Sacred Articles and Their Laws - Rabbi Eyal Peled shlita

00:02 Speaker 1 You’re listening to “Lema’an Yishme’u,” a podcast from the Chabad Halacha Institute.

00:09 Speaker 2 Greetings to all our dear viewers. Continuing our discussion of the laws of the shul, we’ve spoken about various laws concerning its sanctity: preserving that sanctity, the prohibition against planting, the prohibition against selling it, conduct in the shul, and so on. Today we’ll address a very broad subject that branches into a number of laws and issues: articles that serve sacred objects. Apart from the sanctity of a shul, there are various kinds of articles that serve sacred objects, and many laws about how to treat them—what may and may not be done with them, and what may and may not be done in their presence. This branches into several areas. So perhaps we’ll start with the well-known, common rule that we ascend in holiness and do not descend. With articles that serve sacred objects, this applies quite literally. As we’ll see, objects have different levels of holiness. I have to make sure that objects with a certain level of holiness remain at that level or rise to a higher one, and that their holiness is not lowered. Regarding this rule against lowering their holiness, there is some disagreement among the halachic authorities about whether it is a Torah law or a rabbinic law when it comes to articles serving sacred objects. It seems that the Alter Rebbe’s ruling is that it depends. In the Alter Rebbe’s view, things that possess holiness, such as property dedicated to the upkeep of the Beis Hamikdash or the sanctity of the altar, for which the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property applies, are also subject to the Torah prohibition against lowering their holiness. But all the other articles serving sacred objects that are, seemingly, the ones we encounter today are not subject to that prohibition of misuse. Consequently, the rule against lowering their holiness is rabbinic. But of course, the words of the Sages are treated with even greater stringency than the words of the Torah. We’ll see that there are nevertheless some aspects that also involve Torah obligations. So perhaps we’ll start

02:47 Speaker 2 with the levels of holiness. There are several levels, but before we actually begin with them, perhaps we should add that alongside the law against lowering holiness, there is another law: objects that possess holiness must be protected. We must preserve their holiness, not strip them of it or cause them to be damaged or destroyed. As a result, we’ll see that there is an obligation to place sacred objects and materials in genizah. And this law is indeed from the Torah. The Pri Megadim says we learn it from the verses, “You shall destroy their names,” and so on, and “You shall not do so to Hashem your G-d.” This applies not only to holy names but also to sacred objects. Perhaps later we’ll also see what kind of holiness is meant. But in general, this law of protecting sacred materials and not allowing them to be damaged or destroyed is indeed from the Torah. The Pri Megadim also derives it from the law obligating us to honor Torah scholars. The Gemara says, “If we stand before those who study it, how much more so before it itself.” It is speaking about a Sefer Torah. If I honor those who study Torah by standing before them—and that is a Torah obligation, “You shall honor the presence of an elder”—then all the more so must I honor the Torah itself, a Sefer Torah and the like, and treat it respectfully. That is how the Pri Megadim understands this to be a Torah obligation. Now let’s discuss the actual levels of holiness. When it comes to sacred objects, there are several levels. We’ll start like this: first, there is what is called the sacred object itself. It is not an article serving a sacred object, nor is it an article used for a mitzvah. It is the sacred object itself, the holiness itself.

05:00 Speaker 2 It has intrinsic holiness. What falls into this category of the sacred object itself? We can include, of course, a Sefer Torah, mezuzos, and tefillin. In the Alter Rebbe’s view, this also includes the tefillin boxes—specifically the box of the head tefillin. Since the letter shin, which is part of Hashem’s name, is embossed on it, the Alter Rebbe considers it a sacred object in its own right. That is what the Alter Rebbe writes in section 42 of the laws of tefillin. Holy books, of course, are considered sacred objects in their own right. In Rashi’s view, the straps are also considered sacred objects in their own right, but that is not how we rule. In any case, holy books are also considered sacred objects in their own right, even if they were written or printed by non-Jews, and even if they are written in other languages. Since they contain Torah content, they possess holiness; they are sacred objects in their own right. The Alter Rebbe also writes this in section 334 of the laws of Shabbos, where he discusses a fire that breaks out on Shabbos: we save all sacred writings, even when they are written in the script of other nations. So they possess holiness, and the same applies to Braille. The book Tzedakah Umishpat concludes that Braille is included as well. Braille is writing for the blind, and it is no less than the script of other nations, which also consists of symbols. After all, people understand and learn from it, and Braille is included too; it also possesses holiness. A holy book written in Braille possesses holiness. That is one level, called the sacred object itself. Now we’ll go on to another level. There is what is called an article serving a sacred object. Generally, this is something used in connection with the sacred object itself. So, for example, we can include in the category

07:09 Speaker 2 of the sacred object itself. As for articles serving sacred objects, these are things made to serve the sacred object—in the sense of adorning it, beautifying it, or honoring it, not in the sense of protecting it. If something was made to protect the sacred object, and that is its primary purpose—or rather, its only purpose—we do not treat it as an article serving a sacred object. We’ll see examples later. But something made to adorn, beautify, or honor the sacred object is considered an article serving it. Examples include the Aron Kodesh, the crown placed on a Sefer Torah, the cloth covering the bimah, and the wooden rollers of a Sefer Torah. All these serve the sacred object itself and are considered articles serving sacred objects. We’ll go into more detail later; for now, we’re just showing the levels involved. Then there is an accessory to an accessory of a sacred object. In other words, this is generally something that serves the article that serves the sacred object. For example, if we said that the Aron Kodesh is an article serving a sacred object, let’s take it this way: the Sefer Torah is the sacred object itself; the Aron Kodesh serves the sacred object; and the paroches that covers the Aron Kodesh is an accessory to an accessory. So the paroches has the status of an accessory to an accessory. That is just an example; we’ll continue and see more examples later. So that is an article serving a sacred object. There is another level. We’ve now discussed three levels from highest to lowest: the sacred object itself, an article serving a sacred object, and an accessory to that article. There is another category that has more to do with a mitzvah than with holiness. So we have an article used for a mitzvah, an accessory to an article used for a mitzvah, and so on. We have

09:24 Speaker 2 The mitzvah itself. In other words, a mitzvah object is something that has no inherent sanctity, but it is something with which I have performed a mitzvah. While I am performing the mitzvah with it, it has a different status—a status of sanctity. But once I have finished performing the mitzvah with it, like a tallis I have finished using, or a lulav, an esrog, and the like, it is considered a mitzvah object. Again, it is an object used to perform a mitzvah. It has no sanctity of its own, and it is not an accessory to a sacred object. I simply perform a mitzvah with it—whether it is a tallis, an esrog, a lulav, a sukkah, a shofar, or anything of that sort. After I have performed the mitzvah with these things, they are considered mitzvah objects, and their level is lower. We will go through all the details later. First, before giving examples, let us look at the halachos that apply to each of the categories mentioned. With an intrinsically sacred object, one must be very, very careful. There is a halachah regarding such an object that designation has halachic force. We will not go into that now; it is less relevant in practice. There is a stipulation, which we will discuss later, that one can make regarding an accessory to a sacred object. When a person first begins using it, he can stipulate: “I am stipulating that this item will serve me not only for sacred purposes but also for ordinary purposes.” That works. He can also stipulate that it will serve him for sacred purposes only for a certain period, after which he will use it for ordinary purposes. That works too. All these stipulations can be valid for an accessory to a sacred object,

11:32 Speaker 2 but one cannot make such a stipulation regarding an intrinsically sacred object. A stipulation does not work for it. Similarly, one cannot do anything degrading in its presence, whether that means placing filth in front of it or being undressed in front of it. We are speaking, of course, about intrinsically sacred objects: Torah scrolls, sacred books, tefillin, mezuzos, and the like. As we said, a stipulation does not work for these things, nor may I do anything degrading in their presence, because the object itself is sacred. And as we also said, the rule that designation has halachic force applies to an intrinsically sacred object. There is something else we need to know when discussing this order of intrinsically sacred objects, accessories to sacred objects, and so on: sanctity may not be lowered. The reason we have ranked these levels is to understand what it means not to lower sanctity. For example, I cannot turn an intrinsically sacred object into an accessory to a sacred object, and I cannot turn an accessory to a sacred object into an accessory to an accessory, and so on. But this halachah has an even more practical application to the money received when these sacred items are sold. The requirement not to lower their sanctity applies to the money I receive for them as well. Therefore, if I sell an accessory to a sacred object, I must use the money to purchase something of a higher level of sanctity. If, for example, I sold a crown for a Torah scroll, I would need to use that money to buy an intrinsically sacred object. That could be a mezuzah, tefillin, a sacred book, a Torah scroll, or the like.

13:47 Speaker 2 So here too, one must be careful and pay attention to the halachah that sanctity may not be lowered. Later we will discuss at length whether one may sell accessories to sacred objects, tefillin, mezuzos, intrinsically sacred objects, and so on. Now, regarding accessories to sacred objects: as we said at the outset, a stipulation works. So I can make a stipulation. When do I make it? Before I begin using the item. What the person who made the accessory had in mind does not really matter. But when I buy it, before using it, I can stipulate that it will serve me not only for sacred purposes but also for ordinary purposes. That is possible. Or I can stipulate that it will serve me for sacred purposes only for a certain period, and afterward I will use it for ordinary purposes. As we said, that is also possible. Another point: in principle, one may also do things considered degrading in the presence of accessories to sacred objects. There is no prohibition against standing undressed in front of them, placing excrement in front of them, or doing other degrading things in their presence. That is the distinction we have discussed between an intrinsically sacred object and an accessory to one. When we speak about an accessory to an accessory to a sacred object, it does not have the stringencies that apply to an accessory to a sacred object. That means I can use it for ordinary purposes—just not for degrading uses, of course. I can do things considered degrading in its presence. All the more so, if I sell an accessory to an accessory, I do not need to use the proceeds to purchase something of higher sanctity; I can buy whatever I want with the money. That is the rule for an accessory to an accessory. Mitzvah objects are at more or less the same level. As we said, we are speaking of things like a sukkah, a shofar,

15:56 Speaker 2 a lulav after the mitzvah has been performed, or a tallis and the like. These are at more or less the same level as an accessory to an accessory. They have no sanctity. There is also no obligation to place them in genizah—yes, that is another very important point. Intrinsically sacred objects and accessories to sacred objects must be placed in genizah. If I no longer want to use them, I must place them in genizah rather than let them be destroyed. But an accessory to an accessory and a mitzvah object do not require genizah. There is a restriction: I cannot throw them into a trash can in a degrading way. But there is no obligation of genizah. We will see later what to do in practice, but that is the general rule. The obligation of genizah applies only to intrinsically sacred objects and accessories to sacred objects. Some are stringent regarding an accessory to an accessory, but according to most opinions, it does not require genizah. Now let us look at some examples. As we said, intrinsically sacred objects include a Torah scroll, mezuzos, tefillin, the head-tefillin boxes as we mentioned, and sacred books—even if they were written or printed by non-Jews. We are not talking about idol worshippers, of course; ordinary non-Jews nowadays are not idol worshippers, so these books do not have the status of a Torah scroll written by a heretic. They do have sanctity, and I must see to it that they are placed in genizah. If they become worn out, I must place them in genizah, not simply throw them in the trash. As we said, according to the Magen Avraham, the obligation to preserve the sanctity of accessories to sacred objects—and all the more so of intrinsically sacred objects—is a Torah-level law. Therefore, the halachic authorities write that a person who has, say, a set of books—when nowadays, thank G-d, new editions are constantly coming out, better in their appearance and in their content, more accurately corrected—

18:07 Speaker 2 And so on, and a person wants to replace his books with newer ones. So you might think, “I can take these books and put them in genizah. There, I’ve put them in genizah; everything is fine.” But no, that’s not the right thing to do. Books that are still readable, that people can still use, that aren’t torn and show no wear should not be put in genizah. I would be causing them to be lost, so I can’t do that. The only way is either to donate them to a shul, or—as I’ve seen in some places—to simply set them out on a table in the shul, and whoever wants one takes it. Whoever wants one can take it, but they should not be put in genizah. As for selling sefarim, as we already know, sefarim themselves have inherent holiness, and seemingly that makes them similar to a Sefer Torah. The halachah concerning a Sefer Torah says that one may not sell it. There are two aspects to this halachah. First, there is the issue of, as we said, the rule that one may not lower something’s level of holiness. We explained that to make sure there is no lowering of holiness, I need to use even the money from the sale for something of a higher level of holiness. Now I ask: with a Sefer Torah, how can I go higher in holiness? A Sefer Torah is considered to be at the highest level of holiness. I can’t go higher than a Sefer Torah. So that raises the question: can one actually sell a Sefer Torah or not? The first problem is that I can’t go higher in holiness, and if I don’t, I’ve lowered the level of holiness, which is forbidden. Apart from that whole issue, there is also a problem with selling a Sefer Torah in itself, and the sale of a

20:00 Speaker 2 Sefer Torah—the very act of selling it—is forbidden. It is a kind of dishonor to the Sefer Torah. That is what the Aruch Hashulchan writes, and it is also implied by the Shulchan Aruch: the sale itself is forbidden. So there is a problem with selling a Sefer Torah. But we need to distinguish between a communal Sefer Torah and a privately owned one. A communal Sefer Torah is one that has actually been donated to the community. Nowadays, when people bring Sifrei Torah into a shul, they generally retain ownership of them. They do not usually become dedicated to the community. But Sifrei Torah that belong to the community are more problematic to sell. Here the prohibition is stronger, according to all opinions, and it is harder to sell a communal Sefer Torah. Therefore, the only permission to sell a communal Sefer Torah is for the marriage of orphans, male or female, or to support Torah study. A mikveh is also a possible purpose, as is a marriage. So that is when selling the Sefer Torah is possible. With a communal Sefer Torah, we have permission to sell it for those needs. But often there is a situation where people have, say, an old Sefer Torah and want to buy a new one. The Beis Yosef, the Shulchan Aruch, says that even this is not allowed. He does not permit selling an old Sefer Torah to buy a new one. Why? Because once I sell an old Sefer Torah, I now need to go higher in holiness, and I can’t. What I can do is stay at the same level: I can buy another Sefer Torah and remain at the same level. But there is a major dispute among the halachic authorities

22:11 Speaker 2 about whether one may remain at the same level of holiness, or whether one must go higher. The question is whether the obligation is specifically to go higher, or whether there is simply a prohibition against going lower, in which case staying at the same level is fine. That is indeed a major dispute among the halachic authorities, and the inclination is to be stringent about it from the outset. At the very least, they certainly tell you not to set out to sell a Sefer Torah and leave the money at the same level of holiness by buying another Sefer Torah. Don’t do that from the outset. But if I want to buy a more beautiful Sefer Torah, it isn’t merely another Sefer Torah; it is also more beautiful. That brings us to another dispute: does adding to its beauty count as an increase in holiness? After all, it is the same kind of holiness. This is a Sefer Torah, and that is a Sefer Torah. It isn’t a Chumash or a Tanach; it is an actual Sefer Torah. So the question is whether making it more beautiful counts as an increase in holiness or not. There are differing opinions on that, too. In practice, though, the halachic authorities write that the two opinions can be combined. The Kaf Hachaim writes that if I want to sell an old Sefer Torah to buy a more beautiful one, there is room to be lenient and make that purchase. I rely both on the authorities who say one may remain at the same level of holiness and on the view that a more beautiful Sefer Torah represents an increase in holiness. Together, they allow me to sell a Sefer Torah in those circumstances. Everything we have discussed so far concerns a communal Sefer Torah.

24:00 Speaker 2 But when it comes to a privately owned Sefer Torah—which is a much more common situation—another consideration comes in: the view of the Rosh. There is a dispute here between the Rosh and the Rambam, but the Rosh holds that an individual has the same authority over his own Sefer Torah as the seven communal trustees acting in the presence of the townspeople. We learned that if the seven communal trustees, acting in the presence of the townspeople, sell a shul or a Sefer Torah, they can remove the holiness from the proceeds. In other words, I can then do whatever I want with the money, even use it for ordinary purposes. That is the authority of the seven communal trustees acting in the presence of the townspeople. The Rosh says that an individual, with respect to his own property, is like those seven trustees acting in the presence of the townspeople. There is no community involved here; there is just him. He owns that Sefer Torah, so he is considered like the seven trustees acting in the presence of the townspeople. Accordingly, in his view, an individual can sell a Sefer Torah. In his view, the prohibition we discussed—apart from the question of using the proceeds for something of greater holiness—does not apply to an individual. There is no prohibition against selling a privately owned Sefer Torah. That is the first point. Second, even after selling it, I can do whatever I want with the proceeds. That is the Rosh’s position. The question now is whether we follow that view in practice. As we said, the Rosh’s view is that an individual can sell his own Sefer Torah. Even so, as the Beis Yosef notes, it also appears from the Rosh that he will not see a blessing from the money. The Rosh does say that. Selling a communal Sefer Torah is forbidden. According to the Rosh, selling a privately owned Sefer Torah is not forbidden, but one will not see a blessing from the proceeds.

26:03 Speaker 2 He will not see a blessing from the money, so he needs to think carefully about whether it is worthwhile. Nevertheless, in practice the halachic authorities write that one may be lenient, for several reasons. The responsa Ginas Veradim holds that our Sifrei Torah do not have that level of holiness in any case, because they are not entirely precise; they contain discrepancies in missing or extra letters, and so on. That is a minority view, but it is an opinion. In practice, though, we can be lenient based on the Rosh’s position, and also because, generally, when someone has inherited a Sefer Torah, it is considered as though he acquired it from the outset with the intention of selling it. He did not buy a Sefer Torah to fulfill the mitzvah of writing one or anything like that; he inherited it. He did not intend to become the owner of a Sefer Torah. It is like any other property he inherits, which he can do with as he wishes. So the Sefer Torah, too, is treated as though he acquired it in order to sell it, which makes it easier to permit. Therefore, in pressing circumstances, when someone is under severe financial strain and needs to sell the Sefer Torah to ease things a little, or for the sake of an important mitzvah, the halachic authorities permit it. The Shevet Halevi discusses this, as do several other authorities in their responsa, saying that it is possible. So in such a case, it really would be possible. Now, everything we have discussed concerns a Sefer Torah. The question is what happens with other things that also have the status of inherent holiness: sefarim, tefillin, mezuzos, and the like. First, if we speak about sefarim, they are also essentially like a Sefer Torah. Essentially, it is forbidden

28:12 Speaker 2 for me to sell them. I can’t sell sefarim and take the money to do whatever I want with it. Only, as we said, if someone’s livelihood is extremely strained. And as the halachic authorities write, it is also preferable to use at least part of the money from the sale of the Sefer Torah to buy sefarim, or to give it to people who study Torah, and so on. So with regard to selling sefarim, too, I always need to be careful, not just sell them casually. Still, the Taz notes that the common practice is to sell sefarim and buy other books. So if I’m selling sefarim in order to buy others—as we discussed earlier, for example, if I have old books and want to sell them to buy newer editions, or books I already know and have read and no longer need, and I want to buy new ones—the Taz leans toward permitting it, provided that is genuinely the purpose. We also have the view of the Rosh, who permits it. And the Taz holds that there is a sort of implicit condition here: it is as though, when a person buys sefarim, he stipulates in advance that he is buying them only for as long as he needs them. Since this is the practice, that implicit condition is effectively built in: he will use them for as long as he needs them, and afterward he can sell them. The Taz takes that into account as well and agrees that one may be lenient in such a case. So that’s

30:07 Speaker 2 really the situation with sefarim. As for tefillin and mezuzos, I’ve also encountered a question about someone who inherited his father’s tefillin, for example, has no use for them, and wants to sell them. First of all, of course, if someone wants to sell even a Sefer Torah, or articles that serve holiness, or sefarim, and give the money toward supporting Torah study, that is actually the most common case. Another permitted purpose is the marriage of an orphan or a widow. Supporting Torah study is the highest form of tzedakah, as the halachic authorities write; one may even sell a Sefer Torah for that purpose. This does not refer only to children’s Torah study. Adults’ Torah study is important too, and even justifies selling a Sefer Torah. So of course one may sell tefillin or mezuzos to support Torah study as well. But there is another case: someone wants to sell these things to use the money for his livelihood. Here there is more room to be lenient. The Magen Avraham says that when the Rambam disagrees with the Rosh about selling an individual’s Sefer Torah, and does not agree that it can be sold, he is speaking specifically about a Sefer Torah, because of the prohibition against selling one. But with things that are not on the level of a Sefer Torah—tefillin, mezuzos, sefarim—the Magen Avraham says everyone would agree that an individual may sell them and use the money as he wishes. That is what the Magen Avraham writes. The Mishnah Berurah says, however, that another section of the Shulchan Aruch implies that its author does not agree: he holds that even articles that serve holiness may not be sold by an individual for him to use the money as he wishes. So

32:12 Speaker 2 since there is more room to permit it here, the halachic authorities do write that one may sell tefillin or mezuzos in order to buy new ones. If I want to replace them with better ones, I can rely on the lenient opinions. And of course, if someone’s livelihood is extremely strained and he needs the money for his support, then if we said a Sefer Torah may be sold, all the more so these items may be sold. Now the question arises: what if we want to replace an aron kodesh? We want to bring in a new one, and to do that we need to dismantle the old one. Some aronos kodesh are freestanding, while others are built into the wall, and I have to take them apart to replace them. In that situation, the instruction is to have it done by a non-Jew. Really. A Jew should not do the dismantling; it should be done by a non-Jew. Ideally, a sale should be added as well. That means selling the aron kodesh to an ordinary person, thereby removing its sanctity, as it were, and then having a non-Jew dismantle it. That is essentially the instruction for dealing with an aron kodesh in this situation. When we speak about the bimah, as we already said, it is an accessory to an accessory. So if I want to replace a bimah, for example, what can I do with the old one? Since it is an accessory to an accessory, I can use it for ordinary purposes. I can store various objects there, ordinary items; there is no problem with that. It does not require genizah either. As we explained earlier, an accessory to an accessory

34:17 Speaker 2 does not require genizah. Still, whether something is an accessory to an accessory or an article used for a mitzvah, it may not be treated disrespectfully. I can’t put it somewhere degrading, such as in the garbage. So, for example, I once saw a situation where children were making a Lag BaOmer bonfire and looking for wood. They found what seemed like a great find: an old bimah standing outside a shul. They took it and put it on the fire. A bonfire is a fine thing, but I don’t think burning a bimah is something one may do. Even though it is an accessory to an accessory, it must not be used in a degrading way. We already started talking about a bookcase, so what about a bookcase? Does it have the status of an article that serves holiness or not? We can approach the discussion this way: first, an ordinary bookcase can be considered something intended to protect the books. If its purpose is simply to protect them, it should not have the status of an article that serves holiness. Even if that is not its only purpose, we can regard it as an accessory to an accessory, because generally the books themselves do not rest directly on the shelves or the bookcase. Rather, it is the covers that touch the shelves and the bookcase, not the books themselves. The covers of sefarim are themselves considered articles that serve holiness. This is also an important halachah to know when we talk about sefarim: once a book’s cover comes off, I must put it in genizah, even if nothing is written on it. But the cover of sefarim

36:29 Speaker 2 A sacred book is considered an accessory to holiness. In addition, all the pages in a book, even blank pages, are considered accessories to holiness and require genizah. So since it is the book’s cover that rests on the shelves, the bookcase is actually an accessory to an accessory. But the halachic authorities note that sometimes people put books without covers in a bookcase. That can happen with books that are used a lot and whose covers have fallen apart, so the book itself goes on the shelf. But that is considered a minority of cases, and we do not have to be concerned about that minority, so there is room to be lenient. Another leniency is cited in the name of the Chazon Ish. He writes that, ordinarily, I do not put only books in a bookcase. Sometimes I put papers there, pens, writing implements, and the like. It is as though I stipulated from the outset that it was intended not only for books but for other things too. So that is another leniency regarding a bookcase. Nevertheless, some say that, ideally, it is best to avoid all these questions. When you buy a bookcase, make a stipulation. We said that a stipulation works for accessories to holiness, so stipulate that you will use this bookcase not only for sacred books but also for ordinary items. Or stipulate that you will use it for sacred books only as long as you need it, because afterward you may want to replace the bookcase, and then you face the question of whether it needs genizah. That way, you avoid all these questions. Stipulate that you will use it for ordinary items as well, and then you will be able to use the bookcase for them and afterward

38:22 Speaker 2 sell it and the like, or put it out somewhere, under the rules for an accessory to an accessory or for an item whose sanctity was conditional, and so on. There is something very important to note about tefillin. We said that the bayis of the head tefillin has inherent sanctity, while the protective cases and the straps are accessories to holiness. What about the tefillin bag? What is its status? At first glance, we would say that it is an accessory to an accessory: if the protective cases are accessories to holiness, then the bag covering those cases is an accessory to an accessory. But in practice, the halachic authorities write that we should be stringent and treat it as an accessory to holiness, for several reasons. First, according to Rashi, the yud-shaped knot of the arm tefillin strap has inherent sanctity. That yud is not covered by the protective case, so the tefillin bag becomes an accessory to holiness. Also, part of the batim—the titura, the base—sometimes is not covered by the protective cases. That is why the halachic authorities write that we should be stringent. It is a stringency, but one with a basis: there is reason to consider the tefillin bag an accessory to holiness. So I cannot put tzedakah coins in my tefillin bag, or pens and other things like that. Nevertheless, the halachic authorities write that people put a mirror for adjusting their tefillin in the bag, or tefillin ink. I think this is quoted in the name of Rabbi Auerbach. Since these things serve the mitzvah of tefillin, they maintain that they may be put there. But actually, to begin with, tefillin ink is itself considered an accessory to holiness.

40:33 Speaker 2 Tefillin ink should be considered an accessory to holiness because it serves a sacred purpose, so there should be no problem putting it in the tefillin bag. Another point cited in the name of the Shaarei Efraim is that the bag is considered an accessory to holiness only up to the part that covers the tefillin. Often the bag is wider, with extra material that does not actually cover them. The Shaarei Efraim writes that you can put coins or other things in that part. It is just not very practical: in practice, things usually roll inward. But if you could put something only on the outer part of the bag, that should be fine. There should be no problem with it. Similarly, the Biur Halachah discusses a tefillin bag with a second pocket above the one holding the tefillin. You may put coins and other things in that upper pocket too. Another thing to note concerns sacred Names. We really have to be careful with sacred Names, because there is a prohibition against erasing them: “You shall not do so to Hashem your G-d.” Erasing them is prohibited by Torah law. The question is what about sacred Names written in the script and language of other nations. On the dollar there is a Name that one may not say aloud, written in another language. The Shach writes in Yoreh De’ah that a sacred Name written in another language has no sanctity and, in principle, may be erased. Nevertheless, we are stringent, and the practical ruling is that erasing it is prohibited at least by rabbinic law. So

42:43 Speaker 2 sacred Names written either in the script or in the language of other nations are subject to a Torah prohibition against erasure. But that all applies when they were written to be kept. If they were not written to be kept, there should be no prohibition against erasing them, and there is less need to safeguard their sanctity. You can take them into a restroom and the like. That is the basis for permitting someone to take a dollar into a restroom: the Name on it is written in the language and script of other nations, and it was not written to be kept. So it is permitted to take it into a restroom. In any event, we must be careful with sacred Names and treat them respectfully; if they become worn out, we must, of course, arrange for their genizah. The Avnei Nezer writes that even if I write a sacred Name with a dividing line—as people often write Aleph-Lamed, with a line between the Aleph and the Lamed—in his view, that does not help. But many halachic authorities write that it does help. Indeed, this is what Chabad rabbis advise: if sacred Names must be written on invitations and the like, they should at least be written with a dividing line, to prevent them from being treated disrespectfully. The Name written in our siddurim as two yuds does not really fall into the category of sacred Names. The Rema therefore writes that it may be erased in a case of great need. If there is a great need, this Name may be erased. May we not need to do such things, but it can be erased in a case of great need. There is something very important to note. Many times we take photographs, but we need to pay attention when taking photographs, whether in a shul or

44:57 Speaker 2 Something like that, and somewhere in the picture a holy name appears. People often photograph an open Torah scroll for bar mitzvah invitations and the like, so you have to pay close attention. The moment there are words of Torah, holy names, verses, or anything similar in the picture, we have a problem: it may not be treated disrespectfully or taken into an inappropriate place. Naturally, a person may not see the problem. It’s a picture—he photographed his friend, and it’s a nice picture. But he might take it into places where it may not be taken. So pay attention to photographs and pictures, and make sure no holy names, words of Torah, or verses appear in them. That’s something to watch out for. Another question I’ve encountered is where, for some reason, someone wrote “I have set Hashem before me always,” say, or something similar, on his wall. He wrote a verse containing a holy name. Now that’s all well and good, but when he wants to paint the wall, there’s a problem: he can’t paint over it, because he would be erasing the name. So what does he do? The suggested solution is to cover the verse with a piece of paper, taping it down at the edges—not over the name itself, which could also be a form of erasure—then paint over it and remove the paper afterward. That’s the solution in such cases. Now let’s talk about different kinds of items used for holy purposes and how to handle them. One thing we very often wrestle with and come across is newspapers, periodicals, and the like that sometimes include words of Torah or Torah articles. So how should we treat

47:02 Speaker 2 all these kinds of publications? The truth is, it depends on what we’re talking about. If it’s a newspaper made up entirely of world news, business news, and the like, but it also includes the occasional verse for literary effect—to make the writing nicer, more interesting, more appealing—that wasn’t written for the purpose of study. Since it wasn’t written for study, in principle it has no sanctity: you may take it into the bathroom, and it doesn’t have to go into genizah. That’s the halachah in that case. But if it’s a newspaper containing words of Torah written for study, then we do have a problem. Such a newspaper requires genizah, and you may not take it into the bathroom and so on. Nevertheless, the poskim write that when it comes to genizah, it does not necessarily have to go into genizah. If most of the newspaper is not words of Torah, there is also the option of wrapping it in a bag and leaving it beside the trash, because any erasure would be caused indirectly. Again, all this is on condition that it contains no holy names. It may contain words of Torah, verses, and the like, but no holy names. In those cases, you can wrap it in a plastic bag and place it beside the trash. In practice, the one who puts it in the trash is the worker who comes to collect it, so he is the one who, as it were, does the… If the worker is Jewish, that needs consideration because of the prohibition of placing a stumbling block before the blind, and so on. But outside Israel, in places where the municipal workers are non-Jews, Arabs, and the like, this can be done. The same applies to tests. That is, there is another category of sacred writings that are not written—or, rather,

49:26 Speaker 2 are written for study, but not intended to be kept. All kinds of notes, drafts, things a person jots down for himself, outlines to help him remember or to copy out later, and so on. In principle, some poskim write that these papers also have no sanctity, since they weren’t written to be kept. They don’t require genizah, and you may take them into the bathroom or other unclean places. But this isn’t a blanket permission; it’s a leniency for a pressing situation. In other words, ideally, I do try to put them in genizah. Incidentally, one of the proofs the poskim bring is from the verses we write for a child when he enters cheder: a verse is written on an egg or a cake, and then it’s eaten. So there we see that if the verse wasn’t written to be kept, there’s no issue of erasure and so on. But of course, ideally it’s still best to try to put these things in genizah, or at least do what we said: put them in a bag beside the trash. That is an easier option in this case. Again, of course, all this is on condition that there are no holy names there—only words of Torah, but no holy names. Then the leniencies we mentioned can be applied. What about the worksheets we get from our children’s various educational programs, schools, preschools, and so on? What do we do with all those worksheets? Here’s the rule: if they’re pages with only diagrams, drawings, and the like, even if the name of the parsha is written on them, they don’t require genizah. They can be thrown in the trash. But

51:29 Speaker 2 if they contain words of Torah, we have to put them in genizah. Once there are words of Torah written there for us to study with the child at the Shabbos table or the like, those pages do require genizah. As for books that haven’t been studied from, there is the position of the Avnei Nezer. The Avnei Nezer maintains that books fresh from the printer, which no one has yet studied from, have no sanctity and don’t require genizah, and so on. But that is very much a minority opinion. Most poskim don’t accept that leniency. So perhaps where there is a need, in a pressing situation and the like, one could rely on the Avnei Nezer, put them in a bag, and leave them beside the trash. But the generally accepted halachah is that they do have sanctity. We must see to it that they go into genizah, even if no one has yet studied from them. Another point on this subject is Ashuri script. Ashuri script written in the style used for Torah scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzos is problematic. First of all, there is a prohibition against writing words of Torah in that script—sorry, against writing secular material in that script. That creates a problem. If I’m not mistaken, this halachah also comes up in the laws of chuppah and kiddushin in connection with the kesubah: can it be written in that script, and is it considered secular material or not? In any case, there is a problem with writing secular material in the script used for Torah scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzos. The Rebbe also addresses this. The Rebbe’s wording is: “It does not seem at all right to me that verses are printed in the script used for Torah scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzos.” The Rebbe was not pleased that all sorts of things were printed that way, especially on notices and the like. That script needs to be treated with sanctity. Ideally, secular material may not be written in it, but after the fact, if I’ve already written secular material in that script, it does not require genizah. There are those who are stricter than that, even with square Hebrew letters. There are various

53:47 Speaker 2 There are chassidim, people of meticulous practice, who hold that even square Hebrew letters bear some resemblance to the lettering of a Sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzos, although they are not actually Ashuri script. They do not have the decorative crowns and so on, but there is a resemblance, and they maintain that these letters have a measure of holiness, so they do not bring them into the restroom and the like. Again, that is an extra stringency, but there is reason to pay attention to square Hebrew letters as well. Along the lines of what we discussed about verses written without the intention that they be kept, this is also the basis for permitting the use of a classroom board: verses are written on it and then erased. First of all, it is worth knowing that there is a book called Ginzei Yerushalayim. Ginzei Yerushalayim seeks to be lenient regarding the writing of verses, because halachah says that if I change the wording of a verse slightly, it is easier to permit. And that is indeed the standard practice in Chabad books too: if one has to write verses, it is preferable to change their wording slightly. There is a book called Ginzei Yerushalayim, published in 5768, if I am not mistaken. It gives various verses and shows how to change their wording so slightly that you do not even notice. You think it is the original verse, but in fact it contains a change that already makes the requirements for preserving the verse’s holiness less stringent. But we have already said that verses not written for the purpose of study, but only for the beauty of the expression and the like, do not have inherent holiness. The same applies to verses written without the intention that they be kept, as we said. Still, it is better to change the wording of the verse so as not to run into problems. In general, the Rebbe’s guidance was that despite the concern that this could lead to disrespect, the Rebbe nevertheless held that words of Torah should be included. If we can reach a Jew so that words of Torah enter his heart even a little,

55:54 Speaker 2 that is worth the risk of those holy words being treated disrespectfully. But of course, if we are taking that risk, we should at least write that the holiness of the page must be respected. Add a note along the lines of: “Please respect the holiness of this page.” What about writing on a disc, on a computer, on a cassette, photographic writing, and so on? The halachic authorities discuss this—Rabbi Auerbach, the Shevet Halevi, and various others. They write that recording on a disc, a computer, or a cassette does not have the halachic status of writing. So with a cassette, for example, or a disc, even if it contains a lecture in which the speaker recites verses and says the Name of Hashem and so on, there is no prohibition against erasing it. It does not have the status of writing at all, so there is no prohibition against erasing it. The same applies to a cassette—we do not use cassettes much today—or other kinds of recordings containing verses or prayers and so on: there is no problem with erasing them. It is advisable, and recommended, to erase them indirectly, through grama—say, by setting a timer to start the erasure after a certain time. But broadly speaking, the problem of erasing does not apply here. The same is true of writing on a computer. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and the Minchas Yitzchak both write that writing on a computer does not have the halachic status of writing, and therefore there is no prohibition against erasing it. Even if holy Names are written there, there is no prohibition against erasing them. All the more so if it is only words of Torah and the like. The Noda BiYehudah brings a proof from the knot of the tefillin. It says that one may alter the knot of the tefillin by untying it. Now, the knot of the tefillin forms the letter dalet, which is part of the Name of Hashem. Nevertheless, you see that it is permitted to untie the knot. Why? Because it does not have the halachic status of

58:00 Speaker 2 writing. That is what the Noda BiYehudah writes. It is not a way of writing; it is tying, not writing. Consequently, untying that knot is not considered erasing either. Along the same lines, they want to compare computer writing to this. It is not a way of writing; it is something like electrodes lighting up, something technical and technological, but it is not writing. Therefore it has no holiness and may be erased. Nevertheless, the halachic authorities write that ideally one should make a stipulation: that one does not intend anything one writes on the computer to be written for the sake of holiness. Better still, I think today there is some software that actually alters the holy Names slightly. It makes some change to the holy Names so that the letters are not continuous, or something like that, which makes this even easier to permit. So that is regarding writing on a computer. The same applies to photographic writing. In other words, there are various discs with extremely tiny letters, on which the entire Chitas and the entire Chumash and so on can be written. Those, too, have no holiness; there is no holiness in such an item, and it does not need to be treated as holy. Still, if the disc has a label stating what it contains, there is an issue of appearances if you put it in the trash and so on. But the disc itself has no holiness. It can even be put in the trash; it has no holiness. Now let us talk about disrespectful uses, and the use of holy books and sacred objects in general. What may be done in the presence of sacred objects, or with them—with holy books and the like? So, there are those who customarily place holy books beneath the head of a sick person’s bed. One should know that this is permitted, since that is the established custom. It is permissible for the sake of the sick person’s health and healing. There are particular books placed beneath the sick person’s head, such as Raziel Hamalach and Noam Elimelech, and various other books. So they may be placed under the sick person’s bed. There are also certain uses of a Sefer Torah’s belt for a pregnant woman: placing a belt or a covering from a Sefer Torah on her and the like. It is a segulah for childbirth. Some even bring the Sefer Torah itself to a woman giving birth. That, too, is possible, but of course its holiness must be respected. It must be placed within two coverings, because one may not expose one’s body in the presence of a Sefer Torah and the like. The Sefer Torah has to be placed within two coverings, and so on. A tallis that we are wearing—if we want to wipe our glasses with it, we should try not to do that. That is what the Kaf Hachayim writes, and Piskei Teshuvos cites it as well. On the other hand, a tallis that has worn out, whether a tallis katan or a tallis gadol—and it is even easier to be lenient with a tallis katan—does not require genizah. We said that a tallis is an object used for a mitzvah. Objects used for a mitzvah may be discarded, as the Gemara says in Tractate Megillah. So I do not have to preserve it as a holy object. It does not have to go into genizah. But ultimately, what can you do with it? You cannot put it in the trash, because, as we said, you may not treat it disrespectfully. And as long as the tzitzis are still attached to it, I cannot put it in the trash. On the other hand, deliberately making it unfit is not right either. One does not deliberately invalidate a tallis. So the common practice is to put these items in genizah. Although, strictly speaking, as we said earlier, one may simply put it in a plastic bag and place it next to

1:00:19 Speaker 2 the trash. That, too, is possible, although Piskei Teshuvos raises some doubts about it. But it would seem that doing so should be fine. That is also what he writes in [unclear], that this is possible as well. So it can be placed there in that manner. Now, entering the restroom with a tallis—or perhaps not a tallis; people do not enter the restroom wearing a tallis—but with a gartel or a kittel and the like. One should know that simply entering the restroom with a gartel or a kittel is not prohibited. What is prohibited is relieving oneself while wearing the gartel or kittel, but merely entering is not prohibited. So, in principle, one may enter the restroom wearing a gartel, take it off there, and relieve oneself. Afterwards, one may even put the gartel back on in the restroom. Although in practice the custom is not to enter with it, halachically there is no problem with entering the restroom with a gartel or kittel and the like. Of course, a kippah does not require genizah. A worn-out kippah does not require genizah, nor does a gartel. The curtain of the Aron Kodesh does not require genizah either. We said that a curtain is an accessory to an accessory of a sacred object, so it does not require genizah, but it should not be placed somewhere disrespectful. There is another leniency regarding holy books. Some maintain that because they are books printed by a press, and printing is generally not considered writing—it does not have the same status as a scribe writing a book—printed books have no holiness. This is a dispute that the Pischei Teshuvah also cites in Yoreh De’ah. So all of this can be taken into account. One can also say that the book’s cover counts as one covering. So if I want to enter with

1:02:20 Speaker 2 The trash. That is also possible, although Piskei Teshuvos raises some doubts about it. But on a straightforward reading, it should be fine to do it that way. He also writes in [unclear], in the context of shlichus, that it is possible. So you can put it there in that manner. Now, entering the bathroom with a tallis—or perhaps a tallis is not the example, since people do not enter the bathroom wearing a tallis—but with a gartel or a kittel and the like: you should know that merely entering the bathroom with a gartel or a kittel is not forbidden. What is forbidden is relieving oneself while wearing the gartel or kittel, but simply entering is not forbidden. So, in principle, a person can enter the bathroom with a gartel, take it off there, and then relieve himself. Afterward, he can even put the gartel back on in the bathroom. Although in practice the custom is not to enter with it, from the standpoint of halachah there is no problem entering the bathroom with a gartel, a kittel, or the like. Of course, a kippah does not require genizah. A worn-out kippah does not require genizah; neither does a gartel, nor does the curtain of the Aron Kodesh. We said that the curtain is an accessory to an accessory of holiness, so it does not require genizah—but it should not be placed somewhere disrespectful. There is another leniency regarding holy books: some argue that because these are printed books, and printing is generally not considered writing, they do not have the same status as writing done by a scribe. So some maintain that printed books do not have sanctity. This is a dispute that Pischei Teshuvah also cites in Yoreh Deah. All of that can be taken into account as well. One can also say that the book’s cover counts as one covering. So if I want to enter with

1:04:27 Speaker 2 Take a book into the bathroom, for example. Many halachic authorities write that one covering is enough for holy books. Tefillin may need two coverings, but for holy books, many authorities write that one is enough. So if we count the book’s cover as a covering, that should suffice. In any case, if the book is in a pocket, that is certainly fine. Some people are nevertheless stringent: if it’s a Mincha-Maariv booklet or Tehillim, they wrap it in plastic and put it in their pocket. But that is not required by the letter of the law. In other words, we could find grounds to permit taking the book into the bathroom even as it is, since its cover counts as a covering and we would rely on the authorities who say one covering is enough. But we won’t do that. When it’s in a pocket, though, that should certainly be perfectly fine. Let’s talk a little about undignified activities in the presence of holy books. First, there are children at home. Children at home often walk around unclothed and so on. By the letter of the law, a boy’s nakedness does not have the halachic status of ervah until he is nine years and one day old, and a girl’s until she is three years and one day old. So by the letter of the law, there is no prohibition if they walk around unclothed in front of holy books. Nevertheless, the custom is to be stringent from the outset even regarding a young child’s nakedness. If I remember correctly, this stringency also appears in the Alter Rebbe’s writings: one should try to ensure they do not stand unclothed in front of holy books. The Alter Rebbe also says not in front of Shabbos candles. So what does that mean in practice? If children are walking around unclothed, one should make sure it isn’t in front of holy books. What about excrement and filth in the presence of holy books? This often comes up

1:06:30 Speaker 2 when changing young children’s diapers in a home with holy books, a mezuzah, and so on. Here is what you need to know: regarding excrement and filth, the Alter Rebbe seems to indicate that if it happens only temporarily, there is no problem. So if I change a child’s diaper not in the usual place, such as the bathroom, but in the living room where there are holy books, in principle there is no problem. It should not be problematic because changing the diaper takes very little time. We said that the baby’s nakedness is not a halachic problem. The diaper change happens occasionally, not as a regular practice in that spot. And we said that occasional filth is not a problem in the presence of holy books, tefillin, and the like. So by the letter of the law, it is permissible. Nevertheless, it is worth trying to keep the books in a bookcase. A bookcase is often large enough to hold forty se’ah, so it constitutes a separate domain, and the books are considered to be in another domain. If the books are ten tefachim—eighty centimeters—above the floor, they can also be considered to be in another domain. And what about the mezuzah? Since the mezuzah is fixed within the wall, according to the Alter Rebbe it is considered to be in another domain. So it does not prevent changing the diaper. But if diapers are changed in a room on a regular basis—say, the baby’s room is the regular place for diaper changes—that is more problematic. Once it is a regular practice, with filth and excrement there regularly, it may not be done in the presence of holy books, tefillin, a mezuzah, and the like. So one must make sure that if there are books there—and again, we are talking about books that are kept there

1:08:46 Speaker 2 regularly, because if the books were brought in only temporarily, the situation is still considered temporary. It makes no difference whether the excrement is there temporarily or the books are there temporarily. In any case, if there is a bookcase there, one must make sure the books are covered. Although we said they may be in another domain because of the size of the bookcase or their height, the requirement regarding excrement is still that holy items be “a vessel within a vessel.” So I do not need two coverings because there is a separate domain here, but I should nevertheless be stringent and cover the books with one covering if diapers are changed in that room. Also, a young child’s excrement is not considered excrement at all unless the child can eat a kezayis of grain within the time it takes to eat a pras. So we are speaking here of a child old enough to eat a kezayis of baked grain foods, bread, or grain within that time. At that point, the child’s excrement is indeed subject to the restrictions concerning excrement. That is regarding excrement. Regarding nakedness, we also said that if the child is older than nine, it makes no difference whether it happens occasionally or not: it may not be in the presence of holy books. The books must therefore have two coverings, or, if they are in another domain according to the criteria we discussed, one covering is enough. You should also know that if the mezuzah is in another room—for example, the mezuzah is in an ordinary room, and across from that room there is a bathroom—then often I

1:10:49 Speaker 2 open the bathroom door and the mezuzah seems to be exposed to the bathroom. That is not a problem. It is another room, another domain; the mezuzah is not considered to be in the bathroom. The same goes for books. If I change diapers in one place and the books are in another room, even if they are visible, they are of course considered to be in another domain.