Parshas Vayakhel 5785 – Intriguing Questions & Answers
Writing and Erasing Complete Pesukim on a Board at School
Q:
Teachers commonly write complete pesukim on a board and subsequently erase them. From a halachic perspective, it appears that we can justify the practice of these teachers who write pesukim and then erase them in the course of instruction. However, if they have written the actual name of Hashem, there is reason to be stringent and avoid erasing it, and we will later discuss if there is a solution for this issue.
A:
Before addressing the permissibility of erasing complete pesukim from a board, we must first examine whether writing full pesukim nowadays is permitted. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 283:2) states that one may not write a scroll containing single parshiyos and that one may not write a scroll for children to learn from, unless he intends to eventually complete it as a full Chumash.
Various Acharonim discuss the parameters of this ruling. Essentially, there is no difference between writing a full pasuk and a full parshah—both are prohibited unless an entire Chumash is written. The Bnei Yonah states that it makes no difference whether the text is written on parchment, a board, or even engraved, even if written in a non-Ashuris script. However, this applies only to pesukim that do not contain Hashem’s name, as writing a pasuk with Hashem’s name is certainly prohibited (Tzedakah U’Mishpat 16:38). Additional discussions on writing pesukim in non-Ashuris script can be found in Teshuvos HaRambam (268), Tashbetz (1:2), Chazon Ish (Yoreh De’ah 167:10), Minchas Yitzchak (4:45:4), and Mikdash Me’at (283).
However, the Shach (283:3) cites the Rif and other Rishonim who permit writing pesukim nowadays under the principle of eis la’asos la’Hashem heferu Torasecha—since not everyone knows the pesukim by heart, and Chumashim are not always available, prohibiting writing would lead to neglect of Kerias Shema and tefillah. The Bach similarly rules that this is the widespread custom in all communities.
The Taz (283:1) echoes the Rif and Bach, expressing surprise that the Rema does not mention this, yet he agrees that the practice is justified. However, he notes that this allowance is only for educational purposes, whereas writing pesukim on a wall for decorative or symbolic purposes is improper, as the Torah was given as a complete and whole entity.
The Bnei Yonah extends this leniency even to cases where the need is not as urgent, such as inscribing pesukim of mussar and yir’ah on the walls of a shul, or even on a cloth as a good siman. He concludes that while this is technically permitted, it is preferable to avoid unnecessary writing. Mikdash Me’at explains this leniency by stating that once an exception was made, it remains in effect. Sefer Tzedakah U’Mishpat (ibid.) infers from the Shach (283:6) that embroidering pesukim on a tallis is permitted despite the concern of writing single parshios outside of a sefer context. Similarly, the Mishnah Berurah (638:24) cites Acharonim who prohibit writing pesukim such as basukkos teishvu for hanging in a sukkah due to this concern.
From all the above, the halacha emerges that although the Shulchan Aruch forbids writing pesukim, and some extend this even to Nevi’im and Kesuvim, the custom is to be lenient when there is a clear educational need. If no need exists, one should not be lenient, and certainly where there is concern for disrespect or desecration, it is prohibited to write pesukim.
Given we have established that pesukim may be written on a board for teaching purposes based on the Rif, Bach, and others, we must now determine whether erasing them is permissible, given that they may have inherent kedusha.
Regarding a justification for melamdim erasing pesukim from a board, we find explicit support in the Tashbetz (1:2), as cited in Pischei Teshuvah (283:2) and Bnei Yonah, who conclude that it is permissible to write full pesukim on a board for teaching and subsequently erase them. Similarly, pesukim may be written on cakes and then consumed, since the concern was only raised regarding the name of Hashem, but not regarding erasing pesukim themselves.
One might infer from the Tashbetz that erasing is only permitted when done to facilitate further Torah writing, but erasing for no reason, to write secular matters, or to leave the board blank would not be permitted. However, Teshuvos Ein Yitzchak (Orach Chaim 5:10-11) permits erasing in any case, explaining that since the writing was done with the intent to erase, it is as if an explicit condition was made that it does not acquire kedusha. Based on this, even the board itself would not require genizah (see Har Tzvi, Yoreh De’ah 234; Ginzai HaKodesh chap.11; Teshuvos Rav Chaim Kanievsky ibid.).
Sefer Tzedakah U’Mishpat (pg. 396) extends this ruling to a practical and common scenario: Notes containing Torah insights, outlines, drafts for publication, and even handwritten test papers should ideally be placed in a bag or box before being discarded, preferably in a manner that ensures they will be burned along with other trash, especially if non-Jews handle the disposal. This is even more relevant when the writing is in non-Ashuris script, which carries less inherent sanctity. Minchas Yitzchak (1:11), citing Machaneh Chaim, also references this practice, though some great scholars were stringent, as noted in Levush Mordechai (Yoreh De’ah 41), who discusses treating Torah writings written for personal use with greater care, and burying, not burning them.
If the Pasuk Had Shem Hashem Written on the Board, Can It Be Erased?
Q:
A melamed wrote a pasuk on the board while teaching and mistakenly included Shem Havayah. Must the board be placed in genizah, or is there a way to rectify the situation?
A:
This question was presented to Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l, who ruled that the board must be placed in genizah. Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l issued the same ruling.
However, some poskim suggested a solution to avoid genizah in cases where Sheimos were written: placing the board in a location where the writing will be erased naturally, such as leaving it outside before expected rainfall. This is only permissible if done in advance, before the rain begins—placing it outside during the rain would be direct erasure and prohibited. Rav Nissim Karelitz zt”l agreed with this heter, and it is further supported from the Gemara in Shabbos (120a) regarding a person with Sheimos written on his skin, who may enter a mikvah if he covers them loosely with a reed. Since the water erases the letters indirectly, there is no concern.
However, if the Shem Havayah was written with breaks between the letters (e.g., ה-י), it does not have the status of a Shem, and erasing it is permitted. Some poskim suggested that a katan or a nochri could be asked to erase the board indirectly, though one who is stringent in this matter is praiseworthy.
Halachah Lemaasah:
One should not write pesukim on a board unless necessary for teaching. Where needed, the minhag is to be lenient. A pasuk written for teaching purposes may be erased afterward, even if no new divrei Torah will be written in its place immediately. However, one who wishes to be stringent and only erase in order to write new divrei Torah is praiseworthy.
Paying Maos Chitim-Kimcha D’pischa with Ma’aser Money
Q:
Each year before Pesach, many people ask if they can fulfill the giving out maos chitim with Ma’aser money?
A:
In short, we will point out that the accepted ruling in practice is to permit one to give out maos chitim with ma’aser money. This is the opinion of many great poskim.
To explain the basis of this psak halacha, the Rema in YD 249:1 writes that one should not use ma’aser money to pay for a mitzvah, especially a mitzvah where the giver will benefit. Rather, ma’aser money should be given to the poor, where the receiver is the beneficiary.
The Be’er Hagolah writes that this applies to obligatory mitzvos such as tefillin, sukkah, esrog, etc. It seems based on this that the Rema would agree that ma’aser may be used for certain mitzvos. There is a dispute in the Achronimwhether one can use ma’aser money to pay for non-obligatory mitzvos.
The Taz (YD 249:1) says that if one won’t be able to fulfill the mitzvah unless he uses ma’aser money, he may do so and use ma’aser money. This is the ruling of many great poskim. See Schach (ibid. 3), Aruch Hashulchan 8.
In regards to Kimcha D’pischa, money that is given out to poor people for Pesach needs before the chag, most poskimmaintain that you may use Ma’aser money for it.
Even though some poskim point out that in earlier times, there was a set amount that one was obligated to give for kimcha d’pischa, treating it as an obligatory mitzvah—which would mean one would not be able to use Ma’aser money—today, that isn’t the case. Therefore, it is considered a mitzvah to give money to poor people, which doesn’t have a set amount, and Ma’aser money may be used for this great custom.
See Halichos Shlomo Moadim 2:2, Shu”t Teshuvos V’hanhagos 6:109, Shevet Hakahasi 1:137.
“Lo Tiheyeh Lo k’Nosheh” in the Context of Rental Payments and Loans – Part 1
Q:
I have been asked many times whether it is permissible to request repayment from someone who borrowed money from a gemach, or whether doing so would violate the prohibition of lo tiheyeh lo k’nosheh.
Similarly, in a case where someone rented out their apartment to another person, and several months have passed without payment, is it permitted to ask for the rent, given that the tenant may not have the means to pay?
I will, with siyata d’shmaya, clarify the fundamental prohibition and its practical applications in the course of a few weeks. Here is Part 1.
A:
The Gemara in Bava Metzia (75b) states:
The pasuk (Shemos 22:24) says,
“If you lend money to My people… you shall not act toward him as a creditor (lo tiheyeh lo k’nosheh).”
It is forbidden for a person to even appear before his debtor at a time when he knows the debtor has no means to repay. Even merely passing in front of him is prohibited, as the debtor feels shame upon seeing his lender when he is unable to pay.
The Kesef Hakodashim questions whether merely appearing before the debtor is also a Torah prohibition, or if only explicitly demanding repayment constitutes a d’oraisa prohibition.
Shaarei Metzuyanim B’halacha (179:3) discusses this matter further.
The Minchas Chinuch (Mitzvah 67) and Gidulei Torah (beginning of Shaar 2) write that simply passing in front of the debtor is only a d’rabanan prohibition.
Accordingly, if the lender frequently encounters the borrower—such as a neighbor in his community or a fellow member of his beis midrash—the Aruch Hashulchan rules that as long as the borrower does not feel distress or embarrassment when seeing him, and the lender does not hint at repayment, it is permissible to appear before him.
The Extent of the Prohibition When There Is No Intent to Distress the Borrower
It is evident from the words of the poskim that the fundamental basis of the prohibition of lo tiheyeh lo k’nosheh is solely due to the distress caused to the borrower through the lender’s demand for repayment.
As the Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 67) states:
“He knows that the borrower has no means and demands payment to distress him.”
In the coming weeks, we will continue to discuss whether or not the prohibition applies even when the borrower has no means to repay, or if the borrower needs to borrow money or sell property in order to repay his rent or repay his loan.
Download the PDF -> Parshas Vayakhel