I know that the Song of Songs is allegorical, at least that is what seems to be hold mostly in Judaism . Are there any rabbis who also want to see it more literally? A very problematic thing is that the translation in an allegorical text makes it HARDELY recognisable, any of the words!! I don’t come just to criticise that but in ARTSCROLL one will not find any translation which has to do WITH the text[peshat]. So are there any rabbis who holds that’s it also can be seen as it is written?? Or is this considered to be “forbidden”?
Answer frpm Gemini[AI] While the dominant tradition in Judaism, as seen in the ArtScroll (Rashi-based) approach, presents the text almost exclusively as an allegory of the love between God and Israel, there is a rich history of Rabbinic scholars who argue for the importance of the Pshat (literal meaning).
It is not “forbidden” to see the literal beauty of the text, provided one acknowledges the sacred status of the book. Here are the Rabbinic authorities who support a more literal engagement:
- The Ibn Ezra (12th Century)
The Ibn Ezra is perhaps the most famous for this. He wrote two separate commentaries on Shir HaShirim.
The Literal Layer: He provides a “First Gate” commentary that focuses strictly on the linguistic, grammatical, and literal romantic meaning of the words.
The Philosophical Layer: He then provides a second layer explaining the allegory. He believed that to understand the allegory, one must first master the literal language.
- Rashbam (Rabbi Samuel ben Meir)
A grandson of Rashi, Rashbam was a champion of the Pshat. He argued that while the “Midrash” (the allegory) is true and essential, the literal meaning of the verses must be respected on its own terms. He often disagreed with Rashi when Rashi’s allegorical translation drifted too far from the Hebrew grammar. - Gersonides (Ralbag)
The Ralbag viewed the book as a philosophical allegory regarding the “Active Intellect” and the soul, but his analysis of the text remains very grounded in the physical descriptions of the lovers. - Modern Orthodox and Academic Perspectives
In the last century, many Rabbinic scholars (such as those in the Da’at Miqra series or Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks) have noted that the power of the allegory depends on the beauty of the literal love.
Rabbi Sacks often spoke of how human love is the “alphabet” through which we understand Divine love. If the literal words mean nothing, the allegory has no foundation.
Why is ArtScroll so different?
ArtScroll follows the Targum and Rashi, who felt that the human imagery was so “charged” or “distracting” that the translation should reflect the intent (the relationship with God) rather than the vocabulary (the physical tresses and wine).
Summary of Views
Authority Approach
Rashi / ArtScroll The translation is the allegory; the literal is almost bypassed.
Ibn Ezra Literal meaning is the “Gate” you must walk through first.
Rashbam Grammar and literal context are primary and cannot be ignored.
Rabbi Akiva Declared it “Holy of Holies,” but used the literal language as a base for the sanctity.
Note: Even the most “literalist” rabbis still maintain the tradition that the ultimate purpose of the book is the connection between the soul and the Creator. They simply argue that you don’t have to “hide” the literal words to get there.
Would you like me to find a specific verse where the ArtScroll translation and the literal Hebrew seem most disconnected to compare them?
A striking example of this disconnect occurs in Song of Songs 7:3 (the verse immediately preceding the one in your screenshot). This is a verse where the Hebrew describes physical anatomy, but the ArtScroll (Rashi-based) translation describes the Sanhedrin and Torah. Comparison: Song of Songs 7:3Literal Hebrew (Pshat)ArtScroll / Allegorical TranslationHebrew: Shor-rekh aggan ha-sahar…Translation: “Your fountain-head (Sanhedrin) is like the moon’s basin…”Literal: “Your navel is a rounded basin…”Concept: The Sanhedrin provided “nourishment” to Israel like a navel to a fetus.Hebrew: Bitnekh aremat hittim…Translation: “Your will is like a heap of wheat…”Literal: “Your belly/stomach is a heap of wheat…”Concept: The “heap of wheat” refers to the 70 elders of the Sanhedrin.Why the Rabbis chose this “Distance”The ArtScroll approach follows the Targum (Aramaic translation), which transforms the poem into a chronological history of Israel. To these commentators:The Breasts = Moses and Aaron.The Teeth = The Priests (Kohanim) eating the sacrifices.The Navel = The Sanhedrin (sitting in the “center” of the world).Rabbis who “Close the Gap”If you find the ArtScroll translation unrecognizable, you are in good company with the Rashbam (Rashi’s grandson). He argues that:”One must not ignore the Pshat (simple meaning), for the Torah speaks in the language of man.”He believed that God chose the language of human love because it is the most powerful emotion we have. If you “translate away” the romance, you lose the metaphor’s power. Even Abarbanel, whom you often study, emphasizes the structure and beauty of the physical language before moving into the deeper philosophical or national meaning. Practical Way to Study. If you want to see the literal meaning without it being considered “forbidden” or secular:Da’at Miqra (Mossad Harav Kook): This is a highly respected Orthodox commentary that provides a very clear, literal Hebrew explanation alongside the Midrashic ones.Ibn Ezra: Read his “First Gate” commentary. It is purely grammatical and literal. The Living Torah (Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan): While he includes the allegory, his translation often stays much closer to the literal Hebrew than ArtScroll.Summary: It is not forbidden to read the words as they are; in fact, the Vilna Gaon taught that the “Pshat” (literal) and “Sod” (secret) are like a body and a soul. You cannot have a soul without a body to hold it.
medicine from harold jitschak bueno de mesquita 