[Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4

[Akiva Miller]

.
<wolberg at yebo.co.za> asked several questions about Aruch HaShulchan OC
62:4, who wrote:
> And therefore at this time it is forbidden to recite the
> Shema and Tefillah and all brochas except in Hebrew.

Spoiler alert: I have several problems with this Aruch Hashulchan, and I
suspect that (as R' Wolberg suspects), the AhS had ulterior reasons for
writing this (such as the inroads that Reform was making via their
translations) and could not have really meant it l'halacha. In any case,
there are other poskim who do allow translations.

I will begin by giving my own translation of this section of AhS, so that
if anyone disagrees with my understanding of what he said, they can bring
it to my attention. I will break it into several numbered pieces for easier
reference.

>>>
1) Know that this [halacha] that Krias Shema and Tefilla may be said in any
language - this is certainly when one translates really the entire three
sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh into the other
language. For otherwise, it would not constitute Shema and Tefilla.
2) According to that, this law does not apply except in the time of the
Mishna and Gemara, for they knew our language well, and they were able to
translate it.
3) But now, it is well-known that we have a number of uncertainties in
explaining the words, and the commentators are divided about it. For
example, how do we translate "totafos"? Similarly, the pasuk "Shema
Yisrael" has various explanations even of its simple meaning. Likewise in
the section about tzitzis, some explain it [the word "tzitzis"] in the
sense of "looking" [from the root tzadi yud tzadi], and some explain it as
"going" [from yud tzadi aleph]. Same for the word "p'sil" and many [other
words] like it.
4) Behold, the essential Name of Havay' - we don't know how to translate it
correctly! There are those who translate it as Nitzchi [Eternal], and some
translate it as Kol-Yachol [Almighty], and there is no translation at all
for "Was and Is and Will Be", which is the real Name Havay', so they equate
the translation of the Name Havay' with the Name Elokim.
5) [Here he says something about two very different ways of translating
"V'chara af", but I don't understand what he is saying.]
6) And therefore, nowadays it is forbidden to recite Krias Shema or Tefilla
or any brachos except in Lashon Hakodesh, and so have the Geonei Olam
paskened for about eighty years now, and this is the bottom-line halacha.
>>>

The first thing I noticed is that this ability to translate correctly was
supposedly lost since Gemara days, but the prohibition of saying translated
prayers was less than a century old. If so, how did the Shulchan Aruch (in
the section that this very Aruch Hashulchan is commenting on) allow it?

He is also ambiguous about the exact problem: Is it that our translators
lack the skill to translate correctly, or that the foreign languages are
incapable of reflecting the many shades of meaning that the original text
holds? For example, is the problem that we can't find a word in English to
adequately express Hashem's Name, or that no such word exists?

According to Rashi on Devarim 1:5 and 27:8, Moshe Rabbeinu translated the
Torah into 70 languages. I don't doubt that he understood the word
"totafos" and was able to translate it well, but did all seventy of those
languages contain words that could be used as Hashem's Name to the AhS's
satisfaction? All 70 languages had a word that meant Eternal AND Almighty
AND Was/Is/WillBe?

In fact, the AhS seems to contradict himself on this very point. Here's my
translation of Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3:

1) It seems in my humble opinion that there is an established halacha by
which one can get out of any questionable bracha acharona. For example, one
is unsure if he said a bracha acharona or not. Or if he *needs* to make a
bracha acharona or not. There is a way to extricate himself from this safek.
2) Namely: We hold that if a person said [in Aramaic]: "Brich Rachamana,
Mara Malka d'alma, d'hai pita" [Blessed be God, Lord King of the Universe
(and) of this bread], he is yotzay the bracha of Hamotzi, as it is written
in [Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim] 167.
3) If so, one can say "Brich Rachamana, Mara Malka d'alma, boray nefashos
etc. ..." If he was obligated in this bracha, then he is yotzay with this.
And if he didn't need this bracha, then he has *not* uttered the Name of
Heaven in vain, because there is no mention of the Name at all. Look, you
can say "Rachamana" a hundred times!
4) Or similar things with other brachos. You should think in your heart
that if you need the bracha then it is [being said] for the sake of a
bracha; and if not, then it's just talking.
5) I have done this myself several times when drinking hot drinks.

The most obvious thing from this section is that the Aruch Hashulchan
personally believes that a bracha CAN be said in Aramaic. You might respond
that he makes an exception for Aramaic, which is arguably a Lashon
Hakodesh. But look again at the AhS's requirements for an adequate
translation of Hashem's Name - which is an absolute necessity when saying a
bracha - and I don't think "Rachamana" conveys any sense of  "Was and Is
and Will Be".

Finally, what did the AhS 62:4 mean when he wrote about translating "the
entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh". Why did
he specify the whole thing? I suspect that he was trying to preclude
someone from a partial translation. For example, one could translate most
of the words, and leave the difficult words untranslated, which is almost
exactly how ArtScroll handles the cited case of "totafos": "Bind them as a
sign upon your arm and let them be tefillin between your eyes."

If I'm understanding Siman 62 correctly, the AhS wants translation to be
all-or-nothing, and since all is not possible, he feels justified in
banning all translations. But in Siman 202, a partial translation is
exactly what he is doing, by translating the initial words of the bracha,
and then continuing with the regular Hebrew text.

By the way, it seems that Rav Moshe Feinstein agrees that a translation
must be all-or-nothing. See Igros Moshe OC 4:40:27, which is two
paragraphs. In the first paragraph, he rejects the AhS's suggestion of
using Brich Rachamana to get out of problems, precisely because you can't
mix languages in that manner. (It's not at all clear to me why we're not
allowed to mix languages, but it is very clear that Rav Moshe rejects it.)
In the second paragraph he explains that even if one would say the entire
bracha in Aramaic, that too would not resolve a safek bracha problem,
because whereas the AhS had no compunctions against saying Rachamana a
hundred times, *we* are noheg to avoid saying the Name in vain even when
translated.

As an aside, there are several teshuvos in which Rav Moshe explains his
views on how to translate Hashem's Name for brachos in other languages. See
for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:272,
where he explains that every language has a word that its speakers have
assigned to being G-d's Name, and that in Aramaic, that word is Rachamana,
"and even if it might come from Rachum, nevertheless, they made and
established it as the Name. ... And if so, in the foreign languages common
among us, only the name Gott is a Name, and not Eibershter and such. ...
And in English it is specifically the name God." According to Rav Moshe,
whatever is used *as* His Name *is* His Name, without any need to include
concepts like  "Was and Is and Will Be".

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200913/d12f3a44/attachment.html>