Siman 142

The Rambam wrote in chapter twelve, law 6: If one read and erred, even in the precision of a single letter – we make him return until he reads it with precision. Thus far his words, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled accordingly. And in the Yerushalmi Megillah at the beginning of the fourth chapter it says: Even though the Targum is not indispensable, if one erred – we make him return, see there. And the matter is an a fortiori argument: for if in the Targum we make one return for an error – all the more so in the Torah itself. And further there (law 5): If one erred between one word and another – we make him return (such as "keves"-"keshev"). Rabbi Yirmeyah said to Rabbi Zeira: And do we do so (to shame him in public)? He said to him: Are you still at this (meaning: are you in doubt about this)? Even if he erred between "im" and "ve-im" – we make him return, see there. Behold, it is explicitly stated like the Rambam (see Beit Yosef).

This is the wording of the Tur: The author of the Manhig wrote: If the reader erred, or the chazzan who reads for him – it is better not to correct him regarding his mistakes in public, so as not to embarrass him. For even though he erred in it – he has fulfilled the obligation of reading. For it is stated in the Midrash that if he called "Aharon" "Haran" – he has fulfilled it. And the Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote... Thus far his words. And the words of the Manhig are puzzling from the Yerushalmi that we brought. And the proof from the Midrash is even more puzzling, for this Midrash is in Shir HaShirim on the verse "He brought me to the house of wine," and this is the wording of the Midrash: Rav Acha said: An am ha'aretz who calls "ahavah" "eivah," the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: "and his skipping over me is love." Rabbi Issachar said: A child who calls... "Aharon" "Haran"... – and his stammering over me is love. Thus far his words, behold it is dealing with a child and an am ha'aretz who read by themselves, and not with the public reading. Furthermore: what proof is there from there? There they are unable to speak properly, but the reader, why should he not speak properly, and what relevance does embarrassment have to this? And if so, also in prayer when he erred we should not make him repeat for the reason of embarrassment. (And the Bach wrote that we follow the custom of the Manhig and not like the Rambam, see there. And it seems to me that we follow the custom of the Rambam, but according to what we will explain with the help of Heaven, it will be settled well.)

And it appears in my humble opinion that both are true. For certainly if the error is in the essence of the word, such as "kevesh"-"keshev", "im"-"ve'im", and the like, even though the meaning does not change—nevertheless, we make him repeat it. But if he erred in the trop—we do not make him repeat it, and this is the intention of the Manhig. And he brings proof from "Aharon"-"Haran", meaning: from that which we say in the Midrash regarding those who read for themselves that even with changes in words it is beloved before the Holy One, Blessed be He, all the more so regarding one who reads in the Torah and erred in the trop. And the intention of the Rambam is regarding changes in words. And proof for this is from the words of the Terumat HaDeshen (siman 181), who wrote: I have seen several times before my teachers and other great ones, that the readers erred in the precision of the trop, and also in patach and kamatz, segol and tzeirei. And even though they rebuked them somewhat, nevertheless, they did not make them repeat it. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit as I have written.

And know that a change in the vocalization is only [significant] in a place where the meaning is not changed, such as "shamayim" with a kamatz or "shamayim" with a patach, or "aretz" with a kamatz or "eretz" with two segols and similar cases. However, in a place where the meaning is changed, such as "chalav" with a kamatz and "chelev" with a tzeirei and similar cases—we certainly make him repeat it. And this is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And specifically regarding a change through which the meaning is changed. But if he erred in the musical trope or in the vocalization—we do not make him repeat it, but we rebuke him. Thus far his words. And it appears to me that this is the explanation: for his intention was not regarding a change of the word, for in a change of a word even in a place where the meaning is not changed, such as "keves"-"keshev"—we make him repeat it. And his intention was regarding vocalization when the meaning is changed, such as "chalav"-"chelev," where we make him repeat it. But in a place where the meaning is not changed—we do not make him repeat it. (See Magen Avraham, and Beit Yosef, and Bach. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.) And know that in all this there is no difference whether the reader himself reads, or whether the sheliach tzibbur reads, for he stands in the place of the reader. And so ruled our teacher, the Rema, unlike the one who distinguishes in this (see Beit Yosef).

And all this is ex post facto. But initially, the obligation is upon the reader to read with the cantillation marks and with precision according to the law and the statute: that he should not rest the mobile, nor move the resting, and he shall observe the dagesh and the rafeh. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote similarly in his great book. And he wrote that all this has a great root above, see there. Nevertheless, he wrote in section 2 that a settlement that has a minyan, and there is no one who knows how to read from the Torah according to its law with precision and with the cantillation marks – even so, they shall read from the Torah with a blessing according to its law, and they conclude with the Prophet. Thus far his words, since it is impossible otherwise. And how shall they act? One gazes into a Chumash and whispers into the ear of the reader from the Sefer Torah, and the reader reads aloud after him from the Sefer Torah, for where there is no alternative it is different.