Q&A: Twice the Scripture and Once the Translation — the End?
Twice the Scripture and Once the Translation — the End?
Question
Dear Michi, hello. I’m interested in your opinion about the kind of Jewish laws that today seem completely unnecessary (and even at the time they were ruled, they seemed unnecessary). I’ll take as an example the matter of reading the weekly portion twice in the original and once with the translation—what for?! Who does that help?! Fine, reading the text twice I can understand: reading a text twice helps long-term memory. But the translation?! Why break my teeth over words I don’t even understand, when the original purpose was exactly the opposite—to understand the Torah through the translation? And granted, in the time of the Talmud—but who exactly was speaking Aramaic by the time of the Shulchan Aruch? Why did it write that “a God-fearing person should read the translation”? I’d be glad to hear your response.
Answer
I feel the same way you do. The basis of the matter lies in the view that this is a formal Jewish law, and therefore it remains binding even when its reason has lapsed, until a Sanhedrin comes and changes it. After that come the after-the-fact justifications, such as that it is a good tool for learning Aramaic (for the Talmuds, at least before Steinsaltz and Schottenstein).
I really do not understand the halakhic decisors who turned this into a formal Jewish law. That is not how it appears in the Talmudic text.
Discussion on Answer
In my personal opinion, Onkelos’s commentary is dozens of times preferable to Rashi’s commentary, if only for the simple reason that it consistently tries to distance itself from any anthropomorphic conception of God (and in my view that trains a healthier way of thinking). Rashi’s commentary, which is based on midrash and is really not a plain-sense commentary, does not try to do this, and it instills ways of understanding the midrashim literally. Maimonides already wrote about this.
I have to point out that it really did help me learn Aramaic 🙂
Of course, it takes more effort to match up the words in the translation with the words in the verse, so you can’t just rattle through it.
Also, there are quite a few verses where the translation sheds light, or significantly changes how the verse is understood.
*Aramaic
In general, you can find solutions for Jewish laws of this kind; for example, for twice the Scripture and once the translation, one can read Rashi’s commentary in place of the translation.