Igros Moshe (Y. D. 4:38:5): … There is no prohibition to translate even Mishna and Halacha. However, the most important thing is that the translator must be fully aware of his responsibility and that even a small error can cause a major problem for those studying the translation… Surely, those who translate from Hebrew to another language have to be concerned about error and therefore it is best to refrain from translation…. In conclusion, I would advise not to be involved in studying from translated works and it is best to learn in the original language and this will to lead greater success.
Igros Moshe(Y. D. 4:38:6): … but concerning the writings of more recent sages whose works are not so well known, it is necessary to bring their reasoning for two reasons. 1) In order that their words should not be ridiculed when they are misunderstood. The reader of the translation might not attempt to obtain the original work to try to understand it. 2) Those reading the translation might not assume that the author had an intelligent reason for what he said. Therefore, if the author’s words are brought without explanation the reader might simply reject them.
Igros Moshe(Y.D. 3:91):... I heard that someone is making a sefer in English which consists of the halachic decisions from my Igros Moshe. This is prohibited even if the translation is done properly. That is because there is no one today who is able to make [a new Shulchan Aruch] in which the halacha is stated without providing explanation and sources. I have already been asked for permission to do this by others. I replied that I do not give permssion to do such a thing. The reason is that the halacha might not be stated accurately. There are many possibilities for error in such a scheme as well as errors that such a project could cause which is even worse. Even if the teshuvos are translated, this is still a major problem in that it presents these halachic decisions to the masses who are not Torah scholars and they will generalize incorrectly from them. Therefore I categorically object to doing this project.
Igros Moshe(Y. D. 4:38:6): … but concerning the writings of more recent sages whose works are not so well known, it is necessary to bring their reasoning for two reasons. 1) In order that their words should not be ridiculed when they are misunderstood. The reader of the translation might not attempt to obtain the original work to try to understand it. 2) Those reading the translation might not assume that the author had an intelligent reason for what he said. Therefore, if the author’s words are brought without explanation the reader might simply reject them.
Igros Moshe(Y.D. 3:91):... I heard that someone is making a sefer in English which consists of the halachic decisions from my Igros Moshe. This is prohibited even if the translation is done properly. That is because there is no one today who is able to make [a new Shulchan Aruch] in which the halacha is stated without providing explanation and sources. I have already been asked for permission to do this by others. I replied that I do not give permssion to do such a thing. The reason is that the halacha might not be stated accurately. There are many possibilities for error in such a scheme as well as errors that such a project could cause which is even worse. Even if the teshuvos are translated, this is still a major problem in that it presents these halachic decisions to the masses who are not Torah scholars and they will generalize incorrectly from them. Therefore I categorically object to doing this project.
WRT the last teshuvah... What did RMF think of the Mishnah Berurah and the role it plays today?
ReplyDelete-micha
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWRT the last teshuvah... How do you justify your own translations of Rav Moshe's teshuvos on your blog?
ReplyDeleteHe gave a HAskamah on its translation?!
ReplyDeleteRabbi E, I'm confused. Did you do this? Did someone? What's the relevance?
ReplyDeleteI wasn't referring to the translation part of the quote of YD 3:91. Rather, to "That is because there is no one today who is able to make [a new Shulchan Aruch] in which the halacha is stated without providing explanation and sources. ... Even if the teshuvos are translated, this is still a major problem in that it presents these halachic decisions to the masses who are not Torah scholars and they will generalize incorrectly from them."
ReplyDeleteWhat I am asking is:
1- When RMF writes that it can't be done by anyone in this generation, does he mean his contemporaries in particular, or the 20th cent?
2- Even if we assume that RMF did consider the Chafeitz Chaim capable of writing a Shulchan Arukh (which is plausible, but I'm not sure that's his intent), the book was placed in the hands of "the masses who are not Torah scholars and they will generalize incorrectly from them" even before translation.
As for timeliness, contrast this to the objection to halachic codes by R' Nathan Lopez Cardozo. He argues that they make halakhah to rigid and thus stifles the variety of religious expression that different people need. So far, so good. It's not like he's arguing for fewer codes so that people could be meiqil. But then, he throws out the baby with the bathwater -- RNLC argues that we see the Maharshal was right and treating the SA as a code would also be a mistake.
-micha
micha said...
ReplyDeleteWRT the last teshuvah... What did RMF think of the Mishnah Berurah and the role it plays today?
======
RMF viewed the Mishna Berura as a work of a number of individuals. He also viewed that works on Orech Chaim were not a problem. Meaning he had a problem with Shemiras Shabbos because is was the view of a single gadol Rav Shlomo Zalman. Baadei HaShulchan is a better example of what he was concerned with.
Student V said...
ReplyDeleteRabbi E, I'm confused. Did you do this? Did someone? What's the relevance?
===========
This is my translation.
There seems to be a basis misunderstanding of what Rav Moshe was concerned about. It was not translations per se. Just wanted to correct this misunderstanding
Joseph said...
ReplyDeleteWRT the last teshuvah... How do you justify your own translations of Rav Moshe's teshuvos on your blog?
===========
Rav Moshe's teshuva was written to object to a summary in English of the Igros Moshe (first 5 volumes) done by Rabbi Rakefet
He was objecting to what he perceived as creating a new Shulchan Aruch based on his psakim and objected to the presentation of complex issues in didactic form.
this teshuva was raised as objection to the Yad Moshe. In fact Rav Moshe did not object to an index (Rabbi Fuerst was working on index that Rav Moshe encouraged). Nor did he object to stating halachos where there was little chance of misunderstanding (R. Padawer's sefer has haskoma on English prestentation of Igros Moshe). He was worried about the masses misusing and misunderstanding his words.
DT: "He was objecting to what he perceived as creating a new Shulchan Aruch based on his psakim and objected to the presentation of complex issues in didactic form."
ReplyDeleteYet Rav Moshe continued, in the same teshuva, with an additional objection:
"Even if the teshuvos are translated, this is still a major problem in that it presents these halachic decisions to the masses who are not Torah scholars and they will generalize incorrectly from them."
So my question still stands (as far as I can see) why you don't believe your translations on this blog are part of what Rav Moshe is objecting to. (I have no question regarding the Yad Moshe.)
I happen to have learned the teshuvah in question from an MP3 of R' Aharon Rakeffet-Rothkoff. (Available on YUTorah.org, but I do not recall which of his hundreds of shiurim I am speaking of.) He calls the RARR of the incident younger and more foolish, or words to that effect.
ReplyDeleteI understood Rav Moshe as being fearful of this attitude that we don't need personal poseqim because we have quick English guides to Jewish Law. That having an English Qitzur Iggeros Mosheh would fool someone into thinking they can play rav themselves.
The language is only a small part of the problem. (As I see it, he would have raised the same objection to a Hebrew popularization presented to an Israeli market.) It's someone thinking they have halakhah at their fingertips when they lack the skill to apply law to new situations.
-micha
How did Rabbi Rakeffet-Rothkoff end up with a double last name?
ReplyDeleteRARR mentions that during a shiur as well. RARR's shiurim are good commute material, because they are part lomdus part personal meandering. It keeps it from getting too heavy while things going on around you -- and yet has lomdus. Anyway...
ReplyDeleteThe family name is "Rothkopf", German for "redhead". RARR is neither a redhead (nor any ancestor he met) nor fond of German. A big fan of Yiddish, his "native Torah language" -- he learned in YU and Lakewood when they were both in Yiddish. His wife wanted to change the name more than he did. Sometimes RARR calls "Rothkopf" his "maiden name".
Anyway... "Rakeffet" is an anagram of Rothkoff and has the pleasant meaning of being "drawn after" HQBH and His Torah. So, they changed it.
Israeli beaurocracy being what it is, though, the name change caused legal headaches. So, RARR switched to formally using the hyphenated pair, so it's easy to show he is the same person.
Informally, though, "Arnie Rothkoff" from the Bronx is not R Aharon Rakeffet of Y-m.
-micha
Mr Daas Tooru. U clearly are disstorting what r'moshe ment . R' moshe wrote a teshuva for klal yisroel for generations. R' Moshe did not leave exceptions. or the right to find out the cermstances and apply hisbteshuva when you want. I belive you are slowly going off the derech
ReplyDeleteMicha,
ReplyDeleteWhen RARR was doing the translation of the IM that RMF was opposed to, he ceased it upon advice of RMF's opposition, or he continued it in despite of it?
Ben Torah,
ReplyDeleteI don't recall RARR ever saying. Hearing the kavod he accords RMF when quoting him I would be surprised to learn he would continue despite RMF's objection.
But I'm just guessing.
-micha
RRakefet wrote a Hebrew index to 5vol of Igros Moshe he added an English intro regarding respona in general to which he appenended in English of pask of each tshuva, when he found out the objection he didnt publish it
ReplyDeleteReb Moshe did not categorically object to translations or english statements of his psakim (e.g. R Padawer)
ReplyDeleteR Tendler translated his tshuvos regarding brain death and said R Moshe didnt object'
My understanding from the above, is that RMF teshuva prohibiting the translation was a result of RARR's work.
ReplyDeleteWas that objectionable work of RARR published? Why did RARR categorize that activity of his as "younger and more foolish"? Presumably he ceased his work (and publication) upon RMF's objection. If so, what was "foolish"?
I also don't see a response to Joseph's last post regarding RDE's translations here.
Ben Torah - yes the teshuva was response to RARR work,
ReplyDeletethe objectionable part was never published with the index, it was published with other articles eg Get of Cleves as fundraiser for Russian Jews. I answered Josephs objections
If it was published later (i.e. with other articles), isn't that an end-run against RMF's objections?
ReplyDeleteI meant Joseph's 2nd follow-up question to you.
RARR did not see that there was any danger of the masses generalizing, he didnt publish the index out of respect for Reb Moshe.
ReplyDeletethe items I translate are typically known but not the details. the translation prevents misise of teshuva
That's assuming people will use the translations to paskan halacha but you could do that incorrectly also by reading the source and mistranslating it yourself.
ReplyDeleteTranslations of halacha are good for study purposes but paskening halacha should only ever be done by a qualified rav.