JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

of individual scholar-translators with particular approaches to
present their own vision of the text. Major translations since
NJV (1962) include three traditionalist versions and three more
“literary” renderings. Some of these are clearly intended for
synagogue use, while others aim at a broader audience.
Aryeh Kaplan, The Living Torah: A New Translation
Based on Traditional Jewish Sources (1981, no Hebrew), is an
example of a translation wrought in line with traditional Jewish
teachings. Kaplan was known for his interpretations of
Kabbalah and his expositions of traditional Judaism. In his
Introduction to The Living Torah, he cites the Rabbinic tradition
against literal translation (Kid. 49a, Tosef., Meg. 3:21),
and promotes an idiomatic approach as the one most likely to
avoid misreading. Kaplan approaches narrative texts with an
eye to making them readable, as in storytelling; in contrast,
he treats legal texts primarily in the light of “the final decision
in Jewish law.” He summarizes his goal as attempting to create
a translation that is “accurate, clear, modern, readable, and
above all, in consonance with the living tradition of Judaism.”
As a rule he supplies a healthy dose of translation alternatives
in his notes, drawing mostly on ancient versions (especially
Targumim) and a wide selection of medieval commentators.
Example A: Gen. 35:22, “While Jacob was living undisturbed
in the area, Reuben went and disturbed the sleeping
arrangements of Bilhah, his father’s concubine.” Kaplan derives
this reading from TB Shabbat 55a, b, as distinct from the
usual “Reuben went and lay with Bilhah…,” but gives other
choices in his notes.
Example B: Ex. 33:14, 18, “‘My Presence will go and lead
you,’ replied [God].”…. “‘Please let me have a vision of Your
Glory,’ begged Moses.” These passages feature a less formal
tone, and offer differing renderings for vayyomar.
Samson Rafael Hirsch, The Pentateuch (English Translation
by Gertrude Hirschler) (1990, includes Hebrew), an unusual
project in that it incorporates a translation of a translation,
reflects the 19th-century German Neo-Orthodox leader’s
approach of deriving “the meaning of the words from the
treasure of linguistic explanations which we possess in our
traditional literature” and from his own phonetic-etymological
system. His lengthy commentary is largely philosophical,
and often makes use of biblical language as a springboard for
his thoughts.
Example A: Gen. 1:26, “‘Let Us make an Adam (a deputy)
in a form worthy of us.’” Here Hirsch understands adam as
flowing from the “majesty of plurality” suggested in na’aseh
adam (“Let Us make man”), and notes that “only as a representative
of the community as a whole can the sovereign rule
over his subjects. In the same spirit, the Creator now wishes
to inform the terrestrial world that its [human] master is to
be appointed for its own welfare.” He also derives adam from
adom, red, which, as “the least-broken ray of the spectrum,”
is “the closest manifestation of the Divine earth.”
Example B: Ex. 17:12, “The hands of Moshe became heavy;
and they took a stone and placed it under him, and he sat upon
it. Aharon and Hur supported his hands, the one on the one
bible
side and the other on the other side; so his hands remained
an expression of trust until the sun went down.” Hirsch reads
emunah not as the customary etymology would have it, “firm,”
but rather theologically, “an expression of trust.”
The Chumash (ArtScroll Series: The Stone Edition; ed.
Nosson Scherman) (1993); incorporated in Tanach (The Stone
Edition) (1996, includes Hebrew), like the previous two works,
translates with an eye to rabbinic understandings of the text
and incorporates these into the translation when it feels them
to be warranted. Strikingly, the English text is printed entirely
in italics. The translation is part of ArtScroll’s program of presenting
classical Jewish texts in English and Hebrew, accompanied
by traditionally-based commentaries.
Example A: Deut. 6:5, “You shall love HASHEM, your
God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your
resources.” The choice of “resources” reflects the understanding
of me’od found in Targum Onkelos, Sifre (Deut. 32), and
M. Ber. 9:5.
Example B: Lev. 20:27, “Any man or woman in whom
there shall be the sorcery of Ov or of Yid’oni, they shall be
put to death.” The reader is directed to a note that reads in
part, “Ov and Yid’oni were magical means of foretelling
the future,” differing somewhat from modern scholarly interpretation,
which understands them as related to departed
spirits.
Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses (The Schocken Bible,
Vol. 1) (1995; rev. 1997, no Hebrew), following in the footsteps
of the German Buber-Rosenzweig translation (q.v.), seeks to
echo rhythms and literary devices of the Hebrew text. While
not as radical as the German work, given the less malleable
nature of English, it is designed, like its predecessor, to be read
aloud and to give the English reader an aural feel for the Hebrew
text. Thus it is printed in a form resembling free verse,
names retain their Hebrew forms, as in Hirsch, and the principle
of “leading words” (Buber) – theme words in the text – is
reflected in English. Fox’s line divisions do not strictly follow
the traditional te’amim, but they often correspond to them.
The text is accompanied by commentary on thematic issues,
and notes on specific words. Previous versions of his Genesis
appeared in 1972 and 1983; of Exodus, in 1986.
Example A: Ex. 2:10, “She called his name: Moshe/He-
Who-Pulls-Out; / she said: For out of the water meshitihu/Ipulled-him.”
The translation, using the Hebrew form of Moses’s
name and the Hebrew phrase attached to it by Pharaoh’s
daughter, points to the grammatical significance of the form
Moshe (in hiph’il) as an active foreshadowing of Moses’s future
role.
Example B: Gen. 6:11, 13, “Now the earth had gone to
ruin before God, the earth was filled with wrongdoing. / God
saw the earth, and here, it had gone to ruin, / for all flesh had
ruined its way upon the earth. / …here, I am about to bring
ruin upon them, together with the earth.” The repetition of key
word “ruin,” representing the Hebrew root sh-h’-t, appears to
be used by the text to express the biblical concept of the punishment
corresponding to the crime.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 623