filling the entire space with ink is not “writing.” Thus, according to Tosafot, failure to leave empty space because the design of the letter has been filled with ink in its entirety is tantamount to “spilling” ink rather than to writing. Rabbi Gross, however, understands Tosafot’s comment as reflecting the notion explicitly formulated by Tosafot ha-Rosh. Rabbi Abadi, Or Yizḥak, no. 53, sec. 3, however, insists that since the silk screen method requires application of pressure it is not to be equated with "spilling."5In support of the silk screen method, the anonymous author of Ha-Emet ve-ha-Shalom Ahevu cites an article by R. Samuel Eliezer Stern, a member of Rabbi Samuel ha-Levi Woszner’s Bet Din, published in Koveẓ Eẓ Ḥayyim, with regard to the suitability of a writing implement which, as described, seems to be a ball-tip pen. That implement is described as a plastic pen “from which, when placed on the parchment, the ink flows of itself without need to apply pressure to the pen.” Rabbi Stern’s concern is that the ink might be considered to be “spilled” on the parchment. He readily distinguishes between use of such an implement and the “spilling” referred to by the Palestinian Talmud. The “spilling” disqualified by the Palestinian Talmud involves casting ink which would not at all form letters if not for the stencil that prevents the ink from covering the entire page “whereas in this case the pen is in the [the scribe’s] hand throughout the writing; even though the ink emerges of itself from the hollow of the pen, nevertheless, [the scribe] pushes and pulls it over every letter….” In point of fact, it is probably the case that some minimal pressure is necessary to write even with such an implement since otherwise ink would constantly dribble from the pen unless the ball tip completely fills the opening and prevents leakage so long as it is not moved. More significantly, there is no evidence that “writing” must be the result of actual pressure brought to bear upon the writing implement. In any event, the nature of the act of writing carried out with a ball-tip pen that requires a hand to guide the ink in the formation of each letter individually is far different from that which results from use of a squeegee to push already spilled ink.
Rabbi Gross suggests that the concept formulated by Ritva and Rabbenu Crescas is rooted in a discussion of the Palestinian Talmud, Gittin 2:3 and Shabbat 12:4. Citing the verse "and he shall write her a bill of divorcement" (Deuteronomy 24:1) the Palestinian Talmud declares: " 'He shall write,' but not gouge (ve-lo ha-ḥokek); 'he shall write,' but not drip (ve-lo ha-matif); 'he shall write,' but not spill (ve-lo ha-shofekh)." As an example of "but not spill," the Palestinian Talmud describes a type of "invisible ink" employed by the wise men of Medenha. The ink of antiquity included a variety of components including an apparently colorless substance known as mei afazim. That ingredient used in isolation was the invisible ink of the "wise men of Medenha." The recipient of a seemingly blank piece of paper would make the writing appear by pouring a specially prepared ink lacking mei afazim over the paper. Upon coming into contact with the mei afazim already imbedded in the paper, the letters originally formed by the invisible mei afazim became clearly legible.
The Palestinian Talmud declares that such a procedure does not constitute "writing." Rabbi Abadi, Or Yizḥak, no. 53, sec. 3, asserts that only a procedure of this nature is excluded by the exegetical declaration "but not spill." That principle, he asserts, does not exclude "pushing" ink in order to form letters. Nevertheless, it seems evident that the rationale reflected in the comment of the Palestinian Talmud "but not drip" is that letters formed without direction, i.e., by merely dribbling a substance capable of arranging itself into words without the hand motions involved in normal writing, is not a form of "writing" for purposes of Halakhah.6R. David Friedman of Karlin, Teshuvot She’ilat David, I, no. 7, sec. 2, published in idem, Piskei Halakhot, vol. I, rejects the use of a printing press for such purposes because of this comment of the Palestinian Talmud. Earlier scholars, including R. Moses of Provenςal, Teshuvot R. Mosheh Provenςal, no. 73, ruled that a printing press may not be used because the metal letters may cause “etching” or “engraving” (ḥakikah) by means of indentation of the parchment. See also Teshuvot Maharashdam, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 184. It was feared that the printing press would cause depressions in the writing surface in the form of letters. It is because of that consideration that a metal pen is not utilized for such purposes (see Rema, Even ha-Ezer 125:4) and it is for that reason that Rema, Yoreh De‘ah 271, prefers use of a reed rather than a quill. However, Taz, Yoreh De‘ah 271:8, and others express astonishment to the raising of that objection on the grounds that: 1) “engraving” is a recognized form of “writing” (although Torah scrolls etc. require inked letters); and 2) assuming that the letters are indeed impressed upon the writing surface by the printing press and that those letters do not constitute writing, nevertheless, filling those depressions with ink would constitute a valid form of writing no less so than if the ink is applied to a smooth surface. If so, argues Taz, pressing inked letters upon paper or parchment should be regarded as a proper form of writing, “for what difference is there whether he presses the pen against the paper or the paper against the letters of lead.” [Cf., however, R. Abraham I. Kook, Da‘at Kohen, no. 160, who maintain that writing must be in the nature of “moshkhim be-shevet sofer—drawing with the staff of a scribe” (Judges 5:14). Da‘at Kohen would presumably concede that “drawing with the staff” is not to be taken literally since “etching” is indeed a recognized form of writing. The difference then must be in precisely the concept negated by Taz, i.e., between pressing the inked letters against paper and pressing the paper against the letters.] Because of that objection Get Pashut, Even ha-Ezer 125:15, went so far as to develop the highly improbable thesis that the authorities who forbade use of such a process because it constitutes a form of “etching” did so only if the indentations are not filled in with ink. Cf., however, Teshuvot Zera Emet, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 117, and R. Ben-Zion Meir Chai Uziel, Mishpetei Uzi’el, Yoreh De‘ah, Mahadura Tinyana, no. 78, sec. 2, who rebut that suggestion.
She’ilat David explains the nature of the objection in a novel manner. She’ilat David expresses the view that transfer of ink from the letter of a press to a writing surface simply by applying pressure, since it involves no hand motion, is tantamount to “spilling.” (Cf., the comment of Da‘at Kohen cited in the previous paragraph.) He compares the process to forming a letter out of some material and then attaching it to the parchment. She’ilat David regards such a procedure as invalid because it represents a form of “spilling.”
Alternatively, suggests She’ilat David, the printing press may make depressions in the parchment in the form of letters. Although “engraving” is indeed a halakhically acceptable form of “writing,” nevertheless, the depressions made by the printing press are likely to be minimal in nature and the writing surface would soon return to its original smooth state; hence, such “engraved” letters would not constitute “writing” because they lack durability and permanence. The ink transferred to the paper or parchment, he asserts, would not itself constitute “writing” under such conditions because it is “thrown” or “spilled” into the previously formed depressions. She’ilat David further observes that, assuming that the depressed letters are indeed of a nature that constitutes a valid form of writing, that writing becomes invalid in the printing process: The ink cast into the “engraved” letters constitutes a “writing” superimposed upon the previous writing. The superimposed “writing,” because it is in the nature of a “spilling” which is an invalid form of writing, serves to negate the original “writing.” Thus, it is because of the fact that the printing press may cause ḥakikah that the transferred ink is rendered an invalid form of writing because it is “spilled” into those depressions.
Also, contrary to Taz, Get Pashut 125:15, and others, She’ilat David asserts that “the manner of writing” requires that ink be brought to bear upon the writing surface to the exclusion of a process that causes the writing surface to come into contact with the ink. Accordingly, She’ilat David suggests that, rather than force the type against the paper, a printing press may force the paper against the type. Hence, if that indeed is the manner in which the printing process is carried out, the process is not “in the manner of writing.”
For this writer’s understanding of the concern expressed by Taz and R. Moshe Provenςal, see infra, note 13. More fundamentally, the exclusion "but not spill" certainly seems to connote the pouring of ink in a manner that allows the ink to form itself into letters. The silk screen process certainly falls within that category.
2. "Dripping" as Opposed to Writing
The Palestinian Talmud further states that the exclusion "but not drip" also precludes forming letters by means of dots and adduces a controversy with regard to whether a bill of divorce containing letters originally formed by means of dots but later connected contiguously is valid.7Arukh ha-Shulḥan, Even ha-Ezer 125:10, observes that the Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 20a, cites the exclusion “but not gouge” (ve-lo ha-ḥokek) but omits the exclusion “but not drip” and expresses doubt with regard to whether there is a controversy between those sources. Arukh ha-Shulḥan concludes that a get written in the form of “dripping” is of doubtful validity. Other authorities, e.g., R. Joseph Saul Nathanson, Sho’el u-Meshiv, Mahadura Kamma, III, no. 102, assume as a matter of course that the rule formulated by the Palestinian Talmud is not a matter of controversy. Ramban, Gittin 20a, followed by Rabbenu Crescas and Me'iri, rules that a Torah scroll written in that manner is unfit for use even though the dots are ultimately connected because "this is not writing." Pri Hadash, Even ha-Ezer 125:4, rules that, in light of the unresolved talmudic controversy, the validity of a get drafted in such a manner must be regarded as matter of doubt.8Uri Dasberg, Teḥumin, XVI (5756), 405f., suggests that the controversy recorded in the Palestinian Talmud is limited to drops of ink that fall or are caused to fall onto the writing surface from a distance but not to situations in which drops of ink are placed on the writing surface by a scribe and then connected by him. A similar suggestion is made by Rabbi Abadi, ibid., sec. 3. Those writers fail to note that an identical interpretation of the Palestinian Talmud was earlier advanced by Teshuvot She’ilat David, I, no. 7, sec. 1. It is, however, difficult to read that interpretation into the comments of Ramban, Rabbenu Crescas or Me’iri. It is certainly evident that Pri Ḥadash and Teshuvot Sho’el u-Meshiv, Mahadura Kamma, III, no. 102, reject any such distinction. The assertion by R. Samuel Shapiro, Teḥumin, XVI, p. 406, note 7, that the statement of the Palestinian Talmud is not cited by any rabbinic decisor is simply incorrect unless he means that it is not cited in any of the halakhic précis or compendia devoted to the laws governing the writing of Torah scrolls, tefillin and mezuzot. Such omission, however, is not at all evidence of rejection. The statement of the Palestinian Talmud is cited by Rashba, Gittin 20a; Teshuvot ha-Rashba ha-Meyuḥasot le-ha-Ramban, no. 222; Pri Ḥadash, Even ha-Ezer 125:4; and Get Pashut 126:3.
Rabbi Gross observes that the silk screen method does not really employ a stencil that allows the letter to be filled in on the underlying parchment in its entirety. Instead it utilizes a series of holes in the screen through which the ink drips onto the parchment. Contiguous letters are the result of a bleeding process, i.e., a series of dots are formed and later merge into a complete letter. Rabbi Gross notes that, unlike Korban ha-Edah in his commentary to the Palestinian Talmud, ad locum, Teshuvot Sho'el u-Meshiv, Mahadura Kamma, III, no. 102, asserts that the Palestinian Talmud disqualifies the get only if the drops of ink were originally significantly distanced from one another but not if they are placed so close to one another as to appear in the guise of a letter. Nevertheless, Rabbi Gross maintains that even such letters are rendered acceptable only if the dots are connected by means of a pen but are unacceptable if the dots merge of their own accord to fill the page. Rabbi Abadi, Or Yizḥak, no. 53, sec. 3, responds to that objection by contending that the silk screen method does not cause letters to be formed by means of bleeding which serves to connect tiny droplets of ink. Rather, he insists, although the ink penetrates between the strands of the silk screen drop by drop, the ink emerges onto the parchment, not as droplets, but as a complete letter.9It is for these reasons, i.e., because the method involves “spilling” or “dripping,” that the silk screen process is less acceptable than a lithograph or printing process. Cf., however, Melekhet Shamayim, Binah 6:12 and Keset ha-Sofer, Lishkat ha-Sofer 28:2, who regard the printing process as also constituting a form of “dripping.” On the other hand, quite apart from Rabbi Abadi’s peremptory dismissal of Rabbi Kook’s view, ibid., sec. 4, the objection to use of printing methods raised by Da‘at Kohen, no. 160, viz., that writing must be in the nature of “moshkhim be-shevet sofer–drawing with the staff of a scribe” (Judges 5:14) does not seem to be applicable to the silk screen process which employs a squeegee. See also R. Abraham David of Buczacz, Da‘at Kedoshim (Lemberg, 5656), in his comments on Bnei Yonah, 271:6, sec. 9.
Although perhaps surprising to present-day students of Halakhah, there were noted authorities who regarded the early, manually operated printing press to be acceptable for the production of sacred artifacts provided, of course, that an acceptable type of ink is used and that the text is printed on parchment rather than on paper. The earliest authorities to address the status of books produced by means of a printing press were Italian authorities, R. Menachem Azaryah of Fano, Teshuvot Rema mi-Panu, no. 93, and R. Moses Provenςal, Teshuvot R. Mosheh Provenςal, I, no. 73. Those responsa were written during the early days of the printing press when Italy was the major center of Hebrew printing and address the issue of whether printed volumes are endowed with the sanctity of Holy Writ. [For later discussions of that issue see R. Daniel Trani, Ikkarei Ha-Dat, Oraḥ Ḥayyim no. 8, sec. 12; Afikei Meginim 32:43, sec. 36 (introduction); R. Isaac Elchanan Spektor, Teshuvot Ein Yiẓḥak, nos. 5–7; R. Naphtali Zevi Judah Berlin, Teshuvot Meshiv Davar, II, no. 80; R. David Zevi Hoffmann, Teshuvot Melammed le-Ho’il, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 89; Iggerot Mosheh, IV, no. 40, sec. 10; and Sedei Ḥemed, Pe’at ha-Sadeh, Kellalim, Ma‘arekhet ha-Kaf, klal 12.] Rema mi-Panu and R. Moses Provenςal disagreed with regard to this matter. Rema mi-Panu, as understood by most authorities, regarded the printing process to be comparable to writing while R. Moses Provenςal deemed the process to be an unacceptable form of “gouging” or whittling. Magen Avraham 32:57; Get Pashut 125:15; Mas’at Binyamin, no. 99; and Pri Ḥadash, Even ha-Ezer 125:4, are among the authorities who ascribe a negative position with regard to use of a printing press for such purposes to Teshuvot Rema mi-Panu, no. 93. Cf., however, Teshuvot Zera Emet, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 117 and R. Ben-Zion Meir Chai Uziel, Mishpetei Uzi’el, Yoreh De‘ah, Mahadura Tinyana, no. 78, sec. 2 and idem., Piskei Uzi’el, no. 31.
Teshuvot Mas’at Binyamin, no. 99 and Maharaẓ Ḥayes, Yoma 38a, are cited by Rabbi Gross as sanctioning use of a printing process. That is also the position of Taz, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 284:2 and Yoreh De‘ah 271:8; Bet Shmu’el, Even ha-Ezer 125:3; Eliyahu Rabbah, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 284:1; Be’er Heitev, Yoreh De‘ah 271:8; and R. Issachor Ber Katz whose view is expressed in a responsum appended to Likkutei Ha-Pardes le-Rashi (Amsterdam, 5475), p. 25.
R. Yom Tov Lippman Heller, renowned as the author of Tosafot Yom Tov, in his comments on Rosh, Hilkhot Tefillin 8:23, unequivocally endorses use of the printing press “for every matter that requires writing.” Magen Avraham 32:57, as well as 284:8, is in basic agreement with the opinion of the authorities who endorse the use of a printing press. Nevertheless, despite his refusal to disqualify the printing process as a valid form of “writing,” Magen Avraham discourages use of a printing press for production of Torah scrolls. Magen Avraham, however, rules printed tefillin and mezuzot to be invalid because the letters of the latter must be written in consecutive order. Magen Avraham asserts that it is impossible to assure that such will be the case if a printing process is employed because not all portions of the paper come into simultaneous contact with the metal letters. See also R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yeḥaveh Da‘at, VI, no. 59. The identical position is advanced by R. Eleazar Fleckles, Teshuvah me-Ahavah, III, no. 391, who astonishingly remarks that “no decisor ever noticed” the point.
In apparent disagreement with Magen Avraham, Iggerot Mosheh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, IV, no. 40, sec. 10, asserts that simultaneous transcription, e.g., by means of photography, does not satisfy the requirement of consecutiveness. Da‘at Kohen, no. 160, expresses doubt with regard to this matter insofar as the validity of tefillin and mezuzot is concerned. See, however, Afikei Meginim 32:43, Bi’urim, sec. 35 (3), cited infra, note 20, who asserts that even Magen Avraham would accept simultaneous transcription as satisfying the requirement for consecutive writing.
A permissive view with regard to the inherent validity of the printing process is also adopted by Pri Ḥadash, Even ha-Ezer 125:4 [Cf., however, Pri Ḥadash, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691:6, as noted by Matteh Yehudah, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691:6 and Sedei Ḥemed, II, Ma‘arekhet ha-Dalet, sec. 48. Yeḥaveh Da‘at, VI, no. 57, regards Pri Ḥadash’s acceptance of printing processes as limited to the drafting of a get.]; Teshuvot Panim Me’irot, I, no. 6; Teshuvot Be’er Sheva, no. 43; R. Jacob Emden, Mor u-Keẓi’ah 32; idem, Migdal Oz, Even Boḥen 2:30; Knesset Yeḥezkel, no. 37; Rav Pe‘alim, II, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 24; Erekh ha-Shulḥan, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691:1; Maḥaẓit ha-Shekel, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 490:9 and 559:1; Arukh ha-Shulḥan, Yoreh De‘ah 271:39 and Even ha-Ezer 125:37; Ikkarei ha-Dat, Hilkhot Sefer Torah 31:5; Petaḥ ha-Devir, I, 32:10, II, Kuntres Shenayim Yeshalem 32:39 and IV, 289f; and R. Yitzchak Pelaggi, Yafeh le-Lev, I, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 32:7 and III, Yoreh De‘ah 271:2. Yafeh le-Lev, however, rules that use of a printing press is valid only post factum. See also Paḥad Yiẓḥak, II, s.v. defus.
As noted by Arukh ha-Shulḥan, Yoreh De‘ah 271:39 and Even ha-Ezer 125:37, as well as by Yeḥaveh Da‘at, VI, no. 57, those authorities permit only use of a manual flat-bed press operated by a Jew. The additional problems presented by use of a rotary press powered by electricity in which there is no manual impression of inked letters upon the printed page could not have been addressed by the many scholars who considered the matter before the advent of electricity. See also Da‘at Kohen, no. 160 and R. Samuel ha-Levi Woszner, Teshuvot Shevet ha-Levi, IV, no. 158. Cf., Sedei Ḥemed, VII, Ma‘arekhet Ḥameẓ u-Maẓah, sec. 13; Teshuvot Maharsham, II, no. 16; Teshuvot Yerushat Peleitah, no. 4; Teshuvot Ereẓ Ẓevi, II, no. 72; and R. Shlomoh Zalman Braun, She‘arim Meẓuyanim be-Halakhah, I, 47:13, note 4 and ibid., III, 110:15, note 23. For sources discussing use of electricity in instances in which a human act is required, e.g., the baking of maẓah and the fashioning of ẓiẓit, see R. Levi Yitzchak Halperin, Ha-Ḥashmal be-Halakhah, I (Jerusalem, 5738), 69–135.
[It seems to be the case that the many authorities, including Magen Avraham, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 284:8 and Taz, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 284:3, who sanction use of a printed text for the reading of the haftorah permit only the use of a text printed on a flat-bed press manually operated by a Jew. Since these authorities sanction use of a printed text only because they recognize printing as a form of “writing,” it would follow that any form of printing that does not involve a direct human act as the proximate cause of the production of the printed text is in the nature of a gerama, i.e., an indirect cause, and is accordingly disqualified because it is not an act of writing directly performed by a human being.
This is apparently the view of R. Joseph Shalom Eliashiv as reported in his name in He‘arot le-Masekhet Gittin (Jerusalem, 5763), p. 77. Rabbi Eliashiv is reported to have remarked that he is unaware of a basis for reading the haftorah from a printed text “in our day” when printing is carried out by means of electricity. A second objection recorded in that work in the name of Rabbi Eliashiv is based upon the fact that the prophetic works are printed on paper rather than on parchment. Magen Avraham, however, explicitly sanctions utilization of works printed on paper for the reading of the haftorah.]
R. Zevi Hirsch Chajes, in his glosses to Yoma 38a, makes the astonishing claim that at least a rudimentary type of printing was known and used during the tana’itic period. The Mishnah, Yoma 38a, reports that a certain Ben Kamzar was severely censured by the Sages because he was adroit in executing a certain method of writing but refused to impart it to others. The Gemara, Yoma 38b, amplifies that report in stating that Ben Kamzar was able to seize four reeds between his fingers and write four different letters simultaneously. Rashi explains that this procedure represents the optimal method of printing the Divine Name. [R. Abraham ben Mordecai ha-Levi, Teshuvot Ginat Veradim, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, klal 2, no. 10, s.v. aḥar kakh, explains that simultaneous writing of the full letters of the Divine Name constitutes symbolic affirmation of the unitary nature of the Deity.] Maharatz Chajes questions the plausibility of a literal reading of that account and explains that the reference must be to four letters each cast in the form of a separate press or stamp that could be held between the fingers and wielded simultaneously in order to form four printed letters. The point is reiterated by Rabbi Chajes in his Teshuvot Maharaẓ Ḥayes, no. 11. In that responsum, Maharatz Chajes notes that an empty space of the width of a letter in the middle of a word serves to disqualify a Torah scroll. If reeds were held by Ben Kamzar between his fingers, the space between the letters would have been greater than the width of a letter. Accordingly, argues Maharatz Chajes, the “reeds” held between his fingers must have been lead stamps broad enough not to leave gaps between the letters. Although Maharatz Chajes’ point is well taken, it is entirely likely that the singular skill of Ben Kamzar included the ability to wield the reeds between his fingers in a manner that enabled him to write broad letters so that there were no resultant gaps. Rabbi Abadi, Or Yiẓḥak, no. 53, sec. 4, reports that an alternative explanation of the process employed by Ben Kamzar is presented by Yonat Elem, II, no. 31. Unfortunately, this writer has been unable to identify that work.
Among the many authorities who rule that printing may not be employed in the production of Torah scrolls and the like are Teshuvot R. Mosheh Provenςal, I, no. 73; Baḥ, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691; Teshuvot Ḥavvot Ya’ir, nos. 16, 109 and 184; Shiyarei Knesset ha-Gedolah, Hagahot Bet Yosef, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691:15; Levush, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 284:1; Eliyahu Rabbah, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691:5; Bnei Yonah, Kiẓur Arukh, no. 271, p. 2b and Pilpul Arukh, no. 271, pp. 14a-15a; Birkei Yosef, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691:1 and Yoreh De‘ah 282:1; Teshuvah me-Ahavah, III, no. 391; Teshuvot Maharam Shik, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 6; Hagahot R. Akiva Eger, Yoreh De‘ah 271:9; Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 64; Siaḥ Sofer, Binat Adam 1:1; Ikkrei ha-Dat, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 36:35; Keset ha-Sofer, Lishkat ha-Sofer 28:2 and 28:7; Sha‘arei Efrayim 7:59; Petaḥ ha-Dvir, II, 7a and III, 28a; Teshuvot Maharsham, III, no. 357; Be’erot ha-Mayim, no. 13; Ḥemdat Yamim, I, no. 12; Bnei Ḥayyei, no. 281, p. 63b; Teshuvot Ẓofnat Pa’aneaḥ, II, no. 26; Ḥazon Ish, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 156: le-siman 284; Da‘at Kohen, no. 160; Piskei Uzi’el, no. 31; Yabi‘a Omer, III, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 21, sec. 4; Yeḥaveh Da’at, VI, no. 57; and Ḥazon Ovadiah: Purim, sec. 16. See also Afikei Meginim 32:43, Bi’urim, sec. 35.
For a comprehensive survey of the literature regarding use of the printing process for these purposes see Yitzchak Ze’ev Kahana, Meḥkarim be-Sifrut ha-Teshuvot (Jerusalem, 5733), pp. 272–305. See also Abraham Berliner, Ketavim Nivḥarim (Jerusalem, 5729), II, 118–124.
Photographic processes are explicitly decried by a number of authorities, including inter alia, Teshuvot Maharsham, III, no. 357; Teshuvot Ẓofnat Pa’aneaḥ, II, no. 26; Teshuvot Mishpetei Uzi’el, Yoreh De‘ah, Mahadura Tinyana, no. 78; Teshuvot Yabi‘a Omer, IV, Yoreh De’ah, no. 21, sec. 4; Yeḥaveh Da’at, VI, no. 57; Iggerot Mosheh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, IV, no. 40, sec. 10; and Teshuvot Shevet ha-Levi, IV, no. 158. See also Teshuvot Bet Av, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 26; Teshuvot Maharsham, III, no. 357, and Teshuvot Yabi‘a Omer, IV, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 21, sec. 4.
3. Not "In the Manner of Writing"
In his rejection of the validity of the silk screen method, Rabbi Yosef does not focus upon the nature of the silk screen method as a process tantamount to connecting dots. Instead he cites Teshuvot ha-Rashba ha-Meyuḥasot le-Ramban, no. 122, who states that the procedure described by the Palestinian Talmud results in an invalid get because "we require that [the scribe] write in the manner of those who write"10Use of a printing press was regarded to be impermissible because it is “not in the manner of writing” by Teshuvot Zera Emet, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 117; Teshuvot She’ilat David, no. 7, sec. 2; Da‘at Kedoshim, Bnei Yonah 271:6, sec. 9; Da‘at Kohen, no. 160; and Piskei Uzi’el, no. 31. Cf., the position of Bnei Yonah, Kiẓur Arukh, no. 271, p. 2b and Pilpul Arukh no. 271, p. 15a, cited infra, note 12. and concludes that, a fortiori, the silk screen method is unacceptable "for after he drips the ink he does not perform an act of writing or of moving a pen." In effect, Rabbi Yosef categorizes the forming of letters by means of droplets of ink as not being "in the manner of writing." Unlike Rabbi Abadi, Rabbi Yosef does not regard the pushing of a squeegee to be comparable to maneuvering a pen.
Rabbi Gross advances an even more basic consideration to disqualify the silk screen process on the grounds that it is "not in the manner of writing." Torah scrolls, tefillin, mezuzot etc. must be written "in the manner of writing" (derekh ketivah). For that reason, Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Hayyim 32:5, cites authorities who rule that if a right-handed individual writes tefillin with his left hand they are unfit for use.11Cf., Bet Shmu’el, Even ha-Ezer 123:4 and Minḥat Ḥinnukh, no. 34, Mosekh ha-Shabbat, ha-kotev. In "writing," letters are formed by discrete hand motions that give shape to the letters. In silk screening, the motions of the hand do not give the letters their distinct shape; rather, the shape is an indirect result that arises from the presence of the stencil.
In addition, R. Moshe Sofer, Teshuvot Hatam Sofer, VI, no. 29, s.v. ma-she-katav ma'alato, declares that speedwriting executed by invoking supernatural powers is no different from writing with the left hand, i.e., it is not "in the manner of writing." Accordingly, argues Rabbi Gross, the rapid manner in which silk screen writing is performed is not "in the manner of writing." However, it should be noted that in discussing the halakhic status of a printing press, R. Abraham I. Kook, Da'at Kohen, no. 160, endeavors to demonstrate that, for purposes of Sabbath strictures, simultaneous writing of multiple letters constitutes a capital transgression.12Cf., Piskei Uzi’el, no. 31, who distinguishes between Sabbath strictures and “writing” for other purposes of Halakhah. Piskei Uzi’el regards photographing a printed text as a capital transgression despite the fact that many letters are reproduced simultaneously. The prohibition, he contends, is in the category of “roshem,” a derivative (toladah) of “writing” rather than writing proper. Such a distinction was actually formulated much earlier by R. Eli’ezer ben Judah of Worms, Rokeaḥ, no. 280. [R. Shalom Mordecai Schwadron, Teshuvot Maharsham, III, no. 357, inaccurately cites Rokeaḥ as ruling that utilization of a printing press does not constitute writing. In point of fact, R. Eli’ezer of Worms, who died in 1238, more than two hundred years prior to the invention of the printing press, employed the term “defus” in describing a stamp that creates an imprint by forcing the pliable material upon which the imprint is to be made to enter depressions hollowed in the stamp. As a result, a picture or design is created in relief. Such a procedure is tantamount to “gouging” that causes “writing” to appear in relief and hence does not constitute “writing” for purposes of drafting a get. Nevertheless, Rokeaḥ declares that, insofar as Yom Tov strictures are concerned, use of such a stamp is prohibited either as “writing,” as creating a picture or as “roshem.”] The printing process, since it involves “printing the entire page simultaneously with one action,” is regarded by Piskei Uzi’el as “not in the manner of writing.” Cf., Bnei Yonah, no. 271, Pilpul Arukh, p.15a, cited supra, note 10, who categorizes the process as entirely outside the parameters of writing. Bnei Yonah asserts that the expression “but not gouge” is paradigmatic in nature and serves to exclude “all things that are not called ‘writing.’” With regard to printing, Bnei Yonah remarks, “And it is clear that this is not called writing.” The selfsame observation is certainly applicable to the silk screen process. See also idem, Kiẓur Arukh, no. 271, p. 2b.
Bnei Yonah, Pilpul Arukh, no. 271, p. 15a, also cites Sod ha-Ẓimẓum, authored by Ari, in asserting that for kabbalistic reasons “The beginning of the letters must be dots.” Obviously, the printing process does not form letters in that manner. See also ibid., p. 14a, where Bnei Yonah asserts that “each letter must be formed with its intent (kavvanato) and its form, but a general intent for the entire sheet is of no avail.” Consequently, Da'at kohen regards simultaneous formation of multiple letters to be "in the manner of writing." Moreover, as Rabbi Abadi, Or Yizḥak, no. 53, sec. 1, notes, the Gemara, Yoma 38b, describes a process employed to write four letters simultaneously. Teshuvot R. Mosheh Provenςal declares explicitly that there is no obligation to form letters individually or to write every word separately. The process described by Hatam Sofer is readily distinguishable from the simultaneous writing described in that source and in Da'at Kohen in that the process described by Hatam Sofer involved harnessing supernatural powers. It is readily understandable that utilization of supernatural powers is not "in the manner of writing" and, moreover, it may be argued that writing effected by means of such powers is not to be deemed the product of a human act.
Rabbi Gross also suggests that for the procedure to be carried out "in the manner of writing," it is necessary for the writing implement to come into direct contact with the paper or parchment being written upon. Silk screening involves the interposition of a screen between the squeegee and the parchment and hence, contends Rabbi Gross, the process may not be consistent with "the manner of writing."
4. Hok Tokhot (Gouging)
Another objection to the silk screen process is based upon analysis of the rule that excludes whittling from the category of "writing." The Gemara, Gittin 20a, cites the verse "and he shall write" as excluding gouging in the form of whittling a substance so that letters appear in relief (ḥok tokhot). Of course, pouring ink upon a stencil in silk screening is quite different from whittling. Nevertheless it may be argued that the rationale underlying the exclusion of whittling is equally applicable to the silk screen process. Rashi explains that whittling is not a form of "writing" because the whittler "did not form the letters." Tosafot, Sanhedrin 21b, similarly explain that in the process of whittling "the writing appears of its own." Me'iri, in his Kiryat Sefer, ma'amar bet, part 2, s.v. ve-af, is even more explicit in explaining that the exclusion is predicated upon the consideration that such a procedure does not constitute writing "for he did not perform an act upon the letters themselves and the basic writing is made of itself." One who forces ink over a silk screen certainly has not shaped or formed the letters and hence by performing an act "upon the letters themselves" the resultant writing can accurately be described as having come about "of itself" in that it is produced by the screen rather than by the writer. Indeed, as Rabbi Gross points out, whittling does involve acts that shape the letter but is unsatisfactory because those acts are performed in a manner that is external to the letter itself. The silk screen process is even further removed from the category of "writing," contends Rabbi Gross, by virtue of the fact that, in pressing ink upon the screen, the human hand performs no act with regard to the actual shaping of the letters.13It should be noted that many of the authorities who ruled use of a printing press to be impermissible, including the first to do so, R. Moses Provenςal, Teshuvot R. Mosheh Provenςal, no. 73, prohibited its use because they regarded the printing process to be an illicit form of “engraving (ḥok tokhot).” Prohibition of the use of a printing press on those grounds is astonishing since ordinary engraving is indeed deemed to be “writing.” Only whittling, i.e., chiseling away the external area so that the remaining material assumes the form of a letter, is disqualified. It seems to this writer that those scholars did not intend to depict printing as “engraving” or “whittling” in a literal sense but were alluding to the underlying reason that renders whittling unacceptable, viz., because it involves an act external to the letter rather than an act intrinsic to the letter itself. That deficiency, they maintain, is also present in the printing process. Indeed, a careful reading of the reasoning of R. Moses of Provenςal reveals that he terms the printing process ḥok tokhot because “no act is performed upon the letters themselves.” This also appears to be how the comments of R. Moses Provenςal were understood by Piskei Uzi’el, no. 31 and R. Abraham Joseph Yani, the editor of Teshuvot R. Mosheh Provenςal, no. 73, note 21.
See also Levush, Even ha-Ezer 125:4 and Bet Shmu’el, Even ha-Ezer 125:4, who explains that a metal pen should not be utilized in writing a get because it constitutes a form of “etching” and “etching” should be eschewed lest it be confused with “whittling” and an onlooker be misled in assuming that the latter is acceptable as well. Teshuvot Zera Emet, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 117, asserts that use of a printing press for production of Torah scrolls etc. should be banned for the same reason.
5. The Divine Names
Another problem with regard to the silk screen process is the writing of the many occurrences of the Divine Name. Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Hayyim 32:19 and Yoreh De'ah 276:2, records the rule that the Divine Name, in each of its occurrences, must be written explicitly "for the purpose of the sanctity of the Divine Name" (le-shem kedushat ha-Shem). Many authorities, including, inter alia,, Bnei Yonah 276:2; Divrei Hamudot, Halakhot Ketanot, Hilkhot Sefer Torah 4:11; Ma'adanei Yom Tov, Halakhot Ketanot, Hilkhot Sefer Torah 4:5; Eliyahu Rabbah 32:36; Teshuvot Bet Shlomoh, Yoreh De'ah, II, no. 163; Teshuvot Dvar Shmu'el, no. 76; Melekhet Shamayim, no. 5; Birkei Yosef Yoreh De'ah 276:3; Bet Aharon, no. 12; Teshuvot Maharam Shik, Yoreh De'ah, no. 276; Kol Ya'akov, Yoreh De'ah 274:4; R. Yitzchak Dov Bamberger, Melekhet Shamayim, Binah 9:3; and Hazon Ish, Oraḥ Hayyim 6:13, maintain that such sanctification must be performed verbally prior to the writing of each and every Divine Name.
However, Taz, Yoreh De'ah 274:1, rules that at least post factum, such sanctification is necessary only at the beginning of each writing session.14See also Rema, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 32:19. Me’asef le-Khol ha-Maḥanot 32:206 notes that Sefer ha-Eshkol, II, Hilkhot Sefer Torah, no. 13, espouses a position identical to that of Taz. Me’asef le-Khol ha-Maḥanot adds the comment that Sefer ha-Eshkol was not available to early scholars but, had they been aware of that source, they would not have disputed Taz’ ruling. See also Teshuvot Maharsham, I, no. 156 as well as Teshuvot ve-Heshiv Mosheh, no. 52; Teshuvot Mayim Ḥayyim, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 39; and R. Shlomoh Kluger, Teshuvot Shenot Ḥayyim, II, Sefer Stam, no. 19. Taz' position is itself the subject of differing interpretations. Some authorities, including inter alia, Bnei Yonah 276:2, Teshuvot Bet Shlomoh, Yoreh De'ah, II, no. 163, Be'er Heitev, Yoreh De'ah 276:2; Teshuvot Maharam Shik, Yoreh De'ah, no. 276; Teshuvot Zera Emet, I, Oraḥ Hayyim, no. 6; Emek She'elah, Yoreh De'ah, no. 77; and Pitḥei Teshuvah, Yoreh De'ah 276:1, maintain that, although according to Taz, a single verbal declaration is sufficient, it is nevertheless necessary for the scribe to sanctify the Divine Name mentally in the course of his writing prior to each of its occurrences.
However, Pri Megadim, Eshel Avraham 32:32, followed by Teshuvot Avnei Nezer, Yoreh De'ah, no. 359, sec. 1 and no. 374, sec. 3 and Keset ha-Sofer, Lishkat ha-Sofer 11:26 as well as by Mishnah Berurah 32:96, understands Taz' position to be that, post factum, even absence of subsequent mental sanctification does not invalidate the Divine Name. Mishnah Berurah, 32:19, Bi'ur Halakhah, s.v., be-teḥilah, rules that Taz' position may be relied upon only in cases of doubt with regard to whether the scribe verbally sanctified a particular Divine Name.15See, however, R. David Yosef, Halakhah Berurah, II, 32:91, Birurei Halakhah, cited sec. 79, who reports that his father, R. Ovadiah Yosef, ruled that Taz’ opinion may be relied upon post factum, Rabbi Yosef apparently revised his earlier negative opinion recorded in Yeḥaveh Da‘at, VI, no. 57, upon becoming aware of the statement of Sefer ha-Eshkol. See supra, note 14. Kol Ya'akov 274:4 asserts that the majority of authorities reject Taz' position.16This is also the position of Teshuvot Halakhot Ketanot, I, no. 67 and Me’asef le-Khol ha-Maḥanot 32:206.
Rabbi Gross takes it for granted that, according to those who reject Taz' position and require sanctification of each Divine Name individually, use of the silk screen process cannot be contemplated. However, Teshuvot Mas'at Binyamin, no. 99, cogently asserts that multiple Divine Names may be written consecutively with a single sanctification. Maharik, Yoreh De'ah, no. 277, and Teshuvot Devar Shmu'el, no. 76, similarly seem to maintain that a number of Divine Names may be written with a single sanctification provided there is no interruption in the writing. Melekhet Shamayim, Binah 9:3, also emphasizes that, when there is no interruption, a single sanctification is sufficient. Similarly, Binat Sofer 1:1 declares that use of a printing press cannot be proscribed for that reason because "even if there are many Divine Names it is possible to sanctify them at one time." If so, the use of a squeegee to produce an entire column may well be regarded as no different from consecutive writing of multiple Divine Names. Nevertheless, R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yeḥaveh Da'at, VI, no. 57, rules that printing methods are invalid because of the requirement that each occurrence of the Divine Name must be sanctified separately.17Cf., however, Halakhah Berurah, II, 32:91, Birurei Halakhah, sec. 79, cited supra, note 15. A similar view was earlier advanced by Bnei Yonah.18See also R. Menachem Pollak, Teshuvot Ḥelek Levi, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 26.
Rabbi Gross further argues that, as noted by numerous authorities, including Bi'ur ha-Gra, Oraḥ Hayyim 32:19; Pitḥei Teshuvah, Yoreh De'ah 276:9; and Teshuvot Avnei Nezer, Yoreh De'ah, no. 359, secs.1-3, the scribe must at least be cognizant of the fact that he is transcribing the Divine Name.19See also Rabbenu Yonah, Iggeret ha-Teshuvah, no. 5 and R. Yitzchak Dov Bamberger, Melekhet Shamayim, Binah 9:2. Rabbi Gross regards that requirement to be incapable of fulfillment in conjunction with employment of the silk screen method presumably because the requisite mental act is marred by virtue of the fact that the person applying the ink is also cognizant of the other words that he is forming. Rabbi Abadi, Or Yizḥak, no. 53, sec. 5, asserts that awareness of the fact that other words are being formed simultaneously does not interfere with cognizance of the writing of the Divine Name.
Another consideration with regard to the writing of Divine Names is the issue of the order in which the letters of the Divine Name must be formed. R. Abraham ben Mordecai ha-Levi, Teshuvot Ginat Veradim, Oraḥ Hayyim, klal 2, nos. 10 and 12, asserts that the letters of the Divine Name must be written in consecutive order.20Cf., however, Afikei Meginim 32:43, Bi’urim, sec. 35(3), who maintains that the letters of the Divine Name must be written consecutively but endeavors to demonstrate on the basis of a variety of sources, including the description of the method developed by Ben Kamzar, that simultaneous writing is tantamount to writing in consecutive order. Although, as noted supra, note 9, Magen Avraham rejected use of a printing press for tefillin and mezuzot because of the requirement for writing the words of those sacred artifacts in consecutive order, Afikei Meginim asserts that Magen Avraham did so only because it is unlikely that the entire text would be printed simultaneously. However, the Divine Name, since it contains but few letters, he asserts, can indeed be printed simultaneously. That is also the position of Teshuvot Noda bi-Yehudah, Mahadura Tinyana, Yorah De'ah, no. 74 and supporting evidence is advanced by Minḥiat Hinnukh, no. 436. Teshuvah me-Ahavah, III, no. 391, similarly remarks that the letters of the Divine Name "must certainly be written consecutively." That also seems to be view of the Zohar, Va-Yikra 11b. Nevertheless, the position that the letters of the Divine Name must be written consecutively is refuted by Teshuvot Avnei Nezer, Yoreh De'ah, no. 30, and, as demonstrated by Teshuvot Yabi'a Omer, III, Yoreh De'ah, no. 14, is contradicted by numerous other authorities.21See in particular Petaḥ ha-Devir, I, 32:10, who emphasizes that Magen Avraham certainly rejected this view. See also Petaḥ ha-Devir, II, Kuntres Shenayim Yeshalem 23:3 and IV, 289f. In any event, in employment of the silk screen method, ink is spread across each column from right to left with the result that the letters of each Divine Name are indeed produced in consecutive order.
6. Copying from an Existing Scroll
Based upon a statement of the Gemara, Megillah 18b, Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 274:2, rules that a Torah scroll cannot be written from memory but must be copied from an already existing Torah scroll. Rabbi Gross endeavors to demonstrate that this requirement is not based upon the fear that a fallible memory may lead to inadvertent scribal error but is an intrinsic procedural rule.22It seems to this writer that at least one early-day authority maintained that the requirement that the Torah scroll be copied from an existent scroll is based entirely upon concern for scribal error. The Gemara, Megillah 18b, declares that this requirement is limited to Torah scrolls but does not apply to tefillin and mezuzot because everyone is familiar with the content of the relatively brief Torah sections contained in tefillin and mezuzot. That statement might well be understood as simply expressive of the rationale underlying what is fundamentally a Mosaic rule but leaving intact the statutory requirement with regard to Torah scrolls as a rule that does not admit of exceptions. However, Rashba, in his commentary ad locum, queries why a person who is thoroughly familiar with the entire Torah must copy from an existing scroll since such an individual is as familiar with the entire Torah as others are with the content of tefillin and mezuzot. Rashba responds with the statement that all persons who write tefillin and mezuzot are familiar with their contents and consequently there is no need for a decree requiring use of a master text. However, not every scribe is proficient in the entire Torah and therefore “we decree” that even the most knowledgeable individuals shall not write from memory lest others less proficient than they do so as well. Rashba clearly regarded the regulations requiring copying to be rabbinic in nature and designed simply to prevent scribal error. Me’iri, ad locum, also comments that the rule is designed to prevent error and adds the comment that “even the most perfect” may err.
On the other hand, Or Zaru‘a, I, Hilkhot Tefillin, no. 548, appears to be of the opinion that the requirement is based upon an entirely different consideration and is Mosaic in origin. Or Zaru‘a explains that tefillin and mezuzot need not be copied from existing texts for the same reason that recitation of biblical sections that are commonly committed to memory is not a violation of the Mosaic rule that the Written Law may not be recited from memory. Thus, for Or Zaru‘a, writing tefillin and mezuzot from memory is an exception to the rule against reciting the Written Law without benefit of a text. In positing such an exception, Or Zaru‘a, in effect, extends the ambit of the general prohibition. Or Zaru‘a apparently maintains that the Mosaic rule declaring that the Written Law may not be recited from memory but only read from a printed text also demands that no portion of the Written Law may be committed to writing other than by way of copying from an existing text. According to Or Zaru a’s analysis, that stricture would serve to prevent utilization of printing or silk screen methods unless it is maintained that the stencil or printing press is itself “a writing” and that, in effect, it is the written document that is reproducing itself. Rabbi Abadi, Or Yiẓḥak, no. 53, sec. 7, however, inexplicably dismisses the problem with the cryptic comment that, even according to Or Zaru‘a, “it is simple (peshita) that there is no such deficiency.” The anonymous author of Ha-Emet ve-ha-Shalom adds the puzzling observation “for he writes from the written,” i.e., from the stencil. That comment seems to ignore the fact that vocalization is ordinarily required even though the scribe is copying from an existing scroll. Thus, according the stencil the status of a written document does not eliminate the requirement for vocalization. R. Jonah Landsopher, Bnei Yonah (Prague, 5562), no. 271, Pilpul Arukh, p. 14a, observes that the Palestinian Talmud, Megillah 4:1, reports that Rabbi Meir wrote a megillah from memory and then copied a second megillah from it. Thereupon, Rabbi Meir secreted the first megillah and used the second for the reading of the megillah. Assuredly, the first megillah was free of error, else it could not have been used as a master copy for purposes of copying the second.23It is indeed the case that Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De‘ah 279:1, rules that an invalid Torah scroll may not be retained for longer than thirty days. As evident from the comment of Taz, Yoreh De‘ah 281:1, that ruling is predicated upon the fear that, since it is not immediately evident that the scroll is invalid, retention might lead to inadvertent use of the scroll for public reading. That consideration is not applicable to printed scrolls that cannot be mistakenly regarded as valid. Similarly, that consideration would not apply to the silk screen used as a “master copy.” That, however, is not the case with regard to scrolls produced by means of the silk screen process since such scrolls are indistinguishable from valid ones.
Noda bi-Yehudah, Yoreh De‘ah, Mahadura Tinyana, no. 181, asserts that, for some authorities, it is forbidden to use an illicitly written scroll for private study, not because of the consideration that the invalid scroll might inadvertently be used for public reading, but because of the transgression involved in the writing of the scroll. That consideration does not apply to use of printed texts since, at least in our historical epoch, the printing of the Written Law is entirely permissible. In that regard, the silk screen is no different from the metal type used in a printing press. Nevertheless, the first megillah was not useable because it had not been copied from an already existing megillah.24However, as discussed supra, note 23, it is forbidden to retain an invalid scroll in one’s possession. Nevertheless, a scroll copied therefrom would not be invalid because of the requirement that the invalid scroll be secreted. Similarly, argues Rabbi Gross, scrolls produced by a silk screen process are not acceptable because they have not been copied from existing scrolls. A similar objection was earlier advanced by R. Ben-Zion Meir Chai Uziel, Piskei Uzi'el, no. 31, with regard to use of a printing press for such purposes.
Rabbi Gross' argument is, however, subject to challenge. It is quite correct that subsequent proofreading does not retroactively validate a scroll written from memory. Nevertheless, it is not at all clear that, other than being an uncorrupted text, the scroll used as a master copy need necessarily be written in conformity with all halakhic requirements. Proof: As is evident from the anecdote concerning R. Meir, a megillah may be used as a master copy even if it itself was not copied from another scroll. Thus, for example, it is possible that a scroll written by a minor, although itself invalid, might nevertheless be used for purposes of copying.25See the previously cited comment of Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, VI, no. 29. Ḥatam Sofer explains that Moses was permitted to write Torah scrolls for each of the tribes on the last day of his life which occurred on a Shabbat because that writing required use of a supernatural power. Hence, since it was not in “the manner of writing,” Moses’ transcription of the Torah scrolls involved no infraction of Sabbath strictures. However, for the very reason that the scrolls were not transcribed “in the manner of writing” those scrolls could not have been valid. The purpose of those scrolls must have been to provide a master copy to each of the tribes for purposes of copying. [Cf., Rabbi Abadi, Or Yiẓḥak, no. 53, sec. 3, who maintains that those scrolls were valid but incongruously asserts that they cannot be considered to have been written by a human hand.] If so, Ḥatam Sofer must have maintained that an invalid scroll may be used as a master scroll for purposes of copying. Although invalid scrolls must be secreted lest they be mistaken for valid scrolls that consideration could not have served to prevent the original writing of valid scrolls. Similarly, Rabbi Meir had no compunction against using an invalid megillah for purposes of copying when no other megillah was available. Moreover, as is evident from the ruling of Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De‘ah 279:1, an invalid scroll may be retained for a maximum period of thirty days. If so, the stencil used in the silk screen process may perhaps be regarded as the master scroll and the scroll produced from it may perhaps be regarded as functionally "copied" from the screen.26This is, in effect, the view expressed by Afikei Meginim 32:43, Bi’urim sec. 35 (1), in his discussion of the validity of the use of a printing press. Afikei Meginim concludes with the remark that the matter requires further reflection. That view was, in fact, earlier rejected by Bnei Yonah, Pilpul Arukh, no. 271, p. 14b, who asserts that this requirement is not designed simply to obviate scribal error.
7. Vocalization Prior to Writing
As recorded by Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 274:2, there is also a requirement that the scribe pronounce each word before committing it to writing. However, both Rashi and Tosafot, Menaḥot 30a, as well as numerous other early authorities, indicate that vocalization is necessary only in order to prevent scribal error. That consideration certainly is not germane with regard to the silk screen process. However, Baḥ, Oraḥ Hayyim 32:15, states that vocalization is mandated in order to cause the sanctity of the spoken work to become attached to the written letters. Although Baḥ's position is cited by Shiyarei Knesset ha-Gedolah, Hiddushei Bet Yosef, Oraḥ Hayyim 32:20, and by a number of other latter-day authorities, the weight of opinion is not in accordance with his view. Nevertheless, citing Baḥ, Mishnah Berurah 32:36 rules that if the scribe does not vocalize the words prior to writing them the scroll can be regarded as valid only post factum. Rabbi Abadi, Or Yizḥak, no. 53, sec. 7, concedes that the silk screen method is not compatible with the requirement for vocalization as understood by Baḥ.27In discussing the validity of use of a printing press, Afikei Meginim 32:43, Bi’urim, sec. 35(1), suggests that vocalization at the time of setting the type may suffice for all copies printed subsequently but concludes with the remark that the matter requires further reflection.
IV. Conclusion
The silk screen method is certainly subject to challenge on the basis of its inherent incompatibility with a number of considerations:
1. The position of Baḥ, who maintains that each word must be vocalized before writing even when there is no chance of scribal error.
2. The view of the authorities who maintain that each word must be copied from an existing text and that an error-free "master text" is not sufficient for this purpose.
3. The view of the authorities who maintain that multiple Divine Names cannot be sanctified even simultaneously.
4. Iggeret Mosheh's28See supra, note 2. view that any method in which sirtut serves no purpose is disqualified.
5. The view of Teshuvot Zera Avraham, She'ilat David, Da'at Kohen and Piskei Uzi'el29See supra, note 10. that the printing press is not acceptable because "it is not in the manner of writing."
6. The kabbalistic view expressed by Ari30See supra, note 12. regarding the particular form of writing that governs the manner in which the writing of each letter is begun.
Nevertheless, a competent rabbinic decisor might, with justification, conclude that those are minority views and consequently rely upon the weight of authority in ignoring such concerns. The crucial consideration is whether or not the silk screen method constitutes either "spilling" or "dripping" and hence is ruled invalid by the Palestinian Talmud. Since the validity of Torah scrolls, tefillin and mezuzot is a matter of biblical law, any doubt, if the there is indeed such doubt, must be resolved in the negative. Thus, it would be necessary either to adduce strong precedent in support of the validity of a method similar to the silk screen process or to advance a compelling logical distinction between that method and the processes described by the Palestinian Talmud. In this writer's opinion, the requisite demonstration has not been forthcoming.