[Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 11:36:29PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> 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?

The SA often just echoes Chazal when the case is considered theoretical.
So, if he didn't see people really trying to say Shema in la'az, the
Mechaber wouldn't deal with the practical problems of trying to do so
and just note that hypothetically, Chazal said it was mutar.

> 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?

Or maybe just the right shade for each instance.

If you get too nitpicky, you'll note that two different speakers of
the same language have different memories and associations with many of
their different words, and don't have bidiyuq the same things in mind
when using them.

Exact precision is a rabbit's hole to fall down. The question is defining
"exact enough". Maybe exact enough to relay one out of multiple peshatim?

WRT semitic languages, there are going to be much closer matches. So,
davening in Aramaic seems much more doable than davening in a Romantic
or Germanic language.

> 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?

Or maybe Moshe translated to a phrase. Or maybe, because Moshe knew which
connotation of the sheim was primary in each context, he was able to pick
the right translation for each.

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

But he pointedly does NOT say that it's a good idea even if it's not a
a safeiq. So it would seem translations are only good enough when there
is no better way to deal with the situation.

You're comparing what he says here lekhat-chilah with his solution for
a bedi'eved.

BTW, I think berikh Rachmana is about fulfilling the purpose of the
berachah without trying to fulfill Chazal's coinage. Like if we said
you would be be meqabel ol Malkhus Shamayim by saying Shema in English,
but not yotzei the actual mitzvah of Q"Sh.

Because there is no "atah", and "of this bread" isn't "Who Brings
bread out of the earth". It's not even a close paraphrase, never mind
translation. It's not even an exactness of translation issue. Like,
what if a native Hebrew speaker followed AhS OC 202 by saying "Barukh
haRachaman Adon Melekh haOlam vehalachmaniah hazot". He would also
avoid the risk of berakhaha levatalah and also that of the geneivah-like
behavior of eating without a berakhah.

> 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....

Why? Maybe someone would think "If I get a perfect enough translation
just until 'al levavekha' or just the first pereq, at least he would be
yotzei deOraisa." And SE is a different kind of problem than Shema, since
its core is baqashos, not miqra.

> for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:[1]72,
> 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".

BUT... only for some of the dinim of Sheimos. Not translations of
tefillos. As you started your discussion of RMF -- he agrees with the
AhS that such translations don't exist.

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   others come to love him very naturally, and
Author: Widen Your Tent      he does not need even a speck of flattery.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                      - Rabbi AY Kook