It has been said that the page of a Gemara represents in capsule form the long history of Jewish exile: The Mishnah was composed in Erez Yisra'el; the text of the Gemara which follows was written in Babylonia; Rashi's commentary hails from France; the Tosafot are the product of French and German schools; the marginal glosses represents Polish and Lithuanian scholarship; and finally, the blank space of the margins represents the American contribution to talmudic scholarship. Fortunately, this categorization of the American contribution is no longer correct. Akhshar dara; this generation has attained a level of Torah scholarship which far surpasses the fondest anticipations of a previous age. R. Chaim of Volozhin once remarked that as history unfolds the fulcrum of Torah scholarship circumnavigates the globe and that the final hostel of Torah prior to the advent of the Messiah will be America.
Shortly after the publication of the first volume of this work, I was asked to describe the audience I had intended to address, i.e., to indicate for whom the work was intended. My instinctive response was that the work was intended "le-kol man de-ba'i," an Aramaic expression employed in modern Hebrew usage to mean "To whom it may concern" but which a literal translation would render "To whosoever has need."
Surprisingly, the audience for works of rabbinic scholarship has proven to be both larger and more diverse than might have been anticipated. There has come into existence a growing cadre of individuals with a thirst for a thorough understanding of Jewish teaching. Included among their number are yeshiva students and graduates seeking halakhic sources and items of information to fill lacunae in their studies, persons involved in the formulation of public policy who are genuinely interested in exploring Jewish values, newly-committed Jews lacking a thorough religious education, and laymen desirous of studying Torah for its own sake. It is this audience, composed of both the committed and the seeking, which has been responsible for the phenomenal burgeoning of works of rabbinic and talmudic scholarship.
Some sectors of this newly-emerging audience are as much at home in Hebrew as in English, but other segments have not mastered the intricacies of rabbinic Hebrew. Fortunately, Torah scholarship in the United States has not only come of age but has harnessed the vernacular and employed it as a means of addressing both students and the masses in their own idiom, much in the same manner as Arabic was used by the scholars of the generations of Sa'adia Ga'on and Rambam. Of course, writings published in Hebrew achieve a permanence to which works in other languages cannot, and indeed should not, aspire. Nevertheless, the need for publications in the vernacular, even if transient, is real nonetheless.
All works of rabbinic scholarship serve to fill the authors' needs no less than those of the readers. In truth, it may well be the case that many such works are composed primarily to serve the authors' own need rather than for purposes of publication. It should be remembered that originally it was forbidden to commit any portion of the Oral Law to writing. This practice was ultimately sanctioned only because of the very real danger that, were it not committed to writing, the Oral Law might well have been forgotten in whole or in part. It may cogently be assumed that it was feared that not only might the Oral Law be forgotten by future generations but that it might be forgotten by the very generation which failed to record its own novellae and insights. Writing, by its very nature, forces concentration of thought, organization of material, critical analysis and coherent argumentation. As such, committing thought to writing serves not only to preserve material in one's memory but also as an invaluable study aid to the author. The present volume, then, is designed "for whosoever has need"—of whom the author's need is perhaps the greatest.
This sentiment finds concrete expression in Halakhah itself. The last of the 613 biblical commandments requires that each Jew write a Sefer Torah. Tur Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 470, records a controversy with regard to the nature of this obligation. Most early authorities understand the commandment in a quite literal sense, viz., as obligating each individual to transcribe the Pentateuch on a parchment scroll in accordance with the regulations governing the writing of a Sefer Torah. Rabbenu Asher (Rosh), however, is of the opinion that the mizvah was to be performed in this manner only during that period of Jewish history in which a Sefer Torah in the form of a parchment scroll was used for purposes of study; in subsequent epochs the mizvah assumes an entirely different guise. Accordingly, Tur writes:
But at present when [people] write a Sefer Torah and place it in the synagogue [solely] to read from it in public the positive commandment binding upon each [person] of Israel who is capable is to write the books of the Torah, Mishnah, Gemara and their commentaries [in order that] he and his children may study them. The [purpose] of the commandment regarding writing the Torah is in order to study there-from as it is written, "[And now write unto yourselves this song] and teach it unto the children of Israel; put it in their mouths." Through the Gemara and its explanation one will know the meaning of the mizvot and the laws in a proper manner. Therefore, those are the works which a person is commanded to write.
It is beyond dispute that Rosh maintains a change has occurred in the statutory requirement for fulfilling the mizvah of writing a Sefer Torah. There is, nevertheless, a disagreement between the authors of Bet Yosef and Perishah in their respective commentaries on the Tur with regard to the correct interpretation of Rabbenu Asher's novel ruling. Bet Yosef maintains that, even according to the position of Rosh, the writing of a Sefer Torah is a necessary condition of fulfillment of the commandment even in our day. In the opinion of Bet Yosef, Rosh simply argues that the writing of a Sefer Torah, in itself, is not sufficient for fulfillment of the mizvah; in order to discharge one's obligation in toto it is also necessary to write or copy works which are actually used for study. This analysis is rejected by Perishah, whose interpretation is more faithful to the literal meaning of Rosh's statement. Perishah understands Rosh as asserting that the nature of the mizvah has changed entirely. In the opinion of Perishah it is, at present, not at all necessary to write a Sefer Torah and, indeed, writing such a parchment scroll would not constitute even partial fulfillment of the mizvah; currently, the mizvah consists exclusively of writing or copying those works which are actually used for purposes of study.
Taz, Yoreh De'ah 270:4, concedes that Perishah's understanding of Rosh's position is entirely compatible with the text but declares that Bet Yosef's analysis must nevertheless be correct "for how can the commandment 'And now write unto yourselves' be abrogated with the passing of generations?" For that matter, Taz' objection may be raised with regard to Bet Yosef's interpretation as well. The biblical commandment is couched in the words "And now write unto yourselves this song" (Deuteronomy 31:19). The term "song" (shirah) is understood as referring to the Pentateuch. If so, the mizvah is clearly defined as requiring the copying of a specific text referred to as "this song." How, then, is it possible for this term, "with the passing of generations," to come to denote much more than the text of the Sefer Torah?
The key to understanding Rabbenu Asher's position lies in the interpretation of the phrase "ha-shirah ha-zot—this song." In context, the phrase would appear to refer solely to the immediately following poetic section recorded in Parshat Ha'azinu and indeed Rashi, in his commentary on the Bible, does interpret the phrase in precisely this way. However, the authorities who posit the verse as a commandment bidding each Jew to write the entire Penateuch endow the phrase "ha-shirah ha-zot" with a meaning which goes beyond its literal interpretation. A number of explanations have been advanced seeking to establish an exegetical basis for this understanding of the verse. Perhaps the most significant of these is presented by Rambam, Hilkhot Sefer Torah 7:1. Rambam declares, "It is a positive commandment incumbent upon every man in Israel to write a Sefer Torah for himself as it is written, "And now write unto yourselves this song," i.e., write for yourselves the Torah which contains this song for it is not [permitted] to write sections of the Torah." The term "this song" thus acquires a contextual meaning much broader than its literal denotation. Literally, the term refers only to the "song" of Ha'azinu; but since it is forbidden to write fragments or individual sections which are not endowed with the sanctity of a Torah scroll, it is not possible to understand the commandment as requiring simply the writing of the section containing the song of Ha'azinu. In practice, then, declares Rambam, the commandment must require the writing of the Pentateuch in its entirety.
The difficulties associated with the position of Rabbenu Asher may be resolved if it is assumed that this authority translated the term "song" as denoting literally the Torah in its entirety. Indeed, the Gemara in three instances, Hagigah 12b, Nedarim 38a and Hullin 13b, clearly interprets the word "song", both in this and in other contexts, as a reference to the Pentateuch in its entirety.1For an illuminating explanation of why the Torah is termed a “song” see R. Naphtali Zevi Yehudah Berlin, Ha‘amek Davar, Introduction. Thus, according to Rosh, a literal reading of Deuteronomy 31:19, yields an obligation to transcribe the full text of the Pentateuch.
However, the term "song", interpreted as meaning Torah, is not limited to denotation of the Written Law exclusively. Megillat Ta'anit, chapter 4, presents a highly significant interpretation of the concluding phrase of this very verse, "and teach it to the children of Israel, place it in their mouths." Megillat Ta'anit explains that the phrases "teach it to the children of Israel" and "place it in their mouths" are not at all synonymous expressions. Rather, "teach it" refers to the "song" of the immediately preceding phrase, i.e., the Written Law, while the phrase "place it in their mouths" is understood as a reference to the Oral Law which must be "placed in the mouth" since it may only be transmitted orally.2Cf., R. Yitzchak Ze’ev Soloveitchik, Ḥiddushei Maran Riz ha-Levi al ha-Torah (Jerusalem, 5723), p. 16a. See also the commentary of Ba‘al ha-Turim, Deuteronomy 31:19.
This analysis leads, in turn, to a resolution of the difficulty concerning the position of Rabbenu Asher. It may be assumed that Rosh understood the word "song" as literally referring to the complete corpus of the Torah, including both the Oral Law and the Written Law. Yet, in context, the biblical passage could not denote the Oral Law, since at the time the commandment was issued it was as yet forbidden to commit the Oral Law to writing. Nevertheless, the commandment is not to be understood as ever having been restricted to the Written Law specifically. Rather, the verse must be understood as requiring the writing of as much of the Torah as may licitly be commited to writing. The precise material which must be transcribed in fulfilling this mizvah will vary in accordance with whether or not the Oral Law may be recorded. Thus, the difficulty raised by Taz is resolved. Although in days gone by the commandment mandated only the writing of a Sefer Torah, at present, since the Oral Law may now be transcribed, the obligation is discharged through writing or copying other works. Yet the mizvah has undergone absolutely no change with "the passing of generations."3An incisive interpretation of the verse in question is attributed to a number of scholars including the Hasidic master, R. Abraham Mordecai Alter of Ger. The verse reads: “And now write unto yourselves this song.” According to the view of Rabbenu Asher the meaning of the word “now” is quite precise. According to Rabbenu Asher the commandment to write this song, i.e., the Torah scroll, applies only now, for in the future fulfillment of the commandment will require the transcription of yet other works. According to Bet Yosef the commandment in our epoch is for the writing of both the Written Law and the Oral Law. Perishah maintains that the commandment mandates the transcription of sacred writ for purposes of study explicitly. Moreover, according to Perishah the commandment mandates the transcription of any Torah work which will be used for study purposes, whether the work be a Bible, Gemara or commentary, but does not encompass a parchment scroll which is to be "placed in the synagogue to be read from in public" rather than used for purposes of study.
Various authorities rule that it is not necessary to write an entire Sefer Torah in order to fulfill the mizvah.4See Rambam, Hilkhot Sefer Torah 7:1; Rema and Taz, Yoreh De‘ah 470:1; and Minḥat Ḥinnukh, no. 613. Cf., however, Sha’agat Aryeh, no. 34. According to their view the obligation may be discharged by writing even a single letter of the Torah. This ruling is based upon the reasoning that a Sefer Torah lacking even a single letter is incomplete and hence, properly speaking, is not a Sefer Torah. It would appear that this principle is equally applicable according to the ruling of Rosh that the obligation is to be discharged by writing other works. Hence, according to Rosh, the mizvah may be fulfilled by transcribing a portion of a sacred book as well.
Indeed, it may be argued that the mizvah is fulfilled in the optimum manner by committing Torah novellae to writing. Since "Even that which a conscientious student will one day teach in the presence of his master was already told to Moses at Sinai" (Palestinian Talmud, Pe'ah 2:4) the Torah is, in a fundamental sense, incomplete until that novellum has been formulated.5Cf., Sefer Ḥasidim, no. 570: “Anyone to whom the Holy One, blessed be He, reveals a matter and he does not write it even though he is able to write, [that person] steals from Him who revealed [the matter] to him. For He revealed to him only that he might write.” See also Brit Olam, ad loc. In a kabbalistic vein, R. Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin writes that just as the original act of creation took place through Torah so is creation continually renewed through formulation of Torah novellae. Those novellae when endowed with permanence through transcription constitute “eternal life.” R. Zadok ha-Kohen further comments that an individual may have been created specifically in order to serve as the medium through which a particular insight is revealed. Hence, if that individual fails to transmit this insight orally to his students or to record it in writing for posterity he may be required to undergo reincarnation in order that this telos be achieved. See Maḥshevot Ḥaruẓ (New York, 5715), pp. 113-114. Committing such novallae to writing is, then, a completion of the transcription of the Torah. Accordingly, it follows that, fundamentally, an author writes for his own benefit,6I am indebted to my son for pointing out that committing Torah novellae to writing redounds to the author’s benefit in another sense as well. The Gemara, Menaḥot 99b, declares that one who forgets even a single detail of Torah transgresses a negative commandment. R. Moshe Sternbuch, Mo‘adim u-Zemanim, VIII, Introduction, cites a statement of R. Chaim of Volozhin to the effect that this prohibition applied only when the Oral Law was as yet not committed to writing. Under such circumstances there was reason to fear that any matter, once forgotten, would not be transmitted to subsequent generations. However, declared R. Chaim of Volozhin, once the Oral Law has been committed to writing it is readily available for posterity. Rabbi Sternbuch observes that one who does not commit his own insights to writing places himself in the position of causing them to be forgotten. Such insights, once formulated, constitute an integral part of the Oral Law and hence are subsumed under the prohibition “Only take heed to yourself and keep your soul diligently lest you forget” (Deuteronomy 4:9). for his writing constitutes the optimal fulfillment of his personal commandment "And now write unto yourselves this song and teach it to the children of Israel."
The steadily increasing intense interest in rabbinic scholarship in this country joins authors and audiences in the noblest of endeavors, the study of Torah. From time immemorial Jews have experienced the study of Torah as the greatest of all possible pleasures, as a delight which gives purpose to life and overshadows all manner of trial and tribulation. In the words of the Psalmist, "Unless Thy Torah had been my delight, I should have perished in my affliction" (Pslams 119:92).
In America, to our great dismay, this has not always been the case. Striving to dissuade his coreligionists from emigrating to the United States, Hafez Hayyim wrote, "… we see in the crucible of experience that the children who are careful to walk in the paths of their fathers are very, very few, particularly children who are born there; for, as is known, it is not possible to educate them there in the path of Torah or in the obligations of a Jew."7Shem Olam, Kuntres Nefuẓot Yisra’el, chap. 2; see also ibid., chap. 9. The greatest cause for an optimistic reassessment of the future of Judaism in America is the resurgence of Torah study in this generation. Once again, young and old are joined in a preoccupation that links generations in the shared pleasure of Torah study not merely as a quest for information but as an end in itself. To paraphrase the words of the blessing recited each morning: May the words of Torah always be sweet to our mouths and to the mouths of all of Israel; may we and our children and our children's children, as well as the children of the entire people of Israel, ever be students of Torah for its own sake.
Cf., however, R. Solomon Schreiber, Hut ha-Meshulash he-Hadash (Tel Aviv, 5723), p. 19, who records the reason advanced by the renowned R. Nathan Adler of Frankfurt am Main for not having recorded his Torah novellae. Dispensation to commit the Oral Law to writing is predicated upon our inability to remember its contents without a written record. R. Nathan Adler possessed a prodigious memory. Claiming that he had never forgotten any item of Torah knowledge, R. Nathan Adler declared that, for him, the prohibition against recording the Oral Law remained in full effect since there was no danger that he might forget.