[Avodah] Translation of Makos

Lisa Liel lisa at starways.net
Sun Jun 24 20:14:26 PDT 2012


On 6/24/2012 6:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 04:51:20PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>    
>> Tiyuvta l'R' Micha, Tiyuvta.
>>      
> It's not a tiyuvta, it's a teirutz to one thing I thought was a stretch
> among others. Removing an objection isn't the same as creating one. By
> probing "makos" /could/ refer to the wine, you didn't prove it doesn't
> refer to the makos themselves.
>
> You still don't adress:
>
> 1- Why would RDF put the object after the prepositional phrase? That's
> weird grammar in both Hebrew and in RDF's first language.
>    
Again, no it's not.

Asher lo nasa la-shav nafsi (Tehillim 24)
Shofchim l'ibud ha-makot.

(1) Verb, (2) prepositional phrase modifying the verb, (3) object.  
Easy-peasy, and a natural way of speaking.  Granted, in English, we'd 
say, "I set it up" and not "I set up it", but that's English.

Shofchim l'ibud ha-makkot, v'lo shotim otam.  We spill away the makkot 
and don't drink them.  It's fairly pashut.
> 2- Why didn't RDF correct the translator, neither initially nor before
> subsequent printings? And that's assuming the translation was ghost-work;
> RDF's name alone is on the English version. (Which even if it wasn't by
> his own hand, would push to more meticulous proofreading.)
>    
According to R' Akiva Miller, the translator was R' Zvi Lampel, who 
posted here, on this list, that he didn't ask RDF about it.  I imagine 
RDF considers the Hebrew the primary text and that the English 
translation isn't even on his radar.

> 3- Since Zev is willing to concede that numerous baalei mesorah do
> apply "binfol oyivkha" to Half Hallel on the 7th day of Pesach, he
> has no theological problem with applying it here. So why do we need to
> stretch the rules of grammar and to believe the author's or authorized
> translation erred?
>
>    
I didn't see R' Zev concede that.  Suppose you cite one of them in 
full.  And please, no Achronim.  With all due respect, they simply don't 
have the authority to argue with the Gemara.  Neither do Rishonim, for 
that matter.  There is no stretching of the rules of grammar here.  On 
the contrary, the rules of grammar are very clear that the line says 
nothing whatsoever about losses due to the makkot.

Lisa

Lisa



More information about the Avodah mailing list