What Is the Obligation of Reading “Twice the Text and Once the Translation”? Part I

What Is the Obligation of Reading “Twice the Text and Once the Translation”? Part I

Topics of the Article

What is the obligation of Shnayim Mikra Ve-echad Targum? Is it possible to replace the Targum with another commentary, such as Rashi? What is the law if a person wishes to study Ibn Ezra or Ramban instead of Rashi? What is the law regarding verses that have no Targum? And what is the law regarding verses that have no commentary of Rashi? May one combine, reading part of the parashah with Rashi’s commentary and part with the Targum? Which is preferable, Rashi or Targum? Must one read aloud, or may one also read with the eyes — by thought alone? Must one understand the Targum?

The Obligation to Read the Parashah

In addition to the obligation upon the community to read the parashah in the synagogue, every individual has an obligation to read the parashah twice from the Chumash, as well as the Targum. These laws are called, in brief, Shnayim Mikra Ve-echad Targum — Sh nayim M ikra V e-echad T argum. There is a well-known allusion written by the Baal HaTurim (Shemot 1:1) on the verse: “ואלה שמות בני ישראל” — “And these are the names of the children of Israel,” for this verse is an acronym for the following phrase: “ V e-adam A sher L omed H aseder [of the parashah] Sh nayim M ikra V e-echad T argum, B ekol N a’im Y ashir, Y ichyeh Sh anim R abbot A rukim L e-olam” — “And a person who studies the order [of the parashah] twice in the text and once in the translation, with a pleasant voice he shall sing, will live many long years forever.” This halachah is explained in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim, siman 285). In this article we will explain the details of the laws of this matter.

Is It Sufficient to Read Shnayim Mikra with Rashi’s Commentary?

The Rishonim disagree as to whether one may read the parashah twice and then study Rashi’s commentary instead of reading the Targum. In practical halachah, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim, siman 285, se’if 2) rules that if one studied Shnayim Mikra only with Rashi’s commentary, he has fulfilled his obligation; however, a God-fearing person should both read the Targum and study Rashi’s commentary.

Must One Study Specifically with Rashi’s Commentary, or May One Use Other Commentaries of the Rishonim?

The question arises: must one study specifically with Rashi’s commentary, or may one also use other commentaries of the Rishonim? For example, if a person connects more with the commentary of Ramban, Rashbam, or Ibn Ezra, may he study one of these commentaries instead of Rashi’s commentary? It is common for a person who has already studied the parashah with Rashi’s commentary for several years to now wish to enrich his knowledge with an additional commentary, and therefore this year he wants to study the parashah with another commentator. Is this permitted? And does one fulfill the obligation thereby?

The answer is that, according to practical halachah, lechatchilah one should study specifically with Rashi’s commentary, as the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim, siman 285, se’if 2) wrote in these words: “If he studied the parashah with Rashi’s commentary, it is considered like Targum.” The Magen Avraham (se’if katan 3) explained his words as follows: “For it is primary, being built upon the foundation of the Talmud.” The Mishnah Berurah (se’if katan 4) likewise explained that Rashi explains Scripture as the Targum explains it, and even more than it. From the wording of the Shulchan Aruch, Magen Avraham, and Mishnah Berurah, it appears that one should study specifically Rashi’s commentary, which is founded upon the basis of the Talmud, and only this unique commentary can serve as a substitute for Targum. [Whereas the aim of some of the other early commentators on the Torah was to explain the plain meaning of the text, or additional facets of the Torah beyond the explanation found in the Talmud; and in order to fulfill the obligation one must first study the foundation, namely the explanation in the Talmud, and only afterward may one add further commentaries].

On the other hand, the source of the Shulchan Aruch’s words is the statement of the Rosh (Berachot, chapter 1, siman 8), who wrote as follows: “It appears that one who reads a commentary on the Torah fulfills through it the obligation of Targum, since every single word is explained in it.” From the words of the Rosh it would seem, at first glance, that with any commentary among the commentators of the Torah one would fulfill the obligation, provided that the commentary covers all the words of the Torah that require interpretation and explanation. This is also explained in the responsa of the Rema (siman 129; and siman 130). However, as stated, from the words of the Shulchan Aruch and the Magen Avraham it appears that one should study specifically Rashi’s commentary, and this is the practical halachic ruling. (Azmerah Lishmecha, issues 79; 80).

Verses That Have No Targum

What is the law regarding a verse that has no Targum, such as the names of the cities conquered by the children of Gad and the children of Reuven, “Atarot and Divon” (Bamidbar 32:3)? How does one fulfill the law of Shnayim Mikra Ve-echad Targum ?

The Gemara (Berachot 8a) states: “A person should always complete his parshiyot together with the community, twice in the text and once in the Targum, even ‘Atarot and Divon.’” That is, in these verses, where Onkelos did not translate the names of those cities, there is nevertheless a law of Shnayim Mikra Ve-echad Targum. However, the Rishonim (ad loc.) disagree whether in the verse “Atarot and Divon,” which has no Targum, one should read the biblical text 3 times, or whether it is sufficient to read the text twice; and some are stringent and maintain that one should read Targum Yerushalmi [see Rashi and Tosafot (Berachot 8a), Rambam (Hilchot Tefillah, chapter 13, halachah 25); Tur (Orach Chaim, siman 285); Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim, siman 285, se’if 1); Mishnah Berurah (there, se’if katan 3)].

In practice, in such verses one should read the biblical text 3 times. However, practically speaking, in our Chumashim the words of the biblical text have already been printed within the Targum in verses that have no Targum, and therefore one may read the Targum as it appears, and that covers the verses that have no Targum as well. But some are stringent in these places to read the Targum Yerushalmi. (Azmerah Lishmecha, issue 80).

Reading Part with Rashi and Part with Targum

Another question to discuss is: for one who follows the basic law, and aside from Shnayim Mikra reads either Targum or Rashi, may he read Targum for some of the verses and Rashi for another part of the verses in the parashah?

Answer: It appears that one may read Targum for some of the verses and Rashi for some. However, a God-fearing person should both read Targum and study Rashi’s commentary, so for him this question does not arise. (Azmerah Lishmecha, issue 80).

Reading a Translation Other Than Onkelos

Another question is whether one may read a translation other than Onkelos, for example a translation of the Torah into a foreign language that the learner understands better. The Mishnah Berurah (siman 285, se’if katan 4) wrote that a literal translation is not sufficient, and one fulfills the obligation specifically with Targum Onkelos, because it adds additional matters that cannot be understood from the biblical text without the Targum. Therefore one should adhere to Targum Onkelos, regarding which our Sages transmitted to us that it includes the additions necessary for fulfilling this halachah.

However, regarding one who does not understand the Targum, the Mishnah Berurah (siman 285, se’if katan 5) wrote that there is no benefit in reading the Targum without understanding it; and if he also does not understand Rashi’s commentary, he should find a commentary based on Rashi, such as “Tze’enah Ure’enah,” which translates the Torah into Yiddish and includes Rashi’s explanations and the midrashim of Chazal. Therefore, a person who does not understand the Targum and cannot study Rashi should find a translation by a God-fearing person who translated the biblical text and incorporated into the translation the explanations of Rashi and the words of the Sages that are built upon the foundation of the Talmud. But one does not fulfill the obligation with a literal translation of the biblical text, or with a translation that adheres only to the plain meaning of Scripture without the additions of the Sages in the Talmud.

One Who Can Read Only Either Targum or Rashi: Which of the Two Is Preferable?

Another question that must be clarified: a person who can manage to read only either Shnayim Mikra Ve-echad Targum, or alternatively Shnayim Mikra with Rashi’s commentary — is there a preference to choose one of them specifically? And which of them is preferable?

The poskim disagree on the matter. The Maharshal (Yam Shel Shlomo, Kiddushin, chapter 2, siman 14) holds that it is preferable to read Rashi’s commentary. On the other hand, the Beit Yosef (Orach Chaim, siman 285), based on the view of Rav Amram Gaon and Rav Natronai Gaon, holds that it is preferable to read the Targum, because it has the virtue of having been given at Sinai. However, the Mishnah Berurah (Biur Halachah, siman 285, se’if 2, s.v. “Targum”) questions this. The Sha’arei Teshuvah wrote in the name of the Birkei Yosef that according to the view of the kabbalistic sages, one should prefer reading the Targum. Therefore, in practice, whatever the learner does, he is acting in accordance with great poskim, and he may act as he wishes.

Those Who Fulfill Their Obligation by Reading Shnayim Mikra with Rashi: How Should They Act Regarding a Verse That Has No Rashi?

Another question that must be clarified is: those who fulfill their obligation by reading Shnayim Mikra only with Rashi’s commentary — how should they act with regard to a verse that has no Rashi? The Mishnah Berurah (siman 285, se’if katan 5) wrote that in such a case they should read the biblical text 3 times; in those verses they should read the biblical text twice and the Targum once. It appears that the second option is preferable. (See Responsa Maharam Mintz, siman 87). But in a verse where Rashi explained only part of the verse, it appears that one fulfills the obligation by reading the part that Rashi explained, and one does not need to complete the explanation of the rest of the verse by reading Targum.

The reason is that it is explained in the Acharonim (Responsa Maharam Mintz, siman 87; Mishnah Berurah, siman 285, se’if katan 5) that verses that have no commentary of Rashi should be read 3 times, which implies that parts of verses that have no commentary of Rashi do not need to have the biblical text read an additional time. (See Biur Halachah, end of s.v. “Targum”). Moreover, in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim, siman 285, se’if 2) it is explained that according to the basic law, Rashi’s commentary without Targum is sufficient, and the Shulchan Aruch did not note that words which have no Rashi should be read 3 times in the biblical text, even though this is found in almost every verse in which Rashi’s commentary does not explain every word. Since the Shulchan Aruch did not mention anything about this, it implies that Rashi’s commentary on the words he did explain is sufficient.

However, the rationale of this law needs to be understood: if the reason is that words which Rashi did not explain are sufficiently clear, and it is enough to read the commentary on the words that require explanation, then a verse that Rashi did not explain is also self-explanatory and does not require commentary. Why, then, was it ruled that one must read them 3 times? This requires further analysis. (Azmerah Lishmecha, issue 80).

Must One Read Rashi’s Commentary Aloud?

Another question that must be clarified is whether one must read Rashi’s commentary with his mouth, or whether it is sufficient to read with the eyes, thereby fulfilling the obligation through thought about Rashi’s commentary, and thus understanding the meaning of the biblical text that he read aloud.

Regarding this question, it appears that if one reads only Rashi’s commentary and relies on the fact that according to the basic law one fulfills the obligation with Rashi’s commentary in place of Targum, he must articulate the words with his mouth. But if he is a God-fearing person who reads both Rashi’s commentary and the Targum, it appears that it is sufficient for him to read Rashi’s commentary in thought, and he does not need to articulate the words with his mouth. Nevertheless, in all Torah study there is an advantage to articulating the words with one’s mouth and not merely thinking about them. (Azmerah Lishmecha, issue 80).

Does One Who Reads Targum Without Understanding What He Says Fulfill His Obligation?

This question depends on another question: does one who studies without understanding what he reads thereby fulfill the mitzvah of Torah study? In practice, the Magen Avraham (siman 50, se’if katan 2) and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Hilchot Talmud Torah, chapter 2, halachah 12) distinguished as follows: with regard to the Written Torah, there is a mitzvah to read even if one does not understand the words; however, with regard to the Oral Torah, if one does not understand what he is reading, he does not fulfill the mitzvah of Torah study.

In light of these points, we must now discuss whether the Targum is part of the Oral Torah, such that one must understand it in order to fulfill this halachah, or perhaps the Targum is considered part of Scripture and the Written Torah, and one fulfills a mitzvah when reading it even when one does not understand its meaning. See what the Chafetz Chaim wrote (Likkutei Amarim, siman 18). In practical halachah, it appears that one must understand the Targum, but even if he did not understand it, he has fulfilled his obligation. (Azmerah Lishmecha, issue 80).

Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim, siman 285); Azmerah Lishmecha (issues 79; 80).