Rabbi Yosef SprungAnd it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see, he called Esau his elder son, and said unto him: ‘My son’; and he said unto him: ‘Here am I.’
And when Yitzchok grew old, his eyesight faded, and he could not see. He called Eisav, his elder son, and said to him, “My son.” [Eisav] said to him, “Here I am.” (B’reishis 27:1)
In Hilchos Shabbos (O.C. 285), the Shulchan Aruch rules:
Even though a person hears the entire Torah read publicly in shul every Shabbos, he is obligated to read that week’s Parsha himself, twice from the P’sukim and once in Targum, even the P’sukim “Ataros v’Divon” (Bamidbar 32:3). If he studies the Parsha with Rashi’s commentary, this is equivalent to reading the Targum. However, one who fears Heaven will read both the Targum and Rashi’s commentary.
Regarding a blind person, the Pri Megadim (Mishb’tzos Zahav 2) cites the Teshuvos haRadvaz[1]:
Regarding whether a blind or mute person is obligated to listen to others performing Mitzvos that depend on speech, see Teshuvos haRadvaz 3:867.[2]
In that Teshuva, the Radvaz was asked:
You have asked me to explain my opinion regarding the statement of Chaza”l that a person is obligated to complete the weekly Parsha together with the congregation. If a person is blind, or has an eye condition that prevents him from reading, must he go to someone else to hear the Parsha read aloud? Similarly, if he does not know how to read, is he exempt from this obligation? And if he has no mitigating circumstance, can he fulfill his obligation by listening to someone else read, or not?
To summarize the questions raised:
1. A blind person cannot read from the written text. Is he obligated to listen to someone else reading the Parsha?
2. Does the same ruling apply to someone who does not know how to read?
3. Fundamentally, can one fulfill the obligation of Sh’nayim Mikra v’Echad Targum by listening to someone else reading it?
The Radvaz states that one can certainly fulfill the obligation by listening to someone else read, based on the principle of Shome’a k’Oneh (one who hears is considered as though he has recited). This principle applies to Megila reading, shofar, and K’rias haTorah, and even to listening to the Chazan reciting Tefila.[3]
The Chazan cannot be Motzi someone who knows how to daven on his own (except for the Tefilos of Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur) to prevent people from relying on the Chazan all the time. The concern is that the Chazan might not have the proper intention when reciting one of the words, leaving the listener as if he had not davened at all. However, in general, one who listens to another’s recital is considered to have recited the words himself. This is true of all Brachos.
Therefore, the Radvaz concludes:
If he hears Sh’nayim Mikra v’Echad Targum, he fulfills his obligation, provided that he follows every word attentively.
Regarding the obligation of a blind person, the Radvaz initially asserts that it depends on the well-known Machlokes as to whether a blind person is obligated to observe Mitzvos. If he is generally exempt, he is exempt in this case as well. If he is generally obligated, he is obligated here as well.
The Radvaz then presents a novel ruling:
Nevertheless, it appears to me that even according to the opinion that a blind person is obligated in Mitzvos, he is exempt from this obligation. Since one is not permitted to recite words that are written [in the Torah] by heart, and this person cannot read from the written text because he cannot see it; just as we exempt him from all Mitzvos that depend on sight, even those that are d’Oraisa, such as appearing before Hashem [in the Beis Hamikdash] and giving testimony, he should certainly be exempt from this obligation, which is merely d’Rabbanan.
The Radvaz’s comparison is somewhat difficult to comprehend. In the other cases, a blind person’s exemption stems from his inability to perform the Mitzva. However, in the case of Sh’nayim Mikra, a blind person could theoretically perform the Mitzva, provided he knows the Parsha by heart. The Radvaz’s reasoning seems to be that Chaza”l would not have imposed an obligation to read the Parsha on someone whose circumstances require him to recite material by heart.
Moreover, a blind person can fulfill the Mitzva by listening to someone else read the Parsha. If he does so, he would not violate the rule that written material may not be recited by heart. Why should he be exempt?
The Radvaz addresses the latter question:
Although in this case it is possible to fulfill the obligation through listening, we have not found any instance in which a person is exempt from performing a Mitzva himself but is obligated to perform it by means of others.
The Radvaz concludes the Teshuva by addressing the case of a person who does not know how to read:
As for someone who does not know how to read, he is already guilty of a greater failing, for he is neglecting the Mitzva d’Oraisa of “v’Limadtem Osam”, which obligates him to study Torah, yet he is not doing so. Rather than going to hear the Torah being read, he should go and learn it himself. Furthermore, what benefit is there in hearing the Torah if he does not understand what he hears? It is specifically in the case of Megila reading that the Chachamim permitted this, even when the listener does not understand anything, as in the case of the words “Achashtranim Bnei haRamachim” (Esther 8:10)[4]. Elsewhere they did not permit this.
The Radvaz summarizes his ruling:
Accordingly, if a person is blind, has an eye condition, or does not know how to read, he is exempt from this obligation. If he knows how to read, he can fulfill it by listening to someone else. This appears correct to me.
This ruling is cited by the Machzik Bracha[5] (O.C. 285:5) and Toras Chaim[6] (139:3). The Kaf haChaim[7] (285:10) quotes the Radvaz and Machzik Bracha, concluding that although a blind person is exempt according to the strict letter of the law, it is nevertheless proper to be stringent and listen to someone else read. One who does so will be blessed.
However, this ruling is not universally accepted. In his siddur, R’ Yaakov Emden zt”l (Seder Erev Shabbos, 23) maintains that a blind person should read the Targum three times (to avoid the issue of reciting P’sukim by heart), which indicates that a blind person is obligated in the Mitzva.
The Teshuva me’Ahava[8] (2:242) raises a question regarding the Radvaz’s ruling and concludes that the matter requires further halachic consideration.
What lies at the heart of this dispute? The Radvaz’s main proof for his position comes from the Gemara. In Brachos 8a, the Gemara relates that during Krias haTorah, “R’ Sheishes would turn his face away and study. He said, ‘We are occupied with our own matters, and they are occupied with theirs.’”
In other words, R’ Sheishes would study Torah sheBa’al Peh while the Torah was being read publicly. How was he permitted to do so? Surely, it is forbidden to speak once the Sefer Torah has been opened – even words of Torah.
This question is addressed by Tosfos (Sota 39a):
One may suggest that turning the face away makes a difference. Alternatively, R’ Sheishes was different because he was blind and therefore exempt from reading, since written material may not be recited by heart. Since he was exempt from reading, he was permitted to study Halacha even while the Torah was being read. This is what he meant when he said, “We are occupied with our own matters, and they are occupied with theirs”: We are occupied with Halacha, which is transmitted orally, while they are occupied with the written Torah. However, it seems more reasonable to accept the explanation of Rabbenu Chananel, who explains that this applied specifically to R’ Sheishes and others like him, whose entire occupation was Torah study. [In any case,] nowadays we follow the position of Rava, who states that once the Sefer Torah has been opened, one may not speak. As for R’ Sheishes turning his face away, one may explain that it was simply not customary to study Halacha in front of the congregation while they were listening to the Torah being read.
To summarize, there are three possible reasons why R’ Sheishes was permitted to learn Torah sheBa’al Peh during K’rias haTorah:
1. Turning one’s face away permits one to study.
2.The leniency applies specifically to a blind person, who is exempt from K’rias haTorah since it is written material that may not be recited by heart.
3. The leniency applies only to a Torah scholar whose entire occupation is Torah study.
The Radvaz notes that Tosfos’ second answer clearly implies that even when a blind person can listen to someone else read and thereby fulfill the obligation without reciting written material by heart, he remains exempt. After all, the Ba’al Korei is reading directly from the Sefer Torah, so the blind person would not need to recite anything by heart. Yet he is still exempt because he cannot read the text himself.
The Teshuva me’Ahava challenges the Radvaz’s argument. He maintains that Tosfos in Sota, Brachos, and Bava Kama do not appear to hold this view as their primary position. Although the general rule prohibits reciting Torah sheb’Ksav by heart, the Chachamim permitted it when necessary, due to “Eis La’asos laShem, Heifeiru Sorasecha”. (On this basis, the Chachamim similarly permitted committing Torah sheBa’al Peh to writing.) If so, a blind person should similarly be permitted to recite Torah sheb’Ksav by heart when necessary, and should be included in the obligation of Sh’nayim Mikra. (See the Mishna Berura at the beginning of O.C. 49, who makes this exact point.)
In Mo’adei Hashem[9] (p. 105a), the author rules that a blind person is obligated to listen to the weekly K’rias haTorah to fulfill the Mitzva of Sh’nayim Mikra. He offers an interesting proof from a Teshuva of the Rashba (1:206), which addresses a related question:
Question: If someone has completed the weekly Parsha twice from the Torah text and once in Targum, is he permitted to speak while the Sefer Torah remains open?
Answer: Once the Sefer Torah has been opened, it is forbidden to speak, except for someone whose entire occupation is Torah study, who is permitted to discuss halachic matters, as in the case of R’ Sheishes, who said, “They are occupied with their matters, and we are occupied with ours.” It stands to reason that he too would have completed the weekly Parsha. Nevertheless, this was permitted specifically for him, because his entire occupation was Torah study; for anyone else, it is forbidden. For it is written, “The ears of all the people were attentive to the Sefer Torah” (Nechemia 8:3), and it is also written, “When he opened it, all the people stood” (Nechemia 8:5). This applies equally whether a person has already completed the weekly Parsha or not.
The Mo’adei Hashem infers from this passage that a blind person is also obligated in Sh’nayim Mikra.
However, his assertion requires further examination. If a blind person is indeed obligated, why does the Rashba state that “it stands to reason” that R’ Sheishes would also have completed the weekly Parsha? Surely, he should have stated unequivocally that R’ Sheishes had fulfilled his obligation. The Rashba’s wording suggests that R’ Sheishes may have completed the Parsha because it is proper to do so, rather than because he was obligated.
Furthermore, even under this interpretation, the passage does not prove that a blind person may fulfill the obligation by reciting the text from memory, since R’ Sheishes may have done so by listening to someone else read it.
These issues are also discussed in Kerem Shlomo[10] (O.C. 285), She’eilos u’Teshuvos R’ Akiva Yosef[11] (O.C. 104), and Chazon Ovadia[12] (Shabbos 1, p. 323).
[1] R’ David ben Shlomo ibn Zimra zt” l, 1479-1573. [Editor’s note: there is some dispute about these dates, with some sources suggesting that the Radvaz was 110 years old when he died.]
[2] In modern printings, this appears as 3:425.
[3] One cannot fulfill the Mitzva of K’rias Sh’ma this way because of the requirement of “v’Shinantam”, which requires that the words be recited orally.
[4] [Editor’s note: The Gemara in Megila 18a offers support for the Halacha of Lo’ez sheShama Ashuris Yatza (one who does not speak Lashon haKodesh who heard the Megila read in its original language has fulfilled his obligation) from the fact that we do not know the meaning of the words “ha’Achashtranim Bnei haRamachim”, yet we are Yotzei. This proves that the Mitzva is “Keri’a and Pirsumei Nisa” (reading and publicizing the miracle), not necessarily fully understanding every word of the Megila.]
[5] R’ Chaim Yosef David Azulai (the Chid”a) zt”l, 1724-1806.
[6] R’ Yaakov Shalom Sofer zt”l, 1856-1921.
[7] R’ Yaakov Chaim Sofer zt”l, 1870-1939.
[8] R’ Elazar Fleckeles zt”l, 1754-1826.
[9] R’ Yehuda Najjar zt”l, c. 1750-1835.
[10] R’ Shlomo Haas zt”l, 1800-1847.
[11] R’ Akiva Yosef Schlesinger zt”l, 1837-1922.
[12] Chacham Ovadia Yosef zt”l, 1920-2013.
Rabbi Yosef Sprung
