Halakhah su Giudici 5:14

The Palestinian Talmud declares that such a procedure does not constitute "writing." Rabbi Abadi, Or Yizḥak, no. 53, sec. 3, asserts that only a procedure of this nature is excluded by the exegetical declaration "but not spill." That principle, he asserts, does not exclude "pushing" ink in order to form letters. Nevertheless, it seems evident that the rationale reflected in the comment of the Palestinian Talmud "but not drip" is that letters formed without direction, i.e., by merely dribbling a substance capable of arranging itself into words without the hand motions involved in normal writing, is not a form of "writing" for purposes of Halakhah.⁶R. David Friedman of Karlin, Teshuvot She’ilat David, I, no. 7, sec. 2, published in idem, Piskei Halakhot, vol. I, rejects the use of a printing press for such purposes because of this comment of the Palestinian Talmud. Earlier scholars, including R. Moses of Provenςal, Teshuvot R. Mosheh Provenςal, no. 73, ruled that a printing press may not be used because the metal letters may cause “etching” or “engraving” (ḥakikah) by means of indentation of the parchment. See also Teshuvot Maharashdam, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 184. It was feared that the printing press would cause depressions in the writing surface in the form of letters. It is because of that consideration that a metal pen is not utilized for such purposes (see Rema, Even ha-Ezer 125:4) and it is for that reason that Rema, Yoreh De‘ah 271, prefers use of a reed rather than a quill. However, Taz, Yoreh De‘ah 271:8, and others express astonishment to the raising of that objection on the grounds that: 1) “engraving” is a recognized form of “writing” (although Torah scrolls etc. require inked letters); and 2) assuming that the letters are indeed impressed upon the writing surface by the printing press and that those letters do not constitute writing, nevertheless, filling those depressions with ink would constitute a valid form of writing no less so than if the ink is applied to a smooth surface. If so, argues Taz, pressing inked letters upon paper or parchment should be regarded as a proper form of writing, “for what difference is there whether he presses the pen against the paper or the paper against the letters of lead.” [Cf., however, R. Abraham I. Kook, Da‘at Kohen, no. 160, who maintain that writing must be in the nature of “moshkhim be-shevet sofer—drawing with the staff of a scribe” (Judges 5:14). Da‘at Kohen would presumably concede that “drawing with the staff” is not to be taken literally since “etching” is indeed a recognized form of writing. The difference then must be in precisely the concept negated by Taz, i.e., between pressing the inked letters against paper and pressing the paper against the letters.] Because of that objection Get Pashut, Even ha-Ezer 125:15, went so far as to develop the highly improbable thesis that the authorities who forbade use of such a process because it constitutes a form of “etching” did so only if the indentations are not filled in with ink. Cf., however, Teshuvot Zera Emet, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 117, and R. Ben-Zion Meir Chai Uziel, Mishpetei Uzi’el, Yoreh De‘ah, Mahadura Tinyana, no. 78, sec. 2, who rebut that suggestion.
She’ilat David explains the nature of the objection in a novel manner. She’ilat David expresses the view that transfer of ink from the letter of a press to a writing surface simply by applying pressure, since it involves no hand motion, is tantamount to “spilling.” (Cf., the comment of Da‘at Kohen cited in the previous paragraph.) He compares the process to forming a letter out of some material and then attaching it to the parchment. She’ilat David regards such a procedure as invalid because it represents a form of “spilling.”
Alternatively, suggests She’ilat David, the printing press may make depressions in the parchment in the form of letters. Although “engraving” is indeed a halakhically acceptable form of “writing,” nevertheless, the depressions made by the printing press are likely to be minimal in nature and the writing surface would soon return to its original smooth state; hence, such “engraved” letters would not constitute “writing” because they lack durability and permanence. The ink transferred to the paper or parchment, he asserts, would not itself constitute “writing” under such conditions because it is “thrown” or “spilled” into the previously formed depressions. She’ilat David further observes that, assuming that the depressed letters are indeed of a nature that constitutes a valid form of writing, that writing becomes invalid in the printing process: The ink cast into the “engraved” letters constitutes a “writing” superimposed upon the previous writing. The superimposed “writing,” because it is in the nature of a “spilling” which is an invalid form of writing, serves to negate the original “writing.” Thus, it is because of the fact that the printing press may cause ḥakikah that the transferred ink is rendered an invalid form of writing because it is “spilled” into those depressions.
Also, contrary to Taz, Get Pashut 125:15, and others, She’ilat David asserts that “the manner of writing” requires that ink be brought to bear upon the writing surface to the exclusion of a process that causes the writing surface to come into contact with the ink. Accordingly, She’ilat David suggests that, rather than force the type against the paper, a printing press may force the paper against the type. Hence, if that indeed is the manner in which the printing process is carried out, the process is not “in the manner of writing.”
For this writer’s understanding of the concern expressed by Taz and R. Moshe Provenςal, see infra, note 13. More fundamentally, the exclusion "but not spill" certainly seems to connote the pouring of ink in a manner that allows the ink to form itself into letters. The silk screen process certainly falls within that category.

Rabbi Gross observes that the silk screen method does not really employ a stencil that allows the letter to be filled in on the underlying parchment in its entirety. Instead it utilizes a series of holes in the screen through which the ink drips onto the parchment. Contiguous letters are the result of a bleeding process, i.e., a series of dots are formed and later merge into a complete letter. Rabbi Gross notes that, unlike Korban ha-Edah in his commentary to the Palestinian Talmud, ad locum, Teshuvot Sho'el u-Meshiv, Mahadura Kamma, III, no. 102, asserts that the Palestinian Talmud disqualifies the get only if the drops of ink were originally significantly distanced from one another but not if they are placed so close to one another as to appear in the guise of a letter. Nevertheless, Rabbi Gross maintains that even such letters are rendered acceptable only if the dots are connected by means of a pen but are unacceptable if the dots merge of their own accord to fill the page. Rabbi Abadi, Or Yizḥak, no. 53, sec. 3, responds to that objection by contending that the silk screen method does not cause letters to be formed by means of bleeding which serves to connect tiny droplets of ink. Rather, he insists, although the ink penetrates between the strands of the silk screen drop by drop, the ink emerges onto the parchment, not as droplets, but as a complete letter.⁹It is for these reasons, i.e., because the method involves “spilling” or “dripping,” that the silk screen process is less acceptable than a lithograph or printing process. Cf., however, Melekhet Shamayim, Binah 6:12 and Keset ha-Sofer, Lishkat ha-Sofer 28:2, who regard the printing process as also constituting a form of “dripping.” On the other hand, quite apart from Rabbi Abadi’s peremptory dismissal of Rabbi Kook’s view, ibid., sec. 4, the objection to use of printing methods raised by Da‘at Kohen, no. 160, viz., that writing must be in the nature of “moshkhim be-shevet sofer–drawing with the staff of a scribe” (Judges 5:14) does not seem to be applicable to the silk screen process which employs a squeegee. See also R. Abraham David of Buczacz, Da‘at Kedoshim (Lemberg, 5656), in his comments on Bnei Yonah, 271:6, sec. 9.
Although perhaps surprising to present-day students of Halakhah, there were noted authorities who regarded the early, manually operated printing press to be acceptable for the production of sacred artifacts provided, of course, that an acceptable type of ink is used and that the text is printed on parchment rather than on paper. The earliest authorities to address the status of books produced by means of a printing press were Italian authorities, R. Menachem Azaryah of Fano, Teshuvot Rema mi-Panu, no. 93, and R. Moses Provenςal, Teshuvot R. Mosheh Provenςal, I, no. 73. Those responsa were written during the early days of the printing press when Italy was the major center of Hebrew printing and address the issue of whether printed volumes are endowed with the sanctity of Holy Writ. [For later discussions of that issue see R. Daniel Trani, Ikkarei Ha-Dat, Oraḥ Ḥayyim no. 8, sec. 12; Afikei Meginim 32:43, sec. 36 (introduction); R. Isaac Elchanan Spektor, Teshuvot Ein Yiẓḥak, nos. 5–7; R. Naphtali Zevi Judah Berlin, Teshuvot Meshiv Davar, II, no. 80; R. David Zevi Hoffmann, Teshuvot Melammed le-Ho’il, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 89; Iggerot Mosheh, IV, no. 40, sec. 10; and Sedei Ḥemed, Pe’at ha-Sadeh, Kellalim, Ma‘arekhet ha-Kaf, klal 12.] Rema mi-Panu and R. Moses Provenςal disagreed with regard to this matter. Rema mi-Panu, as understood by most authorities, regarded the printing process to be comparable to writing while R. Moses Provenςal deemed the process to be an unacceptable form of “gouging” or whittling. Magen Avraham 32:57; Get Pashut 125:15; Mas’at Binyamin, no. 99; and Pri Ḥadash, Even ha-Ezer 125:4, are among the authorities who ascribe a negative position with regard to use of a printing press for such purposes to Teshuvot Rema mi-Panu, no. 93. Cf., however, Teshuvot Zera Emet, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 117 and R. Ben-Zion Meir Chai Uziel, Mishpetei Uzi’el, Yoreh De‘ah, Mahadura Tinyana, no. 78, sec. 2 and idem., Piskei Uzi’el, no. 31.
Teshuvot Mas’at Binyamin, no. 99 and Maharaẓ Ḥayes, Yoma 38a, are cited by Rabbi Gross as sanctioning use of a printing process. That is also the position of Taz, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 284:2 and Yoreh De‘ah 271:8; Bet Shmu’el, Even ha-Ezer 125:3; Eliyahu Rabbah, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 284:1; Be’er Heitev, Yoreh De‘ah 271:8; and R. Issachor Ber Katz whose view is expressed in a responsum appended to Likkutei Ha-Pardes le-Rashi (Amsterdam, 5475), p. 25.
R. Yom Tov Lippman Heller, renowned as the author of Tosafot Yom Tov, in his comments on Rosh, Hilkhot Tefillin 8:23, unequivocally endorses use of the printing press “for every matter that requires writing.” Magen Avraham 32:57, as well as 284:8, is in basic agreement with the opinion of the authorities who endorse the use of a printing press. Nevertheless, despite his refusal to disqualify the printing process as a valid form of “writing,” Magen Avraham discourages use of a printing press for production of Torah scrolls. Magen Avraham, however, rules printed tefillin and mezuzot to be invalid because the letters of the latter must be written in consecutive order. Magen Avraham asserts that it is impossible to assure that such will be the case if a printing process is employed because not all portions of the paper come into simultaneous contact with the metal letters. See also R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yeḥaveh Da‘at, VI, no. 59. The identical position is advanced by R. Eleazar Fleckles, Teshuvah me-Ahavah, III, no. 391, who astonishingly remarks that “no decisor ever noticed” the point.
In apparent disagreement with Magen Avraham, Iggerot Mosheh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, IV, no. 40, sec. 10, asserts that simultaneous transcription, e.g., by means of photography, does not satisfy the requirement of consecutiveness. Da‘at Kohen, no. 160, expresses doubt with regard to this matter insofar as the validity of tefillin and mezuzot is concerned. See, however, Afikei Meginim 32:43, Bi’urim, sec. 35 (3), cited infra, note 20, who asserts that even Magen Avraham would accept simultaneous transcription as satisfying the requirement for consecutive writing.
A permissive view with regard to the inherent validity of the printing process is also adopted by Pri Ḥadash, Even ha-Ezer 125:4 [Cf., however, Pri Ḥadash, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691:6, as noted by Matteh Yehudah, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691:6 and Sedei Ḥemed, II, Ma‘arekhet ha-Dalet, sec. 48. Yeḥaveh Da‘at, VI, no. 57, regards Pri Ḥadash’s acceptance of printing processes as limited to the drafting of a get.]; Teshuvot Panim Me’irot, I, no. 6; Teshuvot Be’er Sheva, no. 43; R. Jacob Emden, Mor u-Keẓi’ah 32; idem, Migdal Oz, Even Boḥen 2:30; Knesset Yeḥezkel, no. 37; Rav Pe‘alim, II, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 24; Erekh ha-Shulḥan, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691:1; Maḥaẓit ha-Shekel, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 490:9 and 559:1; Arukh ha-Shulḥan, Yoreh De‘ah 271:39 and Even ha-Ezer 125:37; Ikkarei ha-Dat, Hilkhot Sefer Torah 31:5; Petaḥ ha-Devir, I, 32:10, II, Kuntres Shenayim Yeshalem 32:39 and IV, 289f; and R. Yitzchak Pelaggi, Yafeh le-Lev, I, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 32:7 and III, Yoreh De‘ah 271:2. Yafeh le-Lev, however, rules that use of a printing press is valid only post factum. See also Paḥad Yiẓḥak, II, s.v. defus.
As noted by Arukh ha-Shulḥan, Yoreh De‘ah 271:39 and Even ha-Ezer 125:37, as well as by Yeḥaveh Da‘at, VI, no. 57, those authorities permit only use of a manual flat-bed press operated by a Jew. The additional problems presented by use of a rotary press powered by electricity in which there is no manual impression of inked letters upon the printed page could not have been addressed by the many scholars who considered the matter before the advent of electricity. See also Da‘at Kohen, no. 160 and R. Samuel ha-Levi Woszner, Teshuvot Shevet ha-Levi, IV, no. 158. Cf., Sedei Ḥemed, VII, Ma‘arekhet Ḥameẓ u-Maẓah, sec. 13; Teshuvot Maharsham, II, no. 16; Teshuvot Yerushat Peleitah, no. 4; Teshuvot Ereẓ Ẓevi, II, no. 72; and R. Shlomoh Zalman Braun, She‘arim Meẓuyanim be-Halakhah, I, 47:13, note 4 and ibid., III, 110:15, note 23. For sources discussing use of electricity in instances in which a human act is required, e.g., the baking of maẓah and the fashioning of ẓiẓit, see R. Levi Yitzchak Halperin, Ha-Ḥashmal be-Halakhah, I (Jerusalem, 5738), 69–135.
[It seems to be the case that the many authorities, including Magen Avraham, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 284:8 and Taz, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 284:3, who sanction use of a printed text for the reading of the haftorah permit only the use of a text printed on a flat-bed press manually operated by a Jew. Since these authorities sanction use of a printed text only because they recognize printing as a form of “writing,” it would follow that any form of printing that does not involve a direct human act as the proximate cause of the production of the printed text is in the nature of a gerama, i.e., an indirect cause, and is accordingly disqualified because it is not an act of writing directly performed by a human being.
This is apparently the view of R. Joseph Shalom Eliashiv as reported in his name in He‘arot le-Masekhet Gittin (Jerusalem, 5763), p. 77. Rabbi Eliashiv is reported to have remarked that he is unaware of a basis for reading the haftorah from a printed text “in our day” when printing is carried out by means of electricity. A second objection recorded in that work in the name of Rabbi Eliashiv is based upon the fact that the prophetic works are printed on paper rather than on parchment. Magen Avraham, however, explicitly sanctions utilization of works printed on paper for the reading of the haftorah.]
R. Zevi Hirsch Chajes, in his glosses to Yoma 38a, makes the astonishing claim that at least a rudimentary type of printing was known and used during the tana’itic period. The Mishnah, Yoma 38a, reports that a certain Ben Kamzar was severely censured by the Sages because he was adroit in executing a certain method of writing but refused to impart it to others. The Gemara, Yoma 38b, amplifies that report in stating that Ben Kamzar was able to seize four reeds between his fingers and write four different letters simultaneously. Rashi explains that this procedure represents the optimal method of printing the Divine Name. [R. Abraham ben Mordecai ha-Levi, Teshuvot Ginat Veradim, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, klal 2, no. 10, s.v. aḥar kakh, explains that simultaneous writing of the full letters of the Divine Name constitutes symbolic affirmation of the unitary nature of the Deity.] Maharatz Chajes questions the plausibility of a literal reading of that account and explains that the reference must be to four letters each cast in the form of a separate press or stamp that could be held between the fingers and wielded simultaneously in order to form four printed letters. The point is reiterated by Rabbi Chajes in his Teshuvot Maharaẓ Ḥayes, no. 11. In that responsum, Maharatz Chajes notes that an empty space of the width of a letter in the middle of a word serves to disqualify a Torah scroll. If reeds were held by Ben Kamzar between his fingers, the space between the letters would have been greater than the width of a letter. Accordingly, argues Maharatz Chajes, the “reeds” held between his fingers must have been lead stamps broad enough not to leave gaps between the letters. Although Maharatz Chajes’ point is well taken, it is entirely likely that the singular skill of Ben Kamzar included the ability to wield the reeds between his fingers in a manner that enabled him to write broad letters so that there were no resultant gaps. Rabbi Abadi, Or Yiẓḥak, no. 53, sec. 4, reports that an alternative explanation of the process employed by Ben Kamzar is presented by Yonat Elem, II, no. 31. Unfortunately, this writer has been unable to identify that work.
Among the many authorities who rule that printing may not be employed in the production of Torah scrolls and the like are Teshuvot R. Mosheh Provenςal, I, no. 73; Baḥ, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691; Teshuvot Ḥavvot Ya’ir, nos. 16, 109 and 184; Shiyarei Knesset ha-Gedolah, Hagahot Bet Yosef, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691:15; Levush, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 284:1; Eliyahu Rabbah, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691:5; Bnei Yonah, Kiẓur Arukh, no. 271, p. 2b and Pilpul Arukh, no. 271, pp. 14a-15a; Birkei Yosef, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 691:1 and Yoreh De‘ah 282:1; Teshuvah me-Ahavah, III, no. 391; Teshuvot Maharam Shik, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 6; Hagahot R. Akiva Eger, Yoreh De‘ah 271:9; Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 64; Siaḥ Sofer, Binat Adam 1:1; Ikkrei ha-Dat, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 36:35; Keset ha-Sofer, Lishkat ha-Sofer 28:2 and 28:7; Sha‘arei Efrayim 7:59; Petaḥ ha-Dvir, II, 7a and III, 28a; Teshuvot Maharsham, III, no. 357; Be’erot ha-Mayim, no. 13; Ḥemdat Yamim, I, no. 12; Bnei Ḥayyei, no. 281, p. 63b; Teshuvot Ẓofnat Pa’aneaḥ, II, no. 26; Ḥazon Ish, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 156: le-siman 284; Da‘at Kohen, no. 160; Piskei Uzi’el, no. 31; Yabi‘a Omer, III, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 21, sec. 4; Yeḥaveh Da’at, VI, no. 57; and Ḥazon Ovadiah: Purim, sec. 16. See also Afikei Meginim 32:43, Bi’urim, sec. 35.
For a comprehensive survey of the literature regarding use of the printing process for these purposes see Yitzchak Ze’ev Kahana, Meḥkarim be-Sifrut ha-Teshuvot (Jerusalem, 5733), pp. 272–305. See also Abraham Berliner, Ketavim Nivḥarim (Jerusalem, 5729), II, 118–124.
Photographic processes are explicitly decried by a number of authorities, including inter alia, Teshuvot Maharsham, III, no. 357; Teshuvot Ẓofnat Pa’aneaḥ, II, no. 26; Teshuvot Mishpetei Uzi’el, Yoreh De‘ah, Mahadura Tinyana, no. 78; Teshuvot Yabi‘a Omer, IV, Yoreh De’ah, no. 21, sec. 4; Yeḥaveh Da’at, VI, no. 57; Iggerot Mosheh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, IV, no. 40, sec. 10; and Teshuvot Shevet ha-Levi, IV, no. 158. See also Teshuvot Bet Av, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 26; Teshuvot Maharsham, III, no. 357, and Teshuvot Yabi‘a Omer, IV, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 21, sec. 4.