30 Nov Recycling Sheimos
We recently discussed the custom in some place to respectfully burn sacred books (sheimos) that become worn out or otherwise unneeded. This practice was forbidden by most authorities, with one outlier who justified it. Another possible option is to recycle sheimos. Even if the sheimos are treated respectfully, the deinking part of the recycling process erases the words through the introduction of chemicals. Does this constitute a forbidden erasure of sacred words? We saw that authorities debated how to treat pre-publication proofs. Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor (19th cen., Russia; Ein Yitzchak 1:5) permitted the respectful disposal of these sheimos for three reasons. In particular, he points out that the proofs are printed to be used temporarily, for checking, and not for learning Torah. Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin (Netziv, 19th cen., Russia; Meishiv Davar 2:80) argues that it is permissible to destroy or erase sacred objects that are sanctified with the intent to destroy them.
I. Indirect Erasure
Rav Shmuel Landau (18th cent., Austria), son of the author of Noda Bi-Yehudah (vol. 2, Orach Chaim, no .17), was asked about a room in a house that was used as a synagogue. Many years later, after having changed owners, can that room be used for personal uses including as a brewery for liquor. One part of the question addresses the prayers that remain written on the wall. The brewing process raises steam that would erase the writing. Rav Landau concludes that you are only allowed to indirectly erase the writing through gerama for the sake of a mitzvah, and this case does not qualify. Instead, he recommends placing a panel on top of the writing. In the course of his answer, he writes that there is no disrespectful treatment greater than erasure. I find this surprising. I would have thought that indirect erasure shows more respect than, for example, tossing words of Torah into the garbage.
The Gemara (Shabbos 120b) discusses a case of some who has G-d’s name written on his arm. The Sages require him to cover the writing when immersing in water so the name is not erased. R. Yossi allows him to immerse normally because while we may not directly erase G-d’s name, we may do indirectly (gerama). If gerama is allowed, this would open the door to many indirect forms of destroying sheimos. However, this ruling does not seem to be quoted by the codes. Rav Landau (ibid.) suggests that this passage is contradicted by a different Gemara (Megillah 26b) that a worn-out Torah scroll must be buried in an earthenware vessel. Why not bury it directly in the ground, since that would cause erasure/decomposition only indirectly? This passage must hold that erasure through gerama is forbidden. At the very least, gerama should only be allowed for a mitzvah, such as immersing for an obligation.
Rav Eliezer Eliyahu Grodnenski (19th cen., Lithuania), in a responsum published by his famous son-in-law and successor Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski (Achiezer 2:48), distinguishes between a Torah scroll and other works including a single divine name written on an arm. We are obligated to save a Torah scroll from fire, even on Shabbos. Therefore, we certainly cannot destroy it indirectly. Other sacred texts and a divine name in isolation are different. We do not save them from fire on Shabbos and therefore may erase them through gerama. According to Rav Grodnenski, we may destroy pre-publication proofs through gerama, although he recommends asking a gentile to give it to another gentile to do so. This would seem to allow recycling sacred texts (other than biblical scrolls), as well.
Rav Shlomo HaCohen (19th cen., Lithuania, Cheshek Shlomo, Shabbos 120b) disputes Rav Grodnenski’s assumption that a single divine name on an arm is comparable to a prayerbook or Talmud text. Those texts have only a rabbinic prohibition. The name of G-d has a biblical prohibition and therefore the same status as a Torah scroll. Therefore, Rav Landau’s objection stands and we may not cause any Torah texts to be erased even through gerama, unless it is for the sake of a mitzvah.
II. What Can Be Done to Torah Newspapers?
As discussed earlier and briefly mentioned above, Rav Spektor gave three reasons for leniency in disposing of pre-publication proofs. 1) They only constitute it sheimos on a rabbinic level. 2) You print them on condition not to sanctify them. 3) You print them for proofreading, not learning Torah. Netziv offers a different reason: 4) You print them with the intent to destroy them.
According to Rav Spektor’s approach, you do not print proofs for learning Torah (#3). This does not apply to Torah newspapers and weekly readers. They are published for the specific intent of learning Torah. According to Netziv’s approach, you print proofs temporarily, with the intent to destroy them (#4). We also publish weekly Torah material with the intent that they will be discarded shortly. According to Netziv, we should be allowed to discard or recycle Torah newspapers while according to Rav Spektor, we should not.
Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggeros Moshe, Orach Chaim, vol. 4, no. 39) follows Rav Spektor’s approach and allows discarding sacred texts (without G-d’s name) that are no longer usable. However, as long as they can be used, even if you do not want them, you must bury them. It seems that according to Rav Feinstein, when it comes to Torah newspapers, you may store them until they degrade and cannot be handled any more. Only then, you can discard or recycle them.
Rav Nachum Rabinovitch (Si’ach Nachum, no. 74) and Rav Moshe Sternbuch (Teshuvos Ve-Hanhagos, vol. 1, no. 553) compare Torah newspapers and weekly readers to pre-publication proofs. They seem to follow Netziv’s approach, that publication with the intent to discard removes the prohibition. Additionally, they both argue that while the biblical prohibition is against erasing G-d’s name, the rabbinic prohibition is only against treating sacred books disrespectfully. If you can erase or destroy them respectfully, then you do not violate the rabbinic prohibition either. Therefore, they suggest you discard them in a garbage or recycling bin where there is no garbage, wrapped respectfully in other paper or a bag. (Rav Sternbuch says that there is room to be strict and bury all sheimos.) Although recall that Rav Landau said that erasure is the ultimate form of disgrace. According to him, any form of recycling would violate the rabbinic prohibition against treating sacred texts disrespectfully.