Overlapping verses?

Ruth Wilson 5 years ago updated by mori 5 years ago 7

I’m curious about the overlapping verses in Aliyot 4 (4-8) and 5 (6-10) of this week’s parasha Ki Tavo. 


Thanks Rabbi Schlesinger!

I received the same explaination from the editor of the Luach.  

My interest further piqued, I asked my former rabbi George Schlesinger. Here’s his answer.

In 27:11-26, >span class="">which is composed of curses, should not be divided in order to avoid starting or ending on a negative note. Likewise, 28:15-69 should not be divided for similar reasons. Some overlapping is necessary in years II and III and the reading in year III is longer in order to meet the minimum requirement of verses and to avoid unwarranted divisions. Also, in Year II, verses 6-8 in chapter 27 are repeated in aliyah #5 to avoid beginning the aliyah too close to a paragraph ending (i.e. within three verses of the ending). This is necessary in order to guarantee seven aliyot in the Seder where 27:11-25 cannot be interrupted

And so not to have you think I’m so smart or “all-knowing”…the answer comes from the original T’shuvah (1995) of Rabbi Richard Eisenberg who “created” the RA’s official triennial reading list.

I know, that really doesn’t make sense.


If it is based on the CJLS document, then the second year of the triennial cycle would have been the same for all these years?

Thanks for checking!  I’ve been reading Torah for 15 years and never seen overlapping Aliyot. It’s been in the source document all these years, so it must be intentional. 

We noticed that during Torah reading.  We have several Torah readers from the local university so the overlap was not noticed beforehand.  I checked the Luach for the Conservative movement and that had the same list. 

 I checked the source document from The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly: A Complete Triennial System for Reading the Torah, 1988, updated in 1995. Those documents have the same list.

If I had to guess, I would say Aliyah # 4 should have been 27:4-6. Or, I am just missing something in all this?