Tell me more ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 10 down vote favorite
1

What are the halachic issues with Silk-screened sifrei torah? I am interested in a summary of concise halakhic rulings of multiple authorities on the prohibition or permissibility of HaRav Yitzchak Abadi's innovation of silk screen sifrei torah. Please provide piskei halacha, and I prefer that the shitot ha-poskim come from reputable sources.

(As always, CYLOR before you make any decisions.)

share|improve this question
According to this webpage, HaRav's name is spelt Yitzchok, not Yitzchak. – Adam Mosheh Jul 22 '12 at 20:57
I see YitzchAk on that site. – Double AA♦ Jul 22 '12 at 21:01
I'm sorry, I meant the website of the picture quoted from Wikipedia. Either way. – Adam Mosheh Jul 22 '12 at 21:02
One benefit of silk-screened sifrei torah is that their lesser price can greatly reduce tircha de-tzibbura. – Adam Mosheh Jul 22 '12 at 21:04

3 Answers

up vote 8 down vote

Rav Belsky, on page 9 of Shulchan Halevi (English version), explains that while theoretically silk-screening could be kosher for writing Stam, there are some issues which can come up. He mentions that forgeries would increase, and there there could be a problem of kesidran ("written in order," which Teffilin and Mezuzah require).

Then he brings an issue with sirtut (line indents under the letters to help guide the sofer to keep the letters in a straight line) - that Mezuzah needs it, and even according to many shittos a sefer Torah needs it. It could be a problem according to Rabbi Akiva Eiger in Shailos and Tshuvos Siman 50.

He ends with the famous idea "chadasha assur min HaTorah" (anything new is forbidden). To revolutionize the way a mitzvah is to be performed or prepared, the initiative has to come from the Gedolei Hador, not from any single individual.

It is best to see it inside since I did not fully elaborate on the topic.

share|improve this answer
2  
Chodosh actually is assur min haTorah but no one ever cares to use that phrase the way it was originally meant to be used. – Double AA♦ Jul 23 '12 at 1:24
1  
Are you suggesting this change is not coming from Gedolei Yisrael? – Double AA♦ Jul 23 '12 at 1:25
2  
@doubleaa, if I'm not mistaken, the innovator of the term in its, ahem, new usage, is the Ch"S, who certainly knew of its "original" meaning, and was making a play on words. – Seth J Jul 23 '12 at 1:36
4  
@SethJ AFAIK you are correct. I'm not complaining that he made a pun; only that no one gets that it is a pun. – Double AA♦ Jul 23 '12 at 1:36
1  
You don't think R' Belsky gets that it was a pun? I think that, although it was a pun, the Ch"S meant it very seriously, as do the Gedolim who have followed. – Seth J Jul 23 '12 at 1:40
show 12 more comments
up vote 9 down vote

R. J.D. Bleich covered this topic in a recent Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature [paywall]. In the article he discusses a number of possible issues that have been raised with Silk-screen Sifrei Torah, but says that most of them are not so strong. He says there is one serious objection where the burden of proof falls on the innovators to show that it is OK:

The issue is the halacha in the gemara that says that the ink cannot be spilled or dripped. When the ink is pressed by a scribe, is that considered spilling/dripping and therefore is passul?

P.S. A video of the process is available on YouTube.

share|improve this answer
2  
@AdamMosheh That is a tautology. – Double AA♦ Jul 22 '12 at 20:52
1  
In order to improve your answer, could you please add some of the specific issues that R. J.D. Bleich raises? – Adam Mosheh Jul 22 '12 at 20:52
3  
Rabbi Abadi preempts this argument and deals with it at length in the teshuva that I cited (and I would expect one to properly read the teshuva before posing difficulties with its final outcome). R. Bleich is certainly entitled to disagree; my point is mainly to clarify that the issue presented in this answer is not something R. Abadi hasn't considered. – Dov F Jul 22 '12 at 21:00
2  
@DovF Thank you for pointing that out. Perhaps if you could summarize some of the main points of the Teshuva in your answer it would better help people understand the machloket. – Double AA♦ Jul 23 '12 at 1:48
1  
@ArielK And R Abadi feels R Bleich's argument is not convincing enough. I wouldn't call it a Safek just yet. If R Abadi is your posek, use it. If not, don't. This machloket is fresh enough that your LOR will still possibly be willing to paskin for you. – Double AA♦ Jul 23 '12 at 1:49
show 6 more comments
up vote 3 down vote

Rav Abadi's original teshuva can be found here.

share|improve this answer
1  
I am looking for rulings from multiple authorities. – Adam Mosheh Jul 22 '12 at 20:37
6  
@AdamMosheh One is part of multiple. – Double AA♦ Jul 22 '12 at 20:40
3  
NOTE If anyone has learned through this teshuva before please edit in a summary of his main points. – Double AA♦ Jul 23 '12 at 14:40

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.