Simanim 141-142: Correct Practice During Torah Reading

LEANING

 

Compare what the MB writes at the end of s.k. 4 with what the Rema writes in 154:8.

 

HOW LOUD?

 

In se'if 2 the SA indicates that the person called up to the Torah should read in a low voice together with the audible voice of the reader, for the reason mentioned in the SA (and which we discussed in last week's shiur).  The SA concludes that the one called up should read in a voice which is inaudible even to himself.  The MB cites the Zohar as the source for this approach.

 

This may remind us of a parallel discussion in siman 101 (discussed in shiur 56).  There, we learned that one may pray in a voice audible to others if it is absolutely necessary, but it is preferable to pray in a voice audible only to one's self, and the MB mentioned that many people understood the Zohar as saying that one's voice should be completely inaudible.

 

At first, it seems surprising that the SA in 101 rules that one's voice SHOULD be audible to oneself, whereas here he rules on the basis of the Zohar (as is clear from the Beit Yosef) that the voice should be completely inaudible.

 

However, the reasons given in the Zohar are completely different.  Regarding prayer, the Zohar explains that the words of prayer are not for this world but for the upper worlds; consequently, by praying aloud we imply that we mean to designate our prayers for sublunary creatures who need to hear audibly and therefore the prayer is not heard on high (Zohar Vayigash, I:98-99.)  Regarding the Torah reading, the reason given is that the public Torah reading is meant to be a re-enactment of the giving of the Torah at Sinai (a common motif in the revealed sources as well), and so we want to emphasize that we received the Torah from the One God alone.  (Zohar Vayakhel II:206a - this is the continuation of the passage with the "berikh shemei" prayer.)

 

What about the Rema, who equates the Torah reading with tefilla and rules that both may be said audibly?  The Rema in Darkhei Moshe explains that only a loud voice is forbidden.  Furthermore, he explains that the Tannaitic Zohar only relates to the early custom of having each person read for himself - though even in that case another person must stand by him, as explained in se'if 4.  Consequently, there is no need for anybody else to read; it is therefore forbidden to do so.  But according to our custom, where the reader reads on behalf of the oleh laTorah, there is a basic halakhic obligation to say the words, and this should preferably be done audibly.  The symbolic significance of silent reading, important though it is, can not be maintained when it conflicts with a direct HALAKHIC obligation.

 

HONORING SOMEONE UNDESERVING

 

The MB has a few words to say about this in s.k. 16.  It is important to emphasize that honoring someone "merely" because he is wealthy and distinguished is not inappropriate.  The Rema in siman 282:3, citing the Or Zaru'a, rules that calling up an honored and wealthy ignoramus, even prior to a Torah scholar, is "an honor to the Torah, which takes pride [mitkabedet] in great people."

 

If the wealthy person helps the community, then it is certainly appropriate to honor him.  This is explained by the Rashba.  The Rashba (Responsa VII:361) was asked about a man who built and donated an entire section of a synagogue and demanded to put his name over the entrance, and some of the congregation opposed it.

 

First the Rashba replies that they can't prevent it since the donor is, in presence, giving his own property, no one can stop him from doing with it what he likes.  Furthermore, he writes, "This is the way of sages, and the way of the pious [vatikin] in order to give a reward for the performance of a mitzva.  And this is the way of the Torah, which writes and publicizes anyone who does a mitzva."  He then brings a variety of proofs that this is a custom which is both ancient and appropriate.

 

 

SIMAN 142 - A MISTAKE IN THE READING

******************************************

 

R. Yissakhar said [on the verse "Diglo alai ahava" - His flag flies his love to me], A child who reads [or calls] Moshe "Masha," or Aharon "Haron," or Efron "Afran," the Holy One blessed be He says, "His lisp [liglugo] is love to me"  Shir HaShirim Rabba 2:4.

 

[This is an edited reading.  In my text, the correct and mistaken names are spelled alike, indicating that the mistakes are in the vowels, so I had to guess which mistakes were intended.  In addition, I changed the mistaken "Aharon" to "Haron," since this is how it appears in the Rishonim - see Tosafot Avoda Zara 22b s.v Ragla.]

 

The Tur at the beginning of our siman cites the Manhig (Rav Avraham HaYarchi of Lunel - a contemporary of the Rambam) who brings this midrash as evidence that minor mistakes in the reading do not disqualify the reading.  The Tur then cites the Rambam (Tefilla 12:6) who rules that the reader must go back over even the slightest mistake.  This is in fact the view of all the other Rishonim, who base themselves on a Yerushalmi which implies that only in the reading of the Megilla can we tolerate minor errors.  They reject the evidence from the Midrash which is not referring to the public reading of the Torah but merely to HaShem's benevolent forbearance towards a young child who is still lisping his way to a future accurate knowledge of  the Torah.

 

The MB elaborates a bit on which kinds of mistakes disqualify the reading.  At the end of s.k. 4 he brings an important and little-known ruling: MISTAKES IN TA'AMIM (punctuation) CAN DISQUALIFY A READING - if they change the meaning.  This is not an everyday occurrence, because most readers have an adequate knowledge of the parsha even if they forget the exact vocalization.  But many verses can have a completely different meaning based on the punctuation.  As I write this shiur we are in parshat Mishpatim.  What if I were to read in the second verse (Shemot 21:2) "shesh shanim ya'avod u-vashvi'it; yetzeh la-chofshi chinam" - "he will work six years and the seventh - [then - i.e.  in the eighth] he will go free"?

 

Of course, in this particular example we are subject to the additional caveat that the different meaning is really wrong.  What happens if the reading is not in accordance with the taamim - but this reading is also valid? For instance, the gemara in Yoma 52b gives a list of verses "she-ein lahem hekhrea" - which have pivotal words which could belong either to the first or the second half of the sentence.  For example, according to the ta'amim, Devarim 31:16 begins "And HaShem said to Moshe, you are now going to lie with your fathers" and continues "then this nation will rise and stray after the gods of the local heathen."  But the gemara in Yoma says that the verse may also be read, "you are now going to lie with your fathers - and then arise" - at the time of the resurrection, continuing "this nation will stray" etc.

 

A reader who reads according to the second punctuation has certainly strayed from the ta'amim in a way which changes the meaning - but not in a way which we can be sure is improper.  I have not seen anyone relate to this question, but I would find it difficult to justify how we could make the reader go back over a reading when the gemara itself considers the reading uncertain.

 

A PROMPTER

 

The MB s.k. 8 mentions that if there is no reader who has learned the portion thoroughly, one person should read quietly to the ba'al koreh.  Assuming the ba'al koreh has a basic familiarity with the portion, he is still reading from the Torah scroll and only getting guidance from the prompter.  We have a congregation which uses a prompter even when the reader has prepared the portion, and the reading is more accurate than that of a ba'al koreh who is prepared but minimally so.  I mentioned that gabbais are probably too timid about making the reader go back over mistakes; I am likewise inclined to think that readers are overly reluctant to have someone help them in the reading.  The result is the same: a significant incidence of questionable readings which leave everyone worrying whether they have really fulfilled their obligation.