Rashbam on Bo, and a Slightly Askew Translation
The past few weeks, I’ve had a running focus on Eliyahu Munk’s translation of several Biblical commentaries. We’ve had a particular focus on censored texts, where an entire comment, or part of a comment, is omitted, or reworked deliberately or accidentally to accord with a particular frum point of view. A lot is solved by having the Hebrew translation parallel to the English, is possible in Sefaria (assuming you select that display option) but which, alas, is not the case in the printed books of English translated commentary.
This week, I want to focus on a different aspect of Munk’s translation, which again is not deliberate, but which I disagree with and think is misguided.
The question is as follows. When a Biblical commenter cites a verse from elsewhere in Tanach (e.g. a verse from Yeshaya or Mishlei), is the purpose of citing that verse exceptionally narrow, to demonstrate / illustrate a grammatical point about the way language works? Or, should we also examine the context of that foreign verse, because the commentator alludes to that verse as part of the intended meaning?
I am more conservative, and say the latter. Eliyahu Munk is more creative, and often leans towards the latter, even where it goes against the plain meaning of the translation.
Here is a case in point, from parashat Bo. In Shemot 10:10:
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֗ם יְהִ֨י כֵ֤ן יְהֹוָה֙ עִמָּכֶ֔ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר אֲשַׁלַּ֥ח אֶתְכֶ֖ם וְאֶֽת־טַפְּכֶ֑ם רְא֕וּ כִּ֥י רָעָ֖ה נֶ֥גֶד פְּנֵיכֶֽם׃
But he said to them, “יהוה be with you—the same as I mean to let your dependents go with you! Clearly, you are bent on mischief.
Rashbam writes:
כי רעה נגד פניכם - אתם חושבים רעה בלבבכם וזה מוכיח: הוי חכמים בעיניהם ונגד פניהם נבונים.
כי רעה נגד פניכם. You have foolish designs in your hearts. The accuracy of this interpretation is reflected by Isaiah 5,21 הוי חכמים בעיניהם ונגד (פניהם) נבונים, “Ah, those who are so wise, in their own opinion, so clever in their own judgment.” Pharaoh was at pains to tell Moses that what he thought was good for the Jews was not good for them at all.
Now, that it not at all how I would translate. Rather, I would render it:
כי רעה נגד פניכם - you are thinking evil in your hearts. And this will prove {that the term neged peneichem connotes internal thoughts} - “Woe, those who are wise in their own eyes; and neged pneihem are deep thinkers.” (Yeshaya 5:21)
The two major changes are:
Eliyahu Munk took רעה, which was both present in the verse and present in the commentary, and literally means evil, and turned it into “foolish designs”.
Eliyahu Munk added words that the extremely brief Rashbam never wrote, and does not even put it as an [Editorial insertion]. Namely, all of these words: “Pharaoh was at pains to tell Moses that what he thought was good for the Jews was not good for them at all.” This is perhaps a way in which Munk tries to connect the ra’a / bad meaning with the ra’a foolish meaning. But Rashbam never said it.
What influenced our translator to explain it in this way? First, this is perhaps akin to Seforno’s comment, which Munk also translated as part of his Chut HaMeshulash commentary. He may think that these two Biblical commentators are expressing the same idea.
But also, the verse in Yeshaya is all about people who think themselves clever but are really foolish. Since Rashbam quoted this verse, Rashbam’s intent must be that Moshe, as well, thinks himself clever, but his designs are foolish.
And again, we’ll go back to the theme I mentioned up top. That was NOT Rashbam’s purpose in citing that verse. Rather, the narrow purpose was the Biblical parallelism, so that the first half of the verse in Yeshaya helped us understand the second half of the verse. And we want to know what the words neged penei(c)hem mean.
While scanning through the commentaries, I found that Eliyahu Munk also entirely skipped the following comment from Rashbam. The pasuk, Shemot 12:9, read:
אַל־תֹּאכְל֤וּ מִמֶּ֙נּוּ֙ נָ֔א וּבָשֵׁ֥ל מְבֻשָּׁ֖ל בַּמָּ֑יִם כִּ֣י אִם־צְלִי־אֵ֔שׁ רֹאשׁ֥וֹ עַל־כְּרָעָ֖יו וְעַל־קִרְבּֽוֹ׃
Do not eat any of it raw, or cooked in any way with water, but roasted—head, legs, and entrails—over the fire.
Rashbam’s commentary on the verse is:
נא - נראה לשון צלי קדרה המבושל בלא מים ובלא צלי אש הכתוב כאן.
נא, I believe this means a type of frying in a pot but in its own juice (including the blood) not involving water known as צלי קדר, not roasting directly on the fire, as required by our verse here [so that the blood drips off. Ed.].
ראשו על כרעיו - כל זה דרך מהירות.
I’m not sure why the translator skipped this second comment. It might have been accidental, after an expansive preceding comment, where the words do not exactly match and where there’s an editorial insertion at the end.
Alternatively, we can speculate why he might have omitted it. Rashbam is saying:
na does not mean raw, but is a kind of slower cooking / roasting in a pot.
head, legs, and entrails all together - because this is faster
There’s a general theme of chipazon, eating the korban pesach in haste. And so Rashbam is connecting this manner of preparation to haste.
While Eliyahu Munk might be willing to translate na against halacha, it isn’t really against halacha. At the end of the day, it needs to be roasted as specified, and it cannot be roasted in a different manner. This is true whether it means raw or pot-roasted — the concrete halachic steps are the same.
But the interpretation of rosho al kera’av does not exactly accord with practical halacha, where it is put into a fire-pit vertically, with the entrails wrapped around its head. Rashbam doesn’t say you cannot do it, but it seems like his idea is that you just roast it whole.
Also, perhaps this goes against the famous reason for not breaking a bone, and preparing it whole — to show that they are not afraid of the Egyptians.
OK, enough for Rashbash. What do we have to say for Seforno?
Shemot 10:23 reads:
לֹֽא־רָא֞וּ אִ֣ישׁ אֶת־אָחִ֗יו וְלֹא־קָ֛מוּ אִ֥ישׁ מִתַּחְתָּ֖יו שְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֑ים וּֽלְכׇל־בְּנֵ֧י יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל הָ֥יָה א֖וֹר בְּמוֹשְׁבֹתָֽם׃
People could not see one another, and for three days no one could move about; but all the Israelites enjoyed light in their dwellings.
Seforno writes:
לא ראו איש את אחיו. כי לא הספיק לזה אור נר ואבוקה:
לא ראו איש את אחיו, for even a lit up flare would not be able to make a “dent” in that darkness.
He does not translate “and a man didn’t see his brother/fellow”. But he adds and removes slight aspects of the translation. The not being able to make a dent is not explicit in these words, but it makes sense as a continuation of Seforno’s immediately preceding comment about the nature of this darkness, as opposed to the darkness of night. “Lit up flare” is an interesting way of rendering or ner va`avuka. I would have said “the light of a lamp or a torch.”
There is some commentary / alignment issues with this translation also being part of the preceding comment, so maybe that would account for the next comment being missing. But I suspect that Eliyahu Munk left it untranslated deliberately. That pasuk is Shemot 10:29, where Moshe speaks in response to Pharaoh. 28 and 29 read:
וַיֹּֽאמֶר־ל֥וֹ פַרְעֹ֖ה לֵ֣ךְ מֵעָלָ֑י הִשָּׁ֣מֶר לְךָ֗ אַל־תֹּ֙סֶף֙ רְא֣וֹת פָּנַ֔י כִּ֗י בְּי֛וֹם רְאֹתְךָ֥ פָנַ֖י תָּמֽוּת׃
Pharaoh said to him, “Be gone from me! Take care not to see me again, for the moment you look upon my face you shall die.”
וַיֹּ֥אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֖ה כֵּ֣ן דִּבַּ֑רְתָּ לֹא־אֹסִ֥ף ע֖וֹד רְא֥וֹת פָּנֶֽיךָ׃ {פ}
And Moses replied, “You have spoken rightly. I shall not see your face again!”
And Seforno writes:
לא אוסיף עוד ראות פניך. כי תמות, כענין לא תוסיפו לראותם עוד עד עולם. אמנם כאשר קרא למשה ולאהרן לילה קרא אותם על ידי עבדיו בלבד, כאמרו וירדו כל עבדיך אלה אלי:
Here is how I would translate it:
I will not see your face again — for you will die, in the same manner of (Shemot 14:13) ‘[for the Egyptians whom you see today] you will never see again.’ Indeed, when he [Pharaoh didn’t die but] called to Moshe and Aharon at night, he called them only via his servants, as he [Moshe] said (later, in Shemot 11:8) “Then all these courtiers of yours shall come down to me and bow low to me [, saying, ‘Depart, you and all the people who follow you!’ After that I will depart.]
The point two-fold. (1) Moshe is consistent in saying he will henceforth deal with Pharaoh’s servants. But (2) this is because he believes that Pharaoh will die.
I think there may be an undercurrent that Moshe misunderstood the import of what he was saying. That he believed that Pharaoh would die in makkat bechorot. And Moshe was wrong about this. But even so, he did not utter any prophetic words that were technically inaccurate.
Such an idea might be deemed heretical, much as last week, it was not possible to write the idea that Moshe made an incorrect kal vachomer because he lacked the knowledge of why the Hebrews refused him — mikotzer ruach va’avoda kasha.