July 10, 2026 Categories: Ask the Rabbi / Torah
Q & A: Relative Sanctity of Various Holy Book (Part II)
Question: Because of the Torah’s sanctity, we do not place any object on a Torah scroll except for its mantle or a talit during Torah reading. Is it a violation to put a siddur or other sefer on top of a printed Chumash when these are placed on shelves or tables?
Menachem Via email
Synopsis: There is a deferential order of sanctity assigned to seforim, as indicated in Gemara Megilla (27a). The Torah is the holiest, upon which no seforim are placed. A scroll containing one or all of the Chumashim may be placed upon scrolls of the Prophets and Ketuvim that make up the Hagiographia. The Mechaber (Yoreh De’ah 282:19, 283:1) explains that a scroll binding the five books of the Pentateuch together still does not achieve the status of a Torah scroll and may not be placed upon a Torah; however, it may be placed on the Prophets and Writings. Rema reminds us in his glosses that this only applies to scrolls, and that with our bound books, there is no difference in sanctity between a Chumash and a Navi sefer. Siddurim are not mentioned in the Gemara, as they were not in use at that time. My uncle HaRav Sholom Klass, zt”l (Responsa of Modern Judaism Vol. II p.532), citing his rebbi, HaRav David HaCohen Leibowitz, zt”l, explained that one may place a siddur on a Chumash because the siddur contains portions from all parts of the Tanach.* * * * *
Answer: Birkei Yosef (Yoreh De’ah 282:19) cites Rambam (according to Rabbeinu Avraham, son of the Rambam, cited by Sefer Ma’aseh Rokeach) who was strictly opposed to binding together the Nevi’im and Ketuvim as one. His reason was that they then appear to be of higher sanctity than the Chumashim. He also did not allow the writing of the Targum (Onkelos) or a commentary (perhaps he means one translated into the common vernacular) to be included in the same binding. Finally, he notes the view of the Mordechai, who opines that reading publicly from our Chumashim instead of Sifrei Torah would not be a denigration. Even though we don’t do so, it is obvious that, in his view, there is no prohibition against binding Nevi’im and Ketuvim (scrolls) together. Aruch HaShulchan (282: sk 22) adds an important dimension to the discussion. If the five scrolls were written originally with the intent of kedushat Sefer Torah and then they were subsequently divided, they no longer possess the sanctity of a Sefer Torah, and as such one may place Nevi’im on top of them. Surely, then, when Chumashim are not written with kedusha intent and are written on paper (as opposed to animal parchment) – and even more so, printed – one may put Nevi’im and Ketuvim on top of each other in any order. Aruch HaShulchan cites a support to his statement from Rashi (Megilla 27a s.v. “Chumashim”) who refers to such a Chumash that is only one of the Five Books as a “Sefer Torah that only has one Chumash [of the five].” Thus, even though Rashi considers it to be a Sefer Torah, we nevertheless may place one on top of the other. He notes that Ran is of the same view. Finally, he cites Rema (infra Yoreh De’ah 283:1) who openly refers to printed texts as all being of equal sanctity. Aruch Hashulchan thus notes that in this case, one may freely place one Chumash on top of the other. And surely if they are bound together, it is not even considered as if one was placed on top of the other. The Gaon Rabbi Menashe Klein (Responsa Mishneh Halachot vol.7:182) was asked whether sefarim that are printed with an English [or any lingua franca] text facing the original Hebrew pose a problem when being closed, for in doing so one is placing the Hebrew text face down. The reason for this difficulty is based on Rema (supra Yoreh De’ah 282:5): “One is not allowed to place [any holy texts] facing down, and if one finds it so placed, there is a requirement to turn it over.” He notes that this is not a new issue but one that traces back to Europe, where seforim were very often published with a Yiddish or any other local language teitch (translation). He adds that usually the style was that the Hebrew text was on the top part of the page and the teitch on the lower part. This was probably done to avoid this problem. He essentially goes through many issues discussed here and concludes that since the pages are all bound together, there is no problem. He also notes that even where there is no translation, since a page is printed on both sides, we end up placing some of the text upside down. Thus, doing so is considered common practice. He concludes that not only was there never any reluctance to print in that manner, but further, there was always a firm practice never to overturn a sefer when laying it down.
