Q&A: Twice Scripture and Once Translation
Twice Scripture and Once Translation
Question
Apparently the obligation stems from a custom (the Talmud does not say that the court enacted it). As I understand it, reading the translation today is no longer relevant—we understand Hebrew better than Aramaic (unlike in the past), and moreover, many people do not understand Aramaic at all and are reading meaningless text, from their perspective, just for the sake of the reading.
Therefore, even if they wanted to align with the rationale of the custom and institute reading Rashi’s commentary instead, why would that obligate the entire Jewish people? Is a custom like this, which began in the 15th century, a source of authority that can obligate?
Answer
This is not a custom that began in the 15th century, but rather a renewed implementation of a Talmudic custom (?). As for your claim itself that this is a custom, indeed from the wording of the Talmud it somewhat appears that way, but many halakhic decisors understood it to be a full-fledged law.
Discussion on Answer
According to this, then theoretically if the custom of the “Daily Maimonides” spreads a bit more (it has caught on pretty widely), then in another two hundred years it will become a full-fledged obligation? Instead of the statements of Rav Huna about twice Scripture, there will be quotations from the Lubavitcher Rebbe and Rabbi Kook speaking in praise of the custom.
Indeed. You do not need words of praise. A custom is binding by virtue of its having spread.
However, that would depend on whether it spread as an obligation or as a recommendation. A custom that spreads as a recommendation is not binding.
I heard a rumor that Rabbi Lichtenstein did in fact rule that nowadays, among Hebrew speakers, twice Scripture without the translation is enough. For quite a long time I have been wondering whether he really said this. If anyone knows anything about it, I would be glad to hear.
In my opinion, דווקא nowadays there is a “new” advantage in reading twice Scripture and once translation, namely learning Aramaic through the reading itself.
It helped me a great deal, though of course that requires a bit more depth in the reading, and making word comparisons between the translation and the Hebrew verse. Also, quite often the translation differs from the original verse, and Rashi also addresses this (and the translation in general).
So bottom line, is it obligatory or not?
And by the way, precisely if it is a custom, there is nothing at all problematic about it having begun in the 15th century. If it is an enactment, then you need the Great Court or the Talmud.