Parshas Parah
[א] (halacha 1044)
Parshas Parah
Question: Is the obligation to read Parshas Parah a Torah obligation?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Megillah1 and Brochos2 discusses whether 'the entire Torah was said in the holy tongue'. And Rashi in Megillah explained: 'it was said in any language - that it may be read in any language'.
The Rishonim discussed Rashi's words, for the reading of the Torah is not a mitzvah from the Torah, and some wrote to resolve this that his intent was regarding the readings that are obligated from the Torah, as Tosafos wrote in Brochos: 'And one may say that it refers to the portions that are obligatory to read by Torah law, such as Parshas Zachor'3.
However, in early versions Parshas Parah was also written there, and concerning this the Maharshal wrote in Chochmas Shlomo4: 'and "Parshas Parah Adumah" is to be deleted, and a marginal note states it is an error, and likewise in Tosafos of Megillah'.
However, the Maharshal himself wrote5 that since there is an opinion that this is a Torah obligation, therefore: 'that a minor does not go up for maftir on Parshas Zachor .. and also regarding Parshas Parah it is fitting to be careful, since in those Tosafos it appears that even Parshas Parah is a Torah obligation, and it seems that I found likewise in the Chiddushei Mordechai'.
And likewise we find many Rishonim6 who noted that Parshas Parah is like Parshas Zachor whose reading is from the Torah, as the Ritva wrote in Megillah: 'However, even without this we have readings that are obligatory from the Torah, such as Parshas Zachor, of which we say below "remember" by mouth, and likewise Parshas Parah, and similarly Hakhel and Parshas Shotrim and Mikra Bikkurim and chalitzah and Viduy Maaser and all those that we learned in Maseches Sotah, chapter "And these are said in any language", and concerning them we say "it was said in any language" or "it was said in the holy tongue", and this is correct'.
And likewise wrote Tosafos HaRosh in Brochos: 'However, it is possible that there is a reading that is from the Torah, such as Parshas Zachor and Parshas Parah Adumah and the like'.
As to halacha, the Mechaber wrote7: 'Some say that Parshas Zachor and Parshas Parah Adumah are obligatory to read by Torah law, therefore the residents of the settlements who do not have a minyan must come to a place where there is a minyan on these Shabbosos in order to hear these portions which are Torah obligations'. [And the Rema wrote in his gloss: 'And if it is impossible for them to come, in any case they should be careful to read them with their melody and their cantillation'].
Likewise in the laws of the reading of the Torah scroll8 he wrote: '.. and all this has no bearing on Parshas Zachor, and Parshas Parah9, which are a Torah obligation in [the presence of] ten, that one must concentrate and hear them from the mouth of the reader; and the correct course is that in all the portions it is fitting for one who is meticulous in his matters to direct his attention and hear them from the mouth of the reader'.
And the Levush wrote10: 'The third is Parshas Parah Adumah, and it is on the Shabbos before Parshas HaChodesh, for so its burning was in the wilderness close to Nisan, in order to sprinkle Israel with the ashes of the sin-offering immediately after the erection of the Mishkan, so that they would be pure and able to perform the Pesach in its proper time; therefore we read this portion to pray before Him, may He be blessed, that upon us too He should sprinkle pure waters speedily .. and some say likewise that it is a Torah obligation for this reason'.
However, many Acharonim disputed the opinion that this is a Torah obligation concerning it, as the Malbushei Yom Tov wrote11, cited by the Eliyahu Rabbah12: 'And there is no reason in this, for what reason is there that the Torah should obligate reading the portion. And these "some say" are the words of Tosafos at the beginning of chapter "Hayah Korei", and they did not write a reason there. And the Rosh in chapter "Shlosha She'achlu" wrote only Parshas Zachor; also Rashal wrote in Chochmas Shlomo that it is a scribal error in Tosafos13, and I subsequently found that Tosafos themselves in the second chapter of Megillah, folio 17b, wrote that nothing is from the Torah except Parshas Zachor alone'.
And likewise wrote the Mateh Moshe14: 'And Tosafos of chapter "Hayah Korei" wrote that Parshas Zachor and Parshas Parah are a Torah obligation .. and my teacher the Maharash, of blessed memory, wrote in the book Chochmas Shlomo that it is an error, and he deleted Parshas Parah'.
The Magen Avraham15 wrote: 'In the Shelah he elaborated to argue that Parshas Parah is not a Torah obligation, and so wrote the Bach, and so it appears in the responsum of the Maharil siman 182 and 167 that he mentioned only Parshas Zachor; and in the Terumas HaDeshen siman 108 he wrote as follows: in the Asheri chapter 6 of Brochos he wrote that it is a positive Torah commandment to read Parshas Zachor in [the presence of] ten, and in Tosafos Shantz they wrote that there is no reading that is a Torah obligation except Parshas Zachor, and in the short Tosafos in Brochos chapter 2 they explained that Parshas Zachor and Parshas Parah are obligatory to read from the Torah etc., and likewise in the Semak he wrote a positive commandment "remember what He did" .. and regarding Parshas Parah he holds that it is not a Torah obligation, for in truth there is no reason in its reading being a Torah obligation, and also I do not know where it is alluded to; and it appears to me that the correct version is as written in the Chiddushei HaRashba, as follows: and they asked that we do not find a reading of the Torah scroll from the Torah unless Rashi will say16 that the reading of the portions such as Parshas Parah and Parshas Zachor and the like is from the Torah, end of quote. In any case, every person should be careful and zealous in the mitzvah to come to a minyan17'.
If so, we have seen that the poskim disagreed whether the reading of Parshas Parah is from the Torah like Parshas Zachor, but it is certainly an important reading, as the Shelah wrote18: 'Be it as it may, in any case the Four Portions, upon all of them the obligation falls by rabbinic law to hear their reading in the Torah, and it is more stringent than the reading of the portions of the entire year whose obligation is also in public; nevertheless, if there are ten who listen, that is, the chazzan and nine with him, then there is some leniency for the others to engage in Torah study as we shall explain (below). But regarding these, the obligation rests upon all of Israel to hear them, some of them a Torah obligation and some of them rabbinic'.
--------------
Notes:
1 יז, א ↩
2 יג, א ↩
3 Likewise Tosafos wrote in Megillah: 'And it is difficult, for the reading of the Torah is not from the Torah but rabbinic, except for Parshas Zachor which is a Torah obligation' ↩
4 See also the Shelah, beginning of Maseches Megillah ↩
5 Cited in the Bach and in the Taz siman 685 sub-paragraph 2 ↩
6 See what is referenced in Toras Menachem 5749 vol. 2 p. 466 note 2 ↩
7 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 685 se'if 7 ↩
8 siman 146 se'if 2 ↩
9 And the Pri Chadash wrote in se'if 2: 'But Parshas Parah, whence does Tosafos at the beginning of chapter "Hayah Korei" derive that it is from the Torah? And likewise in Tosafos of Megillah at the beginning of chapter "HaKorei Lemafre’a" and the Rosh in chapter "Shlosha She'achlu" they mentioned only Parshas Zachor' ↩
10 Maseches Megillah, chapter Ner Mitzvah ↩
11 sub-paragraph 4 ↩
12 sub-paragraph 13 ↩
13 In the Biur HaGra he wrote: 'And Parshas Parah. In the Tosafos before us it is absent, neither in Brochos nor in Megillah 17b, and likewise in the Ashri chapter 7 of Brochos it is absent, only Zachor, and a corrupted version came his way'. However, as stated above, many Rishonim wrote so, and so it is in the Tosafos of the first printing ↩
14 siman 999 ↩
15 siman 685 in the introduction ↩
16 And the Machatzis HaShekel explained: 'That is to say, that according to the version before us in Tosafos at the beginning of chapter 2, who wrote upon their question to Rashi's explanation that Ezra instituted the reading of the Torah, concerning this they wrote in the language of a resolution "and one may say that it refers to the portions that are obligatory to read by Torah law, such as Parshas Zachor and Parshas Parah". This implies that Tosafos too hold so in conclusion, that Parshas Zachor and Parshas Parah are a Torah obligation, and they innovated in their resolution that it refers here to those portions. Whereas according to the language in the Chiddushei Rashba, who wrote "unless Rashi will say etc.", this implies that Tosafos themselves do not hold so, but that even the portions of Zachor and Parah are not a Torah obligation, and only to advocate on behalf of Rashi one may say that Rashi holds so, and it is possible that even Rashi himself does not hold so that it is a Torah obligation, and Rashi has another resolution to the question of Tosafos. In any case, according to this the world has a great tree on which to lean, namely Tosafos' ↩
17 And to note that the Alter Rebbe, OC siman 282 se'if 16, mentioned only that Parshas Zachor is a Torah obligation, (and see what is written in the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Gershowitz) in the sources and additions, letter 67) and this is not the place to elaborate ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project - Daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha - Chabad Customs'
Join the WhatsApp Group