Autobiographies rarely include a description of the author’s death and funeral, a challenge generally beyond even the most talented writer. It is thus that the Talmud (Bava Batra 15a, Menachot 30a) notes the anomaly of the last eight verses in the Torah, which describe the death of Moses. How, considering that Moses was the Torah’s transcriber, could this section be included?

The Talmud records two opinions on the matter: According to one view, these verses were actually written by Joshua. According to the second opinion, while most of the Torah was dictated by God, with Moses repeating the dictation and recording, these last eight verses were dictated to Moses, who wrote them down “bidema”. This last word is usually translated as “with tears”, suggesting that Moses was weeping as he recorded the details of his own impending death.

However, the Vilna Gaon, in his Aderet Eliyahu, raises a different possible translation for “bidema”, one that draws on the relationship to the word dimua, connoting “mixture” (a similar interpretation is cited by the M’lo haRoim in the name of the Rama mi-Fanu). The idea would be that Moses recorded this part of the Torah in an unintelligible mixture of letters not divided into words. After Moses actually died, the letters were organized by Joshua into words. Thus, the two opinions in the Talmud would actually be in agreement with each other, as the last verses were written first by Moses, bidema, and later by Joshua. (R. Mordechai Gifter takes issue with this approach, and modifies it somewhat; see Pirkei Torah, vol. 2, p. 334-340.)

In any event, these verses are unique, and thus the Talmud ascribes to them a unique halakhic status: “yachid korei otam”. The meaning of this phrase, that they are read “yachid”, is the subject of a major disagreement among authorities, with no fewer than five possibilities expressed.

A) According to a number of commentaries (Rashi to Bava Batra; Ri Migash cited in Shittah Mikubetzet to Bava Batra; Rabbenu Tam, in Tosafot to Bava Batra, s.v. shemonah), “yachid” means the aliyahshould be read as one unit, without being broken up. B) A second view (first opinion cited in Shittah Mikubetzet, ibid) maintains that these verses should be read as their own aliyah, so that the words of Joshua would be appropriately distinguished from those of Moses.  Thus, “yachid” would mean “apart”. C) Rabbenu Meshulam was of the understanding that the reference was to the practice of having an appointed Torah reader read along with the oleh; for this section, that practice should be abandoned. Thus, “yachid” would mean “alone”. Rabbenu Tam objected to this interpretation, implying that the practice referred to, instituted so as not to embarrass an oleh who would not be capable of reading from the Torah, was not in effect in the time of the Talmud and could thus not have been the intended subject. Nonetheless, the Toldot Yitzchak al haTorah (Parashat V’Zot HaBerakhah) records that the custom in Provence was in accordance with the view of Rabbenu Meshulam.

D) Much of the discussion of this topic has centered on the opinion of Maimonides. In his Mishneh Torah(Hilkhot Tefilah 13:6.), he interprets “yachid” as contrasted with “tzibbur” (See also Torat Chaim to Bava Batra), ruling that these verses can be read without a minyan.  The Ra’avad, however, was astonished at this interpretation. After citing some of the other views mentioned above as more plausible, he concludes simply, “where did the tzibbur go?”.

The Kessef Mishneh questions the Ra’avad’s difficulty, noting that it is certainly conceivable that either there was no minyan to begin with, or that part of the minyan left. Of course, with the modern observance of Simchat Torah being what it is, this is a more likely possibility then than any other time of the year. 

A number of contemporary authors (See R. Ya’akov Betzalel Zolty,  Mishnat Ya’avetz (Orach Chaim, 72); R. Shlomo Wahrman, Orot Chag haSukkot, 59 and Sh’erit Yosef, 4:32; R. Mordechai Ilan, Masa Yad (Vol. 1, Parashat V’Zot HaBerakhah) ) explain that the Ra’avad’s question actually refers not to a physical reality but a halakhic one. In consideration of the halakhah (see Megilah 23b; Tosafot s.v. ein, citing the Yerushalmi; Mishneh Torah, Hil. Tefilah8:6) that a minyan that begins a davar she’b’kedushah with a quorum can continue even if part of the minyan leaves in the middle, nothing would seem to distinguish the last eight verses from the rest of the Torah.

These authors offer some possible ways in which the last eight verses might then be distinguished, despite that fact that this halakhah applies to the kr’iat haTorah in general: a) perhaps a majority need remain to allow continuing (as per the Ran, Megilahch. 3, and Shulchan Arukh, O.C. 55:2; possibly in disagreement with Sefer HaManhig, (Hil. HaChag, 63). This prompts the question, discussed in some of the above sources, as to what is the reasoning for this halakhah: is it that a minyan retains its status as long as a majority is still present, or is it that a davar sh’b’kedusha must begin with a minyan, but not necessarily end with one (in which case even less than a majority may continue). See Chiddushei R. Akiva Eiger, O.C. 55, and Resp. Teshuvah MeAhavah, 1:31), and here the reading can continue even without a majority of a minyan; b) it is unclear that this halakhah allows the beginning of a new aliyah (see Kessef Mishneh, 8:6; Magen Avraham, 143:1 and Machtzit haShekel; Mishnat Ya’avetzi, ibid; R. Yitzchak Sorotzkin, Gevurot Yitzchak al HaTorah, vol. 2, #317. R. Sorotzkin notes that issue at hand may be whether the end of the Chumash is read on Simchat Torah as a consequence of the annual cycle ending that day, or as an independent obligation reflecting the character of the day); thus, the license to read this section without the minyanremaining may be unusual.

Whatever the scope of application, the view of Maimonides remains that these verses can be read without a minyan. Various explanations are offered for this unique ruling. The Torat Chaim in his commentary to Bava Batra asserts that this is meant to ensure a distinction between Torah (the prophecy of Moses) and Nevuah (as represented by the prophecy of Joshua). R. Moshe Shternbuch suggests that Maimonides was only speaking of a license to read this section with a sefer Torah in the synagogue, but not that one can fulfill the obligation of the Torah reading under those circumstances.  

Rav Soloveitchik suggested a different explanation (see R. Mordechai Willig, Beit Yosef Shaul, vol 4 (1994), pp. 163-169, and R. Herschel Schachter, Nefesh HaRav, p. 320-322). He notes that contrary to popular conception, k’riat haTorah, despite requiring a minyan, is actually not a davar she’b’kedushah. (See also Birkhat Kohen al haTorah, #120.) Rather, the need for a minyan comes from a different concern. The contemporary public Torah reading is meant to be evocative of the original receiving of the Torah at Sinai. There, the Torah was given in the presence of the entire Jewish people. Thus, a minyan, representing the entire Jewish community, is necessary for k’riat haTorah.

However, the last eight verses were not transmitted in the same manner as the rest of the Torah, and did not go through the process of Moses repeating the dictation, and commanding the Jewish people with its content. By that process the rest of the Torah was deemed “Torah She’b’khtav” (See also Gevurot Yitzchak al haTorah, ibid, #319). Since these verseswere not a part of that, they consequently do not share the requirement of a minyan.

E) The interpretation that has had possibly the greatest impact on actual practice, though, may be that found in the Mordechai (Halakhot K’tanot, 955). In this view, “yachid” should be understood as “singular” or “distinguished”, and is thus an exhortation that this aliyah should be given to one who is prominent within the community. This is indeed the practice, as this aliyah is the highly prized “chatan Torah”.  

However, as noted by R. Tzvi Ashkenazi, the Chacham Tzvi, (Responsa, 13), this interpretation is counterintuitive. According to either understanding in the Talmud, these verses have a status that should render them inferior to any other section of the Torah. Either they were not written by Moses at all, or they were written in a way that caused them to be conveyed differently than the rest of Chumash.Pentateuch. In either case, to accord this aliyah a status of honor and distinction as a consequence of this nature would be the opposite of what is indicated.

R. Meir Dan Plotzki, the Kli Chemdah (Parshat V’Zot HaBerakhah, 3), asserts that Maimonides’s view of the lack of a minyan requirement can be understood as indication of superiority rather than inferiority. The rest of the Torah was spoken by God, then by Moses and transmitted to the Jews. Thus, the Torah that we have is as presented by Moses, rather than directly by God, and a minyan is thus required to evoke the Shechinah. The last eight verses, however, were presented by God without any involvement from Moses as intermediary; thus, this section, transmitted directly by God, is possessed of its own sanctity and no minyan is necessary. (See also Resp. Yad Yitzchak, 1:136.)

Regarding chatan Torah, the Kli Chemdah suggests that the honored status is indeed appropriate and in fact necessary. At this stage, Moses has passed away, and the risk is present that the Jewish people may feel that his influence has ended, as well. Thus, it is crucial that this misconception be challenged. The Torah of Moses continues through his students and the students of his students. Just as Joshua immediately assumed the mantle and the obligation of transmission, so too, Torah scholars in every generation continue to enlighten and guide the Jewish people with the Torah of Moses. It is thus that the aliyah is best given to a leader of the community in the tradition of Moses, to highlight the reality that we are the continued beneficiaries of his teaching and influence.

These past few years have brought many losses, losses that are irreplaceable. The pain of this is immense. Yet, at the same time, consolation and inspiration has come from the constant refrain of Am Yisrael Chai, that there is an ongoing legacy that connects us all that endures. The teachings of Moses live on in his students who transmit them and preserve them, passing them on from one generation to the next; and when they reach the end, go right back to the Beginning and start again.