When is it a Problem to Correct the Baal Korei

Question: As a gabbai, I found last week’s article particularly interesting. You discussed certain waivers for a baal korei’s mistakes, which became relevant recently when several people approached me after Krias HaTorah mentioning that during Chamishi, the baal korei mispronounced a word. Can you clarify how that situation should be handled?

Answer by Rabbi Mendel Prescott, Rosh Yeshiva of Machon Smicha and Rov of the Colony Community:

To recap the basics of correcting a baal korei’s mistakes:

The Rambam[1] and Mechaber[2] are machmir that every mistake must be corrected and reread properly. The Rama is more meikil — only significant mistakes, meaning those that change the sense of the word (shinui inyan), must be repeated. Minor errors that do not alter the meaning need not be reread.

Still, the Rama writes, “go’arin bo ketzas” — he should be mildly admonished. HaRav Moshe Sternbuch[3] explains that if the mistake is caught immediately, it should be corrected, whatever it may be. Only once the kri’ah has continued past that point do we say a minor error is ignored. In contrast, a shinui inyan mistake must be corrected whenever it’s discovered.

The Alter Rebbe and the the Tzemach Tzedek, were both known for being very careful during Krias HaTorah, making sure to correct even the smallest mistakes.[4]

Since the primary factor is shinui inyan, it’s important to define what qualifies as such. The Eishel Avraham of Butchatch[5] (who was a close talmid of the Berditchever Rebbe) gives a few examples that can serve as prototypes for other mistakes:

1. Even if the letters and nekudos are pronounced properly, a wrong mil’el vs. mil’ra stress can sometimes create a shinui inyan. For instance, ba’ah — depending on stress — can mean “came” or “comes.”

2. In contrast, not every nekudah mistake changes the meaning. For example, if one reads vayugad l’Yaakov instead of vayaged l’Yaakov,[6] it expresses the same idea — both convey the same idea that “someone told Yaakov” — thus it’s not shinui inyan.[7]

3. Saying yadchem instead of yedeichem is a shinui inyan, since the first is singular and the second plural.

4. Reading lah (her) without the usual mapik hei is acceptable, as it doesn’t yield an alternate meaning.

In short, if the listener can discern the intended word, and the error doesn’t change it to a different meaning, it’s not a shinui inyan.

Mistake Discovered After the Aliyah

When a significant mistake is found after the oleh has already made the bracha achrona (Asher nasan lanu), the Magen Avraham[8] and Shulchan Aruch HaRav[9] rule that the mistake must still be rectified. [The Biur Halachah[10] is mesupak about this but ultimately adopts the stricter approach of his predecessors.]

The proper solution is to begin the next aliyah from the pasuk where the mistake occurred and continue from there onward.[11] Care must be taken, however, not to start within three pesukim of a pesuchah or setumah (indicated in the chumash by the peh and samech markers). In that case, the starting point should be adjusted accordingly.[12]

Mistake Discovered After Krias HaTorah

In your case — where the mistake was only noticed after Krias HaTorah was completed — if the error was indeed a shinui inyan, it must be corrected, even if the Sefer Torah has already been returned to the aron kodesh. There is no need to repeat the entire parsha; it suffices to read that pasuk along with two additional pesukim, since a kri’ah cannot consist of fewer than three pesukim.[13]

Brachos on the Correction

The Biur Halachah[14] writes that no new brachah is made on the corrective kriah. His reasoning is that regarding brachos, we rely bedi’eved on the lenient shittos that even a mistake of shinui inyan is acceptable (as ruled by the Chayei Adam). He adds that even the more stringent shittos might only require correcting within the same aliyah. Though this is not relied upon to exempt the rereading itself, it suffices to create a safek bracha.

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach[15] explains that there sevaros are only true for a localized word error, when the rest of the parsha remains understood. But if the mistaken word changes the sense of the entire pasuk — e.g., reading chalav (milk) instead of cheilev (fat) — the rereading must be done with a bracha.

Short Aliyos

At Mincha on Shabbos, Monday, and Thursday the aliyos often have only three pesukim. If a shinui inyan occurs in one of them, the entire aliyah becomes invalid, since that pasuk counts as though it wasn’t read. Normally, if only two pesukim were mistakenly read the aliyah must be repeated with a bracha. However, following the Biur Halachah’s ruling, here the aliyah is repeated without a bracha since mistakes are considered valid b’dieved for bracha purposes.

Some poskim, including HaRav Moshe Feinstein,[16] say that if just one mistake occurred it’s not necessary to repeat the aliyah. They explain that the minimal requirement of three pesukim can be met b’dieved with just two-and-a-half pesukim. Here, since two of the pesukim were read perfectly, the third pasuk—even though it contained a mistake—can be considered a half pasuk.

Looking into the Chumash

Some suggest a practical solution for a baal korei who has not prepared properly: using a chumash as reference. Before each phrase, he can quickly glance at the chumash to see the trop. Care must be taken to read the words only after looking at the Sefer Torah, as reading directly from the chumash would invalidate the kriah.

The Eishel Avraham[17] supports this approach with some flexibility, suggesting that even if sone words are read before glancing at the Sefer Torah, they can still be valid if the Sefer Torah was looked at within toch k’dei dibur. HaRav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach[18] recommends having another person stand beside the baal korei with a finger on the Sefer Torah’s correct spot, helping maintain pace. HaRav Chuna Halberstam of Kolshitz, who was known for his passionate Krias HaTorah, reportedly leined this way, glancing at the chumash before each pasuk. (Other Sanzer rebbes are said to have leined this way as well.)

However, HaRav Moshe Feinstein[19] expressed concerns about potential errors from switching between texts. He advised that in such situations, it’s preferable to read solely from the Sefer Torah as the only trop that is me’akev is the sof pasuk, which can be easily signaled to him by the gabbai.

Sources:

[1] הל’ תפלה (פרק יב הלכה ו)

[2] או”ח סימן קמב (סעיף א)

[3] תשובות והנהגות חלק א (סימן קמז)

[4] ראה מכתב כ”ק אדמו”ר הרש”ב שנדפס בסוף הסידור עם דא”ח.

[5] סימן קמב (סעיף א בהגה)

[6] פרשת ויחי (מז, ב)

[7] הוסיף שם עוד נקודה, וזה לשונו: מלבד זה הרי המשמעות שוה, כיון שאין מפורש בפסוק מי היה המגיד, והרי המכוון שוה, כיון שגם ויגד הכוונה בו איזה שיהיה וכן הוא הוראת ויוגד, עכ”ל.

[8] סימן רפב (ס”ק יח). והמשנ”ב (סימן רפב, וסימן קלז סק”ג) הביא את דבריו להלכה.

[9] סימן רפב (סעיף כ)

[10] סימן קמא (סעיף א, ד”ה מחזירין)

[11] משנה ברורה סימן קמב (סק”ב)

[12] ראה ערוך השולחן סימן קלז (סעיף ד)

[13] שו”ע סימן קלז (סעיף ד)

[14] שם

[15] הליכות שלמה הל’ תפלה פרק יב (הערה לד)

[16] אגרות משה או”ח חלק ד (סימן כג). וכן הורה ביביע אומר (או”ח ח”ט סימן יד) והביא כן בשם שו”ת כתונת יוסף. והביא גם שהורה כן הגרצ”פ פרנק על מעשה שהיה.

[17] בוטשאטש, סימן קמב (שם)

[18] הליכות שלמה הל’ תפלה פרק יב (סעיף ה)

[19] אגרות משה או”ח חלק ג (סימן יט). ראה גם בתשובות והנהגות חלק א (סימן קמו) שלא ישר בעיניו עצה זו. ועל הנהגת האדמורי”ם, כתב: ואף שראיתי אדמורי”ם מבית הגה”ק מצאנז זצ”ל מקילין בזה, מסתברא שהם דקדקו ונזהרו לעשות כהלכה, אבל לדידן נראה שראוי לחשוש שיטעה, עכ”ל.