Shnayim Mikra V’Echad Targum

Several theories exist as to the reason for the institution of the obligation of Shnayim Mikra V’Echad Targum (SMV”T). The Ra’avan was of the opinion that the obligation was meant only for those who are unable to attend synagogue and hear k’riat haTorah. Thus, SMV”T would serve as a type of replacement; the text read twice, to correspond to the oleh and the ba’al korei, and the translation to correspond to the meturgeman of Talmudic times. This view has not been accepted, though; in fact Rav Kook (Tov Ro’ei to B’rakhot) wrote that SMV”T was specifically meant to complement k’riat haTorah, not replace it. K’riat haTorah is an obligation on the congregation, not the individual [a topic actually disputed by acharonim], while SMV”T is the individual’s obligation toward the same material (see also Responsa Yashiv Yitzchak, II, 6)

The Levush represents the popularly held opinion that SMV”T is an institution intended to foster greater expertise in the Torah; the Tzlach cites the verse, “Chut hameshulash lo b’miherah y’natek”. The Terumat HaDeshen (#24) writes that the point is to ensure familiarity with what the community is reading. The Einayim LaMishpat notes that the Rambam and the Shulchan Arukh do not include the k’riat haTorah itself as part of SMV”T, and understands from this that the purpose of the institution is to ensure preparedness to read from the Torah if called upon. (A more mystically oriented basis can be found in the Chiddushei Chatam Sofer to Chulin, 28b.)

Much discussion centers on the Talmud’s singling out of the phrase “Atarot V’Divon” as specifically included in this obligation. Rashi wrote that the significance of this verse is that there is no Targum, as the entire verse is a listing of city names. Tosafot objects, noting that there is a Targum Yerushalmi (in fact, modern editions of Onkeles translate the verse as well). Further, the sections at the beginning of Sefer Shemot, listing the tribes of Israel, which have no translation at all, would be an overall more appropriate and familiar example. Rather, the point must be that even a less common targum is preferable to reading the verse three times in Hebrew. The Rosh maintains that the example “Atarot V’Divon” is meant to represent a verse with only a minor need for translation; the tribes of Israel, which truly need no translation, need not be read three times. (He concludes by noting the practice is to be stringent like Rashi.) Rabbeinu Yonah makes a similar statement to the Rosh but is inconclusive as to whether verses that have no need for translation at all should be read in Hebrew twice or three times. (See also the Ritva. As R. Dov Fink [Birkhat Chein to Brakhot] notes, the issue seems to revolve around the purpose and nature of SMV”T: to read a verse twice, and then translate for clarity [see Ra’avyah #205] , or to read a verse three times, one of those times in translation if necessary .

Acharonim expand the discussion even further. The Taz suggests that the “tribes verse” was not given as an example because the tribes of Israel are holy and we need not be told that, but the cities of “Atarot V’Divon” need special mention. R. Yonatan Eibshutz comments that as the translation reflects the original, idolatrous names of the cities, and such names should only be mentioned if they are in the text (Sanhedrin 63a), we need to be told that the Targum qualifies. (See a similar approach in Resp. Teshuvot V’Hanahagot, III, 99.)

The Torah Temimah makes a comment very difficult to understand, asserting that “Atarot V’Divon” needs to be specified because it could have been omitted without affecting the text. While this assertion seems shocking, R. Ya’akov Moshe Feldman (Meshivat Nefesh) explains by pointing to the glosses of the Torah Temimah’s father-in-law, R. Elazar Moshe Hurwitz. There, asimilar comment is made but presented more clearly. In reality, there would not be a need to provide a translation for verses that are composed wholly of names. However, in most cases, the context forces the verse to be read anyway. For example, the “tribes verse”, if it were omitted, would read in translation “And these are the names of the chidren of Israel…” and then not provide any names. The context would thus force the verse to be included. However, in the case of “Atarot V’Divon” it might seem like the context provides no such need; the Talmud then instucts us that there too, a need exists. (The Meshivat Nefesh continues to explain that contextual need.) [Note also a similar approach in Resp. Divrei Malkiel, VI, 60:4.]

This last interpretation suggests that the translation is being read a parshash (section) at a time, rather than a verse at a time (otherwise this would be no contextual necessity). That is actually a topic debated by authorities such as the Shlah and the Magen Avraham, and the Chazon Ish (cited in Resp. Riv’vot Ephraim, V, 216). See also Resp. Admor M’Chabad, 74, and Resp. Shevet HaKehati, I, 106).

The Shulchan Arukh rules that Yom Tov k’riat haTorah does not require SMV”T. R. Moshe Feinstein (Resp. Iggerot Moshe, O.C. III, 46) observes that this would then clearly be the case with the four special parshiyot. The assumption seems to be that if the purpose is to ensure expertise in the chumash, there is no need to do SMV”T with readings that are performed other times throughout the year (See Resp. Minchat Aharon, III, hil. Pesach, 486). However, as some have pointed out, if the reason is to ensure preparedness to read from the Torah, a different conclusion might be reached (see Marpei L’Nefesh III, 13). [As to the haftarah, see Ginzei Chaim, O.C. 285, and Resp. Admor M’Chabad, 74.]

The Maharsham (Responsa, I, 213) writes that if one misses SMV”T in its proper time and wishes to make it up, he must first do that week’s sedrah and then afterward the one that was missed. (See also Resp. Riv’vot Ephraim, II, 115:101; Resp. B’Tzel haChokhmah, I, 9; and Resp. Beit Yisrael, I, 72.) Such a position gives the impression that SMV”T is viewed as an obligation of the day, rather than simply an aspect of Talmud Torah.

That point affects the question of whether SMV”T should be done during aveilut. The Rosh and Tur permitted this, against the Maharil. Later poskim differed on the issue (see Resp. Yabbia Omer, IV, Y.D., 31, and Resp. Orach Mishpat, 60, and Orchot Chaim to Orach Chaim.)

Some additional issues within this topic concern the question of whether the trop must be used (an issue also affected by the possibility of preparation for k’riat haTorah; see Mo’adim U’Z’manim VI, 98 and Resp. teshuvot V’Hanhagot, 544; Resp. VaY’varekh David, #39; and the journal V’Y’lakket Yosef, XIII, 200); the definition of “with the community” (see Resp. K’neh Bosem, 15; Resp. Riv’vot Ephraim III, 187 and V, 217.); people visiting Israel when the kriah is different than elsewhere (see Resp. B’Tzel haChokhmah, I, 10).