Halakhah Study Group 039

1:
As section 145 states clearly, in Talmudic times it was customary to accompany the Torah reading with a translation into Aramaic. Some communities continued with this custom even after the Talmudic period, and among most congregations following the Yemenite rite this translation is still practiced today. The basic method is outlined in our present section: the Torah reader would read out a verse from the Torah and the translator, meturgeman would then recite the translation of that verse into Aramaic. When the verse had been translated the Torah reader would read out the next verse from the Torah which would then be translated, and so on until the whole lectionary for that occasion had been completed.

2:
Clearly, this translating was a lengthy process. You may recall that at the very start of our study of this part of the Shulĥan Arukh we noted that this was the obvious purpose of reading the Torah at all. In Torah 002 I wrote:

3:
It also makes sense that the Hebrew be translated into the vernacular so that the people would not only hear the words of the Torah but also understand them. Therefore, it should perhaps be stranger that the institution died out rather than its inception. One reason for the demise of the custom is stated baldly in paragraph 3 of section 145: "Nowadays it is not customary to translate for what point is there in a translation that is not understood?" But the fact that people no longer understand Aramaic is hardly a convincing rationale: so let the translation be into English, or French, or Italian – into whatever language is the local vernacular. But the fact is that no translation was ever accepted as part of the Torah ritual except into Aramaic, and this fact must be significant.

4:
The translation to which the Shulĥan Arukh refers is definitely the Aramaic translation printed in most Ĥumashim together with Rashi's commentary, the translation attributed to one Onkelos. (It is not historically established that it was this translation that was used in Talmudic times, but that is immaterial to tradition.) While according to modern criteria we would have to admit that we have no firm historical indications as to the identity of the author of this translation into Aramaic the rabbis certainly felt that they had reliable information. They knew, as it were, that the name Onkelos is a corruption of the Graeco-Roman Aquila. This Aquila (or possibly Achilles) was a nephew of the Roman emperor Hadrian who converted to Judaism during the 2nd century CE. According to the story, he studied under the great tannaïm Eli'ezer and Yehoshu'a, and his translation therefore reflects the Torah as it was understood and taught by them. This is what gives this particular translation its authority, indeed its quasi sanctity. Only a translation which had, as it were, the imprimatur of such halakhic giants as Eli'ezer and Yehoshu'a could be accepted for ritual purposes, and when that translation was no longer useful it could not be replaced by another. Such was the general thinking of the rabbis.

5:
But, to be honest, the true reason why the custom of translation fell into abeyance was probably due to the fact that it greatly lengthened the service. Translating each verse out loud would make the reading of the Torah twice as long. Since this custom is associated with Babylonian Jewry this would make a very long Torah reading, because it was in Babylon that the Jews adopted the annual system of reading the Torah (which completed one whole reading of the Torah in one year, as opposed to different customs prevelant in areas which followed the customs of Eretz-Israel). In an age which offerred far less distractions than our own age offers on the weekly and seasonal days of rest it was very welcome to spend several hours of the day in the congenial atmosphere of the synagogue, listening to a liesurely service, and a lengthy Torah lectionary with a full translation, accompanied by an intruiguing and stimulating midrash given by a resident or visiting sage. The task which was originally fulfilled by the meturgeman is now fulfilled by the translations into the vernacular available to the worshippers in their printed Ĥumashim. And where translations are not needed the text of the Torah is explained by commentaries.

6:
The regulations outlined in section 145 indicate the ambivalence felt towards the Targum. On the one hand great care must be taken to ensure that the people understand that this is a translation, "lest it be said that the translation is written in the Torah". On the other hand, however, the Targum is an honourable and holy interpretation of the Torah and must be heard in its own right.

7:
In HSG 009 I wrote:

From this we see that just as there was no objection in earlier times that a woman read from the Torah so there was no objection that a minor read from the Torah. Later social considerations changed the attitude as regards both, as we know. However, in our present section while it is recognized that a youngster may act as a meturgeman it is no great honour to the congregation. Just as calling a woman to the Torah may have given rise to the thought that none of the men present in the synagogue could read the Torah, so permitting a youngster to translate may give rise to the thought that none of the men present were capable of doing so. Therefore, "a minor may translate for an adult", but if the congregation was reduced to having a youngster read from the Torah for them "it is no honour for an adult that he translate for a minor".

I wrote: There are two possible occasions in the liturgical year when the reading will be from three scrolls: when the Shabbat of Ĥanukah falls on Rosh Ĥodesh Tevet… The other occasion when three scrolls will be required is when Parashat Shekalim falls on Rosh Ĥodesh Adar…

Dan Werlin writes:

I believe that in addition to Shabbat/Rosh Chodesh/Chanukah and Shabbat/Rosh Chodesh/Shabbat Shekalim, there are two further scenarios in which there are distinct readings in three separate Torahs: 1. On Simchat Torah 2. On Shabbat/Rosh Chodesh/Shabbat Ha-Chodesh.

I respond:

I did not include Simĥat Torah because I was not thinking of it it terms of a weekly lectionary. Dan is also correct in pointing out the other possibility of having to read from three scrolls when Parashat ha-Ĥodesh falls on Rosh Ĥodesh Nisan. I did a quick check: over the next 25 years there will be 4 incidences of Parashat Shekalim falling on Rosh Ĥodesh and 5 incidences of Parashat ha-Ĥodesh falling on Rosh Ĥodesh, so Dan is certainly right.
My apologies for the omission and my thanks to Dan for pointing it out.