Reflective Bias

By: Jonathan Seidel

Klapper’s “modern” translation of halakhic man: is it necessary and ought it be done? 

Rabbi Klapper wrote an interesting article concerning a modern translation for Halakhic Man. The translator Lawrence Kaplan responded critically. Is this a good idea or not?

Rabbi Klapper attempted to be more “poetic than philosophical”. Hoping for a more open interpretation than Kaplan’s directed approach. While Klapper doesn’t spend too much narrating his novel approach, his limited description, does give something to work with. Which doesn’t really seem to be much. The one text he translates isn’t that much more different than Kaplan’s. A few terminological differences but jargon is still present. Using “via” rather than “by” may work better subjectively but it doesn’t really change the meaning nor simplify it and “objective act” rather than “act of objectification” may change the meaning but doesn’t alter the difficulty. The Archedeman point will still be vexing to the common man. Respecting Klapper’s intent, it doesn’t seem that his version is any easier. 

Both Klapper and Kaplan acknowledge the gravity of the text as well as its complexity. Halakhic Man is a challenging text not only its content by its style. Klapper noted that his high school read was difficult forcing him to read multiple times. Yet it unclear to me how his new translation changes that obstacle. To some degree some alterations may even deviate from the clarity of Kaplan’s translation. Kaplan writes “Halakhic man vanquishes even the fear of death, which, as was explained above, is rooted in his world perspective, by means of the law and the Halakhah, and he transforms the phenomenon, which so terrifies him, into an object of man’s observation and cognition” and Klapper translates, “Even fear of death—which is rooted (as was explained earlier) in the Man of Halakhah’s worldview—he defeats via the law and the Law by transforming the phenomenon—that he is afraid—into an object of human re-cognition”. Klapper omits “vanquish” and “observation”, adds a bunch of dashes and hyphens, and changes the sentence structure.

This single two sentence break may mean something entirely different. For Kaplan, halakhic man is the active agent ridding the fever of death embedded in his outlook by the halakha transforming the terrifying fear of death into an object of man’s observation and cognition. For Klapper, fear of death is the focused agent terrifying man of halakha to which he defeats it with the halakha by transforming that terrifying fear of death into an object of man’s cognition. Personally, Kaplan’s is more clear and concise projecting halakhic man to be transforming the agent. Though the question is whether this lines up better with the original Hebrew. To this Klapper is correct that fear of death precedes the halakhic man. So it is quite interesting that Kaplan who notes he reviewed the translation with the author himself did not question the sentence change. It is possible that the Rav changed his mind. Kaplan noted that he had written notes that were not added to the original copy. These notes may shed light on the potential reiterations that the Rav felt thirty years later. Even if Klapper is correct in his translation lining up syntactically better than Kaplan, the author’s nod of approval beats out straight translation. 

This point of Kaplan continues with the omission of “When the shadow-of-death which imposes terrors on him wears the objective form of a carried subordinated to a carrier, of an object that must bow to a subject, the terror evaporates like an evanescent dream” which Klapper translates to a t, instead Kaplan writes “Death is frightening, death is menacing, death is dreadful only so long as it appears as a subject confronting man. However, when man succeeds in transforming death-subject into death-object, the horror is gone.” The Hebrew makes no reference of defining death nor the Lacanian subject-object notion. This addition would be incredibly disingenuous for Kaplan to replace. This addition seems to be a line that the author asked Kaplan to add. There is no reference in the original of any of this. Kaplan’s reference is important since this is a sign of an addition that the original nor any Hebrew reader would know. It does change the meaning and direction of the prose. Ironically, the translation only added more jargon instead of alleviating it. 

If it is conceded that this was the author’s will, it can be inquired what was the purpose of the switch. It is possible that Kaplan’s own philosophical jargon influenced him to deviate from a literal translation but the terminology is way too obtuse and more commentarial in the shape of authorial input. Given the opening premise, the author may have felt it more impactful to focus more on death as a powerhouse. Kaplan’s change of the sentence structure wasn’t a personal liturgical technique speaking in active voice rather than passive voice (that scene in Two and a Half Men with the teacher and prepositions comes to mind) but an authorial insertion to place the active voice of halakhic man to then be equated with the active voice of death. This may relate to the author’s shift in existential thinking found in his Tradition articles heavily induced in his Lonely Man of Faith. Syntactically, this ends up beginning with the active voice of halakhic man switching to death then back to halakhic man at the end of the paragraph. It is linguistically intentional to drive the narrational prose to bookend halakhic man as the active agent. 

Klapper’s translation does deviate in an interesting way that adds a little more for the modern reader. While the jargon is laced and persisting, the use of the Hebrew terms “halakhot” and “tum’ah” present the religious words that are evident to the reader. The reader reckons with the Torah lingo instead of translating it fully. The goal of translation ought not to be an identical reflection but comprehension. Here, “laws” and “defilement” are correct English words for the former Hebrew terms but they lack the religious vigour. The latter English words make the book that much more academic. With this twist Klapper appeals to modern readers who prefer to use religious jargon. One may dislike this trend but it is nevertheless a more honest representation of the material especially since when learning Gemara, anglos will refer to these Hebrew terms as well as others such as Gemara instead of Talmud in their original context rather than the English qualified piece. Yet to bolster would be to not do only half of it. Write out “halakha”, “halakhot ohalot” and “tumat kever” instead of writing “Law”, “enclosures” and “death-tum’ah”. Full transparency on the Hebrew words is best but half is potentially worse than none at all.  

Where does this leave us? Well the question before us is evidently whether a translation is permissible. It is plausible that many great rabbanim wrote in Hebrew because they were writing Torah ideas but also because it was the shared language amongst Jews. A Jew in France could understand a Jew in Spain because they both had knowledge of Hebrew even if it wasn’t a spoken language (this also undermines the claim of Hebrew as a dead language since it was written for nearly two thousand years). Klapper does a good job of navigating but since Kaplan’s deviations are more the author’s input the translation or even the modernised/modified translation must begin with Kaplan rather than the original Hebrew. If anything, the Hebrew needs modification to Kaplan’s version since the author’s input must reflect all versions. Klapper’s attempt shines light on possible errors on Kaplan’s part that he notes outside the author’s input. Yet Klapper’s version does very little to clarify anything the author is saying on a simpler level. 

In this guise, maybe it is too difficult to translate and therefore commentaries are necessary. Explaining the text yet few will carry around the compendium alongside the original oscillating back and forth. It is a bore and either they’ll find a commentary that summarises the original or they will take their chances understanding the original. The best possibility is the Steinsaltz style. While there may be an agenda in translation, it is this method that works best by an expert or chosen translator. Here the translator can loosen the jargon not by omitting it as that would undermine the author’s intent. Removing language except with the author’s intent devalues the goal set and besmirches its integrity. Instead the translator makes comments that can be noted at the bottom of the page. The text is complex all right translate it thoroughly with notes at the bottom to indicate the vexing jargon. The only problem is if this is too much. If these notes turn into extensions. Can a few notes here and there solve the problem, I am not entirely certain. Here, a quick note about Archimedean point, maelstrom, death-subject, and defilement. 

My translation of Kaplan’s intent above provides active fluidity. I dare wish to challenge the author’s nod of approval. Yet not in the name of poetry but clarity. My translation if acceptable is better than Klapper’s. A more concise version of my personal translation would be, “halakhic man vanquishes the fear of death deeply rooted in his worldview via the law/judgement and halakha, transforming the phenomenon [fear of death] that so terrifies him into an object of man’s cognition”. The goal was to limit the use of “and” in run-on sentences. Limiting the words by changing their function to the active tense. The fluidity may come at the cost of concentration on each part. The use of “and” while annoyingly anti-prose is to demonstrate the individual gems. A few things for the new translation need to be resolved. This has nothing to do with moderation and more to do with clarification. Is “law” judgment or secular authority? Is the use of parenthetical commas poetic, stylistic or intentional? Can the last phrase be modified? If the answer to all is in the affirmative a cleaner simpler version may be provided. Even if the text is to remain unchanged an asterisk next to the word with a note at the bottom may glean a little more for the perplexed reader. 

From my own translation, keeping in both the law and halakha is due to the difference that has yet to be discerned. Omitting as mentioned above while in all the translations seems to be superfluous but not necessarily void for the reader to recall. Whether “minatza’ach” ought to be “vanquishes” or “defeats” is debatable. The point is that halakha overpowers the fear of death. Despite the comma separating “ish hahalakha” from “minatza’ach”, the active tense still holds up. Maybe even writing the “deeply rooted fear of death” instead of the passive tone and elongated phraseology. This would then also omit “worldview” since “deeply rooted fear of death” means in his worldview or perspective. Adding the “ing” only sought to limit the use of “and” which doesn’t necessarily exist in the Hebrew. Keeping “that terrifies him” is also critical since the Rav’s desires the reader to recognise how infective it is rather than saying the “terrifying fear of death” as that doesn’t demonstrate its impact on the person. This still the last phrase concerning. To the object of his cognition can be either in brisker form a halakhic construct that is analysed or halakha helps overcome through rationalisation.  

Klapper has a point but it must be derived from Kaplan’s version—the authorial updated version. Still maintaining the judaic lingo for the halakhic terms enriches its audience as a machshava book rather than an academic paper. In doing so, the perception does not undermine the book’s telos nor its gravity. It speaks to the layman rather than the intellectual. The book itself is a fully orthodox book. Its emphasis on halakha, stories of litvaks and devotion to tradition leaves little to be desired. The haredi “opposition” to the book stems from the Rav’s secular and academic background but also from its complexity. It is an ultra-orthodox promotion. Yet they refutes its labour by virtue of its perplexing audacity. The Rav’s voice is clear in its jargonist prowess. Even the Lacanian like additions are at odds with simplicity. The job of the translator is not to whitewash this nor censor these aspects but provide a lucid accessible translation. The translation can be redone, modified to speak to the layman. It is a matter of honesty integrity and passion. Hopefully it is only a matter of time.