Q & A: Relative Sanctity Of Various Holy Books (Part II)

Question: Because of the Torah’s sanctity, we do not place any object on a Torah scroll except for its mantle or a tallit during Torah reading. Is it a violation to put a siddur or other sefer (holy book) on top of a printed Chumash when these are placed on shelves or tables?

Alex Poultman
Via Email

Synopsis: My uncle HaRav Sholom Klass, zt”l, citing his rebbi, HaRav David HaKohen Leibowitz, zt”l, (in Responsa of Modern Judaism Vol. II p.532) explained that one may place a siddur on a Chumash because the siddur contains portions from all parts of the Tanach. There is a deferential order of sanctity assigned to seforim, as indicated in Megilla (27a). The Torah is the holiest, upon which no seforim are placed. A scroll including one or all of the Chumashim may be placed upon scrolls of the Neviim (Prophets) as well as the Ketuvim (Writings) that make up the Hagiographia. The Mechaber (Yoreh De’ah 282:19, 283:1) rules accordingly, and explains that a scroll binding the five books of the Pentateuch together still does not achieve the status of a Torah scroll and may not be placed upon a Torah; however, it may be placed on the Prophets and Writings. Rema reminds us in his glosses that this only applies to scrolls, and with our bound books there is no difference in sanctity between a Chumash and a Navi sefer. Siddurim are not mentioned in the Gemara as they were not used at that time.

* * *

Answer: Birkei Yosef (Yoreh De’ah 282:19) cites Rambam (according to Rabbeinu Avraham, son of the Rambam, cited by Sefer Ma’aseh Rokeach) who was strictly opposed to binding together the Nevi’im and Ketuvim as one. His reason was that they will then appear to be of higher sanctity than the Chumashim. He also did not allow the writing of the Targum (Onkelos) or a commentary (perhaps he means one translated into the common vernacular) to be included in the same binding. Finally, he notes the view of Mordechai, who opines that reading publicly from our Chumashim instead of from Torahs would not be a denigration. Even though we don’t do so, it is obvious that, in his view, there is no prohibition against binding them – Nevi’im and Ketuvim – together.

Aruch HaShulchan (Yoreh De’ah 282: sk 22) adds an important dimension to the discussion. If the five scrolls were written originally with the intent of Kedushat Sefer Torah and then they were subsequently divided, they no longer possess the complete sanctity of a Sefer Torah to read from them to fulfill the congregational requirement. Surely, then, when Chumashim are not written with kedusha intent, and further are written on paper (as opposed to animal parchment), and even more so when printed, one may put Nevi’im and Ketuvim on top of each other in any order.

Aruch HaShulchan cites a support to his statement from Rashi (Megilla 27a s.v. “Chumashim”) who refers to such a Chumash that is only one of the five books as a “Sefer Torah that only has one Chumash” [of the five]. Thus even though Rashi considers it to be a “Sefer Torah,” we nevertheless may place one on top of the other. He notes that Ran is of the same view. Finally, he cites Rema (infra Yoreh Deah 283:1) who openly refers to printed texts as all being of equal sanctity. Aruch HaShulchan thus notes that in this case one may freely place one Chumash on top of the other. And surely if they are bound together, it is not even considered as if one was placed on top of the other.

The Gaon Rabbi Menashe Klein (Responsa Mishneh Halachot vol.7:182) was asked whether seforim that are printed with an English (lingua franca) text facing the original Hebrew pose a problem when being closed, for in doing so one is placing the Hebrew text face down. The reason for this difficulty is based in Rema (supra Yoreh Deah 282:5), “One is not allowed to place [any holy texts] facing down, and if one finds it so placed there is a requirement to turn it over.”

He notes that this an not a new issue but one that traces back to Europe, where seforim were very often published with a Yiddish or any other local language teitch (translation). He adds that usually the style was that the Hebrew text was on the top part of the page and the teitch on the lower part. This was probably done to obviate this problem.

He essentially goes through many issues discussed here and concludes that since they are all bound together, there is no problem. He also notes that even where there is no translation, since a page is printed on both sides, we end up placing some of the text upside-down. Thus, to do so is considered common practice.

He concludes that not only was there never any reluctance to print in that manner, but further there was always a firm practice never to overturn a sefer when laying it down.