sofer: scribe (m)
sofer STa”M: scribe of texts of Torah scrolls, tefillin and mezuzot
soferet: scribe (f)
safrut: scribal arts
“Would you like me to fix it?” a female congregant offered. I replied, “It is in such bad shape that I don’t think there is time to fix it before Purim.”
Our synagogue’s Megillat Esther was extremely faded and worn. For the past few years we had been borrowing a megillah from a nearby shul. Upon learning of this situation, a female member of our synagogue and student of safrut (scribal arts) was offering to restore our scroll. I did not know what the classic sources said about women writing and repairing megillot, and I was relieved that the condition of the scroll precluded the necessity of an immediate response to her offer. However, our conversation got me thinking: Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a megillah penned by one of our own congregants? Furthermore, to have a woman write it would fit with our community’s openness to exploring untried halakhic options for women’s participation in synagogue life.
With this in mind, I began researching the issue of women and safrut and uncovered a considerable amount of fascinating material. Perhaps most striking was the discovery that my very question regarding the status of women writing a Megillat Esther had been asked previously l’ma’aseh (in an actual case). Sarah, daughter of renowned head of the Beit Din of Prague, Rabbi David Oppenheim, (1664-1736)1 wrote a Megillat Esther and the question arose as to the possibility of reading from it on Purim.
“Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a megillah penned by one of our own congregants?”
The deliberation over this actual megillah, as well as many other theoretical discussions, provided rich material 2 containing varied positions on women’s status vis-à-vis safrut. I am grateful to JOFA for providing me with this forum in which I can share a brief sketch of what my research uncovered. This is not the place for an exhaustive study. Instead, here I intend to give only an outline of the understandings of the key statement in the Babylonian Talmud that limits women’s eligibility to serve as sofrot (scribes) on the part of the Aharonim (16th-20th century rabbinic authorities). Following this, I will explore the possible ramifications of women’s self-obligation in the mitzvah of tefillin on their status to serve as sofrot. It should go without saying that this piece is not intended as halakhic determination. It is merely a presentation of a small slice of a great deal of material, and is intended to engender discussion, study and further exploration.
Any halakhic discussion of women and safrut must address the following beraita (rabbinic statement from the time of the Mishna) that appears in Tractate Gittin 45b (and Menahot 42a):
Rav Hamnuna, son of Rava from Pashronia taught: a sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot written by an informer, an idolater, a slave, a woman, a minor, a Samaritan or an apostate are invalid, as it says “you shall bind them (tefillin) and you shall write them (mezuzot)” (Deuteronomy 6:8-9)—those who are “in”(connected to) [the mitzvah of the] binding [of them] (tefillin) are in [the category of valid] writing.
The Torah juxtaposes the commandment to bind tefillin with the commandment to write mezuzot. The author of the beraita deduced from this juxtaposition that in order to be considered eligible to write Torah scrolls, tefillin and mezuzot, one must be part of the mitzvah of binding tefillin. Those who are not, like an informer, an idolater, a Samaritan and apostate, because they reject the mitzvot of the Torah, are ineligible as are those who are not obligated in the mitzvah of tefillin, like slaves, women and minors. This much is clear.
Yet, a close reading of this passage uncovers two subtle ambiguities. First, the beginning of the statement refers to the writing of sifrei Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot (all three are known by the acronym STa”M), while the end of the paragraph discusses writing in general—“in the category of writing.” Is it merely STa”M (the three categories of Torah scrolls, tefillin and mezuzot) that Rav Hamnuna is addressing, or are there other written items such as Megillat Esther from which he would exclude the individuals listed as valid scribes? Secondly, the verse “you shall bind them… you shall write them” is taken from a paragraph that refers to tefillin and mezuzot but not to a sefer Torah. From his proof–text, does Rav Hamnuna indeed deduce that women are excluded from writing sifrei Torah and, if so, how? These questions were addressed predominantly by the Aharonim and their answers yielded three positions regarding the extent to which Rav Hamnuna’s beraita excludes women from safrut.
The Ma’aseh Rokeah (b. circa 1690), in a lengthy passage on Rambam Hilkhot Megillah 1:1, addresses these questions. He explains the reason for the inclusion of sifrei Torah in Rav Hamnuna’s statement, even though his proof text refers only to tefillin and mezuzot as follows. Once the Torah validated only those obligated by the mitzvah of binding tefillin to write mezuzot, the Rabbis, through the exegetical devise known as gezerah shavah (deducing legal details from one passage to another ostensibly unrelated passage, based on the existence of common terms in both passages), expanded this requirement to any precept in the Bible that involves writing. This would also apply to the precept to write Megillat Esther. Based on this logic, the Ma’aseh Rokeah considers women ineligible to write a megillat Esther in addition to the three categories of STa”M.
The Hida (1724-1806) in Birkei Yosef 691:6 however finds reason to validate the writing of megillot by women. He notes that the Maggid Mishneh (on Rambam Hilkhot Megillah 2:9) claims that the strictures for writing a sefer Torah do not apply to Megillat Esther unless Hazal (the Rabbis) explicitly tell us so. Since nowhere in the classic Rabbinic literature is there any mention of women being considered ineligible to write a Megillat Esther, the Hida concludes that the exclusion of women from writing a sefer Torah does not apply to a Megillat Esther. In his reading, Rav Hamnuna’s exclusion of women does not extend to all mitzvot of safrut but is limited to STa”M (the three categories) listed explicitly in the beraita. This opinion of the Hida seems to be the dominant one and other later authorities add other reasons to suggest that women may write a megillat Esther. The Pri Megadim (Mishbezot Zahav 691:2) claims that women’s obligation in the mitzvah of keriat ha’megillah (reading the megillah) makes them eligible to write a megillah. Rabbi David Oppenheim notes that the Targum renders Esther 9:29 as “Esther the daughter of Avihail and Mordehai the Jew wrote all this megillah.” Rabbi Oppenheim takes this as an indication that Esther herself was involved in the writing of the very first megillah as a scribe, and that she serves as a precedent for women in general. Further, both the Rambam and Shulhan Arukh omit any mention of women’s ineligibility to write megillot. A number of later authorities take this omission to indicate that these great codifiers held that women are therefore eligible to write megillot.
The Drishah (1555-1614) goes one step further and claims that women have halakhic standing to write sifrei Torah (Y.D.271.1). He bases this on two passages in the Tur (1275-1340). In Hilkhot Tefillin, the Tur (O.H. 39) states that women may not write tefillin. However, in his list of those ineligible to write sifrei Torah (Y.D. 271), the Tur omits women. The Drishah suggests that this indicates that the Tur maintained that women are in fact eligible to write sifrei Torah. The Drishah does not explain how he can maintain this in the face of Rav Hamnuna’s undisputed statement.3 Perhaps the Drishah considered that, because Rav Hamnuna’s proof text referred only to mezuzah and tefillin, room was left to allow women to write sifrei Torah. It is difficult to read the beraita this way, since the beginning of the statement explicitly mentions sifrei Torah. Further more, it is unlikely that the Tur would have actually maintained that women have the halakhic standing to write sifrei Torah. 4 Given that the Drishah is a lone voice and his argument has serious flaws, it would be problematic to use his comments as a precedent. Indeed the Shulhan Arukh decides explicitly against the Drishah. It is worth noting that the Drishah concluded his remarks by stating that he had written at length about this matter in a responsum. Unfortunately, we do not currently have a copy of that responsum and we do not know if it addressed the difficulties mentioned above.
Thus, we have three understandings of Rav Hamnuna’s statement in the Aharonim. The Ma’aseh Rokeah considers that the exclusion of the beraita should be expanded to any mitzvah of safrut. The Hida claims that the exclusion is limited to only the three items listed: sifrei Torah, mezuzot, and tefillin. Finally, the Drishah maintains that the exclusion applies only to mezuzot and tefillin.
The Hida and Drishah’s readings of Rav Huna allow for limited participation by women in safrut. I would also like to raise a theoretical possibility in which Rav Hamnuna’s beraita would be inapplicable. The Rema in his Darkei Moshe (Orah Hayyim 39:1) states that while a ger toshav (a gentile who rejects idolatry but does not fully convert to Judaism) does not have the halakhic standing to write a sefer Torah, he would be able to write tefillin and mezuzot. Many later authorities were perplexed by this claim. A ger toshav is not obligated in the mitzvah of tefillin, so how could he have standing to write tefillin and mezuzot? To solve this riddle, the Yad Ephraim (1760-1828) in Orah Hayyim 39 suggests that the Rema must have been referring to a ger toshav who accepted all the mitzvot of the Torah except the prohibition against eating carrion (neveilah).5 His voluntarily acceptance of the mitzvah of tefillin is sufficient to render him eligible to write the tefillin text. Nonetheless, he still has no standing to write sifrei Torah because the verse “thou shalt not eat carrion; to the ger in your gates you shall give it” (Deut. 12:21), which excludes him from the community, may offend him. This precludes him from writing the verse with proper intent. Because no such verse is found in the text of tefillin or mezuzot, the ger toshav is eligible to write them. While rejecting this explanation, Rabbi Israel Meir Kagan, known as the Hofetz Hayyim (Be’ur Halakha Orah Hayyim. 39) notes that according to the Yad Ephraim’s logic, a woman who voluntarily accepted upon herself the mitzvah of tefillin would be “in the mitzvah of binding tefillin” and would therefore have the halakhic standing to write STa”M (all three categories of sifrei Torah, tefillin and mezuzot.)6 It is crucial to note that using this approach would require overcoming a number of halakhic obstacles. First, the permissibility of women donning tefillin is a matter of debate.7 Second, it is only implicit in the Yad Ephraim’s approach that women’s self-obligation would have these halakhic ramifications; he never explicitly stated so himself. Third, other authorities such as R. Kagan himself reject his approach, even regarding the ger toshav. 8 Determining the practical implications of this Yad Ephraim with respect to the standing of women to be sofrei STa”M (scribes for all three categories) would clearly require careful deliberation.
“We did indeed find sufficient grounds to commission a megillah from our congregant”
Indeed much of the material touched on here requires extensive thought and study. Implementation of the theoretical possibilities explored here would require taking into account many factors from exegetical aspects to systemic halakhic principles to communal ramifications. Conclusions may not be simple. For example in my former community, where we did indeed find sufficient grounds9 to commission a megillah from our congregant, one posek (rabbinic authority) informed me that while he supported his decision for our community, it might not be appropriate in other communities. It is my hope that this short piece will serve as a springboard for further research and examination of this topic. May we be blessed to discover pathways to enable Jewish women to enrich our community with their Godgiven capacities while maintaining the integrity of the halakhic system and of Torah as a whole.