PRESERVING A TORAH FRAGMENT

QUESTION:

Congregation Habonim of New York has a membership composed chiefly of refugees from Germany. The congregation had built a memorial to the Six Million composed of stones from the debris of wrecked synagogues in Germany. Now the congregation is in possession of a fragment of a Sefer Torah which consists of one roller (etz chayim) surrounded by about an inch of parchment. Can this fragment be preserved in a receptacle built into the vestry wall near the memorial of the Six Million? If so, must it be horizontal or vertical? (Question asked by Rabbi Bernhard N. Cohn, New York.)

ANSWER:

IF THIS WERE a complete Torah, then even if it were, for the present, unfit for public reading (posul) and needed correction, the proper place for it (if it was not buried in the cemetery) would be in the Ark, and certainly not in a museum case. The reason for this is as follows: In the presence of the Torah, people must comport themselves with dignity, even if the Torah is kept in a room of a private house (see Berachos 25b and Yore Deah 282:8). If there is a museum case in a vestibule where people go to and fro, it would be impossible to expect them to maintain a respectful demeanor at all times. Therefore it is better that the Torah be kept in the Ark if it is, as I say, largely an intact Torah. See the responsum on this question in Contemporary Reform Responsa, pp. 110 ff. Furthermore, as to whether a posul Torah should be placed in the Ark (instead of being buried), see Contemporary Reform Responsa, pp. 114 ff. (especially p. 116).

However, we are not dealing here with a Torah that is posul but largely intact. We are dealing with a fragment. But how large a fragment? It is not quite clear to me how much of the Sefer Torah is included in this remnant. The inquiry says that it “consists of one etz chayim surrounded by about an inch of parchment.” Does that mean that around the etz chayim there are enough turns of parchment to make a cylinder with the thickness of one inch? If so, this remnant is of considerable size. Nevertheless, considering the thickness of a complete Sefer Torah, a cylinder of one inch is very much less than one-fifth of the total girth and, therefore, must be much less than one complete book of the Five Books. But let us assume that it is a complete Genesis. If on the left-hand roller, it would be the complete Deuteronomy. Yet even if there is a complete book, this one book has not enough sanctity for it to be read in the synagogue. The Shulchan Aruch, Orah Hayyim 143:2, says that even a complete book (of the five) may not be read in the synagogue. Only all five books sewn together may be read. Therefore, even if it is a complete Genesis or Deuteronomy, which is improbable, there would be considerable freedom in the handling of this fragment. But in all likelihood we are speaking here of a small fragment around one of the rollers. So it is primarily the roller that is seen. The roller itself has the status of only “auxiliary holiness” (tashmishey kedusha; see Mogen Avraham, par. 14 to Orah Hayyim 153). An etz chayim may, for example, be cut up or it can be made into another synagogue object (see Current Reform Responsa, pp. 36 ff.). Since, therefore, we are dealing with an etz chayim and not more than a fragment of scroll, this may be put into a case, especially if the case is embedded in the wall near the memorial for the Six Million, where whoever visits the place will certainly conduct himself with dignified demeanor.

Now as to the question of whether it would be proper for this fragment to be placed vertically or horizontally in the case: There is an interesting analogy relevant to this question with regard to a smaller scroll, namely, the mezuzah. Rashi says, in his commentary to Talmud Menachos 33 a, that the mezuzah should be placed in a vertical position on the doorpost. However, the great fourteenth-century German authority, Maharil of Mainz, reports that Rashi’s grandson, Rabbenu Tarn, says that the mezuzah should be affixed horizontally. Then Maharil says that we ought not to contravene either of these great authorities. Therefore we should put the mezuzah diagonally (as we do today) in order to defer as much as we can to the opinion of both Rashi and Rabbenu Tarn (see Minhage Maharil, the section on “Mezuzah,” near the end of the section). At all events, if the mezuzah were affixed in a horizontal position, it would have the justification of one great authority at least, Rabbenu Tarn. But besides the analogy with the mezuzah, we have more direct evidence as to the placing of the Torah. The Talmud, in Megillah 27a, discussing the relative sanctity of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, gives the general principle that the scroll of lesser sanctity (say the Hagiographa) may not lie on top of the scroll of greater sanctity (say the Prophets or the Torah). The Talmud continues by saying that one Torah may lie on the top of another. This indicates, of course, that the Torah can be kept horizontal. As a matter of fact, although today it is our prevalent custom to keep the Torahs standing vertically in the Ark, there were times when the Torah was kept in a series of pigeon-holes lying horizontally (see the end of the article by Ludwig Blau in the Jewish Encyclopedia, “Scrolls of the Law”).

To sum up: If this were an intact Sefer Torah or a complete one of the Five Books, then if not buried (as it may be), it should be kept in the Ark, not in a museum case in the vestry where people walk to and fro. But since this is a smaller fragment, and the most conspicuous part of it is an etz chayim, which is in itself of secondary holiness, it may certainly be kept in an exhibition case, especially if the case is near the memorial, where the demeanor will always be dignified. As for the position of the Torah fragment, there is no real choice as between horizontal or vertical except perhaps that our modern custom is to have it vertical. But if for some artistic reason it is preferred to place the Torah fragment in a horizontal position, there is no Halachic objection to so doing.