Halakhah Study Group 017

1:
Originally, as we have mentioned on many occasions, each honoree would read their own passage from the Torah (and they would even decide the parameters of their passage within the dictates of halakhah). A special functionary would be designated whose task it was to allocate the honours among those present. It is he who would invite the honorees to ascend to read from the Torah. No one present, however prestigious their rank, might arrogate to themselves the honour of reading from the Torah; all had to be invited to do so. (My experience worshipping with Jews observing oriental Jewish customs for several years suggests to me that the reason for this requirement was to prevent over-zealous worshippers forcing themselves on the congregation, to the exclusion of all others.)

2:
Rabbi Yosef Karo makes one exception. He say that the duly appointed cantor of the congregation may read from the Torah whenever he pleases. In his greater work, Bet Yosef, of which the Shulĥan Arukh is an abridgement, Rabbi Karo [1488-1575] he reasons that once the custom of each honoree reading his own passage became obsolete it was inevitable that a cantor would read for them all in any case (as is customary today). Since this cantor is reading from the Torah in any case, what difference would it make to the worshippers if he also recited the blessings that accompany the reading? – in other words, what difference would it make if he arrogated to himself an honour?

3:
We have explained on several occasions that Rabbi Mosheh Isserles [1530-1572] added notes to the original text of the Shulĥan Arukh in order to dilute its predominantly Sefaradi bias and to make the work appropriate also to Ashkenazi communities. In his note on this section he says that in Ashkenazi communities the cantor is not permitted to arrogate an honour to himself and all must wait until they are accorded an Aliyyah by the warden. However, because he is standing there in any case and so as to accord him a modicum of "extra" status, the cantor is not invited by name, but just starts reciting the blessing when invited to do so. It seems to me that in modern congregations even this slight extra honour has been discontinued, and when a Torah-Reader is accorded an honour he or she is called by name just live everyone else.

4:
Mention of the custom of calling honorees by name brings Isserles to another matter. The fact that he raises the matter – and in some detail – shows that it entails what was in medieval Europe a real communal problem. Crusades, inquisitions, pogroms and so forth had three possible outcomes for the Jew under attack: he or she might die (possibly because he or she was steadfastly loyal to Judaism), he might survive out of sheer good fortune; or he might survive because he accepted baptism. It seems that in the harassed communities of Europe they were loathe to mention the name of an apostate, even incidentally. The custom was (and in most synagogues it still is the custom) to invite the honoree by calling him by his name and by his father's name. (Many Conservative congregations now call the honoree also by the mother's name.) What should be done when an honoree's parent was an apostate? Isserles says that in order to avoid his embarrassment such a person should be called by his own name and by that of his grandfather. However, where that would involve even greater embarrassment for the honoree this should not be done.

5:
Foundlings are people whose exact parentage is not known: they might be the offspring of an unmarried mother who had been raped (or not, as the case may be), or even someone the identity of both whose parents is not known. Isserles says that where it is known they should be given their maternal grandfather's name as their patronymic; if that is not known they should be called in the same way that it is customary to call a proselyte: his or her spiritual ancestor is Father Abraham.

6:
Karo points out that according to the strict letter of the law a person who is blind may not be an honoree. This is because every word of the Torah Reading must be read from the text and not even one word may be recited by heart. In the days when each honoree read his own section the blind person who not be able to see the text, therefore he or she should not be accorded this honour. Isserles adds here that the great Ashkenazi decisor [posek of the 15th century, Rabbi Jacob Mölln [1365-1427], did away with this discrimination. His reasoning was that since nowadays no one "reads" their passage, but it is read for them by the cantor why should we discriminate against the blind person when we discriminate for the illiterate person. We no longer refrain from according an honour to someone who cannot read the text of the Torah, so it would be illogical to continue denying the blind person that honour.

I give precedence to a query from Sherry Fyman because of its topicality:

When we read the first aliyah of parashat D'varim, I understand the custom of not starting the second aliyah (on Shabbat) with verse 12 (since it begins with the word "eicha" which might cast a bit of a pall since it would reference the upcoming day of mourning). But I don't understand why we need to include verse 11 in the week day reading. Why couldn't we stop with verse 10? If I'm counting correctly, that would give us 3-4-3.

I respond:

It is our custom to emphasize the word eikha when Parashat Devarim is read on the Shabbat before Tish'ah b'Av by intoning verse 12 according to the musical notation used when reading the book of Lamentations on Tish'ah b'Av. Now to the main burden of Sherry's question. Sherry is quite right. I do not know which Ĥumash Sherry was quoting from but every Ĥumash that I have checked here in Israel ends the first Aliyyah at the end of verse 10, just as Sherry suggests.

---

Steven Spronz writes:

In the Shulchan Aruch posting described as "Torah Reading 010", you wrote, in the discussion about minors reading Torah that the onset of puberty is defined in Halacha as the point in time when a person "has produced at least two hairs around the genitalia". Could you tell me where this standard is set forth?

I respond:

It appears in the Gemara and in the classical halakhic codes, many, many times. Here are just a few places where it is mentioned in the Gemara: Berakhot 47b, Yevamot 80a-b, Yevamot 96b, Yevamot 97a, Nazir 29b, Bava Batra 155b, Niddah 47b.