Simanim 139-140: Someone Who Does Not Know Hebrew

 

[Even] if you are a ben Torah, don't be proud, saying something in public before you have completely worked it out by yourself two or three times.  Once, the chazan [what we call a gabbai] called R. Akiva to read from the Torah and he didn't want to go up.  His students asked him, "Our master, didn't you teach us, 'It is your life and your length of days' - why did you refrain from going up?"  He said, "[I swear by] the [Temple] service - the only reason I refrained from going up was because I didn't prepare the portion two or three times, for it is forbidden for anyone to say words of Torah in public before he has worked it out two or three times by himself.  For thus we find with regard to the Holy One blessed be He, Who gives power to His creatures to speak and the entire Torah is revealed to Him like a single star, and [even so] when He came to give it to Israel it is written: 'Then He saw it and told it, prepared it and searched it out.' And [only] then, 'And He said to man, [Indeed, fear of God is wisdom, and turning from evil is understanding].'"  And thus is it written - 'And God told all of these things' - to Himself, and afterwards 'to say' [to Moshe]. (Midrash Tanchuma Yitro, siman  15)

 

The congregational Torah reading is fundamentally "public Torah study."  As we explained in a previous shiur, it was instituted so that the congregation would not go three days without Torah.  R. Akiva took this literally, viewing the reader as a kind of "darshan" teaching these verses to the congregation.  Since he hadn't reviewed the verses, he felt unable to teach them to others.  It seems that the requirement for review is not really to organize and understand the material - the Torah reader's "shiur" is no different when he has prepared than it is when he has not; and certainly the Holy One blessed be He did not learn anything from His "review."  Rather, R. Akiva viewed this requirement as an independent obligation - to review material before presenting it to the public.

 

Rav David Abudarham learned from this discussion that one who is called to the Torah must review the verses being read on his behalf by the ba'al koreh, implying a fortiori that someone who cannot read himself cannot be called up to the Torah.  Rav Sa'adia Gaon ruled that in a pinch (for instance, when the only kohen is a poor reader) we may be lenient if the oleh is at least able to follow the reading of the ba'al koreh.  This is the basis of the SA's ruling (Beit Yosef 139).

 

The Beit Yosef (siman 141) brings an additional reason to require that the oleh be able read – it is forbidden to recite any part of the Torah reading by heart.  The oleh has to read along with the reader, and if he can't actually read and only reports what he hears from the ba'al koreh, then it is not keriat ha-Torah.  The oleh's berakhot would be in vain.

 

There is additional evidence from the way some Rishonim understand the mishna in Megilla (24a) that a blind person may not read from the Torah - though some Rishonim explain that he cannot "read" for himself even if he knows the verses by heart, but others may read for him.

 

All of these reasons are very convincing, but they seem to beg the question of why we have a "ba'al koreh" in the first place.  This is a very ancient custom (we just cited a ruling of Rav Sa'adia Gaon relating to this custom), and the reason, as mentioned in the Tur (141) in the name of the Rosh, is that some congregants make mistakes in the reading.

 

The Darkei Moshe (siman 141) mentions that the Maharil (a very late Rishon who made an exhaustive recording of Ashkenazi customs) ruled that a blind person MAY be called to the Torah, since, after all, even a sighted person has the portion read to him by the reader. The DM writes that he personally leans towards the BY's ruling, but here in the Rema on the SA he cites the Maharil without comment - though the very fact that he brings it in the name of the Maharil may indicate an implicit reservation (Arukh Ha-shulchan 139:7 - and see Sha'ar Ha-tziyun 6 at the bottom of the page, and the Bi'ur Halakha at the beginning of the next siman).

 

CALLING PEOPLE TO THE TORAH BY NAME

 

The Rema records the custom of calling up the honorees by name.  Many congregations have abolished this custom because of the added burden on the gabbai to run after the honorees and remember their names.  The poor gabbai never gets to hear the entire parsha in his whole career.  Is this innovation appropriate, in light of the Rema's ruling?

 

The Darkei Moshe (135:8) cites the Mordekhai (Gittin 402) who says that there is no obligation to call up a person by his name.  However, the custom IS to call up by name, in order to avoid disputes - if the gabbai nods to a certain person and another person thinks (or says he thinks) that he was the object of the gesture, an unpleasant situation may ensue.

 

Today, the custom in many large shuls is that every person who will be called to the Torah receives a card or plaque indicating his aliya.  Since this obviates the possibility of disputes, it seems that calling up people by the number of their aliya (e.g. "Ya'amod ha-chamishi") is acceptable when such cards or plaques are in use.  When the old gabbai of our shul - with a phenomenal memory for names - moved out of the neighborhood and the new gabbai wanted to hear the Torah reading, he received a ruling that honorees could be called up by number.

 

However, the Avnei Nezer (CM 103) and the Yeshuot Malkho (OC 12) opposed such a change of minhag in very vehement language. Perhaps in a shul (such as ours) where there are both Ashkenazim and Sefaradim (the latter don't have an established minhag to call by name), it is not considered a change of minhag. In this case we have only to relate to the REASON for the minhag, and as we pointed out this is taken care of by the little cards.

 

BLESSING ON THE TORAH READING

 

Space does not permit us to expand on the general source and rules of the birkat ha-Torah - the main place for such a discussion is on siman 47.

 

Briefly, the gemara (Berakhot 21a) learns the obligation of birkat ha-Torah from the verse (Devarim 32), "For I will call the name of Hashem, attribute greatness to our God."  That is, before reading the song of Ha'azinu, Moshe was required to pronounce a berakha (call Hashem's name) and the listeners were required to answer "Amen."  Most Rishonim consider this a full Torah obligation - see MB 47:1.

 

The berakha is sui generis (unlike any other).  It is like birkat ha-mitzva in its language, like birkat ha-nehenin in that it is "me'akev" (that is, one may not study before making a berakha), like birkot ha-shachar since that is when we say it, like birkat ha-shevach because we can fulfill our obligation even with more general praises to Hashem acknowledging our acceptance of Torah, and also like birkat ha-hoda'a.  (All this in siman 47.)  There is the additional surprise that the pre-reading and post-reading berakhot can be switched (MB s.k. 15)!  The gemara itself compares it to the Grace after Meals, as well as to the blessing before eating. 

 

The mishna and gemara (Megilla 21a-b) add that there is an additional birkat ha-Torah recited on the congregational Torah reading.  The reason for this additional berakha, said even though the oleh has already said the berakha during birkot ha-shachar, is given in MB s.k. 15.

 

The blessing recited during public Torah reading may also be used to fulfill the GENERAL daily obligation to say birkat ha-Torah.  Then it is certainly a Torah obligation, according to most opinions.  But, the MB writes, "If he already said birkat ha-Torah, then according to ALL opinions it is derabbanan."  In other words, one fulfills the Torah obligation by saying the birkat ha-Torah together with the morning benedictions, and when called up to the Torah one fulfills the rabbinic injunction instituted for the reason mentioned in MB s.k. 15.

 

Let us contrast this statement with a passage in the Yerushalmi (Berakhot 7:1).  The Yerushalmi, like the Bavli in Berakhot, attempts to compare Birkat Ha-mazon (which, according to the verse, "Ve-akhalta ve-sava'ta u-verakhta," requires a blessing AFTER eating) with birkat ha-Torah (which, according to the verse, "Ki shem HaShem ekra, havu godel le-Elokeinu," requires a berakha BEFORE Torah study), to see if perhaps both require berakhot before AND after.

 

Following this, R. Zeira tries to draw a parallel between the three men who constitute a zimun, where one man says for all three, and the three men who are called up to the Torah on Mondays and Thursdays and Shabbat Mincha - perhaps in this case also one should bless for all three.  Rav Shemuel bar Avdima responds that this seems to assume that birkat ha-Torah was only instituted for CONGREGATIONAL reading ("Lo lamdu birkat ha-Torah mi-birkat ha-zimun ela le-rabbim"), since after all, the second reader is reading from the Torah without making any blessing.  And according to this assumption, there would be no INDIVIDUAL obligation to say birkat ha-Torah at all! The gemara responds that this is indeed the case! The individual birkat ha-Torah is just like every other "birkat ha-mitzva" - and of course all other birkot ha-mitzva are of rabbinical origin only.

 

According to this gemara, the halakha is the opposite of that found in the MB.  The REGULAR birkat ha-Torah is only derabbanan, while the birkat ha-Torah said on being called to the Torah is de'oraita!  This is in perfect accordance with the scriptural source, since the singing of "Ha'azinu" was PUBLIC Torah study.  There are authorities who rule like this Yerushalmi (Beer Sheva [Sota 33a], Mishkenot Yaakov [60], cited in Encyclopedia Talmudit, "Birkat ha-Torah" note 11).

 

The Bi'ur Halakha at the end of siman 47 brings a dispute of the posekim if birkat ha-Torah for women is a Torah or a rabbinical obligation.  It is worth re-examining this question according to the view of the Yerushalmi.  The first opinion brought says that women have a Torah obligation to say birkat ha-Torah, since they are required to study in order to know what to do.  But since they are NOT obligated in PUBLIC Torah study, this reasoning is not enough to obligate them on a Torah level if only public study requires a blessing mi-deoraita.

 

The second opinion brought is that of the Gra, who says that women say the birkat ha-Torah just as they may say a blessing on any mitzva which women are generally exempt from.  The Gra evidently feels that learning in order to know what to do is not an intrinsic obligation.  But even an individual man has no obligation of public Torah study (and even the congregation has no Torah obligation, though the derabbanan dates to Moshe Rabbeinu), so perhaps a woman's obligation in this case is no less than a man's, and the Gra would concur that according to the Yerushalmi a women's obligation would be min ha-Torah.  (See also Arukh HaShulchan OC 282:11.) The point is moot since most authorities do not rule like the Yerushalmi, and furthermore our custom is not to call women up to the Torah (OC 282:3).

 

I find it surprising that more authorities don't cite the Yerushalmi, since it does not seem to conflict with the Bavli in any way.