TRANSLATING TORAH READING VERSE BY VERSE

QUESTION:

A colleague conducts the public Sabbath reading of the Torah services in the following way: He reads a verse or a part of a verse and then gives the English translation of that portion of the verse, and so continues to the end of the Torah reading. Is such a practice justified by tradition? (Asked by Rabbi Fredric Pomerantz)

ANSWER:

BEFORE ANSWERING the question as to the bearing of the legal tradition on this matter, we might consider first the general effect on the congregation of this type of reading. To fragmentize the reading in this way can certainly break down the majesty and the sweep of many a great Biblical passage. Since our people are not expert in Hebrew, this judgment would apply especially to a powerful Biblical passage in English, whose poetic effect is destroyed by breaking it up into separate phrases. Furthermore, some members of the congregation have already expressed themselves that this sort of fragmentation destroys the solemnity of the worship service, converting the Torah reading into a sort of Sunday school classroom exercise in word-for-word translation.

However, the above-mentioned judgments are matters of taste and matters of taste are always debatable. The rabbi might well feel that the practice which he has adopted increases the sense of intimacy between pulpit and pew, and that if it does create a classroom atmosphere, that is not too bad either. Is not the Torah meant also for instruction? But aside from this debatable matter of taste, is there anything in the traditional literature which might provide some guidance in the matter?

There seems to be a strong preference in the law, going back to the time of the Mishnah, Megillah IV, 4, that the Torah reading should be continuous and uninterrupted. The law is that while you may skip from section to section in the reading of the prophetic portion, you may not skip in the reading of the Torah from one chapter to another. By the way, we in our Reform synagogues do not observe this limitation in our reading on Yom Kippur afternoon. At that service we do break up the Torah reading, omitting parts which we deem irrelevant to the main theme. However, the law is in itself quite definite and it is so stated in the Shulchan Aruch, in Orah Hayyim 144:1.

However, there is an apparent justification for the method here referred to, of reading part of a verse and then giving the translation. The law itself makes provisions for the translation and, indeed, the translation was given verse by verse; a verse of the Hebrew and then a verse of the translation. In fact, it was required that the reader from the Torah should not read more than one verse at a time from the Torah to the translator (M. Megillah IV, 4) . You could read more than one verse at a time from the Prophets, but not from the Torah, because the translations from the Torah (upon which laws are based) had to be exact and precise. Reading out more than one verse at a time might lead to an imprecise translation or a mere paraphrase; which is not harmful in the case of the Prophets, but wrong in the case of the Torah, where every word used may affect actual religious practice.

Yet even this reading of the Torah verse by verse to the translator had its definite restrictions, all of which were carefully stated. First the translation referred to in the Talmud and in the Shulchan Aruch did not mean translation into any language. It referred exclusively to the Aramaic language, which to some extent shared the sanctity of the Hebrew. This is evident from the fact that the Talmud requires every man to prepare for the Torah reading by studying on Friday the Scriptural portion twice, and the Targum, the standard Aramaic translation, once (Berachot 8a). This Aramaic translation which was common in the practice of ancient days is no longer permitted nowadays, and the Torah must not be interrupted for it (see Shulchan Aruch, Orah Hayyim 145:3). The reference is given to the responsa of Solomon ben Aderet, from whom the Shulchan Aruch took the reason that people do not understand Aramaic nowadays anyhow.

Now even with regard to this semi-sacred Aramaic translation which had a certain status, there were defi nite restrictions. First that although for the Aramaic translation the reading may be broken up verse by verse, it was not permitted to break up a verse, but only a complete verse of the Hebrew must be read to the Aramaic translator. There was a still further restriction: The reader of the Hebrew may not serve as the translator; he must be a separate person (see Shulchan Aruch 145:1). The two functions of reading the Hebrew and translating the Hebrew were to be kept strictly apart, in order that the people should not be misled into thinking that the translation is actually found in the Torah {Orah Hayyim 145:1). But, of course, this last objection would hardly be applicable to the reader today (i.e., not to have the same man do the Hebrew and the translating). Our people are not likely to imagine that the English is found in the Torah as they might have imagined in the past that the Aramaic was found in the Torah.

To sum up: While, of course, it is a matter of judgment and taste as to whether breaking up the Hebrew of the Torah to translate it phrase by phrase destroys or does not destroy the majesty of both the Hebrew and the English section, beyond this debatable question of taste it is clear that tradition took great pains to keep the reading of the Hebrew consecutive. Permission to break it up was made only for the semi-sacred Aramaic translation, and even there only complete verses could be given to the translator. Some of the restrictions of the past are hardly applicable today, nor do we need to take them with strict literalness, especially in a liberal congregation. Nevertheless we should bear in mind the general intention to keep the Torah reading uninterrupted and thus dignified and effective.