Q&A: Twice Scripture and Once Turkish
Twice Scripture and Once Turkish
Question
Hello Rabbi. I have the practice of reading on Friday, after prayers, the weekly portion twice in the original and once with the translation, as written in the Shulchan Arukh. Personally, it contributes nothing for me; it mostly just bothers me because it takes 40 minutes, and it’s clear that the translation doesn’t really translate anything at all, but only makes things more confusing (like an English-Turkish dictionary).
Is there, according to the Rabbi’s view, any value in such a reading at all? Maybe it’s a good thing to go over the weekly portion, but this format doesn’t really give anything. Maybe it would be better to replace it with studying a particular commentator on the portion (a question within a question, in the Jewish way— is there an interpretive advantage to Rashi, Abarbanel, and Nachmanides over Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Cassuto, and Nehama Leibowitz?), or should one simply give it up entirely? (It should be noted that I would not study something else instead; I would just go about my business.)
Thank you very much
Answer
It makes much more sense to read with another commentary. The halakhic decisors wrote this explicitly, at least regarding Rashi. I think it makes more sense to use a modern commentary such as Da’at Mikra and the like. I don’t think it matters which commentator it is, although there is reason to prefer one who explains all the verses rather than someone who writes ideas on the weekly Torah portion.
It already appears in the Shulchan Arukh that teachers of children are exempt, and the simple implication is that it holds that the explanation they give children counts in place of the translation.