<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23569">
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Cambria Math;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@page WordSection1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; }
P.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 11pt
}
LI.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 11pt
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 11pt
}
P.MsoEndnoteText {
FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Endnote Text Char"; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto
}
LI.MsoEndnoteText {
FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Endnote Text Char"; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto
}
DIV.MsoEndnoteText {
FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Endnote Text Char"; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
P.MsoAcetate {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Balloon Text Char"
}
LI.MsoAcetate {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Balloon Text Char"
}
DIV.MsoAcetate {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Balloon Text Char"
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: windowtext; mso-style-type: personal
}
SPAN.EndnoteTextChar {
FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Endnote Text"; mso-style-name: "Endnote Text Char"
}
SPAN.BalloonTextChar {
FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Balloon Text"; mso-style-name: "Balloon Text Char"
}
SPAN.EmailStyle22 {
FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
.MsoChpDefault {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-style-type: export-only
}
DIV.WordSection1 {
page: WordSection1
}
</STYLE>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US link=blue bgColor=white vLink=purple>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"
lang=EN-GB> We thank Ms Luntz for devoting so much time [in
her post of March 27th] to the analysis of our position. Unfortunately, her
lengthy analysis of the position of the Mehaber misses the mark. We discuss this
issue at great length and with extensive documentation - in section VIA of the
paper (and notes 168-175), which is entitled: “The Function of the Ba’al
Keri’a.” [Again we reiterate our invitation to those who are kind enough to
comment on our position, to please study the Tradition paper inside.] We
summarize below the penultimate paragraph of section VIA:</SPAN><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<DIV>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"
lang=EN-GB>Originally, the task of each <I>oleh </I>was to read his Torah
portion aloud to the community from the <I>sefer Torah</I>. With the innovation
of a <I>ba’al keri’ah</I>, the task of the <I>oleh</I> has been effectively
bifurcated: firstly, <B>to read</B> the selected Torah reading <B>from the Torah
scroll</B>; and secondly, to have that selection <B>read aloud</B> for all the
community to hear. <U>BOTH</U> subtasks must be fulfilled together for the
attendant <I>berakhot</I> to be valid. (See note 173 for documentation.)
According to the school of Maharil, the <I>ba’al keri’ah</I> can carry out both
functions for the <I>oleh</I> via <I>shelihut </I>or<I> shome’a ke-oneh</I>.
(See note 174 for documentation.)</SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt" lang=EN-GB>By
contrast, Rosh’s school views the first component, namely, the obligation to
read from the parchment, as the <I>oleh</I>'s personal task alone, which cannot
be fulfilled via the actions of anyone else. After all, if the <I>oleh</I> does
not even read, argues Rosh, how can he make a <I>berakha</I>? Only with regards
to fulfilling the second part of his obligation, i.e., to have the weekly
portion recited aloud to the community, can the <I>oleh</I> be assisted by the
<I>ba’al keri’ah.</I> The school of Rabbenu Asher (Rosh) does not deny the
general effectiveness of <I>shelihut </I>or<I> shome’a ke-oneh</I>. However,
they maintain that these mechanisms cannot be invoked with regard to this first
task of the <I>oleh</I> – to read the selected Torah portion from the Torah
scroll.<I> </I>Several rationales have been proposed for this (see note 175 of
the paper at length).</SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoEndnoteText><SPAN
lang=EN-GB> R.
Soloveitchik notes that while we advise <I>olim le-khattehila </I>to read along
quietly following Rosh, in practice, <B>we <U>rule</U> like Maharil</B>. (See
note 172 for documentation.) This was confirmed as well by R. Aharon
Lichtenstein who indicates that we <U>rule</U> like Maharil <I>bein le-kula
u-vein le-Humra</I>. Thus:(1) It is a widespread almost universal custom,
both amongst <I>Ashkenazim </I>and<I> Sefaradim</I> [contrary to the Mehaber and
despite the revised sringent ruling of RO Yosef] to call to the Torah the blind,
untrained, and illiterate, who clearly cannot or will not read along from the
scroll. (2) In addition, R. Soloveitchik and R. Benjamin Solomon
Hamburger, both note that<I> </I>if one is called to the Torah while he is
in the midst of <I>birkhot keri’at shema</I>, the halakhic consensus is to
accept the <I>aliyya</I> and recite the blessings, but not to read along with
the <I>ba’al keri’ah</I>, again relying on Maharil. (3) Finally, R. Moshe
Soloveitchik ruled that for <I>Parashat Zakhor</I>, the <I>oleh</I> should
<U>not</U> read along with the <I>ba’al keri’ah</I> as required by Rosh. Rather,
he should fulfill his obligations according to Maharil with the reading of the
reader via <I>shomei’a ke-oneh</I> along with the rest of the community. (See
note 172 for documentation.)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"
lang=EN-GB> It
would also seem that Ms Luntz misunderstands the <I>Arukh haShulhan</I>’s (OH
139:7) use of “<I>Kol ha-ra’ui le-bila</I>.” The AH is not challenging the
use of “<I>Shome’a ke-oneh</I>” in the case of <I>keri’at ha-Torah.</I> On
the contrary, the Yerushalmi he cites <U>proves</U> it is applicability; which
is why one can read and another can make the <EM>berakhot.</EM> Rather, he
raises the issue of whether “<I>Shome’a ke-oneh</I>” is specifically applicable
to a <I>suma</I> - since a <I>suma</I> cannot read himself and, <B>hence, may be
totally <U>exempt</U> from <I>keri’at ha-Torah</I></B><I>.</I><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"> What the AH is emphasising is that only one who is capable
of personally performing the mitzvah can, <I>via shome’ah ke-oneh,</I> do so
through others - and thus the analogy to </SPAN><I>Kol ha-ra’ui le-bila<SPAN
style="COLOR: black">. </SPAN></I><SPAN style="COLOR: black">However, a blind
person who is not capable of performing the mitzvah of reading the Torah
</SPAN> <SPAN style="COLOR: black">personally, cannot do so through
another, even by means of <I>shome’ah ke-oneh</I>. Consequently, since</SPAN>
the <I>suma</I> can’t read, the <I>ba’al korei</I> can’t do so for him.<SPAN
style="COLOR: black"> This understanding is explicit in the <I>Pri Megadim</I>,
OH 141, <I>Mishbetzot Zahav, </I>no. 3 (who, in all likelihood, served as the
source for the AH), who writes: “<I>Hinei suma yesh lomar de-lo shani shome’ah
ke-koreh de-eyn ra-ui le-bilah</I>.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"
dir=rtl lang=HE><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN>"</SPAN><SPAN dir=ltr></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"
lang=HE><SPAN dir=ltr></SPAN> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"
lang=EN-GB>Similarly, see: R. Aharon Levin (a younger contemporary of the AH),
<I>Birkat Aharon, ma’amar</I> 53, no.1.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"
lang=EN-GB>Indeed, R. Shneur Zalman of Lublin, <I>Resp. Torat Hessed</I>, OH 8
and R. Zalman Druck, <I>Mikraei Kodesh</I>, sec. 40 – <SPAN
style="COLOR: black">clearly state </SPAN>that the <I>minhag haOlam </I>to give
a <I>suma</I> an <I>Aliyya </I>is premised on the assertion that an <I>suma</I>
is obligated in <I>keri’at haTorah </I>and thus<I> </I>“<I>Shome’a ke-oneh</I>”
from the <I>ba’al korei</I> is effective.<SPAN style="COLOR: black"> Cf. <I>Pri
Megadim, supra.</I></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"
lang=EN-GB>Finally, the gratuitous remark regarding "</SPAN><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt" lang=EN-GB>partnership
minyanim clouding your mind,</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt" lang=EN-GB>" was
uncalled for. We went into this effort with no agendas
whatsover.</SPAN></FONT><SPAN lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"
lang=EN-GB>beKhavod Rav</SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"
lang=EN-GB> Aryeh and Dov Frimer</SPAN><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB><FONT
size=3 face="Times New Roman">--------------------------------<BR>Prof. Aryeh A.
Frimer<BR>Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University<BR>Ramat Gan 5290002,
ISRAEL<BR>E-mail (office): </FONT><A href="mailto:Aryeh.Frimer@biu.ac.il"><FONT
size=3 face="Times New Roman">Aryeh.Frimer@biu.ac.il</FONT></A><BR></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN></P><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt" lang=EN-GB><o:p>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Prof.
Dov I. Frimer<o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Frimer
Gellman & Co., Advocates<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Jerusalem
Technology Park <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">P.O.B.
48180 Malcha<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">E-Mail:
<A href="mailto:dfrimer@frimerlaw.com"><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">dfrimer@frimerlaw.com</SPAN></A><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>-----
Original Message ----- <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB> <A
title=Chana@kolsassoon.org.uk href="mailto:Chana@kolsassoon.org.uk">Chana
Luntz</A> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>To:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB> <A
title=frimera@zahav.net.il href="mailto:frimera@zahav.net.il">'Esther and Aryeh
Frimer'</A> ; <A title=avodah@lists.aishdas.org
href="mailto:avodah@lists.aishdas.org">'Avodah Avodah'</A>
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Cc:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB> <A
title=DFrimer@frimerlaw.com href="mailto:DFrimer@frimerlaw.com">'Prof. Dov
Frimer'</A> ; <A title=wolowelsky@yahoo.com
href="mailto:wolowelsky@yahoo.com">'Joel B. Wolowelsky'</A>
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Sent:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB> Thursday,
March 27, 2014 12:53 AM<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Subject:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB> Re:
Aliyyot to the Blind vs Aliyyot for women vs Aliyyot for
minors<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>On 24 March 2014 21:17, Esther and Aryeh
Frimer <<A href="mailto:frimera@zahav.net.il"
target=_blank>frimera@zahav.net.il</A>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> >In our paper we argue that for the
<I>oleh’s</I> <I>berakha</I> not to be a <I>berakha le-vatala</I>, the
<I>oleh</I> and <I>ba’al korei</I> must both be obligated in <I>keri’at
haTorah</I> (Major Male) so that the <I>ma’aseh ha-mitsva </I>(reading
>aloud) is transferred to the <I>oleh</I> who makes the<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>> <I>berakha</I>. Thus, a blind man may
receive an aliyya and make the <I>berakha</I>, since he is obligated in
<I>Keri’at haTorah</I> and the <I>ba’al korei</I> can read for him >and
transfer the action to him. A women who is not obligated, may not read for
others. [We do >reaffirm, however, that a woman and a minor may read for
themselves.] <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>Just as a side note, what is not clear from
what you have said is how you would consider a woman reading for another
woman, or a minor reading for another minor, these being equivalent obligations,
but not the same as it was in the times of the Mishna.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>>Ms. Chana Luntz correctly notes that if
this analysis were correct a minor could not serve as a <I>ba’al korei</I> for
others. Yet, she testifies that in many sefardic communities minors indeed
<U>do</U> read for >others. Over the past few days, Dov and I
have spoken to >many Sefardic Rabbis who have confirmed that this
practice is indeed found in <U>some</U> sefardic communities, though it is
certainly a minority >practice - not the general custom. Several of these
Sefardic Rabbis were adamant that such a practice is<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>> forbidden.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>I think it would be useful to take a step
back and outline what seem to be the key halachic facts, which as far as I can
see are agreed:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN lang=EN-GB>The position of the Shulchan Aruch/Beis
Yosef/Maran:</SPAN></B><SPAN lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>(A).
The mechanism which validates the brachos over kriyas haTorah when there is both
a ba'al koreh and an oleh is due to the oleh reading along quietly with the
ba'al koreh. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>(B).
Shomeah k'oneh, while brought by a
minority of rishonim as the applicable mechanism when there is both a ba'al
koreh and an oleh, is specifically rejected as a valid
mechanim.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
lang=EN-GB>(C). A blind man cannot
therefore be an oleh because (i) shomeah k'oneh does not work (ie B above) and
(ii) a blind man may not recite anything by heart or after the ba'al
koreh (enabling the brachos) because kriyas haTorah falls into the
category of torah shebichtav which is not permitted to be said ba'al peh (SH OH
139:3).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN lang=EN-GB>The Position of the Darchei
Moshe/Rema:</SPAN></B><SPAN lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>Brings the Meharil that the custom is to
call up a blind man as an oleh. In the Darchei Moshe (OH 141:1) the Rema
says he disagrees with this custom, preferring the position of the Beis Yosef,
but in his commentary to the Shulchan Aruch (OH 139:3)he merely brings the
Meharil as saying that now is the custom to given aliyos to blind men like we
give aliyos to the ignorant (am ha’aretz). Neither the Meharil not the
Darchei Moshe give a reason or justification for the custom of calling up a
blind man besides linking it to the am ha’aretz.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>A number of commentators, most notably the
Taz (Orech Chaim 141:3) argue that this custom of calling up a blind man is
based on application of the principle of Shomea K'oneh and the rishonim
(rejected by the Shulchan Aruch) who postulate this
principle.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> I think so far this is
undisputed.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN lang=EN-GB>Logical Analysis</SPAN></B><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>Now let us apply some analysis. Vis a
vis Maran/the Shulchan Aruch we have the following logical
possibilities:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>(a) Maran is right about (A), (B) and (C),
and therefore we cannot call up a blind man. We might, but are not
necessarily able, to call up a minor or have a minor be the ba'al koreh, because
there could be other reasons why we do not want to do that, such as kavod
hatzibbur, or kabalistic reasons or simply minhag. But vis a vis the
question of the brachos said by the oleh, there is no reason not to call up a
minor for either position.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>(b) Maran is right about (A), (B) and
(C)(i), but not C(ii). In this case we could call up a blind man, but not
because of shomea k'oneh, but because he can either say the parsha by heart, or
repeat it after the ba'al koreh. The Aruch HaShulchan advances this
argument in Orech Chaim 139 siman 8 (based on the gemora in Yoma
70a).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>(c) Maran is right about (A), (B) as well as
(C)(i) and (C)(ii), but wrong in essence about (C) overall, the calling up
of a blind man, as there is some other halachic mechanism that works in that
case.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>(d) Maran is right about (A), but wrong
about (B) and hence (C). That is, both the mechanism of reading along
quietly *and* shomea k'oneh work, the first in the normative case, and the
second in the case of a blind man.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>(e) Maran is wrong about all of (A), (B) and
(C)(i). That is, his quiet reading along mechanism does not work, the only
mechanism that does work is shomea k'oneh and hence you can call up a blind man,
but you cannot allow a minor to be ba'al koreh when not reading for himself
and similarly a woman. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>In order to hold as RAF/RDF do in their
article, you have to hold position (e). In any other situation, the
brachos are not b'vatala. And if a minor can be ba'al koreh for a gadol,
then this position (e) cannot be right. However, the fact that a minor
might not be able to be ba'al koreh does not necessarily support position (e),
as there may be other reasons, not linked to shomea k'oneh, why one
cannot or does not allow a minor to be a ba'al koreh.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>Thus in order for the various Sephardi
Rabbis and poskim you cite to actually support your position you need them to
hold the following:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>(I) a blind man can be given an aliyah
(if not, then shomea k'oneh cannot be a valid mechanism as shomea k'oneh has to
work for a blind man); and<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>(II) A minor cannot be ba'al koreh for
gadolim, but he can for himself. If however he is prohibited from being
ba'al koreh even for himself then the mechanism at work is not shomea
k'oneh, but some other reason prohibiting the minor from
reading.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>Merely having numerous poskim prohibit
minors from reading does not assist you if the reasons are not based on shomea
k'oneh. But on the other hand, those communities that do allow minors to read
for adults are in direct contradiction to your postulated
halacha.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>So I started working my way through the list
of Sephardi poskim that you cite to see into which category they fall, but gave
up part way, because not very surprisingly none of them really support your
position. The most they generally support was that minors could not (or
should not) be called upon to be ba'al koreh. For a start, any of
your list who allow it b'shas hadchak by definition does not support you.
Because a bracha l'vatala is, according to the dominant Sephardi view, an issur
d'orisa. Were shomea k'oneh the only operative mechanism, giving rise to a
bracha l'vatala where it failed, then no shas hadchak is going to permit the
engagement with such an issur d'orisa. It is only if there are some other
reason (a reason that falls short of an issur d'orisa) why one should not have a
minor as a ba'al koreh that one might consider waiving that reason in a shas
hadchak situation.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>But that in general your list is not going
to support you is not very surprising, because let's take a step back and think
about what you are asking. It is certainly true that many if not most
Sephardi poskim are not quite as Maran centric as Rav Ovadiah Yosef, but just
let us quote what Rav Ovadiah says in his principles of hora'ah at the back of
the first volume of Yechave Daat: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>“3. One who turns from the words of Maran
left or right, behold he is mezalzel in the honour of his rabbaim, and all the
rulings of Maran that he is the Mara d’atra and we accept his rulings, and they
are fixed like the halacha of Moshe from Sinai, that there isn’t in them any
dispute at all. And therefore one is not to rule even a stringently
against Maran if he is lenient on a matter. And in any event it is
permitted to be stringent on himself (privately) when he does not do this why
way of a neder and he knows that the essence of the halacha is to
permit.”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>And yet you are asking and expecting all
these Sephardi poskim to say that Maran is wrong, not just once, but on three
counts - ie all of (A), (B) and (C) must be wrong to get to your position.
And yet as I have shown above, these are not the only logical options - there
are options not just of following Maran fully as in (a) (even if you do not
permit minors for other reasons) but also of following positions (b),
(c) or(d) all of which have Maran being wrong at least one fewer time than you
need him to be. If given a choice between ruling that Maran is wrong three
times, and ruling he is wrong twice or once or no times, which option do you
think Sephardi poskim are going to choose?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>>Indeed, the analysis in our paper
follows the lead of<I> Magen Avraham</I> (<I>O.H</I>., sec. 282, no. 6)
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>Now even the Magen Avraham himself does not
fully support your position - stating only that one cannot call up a minor as
ba'al koreh until he brings two hairs. He does not state that the reason
for this is shomea k'oneh. The Magen Avraham does explicitly
rely on the teshuva of the RaM Melamed, but I have unfortunately not been able
to track down a copy of that teshuva (if somebody could send it to me, I would
be very grateful). It may be that RaM Melamed does cite shomea k'oneh as
the reason - but of course in that case the Magen Avraham should be limiting his
prohibition to where the minor is not reading for himself (as you do), which he
does not do. Otherwise it rather leads one to suspect that he is basing
himself on other reasons - kovod hatzibbur perhaps.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>So the fact that various Sephardi
communities are choshesh for the Magen Avraham does not in itself support the
idea that the only mechanism that enables bracha making by an oleh who is not
the ba'al koreh is shomea k'oneh. In contrast however, those communities,
and we can have debates about how extensive they are, but they clearly exist all
over the world and throughout the ages, force you, unless you are prepared to
exclude them from the tent of halacha and are willing to write them out of
Orthodoxy, to understand that the sole halachic mechanism involved cannot be
shomea k'oneh.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>And while the situation is more acute for
Sephardi poskim, because of the flat out rejection of Maran in three places, I
am not convinced that even the Ashkenazi poskim, while justifying the
minhag of calling up a blind man and following the Magen Avraham in not
calling up pre barmitzvah minors, would be comfortable with your full rejection
of the threefold position of the Shulchan Aruch, given the existence of options
(b), (c) and (d).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>For example the Mishna Brura, while citing
shomea k'oneh as the mechanism being used to enable a blind man to have an aliya
(OH 139:12) states in the first Biur Halacha on OH 141 (d”h l’vatala)
that “it seems that the Rema does not rely on the words of the Meharil
except for the matter of a blind man and an am ha’aretz that if they do not call
them ever there is much shame” In contrast however but “when he is baki in
reading indeed he is obligated [to read] with the Shatz since behold he already
wrote himself in the Darchei Moshe that it did not seem to him the words of the
Meharil but the words of the Beis Yosef that he brings in the name of the
rishonim that if he is not able to read with the Shatz he is not able to be
called to the Torah”. That is a pretty clear statement as to the adoption
of position (d), ie that shomea k'oneh applies only in limited cases, with the
Shulchan Aruch/Rosh's mechanism being the dominant one in the normative
case.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>I think if you genuinely try reading these
sources without the issue of partnership minyanim clouding your mind, you will
see them for what they are, halachic justifications for the slightly difficult
minhag of calling up a blind man, not a substantive
attack and rejection of the halachically normative positions of
the Shulchan Aruch and the Darchei Moshe.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>>In her recent post, the truly erudite
Ms. Luntz makes a very novel suggestion, namely: “Even if the oleh does not
actually read along (at least somewhat) in the Torah, so long as he is able to
perform >the <I>ma'aseh mitzvah</I>, it can be argued that he can still
>make the brachos on the basis of Rav Zera’s principle of <I>kol hara’ui
l'bila ain bila makeves bo</I>.” <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>I'm afraid I have to apologise for giving
what was clearly a misleading impression, namely that this chiddush was my
own. In fact it is that of the Aruch HaShulchan (Orech Chaim siman 139
si’if 7), who uses it to reject the Taz's proof (from the story regarding
Rabbi Meir in the Tosephta in Megilla and the Yerushalmi (perek 3 halacha 1))
for shomea k'oneh. All I did was draw out the logical implication implicit
in the Aruch HaShulchan that this could be used today to deal with those
who can read but fail to do so.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>>Such a position is problematic for
several reason. <U>Firstly</U>, Rav Zera’s priniciple of <I>kol hara’ui l'bila
ain bila makeves bo</I> is a <I>mahlokes</I> <I>Rishonim ve-Aharonim le-halakha
</I> whether it applies <I>be-khol </I><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><I><SPAN lang=EN-GB>>haTorah kula </SPAN></I><SPAN
lang=EN-GB>or only where the Torah is <I>megaleh.</I>
<U>Secondly</U>, Ms Luntz is suggesting is that one can make a
<I>birkat ha-mitzva</I> and never actually do the mitzva – and yet the berakha
would not be a <I>>berakha levatala</I> because he <B><U>could</U></B> have
done the <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>>mitsva. So, for example, one could make
a <I>le-Shev ba-Sukka</I> and never sit in it, simply because he <U>could</U>
have. Or similarly, one could make <I>le->Hadlik ner shel Hanukka</I> and
never light the candle; yet the <I>berakha</I> would not be <I>le-vatala</I>
since one <U>could<o:p></o:p></U></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><U><SPAN lang=EN-GB>></SPAN></U><SPAN lang=EN-GB> have
made the <I>berakha</I>. <U>Finally</U>, the Rosh says that if the oleh
doesn’t read along, his <I>berakha</I> is <I>le-vatala</I>. But why? He
<U>could</U> have. The Rosh, nor any subsequent authority ever entertained the
application of <I>kol hara’ui lebila</I> to keri’at haTorah.My
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>>brother Dov discussed Ms Luntz’s
>suggestion with Rav Asher Weiss, who summarily rejected it. He posited
that <I>kol hara’ui l'bila </I> only applies to <I>Dinim</I> (status) not
to <I>mitsvot</I>. He even cited a Ritva to Hullin 106b where one washes his
>hands for bread >and makes <I>al netillat Yadayyim</I> – and then changes
his mind and decides not to eat bread. The Ritva says it is not a
<I>Berakha le-vatala</I>, nor do we require the individual to eat bread,
>because he actually did the mitsva action appropriate for the
><I>berakha</I>. But, says Rav Asher, had he not done the mitsva action
of washing, then obviously the <I>berakha</I> <U>would</U> have been
<I>le-vatala</I>, even >though he <U>could</U> have
washed.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>In defence of the Aruch HaShulchan, we could
perhaps suggest that there are various hechsher mitzvos (if not part of the
mitzvah itself) which do involve action. After all the oleh rises when his
name is called and makes his way up to the bimah (holacha). He then
usually (in the Ashkenazi tradition) looks in the Torah, kisses the spot pointed
to by the ba'al koreh with his tallis, grasps the handles of the sefer and then
makes the bracha, at the end he then again looks in the Torah, kisses the place
pointed to by the ba’al koreh with his tzitzis. Even if in this whole
process he does not catch sight of a single word that he ends up reading, he has
certainly looked into the actual Torah scroll . And indeed we know (inter
alia from the mitzvah of chanukah candles that you cite) mere seeing (roeh) can
be enough to trigger a bracha, even without all this tzitzis kissing and
marking. I would have thought that therefore the actions involved were
more than enough to justify use of the principle, if the principle can be
utilised at all.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>Regarding the machlokus whether or not one
can use kol hara'ui l'bila more generally, I did note that "it can be argued" -
but certainly the Aruch HaShulchan there states explicitly that we can cite this
halachic principle “in general”, although of course there are others who hold
differently.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>What to my mind is even more noteworthy
about the Aruch HaShulchan however, is the fact that he goes to some lengths to
suggest alternatives to shomea k'oneh - citing both this principle and the idea
that perhaps the blind man can recite by heart. That is, one can
detect here, just as in the Biur Halacha, a general discomfort regarding the use
of shomea k'oneh even to support the calling up of the blind (a position he
clearly supports). It is a long way from this to a position that invokes
shomea k'oneh as displacing all other mechanisms as in done in the
article.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>That, I just don't think is valid. Not
only because of the many frum (Sephardi) Jews over the centuries who have and
continue to call up minors to read as ba'al koreh and whose practices you are
attacking (and if they are not neviim, bnei neviim hem - and the fact that there
are other communities that have an continue to hold differently does not mean
you go out of your way to invalidate the others). But also because of the
nature of the halachic dialogue itself. The blind case is an exceptional
case, the justifications for it are in that context. And to then cite those
justifications to argue for the incorrectness of not just one but three
positions taken by the Shulchan Aruch, when at most one disagreement is required
(and where the Rema himself disagees at most in one place), is chipping away at
the principle that the Shulchan Aruch stands as a dividing line in the history
of psak and potentially operates to weaken the authority of the Shulchan Aruch
vis a vis minority rishonic opinion. And this is not a situation where we
can say that the Shulchan Aruch had not seen all the evidence we see
today (such as lost rishonic opinions) or that his position here fundamentally
contradicts a position he takes elsewhere (which are potential ways the eg Rav
Ovadiah permits to allow disagreement with the Shulchan Aruch). It is
simply a threefold straight out rejection, which I do not believe is mirrored by
the various achronim. I certainly do not believe this is your
intention, but there are risks in undermining the psak of the Shulchan Aruch is
such a straightforward fashion, and I do not believe you have in any way made
the case to do so.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify; TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
lang=EN-GB>Kol Tuv<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify; TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
lang=EN-GB> Aryeh (from home; For Aryeh and
Dov)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"
lang=EN-GB>--------------------------------</SPAN><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>Regards<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB>Chana<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>