Siman 690, Se'if 5 · What "sirugin" means, and the underlying rule of interruption

Shulchan Aruch, Siman 690, se'if 5
"If one read the Megillah in installments (sirugin), meaning that he stopped in the middle, paused, and afterward returned to the place where he had stopped, even if he paused long enough to have finished the entire Megillah, he has fulfilled his obligation."
(Shulchan Aruch)

What "sirugin" means, and the underlying rule of interruption

• What sirugin is: It does not mean a jumbled reading or a reading out of order. It means a reading done in sections: the reader stopped in the middle, waited, and then went back to the exact place where he had stopped and continued from there.
• Whom the halacha concerns: Primarily it is a law about the baal korei, the one reading, but it has ramifications for the congregation as well, as will be explained further on regarding someone who talked during the pause.
• The question of a single unit: Wherever a person recites one unit, such as Krias Shema, a brachah, or a Torah reading, the question arises whether an interruption in the middle breaks up that unit. Someone who read three pesukim, drifted into thought, and then continued, or who read half a parshah in the morning and half at Minchah, has he read the parshah?
• The standard rule in tefillos and brachos: If the pause was long enough that he could have completed the whole unit in that time, it is no longer one unit. If it was less than that amount of time, and he did not speak, the interruption does not break up the reading.
• The novelty regarding the Megillah: With Megillas Esther the Sages were lenient. Even if he paused for a lengthy amount of time between one section and the next he has fulfilled his obligation, and it makes no difference at which point he stopped.

The measure of the pause, and one who was delayed by circumstances beyond his control

"That is to say, that in that amount of time he could have finished the entire Megillah from beginning to end, and nonetheless he has fulfilled his obligation."
(Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 7)

• A voluntary pause: We are speaking of a reader who could have continued and did not, for example he stopped for a moment or was reflecting on words of Torah. Since practically speaking it was in his power to continue in order, this is not considered an interruption that invalidates the reading.
• A pause caused by an oness: The Mishnah Berurah qualifies that when the delay comes from an oness, a circumstance beyond his control, meaning that even had he wanted to continue he could not have, the halacha is different, and according to what is ruled elsewhere there is room to require him to go back. Examples of an oness: a bad odor discovered in the shul whose source has to be removed, or a siren that interrupted the reading.
• An important emphasis: The novelty in this se'if is not about a reader who read with his mind wandering, but about a reader who read properly and merely took a break in the middle.

If he talked in between

"And even if he talked in between."
(Rema)

"This is not specifically where he paused in silence. Even if he interrupted in the middle of the Megillah with conversation and thereby delayed, he need not go back, but rather finishes from the place where he stopped. All of this is where it was the reader who talked; but a listener who talked and consequently did not hear the reading, even if he missed only a single word, according to several poskim has not fulfilled his obligation."
(Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 19)

• A further leniency: Not only did he pause, but he even spoke during the pause, and nevertheless he has fulfilled his obligation, because with the Megillah the Sages were lenient.
• Why talking during the pause does not spoil anything: While the reader is not reading, the listener is not losing anything either, since there is no reading to hear. The talking is improper, but it does not undermine the fulfillment of the mitzvah.
• Talking during the reading itself: One who talked while the reader was reading did not hear the reading, and since he missed words, according to several poskim he has not fulfilled his obligation.

A Chumash in everyone's hand

• The practical need: The Mishnah Berurah writes that there is a great need for each person to have a Chumash in front of him, because during the noise at the mention of Haman's name, and in similar places, it is impossible to hear several words from the mouth of the reader.
• How to make it up: Whoever did not hear reads those words from the Chumash in front of him, and thereby fulfills his obligation at least b'dieved, after the fact.
• Relying on a text that is not kosher: One may make up in this way up to half the Megillah, and even from a Megillah that is not kosher.

We rebuke him, and the law of the brachos

"Nevertheless we rebuke him, since once he has recited the brachah over it he should not interrupt in the middle until the entire mitzvah is completed."
(Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 20)

• B'dieved versus l'chatchilah: The talking does not invalidate the reading, but we rebuke one who talks. Even when the reader has stopped and the congregation has no one to listen to, that is no license to talk.
• The brachos: The brachos are a different matter; there one is obligated to listen and it is forbidden to talk.
• A break or a change of baal korei: When the reader stopped, rested, or was replaced by a different baal korei, this does not invalidate anything, and the reading continues without a new brachah.

Siman 690, se'if 14 - intent to be motzi and intent to fulfill

"One who reads the Megillah must intend to fulfill the obligation of the listener, and the listener must intend to fulfill his obligation. And if the reader is the chazzan, presumably he has in mind all the listeners, even one who is standing behind the shul."
(Shulchan Aruch)

• The chazzan: The chazzan has in mind from the outset to fulfill the obligation of anyone who hears him. Therefore, even though he does not see this listener, and even though the man is standing outside behind the shul, his intent includes him.

The nature of the required kavanah (Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 48)

• It is indispensable even b'dieved: The kavanah is indispensable even after the fact; without it there is a problem with the fulfillment of the mitzvah.
• Kavanah at the start suffices: One need not maintain the intent throughout the entire reading. It is enough that before he begins he has in mind the whole reading, this one to fulfill his obligation and that one to fulfill the obligation of others. In practice this happens mainly at the time of the brachos: the reader intends to be motzi the congregation, and the congregation intends to fulfill its obligation, and that kavanah carries through the entire reading.
• Actually hearing: Hearing and kavanah are two separate matters. The listener must pay attention and hear every single word from the reader's mouth, and if the reader omitted, or the listener missed, even one word, he has not fulfilled his obligation and must go back.

One who comes to shul and one who passes behind the shul (Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 49)

• Those in shul are presumed to have kavanah: Someone who came to shul and did not explicitly have in mind at the time of the brachos to fulfill his obligation has nonetheless fulfilled it. The very fact that he came to shul testifies to his intent, since he came only in order to hear the Megillah.
• One who passes behind the shul: Someone who happened to be passing by the shul and heard the reading does not fulfill his obligation unless he explicitly had in mind to do so, since he did not come for that purpose. From the reader's side there is no obstacle, since the chazzan intended to be motzi anyone who would hear him.
• Shofar: The law of one who hears the sound of the shofar while passing by a shul is exactly the same as the law of the Megillah.

Mitzvos require kavanah - mitzvos of action and mitzvos of speech

• The source: The rule that mitzvos require kavanah appears in the Mishnah in Maseches Brachos regarding Krias Shema: "If he directed his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation," that is, with respect to a mitzvah of speech.
• A mitzvah of speech: With things whose essence is speaking and hearing, such as the reading of Parshas Zachor, we are more stringent, all the more so since according to many opinions Zachor is a Torah obligation. That is why the reader announces that he intends to be motzi and the congregation intends to fulfill its obligation. With the Megillah, which is rabbinic, the Sages were more lenient.
• A mitzvah of action: One who takes the lulav or blows the shofar, even if he did not say any "l'shem yichud" declaration and did not consciously have kavanah, has fulfilled his obligation according to most poskim.
• The Ran's reason: The act itself demonstrates the intent. A person does not pick up a lulav and shake it, or blow a shofar on Rosh Hashanah, for any reason other than that the Holy One commanded it; there is no other explanation for such an act. In saying this, the Ran is speaking in defense of Klal Yisrael.
• The Ritva's reason: The brachah recited before performing the mitzvah makes a person understand what he is about to do and direct his mind to it.
• The timing proves the intent: Performing the act specifically at the time designated for the mitzvah also contributes to demonstrating the intent.
• In practice: L'chatchilah one certainly should have kavanah, and according to most poskim, in a mitzvah of action one fulfills his obligation even without explicit kavanah.

(In this connection the principle was mentioned that the heart is drawn after one's actions.)

We are not exacting about mistakes in its reading

"We are not exacting about mistakes in it."
(Shulchan Aruch)

"This law does not deal with the writing of the Megillah but with the reading, meaning that even if he read it with a number of mistakes, since in any event he read all of it he has fulfilled his obligation. And some say this applies only to a mistake where the wording and the meaning remain the same, as in the incident in the Yerushalmi of two students who were sitting before Rav, one reading 'Yehudim' and one reading 'Yehudiyim,' and he did not correct either of them."
(Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 50)

• This is not about the writing: The Megillah itself must be written according to halacha; the leniency was said only regarding the manner of reading.
• The proof from the Yerushalmi: Two students were sitting before Rav, and in the very same word, which recurs many times in the Megillah, one read "Yehudim" and the other "Yehudiyim," and Rav did not correct either one. From here we learn that when the mistake does not change the meaning we do not make the reader go back.

"For example, if he read 'yashav' in place of 'yoshev,' or 'nafal' in place of 'nofel,' it is as if he skipped that word entirely, and he must go back and read it in order."
(Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 51)

• A mistake that changes the meaning: "Mordechai is sitting at the king's gate" and "Mordechai sat" are not the same thing, and likewise "Haman is falling on the couch" versus "Haman fell on the couch," and likewise the difference between "passing" and "passed." With mistakes of this sort we make the reader go back and correct him.
• How often this actually comes up: There are not many such cases in the Megillah, and most of the examples mentioned here are really matters of ksiv and kri.

In passing · Ksiv and kri in the Torah reading and in the Megillah

Following the kri

• The rule: Wherever there is a ksiv (the written form) and a kri (the form as read), the reading follows the kri, and the written form does not determine the pronunciation. This rests on a tradition in our hands from the days of Moshe Rabbeinu.

In the laws of Torah reading an incident is brought of someone who read from the Torah according to the ksiv, in a pasuk in the parshah of the tochachah whose written form differs from the kri. When they told him that one must read according to the kri, he argued: "Words that are written you are not permitted to say by heart," since if he reads other than what is written, he is not reading what is in front of him. Three of the leading rabbanim of the generation removed him from the amud and placed him under a ban, and from here we see that following the kri is binding.

The Shem Havayah - the one place with no ksiv and kri notation

• The rule in the Mesorah: Ordinarily the Mesorah is careful to note in the margin where there is a ksiv and a kri.
• The exception: By the Shem Havayah there is no such note, and nonetheless we do not read it as it is written but rather as the Name of Lordship, because the matter is clear and beyond doubt.
• In Megillas Esther: This question does not arise at all, since there is no Name of Hashem in the Megillah.

The custom to read both the ksiv and the kri

• The custom: In several communities the practice is to read both forms, the ksiv and the kri, for example "Yehudim" and "Yehudiyim," and likewise "vayehi k'amram eilav yom yom" and "vayehi k'amram eilav yom vayom." This custom is cited in several seforim, and no reason for it is known.
• An assessment of the custom: On the merits there is no need for it, since with a ksiv and kri there is no doubt as to how the word should be read.
• Does it invalidate anything: It does not invalidate the reading, since it was explained above that even if one talked in the middle of the reading he has fulfilled his obligation, and all the more so an extra reading of a word, whose status is like speech in the middle and which does not nullify the reading.
• A word whose letters are in a different order: Another example was raised of a word in which the order of the letters differs, and it was noted that in that case the practice is not to read it twice.

Doubts in the text that are not cases of ksiv and kri

• The distinction: One must not confuse a ksiv and kri with words where a doubt arose in the text itself, such as "zecher Amalek" in its two versions, "ish lo amad lifneihem" or "bifneihem," and "lehashmid laharog ul'abed" or "lehashmid v'laharog ul'abed." With a ksiv and kri there is no doubt, whereas here there is an actual dispute about the correct text, and that is why some have the practice to read both forms.
• The ruling of the grammarians: According to the scholars of the Mesorah the correct version is "lifneihem," and the version "bifneihem" originated in an error, so there is no need to read it twice.
• Rav Mazuz's mnemonic: From the pasuk "lu chachmu yaskilu zos," in the word "lu": the lamed points to "lifneihem," and the vav points to "v'laharog," that is, "lehashmid v'laharog ul'abed."
• A practical note: A baal korei has to remember details like these, and mnemonics of this sort exist for exactly that purpose.