Interesting mehalech. The classic approach to the shaylah made it taluy on the machlokes Rashi and Tosfos (later played out by the Beis ha-Levi by duchenen and then later the Chazon Ish) on whether the din of shomea ke-oneh makes the shomea mamash like the oneh (hence RT's shitah that one should not be stop in the slient shmoneh esrei to listen to kedusah because it would be a hefsek due to shomea ke-oneh) or if the shomea is yotzei like the one who is saying it but does not mean that we treat the shomea as actually having said it (hence Rashi's shitah that we do stop to listen to kedusha and it is not a hefsek). But your mehalech has an advantage -- la-halacha we pasken like Rashi so how could one side assume shelo ka-halacha like RT. Your approach takes for granted that the pshat in shomea ke-oneh is like Rashi (and the Beis ha-levi) -- that it is not like you actually said it that way and therefore, if there is a chiyuv in the din of the kriyas ha-megilah to say it be-neshimah achas, you need to say yourself. I like it.
Anon1,
Thanks for reading and commenting. I made mention of the beis halevi in my first version of this post. I later deleted it, hoping that if I shortened it a little someone might actually read it through the end.
The same machlokes appears where the mevoreich was mafsik before the people he was motzi ate.
But I do have to say that to learn that the Rogotchover learned pshat differently than the Rambam is not going to fly. The Rogotchover held the Rambam as his rebbi, and never argued with him. My father shlitah, who, lehavdil bein chaim l'chaim, spent a good deal of time with the Rogotchover, tells me that he used to sway as he walked around his room, hugging a Rambam, saying "Rebbe, Rebbe, Rebbe."
But I do have to say that to learn that the Rogotchover learned pshat differently than the Rambam is not going to fly.
I hear. But that question really has nothing to do with MY pshat. It seems pretty clear from the lashon of the Rambam that he holds that only the korei has to say the eseres bnei haman b'nishima achas. I guess you can say 1. The Rogotchover never said this vort, or 2. The Rogotchover was just saying pshat in those that hold that everyone has to say it but he himself held that only the korei has to say it (like the Rambam is mashma).
My father shlitah, who, lehavdil bein chaim l'chaim, spent a good deal of time with the Rogotchover
Wow. BTW, tomorrow, 11 Adar is the Rogotchover's yahrtzeit.
LG, a couple of problems.
Firsty is that one can only fulfil his chiyuv for kiras hamegila with an actual megila written on klaf. Each person who has such a megilla is required to read not just those portions that are read outloud, but the entire megila quietly to himself, lest he miss one of the baal koreh's words. Thus by anyone who is able to actualy fulfill mitzvas keria he already has no need to recite it again outloud, thus cannot be for that reason. For the reason I mentioned above those who lack a parchment to read from, are forbiden to read outloud along with the baal koreh lest they be heard by themselves or anyone else and cause someone to miss a word. It is for this reason that we actualy repeat these selections while reading, because if they read them together with the baal koreh, people might, g-d forbid, listen to their voices and not those who are reading from a klaf.
further from a halachic perspective there is absolutely know requirement to read the ten sons of haman in one breath, and for this reason it is valid even as a first option if read with pauses. It is, however, a venerable custom concerning beautifying the mitzvah.
YOu do have to answer these issues inorder to have a decent answer after all.
Coridialy
HNC
(A freilichen purim!)
HNC,
There is no chiyuv whatsoever for anyone to read along with the koreh. There is some debate if it is at all recommended or not. Obviously if one is concerned that he may miss some words, reading along from a kosher meggilah would solve that problem.
As far as the requirement to read the ten sons of Haman in a single breath, the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch both rule that that is the way those words should be read. However, if one is unable to read the words clearly in that manner, the requirement to hear all the words would override this requirement.
To the first commenter -
You are confusing two separate issues.
The Bais Haleivi's chiddush was that shomeah ke'oneh works for the words said not how they were said. This is unrelated to the machlokes Rashi and R"T. Even according to R"T that it is mamesh as if the listener said the words, nevertheless argues the Bais Haleivi it is only that he said the words not how they were said.
Please look up the Bais Haleivi, and you will see he never advanced his position according to Rashi only.
Hi! Please grab anti-Olmert's Purim buttons from http://samsonblinded.org/blog/
pu...rim_banners.htm
The buttons are free and could be hotlinked. Let's make some fun of Olmert!
Independentfrumthinker ---
I know that the Beis haLevi himself does not cite either Rashi or Rabenu Tam in his shitkl. My point is that the machlokes between the Beis haLevi and others on this point has often been tied to the machlokes of Rashi and RT. I agree that the equation is not 100% muchrach (and by the same token, there are other approaches which would be mechalek bircas kohanim from other mitzvos that use shomea ke-oneh and call into question the whole chiddush of the beis haLevi). You can also be mechalek as you are suggesting (and I hear the chiluk) -- my only point is that others before you and me have made the connection between the Beis Ha-Levi's chiddush and the machlokes Rashi/RT.
Anon -
I hear you. However, I think taking a Stikel Torah of the Beis Haleivi and making it dependent on a Machlokes Rashi with R"T, is something to expect from a Mesivta Bachur. Anyone looking at it a little deeper realizes it is completely unrelated. The Beis Haleivi knew that Machlokes Rishonim. If he didn't mention it, he meant what he said L'Kuli Alma.
Independentfrumthinker --
I hear what you are saying as well. It has been a while since I looked at the beis ha-levi inside. However, the reason it didn't bother me so much to say that the Beis ha-Levi was just within Rashi is that given the whole Beis ha-Levi on this point was but a paragraph long, I didn't have a problem saying that his vort was aliba de-hilchisa, i.e., like Rashi (his other pieces there also appeared to be more halachic than lomdus in nature, re: multiple brachos for tzitzis and his piece on ha-Tov veha-metiv -- again it's been a while but that's what I remember). Bli neder I will see if I can find the mareh mekomos of who suggested this mehalech -- my recollection is that it was not just a mesivta bochur 
-- but I don't want to write the name that I do think I remember before I check.
anon1 -
Okay. Keep me posted. But I still stand by my words that such a "tliyah" is "tzugepast" for a Mesivta Bachur.
Anyway, be well and Hatzlocho.
I think your pshat is correct. The only relevance the Beis Halevi has to this shikkel is the fact that the Rogachover learned like him in the inyan of shomeiah koinah. The yesod of the Beis Ha Levi has been clarified as applying only Birchas KoHanim as opposed to the Kirah in Bikkurim, etc. by the Emek Brocha (and, in my opinion, the Beis Halevi himself--look carefully at his wording toward the end).
Thank you. I appreciated a true shtikkel on the net.
Commenting by HaloScan
