Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Since communal prayer is impossible without a quorum of ten, this is the minimum number of people that must live in a community before constructing a synagogue becomes obligatory.

Note Hilchot De’ot 4:23, which states that a Torah sage is not allowed to live in a city which lacks any of ten community resources, one of which is a synagogue.

Literally, “a house of congregation,” generally, translated as “synagogue.”

The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 163:1) states that even if the majority of the inhabitants do not desire the construction of a synagogue, the minority have the right to compel them to build it.

i.e., participate both financially and in the actual construction work, if necessary.

So that these texts will be available for Torah study (Hilchot Sh’chenim 6:1). At present, when a greater number of Torah texts are available, the congregation is obligated to buy the Torah texts needed by the congregation—both adults and minors—for study (Magen Avraham 150:1).

These statements are quoted from the Tosefta, Megillah 3:14. The commentaries question how this verse serves as a prooftext for the law which is stated.

Shabbat 11a states: “Any city whose roofs are higher than the synagogue will ultimately be destroyed.” The Hagahot Maimoniot maintain that this applies only to buildings with flat roofs. However, if the roofs are slanted and therefore, will not be used by people, the height of the other buildings may exceed that of the synagogue. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 150:2) states that apartments or offices in other buildings should also not be higher than the synagogue’s roof. The Mishnah Berurah 150:5 notes that many communities are not stringent in the observance of this law and quotes sources which explain that since buildings owned by gentiles are often taller than the synagogue, the synagogue is not likely to be the tallest building in the city in any case. Therefore, other Jewish houses may also be built higher than the synagogue. His own opinion, however, is not to seek leniency in this regard.

The word “before” is understood to mean “at the entrance to.”

This law is quoted from the Tosefta (loc. cit.). The Tur and Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 150:5) explain that this law applied only in Babylon, where their synagogues faced west. Thus, the doorway on the eastern side would be opposite the ark. However, since the Rambam mentions the possibility of the heichal being built on different walls, but mentions only one position for the entrance, it appears that he requires the entrance to be placed at the east at all times.

This refers to a fixed structure like the ark (Aron HaKodesh) which is found in contemporary synagogues. In addition, as explained in the following halachah, the custom was to have a tevah, a smaller ark, positioned next to the place where the chazan would stand.

As mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 3, one should always pray facing the direction of the Temple. Thus, if the synagogue is located to the west of Jerusalem, the heichal should be built into the eastern wall.

It is apparent from the Rambam’s statements that, if for some reason, the heichal of a synagogue was not positioned in the direction of Jerusalem, one should pray facing Jerusalem and not facing the heichal.

Both lengthwise and widthwise. (See the Jerusalem Talmud, Sukkah 5:1.)

as described in the following chapter.

The Mishnah (Ta’anit 2:1) explains that on fast days, one of the elders of the congregation would speak and call the people to repent. Similarly, the Talmud mentions that some of the leading Sages would visit distant communities and address the people in the synagogue.

In contrast to the heichal whose position is fixed, the tevah is a movable ark, in which the Torah scrolls used for the public reading of the Torah were kept. (See the responsa of the Radbaz, Vol. II, 157.)

Width-wise.

i.e., close to the wall on which the heichal is constructed.

The Ramah (Orach Chayim 150:5) quotes this halachah, but does not mention that the elders sit with their backs to the heichal. The commentaries note that in many Sephardic communities the elders would sit with their backs to the ark, while in Ashkenazic communities, the custom is for them to sit on either side of the ark.

the heichal.

which should all be positioned in the direction of Jerusalem. When the leader of the congregation stands to pray, he stands on the ground—praying from a low place, as implied by Psalms 130:1: “From the depths, I called out to You, O God” (Berachot 10b).

Hence, the expression, יורד לפני התיבה (literally, “descend before the ark”) is often used to refer to leading communal prayer, because the chazan would pray “on the ground, before the tevah.”

The heichal.

i.e., facing the same direction as the other congregants.

The Mishneh Berurah (151:1) notes that Megillah 29a quotes Ezekiel 11:16: “I have been a sanctuary in microcosm to them in the countries where they have come” to describe the synagogues in the Diaspora. This association allows one to infer that the obligation to honor a synagogue is related to the mitzvah (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandment 21) to revere the Temple. The S’dei Chemed cites Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 65) which mentions the prohibition against “destroying the houses where God is worshiped,” indicating that the obligation to honor the synagogues has its source in a Torah commandment. (Note the commentary on Halachah 12.)

Sefer Chassidim 128 relates that Rabbi Ya’akov bar Yakar, Rashi’s teacher, would polish the floor before the ark with his beard.

Their synagogues often had dirt floors. Thus, mopping them would also keep the dust from rising (Megillah 28b).

i.e., North Africa.

The translation is based on Targum Onkelos to Genesis 19:1.

The term ארץ הצבי is applied to Eretz Yisrael, based on Jeremiah 3:19: “I will give you a delightful land (ארץ צבי), the finest heritage of a host of nations.” (See also Daniel 8:9, Gittin 57a.)

The Rambam appears to imply that in addition to lighting lamps at night, when their light would be necessary, lamps were lit during the day as a mark of respect.

Literally, “in the cities of Edom (i.e., Rome).”

No lightheadedness—Rashi, Megillah 28a, explains that קלות ראש also connotes irreverence. These activities...

Cheapen the respect and awe one has for the synagogue. Rashi also includes in the category of קלות ראש all the other activities the Rambam mentions in this halachah because they all cause us to view the synagogue as a place where mundane affairs can be carried out, and thus, minimize our appreciation of its holiness.

The Sefer Mitzvot Gadol states that the sin of frivolity in the synagogues causes them to be sold to gentiles and transformed into houses of idol worship.
The Zohar (Parashat Vayakhel) severely condemns the sin of idle conversation in a synagogue, because God’s presence is manifest there, and, therefore, any activity of this sort indicates a lack of reverence for Him.

Pesachim 101a relates that wayfarers would eat meals in the synagogue. However, Tosafot, Megillah 28a, explains that synagogues would have a side room that was used as a guest house. However, eating and drinking would not be permitted in the room used for prayer.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Berachot 8:6. Rashi (Megillah 28b) renders ניאותין as “adorn ourselves.” According to his interpretation, the synagogue should not be a place where people come to show off their clothes and jewelry.

i.e., it is forbidden to go to a synagogue for the purpose of walking around to release tension (Kessef Mishneh).

Megillah 28b relates that Ravina and Rav Ada bar Matanah were discussing a Halachic problem with Ravva outside. When it began raining, they entered a synagogue to continue their discussion. They explained, “We did not enter the synagogue because of the rain, but because the comprehension of the passage requires a relaxed state of mind.”

The Magen Avraham 151:2 states that this license is granted only to scholars who spend the majority of their time in the house of study. Others, however, are not granted such privileges.

Megillah 28b states that a house of study is called “the rabbis’ house,” implying that they can do anything they would do in their own homes in the house of study. Since the holiness of a house of study exceeds that of a synagogue (see Halachah 14), we can assume that these activities are also permitted in a synagogue.

Nonetheless, this license is granted only...

Forcing the scholars to leave the synagogue whenever they wanted to eat or drink would cause them to waste time that could be devoted to Torah study (Magen Avraham, loc. cit.:2).

See Ketubot 5a, which states that though it is forbidden to think over one’s accounts on the Sabbath, one is permitted to calculate accounts that are associated with a mitzvah even in a synagogue.

For a more precise definition of the term קופה, see Hilchot Matnot Ani’im 9:1.

Note the Rambam’s comments on the importance of the redemption of captives, Hilchot Matnot Ani’im 8:10-18. or the like. [Similarly,] eulogies—This does not refer to a eulogy recited in the presence of the corpse itself, but rather a public meeting in honor of the deceased after his burial (Rav Kapach).

From Megillah 28b, it appears that this refers to a eulogy recited over a great sage, by a great sage, or attended by a great sage.

Note Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:2, which mentions a similar prohibition with regard to the Temple Mount.

Note Halachah 10, which states that if one enters a synagogue for the sake of a mitzvah, one may afterwards leave from the other entrance to shorten his way. The Be’ur Halachah (151) questions whether a person who is going to do a mitzvah may take a shortcut through a synagogue. Though the Pri Megadim states that this might be permissible, the Be’ur Halachah maintains that the wording the Rambam chose implies that one must enter the synagogue to do a mitzvah within, and not to pass through for the sake of a mitzvah.

The Lechem Mishneh explains that the person should study first and then call his friend, so that it will not appear that he entered the synagogue only to serve his personal concerns.

Which is forbidden, as mentioned above.

This suggestion is quoted from Megillah 28b, the source for this halachah. As obvious from Gittin 58a and other sources throughout the Talmud, synagogues were often used as classrooms for younger children.

For listening to the words of Torah recited by another person is also considered as Torah study.

The Ramah (Orach Chayim 151:8) states that one must wait at least the length of time it takes to walk eight handbreadths (slightly less than five feet).

The Bayit Chadash (Orach Chayim 151) points out that the emphasis is not on sitting, but on spending time, whether one stands or sits. To clarify this point, the Rambam does not quote the Talmudic source (Megillah, loc. cit.) exactly. That passage reads, “[he should] wait a while, get up, and leave.” The Rambam omits the expression, “get up,” to indicate that one need not actually sit.

Megillah 29a bases this law on Ezekiel 46:9 which states that in the Messianic age, after the people complete their service in the Temple, they will not leave through the same gate through which they entered. If this will be permitted in the Temple, it is surely permitted in a synagogue. The Kessef Mishneh questions the order of the halachot chosen by the Rambam, noting that it would have seemed more logical to mention this law directly after Halachah 8, which forbids taking a shortcut through a synagogue. The Or Sameach points out a possible resolution of this difficulty, noting that in teaching this law after Halachah 9, the Rambam implies that leniency is granted only for the sake of calling a friend. However, it is forbidden to enter a synagogue and study Torah in order to leave by the opposite door.

The Mishnah (Berachot 9:6) forbids the following four activities on the Temple Mount, considering them as irreverent. See also Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:2.

Though there is no obligation to remove one’s shoes before entering a synagogue, we find the practice mentioned in various sources. The Jerusalem Talmud (Bava Metzia 2:8) relates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s son removed his sandals before entering a synagogue. When he left, he discovered that they had been stolen. He said, “If I had not entered the synagogue, my sandals wouldn’t have been stolen.”

In his commentary on the above mishnah, the Rambam defines אפונדתו as “a garment which one wears against his flesh to collect perspiration, so that... he will not spoil his dress clothing.” Others render אפונדתו as “money-belt.”

It must be noted that many authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah omit the phrases “wearing [only] lower garments” and “with dust on his feet.”

Rabbenu Manoach cites the following statement from the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 3:5): A person who spits in the synagogue is considered like one who spits in [God’s] eye. Rabbi Yonah would spit and wipe it with his foot. Rabbenu Manoach explains that this passage does not contradict the Babylonian Talmud (Berachot, loc. cit.) which allows one to spit in the synagogue. As long as Rabbi Yonah’s practice is followed, there is no prohibition. Though some authorities disagree, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 151:7) accepts Rabbenu Manoach’s decision. However, while reciting the Shemoneh Esreh, spitting is forbidden (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 97:2). The Magen Avraham 151:9 mentions that the Ari zal would refrain from spitting within a synagogue.

The commentaries explain that since the verse states והשמותי את מקדשיכם, with the noun “sanctuaries” following the verb “I will destroy,” rather than ואת מקדשיכם השמותי, one may draw the following inference.

Sanctuaries and therefore, must be regarded as…

Therefore…

As explained in Halachot 5-10.

Megillah 28b mentions that if one constructed a synagogue with the condition that it can be used for mundane purposes, one may do so. As mentioned in the commentary to Halachah 6, the Ramban and other authorities maintain that if a synagogue was constructed with such a condition, guests may eat inside and it may be used for other mundane purposes. Tosafot disagrees, maintaining that the condition has no effect while the synagogue is standing and applies only after it has been destroyed. Thus, were a synagogue to be built with such a condition, as were the synagogues in Babylonia in Talmudic times, mundane activities could be carried on within its premises after it was destroyed. However, even then, activities directly opposed to the sanctity of the synagogue, e.g., sowing crops on the land, are forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 151:11) quotes Tosafot’s opinion. Interestingly, the Rambam does not mention either the Ramban’s or Tosafot’s interpretation of the possibility of making the condition mentioned in Megillah (loc. cit.).

For there would be no benefit in doing so.

The Mishnah (Megillah 28b) states, “If grass grow in it, it should not be pulled out.” The Talmud comments that one is not allowed to pull out the grass to use as fodder for animals, but one may pull out the grass and leave it there. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam writes that one is permitted to pull the grass out and leave it in its place. The published text of the Mishneh Torah (which we have quoted) appears to imply that one should pull them out (i.e., it is imperative to do so). However, the version of the halachah found in authoritative manuscripts is closer to the understanding in the Commentary to the Mishnah. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:10) quotes the version of the halachah in the published texts of the Mishneh Torah. However, the Mishnah Berurah (151:29) quotes the Commentary to the Mishnah.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam adds that if it is impossible for the synagogues to be rebuilt, the grass should be left there since seeing it will motivate the people to Teshuvah.

Note Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 65), which states that destroying a synagogue is a transgression of a Torah commandment. Nonetheless, if one’s intention is to build a new synagogue, the destruction of the old one is permitted (See also Ramah, Orach Chayim 152:2).

This law is quoted from Bava Batra 3b. Two reasons are mentioned by the Talmud. The Rambam quotes one:

The second reason mentioned in the Talmud is so that people will have a place to pray in the interim. The Talmud notes that different corollaries result from these two explanations. If there is another synagogue in the city, according to the second explanation (not mentioned by the Rambam), one could tear down the first synagogue while building a new one, since people would be able to pray in the other synagogue in the interim. However, according to the explanation quoted by the Rambam, it would be improper to destroy the synagogue lest the new synagogue never be built. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 152:1) quotes the Rambam’s decision. The Mishnah Berurah 152:4 states that this law applies even if all the money necessary to build the new synagogue has been collected.

So that there is no danger in continuing to pray within.

And there is a danger that it may collapse.

. The Be’ur Halachah (152) states that this applies even if the community does not have another place to pray.

Bava Batra 3b relates that Rav Ashi saw a dangerous flaw in the synagogue of Mata Machsia. He ordered the building destroyed and then took his bed into the ruins to make sure that the community would rebuild it quickly. He did not remove his bed until the final fixtures of the building were completed.

Megillah 27a describes a house of study as “a great house,” “a house where Torah is developed.”

since Torah study takes precedence over the performance of all other mitzvot (See Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:3). See also Chapter 8, Halachah 3; Hilchot Talmud Torah 4:9.

Our translation is based on the opinion of Rabbenu Nissim who maintains that it is forbidden to exchange a sacred article for another of an equal level of holiness. There are other opinions who maintain that it is permitted to do so. The Mishnah Berurah 153:11 states that even according to those opinions, the permission to do so is after the fact (בדיעבד), but not a priori.

This principle applies in a number of different halachic contexts, for example, the practice of adding a new Chanukah candle each night (Shabbat 21a).

Megillah 26b explains that this only applies to a synagogue in a village as explained in Halachah 16.

The Rambam’s use of the past tense appears to imply that this is a only question בדיעבד. TheMishnah Berurah 153:3, however, presents as להתחילה (a priori), the possibility of selling an article of lesser sanctity in order to purchase an article of greater sanctity. The sale of a synagogue is a complicated matter. See Halachot 16-20 and also the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 153:7 and commentaries.

See Halachah 3.

The Lechem Mishneh emphasizes that a synagogue may only be sold for such a purchase if there is another synagogue in the city.

In Ashkenazic communities, it is customary to hold a Torah scroll in a mantle.

As is customary in Sephardic communities. Hilchot Sefer Torah 10:4 describes the sanctity of these ritual articles.

In Talmudic times, the expression chumash referred to a scroll on which only one of the five books of Moses was written. Since it contained only one book, its holiness was on a lower level than that of a complete Torah scroll.

There is a some difficulty with the Rambam’s statements when compared to Hilchot Sefer Torah 10:2, where the Rambam writes:
It is forbidden for a person to sell a Torah scroll even if he has nothing to eat. [It is even forbidden] to sell an old scroll in order to purchase a new one. A Torah scroll should never be sold except for [one of] two purposes, so that one can use the money to study Torah or in order to marry.
Perhaps here the Rambam is speaking about a question that arose after the fact, once the Torah scroll has already been sold, while in Hilchot Sefer Torah, he is describing an a priori condition. Alternatively, he may be referring to circumstances where the new Torah scroll has already been written and all that is necessary is to pay for it. In such a case, one may sell an old Torah scroll (Rabbenu Manoach, Hilchot Sefer Torah).

In Hilchot Sefer Torah (loc. cit.), the Rambam writes, “A kosher Torah scroll should be treated with special holiness and great honor.”

i.e., if one sold many chumashim to purchase a Torah scroll and some of the proceeds from the sale remained, those monies should not be used to purchase anything on a lower level of holiness.

Just as it is forbidden to sell sacred articles in order to purchase articles of lesser sanctity...

Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 8:11 mentions an exception to this principle:
If the inhabitants of a city collected money for the construction of a synagogue and a matter involving a mitzvah arises, they may use the money for it. If they already bought stones and beams, they should not sell them for the sake of another mitzvah, except for the redemption of captives.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 153:6) states that a synagogue—and even a Torah scroll—may be sold for the purpose of supporting Torah studies or for other needs associated with mitzvot. Nevertheless, this measure should only be taken when there is no other way to cover these expenses (Mishnah Berurah 153:24). See also Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De’ah 252:1) which explains that one is only allowed to sell a synagogue for such purposes if the buyer will continue to have it used as a synagogue.

Rav Moshe Cohen questions the Rambam’s decision, asking why it is forbidden to make a change of this nature. Even bricks intended for use in constructing a synagogue can be used for other purposes as long as they have not been actually built into the synagogue (See Megillah 26b).
The Turei Zahav (Orach Chayim 153:2) explains that money collected for the purchase of religious articles does not possess the sanctity of those articles. However, since the donors intended that the money be used to purchase religious articles, its use is constrained by the terms of an implicit vow that it be used for this purpose. Despite this limitation, the congregation may use these funds for another purpose associated with a mitzvah and substitute other funds to accomplish the purpose for which these funds were originally collected. (Note the Magen Avraham 153:5, who does not accept the latter conclusion.)
The Be’ur Halachah (153) supports the Turei Zahav’s position based on Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:20, which states that a sacred utensil made with the intent that it be used in the Temple is not considered as “sacred” until it has actually been used for its intended purpose.

e.g., they collected funds to purchase a Torah scroll and were able to purchase it for less money than they had collected.

Megillah 27a mentions this leniency based on the principle that the money itself does not have the sanctity of the religious articles for whose purchase it was donated, but is merely designated to be used for their purchase.
Once the religious articles have been purchased, the Mishnah Berurah (153:14) states that these funds can be used for any purpose of benefit to the community, even if it has no association with a sacred article. However, there are authorities who require the money to be used to purchase an article which has some degree of sanctity.

e.g., the platform from which the Torah is read or its benches (Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah 3:1).

To be on the same level of holiness.

and can only be sold for similar purposes.
Our Sages placed certain restrictions on the sale of the components of a synagogue. In Hilchot Matnot Ani’im 8:6, the Rambam writes:
If someone donates a light or a candle to a synagogue, it is forbidden to exchange it [for something else]. If [the sale] concerns a matter which is a mitzvah, it may be exchanged.... If the name of the donor has been forgotten, it is permitted to exchange [the object] even for a mundane matter.
In Hilchot Sefer Torah 10:4, the Rambam states that the platform “has no sanctity at all.” However, this statement should be interpreted to mean that the platform is not considered a “sacred article” like the others mentioned in that halachah.

It is not clear whether the Rambam is referring to the tevah (the movable ark) or the heichal (the fixed ark). Rabbenu Nissim interprets the reference as to be to the tevah.

Since from time to time, it is placed under the Torah scroll (Megillah 26b).

Allowing the use of the curtains for mundane purposes.

When they were originally purchased.

And there is no prohibition against using them for such purposes.

Even if the money for its construction was donated by people from outside the city (Ramah, Orach Chayim 153:7).

Based on this statement, the Mishnah Berurah 153:25 explains that the main determinant is not the size of the village, but whether the synagogue is also frequented by people from the outside. According to this understanding, a synagogue in a small village where large trade fairs are held is bound by the same laws as the synagogues of a large city. By the same token, a synagogue used by a private group of people in a large city may be comparable to a village synagogue. An example of such a case, cited by the Mishnah Berurah, is the custom once common that craftsmen of different professions would build synagogues for themselves.

The Ramban states that the consent of the majority of the village’s inhabitants is sufficient. His opinion is accepted as halachah by the Mishnah Berurah 153:24.

For this reason, even if the money to build the synagogue was donated by the inhabitants of the city alone, they do not have the authority to sell the synagogue (Rabbenu Asher, Megillah 26a).

Halachah 19 mentions an exception to this principle. Also, the Magen Avraham 153:12 relates that if a synagogue in a city is no longer used for prayer, it may be sold. Based on this decision, the Rabbis (See Iggeret Moshe, Orach Chayim, Vol. I, 50) have permitted the sale of synagogues located in neighborhoods no longer inhabited by Jews.

See the previous Halachah.

In keeping with Halachah 15.

The translation of the Hebrew, בית המים, is based on Rashi’s commentary to Megillah 27b. He also offers an alternate translation, “a latrine.” The Kessef Mishneh favors the translation “laundry” since the prohibition against using the synagogue as a latrine is self-evident. Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 153:9), Rav Yosef Karo mentions a latrine, but not a laundry.
The sanctity of the synagogue is transferred to the money received from its sale and the building itself is no longer considered as “holy.” Nonetheless, using the premises for such purposes is considered degrading.
As support for the prohibition against using premises that had previously served as a synagogue for such purposes, the Or Sameach cites II Chronicles 8:11: “I will not have a woman dwelling in the house of David... for the [places] where the ark of God has come are holy.” Although the ark had already been placed in the Temple, it was not becoming to the ark for Pharaoh’s daughter to be allowed to live in a place where it had been kept.

In a responsum, the Rambam explains that there is no obligation to appoint seven officials to lead the community. Our Sages’ use of that term merely implies that the governing communal body should not be a small group. Since the number seven is often used in the Bible, our sages employed it in this context.
In the same responsum, the Rambam defines the expression טובי העיר to mean “sages, men of Torah and good deeds, [people of whom it can be said] ‘pleasant are the words spoken by those who fulfill them.’

The Ramah (Orach Chayim 153:7) states that a public announcement of the sale is sufficient for it to be considered as if all the inhabitants of the city were present.

Megillah 26a,b states that the restriction against selling a synagogue for an unbecoming purpose does not apply when the building was sold by the communal officials in the presence of the community. When it is sold in this manner, it can be “used even as a tavern.”
The Meiri explains the rationale for this decision as follows: Even if an explicit statement was not made to the effect that the synagogue could be used for an unbecoming purpose, it is understood that the village’s inhabitants consecrated the synagogue with the understanding that it be subject to the decisions of the community’s officials. Therefore, they have the right to sell the synagogue for whatever purposes they wish.
The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s decision and maintains that the license granted by Megillah (loc. cit.) only applies to the money received from the sale, while the building that was used as a synagogue can never be used for a purpose which is unbecoming. Though the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) quotes the Rambam’s view, the Be’ur Halachah suggests following the Ra’avad’s decision, quoting the law (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 21:2), which forbids using a tallit for an unbecoming purpose even after its tzitzit have been removed.
Rav Moshe Feinstein (Responsa, `, Vol. II, 45) mentions this halachah in regard to the sale of synagogues in neighborhoods where Jews no longer live. Unfortunately, the natural clients for the purchase of an abandoned synagogue are churches. Rav Moshe states that selling a synagogue for use as a church is definitely forbidden. Using a synagogue for such purposes is more demeaning than using it for the purposes mentioned by the Talmud. He maintains that even according to the Rambam, selling a synagogue for this purpose could not be permitted.

as explained below.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 153:7) accepts the opinion of Rashi, the Ra’avad, and Rabbenu Asher, who differ with the Rambam and maintain that the entire proceeds from the sale of a synagogue can be used for mundane purposes if the sale was carried out in the above manner.
In his Kessef Mishnah, Rav Yosef Karo explains the difference between these positions as follows. These authorities do not accept the Rambam’s interpretation of Megillah 26a-b mentioned in the previous Halachah, and maintain that a certain measure of sanctity always remains in the synagogue. The Rambam maintains that the sanctity is transferred to the money received for the synagogue. Therefore, the condition made by the city officials can never effect the entire sum of money. Rather, the major portion must always be used for a sacred object.
[Interestingly, in his Kessef Mishnah, Rav Yosef Karo points out the advantages of the Rambam’s position. However, in his Shulchan Aruch, he accepts the decisions of the other authorities.]

As mentioned in Halachah 14.

Megillah 27a describes such a situation and states that the remainder of the funds may be used even to hire a messenger for the city.

The passage from Megillah 26a quoted below indicates that this law applies even to a synagogue in a metropolis. Though the Rambam’s placement of this law in this context does not lead to this conclusion, it is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 153:7.

Note the Mishnah Berurah 153:35 which states that this applies only when the inhabitants of the city donated the money for the synagogue’s construction themselves and accepted the authority of the person involved from the beginning of the synagogue’s construction.

Megillah 26a relates: Rav Ashi said: “Even though people from all over the world come into the synagogue of Mata Machsia to pray, since the people donated the money for its construction subject to my decisions, allowing me to do what I want, I am permitted to sell it if I so desire.”

As mentioned in the previous halachot.

As mentioned in the following Halachah.

This expression appears to indicate that the sale may be conducted even without a public announcement as is required of the city officials in the previous halachot. Rabbenu Nissim (and the Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.) disagree, stating that the sale must be made with the consent of the community.

In regard to the use of the premises or the proceeds from the sale.

In a village, and afterwards, use the premises for mundane purposes.

To an individual to use as he sees fit. The Magen Avraham 153:26 states that the gift must be made by the community officials in the presence of the inhabitants of the village. However, the Pri Megadim does not require these conditions. Since the Rambam equates giving the synagogue as a present to a sale, it is not likely that he would make such limitations.
Megillah 26b states, “a gift is like a sale,” because….

This principle is also reflected in questions of business law, e.g., Hilchot Gezeilah 9:9.
The Ritbah states that even when the community has not yet received any benefit from a person, it may give him a synagogue in the expectation of receiving such benefit.

In the Talmudic era, when property was given as security, the person who received the property would have the right to use it throughout the term of the loan. [This practice raises questions in regard to the prohibition against taking interest. See Hilchot Malveh U’Loveh, Chapters 6 and 7.]
When a synagogue is sold, its sanctity is transferred to the money received for it and does not remain within the building itself. However, if a synagogue was rented or given as security, there is nothing to which the sanctity is transferred. Hence, it remains within the building and the person who rents it or receives it as security is forbidden to use it for his own purposes.
Note the Ramah (Orach Chayim 153:11) who states that the prohibition only applies when the person who receives the synagogue wants to use it for mundane purposes. If he continues to use it as a synagogue there is no difficulty.
Similarly, when a synagogue is being torn down so that it can be rebuilt,—Note Halachah 12 which states that the new synagogue must be built before the old one is torn down.

Even if the articles given in return are received later (Mishnah Berurah 153:68).

In return for benefit, as explained above.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 153:11) states that this prohibition applies even when the loan is made by the community officials in the presence of the community.
Though the community officials have the power to nullify the sanctity of a synagogue as mentioned in Halachot 17 and 18, that provision only applies when they do so completely. In this instance, since the building materials have to be returned, their sanctity is not nullified. Hence, no one has the right to lend them to anyone for mundane use.

Similar principles apply in regard to the redemption of other articles endowed with sanctity, e.g., Ma’aser Sheni (the second tithe) or articles dedicated to the Temple (הקדש).

Hilchot Ta’anit 4:1 states:
On each of the seven days of fasting for rain... the ark is taken out to the main street of the city and the entire populace gather together wearing sackcloth. Ashes are placed on the ark and the Torah scroll... and each person places [ashes] on his head.
and ma’amadot,—The mention of ma’amadot in this context in Megillah 26a (the source for this halachah), and here, in the Mishneh Torah, has raised questions. In Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 6:1-2, the Rambam describes the ma’amadot as follows:
The early prophets ordained that honest people who fear sin should be chosen to stand over the sacrifices. They are called anshei ma’amad. They were divided into 24 different watches....
Each week, the anshei ma’amad of that watch would gather together. Those who lived in Jerusalem or close to it would come to the Temple.... Those who lived far away... would gather together in the synagogues of their locale.
In no source other than Megillah (loc. cit.) is it mentioned that the anshei ma’amad would pray in the street.

Note Ta’anit 16a which states that the people would pray in the street as an expression of shame and embarrassment; alternatively, because leaving one’s normal place of prayer is a form of exile which brings atonement. Interestingly, the Rambam ignores both these reasons and offers a reason which is not mentioned in previous sources.

Even for communal prayer, e.g., a room in an office building where people gather for prayer.

Thus, it is also permitted to perform mundane activities (those mentioned in Halachah 6) in these buildings.

The Shulchan Aruch 153:8 mentions a situation in which a building is designated as a synagogue temporarily, for merely a limited period. During that time, it has the holiness of a synagogue. However, once it is no longer used as a synagogue, it has no holiness.

See also Chapter 13, Halachah 8.

Tosafot, Bava Kama 82a relates that these days are days of Divine favor.

The Mishnah Berurah 135:1 states that, although ideally the Torah should be read in the Morning Service, if one fails to do so, it may be read the entire day.

Bava Kama 82b quotes Exodus 15:22: “And they travelled three days without finding water,” and explains:
Water refers to the Torah, as [implied by Isaiah 55:1]: “May all the thirsty go to the water.” Since they travelled three days without Torah, they complained. The prophets among them arose and ordained that they read [Torah] on the Sabbath, refrain [from reading] on Sunday, read on Monday, refrain [from reading] on Tuesday and Wednesday, read on Thursday, and refrain from reading on Friday, so that they will not spend three days without [reading from] the Torah.

The Hebrew, ,יושבי קרנות literally means “those who sit on the street corners.” Our translation is based on Rashi’s commentary (Bava Kama, loc. cit.). He explains that during the week, these people were involved with their businesses and could not attend the Torah reading. Therefore, Ezra instituted a special Torah reading for them on the Sabbath, when work is prohibited.

Megillah 21b relates that the number three reflects the three divisions among the Jewish people: Priests, Levites, and Israelites; alternatively, the three divisions in the Written Law (the Torah, Prophets, and Holy Writings).

In Talmudic times, the person called to the Torah would read from the Torah himself. Our custom of having one reader is discussed in the commentary on Halachah 17.

Bava Kama (loc. cit.) explains that originally either one person would read three verses, or three people would read three verses.

Megillah (loc. cit.) states that the ten verses allude to the Ten Commandments and the ten utterances of creation; alternatively, they represent the ten people who attend a synagogue at all times. (See Halachah 3.)

Including Chol Hamo’ed, the intermediate days of the festival. (See Chapter 13, Halachot 8-16.)

Soferim 10:1 attributes the introduction of the practice of reading the Torah on all the abovementioned days to Moses. (See Chapter 13, Halachah 4, regarding the Rosh Chodesh Torah reading.)

See Chapter 13, Halachah 18.

See Chapter 13, Halachah 17.

The Avudraham relates that the reading of the haftarah was instituted when the Greeks forbade the public reading of the Torah. To compensate, the Jews instituted the reading of parallel portions from the prophets. Even after the decree was nullified, the custom remained.

In Ashkenazic communities, it is also customary to read the haftarah on fast days in the Minchah service (Rama, Orach Chayim 566:1).

When work is not permitted.

Although work is permitted on Tish’ah B’Av, as mentioned in Hilchot Ta’aniot 5:10, Torah Sages have accepted the custom not to work on that day, and our Sages declared that no one will see a sign of blessing from work done on that day. Hence, there is no difficulty in reading the haftarah in the morning. (See Chapter 13, Halachah 18.)

See Chapter 8, Halachot 4-6.

See Halachah 1. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 137:4) states that, after the fact, if only nine verses were read, it is sufficient. Hagahot Maimoniot notes that the reading for Purim contains only nine verses, but explains that since this passage discusses a complete subject, an exception is made and it is acceptable as an initial preference. (See also Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 137:1.)

I.e., a verse beginning “And God said to Moses:...,” although it is merely an introductory phrase.

See Halachah 1.

In addition to the 54 weekly Torah portions, the Torah is divided into 669 smaller passages (parshiyot). (See Hilchot Sefer Torah, Chapter 8.)

A person who begins a new passage in the midst of his aliyah should read at least three verses, lest another person enter when he begins that passage and think that he has read fewer than three verses (Megillah 22a).
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim, loc. cit.) states that if a person read only two verses, he must read again.

Lest someone who leaves before the next person reads from the Torah come to the mistaken conclusion that he has read fewer than three verses (Megillah, loc. cit.). (See Chapter 13, Halachah 4. See also Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 138.)

The three verses allude to the threefold division of the Written Law (Megillah 24a). Even when an entire passage has only two verses, the reader must add at least three more verses from another passage.
From this halachah, it appears that the readings chosen for the passages to be read on Mondays and Thursdays were not fixed in the Rambam’s time. Hence, these ground rules were necessary. (See Mishnah Berurah 137:4.)

For the most important person is called to the Torah first (Megillah 21b).

Based on the principle to “always proceed higher in holy matters” (loc. cit.).

For regarding the Menorah, the middle branch was most important (loc. cit.).

Megillah 32a mentions a difference of opinion between Rabbi Yehudah, who maintains that the blessings for the Torah should be recited while the Torah scroll is open (as quoted by the Rambam), and Rabbi Meir, who maintains that the Torah scroll should be closed, lest the people err and think that the blessings are written in the Torah.
Although the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 139:4) quotes the Rambam’s decision, the Be’ur Halachah explains that Rabbi Yehudah maintains that one is not obligated to close the Torah scroll before reciting the blessing. However, there is nothing wrong in doing so. Therefore, in many communities the custom is to roll the Torah closed before reciting the blessing.
Note the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit., 140:3) regarding the ruling when one looks at the wrong passage in the Torah before reciting the blessing.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit., 139:6) emphasizes how Barchu and the blessings for the Torah should be recited in a loud voice.

The person reciting the blessing also joins in reciting the following phrase (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:7).

See Chapter 9, Halachah 1.

Note the description of Ezra’s reading of the Torah, in Nechemiah, Chapter 8, which relates how “Ezra opened the scroll... and blessed God.”

This is the third of the blessings of the Torah mentioned in Chapter 7, Halachah 10. Even someone who had just recited the blessings before the Torah as part of his individual prayers recites this blessing as a gesture of respect for the community.
As mentioned in the commentary on that halachah, the Ramban considers the obligation to recite the blessings before the Torah as one of the 613 mitzvot. Some later commentaries explain that this refers only to the blessings recited before reading the Torah in public.

Note Rashi’s commentary, Berachot 21a. Note also the comments of the Hagahot Maimoniot, Chapter 7, Halachah 15, that a person can fulfill his requirement of reciting one hundred blessings on the Sabbath by answering “Amen” to these blessings.

The Kessef Mishneh states that this is done in deference to Rabbi Meir’s opinion mentioned above. The Lechem Yehudah explains that it is a gesture of respect for the Torah.

This is the text usually recited in Sephardic communities. In Ashkenazic communities, the word, תורתו (His Torah), is not included in the blessing. Interestingly, the Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah also omit this word.

Our translation follows the printed text of the Mishneh Torah. Note the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit. 139:10), which follows the text—חיי העולם (adding a ה as a modifier)—“the life of the world (to come).”

It is proper to recite this phrase only once the Torah has been read. Only after it has been studied, does the Torah serve as a source of life (Avudraham).

So that their recitation of “Amen” will not drown out the Torah reading. Today, in communities where the Torah is read by a person other than the one reciting the blessings, it is customary for the reader to prolong his recitation of “Amen” slightly, so that everyone will know when the Torah reading begins (Mishnah Berurah 141:17).

Rabbenu Manoach explains that this law reflects a fundAmental principle of faith. Sanhedrin 99a states that anyone who says that even one letter of the Torah was not given by God is considered as “one who scorned the word of God.” Therefore, every letter in the Torah must be pronounced correctly.

This applies even if one has already read other verses or even recited the blessing over the verse which was read incorrectly (Mishnah Berurah 142:2).

For the voice of two people cannot be heard at the same time. Note the Rambam’s decision, Hilchot Shofar 3:6. See also a contrasting decision in Hilchot Megillah 2:7.
In communities where the Torah is read by a person other than the one who recites the blessings, the person reciting the blessings should be careful not to read out loud (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 141:2).

In his responsa, the Rambam cites the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 5:3) to explain why this law differs from the law mentioned in Chapter 10, Halachah 4, which states that if a chazan cannot continue the recitation of the Shemoneh Esreh, the person who replaces him begins from the point where he left off. The Rambam explains that it is necessary for the second person reading the Torah to repeat the verses, because otherwise, the verses read by the initial reader will not be included in the concluding blessing.

Nevertheless, according to the Rambam, the second reader need not recite the blessing before the Torah reading. Rabbenu Asher (whose opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit., 140:1) does not accept this decision, and requires the person who continues reading to recite the first blessing before he begins reading the Torah.
The difference between the two opinions is that the Rambam considers the blessings to be associated with the Torah portion and not with the reader. In contrast, Rabbenu Asher considers the blessings as the personal responsibility of the reader in preparation for reading from the Torah.
Rabbenu Asher’s opinion is accepted by the later authorities. Even in communities where a person other than the one who recites the blessings reads from the Torah, this law applies (Rama).

Though this law is apparent from the Tosefta referred to below, no explicit source is mentioned by the commentaries.

Our translation is based on Rashi’s commentary (Yoma 68b), which describes the rosh hak’nesset as the one who appoints the leader of prayer and gives out the aliyot.

This law is quoted from the Tosefta, Megillah 3:21, which explains that this restriction was instituted to prevent the synagogue functionaries from taking advantage of their position, and thus create a rift between them and the other congregants.

As discussed in the commentary on Halachah 17, the Rambam requires the person who receives an aliyah to read from the Torah himself. Thus, the chazan would read only when he, himself, received an aliyah.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah 4:1) explains the source for this practice. Just as an intermediary was involved with the giving of the Torah—as Deuteronomy 5:5 states: “I stood between you and God, your Lord”—so, too, another person should stand together with the reader at the reading of the Torah.

From one passage in the Torah to a different passage in the Torah.

However, skipping from one subject to another subject is forbidden, because it may confuse the listeners. (See the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 144:1.)

The Rambam chooses as his example the passages read by the High Priest in the Temple on Yom Kippur. However, as explained in the Mishnah (Yoma 7:1), the High Priest, himself, would not skip from passage to passage in the Torah.

Leviticus, Chapter 16, which describes in detail the Yom Kippur offerings.

Leviticus 23:26-32, which describes the mitzvah to fast and the prohibition of work on Yom Kippur.

Rav Kapach cites the Midrash Tanchuma, Va’era 5, which states: “A reader is forbidden to take his eyes off the Torah scroll, for the Torah was given only in writing, as [Exodus 34:2] states: ‘And I will write the words on the tablets.’” Note also Gittin 60b, which mentions a general prohibition against reciting verses from the written Torah by heart.

See Halachah 10.

Because waiting any longer would be an affront to the congregation (Yoma 69b).
At present, it is customary to skip from passage to passage in the reading of the Torah on communal fast days alone. (See Chapter 13, Halachah 18.) Even then, the transition is made between the first and second aliyot, so that it will not be noticeable to the listeners.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 146:2) states that the prohibition applies even between aliyot.

The Mishnah Berurah 146:5 mentions that if it is necessary to prevent a person from committing a sin, one may speak even while the Torah is being read.

This describes Ezra’s reading of the Torah to the people who returned to Zion on Rosh HaShanah.

This prohibition applies even though one has already heard the Torah reading oneself and there are ten other people listening to the Torah reading (Mishnah Berurah 146:1).
Berachot 8a interprets Isaiah 1:28, “Those who turn away from God will be destroyed,” as a reference to a person who leaves the synagogue when the Torah scroll is open.

Provided there are ten others who will remain to hear the Torah reading, and one has fulfilled (or will be able to fulfill) one’s obligation to hear the Torah. Even under these circumstances, leaving the synagogue is not desirable (Mishnah Berurah 146:2-3).

The license for such a person to ignore the Torah reading in order to concentrate on his studies is taken from Berachot (loc. cit.), which relates that while the Torah was being taken out, Rav Sheshet would turn his back and occupy himself in his studies, saying, “Let them be occupied in what concerns them, while we will be occupied in what concerns us.”
See Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:4, which states that the mitzvah of Torah study takes precedence over all other commandments. Based on this principle, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his disciples would not interrupt their studies even for prayer (Shabbat 11a—see Chapter 6, Halachah 8). However, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit. 106:3) states that this applies only to scholars like Rabbi Shimon, who never interrupt their studies at all. However, at present, even scholars whose occupation is Torah must interrupt their studies for prayer, for they make other interruptions as well.
The Rabbis question whether the law under discussion applies only to scholars of Rabbi Shimon’s level, or whether it is also relevant to scholars of the present day. The Kessef Mishneh notes that the citation of the behavior of Rav Sheshet as a source for this halachah appears to support the latter opinion. Rav Sheshet, like the other Amoraim of the Talmudic period, was not considered to be on the same level as Rabbi Shimon. In contrast, the Mishnah Berurah 146:9 maintains that, at present, we have no scholars who have the level of devotion to Torah study that would permit such a leniency.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit. 146:2) and the Mishnah Berurah 146:8-10 place various restrictions on this license. There must be ten others listening to the Torah, the person must study quietly, and he should turn away and begin his studies before the Torah reading is begun.

When the Jews who returned from the Babylonian exile did not speak Hebrew fluently. (See Chapter 1, Halachah 4.)

The Book of Nechemiah, Chapter 8, describes Ezra’s reading of the Torah to the people on Rosh HaShanah. Verses 7 and 8 explain that “they caused the people to understand the reading.” Megillah 3a explains that this refers to the translation of the Torah.

For the two voices will prevent the people from hearing either of them.

Lest the translator become confused.
The Tur (Orach Chayim 145) writes that even in Talmudic times, it was not customary to translate the Torah in all communities. He explains that, in his age, the custom of translating the Torah had already been ceased because the people did not understand the Aramaic translation traditionally used. The rabbis did not want to translate the Torah into the languages which the people did understand, because of the possibility of error and misinterpretation. Such fears had not existed in regard to the Aramaic translation, since it had been composed with Ruach Hakodesh (Divine inspiration).
[The Tur, however, also mentions the opinion of Rav Natrunai Gaon, who maintains that the translation should be done freely, so that the people can understand, without referring to the traditional text.]
The Tur’s own view is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 145:3) and in nearly all contemporary Jewish communities; the custom of using a translator during the Torah reading is no longer practiced.

Berachot 45a states that this principle is derived from the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai. God, “the Reader,” did not lift his voice over that of Moses, “the translator.”
It was also customary to use a מתורגמן in teaching the Oral Law. Hence, parallels to many of the laws mentioned in this halachah can also be found in Hilchot Talmud Torah 4:3.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah 4:1) mentions that we should approach the Torah reading with awe, reflecting the awe experienced by the Jews at Mount Sinai.

The Tosefta, Megillah 3:21, cites the example of Aharon, who served as a spokesman for Moses. See also Kessef Mishneh.

Genesis 35:22. The direct translation of this verse would be unbecoming to both Reuven and Jacob (Rashi, Megillah 25a).

The third of the priestly blessings states: “May God turn His countenance to you...” This appears to be a direct contradiction to the description of God (Deuteronomy 10:17) as “not turning His face...” Though our Sages resolved that difficulty (Berachot 20b), a problem might come up in a simple translation of the verse.
Rav Kapach notes that the Yemenite texts of Targum Onkelos lack a translation for the three verses of the priestly benediction.

Were the common people given the opportunity of hearing the full story of the golden calf, they might believe that it had spiritual power (Rashi, loc. cit.). Alternatively, the narrative places a major burden of responsibility on Aharon (Tosafot, Megillah, loc. cit.).

The commentaries note that this passage is not read as a haftarah at present. Rav Kapach states that the need to make this statement indicates that in Talmudic times, the passages that were read as haftarot were not fixed and there was some room for choice.

Verses from the Torah cannot be skipped in a public Torah reading. However, it is permitted to skip verses from the prophets while reading the haftarah (Tos’fot Yom Tov, Megillah 10:3).

See the commentary on Halachah 2 for a description of the origin of the custom of reading the haftarah.

This was instituted as a token of respect for the Torah reading. Reading from the prophets without reading from the Torah would imply an equivalence between the seven people who read from the Torah and the one who reads from the prophets (Megillah 23a).

As mentioned in Halachah 3, each person called to the Torah must read at least three verses.

I.e., the concluding three verses of the Torah reading.
Note Tosafot, Megillah 23a, which states that in Talmudic times, the person who recited the haftarah would read a separate portion from the Torah. It is our custom that, on festivals and in the special circumstances described in Chapter 13, Halachot 20-24, the person who reads the haftarah reads a separate Torah portion. Otherwise, he reads the concluding verses of the Torah reading.

Rashi, Sotah 39b, states that the person reading the haftarah should wait to allow the person who rolled the Torah closed also to hear the haftarah. Others explain that it is not respectful to the Torah for it be open while the haftarah is being read.

Since an aliyah has a minimum of three verses, the twenty-one verses of the haftarah will parallel the seven aliyot of the Torah reading (Megillah 23a).

Megillah (loc. cit.) cites the eight concluding verses from Jeremiah, Chapter 7, which were read as the haftarah for Parashat Tzav. (At present, it is customary to add a number of other verses to that haftarah. The haftarah read for Parashat Ki Tetzei has only ten verses.)

Rabbenu Nissim explains that after the final verse is translated, one should repeat the verse in its original to conclude with the words of the prophet. Thus, the ten verses, the ten translations, and the repetition of the verse will reach the sum of twenty-one.

Though Halachah 11 prohibits two people to serve as translators for the Torah simultaneously, this restriction is not enforced regarding the haftarah. Rashi, Megillah 21b, explains that the prohibition was instituted to prevent confusion. However, since the haftarot are concerned more with ethics than halachic concepts, the Sages did not worry that much about the possibility of confusion arising.

Here, the same principle is involved. Though skipping in this manner in a Torah reading is forbidden (Halachah 8), there is no such restriction for the haftarah. Indeed, in many of the haftarot read at present, it is customary to skip certain verses.

For this would be too confusing (Megillah 24a).

For they are considered to be a single book.

For it is improper to reverse the order of the verses as they are mentioned in the Bible.

Megillah (loc. cit.) explains that this is a practice of respect for the congregation, to prevent them from being forced to wait in silence.

Though verses from the Torah should be read to a translator one at one time (see Halachah 10), as mentioned in the previous halachah, more leniency is taken regarding verses from the haftarah.

Note the commentary of Rabbenu Nissim, who explains two passages as “two different subjects.”

To prevent confusion.

The full text of this blessing is found in the Order of Prayers for the Entire Year. This blessing is considered to be one long blessing, which begins with Baruch and concludes with Baruch (Rav David Arameah).

Thus, he recites a total of seven blessings (2 blessings on the Torah reading, five for the haftorah), corresponding to the seven people called to the Torah (Soferim 14:1).

Which begins: “Blessed are You...”; the entire prayer is considered to be one blessing.

The Avudraham explains that since the object of most of the prophecies is “Zion, Elijah, and David” (i.e., the Messianic redemption), after praising God as faithful to fulfill His prophecies, we begin the second blessing, which centers on the return to Jerusalem.

As in the grace after meals. This text is also found in the siddurim of Rav Amram Gaon and Rav Sa’adiah Gaon. Soferim 13:12 concludes the blessing “who causes Zion to rejoice in her children.” The Ra’avad and the Kessef Mishneh suggest concluding the blessing in this fashion. This is the commonly accepted practice today.

Pesachim 117b compares this to the conclusion of the first blessing of the Shemoneh Esreh, “the Shield of Abraham.”

Which focuses on the Sabbath or festival celebrated.

See Chapter 2, Halachot 5 and 7, which speak about the intermediate blessings recited on festivals.

However, he does not conclude the blessing with the mention of Rosh Chodesh, as he would in the Musaf prayer. (See Chapter 2, Halachah 11.)
Shabbat 24b questions whether Rosh Chodesh should be mentioned in this blessing. On one hand, when Rosh Chodesh falls during the week, the haftarah is not read. Hence, one might assume that there is no connection between the two and, hence, there is no need to mention Rosh Chodesh in the blessings. However, on the other hand, we find that when Yom Kippur falls on the Sabbath, the Sabbath is mentioned in the Ne’ilah service, despite the fact that the Ne’ilah service would otherwise not be recited on the Sabbath.
Though Rashi and Rav Yitzchok Alfasi interpret the passage in the same manner as the Rambam, Rabbenu Asher and Rabbenu Nissim rule that no mention should be made of Rosh Chodesh in this blessing. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 284:2 follows the latter position.
[The siddurim of Rav Amram Gaon and Rav Sa’adiah Gaon include mention of Rosh Chodesh in the conclusion of the blessing as well. The text of the authoritative Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah also accept this view.]

This reflects a descending order of holiness. Working on the Sabbath is punishable by execution; working on Yom Kippur by כרת (premature death by the hand of heaven); and on festivals, certain labors are permitted.

In order to distinguish each day with the measure of holiness which it is due.

This statement is quoted from the Mishnah (Megillah 3:2). Rabbenu Nissim explains that the license to increase the number of people called to the Torah applies only on the Sabbath, in order to clearly differentiate between the different holy days. However, Rashi (like the Rambam, here) explains that it refers to all three occasions. Since working at one’s occupation is prohibited on all three occasions, there is no difficulty in adding to the number of people called to the Torah.
The Rama (Orach Chayim 282:1) states that it is customary to follow Rabbenu Nissim’s opinion (with the exception of Simchas Torah when it is customary to add aliyot to enable every person to be called to the Torah).

These days are put in a category of their own, because although they are distinguished by the recitation of the Musaf service, work (albeit with restrictions on Chol Hamo’ed) is permitted.

See Chapter 13, Halachah 18.

Three or four, respectively.

The rationale is that, as stated in Halachot 1 and 3, a minimum of three people must be called to the Torah, and a distinction must be made between the days when Musaf is recited and when it is not recited.

On all these occasions, with the exception of the Minchah services of the Sabbath and Yom Kippur, work is permitted, and the Rabbis did not want to have people lose time from work by calling extra people to the Torah. On the Sabbath no additions were made, since it was customary to hold study sessions during the afternoon. Since the reading on Yom Kippur afternoon was instituted as parallel to that of the Sabbath afternoon, no additions are made then.

I.e., a male under thirteen.

Since, as stated below, according to the Rambam, only a person who knows how to read can be called to the Torah.

I.e., understands that reciting the blessings and reading the Torah is part of the service of God. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Berachot 7:2.

There is a question among the commentaries if this refers only to the number of seven readers who must be called to the Torah on the Sabbath, or if this also refers to the three readers whom Ezra established as the minimum required to read from the Torah at all times. Rav Kapach relates that in the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Megillah 4:6), he originally accepted a child as one of the seven, but not as one of the three. However, afterwards, he Amended the text so that it appears that he accepts a child even as one of the three.

However, the Magen Avraham (Orach Chayim 282:6) states that a child should be called only for maftir and even that custom is not practiced in most communities at present.

Although, as mentioned in Halachah 13, he reads a portion that has already been read.

See Halachah 20.

Because the Kaddish marks the conclusion of the required Torah reading. In such an instance, since the required number of people were not called to the Torah, the entire Torah reading must be repeated (Rav David Arameah).

To distinguish between aliyot.

The Torah was read on a platform in the center of the synagogue. See Chapter 11, Halachah 3.

The Tur (Orach Chayim 141) explains that, at present, the custom is to have the chazan read for everyone.

Though our practice has its origins in the decrees of the Sages as explained below, there is also a Torah command (see Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandment 32) to give precedence to a priest regarding the Torah reading. However, according to the Torah, this commandment applies only when the two are equal in wisdom (as mentioned below).

Gittin 5:8 states that this practice was instituted by the Sages to establish peace among the people. Originally, the first aliyah would be given to the sage of greatest stature in the community. However, strife and contention would frequently break out concerning the designation of the person deserving of that honor.

However, in Talmudic times, if a sage was obviously of a higher stature than the priests who were present, he was called first. Thus, Megillah 22a relates that Rav would receive the first aliyah in the presence of Shmuel, although Shmuel was a priest and Rav was not.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Gittin, loc. cit.), the Rambam writes:
Know that the practice which is widely accepted everywhere, that a priest reads first in the synagogue regardless of whether he is a sage or unlearned, regardless of whether there is someone of greater stature there or not, is a matter which has no basis in the Talmud... I wonder where this blemish came from...
The Rambam continues to explain that even at present, it is proper to call a sage of greater stature to the Torah before a priest of lower stature. Though the Rambam’s opinion has been supported by many commentaries, in practice the commonly accepted custom has been allowed to be continued. The reason for this is quite clear. The strife and contention that existed in Talmudic times would surely return (Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 135).

Gittin 60a states that after the priest and the Levite, the aliyot should be given to “Torah sages who serve as community leaders, the sons of Torah sages who serve as community leaders, the heads of the community, and then all people.”

Megillah 32b states that the gollel—the one who rolls the Torah closed—receives a reward equivalent to that of all the others who read from the Torah.
Apparently, the Rambam interprets this statement as referring to the person who receives the final aliyah, or on Sabbath and festivals, the one who reads the haftarah. He should also roll the Torah closed. The Mishnah Berurah (147:5-6) quotes a different view, explaining that the term גולל refers to the person who lifts the Torah up (what we refer to as Magbiah). It is customary that the person who receives this honor need not read from the Torah beforehand.

Because of the principles mentioned above, one might think that the sage of greatest stature should receive the third (or the first) aliyah. However, since the reward received by the גולל is greater, the sage may be given this honor.

Or the priest is at a point in prayer where he is forbidden to make an interruption (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 135:5).

Our translation follows the statements of Rav Sa’adiah Gaon, who writes that the honor should be given to an Israelite and should not be given to a Levite. However, the Rama (Orach Chayim 135:6) states that the honor may also be given to a Levite.

Lest one think that the person called to the Torah before him is a priest (Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 135).

An Israelite should not be called, for this would create the impression that the first person was not a priest.

Even if his father was known to be a priest, it is possible that his mother was unfit to marry a priest.

In contrast to the situation involving two Levites mentioned below, the second priest’s lineage would not be doubted, for were he not a priest, he would not be given this aliyah either (Mishnah Berurah 135:29).

I.e., even if his father was a Levite, it is possible that he married a woman who is a ממזרת, and thus their children are also ממזרים (Mishnah Berurah 135:30).

Having outlined the halachic principles governing the reading of the Torah, the Rambam turns to explaining the order of the prayer service on the days when the Torah is read. Thus, this and the following two halachot complete the description of the order of communal prayer begun in Chapter 9.

But when the haftarah is not recited—i.e., Rosh Chodesh or Chol Hamo’ed.

Full Kaddish, to indicate the completion of the Morning Service.

The Mishnah Berurah 141:25 states that the Torah scroll should always be taken to the platform on the right side, as the reader faces the platform.

To the platform on which the Torah is read. Hence, the name aliyah (ascent) is used to refer to a person called to the Torah.
The congregation should stand while the Torah scroll is being taken from the ark (Kiddushin 33b). Soferim 14:14 states that the congregation should walk after the Torah scroll while it is being taken from the ark to the reading platform and when it is returned.
The Rama (Orach Chayim 149:1) mentions the custom of training children to kiss the Torah scroll as it is taken out.

As mentioned in Chapter 9, Halachah 14, here the congregation recite Tehillah l’David and U’va l’Tzion.

Half-Kaddish. The Rambam’s statements are based on Soferim 21:6. It is our practice to recite Kaddish after the Torah reading and then, again, as an introduction to the Musaf prayers.

I.e., Sabbaths and festivals.

Thus, the Kaddish differentiates between the Torah reading, which is obligatory, and the portion read by the person who recites the haftarah, which was instituted only as a token of respect for the Torah (Soferim, loc. cit.).

Halachah 17 describes the consequences that result from this difference in custom.

I.e., U’va l’Tzion.

A half-Kaddish.

The congregation should rise and accompany it back to the ark (Shulchan Aruch and Rama, Orach Chayim 149:1).

Half-Kaddish.

After the recitation of Tehillah l’David and half-Kaddish.

See Chapter 13, Halachah 18.

A half-Kaddish.

As explained in Halachah 1, the Torah reading on Sabbath afternoons was instituted for קרנות יושבי . According to the interpretation that this refers to idle people who sit on the street corners, Rabbenu Manoach explains that this reason would not apply on the festivals, when the people are involved in the preparation of their festive meals. Even according to the interpretation of the term as “shopkeepers,” it is possible that in consideration of the time spent preparing for and participating in the festive meals, the Rabbis did not institute the reading of the Torah in the Minchah service.

I.e., on Mondays and Thursdays, Purim, Chanukah, and fast days.

And the supplicatory prayers have been recited.

Half-Kaddish.

Interestingly, this is the custom in some Ashkenazic communities. However, in Sephardic communities, it is customary to return the Torah scroll after the recitation of the full Kaddish (Shulchan Aruch, Rama, O”C 25:13).

U’va l’Tzion.

The full Kaddish, to indicate the completion of the service.

In the Talmudic era, the term, chumashim, referred to scrolls that contained only one of the five books of Moses.

I.e., it is proper that a community possess a complete Torah scroll. The Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah 3:1) states that this prohibition was instituted so that the community would be upset that they were prevented from hearing the Torah readings, and therefore buy a Torah scroll. (See also Chapter 11, Halachah 1.)

Rashi, Yoma 70a, offers another reason: because the congregation is forced to stand idly while the scroll is being rolled.

See Chapter 13, Halachot 22-24.

See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 3:10, which describes the portions read by the High Priest in the Temple on Yom Kippur. He would read one passage by heart, rather than roll the Torah scroll.
The Merkevat HaMishneh explains that if the passages read from the two scrolls deal with two different subjects, one person may read from two scrolls. See Chapter 13, Halachah 4.

Interestingly, the Rambam does not mention at all the laws which apply when a Torah scroll is found invalid. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 143.)

Apparently, in Talmudic times, one person would both lift the Torah up and roll it closed. (This practice is followed today among Chabad Chassidim.)

The Rama (Orach Chayim 147:4) interprets this statement (a quote from Megillah 32b) to mean that when a Torah scroll is rolled closed, the blank side of the parchment should face the outside, and the writing should face the person holding the Torah scroll.

Between the different parchments of the Torah scroll.

I.e., if the Torah scroll is torn because one person pulled one etz chayim (one of the rods on which the Torah scroll is mounted) from the other, the scroll will tear on the stitching and not on the text.

The Rama (Orach Chayim 149:1) interprets the following prohibition to apply only to the community as a whole. One or two individuals are allowed to leave.

The Tur, Orach Chayim 149, interprets Sotah 39b, the source for this prohibition, as forbidding one to leave from the same exit through which the Torah will be taken, but allowing one to leave through another exit, because it is improper for a person to walk in front of the Torah scroll.
The Rambam does not allow this leniency, since abandoning the Torah does not show respect. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 149:1) quotes the Tur’s opinion.

Sotah 39b derives this law from Deuteronomy 13:5: “Follow after God, your Lord.” The Rama (loc. cit.) states that similar practices should be followed when the Torah is kept in the ark, as is customary today. (See also the notes to Halachah 20).

In particular, on Simchat Torah. Interestingly, the celebration of Simchat Torah and the custom of hakafot are not mentioned in the Talmud or in the Mishneh Torah.
The source of the division of the Torah into weekly sedarim is a matter of question. The Midrash Tanchuma (Ki Tissa 3) attributes this division to Moses. However, there are authorities (See Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, Vayechi) who attribute this division to Ezra.

Megilah 29b states that the three-year cycle was followed in Eretz Yisrael. Apparently, the practice was continued until the Rambam’s day.
The delineation of the divisions of the Torah for the three-year cycle is not commonly known at present. However, at the conclusion of each of the five books of Moses, when listing the number of verses, letters, etc., the chumashim also state u’sedarav; this refers to the number of three-year-cycle sedarim found in that book.

These “curses” are found in the sidrah, Bechukotai, in Chapter 26, verses 14 to 46.

These “curses” are found in the sidrah, Ki tavo, in Chapter 28, verses 15 to 69.

Megilah 31b states that these holidays are days of judgment. (On Rosh HaShanah, the totality of our fortunes for the coming year are judged, and on Shavuot we are judged regarding the fruits of the trees.) Therefore, it is proper to read the curses beforehand, so that the curses of the year will be concluded before the days of judgment.
However, these “curses” are not read directly before these holidays. At least one portion (and, regarding Shavuot, sometimes two portions) separate these “curses” from the holidays (Tosafot, Megilah, ibid.).

In most years, Bamidbar is read directly before Shavuot. However, in certain years, the sidrah, Naso is also read before the holiday. All the other portions are read in direct conjunction with the days with which they are associated.

I.e., a year which has only twelve months.

Similarly, there are times when the portions Vayakhel and Pekudei, Acharei and Kedoshim, Chukkat and Balak, Mattot and Ma’asei, and Nitzavim and Vayelech are combined. The coupling of these portions appears to have been done because they are all relatively short and share certain themes.

There are 54 sedarim and only 50 and one half weeks in a lunar year. Furthermore, as mentioned in Halachah 8, the weekly cycle is interrupted when a festival (even Chol Hamo’ed) falls on the Sabbath. Therefore, it is necessary that, in an ordinary year, certain portions be coupled. Even in a leap year, when an extra month is added (and thus, there are 54 or 55 Sabbaths), coupling portions is sometimes necessary.

See Chapter 12, Halachah 3.

See the commentary on Chapter 12, Halachah 2, regarding the institution of the custom of reading the haftarah. The Rambam lists the haftorot read each week in the Order of Prayers for the Entire Year.

This passage describes the daily offering, the Sabbath offering, and the Rosh Chodesh offering. This is one of the few instances where a division of a Torah reading into specific aliyot is mentioned in the Talmud (Megilah 21b-22a).

See Chapter 12, Halachah 3.

The reading is concluded at this point instead of continuing and reading another verse from the following passage, because, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 3, one should not start less than three verses from the beginning of a passage.

The Rambam’s statements appear to imply that the person who receives the final aliyah also reads the Rosh Chodesh passage in the second scroll, and the person who reads the haftarah reads that passage again. This is consistent with the Rambam’s decisions (Chapter 12, Halachah 23) that “one person should not read one passage from two Torah scrolls,” and (Chapter 12, Halachah 13) that the person who recites the haftarah reads a passage that has been read previously.
Nevertheless, this decision has attracted the attention of the commentaries. See the Kessef Mishneh, who offers a different explanation of the Rambam’s words, and the Radbaz (Responsa, Vol. V, 1622), who justifies the Rambam’s statements. Our present custom is that seven (or more) people are called to complete the weekly portion, Kaddish is recited, and then the person who reads the haftarah is called to the second Torah scroll for the Rosh Chodesh reading.

Rav Sa’adiah Gaon writes that the preceding passage, concerning the Sabbath offering, is also read. This is the present custom (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 425:1).

As mentioned in Halachah 19, the haftorot read on the three Sabbaths preceding Tish’ah B’Av contain stern words of rebuke. Therefore, we substitute this passage instead of the haftarah usually read when Rosh Chodesh falls on the Sabbath, because it contains both mention of Rosh Chodesh and words of rebuke. Nevertheless, it is Ashkenazi custom to read the haftarah usually read when Rosh Chodesh falls on the Sabbath when Rosh Chodesh Av falls on the Sabbath (Rama, Orach Chayim 425:1). Note also the decision of the Avudraham, who maintains that we should read the haftarah normally recited on this Sabbath (Jeremiah 2:4-28).

The Rambam’s statement indicates that there was no uniform practice of where to conclude aliyot.

This division of aliyot is alluded to by acronym in Rosh HaShanah 31a. The Rambam’s interpretation of these acronyms is taken from Rav Yitzchok Alfasi

Both the beginning and conclusion of these aliyot are harsh.

Beginning from Deuteronomy 34:5, “And Moses, God’s servant, died....”

The Rambam’s statements are taken from Menachot 30a. The Rambam interprets that passage to mean that even if fewer than ten people are present in the synagogue, the blessings before and after this passage may be recited. The Rambam’s statements must be interpreted to mean that ten people were not present at the beginning of the Torah reading. If the Torah reading was begun with ten people and some departed in the midst of the Torah reading, it may be concluded in the usual fashion (Chapter 8, Halachah 6).
Note Rashi’s commentary on Menachot (ibid.), which interprets the Talmud’s statements to mean that these eight verses should be read by a single person.

See note 3.

To begin and conclude with a positive concept, as mentioned in the previous halachah. Megilah 31b also mentions that it is proper to make these additions, because “a blessing should not be recited over [prophecies of] punishment.”
Rabbenu Manoach notes that more than one verse is recited both before and after the “curses,” because, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 3, one should begin an aliyah with at least three verses remaining until the next passage, and conclude a reading after having read at least three verses of the following passage.

See note 4,

Megilah 31b explains the difference between the two. The “curses” of Leviticus were recited by God. Therefore, the advice (Proverbs 3:11) “My son, do not reject the rebuke of God” applies in their regard, i.e., stopping in the middle would imply “rejection” of the rebuke. In contrast, those in Deuteronomy were recited by Moses (with Divine inspiration, to the extent that they are still considered part of Torah). Also, the “curses” of Leviticus were addressed to the Jewish people in the plural, while those in Deuteronomy are stated in the singular.

This refers to the explanation of the laws of the festivals in Torah Sheb’al Peh—the Oral Law. (See Megilah 32a.)

The Rambam’s statements are quoted from Megilah 31a, which explains that originally, in Eretz Yisrael, the portion describing the festive offerings was read on the first day. After the exile, the holiday was celebrated for two days, and the passage describing the Paschal sacrifice in Egypt was read on the first day.
As mentioned in Halachah 14, in addition to these readings a second Torah scroll is taken out, and the person who recites the haftarah reads the passage describing the additional sacrifices offered on this day.

This describes the first time the Pesach festival was celebrated in Eretz Yisrael.

This applies both in Eretz Yisrael, where the day begins Chol Hamo’ed and in the Diaspora, where the day is celebrated as a festival.

This reading includes passages describing the celebration of all the festivals. It also contains a description of the omer offering, which is brought on this day.

Verse 22 of this reading states: “Surely, a Pesach like this was never kept from the days of the judges who ruled Israel, or in all the days of the kings of Israel or Judah.”

This passage also mentions the Exodus from Egypt and the celebration of Pesach in future generations. At present, when the first day of Pesach falls on Thursday it is customary to rearrange the order of these readings (Tosafot, Megilah, ibid.).

This passage mentions the celebration of all the festivals, including Pesach.

This passage also mentions the celebration of all the festivals, including Pesach.

This describes the celebration of Pesach in the desert and the laws of Pesach Sheni.

This reading was chosen because the splitting of the Red Sea took place on the seventh day of Pesach.

. This haftarah was chosen since, like the Torah reading, it contains a song of thanksgiving for God’s kindnesses.

This passage mentions the celebration of all the festivals, including Pesach.

This haftarah was chosen because the destruction of Sennacherib’s camp occurred on the first day of Pesach. Also, the Messianic prophecies contained in this reading are related to the last day of Pesach. This day shares an intrinsic connection to the Messianic redemption. Accordingly, the Baal Shem Tov instituted the practice of eating “the feast of Mashiach” on the afternoon of the eighth day of Pesach.

On the surface, this refers to the entire portion Kol hab’chor mentioned below, since there are only eight verses from verse 9 until the end of the passage. In Eretz Yisrael, before the exile, it was customary to read this passage.

This is appropriate because the holiday of Shavuot is associated with the giving of the Torah, which is mentioned in that reading.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that, after the exile, when the observance of the second day was instituted, it became customary to read this passage, while the reading of Kol hab’chor was postponed until the second day. At present, it is customary to read the description of the giving of the Torah even in Eretz Yisrael on the first day, and Kol hab’chor is not read at all.

Just as the Torah reading mentions the revelation of God at Mount Sinai, the haftarah mentions His revelation to His prophet.

Chapter 3, Verse 3 in this reading is interpreted by Avodah Zarah 2b as referring to the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai.

This was the custom in Eretz Yisrael before the exile. This passage describes the sacrifices offered on Rosh HaShanah and other festivals.

This passage describes God’s granting of special providence to Sarah, which allowed her to conceive. Rosh HaShanah 11a states that God granted the potential for this miracle on Rosh HaShanah.

This passage describes Chanah’s prayers to God and His granting her the ability to conceive. Rosh HaShanah (ibid.) states that God also granted the potential for Chanah to conceive on Rosh HaShanah.

This passage describes Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac (the Akedah). We ask God to recall the merit of Abraham’s actions when judging us on Rosh HaShanah.

This verse (included as one of the zichronot) describes God’s great love for the Jews. We remind Him of this love on this Day of Judgment.

This passage describes the service of the High Priest on Yom Kippur.

This reading speaks of the necessity that a fast day be accompanied by the inner service of contrite repentance.

This book describes the repentance of Yonah and, afterwards, that of the people of Nineveh. In both instances, God responded to their prayers and withheld punishment for their sins.

The passage read on the second day of Pesach

This passage describes the wars that will precede the Messianic redemption, and the celebration of the festival of Sukkot that will follow.

This passage describes the dedication of the Temple, which took place immediately preceding and during the festival of Sukkot.

The passage read on the eighth day of Pesach and the second day of Shavuot.

This passage continues the description of the dedication of the Temple. Verse 66 mentions that “On the eighth day, he sent the people away...”

This is the final sidrah of the Torah and contains the blessings given to the people by Moses before his death. It is appropriate to read this passage on the day which concludes the celebration of all the festivals (Rabbenu Nissim, Megilah).
It is our custom to take out a second Torah scroll and begin the reading of the Torah again, showing that our study of Torah is never concluded. Directly after the entire Torah has been read, we begin again. (See Tur, Orach Chayim 669.)

This passage mentions Solomon’s prayers after the dedication of the Temple.

This passage describes Joshua’s assumption of the leadership of the people after Moses’ death. In his Order of Prayers for the Entire Year and in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Megilah 3:6), the Rambam mentions only this opinion.

This passage describes the sacrifices brought on the second day of Sukkot.

This passage describes the sacrifices brought on the third day of Sukkot.

Ashkenazic custom is that the person called for the third aliyah reads about the sacrifices offered on the fourth day.

The Rambam does not mention the Torah readings in Eretz Yisrael, in the places that had no doubt when the holiday was observed in Jerusalem, where the holidays are celebrated for only one day. In these places, according to the Ari zal it is customary that each of the people called for the four aliyot reads the passage that describes the sacrifice of that day.

On Chol Hamo’ed Sukkot, the entire reading concerns the sacrifices. Hence, we read from only one Torah scroll.

Numbers, Chapters 28 and 29. The Hagahot Maimoniot mentions that there is no source in the Talmud for this practice. (Others have cited a passage in the Jerusalem Talmud.) However, it is mentioned by Rav Amram Gaon and Rav Sa’adiah Gaon. (See also Megilah 31b which mentions that the reading of the description of the festive sacrifices in the Torah is considered equivalent to their being offered in the Temple.)

See Halachot 23 and 24.

The Kessef Mishneh states that if both Torah scrolls were taken out at the same time, as is our custom at present, Kaddish need not be recited until the conclusion of the entire Torah reading. Nevertheless, he accepts the custom mentioned by the Rambam to recite Kaddish after the completion of the primary Torah reading.

Chapter 12, Halachah 20

Rashi, Megilah 31a, explains that this passage is read because it mentions the celebration of both the Sabbath and the festivals.

This passage was chosen because the resurrection of the dead will take place in the month of Nisan (Rav Hai Gaon).

This passage was chosen because the war of Gog and Magog will take place in the month of Tishrei (Rav Hai Gaon).

Though the essential reading for Chanukah concerns the dedication of the altar, as explained below, the Rambam includes the reading of the priestly blessings because they directly precede the passage concerning the dedication of the altar and are also associated with the Chanukah miracle, since the Maccabees were priests. Though the Rambam’s opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 684:1), the Rama states that the reading begins with the dedication of the altar.

This reading was chosen for Chanukah because the building of the Sanctuary in the desert was completed on the twenty-fifth of Kislev. However, God postponed its dedication until the month of Nisan. When the month of Kislev complained, God assured that month that at a later date, it would merit to have the altar dedicated in it (Pesikta Rabbati, 6). After their victory over the Greeks, the Maccabees purified the altar and rededicated it on the twenty-fifth of Kislev (Tosafot Yom Tov).

It appears that the Rambam is referring to the conclusion of the description of the offerings of the Nesi’im. It is our custom (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, ibid.) also to read the first passages from the sidrah, B’ha’alotcha, which concern the Menorah, on the final day of Chanukah.

This reading was chosen because Haman was a descendant of Amalek. (See Chapter 12, Halachah 3.)

This passage contains prophecies of the retribution Israel will suffer for sinning against God.

This reading contains prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred on Tish’ah B’Av

This reading mentions God’s willingness to forgive the Jewish people after the sin of the Golden Calf.

For example, the seventeenth of Tammuz. (See Hilchot Ta’anit, 5:2-5.)

As can be inferred from the Rambam’s statements, it is not Sephardic custom to read a haftarah in Minchah on a fast day. However, Tosafot, Megilah 21a, mentions the practice of reading Isaiah 55:6-56:8 as the haftarah. This custom is followed in Ashkenazic communities.

. Rashi, Megilah 30b, states that this refers to the blessings and curses in Parshat Bechukotai (Leviticus 26:3-46). Note the Rambam’s comments (Hilchot Ta’anit 1:17) concerning the recitation of a haftarah on these days. The present custom is to read Vayechal Moshe on such fasts as well (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 566).

It is our custom to include Eichah hay’ta in the reading Chazon Yishayahu, which we read on the Sabbath before Tish’ah B’Av. On the second Sabbath, we read Shim’u d’var Ado-nai (Jeremiah 2:4-28).

The source for this practice is found in the Pesikta. The exact passages which are read are mentioned in the Order of Prayers for the Entire Year.

See page 46.

On this occasion, three Torah scrolls are taken out, as mentioned in Halachah 23. In a leap year, this refers to the second Adar.
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav 282:13 states that the reading of the four passages described in this halachah was instituted by the Anshei K’nesset HaGedolah.

Each year, it is a positive mitzvah for every adult male to give a half shekel to the Temple treasury (Hilchot Shekalim 1:1). These funds were used to purchase the communal offerings and complete other projects of communal interest (ibid., Chapter 4). In the Talmudic era, the Sanhedrin would send out messengers to begin the collection of these funds on Rosh Chodesh Adar (ibid., 1:9). To commemorate this practice, we read the portion of the Torah which describes this mitzvah.

This reading describes the collection of funds to repair the Temple in the time of King Yehoash.

Parshat Zachor describes the mitzvah to remember the attack Amalek launched against our ancestors in the desert (Exodus 17:8-16). Megilah 18a states that the command to remember Amalek’s actions obligates making a verbal statement. Accordingly, there are many authorities (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 685:7) who consider this reading to be a fulfillment of that command.
The Rambam, in Hilchot Melachim 5:5, mentions the mitzvah of making a verbal statement recalling Amalek’s attack. However, neither in Hilchot Melachim, nor in this halachah, does he state that the mitzvah is fulfilled by reading Parshat Zachor.

This passage describes the war waged against Amalek by King Saul, in order to fulfill the command to obliterate all traces of Amalek’s existence.

The reading of Parshat Zachor is associated with Purim because Haman was a descendant of Amalek.

The red heifer was a necessary element of the process of purification which allowed a person to emerge from the state of ritual impurity contracted through contact with a corpse. This passage is read at this time because of the approaching Pesach festival, because, as Rashi (Megilah 29a) states, every Jew is obligated to become ritually pure before a festival, so that he will be able to offer the required sacrifices.

This passage also deals with the concept of purification.

This passage describes the laws associated with the Paschal sacrifice.

This passage describes the sacrifices to be brought on Pesach in the Messianic era.

If Rosh Chodesh falls on the Sabbath, Parshat HaChodesh is read on Rosh Chodesh itself. Then, three Torah scrolls are taken out, as described in Halachah 23.

I.e., a Sabbath without one of these special readings.

When Rosh Chodesh Adar falls during the week, there will always be two Sabbaths between it and Purim.

When Rosh Chodesh Adar falls on either Friday or the Sabbath, there are two Sabbaths between Purim and the Sabbath when Parshat HaChodesh is read.

This occurs when Rosh Chodesh Adar falls on Friday.

This emphasizes the connection between our ritual purification and the Pesach sacrifice mentioned in note 94.

The Rambam feels this point worthy of mention because Megilah 29a mentions an opinion that maintains that the weekly order of Torah readings is interrupted for the reading of these passages.

This is the Torah portion directly before the portion of Ki tissa, which begins the reading of Parshat Shekalim. It is impossible, according to the present order of Torah readings, for Parshat Shekalim to fall on this Sabbath.

The passage associated with Rosh Chodesh should also be read. In Halachah 23, the Rambam states that the Rosh Chodesh reading should precede Shekalim. It must be noted that our text of Megilah 29b-30a (the source for this halachah) does not mention Rosh Chodesh in connection with this law.

Shekalim is the first passage in the sidrah, Ki tissa, and thus confusion could arise from the repetition of the passage. According to our present order of Torah readings, it is impossible for Shekalim and Ki tissa to coincide.

Thus, they complete the reading of the weekly portion.

It appears from this statement that, according to the Rambam, the special portions are included among the seven aliyot read on the Sabbath, and the maftir should merely repeat the last verses of the added passage. It is our custom that the seven aliyot be given out within the portion, and the maftir be called to the reading of the special passage.

See Halachah 4

In such situations, the haftarah of the special Sabbaths is read, and not the haftarah of Rosh Chodesh.

See Halachah 17.

In such situations, the haftarah of Chanukah is read, and not the haftarah of Rosh Chodesh.

The Rosh Chodesh reading is given precedence over that of Chanukah based on the principle, תדיר ושאינו תדיר תדיר קודם—When two matters conflict, one frequent and one infrequent, the frequent one is given precedence.

Our translation follows the view of Rav Amram Gaon, that this refers to Onkelos’ Aramaic translation, which, as mentioned in the commentary on Chapter 12, Halachah 10, was composed with unique Divine inspiration. Therefore, a person who reads a contemporary translation of the Torah does not fulfill his obligation. However, certain opinions maintain that a commentary that explains most of the words of the Torah—e.g., Rashi—can be substituted for the Aramaic reading. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 285:2; Mishnah Berurah 285:5-7.)

Berachot 8b states: “Whoever completes [the study of] his [Torah] portions with the community will have his days and years lengthened.”