Question: If a person was ill on Shabbos and unable to go to shul to hear Keri’at haTorah, must he have someone read it to him in shul upon his recovery?
Sincerely,
Isaac Greenberg
Answer: The Mishnah Berurah (Orach Chayim 135:7) refers to Sefer Sha’arei Ephraim which discusses whether a congregation that missed Keri’at haTorah must make sure to hear it. It argues that it must if the majority of its members missed it. If the majority, however, heard Keri’at haTorah in another synagogue, it need not make up the missed keri’ah. It seems from this ruling that Keri’at haTorah is a public obligation of the congregation, not one incumbent upon each individual.
Rabbi Yitzchok Yaakov Weiss (Responsa Minchas Yitzchok Vol 7:6) was once asked about a bedridden patient who was given permission by his physician to depart his house on Shabbos for just one half hour. He did not know whether he should go to shul for a portion of davening or for Keri’at haTorah (since, for davening, he still had the option of praying at home at exactly the same time as his shul – see Mechaber and Rema, Orach Chayim 90:9).
The Radbaz (Responsa 13, cited by the Mishnah Berurah) was once asked a related question by a prisoner who was given permission to leave prison for just one day. He ruled that the prisoner should not wait for Yom Kippur or a Yom Tov to take his furlough; rather, he should leave prison immediately and pray with a congregation. He should not let the mitzvah before him pass him by.
Based on this ruling, Rabbi Weiss argues that the ill patient given permission to leave his house for half an hour on Shabbos should leave immediately and daven Shacharit with his congregation and not concern himself with Keri’at haTorah. He notes as well that although the Mishnah Berurah maintains (Bi’ur Halacha, O.C. 146), in accord with Shibolei Ha’Leket, that the requirement to hear Keri’at haTorah is on each individual, he himself writes elsewhere (Bi’ur Halacha, O.C. 135) that an individual unable to go to the synagogue is not required to hear Keri’at haTorah.
Rabbi Weiss cites numerous views concerning which take precedence: tefillah or Keri’at haTorah. According to the Bach, cited by the Magen Avraham (O.C. 135), Keri’at haTorah is a Biblical obligation since it was an enactment of Moshe; tefillah, in contrast, is a rabbinic obligation. The Mechaber, though, dismisses this reasoning and rules that both are rabbinic obligations. If so, which one takes precedence? The one that is more common (tadir): tefillah.
Keri’at haTorah, though, is considered more sanctified than tefillah. What is more important: frequency or sanctification level? The Gemara (Zevachim 90b-91a) does not resolve this question.
(To be continued)
