In celebration of Rabbi Akiva Eiger’s wedding, his uncle, Rabbi Wolf Eiger, held a celebration for his community. All of the rabbis and sages of the town gathered to celebrate this momentous occasion, and during the festive gathering, a halachic debate broke out.
The debate centered on the mitzvah of counting Sefirat HaOmer. In the Torah, there is a positive commandment called Sefirat HaOmer, to count the 49 days from the second night of Passover until the day before Shavuot. This count begins when a specific measure of grain is brought as an offering to God. The counting is performed by reciting a blessing, followed by stating the day count and its makeup of weeks and days. If one forgot to count for one day, then they are no longer able to recite the blessing in the future days; they continue counting without saying the blessing.
This essay aims to focus on a Halachic discussion that arose regarding Sefirat HaOmer–specifically, what if instead of verbalizing the count, one wrote it out? In such a case, did one fulfill the Mitzvah?
Rabbi Wolf Eiger claimed that writing the count would be insufficient and that if one did so, they did not fulfill the commandment. At the root of this claim is that writing is not equivalent to verbalizing. He brought several proofs to his claim.
First, in the context of making vows, it is stated that if one did not explicitly verbalize their vow, they are not obligated to keep it. Second, in the context of the commandment to read Megillat Esther on Purim, there is a discussion about one who writes the Megillah on Purim. The Talmud concludes that writing alone is insufficient to fulfill the Mitzvah of reading the Megillah, which supports the disconnect between writing and verbalizing. Finally, in the context of the Mitzvah of separating portions of the fruit one grows for the Kohen (Terumah), it is stated that one who is mute cannot give Terumah since he cannot recite the blessing. If, however, writing is equivalent to verbalizing, then the person who is mute would be able to write out the blessing and then fulfill the Mitzvah of Terumah; the fact that he cannot participate in the Mitzvah indicates that writing would be insufficient.
Beyond offering these proofs, Rabbi Wolf Eiger also rejected several objections to his arguments. Regarding the recitation of the Torah blessing, which is the blessing made before learning Torah, the Halacha states that one should make this blessing when writing novel Torah thoughts. In this case, it might seem that writing may be equivalent to verbalizing. However, he rejected this as proof of the sameness of verbalization and writing since the blessing on learning Torah does not require verbalizing whatsoever; it simply requires Torah learning, nothing related to speech.
A second point that seemingly supports writing as equivalent is that in the context of legal testimony, our sages taught that the reason the Torah specified “מפיהם” which means from their mouths, is to teach that a proper testimony must be verbalized. The fact that our sages require specific language in the context of testimony to teach that verbalizing is necessary, and that writing is excluded, implies that in all other contexts (where we don’t have language such as מפיהם) writing would be equivalent to verbalizing. Nonetheless, Rabbi Wolf rejects this, claiming that specifically for testimony, one might have thought that writing would be sufficient since the whole goal of testimony is simply to relay information, which one seemingly could do by merely writing. Therefore, it was necessary to teach that it applies only to verbal testimony but not to writing. Although in other contexts where it is more intuitive that writing would not work, it is not necessary to make such a specification.
Rabbi Akiva Eiger, however, denies these claims and maintains that it is unclear whether or not writing is equivalent to verbalizing. Regarding the Megillah reading, Rabbi Akiva Eiger contends that the issue is not that the writing does not count as verbalizing, but rather that the Mitzvah of reading the Megillah has an additional rule that does not allow the text to be recited from memory. Thus, when writing, you are producing the text and not reading from a preexisting one, therefore making it equivalent to reading by heart. Furthermore, regarding the Terumah claim, the real reason is once again not because writing and verbalizing are not equivalent, but rather because blessings specifically must be audible to one’s own ears, which is not the case when writing.
While these details may seem highly technical, this type of Halachic discussion between Rabbi Akiva Eiger and his uncle, Rabbi Wolf Eiger, is exactly what enables us to understand in great detail the parameters of the commandments stated in the Torah. Carefully analyzing various texts throughout the ages about completely different topics, such as vows and Megillah reading, and finding their shared thread, about writing and verbalizing, enables us to practice the commandments in the face of changing circumstances. Whether or not the written counting of the Omer is considered a form of verbalization, listening to the intergenerational voices of our texts enables us to be part of the conversation. And if we listen carefully, we can get one step closer to understanding the blueprint God has established for us for fulfilling his will.
