Vaera: Lip Snip

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein has written: "Rambam conten[ds] (Guide 3:8) that the sanctity of Hebrew was either derived from or reflected in the paucity of its sexual vocabulary..."

This point can be illustrated in the enigmatic Mosaic self-referential phrase that appears twice in this weeks parsha, "'aral sefasayim", ostensibly translated literally as "uncircumcised [of] lips", but usually translated (by us) as "impeded speech", or (by others) as "faltering lips". 

Rashi on 6:12 provides a series of examples from throughout Tanach which indicate that the primary translation of the root ערל is, in fact, "obstruction", and, in line with the Maimonidean observation, "foreskin" is at best a secondary translation: the association of ערל with numerous parts of anatomy other than the membrum--hearts, ears, and even trees/plants--indicate that "foreskin" as the salient image might be counterintuitive.

Which is why Philologos' recent urgings that "the need to excise profanity from the Bible is fundamentally inane" when discussing how to translate mashtin b’kir; he much prefers the 1599 Geneva Bible's "pisseth against the wall" and Robert Alter's "pisser against the wall" as opposed to "other Bible translators and commentators[/]medieval rabbinic exegetes who have held that sacred scripture would never speak so profanely of the human body".

One can safely assume that Philologos [and, by extension, Alter] doesn't take this approach to make the Bible accessible to those who would desacralize it, even if he does protest that "[a] book that is chock-full of stories about murder, rape, plunder, and assorted acts of human depravity cannot be deemed too dignified for coarse language", a statement which might betray a stunted understanding of Tanach beyond a superficial level.  However, the fact that even he notes that mashtin b’kir appears six times in Tanach, the other five times used by G-d himself in prophetic messages, further undermines his insistence: srely an "edge of vulgarity" doesn't need to be "perfectly right for G-d's anger", whether or not it was right for David's.

If you'll excuse the expression: it takes the piss out of Philologos' argument; rather, the real "inanity" is the compulsion to see vulgarity where there doesn't need to be.  (No matter how many times the word "ass" is used in no matter how many translations.)

Of course, this appraoch can be taken to an extreme, the best example being with the Artscroll translation of Shir HaShirim.  Rabbi Harry Maryles likely explains why better than most:

"Shir HaShirim is an instance where I believe the Charedi obsession with Tznius has lead them astray. Because of it they manage to completely ignore the actual words of Shir HaShirim in translation. Although they are upfront about it and say that it is not meant to be literal and that it is based on Rashi’s allegorical interpretation - I believe it undermines the author’s intent which is to convey God’s love of his people in an allegorically human way...It is one thing to say that Shir HaShirim is an allegory. It is. But to ignore the beauty of Shlomo HaMelech’s actual narrative in my view completely misunderstands why R’ Akiva thought this book is the holy of holies - and why it remained in the canon. Nowhere does it say that we are to distort the translation to fit the allegorical interpretation. And yet this is exactly what ArtScroll did."

Rabbi Aryeh Klapper and the Center for Modern Torah Leadership's translation of Shir HaShirim was developed in part to counter Artscroll's bowdlerization.

Which is also why Rabbi Efrem Goldberg's recent plea against what he calls "the growing problem of profanity" also misses a few crucial points leading one to believe the he doth protest too much.  

The first is that he repeatedly conflates vulgarity and obscenity, to the point that he feels it might be dangerous to listen to a speech delivered by the current President of the United States.  This inaccruate conflation has both cultural and halachic ramifications: the President can never curse on the air, so the notion is self contradictory.

The second is that he dismisses out of hand research he sites: "Shouldn’t we believe the research that says cursing has positive benefits? The answer is no.  Giving in to the urge to use a profanity is to forfeit our very humanity and indulge an animal impulse."  This misses the opportunity for a foundational teachable moment: instead of decrying the effects of vulgarity/obscenity and insisting it can never be beneficial, rather employ the kosher food analog: "it might be tasty, but what can I do, I have been commanded to not partake."

The third point is that subjectivity is injected into what should be an objective analysis: "Whenever I hear someone curse to try to make a point, I can’t help but think if they were more intelligent they would find a more effective way to communicate that point without needing to distract with the shock value of using an obscenity.  I am always less impressed..."  Aside from the subjectivity, the goalposts have been moved: the standard is whether he will be impressed or not by the expletive.

The fact that there exists a "pi'el" and "pu'al" in Hebrew grammar indicates that sometimes there is a need for the emphatic, even if not necessarily the vulgar.

Or, as the eminent sportswriter Paul Zimmerman put it when explaining why NFL coaches swear:

"There's a big difference between an idiot and a @&$%ing idiot."

In fact, one might even ask if in some cases whether using "fighting words" might be appropriate as a matter of personal defense: it might serve to deter a potential attack, or might diffuse a phyiscal altercation into a verbal, an altogether better result.  The cases where such language may be used are likely very rare; but it should be looked into.

Where Rabbi Goldberg might have a salient point is if he feels that speakers feel the need to be vulgar, as if it was almost a "mitzvah" to both be vulgar and for an audience to be foreced to accept that vulgarity.  This would also seem to be the problem with the Philologos/Alter approach to mashtin b’kir:  that one almost must accept that David had to be vulgar in that situation and that the Bible would report it favorably.  If someone insists on vulgarity as a positive necessity--then you start asking questions about both the message and the messenger.

Would give a whole new meaning to "'aral sefasayim."