The recent Daf Yomi (Menachot 30a) addresses a commandment that has a mysterious place within Jewish practice:

Rabbi Yehoshua bar Abba said in the name of Rav Gidel who said in the name of Rav: One who purchases a Sefer Torah from the marketplace is like one who snatches a mitzvah from the marketplace; but one who writes it himself—Scripture considers it as if he received it from Mount Sinai. Rav Sheshet said: even if one merely corrects a single letter, it is considered as if he wrote the entire Sefer Torah.

The reference is to the final commandment in the Torah: “Now write for yourselves this song” (ve’atah kitvu lakhem et hashirah hazot, Deuteronomy 31:19). The Talmud (Sanhedrin 21b) derives from this verse that everyone is obligated to write a Sefer Torah, even if one’s ancestors left him one. Yet very few Jews, it would seem, have actually written a Sefer Torah. Is this mitzvah being neglected by almost all Jews?

Possible Paths to Fulfillment

The halakhic literature examines various potential paths to fulfillment. One fundamental question concerns whether one can fulfill this mitzvah through agency. Given that professional scribes produce superior work, many prefer hiring a sofer, assuming that the preference for doing a mitzvah personally becomes secondary when quality is at stake (see Resp. Dovev Meisharim, 1:47; Resp. Pri HaSadeh 3:185; Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, Kovetz Teshuvot 1:112; Responsa Teshuvot VeHanhagot 1:624-625; Resp. L’Horot Natan, 3:69).

Another approach involves multiple people jointly commissioning a Sefer Torah. Some authorities were stringent—Responsa Yemei Yosef Batra (Yoreh De’ah 14), quoting Mareh HaNogah (6c) and Responsa Beit Ephraim (Yoreh De’ah 63), maintains that partnership cannot fulfill individual obligation. However, significant authorities allow it, including the Arukh HaShulchan (270:11) and Iggerot Moshe (Yoreh De’ah I, 163). See also Pischei Teshuvah (Yoreh De’ah 270:1), Rabbi Akiva Eiger’s commentary, Minchat Chinuch (613:7), and Ohr Sameach (Hilkhot Sefer Torah 7:1).

The word “lakhem”—“for yourselves”—has been interpreted in multiple ways. In other contexts, this language has indicated a requirement of ownership, which would challenge the possibility of partnership. The Kehillot Yaakov (Sanhedrin 12) addresses this by noting that since a Sefer Torah cannot be divided (Bava Batra 13b), each partner effectively uses the entire scroll and it can be considered wholly owned by each. The Bach uses “lakhem” as the source for the idea that one must write his own and cannot be satisfied with one from his ancestors. Rav Baruch Epstein in his Tosefet Berakhah notes that while the same language appears regarding etrog and requires ownership without excluding inheritance, here the whole point is to add more Torah into the world, not simply to acquire what already exists.

An additional position emerges from the Torat Chaim (Sanhedrin 21b), who maintains that “lakhem” requires maintaining personal ownership, and therefore one who donates the Sefer Torah to the synagogue is not in fulfillment. This is also the view of the Maharal of Prague (glosses to the Tur; see also Resp. Avnei Nezer, OC 40:6, and Resp. Eretz Tzvi p. 308; for a lengthy discussion of this position and its possible ramifications, see Responsa Chazon Nachum 1:85 and Responsa Seridei Eish II, YD 70:3). This stringent position contrasts with those who understand that dedicating a Sefer Torah to the synagogue where it serves the educational purpose stated in the verse may constitute valid fulfillment, particularly when combined with retaining technical ownership while lending the scroll to the community.

Some explain contemporary practice by asserting that the mitzvah no longer applies in its original form. Shaagat Aryeh (37) argues we are entirely exempt because the Talmud states that we no longer possess expertise in cheseirot viyeirot—knowing which letters should be written with or without the vav or yud. Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (Kovetz Teshuvot 1:112) refutes this, noting that there are two types of extra or missing letters: some that invalidate a Sefer Torah and some that do not, and the lack of perfect knowledge affects only the latter category.

Does Purchase Fulfill the Mitzvah?

The Talmud’s reference to grabbing a Torah from the marketplace presents the question of whether purchase of a Sefer Torah is a valid option to fulfill the commandment. Rashi understands the phrasing to mean that purchase performs a mitzvah, though writing does so to a greater degree. The Vilna Gaon concurs. However, the Tur implies otherwise, and the Rama rules explicitly that purchase does not fulfill the mitzvah at all, although the Seridei Eish (2:YD 77:3) asserts that the consensus of authorities is against this.

The phrase “snatching a mitzvah” has alternative explanations. Some understand it to mean that the purchaser is removing the Torah from the seller’s possession, thereby canceling his potential mitzvah. This interpretation may allow for different applications—for instance, when purchasing from a professional sofer who wrote it specifically on one’s behalf as an agent.

This dispute goes to the core of the mitzvah itself. Is the mitzvah specifically to create a Sefer Torah through the act of writing, or is it fundamentally about owning one? These considerations all point to a fundamental question: Is this mitzvah for the purpose of learning Torah, as the verse’s language indicates? The Behag and Semag notably do not count ketivat Sefer Torah as an independent mitzvah, viewing it instead as an aspect of the mitzvah of Torah study (Rabbi Yerucham Fishel Perlow). Shaagat Aryeh (35) notes that if the purpose is to know the Torah, it becomes difficult to understand why women would be exempt, despite the exemption appearing in Sefer HaChinuch and Maimonides’ code, and implied in Shulchan Arukh. The focus on writing as the act itself seems to be the view of Maimonides (Hilkhot Sefer Torah 7:1 and Sefer HaMitzvot 18). In fact, the Beit HaLevi (1:6) attributes Maimonides’ view exempting women to this focus on writing the Torah, which women are excluded from doing.

The Rosh’s Interpretation

The Rosh (Hilkhot Sefer Torah 1, quoted in Tur) offers a transformative reinterpretation: this mitzvah was given for earlier generations who would write a Torah scroll and learn from it. Nowadays, when Sifrei Torah are placed in synagogues for public reading, the mitzvah requires Jews with means to acquire Torah, Mishnah, Gemara and commentaries, and study from them. Through these texts one knows the explanation of the mitzvot and laws with clarity. (Regarding whether the Rosh requires adding one’s own chiddushei Torah, see Responsa Avnei Yashpe III:161, which concludes he does not.)

This position is surprising because we are generally not permitted to reinterpret how Torah commandments are applied based on our understanding of the reasoning. The Chatam Sofer was deeply troubled by this, viewing it as incompatible with the principle that the laws of the Torah are immutable.

Indeed, there is a significant debate as to whether the Rosh actually intended to change the nature of the mitzvah. Some commentaries, such as the Divrei Chamudot, Beit Yosef, Bach, Taz, and Vilna Gaon maintain that acquiring sefarim constitutes an additional dimension rather than a replacement (see also Responsa Minchat Elazar II:54, fn. 1, and III:28). However, the Derishah explicitly disagrees, arguing that it would be an extraordinary innovation to require both without the Rosh explicitly stating so, and therefore understands that the mitzvah has genuinely changed. The Shakh concurs. (The Maharal of Prague also understands the Rosh to be saying this and rejects his position for that reason.)

Some understand it is acceptable to apply a commandment based on the reasoning when the Torah itself provides that reasoning. Since the verse explicitly states the educational purpose, the fulfillment may change based on how that purpose is best achieved (see R. Hershel Schachter, Divrei Soferim, pp. 90-92). R. Moshe Shternbuch (Taam VeDaat) supports this possibility by noting a view that points to the Torah’s usage of “ve’atah”—“and now”—suggesting temporal flexibility.

The Rosh’s position contains both leniency and stringency. The leniency allows an alternative route through acquiring printed sefarim. The stringency requires maintaining ownership, though this may only be a concern if the Sefer is lost completely; if the Sefer Torah is available at the synagogue for learning purposes, this dimension is satisfied, and the individual obligation focuses on acquiring printed texts for personal study. This interpretation may explain how the Rosh is not fundamentally changing the mitzvah (see Teshuvah Shleimah I, YD, 39).

The Difference Between Inheritance and Purchase

The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 613) addresses why inheritance fails but purchase succeeds according to those who accept that it does. He explains that there is a general requirement for some kind of act when performing a mitzvah. Inheritance is purely passive, happening automatically without any action by the heir. Purchase, while not ideal, still involves the buyer’s active decision and acquisition.

Other authorities understand this requirement as more specific to this particular mitzvah’s essence: actively creating the infrastructure for Torah transmission in one’s household. Each generation must contribute its own effort (see Ikvei Sofer to Hitorrerut Teshuvah 4:147, note 4). The Seridei Eish (II, YD 77:1) notes that if the distinction were purely based on effort, receiving a Torah as a gift would not constitute fulfillment. However, he maintains the distinction is about whether one performs an action, and receiving a gift does require performing an active acquisition.

Effort and Attachment: The Psychology of Torah Transmission

Rabbi Shlomo Schneider in his Divrei Shlomo (1:21) quotes from the Toldot Yitzchak that the intent of the mitzvah is to correlate effort and inspiration. If one actually invested effort in creating a Sefer Torah, it will be much more precious and motivating. This illuminates why the mitzvah demands “lakhem”—not just possession but active acquisition through personal investment, serving dual purposes: ensuring technical capacity for Torah study and cultivating the psychological attachment that transforms that capacity into actual engagement.

“As Long As One Does Not Take Pride in That of His Father’s”

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 21b) states, in the context of this mitzvah: “As long as one does not take pride (yitna’eh; some have the text yitga’eh) in that of his father’s.” Hitorrerut Teshuvah (4:147) explains this means one must innovate rather than simply take pride in one’s ancestry, resonating with the development here. The Ketav Sofer explains this is the whole point; we cannot rest on the past but must bring our own initiative, paralleling Avot (2:12): “Prepare yourself to learn Torah, for it is not an inheritance to you.” The mitzvah demands that we actively establish our own relationship with Torah transmission.

The Teshuvah Shleimah: Maximum Effort Within Capacity

The Nimukei Yosef offers insight into the value of correcting even one letter. One who merely buys a Sefer Torah is open to the accusation that had he not found one easily available, he would not have done anything. However, once he corrects a letter, he proves he would have done whatever was necessary, demonstrating genuine investment. Responsa Dvar Yehoshua (3, CM 3:3) builds on this to explain the Talmud’s statement (Avodah Zarah 3a) that on the Day of Judgment, God will defend the Jews while holding a Sefer Torah at His chest. This references the mitzvah of writing a Sefer Torah, displaying Jews’ willingness to make their own efforts, and showing that if they needed to go themselves to Mount Sinai, they would.

The Teshuvah Shleimah (vol. 1, Yoreh De’ah 39) develops this into a principle: the mitzvah measures effort, demonstrating that one is going as far as one’s capabilities allow. What matters is maximum investment within one’s circumstances. This explains why partnership can work, as each partner contributes his full capacity. This principle holds even according to opinions that simple purchase doesn’t count, because purchase alone doesn’t demonstrate maximum effort.

Levels of Fulfillment: An Ascending Scale

Responsa Dvar Yehoshua (1:97) draws an illuminating contrast. If one took an oath to write a Sefer Torah, it would not suffice to purchase one and fix one letter. The mitzvah of writing a Sefer Torah has different parameters and exists along a spectrum; “lefum tzaara agra”—the reward corresponds to the effort.

Responsa Teshuvot VeHanhagot (1:624) identifies two distinct levels. Using a professional agent accomplishes the mitzvah. However, writing or fixing a letter oneself makes it as if one has personally done it with all attendant advantages. The Talmud’s statement that even correcting a single letter elevates one to “as if he received it from Mount Sinai” conveys profound symbolism in reflecting the extent of the experiential impact.

The Mandate for Our Generation

The Talmud’s fundamental principle remains: even if one’s ancestors left him a Sefer Torah, he must write his own. Each generation is instructed not to rely on passive inheritance but must make its own active contribution, creating the correlation between effort and attachment that transforms learning from duty to devotion. Building a Jewish library may fulfill the contemporary expression, but the distinction between “snatching” and true fulfillment remains relevant. Active involvement—seriously studying from those texts, engaging with Torah daily, investing resources in Torah learning—demonstrates maximum effort within capacity. Just as correcting a single letter transforms the experience from marketplace to Sinai, genuine engagement recreates and redefines one’s inner world. We must write our own Sefer Torah, building homes of holiness and personalities of passion that connect us, like our ancestors, to Sinai itself.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​