Hakham Faur S"t in Golden Doves With Silver Dots p. However, it is important to note, that while he does indeed indicates that the prohibition is still active, and is merely held in abeyance by appropriate exceptions, this statement is made in the somewhat flowery beginning of the responsum, and not as part of an involved halakhic discussion.įurthermore, it is certainly a minority view. He writes that one who publishes a work with ulterior motives, violates the injunction against recording the Oral Law, which is only permitted for one with the intention of acting for the sake of God. One can certainly question how compelling this argument is, given that writing is a crucial way of conveying information to future generations, but regardless a very similar statement is actually made by his student Hattam Soffer, in a responsum to R.
![eis laasos eis laasos](https://cdn.dryveup.com/dryve.banners/zSlQreEhnu.Zg0Yu8tcJE.jpg)
for example Yalkut Yossef: Pesukei D'zimra V'kriat Sh'ma notes to chapter 49) This is also mentioned by the K'tav Sofer's son in Hut HaMeshulash (p. Nattan Adler, the mentor of the Hattam Soffer, was indeed of the opinion that the Oral Law may only be written to avoid it being forgotten, and he, who would remember it anyway, was not permitted to write it. These poskim rally support to their opinion from the fact that Rav Saadya Gaon wrote sefarim in Arabic, including commentaries on Tanach (Ran, Shabbos Chapter 16).īoth opinions agree that it is prohibited to publish translations of Tanach that will not be used to spread Torah knowledge (Ran, Shabbos Chapter 16). Thus, they permit writing a single parsha in order to teach Torah (Taz 283:1 Shach 283:3) and the translating of Tanach into any language. Other poskim permit the writing of any Torah that one uses to learn. In addition, this opinion prohibits the printing of a parsha of Chumash in order to teach Torah, since one could write or print the entire sefer (Rambam, Hilchos Sefer Torah 7:14 Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 283:2). This opinion also prohibits translating Tanach into any language other than the original Aramaic Targum because proper translations constitute Torah She’ba’al Peh.
![eis laasos eis laasos](https://images.hamodia.com/hamod-uploads/2020/03/raffle-2.png)
According to this opinion, it is prohibited to write or print even tefillos that include pasukim that are not intended for learning Torah (Rif and Milchemes Hashem, Shabbos Chapter 16). This is a dispute among early poskim, some contending that it is permitted to write only as much as is necessary to prevent Torah from being forgotten. To what extent did they override the original prohibition? We see that in order to facilitate Torah learning, Chazal permitted the writing of the Oral Torah and parts of the books of the Written Torah. The author there brings the gemara (Gittin 60a) regarding Chazal's exeptions to the rule of not writing down Torah Shebaal Peh and fragments of Torah Shebiksav based on "עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך", then the dispute between poskim: There is a discussion of this topic here.