This past Shabbat I was asked a straightforward question: Can a blind person be called up to the Torah to receive an aliyah? On the spur of the moment – the Torah reading was well underway and I was functioning as gabbai sheni and did not have the time to double check. On the spur of the moment, I said, “no” based on what I remembered.1 At the very least I had enough of a reason assume safek berachot an instance where it is doubtful that a blessing should be said, in which case the default would be to refrain from saying the blessing.
When I had a chance to look into the matter, I found that my decision was in line with Shulhan Aruch O.C. 139:3:
סומא אינו קורא, לפי שאסור לקרות אפי’ אות אחת שלא מן הכתב
A blind person cannot read [from the Torah] for it is forbidden to read even one letter [of the Torah] not from the written scroll itself.
The immediate question which ought to come to mind is what does reading from the Torah have to do with getting called up for an aliyah? To answer very briefly, the initial custom, sustained for generations and still kept in some communities to this day, is that whoever was called up to the Torah was responsible for reading that portion.
In his gloss to the Shulhan Aruch, Mishna Berurah O.C. 139:12 provides a practical dispensation for permitting a blind person to receive an aliyah:
דכיון שאנו נוהגין שהש”ץ קורא והוא קורא מתוך הכתב שוב לא קפדינן על העולה דשומע כעונה
Since our practice is that the agent of the congregation [i.e. a designated reader] is the one who performs the reading and does so from the text [of the Torah scroll], we are not strict on the one who is called up to the Torah, for when one listens it is as if he has said it himself.
Thus according to Mishna Berurah, a blind person is permitted to receive an aliyah because our custom of Torah reading has changed. Since the one receiving the aliyah usually does not perform the actual reading, we need not be concerned with a blind person reading by heart.
It occurred to me that this rationale employed by Mishna Berurah (and ostensibly others) has fascinating implications for women’s aliyot.2 The Talmud in B. Megillah 23a explains why women are excluded from being called up to the Torah
הכל עולין למנין שבעה, ואפילו קטן ואפילו אשה. אבל אמרו חכמים: אשה לא תקרא בתורה, מפני כבוד צבור.
Everyone [is eligible] to go up in the quorum of seven [i.e. to read from the Torah] even a minor and even a woman. However, the sages say that a woman should not read from the Torah due to the honor of the congregation. [Emphasis mine]
From my own experience, I have found the topic of women receiving aliyot is most often framed in the context of (re)defining “honor of the congregation.” However, I would like to suggest that according to the logic employed by Mishna Berurah, the question of “honor of the congregation” is irrelevant. The Talmud only states that a woman reading from the Torah is an affront to the honor of the congregation, however, as noted above, the person receiving the aliyah does not actually read from the Torah.
To put it concisely: I suggest that if one permits a blind person to read from the Torah on the grounds cited by Mishnah Berurah, then there ought to be no halakhic objection to women being called up to the Torah. According to the position of Mishna Berurah, the Talmudic restriction would not apply, thus any opposition to women receiving aliyot would be based not on halakhic/Talmudic problems inherent to the action, but rather for more subjective social or political reasons.3
Comments welcome below.
1. I should point out that the individual in question had not yet been called up to the Torah. Otherwise, there would be another consideration of publicly embarrassing the individual.
2. I have not seen this analogy made, but admittedly I have not looked very hard. If anyone knows of another source which makes a similar argument, please let me know so that I may give proper credit.
3. Not to say that these reasons are irrelevant or ought to be disregarded, but it is my opinion that halakha and pesak should be presented as honestly as possible.
Regarding calling a blind person to the Torah: the Yalqut Yosef( as stated here), not surprisingly, follows the lead of the the Shulchan Arukh, and says that, lekhaTchila, a blind person may not be called, but if he already went up to the Torah, he is not returned, nor is he rebuffed, for he has authorities to rely on( presumably the Mishna Berura or his sources). Also, it says, on Simchat Torah, or in case of a family celebration, when all relatives and friends are called to the Torah( like a Shabat Chatan), it is customary to also call a blind person, in order to avoid causing anguish.
From that, it would seem, the analogy to the case of calling women to the Torah( and the Halakhic conclusion based on it) would not hold for Sefaradim( at least, for those who follow the Shulchan Arukh) today.
Even for Ashkenazim, your conclusion holds only if we understand “Isha Lo Tiqra baTorah” to exclude the case of a woman being called to the Torah without her reading. It could also be understood, in the context of the previous sentence( “הכל עולין למנין שבעה, ואפילו קטן ואפילו אשה”), to mean that even an Aliyah alone she may not receive, and the “Lo Tiqra” is used (a) because the Aliyah and Qeri’a were considered, when the Halakhah was formulated, as one, and (b) because the Kevod haSibur issue is about the Qeri’a element, even though it affects the Aliyah element, as well.
Tamir, thank you very much for your comment. I asked my father’s teacher Haham Josef Faur my question, and as you correctly state, for followers of Maran not even a blind person may receive and aliya. My theory above only works leshittat Mishna Berurah.
And thank you for the Yalkut Yoself link – barcuh shekivanti to make a distinction if the person had already been called.
And yes, I am assuming that the actions of being “עולה” and “תקרא” are different. True at one point they might always been connected, but I think Hazal were precise with their words (however, when I get a chance I’d have to check critical editions.
Thanks for the comment!
I just checked the dikdukei soferim and found no significant variants on this passage.
For what it’s worth, I can personally attest that R’ Joseph Wanefsky ZT”L, a remarkable blind talmid chacham who graced YU for too short a period, received aliyot at both Mt. Sinai and the Soloveichik minyan
You make a strong case the problem is trying to infer “one topic from another” “lomed davar metoch davar ” without knowing all the ramifications of the item they are referring to and therefore end up with a false Halacha. You stated “However, I would like to suggest that according to the logic employed by Mishna Berurah, the question of “honor of the congregation” is irrelevant.” You are assuming that since the reading is done by a qualified individual it makes no difference if the oleh is blind or a woman. What you failed to know or connect is that since “because our custom of Torah reading has changed” the actual berachot must still also be read by a qualified individual. A blind man can’t read but can say the berachot without affecting the “honor of the congragation.” but for the minyan to fulfill their obligation to hear the berachot will be problematic.
1. Please explain why berachot cannot be recited by heart
2. The MB is mehaleq between the actions of ‘oleh and korei. Which words in the beracha mention keriah?
A beracha can be said by heart that is why a blind person can get the ealiya. But a woman cant be motzie a man with her berqachot.
Thank you from the clarification. As I see it, the beracha is not birkat mitzvah and I do not see how the beracha would be me’akev the public keriah.
R. Joseph Caro (Shulhan Arukh, O.H., sec 139, nos. 2 and 3, and sec. 141, no 2) rules according to Rosh and others that even in the presence of a ba’al korei, the oleh is obligated to read along quietly with the reader, lest the oleh’s berakhot be considered in vain. As a result, Rabbi Caro furthermore rules, that a blind or illiterate person is precluded from receiving an aliyya. R. Moses Isserlish (Rema; Darkei Moshe, Tur, O.H., sec. 135, no.4 and sec. 141, no 1) concurs that normative halakha requires the oleh to read along with the reader; however, Rema (in his gloss to Shulhan Arukh, O.H., sec. 139, no 3) cites the leniency of R. Jacob Molin (Maharil) and others who permit a blind or illiterate individual to receive an aliyya, even though neither can read along with the ba’al korei from the Torah parchment.
All this is in theory, however, for as R. Soloveitchik himself notes (R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, miBet Midrasho Shel haRav, Hilkhot Keri’at ha-Torah, sec. 141, no. 2, p. 50; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Shiurei haRav haGaon Rabbi Yosef Dov haLevi Soloveitchik zatsa”l al Inyanei Tsitsit, Tefillen u-Keri’at haTorah, R. Zvi Schachter, ed. (Jerusalem, 5763), Hilkhot Keri’at ha-Torah, sec. 141, no. 2, p. 186), while we advise olim le-khatkhila to read along quietly following the Rosh, in practice, we rule like Maharil that the oleh need not read. Thus, it is a widespread custom, both amongst ashkenazim and sefaradim (contrary to the ruling of R. Ovadiah Yosef) to call to the Torah the blind, untrained and illiterate, who clearly cannot or will not read along from the scroll, In addition, the Rov, notes that if one is called to the Torah while he is in the midst of birkhot keri’at shema, the halakhic consensus is to accept the aliyya and recite the blessings, but not to read along with the ba’al korei – again relying on Maharil. Finally, R. Moshe Soloveitchik ruled that for Parashat Zakhor, the oleh should not read along with the ba’al korei as required by Rosh. Rather, he should fulfill his obligations according to Maharil with the reading of the reader via shomei’a ke-oneh – along with the rest of the community; see: R. Michel Zalman Shurkin, Harerei Kedem – beInyanei haMoadim, I, sec. 185, no. 2 (5760 ed.) and sec. 208, no. 2 (expanded 5769 ed.).
There is no such dispute or ruling regarding women receiving aliyyot in the posekim.
Bekhavod R. Frimer,
Thank you for taking the time to read, let alone provide such detailed citations.
1. Do you have any theories on the soundness and/or why no one has made the analogy I proposed above? In my own cursory research I hadn’t come across it either – hence the purpose of my post – but lo rainu eino re’ayah and knowing that someone who has spent a lot more time than I have researching this topic hasn’t come across it either validates my post (though it does make the the issue even more puzzling in my opinion).
2. Depending on your perspective, the treatment of blind, illiterate, or any other illegible could either be seen as a change in halakhic practice or at the bare minimum, halakhically valid accommodations in light of changing realities. In either case, would you have any comment as to why such such a change or accommodation would become accepted for the blind or illiterate but specifically not for women?
I’ve been saying this for a while, but I didn’t compare this to the blind. Thanks!
Also, I didn’t provide sources. My statement was always something like an impassioned, “Yes, it says women cannot read due to the honor of the congregation. But nowadays, *no* one reads! The men won’t be shamed by the woman’s literacy, if neither the woman nor the men are reading anything! The woman is not impugning anyone’s literacy! Therefore, there ought be no problem.” Suffice it to say, I convinced few.
My rabbi in yeshiva says he was once at a Yemenite synagogue, and he was called up. He said the berakhot, and stopped. Everyone looked at him like, “nu”, and he just shrugged. He says they then brought up some 13-ish year old kid to read for him. So much for kavod! :P
Even with that, one could argue that, Aderaba, men would be shamed by her showing their own lack of “literacy”. If enough men were able to read, they’d be called up and read, and she could be excluded. So, by being called up to the Torah( even without reading), she would still be impugning the men’s literacy, and there would, once again, be a problem.
I don’t follow. The point is, men NEVER read, as a matter of principle. No matter how literate or illiterate, the men NEVER read, and so a woman’s being called up says NOTHING about whether the man can read or not.
Michael Makovi: The point is, men NEVER read, as a matter of principle.
Maybe at synagogues where you’ve been, men never read. I’ve been to enough Ashkenazi synagogues where some men can, and do, read their own Aliya‘s portion. It is not a matter of principle; it is, at most, a matter of custom.
Besides, as I understand it, lekhaTchilah, one who is called to Torah also reads( the Mishneh Torah doesn’t even recognize the concept of an Oleh laTorah who doesn’t read). It is only bediAvad, because there are so few who can read, and everybody wants to be called to the Torah as often as possible( for the Segulot associated with it) that “illiterate” people are allowed to be called up to the Torah and somebody else, the Ba’al Qore’, reads. So, in principle, the Oleh still is supposed to read, only in practice, with few who can, they are lenient.
Michael Makovi: … and so a woman’s being called up says NOTHING about whether the man can read or not.
About any one man – true, but it does say( or, rather, emphasize) about the “Tzibur”( or any “Tzibur”, for that matter) that they don’t have enough men who can read.
By the way, in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Tefila ubhirkat Kohanim 12:17( and is echoed by Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 143:5) that if there is only one who can read in the Torah( say the Ba’al Qore’), he is called, and reads, for every Aliya of that day.
Josh Do you have any theories on the soundness and/or why no one has made the analogy I proposed above? In my own cursory research I hadn’t come across it either
Mendel Shapiro, in Qeri’at ha-Torah by Women: A Halakhic Analysis(PDF)( from the Edah Journal, vol. 1 issue 2, Sivan/5761), makes the claim, in “C. The Ba’al Qeri’ah and the ‘Inclusive Bias’ “( 15th page in the PDF I linked to), that just as the institution of the Ba’al Qeri’a paved the way for the blind and the ignorant to become Olim laTorah, as they need not read, there is no reason a woman may not receive an Aliyah, as the Ba’al Qeri’a can read for her as well.
it’s probably better to call a women who will read her own ‘aliya than a man who will have a qore read for him and he not read along silently