Shulchan Aruch in the beginning of HiIlchos Purim says that some say that Parshas Zakhor and Porah is of Biblical origin and villagers who don't have a minyan the rest of the year should travel to larger towns to hear these parshiyos read in a minyan.
Almost everyone who commented on this passage questioned that Parshas Porah is of Biblical origin, and for a good reason. There is no Scriptural source for such an obligation, neither is there any clear Talmudic source for it. Until newer manuscripts of certain Rishonim became available, the only source for this contention that was available to the commentators was a note to hagahos Asheiri. It is easy to dismiss a single source. In fact, Nachal Eshkol ( I aso heard it in the name of Gro) attempted to explain even that source away in quite an ingenious manner. He posited that there was a scribal error and that originally what was written in it was the abbreviation Peh"Peh. It was meant to stand for parshas purim and to refer to the story of Amalek's attack that we read from Beshalach on Purim morning. The intent was that parshas Zakhor at the end of Ki Teitse as well as parshas Beshalach that we read on Purim morning can fulfill the obligation to remember Amalek, nothing to do with Porah (this si a machlokes bewtween Mogen Avraham and others). When a subsequent copyist tried to expland the abbreviation, he mistakenly did so as "parshas porah" instead of "parshas purim".
However, now we have much more manuscript evidence. No one ever found any manuscript that contained this putative abbreviation. No one ever found this passage with the words of parshas purim. Instead we now have Ritva to Megilla 7b, Tos. R. Yehuda Hachasid and Tos. Harosh to Brochos 13a (see Rashbo there) who all have the version "parshas Porah".
I heard from Rav Hershel Schachter that by reading parshas Porah we fulfill the command to remember the Cheit Ha'eigel -- the sin of the Golden Calf. In Parshat Eikev (9:7) we read: "Z'chor al tishkach eit asher hiktsafta et Hashem Elokecha b'Choreiv" -- "Remember, do not forget, that which you angered the Lord, your G-d at Choreiv (Sinai)," a reference to the Golden Calf. Rashi (Chukas 19:22) quotes from R. Moshe HaDarshan that the Red Heifer served as an atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf. He uses an allegory concerning a child who dirtied the king's palace. "Let the mother (the Heifer) clean up the mess made by her son (the Golden Calf)." What this emasn is that Red Heifer is a euphemism for Godlen Calf. I would add that in Megilah 25b it says that the second story of the Godlen Calf we read but do not translate, so as not to create an impression that the calf had powers. Similarly, we fulfill the command to remember Miraim's sin of speaking against her brother Moshe only in the course of the annual Torah rading and we do not establish a specific ceremony for it, as we do for remembering Amalek (Magen Avron 60). This is so as not to embarss Miriam. So we see that not all commandments to remeber should be fulfilled openly.
So as not to produce a wrong impression, we read parshas porah instead of the portion fo Godlen Calf to fulfill the commandment to remember the sin of the Golden Calf.
Aruch Hashulchan O'CH 685 suggests that the obligation of parshas porah is Biblical because the Biblical passage that contains it needs to be read during the purification ceremony. His proof to it is the Talmudic passage in Zevachim 90. There the question is asked: "Why chattos is always first in verses but by yoledes, olah precedes chatos?" The answer is , "Lemikroah", to read it. Rashi there and in the beginning of Tazria understands that this means "designation". Chattos is still brought first but in the case of Yoledes, the olah is designated first, before chattos. Aruch Hashulchan explains the word "lemikroah" differently, to mean that the verses that describe the sacrifice of Yoledes must be read during that sacrifice, and he draws an analogy to Porah. It remains to be asked, "what is the connection betrween Porah Adumah and Yoledes"?
R. Moseh Shternbuch in Moadim UZmanin (2;168) provides stronger evidence. He asks us to take three steps:
1. In Yoma 5b it says that the verse in the beginning of Shemini where the korban of Miluim is explained, "This is the word(Davar) thaty ou shall do...", means that the passages of Miluim must be read from the Torah when Miluim are brought. In fact, if it was not read, the miluim sacrifice would be ineffective.
2.In Yoma 68B, the first Rashi to the Mishna explains that the Cohen Godol's ceremoney of reading of the Torah on Yom Kippur is derived from Miluim. (Parehtetically, it explains that this Torah reading is a part of the sacrificial order and not like other Torah readings that we do, and illuminates the manner in which the mishna there presents it).
3.Yoma 2b, "As he did on this day, so shall you do to do, to atone for you". This passage form Miluim is explained by the Gemara to mean: "To atone - this is the actions of Yom Kippur; to do-this is the actions of Porah". Hence, it draws a connection between Yom Kippur and Porah and requires the Torah reading of the relevant passage to be performed during the ceremony of Red Heifer purification.
In conclusion, what Rishonim who say that parshas Porah is d'oraysa mean is that reading it is Biblically required during the ceremony of Porah Adumah. It does not mean that we, in our own time have a Biblical obligation of parshas Porah.
A great source but still not compatible with the statement in the Shulchan Aruch from which we started.
Comments