1) the מגן אברהם states that קריה״ת is דאוריית׳. It seems that it is accepted that פרשת עמלק is indeed דאורייתה, and according to many, so is פרשת פרה. Re. computer checking, it is totally spurious to compare computer checking to checking via microscope. We have a principle of... אין לדיין אלא מה. What is seen via microscope, such as microorganisms in water and air, cannot ever be seen by human eyes. This is in contradistinction to a computer check. It is always visible to the human eye, but is simply overlooked, for whatever reason. It is most analogous to someone using eyeglasses as an aid. Would מנשה הקטן be against a scribe checking with the aid of prescription glasses? This too is a relatively “modern” invention!

1) the מגן אברהם states that קריה״ת is דאוריית׳. It seems that it is accepted that פרשת עמלק is indeed דאורייתה, and according to many, so is פרשת פרה. Re. computer checking, it is totally spurious to compare computer checking to checking via microscope. We have a principle of... אין לדיין אלא מה. What is seen via microscope, such as microorganisms in water and air, cannot ever be seen by human eyes. This is in contradistinction to a computer check. It is always visible to the human eye, but is simply overlooked, for whatever reason. It is most analogous to someone using eyeglasses as an aid. Would מנשה הקטן be against a scribe checking with the aid of prescription glasses? This too is a relatively “modern” invention!

I mistexted previously. I meant the ב״ח who maintains that קריה”ת is דאורייתה, not the מג״א.

(1) Targum is a translation, not (basically) a commentary. So what do you (or Leiman) mean by using the Rav’s translation? (2) re. Menashe ha’Koton’s responsa: the concept of לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת and relating it to the computer, and the comparison with squaring of tefillin: no one is saying that the computer is the final authority. R. Klein is putting up a straw man, as is the comparison to checking with a microscope. With the latter, there is no way that the naked eye could EVER see or measure the microorganisms or square the tefillin, whereas, with checking the Sefer Torah, the computer is not making ANY determination. It is simply pointing out a (perhaps) mistake that people could easily see themselves. It is analogous to a person using eyeglasses, which Moshe Rabbeinu did (probably) not wear, in spite of his being the אב לחכמים. No one ever claims that a person should not look after the computer. If a softer needs glasses to do his work, does ANYONE claim that this is not halakhically sanctioned? Certainly not! At least, not anyone with common sense. The same point with etrog and vegetable checking with a magnifying glass. As for identifying a Sefer Torah via this computer checking: I’m sure that you must be aware of the relatively common practice of using ink on a certain area of the ס״ת that can only be seen under ultraviolet light. Re. Reading from the ס״ת being תקנת עזרא and not biblical: according to the Bach, it is, and Ezra’s innovation was when, how, and how much. But indeed (?almost?) all seem to say that פרשת עמלק IS biblical, as well as some saying פרשת פרה. The comparison to חסרות..., : that’s said (that the ס״ת is kosher, because there is no change in meaning, whereas in other cases, where the meaning would change, it becomes a major issue. As far as the passage in the gemora where there were three sifrei torah in the azarah and the majority ruled: why would one not say that if we took a survey of all the ס״ת, we would indeed change the text, although the age of the torahs too need to be taken into account and would weigh heavily in the decision process. This is certainly born out (albeit with some controversy) with the issue of changes made by Professor Breuer and others, although we are missing virtually the entire torah portion (but do have much of it written down by people who saw it in the past.) Much more can be said about this, such as שד”ל, and the mouthing of various versions while reading the megillah (which seems to be mostly a modern innovation [whoever said that the Orthodox don’t innovate?].)

(1) Targum is a translation, not (basically) a commentary. So what do you (or Leiman) mean by using the Rav’s translation? (2) re. Menashe ha’Koton’s responsa: the concept of לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת and relating it to the computer, and the comparison with squaring of tefillin: no one is saying that the computer is the final authority. R. Klein is putting up a straw man, as is the comparison to checking with a microscope. With the latter, there is no way that the naked eye could EVER see or measure the microorganisms or square the tefillin, whereas, with checking the Sefer Torah, the computer is not making ANY determination. It is simply pointing out a (perhaps) mistake that people could easily see themselves. It is analogous to a person using eyeglasses, which Moshe Rabbeinu did (probably) not wear, in spite of his being the אב לחכמים. No one ever claims that a person should not look after the computer. If a softer needs glasses to do his work, does ANYONE claim that this is not halakhically sanctioned? Certainly not! At least, not anyone with common sense. The same point with etrog and vegetable checking with a magnifying glass. As for identifying a Sefer Torah via this computer checking: I’m sure that you must be aware of the relatively common practice of using ink on a certain area of the ס״ת that can only be seen under ultraviolet light. Re. Reading from the ס״ת being תקנת עזרא and not biblical: according to the Bach, it is, and Ezra’s innovation was when, how, and how much. But indeed (?almost?) all seem to say that פרשת עמלק IS biblical, as well as some saying פרשת פרה. The comparison to חסרות..., : that’s said (that the ס״ת is kosher, because there is no change in meaning, whereas in other cases, where the meaning would change, it becomes a major issue. As far as the passage in the gemora where there were three sifrei torah in the azarah and the majority ruled: why would one not say that if we took a survey of all the ס״ת, we would indeed change the text, although the age of the torahs too need to be taken into account and would weigh heavily in the decision process. This is certainly born out (albeit with some controversy) with the issue of changes made by Professor Breuer and others, although we are missing virtually the entire torah portion (but do have much of it written down by people who saw it in the past.) Much more can be said about this, such as שד”ל, and the mouthing of various versions while reading the megillah (which seems to be mostly a modern innovation [whoever said that the Orthodox don’t innovate?].)

I am currently out of the office and plan on returning November 29th. If you are trying to send a message to Rabbi Rakeffet, please note that I will not be checking my email however he will still be receiving his messages. There is someone who has been instructed to print and correspond for all incoming messages. Cheri

I am currently out of the office and plan on returning November 29th. If you are trying to send a message to Rabbi Rakeffet, please note that I will not be checking my email however he will still be receiving his messages. There is someone who has been instructed to print and correspond for all incoming messages. Cheri