Siman 135: Weekday Torah Reading

WEEKDAY TORAH READING

 

The reason for reading the Torah on Mondays and Thursdays was explained in last week's shiur, #75.

 

1.  MISSING A TORAH READING

 

Some communities have difficulty organizing a minyan and may sometimes miss reading a portion.  The Rema (se'if 2) rules that they should make up the reading the following Shabbat.  The MB (s.k. 6 and 7) brings certain limitations, but in most cases keeps the rule intact.

 

Of course, one reason that the congregation may lack a minyan is that many congregants are visiting other shuls and have indeed heard the Torah reading.  Does this make any difference? See MB s.k. 7 at the very end.

 

Can the missed Shabbat reading be made up on Monday and Thursday?  The Dagul Me-Revava (written by the redoubtable R. Yechezkel Landau, the author of Noda Be-Yehuda) answers this question in the negative, giving the reason of "bitul melakha" (see MB s.k. 2).  This is a good reason not to make the entire weekday congregation sit through the reading, but seemingly leaves open the possibility of finding volunteers.  The Arukh HaShulchan (se'if 6) gives an additional reason - that this is not the reading designated for those days - but adds that the parsha MAY (and indeed SHOULD) be made up at mincha

 

If a parsha was missed, requiring a reparatory reading the following week, it may occur to us that on Monday and Thursday we should read from the parsha we intend to read on Shabbat - the one we missed.  The Dagul Me-Revava rules that we should not push aside the reading normally scheduled for those days.  In other words, the Monday and Thursday readings are established in their own right, and are not mere preparations for Shabbat.

 

Sometimes the reader makes a mistake, and the mistake is not caught.  Often the mistake is caught, but the gabbai quickly concludes that it's not a mistake which requires re-reading that aliya.  In this case, it is NOT necessary to re-read the entire parsha - it is enough to read the "skipped" verse and a couple of others (siman 137:3 and end of siman 282).  According to the SA, this correction can be made even after musaf.  Can it be done even later - e.g., after musaf or on the following Monday and Thursday?  It would seem that the reason of "bitul melakha" would not apply, since we are only adding three verses. 

 

On the other hand, we would still need to read the REGULAR reading for that weekday, as the Dagul Me-Revava explains, and perhaps this would involve us in the problem of "ein medalgin ba-torah" - siman 144.

 

I have not found anyone who discusses this question, though it is far from rare to have a questionable reading which someone manages to demonstrate invalid only after Shabbat.  For instance, a change in accent from "milra" to "mil'el" or vice versa may require some thought to realize that the change might actually constitute another word, and thus, a significant mistake.

 

Here is an example of a mistake I encountered in my own shul on Shabbat Bo.  The reader read (Shemot 10:28) "al toSEF re'ot panai," whereas the ta'amim indicate "al TOsef re'ot panai" - "you will not AGAIN see my face."  I had the honor of being the prompter and I tried to correct this error, but the gabbai made a sour face (as he often does when I try to turn the reader back for innocent mil'els).  As a matter of fact, I could not clearly state what other word this could have been mistaken for.  Later on, I recalled the pasuk in Tehillim (104:29) "toSEF rucham yigva'un" - "You GATHER IN their spirit and they die."  So what the reader quoted Pharaoh as saying was: "You will not gather in seeing my face," meaning presumably that Moshe will never get enough of seeing Pharaoh's countenance.  (We also heard (Shemot 10:17) "sa na chaTAti" instead of "sa na chataTI" - a clear change in meaning which the gabbai allowed me to correct.)

 

The moral of the story is that gabbaim should not be too timid about making the reader go back over mistakes.  More about this when we get to siman 142 in a few weeks.

 

2.  CALLING THE KOHEN FIRST

 

SOURCES

 

1.  These are the things which were said due to the ways of peace (darkhei shalom): A kohen reads first, after him levi, and after him yisrael, because of the ways of peace ... (Mishna Gittin 59a).

 

Where do we learn this from?

R. Matna said, as the Scripture says (Devarim 31) "And then Moshe wrote this Torah and gave it to the kohanim the sons of Levi."  Don't I know that the kohanim are the sons of Levi?  [Rather, this hints that] a kohen comes first and afterwards levi.

R. Yitzchak the smith said, from here (Devarim 21): "And the kohanim, the sons of Levi, approached." Don't I know that the kohanim are the sons of Levi?  [Rather, this hints that] a kohen comes first and afterwards levi.

R. Ashi says, from here: (Divrei HaYamim I 23) "The sons of Amram, Aharon and Moshe, and He separated Aharon to sanctify him holy of holies."

R. Chiya bar Abba said, from here: (Vayikra 21) "And sanctify him" - [give him precedence] in every matter of sanctity.  This is a beraita from the Beit Midrash of R. Yishmael: (Vayikra 21)  "And sanctify him" - [give him precedence] in every matter of sanctity: to speak first [including reading from the Torah - Rashi], to bless first [at meals], and to take a choice portion first.

Abaye said to R. Yosef, [do kohanim really read first] because of "darkhei shalom" - it's deoraita!  [As we just learned from R. Matna, R. Yitzchak, and R. Chiya bar Abba.]  He replied, it's deoraita, AND because of the ways of peace.  [Abaye replied,]  The whole Torah is also because of the ways of peace, as it is written (Mishlei 3) "Her ways are ways of pleasantness and all her paths are peace!" [So it can't be that the Mishna is giving us the special reason of this particular halakha.]

Rather, said Abaye, as my master [Rabba bar Nachmani, used to teach]: It is taught [in a beraita]: two people wait for each other at a [serving] plate [so that one does not help himself if the other is occupied with drinking etc. and can not take - SA OC 170:2], but if there are three there is no need to wait.  The one who breaks bread takes first, but if he wants to honor his Rebbe or someone greater than him, he may.  And my master said, that is only at a meal, but in Beit Knesset no, [one designated for precedence may not honor someone else] so that they should not come to wrangle.  R. Matna said, even in Beit Knesset it is impermissible only on Shabbat, not on Monday and Thursday.

But isn't it true that R. Huna would read in place of the kohen even on Shabbat and Yom Tov?  R. Huna is different, for even R. Ami and R. Asi the most distinguished kohanim of Eretz Yisrael were subordinate to him.

Abaye said, we hold: if there is no kohen, the bundle unravels [and a yisrael can precede a levi]. 

And Abaye said, we hold: if there is no levi, the kohen reads [the same kohen who read first, as the Gemara explains]  (Gemara there, Gittin 59b).

 

2.  Rav read in place of the kohen, just as R. Huna read in the place of the kohen.  [It is understandable that] R. Huna would read in the place of the kohen, since even R. Ami and R. Asi, the most distinguished kohanim of Eretz Yisrael, were subordinate to him.  But R. Shemuel was alive, who was a kohen and was honored above Rav!  Actually, Rav had precedence over Shemuel, but he honored him [by allowing him to take precedence in his presence]  (Megilla 22a).

 

3.  [R. Perida attributed his longevity to the fact that he never read from the Torah before a kohen - among other habits.  The gemara continues,] is this an attainment?!  Did not R. Yochanan say, that any talmid chakham who lets an ignoramus bless before him, even if it is the kohen gadol, this talmid chakham is liable to death, as it is said (Mishlei 8) "All those who hate Me, love death?" [R. Pereida was] referring only to equals [but he would read before ignorant kohanim]  (Megilla 28a).

 

EXPLANATION

 

The first source brings various textual bases for giving a kohen precedence and honor.  Some of the texts also provide a basis for the levi to be second to the kohen.  Although the Mishna asserts that a kohen reads first because of "darkhei shalom," according to the conclusion "darkhei shalom" is not the basis for the precedence per se, but rather the reason the kohen may not waive his precedence.  If not for this reason, it would be appropriate for a kohen to yield to his Rebbe because of the honor of the Torah (which is greater than that of the priesthood - Mishna Horayot 3:8)

 

However, we learn that there is an exception - a recognized "gedol ha-dor" like R. Huna may read first.  We see from the third source that if the kohen is an ignoramus, the gedol ha-dor MUST read first.  It is unclear from the gemara if even an ordinary Torah scholar should precede a total ignoramus, but Tosafot (Gittin 59b) tend to the opinion that R. Perida was a leading Torah scholar - suggesting that an ordinary Torah scholar should not (or at any rate need not) precede an "am ha-aretz".

 

(There is an opinion in the Geonim that in order to read first, it is necessary to be the greatest sage and ALSO have a formal position of secular leadership such as Nasi or Exilarch.  This view seems to be contradicted by the story about Rav - see Korban Netanel.)

 

It is easy to understand why the Torah scholar needs to be greater than any kohen PRESENT.  But the gemara emphasizes that it was necessary that R. Huna and Rav were greater than EVERY kohen in their generation.  Apparently, we are afraid that once we call up R. Plony after a kohen in one Beit Knesset, then if we call him up BEFORE a kohen in another Beit Knesset then the kohanim of the latter congregation will complain.  Even if they recognize that they are out of the league of R. Plony, they may resent the unfavorable comparison with the kohanim of the first congregation.  Hence, it is necessary that everyone recognize that the sage be greater than kohanim anywhere.

 

As we pointed out, source 3 SEEMS to suggest that ANY Torah scholar should precede an ignoramus.  This creates a problem in the opposite direction.  While the spurned kohen may recognize that R. Plony is far wiser than he, he may not consider himself an "am ha-aretz."  The gabbai could even play games and purposely call up the Rebbe first in order to express his opinion that the kohen is an ignoramus.

 

For this reason, the Shulchan Arukh rules that the appropriate custom is to call up a kohen first in every instance.  This seemingly opens the door to a NEW dispute - doesn't this compromise the dignity of the Torah, especially since the gemara rules that we should pass over an ignorant kohen?  See the MB s.k. 12 who explains how the SA's wording gets around this problem.

 

Actually, we go even farther.  The SA rules according to the strict letter of the law that we may not call someone up to the Torah who does not know how to read along with the reader.  This implies that even the ignoramus of the gemara, about whom the possibility of being passed over in favor of a scholar is raised, at least knew how to read.  According to "dina de-gemara" we favor a leading Torah scholar over an ignoramus even if the latter DOES know how to read, but nowadays we give precedence to an ignorant kohen even if the latter does NOT know how to read.

 

What about calling up a "bur" before a KOHEN who is a Torah scholar?  See BH s.v. Lifnei.