STaM is an acronym, referring to certain writings used in ritual. These writings are: Sefer Torah (Torah scroll), and the parchments within tefillin and mezuzah. The Written Torah does not set any requirements for how STaM is to be written (and it does not even command either tefillin or mezuzah). However, according to the Oral Torah, there are strict requirements. One of these requirements, which I discuss below, is even considered to be leMoshe miSinai, that is, given to Moses during the Revelation, and thus unalterable.
One of the Oral Torah requirements, the one believed to be leMoshe miSinai, is that STaM can only be written on a certain portion of animals skin called qelaf; and specifically, STaM cannot be written on another portion of animal skin, called dokhsotos. According to the Oral Torah, as it exists in the mouths of today's Orthodox Rabbis, qelaf means epidermis, while dokhsotos means dermis. These definitions are based on the Vilna edition of the Mishneh Torah.
The Mishneh Torah, written by Moshe ben Maimon, aka Maimonides, aka RaMBaM, is perhaps the greatest of all Rabbinical works. It is a codification of the entire Oral Torah, as set down in the Talmud. Two editions of the Mishneh Torah exist: the Vilna edition and the Qafih edition. There are some discrepancies between the two editions. The Vilna edition was, and still is, widely available. But the Qafih edition is more accurate as it is attested by ancient manuscripts and, where it disagrees with the Vilna edition, is in agreement with other ancient works.
The Vilna edition and the Qafih edition of the Mishneh Torah define qelaf and dokhsotos in two opposite ways. The Vilna edition says that qelaf is the epidermis while dokhsotos is the dermis. According to the Qafih edition, qelaf is the dermis while dokhsotos is the epidermis.
To summarize, Rabbis believe that a law was given to Moses, and thus cannot be altered, that certain writing done for ritual purposes can only be done on qelaf and cannot be done on dokhsotos. The correct definition of qelaf is dermis, of dokhsotos is epidermis. Yet, they (or the overwhelming majority of them), break this law by doing the exact opposite: they write these things on the epidermis.
One of the arguments in favor of the Oral Torah is that the student learns directly from the teacher. This chain runs back directly to Moses, who, in turn, learned from God Himself. The advantage of this is that, if the student makes a mistake, or if he does not understand something, the teacher is there to assist. This is a supposed "error correction" mechanism.
Yet, where is this mechanism today? Today, the Qafih edition of the Mishneh Torah is available to all. Today, it is clear that there is an error in "the way things have always been done", according to the Vilna edition. Yet, the Rabbis refuse to change their ways. Tradition! It has "always" been done this way, therefore it must be the correct way. Tevye the Milkman, here we come.
Here is the sum of the matter. If RaMBaM had the Oral Torah, then modern-day Rabbis do not, because they do the opposite of what he said. Yet, if he did not have the Oral Torah, then where did they get it from? In either case, modern-day Rabbis do not have the Oral Torah.
There are other issues involving STaM. One, I already mentioned; others I mention below.
Ray:
The standard practice mixes up the definitions of "qelaf" and "dokhsostos." This is evidenced by the MT having the incorrect girsa in standard editions of Hilkhoth Tefillim as to what is qelaf and what dokhsotos. See Qafih ad loc. Qafih's girsa, that of Machon mamre, and that of the *authorized* girsa of the Oxford manuscript all have the reverse of the Vilna edition. Thus, according to all ancient manuscripts, qelaf is the dermis and dokhsostos the epidermis. One who writes tefillim or a a sefer on false qelaf/epidermis has written on the wrong skin, and on the wrong side!! This defect is me'aqebh, and these laws are halakha leMoshe Missinai!!What it all boils down to is:
1. Is the Rambam's articulation faithful to Talmudic Law or not?
2. Even if correct, are the quloth of the aharonim valid when we do have the ability to fix the problem? One cannot claim sha'ath haddehaq for 500 years, folks!
... Let's follow the law and not assume religious people are infallible. Let's understand that sha'ath haddehaq is **temporary.** If we, at a national level, return to the ancient practice it might actually usher in the Messianic Age. You cannot imagine the excitement I felt when I first put on my maimonidean tefillim. If every Jew can know that excitement, it might actually precipitate something. Even the Sanhedrin can err. Hence the Qorban associated with such error.
Mekhase pesha'av lo yasliah. Wumodhe ve'ozebh yeruham. Think we do not particularly need rahamim now? Try to visit the Temple Mount sometime.
Ron, contact Yechiel Tzeitkin and get some new tefillim and perhaps a new Meghilla. You will feel absolutely jubilant. Hazor'im bedim'a berinna yiqsoru! The folks at machon mamre know his address.
Another issue with STaM is that, according to the Oral Torah, the skins on which STaM is written, must undergo a certain preparation. Yet today, virtually none of them do.
BS"DRecently some disturbing information was brought to my attention with respect to the kashrut of the Torah scrolls in common use.
In the Mishneh Torah hil' tefilin 1:6, the Rambam writes that the skins used to produce sta"m (Sifrey torah, Tefilin and Mezuzot) must undergo a specific process, by a Jew. Specifically: (1) removal of the hair (2) salting (3) flouring and (4) tanning [with oak gall or other similar substances].
The Sh"A Y"D 271 also says the skins need to be worked by a Jew, and that they need to be worked by "oak gall or lime or similar substances which contract and strengthen the skin".
Now, the Rambam only says "oak gall or similar...", and does not say "lime" because it does not, in fact, have a similar effect to oak gall -- it only serves to remove the hair. Which makes me wonder why the Mechaber brings "lime" as something similar to "gall" - they are chemically very different in what they do to the skin.
I checked out several sta"m places on-line which have "tours" and explanations of how the skins are worked. Currently, they are soaked in *water* and then in *lime*, and that is it. There is no tanning at all in modern skins.
Not only that, but the skins are salted by the initial provider so they do not rot in transit. But salting is a stage in the "`ibud" [note that "hamafshito vemolho" is hayyav on shabbat] and as such, must be done by a Jew -- which at least according to R' Kapach in his comments to this halacha, they are not in Israel where most of the skins are purchased /salted/ from goyim.
So it seems there are two problems with the current parchments: (1) they are not me`ubadim by Jews [at least initially] and (2) they are not tanned.
I would appreciate the input of those more knowledgable than I on this. I am confronted with the seeming realization that I cannot say a berachah on most sifrey torah I am likely to encounter, and that the berachot I have been making have been levatalah.