Rabbi Bernard Fox
“On the east side of the
Jordan, in the land of Moav, Moshe began to explain this law saying.” (Devarim 1:5)
This passage is an introduction to Sefer
Devarim. Much of the sefer is a review of the mitzvot. In this review Moshe clarifies the commandments and reveals
additional details.
Rashi comments that Moshe explained the Torah to
Bnai Yisrael in seventy languages.[1] According to Rashi, this was part of the
process of clarifying the Torah. This
raises an interesting question. How
does translation into various languages clarify the Torah?
This problem has an important parallel in halacha. In order to understand this parallel, we need an
introduction. The Torah is divided into
parshiyot – sections. Generally, one portion is read in synagogue
each Shabbat. On some weeks two parshiyot are read. In the course of a single year the entire
Torah is read. The Talmud explains, in
Tractate Berachot, that reading the weekly portion is not featured merely in
the Shabbat synagogue service. We are
also individually obligated to study the portion read on Shabbat. The Talmud further explains that this
personal study of the parasha has a
specific structure. We are required to
read the entire parasha twice. We are also required to read the targum once.[2] What is targum? Targum
means translation. The term is understood as a reference to the Aramaic
translation composed by the Sage Unkelous.[3] This translation is included in many
editions of the Torah.
The Tosefot record a dispute regarding this
requirement of studying targum. They explain that there are two opinions
regarding the requirement of targum. According to the first opinion, targum can be replaced by any
translation understood by the student.
An English-speaking person can substitute an English translation for targum.
The second opinion disagrees.
This opinion insists on the student’s study of Unkelous’ targum.
The second opinion explains that targum
is more than a mere translation.
Although written in the form of a translation, Unkelous’ work offers
invaluable insights into the meaning of various passages. This scholarly work cannot be replaced by a
translation.
This does seem to be a valid criticism of the first
opinion. The Talmud requires targum. Targum is more than a translation.
How can targum be replaced
with a translation? The Tosefot do not
provide much information regarding this issue.
They make one brief comment.
They explain that every translation elucidates.[4] The question is obvious. How does a translation elucidate? This problem parallels our question
Let us begin by understanding the requirement of
reviewing the weekly parasha. Why is targum
needed? Why is it not sufficient to
read the parasha without targum.
It is clear that the law requires that the parasha be read and interpreted.
This requirement creates a problem.
The activity of interpretation is open-ended. The entire Oral Law can be viewed as an interpretation of the
Torah! What level of interpretation is
required to fulfill the obligation of reviewing the weekly portion? The Talmud is establishing this minimum
level. Targum represents the minimum.
Reading the parasha and
studying the targum fulfill the
obligation of studying the parasha.
We can now understand the dispute in Tosefot. How does targum
fulfill the requirement of interpreting the parasha? There are two possibilities. This is because targum has two aspects. Targum is a brief commentary – based
upon the Oral Torah – written in the form of a translation. It is a translation and a commentary. The second opinion in Tosefot is that the
essential characteristic of targum is
that it provides insight from the Oral Torah.
It is written in the form of a translation. However, study of a mere translation does not fulfill the
requirement of reviewing the parasha. A commentary providing insight from the Oral
Torah is essential. Targum satisfies this requirement. Another translation might not.
The first opinion in Tosefot maintains that the
essential feature of targum is
translation. The very process of
translation provides insight into the parasha. Why is this? There are two reasons.
First, some phrases in the Torah are unclear or ambiguous. The process of translation clarifies these
phrases. It is impossible to translate
the Torah without dealing with and elucidating these difficult passages. Second, no two languages are completely
parallel. Every language has a unique
vocabulary. In translating a phrase,
the scholar must choose the word or phrase that best reflects the meaning and
sense of the original. In making this
choice the translator inevitably provides insight into the meaning and
implications of the original text.
According to the first opinion in the Tosefot, the interpretation,
implicit in a translation, is sufficient to fulfill the obligation of studying
the weekly portion.
We can now answer our original question. Moshe translated the Torah into seventy
languages. This was part of his
explanation of the Torah. How did these
seventy translations elucidate the meaning of the Torah?
As we have explained, translation inevitably
interprets. In each translation, Moshe
used the unique vocabulary of the language to describe the meaning and
intention of the pesukim. Each language added color to the entire
picture of the passage’s meaning.
Through this process, Moshe was able to accurately define the simple
meaning of the phrases.
“And they took in their
hands samples of the fruits of the land and they brought them down to us. And they brought us back a report. And they said, “The land that Hashem our G-d
gives to us is good.” (Devarim 1:25)
Moshe recounts the incident of the spies. This incident is described in greater detail
in Sefer BeMidbar. In the account in
Sefer BeMidbar, Moshe sends spies to scout the land of Israel. They return and report that the land is rich
and fertile. However, they add that the
land is heavily fortified and occupied by mighty nations. One of the spies – Kalev – argues that they
can conquer the land. Hashem’s
Providence will assure success. The
other spies respond. Now, they claim
that the land is not wholesome. It is a land that consumes its
inhabitants. After hearing these
reports, the nation does not want to proceed.
There is a movement to appoint a new leader and return to Egypt. Another of the spies – Yehoshua, joins
Kalev. Together, they reiterate that
the land is fertile and rich. They
argue that if Hashem is with Bnai Yisrael, they will conquer the land. The people should not rebel. In the end, the appeals of Kalev and
Yehoshua do not have any effect.
Moshe’s account in his rebuke of these events is
abridged. This is appropriate and
understandable. He is speaking to
people that are familiar with the incident.
There is no need to review all the details. However, oddly, Moshe’s account seems to differ significantly
from the description in Sefer BeMidbar.
These differences do require an explanation.
Let us consider one of these differences. In his recounting the events, Moshe
describes the report of the spies. In
Moshe’s account, they merely say the land is good. This does not correspond with the description of their report in
Sefer BeMidbar. There, they begin by
acknowledging the fertility and richness of the land. However, they add that it cannot be conquered. Furthermore, they later change their
assessment of the land. They claim that the land consumes its occupants. Why does Moshe not mention these elements of
the spies’ report?
Rashi explains that Moshe is not describing the
majority report of the spies. He is
describing the report of Kalev and Yehoshua.
What is Moshe’s message? Moshe’s
apparent point is that the spies came back and said that the land was good –
rich and fertile. Nonetheless, the
nation disregarded this report and decided not to go in![5]
Nachmanides objects to this explanation. If this is Moshe’s criticism of the nation,
it is very weak! Of course, Bnai
Yisrael was unmoved by the minority report!
Ten spies condemned the land.
Only two praised it! The
sensible response was for the nation to discount the minority perspective.
Nachmanides responds on Rashi’s behalf to his own
objection. He explains that there was a
reason for the people to embrace the report of Kalev and Yehoshua and reject
the report of the other spies. Hashem
already described the land of Israel to the nation. He assured Bnai Yisrael that the land flowed with milk and honey. The spies provide conflicting reports. Who should Bnai Yisrael have found to be
credible? Nachmanides explains that
they should have listened to Kalev and Yehoshua. Their report was consistent with Hashem’s assurances. The other spies provided a very different
description of the land. But their
account should have been attributed to their admitted fear and awe of the
nation occupying the land. In short,
the goodness of the land was confirmed.
Yet, Bnai Yisrael refused to enter out of fear.
What is Moshe’s point? He is admonishing the nation to not scapegoat spies for the
tragedy of the nation. The spies were
wrong and committed a grave sin.
However, their sin does not explain or excuse the transgression of Bnai
Yisrael. Why are the spies not
responsible for the nation’s sin? The
spies did not say anything that should have misled the nation. The people should have believed the report
of Kalev and Yehoshua. They should have
attributed the report of the other spies to their fear.
Nachmanides takes this approach one further step. Moshe says that the spies reported that the land was wholesome. Nachmanides proposes that Moshe is referring to the report of all the spies. All of the spies originally endorsed the perfection of the land. True, later the majority changed their appraisal. But this new appraisal was a transparent fabrication. Moshe’s message is that the nation had every indication that the land was wholesome. They did not refuse to enter the land because this issue was actually in doubt. Instead, they lacked the courage to conquer the land. Nothing the spies said excuses the actions of the nation.