Shnayim Mikra V'echad Targum
[1] (Halacha 1106)
The basis of the law
The Gemara in Maseches Brochos1 says: 'Rav Huna bar Yehudah said in the name of Rabbi Ami: A person should always complete his parshiyos together with the congregation, twice the Mikra and once the Targum2, and even עטרות ודיבן ("Ataros and Divon"); for whoever completes his parshiyos together with the congregation, his days and years are lengthened'.
The Rambam3 wrote: 'Even though a person hears the entire Torah every Shabbos with the congregation, he is obligated4 to read for himself, each and every week, the portion of that Shabbos, twice the Mikra and once the Targum; and a pasuk that has no Targum he reads three times, until he completes his parshiyos together with the congregation'.
Halachically, the Mechaber and the Alter Rebbe cited5 the words of the Rambam: 'Even though a person hears the entire Torah every Shabbos with the congregation, he is obligated to read for himself each week the parsha of that week, twice the Mikra and once the Targum'.
[Note what was written6 by the chassid Reb Boruch Schneur Schneersohn, the grandfather of the Rebbe, of the words of the Rebbe Rashab: 'On Shabbos Parshas Noach, at the morning seudah, the Rebbe שליט"א spoke that it is an obligation and a necessity to read individually Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum each and every Shabbos, whether on Erev Shabbos or on the day before the seudah, as explained in the Gemara and in the Shulchan Aruch, Hilchos Shabbos, and further words on this'. The Rebbe Rayatz wrote7 to the yeshivos that they should establish supervision over the yeshivah students to see that they say it: 'On Erev Shabbos Kodesh, learning begins at the ninth hour .. from twelve o'clock until the first half hour, a seudah. Afterwards, reading the parsha Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum under the supervision of the teacher'. He further wrote8: 'I am interested to know whether there is supervision over the students, may they live, that they go over the parsha Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum ..'].
The Shevet HaLevi9 wrote: 'Regarding Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum, of which our Sages of blessed memory said in Brochos 8a that a person should always complete his parshiyos with the congregation, Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum: it is a rabbinic mitzvah; and the Rambam, chapter 13 of Hilchos Tefillah, halacha 25, wrote "he is obligated to read for himself," etc. He changed from the wording of the Gemara so that you should not say that it is only a good practice, as the plain sense of the Gemara implies; therefore he wrote the language of obligation, for it is a complete obligation. And as to whether one would be compelled regarding it, as one is compelled regarding other positive mitzvos, even rabbinic ones, according to several views — see Tosafos Kesubos 86 and other Rishonim on this; and in the responsa of the Rashba, vol. 4, siman 264, he wrote that one is compelled even regarding rabbinic positive mitzvos, and this is the view of many poskim, and it is possible that the same applies to Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum; see Sdei Chemed vol. 3, 39 .. And regarding whether it is called a mitzvah whose reward is stated alongside it, for which one is not compelled — and Talmud Torah is called a mitzvah whose reward is stated alongside it, see there in Yoreh De'ah in the sefer Nachalas Tzvi by the author of the Pischei Teshuvah — and Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum is a branch of Talmud Torah within the category of an independent rabbinic obligation; therefore I am in doubt whether compulsion applies. Nevertheless it is a great obligation, and Chazal received that one who is careful in it lengthens his days; and due to our many sins, people have begun to be lax in it, and it is already known how careful our fathers and our Rabbis were in this'.
The Igros Moshe10 wrote: 'Regarding the mitzvah that each and every one is obligated to read the parsha each week, twice the Mikra and once the Targum — and our Rabbis, even among the Rishonim .. added that one must also learn Rashi's commentary on the entire parsha — which has become very neglected even among many bnei Torah. It is simple and clear that just as no person is exempt from any rabbinic mitzvah on the claim that he is engaged in Torah study, so too they are not exempt even from this mitzvah. On the contrary, even one whose Torah study is his occupation, like Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his colleagues, who were exempt from the rabbinic tefillah, were obligated in reading the parsha twice the Mikra and once the Targum. For this too is Torah study, and within the obligation of Torah study there is an obligation to learn Mikra as well .. Accordingly, it is clear that reading Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum is certainly automatically included in his obligation from the very obligation of Talmud Torah each week. For this study which the Sages designated to be learned each week, he is certainly obligated in it, and he cannot exempt himself by studying another matter of Torah, whether Written or Oral, aside from the additional mitzvah that the Sages obligated. Consequently, there is no exemption from it even for those whose Torah study is their occupation, like Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his colleagues. And particularly in our generation, when we cannot say that we are well-versed in Mikra'.
[Note also what the Rebbe wrote11: 'Regarding what you wrote about Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum and the study of Chassidus — since this study may come to be drawn out, and in general has no fixed limit, and in addition Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum has a fixed time, it seems to me that one learns Chassidus after Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum. This is of course if we are speaking of individual study and not when gathering together, etc. And we learn all this from Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim, end of siman 431'].
We will conclude with the allusions that our early Rabbis alluded to regarding the importance of saying Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum:
Rabbeinu, the Ba'al HaTurim12 wrote: 'ואלה שמות בני ישראל ("And these are the names of the children of Israel"). The initial letters form: ואדם אשר לומד הסדר שנים מקרא ואחד תרגום בקול נעים ישיר יחיה שנים רבות ארוכים לעולם ("A person who learns the sedra twice the Mikra and once the Targum, singing in a pleasant voice, will live many long years, forever")'.
The Chida cited Rabbeinu Ephraim13: 'And Rabbeinu Ephraim z"l, in his commentary in manuscript, wrote: ואל"ה שמו"ת14 is an acronym for וחייב אדם לקרות הפרשה שנים מקרא ואחת תרגום ("A person is obligated to read the parsha twice the Mikra and once the Targum")15.
> Thus in this halacha we have seen that the Sages enacted that everyone is obligated to say Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum each week; in the next halacha we will see the reasons for the enactment
--------------
Notes:
1 8a ↩
2 The Aruch HaShulchan (Orach Chaim siman 285, se'if 2) wrote: 'The reason for the matter is not known to us, *and certainly at the time that Moshe Rabbeinu instituted the reading of the Torah, he also instituted this enactment, that each person should read twice the Mikra and once the Targum'*. In Beis Arazim (Klein), vol. 3, Orach Chaim siman 285, he wrote: 'This halacha is not in the Mishnah nor in a Braisa, but only an unattributed statement of the Amoraim. It is not explained whether it is from the Torah and learned from a verse, or received orally, or whether it is an enactment of the Sages; nor is the reason for the halacha explained, and why twice the Mikra and why once the Targum. *It is reasonable that it is an enactment of Ezra, like all the other enactments of the orders of tefillos and brochos, which are from the Men of the Great Assembly* .. And there is some support for the matter from the Gemara in Nedarim 38b, where we expound that he instituted the Mikra and the Targum and the division of the cantillation, and presumably this enactment is also included in it; only a reason is needed why they did not count it among the enactments he instituted in Bava Kamma 82, but it is possible that there are also enactments that they did not count there, or because it was already explained in the aforementioned verse in Nedarim. And one cannot ask from what we say in Megillah 3a, that the Targum of the Torah was said by Onkelos, for they said there that they forgot them and re-established them; if so, it is possible that it was already a fixed enactment from the days of Ezra, and it was forgotten in the days of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, and they re-established it. And one cannot say at all that it is an enactment newly introduced in the time of the aforementioned Rav Huna who says this statement below, for in the Gemara we say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi already warned his sons about this, and Tosafos cited from the Midrash that Rabbeinu HaKadosh already commanded about this' ↩
3 Hilchos Tefillah, chapter 13, halacha 25 ↩
4 Like the wording of the Rambam, that one is obligated, so wrote the Smag, positive mitzvah 19; the Chinuch in his introduction; the Rosh, Moed Katan chapter 3, siman 28. The Tur, Orach Chaim siman 285, wrote: *'And one must be careful* to complete the parsha'. In Menoras HaMa'or (part 6, chapter 2, os 130) he wrote: *'It is a mitzvah* to complete one's parshiyos'. However, in the Shibbolei HaLeket (siman 75) and in Tanya Rabbasi (siman 16) they wrote: *'It is proper* for every person to arrange his parshiyos'. [Note what the Maharsham wrote (Responsa vol. 1, siman 213): 'And even though reading Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum is not an obligation like the reading of the Torah, nevertheless, for one who has made it an obligation upon himself, it appears that he gives precedence to the obligation of the day in all cases'] ↩
5 Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim siman 285, se'if 1 ↩
6 Reshimos HaRabash p. 155, and in the Kraus edition p. 136 ↩
7 Igros Kodesh vol. 14, p. 42 ↩
8 Igros Kodesh vol. 6, p. 290 ↩
9 Responsa vol. 8, siman 46 ↩
10 Responsa Orach Chaim vol. 5, siman 17 ↩
11 Igros Kodesh vol. 16, p. 189 ↩
12 Shemos 1:1 ↩
13 Cited by the Chida in Chomas Anach, Shemos os 2. The Levush, Orach Chaim siman 285, halacha 1, wrote likewise ↩
14 See the Chida there, who wrote to explain according to Kabbalah the connection between the allusion and ואלה שמות. See also the words of the Tzemach Tzedek in Ohr HaTorah, Vayikra vol. 2, Derushei Pesach p. 439 ↩
15 See Mateh Yehudah, Orach Chaim siman 285, s"k 9 ↩
[2] (Halacha 1112)
The reason for the enactment
Question: Why did the Chachamim institute saying Shnayim Mikra?
Answer: Regarding the reason for the enactment of Shnayim Mikra, we find several explanations in the Rishonim:
a) Torah study — The author of Sefer HaChinuch wrote in his introduction: 'And one of the mitzvos, which is the principle and foundation upon which they all rest, is the mitzvah of Torah study, for through study a person knows the mitzvos and fulfills them. And therefore Chazal1 established for us to read one portion of the Sefer Torah in the place where the people gather, which is the shul, to arouse a person's heart to the words of the Torah and the mitzvos, each and every week, until they complete the whole book .. And furthermore, Chazal obligated each and every Jew to read it in his home each and every week, just as it is read in the place of gathering; and this is what they, of blessed memory, said: A person should always complete his parshiyos with the congregation — so that he will understand the matters better when he reads it in his home'.
[And the Levush2 wrote: 'Chazal obligated every Jewish person to complete the parsha each week with the congregation, Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum, so that he will be well-versed in the Torah ..'. And further on3 he wrote: The reason for Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum is only so that he will be accustomed to the Torah; therefore the Chachamim obligated only the parsha of each and every Shabbos'. And the Aruch HaShulchan4 wrote: 'And the Levush wrote: so that he will be well-versed in the Torah, see there; and this is not sufficient, as is understood. And it appears that the obligation in Torah is hearing and study, as we say in the bracha of Ahavah: to hear, to learn. And behold, the hearing is on Shabbos, from a kosher Sefer Torah written according to law and halacha; therefore he should first learn in the Chumash, and [then] ascend in holiness to hear [it] from the Sefer Torah. And it is stated in Sotah5: General principles and details were said at Sinai, repeated in the Ohel Moed, and stated a third time in Arvos Moav, see there; therefore one must learn [it] three times, even a pasuk that has no Targum, as will be explained, corresponding to these three ..'].
b) Aliyah to the Torah — The Shibbolei HaLeket6 wrote, and so it is in the Tanya Rabbasi7: 'And it is proper for each and every Jew to review his parshiyos two and three times, so that if he is called up to read in the Torah, his reading will be fluent in his mouth. And so it is explicit in the Tanchuma, Parshas Vayishma Yisro: וידבר אלהים ("And G-d spoke") — this is what the verse says8: "אז ראה ויספרה הכינה וגם חקרה" ("Then He saw it and recounted it; He prepared it and also searched it out"), and afterwards "ויאמר לאדם" ("And He said to man") etc. The Torah has taught you derech eretz: that if you have Torah, your spirit should not be haughty, to say something before the congregation until you have gone over it between yourself and yourself two or three times. There was an incident with Rabbi Akiva, whom the chazzan called publicly to read in the Torah, and he did not want to go up. His students said to him: Our master, did you not teach us thus: "כי היא חייך וארך ימיך" ("for it is your life and the length of your days")? Why then did you refrain from going up? He said to them: By the [Temple] service! I did not refrain from going up except because I had not reviewed it two and three times, for a person is not permitted to say something before the congregation until he has gone over it two and three times between himself and himself. For so we find with the Holy One, blessed be He, who gives the power of speech to all creatures, and the Torah is revealed before Him [as written] one; and when He came to give it to Yisroel, it is written in it: "אז ראה ויספרה הכינה וגם חקרה", and afterwards "ויאמר לאדם". And so it is written: "וידבר אלהים את כל הדברים האלה" ("And G-d spoke all these words") — between Himself and Himself — and afterwards "לאמר" ("saying")'.
c) Reading the entire Torah — The Terumas HaDeshen9 wrote: 'However, there appears to be some proof from what was written in the Hagahah in the Maimoni in the name of Rabbeinu Simcha z"l, and this is his wording: Even though the main mitzvah is [to complete] each and every parsha with the congregation, if he did not do so, he should complete all of them on Shemini Atzeres, on which the congregation completes [the Torah], provided that he neither precedes nor lags one day behind the congregation. End [of quote]. From here it appears, since he fixed the day on which the congregation completes the five Chumashim of the Torah each year, it implies that the main obligation that the Rabbanan required, to complete the parshiyos with the congregation, is so that each Jew should read for himself the entire Torah from beginning to end each year, as the congregation does, and therefore he must finish precisely on the same day that the congregation finishes; for even though he did not read with them all year, we follow the completion of the mitzvah in every place. And so it is implied from the wording of the Rambam that this is the reason, for he wrote, and this is his wording: Even though every person hears the entire Torah each year with the congregation, he is obligated to read for himself each and every week the portion of that Shabbos'.
d) A substitute for Krias HaTorah — The Raavan10 wrote: 'A person should always complete his parshiyos with the congregation, twice the Mikra and once the Targum. It seems to me that it is speaking about an individual living in a city who does not have ten to read in the Torah, that he must aim for the hour that the congregation reads the parsha in the shul, and he too should read alone twice the Mikra, corresponding to the two who read in the shul, and once the Targum, corresponding to the translator in the shul11, for such was their minhag, as we learned12: one who reads in the Torah should not read less than three pesukim, and should not read to the translator more than one pasuk. For if, as my masters explained, it is speaking about the reading of the parsha on Shabbos morning, as we are accustomed, let it say: a person should always read the parsha on Shabbos twice the Mikra etc. — why do I need "with the congregation"? Rather, certainly [it means] actually with the congregation, as I explained. And furthermore, why do I need twice the Mikra etc.? Will they not hear [it] in the shul and fulfill their obligation? Nevertheless, our minhag is a complete minhag, for at times he is unable to concentrate his mind in the shul on the entire parsha, and he fulfills [his obligation] with the reading that he already read'.
And in the Hagahos Maimonios13 he wondered about his words: 'And it is astonishing, from what is stated in the Midrash: Rebbi commanded his sons three things etc., and presumably Rebbi commanded [this] in every case, and not with the intent [that it apply] only when they would be individuals without ten. And furthermore, from [the incident of] Rav Bibi bar Abaye, who thought to complete all of them on Erev Yom Kippur, and presumably he was with a congregation. And all the more so according to the explanation of Rabbeinu Chananel, who explained "to every parsha of the Kallah" — explanation: the four parshiyos of Elul, because of the busyness of the derashah; and if so, there were many there, and even so he was not exempt from completing the parshiyos. End [of quote]'.
> Thus we have seen several reasons that were brought in the Rishonim [and there are further reasons brought in the Acharonim14]. In the coming halachos we will deal with the details of the laws.
Notes:
1 Bava Kamma 82a ↩
2 Orach Chaim, siman 285, se'if 1 ↩
3 Se'if 7 ↩
4 Orach Chaim, there, se'if 2 ↩
5 37b ↩
6 Siman 42 ↩
7 Siman 6 ↩
8 Iyov 28, ↩
9 Siman 23 ↩
10 Shu"t, siman 88 ↩
11 The Maadanei Yom Tov wrote, Brochos, chapter 1, siman 8, os 4: 'And it seems to me that by "the two readers" he means the reader and the shliach tzibbur, for indeed there must be one standing over the reader, as stated in the Yerushalmi, [which] our master wrote in Perek HaKorei Omed; and see the Divrei Chamudos (os 41)' ↩
12 Megillah 23b ↩
13 Hilchos Tefillah, chapter 13, os [ש] ↩
14 See Matteh Moshe, siman 464; Toras Moshe of the Chasam Sofer, Parshas Ki Savo 27:8; Ruach Chaim (of Rabbi Chaim Palagi), part 1, siman 285, os 2 ↩
[3] (Halacha 1115)
Who is obligated (an ill person, a blind person)
Question: Is an ill person obligated in Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum?
Answer: The Radbaz1 wrote: 'You asked me to inform you of my opinion regarding what our Sages of blessed memory said, that a person is obligated to complete his parshiyos with the congregation: if he was blind, or ill in his eyes and unable to read, whether he is obligated to go to another who will read while he listens; and likewise, if he does not know how to read, whether he is exempt from this obligation. And if he has no constraint, whether he is exempt through hearing, that another reads and he listens, or not? Answer: The matter is clear that one who hears is like one who reads; the reading of the Megillah, the blowing of the shofar, Krias HaTorah on Shabbos, and one who hears the tefillah from the chazzan — all these prove that one who hears is like one who reads. And therefore, if he heard word by word, it is obvious that he has fulfilled [his obligation] .. Therefore, if [he heard] Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum, he has fulfilled [his obligation], provided that he concentrates on [it] word by word. And regarding the ill person, I see that he is entirely exempt, for he is no less than one who is in distress, who is exempt from the sukkah, which is a positive mitzvah of the Torah. And one who has an ailment in his eyes — hearing is difficult for him; and for this reason one does not visit those with eye ailments, because speech is difficult for them, and also hearing'.
> Thus, according to the words of the Radbaz, an ill person, and likewise one who has an ailment in his eyes, are exempt from Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum, and the Chida2 brought it as halacha.
And in the Kaf HaChaim3 he wrote: 'Nevertheless, it appears that he should complete it after he recovers, so that his Torah of Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum should not ascend to the heavens lacking in that year'.
But several Acharonim4 raised difficulties against the Radbaz and rejected his proofs, as Rabbi Yosef Engel5 wrote: 'His words require great investigation, for what does this have to do with one in distress regarding sukkah? For there the Torah was not at all lenient in the mitzvah on account of distress; rather, the reason is because the nature of the mitzvah is "teshvu k'ein taduru" (you shall dwell [in the sukkah] in the manner that you live [in your home]), and when he is in distress it is not in the manner that one lives, for a person does not live in a dwelling of distress, and this is not the nature of the mitzvah. And see Rokeach, siman 219, that even an ill person is exempt from sukkah only if he is ill on account of the sukkah, see there; that is, if sitting in the sukkah is harmful to his illness. But if sitting in the sukkah is not worse for his illness than [sitting] in the house, it is obvious that even an ill person is obligated in sukkah, and all the more so one in distress; and this requires investigation'.
And based on this, the Chazon Ovadiah6 wrote: 'A blind person, and an ill person whose eyes hurt, are obligated to hear the reading of Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum from the mouth of a man who is obligated in the matter, and they fulfill the obligation by the principle of shomea k'oneh'7.
> Thus we have seen that some wrote that an ill person is obligated in Shnayim Mikra, at least to hear [it] from another, and some exempted him entirely; however, even according to this view, some wrote that it is proper to complete [it].
Question: Is a blind person obligated in Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum?
Answer: The Rashba8 wrote: 'Whenever the Sefer Torah is open it is forbidden to talk, except for one whose Torah is his occupation, who is permitted to converse about its halachos, like Rav Sheshes, who said: they [are occupied] with theirs, and we with ours. And presumably he too would complete his parshiyos. And even so, [this applies] specifically to him, whose Torah is his occupation; but another is forbidden. And it is written "ואזני כל העם אל ספר התורה" ("and the ears of all the people were [attentive] to the Sefer Torah") (Nechemiah 8), and it is written "ובפתחו עמדו כל העם" ("and when he opened it, all the people stood") — there is no difference whether he completed [it] for himself or did not complete [it]'.
> It is explained in his words that a blind person must say Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum, and therefore Rav Sheshes, even though he was blind, completed his parshiyos.
However, the Radbaz9 [the Chida10 brought it] wrote: 'But if he is blind, it depends on a dispute: according to the one who says [a blind person] is exempt from all the mitzvos stated in the Torah, he is exempt from this as well; and according to the one who says he is obligated, he is obligated in this as well. Nevertheless, it seems to me that even according to the one who says a blind person is obligated in mitzvos, he is exempt from this obligation; for since [regarding] words that are written, you are not permitted to say them by heart, and this is impossible [for him] from the written text, since he does not see; and likewise we exempt him from all the mitzvos that depend on seeing, even though they are from the Torah, such as going up and appearing [before Hashem] and testimony — all the more so he is exempt from this obligation, which is merely rabbinic. And even though here it is possible through hearing, we have not found a matter in which one would be exempt by himself, because it does not apply [to him], and yet become obligated through others. And a proof is from that of Rav Sheshes, who would turn his face aside and learn at the time they were reading in the Torah; and there is one who says [this was] because Rav Sheshes was blind and was not obligated in hearing the Torah, and for this reason he would turn his face aside and learn; and for this reason he is obligated in the Oral Torah, since its mitzvah is oral .. Therefore, in our case, if he was blind, or had an ailment in his eyes, or does not know how to read, he is exempt from this obligation; and if he knows [how], he is exempted through hearing'11.
The Kaf HaChaim12 brought the words of the Radbaz and wrote: 'And this is according to the strict law; however, one who is stringent to hear from others, may a bracha come upon him, and so it is proper to do'.
But in the Teshuvah MeAhavah13 he raised a difficulty against the words of the Radbaz: 'And to me the matter requires investigation as halacha .. And what he wrote, that Rav Sheshes was blind, and some say [that] because of [the law of] written words etc. he would turn his face aside etc. — this is in Tosafos in Maseches Sotah, daf 39a, s.v. Keivan; and this explanation is not reasonable to Tosafos there, nor in Maseches Brochos, daf 8a, s.v. Rav Sheshes. And I found explicitly in Tosafos in Maseches Bava Kamma, daf 3b, s.v. K'midtargem, that they rejected this explanation, but rather [held that] because of "עת לעשות לה'" ("it is a time to act for Hashem") a blind person may say [it] by heart; and likewise in the Piskei Tosafos there. And in the Tur, siman 49, he wrote in the name of the Rosh that they only said [the law of] written words etc. with regard to fulfilling the obligation of the many; and so wrote Tosafos in Maseches Temurah, daf 14b; and see the Magen Avraham and the Pri Chadash there'.
And the Yaavetz in his Siddur14 wrote: 'I wrote in my work that a blind person should read the Targum three times; see there the matter with its reason'.
> Thus we have seen that the poskim disagreed whether a blind person is obligated in Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum, and some wrote that he should make an effort to hear [it] from others15.
--------------
Notes:
1 Part 3, siman 425 (867) ↩
2 Machazik Bracha, Orach Chaim, siman 285, se'if katan 4 ↩
3 There, se'if katan 9 ↩
4 See Moadei Hashem (of the Gaon Mahari Najar) 78, 3; Shu"t Rabbi Akiva Yosef Schlesinger, siman 104 ↩
5 Gilyonei HaShas, Brochos 8a ↩
6 Hilchos Shabbos, part 1, Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum, din 12 ↩
7 But see the words of his son in Halacha Berurah, Birur Halacha, siman 285, se'if katan 6, who wrote: 'However, it appears that the Radbaz does not mean to say that an ill person is exempt because of the very fact that he is in distress on account of his illness; rather, his intent is in a case where the reading harms him in his illness, and the reading itself burdens him to the point that because of it he feels unwell and becomes weaker. And regarding this the Radbaz wrote that it is similar to one for whom sitting in the sukkah harms his illness and who is in distress because of the very sitting in the sukkah, who is exempt from the sukkah; that is, regarding sukkah we find that they were more lenient than with other mitzvos and exempted the one in distress, and indeed it is not exactly similar to sukkah. And so it is evident from the words of the Radbaz himself, further on in his words, regarding one who has an ailment in his eyes, that he is exempt because the very hearing of the reading is difficult for him. (And so wrote the sefer Kerem Ephraim, maamar 10, in a note, to reconcile [this])' ↩
8 Shu"t, part 1, siman 206 ↩
9 There ↩
10 There, se'if katan 5 ↩
11 And see the Pri Megadim, Orach Chaim, Mishbetzos Zahav, siman 285, se'if katan 2 ↩
12 There, se'if katan 10 ↩
13 Part 2, siman 242 (mentioned in Kerem Shlomo, of Rabbi Shlomo Haas, Orach Chaim, siman 285) ↩
14 HaNoheg B'Erev Shabbos, din 23 ↩
15 And see Birur Halacha there, se'if katan 7: 'And as for halacha, it appears that although it is possible to reconcile the words of the Radbaz mentioned above, nevertheless, since from the words of the Rashba in the aforementioned responsum it is explained that a blind person is obligated in Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum — and so one can say according to the view of the Rishonim who hold that with a blind person the prohibition of "written words, you are not permitted to say them by heart" does not apply, either because it is "עת לעשות לה'", or because this prohibition applies only when he comes to fulfill the obligation of others — consequently, certainly wherever possible the blind person must make an effort and exert himself to hear Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum from others. And so ruled the Chazon Ovadiah, Shabbos, part 1' ↩
[4] (Halacha 1116)
Who is obligated (women, minors)
Question: Are women obligated in Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum?
Answer: In the Mishneh Halachos1 he wrote: 'Regarding his further question, whether women are obligated in Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum: behold, it is obvious that women are exempt2, for Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum is included in Torah study according to several poskim, and women are exempt from Torah study, and according to the Rishonim they are forbidden to learn, and it is as if he teaches her frivolity (tiflus) — see Sotah 21. And even according to the view of the Rambam, chapter 1, halacha 13, of Hilchos Talmud Torah, that the Written Torah one should not teach her initially, and if she learned it on her own it is not as if he teaches her frivolity — nevertheless, at any rate, initially he should not teach her, and the Chachamim commanded that one should not teach his daughter Torah; and if so, how would they have instituted an obligation of Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum for her?'.
However, a woman who says Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum, may a bracha come upon her3.
Question: Is there a law of chinuch for children regarding Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum?
Answer: At the farbrengen of the day of Simchas Torah 57164, the Rebbe said [=in free translation]: 'In general, the Rebbe, nishmaso Eden, presumably conducted himself like all Jews, that from bar mitzvah he already went over the sedra ..'.
And similarly, the Rebbe said on Shabbos Parshas Vayeilech, 6 Tishrei 57255: 'Generally, every child from the age of bar mitzvah goes over the sedra together with the haftarah'.
In the words of the Rebbe there is no mention regarding reading before the bar mitzvah, but we find in the words of the Acharonim6 that they held that there is also a law of chinuch in saying Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum, and that this is the minhag, as follows:
In Shu"t Shevet HaLevi7 he wrote: 'And it is obvious that one must accustom the minors who have reached [the age of] chinuch to this, as I saw done many times in chutz laaretz, that is, reading with the cantillation of the Mikra, and being very careful to finish the parsha each week with the Targum, and also Chumash and Rashi, as explained in the Orchos Chaim of the Rosh, and in the Tur, siman 285, and other poskim; and it is a great level toward pure fear of Hashem, which endures forever'.
And in the Chazon Ovadiah8 he wrote: 'But the reading of Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum, which is under the law of Talmud Torah — this is included in the father's obligation to teach his son Torah, as it is said: "ולמדתם אותם את בניכם" ("And you shall teach them to your sons"). Therefore he is obligated to educate his son in reading Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum; and even though it is possible for him to exempt himself by reading another parsha, nevertheless, when it is possible to fulfill [the practice of] completing his parshiyos with the congregation, it is much preferable .. And I remember that the great Rav, the distinguished teacher, Rabbi Shlomo Abu zt"l, who was our teacher in the Talmud Torah 'Bnei Tziyon', would teach us in our childhood, every Erev Shabbos, Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum with the cantillation'.
In the Teshuvos V'Hanhagos9 he wrote: 'And regarding a minor, whether there is an obligation of chinuch for this: seemingly it is no less than all the mitzvos in which there is an obligation of chinuch, when the minor is at the age of six or seven, each according to his sharpness, as written in the Mishnah Berurah, siman 70, se'if katan 6, and at the beginning of siman 269 .. But perhaps one may be lenient here, since the essence of the mitzvah is not mere reading but rather to learn and to understand, as written; and if so, the time to educate him is not so early, but rather when he himself understands [how] to learn the parsha and to understand [it]10. And from thirteen onward he should not exempt himself under any circumstances; and due to our many sins, today there are commonly those who belittle this mitzvah, and it is proper to remark to them about this'.
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach11, too, wrote that there is a law of chinuch for minors in saying Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum, and in Dvar Halacha, os 48, he remarked: 'And even though he does not understand the language of the Targum so well, he is no worse than a boy of thirteen years, who also, after all, does not understand the language of the Targum thoroughly, and nevertheless fulfills [his obligation] with it .. However, initially it is certainly proper to understand the meaning of the Targum well'.
> Thus we have seen that many poskim held that one should educate children in saying Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum even before bar mitzvah.
Notes:
1 Shu"t, part 6, siman 60 ↩
2 See also Chut Shani, part 4, chapter 87, se'if katan 2, os 7; Nishmas Shabbos, part 2, siman 334; Revavos Ephraim, part 6, siman 215, os 35 ↩
3 Chazon Ovadiah, Shabbos, part 1, Hilchos Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum, halacha 13 ↩
4 Sichos Kodesh 5716, p. 51 ↩
5 Toras Menachem, vol. 41, p. 37 ↩
6 And so wrote Shu"t Shraga HaMeir, part 7, siman 28; Shu"t Kinyan Torah, part 7, siman 19 ↩
7 Part 8, siman 46 ↩
8 There, p. 306 ↩
9 Part 1, siman 261 ↩
10 It should be noted that in the sefer HaChinuch VeHaMechanech, p. 116, he wrote to accustom children to saying Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum from the age of ten ↩
11 Halichos Shlomo, Tefillah, chapter 12, os 37 ↩
[5] (Halacha 1122)
Yom Tov, and Shabbos Chol HaMoed
Question: Does one say Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum on the reading of Yom Tov?
Answer: Rashi1 wrote: 'Should complete his parshiyos — of each and every Shabbos'. From the words of Rashi one can understand that saying Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum is only in relation to the Krias HaTorah of Shabbos.
However, it is explained in several Rishonim that one says Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum on Yom Tov as well, as written in Sefer HaIttim2: 'And nowadays, too, they have adopted the practice in our places, on Shabbosos and Yamim Tovim, that Jews rise early when they get up from their sleep .. and each one completes in his home his parshiyos with the congregation, Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum, and afterwards they go to the shuls and arrange their tefillah .. but this minhag has something of a prohibition in it, for when each Jew rises early from his sleep, he must relieve himself, wash, prepare himself, and run to the shul and daven Krias Shema and tefillah with the first rays of the sun; but when each one delays in his home to review the parshiyos, they are greatly delayed, until the time of Krias Shema and tefillah in its proper time passes; and at times on Yamim Tovim they delay greatly, up to two hours ..'.
And in the Orchos Chaim3 it is written: 'But on Shvi'i shel Pesach .. and the next day they rise early and read the parsha of the day, Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum'.
And the Agudah4 wrote: 'He thought to complete the parshiyos [of the whole year] on Erev Yom Kippur. Some explain "of the whole year" to mean the Shabbosos of the Moed; this implies that one must review the parshiyos of Yom Tov'.
And the Nimukei Yosef5 wrote so also regarding a Shabbos that falls on Yom Tov or Chol HaMoed: 'Explanation of "his parshiyos": that parsha in which the congregation is occupied on that Shabbos; and even the parshiyos of the festivals that fall on Shabbos, when there is no other parsha on that Shabbos, he is obligated, and we do not say that since that parsha is read in the week fixed for it, it is enough'.
> Thus, according to the words of these Rishonim, one says Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum on Yamim Tovim as well, and some wrote so also regarding a Shabbos on Yom Tov or on Chol HaMoed.
However, the Maharam Mintz6 asked his teacher, the author of the Terumas HaDeshen: 'And also, may my master instruct me whether a person is obligated on Yom Tov to review the parsha, Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum, as on Shabbos, or not. And it seems to me there is some proof that he is not obligated, as stated in the Hagahah in the Maimoni, chapter 2 of Hilchos Tefillah, and this is its wording: We learn in Maseches Sofrim, chapter 18: By law, one should translate for the children and women each and every sedra, and the Navi of Shabbos, after Krias HaTorah; and this is what they said: on Shabbos one comes early etc. and leaves late, so that [the people] will hear the explanation of the sedra; but on Yom Tov etc. one leaves early, for by law one is not [required] to explain to them; for Rav said: one does not set up an amora over himself from one Yom Tov to the next. End of its words. And from here it is implied that one need not. However, it is not a complete proof, for it says "by law one is not [required] to explain" etc., implying that by law there is not, but by minhag there is. And furthermore, since it says "to explain to them", it implies that for the masses it is not necessary, but each one for himself should translate and explain. And there is further slight proof from what is stated in the Hagahah at the end of chapter 3 in the Maimoni, Hilchos Tefillah, from Rav Bibi bar Abaye, who thought to complete all the parshiyos of the whole year etc., and Rabbeinu Chananel's version reads "these parshiyos of the Kallah" — explanation: the four parshiyos of Elul etc.; and if he also needed to review the parshiyos of Yom Tov, it would be more than four. However, one can reconcile that perhaps the main derashah was on Shabbos, and therefore he had no free time, but on Yom Tov he had free time to review the parsha. However, according to the reason he wrote afterwards in that same Hagahah, that perhaps he will not concentrate his mind in the shul etc., according to this reason it would be proper to review on Yom Tov as well. And if you will say that one need not review on Yom Tov, nevertheless I am in doubt regarding Shabbos Chol HaMoed whether he is obligated to translate, for as it appears, he is obligated; [for] on Yom Tov, perhaps the reason that they do not translate is because they come late, since they need to prepare their food, and therefore they did not burden [them to stay late] so much in the shul; but on Shabbos this reason does not apply. It seems to me that one must translate. However, the wording does not imply so, and this is a difficulty for me'.
And the Knesses HaGedolah7 wrote: 'And from his words there it is implied that his view inclines more toward completing than toward not completing'.
However, the Terumas HaDeshen8 himself wrote regarding Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum on Yom Tov, or on the Shabbosos on which the four parshiyos are read: 'It appears that they did not have the practice of completing it, and I do not have so much of a reason and proof [for this], and one cannot infer from Rashi, who explained "a person should complete his parshiyos" — of each and every Shabbos — implying specifically what is read on all the Shabbosos of the year; for one can say that he spoke of the usual case, and the same applies to what is read on Yom Tov, for he is not like a peddler [who enumerates everything]. However, there appears to be some proof from what was written in the Hagahah in the Maimoni in the name of Rabbeinu Simcha z"l, and this is his wording: Even though the main mitzvah is [to complete] each and every parsha with the congregation, if he did not do so, he should complete all of them on Shemini Atzeres, on which the congregation completes [the Torah], provided that he neither precedes nor lags one day behind the congregation. End [of quote]. From here it appears, since he fixed the day on which the congregation completes the five Chumashim of the Torah each year, it implies that the main obligation that the Rabbanan required, to complete the parshiyos with the congregation, is so that each Jew should read for himself the entire Torah from beginning to end each year, as the congregation does; and therefore he must finish precisely on the same day that the congregation finishes, for even though he did not read with them all year, we follow the completion of the mitzvah in every place. And so it is implied from the wording of the Rambam that this is the reason, for he wrote, and this is his wording: Even though every person hears the entire Torah each year with the congregation, he is obligated to read for himself each and every week the portion of that Shabbos. And since this is the reason for the completion, it appears that the Rabbanan required only that he complete the parshiyos of the entire Torah just once a year; and if so, we do not need to complete the parshiyos of Yom Tov and of the four parshiyos and other Musaf readings, since he completed each one on its Shabbos. However, it appears that according to the explanation of Rabbeinu Chananel, who disagrees with Rabbeinu Simcha, as stated in the Hagahah there, and does not explain that [incident] of Rav Bibi bar Abaye as referring to the parshiyos of the whole year — they disagree on this very reasoning: for according to that version and explanation, the reason for the completion is not so that he will finish the Torah each year, as Rashi explained, but possibly so that he will be accustomed to what the congregation reads; and if so, he would need to complete the parshiyos of Yom Tov and the Musaf readings according to this reason. Nevertheless, even if this is so, the minhag is reconciled according to the view of those other Geonim; and it is likely in my eyes that our masters did not have the practice of completing [them]'.
And as halacha, the Mechaber wrote9: 'One need not read the parsha of Yom Tov'.
However, there are Acharonim who wrote to say Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum on Yom Tov as well, as Rabbi Dovid Arama10 wrote: 'And likewise the parsha of the festivals'. And the Shelah11 wrote: 'Indeed, in the responsa of the Maharam Mintz he inclines [to the view] that one should complete the parshiyos of Yom Tov and the Musaf readings as well. And so is my practice, because even if you will say that it is not by law, nevertheless he receives reward as one who reads in the Torah'.
And regarding Shabbos Chol HaMoed, the Knesses HaGedolah12 wrote: 'And it seems to me that according to the one who says that regarding the parsha of Yom Tov one need not complete [it], the same applies to the parsha of Chol HaMoed; and so the minhag has spread'.
And the Olas Shabbos13 wrote: 'One need not read. And the same applies to Chol HaMoed; and we hold as a principle that wherever one reads what was already read in the order of the parshiyos, one need not go back and read [it], and so wrote the Acharonim z"l'.
> Thus, in practice, one does not say Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum of the Yom Tov reading, nor on a Shabbos that falls on Yom Tov or on Chol HaMoed14.
Notes:
1 Brochos 8a ↩
2 Siman 174 ↩
3 Seder Tefillos HaPesach U'Shear HaMoados, os 3 ↩
4 Brochos, chapter 1, siman 18 ↩
5 Brochos 8a ↩
6 Shu"t, siman 34 (1) ↩
7 Hagahos HaBeis Yosef, Orach Chaim, siman 285, os 1 ↩
8 Siman 23 [and in Pesakim U'Kesavim, siman 170] ↩
9 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 285, se'if 7 ↩
10 Hilchos Tefillah, chapter 13, halacha 25 ↩
11 Maseches Shabbos, Ner Mitzvah [os 17]. Brought in the Eliyahu Rabbah, se'if katan 11 ↩
12 There, os 2 ↩
13 Siman 285, se'if katan 4 ↩
14 The Rebbe mentioned (Likkutei Sichos, vol. 28, p. 247, note 58) that there are those who have the practice of saying Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum of the weekly parsha before Shabbos even when, in practice, the parsha is not read on that Shabbos, for example on an Erev Shabbos that falls on Yom Tov or on Chol HaMoed. But in practice he wrote (Likkutei Sichos, p. 109, note 8) that one does not say [it]: 'Also on an Erev Shabbos on which Pesach falls, when there is no reading of Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum of Parshas Shemini, the connection of Parshas Shemini is emphasized' ↩
[6] (Halacha 1128)
Te'amim
Question: Must one read Shnayim Mikra with the te'amim?
Answer: It is written in Sefer Chassidim1: '"זמירות היו לי חוקיך" ("Your statutes have been songs to me") — David would set aside all the songs and melodies in the world in order to occupy himself with Torah; he would read the te'amim with their pleasant tunes, their accents and their melodies. But as for those who go about saying the verses in a mocking manner, and they are in their mouths like a song of lust — the Torah is destined to cry out against them and say: Master of the World, Your children have made me like a harp, and when they read me in their haste, they do not read with the melodies of the te'amim. And also those who interrupt the verses with talk — against them it cries out and says: You divided me into eight thousand five hundred pesukim, and they have divided [me] into more than six hundred thousand. And moreover, they do to me even what one does not do in mundane conversation: a person speaking of mundane matters does not break off from one matter to another, yet they interrupt my words to occupy themselves with idle matters'2.
And it is written in Sefer HaYirah of Rabbeinu Yonah: 'And one should read the Mikra with its cantillation, for when one reads without melody, the Torah girds itself in sackcloth'.
And so it is written in Sefer Minhogim d'Bei Maharam: 'Every person must complete his parshiyos with the congregation, Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum, or read the Mikra a third time in the vernacular; and the one reading should read with the cantillation, for when one reads without melody, the Torah girds itself in sackcloth'.
And so the Arizal wrote3: 'Know also that when you read the Mikra, you must read it with the te'amim of those pesukim'.
And in the Shu"t of the Bach4 he writes: 'And likewise, in order to fulfill one's obligation of Shnayim Mikra, it must be with the te'amim'.
However, the Pri Megadim5 drew an inference from the words of the Magen Avraham regarding teachers of young children: 'I did not understand; for if they read the Mikra twice with the children, the Targum alone suffices. And it appears from this that the melody of the te'amim is not specifically required'.
And the Alter Rebbe6 wrote regarding the practice of the Arizal to read Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum from a kosher Sefer Torah: 'One who is fluent in piskei te'amim by heart — it is good that he read Shnayim Mikra in a kosher Sefer Torah every Erev Shabbos'7.
And Rav Avraham Chaim Naeh8 writes: 'And one must read the Mikra with the melody of the te'amim; so writes the Machazik Bracha, and it is cited in the Kaf HaChaim, siman 285. And so it is implied from what the Radbaz writes, cited in the Magen Avraham, that if he is fluent in the te'amim he should read in a Sefer Torah — evidently te'amim are required. And so is the custom. However, the Alter Rebbe z"l wrote that one who is fluent in piskei te'amim should read in a Sefer Torah; he added the word "piskei", implying that the te'amim themselves are not indispensable, only the piskei te'amim, that is, that he know the place where there is a pause, which the te'amim indicate. However, it is possible that for the sake of the mitzvah of reading in a Sefer Torah, if he is proficient in the piskei te'amim alone it suffices, but in a Chumash it must be with the te'amim; and the Pri Megadim writes explicitly that b'dieved the te'amim are not indispensable'.
However, in the Chazon Ovadia9 he writes on the words of the Pri Megadim: 'This is not compelling, for one can say that the children too would learn before their teacher with the te'amim .. And so it is written, as we have said, in Shu"t Shevet HaKehasi, vol. 4 (siman 95). And in any event, it appears that the intent of the Pri Megadim should be explained as meaning that the te'amim are not indispensable — for example, for one who does not know the te'amim — and therefore b'dieved one fulfills the obligation of Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum without te'amim. But lechatchilah, even the Pri Megadim agrees that one must read the parsha with the te'amim of the Mikra. And in Sefer Minchas Shabbos (siman 72, os 42) it appears that he understood from the words of the Pri Megadim that even lechatchilah one need not read Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum with the te'amim of the Mikra. But this is not compelling. And so I saw in Sefer Birur Halacha, which writes that the Pri Megadim agrees with the words of the Radbaz and those who follow his view, that one must read the parsha with the te'amim of the Mikra'.
And in practice, the custom is to say it with te'amim, as the Rebbe Rayatz wrote10: 'But regarding the intermediate, younger and small students, it is necessary to include this in the order of studies .. reading with te'amim, so that they will know how to review the weekly parsha, Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum, with the cantillation melodies received through the Mesorah'.
Question: What about the Targum?
Answer: The Arizal writes there: 'But the Targum need not be read with te'amim, for there are te'amim only in the Mikra, in Lashon HaKodesh — unlike those who are accustomed to read even the Targum of the pesukim with te'amim'.
And the Chida wrote11: 'And in Sefer Korban Shabbos, chapter 5, daf 14, he explained the reason according to the way of Kabbalah, and there it is explicit that the Targum must be read specifically without te'amim, and that one should be particular about this; see there'.
And in Shu"t Torah Lishmah12 he writes: 'Question: There are those who act piously by reading the Targum of the parsha with te'amim as well — does this custom of theirs have a basis and root? .. Answer: This custom has no root or foundation at all; on the contrary, whoever adds, detracts. For our great master the Arizal zt"l revealed explicitly that there are te'amim only in the Mikra, in Lashon HaKodesh, and one need not read the Targum with te'amim, as mentioned in his Ta'amei HaMitzvos on Parshas Va'eschanan, see there. And it is known that the te'amim are a very lofty aspect, and they were given only in the Mikra, which is the mystical aspect of the "front", and not in the Targum, which is the mystical aspect of the "back"'.
> Thus, in practice, lechatchilah one must say Shnayim Mikra with te'amim, but the Targum without te'amim.
--------------
Notes:
1 Siman 147 ↩
2 And see Yosef Ometz, vol. 2, Perek HaTorah, os 10 ↩
3 Sha'ar Ta'amei HaMitzvos, Parshas Va'eschanan ↩
4 HaChadashos, siman 42 ↩
5 Orach Chaim, Eshel Avraham, siman 285, se'if katan 9 ↩
6 Siman 285, se'if 4 ↩
7 However, in practice our custom is not to read from a Sefer Torah, as the Rebbe said on Shabbos Parshas Vayigash, 5 Teves 5748 (Toras Menachem 5748, vol. 2, p. 67): 'Nevertheless, the actual custom — "ma'aseh rav" — also among the gedolei Yisroel, and likewise among our Rebbeim, our Nesi'im, is to read Shnayim Mikra (not from a kosher Sefer Torah, but rather) specifically from printed Chumashim'. And in Igros Kodesh, vol. 16, p. 189: 'Reading the parsha of the Nesi'im (at the beginning of Nissan) from a Sefer Torah — my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, did not conduct himself so, nor regarding Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum (even though it is also cited in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe (285:4) that it is good to read Shnayim Mikra in a kosher Sefer Torah). And it is known that the practices of my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, were like the practices of his father and those above him in holiness. — And our Sages, of blessed memory, have already said: each river follows its own course' ↩
8 Ketzos HaShulchan, siman 72, Baddei HaShulchan, se'if katan 1 ↩
9 Shabbos, vol. 1, p. 304 ↩
10 Igros Kodesh, vol. 6, p. 152 ↩
11 Machazik Bracha, Orach Chaim, siman 285, se'if katan 7 ↩
12 Siman 406 ↩
[7] (Halacha 1137)
The Manner of Saying It
Question: What is the proper way to read Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum?
Answer: It is written in the writings of the Arizal1: 'The practice of my teacher z"l: immediately upon finishing the Shacharis tefillah of Friday, he would go to the shul or to his beis midrash; if there was a kosher Sefer Torah there, he would take it out and read in it the parsha, Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum. He would read the Mikra from the Sefer Torah, and he had one student who would read the Targum to him from a book of Targum, and he would repeat it after him. And so he would do with each and every pasuk until he completed the parsha. And he did not do as some who are presumptuous, reading the entire parsha as Mikra once and repeating it as Mikra a second time, and afterwards reading all of it together as Targum a third time. Rather, he would read each and every pasuk by itself, Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum'.
> Thus, according to the Arizal, it is proper to say each pasuk Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum.
The Shelah2 writes: 'There are further differing minhogim. (a) Some read each and every verse Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum. (b) And some complete the entire sedra twice as Mikra and the third time as Targum. (c) However, I have received the choicest way: to act according to the plain meaning of the wording of the Gemara3, reading each and every parsha Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum. And a "parsha" means either a parsha pesuchah or a parsha setumah — not that the whole sedra is called a "parsha" — but rather in the sense of what Rashi wrote on Vayikra4: to give a pause between parsha and parsha; and that is a parsha pesuchah or setumah. And so is the wording of the Gemara in Brochos, daf 95: "[103] parshiyos in Sefer Tehillim" etc. And with this the wording is precise when they said "a person should always complete his parshiyos" etc. For it is difficult: why did he call them ["his parshiyos"]? He should have said, "a person should always complete 'the parshiyos'" etc. Rather, the term "parsha" does not refer to the sedra, but only to the open or closed parshiyos'.
> Thus, according to the Shelah, the choicest way is to read each parsha pesuchah or setumah twice, followed by the Targum.
And the Divrei Chamudos6 writes: 'In Sefer Even HaEzer of the Ra'avan he writes that it corresponds to the two who read and the one who translates; and I explained in the Ma'adanei Yom Tov that it seems to me his intent is the reader and the shliach tzibbur, and the third is the translator. And from here it seems to me that the intent of our Sages in saying that one should read Shnayim Mikra is that he should read one pasuk alone twice, as the congregation would do when they translated, as we learned in Megillah there, that one should not read more than one pasuk to the translator; and just as the reason there is that the congregation does not understand more, so too this reason applies to an individual. And it is well understood why it says "shnayim" in the masculine form, for if it referred to a parsha, [meaning] to say it twice, it should have said "shtayim v'achas". And I heard in the name of Mahar"r Shlomo Luria zt"l that he explains [it as] reading each and every parsha twice and afterwards the Targum on the whole parsha; and the reason it does not say "shtayim v'achas" is so that you should not say that two of the parshiyos one should read as Mikra and afterwards the third one should read as Targum; therefore it says "shnayim mikra", that is, that he should read all the Mikra in the parsha twice and the Targum on it once. But it seems to me that this is no difficulty, for even if it said "shtayim" etc., it is far-fetched that anyone would err and say that two parshiyos one should read as Mikra and afterwards a third as Targum, for what reason would there be for such a reading? And on the contrary, according to his words, now that it teaches "shnayim", there is room to err and explain that "twice Mikra" refers to the pasuk and not the parsha — except that indeed the explanation is so. And furthermore, from what I wrote, that in the congregation they read only one pasuk of Mikra, the individual too should properly do likewise; and all the more so according to what the Ra'avan explained, that the reason for Shnayim Mikra is that it corresponds to what is done in the congregation. Therefore it seems to me as I have written'.
We find a further minhag: there were those who said the pasuk as Mikra, then the Targum, and then returned to the pasuk as Mikra, as the Divrei Chamudos writes there: '"And one Targum" means the third time, as in the wording of Tosafos, s.v. "Ve'afilu Atros" etc., and not as I heard, that one reads the Targum in between the two times of Mikra; and even though according to the words of the Rami cited above one reads the Targum in between, even he said only that one fulfills [the obligation]'.
And so the Olas Shabbos writes7: 'One should first read Shnayim Mikra and afterwards the Targum, and not like some who err and read the Mikra once, then the Targum, and then go back and read the Mikra again; for this is not so and is not proper, and so it is evident in the Zohar and in the words of the Mekubalim'.
The Magen Avraham writes8: 'The Shelah writes that one should read each parsha twice and afterwards the Targum on it, and so writes the Rashal, and so it is implied in Megillah, daf 4. But the Lechem Chamudos, §41, ruled that one should read each pasuk twice and the Targum on it, and so writes the Hagahah on Yesh Nochalin9 in the name of the Arizal, and the Seder HaYom, and so it is written in the Kesavim; and so it is implied in siman 145, that they were accustomed so at the time when they would translate'.
And the Alter Rebbe writes10: 'Some are accustomed to read each parsha, whether pesuchah or setumah, twice, and afterwards the Targum on it immediately, before reading the second parsha, and so with every parsha. And some are accustomed to read each pasuk twice and the Targum on it immediately, and this minhag is more proper, for so they would do at the time when they would translate during the public Krias HaTorah, translating each pasuk by itself (but according to the law, one may read Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum in any manner he wishes)'.
And so the Rebbe writes in Sefer Hayom Yom11: 'Reviewing the parsha "Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum" — pasuk by pasuk'.
> Thus, although according to the law there is no restriction on how to say Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum, in practice our minhag lechatchilah is to say each pasuk by itself, Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum.
Notes:
1 Sha'ar HaKavanos, Seder Shabbos, Inyan Leil 6 ↩
2 Maseches Shabbos, Perek Ner Mitzvah ↩
3 Brochos 8a ↩
4 1:1 ↩
5 Side b ↩
6 Brochos, chapter 1, siman 8, os 41 ↩
7 Siman 285, se'if katan 1 ↩
8 Siman 285, se'if katan 1 ↩
9 Os 39 ↩
10 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 285, se'if 3 ↩
11 30 Sivan — Sefer HaMinhogim, p. 25 ↩
[8] (Halacha 1147)
A Pasuk Without a Targum
Question: What does one do with a pasuk that has no Targum?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Brochos1 says: 'Rav Huna bar Yehudah said in the name of Rabbi Ami: A person should always complete his parshiyos together with the congregation, shnayim mikra v'echad targum, and even: Atros and Divon'.
And Rashi writes: 'And even Atros and Divon — which have no Targum'.
That is to say, according to Rashi, Atros and Divon, even though they have no Targum, must nevertheless be read three times, as the Rambam writes2: 'And a pasuk that has no Targum, he reads it three times, so that he completes his parshiyos with the congregation'.
However, Tosafos raised a difficulty on Rashi: 'And it is difficult: why did he choose Atros and Divon, which in any case have a Targum Yerushalmi? He should have said Reuven and Shimon, or another pasuk which has no Targum at all'. [For a resolution of Rashi's view, see the note3]
Therefore Tosafos wrote: 'And one can answer that this is why he chose Atros and Divon: even though it has no well-known Targum, only Targum Yerushalmi, and one must read the Hebrew three times, nevertheless it is better to read the third time in Targum.
And Rabbeinu Yonah4 writes: 'Therefore it appears that this is why he chose this pasuk — to teach us that even Atros and Divon, which has no Targum Onkelos but only Targum Yerushalmi, which is "מכללתא ומלבשתא", one must say the Targum that it has; and as for other pesukim, which have neither Targum Onkelos nor Targum Yerushalmi, it is possible that it suffices to say them twice, and it is possible that one must say them three times5. From the mouth of the Rav, may his light shine'.
> Thus, according to Tosafos, a pasuk such as Reuven and Shimon, which has no Targum at all, one says three times as Mikra; but the pesukim of 'Atros and Divon', which have a Targum Yerushalmi, the third time one says the Targum Yerushalmi, and not the pasuk itself three times. Rabbeinu Yonah wrote as they did, but was in doubt regarding a pasuk that has no Targum, whether it requires three times or whether twice suffices.
And the Rosh6 writes: 'Even Atros and Divon — Rashi explained: which has no Targum. And it is difficult, for he could have said even Reuven and Shimon and the like. And it appears that he chose Atros and Divon because there are seforim in which a Targum is written7, and in the Yerushalmi too it is translated. According to this explanation, he chose Atros and Divon even though there is not so great a need for Targum; but Reuven and Shimon and the like need not be read three times. Nevertheless, the practice is to be stringent in accordance with Rashi's explanation'.
And so writes the Tur8: 'Even Atros and Divon — Rabbeinu Shlomo explained: even though it has no Targum; and according to this explanation, even Reuven and Shimon and the like must be read three times. And some explain that he chose Atros and Divon because there are seforim in which Targum Yerushalmi is written, and he chose Atros and Divon even though they do not so greatly need Targum; and according to this, Reuven and Shimon need not be read three times. Nevertheless, the practice is to be stringent in accordance with Rashi's explanation'9.
> Thus, according to the Rosh and the Tur, the practice is to be stringent like Rashi and to say these pesukim three times, and not to suffice with saying the Targum Yerushalmi.
As halacha, the Mechaber writes10: 'One is obligated to read for himself each week the parsha of that week, shnayim mikra v'echad targum, even Atros and Divon'.
And the Levush11 writes: 'And even pesukim that have no Targum, such as Atros and Divon, and the same applies to Reuven and Shimon and the like, one is obligated to read three times: twice in place of the Mikra and once in place of the Targum'12.
And the Shelah13 writes: 'It appears to me that one should read the pesukim "יברכך ה'" etc., "יאר ה'", "ישא ה'" etc. three times, and afterwards the Targum — for those who are accustomed to be stringent to read Reuven and Shimon three times. For these pesukim and the pesukim of Reuven and Shimon etc. are equivalent, as is implied in Rabbeinu Yonah .. We learn from this that according to those accustomed to be stringent to read Reuven and Shimon three times, they should also read Birkas Kohanim three times. And even though it has a Targum, for there is found in our Chumashim a Targum on these pesukim, it is possible that this Targum is not one received from Sinai. Therefore one should read the Mikra three times and also the Targum — perhaps it is a received Targum and was not revealed in the days of Rabbeinu Yonah. After I wrote this, I found in the Siddur of Mahar"r Hirtz z"l that he wrote14 on "bless us with the threefold bracha": In my opinion, "threefold in the Torah" is because it has no Targum, and one must read the Mikra three times; which is not so with another bracha, which is shnayim mikra v'echad targum. And so too it stands to reason, since it says "written by the hand of Moshe" and not by "the translator". End of his words'15.
In practice, the Alter Rebbe writes16: 'And a pasuk that has no Targum, he reads it three times (and Atros and Divon etc., which has Targum Yerushalmi "מכללתא ומלבשתא" etc., he must read it)'.
And Rav Avraham Chaim Naeh17 writes: 'Now, Rashi in Brochos, daf 8, wrote that the pasuk of Atros and Divon has no Targum and one must read it three times as Mikra; and therefore the Machatzis HaShekel wrote that one should also satisfy Rashi's view and read the pasuk of Atros and Divon three times, and he brings from the Shelah something similar regarding Birkas Kohanim, see there. However, the Magen Avraham did not bring this Shelah, even though his way is always to bring him, and also in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe z"l he did not bring it. And it appears that this is because he holds that since we now have a Targum on the aforementioned pesukim, even according to Rashi z"l one fulfills the obligation with it. For regarding a commentary that explains each and every word more than the Targum, some say it is preferable to the Targum, and likewise Rashi's commentary is more effective than the Targum; except that some say the Targum is preferable because it was given at Sinai, as explained in se'if 2 there. But where there is no Targum and no commentary of Rashi, and there is a commentary in the vernacular that explains well, it stands to reason that all agree it is preferable to saying the Mikra a third time with no commentary at all. Therefore, regarding Reuven and Shimon, on which there is no commentary at all, one must read the Mikra three times; but regarding Atros and Divon and Birkas Kohanim, on which some Targum is found, this is preferable to reading the Mikra a third time, and one fulfills the obligation with it according to all opinions'.
> Thus, in practice, a pasuk that has no Targum at all should be read three times; however, where there is a Targum or a commentary that has been accepted among the Jewish people, it is preferable to reading the Mikra three times.
Notes:
1 8a ↩
2 Hilchos Tefillah, ch. 13, halacha 25 ↩
3 The Taz writes, Orach Chaim, siman 285, se'if 1: 'One must answer for Rashi's explanation why the Gemara did not in fact choose Reuven and Shimon. And it appears that there is a novelty in this: not only Reuven and Shimon, which are the names of the tribes and certainly have holiness by reason of these names, but even Atros and Divon, which are the names of cities of Eretz Yisroel, and which the idolaters may possibly have named — even so, one must read them three times'. And in the Shiyarei Knesses HaGedolah, Hagahos HaTur there, se'if katan 4, he writes: 'And Rabbeinu Bachya wrote: since these cities bear names of avodah zarah — so that you should not say, since the Targum is the explanation of the text, we should not translate this verse, because there is a remembrance of avodah zarah in them; therefore the Sages came to say that even this pasuk should be translated, so as not to treat it lightly'. And see further what the Chida writes in Birkei Yosef there, se'if katan 1 ↩
4 Brochos 4b in the pages of the Rif ↩
5 And see what the Maamar Mordechai writes, Orach Chaim, siman 285, se'if katan 1, to explain his words ↩
6 Brochos, ch. 1, siman 8 ↩
7 And see Maadanei Yom Tov there, os 6. And note the Mekor Chaim (Bachrach) on the Shulchan Aruch there, who writes: 'That which appears in our Chumashim, also in Targum Onkelos, a Targum of Atros and Divon — the printers inserted it from Targum Yerushalmi' ↩
8 Orach Chaim, siman 285 ↩
9 And see Maamar Mordechai there, who explains this stringency ↩
10 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 285, se'if 1 ↩
11 Orach Chaim there, se'if 1 ↩
12 And see Pri Megadim there, Mishbetzos Zahav, se'if katan 1: 'And according to Rashi, Reuven and Shimon also require three times. And the practice is like Rashi; and so writes the Magen Avraham, os 2' ↩
13 Maseches Shabbos, Perek Ner Mitzvah ↩
14 In the tefillah of Shemoneh Esrei, s.v. "Kabbalah, Elokeinu v'Elokei Avoseinu" etc. ↩
15 And see Mekor Chaim (Bachrach) there, se'if 1 ↩
16 There, se'if 1 ↩
17 Ketzos HaShulchan, siman 72, Baddei HaShulchan, os 1 ↩
[9] (Halacha 1166)
Targum – Rashi (1)
Question: Must one specifically recite Targum Onkelos, or may one translate into various languages, or study with Rashi's commentary instead?
Answer: It is written in Seder Rav Amram Gaon1: 'And thus said Rav Natronai Gaon: those who do not recite the Targum, and say, "We do not need to recite the Targum of the Rabbis, but rather in our own language, in the language in which the congregation translates" — they do not fulfill their obligation. What is the reason? Because the Rabbis based this Targum on the verses, as Rav Ika bar Avin said in the name of Rav Chananel in the name of Rav: What is meant by that which is written, "ויקראו בספר תורת האלהים" ("And they read in the book, the Torah of G-d") — this is Mikra; "מפורש" ("distinctly") — this is Targum; "ושום שכל" ("and gave the sense") — these are the verse divisions. And since this is so, it is not possible not to translate with this Targum of the Rabbis. And the Sages were exacting regarding the Targum .. Therefore one is obligated to recite the Targum; they should learn and recite the Targum and thereby fulfill their obligation, and if there is a place where they wish to explain it to them, another person besides the translator should stand and explain it to them in their own language'.
However, there are among our early Rishonim who wrote that a translation in a language one understands is preferable, as Rabbeinu Manoach wrote2 on Hilchos Tefillah, chapter 12, halacha 25: 'And it stands to reason that nowadays, when people understand the vernacular more than the Targum, one must read the vernacular translation of each and every verse'.
And in Sefer Minhogim of the school of the Maharam it is written: 'Every person must complete his parshiyos together with the congregation, twice Mikra and once Targum, or read the Mikra a third time in the vernacular'.
However, Tosafos wrote3: 'Some explain that the same applies to speakers of other languages — their vernacular is like the Targum, which at times explains. For just as the Targum explains to the unlearned, so too they understand from the vernacular. But this does not seem correct, for the Targum explains things that cannot be learned from the Hebrew, as we find in several places where Rav Yosef said4, "Were it not for the Targum of this verse, I would not know what it is saying." Therefore one should not recite the third time in any language other than the language of the Targum'.
And so ruled the Recanati5: 'And the vernacular does not take the place of the Targum'. And the Agudah6: 'And with the vernacular or German one does not fulfill the obligation, only with the Targum, for regarding several verses we say, "Were it not for the Targum of this verse, we would not know its meaning"'.
[However, regarding a person who has no Targum, Rabbeinu Yonah wrote in Sefer HaYirah: 'And he should complete his parshiyos together with the congregation every week, shnayim mikra v'echad targum, and if he has no Targum, he should read twice Mikra and once in the vernacular, and this is better than reading the Mikra three times, for the Targum was in order to understand the Mikra for one who is not proficient; all the more so the vernacular, an explanation in the language of the vernacular'].
> Thus, there are Rishonim who wrote that a translation in another language is effective in place of Targum Onkelos, but according to the Geonim, Tosafos, and other Rishonim, one should not recite shnayim mikra v'echad targum with any translation other than Targum Onkelos.
Several Rishonim wrote that a commentary [such as Rashi's commentary] is preferable to Targum Onkelos, as the Smag wrote7: 'And I argued before my teachers that the commentary is more effective than the Targum, and my teachers agreed with me; but this did not seem correct to Rabbeinu Yitzchak, and so too [said] Rav Amram, that Rav Natronai responded that it must specifically be the Targum, which merited to be given at Sinai, as is implied in the first chapter of Megillah'.
And the Rosh8 cited the words of Tosafos, but concluded: 'And it appears that one who reads a commentary on the Torah fulfills thereby the obligation of Targum, since every single word is explained in it'.
And so wrote the Tur9: 'And if he studied the parsha with Rashi's commentary, it is considered like Targum, for the purpose of the Targum is only that he understand the matter; but if he reads in another vernacular, it is not'.
And some wrote to recite both Targum Onkelos and Rashi's commentary, as is written in Orchos Chaim (attributed to the Rosh)10: 'Study your parshiyos together with the congregation, shnayim mikra v'echad targum, and Rashi's commentary z"l, and be precise in it as much as you are able'.
And in Leket Yosher11 he wrote: 'And he would review the sidra, shnayim mikra v'echad targum and Rashi's commentary, and he said that the Targum is primary to review, more than Rashi's commentary. And so I heard in the name of Mahar"r Yaakov Weil zt"l, that it is better to review the Targum than Rashi's commentary. And so I found in the introduction of the Smak, and in Orach Chaim [=in the Tur] in siman 285, and this is its wording: "And if he studied the parsha with Rashi's commentary, it is considered like Targum, etc." It seems to me that this implies that Targum is preferable, since he said "like Targum"'.
And the Beis Yosef wrote12: '"And if he studied the parsha with Rashi's commentary, it is considered like Targum, etc., but if he reads in another vernacular, it is not." Tosafos and the Rosh wrote there that some explain that the same applies to speakers of other languages, that the vernacular is effective like Targum, but this does not seem correct, for the Targum explains several things that cannot be understood from the Mikra. And the Rosh further wrote: "And it appears that one who reads a commentary on the Torah fulfills thereby the obligation of Targum, since every single word is explained in it." And so wrote the Smag, and this is his wording: "And I argued before my teachers that the commentary is more effective than the Targum, and they agreed with me." And the Mordechai there (siman 19) and the Hagahos [Maimonios] in chapter 13 of Hilchos Tefillah recorded the words of the Smag; however, the Smag and the Hagahos wrote that this did not seem correct to the Ri, Rav Amram and Rav Natronai, who wrote that the Targum merited this because it was given at Sinai. End quote. And a G-d-fearing person will fulfill all opinions and read the Targum and Rashi's commentary'13.
> Thus we have seen that the Geonim and Rishonim disagreed as to whether other translations are effective like Targum Onkelos, and likewise whether Rashi's commentary has preference; and some said to recite shnayim mikra v'echad targum both with Targum Onkelos and with Rashi's commentary. In the next halacha we will see how the halacha was ruled
--------------
Notes:
1 Shacharis of Shabbos ↩
2 Hilchos Tefillah, chapter 12, halacha 25 ↩
3 Brochos 8a, s.v. Shnayim ↩
4 Megillah 3a ↩
5 Siman 34 ↩
6 Brochos, chapter 1, siman 17 ↩
7 Positive commandments, siman 19. Cited in Hagahos Maimonios, Hilchos Tefillah, chapter 13, halacha 25. Sefer HaBatim, Krias HaTorah, gate 1, os 6 ↩
8 Brochos, chapter 1, siman 8 ↩
9 Orach Chaim, Hilchos Shabbos, siman 285 ↩
10 Day 2, os 37 ↩
11 Orach Chaim, page 54, topic 3 ↩
12 Orach Chaim, siman 285 ↩
13 The Mishnah Berurah in the Biur Halacha there, se'if 2, challenged the Beis Yosef: 'Behold, one who examines Tosafos and the Rosh will see that they hold that specifically the vernacular, which is not a sufficient explanation, is inferior to Targum; but a commentary on the Torah that explains the matter and the words [and is based on the foundations of Chazal], such as Rashi's commentary, is not inferior to Targum. And in the Smag it is clearly evident to one who examines it there that some words are missing, and it refers only to the vernacular alone; and thank G-d I found this explicitly in the Hagahos Maimonios, when he copied the words of the Smag he wrote as follows: "And some explain that the same applies to the vernacular, but this does not seem correct to the Ri, etc.," which implies that he disagrees only regarding the vernacular. And Rav Natronai too may possibly agree in this, that a commentary which explains the matter more than the Targum is considered more important than the Targum, even though it was given at Sinai. And it is astonishing, for the Beis Yosef himself cited the Hagahos Maimonios, so why did the Beis Yosef write in the name of the Hagahos that this does not seem correct to the Ri — the Ri refers only to the vernacular! [And perhaps what the Beis Yosef wrote, "it does not seem correct to the Ri," is merely a habitual phrasing that he took from the language of the Hagahos Maimonios, and his intent is only regarding Rav Amram and Rav Natronai; and the Beis Yosef holds that according to Rav Amram and Rav Natronai, who wrote that the Targum merited this because it was given at Sinai, then automatically it is preferable to any commentary in the world, although in the Smag this is somewhat not implied]. The conclusion from our words is that we have no explicit posek who holds that the Targum is more important than Rashi's commentary; nevertheless, it appears that in practice one should conduct oneself like the Beis Yosef, for although Rashi's commentary explains the matter more than the Targum, since there are several words and also several verses upon which there is no commentary of Rashi, he would be left there with only the Mikra alone, whereas the Targum explains every verse and every word'. However, it should be noted that regarding what he wrote, that there is no explicit posek who holds that the Targum is more important than Rashi's commentary, we have already seen that the Leket Yosher wrote so ↩
[10] (Halacha 1173)
Targum – Rashi (2)
In halacha number 1165 we saw that the Geonim and Rishonim disagreed as to whether other translations are effective like Targum Onkelos, and likewise whether Rashi's commentary has preference; and some said to recite shnayim mikra v'echad targum both with Targum Onkelos and with Rashi's commentary.
Question: How was the halacha ruled?
Answer: The Mechaber wrote1: 'If he studied the parsha with Rashi's commentary, it is considered like Targum; and a G-d-fearing person should read the Targum and also Rashi's commentary'.
And the Maharshal2 wrote: 'From here it can be seen what they said, that every person must review the parsha with Rashi's commentary, which is sifted like fine flour, and all of his words are from the words of our Sages z"l. And wherever we would need the words of Targum Onkelos, he brings it, for there is no translation or commentary superior [to it], especially since most of the commentators gave him the crown of sovereignty, for small and great are there. And so is the opinion of the Smag and the Tur; except that the Ri, Rav Amram and Rav Natronai wrote that it must specifically be Targum Onkelos, which merited to be given at Sinai. And I say there is some support for their words, since he cautioned regarding shnayim mikra v'echad targum, and Mikra and Targum alone do not suffice; if so, there is a secret in it. Therefore every G-d-fearing person should exert himself to fulfill their words, and also read Rashi's commentary; perhaps he will attain their secret, in the manner of "סוד ה' ליראיו" ("the secret of Hashem is with those who fear Him"). But one who cannot fulfill everything, since the time does not suffice, should read Rashi's commentary, which is more effective than the Targum'.
However, the Chida3 wrote regarding the words of the Maharshal: 'But according to what the masters of the hidden wisdom wrote, there is particular significance to the Targum; therefore, if he does not have time to study both, he should study the Targum'.
And see also the Olas Shabbos4: 'In any event, according to the Kabbalist sages, it implies specifically Targum, for a hidden secret, in order to bring the kelipas nogah into the place of holiness on the day of Shabbos; and understand this'.
> Thus, according to the basic law, in the opinion of the Mechaber one fulfills the obligation also with Rashi's commentary, but a G-d-fearing person should read both Targum Onkelos and Rashi's commentary; and in a case where he cannot say both, according to the Maharshal Rashi's commentary is preferable to the Targum, while according to Kabbalah Targum Onkelos has preference.
A translation in the vernacular: The Levush wrote5: 'But in the vernacular, according to all opinions he has not fulfilled his obligation'. And it is explained there in the gloss: 'For the Targum and also Rashi's commentary explain several things that cannot be understood from the Mikra'.
The Olas Shabbos6 challenged the Levush: '"If he studied the parsha with Rashi's commentary, etc." Because the intent is only that he understand the matter; and accordingly, even if he explains the verse in the vernacular or in other languages, he fulfills his obligation with it. And the Levush wrote, "But in the vernacular, according to all opinions he has not fulfilled his obligation," and I do not know his source'.
But the Ma'amar Mordechai7 challenged the Olas Shabbos: 'With all due respect, his words are very astonishing, for the words of the Levush z"l issue from a holy place and flow from a source of living waters — they are the words of the Rosh, Tosafos and the Tur z"l, who wrote explicitly that the vernacular is not effective. And see Tosafos and the Rosh, that some say the vernacular is also effective, and they rejected their words for the reason that specifically the Targum explains several things that are not understood from the Hebrew, and all the more so Rashi's commentary, which is not so with the vernacular. And this is the intent of the Rav, the Levush z"l, in his gloss; and what he wrote, "according to all opinions he has not fulfilled his obligation," the intent is that even one who is lenient regarding Rashi's commentary is stringent regarding the vernacular; and since there is one who is stringent even regarding Rashi's commentary, he used this phrasing. But he did not intend to say that there is no one at all who is lenient regarding the vernacular; rather, since that view was rejected, he did not take it into account. It turns out that the words of the Rav [the Olas Shabbos] are the opposite of the words of Tosafos, the Rosh and the other poskim, and I am astonished how he acted so irreverently toward them. And perhaps it can be said that the Rav z"l is speaking of one who explains in the vernacular the entire matter with an expansive explanation, and not merely word by word, for it is regarding this that the poskim were stringent. In any case, he should not have challenged the Rav, the Levush, since his words are the very words of the great poskim from whose waters we drink; and it is astonishing that the Rav, the Magen Avraham, and the Eliyahu Rabbah z"l did not take issue with him on this'.
And the Taz wrote8: 'And the Tur wrote, "But if he read in another vernacular, it is not." End quote. And this refers to one who is able to understand properly the meaning of the Mikra through Rashi's commentary; but one who is not capable of this should certainly read a commentary on the Torah that exists in the German language in our times, such as the book Tz'enah U'Re'enah and the like, so that he understand the content of the parsha'.
> Thus, according to halacha, a translation in the vernacular is not effective at all; but the Taz wrote that a person who does not understand the Mikra without it should certainly read a commentary in the vernacular.
Regarding the words of the Mechaber, who wrote: 'If he studied the parsha with Rashi's commentary, it is considered like Targum', the Magen Avraham wrote9: 'Nevertheless, he must read the Mikra twice [Rama"m, chapter 7]'.
The commentators found the intent of his words difficult, as the Pri Megadim wrote in Eshel Avraham: 'I do not know what he is teaching us, for certainly this is the plain implication of the Mechaber's wording, that Rashi's commentary counts for him only in place of the Targum, and even with three times Targum he does not fulfill his obligation, but only with twice Mikra and once Targum or Rashi's commentary'.
The Levushei Serad wrote to explain: 'It is somewhat difficult — it is obvious! And it appears that he means to say that when he studies the parsha with Rashi's commentary, it counts for him only as Targum, since he interrupts with the explanations of the verse between each word and matter, and he needs twice Mikra besides this study. And see se'if katan 9, where this does not seem to be implied'.
And the Alter Rebbe10 wrote that besides the two times Mikra, one must say the Mikra yet a third time with Rashi's commentary: '"And the third time, etc." It must necessarily be explained so, according to what the Tur and the Acharonim wrote, that the custom follows Rashi's commentary regarding "Ataros and Divon"11; if so, one does not fulfill the obligation with Rashi's commentary unless he reads the Mikra three times in those verses that Rashi does not explain because of their simplicity; and likewise in every verse there are a number of words upon which there is no commentary of Rashi since it is not needed — so how did they state without qualification that one fulfills the obligation with Rashi's commentary12? Rather, it is certainly speaking of one who studies the third time13 with Rashi's commentary, that he fulfills thereby [the obligation] in place of the explanation of the Targum in the places that require explanation. And so too understood the Rama"m cited by the Magen Avraham, for otherwise what is he teaching us? Would it enter your mind that once Mikra and once Rashi's commentary alone, without Mikra, suffices — is it better than Targum? And all the more so if it is a scribal error [=in the Magen Avraham] and it should read "three times, etc."; and so it is explicitly in the Rama"m, see there; and so wrote the Chemdas HaYamim14, part 2, chapter 15, see there'.
In practice, the Alter Rebbe wrote15: 'One who reads twice Mikra and afterwards translates each and every word into a vernacular that he understands has not fulfilled his obligation in place of Targum, because the Targum explains several things that cannot be understood from the Mikra. But one who reads (a commentary on the Torah that explains each and every word more than the explanation of the Targum — some say that it is better than the Targum; and likewise one who reads) twice Mikra and the third time goes back and studies the entire parsha with Rashi's commentary, which is built on the foundation of the Talmud — this is more effective than the Targum, since it explains more. And some say that the Targum merited this because it was given at Sinai, such as "יגר שהדותא". And the primary view is like the first opinion; nevertheless, every G-d-fearing person should read the Targum and also Rashi's commentary. And one who does not understand Rashi's commentary should read a commentary on the Torah in a vernacular that he understands'.
Notes:
1 Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim, siman 285, se'if 2 ↩
2 Yam Shel Shlomo, Kiddushin, chapter 2, siman 14 ↩
3 Birkei Yosef there, se'if katan 2 ↩
4 There, se'if katan 2 ↩
5 There, se'if 2 ↩
6 There, se'if katan 2 ↩
7 There, se'if katan 2 ↩
8 There, se'if katan 4 ↩
9 Orach Chaim there, in the Kuntres Acharon, se'if katan 1 ↩
10 That is, in accordance with the opinion of Rashi (cited in halacha number 1147) that a verse upon which there is no Targum Onkelos requires saying the Mikra three times ↩
11 That is: accordingly, there are always verses or parts of verses that Rashi does not explain, so how is it possible that the poskim wrote in general terms that one fulfills the obligation with Rashi's commentary, without writing that in verses without Rashi's commentary one must read the Mikra three times? ↩
12 And see what is written in Knishta D'vei Rav, in Iyunim U'Biurim, os 2 ↩
13 It is possible that the intent is to the book Chemdas HaYamim, which wrote something similar; and see in the Knishta there, Tosefes Biur, os 5. And in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe with Dover Shalom, os 57 ↩
14 There, se'if 2 ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project — a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha — Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp group