Vowel points and cantillation marks in the Megillah
[1] (halacha 503)
Is it permitted to mark reading aids in the megillah, such as vowel-points (nekudos) or cantillation marks (te'amim)?
Answer: The Rishonim disagreed as to whether it is permitted to write the brochos of the megillah on the megillah itself. The Ra'avyah1 wrote: 'And it seems to me that one should not write the brochos, neither before it nor after it [on the megillah, because] Rav said that the megillah is called a sefer (book) and is called an iggeres (letter), etc.; this shows that it is compared to a Sefer Torah. And we read at the end of [tractate] Megillah: he opens and looks and rolls and recites the bracha [and goes back and opens] and reads, etc., so that they not say that the brochos are written in the Torah; and Rabbi Yehuda [holds] that with the Aramaic translation (targum) there is room for error, but with brochos there is no room for error. From the words of both we learn that one should not write them in the Torah, and it seems that the same applies to a megillah .. And Rabbi Yitzchak the scribe, of blessed memory, told me in the name of R' Shimon that he would protest against writing them in the megillah, but he could not state the reason'.
But the Rashba2 wrote: 'And just because there are brochos on its first leaf, is it thereby invalidated and is it not recognizable that it is a megillah? .. On the contrary, the bracha and the piyut are not recognizable in it. But whether they are recognizable or not recognizable, it is valid'. And so wrote the Ritva3: 'And as for the custom to write the brochos in the body of the megillah, there is nothing in this [to be concerned about], even in public'.
And the Maharam of Rothenburg4 wrote in the name of Rabbeinu Baruch that this is not like a Sefer Torah: 'R' Baruch says that one should not invalidate a megillah that has its brochos written at its beginning and at its end. For the reason we invalidate a Sefer Torah is that many people read in it, and there is room to say that they will say the brochos are written in the middle [of the Torah], but a megillah, which one person reads, there is nothing to be concerned about'.
And in the same manner the Rishonim discussed the writing of nekudos or te'amim within the megillah. In the Orchos Chaim5 it is written: 'And in the Sefer HaTerumah it is written .. but it seems that one need not be particular about the megillah regarding the count of the lines at all, only that there should not be a vowel-point (nekudah) and that its brochos should not be written within it .. end quote'. And in the Hagahos Ashri6 it is written: 'And one should not place any vowel-point in it, even an end-of-verse [mark]'.
But the Rashba7 wrote: 'But on account of the vocalization (nikud) I do not see that it should be invalidated thereby'. And in the Sefer HaNeyar8 it was written in a gloss as follows: 'R' Baruch Chaim, of blessed memory, wrote that the megillah of Rabbeinu R' Yehuda of Corbeil was marked with its cantillation marks (te'amim) without vocalization. And our teacher also says so, that one need not be concerned if it has te'amim, and it is not invalid at all thereby. End quote'.
The Beis Yosef9 wrote regarding the words of the Ra'avyah: 'that it appears from his words that he also invalidates it outright10, [but] regarding the words of the Rashba one may rely [on them] to validate it after the fact (b'dieved)'.
If so, the Rishonim disagreed regarding the writing of the brochos or vocalization in the megillah, but the Beis Yosef wrote that after the fact (b'dieved) one may rely [on the view] that it is valid.
And so ruled the Mechaber11: 'A megillah that is vocalized, and likewise if one wrote on its first leaf brochos and piyutim, is not invalidated thereby'.
And the Magen Avraham12 wrote: 'And in the Tashbetz siman [180] it is written that its brochos should not be written in it l'chatchilah (in the first instance), and so wrote the Hagahos Maimoniyos and the Mordechai and the Levush'. And the Pri Megadim explained in the Eshel Avraham: 'And see the Beis Yosef — it is explained in his words thus, that only b'dieved (after the fact) may one rely on the Rashba, but l'chatchilah one should not write brochos in the megillah, and one should not place the cantillation point in the megillah, even between one verse and another verse'.
And their intent is to explain that the words of the Shulchan Aruch are only regarding b'dieved (after the fact), but l'chatchilah one should not write brochos, nekudos, or te'amim in the megillah13.
Question: Megillos Esther that have illustrations beside the writing on the parchment — is there a problem with such a megillah?
Answer: In the past there was a widespread custom to draw illustrations in the megillah14, but there are among the poskim those who wrote that l'chatchilah it is not fitting to do this, as the Eliyah Rabba15 wrote: 'And it seems that the illustrations that are made in the margins are also not proper, for l'chatchilah we require [it to be] like a Sefer Torah, and in a Sefer Torah it is obvious that it is forbidden. It is also similar to what is written in siman 90, seif 23, that it is forbidden to draw illustrations in the books from which one prays. However, in this there is room to distinguish, for in prayer we require greater concentration'.
On the other hand, in the Responsa Zera Emes by Rabbi Yishmael HaKohen of Modena16 he cited the custom to make illustrations around the megillah, and wrote: 'And know that it is our custom not to be careful about making illustrations and engravings around the megillah, and many do so, intending it for the beautification of the megillah'17.
If so, we have seen that the megillah is not invalidated if nekudos or brochos are written in it, or if it has illustrations, but l'chatchilah it is fitting not to write anything on the megillah.
--------------
Notes:
1 מגילה סי' תקעד הובא במרדכי מגילה סי' תתלא ובהגה"מ מגילה פ"א אות ה ↩
2 שו"ת ח"א סי' קנ ↩
3 מגילה כא, א ↩
4 שו"ת דפוס לבוב סי' רד ↩
5 הל' מגלה אות טו. וכ"כ התשב"ץ קטן סי' קפ ↩
6 מגילה פ"א סי' ט ↩
7 שו"ת ח"א סי' שע ↩
8 הל' מגילה ופורים (הוצאת מכון י-ם ע' לז) ↩
9 או"ח סי' תרצא ↩
10 אך ראה מג"א או"ח סי' תרצא סק"ט וביאור הגר"א אות לה שהבינו שגם הראבי"ה וסיעתו אסרו רק לכתחילה. ונראה שכך היתה גרסתו של המג"א בתשב"ץ. וראה גם בשו"ת באר שבע סי' מז בדעת ר"ת ↩
11 שו"ע או"ח סי' תרצא ס"ט ↩
12 ס"ק ט ↩
13 וראה גם משנ"ב סי' תרצא סקכ"ו. [ולהעיר ממ"ש הר"י מולכו בשולחן גבוה אות כט: 'וכבר כ' דמדברי הג"א וראבי"ה והכלבו נראה דאפילו בדיעבד פסולה .. מדמדמי לה כס"ת בכל דבריהם ה"ה נמי לענין נקודות וברכות דפסיל ולכן שומר נפשו ירחק מלכתוב נקודים וברכות במגילה'] ↩
14 וכ"כ רבים את הברכות על המגילה וכמ"ש בקרית חנה (נדפס בילק"מ על שו"ע): 'ולא ידעתי על מה סומכים *רוב העולם שיש להם הברכות כתובים*, וזה אינו נכון לכו"ע לעשות כן לכתחילה' ↩
15 סי' תרצא אות ז ↩
16 ח"א סי' ק ↩
17 וע"ש מש"כ (לגבי ענין אחר): 'הרי דכללא כייל לן הרב בקבא רבה דכל מה שאינו פוסל בס"ת מותר לעשות במגילה לכתחילה ואע"פ שסיים ומ"מ טוב לחוש לכתחילה לא כתב זה אלא על הצד היותר טוב משום דהויא מילתא דתליא בפלוגתא .. אבל בנ"ד נראה ודאי .. דאפי' בס"ת אינו פוסל בכה"ג וא"כ ממילא נראה דא"צ להיזהר במגילה אפי' לכתחילה ואפי' ע"צ היותר טוב נר' דא"צ ליזהר..'. וראה אז נדברו ח"ג סי' סב ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project — a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha — Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp groupReading the Megillah When No Expert Baal Korei Is Available
[א] (halacha 504)
> In the previous halacha we learned that l'chatchilah it is not proper to write cantillation marks (te'amim) or vowel points (nekudos) in a megillah.
Question: What should be done in a case where there is no baal korei who knows the vowel points or the cantillation marks?
Answer: The Magen Avraham wrote1: 'A shliach tzibbur who is not expert in the cantillation by heart, and there is no one present who knows how to prompt the shliach tzibbur — it is permitted to write the cantillation marks in the megillah, for it is no worse than the vowel points (Beis Shmuel). And nevertheless it appears to me that if the cantillation marks are not in the megillah, it is permitted to read without cantillation, as I wrote at the end of siman 142.'
From his words we see that there are two options for reading when the baal korei is not expert: 1) Reading by means of someone who whispers the reading to the baal korei from a chumash, and the baal korei repeats after him from a kosher megillah. 2) Writing the vowel points or the cantillation marks in the megillah. As follows:
1) Reading with the assistance of a prompter:
a. When the baal korei knows the vowel points but not the cantillation marks.
As we saw in the words of the Magen Avraham, one may use a prompter even for the purpose of reading with cantillation. But some have written that since the cantillation marks are not indispensable (do not invalidate), as the Magen Avraham concludes, therefore it is not proper to have a prompter for the sake of the cantillation, and it is preferable to read without cantillation (since there is a concern that the prompter himself does not fulfill his obligation). And as the Shaarei Efraim wrote2, and these are his words: 'And one should not set up another to read before him from the chumash; and nevertheless, if they do not wish to read without cantillation, in any case one must be careful that he reads in a whisper so that it is heard only to the ears of the reader.'
And based on this, some of the poskim of the last generation wrote3 that likewise the baal korei may, during his reading before the congregation, listen to a recording of the reading through an earpiece, and thus read correctly. But he must verify well that he is indeed reading from the megillah and not merely repeating by heart what he heard.
b. When the baal korei does not know the vowel points well.
Even the poskim who wrote regarding one who is not expert in the cantillation that it is preferable not to have a whispering prompter — yet regarding a baal korei who is not expert in the vowel points, since an error in the vowel points can cause a corruption of the correct reading, therefore they wrote that he should set up a prompter to prompt for him in a whisper, as the Shaarei Efraim wrote there: 'And if there is no one who knows how to read the vowel points properly, one should read before him from the chumash in a whisper.'
But the poskim were concerned that the prompter cannot hear the reading well, since he is occupied with prompting, and therefore some wrote that he must hear the reading again. As the Shaarei Efraim wrote there4: 'And nevertheless, the one who read from the chumash must afterward read from the megillah, for presumably he was unable to direct his attention to hear well at the time he read this megillah, on account of his preoccupation with making it heard to the ears of the reader.'
2) Writing the vowel points or the cantillation marks in the megillah5.
We learned that l'chatchilah it is not proper to write in the megillah, but in a case of need, when there is no one who is expert in the reading6, the Be'er Sheva wrote7: 'I was asked: A settlement where there is a minyan, and the shliach tzibbur is not expert in the melody of the cantillation of the reading by heart, to read the megillah from a megillah in which the cantillation marks of the reading are not written, and there is no one who knows how to read the megillah with the melody of the cantillation, to set up someone who would prompt the shliach tzibbur word by word — is it permitted to write the cantillation marks of the reading in the megillah and have the chazzan read from it? Answer: It appears that it is certainly permitted in a time of pressing need .. And a compelling proof for this is from what the Rashba wrote in a responsum regarding a megillah that is vowelized: on account of the vowelization I do not see that it should be invalidated thereby .. And the reason of the matter is that this reason is not at all applicable to a megillah, to invalidate a vowelized megillah, and the same applies if the cantillation marks of the reading are written in it .. And based on these words it appears to me to rule that it is permitted for the chazzan to read the megillah from a kosher megillah in which the cantillation marks of the reading are written, in order that they not be prevented from the reading of the megillah. This is what appears in my humble opinion, and my heart told me.'
The poskim copied the words of the Be'er Sheva into halacha — the Knesses HaGedolah8. The Magen Avraham there, and likewise the Eliyah Rabbah9, and the Mishnah Berurah10. And so ruled the Kaf HaChaim11.
[But some were stringent regarding the writing of cantillation marks, and held that reading the megillah without cantillation is preferable to writing the cantillation marks in the megillah, as the Aruch HaShulchan wrote12: 'And there is one who permits writing the cantillation marks in the megillah when one is not expert in reading it with its cantillation. And in my humble opinion it is better to read it without cantillation than to write the cantillation marks in the megillah (see Bach and Magen Avraham there).'].
However, when the baal korei does not know the proper vowel points, and there is also no one who would help him or at least follow along with him to correct him in the event that he erred, and there is also no vowelization in the megillah, the poskim wrote that he should not recite a bracha over this reading. As the Shaarei Teshuvah wrote13: '.. for an error in which the meaning changes is indispensable in its reading, and therefore if there is no one present who knows how to read the vowel points according to halacha, one should not recite a bracha over it.'
If so, it is proper l'chatchilah to prepare properly so that there will be no need for a prompter or to write the vowel points or the cantillation marks in the megillah; but in a case where the baal korei is not expert, it is permitted that they prompt him in a whisper, or that he listen in a whisper, or to write the vowel points and the cantillation marks in the megillah14.
--------------
Notes:
1 או"ח סי' תרצא ס"ק י, וראה לקמן מקור הדברים משו"ת באר שבע ↩
2 שער ו אות נח. וביאר דבריו בפתחי שערים שם ↩
3 ראה פסקי תשובות או"ח סי' תרצ אות ב, וראה שם בהערה 7 ↩
4 וראה גם קיצור שו"ע סי' קמא סו"ס יח ↩
5 וראה בקיצור שו"ע שם שפתרון זה עדיף על מקריא: 'ויכולין לעשות במגילה נקודות וטעמים שיקרא כהוגן, כיון שהוא שעת הדחק, והכי עדיף טפי ממה שיקרא אחר מתוך החומש בלחש, דכיון שזה הקורא מתוך החומש אפילו הוא קורא בלחש אינו יכול לכוין דעתו שישמע מהשליח צבור, ונמצא שקרא רק מתוך החומש ואינו יוצא'. אך מפשטות דברי הבאר שבע ומג"א לא נראה שיש עדיפות בכתיבת טעמים על מקריא ↩
6 כמ"ש הפרי מגדים בא"א ס"ק י: *'וניקוד הטעמים בשליח ציבור שאין בקי, הוה כדיעבד*, אבל לכתחלה אין לנקוד' ↩
7 שו"ת סי' מז ↩
8 הגב"י סי' תרצא אות ג ↩
9 סי' תרצא ס"ק ו ↩
10 סי' תרצא ס"ק כה ↩
11 בספרו קול יעקב סי' תרצ אות לד ↩
12 סי' תרצא סי"ד ↩
13 סי' תרצ [א*] ↩
14 אך כאשר מספיק לאדם רק קצת סימוני של תזכורת לכאורה עדיף לציין אותם בצד השורות, ולא כחלק מטקסט המגילה, כי ראינו בהלכה מס' 503 שסימונים וציורים שמחוץ לשורות המגילה קלים יותר. וראה גם בשו"ת ויברך דוד ח"א סי' פ"ג. שהציע בכזה מקרה שיכתבו בצד המילים בעפרון ↩