Halakhah Study Group 028

1:
It should be quite clear to anyone reading the sixth paragraph of section 141 that a rather prestigious feat of acrobatical reasoning is contained therein! Despite the fact that something is essentially permitted nevertheless an attempt is made to forbid it.

2:
What is essentially permitted is that two closely related members of the same family be called to the reading of the Torah one after the other: parent and child or two siblings. The reason why the practice is nevertheless discouraged (to put it mildly) is because of 'the evil eye'.

3:
The term 'evil eye' occurs several times in our classical sources. When it occurs in the Mishnah [Avot 2:11]the term seems to bear the meaning of 'nigardliness' – the characteristic of someone who will not easily part with his property. However, when it occurs in the Babylonian Gemara (four times) it appears to bear the meaning of 'bad luck' caused by occult malevolent forces. The term does not occur at all in the Gemara of Eretz-Israel. It is well known that Babylonian Jewry in Amoraic times had a firm belief in forces unseen that can and do harm people. Apparently, this belief was influenced by the lore of the local non-Jews since, to the best of my knowledge, the concept is not at all prevalent in the milieu of Eretz-Israel.

4:
Rabbi Yosef Karo, the compiler if the Shulĥan Arukh, finds himself between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand he cannot deny that there is truly no halakhic reason to prevent close family members from receiving two consecutive aliyyot. However, Karo is not only an Halakhist; he is also an ardent Kabbalist, and Kabbalah makes much of such malevolant unseen forces at work in the world to wreak a person's destruction. This is why he phrases this paragraph in the way he does: while it is not forbidden we do not do it. Even the incidence of the kaddish that separates the last aliyyah from the maftir will not have the power to shield from occult powers two hapless members of the same family who have been honoured consecutively. (The term maftir is explained in HSG 008, ¶4.)

5:
We too seem to live in a very superstitious age. Witness the number of people who give credence to astrology and related disciplines. Nevertheless, I do not think that most modern Jews believe that there are occult forces at work waiting for the opportune moment to cause them a mishap. So, perhaps we should ask ourselves how a modern Conservative congregation should relate to the provisions of this paragraph.

6:
It seems to me that two tests should be applied. When there is no social pressure on the gabbaïm as to who is to be called to the Torah, it would seem sensible not to call to two consecutive honours two closely related family members – so as to avoid possible murmerings among the congregants that one family is getting too many honours, as it were. However, when there is social pressure on the gabbaïm as to who is to be called to the Torah – when there is a Bar-Mitzvah, for example – I can see no pressing reason why a modern Conservative congregation should be overly wary of 'occult forces' that may or may not be at work. When circumstances require it there need be no hesitation in accepting the first clause of paragraph 6 and ignoring the second clause. So it seems to me. Certainly this is to be preferred to hacking the parashah to pieces in order to accomodate twice the number of honorees that need be called simply because they are needed as a buffer between close family members; which is a Tirĥa de-Tzibbura – an unforgivable burden on the patience of the congregation.

In HSG 026 I wrote about the concept of having only three people present at the Tevah [reading desk] while the Torah is read. This has produced a relatively large number of comments and questions. Many of them have the same content, so I shall try to separate them out into their constituent parts.

Albert Ringer writes:

It strikes me that the explanation of the symbolism inherent in Torah-reading only fits the more 'modern' way of reading. Probably, if there ever really was a time when people read their own aliya, it would be natural for only two people at any time to be on the bima. Is there a trace of a symbolical rendering of this liturgy?

I respond:

Not at all. In all our sources from the Gemara onwards we find the idea of three people standing at the tevah during the reading. To begin with, I would suppose, the three people were the honoree (who read his own portion) and two gabbaïm. Later, when it became necessary, one of the gabbaïm was replaced by the Torah Reader.

Albert continues:

Around here, most of the time we have even five persons on the bima (orthodox and reform synagogues alike, we don't have conservative communities in Holland). Seen from the aron, the gabai is on the left, then comes the person having the aliya, behind the Torah, in the middle stands the Ba'al Koré (or Ba'alat Koré, at least in our shul) then the person who was called up for the previous aliya, to the right we place a person, able to correct the Ba'al Koré, if needed. Isn't this the common practice elsewhere too?

I respond:

Yes, I am sure that this is common practice all over the Jewish world. From the point of view of tradition there is no need for two of the five that Albert mentions to be standing there at all: no one need stand there to correct the Torah Reader because this can be done from anywhere in the synagogue; neither need the previous honoree be there, as we shall see when we reach paragraph 141:7.

---

Orin Rotman has the same message as Albert, but with a different emphasis. My comments on what Albert wrote apply here as well.

You declare in Torah 026 para. 6 that the fourth person on the bima "completely destroys the impression" of the God, Israel, sirsur metaphor. I have learned that the fourth person, a second gabbai, is at the amud to assist the first gabbai in making sure that the choreography of the metaphor is complete and fluid, and even more importantly to assist the first gabbai in concentrating on the Torah recitation itself to ensure that it is recited correctly in spite of any other arrangements or aliya negotiations going on at the time. I suggest that the custom of adding a fourth person to the bima is not a function of being less knowledgeable but a function of being more careful.

---

Victor Ryden writes:

I'm curious about this. In all of the conservative synagogues I've been in, their are two gabbi's, one on either side of the bimah during the reading. One serves as your segan in that they call up the people. Are you saying that this practice is wrong?

I respond:

No, I am not saying that it is 'wrong', because there is not 'right' and 'wrong' here. What I said was that this "destroys the impression that the Talmud wishes to create – a re-enactment of the original giving of the Torah."

More of your queries and comments next time.