translator

But it came to pass after he was crucified, and dead and arisen again, when the work was fulfilled which was accomplished in the flesh, and he was crucified and the ascension come to pass at the end of the days, then said he thus, &c. It is an interpolation, in place of words which the translator did not understand, or found heretical. ) But the whole fulfilment of the fulfilment shall ye see after the redemption which hath come to pass by me, and ye shall see me, how I go up unto my Father which is in heaven. But behold, now, I give unto you a new commandment: Love one another and obey one another, that peace may rule alway among you. Love your enemies, and what ye would not that man do unto you, that do unto no man.

I know that very many of the brethren, induced by their thirst for a knowledge of the Scriptures, have requested some distinguished men, well versed in Greek learning, to translate Origen into Latin, and so make him accessible to Roman readers. Among these, when our brother and colleague had, at the earnest entreaty of Bishop Damasus, translated two of the Homilies on the Song of Songs out of Greek into Latin, he prefixed so elegant and noble a preface to that work, as to inspire every one with a most eager desire to read and study Origen, saying that the expression, “The King hath brought me into his chamber,” was appropriate to his feelings, and declaring that while Origen in his other works surpassed all writers, he in the Song of Songs surpassed even himself. He promises, indeed, in that very preface, that he will present the books on the Song of Songs, and numerous others of the works of Origen, in a Latin translation, to Roman readers. But he, finding greater pleasure in compositions of his own, pursues an end that is attended with greater fame, viz. in being the author rather than the translator of works. Accordingly we enter upon the undertaking, which was thus begun and approved of by him, although we cannot compose in a style of elegance xiiequal to that of a man of such distinguished eloquence; and therefore I am afraid lest, through my fault, the result should follow, that that man, whom he deservedly esteems as the second teacher of knowledge and wisdom in the church after the apostles, should, through the poverty of my language, appear far inferior to what he is. And this consideration, which frequently recurred to my mind, kept me silent, and prevented me from yielding to the numerous entreaties of my brethren, until your influence, my very faithful brother Macarius, which is so great, rendered it impossible for my unskilfulness any longer to offer resistance. And therefore, that I might not find you too grievous an exactor, I gave way, even contrary to my resolution; on the condition and arrangement, however, that in my translation I should follow as far as possible the rule observed by my predecessors, and especially by that distinguished man whom I have mentioned above, who, after translating into Latin more than seventy of those treatises of Origen which are styled Homilies, and a considerable number also of his writings on the apostles, in which a good many “stumbling-blocks” are found in the original Greek, so smoothed and corrected them in his translation, that a Latin reader would meet with nothing which could appear discordant with our belief. His example, therefore, we follow, to the best of our ability; if not with equal power of eloquence, yet at least with the same strictness of rule, taking care not to reproduce those expressions occurring in the works of Origen which are inconsistent with and opposed to each other. The cause of these variations we have explained more freely in the Apologeticus, which Pamphilus wrote in defence of the works of Origen, where we added a brief tract, in which we showed, I think, by unmistakeable proofs, that his books had been corrupted in numerous places by heretics and malevolent persons, and especially those books of which you now require me to undertake the translation, i.e. the books which may be entitled De Principiis or De Principatibus, and which are indeed in other respects full of obscurities and difficulties. For he there discusses those subjects with respect to which philosophers, xiiiafter spending all their lives upon them, have been unable to discover anything. But here our author strove, as much as in him lay, to turn to the service of religion the belief in a Creator, and the rational nature of created beings, which the latter had degraded to purposes of wickedness. If, therefore, we have found anywhere in his writings, any statement opposed to that view, which elsewhere in his works he had himself piously laid down regarding the Trinity, we have either omitted it, as being corrupt, and not the composition of Origen, or we have brought it forward, agreeably to the rule which we frequently find affirmed by himself. If, indeed, in his desire to pass rapidly on, he has, as speaking to persons of skill and knowledge, sometimes expressed himself obscurely, we have, in order that the passage might be clearer, added what we had read more fully stated on the same subject in his other works, keeping explanation in view, but adding nothing of our own, but simply restoring to him what was his, although occurring in other portions of his writings.

One who reads the Torah [in public] may not read less than three verses. And he should not read to the translator more than one verse [at a time], but [if reading from the book of a] prophet [he may read to him] three at a time. If the three verses constitute three separate paragraphs, he must read them [to the translator] one by one. They may skip [from place to place] in a prophet but not in the Torah. How far may he skip [in the prophet]? [Only] so far that the translator will not have stopped [before he finds his place].

One who reads the Torah [in public] may not read less than three verses. And he should not read to the translator more than one verse [at a time], but [if reading from the book of a] prophet [he may read to him] three at a time. If the three verses constitute three separate paragraphs, he must read them [to the translator] one by one. They may skip [from place to place] in a prophet but not in the Torah. How far may he skip [in the prophet]? [Only] so far that the translator will not have stopped [before he finds his place].

One who reads the Torah [in public] may not read less than three verses. And he should not read to the translator more than one verse [at a time], but [if reading from the book of a] prophet [he may read to him] three at a time. If the three verses constitute three separate paragraphs, he must read them [to the translator] one by one. They may skip [from place to place] in a prophet but not in the Torah. How far may he skip [in the prophet]? [Only] so far that the translator will not have stopped [before he finds his place].

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if it was written in Greek. Where do we hold? If it was written in square script and he translated it into Greek, that is what we have stated “in any language.” If it was written in Greek and he translated it into {the language of} square script, that is what was stated, which is the difference between Torah scrolls and the Esther scroll? Only that Torah scrolls may be written in any language but the Esther scroll may only be written in square script. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosartai said, explain it if it was written gignton. Samuel stated: If in error he omitted one verse but the translator translated it, he fulfilled his obligation. We are saying “in any language,” and you are saying so? Samuel follows his opinion [since] Samuel said, if it was written according to its rules the Greek speaker fulfills his obligation in Greek. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he knows the language of square script and he knows Greek, he fulfills his obligation [in Greek or] in the language of square script. Greek, he fulfills his obligation in Greek. If he knows the language of square script and he knows Greek, may he absolve the public from their obligation in Greek? This shall come following: anybody who is not obligated in a matter cannot not absolve the public of their obligation.

Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Mattanah, Samuel bar Shilat in the name of Rav: Seven not counting the closer. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Pazi objected, did we not state, the one who reads the conclusion from Prophets should not do less than 21 verses? He said it and he gave the reason, if there is no translator. But if there is a translator, one has to read three. Rebbi Ḥelbo said before Rebbi Abbahu, before Rebbi Joḥanan they are reading three. He said to him, (is not) [should not be] Rebbi Joḥanan like a translator?

Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Mattanah, Samuel bar Shilat in the name of Rav: Seven not counting the closer. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Pazi objected, did we not state, the one who reads the conclusion from Prophets should not do less than 21 verses? He said it and he gave the reason, if there is no translator. But if there is a translator, one has to read three. Rebbi Ḥelbo said before Rebbi Abbahu, before Rebbi Joḥanan they are reading three. He said to him, (is not) [should not be] Rebbi Joḥanan like a translator?

Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Mattanah, Samuel bar Shilat in the name of Rav: Seven not counting the closer. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Pazi objected, did we not state, the one who reads the conclusion from Prophets should not do less than 21 verses? He said it and he gave the reason, if there is no translator. But if there is a translator, one has to read three. Rebbi Ḥelbo said before Rebbi Abbahu, before Rebbi Joḥanan they are reading three. He said to him, (is not) [should not be] Rebbi Joḥanan like a translator?

MISHNAH: One who reads in the Torah may not read less than three verses. He should not read for the translator more than one verse, but in Prophets three. If all three were three paragraphs he reads them singly. One skips in Prophets but one does not skip in the Torah. How far may he skip? As long as the translator did not stop.

MISHNAH: One who reads in the Torah may not read less than three verses. He should not read for the translator more than one verse, but in Prophets three. If all three were three paragraphs he reads them singly. One skips in Prophets but one does not skip in the Torah. How far may he skip? As long as the translator did not stop.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Aqiba said, when I left the country for Nahardea for the intercalation of the year, Nehemiah from Badala found me,” etc. If it was found in a document: “X died, X was killed”; Rebbi Jeremiah said, one lets his wife remarry; Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, one does not let his wife remarry. A baraita supports the one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Jeremiah: “By the mouth of witnesses,” not on basis of their writings, not on the word of a translator, not on the testimony of a single witness.” Today, does one not let remarry on the testimony of a single witness? Therefore also one lets remarry on basis of their writings and on the word of a translator. A baraita supports Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: The power of witnesses is greater than the power of a document and the power of a document is greater than the power of witnesses. Since if witnesses say, “X died, X was killed”, one lets his wife remarry but if it was found in a document: “X died, X was killed”, one does not let his wife remarry. The power of a document is greater than the power of witnesses, since if somebody gives a loan before witnesses, he can foreclose only from unincumbered property; by a document, he can foreclose from mortgaged property.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Aqiba said, when I left the country for Nahardea for the intercalation of the year, Nehemiah from Badala found me,” etc. If it was found in a document: “X died, X was killed”; Rebbi Jeremiah said, one lets his wife remarry; Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, one does not let his wife remarry. A baraita supports the one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Jeremiah: “By the mouth of witnesses,” not on basis of their writings, not on the word of a translator, not on the testimony of a single witness.” Today, does one not let remarry on the testimony of a single witness? Therefore also one lets remarry on basis of their writings and on the word of a translator. A baraita supports Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: The power of witnesses is greater than the power of a document and the power of a document is greater than the power of witnesses. Since if witnesses say, “X died, X was killed”, one lets his wife remarry but if it was found in a document: “X died, X was killed”, one does not let his wife remarry. The power of a document is greater than the power of witnesses, since if somebody gives a loan before witnesses, he can foreclose only from unincumbered property; by a document, he can foreclose from mortgaged property.

R. Simeon b. Pazzi said : Whence is it that the translator is not permitted to raise his voice above that of the reader? As it is said, "Moses spoke, and God answered him by a voice" (Exod. xix. 19) — there was no need to say "by a voice" ; what, therefore, does the teaching "by a voice" tell us? By a voice [equal to that] of Moses.

There is a similar teaching : The translator is not permitted to raise his voice above that of the reader ; and if the translator is not able to pitch his voice as loud as the reader, then the reader should lower his voice and read.

There is a similar teaching : The translator is not permitted to raise his voice above that of the reader ; and if the translator is not able to pitch his voice as loud as the reader, then the reader should lower his voice and read.

Our Rabbis taught: If the scribe had omitted letters or verses and the reader read them like the translator when he is translating, he has fulfilled his obligation.

But where the subject is not completed, we do not [read less than twenty-one verses]? Didn't R. Shmuel b. Abba say: Many times I stood before R. Yohanan, and when I had read ten verses he said, Stop! In a place where there is a translator it is different, since R. Tahlifa b. Shmuel has taught: They only taught this in a place where there is no translator, but where there is a translator a stop may be made [earlier].

But where the subject is not completed, we do not [read less than twenty-one verses]? Didn't R. Shmuel b. Abba say: Many times I stood before R. Yohanan, and when I had read ten verses he said, Stop! In a place where there is a translator it is different, since R. Tahlifa b. Shmuel has taught: They only taught this in a place where there is no translator, but where there is a translator a stop may be made [earlier].

But where the subject is not completed, we do not [read less than twenty-one verses]? Didn't R. Shmuel b. Abba say: Many times I stood before R. Yohanan, and when I had read ten verses he said, Stop! In a place where there is a translator it is different, since R. Tahlifa b. Shmuel has taught: They only taught this in a place where there is no translator, but where there is a translator a stop may be made [earlier].

One who reads the Torah [in public] may not read less than three verses. And he should not read to the translator more than one verse [at a time],

but [if reading from the book of a] prophet [he may read to him] three at a time. If the three verses constitute three separate paragraphs, he must read them [to the translator] one by one.

They may skip [from place to place] in a prophet but not in the Torah. How far may he skip [in the prophet]? [Only] so far that the translator will not have stopped [before he finds his place].

And he should not read to the translator more than one verse [at a time], but [if reading from the book of a] prophet [he may read to him] three at a time. If the three verses constitute three separate paragraphs, he must read them [to the translator] one by one. For instance, [the three verses], “For thus says the Lord, you were sold for nothing” … For thus says the Lord God, my people went down to Egypt in times of yore”…; Now therefore what is there for me here, says the Lord” (Isaiah 52:3-5).

And he should not read to the translator more than one verse [at a time], but [if reading from the book of a] prophet [he may read to him] three at a time. If the three verses constitute three separate paragraphs, he must read them [to the translator] one by one. For instance, [the three verses], “For thus says the Lord, you were sold for nothing” … For thus says the Lord God, my people went down to Egypt in times of yore”…; Now therefore what is there for me here, says the Lord” (Isaiah 52:3-5).

Abaye said: There is no contradiction; here so that the translator will have come to a stop [before the place is found] in the other case he will not have come to a stop.

They may skip [from place to place] in a prophet but not in the Torah. How far may he skip [in the prophet]? [Only] so far that the translator will not have stopped [before he finds his place]. How far may he skip [in the prophet]? [Only] so far that the translator will not have stopped [before he finds his place].

They may skip [from place to place] in a prophet but not in the Torah. How far may he skip [in the prophet]? [Only] so far that the translator will not have stopped [before he finds his place]. How far may he skip [in the prophet]? [Only] so far that the translator will not have stopped [before he finds his place].

Rather Abaye said: There is no contradiction: Here [the reader deals] with one subject, in the other case with two; and in fact it has been taught: The reader may skip in the Torah within one subject, and in a Prophet even if he goes on to another subject’; and in both cases only so far that the translator will not have stopped [before he finds the place].

The following are read but not translated (Mnemonic: R’E’B’D’N’). The incident of Reuben is read but not translated. On one occasion R. Hanina b. Gamaliel went to Kabul, and the reader of the congregation read, “And it came to pass when Israel dwelled” (Genesis 35:22), and he said to the translator: Translate only the latter part of the verse, and the sages praised him.

What is R. Meir’s reason? It like that of Ulla as Ulla said: Why did they say that he who reads from the Torah should not aid the translator? So that people should not say that the translation is written in the Torah. So too here [R. Meir’s reason is] so that they should not say that the blessings are written in the Torah.