Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha states in a Mishna (Sanhedrin 56a) that, during a trial for blaspheming, the witnesses are asked to use an appellation of God’s name as they repeat the culprit’s curse, so that they don’t utter the blasphemy themselves. However, during sentencing, the judges dismiss everyone from the court and then interrogate the eldest witness, having him repeat what he heard precisely. They react by tearing their clothing, with the tear never being stitched back. The other witnesses then confirm that they heard the culprit say exactly that phrase. This demonstrates how we sometimes need to balance accuracy with sensitivity. Where possible, the judges avoided hearing the blasphemous words. But what if the blasphemer actually said, “Yossi should strike Yossi,” because he was angry with Rabbi Yossi ben Chalafta? Facts and nuance can be lost in translation, deliberately or accidentally.

On my Scribal Error substack, I’ve been discussing Eliyahu Munk’s English translations of Biblical commentators, analyzing weekly examples on the sidra. Munk is a prolific translator and has translated Chizkuni, Meshech Chochma, Or Hachaim, Kedushat Levi, Baal HaTurim, Rabbeinu Bachya, Shnei Luchot HaBrit, Radak, Rashbam, Seforno, Alshich, Shadal and more. A few of these works are freely available on Sefaria’s website, aligned with the pesukim, but most are just in printed form. These translations only include the English, not the original Hebrew, so the reader isn’t able to compare the English translation with what these rabbinic commentators actually wrote.

All translation is commentary, but there are aspects of Eliyahu Munk’s approach that are concerning. It often isn’t a literal translation, but intends to convey the general gist of the statement, sometimes by adding and sometimes by deleting words or phrases. He’ll sometimes skip the overly grammatical analyses, saying that neither he nor his readers are grammarians (see his translation to Chizkuni on Shemot 15:2). Also, it seems as if he sometimes deliberately skips or modifies what the meforshim say, if he feels that they are expressing heresy. He justified this in a Jewish Press interview (“Translating One Classic After Another – For 40 Years: An Interview with Eliyahu Munk,” June 28, 2018), in the following exchange:

“Q: You have been criticized in the past for omitting material in your translations. How do you respond?

A: It’s not only permitted, but in the Targum of Edot HaMizrach, certain aspects of Aharon’s participation in the eigel(Golden Calf) are not translated. So if portions in the Torah could be eliminated from the Targum, certainly I can eliminate some portions from a rabbi who lived a couple of thousand years later.”

A Famous Rashi

Let’s explore how this plays out in parashat Yitro. Shemot 20:15 describes the scene at Har Sinai. “And all the nation saw (רֹאִ֨ים) the sounds (הַקּוֹלֹ֜ת) and the flames / lightning (הַלַּפִּידִ֗ם) and the sound of the shofar, and the mountain smoking; and the nation saw it, fell back and stood at a distance.” How does one see sounds? The Mechilta of Rashbi explains: “Within the natural order, one cannot see sound. However, here ‘they saw the sounds and the flames,’ meaning that just as they saw the flames, so did they see the sounds.”

I’ve heard people associate this with synesthesia, which is a neurological condition in which someone processes other sensations (such as sound, taste and smell) as sight. They suggest that Hashem granted the nation temporary synesthesia so that they could literally see the sounds.

This seems to be a matter of Tannaitic dispute. The Mechilta of Rabbi Yishmael (Tractate Bachodesh 9) has Rabbi Yishmael explain, רוֹאִין אֶת הַנִּרְאֶה וְשׁוֹמְעִין אֶת הַנִּשְׁמָע, that they saw what could be seen and heard what could be heard. (Perhaps, that רֹאִ֨ים means perceived in the general sense, and can apply to each subject in the verse.) Rabbi Akiva says רוֹאִין וְשׁוֹמְעִין אֶת הַנִּרְאֶה. רוֹאִין דִּבֵּר שֶׁלָּאֵשׁ יוֹצֵא מִפִּי הַגְּבוּרָה, וְנֶחְצָב עַל הַלּוּחוֹת, that they saw and heard that which was visible, meaning that they saw a Divine Utterance of fire leave Hashem’s Mouth and carve itself upon the Tablets.” Thus, even the sounds were visible.

Rashi often selects a major work of midrash to channel in his commentary, modifying it slightly and also channeling other sources of Chazal. This section is mostly drawn from Mechilta deRashbi, so a famous Rashi echoes this idea: “They saw which should be heard; something otherwise not possible to see.” This lucky midrash is widely known in frum circles, and has become so entrenched that I could imagine denying it could seem non-frum.

Other Commentators

Rashbam often argues against his grandfather Rashi as to the peshat meaning of pesukim. Here, he writes רואים את הקולות – הברד והאבנים, כדכתיב: קולות אלהים וברד. “Saw the sounds – the hail / stones, as is written “God’s sounds and hail.” The reference is to Pharaoh entreating Moshe and Aharon to pray to Hashem to remove the thunder and hail associated with the hail plague, in Shemot 9:26. Apparently, Rashbam envisions thunder and hail at Har Sinai as well. If these two phenomena were manifest together, it makes sense to describe seeing the kolot. Alternatively, he envisions the kolot together with the lapidim as thunder and fiery hailstones and ro’im applies to the set. However we interpret it, Rashbam clearly means that רואים applies to something visible.

Here is how Eliyahu Munk translates Rashbam: “רואים, the author translates this as literally ‘seeing’ with one’s eyes.” This is not a very helpful translation. Given the background of the frum interpretation, and given that the reader doesn’t see the Hebrew original, of course this is going to be interpreted as akin to synesthesia, literally “seeing” the sounds with one’s own eyes. Given many other acts of censorship and mistranslation, I suspect that this is deliberate, to guard the reader.

Another Rishon, Chizkuni, also argues with Rashi. He explains: ראים את הקולת: לפי פשוטו אפילו בדבר שאינו נראה אבל ידוע שכן הוא נופל לומר בו לשון ראיה, כמו ראה זה מצאתי אמרה קהלת, וירא העם כי בשש משה. To translate accurately: “Saw the sounds: According to its peshat, even regarding something that is not seen yet is known to be true, the term ראיה / sight can apply to it, such as (Kohelet 7:27) “ראה / see that which I have found, says Kohelet,” and “וירא / the nation saw that Moshe tarried.” Chizkuni’s point is that the sounds were not visible, but that “perception” does not have to be experienced through one’s eyeballs, so long as it is known to be true.

Here is how Eliyahu Munk translates it: רואים את הקולות, “were seeing a visual image of the thunder.” The plain meaning of the verse is that even phenomena normally not subject to being seen had become visible during the revelation. [In our time: “sound waves had become visible to the naked eye.” ed.] Kohelet 7:27 already used the verb ראה “to see,” when he said: “see this is what I have found;” he referred to something that no one else before him had been able to find, (with his eyes). Or, compare Exodus 32,1 וירא העם כי בושש משה, “The people saw that Moses was tarrying.”

This is a botched translation. It may well be accidental—perhaps Eliyahu Munk couldn’t imagine Chizkuni would be heretical enough to say that it doesn’t mean literal sight. He therefore missed the phrase נופל לומר בו לשון, that “one could apply the language of.” He converts this into the modern phenomenon of synesthesia.

These translations certainly have value — an educated reader whose first language is English can get a general sense of what these meforshim intended. Still, that reader must second-guess every possibly agenda-driven translation, see the Hebrew original, and retranslate it to confirm. Chazal said to confirm by hearing the original, unprocessed version of even literal blasphemy before passing judgement. Certainly this is so for the holy words of the Rishonim, which aren’t really heretical but which may make some folks uncomfortable.

Rabbi Dr. Joshua Waxman teaches computer science at Stern College for Women, and his research includes programmatically finding scholars and scholastic relationships in the Babylonian Talmud.