Q&A: Translation
Translation
Question
Hello, Rabbi, I would be happy to ask about translation.
Tosafot on Megillah 23b:
"They taught this only in a place where they do not translate—and on this we rely, namely that we do not translate the haftarot throughout the year, and likewise the Torah portions."
Tosafot on Berakhot 8a-b:
"Twice the Scripture and once the translation—some explain that the same applies to foreign-language speakers, that in their own vernacular it is like translation, since it sometimes explains. For just as the translation explains things to the unlearned, so they understand through the vernacular. But this does not seem right, for the translation explains matters that cannot be learned from the Hebrew, as we find in several places that Rav Yosef said (Megillah 3a), 'Were it not for the translation of this verse, I would not know what it means.' Therefore one cannot say it a third time in any language except the language of the translation."
"And even Atarot and Divon, etc.—Rashi explained: even Atarot and Divon, which have no translation, must be read three times in Hebrew. This is difficult, because why did it mention Atarot and Divon, seeing that they nevertheless do have a Jerusalem Talmud translation? It should have said Reuven and Shimon, or some other verse that has no translation at all. One can say that for this reason it mentioned Atarot and Divon: even though they have no well-known translation other than the Jerusalem Talmud translation, and one must still read the Hebrew three times, nevertheless it is better to read the third time in translation."
1. Is it known whether these Tosafot are the same Tosafot in Megillah and in Berakhot?
2. Must one say that the Tosafot in Megillah were determined in accordance with their reasoning about the nature of translation,
or can one say that this ruling was made independently of their reasoning about the nature of translation? (Even if they held that public translation must be only Onkelos, and that in a place where the custom is to translate one translates regardless of whether the public understands Aramaic, and that Targum Onkelos was given at Sinai, and that only it must be read for twice the Scripture and once the translation, and so on, it would still be possible to say that only in some places was there a custom to translate and in some places not.)
3. With the Rabbi's permission, a question somewhat connected to the topic: I would be happy to understand how it is possible that the person called up to the Torah recites the blessing without reading out loud (or even without reading at all, according to some opinions), while the Torah reader is the one who reads aloud—whether according to the view that the blessing was instituted in honor of the Torah that is read in the public reading by different people, or whether it was instituted in order to fulfill the obligation of the commandment. I would be happy if the Rabbi could explain how this mechanism is halakhically possible with respect to the blessing, and whether there is anything similar to it.
Answer
1. I have no idea. Why does it matter?
2. The translation was given at Sinai? Where did you get that idea from? In any case, I do not see any connection to the discussion.
3. I did not understand the question. Either the Torah reader reads on his behalf and thereby fulfills his obligation for him, or the reading is done publicly in that manner and it does not matter which member of the congregation reads it out loud (as we find in the Talmudic passages in Sukkah regarding the public recitation of Hallel).
Discussion on Answer
You completely lost me.
The statement that the translation was given at Sinai is certainly not correct. Maybe it was said only to reinforce the point.
I already answered about the split between the reading and the blessing.
1. If these are different Tosafot, then there is no need to take into account the reasoning about translation in Berakhot.
2. When the Rabbi said he does not see a connection to the discussion, does he mean as an answer to the question that the Tosafot in Megillah are not dependent on their reasoning about the nature of translation?
For example, Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, positive commandment 19: "We say in the first chapter of Berakhot [8a] that a person is obligated to complete his Torah portions with the congregation, twice the Scripture and once the translation, and Rabbenu Yitzhak seems to hold that throughout the week he reads with the congregation, and the time for completion is as it is written in the midrash: Rabbi commanded his sons, 'Do not eat bread on the Sabbath until you have completed the entire portion.' And I argued before my teachers that commentary is more useful than translation, and my teachers agreed with me [see Tosafot there], but Rabbenu Yitzhak did not agree. And likewise Rav Amram, who replied in the name of Rav Natronai, said: specifically the translation, which merited to be given at Sinai, as is implied in the first chapter of Megillah [3a]. It was taught in the Tosefta [and it is brought in the second chapter of Kiddushin 49a, with the explanation in Tosafot there]: Rabbi Yehuda said, 'One who translates a verse literally is a liar, and one who adds is a blasphemer.' Explanation: for example, 'And they saw the God of Israel'—one who translates literally, 'and they saw the God of Israel,' is lying; and one who adds, translating 'and they saw the angel of the God of Israel,' is blaspheming, because he calls the honor of the Divine Presence an angel."
3. Regarding the first example, the question is how one person makes the blessing while the other fulfills the commandment on his behalf—if the other person both makes the blessing and fulfills it on his behalf, that I can understand better (I think one of the Geonim raised the difficulty in this formulation). As for the second possibility, there too, if I am not mistaken, there is always one person who both makes the blessing and performs the commandment.