Tefilin, mezuzos, and megilas Eicha

A previous post discussed several disagreements among the poskim regarding the shape and placement of parsha breaks. In most circumstances we are able to write STAM with parshi’os that are acceptable according to all opinions, but there are three STAM items that present unique issues.

Tefilin & Mezuzos

The last parsha in both tefilin and mezuzos – והיה אם שמֹע – is a parsha setuma. Normally, the beginning of a parsha setuma is written on the same line as the ending of the previous parsha. In tefilin and mezuzos we do not have that option because every parsha must start on a new line.¹

The Beis Yosef decided that there is no way to satisfy all opinions in this case. Based on the common practice in his time, he follows the opinion of the Rambam:

The parsha of שמע ends at the end of a line, and the next line starts with a blank space that is wide enough to write the word “אשר” three times. The parsha of והיה אם שמֹע begins after the blank space.

The Taz proposed a novel solution which he determined would be a parsha setuma according to all opinions:

The previous parsha – שמע – does not finish at the end of the line, but the blank space is less than the width of nine narrow letters. The next line also starts with a blank space that is less than nine narrow letters, followed by the parsha of והיה אם שמֹע. According to the Taz, the small blank space at the end of the first parsha and the small blank space at the beginning of the second parsha combine to form a parsha break that would be acceptable according to both the Rambam and the Rosh.

This solution of the Taz – to create a parsha break by combining small blank spaces on consecutive lines – is endorsed by many later authorities. Accordingly, most Ashkenazi communities follow the opinion of the Taz for the last parsha in tefilin and mezuzos.² Some poskim – primarily Sefardim – reject the premise of the Taz. Following the lead of the Beis Yosef, they advocate writing tefilin and mezuzos with parsha-breaks according to the Rambam.

Megilas Eicha

Another item which would be impractical to write with maximally-compliant parsha breaks is megilas Eicha.

According to the masora of Ben Asher, every verse in the first four chapters of Eicha is a parsha. The first verse of each chapter is a parsha pesucha, and the other verses are all parshi’os setumos.³

note: Whenever several parsha breaks occur in close proximity, the layout must be arranged carefully so that the text does not have the appearance of a shira.

When parsha breaks appear so frequently, it is practicaly impossible to arrange the text so that all of the parshi’os would be acceptable according to all opinions. In this situation, the consensus of contemporary poskim is to rely on the Beis Yosef and follow the opinion of the Rambam where necessary.

-= 8 =-

1. Each parsha in a pair of tefilin must also start at the top of a new column, and the parshi’os of the shel rosh are all written on separate pieces of klaf. ↩

2. Some chasidic groups follow unique interpretations of the relevant sources, and have their own preferred form of this parsha break. ↩

3. The last chapter of Eicha follows the more common format used in Tanach, with each parsha containing several verses. ↩

It is customary to arrange the layout of a Sefer Torah with several of the columns starting with specific words. The acronym בי״ה שמ״ו is used as a mnemonic for this custom, but there are disagreements regarding some of the words referenced by the acronym. These are the words which appear at the top of the columns in contemporary Sifrei Torah:¹

There is no record of this custom in the ancient masora, but it was already well established during the time of the Rishonim. A Sefer Torah that does not incorporate this custom is still kosher bidi’eved.

note: For the other columns in a Sefer Torah, the current practice is to start them with a word that begins with the letter vav. This convention – called ווי העמודים – has no authoritative source, and is not required.

It is not unusual for older Sifrei Torah to have unique layouts. They usually follow the custom of בי״ה שמ״ו, but the arrangement of the rest of the text can be inconsistent from one Sefer to the next. Since the early 1970’s, nearly all Sifrei Torah are written using either the 245-column layout developed by R. Menachem Davidovitch, or the newer 248-column layout developed by R. Yaakov Schinagel.²

-= 8 =-

1. This list includes two of the opinions for the word that begins with the letter shin. There are other opinions not in common use: For the letter shin – שמר ושמעת (in פרשת ראה); and for the letter mem – מוצא שפתיך (in פרשת כי תצא). ↩

2. The 248-column layout is less prevalent, but it is preferred by some sofrim because it has less need for cramped (squeezed together) writing. ↩

The subscription services used by this blog have been migrated to a new host. RSS users might notice some older posts returning to the feed as unread. This should be a one-time issue.

To be notified when new content is posted, see the updated subscription page for all options.

All poskim agree that the parshi’os in tefilin need to be written in the order they appear in the Torah (קדש first, והיה כי יבאך second, שמע third, and והיה אם שמֹע fourth). There is a disagreement between Rashi and Rabeinu Tam regarding the order of the placement of the parshi’os into the batim. Rashi holds that the parshi’os should be placed in the order in which they are written. According to Rabeinu Tam, the last two parshi’os are switched so that והיה אם שמֹע is placed third and שמע is fourth (even though they are written in order). A standard pair of tefilin follows the opinion of Rashi. Some people (mostly chasidim) have the custom to also put on an additional pair of tefilin which follows Rabeinu Tam.

-= 8 =-

• STAM 101 introduction & index

Megilas Ester

The previous posts addressed the relationship between the Keter Aram Tzova (also known as the Tikun Ben Asher) and modern-day Sifrei Torah & nevi’im.¹ This post will address the masora of the Keter as it relates to megilas Ester.

Unlike the rest of Nach, all Jewish communities throughout history have written megilas Ester on scrolls of parchment. As was the case with Sifrei Torah, minor variations developed in the text and layout over time. Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried attempted to standardize the megila by compiling a detailed list in the Keses Hasofer reconciling the different versions.²

Although the section of the Keter that contains megilas Ester is missing, there is copious evidence – both internal and external³ – that can be used to reconstruct the missing text with a high degree of certainty. This reconstructed text differs in several ways from the list in the Keses Hasofer:

Parshi’os: One area of difference is the number of parsha breaks and their locations in the text. There is also a difference in the type of parshi’os: While the Tikun Ben Asher has some parshi’os that are setumos and some that are pesuchos, the Keses Hasofer ruled that all of the parshi’os in megilas Ester should be setumos.⁴

Spelling: There are also a handful of words with spelling differences. Most are minor variations of maleh or chaser spelling, and are not discernible when listening to the megila reading. There are two verses with differences that do affect the way the words are read, although they do not change the underlying meaning of the text:

• In 8:11, the Tikun Ben Asher has להשמיד ולהרוג ולאבד, and the Keses Hasofer has להשמיד להרוג ולאבד.
• In 9:2, the Tikun Ben Asher has ואיש לא עמד לפניהם, and the Keses Hasofer has ואיש לא עמד בפניהם.

With regard to these two verses, the Keses Hasofer noted that there was strong evidence to support the version of the text that appears in the Tikun Ben Asher. Since he also found evidence to support an alternate version of the text, he considered the “correct” text a matter of uncertainty. In light of the uncertainty, he ruled in accordance with the common practice in Ashkenaz at that time, which did not follow the masora of the Keter.

Masora vs. Masora

For the most part, Ashkenazim follow the Keses Hasofer for both spelling and parshi’os, although there are contemporary Ashkenazi halachic authorities who advocate following the Tikun Ben Asher. Most Sefardim follow the Keses Hasofer for Parshi’os, but the Tikun Ben Asher for spelling.⁵ Yemenites generally follow the Tikun Ben Asher for both parshi’os and spelling.

Unfortunately, the average buyer is unaware of the subtle differences between the various traditions. When considering the purchase of a megilas Ester, it would be prudent to consult with a knowledgeable halachic authority to determine the most appropriate masora for you.

With thanks to Yakov Schonberg for graciously sharing his expertise.

-= 8 =-

1. Included in the discussion of nevi’im are the four megilos (Rus, Shir Hashirim, Koheles, and Eicha) that were not historically written on klaf. ↩

2. Rabbi Ganzfried did not have access to the Keter, but he did have access to other authoritative copies of the megila, as well as the Minchas Shai and other relevant works. ↩

3. Internal evidence comes from the masoretic notes found elsewhere in the Keter which reference (or relate to) the text in megilas Ester. External evidence can come from other authoritative manuscripts which follow the masora of Ben Asher, as well as the written testimony of scholars who examined the Keter when it was still whole. ↩

4. The list in the Keses Hasofer follows the opinion of the Rema regarding the type of parshi’os. The Rema did not address the number or placement of the parshi’os. ↩

5. Some Sefardi communities only follow the Tikun Ben Asher for some of the instances of spelling differences. ↩

The white space that frames a block of text gives form to the text and enhances readability. This is as true for STAM as it is for any written or printed text.

The minimum and maximum amounts of blank space that should surround the text in Sifrei Torah and kisvei kodesh are detailed in the Gemara.¹

The minimum height of the upper and lower margins is expressed in absolute terms: Sifrei Torah should have at least 6 cm of space above the text and 8 cm below the text. Kisvei kodesh should have at least 3 cm of space above the text and 4.5 cm below the text.²

The maximum height of the upper and lower margins is expressed in relative terms: The combined height of the margins cannot be greater than the height of the column of text. By way of example: A Sefer Torah with margins of 6 cm on top and 8 cm on the bottom, should have columns of text that are more than 14 cm tall.

note: Sifrei Torah and kisvei kodesh that do not meet these specifications are not pasul, but they may only be kosher bidi’eved.

Sifrei Torah

According to the Gemara, Sifrei Torah should ideally be the same size as the luchos,³ which were one amah (48 cm) tall. Most Sifrei Torah of this size have margins that fulfill the requirements of the Gemara.

Many smaller Sifrei Torah do not meet the Gemara’s criteria for minimum margins. The undersized margins in these Sifrei Torah rely on the assumption that the measurements in the Gemara are only relevant for full-sized (48 cm) Sifrei Torah, and therefore smaller Sifrei Torah can have proportionally smaller margins. This view seems to be widespread among klaf-makers and sofrim, but does not have strong support in the halachic sources, and is rejected by some contemporary poskim.

Someone who requires a very small Sefer Torah, but does not want to rely on the assumption behind proportional margins, could specify klaf with kisvei kodesh-sized margins (3 cm on top and 4.5 cm on the bottom). Even though this is smaller than the Gemara’s minimum measurements for a Sefer Torah, most poskim still consider it kosher lechatchila.⁴

Megilas Ester

As mentioned in a previous post, megilas Ester is part of kisvei kodesh, but certain aspects of it have the same requirements as Sifrei Torah. According to some opinions, this includes the margins.

For the margins of a megila to be considered mehudar, they must meet the Gemara’s criteria for kisvei kodesh. It would be an additional hidur to have the same margins as a Sefer Torah.

Klaf is available for megilas Ester in many standard sizes. Most klaf makers keep stock for medium-sized writing (8 mm space between the lines) as well as large writing (10 mm space between the lines) – both in a variety of layouts ranging from 11 lines to 42 lines. Some of the standard klaf sizes have margins that are too small to be considered mehudar (although there are halachic authorities who maintain that they are still kosher lechatchila).

Most margin-related issues can be avoided by using one of the standard layouts which incorporates mehudar margins.⁵ In some cases it might also be possible to add mehudar margins by ordering custom klaf with margins that are a little larger than the stock sizes.

-= 8 =-

1. For a brief introduction to the margins of Sifrei Torah and kisvei kodesh, see STAM 101: White Space. ↩

2. The unit of measurement used by the Gemara is a finger-width. The metric measurements listed above are the approximate equivalents. ↩

3. This is not a requirement, but it is a hidur. ↩

4. There are even poskim who consider it mehudar. ↩

5. One example is a 30 cm megila with a 28-line layout. ↩

Unfortunately, the email subscription service used by this blog was shut down by Google. See the subscription page for other ways to be notified when new content is posted.

When writing megilas Ester, the practice in most communities is to write aseres binei Haman as an entire column. Many megilos are written with a layout of 21 lines or more, and the column of aseres binei Haman is written with larger letters to fill the vertical space. These megilos follow the opinion of the poskim who permit enlarging the letters of an entire column, even though they are not part of the masora of large and small letters.¹

Some poskim – including the Vilna Ga’on – do not agree with this view. They hold that it is forbidden to enlarge or reduce any letters except those dictated by the masora. To accommodate their position, there are several ways to write a megila without enlarging the text of aseres binei Haman.

Regular Text Above or Below

The widely adopted custom of writing aseres binei Haman as an entire column is based on a minority opinion. Most poskim hold that aseres binei Haman can be included in a column that also has other lines of regular text.² This type of megila is currently most prevalent among Chabad-Lubavitch chasidim. Megilos written according to the custom of Chabad have aseres binei Haman at the top of the column, with lines of regular text below it.

The Vilna Ga’on also advocated writing aseres binei Haman as part of a column that includes lines of regular text. In an early ruling he wrote that aseres binei Haman should be at the top of the column (like the custom of Chabad). Later in life he became aware of a tradition that he had not known previously. Based on that tradition he decided that it would be preferable for aseres binei Haman to be at the bottom of the column, with lines of regular text above it.

Short Megila

For people who want to avoid non-masoretic large letters and also want aseres binei Haman to fill an entire column, the best solution is to use a short megila layout: Instead of enlarging aseres binei Haman to fit the height of the rest of the megila, reduce the height of the whole megila to match aseres binei Haman.

note: A short megila is often called a “Vilna Ga’on megila”. It would be more accurate to call it a “maximum compliance megila”, since the Vilna Ga’on himself did not specifically mention the short layout.

Short megilos have additional halachic considerations, which will be addressed in a future post.

Skipping Lines

Theoretically, another way to write aseres binei Haman as its own column – without enlarging the letters – is to skip lines. For example, aseres binei Haman in a 21-line megila would have one blank line between each of the 11 lines of text. This arrangement is problematic because the skipped lines may be considered parsha breaks in the wrong place.

A megila with skipped lines in aseres binei Haman is – at best – kosher bidi’eved. It is not advisable to purchase such a megila, and it should not be used to fulfill the mitzva (unless there are no other megilos available).

-= 8 =-

1. See More About Large & Small Letters for more information. ↩

2. See Aseres Binei Haman for more information. ↩

According to the masora, certain instances of specific letters in Tanach should be written larger or smaller than the rest of the text.¹ Some communities have different traditions regarding which letters should be larger or smaller. As with other matters of masora, each community should follow its own traditions. A STAM item that does not have large and small letters according to the tradition of the community is not pasul, but it should be corrected if possible.²

Letters that are not included in the masoretic lists of large and small letters should not be arbitrarily written larger or smaller. In most STAM items this is usually not an issue, but there are two situations in megilas Ester where it becomes relevant.

“Hints” to G‑d’s Name

Even though the text of megilas Ester does not explicitly mention G‑d by name,³ there are many “hints” in the story to the Divine presence. Among the hints mentioned in the commentaries are several four-word phrases in which the initial letters or final letters spell out G‑d’s name. For example:

• (5:4) יבוא המלך והמן היום

• (7:7) כי כלתה אליו הרעה

In some megilos, these hints are accentuated, with the relevant letters written noticeably larger than the surrounding text.⁴

There are instances of this non-masoretic visual emphasis in megilos from many different communities. The practice is old – going back at least several hundred years – but it does not appear to be ancient, and was never widely adopted. It is discouraged by the poskim, but a megila written in this way is still kosher and can be used lechatchila.

The Sons of Haman

A more common example of non-masoretic large letters appears towards the end of megilas Ester (9:7–9), where there is a stacked shira listing the names of the sons of Haman. According to some opinions, this shira – which only takes up eleven lines – should fill the entire height of the column. If the layout of the megila is more than eleven lines tall, many poskim advocate enlarging all of the text of these eleven lines to fill the space.

These poskim maintain that the enlarged letters in this case have a different status than those that hint to G‑d’s name. Their position is based on the assumption that each column stands as a distinct unit. Since the entire column of aseres binei Haman is the same size, it does not conflict with the masora of large and small letters.

note: The list of Haman’s sons contains several masoretic large and small letters. When aseres binei Haman is written larger than the rest of the text in the megila, these masoretic large and small letters are also enlarged proportionally.

Most megilos in the market today follow this opinion and have the eleven lines of aseres binei Haman written large enough to fill the full height of the column.

-= 8 =-

1. For a basic introduction to large and small letters, see STAM 101: Large & Small Letters. ↩

2. This is true whether it follows the tradition of a different community, or does not follow any accepted tradition. ↩

3. There are only two books in Tanach that do not contain the name of G‑d: Ester and Shir Hashirim. ↩

4. Another possible hint to G‑d’s presence in the megila is the repeated use of the word “hamelech”. There is a common practice to emphasize this hint by arranging the layout of the megila so that most of the columns start with the word “hamelech”. See STAM 101: Hamelech” for more info. ↩

Megilas Ester

The previous posts in this series addressed the halachic issues regarding women writing Sifrei Torah, tefilin, and mezuzos. This post will focus on a related topic – women writing megilas Ester.¹

When writing scrolls of Tanach, we normally divide the scrolls into two categories:

• Sifrei Torah (one scroll containing the five books of the Torah).

• Kisvei kodesh (scrolls containing individual books of Tanach, or any collection of books of Tanach other than Sifrei Torah).²

As a general rule, the halachos of writing Sifrei Torah are more stringent than those of kisvei kodesh. One of the differences between Sifrei Torah and kisvei kodesh relates to the concept of lishma³. The materials used to make Sifrei Torah (and tefilin & mezuzos) must be prepared lishma. For example, when manufacturing klaf for a Sefer Torah, the skins must be processed for the express purpose of writing a Sefer Torah. In contrast, parchment used to write kisvei kodesh does not need to be made lishma. Even if the hides were originally processed to be made into shoes or a handbag or a couch – if you turn them into parchment, you can write kisvei kodesh on them.

Despite the fact that megilas Ester is part of kisvei kodesh, when the Gemara discusses the halachos of writing megilas Ester, it applies some of the laws of a Sefer Torah. This unusual application of halacha is derived from the text of the megila, which sometimes refers to itself as an “igeres” – implying it has the status of kisvei kodesh, and sometimes as a “sefer” – implying it has the more stringent attributes of a Sefer Torah.

We have already established that a woman cannot write a Sefer Torah, but technically a woman is allowed to write kisvei kodesh. Because of megilas Ester’s “dual identity”, arguments could be made both for and against women writing megilas Ester.

This issue is particularly relevant because of another unique aspect of megilas Ester: It is the only book among kisvei kodesh which has a mitzva (dirabanan) to be read from a kosher scroll. Would a megilas Ester written by a woman be considered “a kosher scroll” for the purpose of fulfilling the mitzva on Purim?

One possible way to answer this question is to determine if megilas Ester is a sefer with some specific leniencies of kisvei kodesh (which would mean women cannot write a megila), or is it an igeres with some specific extra stringencies of a Sefer Torah (which might mean women could write a megila). Essentially, this is the “zebra question”: Is a zebra a black animal with white stripes, or a white animal with black stripes?

The Gemara does not address this question, and the Rishonim disagree on the issue. This disagreement plays out in the aforementioned topic of tanning the hides lishma: Rabeinu Tam says that megilas Ester has all of the halachos of a Sefer Torah unless the Gemara says otherwise, and therefore the parchment needs to be tanned lishma. This would seem to imply that a woman cannot write a megila. The Rambam says that klaf for a megila does not need to be tanned lishma, but he doesn’t give a reason for his position. The Magid Mishna explains the Rambam’s position by saying that we don’t make any differentiation between megilas Ester and other kisvei kodesh unless specified in the Gemara. By the logic of the Magid Mishna, since the Gemara doesn’t explicitly prohibit women from writing megilas Ester, it should be permissible.

The Shulchan Aruch, in discussing the halachic requirements of megilas Ester,⁴ mentions both the opinions of Rabeinu Tam and the Magid Mishna:

A megila must be written with [black] ink, on [parchment] like a Sefer Torah … The skins do not need to be tanned lishma, but some say that they do need to be tanned lishma.

As can be expected, the later Achronim are divided on the issue: Some poskim say that a megila written by a woman is pasul, but the majority of those who address the topic hold that it is kosher.

There are a few different methods that the various Achronim use to reach their respective conclusions. To give just one example, at the end of the megila (9:29) it says:

[Ester and Mordechai] wrote with full authority to uphold this second letter of Purim.

The targum on that pasuk reads:

[Ester and Mordechai] wrote this entire megila, because of the power of the miracle, to uphold this second letter of Purim.

The targum on this pasuk seems to say that Ester herself was one of the authors of the original text of the Megila. According to some opinions, this is evidence that a megilas Ester written by a woman is kosher.

In terms of practical application, the halacha is not so clear-cut: Even though the majority of Achronim hold that women can write a megila, within that position there are a number of prominent poskim who say that in practice you should not read from such a megila.⁵ One contemporary posek who reaches this conclusion is Rav Ovadia Yosef,⁶ who adds that in a bidi’eved situation – where you don’t have access to another megila – you can fulfill your obligation by reading from a megila written by a woman.

-= 8 =-

1. The halachos of women reading megilas Ester are outside the purview of this blog. ↩

2. See STAM 101: Kisvei Kodesh for more details. ↩

3. Certain tasks must be done with specified intent. See STAM 101: “Lishma” for more details. ↩

4. Orach Chaim 691:1. ↩

5. At least not lechatchila. ↩

6. Yabi’ah Omer: Orach Chaim 55. ↩

As mentioned in a previous post, certain parts of tefilin batim must be perfectly square. Batim that are made correctly and handled properly should remain square for the lifetime of the tefilin – with one caveat: On rare occasions, the four sections of the ketzitza of the shel rosh (the box that houses the parshi’os) can spread apart. If the sections spread apart significantly, the ketzitza will no longer be square, and the tefilin will become pasul.

note: Even if the bayis warps considerably, it is usually possible for a professional batim maker to mold it back into the correct shape and return it to a kosher state.

Some batim makers glue the sections of the ketzitza together, but this may invalidate the tefilin according to some poskim. Higher-quality batim, called prudos, have no glue (or very little glue) between the sections of the ketzitza. Prudos are more mehudar, but have an increased risk of warping over time.

Keeping it Square

Visual inspection: It is a good idea to periodically examine the shel rosh, looking out for noticeable distortion. This is particularly important for handmade batim, because the sections of the ketzitza and the spaces between them are less uniform than those of machine made batim. Regular scrutiny makes it easier to catch subtle changes in the shape over time.

Proper storage and handling: Since the environmental factors that are most likely to affect the shape of the batim are extreme heat and moisture, tefilin should always be stored in a cool and dry place.¹ Additionally, tefilin should not be worn over wet hair.

Modifying the cover: As extra protection against warping, the plastic cover of the shel rosh can be modified by adding three small protrusions² – two in the inside front corners of the bottom of the cover and one in the center of the upper lip of the cover. When the cover is closed over the tefilin and the retzu’os are wrapped around it, the protrusions put a small amount of downward pressure on the middle of the titura (the base of the tefilin) while also pushing upwards on the sides of the titura. This slight compression is usually enough to help prevent the ketzitza from spreading open.

-= 8 =-

1. As mentioned in the post on shipping & storing tefilin, tefilin should never be stored for extended periods of time in an airtight container. ↩

2. Made from any semirigid material (e.g. felt, foam, leather, etc.). ↩

The size of the letters in STAM is determined by the spacing between the scored horizontal lines of sirtut: The regular-sized letters (e.g. alef or beis) should be roughly half the height of the space between the sirtut. This is to ensure that there is enough room for the ascenders and descenders of the tall letters (e.g. lamed or kuf) to be written properly without touching the letters on the lines above or below. If the lines of text are spaced too far apart (double-spaced or more), it might be considered a parsha break, which would also invalidate the STAM item.

-= 8 =-

• STAM 101 introduction & index

Towards the end of megilas Ester there is a list of the ten sons of Haman. According to the masora, this list should be written as a stacked shira of eleven lines. The letters should be stretched out (if necessary) so that each side of the shira is a uniform width.¹

Parts of this tradition are briefly mentioned in the Gemara in maseches Megila, and repeated with more detail in maseches Sofrim. There are disagreements among the later authorities regarding the width of the blank space in the middle of the shira, as well as the height of the shira relative to the height of the column.

Width

The blank space between the right and left sides of aseres binei Haman should preferably be double the width of the longest word in the shira, which is “פרשנדתא”. If the space is smaller, it is still kosher as long as it is the size of a parsha break, which is nine letters wide.²

According to some authorities, the blank space in the middle of aseres binei Haman should be double the combined width of both sides of the shira³. A possible problem with this opinion is that it might create the appearance of two columns instead of one.

Height

Most poskim hold that aseres binei Haman can be written as part of a column that also has regular lines of text, as long as the structure of the shira is maintained for those eleven lines.⁴ There is also a minority opinion that aseres binei Haman must fill the entire height of the column, with “איש” as the first word in the column and “עשרת” as the last word in the column.

It became the accepted custom in many communities to fulfill the requirements of this minority opinion, and to write aseres binei Haman as its own column. Most contemporary poskim approve of this practice and discourage attempts to change it.

There are several possible ways to make these eleven lines fill the entire column. The most common solution – supported by the decision of numerous halachic authorities – is to write aseres binei Haman larger than the rest of the text in the megila.⁵

Other approaches to the layout of aseres binei Haman are addressed in another post.

-= 8 =-

1. The first word on the right side – “איש” – does not need to be stretched out.  ↩

2. Lechatchila, the space should be at least as wide as nine regular letters. Bidi’eved, a space as wide as nine narrow letters is also acceptable. All of these measurements are relative to the size of the writing. See More About Parshi’os for more information. ↩

3. Double the width of the word “פרשנדתא” plus double the width of the word “עשרת”. ↩

4. Among these poskim, some say that the shira should start at the top of the column (with regular lines of text below it), and others say that it should end at the bottom of the column (with regular lines of text above it).  ↩

5. See More About Large & Small Letters for additional information. ↩

Size and placement of parsha breaks

A “parsha” is any section of text in Tanach that comes after a significant amount of blank space. A parsha can be a pesucha (open section) or a setuma (closed section) – depending on the form of the blank space that precedes it.¹ The masora dictates where each parsha begins and ends, as well as whether it is open or closed. If a parsha break is missing, or added in the wrong place, or the wrong type – the STAM item is pasul.

There are disagreements among the poskim regarding the minimum amount of blank space required before a parsha, as well as the different forms of each type of parsha break.

Space Size

The Gemara and Rishonim discuss the breaks between parshi’os in terms of the number of letters-worth of space that should be left blank. The different opinions range from as many as ten letters-worth of space to as few as two letters-worth of space.

It is difficult to calculate precise measurements based on these early sources, because Hebrew letters are not a uniform width. Most letters are roughly as wide as they are tall, but a handful of letters are narrow – measuring about half the width of the regular-sized letters.

The first posek who gives a definitive measurement is the Rambam. He maintains that a parsha break should be the width of nine letters, which he defines as the word “אשר” written three times in a row. However, he does not consider this measurement a halachic requirement, and only lists it among ancient traditions of sofrim that add to the hidur of the STAM item.

Following the lead of the Rambam, all poskim agree that a parsha break should preferably be at least as wide as the word “אשר” written three times in a row.² The minimum size of a parsha break – according to most later authorities – is the width of nine narrow letters.

Space placement

There are several ways to position the blank space between the sections of text. These are the most common forms of a parsha break:

• Blank space at the end of the line:
  
  The text of the previous section ends in the middle of the line, there is a space after the text which reaches until the end of the line, and the next section starts at the beginning of the next line. All poskim agree that the section after this space is a parsha pesucha.

• Blank space in the middle of the line:
  
  The text of the previous section ends at the beginning of the line, there is a space in the middle of the line, and the next section starts at the end of the same line. All poskim also agree that the section after this space is a parsha setuma.

• Complete blank line:
  
  The text of the previous section ends at the end of the line, the entire next line is left blank, and the next section starts at the beginning of the third line. According to the Rambam, the section after the skipped line is a parsha pesucha. According to the Rosh it is a parsha setuma.

• Blank space at the beginning of the line:
  
  The text of the previous section ends at the end of the line, the next line starts with a blank space, and the next section of text starts in the middle of that line. According to the Rambam, the section after this space is a parsha setuma. According to the Rosh it is a parsha pesucha.

• Blank space at the end of the line
  and at the beginning of the next line:
  
  The text of the previous section ends in the middle of the line, and there is a space after the text which reaches until the end of the line. The next line starts with a blank space, and the next section of text starts in the middle of that line. According to the Rambam, the section after this space is a parsha setuma. The Rosh does not mention this form.

Practical Application

A parsha break that has the proper form or size only according to some poskim would make the STAM item pasul according to other poskim. In most situations we can sidestep all of these disputes by only utilizing parsha breaks that are acceptable according to all opinions.

note: In earlier generations it was difficult to write STAM with parsha breaks that are valid according to all opinions. In the modern era, all STAM is written based on precisely calculated layouts that take these considerations into account.

To make a parsha pesucha, end the previous section in the middle of the line, leaving a space that extends to the end of the line and is at least wide enough to write the word “אשר” three times. The text of the open section is started at the beginning of the next line.

To make a parsha setuma, leave a space in the middle of the line that is at least wide enough to write the word “אשר” three times – with text from the previous section at the beginning of the line, and text from the closed section at the end of the same line.

There are a few circumstances where it may not be possible to satisfy all opinions. They will be addressed in a future post.

-= 8 =-

1. For a brief introduction to the types of parshi’os, see STAM 101: Parsha. ↩

2. Some Achronim say that the space should be as wide as nine regular letters plus two narrow letters – to account for the spaces between the words “אשר אשר אשר”. ↩

The Gemara specifies the minimum amount of blank klaf that should surround the columns of text in Sifrei Torah and kisvei kodesh. Although the Gemara uses the finger-width as a unit of measurement, the approximate equivalent measurements for Sifrei Torah are 6 cm space above the text, 8 cm below the text, and 4 cm between the columns. For kisvei kodesh the margins can be smaller: 3 cm space above the text, 4.5 cm below the text, and 2 cm between columns. According to some opinions, the measurements listed in the Gemara are only for scrolls that are one amah tall (approximately 48 cm), and therefore smaller scrolls can have proportionally smaller margins. The margins can be larger than these minimum dimensions, as long as the height of the column of text is greater than the combined height of the upper and lower margins, and the width of each column is greater than the space between the columns. If the margins are too small or too large, the Sefer is not pasul, but it cannot be considered mehudar.

-=8=-

• STAM 101 introduction & index

• More about white space

Introduction

Over the past few years there has been a fair amount of publicity around women writing STAM. In particular, there are several self-described “Sofrot” who claim to be operating within the framework of halacha. This series will go through the major sources in the halachic literature and analyze the various arguments.

The earliest sources that deal with this topic are in the Gemara. In maseches Gitin (45a-b), the Gemara discusses redeeming captives. On the topic of “redeeming,” the Mishna then talks about redeeming stolen Sifrei Torah, tefilin, and mezuzos. The Gemara concludes that we must buy back STAM that is being held for ransom by non-Jews – but only if they are asking a fair price.

Once the STAM is redeemed, the Gemara tries to determine the next step: If the origin of the item is unknown, what do we do with it? In response, the Gemara quotes a statement by Rav Nachman:

… We have a tradition that a Sefer Torah written by a heretic should be burned; [a Sefer Torah] written by a non-Jew [even if he is not an actual idol worshiper] should be buried. [A Sefer Torah] found in the possession of a heretic [assuming we can’t determine who wrote it] should be buried. [With regard to a Sefer Torah] found in the possession of a non-Jew, some say it should be buried [assuming the non-Jew wrote it], and some say that you can read from it [assuming that it was written by a Jew, and subsequently acquired by the non-Jew].

Rav Nachman says that we must burn a Sefer Torah written by a heretic. It is normally forbidden to destroy a Sefer Torah,¹ but a Sefer Torah written by a heretic is a special case: Even though it contains the name of G‑d, we assume that every instance of G‑d’s name was written as a reference to a heretical understanding of G‑d. This causes the Sefer Torah itself to become an object of avoda zara, and therefore it must be destroyed.

note: The “min” mentioned in this Gemara may only be referring to the type of heretic that existed at that time. It is unclear if there are any true heretics in the modern era, and therefore it may not be possible for a Sefer Torah to become an object of avoda zara.

The Gemara then challenges the statement of Rav Nachman:

[With regard to] a Sefer Torah that was written by a non-Jew, a mishna taught that it should be burned, a beraisa taught that it should be buried, and another beraisa taught that we can read from it.

Rav Nachman (an Amora) said above that you should bury a Sefer Torah written by a non-Jew. Now we seem to have a three-way disagreement among Tana’im concerning this halacha. The Gemara resolves the difficulty by explaining the three positions:

… That which was taught that [the Sefer Torah] should be burned is [the opinion of] Rebbe Eliezer, who says that the unspecified intentions of a non-Jew are [always directed] towards idol worship.

This is from maseches Chulin (38b). The first opinion in the mishna says that if a Jewish butcher slaughters the animal of a non-Jew for the non-Jew to eat, the meat is kosher.² Rebbe Eliezer argues, saying the meat is not kosher, because he assumes that the non-Jewish owner had unstated intent that the animal should be an idolatrous offering.

Along the same lines, presumably Rebbe Eliezer would argue that when a non-Jew writes a Sefer Torah, he has intent – even if not stated explicitly – towards idolatrous worship. This would mean that the names of G‑d in that Sefer Torah are references to avoda zara and therefore the Sefer must be destroyed.

Temporarily skipping to the third beraisa (we will come back to the second beraisa shortly):

That which was taught that you can read [from a Sefer Torah written by a non-Jew], is from the beraisa [in the Tosefta in maseches Avoda Zara], which taught that … there was a certain non-Jew in [the town of] Tzidon who wrote [Sifrei Torah], and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel allowed [the people] to buy [these Sifrei Torah] from him.

The continuation of our Gemara explains the exact circumstances of the story in the Tosefta. In summary, even though this particular sofer was called a “non-Jew,” he was in fact Jewish, and he wrote the Sifrei Torah according to halacha, and that’s why Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel allowed the use of his Sifrei Torah.

To review where we are holding so far: There are three contradictory statements about a Sefer Torah written by a non-Jew: The first opinion – that the Sefer must be burned – is the rejected minority opinion of Rebbe Eliezer. The third opinion – that the Sefer can be used – is the decision of Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel in a specific incident, so we can’t apply his ruling to other cases.

Returning to the part of the Gemara that was skipped – the opinion that the Sefer should be buried:

… Rav Hamnuna, the son of Rava from Pashronya, taught: A Sefer Torah, tefilin, or mezuzos that were written by a heretic, or an informer, a non-Jew, or a slave, a woman, or a minor, or a Samaritan, or a Jewish apostate, are invalid; because it says [in the Torah]: “וקשרתם, וכתבתם”. [We derive from this, that] anyone who is included in [the mitzva of] tying [tefilin] is included among those who can write [STAM]; but anyone who is not included in [the mitzva of] tying [tefilin] is not included among those who can write [STAM].

Rav Hamnuna (an Amora) quotes an anonymous Tana, who confirms the position of Rav Nachman: That a Sefer Torah written by a non-Jew is invalid, just like Sifrei Torah written by the others in this list (women, children, Samaritans, etc.).

This halacha is derived from a “hekesh” (juxtaposition), which is a drasha connecting two words in the Torah based on their proximity to each other.³ The relevant text is at the end of parshas Va’eschanan:

The Torah tells us to tie tefilin on our hand and head; and to write mezuzos and put them on our doorposts.

Because of the proximity of “tying” and “writing” in these pesukim, the beraisa learns that in order to be eligible to write STAM, you must be included in the mitzva to tie tefilin.

The Gemara has two criteria for being included in the mitzva of tefilin:

1. You have to be among those who the Torah obligates to put on tefilin.

2. And, you cannot be among those who have excluded themselves from the mitzva of tefilin.

Being obligated in the mitzva of tefilin excludes non-Jews and Samaritans (who are considered non-Jews). It also excludes minors because they are not yet obligated in mitzvos, and it excludes women and slaves who are not obligated in most time-bound positive mitzvos.⁴

The second criteria for exclusion, being among those who exclude themselves from the mitzva of tefilin, covers heretics and apostates – who have given up their connection to the Torah, as well as informants – who have removed themselves from the Jewish people, and in doing so, also lose their connection with the Torah.

Another version of this beraisa appears in the Gemara in maseches Menachos. The Gemara in Menachos (42a-b) discusses the process of creating objects used for mitzvos (i.e., sukah, tzitzis, tefilin, etc.). With regard to the creation of tefilin, the Gemara says:

Rav Chinina, the son of Rava from Pashranya, taught: A Sefer Torah, tefilin, or mezuzos that were written by a Sadducee, a Samaritan, a non-Jew, a slave, a woman, or a minor, [or] an apostate, are invalid; because it says [in the Torah]: “וקשרתם, וכתבתם”. [We derive from this, that] anyone who is included in [the mitzva of] tying [tefilin] is included among those who can write [STAM]; but anyone who is not included in [the mitzva of] tying [tefilin] is not included among those who can write [STAM].

This version of the beraisa has some minor differences when compared to the version in Gitin, but for our purposes it is essentially the same.

We now have two gemaros – in Gitin and in Menachos – that list women among the people not eligible to write STAM. This would seem to be the end of the discussion, but there is another version of this list in maseches Sofrim, which will be the topic of the next post.

-= 8 =-

1. There is a prohibition to erase G‑d’s name based on the pesukim in parshas Re’eh: It says ואבדתם את שמם מן המקום ההוא – which is the mitzva to destroy avoda zara, and continues לא תעשון כן לה׳ א-להיכם – that it is forbidden to erase the name of G‑d. ↩

2. Assuming the shechita was done according to halacha. ↩

3. Hekesh is one of the strongest types of drashos, and – according to some opinions – it carries the same weight as if it was explicitly written into the text of the Torah. ↩

4. Tefilin is time-bound because it is not worn at night or on Shabbos or Yom Tov. ↩

Maseches Sofrim

The previous post in this series quoted two gemaros – one in maseches Gitin and one in maseches Menachos – which list women among those who are ineligible to write Sifrei Torah, tefilin, and mezuzos.

There is another version of this list in the Gemara, at the end of the first chapter in maseches Sofrim:¹

A Sefer Torah written by a Sadducee, or an informant, or a ger [i.e. a ger toshav – a non-Jewish resident alien], or a slave, or a mentally deficient person, or a minor should not be used for [public Torah] reading.

Here we have a list of people ineligible to write Sifrei Torah, and it does not mention women.

Advocates of women writing STAM build a case to support their position, based on this beraisa: Even though the beraisa taught by Rav Hamnuna in Gitin (or Rav Chinina in Menachos) excludes women from writing all STAM, the drasha used as proof only mentions tefilin and mezuzos – not Sifrei Torah. On the other hand, this beraisa in Sofrim is only talking about Sifrei Torah, and it does not list women among the people who are ineligible to write. Maybe there is ambiguity in the Gemara, which can leave room to allow women to write Sifrei Torah.

This is a weak argument, for a wide variety of reasons. The first problem is that there are several versions of the text in maseches Sofrim. In some of the manuscript editions, women are listed among those who are ineligible. Even in the version printed in our Gemara, the Vilna Gaon’s marginal notes edit the list to add in women. So the absence of women from our printed edition of maseches Sofrim is not necessarily significant.

Additionally, it may be noteworthy that the proof-text of Rav Hamnuna’s beraisa – וקשרתם וכתבתם – doesn’t mention Sifrei Torah, but the classic commentaries were aware of the issue and presented possible resolutions:

• The Ran says that it is a kal vechomer:² Since a Sefer Torah has more kedusha than tefilin and mezuzos, it can also only be written by people who are included in the mitzva of tying tefilin.

• The Rosh says that it’s a gezera shava ³ between our pasuk – וכתבתם על מזוזת ביתך ובשעריך – and כתב זאת זכרון בספר (at the end of parshas Bishalach): Both pesukim talk about “writing” – one is about mezuzos and the other is about the Torah.

• The Ritva says there’s a hekesh (juxtaposition) at the end of parshas Bo – והיה לך לאות על ידך ולזכרון בין עיניך למען תהיה תורת ה׳ בפיך: One pasuk references both tefilin and the Torah.

Each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses, but none of the mefarshim see this issue as a problem that would somehow exclude Sifrei Torah from the ruling of the beraisa as taught by Rav Hamnuna.

Finally, even if we accept the premise that there may be a disagreement between Tana’im, whenever we are unsure how to resolve a conflict in the Gemara, we look to the Rishonim to see how they ruled.

There are some Rishonim who discuss our beraisa in Maseches Sofrim, but only in reference to other aspects of the beraisa. None of the Rishonim address the absence of women from the list of those forbidden to write Sifrei Torah. This strongly suggests that either the Rishonim had a different version of maseches Sofrim (which did include women in the list), or they did not consider this beraisa in maseches Sofrim to be authoritative.

In contrast, the full text of Rav Hamnuna’s beraisa – which clearly prohibits women from writing all STAM – is cited as the definitive halacha in the commentaries of the Ba’al Halachos Gedolos, the Or Zaru’ah, the Rif, the Ran, the Rosh, the Mordechai, and the Me’iri. The Rambam codifies it in the Mishna Torah:⁴

A Sefer Torah, [or] tefilin, [or] mezuzos written by a heretic must be burned. If written by a Samaritan, a Jew who converts to another faith, an informant to tyrants, a slave, a woman, or a minor; they are invalid and must be buried; because it says [in the Torah], “וקשרתם, וכתבתם” – [which implies that] only a person who is obligated [by the Torah] to put on tefilin – and believes in [that obligation] – is eligible to write [STAM].⁵

This halacha in the Rambam is echoed in the codes of the Shulchan Aruch, the Aruch Hashulchan, the Shulchan Aruch Harav, the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, the Levush, the Mishna Berura, the Chayei Adam, and the Kaf Hachaim.

The above would seem to be a unanimous declaration by all of the Rishonim and Achronim that we can safely ignore the beraisa in Maseches Sofrim; that the halacha follows the beraisa taught by Rav Hamnuna (aka Rav Chinina); and that women can’t write Sifrei Torah, or tefilin, or mezuzos. This should be the end of the discussion, but there is one major halachic code which has not been mentioned yet, and that is the Tur – which will be the topic of the next post.

-= 8 =-

1. Maseches Sofrim is one of the masechtos ketanos (minor tractates), which are 14 masechtos that were not canonized as part of Shisha Sidrei Mishna. Some of the other small masechtos are Semachos (dealing with mourning), Gerim (converts & resident aliens), and Avadim (indentured servants). The masechtos ketanos are printed at the end of Seder Nezikin in the standard 20 volume Shas. ↩

2. A fortiori. ↩

3. A drasha connecting two instances of the same root word. ↩

4. Laws of tefilin, mezuza, and Sefer Torah 1:13. ↩

5. Note that the Rambam is combining the beraisa of Rav Hamnuna (listing the people who may not write STAM) with the previous statement in the Gemara from Rav Nachman (telling us what to do with an invalid Sefer Torah). ↩

The Tur and the Drisha

The previous post in this series cited a long list of Rishonim and Achronim who say that women may not write Sifrei Torah, tefilin, or mezuzos. There is one major code of Jewish law which was not mentioned, and that is the Tur.¹ The Tur discusses our topic in two different places: Once in Orach Chaim and again in Yoreh De’ah.

In Orach Chaim (39:1) the Tur writes:

Tefilin that were written by a slave, or a woman, or a minor, [or] a non-Jew, [or] a Jew who has converted to another faith are invalid.

The continuation of the Tur discusses tefilin found in the possession of a heretic or non-Jew, etc.

This halacha seems similar to Rav Hamnuna’s beraisa, with the notable difference that the Tur only talks about tefilin, not mezuzos or Sifrei Torah.

In Yoreh De’ah (281:1) the Tur writes:

A Sefer Torah written by a heretic should be burned. [A Sefer Torah] written by a non-Jew should be buried. [If a Sefer Torah is] found in the possession of a heretic or a non-Jew it should be buried and we don’t read from it.

The Tur continues to tell us that we still have to redeem it, but only for market value, etc.

note: Here, the Tur is paraphrasing the statement of Rav Nachman. This halacha does not reference the beraisa of Rav Hamnuna at all.

The Drisha (one of the commentaries on the Tur) analyzes this halacha in Yoreh De’ah. In short, the Drisha claims that the Tur holds that although women cannot write tefilin or mezuzos, they can write Sifrei Torah. The Drisha writes:

… See the Beis Yosef[’s commentary on the Tur], which quotes [Rav Hamnuna’s beraisa in] the Gemara, which lists women, slaves, and children among those who are invalid to write [a Sefer Torah].

It is surprising that [the Tur] did not include [the complete list from the Gemara here] the way he did in Orach Chaim in the laws of tefilin …

The Drisha presents a possible (forced) explanation:

It would be difficult to say that [the Tur] only listed here the types of Sifrei Torah that should be burned or buried; as opposed to [a Sefer Torah] written by a woman, which cannot be used for public Torah reading, but could be used for [private] study.

In this hypothetical explanation, the Drisha says that perhaps the Tur held that there is an additional category of Sifrei Torah: Besides the valid Sifrei Torah that are read in public; and the idolatrous Sifrei Torah that are burned; and the invalid Sifrei Torah that are put in geniza; there are also Sifrei Torah written by women (or slaves or children). These Sifrei Torah are not burned or buried, and they can’t be used for public reading, but they can be used for private study.²

The Drisha rejects this possible explanation:

[If the Tur held that there was a category of Sifrei Torah that can only be used for private study], he would have explicitly said [that these Sifrei Torah] can’t be used to fulfill the obligation [of public Torah reading].

Since the Tur did not specifically address this theoretical category, he must hold that there is no such thing as a Sefer Torah that can only be used for private study. Therefore, the Drisha felt compelled to say that the Tur must hold that Sifrei Torah written by women can be used for kri’as haTorah.

The Drisha then adds:

I later looked into [the commentaries of] the Rif and Rosh, who also leave out [women from their lists of people who cannot write Sifrei Torah]. So we must say that they also hold [that women are only not allowed to write] tefilin, [but they could write] Sifrei Torah.

And finally, the Drisha concludes:

See the responsa where I wrote about this [topic], and I elaborated on it at length.

This teshuva is lost which is unfortunate because it might help resolve some of the difficulties with this Drisha.

One problem is the “proof” from the Rif and the Rosh: Although it is true that in hilchos Sefer Torah the Rif and Rosh only discuss the status of Sifrei Torah written by heretics and non-Jews (just like the Tur in Yoreh De’ah), elsewhere in their commentaries³ they both clearly say that women cannot write Sifrei Torah or tefilin or mezuzos. Another issue is that the Drisha’s explanation puts the Tur in the awkward position of arguing against an explicit Gemara and all of the other Rishonim.

All later Achronim reject this opinion of the Drisha, and state the halacha as written in the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch. The only mention of this Drisha in the halachic literature is in the context of it being disregarded because it is not a compelling argument.

In spite of our difficulty with the language of the Tur, the conclusion is clear: Based on the Gemara, and the other Rishonim, and the later codifiers of halacha, it is not permissible for women to write Sifrei Torah, or tefilin, or mezuzos. Any STAM written by a woman is pasul, it cannot be used for any purpose, and it must be put into geniza.

Postscript

There is one final issue that still needs to be addressed: Until now the discussion has been limited to Sifrei Torah, tefilin, and mezuzos. There is another sacred item commonly written by sofrim, and that is megilas Ester – which will be the topic of the next post.

-= 8 =-

1. The Tur was written by Rabeinu Ya’akov Ben Asher – the son of the Rosh, among the last of the Rishonim, and one of the early codifiers of halacha. ↩

2. It would be unusual in the modern era for a Sefer Torah to be used for private study, but this was not always the case: Until the Gutenberg revolution, the only way to study any text was to write it out by hand. ↩

3. Rif: Halachos Ketanos, Hilchos Tefilin 7a.
   Rosh: Halachos Ketanos, Hilchos Tefilin 3; Gitin 4:45. ↩

Additional Sources

This series of posts concluded that it is not permissible for women to write Sifrei Torah, tefilin, or mezuzos, and that STAM written by a woman is invalid and must be put in geniza. This conclusion is based on the clear opinion of the Gemara and is upheld by a long list of Rishonim and Achronim.

Below are the complete quotations from all of the poskim that were mentioned (but not quoted directly) in part two of the series.¹

-= 8 =-

1. Missing from this list is the Rambam, who was quoted in full in the earlier post. ↩

Index

1. Introduction
2. Maseches Sofrim
3. The Tur (& the Drisha)
4. Megilas Ester
5. Additional Sources

Summary

Introduction

• Although historically sofrei STAM have always been men, a growing group of women have recently begun writing Sifrei Torah, tefilin, and mezuzos.

• Some of these women maintain that there is halachic justification for doing so.

• The Gemara (in two different places) quotes a beraisa taught by Rav Hamnuna (aka Rav Chinina), which clearly says that women are not eligible to write STAM.

Maseches Sofrim

• There is another list of the people who are ineligible to write STAM in maseches Sofrim, and women do not appear on that list.

• Advocates of women writing STAM claim that the list in maseches Sofrim supports their position.

• In spite of this claim, there is substantial evidence that the list in maseches Sofrim is not authoritative.

• All of the Rishonim and Achronim (with one possible exception) definitively decide the halacha according to Rav Hamnuna – that women may not write STAM.

The Tur (& the Drisha)

• The Tur references Rav Hamnuna’s beraisa when discussing the laws of tefilin, but not when discussing the laws of Sefer Torah.

• The Drisha presents an argument that the Tur holds that women are allowed to write Sifrei Torah (but not tefilin or mezuzos).

• This conclusion of the Drisha is not compelling, and is rejected by all later poskim.

Megilas Ester

• Sifrei Torah have more stringent halachos than scrolls of the other books of Tanach (kisvei kodesh).

• Megilas Ester has some of the stringencies of Sifrei Torah and some of the leniencies of kisvei kodesh.

• Some authorities say that a megilas Ester written by a woman is invalid, but the majority of those who address the topic hold that it is kosher.

• Many of the poskim who permit women to write megilas Ester in theory, also hold that lechatchila you should not read from such a megila in practice.

• If there is no other megila available, bidi’eved a megila written by a woman can be used to fulfill the mitzva of megila reading.

Additional Sources

• There is a long list of Rishonim and Achronim who reference Rav Hamnuna’s beraisa as the definitive halacha.

• There are minor variations among these poskim in the exact phrasing of the halacha, but they all clearly say that any STAM written by a woman is invalid and must be put into geniza.

-= 8 =-