Misconception: In order to temporarily relocate a sefer Torah, such as to a shivah house, halachah requires that it be read three times in its new location.
Fact: Early sources were relatively strict about not bringing a Torah to people, but rather that people should go to the Torah. Later authorities introduced various conditions to allow temporarily relocating the Torah, the most important being that it be kept in a “dignified place,” i.e., an aron kodesh.1 The three-reading rule is mentioned in some late sources, but in practice is often not followed. In general, temporarily relocating a Torah is frowned upon, with the guiding principle being the need for a high degree of kavod haTorah.
Background: Because of the extreme honor due a Torah scroll, it should not be willy-nilly temporarily relocated.2 But what about for a mitzvah? Does it matter if the person cannot “go to” the Torah because of a halachic impediment, such as aveilut, or if he physically cannot go, such as a sick person or a prisoner? And what about taking a Torah along on vacation, or bringing a Torah to a Covid-19 street minyan or to a group of Israeli soldiers in the field?3
The earliest source that discusses bringing a Torah to be read elsewhere is the Mishnah (Yoma 7:1 [68b]; Sotah 7:7 [40b]) describing bringing the Torah to the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur for his public reading in the Beit Hamikdash and (Sotah 7:8 [41a]) to the king for the once-every-seven-years Hakhel reading. The Yerushalmi (Yoma 7:1; Sotah 7:6) observes that in general an individual should go to the Torah to read it, rather than it being brought to the individual, but because the Kohen Gadol is an important person,4 it honors the Torah to be brought to him. The message is clear: In general, a Torah is not brought to a different location to enable its reading, as that would be disrespectful to the Torah (Mishnah Berurah 135:47), but there seems to be room for exceptions.5
Although the Rambam, Rif and Tur do not discuss the issue (which is found in the Yerushalmi but not in the Bavli), both the Beit Yosef (Rabbi Yosef Karo, author of both the Beit Yosef on the Tur and of the Shulchan Aruch; d. 1575) and Darkei Moshe (Rabbi Moshe Isserlis, “the Rema,” author of Darkei Moshe on the Tur and of the Mapah on Shulchan Aruch; d. 1572) do. The Beit Yosef (OC 135, s.v. katav haMordechai) quotes only one source—the thirteenth-century Mordechai, who, citing Maharam MiRotenburg, prohibits bringing a Torah to imprisoned Jews even on Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur. Darkei Moshe (OC :135:10) responds by citing many lenient authorities. Among them is the fourteenth-century Hagahot Asheri, who quotes the thirteenth-century Ohr Zarua permitting assembling a minyan for an unwell locally important person and bringing a Torah to his house to read. He also cites the sixteenth-century Maharam Padua that the hesitation in relocating a Torah is only if it is moved at the time of reading; if it is brought a day or two earlier and respectably housed in an aron kodesh, it is not a problem.
The Shulchan Aruch and Rema rule in line with their respective comments on the Tur. The Shulchan Aruch (OC:135:14; 584:3) forbids the bringing of a Torah to prisoners (or a sick person—MB 135:46) even on the Yamim Noraim, while the Rema (ibid.) permits it for an important person or if brought several days in advance (with a designated place—Magen Avraham 135:22).
The Chafetz Chaim (Biur Halachah 135: s.v. ein mevi’in) expressed surprise at the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch and maintains that for a minyan or Parashat Zachor, even the Shulchan Aruch would agree that it is permitted (MB 135:46, 47; cf. Kaf HaChaim OC 135:73 who disagrees).
The Rema’s main condition is that the Torah have a designated place,6 and he suggests it be there a day or two in advance. The Mishnah Berurah (135:49) says the key is that it be placed in an honorable location from which it is removed and returned, such that it does not appear that it was brought merely to be read, but rather that it is in a new “permanent” location, even if it was placed there the same day. The Chayei Adam (31:15) gives essentially the same rules as the Mishnah Berurah.
The Prishah (CM 1:3) explains that temporarily but respectfully moving the Torah to where it will be read was standard practice in the Talmudic period. He goes on to say that the synagogue was often located in the field outside of the city, and for the Torah’s protection they would not leave it there. Rather, when needed, the Torah was taken from its aron in the city, placed in an aron in the shul in the field (or transported in its permanent, portable aron),7 and after davening, returned to its permanent location in the city.8
So where did the notion of three readings come from? After first clarifying his understanding of the Rema, Rabbi Yechiel Michel HaLevi Epstein (d. 1908; Aruch HaShulchan, OC:135:30–32) then says that the custom is to make sure to read it three times in its new location, as then it is no longer viewed as a “temporary” move.9 There does not seem to be any allusion to the three-reading requirement in any earlier source, this apparently being the earliest written attestation to a custom that may have existed earlier.
Rabbi Shabtai Lifshitz (d. 1929; Sha’arei Rachamim commentary to Sha’arei Ephraim by Rabbi Ephraim Zalman Margulies, d. 1828; 9:22) says that the common notion that a Torah cannot be moved unless it will be read three times is an error, as it has no source. For a lengthy elaboration he directs the reader to his son Avraham’s sefer, Yalkut Avraham. Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch (Teshuvot VeHanhagot 1:694) says that other than the Aruch HaShulchan, he knows of no source for this idea. Similarly, Emet L’Yaakov (OC:135, n. 175) records in the name of Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky that the “requirement” to read from the Torah three times has no halachic basis and therefore there is no need to be careful about it.
In 1923, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein permitted a sefer Torah to be brought to an aufruf (Iggerot Moshe OC:1:34) to enable all the family members to get aliyot. He does not mention the need for three readings. Almost sixty years later, when discussing bringing a Torah to a shivah house (Iggerot Moshe YD:4:61:13), Rav Moshe says the merit for the deceased to have a minyan in the house is a reason a Torah may be brought. There he mentions the three readings, observes that the basic halachah is like the Mishnah Berurah permitting a Torah to be brought even if it will not be read three times, but suggests that because such is the custom, one should strive to have three readings and even suggests reading the Torah at Shabbat Minchah10 or after the conclusion of the shivah.
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Halichot Shlomo, Tefillah, 12:38) prohibits temporarily relocating a Torah unless there is an aron in the new location to house the Torah, and he says there is no basis for the three-reading rule. His father, Rabbi Chaim Yehudah Leib Auerbach (ibid., n. 114), wrote at length about the subject and concluded that 1. if there is a respectable place to put the Torah or if it is being brought for an important person, it can be brought even for one reading, 2. if the location is degrading, such as a jail, even three readings will not help, and 3. in other circumstances, three readings may permit bringing it even though the three-reading rule has no reliable source.
There is a great deal of literature about bringing a Torah to a mourner’s house. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 344:18) says that Torah reading on Shabbat, Monday and Thursday were not done in the mourner’s house, indicating that a Torah was not brought there. Rabbi Yaakov Emden (Mor U’Ktzia 135) decries the fact that in his community a Torah was brought to a shivah house, both because a Torah should not be relocated and because it cannot be afforded the proper respect with little children present. He thinks the custom should be immediately stopped. So too, the Kaf HaChaim (OC 135:75) says it is wrong to bring a Torah to the house of the avel, but rather after the davening everyone should go to the shul to read the Torah. Rabbi Yisroel Pesach Feinhandler (d. 2011; Avnei Yashfeh OC 22) expresses concern about little children being present adding that children might soil themselves. Therefore he states that if people really want to bring the Torah to the shivah house they should bring it shortly before davening, place it in an aron and return it immediately after davening. He says he does not know of any source for a three-reading requirement and adds that that would certainly not permit bringing the Torah without an aron.
Despite these hesitations, the widespread custom today is that a Torah is brought to a shivah house. Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch (Teshuvot VeHanhagot 1:694) says that if there is no portable aron, it is still permitted to bring the Torah just for the reading and then return it to the shul, rather than leave it in the shivah house in a less-than-dignified manner. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer 9:OC:15) says that as long as there is an aron, there is no problem.
While the most common reason for temporarily relocating a Torah is for use at a shivah house, other circumstances also lead to such questions.
Rabbi Yosef Molcho (d. 1768; Shulchan Gavoha 584:6) records that when city people fled to villages in times of plagues, in Adrianople (now Edirne, Turkey) the custom was to bring a Torah with them, while in Salonika (today Thessaloniki, Greece) they followed the simple understanding of the Shulchan Aruch and even if they were in “exile” for a long time, they did not bring a Torah.
Rabbi David Avraham Schpektor (d. 2013), in a thin pamphlet (Herodian Responsa, 11–15), discusses transporting a Torah from the town of Nokdim for a monthly Rosh Chodesh davening in the ancient Herodian synagogue. He permitted it because restoring an ancient synagogue honors the Torah and because a portable aron was constructed specifically for this purpose.
European Jewish communities had a custom that when a king visited, they would bring out a Torah as a sign of respect. Pitchei Teshuvah (YD:282:1) cites a teshuvah that justifies this instance of moving a Torah.
Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (Tzitz Eliezer 11:16) was critical of those who daven at the Kotel in the outside section and, when it comes time to read the Torah, one person goes to the inner area and brings a Torah to the minyan. He suggests that either the Torah be brought to the minyan, preferably with the aron, before they begin davening, or that at the time of leining, the entire minyan go to the Torah and either read it there or escort the Torah to the place where it will be read.
Rabbi Shlomo Goren (Meishiv Milchamah 2:124) deals with bringing a Torah to a group of soldiers who are in the field for training for several days. He permits it if there is a portable aron and a place designated for davening. He also raises the additional factor that in a Jewish military camp, even not in times of war, G-d’s presence should be present in the camp and this is accomplished by having an aron with a Torah. Rabbi Nachum Rabinovitch (Melumdei Milchamah 1:25) adds that it is an honor for the Torah to be brought to soldiers who are bnei Torah and guarding our Land, parallel to the Aron with the Luchot accompanying the Jewish army.
Rabbi Yaakov Ariel (B’Ohalah shel Torah 2:6) was asked about taking a Torah in a car when going on vacation. He elegantly distinguishes between the problematic “bringing a Torah to people” versus “taking the Torah with people.” He thinks the latter is permitted and possibly praiseworthy, as a Jewish king is instructed to do.
In summary, from the Talmud on, there is a concern that bringing a Torah from its usual place infringes on the respect due the Torah. Over the years, various leniencies have evolved to permit bringing a Torah to people who pine to read and honor it. The requirement for three readings is a late development with little early support and is not usually taken into consideration. Rather, the primary concern in determining if and how to relocate a Torah is whether the move entails proper honor for the Torah, usually requiring an aron kodesh.
Notes
1. The Gemara (Shabbat 32a) views referring to an “aron kodesh” as simply “aron” as a grave sin. However, the Magen Avraham (OC:154:14), as explained by the Yad Ephraim, says that if in context it is clear that it refers to an aron kodesh, it is acceptable, and thus in this article the word “aron” will be used.
2. Cf. Maharsham (Da’at Torah OC 135:14) how this resolves the question of why there was no ban on reading the Torah (versus a megillah) on Shabbat.
3. At the conclusion of the Yom Kippur service in the Beit Hamikdash, each individual would “show off” his personal sefer Torah (Yoma 70a; Sotah 41a). Based on this, posekim differentiate between a communal Torah that reposes in and is read in the shul and a private Torah, which may be brought from place to place (Tzitz Eliezer 18:6). A Torah written specifically as a traveling Torah may be used as such (Kaf HaChaim OC:135:78).
4. The Gra (OC 135) and Mishnah Berurah (135:50; cf. Sha’ar Hatziyun 135:50 and Biur Halachah 135: s.v. v’im hu) clarify that an “important person” in this context refers to one who is great in Torah, as opposed to a communal leader or a wealthy or influential person.
5. See Rabbi Yosef Kapach (commentary to Rambam, Hilchot Tefillah, chap. 12, n. 61) for a different understanding of the Yerushalmi, and Tzitz Eliezer 18:6 for a rejection of Rabbi Kapach’s theory.
6. Mentioned also by Rabbi Ephraim Zalman Margulies in his influential work on Torah reading, Sha’arei Ephraim (9:43). See Shulchan Aruch, YD 282:1.
7. See Ta’anit 2:1; Megillah 3:1; Sotah 39b, Rashi s.v. l’hafshit.
8. This is likely similar to what is being described in Eruvin 86b and Sukkah 16b. The incident in Eruvin 91a was different, as it was a time of danger. By Rambam’s time, things had changed, and in describing building a synagogue (Hilchot Tefillah 11:2) he mentions an aron in which to store the Torah scrolls. Cf. ibid., 12:24, that sometimes they did store the Torah elsewhere.
9. In a concluding statement, the Aruch HaShulchan berates those who take a Torah from the shul on Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Simchat Torah to read in a “private” minyan. He says that they do this so they can all get an aliyah, but they are in reality sinning by not taking into consideration the honor due the Torah. So too, Mishnah Berurah (135:48) berates these people; the only justification he finds is if they sell the aliyot, thus raising funds for the shul and for tzedakah.
10. While this might have been viewed as a chumrah that leads to a kulah, because having a minyan in a mourner’s house on Shabbat when he may attend synagogue can be viewed as public mourning on Shabbat, Rav Moshe ruled otherwise.
Rabbi Dr. Ari Z. Zivotofsky is a professor of neuroscience at Bar-Ilan University in Israel.