"Go, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse" (Deuteronomy 11:26). Onklos's Aramaic translation translates it literally, but Jonathan ben Uziel's translation translates it as "blessing and their change""What does it mean that a curse is the change of a blessing?" There are four dimensions of Torah interpretation, which are summarized by the word Pardes (garden): Pshat (simple meaning), Remez (insinuated meaning), Drush (analogy) and Sod (esoteric meaning). Each of the Torah commentators is responsible for expounding in one of these four dimensions.
The main difference between the translations of Onklos and Jonathan ben Uziel is that Onklos focuses primarily on the simple meaning of the verses, the Pshat. Jonathan ben Uziel, on the other hand, in addition to the Pshat, incorporates many elements of Drush, analogies, and teachings of our sages into his Aramaic translation.
When it comes to translating the word "curse," Onklos translates literally. However, according to the Midrashim, a difficulty arises: how can a curse originate from God? God is the source of absolute good!
The general concept of Torah translations for Jews arose in exile, where, due to life's circumstances, Jews no longer knew the Holy Language, Hebrew, and thus the need arose to translate the Torah into the languages of the 70 nations of the world.
But within the translations themselves, there are two levels:
1) According to the translation of Onklos, which was done in Babylon, a place where the exile caused a very strong concealment of the Divine Presence, the sufferings of the Jewish people were seen as they appeared, as a curse.
2) According to the translation of Jonathan ben Uziel, which was done in the Land of Israel, where there was not such a powerful concealment because of the exile, the inner meaning of suffering can be seen more revealed, so he translates the word "curse" as "change".
The idea that a curse is just the change of a blessing refers to the fact that the way that blessing is projected into the world is in the form of a curse, but the heart and purpose of that "curse" is a blessing.
This concept is not only a consolation for the suffering of the Jewish people throughout more than 2,000 years of exile. Rather, it has a profound theme related to blessings and their "transformation.".
God is unique. God's oneness does not arise from the union of different parts, but rather He is a "simple" oneness. It is specifically in the plurality of the world that we can find God's simplicity: when the simple essence reveals itself in different forms, and particularly when these forms are opposites (such as blessing and curse), it is proof that this essence is not limited to any form or definition, but is simple, and its simplicity gives it the capacity to reveal itself in all kinds of forms.
As we mentioned earlier, God is the source of absolute good. Therefore, when it comes to a revealed blessing, the projection of divinity that permeates this blessing arises from a specific level where God is definite as the source of good, that is, not of His essence, but of the way in which His essence is invested in His attribute of Goodness.
However, in the case of a curse, the fact that God permeates the "change," the curse, indicates that this projection of divinity arises from a deeper and higher level than in the case of a revealed blessing, since it is the opposite of the definition of God, absolute good. This projection that permeates the curse arises from the essence the same as God, beyond forms and definitions, even beyond His attribute of Goodness.
In simpler terms, the good contained in a curse is deeper and more profound than that contained in a blessing, which is why it remains hidden. The difference lies in how the blessing and the curse are projected onto the world.
In order for us to see these "hidden blessings" with our own eyes, we must train ourselves in the study and knowledge of God through the Torah. This cultivates and awakens within us the ability to see the heart of suffering, which is nothing more than hidden blessings.
Extracted from Likutei Sijot, vol. 19, p. 133