[Avodah] Correcting Baalei Kriah

[Akiva Miller via Avodah]

.
R' Zev Sero wrote:

> I don't believe there is a chiyuv for the haftarah to be read,
> let alone for anyone to hear it, therefore it can't be invalid.

Perhaps the word "chiyuv" is too strong for the context. Perhaps
"minhag" or "inyan" are more appropriate. Let's avoid getting mired in
such details, and speak in simple English. Surely you will agree that
reading the haftarah is something that we are supposed to do, yes?

> Also, no matter how many mistake he makes, surely he's read
> at least three pesukim correctly, or at least one pasuk.

Can you cite any sources that reading "at least three pesukim
correctly, or at least one pasuk" would suffice for whatever it is
that we're supposed to be doing?

In a later post, he wrote:

> It's not just casual reading, or even just a minhag; it's
> takanas chachamim that it be read, but there's no chiyuv that
> one (or even a tzibur) needs to be "yotze", unlike krias
> hatorah which is a chiyuv of the tzibur.  We can derive this
> from the fact that if the tzibur missed leining one week it
> must make it up the next week, while it does not make up a
> missed haftara.

I honestly don't know how you distinguish between a "takanas
chachamim" and a "chiyuv", but let's ignore that, and just go with the
part that you do concede to: That there *IS* a takanas chachamim that
the haftarah be read.

Now, it seems to me that *IF* there is a takanas chachamim that the
haftarah be read, *THEN* there is a takanas chachamim that the
haftarah be read *properly*. Do you agree, or do you feel it is okay
when the haftarah is read improperly?

Akiva Miller