Who did his work with honesty, feeling and with pride,
He was known in Kiev as Yankele the Scribe.
With loving care, his hand so sure and still,
He formed me with some parchment, ink and quill.
Each day he’d slowly add to me just a few more lines,
With words to last until the end of time.
(Famous ode to a Sefer Torah written by Abie Rottenberg to the tune of Chassal Siddur Pesach. We will complete the poem as the article continues)
The other day my shul celebrated a hachnasas sefer Torah. Such a simcha is one of the purest one can attend.
The sefer Torah being donated to the shul was not a new one. Rather, it is a one-hundred-year-old sefer that was used in many shuls and communities on both sides of the Atlantic until the 1960’s. It was, then, placed in a crate and forgotten about for many years until it was recently handed over after a death of a relative of one of my members. It had recently gone through a long process of being checked and fixed, prepared for regular usage.
The story behind this sefer Torah only added to the celebration. Having sat alone for so long, it will now be read again, and placed together with the other sifrei Torah.
It was coming back to a home.
The singing in the street, the dancing, and the hakafos and other various minhagim performed upon its arrival to its new family were all a sight to be seen.
…And on the day that I was finally complete,
The whole town came and filled the narrow street.
And they sang and danced and held me high and carried me away,
To the little wooden Shul where I would stay.
And as the Rabbi held me close against his chest,
He spoke out loud and clear to all the rest.
He said, “No matter if you’re very young, or even if you’re old,
Live by the words you’ll find inside this scroll.”…
Over the next few weeks we will iy’H discuss the writing, completion and the celebration of a sefer Torah; its various laws and its fascinating minhagim and stories.
Rav Steinman, in a drasha by a hachnasas sefer Torah (Toras Emes Likut Hachnasas Sefer Torah, p. 53ff) wonders why we go to such a celebratory degree for a new sefer Torah. After all, in most cases the shul to which the sefer is being dedicated already has other sifrei Torah to read from, and, the new sefer Torah need not be special or unique from the others in any way.
Furthermore, he points out, according to many the mitzvah to write a Torah can today be fulfilled with the purchasing of any important sefer, say, a shas. On that note, do we celebrate in the same manner when a new shas is purchased for a shul? Why, even for the purchase of the one-hundred and fifty volume ‘Mesivta’ Shas –a shas that has revolutionized the study of daf yomi– does not engender such joyous activity!
What is unique about a hachnasas sefer Torah that causes us to literally rejoice in the street?
Rav Steinman points to a gemara (Sanhedrin 102b) that questions why the wicked King Achav merited twenty-two years of kingship. In sefer melachim (1:20:2-9) we learn how Achav was forced by the Syrian king Ben Hadad of Aram to give up everything, even his family. Achav agreed to the demands, yet refused to give up his sefer Torah.
Concludes the gemara that Achav merited twenty-two years of kingship because he honored the Torah which is made up of twenty-two letters.
Now, continues Rav Steinman, would not our questions be equally valid for this gemara as well? Why would Achav go to such an extreme to save this one sefer Torah when there would be many more in the world remaining? Why would this noble yet apparently superfluous act cause such Divine reward to be placed upon this wicked king?
To all this, Rav Steinman gives us a wonderful insight. Chazal teach (mishneh, Sanhedrin 37) that Man was created alone in order to impart the lesson that if one destroys but one life it is as if he destroyed the entire world, and similarly should one sustain one life it is as if they had sustains the entire world.
Explains Rav Steinman, this ideal is true for human life and one other area: a sefer Torah. Just as one person can turn into the whole world –as did Adam harishon– so does each and every sefer Torah carry within it the potential to teach, and to change, the entire world!
…Three days a week they read from me out loud,
It filled my soul with joy, it made me proud.
They followed each and every verse with fire in their eyes,
The words that told them how to live their lives.
But the hatred from the west came to Kiev,
And they rounded up the Jews who had not fled,
But Moishele the Shammos, he was brave and he was bold,
He hid me in his cellar, dark and cold…
This potential is unique to Torah sh’bksav but is not true by Torah sh’baal peh, and other sefarim, as we see from the story of Osniel ben Kenaz. The gemara relates (Temurah 16a) that by the time Yehoshua finished mourning for Moshe rabeinu thousands of halachos were forgotten. Not being able to turn to prophets –for the Torah may only be learned through human study and not from the heavens (Devarim 30:12) – Osniel ben Kenaz was able to use his penetrative skills to relearn these forgotten laws from the verses in the Torah itself.
Concludes Rav Steinman, that Osniel could have only done this for sh’baal peh, but as for Torah sh’bksav no human intuition could ever cause someone to ‘figure out’ the Divine verses of the Torah on their own. Should a Torah have R’l even one letter be missing, one word be absent, on break be misplaced, we would have no way of rediscovering the truth.
…But it was someone else who found my hiding place,
And to America he sent me in a crate.
And the men who took me off the boat, they said I was a prize.
But they were Jews I did not recognize…
Perhaps for this reason is the mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah the last mitzvah found in the Torah, and the first mizvah found in the Torah is pru u’revu; the Torah bookends the importance of populating the world with individual physical potentials, and ends on the same note with spiritual potentials.
Indeed, many sefarim tell of a segulah for having children through the dedication of and/or the celebrating with a new sefer Torah.
…And in a case of glass they put me on display,
Where visitors would look at me and say,
“How very nice, how beautiful, a stunning work of art,”
But they knew not what was inside my heart.
And across the room I saw upon the shelf,
Some old friends of mine who lived back in Kiev.
A silver pair of candlesticks, a menorah made of brass,
We’d all become mere echoes of the past…
While the rest of the world searches for our secret –to our successes and our survival – and as we sadly witness a generation of Jews searching anywhere but home for their self-worth, we need a reminder from time to time that there is little mystery, and no other ‘new’ path for us to venture upon.
Our dancing in the street, our pure joy, arrives from an epiphany of the already known, but sometimes forgotten – lulei sorascha sha’ashuai, az avidity b’oni/if not for the Torah I would perish in my (mental and physical) anguish (Tehillim 119:92).
If anyone wishes to know the ‘secret’ to our survival, if any Jew is searching for meaning, the key is laid out in the open. On the holiest day-Yom Kippur, in the holiest hour-Neilah we say it loud and clear: Ein Lanu Shir Rak HaTorah Hazos!
…So if you hear my voice, why don’t you come alongAnd take me to the place where I belongAnd maybe even sing and dance when you carry me away To some little wooden shul where I can stay.
And as the rabbi holds me close against his chest,He’ll speak out loud and clear to all the rest.He’ll say, “No matter if you’re very young, or even if you’re old Live by the words you’ll find inside this scroll.”
We will iy’H continue next week with the laws of writing and donating a sefer Torah.
The act of purchasing mezuzos or tefillin (“sta”m”) can sometimes seem time consuming, expensive and confusing. However, as a recent controversy demonstrates, it is much worse: it is an act strewn with landmines.
Unlike our careful purchase of food—which comes with kosher certification, thus giving the consumer real agency over what he chooses to eat—how does one even begin to know who wrote the mezuzos and other sta”m he buys, and with what method?
Several weeks ago, a socher (seller and middleman) of sta”m was on his way to America with merchandise to sell to American middlemen and sofrim. Such socherim will often book these flights in advance in the expectation that they will have an adequate supply of items to make the business trip worthwhile.
As the date of his flight inched closer, this socher recognized that he was still a little short of goods. He needed about 50 more ksav Arizal mezuzos to better assure a fruitful trip.
On an email group for sta”m brokers, middlemen and “shadchanim,” someone shared with this anxious American-bound socher that he could supply him with what he needed, adding that he had seen the ksav of these mezuzos and it was magnificent. Even better, although a reliable mezuzah retails for about $200, these were somehow 10% cheaper and could be had for around $180 apiece. This “shadchan” was able to deliver these mezuzos to the socher just as he was making his way to his flight through Ben-Gurion Airport!
Upon arrival in the US, one of his first stops was in Williamsburg, where he displayed the items he had brought to sell, but first, and wisely, brought the precious sechorah to Rabbi Shimon Zeide, an accomplished and experienced sofer, to be checked.
Rabbi Shmiel Aharon Traube, the owner ofBeis Hastam in Boro Park, fills in the details of the events that followed.
“Rav Zeide right away spotted that something was wrong,” Rabbi Traube said. “These mezuzos looked too similar to each other; too uniform.” In other words, they seemed as if they had been printed rather than written. He contacted Rav Avraham Tzvi Wosner, the acting rabbi and bochen of the Vaad Mishmeres Stam, and also sent out copies to some fellow sofrim and talmidim of the Vaad Mishmeres Stam.
As will be explained in the course of this article, unless one purchases directly from the sofer, trying to figure who wrote any mezuzah or other sta”m is an extremely painstaking process. To borrow a term from law enforcement, it is unfortunate that a “universal chain of custody” doesn’t (yet) exit for sta”m before it reaches your Judaica shop.
After establishing that these mezuzos had passed through four to five hands before their arrival in America, it was finally confirmed from whom they were first purchased. The “sofer”had been found!
As Rabbi Traube shared, “Rav Shimon Zeide called this man him up and said, ‘Why are you selling some type of printed mezuzos?’ The man responded, ‘They’re not printed. I have a new method of writing mezuzos so that they all come out the same.’” Rabbi Zeide wanted to know how he could be sure that this new method was kosher. He didn’t receive a satisfactory answer. It was later revealed that this man was not a sofer at all (rather, he hired others to produce mezuzos using his new method); henceforth, we will refer to this person as the “innovator.” In response to this phone call from Rabbi Zeide, the innovator sent out a letter written by the renowned dayan Rav Seriel Rosenberg, the av beis din Rav Nissim Karelitz’s beis din in Bnei Brak, dated Motzaei Shabbos Parshas Vayeira 5783 stating that this writing, as described, would be considered kesivah.
But the sofrim investigating these mezuzos still had doubts, and after examining them closely made a startling discovery: They looked as if they had been written using a stencil!
Rabbi Traube then headed to Eretz Yisrael, bringing some of these questionable mezuzos along with him, and went to talk to the innovator himself. “I went to his house, and he wouldn’t let me in,” he recalled. “But he did come outside, and we spoke for about a half-hour.” During this conversation, the man refused to explain what his exact method of writing was.
However, two weeks later, and after much confusion among sofrim, Rav Rosenberg wrote a second letter (dated the first day of Rosh Chodesh Kislev 5783)explaining that his first letter wasn’t intended to confer approval of any mezuzos; it merely commented on the method that had been described to him by this fellow. In fact, as this second letter concluded, he had subsequently learned of the possibility that the innovator wasn’t telling him the whole truth.
Five days later, Rav Rosenberg’s son-in-law, Rav Posen of Ramat David, wrote a letter clarifying that both letters were in response to information his father-in-law had been given by this innovator. He reiterates that no hashagachah was ever given nor implied, nor was there any way of knowing how these particular mezuzos were even created—only that some type of stenciling method was used.
In the interim, Rav Brach of Bnei Brak, a Satmar rav who is known to be an expert in sta”m, had issued his own letter stating in no uncertain terms that these mezuzos should be considered passul, quoting the Shevet Halevi(Rav Wosner) who paskened that any form of stenciling or silk screening is invalid.
Rav Brach then shared that after forcing a meeting with this innovator (which took much prodding), he could now assert that while this person was claiming that a kolmus (quill) is used, the mezuzos he had put on the market were actually created with a brush! This was no different from a previous controversy some 20 years earlier that had ended with all major poskim forbidding that practice. (In a letter written to Rav Posen dated 13 Kislev 5783, Rav Brach detailed his interactions with this innovator and explained why such mezuzos were passul.)
While all of this was happening, mezuzos from this innovator were being sold in Flatbush! And the ambiguous letter from the beis din—which in fact cast doubt on his method—was being used to show Judaica shops that his mezuzos were fine!
In the meantime, the American sofrim, especially Rav Leizerson in Lakewood, continued to investigate and share vital information with Rav Rosenberg and his beis din.
The fact that Rav Zeide was the person who first opened these mezuzos was very fortunate, as what he discovered might not have been otherwise discerned. In fact, when they were shown to a number of extremely well-regarded sofrim, they all said that they would have never been suspicious.
(See Next Page For Some Selected Images Of The Recent Letters Thus Far Mentioned)
The basic idea is similar to the children’s arts and crafts projects we all enjoyed when we were young. For kids, however, the letters or pictures are cut out of a hard substance like plastic, which is then placed on a piece of paper and filled in. Classic silkscreen printing is different. It requires the use of a taut material that can be perfectly aligned with the paper so the words will be clear when the ink is applied.
A couple of decades ago, someone developed a quicker and cheaper way to use this method to write sifrei Torah. As you can imagine, this caused quite an uproar. It worked as follows:
The sofer would lay a sheet over the klaf. This sheet had “windows” cut out to form each letter. (Indecently, the letters were shaped by a computer.) Ink was then poured onto the sheet, squeegeed down, the sheet was removed—and voila! Absolutely beautiful kesivah! An entire column of Torah could be created literally in seconds!
The response from the gedolei haposkim was unanimous, unequivocal and harsh. Among others, Rav Elyashiv, Rav Ovadia Yosef, Rav Nissin Karelitz and Rav Scheinberg all expressed astonishment that such a process was being used. (Unfortunately, by the time it was discovered, many sta”m items created that way were already on the market.) Rav Elyashiv wrote that not only were those who used such methods wrong to do, but even those who sold them were “machti es harabbim”(causing the public to sin).
New But Different?
The “innovator,” however, insisted that his method was different from the technique described above, thereby—in his opinion—eliminating the concerns of the poskim. Instead of the poured ink/squeegee process, the sofer used his own quill to fill in the windows.
Would this make a difference in the halachah? Let us examine some but not all the issues raised 20 years ago and see if they can be applied here:
Chazal explain that safrus must be written and not spilled (Yerushalmi, Shabbos 4; Gittin 2-3). Regular silk screening seems to be in direct violation of this requirement.
We are required to verbally sanctify each of Hashem’s names as they are being written (Orach Chaimsiman 32:19 and Yoreh Dei’ahsiman 276:2). Classic silk screening would not seem to allow for this.
The issue of dyo, the ink that is used for sta”m, is well beyond the scope of this article. But there would seem to be a need for special ink when utilizing such a process.
The obligation for sirtut (etched lines)may become compromised, as according to some poskim, such perfect “writing” would remove the prerequisite for sirtut, which we cannot do (Rav Moshe Feinstein).
Interestingly, the Chasam Sofer writes that if a sofer utilizes the power of nistar to suddenly be able to write with his less dominant hand, this would not be considered natural and hence kosher kesav (shu”t Chasam Sofer 6:29)!
In centuries past, the poskim issued similar concerns when it came to writing sta”m with a printing press (see shu”t Zereh Emes, Yoreh Dei’ah, 117, et al).
But there is yet another, and perhaps most serious, concern with standard silk screening. This relates to the issue of “chak tochos” (scraping and erasing). There is a clear halachah that letters in safrus must be formed through addition and not subtraction. In other words, one cannot scrape ink away, thereby leaving behind the shape of a letter.
This halachah has far-reaching implications. For example, if a blob of ink drips from a sofer’s quill and makes a splotch on a letter, he isn’t allowed to scrape it away to reveal the letter underneath (Gittin 20a; Orach Chaim siman 32:17). Many rishonim explain that the reason is that in such a scenario, the letters wouldn’t be formed by “regular” writing. (See Meiri in Kiryas Sefer, maamar 2; Rashi on Gittin ad loc and Tosfos on Sanhedrin 21b.)
Would these concerns extend to filling in a stencil with a kulmos?
(A Sofer Demonstrating What This Innovation May/Would Look Like)
Even if one could prove that these mezuzos are being written the way the innovator claims – and so far, this seems doubtful to me and almost everyone involved; some assert that he is really using a brush, either in the initial creation of the letters, or, after using his quill, and so as to fill in any gaps and to make it more clear – the question he posed to Rav Rosenberg was only about the kesivah. There are still many other matters involved.
What about the sirtut (these are the etched lines that all sta”m must have)? Using the above method would easily—and almost always—lead to sirtut misaligned with the kesivah, a potentially very serious issue! And what about the dyo/ink? The ink used for the process he described would most likely need to be different, for reasons beyond our scope.
There are many additional problems with such mezuzos, such as how the final mem and samech could possibly be made al pi halachah with such a stencil (think about a children’s stencil, in which the letter “O” or the number “0” is divided into parts), or the fact that Shulchan Aruch Harav (siman 32:32) requires that the sofer have kavanah while forming the letters (no “spacing out” or writing by rote).
However, all the above is just the halacha.
In order to truly understand why so many dismissed this innovation out-of-hand, irrespective of the halachic shailos involved, we must now shine a spotlight on the contemporary world of sta”m.
Statistics
While there are many amazing sofrim in our midst, there are also some whose work is less than stellar. And then there are those who have no business writing at all. Concerns relating to sta”m are not unique to our generation.The Chasam Sofer lamented the state of sta”m in his day as well (shu”t 205). Here are some examples of gedolim throughout the ages expressing similar frustration:
The Rivash (d. 1408) writes, “What can we do about those sofrim who aren’t proficient and forsake halachah for their own benefit” (shu”t Rivash146).
The Radvaz (d. 1573) testifies that he once checked 300 pairs of tefillin and they were all passul (shu”t Radvaz 8:6)
The Devar Shmuel (d. 1694) complains that most people look for cheaper prices and that almost all such tefillin are likely passul (Sefer Zichronos 9:3)
The Levush (d. 1612) blames all the above on those who write sta”m who either don’t know what they are doing or are simply looking to make money: “Asidin litein es hadin ulekabel onshum harbeh me’od—Hashem is going to punish them very harshly” (Levush, siman 32:20).
The Sho’eil Umeishiv (d. 1875) writes that “many of those who call themselves sofrim in our day have no clue about hilchos sta”m” (in his haskamah to Keses Hasofer).
Rav Chaim Palagi (d. 1858) once passuled every single sefer Torah in Izmir (shu”t Lev Chaim, Orach Chaim 174). He also writes, “The length of this galus is aided and abetted by the fact that so many people aren’t curious consumers and end up wearing tefillin that are passul, created by sofrim who aren’t proficient (Tenufah Chaimsiman 432)
The Ben Ish Chai (d. 1909) once passuled all the retzuos tefillin in Bagdad! And his grandfather once passuled everyone’s tefillin (Rav Pealim, Orach Chaim 4:2)
The Chasam Sofer writes that that people who believe all those who write our tefillin are knowledgeable about sta”m “lo hayah v’lo nivra”(no such thing is even remotely true)! In fact, some are public stumbling blocks! (Likkutei Shu”t Chasam Sofer 83)
The Aruch Hashulchan writes, “In our generation, those who think they can write sta”m have increased like locusts. There is one city with hundreds of ‘sofrim,’ but the majority lack yiras shamayim”(Yoreh Dei’ah 182:9).
More recently, the Klausenberger Rebbe (shu”t Divrei Yatziv, Orach Chaim 38:2) and Rav Moshe Feisntein (his haskamah to Yalkut Tzuras Ha’osios) bemoan the fact that people are purchasing sta”m with zero information as to who wrote them. In many cases, and certainly if the writer isn’t knowledgeable enough, one can almost guarantee that they are all passul. Amazingly, the Rebbewrites that until he commissioned a new sefer Torah, he challenged those in his own beis midresh to find even a single kosher sefer Torah among the ten in the aron! (B’veis Yatziv, p.130).
This list is incomplete (see Sefer Sta”m, p. 303-317 for even more historical sources).
Several years ago, Rav Eli Gutnick, a renowned sofer in Australia, published some statistics that would stop any ben Torah cold:
Only about 20% of sofrim have a ksav kabbalah and are frum (Rav Gutnick contacted me to explain that this term means that they, e.g. “…dress in heimishe levushim, are serious about learning Torah, aren’t known to be batlanim, etc”. It would also include a Lakewood or YU musmuch who may not have ‘levush’ yet who went on to receive a real ksav hakaballa, and who is known to be a serious Jew)
An additional 15% are frum but lack a ksav kabbalah.(This is like semichah, butfor safrus.) Without a ksav kabbalah, it is impossible to ascertain if the sofer is even aware of the myriad halachos of sta”m or is up to date about the latest concerns. Numerous knowledgeable sofrim have told me that any sta”m from such individuals should be assumed to be passul.
This poll (while using the best methods available was still, admittedly, unscientific) was taken in 2014. Rabbi Gutnick now admits that the number of sofrim with ksav kaballah is even lower, and that these days the majority of even heimishe and bnei Torah sofrimdo not have one. All in all, only 35% of sta”m is being written by sofrim who those who frumJews of any background would label as bnei Torah! This begs the obvious question: Who is writing the rest?
A full 50% (!) are not proficient in any way, and would run the gamut of character and observance. There are many “shababnikim”—yeshivah dropouts in need of parnasah who can now exploit their background to make money. While some of these are still frum, many are unfortunatelynot.
It gets worse; much worse.
Fifteen percent of the people who are creating mezuzos, etc., are Arabs, Chinese or women. Some sta”m in this category are printed.
Of late, there have been several Chinese sta”m “companies” whose skilled laborers can produce some pretty realistic sta”m. When I shared this with a ben Torah friend, his sincere but naïve response was, “I didn’t know there were so many Yidden in China!”! There are also clubs in Israeli universities where Arab students learn to write mezuzos in their spare time to make some money on the side.
What all of this means is that one has the same statistical odds of purchasing sta”m from a ben Torah with true shimush or a ‘degree’ of some type in this field as he does from an Arab or Chinese person!
It should go without saying that none of this information is meant to disparage the many real sofrim, as they have zero control over what an Arab or a non-shomer Shabbos Jew or am haaretz does. Rather, this information is meant as a warning to consumers as to what’s floating around out there and how dire the situation is.
One simply needs to make a cheshbon of how many sofrim he knows or live in his community. Then consider how many shuls there are in the neighborhood, each one with at least five sifrei Torah (of course, some scrolls will be older ones not included in the above statistic). Then continue adding up the number of mezuzos in each house, plus the tefillin and megillos. As one renowned sofer expressed, “Even with the knowledge that the vast majority of sofrim are in Eretz Yisrael, the numbers still don’t add up!” The gedolim are aware of this, and many ideas have been suggested to bring safrus under some type of control.
The reader is likely thinking, “This is all very unfortunate. But I live in city X, with a nice-sized frum population. This doesn’t affect me.” Perhaps. Or perhaps not.
Many Judaica shops operate through brokers, and while these stores are run by honest people who are sincerely G-d-fearing, some have no idea—or even any way of knowing—who wrote the sta”m items that they are selling. In fact, these items often pass through multiple hands before arriving in America, let alone a particular store.
The savvy consumer should therefore always ask, “May I have in writing that whoever wrote these has a ksav kabbalah in sta”m?” This would be a good start, as it is my strong contention that the consumer holds the key to change. Only after a demand is created would the many improvements planned have a chance of implementing some type of reliable ‘chain of custody’.
Organizations such as Vaad Mishmeres Stam(and its sister organization in Eretz Yisrael) have worked closely with both Litvish and Chasidish poskim and sofrim for decades to secure reliable sta”m for people. Although the monitoring and even certification of the raw materials in factory-like settings (retzuos, klaf and battim) is being done by the Eidah HaChareidis and others, they have no control over private sofrim who do the actual writing—again, many of them tzaddikim and geonim who produce stellar work.
In truth, relying on the fact that there are hundreds of reliable sofrim when there are so many more who are not is like saying, “I will eat in any restaurant that claims to be kosher without certification, because there are lots of reliable people who wouldn’t serve treif”!
A Plan for the Future?
Several years ago, in Buffalo, a man started coming to shul every morning for Shacharis. His tefillin were very small, often a sign of problems (this is also true of small mezuzos). I asked him if I could borrow the pair. Well, it turned out that the battim were made out of plastic (!) and the writing inside was a photocopy (!) of a handwritten (!) Shema in regular Israeli script (!)—and all on regular paper!
(He purchased these in his temple’s Judaica shop)
When I showed this to him, he was flabbergasted. His response expressed the naivete that exists among even shomrei Torah. “What kind of Jew would do such a thing?” I looked up from his “tefillin” and said, “Who said anything about a Jew?”
A well-regarded rav and maggid shiur in Queens recently shared that a talmid told him that one boy in his Israeli yeshivah was found to have comic strips in their battim!
I am often asked by parents where they should purchase tefillin for their sons. I fear giving them an honest answer. Naturally, they will compare the price to what their friends are paying (less than half) and either ignore my advice, or I will be in a position where I am compelled to share things that could cause a serious balagan. When I try to be frank, they often think I’m exaggerating, and who could blame them? Everyone else gets tefillin from this-or-that place! How could the Rabbi be right, they understandably wonder, when a pair of mehudar tefillin can be found for about $400?
A renowned sofer recently shared, “The problem is not that rabbanim refuse to wisely suggest that people purchase sta”m only from reputable places – rabbanim indeed do recommend this. Rather, the issue is that everyone believes that their source is reputable!”
Compounding the problem, some consumers are afraid to ask questions. A purchaser may feel that they are not proficient enough to make inquiries or to even comprehend the answers. But this is an error. A simple request of a guarantee that the sofer has kabbala is a straight, fair, and critical question. Any sofer or seller who gets anxious when asked about the sofer, his shimush, methods, or to whom they bring their own shailos is suspect…perhaps, now, of their own material.
Not long ago, a sofer in Lakewood told me that someone—a benTorah, mind you—brought him 50 mezuzos to help roll and insert in expensive cases for his new, large, house. “Did you get these checked?” the sofer asked.
The balebus gave him the name of the “magiah” who had checked them. The sofer, knowing he would be ignored if he shared that this person’s certification was meaningless, replied instead, “I will help you. But just to be clear, I will not be checking the kashrus at all.” Well, lo and behold, one of the mezuzos slipped open. The sofer immediately saw more than a few things that would render it passul!
Many people also don’t realize that being a sofer anda magiah require two different skill sets, necessitating different studies and bechinos. Not every magiah has shimush or a ksav kabbalah in safrus, and not every sofer knows how to check the work of others.
Is there any hope to rectify these pirztos (breaches) in the future?
B’chasdei Hashem, after many years of leadership by amazing experts who have since passed on or retired, Rav Avraham Tzvi Wosner in Monsey is taking charge of the Vaad Mishmeres Stam in America, with Rabbi Moshe Shaul Klein in Bnei Brak in charge of Eretz Yisrael. Many ideas are in the works to help strengthen this most sacred of mitzvos. Right now, the Israeli branch is in the midst of a massive campaign to get sofrim to either learn or review these halachos so they can receive a ksav kabbalah. Close to 1,000 sofrim have already taken the bechinos this past year, and equally important, renewed their ksav kabbalah.
Similar programs are now being developed in America as well. Rav Wosner in Monsey and Rav Yosef Fund in Lakewood are currently teaching, testing and certifying sofrim and magihim, thereby securing our future.
Some people have urged a system whereby every mezuzah, pair of tefillin or sefer Torah come with a hologramed hashgachah. Another idea is that each item of sta”m have a QR code (or an ID number, for those without Internet). This would then lead the consumer to a page or voicemail that would reveal all pertinent information about the item, including the names of the sofer and magiah, the type of klaf, etc.
Alas, without a robust demand from consumers, such plans are but a pipedream and could never come to fruition.
For now, at the very minimum, rabbanim should instruct their mispallelim to only purchase items for which they are given either the name of the sofer or an assurance of a ksav kabbalah. Such requests alone will cause an awesome ripple effect. This would be a good launchpad off which our leaders could work.
Painfully, even if all the above would be somehow resolved, this would not disentangle the entire issue. Even should all the sta”m on the market be certified, there would still be another hurdle to surmount.
Minhagim and Shittos
Let us for a moment put aside the frightening information shared above. In addition to the arduous challenge of making sure that a reliable sofer wrote one’s sta”m, there are other concerns of which the purchaser needs to be aware.
There are hundreds of shittos, chumros, kulos and minhagim when it comes to writing sta”m. Once we are already so far removed from knowing who wrote our sta”m or made our battim, how would someone even begin to know the standards and methods by which they were produced? And even if we could fix the real reliability concerns, the consumer is often unaware that there are certain shittos that should be avoided by “his” mesorah, even if they are perfectly kosher for someone else.
For example, a sofer told me that a certain oocher sta”m was recently called out for selling battim to Ashkenazim that were made in a way that is clearly not kosher according to how Ashkenazim have paskened for centuries (relating to how the shin on the shel rosh is made)!
Allow me to bring the interested reader a little deeper into the world of shittos so as to better appreciate their complexity.
There’s a famous written exchange between the Lubavitcher Rebbe and Rav Moshe Feinstein. In Rav Moshe’s lengthy response (Orach Chaim 4:9) he shares that although his minhag is to wear Rabbeinu Tam tefillin, he reluctantly had to stop and has had hard time commissioning a new pair in America, as they are often written by sofrim who follow their reading of the Shulchan Aruch Harav’s opinion, which differs from how Rav Moshe understood his psak.
The issue Rav Moshe was referring to is the complicated and much-debated subject of how to write the parshiyos of tefillin (i.e. setumos).
This machlokos is unresolved, leading to the following reality:
Most Sefardim follow the view of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim siman 32:36), while most Ashkenazim follow the Taz(ad loc. se’if kattan 26). There are still other Ashkenazim who follow a divergent way of reading this same Taz, e.g., chasidei Belz and Bobov; see also Igros Moshe, ibid. #12. Minhag Chabad follows the Kuntres Acharon based on the words of the Baal Hatanya.
The objective in sharing the above is not, chalilah, to convince anyone to abandon his minhagim in exchange for what Rav Moshe argued. Rather, the intent is to demonstrate that even amongst the greatest poskim there are many differing and even opposing views. And even after a sofer assures a customer that those concerns are met, there are also issues relating to the type of klaf, kesivah, ink, battim, etc.
Another consideration has to do with geographical areas. Some people may think that in Lakewood or Williamsburg, all of the tefillin being sold will naturally follow shittah X. This is not necessarily the case.
When my father-in-law headed the Kashruth Council of Canada (the COR), based on a teshuvah he received from Rav Shlomo Miller, he wouldn’t allow Diet Coke to be certified for Pesach due to an ingredient that is derived from kitniyos, namely aspartame. Instead, the COR gave the Pesach rights to that product to the Sephardic rabbanim in Canada.
Fair enough. But as odd as this may sound, some Torontonians asked their guests coming from the United States for Yom Tov to bring them Diet Coke that had an OU! True, Rav Belsky disagreed with Rav Shlomo Miller, and ruled for the OU that this type of kitniyosshenishtanah, meaning that it has been modified and manipulated to the point of being a new molecule, is of no concern on Pesach. But there was absolutely no difference between the Canadian Diet Coke and the American Diet Coke! Why not buy the Sefardi one in Canada for less trouble?!
The correlation to sta”m should be clear: A person may be under the false impression that if he purchases sta”m in a certain country or zip code he will be getting something that is aligned with the minhag hamakom. But the truth is that if sta”m isn’t acquired through transparent channels (or directly from a sofer or personal broker), the location where it is bought is of zero relevance.
Another concern: Let’s say that a person goes to buy a pair of tefillin and finds that the prices range anywhere from $800 to $4,000. Again, assuming that everything is kosher(which may be a stretch), the consumer must ask with great specificity for the distinction between these costs. The seller, of course, isn’t being deliberately deceitful.But again, if enough people demand more details, the effect could be very positive. The consumer must begin to recognize that he is not really buying a “pair of tefillin.” Rather, he is purchasing battim, retzuos and parshiyos. He should inquire about all three as the separate components they truly are.
Far too often, sta”m is the last item on an otherwise expensive checklist for a new house or simchah. That is why people should sit with a respected sofer or rav far in advance of the move or celebratory event and request unambiguous guidance in all these matters: halachos, nusach, hiddurim, chumros and hakpados.
Returning to Stencils
I would like to share the words of a preeminent chasidishe posek with regard to this supposed kolmus-style form of silkscreen printing:
“The shailah here is not between kosher and passul;it’s between muttar and assur!”
In my view, and in this case, these are profound words and demonstrate great pikchus/shrewdness. Meaning, should the focus be on the halacha alone, the average person may fall under the assumption that should we get around those issues we would then be in the clear. In truth, and like all matters – both secular and religious -that we wish to insure for the future, the law is the floor and not the ceiling.
Several years ago, many frum publications reported on a German university that had created a writing robot. To prove its significance, they taught it how to write Chinese, thinking that this was the most challenging writing style. They soon learned that there was an even more complex system of writing: ksav Ashuris and sta”m!
And so, several years ago, this robot was put on display in the Museum of Berlin, and observers could watch its robotic arm writing a “Torah scroll” on a piece of klaf.
That machine, the price of which was likely more than $1 million five years ago, is probably now half the cost. After looking into it, I can posit that it would take this android just three months to write a sefer Torah from start to finish (working day and night, nonstop, which it can do). It would have the most beautiful ksav. One could recoup his initial investment and be making very good money fairly quickly (earning about $200,000 a year, indefinitely)! But of course, it would be a willful michsol rabbim, just another in the long list of obstacles and deception when it comes to sta”m.
It should now be clear why those involved in sta”m have dismissed this (claimed) new stencil innovation out-of-hand. If unleashed on the market, nothing would stop sta”m that is being printed off a $2000 computer and printer setup from being sold under the guise that it is, as well, this new stencil design! We simply have enough issues to resolve in sta”m before creating new ones.
It boggles the mind that even if this innovator believed that he discovered a new technique of writing kosher sta”m—a technique that somehow eluded the likes of the Chasam Sofer and so many of our past gedolim, who would have loved nothing more than to discover a simpler and more efficient method of creating sta”m—why he wouldn’t first and immediately approach the gedolei haposkim; certainly before sending such items halfway around the globe to be sold! Why put them on the market without asking? Why sell them to consumers without notifying them as to what they are purchasing?
{We did not even broach the issue of mekach taus and geneiva –for even if one wishes to believe such stencil mezuzos are kosher, one still would have to inform the buyer that these are made in such a way. I would imagine that very few Jews -of any persuasion-would have purchased them had they known this, even if told forthright that it was allowed}
Throughout history, those individuals – like Sarah Schenirer – who had a genuine interest in adopting new approaches to modern problems have always first approached our gedolim (see Chofetz Chaim in his Likkutei Halachos to Sotah 11).This alone was proof positive of their sincere motives.
In Closing
Thousands and thousands of mezuzos are purchased every day. We have already expressed astonishment at how this is even feasible.
Alas, there are 27 oisios, but a million ways to write them incorrectly.
We have explained, if only in brief, that countless shittos exist with regard to the many separate elements that go into sta”m, leading to the potential for an unfathomable factorial of possibilities (see shu”t Min Hashamayim #3 with the notes of Rav Reuven Margolies).
If the reader walks away from this article concerned about his sta”m and becomes a savvy consumer who asks questions, then it has served its purpose. It is my opinion that only forthright questions and calm inquiries will change the current landscape.
As always, one’s personal moreh horaah should be consulted for the final psak on any-and-all questions and concerns.
I wish to thank the many expert sofrim and talmidei chachamim, both Litvish and Chasidish, who patiently aided me in my research.
What is the source for and severity of Fasting for a Sefer Torah that fell to the ground?
When does it apply and to whom?
I. The Event
It was as if those fifteen seconds took place in slow motion.
It was the Second Day of Sukkos 5779.
As the gollel began to roll and tighten the atzei chaim, the eitz to the right side of the sefer suddenly become unmoored from its screw.
Within a millisecond, the baal hagbah was heard letting out a shriek as half the sefer rolled away…unto the floor of the beis haknesses.
The gasp heard from all present will never leave my mind. Time stood still. Everyone was in shock.
There is something instinctive, almost congenital, in the reaction to such an event. Everyone knows, feels, that something must be done to atone for such an event.
I too was shocked.
It was the Second Day of Sukkos – zman simchaseinu – and yet all were depressed. Chazal teach that when Hashem shows us a rain on Sukkos it is a bad sign –what, then, of a sefer Torah that falls!?
Not knowing what to do, I had some siyatta d’shmaya. Right after aleinu I stood before the podium and said the following:
“I will give a shiur in the very near future as to what we need to do, but for now I have a suggestion. In just a few days we will be celebrating the completion of chamisha chumsha Torah on Simchas Torah. We now have another thirteen months until the next siyum. Let us each accepts upon ourselves one parsha to learn. On that same chosen parsha one will also write a Dvar Torah. This way, not only will be making a beautiful siyum next year on Simchas Torah but we will publish a sefer where our original Torah ideas for each parsha will be collected and sent out”
Within five minutes every parsha was taken. During chol hamoed even more wished to be a part of this project.
A tragedy was turned into an opportunity, which the shul then turned into a wonderful kiddush hashem.
So inspired, I quoted then the pasuk in Mishlei which teaches (24:16) “For a righteous man can fall seven times and [still] rise…” Hopefully Hashem too will see our response to what happened which shall eclipse the horrible event itself.
II. Fasting?
Many have likely heard or read that the necessary reaction to witnessing such an event (and, according to some, even if not witnessed, but simply if one belongs to the community) is to fast.
Some even suggest fasting for forty days!
It may be surprising, however, to learn that there is no direct source in the Gemara, or Midrash, nor any mention in the Rambam or Shulchan Aruch to any type of fasting for a dropped Sefer Torah (the same applies to dropped Teffilin not in their encasements).
Therefore, any such response falls into the category of minhag.
This is then a wonderful opportunity to not only discuss the source for this particular widespread minhag, but to examine the concept of minhagim in general.
III. What is a Minhag?
There is an all too common misconception when it comes to what minhagim are. Many may explain that opposed to a Torah law or Rabbinical law, a minhag is defined as being untethered to those first two categories of halacha. Some may even define the term minhag as referring to any custom that a family, community or individual has that relates to Jewish life but that is source-less in our legal cannon.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
All minhagim must have either a self-evident Torah rationale, an real-although minority- halachic view being followed, or be based on a source from chazal (see, e.g. Shu’t Noda B’Yehudah, 2, evh’a, #79 for how we relate this to the ethical will of Rav Yehudah HaChasid; see also Tzava Rav Yehudah Hachasis, Otzar HaPoskim edition).
For this reason, the Chasam Sofer writes (shu’t oh’c #51) that anyone who questions minhagei yisroel needs to have their yichus (pedigree) looked into!
There is even a question in halacha regarding accepting a potential ger who, while willing to accept all of the Torah and toras chazal, yet who at the same time is seemingly unwilling to accept minhagim (see ‘Sefer Minhagim’, Rav Moshe Walter, p. 14).
However, as opposed to a minhag developed to protect one from an issur (e.g. chumros relating to Pesach), the minhag to fast for a fallen sefer Torah demands we discover its source, as the poskim all strive to do.
III. Back to a Fallen Torah
The shailos in these cases abound –What if someone fell with the sefer Torah? What if it fell during hakafos? What if it was a child who dropped it? What if it fell b’oness (beyond one’s control)? What if one opened the aron and a sefer just fell out?
In addition, even in a simple case, the questions are many –Should only the one who dropped it fast? Only the ones who witnessed it? What if it was a pasul sefer Torah? What if –like in our case –it was only a part of a sefer Torah? Etc. etc. etc.
Because of these common complexities, knowing the true source for this minhag becomes more than a curiosity, rather it becomes essential in order to know how to apply the many variable cases.
This minhag is mentioned by the Mishneh Berrura (siman 40:3) and the Magen Avraham (siman 44:5), and dates to at least before the 15th century (Shu’t Mahari Bruna, d. 1480, mentions this minhag).
Famously, Rav Waldenberg (d. 2006) in his shu’t Tzitz Eliezar dedicated a small kuntres (monograph) just to this topic alone (beginning of chelek 5) where he brings virtually every posek and case recorded (see also Shu’t Divrei Yoel, Divrei Chaim, Har Tzvi and many other achronim who discuss this issue).
In 1969, Rav Yechezkel Grubner, famed rav of Detroit (d. 2009), wrote to Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe oh’c 3:3) regarding his views relating to this issue.
It is a remarkable teshuvah (responsa).
Rav Moshe was a unique posek (halachic decider) who did not often research other achronim (later authorities), so to have Rav Grubner send Rav Moshe the sources that many other achronim marshal to back-up this minhag is fascinating. Rav Moshe dissects each potential source and shows how it would affect the halacha of this minhag.
What follows are the fascinating sources that Rav Grubner provides, and Rav Moshe’s response to them.
The Mishpitei Shmuel (Rav Shmuel Kalei, Greece, d. 1585) is the earliest to suggest a source. The gemara (Moed Kattan 26a) teaches us the halacha of rending our garments on certain occasions. One of these times is after witnessing the destruction of a sefer Torah. This is a source that proves a special reaction when it comes to a dishonorable event to a sefer Torah, thereby allowing us to develop a minhag of fasting for when it falls.
Rav Moshe seems to accept this source as the most authoritative. However, Rav Moshe points out that according to many, this gemara is referring to a dishonorable act done intentionally and in spite. Therefore, fasting for an accidental fallen Torah should not be a minhag!
However, Rav Moshe explains that according to Rashi’s reading ad loc. –where even accidental dishonor would activate the clause of the gemara –our minhag fits perfectly.
The Kappos Temarim (Rav Moshe ben Chavib, d. 1696) brings a different source, where chazal teach (Sukkah 41b) that one should not daven while holding sifrei kodesh (ostensibly, lest they fall).
Rav Moshe is initially troubled by this source. “Do we really need a source that one must be careful not to drop a Torah?!” he asks. Rather we are looking for a source that allows us to have a unique reaction to such a tragic event!
Rav Moshe suggests that perhaps the Kappos Temarim’s proof was from the fact that such a far- fetched fear –and one not found when, say, holding a Lulav that could become pasul if dropped –is even a factor. After all, how many would daven with such kavana as to risk dropping a Torah? Perhaps then what the Kappos Temarim is demonstrating is that finding such an implausible concern by a Torah is proof to allowing us a strong response if dropped.
Nevertheless, Rav Moshe explains why it is difficult today to rely on this being the source. He also adds, that should indeed this be the source, the application to today’s minhag would mean that only when someone is negligent (like the case of someone who started to daven while holding a Torah, which he should have realized was a risk) would there be a need to fast, but not when something happens beyond one’s control.
The pasuk (Devarim 27:26) states at the end of the arrurim (curses) “asher lo yakum es divrei hatorah hazos”, which chazal (Yerushalmi, Sota 7:4) understand to be referring to the gabbei who did not make sure that the actual sefer Torah was well protected from falling (!). This is how Ramban too understands this pasuk.
Rav Moshe points out that while a beautiful source it would mean that only the person from whose hands the Torah fell would need to fast.
Chazal (Taanis 16a, and previous Mishnah) teach us the procedure for a communal fast. Aside for the kehilla (community) going out into the street to daven to Hashem, they are also tasked with bringing their aron with them. The gemara wonders what would be purpose of bringing out the aron, and explains “we had a kli tzenua (the Torah within the aron) in our shul and we shamed it with our aveiros”. We see here a clear correlation between fasting and our reverence for our own sifrei Torah.
Rav Moshe points out that such a source, while wonderful, would have the application to our minhag that the entire community fast. It may even mean that even those who were not there at its falling would also need to fast.
Although Rav Moshe concludes that fasting is the proper minhag, each case is unique and questions of who fasts and when should always be brought before a rav. In addition, many poskim today suggest giving tzedaka, or repairing the sifrei Torah in lieu of a fast (e.g. Tzitz Eliezar, Minchas Asher, Piskei Teshuvos), for a number of reasons.
IV. Signs and Responses
How should a community view such an event? What type of sign, if any, should this be seen as?
Rav Efraim Oshry (d. 2003) was the last full time rav at Beis Medresh Hagdol, the shul founded in 1852 in New York by Rav Ash.
A talmud in the Slobadka yeshiva, Rav Oshry soon rose to prominence, and was the rav of the Kovna Ghetto while it was occupied by the Nazis y’s.
There, he received countless heart wrenching shailos that, along with his responses, he recorded and buried in the ground. After the war he retrieved these notes and published them in a volume under the name of ‘Shailos V’Teshuvos Mimamkim’ –‘Questions and Answers ‘From the Depths’’.
In a recent article regarding this same topic of a fallen sefer Torah that many readers have shared with me (see also Rav Daniel Feldman’s Bina L’Ittim), the prolific Rabbi Ari Zivotofsky recounts the following from shu’t Mimiakim.
“Rav Ephraim Oshry, z”tl, discusses a case in the Kovno Ghetto where the accursed Nazis slaughtered dogs and cats in the shul, and then forced Jews to tear apart sifrei Torah with which to cover the rotting carcasses. Rav Oshry ruled that those who witnessed the event should
tear keriyah, but there is no need for anybody to fast, particularly considering the malnutrition and ill health of those in the ghetto. Rav Oshry did view the event as a call from Above for teshuvah.”
Indeed, the Mahari Bruna (d.1480) that we quoted above mentions that a fallen sefer Torah should be seen as a clear sign from shomyaim that we need to do teshuva.
I would add –and perhaps this can be an additional source to the ones mentioned above– that when was the very first time a dvar kodesh (holy object) fell to the ground?
It was by the shibrei haluchos. After Moshe rabeinu witnessed the chet ha’egel (the sin of the golden calf), he smashed the first tablets to the ground. And, what was the date of that event? Shivaser b’tamuz –a fast day!
Perhaps then, just like that event was a clear sign for us to do teshuva, so too any future event where sifrei kodesh fall should be seen in the same light.
There are many suggestions as to why such an event is seen as a call to teshuva.
Some suggest that the mere fact that one’s eyes witnessed such an ignoble event occur to a holy object, this alone can effect one’s neshama. Meaning, it is not so much that sins caused the event to happen in the first place, rather that the witnessing of the event itself demands teshuvah.
This is one of the reasons why some poskim tell people with not-yet-frum relatives who wish to come for a meal on Shabbos, that even if there is an allowance for them to be invited although they may drive (a topic for another time) they mustn’t park in the driveway. Our children shall become accustomed to witnessing our embracing of all Jews, yet, and at the same time, must not see us embrace their (forbidden) actions.
Others suggest similarly, that as opposed to thinking that this that a fallen Torah was allowed to happen in the first place as a sign, rather, the mere zilzul sefer Torah that we witnessed demands our fasting.
An allusion to this can be found in chazal (Yerushalmi, Moed Kattan 3:7) where the death of a Talmud chacham is compared to a sefer torah. “Said Rav (after such a death), ‘I did not taste any food (i.e. I fasted) the rest of the day””
However, many posit that our reaction is not simply a reaction to the event alone, rather the fact that Hashem allowed it to happen in the first place is indeed a sign from shomayim of our need to do teshuva.
I would add to this, that the one time we are demanded to destroy sifrei kodesh is the by the mei sotah when a parsha of the Torah is destroyed in water. There, perhaps like here, is a time of sin and of teshuva.
Naturally, it is this last view that most who are witness to such an event, instinctively, seem to assume as the basis.
V. Final Thoughts and the Title of this Book
Immediately following the fallen sefer Torah on yom tov, many members approached me with their take on why this happened.
“This is because of those that come late to davening” “This is due to those who I can’t get to stop talking during chazaras hashatz”
“This is because the rav allowed/disallowed X”
The next day I mentioned some of these suggestions, and explained that they all had one thing in common –‘It was not my sin that caused this, rather the sin of the other!’
I pointed out from chazal (Sanhedrin 20a) that one of the greatest generations was that of R’ Yehudah bar Ilay where six men would be able to share one tallis.
Rav Elyah Lopian wonders how that would even be physically possible. He explains that it is true that when each person takes and pulls for himself then six people could not share one tallis, however, when each person tries to give some of the tallis to the other, when they pull it toward their friend, and visa versa, indeed many could share one tallis.
In a similar vain, if instead of finding out why the sin(s) of the ‘other’ is responsible for this tragedy, and instead each person would seek to discover what they could improve in themselves then we could be confident in offering to Hashem the teshuva He is looking for.
I wish to conclude with an amazing story that is recorded by Rav Paysach Krohn.
Several years ago a shul was looking to purchase a new sefer Torah. After the Shabbos of the announcement for collection of funds for this endeavor, an elderly gentleman approached the rav with an envelope filled with enough cash to pay for the entire project.
This elderly individual was not well-off and so, naturally, the rav asked for an explanation.
The older man explained how he was a survivor from the camps.
He was getting sick and the Nazi’s had taken away his shoes, leading to a risk to his life as he worked outside. He begged one of the officers for a pair of boots.
Surprisingly, the Nazi agreed, and more, said he will make him a custom pair!
The next day the Nazi presented his gift, leather boots made…from ripped sections of a sefer Torah.
“I had no choice, it was sakanas nefashos. But with every step I took I promised Hashem that if I ever make it out alive I will pay back the kavod sefer Torah by writing a new sefer. I did survive, and every day or week or month since liberation, when possible, I would put aside a little money; a little here, a little there. Now finally I have enough to purchase the entire sefer Torah and have kapara”!
Some times things happen beyond our control and the only remaining test is how we choose to react to it.
Our response was the study of Torah and the support for our sifrei Torah’s upkeep.
For these reasons I have chosen the title ‘Sefer Simchateinu’. First, the event happened on Sukkos –our time of gladness. Instead of sullying our Yom Tov joy we brought more of the light of Torah into our lives. Also, we completed this project a year later, again during zman simchaseinu.
We should feel very proud as a community!
For those who wish to add to these Divrei Torah, it is not too late!
Whether it is a Parsha already ‘taken’, one left blank, or a promise unfulfilled, we will welcome any addition to this wonderful new Sefer!
May Hashem protect the nation that protects His Torah.
