Torah portion

MRR 14-17

TORAH READING ON FRIDAY

QUESTION:

At one of the smaller American colleges, because of the heavy student schedule it seems impossible to have services other than on Friday night. The students, therefore, have services at that time and also read the Torah. The local rabbi prohibits the reading of the Torah on Friday night (which is not a traditional Torah-reading time) and declares that reading the Torah at this traditionally unauthorized time would make the Torah unfit for proper use at regular services. Is this judgment of the rabbi justified by the legal tradition? (Question by Rabbi Stanley R. Brav, Cincinnati, Ohio.)

ANSWER:

BEFORE going into the legal question involved, it is worthwhile calling attention to a remarkable coincidence with regard to this question and to the geographical source of the enquiry. Naftali Zvi Berlin, the famous head of the Volozhin Yeshivah, was asked almost the identical question by a rabbi from Cincinnati in the United States (see Berlin’s responsum #16 in Meshir Davar).

The question from Cincinnati which was sent to Volozhin two generations ago was as follows: The syn-agogue was celebrating the dedication of a new Ark of the Law and the chief celebration took place on Sunday morning. The Torahs were carried around in procession. A lay leader in the congregation was not content merely with the fact that the Torahs should be carried around in procession; he also wanted to have the Torah opened and read in regular fashion as part of the celebration. The rabbi objected on the ground that it is a sin to add to the requirements of the law as it stands now (bal tosif) , and he based his objection against this Sundaymorning reading on the statement of the Mordecai to Megilah, Chapter I, objecting to reading the Megilah one day later than the authorized date on the fourteenth of Adar.

In answer to this objection Berlin says that there is no sin of “unauthorized addition” (bal tosif) involved here. He calls attention to the fact that on the eighth day of the holidays which are not authorized in Scrip-ture, we read the Torah and recite blessings. Since the public reading of the Torah is not a Biblical require-ment, but a Rabbinical one, it is not a sin to add to the readings. The sin of adding (bal tosif) applies only to Biblical commandments. However, although it is not prohibited, he is against it as a novelty and also because it involves reciting a blessing unnecessarily (berachah levatalah). He admits that the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud are at variance with each other and that we ought to lean over in the direction of strictness because reciting the blessing might be a blessing in vain (levatalah). But even so he is not too firm on the matter, since he asks the rabbi whether the lay leader is a learned man. If he is, then he may have a reason for this or some other precedent. But if the man is ignorant, he should be brushed aside for wanting such a novelty.

It can be seen from the above responsum that it is far from certain in the mind of this great scholar whether the reading of the Torah and the recital of the Torah blessings are really prohibited. He admits the possibility that the man who wanted it may have had some justification. But, of course, in accordance with the general Orthodox mood, he objects to any unauthorized novelty (that is, if it really is unauthorized) .

On the basis of the above it is clear that the rabbi in the college town has no basis for being so sure that the Torah may not be read at any other than the customary times. As for his statement that the reading of the Torah on Friday night will make the Torah unfit for use at other times, that statement, with all due respect to him, is absurd. A Torah is unfit for use (pasul) if it is incorrectly written, or if it is punctuated, or if written by a heretic. The various conditions under which a Torah is unfit are all clearly defined (cf., Yoreh Deah 274 ff.). But to say that reading the Torah at unau-thorized times makes it unfit (pasul) for reading at authorized times is totally unjustified. It is hard to believe that he actually made such a baseless statement. I would say to him exactly what Naftali Berlin said concerning the layman in Cincinnati: If he is a learned man (and in the case of a rabbi, we assume he is) then we would like to know the reason for his statement that the Torah can be made unfit by an irregular reading. In general one must say with regard to such a dire possibility that in Jewish traditional law the Torah is considered remarkably resistant to being spoiled. Any unclean person may read the Torah because of the general principle that the Torah is proof against uncleanness (see Talmud Berachot 22a). The Torah scroll which is, according to older custom, taken out to be read to a bridegroom (not at the regular reading hours), the Torah which may be read by any unclean person and the blessings recited by him or her, is not so easily made unfit.

To sum up: While Orthodoxy naturally objects to any new custom, it is far from clear (judging by Naftali Berlin’s response) that it is forbidden to read the Torah at other than the regular times. As for making the Torah unfit if it is so read, there seems to be no justification at all for such a decision.

CORR 40-44

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.

ARR 94-100

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

37. Reading the Torah Portion in the Vernacular

(Vol. XXIII, 1913, pp. 167-170) To begin with a question of liturgy submitted to this Conference by the congregation Temple Emanuel of San Francisco through its rabbi, Dr. Martin Meyer: the query is whether it is advisable and proper to read the portion from the Torah in the vernacular. Let us state that from the point of view of the ancient tradition there can be no doubt that the proper way is to read the Scriptural portion of the Torah first in the original from the Scroll, and then translate it to the assembly of worshippers in the language which they understand or speak (whether verse by verse or the whole portion together). This is evidenced by the first mention of the public reading from the Law in Nehemiah 8:8, instituted by Ezra the Scribe. When, in the course of time, the reading of the portions of the Torah assigned to each successive Sabbath and the Holy Days was made an integral part of the divine service, it became the regular custom of the ancient synagogue to have the same read from the Scroll and then translated into the vernacular. This was at first done in Aramaic by one especially appointed for this function, called the Meturgeman. The translation was known as the Targum, and this name was thereafter given to the Aramaic translation of the Scripture. As the Jewish people moved into the various lands, there arose translations of the Bible in various languages, all owing to the custom of having the Torah reading (Mikra) translated for the congregation into the vernacular. The oldest translation which has come down to us preserved in its totality, but at variance with our traditional (Masoretic) text, is the one made for the Jews of Alexandria in their Greek vernacular, the so-called Septuagint, named thus after the seventy (-two) elders to whom legend or tradition ascribed the work. It appears, however, that when this Greek translation was introduced in the synagogues of Alexandria, the reading of the text from the Scroll fell into abeyance, and the Hebrew was soon forgotten altogether, as is amply shown by the writing of the philosopher Philo and other Jewish authors of Alexandria. In consequence of this neglect of the Hebrew original, the Alexandrian Jews, while working during several centuries for a great Jewish propaganda in the spirit of prophetic universalism, were sooner or later led away from many views and practices of Palestinian Judaism and were ultimately absorbed by Greek-speaking Christendom. This deplorable fact ought to serve today as a warning against omitting the reading from the Scroll–Mikra— while the Scriptural lesson of the day is–as it should be–brought home to the congregation in the vernacular, the language which the great majority of the worshippers understand. On the other hand, a no less deplorable change took place in the main synagogue. In the same measure as the surrounding world of humanity, to which the synagogue was to bring its prophetic message, had been lost sight of by the framers of our liturgy, the ancient practice of reading from the Torah and the Prophets was allowed to become petrified, “a work of men done by rote.” No cognizance was taken any longer of the multitude of people who failed to understand the Hebrew, and the translation into the vernacular was dropped altogether. The whole institution intended to make the whole people of Israel conversant with the law, with the ideas, and with the ideals of Judaism, became for an ever-growing number of Jewish worshippers a soulless custom, void of meaning and impressiveness. Only as the modern era of reason and enlightenment aroused the spirit of reform in Judaism, ushering in all those innovations in the liturgy which tend to revive the ancient spirit of genuine devotion, changes were introduced also in regard to the Scriptural readings. The beginning was made with the so-called Haftara, the prophetic lesson of the day, which in most Reform synagogues is read exclusively in the vernacular. In regard to the Torah lesson, however, no common practice has been established as yet. As a rule, the rabbi selects a small portion of the Sabbath or Holy Day Parasha for translation before reading the Haftara or prophetic lesson, leaving the rest untranslated. The reason for this practice is obvious. First of all, the Parasha assigned by the synagogue for the day is too lengthy to hold the interest of the congregation all the while, and, secondly, there are too many statutes and sentences that would, when translated, offend the taste and the sensibility of the hearers, passages concerning which the Mishna has already set down the rule: “Nikra-in veein mitargemin,” “They are to be read [in the original], but not translated to the people.” Now, the logical conclusion of this very Mishnaic rule and all that has been stated here seems to be that our aim and endeavor in our divine service should be to transform the Torah Reading from the mechanical and meaningless function into which it has lapsed during the past ages, into a real and genuine source of instruction and inspiration, as it was intended to be at the outset. Accordingly, it should be recommended that the Torah lesson of the day–however small a portion of the same may be selected–be read from the Scroll in the original and then translated into the vernacular, the same to be followed by a Scriptural lesson from the Prophets or the Psalms or any other of the sacred writings read solely in the vernacular. By reading the Torah lesson in the Hebrew original previous to the translation of the same into the vernacular, the impressiveness of the ancient custom is greatly enhanced and at the same time the continuity of the synagogue tradition is maintained. Another question well to be considered is, whether such chapters as Tazria-Metsora and similar portions offensive to our taste and void of all religious meaning for us, ought not be omitted altogether and replaced by those beautiful and inspiring portions of Deuteronomy which, according to our calendar, are assigned to the hot season of the year when the synagogues are empty, and which ought by all means to be read before larger assemblies, being of such highly educational, ethical, and prophetic character. Of course, at present this must be left to individual discretion.K. Kohler and D. Neumark

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 276-277

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

184. Torah Reading for Second Day of

Shavuot

QUESTION: This year the second day of Shavuot

will be celebrated on shabbat by Orthodox and some Conservative Jews. This means

that the cycle of Torah readings may for the subsequent weeks be different for those

Reform and Conservative Jews who celebrate only one day of Shavuot. What should the

Torah reading be for us? How should we handle this situation so as to bring a minimum

confusion to the Jewish community? (Rabbi S. Karff, Houston, TX)ANSWER:

Initially the answer to this question seems simple. After all, the Israeli Jewish community,

both liberal and traditional, observes only one day of the holiday and so continues reading the

Torah one portion out of step with the Diaspora community until the next double portion is

reached, in this case (huqat-balaq). That is a possibility for us in the case of

Shavuot or when the eighth day of Pesah falls on a

shabbat. This solution is desirable for those congregations which read the

entire Torah portion. It is, however, not necessary for those congregations which read the

Torah on a tri-annual cycle with only a portion of the sidrah read during each

shabbat. Then it would be equally possible to read a segment of the following Scriptural

portion, in this case nasa, and another segment on the next

shabbat. This solution has the advantage of not separating us from the

remainder of the Diaspora Jewish community. The Israeli solution is fine, but there the entire

community, Orthodox and Liberal, follows the same pattern. We would recommend a division of

the Torah portion for most congregations, and therefore, maintain the same cycle as the

rest of the Diaspora community. For congregations which read the entire portion, the other

solution is equally appropriate.August 1986

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

✕