Hillel Lichtman asks for “other examples of bad translations.†Yoni Grossman suggests that it is not so much that the translation is wrong; rather that the act of translation intrinsically has limitations.
I give below an example as well as the method by which it was derived. It should be clear from the example that, contrary to Yoni Grossman, the translation itself is bad.
I frequently give adult Chumash classes with particular emphasis on Rashi. If everyone in the class is not fluent in Hebrew, I simply use the English Bible translation. Many Rashis can be derived by using the English translation.
In the late 90s I was giving a Chumash-Rashi class in the Young Israel of Lower Merion. We were studying a Rashi on the word NA (Nun Aleph).
Here is the important point and my answer to Hillel. A delightful exercise is to take a specific word, possibly in a specific context, and study the English translations of this one word in a certain context throughout the bible. This really opens eyes.
In this case, we studied the word NA (Nun Aleph) when used by God. Just to be clear, NA, occurs many times in Tanach but only occurs 8 times in the Torah with God saying NA. NA means please. So it “sounds peculiar†for God to say please, after all, isn’t He King.
These exercises are illuminating. I typically have my whole class cracking up at the blatant inconsistencies in the use of NA. Of the 8 times that God uses NA in the Torah, some well-known English translations had 3 translations (including the empty (no) translation).
To get to my response to Yoni Grossman, I focus on Nu12-06. The background is clear. God, King of the Universe, is infuriated at Miryam and Aaron for speaking slander on Moses, the trusted servant in God’s house. One sees the climax in the verses: i) God descends in a cloud, ii) He summons Miryam and Aaron, iii) He is about to pronounce sentence on Miryam and Aaron for daring to speak on Moses, iv) the punishment is Miryam becoming leprous, and v) Aaron begs Moses’ forgiveness for some words of folly.
With this background of climax, with God blowing up, the verse begins: “He said unto them: *please* (NA) hear My words.†Notice how peculiar it sounds. Is God angry or not? It says He was angry. He is pronouncing punishment. So how can the verse say that he asks the sinners, Miryam and Aaron to *please* hear his words.
Rashi in his deft and delicate way tersely says, “NA means please (language of request).†But Rashi does not tell us why. The Rav (Rabbi Joseph Baer Soloveitchick) has explained that the Bible has two methods of indicating moral norms: commands and statements about God. The statement about God, via imitation Dei, leads to a requirement of a moral norm. So if God visits the sick (Gn18) then man must visit the sick.
Here, although God is infuriated at Miryam and Moses, he nevertheless says NA, please. This teaches us that a judge (no matter how strongly he feels) must always exercise due process and give the accused a chance to defend him or herself.
The English translators did not know this Rashi, derived from a Sifray. So they assume the word NA, please, is out of place and mistranslate. Yes, there are even Hebrew scholars who also feel that please is out of place and mistranslate (or invent other translations for NA).
My point and response to Yoni Grossman is that this is not a general problem about the translation of languages. Rather it is a particular problem that when a translator does not understand the import of a text they are led to deliberate mistranslation.
As I indicated, I have found this technique, a field study of one word throughout the Torah to be a stimulating and challenging exercise that never fails to give mirth to those involved.
Russell Jay Hendel; Ph.D., ASA; rashiyomi.com/;
rhendel@towson.edu
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2016 07:00AM by mlb.
