SAIS 011 Shinan, Kasher, Marmur, Flesher [Eds.] - Michael Klein on the Targums_Collected Essays 1972–2002 - 2011.pdf

Michael Klein on the Targums: Collected Essays 1972–2002

Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture Managing Editor

Paul V. M. Flesher, University of Wyoming Editorial Board

Bruce Chilton, Bard College Willem Smelik, University College, London Moshe Bernstein, Yeshiva University Edward M. Cook, Catholic University of America Luis Díez Merino, University of Barcelona

VOLUME 11

Michael L. Klein

Michael Klein on the Targums: Collected Essays 1972–2002 Edited by

Avigdor Shinan and Rimon Kasher with Michael Marmur and Paul V. M. Flesher

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2011

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Klein, Michael L. Michael Klein on the Targums : collected essays 1972–2002 / edited by Avigdor Shinan and Rimon Kasher ; with Michael Marmur and Paul V.M. Flesher. p. cm. — (Studies in the Aramaic interpretation of Scripture ; v. 11.) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-20295-5 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Aramaic—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Bible. O.T. Aramaic—Versions. I. Shin’an, Avigdor. II. Kasher, Rimon. III. Marmur, Michael. IV. Flesher, Paul Virgil McCracken. V. Title. BS709.4.K56 2011 221.4’2—dc22 2011010561

ISSN 1570-1336 ISBN 978 90 04 20295 5 Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

CONTENTS List of Illustrations ............................................................................ Foreword, Avigdor Shinan and Rimon Kasher ............................. Article Credits ....................................................................................

vii ix xv

SECTION I 1. The Aramaic Targumim: Translation and Interpretation ... 2. Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique ..................... 3. The Preposition ‫“( קדם‬Before”): A Pseudo-AntiAnthropomorphism in the Targums ...................................... 4. Palestinian Targum and Synagogue Mosaics ........................ 5. The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim ...................................... 6. Associative and Complementary Translation in the Targumim ....................................................................................

3 19 41 49 59 77

SECTION II 7. A Fragment-Targum of Onqelos from the Cairo Genizah 8. Serugin (Shorthand) of Onqelos from the Cairo Genizah ... 9. New Fragments of Palestinian Targum from the Cairo Genizah ........................................................................................ 10. ‫—השלמות לכתבי יד מגניזת קאהיר‬Complementary Fragments from the Cairo Genizah ........................................ 11. The Targumic Tosefta to Exodus 15:2 .................................... 12. New Fragments of Targum to Esther from the Cairo Genizah ........................................................................................ 13. Introductory Poems (R’shuyot) to the Targum of the Hafṭarah in Praise of Jonathan Ben Uzziel ...........................

91 97 107 119 133 141 167

SECTION III 14. Four Notes on the Triennial Lectionary Cycle ..................... 15. Not to be Translated in Public—‫ לא מתרגם בציבורא‬.........

179 189

vi

contents

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Text and Vorlage in Neofiti 1 ................................................... Deut 31:7: ‫ תביא‬or ‫ ?תבוא‬......................................................... The Notation of Parašot in MS Neofiti 1 ............................... Notes on the Printed Edition of MS Neofiti 1 ...................... Elias Levita and MS Neofiti 1 ................................................... The Messiah “That Leadeth Upon a Cloud,” in the Fragment-Targum to the Pentateuch? .................................... 22. An Updated Bibliography of Manuscripts and Editions of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch From the Cairo Genizah ........................................................................................

203 207 209 213 229

Afterword, Stefan Reif ....................................................................... The Bibliography of Michael L. Klein ............................................ Index of Modern Authors ................................................................ Index of Scriptural References, Rabbinic Sources and Manuscripts .................................................................................... Illustrations .........................................................................................

263 267 271

235

239

273 297

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Chapter 9 C.U.L. T-S AS 68.224r (MS E), Exod 36:8–13 C.U.L. T-S AS 68.224v (MS E), Exod 36:22–29 C.U.L. T-S AS 68.144r (MS E), Exod 39:32–40 C.U.L. T-S AS 68.144v (MS E), Exod 40:2–12 C.U.L. T-S B 9.11r (MS H), Gen 15:11–16:16 (fragment-targum) C.U.L. T-S AS 68.83r (MS D), Gen 37:8–11 C.U.L. T-S AS 68.83v (MS D), Gen 37:13–14, 16–17 Chapter 12 The plates are published by courtesy of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library. T-S B 11.52 T-S B 11.52 T-S B 12.21 T-S B 12.21 T-S B 12.21 T-S B 12.21 T-S B 11.52 T-S B 11.52 T-S B 12.32 T-S B 12.32 T-S AS 70.72 T-S AS 70.72

FOREWORD The world of Ancient Judaism moved along several axes and within several circles. One of the most significant was the synagogue, where many would gather—particularly on Sabbaths and Festivals—in order to fulfill the religious obligations prescribed by tradition. It was in the synagogue that they would pray and hear piyyutim (liturgical poems); here they would hear derashot (text-based homilies); and here they would read the sacred Scriptures, which formed the Jewish worldview. Alongside the recitation of the Scriptures, a significant role was given to the translation of these writings into the vernacular language spoken by contemporary Jews, notably Greek and Aramaic. One can hardly speak about the public reading of the Scriptures in that period without the mediation of the translator. He transposed the words from one language to another, and from the conceptual milieu of the Bible to that of the Second Temple and Rabbinic periods, reflecting changes in theology, halakhic development and socio-historical conditions. The translations of the Hebrew Bible, and most particularly of the Pentateuch, are some of the most significant tools available to scholars seeking to provide a comprehensive and accurate cultural history of the Jews in the centuries immediately preceding and following the dawn of the Common Era. Without doubt, Professor Michael Klein (New York, 1940—Jerusalem, 2000) was one of the foremost twentieth-century scholars of the targumim (Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible). His many publications earned him a place of honor among Israeli and international experts in the field. One would be hard pressed to find a serious work in the field which does not relate to Michael’s contributions to this rich literary world. His work was characterized by extraordinary diligence, precision and attention to detail; by complete mastery of the scholarly literature and of the various challenges presented by the targumic texts; and above all by the ability to raise new questions and offer answers which placed the literature of the targums within the wider context of Ancient Judaism. He saw this work not only as part of the culture of the Synagogue, as we have described it here, but also in the context of midrash, halakhah and aggadah.

x

foreword

It appears that Michael’s love of Aramaic translations of the Bible derived from the special attraction to be found in considering the various hermeneutical possibilities which the scholar must take into account when considering the reasons for an ancient translator to depart from the plain meaning of the original text. It is not surprising, therefore, that Michael devoted most of his attention to translations of the Pentateuch. The prevalence and variety of these translations allow for an examination of the panoply of methods employed by the ancient translators. These methods ranged from literal translation (of which the classic representative, for the most part, is Targum Onkelos) to translations adorned by numerous aggadic additions (such as the targumim of the Land of Israel: Targum Neofiti, the Cairo Geniza fragments, and the Fragment Targums) to periphrastic and interpretive translation (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan). All these approaches are to be found with short liturgical piyyutim interspersed among the translations. This variety brought Professor Klein to address the universe of targum from three different perspectives, which complement and enrich each other as together they present a comprehensive picture: 1. Critical Scientific Editions with Commentary In this category lie Michael’s exemplary editions of the Fragmentary Targums (1980), along with the remains of Palestinian targumim from the Cairo Genizah (1986) and his scientific edition of the masorah to Targum Onkelos, based on newly discovered manuscripts (2000). Along with these publications Michael presented his colleagues in the scholarly community with a raft of articles relating to previously unresearched and unknown texts: Aramaic translations of passages from the Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Megillot. Only a rare few are prepared to devote days and nights to the preparation and publication of texts for the benefit of scholars who will come after them. Michael Klein was determined to fulfill this task. The world of scholarship acknowledges the debt it owes to those who have labored to set the foundation upon which it stands. This present volume (particularly its second part) includes a number of these foundational studies.

foreword

xi

2. Analysis of the Varieties of the Targumic Method Applied to Different Texts Michael Klein’s Ph.D. dissertation, written for the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and published in 1982, examines the methods employed by the Pentateuchal targumim in the avoidance of anthropomorphism. His innovative conclusion was that when it comes to this central question the targumim are not consistent. Contrary to the commonly-held conception, the texts include many literal translations which make no attempt to avoid anthropomorphisms. The first and third sections of the present volume contain several studies which demonstrate the breadth of Michael’s scholarship. Some of these studies focus on a particular targumic text and others relate to techniques characteristic of this literature in general. Among them are to be found the interpretation of difficult targumic expressions; discussions of the Bible version upon which a translation is based; examinations of the links between targums and translation practices reflected in the world of the ancient synagogue and archaeological evidence; explications of theological suppositions reflected in the targums; and extensive treatments of the history of the targumim, with particular emphasis on Targum Neofiti (which entered scholarly consciousness during the second half of the twentieth century). In all these articles, Michael’s erudition, careful judgment in drawing conclusions, and innovative capacity are apparent. Thanks to Michael Klein, these qualities were put to the service of targum scholarship, which advanced significantly as a result. 3. Bibliographical Studies Klein’s diligent work with manuscripts led him to publish a number of studies whose purpose was to catalogue and describe manuscripts, such as the detailed catalogue of the targum manuscripts in the Cambridge University Genizah collections (1992), and the list of the Aramaic targum manuscripts in the St. Petersburg (formerly Leningrad) Library (1989). Here too it is important to note that only a few scholars are willing to give of their talents and their time in order to provide such an important bibliographical foundation. In this regard too, the scholarship of the Aramaic translations would not have been able to advance on a secure footing without Michael’s devoted, rigorous and

xii

foreword

precise work, all of which was executed with equal amounts of expertise and love. Taken together, these three fields point to a comprehensive and systematic scholarly project, multi-layered in nature and wide-ranging in scope. Such indeed was the scholarship of Michael Klein. The idea to publish a collection of Michael’s articles was his own. In the last years of his life, in the midst of his battle with illness, he devoted all his available energy to the creation of this collection and to the completion and updating of various articles in light of changes and developments since their publication. To our great regret, Michael was taken from us while this work was still incomplete. Our great sense of loss and our wish to provide a fitting testament to Professor Klein by carrying out his wish to publish a collection of his articles motivated a number of individuals to lend their efforts to the production of this work, even if not precisely according to the contours envisaged by Michael Klein. Michael’s widow, Mrs. Shoshi Klein, was one of the main forces motivating the publication of this work, despite the fact that she has had to undergo a very difficult period in her life and that of her family. Michael Marmur, who succeeded Michael Klein as Dean of the Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion, and Paul V. M. Flesher of the University of Wyoming, both provided material support, encouragement, advice and direction. We two editors took this task upon ourselves willingly as an expression of thanks to a colleague thanks to whom we too, like several other colleagues, are able to pursue our own research. Despite the fact that Michael had hoped to publish a more comprehensive collection including some fifty studies, we have included twenty-two articles. In our opinion, these articles represent well the various areas in which Michael made a significant contribution to targum scholarship. Readers may of course wish to consult Michael’s other works, many of which can be easily located, thanks to the proliferation of databases of various kinds. It appears that the division of the book into three parts reflects Michael’s wishes. This book should have appeared some years ago, but the incomplete state of the manuscript material presented a number of difficulties. After much delay and various unsuccessful attempts to complete the articles in the spirit of Michael’s work, it was decided to publish the articles in their original state, and not in the semi-revised condition in which they were left at the time of Michael’s death. Ms. Tali Shach

foreword

xiii

and later Ms. Sara Meirowitz worked diligently on these manuscripts, and it is also due to them that this book now sees the light of day. The continued interest of Brill in this project, despite its many delays, is a testament both to the quality of Michael’s work and the loyalty and faithfulness of a great publishing house. Professor Michael Klein was a colleague, an important and highly valued scholar, and a wonderful man of great integrity. It is our heartfelt hope that the appearance of this volume in some sense fulfills his dying wish, just as it provides a new generation of targum scholars with a selection of articles whose relevance has not dimmed and whose importance has not diminished. Avigdor Shinan, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Rimon Kasher, Bar Ilan University

ARTICLE CREDITS All chapters have been previously published, in the following publications: 1. Michael L. Klein, “The Aramaic Targumim: Translation and Interpretation.” In The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia, ed. Joše Krašovec, pp. 317–31. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 289. Ljubljana & Sheffield: SAZU & Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. 2. Michael L. Klein, “Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique.” Biblica 57:4 (1976): pp. 515–37. 3. Michael L. Klein, “The Preposition ‫“( קדם‬Before”): A Pseudo-AntiAnthropomorphism in the Targums.” The Journal of Theological Studies (New Series) 30:2 (1979): pp. 502–7. 4. Michael L. Klein, “Palestinian Targum and Synagogue Mosaics.” Immanuel 11 (1980): pp. 33–45. 5. Michael L. Klein, “The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim.” In Congress Volume— Vienna 1980, ed. J. A. Emerton, pp. 162–77. Leiden: Brill, 1981. 6. Michael L. Klein, “Associative and Complementary Translation in the Targumim.” In Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical, and Geographical Studies: H. M. Orlinsky Volume, Vol. 16, ed. Baruch A. Levine, and Abraham Malamat, pp. 134–40. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1982. 7. Michael L. Klein, “A Fragment-Targum of Onqelos from the Cairo Genizah.” In Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. Ziony Zevit, Seymour Gitin, and Michael Sokoloff, pp. 101–5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. 8. Michael L. Klein, “Serugin (Shorthand) of Onqelos from the Cairo Genizah.” Maarav, Vol. 8 (1992): pp. 275–87. 9. Michael L. Klein, “New Fragments of Palestinian Targum From the Cairo Genizah.” Sefarad 49:1 (1989), pp. 123–33. 10. Michael L. Klein, “‫–השלמות לכתבי יד מגניזת קאהיר‬Complementary Fragments from the Cairo Genizah.” In Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menachem Haran, ed. Michael V. Fox,

xvi

11. 12.

13.

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22.

article credits Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Michael L. Klein, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Nili Shupak, pp. 95*–105* (Hebrew). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Michael L. Klein, “The Targumic Tosefta to Exodus 15:2.” Journal of Jewish Studies 26:1–2 (1975): pp. 61–67. Rimon Kasher and Michael L. Klein, “New Fragments of Targum to Esther from the Cairo Genizah.” Hebrew Union College Annual 61 (1990): pp. 89–124. Michael L. Klein, “Introductory Poems (R’shyuot) to the Targum of the Haftarah in Praise of Jonathan Ben Uzziel.” In Bits of Honey: Essays for Samson H. Levey, ed. S. F. Chyet and D. H. Ellenson, pp. 43–56. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 74. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993. Michael L. Klein, “Four Notes on the Triennial Lecture Cycle.” Journal of Jewish Studies 32:1 (1987): pp. 65–73. Michael L. Klein, “Not to be Translated in Public—‫לא מתרגם‬ ‫בציבורא‬.” Journal of Jewish Studies 39:1 (1988): pp. 80–91. Michael L. Klein, “Text and Vorlage in Neofiti 1.” Vetus Testamentum 22 (1972): pp. 490–91. Michael L. Klein, “Deut 31:7: ‫ תבוא‬or ‫ ”?תביא‬Journal of Biblical Literature, 92:4 (1973): pp. 584–85. Michael L. Klein, “The Notation of Parašot in MS Neofiti 1.” Textus Annual 8 (1973): pp. 175–77. Michael L. Klein, “Notes on the Printed Edition of MS Neofiti I.” Journal of Semitic Studies 19:2 (1974): pp. 216–30. Michael L. Klein, “Elias Levita and MS Neofiti I.” Biblica 56:2 (1975): pp. 242–46. Michael L. Klein, “The Messiah ‘That Leadeth Upon a Cloud,’ in the Fragment-Targum to the Pentateuch?” Journal of Theological Studies (New Series) 29:1 (1978): pp. 137–39. Michael L. Klein, “An Updated Bibliography of Manuscripts and Editions of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch.” Hebrew Union College Annual 70–71 (1999–2000): pp. 167–81.

SECTION I

CHAPTER ONE

THE ARAMAIC TARGUMIM: TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION It is well known, and no doubt in the course of the present Symposium, our contemporary Slovenian translators of the Bible will attest to it, that a translation is perforce an interpretation of the original work. This is a timeless and universal truth, which scholars of ancient, as well as modern, Bible translations have come to recognize as axiomatic. And yet, analysis of the various translations and the study of the interpretations that they reflect remain fascinating subjects. That is because no two independent translations of the same text are ever the same—except in the miraculous legend of the origins of the Septuagint, as told in the rabbinic version of the Letter of Aristeas. There, seventytwo elders, isolated from one another, produced literally the same Greek translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch.1 Moreover, according to that story, they all introduced the same intentional changes into the text, for the sake of clarification or out of deference to King Ptolmey. The ancient Aramaic targumim to the Hebrew Bible are no exception to the general rule. They display, in varying degrees, interpretative translations which range from the alteration of a single letter to the addition of lengthy midrashic passages. It will be the purpose of this paper to survey the motivation of the meturgemanim, the targumic translators, in altering the original biblical text, while translating it from Hebrew into Aramaic, as well as to analyze some of the techniques that they employed to that end. We will draw most of our examples from the more expansive Palestinian targumim to the Pentateuch, which display a very rich admixture of literal translation and interpretative paraphrase. However, we shall not ignore the more literal targum of Onqelos, and we will even have the occasion to refer to the Masorah to Onqelos, which instructs the meturgeman on required deviations from the literal rendition of certain verses, during the public reading of the Torah in the synagogue. 1

b. Megillah 9a–b.

4

chapter one

Inasmuch as the Pentateuch was considered a sacred text of divine origin, it is indeed amazing that the meturgemanim, with the approval of the rabbis, were bold enough to tamper with its text and to alter its wording at all. We would be justified in assuming that only under compelling circumstances was such re-writing or interpretation of Scripture undertaken. That circumstance seems to have been the conceived danger of misinterpretation on the part of the listeners. Some rabbinic traditions record important precedents, according to which the Hebrew biblical text itself had undergone changes called ‫תיקוני‬ ‫“( סופרים‬amendments of the scribes”), in order to protect the dignity and the integrity of the holy script.2 Moreover, the translators of the Septuagint had been praised by the rabbis for the textual changes that they introduced. The tension between preserving the infallible divine text and conveying its true message in another language is reflected in the famous Talmudic statement ‫המתרגם פסוק כצורתו הרי זה בדאי והמוסיף עליו‬ ‫“ הרי זה מחרף ומגדף‬He who translates a verse literally is a liar; but he who adds to it is a blasphemer.”3 It must have been an arduous task for the meturgeman to walk the middle “golden path.” And as is now evident from the multiplicity of extant targumim, no general consensus was ever reached by the rabbis or by the translators. One of the earliest scholars in recent times to study the subject was S. D. Luzzatto, in his masterly analysis of Targum Onqelos, titled Ohev Ger, over a century and a half ago.4 Luzzatto listed some thirty-two categories of changes that Onqelos introduced into the text of the Pentateuch. And while the modern scholar cannot adopt Luzzatto’s full taxonomy of paraphrastic translation, the single most salient category that he presents in its many different forms constitutes the first and major theological category for us as well, namely, passages directly related to the Deity. This includes biblical descriptions of the physical nature and form of God; human actions, motions and emotions attributed to God in the Hebrew Bible; and verses which describe direct relationships and interactions between human beings and God.

2 See S. Lieberman, “Corrections of the Soferim,” Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (Texts and Studies XVIII: New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962), pp. 28–37. 3 b. Kiddushin 49a; t. Megillah 4(3):41. 4 ‫[ אוהב גר‬Philoxenus] (Vienna, 1830; Cracow, 1895; reprinted: Jerusalem: Makor, 1969).

the aramaic targumim

5

Early studies after Luzzatto tended towards generalization, stating that the targumim remove or ameliorate all anthropomorphic or anthropopathic descriptions of God. This seemed to suit a general theory that as Jewish theology became more refined, whether under Hellenistic influence or due to internal development, and concepts of the Deity became more sophisticated, the more primitive human descriptions were eliminated. However, subsequent twentieth-century studies have shown that whereas many—indeed most—of the anthropomorphic and anthropopathic descriptions of God have been altered in the Aramaic translations, many others have been translated quite literally.5 If indeed the descriptions of God as possessed of a human-like body; or the attribution to God of human emotions such as anger and joy, jealousy and remorse; or God’s motion and physical removal from one place to another, had become theologically objectionable by the period of targumic activity, how, then, could many blatant examples of anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms have survived in the various extant targumim? Moreover, the earliest surviving targum manuscripts from Qumran are likely to have been copied in the mid-second century B.C.E., not distant in time from the assumed date of composition of the Book of Daniel. And it is in that book, which is ascribed to the Hellenistic period, that the Ancient of Days is depicted as “taking His seat, His garment like white snow, and the hair of His head like lamb’s wool” (Dan 7:9). It seems that, even in this relatively late period, we must allow for allegorical interpretation of anthropomorphisms, alongside the required paraphrastic transformation of other “theologically offensive” or “doctrinally dangerous” biblical verses. The following are several examples that will serve to demonstrate these somewhat abstract principles. In Deut 11:12, all of the targumim translate literally the phrase “the eyes of the Lord God are upon” the land. In Exod 31:18 and Deut 9:10, the targumim have no difficulty rendering literally the statement that

5 Cf. M. L. Klein, “The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim,” Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 32; Leiden: Brill, 1981), pp. 162–77 [ch. 5 in the present volume]; idem, ‫הגשמת‬ ‫[ האל בתרגומים הארמיים לתורה‬Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim of the Pentateuch] (Jerusalem: Makor, 1982).

6

chapter one

the tablets “were written by the finger of God.”6 Likewise, the phrase “beneath His feet,” in Exod 24:10, is translated in the Palestinian targumim by the no less anthropomorphic phrase, “beneath the footstool of His feet.” And a final example from amongst many, in Exod 15:17, “the sanctuary, O Lord, which Your hands established” is amplified in most of the targumim to “which Your two hands established.” Clearly, the targumim are not deterred by the metaphorical attribution of human parts to the Deity. Similarly, there are enough instances in the various targumim to the Pentateuch to indicate that the meturgemanim were not entirely adverse to the application of verbs of cognition, emotion, transposition, etc. to God. Examples abound in all of the targumim of God’s hearing, seeing, or knowing, in the sense of acquiring information, that are rendered literally.7 In the Palestinian targumim to Deut 31:29 and 32:16, 19, 21, we find humans enraging God; and in verses 16 and 21, they provoke jealousy in Him. Moreover, there are quite a few instances of the retention of verbs of motion and transposition of God in the various targumim. In Exod 33:22, we find “until I have passed” in Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan. According to Onqelos and Neofiti to Gen 46:4, God “will descend” to Egypt with Jacob, just as in PseudoJonathan to Gen 11:7, God “descends to confound the language” of the builders of the tower of Babel. In Neofiti to Gen 28:13, we find the Lord “standing beside” (lit. ‫“ עלוי‬above/upon”) Jacob, just as God literally “stands before [Moses] on the rock at Horeb,” according to Onqelos at Exod 17:6.8 Having reviewed a representative mass of examples of surviving anthropomorphisms in the targumim, and having ruled out their avoidance per se as a major cause of paraphrastic translation in the targumim, we must seek that cause elsewhere. One of the central themes of the Hebrew Bible is the human search for spirit and for divine rev-

6 Neofiti “. . . by a mighty finger from before God.” However, as demonstrated elsewhere, the addition of the prepositional phrase ‫“( מן קדם‬from before”) does not necessarily reflect the avoidance of anthropomorphisms. Cf. M. L. Klein, “The Preposition ‫‘( קדם‬Before’): A Pseudo-Anti-Anthropomorphism in the Targums,” Journal of Theological Studies 30 (1979), pp. 502–7 [ch. 3 in the present volume]. 7 Cf. M. L. Klein, . . . ‫הגשמת האל‬, pp. 93–99. 8 With slight variation in Pseudo-Jonathan, which, if at all, amplifies the anthropomorphic description ‫“ האנא קאים קדמך תמן באתרא דתיחמי רושם ריגלא‬behold I will stand before you, at the place where you will see the footprint”—presumably God’s footprint!

the aramaic targumim

7

elation. It is, therefore, not at all surprising that no fewer than nine distinct Hebrew verbs in the divine context are translated by the Aramaic verb ‫“ גלי‬reveal”—or rather by the passive ‫“ אתגלי‬was revealed.” The most natural site of this translation is the Sinai theophany in Exod 19:20, where the phrase “the Lord came down (‫ )וירד‬upon Mount Sinai” is translated in all of the targumim “was revealed (‫)אתגלי‬ upon Mount Sinai.”9 So also, the verb ‫( נקרה‬root ‫“ )קרה‬came/happened/chanced upon” in Exod 3:18, is translated “the Lord, God of the Hebrews, was revealed (‫ )אתגלי‬upon us.”10 Likewise, the verb ‫בא‬ “has come” in Exod 20:20(17) is translated ‫ אתגלי‬in all of the targumim. As is to be expected, such verbs as ‫נראה‬, ‫ הופיע‬and ‫אתודע‬ (“was seen,” “appeared” and “made Myself known”) which all have the sense of God’s revealing to man some divine aspect of Himself, are translated by ‫ אתגלי‬in the Aramaic. The call “Rise up (‫)קומה‬, O Lord, and let Your enemies be scattered,” in Num 10:35, is rendered “Reveal Yourself” in Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan. And finally, God’s going forth (‫ )אני יוצא‬and His passing through (‫ )ועברתי‬the land of Egypt, in Exod 11:4; 12:12, are understood by almost all of the targumim as God revealing Himself in order to mete out retribution upon the Egyptians. This lengthy and detailed listing will serve to illustrate how the technique of translational convergence is applied by the meturgemanim in order to emphasize God’s ubiquitous revelation in the world. In this admittedly radical case, nine distinct Hebrew roots are made to converge into a single theologically instructive root in the Aramaic target language. The reverse technique of translational divergence is also employed by the meturgemanim for interpretational purposes. An outstanding example of this phenomenon is the translation of the verb ‫השתחוה‬ “bowed down/prostrated himself.”11 And this, coincidentally, reflects 9 The addition of ‫ מימרא‬or ‫ איקר שכינתא‬in the Palestinian targumim (except Pseudo-Jonathan) is not relevant to the translation of the verb ‫ ירד‬by ‫אתגלי‬. In fact, once the verb of motion has been replaced by the innocuous verb of revelation, the need to substitute appellations for the divine name is obviated. 10 This is to be contrasted with Num 23:4, ‫ויקר אלהים אל בלעם‬, where the revelationary nature of the meeting is minimized by employing the literal translation /‫וארע‬ ‫ וערע‬or ‫ואזדמן‬. 11 Cf. M. L. Klein, . . . ‫הגשמת האל‬, (1982), pp. 151–55. See also D. M. Golomb, “The Targumic Renderings of the Verb lehištahwôt: A Targumic Translation Convention,” Working with No Data: Semitic and Egyptian Studies, Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin (ed. D. M. Golomb; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987), pp. 105–18. However,

8

chapter one

the second major category of translational paraphrasis as described by Luzzatto, namely, protection of the honor of the patriarchs and the enhancement of their piety. The Genesis narratives abound with examples of the patriarchs bowing down and prostrating themselves before human beings. This ancient form of greeting or obeisance was a totally innocuous social custom in its original Hebrew context. In the course of centuries, with the change in social mores, and perhaps under the influence of the Book of Esther, where great emphasis is placed upon Mordecai’s refusal to bow down to Haman (Esth 3:1–6), it became unacceptable for the righteous forefathers of the nation to have prostrated themselves before fellow human beings. Kneeling and bowing in Judaism had become restricted to the rituals of the Temple and synagogue. Therefore, the meturgemanim felt it necessary to re-interpret the verb ‫ השתחוה‬in its various contexts. Thus in Neofiti to Gen 18:1, Abraham does not bow to the ground before the three men (= angels in disguise), but rather ‫“ ושאל בשלמהון כנימוס ארעא‬he inquired of their welfare in the custom of the land.” Likewise, Lot before the two angels in Gen 19:1; Abraham before the sons of Heth in Gen 23:7; Jacob upon meeting his brother Esau in Gen 33:3; etc. Moreover, in Joseph’s dream and Jacob’s rebuke (Gen 37:7, 9, 10), his brother’s sheaves do not bow down to his sheaf, nor do the heavenly bodies, his parents and his brothers, bow down to him. Instead, Neofiti describes them all as “inquiring of his welfare” (‫)שאל בשלם‬. Likewise, it was unseemly that the patriarchs should be the object of the kneeling, in a manner suggesting their being worshipped. In Exod 11:8, when Moses tells Pharaoh, “your servants will come . . . and bow down to me,” Neofiti once again interprets the objectionable phrase “will inquire of my welfare.” In this instance, even Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan translate ‫ והשתחוו לי‬with interpretive ‫ויבעון‬ ‫“ מני‬and will beg of me.”12 Similarly, in Isaac’s blessing of Jacob (Gen 27:29a) “let nations bow down to you” ‫ וישתחו לך לאמים‬is translated

Golomb places inordinate emphasis on the presence or absence of the adverbial appendage ‫ארצה‬, which makes no sense once ‫ השתחוה‬is translated “to greet.” Since, as a rule, all Hebrew elements are represented even in the most paraphrasic targumim, the ingenious solution of ‫ כנימוס ארעא‬was employed, where appropriate. 12 This is the explanation that underlies the note in the Masorah to Onqelos at Exod 11:8, ‫לי דוהשתחוו מיני‬. Cf. G. E. Weil, “Second Fragment d’une Massorah alphabetique du Targum babylonien du Pentateuque [6], (Concordance des Paraphrases Hapax a ou Faibles Occurrences),” Textus 13 (1986), 12.

the aramaic targumim

9

in Neofiti by yet another interpretative phrase ‫ישתעבדון לך מלכוותא‬ “kingdoms will be subjected unto you.” Another paraphrastic translation in Neofiti of the verb ‫השתחוה‬ is the Aramaic doublet ‫“ אודי ושבח‬gave thanks and praise.” In the Hebrew Bible, when Joseph’s brothers appear before him, they bow down to him several times. In the Aramaic targumim, however, only upon their entering Joseph’s presence (Gen 42:6 and 43:26) is ‫וישתחוו‬ translated ‫;שאלו בשלם‬13 but having once greeted him at the beginning of their audience, the next occurrence (43:28) is translated ‫ואודו ושבחו‬ as an expression of appreciation. Finally, to complete this brief demonstration of translational divergence, in a context of Divine worship, when Abraham tells his two lads, ‫“ ונשתחוה ונשובה אליכם‬we shall bow down and then return to you” (Gen 22:5), it is rendered in Neofiti ‫“ ונצלי‬we shall pray.” In contrast to all of the above, the Aramaic root ‫ סגד‬is reserved almost exclusively in Neofiti for idolatrous contexts, e.g., the prohibition of bowing down to graven images in the Second Commandment (Exod 20:5 = Deut 5:9); kneeling on figured stones (Lev 26:1); bowing down to the god(s) of the daughters of Moab (Num 25:2); and the admonitions against idol worship (Deut 30:17).14 A third targumic technique that was employed by the meturgeman to safeguard the faith and to glorify biblical figures and protect them from public shame is that of “converse translation.”15 In these instances the Aramaic targum produces the very opposite of the simple sense of the Hebrew verse. This targumic phenomenon was already noted by the Renaissance Jewish scholar, Elias Levita.16 The following are several examples:

13 Cf. Neofiti Gen 44:14 ‫ ויפלו לפניו ארצה‬is also translated ‫ושאלו בשלמיה כנימוס‬ ‫ארעא‬. But contrast Gen 50:18 ‫ויפלו לפניו‬, where the brothers are begging for their lives, which is translated literally ‫( ונפלו קדמי‬Neofiti marginal gloss: ‫ואתרקינו‬ [=‫“ ]ואתרכינו‬leaned/fell upon [his neck]”). 14

Yet another Aramaic verb occasionally utilized by Neofiti for the translation of

‫ השתחוה‬is ‫ אשתטח‬which is the more common translation of the Hebrew ‫נפל על‬ ‫פניו‬. This verb seems to serve mutually contrastive contexts, e.g., idolatry (Deut 29:25); Balaam before God (Num 24:4, 16; Heb. ‫ ;)נפל‬the Israelites or Moses and Aaron before God (Lev 9:24; Num 16:4; 20:6; also Heb. ‫)נפל‬. 15 See M. L. Klein, “Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique,” Biblica 57 (1976), pp. 515–37 [ch 2 in the present volume]. 16 ‫ מתורגמן‬Lexicon Chaldaicum, (Isny, 1541; photo-reproduced Tel Aviv, 1966(?); no publisher noted). Towards the end of his Hebrew Introduction (no pagination), Levita writes: ‫ויש מלות שתרגמו הפך הכונה‬.

10

chapter one In Gen 4:14, Cain exclaims: ‫הן גרשת אתי היום מעל פני האדמה ומפניך‬ ‫“ אסתר‬Behold, You have driven me out this day from the face of the land, and from Your face I shall be hidden.” However, all of the targumim present an opposite, theologically corrected version, ‫ומן קדמך‬ ‫“ ]אדני[ לית אפשר למטמרה‬but from before You [O, Lord,] it is impossible to be hidden.”

Another celebrated example is found in a number of early manuscriptal and printed sources of Onqelos. In Gen 5:24, it is told, ‫ויתהלך‬ ‫“ חנוך את האלהים ואיננו כי לקח אתו אלהים‬Enoch walked with God, and he was no more, for God took him.” The Onqelos sources render ‫“ ואיתוהי ארי לא אמיתיה יוי‬and he still is, for God did not put him to death.” The explanation for this converse translation is reflected in the Pseudo-Jonathan targum, ‫והא ליתוהי עם דיירי ארעא ארום איתניגיד‬ ‫“ וסליק לרקיעא במימר קדם ה' וקרא שמיה מיטטרון ספרא רבא‬and he was no longer with the inhabitants of the earth, for he was removed and he ascended to heaven by a command [lit.: word] from before God, and he was named Metatron, the Great Scribe.” The exegetical basis for this departure from the simple sense of the text is, of course, the unusual Hebrew expression for Enoch’s death ‫ ואיננו‬instead of the standard ‫ וימת‬that is employed for all the other primeval generations. The interpretation is in consonance with the ancient tradition of 2 Enoch 16:6; 18:1–3, where he is depicted as a scribe and as having been swept up to heaven alive by angels. But strangely enough, it is not in agreement with early midrashic literature—only with late medieval traditions. One last example of a converse translation that is introduced to protect the honor of Israel is found in Exod 17:11, in the story of the battle between Israel and Amalek. According to the Hebrew text, when Moses let down his tiring hands, Amalek prevailed over Israel. It must have been considered embarrassing in the synagogue to attribute even a momentary victory to Amalek over Israel. The Masorah to Onqelos, therefore instructs the meturgeman [‫ מתברין מתרג]ם‬,[‫מתגברין תר]גום‬ ‫בציבורא‬.17 In the public reading, the text is to be altered from ‫מתגברין‬ “Amalek was victorious” to ‫“ מתברין‬Amalek was broken/smashed.” This converse translation is effected by the mere deletion of a single letter!

17 A. Berliner, Die Massorah zum Targum Onkelos (2nd [expanded] ed.; Leipzig, 1877), p. 82; G. E. Weil, “La Massorah Magna du Targum du Pentateuch: Noveaux fragments et autres,” Textus 4 (1964), pp. 33–34.

the aramaic targumim

11

We might note here the distinction made in the Masorah between the written or studied targum (‫ )תרגום‬and the publicly recited (‫מתרגם‬ ‫)בציבורא‬. The former may express the accurate and literal translation of the verse, while the latter is the “politically correct” translation, to use a modern term. This will explain why some of the finest medieval codices of Onqelos, such as Ms. Vatican Ebr. 448, include the full Aramaic version of the “forbidden” targumim in the body of the text, accompanied by an interlinear or marginal note ‫לא מיתרגם בציבורא‬ “not to be translated in public.”18 A less drastic paraphrastic alteration of an embarrassing text may be found in all of the targumim to Gen 27:35. In the Hebrew version, Isaac tells Esau, ‫“ בא אחיך במרמה ויקח את ברכתך‬your brother came with guile and took away your blessing.” It would, however, be unseemly to attribute deceit or guile to the patriarch Jacob. Instead, the Aramaic versions produce [‫“ על אחוך בחכמא ]בסוגי חוכמתא‬your brother came with wisdom” or “with cleverness.”19 As we have just seen, the targumim make it their purpose to protect the true faith and to emphasize the righteousness of the patriarchs and other positive biblical figures. On the other hand, they enter a polemical and denigrating mode when relating to pagan worship or negative figures. Whereas the Hebrew Bible employs the generic ‫ אלהים‬for both the God of Israel and foreign gods ‫אלהים אחרים‬, or for more specifically national gods ‫אלהי מצרים‬, the targumim refuse to use the cognate ‫ אלהא‬for pagan gods, which might imply their being possessed of some divine or superior quality. Instead the targumim most frequently refer to the foreign gods by the derogatory term ‫“ טעו‬error,” ‫“ טעות עממיא‬the errors of the nations,” or ‫טעות מצראי‬ “the error of the Egyptians.” A similar distinction is made by the targumim between Israelite priests ‫ כהניא‬and their pagan counterparts ‫( כומריא‬Gen 47:22, 26). These indeed are additional examples of translational divergence in the targumim. The Hebrew Bible refers to each group by the same terms ‫ אלהים‬or ‫כהנים‬, whereas the targumim divide them into two pairs of translations ‫אלהא‬/‫ טעו‬and ‫כהנא‬/‫כומרא‬.

18 See, e.g., M. L. Klein, “Not to be Translated in Public—‫לא מתרגם בציבורא‬,” JJS 39 (1988), pp. 80–91 [ch 15 in the present volume]. 19 Cf. the Masorah to Gen 27:35, which lists two instances of the translation, the present verse and Gen 34:13 ‫( בני יעקב‬A. Berliner, Die Massorah . . ., p. 24).

12

chapter one

The same distinction between the God of Israel and other gods underlies the targumic resolution of the rhetorical question in Exod 15:11, ‫“ מי כמכה באלים יהוה‬Who is like unto You, among the gods/ mighty, O Lord?” which is translated in Onqelos ‫לית בר מינך את הוא‬ ‫“ אלהא יוי‬There is none but You, You are the God, O Lord.” This paraphrase leaves no room for theological error—there are no lesser gods and there is no basis for dangerous comparisons. The targumim diverge from the literal sense of the biblical text in poetic and prophetic passages that lend themselves to eschatological and messianic interpretations.20 In Jacob’s blessing of Judah (Gen 49:10) the Hebrew text reads ‫ עד כי יבוא שילה‬. . . ‫לא יסור שבט מיהודה‬, which would seem to literally mean “The scepter shall not part from Judah . . . until he comes to Shiloh.” All of the targumim interpret ‫שילה‬ as a reference to the Messiah, i.e., “until Shiloh comes.” For example, Neofiti and the Fragment-Targum (Ms. Vatican Ebr. 440) offer ‫עד זמן‬ ‫“ דייתי מלכא משיחא דדידיה היא מלכותא‬until the time of arrival of the King Messiah, unto whom is the kingdom.” Another eschatological interpretation is found in the targumic toseftot (expansive supplementary passages) to Jacob’s blessing of Dan (Gen 49:18). Here the Hebrew text mentions deliverance, almost eliciting the midrashic interpretation: ‫“ לישועתך קויתי יהוה‬I wait for Your deliverance, O Lord.” The toseftot, following the Palestinian targumim, provide lengthy paraphrases, concluding with ‫אלא לפורקניה דמלכא‬ ‫“ משיחא דהיא פורקנא לעלמין‬rather [I wait] for the deliverance of the King Messiah, which is an eternal deliverance,” or ‫אלא לפורקניה‬ ‫“ דמשיח בן דוד דהוא עתיד לאיתאה לבני ישראל‬but rather for the deliverance of the Messiah, son of David, that He will bring for His people Israel.”21 The last example of eschatological interpretation is from the Palestinian targumim to Exod 12:42, ‫ליל שמורים הוא ליהוה להוציאם‬ ‫“ מארץ מצרים הוא הלילה הזה ליהוה שמורים לכל בני ישראל לדרתם‬It was a night of vigil to bring them out of Egypt; that same night is the

20 For a broad collection of these verses, see S. H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretaion; The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1974). 21 M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Cincinatti: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986), Vol. 1, p. 171. See, also, idem, “Targumic Toseftot from the Cairo Genizah,” Salvacion en la Palabra: Targum, Derash, Berith: En memoria del Profesor Alejandro Díez Macho (ed. D. Muñoz León; Madrid: Ediciónes Cristiandad 1986), [pp. 417–18].

the aramaic targumim

13

Lord’s, one of vigil for all the children of Israel throughout the generations.” In the Palestinian targumim the night of the Exodus becomes the archetype and the calendrical date for four nights of divine vigil and deliverance in the history of Israel: 1. the eve of Creation (Gen 1:2); 2. the eve of the Covenant of the Pieces (Gen 15:12) complemented by the binding of Isaac (Gen 22); 3. the eve of the Exodus from Egypt (Exod 12:42); and 4. the eve of the messianic deliverance in the End of Days.22 This last fourth night is described as follows: ‫ליליא רביעאה כד ישלים עלמא קיצא למתפרקא נירי פרזלא יתברון ועבדי‬ ‫רישעא ישתיצון משה יהא נפיק ממדברא ומלכא משיחא יהא נפיק מרומא‬ ‫דין ידבר בריש ענא ודין ידבר בריש ענא ומימרא דיי' הוה מדבר בין תריהון‬ ['‫ ]ואנא[ ואינון מהלכין כחדא ]הוא ליל פסחא קדם ה‬. . . The fourth night will occur when the world reaches its fixed time to be redeemed; the iron yokes will be broken and the evil doers will be destroyed; Moses will go forth from the wilderness and the King Messiah will go forth from Rome; this one will lead at the head of the flock, and that one will lead at the head of the flock, and the memra (“word”) of the Lord will lead among both of them; [and I] and they will proceed together; [that is the eve of Passover before the Lord] . . .23

As is well known, the Torah was considered the basis of instruction as well as the source of authority for the halakhah, the mandatory Jewish way of life. The Aramaic targum was the medium through which presumably large segments of the community received that instruction. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect that the meturgeman would adjust his rendition of the Torah to accommodate prevailing rabbinic views of the halakhah. One extraordinary example of targumic paraphrase that is halakhically motivated is the translation in Onqelos of the phrase ‫לא תבשל גדי‬ ‫“ בחלב אמו‬you shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” as ‫לא תיכלון‬ ‫“ בסר בחלב‬you shall not eat meat in milk.” This reflects the rabbinic

22 For a thorough analysis of this passage and the parallel literature, see R. Le Déaut, La Nuit Pascale. AnBi 22 (Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1963). 23 According to Ms. Paris Hébr. 110, ed. M. L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch (Analecta Biblica 76; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), Vol. 1, pp. 79–80. Its displacement to Exod 15:18, in this manuscript, is possibly for the sake of inclusion in the Passover liturgy; cf. A. Shinan ‫[ מקרא אחד תרגומים הרבה‬The Biblical Story as Reflected in its Aramaic Translations] (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1993), pp. 117–20. All of the Palestinian targumim share the same basic text with minor variations, including censorship to the allusion to Rome and the bracketed phrases.

14

chapter one

interpretation of the biblical triplicate of this prohibition (Exod 23:19; 34:26 and Deut 14:21), namely, not to cook any mixture of meat and milk, nor to eat, nor to derive any benefit from the cooked mixture.24 The Palestinian targumim are even more explicit and expansive. The simple command “you shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” has been transformed into a tripartite legal exposition: 1. a hortatory opening, reflecting the synagogal Sitz im Leben of these targumim, ‫“ עמי עמי בית ישראל‬O My people, My people, House of Israel”; 2. the rabbinic interpretation of the law, extending the forbidden activity to include eating, and the forbidden mixture to any meat and milk—not merely of the kid and its mother’s milk, ‫לית אתון ראשין לא למבשלא‬ ‫“ ולא למיכלא בשר וחלב תריהון מערבין כחדא‬you are not permitted either to cook or to eat meat and milk, both mixed together”; and 3. a threat of punishment—measure for measure, ‫דלא יתקוף רוגזי‬

‫בכון באדריכון דגנא וקשא תרהון מערבין כחדא ואבשל ית עיבוריכון‬ ‫“ צבורין‬lest My wrath rage against you, and I cook [= scorch] your harvest while heaped on the threshing floor, the grain and chaff together as one.”25 Another no less outstanding example of halakhic influence upon the targumim is the calendrical interpretation of Lev 23:11, 15. The phrase ‫“ ממחרת השבת‬the morrow after the sabbath” is translated ‫“ מבתר יומא טבא‬after the festival day” in Onqelos, and more explicitly in the Palestinian targumim, ‫מן בתר יומא טבא קדמיא דפסחא‬ “after the first day of the Passover festival.” As is well known, this is in accord with the Pharisaic ritual calendar and contrary to that of other sects (Sadducees, Essenes?) who held that the sheaf offering and the beginning of the counting of seven weeks took place on the first Sunday after Passover—literally the morrow after the Sabbath. There are also, though admittedly less frequent, targumic passages that provide halakhic justification and accommodation to contemporary realities of Jewish communal life. A case in point is Lev 26:1, where the Hebrew Bible forbids the placement of figured stones ‫ אבן משכית‬for the purpose of kneeling upon in worship. This verse 24 Cf. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (ed. J. Z. Lauterbach; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society 1935, reprint 1976), Vol. 3, p. 188; and m. Ḥ ullin 8:4. Contrast also the explicit massoretic note to Onqelos, ‫( תבשל דמ' תיכלון ג' בא' ראשית‬Exod 23:19); ‫( ראשית‬Exod 34:26); ‫( כל נבלה‬Deut 14:21); see A. Berliner, Die Massorah . . ., p. 39. 25 According to MS Paris 110, ed. M. L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums . . ., Vol. 1, p. 86. Similar versions appear in the Palestinian targumim of Neofiti, MS Vatican 440 of the Fragment-Targum (Exod 34:26) and in Pseudo-Jonathan.

the aramaic targumim

15

seems to have become distressing during the late Roman or Byzantine period, when many of the synagogue floors in the land of Israel were decorated with stone mosaics depicting human and animal figures, personifications of the zodiac and the four seasons, Helios in the sun chariot (e.g., Beit Alpha and Hamat at Tiberias), and biblical scenes, such as Abraham and the binding of Isaac (Beit Alpha) or King David as Orpheus (Gaza). The Pseudo-Jonathan targum, therefore, saw it necessary to add a comforting halakhic addition to the literal translation of the verse: ‫ואבן‬ ‫“ מציירא לא תתנון בארעכון למנחן עלה‬you shall not place a figured stone in your land to kneel upon.” Here the meturgeman adds ‫ברם‬

‫סטיו חקיק בציורין ודיוקנין תשוון בארעית מקדשיכון ולא למסגד להון‬ “however, you may place a stoa (= mosaic pavement?) impressed with figures and images in the floor of your sanctuaries—provided you do not kneel to them.” Since the figures in the floors were not the objects of worship, they were not considered to be in violation of the Levitical code. In fact, there exist similar rabbinic statements allowing frescos to be painted on synagogue walls.26 As the subtitle of this paper indicates and as we have just demonstrated, the targum of even a single word in the Hebrew Bible may reflect an inextricable combination of both translation and interpretation. On the one hand, the underlying motivation for digression from the purely mechanical or literal rendition of a verse may be theological, doctrinal or legalistic, but on the other hand, it may be the simple desire to convey to the listener/reader the essential meaning of the biblical text in the contemporary idiom of the target language. The following several examples will serve to illustrate this principle: Upon discovering that Rebecca was Isaac’s wife and not his sister, Abimelech warns his people ‫“ הנגע באיש הזה ובאשתו מות יומת‬anyone who touches this man or his wife shall be put to death” (Gen 26:11). Neofiti translates the verb ‫ נגע‬literally ‫ ;מן דיקרב‬Pseudo-Jonathan adds a modifier for clarification ‫“ דיקרב לביש‬anyone who touches for

26 E.g., y. ‘Avodah Zarah 42d, according to Cairo Genizah manuscripts published by J. N. Epstein, “‫“[ ”לשרידי ירושלמי‬Additional Fragments of the Jerushalmi”], Tarbiz 3 (1931–1932), p. 20. See also M. L. Klein, “Palestinian Targum and Synagogue Mosaics,” Immanuel 11 (Fall, 1980), pp. 40–45 [ch. 4 in the present volume]. Unlike the strange use of the term “stoa” in Pseudo-Jonathan, the talmudic passage uses the familiar term for “mosaic,” (‫פסיפס)ם‬, borrowed from the Greek.

16

chapter one

evil [purpose]”; and Onqelos replaces the verb with ‫דינזיק‬, achieving the essential meaning “anyone who harms this man or his wife.” In Gen 12:5, Abraham and Sarah depart for Canaan ‫ואת הנפש אשר‬ ‫“ עשו בחרן‬with the souls they had acquired,” but literally, “with the souls that they had made.” This was understood by the targumim and the midrashim to mean “with the souls they had proselytized.” Thus Onqelos renders: ‫“ וית נפשתא דשעבידו לאוריתא‬with the souls that they had subjugated to the Torah”; and the more explicit Palestinian targumim, ‫“ וית נפשתא די גיירו‬that they converted.” The common Hebrew verb ‫ שמע‬is most frequently translated by the Aramaic cognate ‫שמע‬. In Gen 42:23, Joseph’s brothers speak among themselves in their native tongue, unaware that he understands them, since there is a translator mediating between them, ‫והם לא ידעו כי‬ ‫שמע יוסף‬. Here the Palestinian Fragment-Targum (MS Paris 110) reads ‫“ ואינון לא הוו ידעין ארום הוה יוסף חכים בלישן בית קודשא‬and they were not aware that Joseph understood the language of the holy temple,” i.e., Hebrew, which the rabbis presumed to be the vernacular of the patriarchs.27 Another more frequent meaning of the Hebrew verb ‫ שמע‬is “accept” or “agree.” Accordingly, the Masorah to Onqelos lists ten instances where ‫ שמע‬is translated by the Aramaic root ‫קבל‬.28 For example, in Exod 18:24, Moses did not merely hear the advice of Jethro, but he accepted it. This is not unlike the modern English translations which employ verbs such as “hearkened to” or “heeded.” The last translational characteristic of the targumim that is worthy of mention in the framework of this brief survey is the translation of toponyms and gentilic names. The simple approach to such words would be to reproduce them literally, or in transliteration if the target language uses a different alphabet. However, since the purpose of the targum was to make the Bible intelligible to the congregation hundreds of years after its composition, it was only reasonable that geographical and gentilic names be updated in the process of translation. This approach was adopted at least in part by the Palestinian targumim. In Gen 47:11, Joseph settles his family in the city or region of Raamses, which the Palestinian targumim identify as Pelusium. Likewise, in Exod 1:11, the two store-cities built by the Israelites, Pithom and

27 28

Ed. M. L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums . . ., Vol. 1, p. 63. A. Berliner, Die Massorah . . ., pp. 15–16, at Gen 16:2.

the aramaic targumim

17

Raamses are translated Tanis and Pelusium. The “river of Egypt” ‫נהר‬ ‫ מצרים‬in the boundaries of the promised land (Gen 15:18) is rendered ‫“ נילוס מצרים‬the Nile of Egypt” in Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan. And one example from among many in the cryptic prophesy of Balaam, in Num 24:24, ‫“ וצים מיד כתים‬Ships shall come from the coast of Kittim” is translated ‫“ ויפקון אוכלוסין סגיין בלברניא מן מדינת איטליא‬Great masses will go forth in warships from the province of Italy.”29 In the preceding survey, we have presented a sampling of the many translational techniques employed by the targumim, when they depart from the literal one-to-one translation of the biblical text. We have demonstrated how a single Hebrew lexeme may be rendered in quite a number of different translations or paraphrases in the Aramaic, in a process that we called translational divergence. We have also demonstrated the reverse process of many Hebrew words and phrases coalescing into a single Aramaic translation, in what we have termed translational convergence. The most radical technique of converse translation has also been illustrated, whereby the meturgeman produces the diametrical opposite of the original Hebrew text. Lastly, we indicated other targumic transformations, in consideration of social conditions that developed subsequent to the biblical period, or the updating of toponyms and ethnonyms to contemporary usage. As important as the recognition of these targumic characteristics might be in and of itself, we have tried to go one step farther, in analyzing the underlying motivation for the employment of these translational techniques. Here, we showed that the introduction of changes into the sacred text was anything but arbitrary. The meturgeman responds to the most serious needs of the reader/listener, by providing a theologically and doctrinally correct interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. Prophesies, blessings, and cryptic poems are given appropriate eschatological or messianic explication. The patriarchs of the pentateuchal narratives are glorified and their human foibles whitewashed, in accord with the saintly images that they acquired in rabbinic literature. In contrast, pagan cults and negative biblical characters are derogated and vilified far beyond their depiction in the Hebrew text.

29 According to the MS Vatican Ebr. 440, ed. M. L. Klein, The Fragment Targums . . ., Vol. 1, p. 204. The other Palestinian targumim and Pseudo-Jonathan offer similar readings—only Neofiti has been subjected to censorship.

18

chapter one

The text is brought up to date with regard to ritual practice. In this way, the congregation receives its lesson in daily halakhic observance through the targumic medium. And the narratives are made intelligible by the translation of toponyms and gentilic names into their contemporary equivalents, often reflecting Greek names of the Hellenistic period. In summation, the foregoing will hopefully have served to reinforce the connection between the theme of the present symposium, “Biblical Interpretation,” and its timely occasion, the publication of the new Slovenian translation. Translation and interpretation are inextricable. They seem always to have been so—certainly as far back as the Aramaic targumim of the Bible.

CHAPTER TWO

CONVERSE TRANSLATION: A TARGUMIC TECHNIQUE “He who translates a biblical verse literally is a liar; but he who elaborates on it is a blasphemer.” This is how Rabbi Judah (2nd cent. C.E.) couched the translator’s dilemma.1 However, this dilemma does not seem to have deterred the early Jewish translators of the Bible, the targumists, from their activities. The wide gamut of surviving targumim, ranging indeed from the very literal to the most expansive midrashic paraphrase, indicates that, in fact, no single standard of translation prevailed. Moreover, even individual targumim are rarely consistent in their translational method. For instance, Onqelos, which was considered to be the literal translation of the Pentateuch par excellence, has recently been rediscovered to contain a significant amount of aggadic paraphrase.2 On the other hand, Pseudo-Jonathan, which is the most expansionistic of the Pentateuchal targumim, will quite often be simplistic and literal, even when all of the other Palestinian targumim embroider upon the biblical verse. The non-literal aggadic interpretation is to be found, more or less, in all of the targumim. The technique of these aggadic passages has been described by M. McNamara as follows: It is both translation and expansion, peshat as well as derash or midrash. The interpretative tradition could not ignore the biblical text. When a free paraphrase, or a midrash, is given, it has to be inserted into the rendering of the biblical text, occasionally to the detriment of syntax. This results in what we may call the “targumic interpolations” in the text itself.3

G. Vermes refers to these passages as “haggadic interpretations and increments.”4 The impression imparted by these and other similar

1 t. Meg. 4:41, ed. M. S. Zuckermandel, Bamberger and Wahrman (Jerusalem 1937), 228; and b. Qidd. 49a: .‫ המתרגם פסוק כצורתו הרי זה בדאי והמוסיף )עליו( הרי זה )מחרף ו(מגדף‬,‫ר' יהודה אומר‬ 2 E.g., G. Vermes, “Haggadah in the Onkelos Targum,” JSS 8 (1963), 159–69, and J. W. Bowker, “Haggadah in the Targum Onqelos,” JSS 12 (1967), 51–63. But, see Vermes’ reference to A. Berliner, who in 1884 produced a limited list of aggadic interpretations in Onqelos. 3 Targum and Testament (Shannon 1972), 70. 4 Vermes, “Haggadah in the Onkelos Targum,” 161.

20

chapter two

descriptions is that the targumic aggadah is additive and interpretative of the original Hebrew text, but not contradictive of it. The purpose of the present article is to demonstrate that the contradictive rendition is not uncommon in the various targumim to the Pentateuch. In fact, its occurrence is frequent enough for it to be considered among the commonly acknowledged targumic techniques, and not merely as an anomalous phenomenon.5 I. Addition or Deletion of the Negative Particle The most patent examples of converse translation in the targumim are those in which the targumist adds a negative particle ‫לא‬, ‫ לית‬or ‫ לית אפשר‬to an otherwise positive statement, or where he deletes the particle from an originally negative statement.6 1. Gen 4:14

MT:7

‫הן גרשת אתי היום מעל פני האדמה ומפניך אסתר‬

RSV:

Behold, thou hast driven me this day from the ground and from thy face I shall be hidden.

5 The contradictive or converse translation had been noted as early as the 16th century by Elias Levita. Toward the end of the Hebrew introduction to his Lexicon Chaldaicum or ‫( מתורגמן‬Isny, 1541), he writes: ‫ויש מלות שתרגמו הפך הכוונה‬. However, Levita cites only two examples from Onqelos (Exod 33:3 and Num 24:1), the latter of which is somewhat dubious. He also notes two additional examples from Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. In the last century, the phenomenon was mentioned by S. Maybaum in his Die Anthropomorphien und Anthropopathien bie Onkelos und die spätern Targumim (Breslau 1870), 21: “An vielen Stellen geht Onkelos sogar so weit, das er . . . selbst das volle Gegentheil des Textes wiedergibt.” Maybaum adds Gen 4:14 to the example given by Levita (Exod 33:3,5). Other more recent writers who occasionally mention a particular example will be cited below. 6 In his recent book, Aggadah and its Development [‫( ]אגדות ותולדותיהן‬Jerusalem 1974), 154 and 238 n. 67, J. Heinemann cites two examples of this type of converse translation, namely, Gen 37:33 and 48:22 (see numbers 4 and 7 below). Heinemann sees in these examples, which are outright contradictory of the Hebrew Bible, a crude and undeveloped mode of translation that is characteristic of the early (pre-Tanaitic) targum. It lacks the elegance of the ‘creative philology’ that was later employed by the Midrash. If Heinemann is correct in his literary analysis and in the early dating of this translational genre, then the first nine examples cited below take on an added dimension of significance, in that they all belong to a very early compositional strand of the Palestinian Targum. 7 The following abbreviations are used throughout the article: L = MS Leipzig–Universität BH fol. 1 MdW A/B/D/E = P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens II (reprint, Hildesheim 1967), MSS A, B, D, E respectively N = MS Nürnberg–Stadtbibliothek Solg. 2.2°, fols. 119–147 Neof = MS Vatican–Neofiti 1 (fascimile, Jerusalem 1970)

converse translation

21

‫הא תריכת יתי יומא דין מעל אפי ארעא ומן קדמך לית‬ ‫אפשר לאטמרא‬ TJ1: ‫הא טרדת יתי יומא דין מעל אנפי ארעא ומן קדמך‬ ‫האפשר דאיטמר‬ Neof: ‫הא טרדת יתי יומא דין מעילוי אפי דארעא ומן קדמוך‬ ‫לית אפשר לי למטמרא‬ MdW B: ‫הא טרדת יתי יומא הדן מן עלוי אפי ארעא ומן קדמיך‬ ‫אדני לית אפשר לברנש למטמרא‬ O:

O, Neof, Behold you have banished me today from upon the MdW B: face of the earth, and it is impossible for me [man] to hide from before You [O Lord]. TJ1: Behold you have banished me today from upon the face of the earth, and is it possible for me to be hidden from before You?

None of the extant targumim is prepared to accept the biblical concept of man hiding from, or avoiding, the presence of God. They, therefore, alter the meaning of this verse, either by introducing an interrogative element: “Is it possible to hide from You?” (TJ1), or by simply stating the opposite: “It is impossible for me/man to hide from You” (O, Neof, MDW B). 2. Gen 4:23

MT: RSV: O: TJ1:

Neof gl O Ovar Ow

P TJ1 V 2755

‫כי איש הרגתי לפצעי וילד לחברתי‬ I have slain a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me.

‫לא גברא קטילית דבדיליה אנא סביל חובין‬ ‫ואף לא עולימא חבילית דבדיליה ישתיצי זרעי‬ ‫לא גברא קטילית דנתקטלא תחותוהי‬ ‫ואף לא עולימא חבילית דבגיניה יהובדון זרעי‬

= Marginal and interlinear glosses in Neof = Onqelos, according to A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, Vol. I (Leiden 1959) = Variant readings cited in apparatus of O = An unpublished fragment of Onqelos from Genizah Volume 1, Westminster College, Cambridge, fol. 190B, obverse (= microfilm no. 15200 and photograph no. 2046, print no. 186, at the Institute for Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts, Jerusalem) = MS Paris–Bibliothèque National Hebr. 110 = D. Rieder, Targum Jonathan ben Uziel on the Pentateuch copied from the London MS [British Museum add. 27031] (Jerusalem 1974) = MS Vatican Ebr. 440 = MS Jewish Theological Seminary—E. N. Adler Collection 2755, fol. 2

22

chapter two Neof: Neof gl:

‫לא גבר קטלת דאתקטל מן בגללה‬ ‫ולא עולם חבלת דיתחבלון זרעיתי מן בתרי‬ ‫ ולא‬. . . ‫לא גבר‬

O:

Neither have I slain a man, on whose account I bear a sin; nor have I wounded a young man, on whose account my offspring will be destroyed. TJ1, Neof: Neither have I slain a man, in whose stead [on whose account] I shall be slain; nor have I wounded a young man, because of whom [that] my offspring be lost [destroyed].

In this case, all of the targumim have changed the sense of the verse from “I have slain a man . . . a young man . . .” to “Neither a man have I slain . . . nor a young man. . . .” The reason for this alteration is harmonization with the following verse, where Lamech argues that if Cain was granted sevenfold protection (cf. Gen 4:15),8 then he, Lamech, deserves seventy-sevenfold protection. The implication of v. 24 is that Lamech’s offense was far less severe than Cain’s.9 The midrash solves the contradiction of these two adjacent verses by taking v. 23 in an interrogative sense, rather than as an admission of a double murder: “Did I kill a man, on whose account I should be wounded? or a young man, on whose account I shall be stricken? With wonder (‫)אתמהא‬. Cain killed Abel and his punishment was suspended for seven generations; I, who did not kill anyone, how much more so that my punishment be suspended for seventy-seven.”10 It is this midrashic tradition that is reflected in the converse translation, shared by all of the targumim. 3. Gen 5:24

MT: RSV: O: Ow:

8

‫ויתהלך חנוך את האלהים ואיננו כי לקח אתו אלהים‬ Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.

‫והליך חנוך בדחלתא דיוי וליתוהי ארי אמיתיה יוי‬ ‫]והליך[ חנוך בדחלתא דיי ואיתוה]י ארי ל[א אמית‬ ‫יתיה יי‬

Literally, “will be avenged sevenfold.” Cf. p. San. 27d, where Lamech’s argument is classified as a qal wa-ḥomer (“argumentum a fortiori”). 10 Gen. Rab. (ed. J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck (reprint Jerusalem 1965), 224–25). Cf. commentary ad. loc.: .'‫ולפי האגדה שלפנינו אמר למך לנשיו בלשון תימה וכי איש הרגתי וכו‬ The textual basis of this midrash is the word ‫ יכ‬taken as the interrogative ‫ יכו‬of Rabbinic Hebrew. 9

converse translation

23

‫ והא ליתוהי עם דיירי ארעא ארום איתנגיד וסליק‬. . .  ‫לרקיעא במימר מן קדם ה' וקרא שמיה מיטטרון‬ ‫ספרא רבא‬ V, N, L: ‫ והא לית הוא ארום איתנגיד במימר מן קדם י'י‬. . .  P: ‫ ולית אנן ידעין מה הוה בסופיה ארום אידבר מן קדם‬. . . ‫י'י‬ Neof: ‫ ולית ידיע אן הוא ]ארום[ אתנגד במימר מן קדם‬. . . ‫י'י‬ Neof gl: ‫והא לית הוא‬ TJ1:

O: Ow: TJ1:

V, N, L: P: Neof:

And Enoch walked in fear of God, and he was not, for God put him to death. And Enoch [walked] in fear of God, and he is, [for] God did [n]ot put him to death.11 . . . . and behold he was no longer with the inhabitants of the earth, for he was taken away and he ascended to heaven by a word (mémar) from before God; and he was called Metatron the Great Scribe. . . . and he was not, for he was taken away by a word (mémar) from before God. . . . and we do not know what ultimately became of him, for he was led away from before God. . . . and his whereabouts are unknown, [for] he was taken away by a word (mémar) from before God.

As Geiger recognized, a century ago, the targumim are ambivalent towards the death and ascension of Enoch.12 Enoch’s relatively short life span (365 years, as contrasted with 962 years of Jared, his father, and 969 years of Methuselah, his son) and the unusual Hebrew expression for his demise (‫ ואיננו‬instead of ‫ )וימת‬elicited much early Jewish exegesis. The Hebrew Bible was understood to imply that the righteous Enoch did not actually die, but that “God took him” alive, presumably 11

According to A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, I, p. 8, (apparatus) the variant

‫ ואיתוהי‬is attested in two early editions, and the additional negative ‫לא‬, in two MSS and four early editions. Also, cf. S. D. Luzzatto, Oheb Ger (Cracow: Fischer, 1895 and reprint, Jerusalem: Makor, 1969), 24. Luzzatto cites the Cremona (1559) edition of Onqelos which also reads '‫ואיתוהי ארי לא אמית יתיה ה‬. He argues that this was the original version of Onqelos, and that the more literal variants are the result of scribal emendations in order to bring Onqelos into closer agreement with the MT. Luzzato’s hypothesis is now supported by this Genizah fragment. Moreover, in view of this new text, it might be necessary to reconsider the targumic evidence as to early Jewish attitudes toward the death and ascension of Enoch. Cf. I. Gruenwald, “Knowledge and Vision,” Israel Oriental Studies 3 (1973), 66–67, n. 20; and J. C. Greenfield, “Prolegomenon,” to H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch (New York 21973), xxiii. 12 A. Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel (Frankfort 21928), 198–99. It will, however, be clear from the discussion below that the chronology established by Geiger for the various targumim can no longer be accepted.

24

chapter two

to heaven. This early exegesis is preserved in the Westminster Genizah fragment of Onqelos and in several other later sources of this targum.13 TJ1 offers the most elaborate, and probably the latest, development of this tradition, that once in heaven, Enoch was called “Metatron, the Great Scribe.” Even the less explicit versions of P, “we do not know what ultimately became of him,” and of Neof, “his whereabouts are unknown,” are indications that he did not die. This phraseology probably has its origin in Exod 32:1, MT: ‫( לא ידענו מה היה לו‬RSV: We do not know what has become of him) which is translated in Neof: ‫( לית אנן ידעין מה הוה בסופה‬We do not know what has ultimately become of him). This same expression is employed when Joseph’s brothers tell him that he (Joseph) is missing, knowing that he was alive: Gen 42:13 MT: RSV: P: Neof: P: Neof:

‫והאחד איננו‬ and one is no more.

‫אוחרנא לית אנן ידעין מה הוה בסופיה‬ ‫וחד מנן מן דנפק מן לוותן לית אנן ידעין מה הוה בסופיה‬ and the other, we do not know what ultimately became of him. and one of us, from the time he left us, we do not know what ultimately became of him.

We find the same terminology when Jacob refers to his two missing, but living, sons, Joseph and Simeon: Gen 42:36

MT: RSV: P:

‫יוסף איננו ושמעון איננו‬ Joseph is no more and Simeon is no more.

‫יוסף כד נחת לותכון לדותן לית אנא ידע מה הוה בסופיה‬ ‫ושמעון בשעתא דנחת רעבון למצראי לית אנא ידע מה‬ ‫הוה בסופיה‬ Neof: [‫יוסף מן דשלחת יתיה לוותכון לדותינה לית אנא ]ידע‬ ‫מה הוה בסופיה‬ (text faulty, second half missing due to haplograph)14 P:

Neof:

13

Joseph, [from] when he descended to you in Dothan, I do not know what ultimately became of him; and Simeon, [from] the time he descended to Egypt for provisions, I do not know what ultimately became of him. Joseph, from when I sent him to you to Dothan, I do not [know] what ultimately became of him.

See n. 11, above. See, also, J. W. Bowker, JSS 12 (1967), 59–60. See the citations from P and Neof in example no. 4 below, on Jacob’s knowledge that Joseph was still alive. 14

converse translation

25

In both of these cases, as in that of Enoch, the Hebrew word ‫איננו‬ is rendered ‫לית ידע מה הוה בסופיה‬. Whereas these targumim only implicitly reflect the early tradition that Enoch did not die, the Genizah fragment of Onqelos employs an explicit converse translation: ‫ואיננו‬ (MT) is rendered ‫ ואיתוהי‬instead of the literal ‫וליתוהי‬, and ‫כי לקח אתו‬ ‫ אלהים‬becomes ‫ארי לא אמית יתיה י'י‬.15 4. Gen 37:33 MT: RSV:

‫חיה רעה אכלתהו טרף טרף יוסף‬ A wild beast has devoured him; Joseph is without doubt torn to pieces.

‫חיתא בישתא אכלתיה מקטל קטיל יוסף‬ ‫לא חיות ברא אכלתיה ולא על יד בני נשא איתקטל‬ ‫אלא חמי אנא ברוח קודשא דאיתא בישתא קיימא לקובליה‬ P: . . . ‫לא חיות ברא אכלתיה ולא איתקטלא איתקטל ברי‬ V, N, L: ‫לא חיות ברא אכלת יתיה ולא מיתקטלא איתקטל ברי‬ . . . ‫יוסף‬ Neof: ‫חיוה בישא אכלת יתה קטולין אתקטל יוסף‬ 2755: ‫[ ברי‬sic] ‫[ חיות ברה אכלת יתה ולא מתקטל אתקטל‬sic] ‫לא‬ MdW D: ‫לא מתקטלא אתקטל יוסף ברי ולא חיותא בישתא אכלת‬ ‫יתה ארום–אלא–הן איתא בישא קיימא לקבליה דהיא‬ ‫מתילה בחיות ברא ברם רחיץ אנא ברבון כל עלמיא י'י‬ –‫דהוא משיזיב יתיה מן ידיה דאיתתא ומחווה יתי סבר‬ ‫אפוי דיוסף ברי בשלם עד דאנא בחיין‬ O: TJ1:

O, Neof:

A wild beast has devoured him; Joseph has surely been killed. TJ1: Neither the beast of the field has devoured him, nor has he been killed at the hands of man; rather, through the holy spirit, I see a wicked woman standing opposite him. P, V, N, L: Neither the beast of the field has devoured him, nor has my son [Joseph] been killed. . . . 2755: Neither [sic! added above line] the beast of the field has devoured him, nor has my son been killed. MdW D: Neither has my son Joseph been killed, nor has a wild beast devoured him; rather, a wicked woman, who is like the beast of the field, stands opposite him. However, I am confident of the Master of all worlds, God, that He will save him from the hands of the woman, and show me Joseph’s countenance, safe and sound, while I am still alive. 15 The translation shared by most of the sources of Onqelos (‫וליתוהי ארי אמית‬ ‫ )יוי‬reflects a reaction that became dominant in Jewish exegesis as an anti-Christian

polemic. Cf. e.g., Gen. Rab. 25:1 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 238–39): “The sectarians (i.e. Christians) challenged R. Abahu, ‘We do not find death attributed to Enoch . . .’” See, also, L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews 5 (Philadelphia 1955), 156, n. 58.

26

chapter two

All of the Palestinian targumim, except Neof, add the negative particle ‫ לא‬twice: “Joseph was not devoured by a beast of the field, nor was he killed [by human hands].” This interpretation is no doubt related to the midrash about Jacob’s refusal to be comforted (Gen 37:35),16 as well as to the rabbinic conviction that the patriarchs were endowed with prophetic powers.17 There may, however, also be a polemical motive that underlies this converse translation. The Midrash Tanḥuma is suggestive in this matter: A sectarian18 challenged R. [Judah the Patriarch, 2nd cent. C.E.], “Is it possible that your ancestors did not believe in the resurrection of the dead as you do? for it is written of Jacob, ‘. . . he refused to be comforted.’ Now had he known of resurrection would he have said ‘I shall go down into She’ol in mourning to my son?’ ” R. [Judah] answered, “World’s fool! It is because the patriarch Jacob knew by the prophetic spirit that Joseph was alive, that he refused to be comforted— for one does not accept consolations for the living.”19 5. Gen 43:14 MT: RSV: O: TJ1:

‫ואני כאשר שכלתי שכלתי‬ If I am bereaved of my children, I am bereaved.

‫ואנא כמא דתכולית תכולית‬ ‫ואנא הא כבר אתבשרית ברוח קודשא ארום אין‬ ‫איתכלית על יוסף איתכל על שמעון ועל בנימין‬ P, V, N, L: ‫ואנא היך מה די לא תכלית על יוסף ברי כן לא אוסיף‬ ‫למתכלה לא על שמעון ולא על בנימין‬ Neof: ‫ואנה היך מה דלא תכלת על יוסף ברי לא אוסיף‬ ‫למתכלה על בנימן‬ MdW D: ‫אתכלית על יוסף ברי לא ]אוסיף‬-‫מא די‬-‫ואנא היך‬ ‫למתכ[לא לא על ש]מעון[ ולא על בנימין‬

O: TJ1:

literal. As for me, I have already received tidings through the holy spirit that if I am bereaved of Joseph, I shall also be bereaved of Simeon and of Benjamin.

16 Cf. m. Sop. 21:9 and Gen. Rab. 84:21 (ed. J. Theodor-Albeck, 1027): “One may be consoled for the dead, but not for the living [who are missing].” 17 Gen. Rab. 84:19 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1024): “R. a holy spirit sparkled in him (Jacob): ‘a wild beast devoured him’ means Potiphar’s wife.” Cf. L. Ginzberg, Legends 2, 29–30 and 5, 332, n. 67. 18 Not an early Christian, in this instance, since he argues against resurrection. 19 Tanḥ (ed. S. Buber [reprint, Jerusalem 1964]), I, 181 (quoted in the Yalqut Shim‘oni, par. 143).

converse translation

27

P, V, N, L: As for me, just as I have not been bereaved of my son Joseph, [so] I shall not be bereaved [of Simeon] and of Benjamin.20 MdW D: As for me, just as I have [sic!] been bereaved of my son Joseph, I shall not [continue to be berea]ved neither of S[imeon] nor of Benjamin.

In this case, all of the Palestinian targumim, except TJ1, have produced the converse translation: “Just as I have not been bereaved of Joseph, so I shall not be bereaved of Simeon nor of Benjamin.” The Genizah text, MdW D, is apparently faulty in its deletion of the first negative particle ‫דלא‬. If simple logic may be applied, it makes no sense to say “Just as this, so not that.” Rather, one expects “Just as not this, so not that.” The rationale for a converse translation in this verse is similar to that of the previous example. 6. Gen 46:30

MT: RSV: O: TJ1,: P: Neof: Neof gl:

‫אמותה הפעם אחרי ראותי את פניך כי עודך חי‬ Now let me die, since I have seen your face and know that you are still alive.

‫אילו אנא מאית זמנא הדא מנחם אנא בתר דחזיתינון‬ ‫לאפך ארי עד כען קיים את‬ ‫אין מייתנא בהדא זימנא מתנחם אנא די במיתותא‬ ‫דמייתין צדיקייא אנא מיית בתר דחמית סבר אפך‬ ‫ארום עד כדון אנת קיים‬ ‫אין מיית אנא בהדא זימנא כאילו דלא מיית מן בתר‬ ‫דחמיתי סבר אפייך ארום עד כדון אנת בחיין‬ ‫אולי ]אילו?[ אנא מית הדא זימנא לא מיתת מן‬ ‫בתר דחמת סבר אפיך ארום כען את בחיין‬ ‫הוינא מאית בהדא זמנא כילו עליי דלא מיתת בתר‬ ‫דחמית‬

O:

If I were now to die, I would be consoled, after having seen your face, that you are alive. TJ1: If I were now to die, I would be consoled that I am dying the death of the righteous, after having seen your countenance, that you are still alive. P, Neof gl: If I were now to die, it would be as though I were not dying, after having seen your countenance, that you are still alive.

20

Contrast A. Díez-Macho, Neophyti 1 (Madrid-Barcelona 1968), I, 285 (apparatus). Díez-Macho deletes the first negative ‫ דלא‬from the edition. See chapter 19 in this volume, “Notes on the Printed Edition of MS Neofiti 1,” 224–225.

28

chapter two Neof:

[If] I were now to die, I would not be dying, after having seen your countenance, that you are still alive.

Onqelos and TJ1 transmit the simple sense of the verse, i.e., Jacob could now die happily, knowing that Joseph was still alive. TJ1 has, however, introduced the idea of “dying the death of the righteous,” i.e., a single physical death in this world.21 But, whereas TJ1 implies not dying a second death in the world-to-come, the other Palestinian targumim deny even the first death in this world. In P and Neof gl we read: “Now if I were to die, it would be as though I did not die.” Neofiti goes one step further, by omitting the words “as though.” There is, admittedly, some weakness inherent in this example, namely, that the converse translation does not fully replace the straightforward translation. On the other hand, the latter has become conditional through the addition of the words ‫ אין‬and ‫אילו‬. 7. Gen 48:22

MT: RSV: O: Ovar: TJ1: P: V, N: Neof: Neof gl1: Neof gl2: O: Ovar:

‫אשר לקחתי מיד האמרי בחרבי ובקשתי‬ Which I took from the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.

‫דנסיבית מידא דאמוראה בחרבי ובקשתי‬ ‫ בצלותי ובבעותי‬. . . ‫די נסיבית מידיהון דאמוראי בעידן די עלתון לגווה‬ ‫וקמית וסייעית יתכון בסייפי ובקשתי‬ ‫ולא נסבית יתיה מיניה לא בחרבי ולא בקשתי ארום‬ ‫אילהין בזכוותי ובעבדי טבייא‬ ‫ואנא נסיבית יתיה מן ידוי דעשו אחי לא בחרבי ולא‬ ‫בקשתי אלהן בזכותי ובעובדיי טביא‬ ‫ואנא נסבת יתיה מן ידוי דעשו אחוי לא בחרבי ולא‬ ‫בקשתי ארום אלהן בזכוותי ובעובדיי טביא‬ ‫דנסבית בזכותי ובעבדיי' טבא מן ידיהן דאמוראי‬ ‫דהוויין טבין לי מן חרבי ומן קשתי‬ ‫ עבדיה רב' דברירין בין ]מן?[ סייפין ומן‬. . . ‫בגבורתי‬ ‫קשתי‬ literal. . . . by my prayer and by my petition.

21 Tanḥ (ed. Buber), I, 209: “When they came and informed me that Joseph died, I thought that I would die in two worlds; now seeing that you [Joseph] are alive, I know that I shall die only once.” For a similar interpretation of the word ‫“ הפעם‬once and only once,” cf. Gen 2:23, MT: ‫ ;זאת הפעם‬TJ1: ‫ ;הדא זימנא ולא תוב‬Neof: ‫הדא‬ ‫זמנא ולא עוד‬.

converse translation

29

TJ1:

which I took from the hands of the Amorites, when you entered it [i.e., the city of Shechem], and I stood by and helped you with my sword and with my bow. P: and I have not taken it neither with my sword nor with my bow, but rather with my merits and my good deeds. V, N, Neof: and I took it from the hands of my brother Esau neither with my sword nor with my bow, but rather with my merits and with my good deeds. Neof gl: which I took with my merits and my good deeds from the hands of the Amorites—which are better than my sword and my bow.

A complete explanation of this converse translation is found in the Babylonian Talmud: “. . . which I took from the Amorite with my sword and my bow.” Was it with his sword and his bow that he took it? But, is it not already written “For I trust not in my bow, neither can my sword save me” (Ps 44:7[6])? Rather, interpret “my sword” as “prayer” and “my bow” as “petition.”22

The rabbis were averse to ascribing battle with bow and sword to the Patriarch Jacob. “By your sword shall you live”23 was Esau’s lot. Moreover, Jacob had opposed his sons’ raid on the city of Shechem.24 It is, therefore, not surprising that all of the targumim, save two sources of Onqelos25 and TJ1,26 reflect this midrashic approach. In P, V, N, Neof, and Neof gl it is expressed by the converse translation: “neither by my sword nor by my bow.” 8. Deut 2:6

MT:

‫אכל תשברו מאתם בכסף ואכלתם וגם מים תכרו‬ ‫מאתם בכסף ושתיתם‬

RSV:

You shall purchase food from them for money, that you may eat and you shall buy water of them for money, that you may drink.

22 b. B. Bat. 123a. See J. Heinemann, Aggadah and its Development, 154, where he points out the play on words in ‫“( ְבּ ַק ְשׁ ִתּי‬with my bow”) and ‫“( ַבּ ַקּ ָשׁ ִתי‬my petition”). 23 Gen 27:40. 24 Gen 34:30 and 49:5–7. 25 In this instance, the body of the text in Sperber’s edition represents only MS British Museum 2363 (y) and the Biblia Hebraica. ed. Sabbioneta (1557), as opposed to ten other sources that are represented in the apparatus. 26 Heinemann explains TJ1 as a reference to a Maccabean battle over the city of Shechem; see Aggadah and its Development, 150–55.

30

chapter two O: TJ1: Neof:

Neof gl:

‫עיבורא תזבנון מנהון בכספא ותיכלון ואף מיא‬ ‫תזבנון מנהון בכספא ותשתון‬ ‫עיבורא תזבנון מינהון כד חי בכספא ותיכלון ואוף‬ ‫מיא תזבנון מנהון בכספא ותשתון‬ ‫מזון לית אתון צריכין מזבון מן לוותהון בכסף‬ ‫דמנה נחית לכון מן שמיא ולהוד מיין לית אתון‬ ‫צריכין מזבון מן לוותהון דבירה דמיא סלקא‬ ‫עמכון לראשי טווריה ]ונחתה[ )ו(לחלתתה‬ ‫עמיקתא‬ ‫תזבנון מן לוותהון בכסף ותיכלון אוף מיין תזבנון‬ ‫מן לוותהון בכסף ותשתון‬

O, TJ1, Neof gl: literal. Neof: You need not purchase food from them with money, for the manna descends to you from heaven,27 likewise, you need not purchase water from them, for the well of water ascends to mountain tops [and descends] to deep valleys with you.28

In this case Neofiti supplies the reason for its converse translation. This situation is also reflected in Neofiti to Deut 2:28: MT:

‫אכל בכסף תשברני ואכלתי ומים בכסף תתן לי ושתיתי‬

RSV:

You shall sell me food, that I may eat, and give me water for money, that I may drink.

Neof: ‫מזון בכסף תזבנון לן ונאכל ומים בכסף תתנון לן ונשתי לחוד לית אנן‬

‫חסרין מן כל מן דעם‬ Neof: You will sell us food for money, that we may eat; and you will give us water for money, that we may drink; even though (‫ )לחוד‬we are not lacking anything.

27

Cf. Exod 16:4–35 and esp. v. 35: “And the Israelites ate the manna forty years, till they came to a habitable land; they ate the manna till they came to the border of the land of Canaan.” See M. McNamara, Targum and Testament, 73. 28 Cf. Num 21:16–19 and esp. v. 19: MT: ‫וממתנה נחליאל ומנחליאל במות‬ Neof: ‫ומן דאתיהיבת להון בירא מתנה חזרת למהווי להון לנחלין מתגברין ומן דהוות‬

‫לנחלין מתגברין חזרת להווי סלקא עמהון לריש טוריה ונחתה עמהון לחלתה עמיקתה‬

RSV: And from Mattanah to Nahaliel and from Nahaliel to Bamoth. Neof: And after the well was given to them as a gift (‫)מתנה‬, it went on to become ever-increasing streams (‫ ;)נחלין‬and after it had become ever-increasing streams, it went on to ascend to mountain tops with them, and to descend to the deep valleys with them.

converse translation 9. Deut 5:21 (24) MT: RSV: O: TJ1: MdW D: Neof: Neof gl:

31

‫ראינו כי ידבר אלהים את האדם וחי‬ We have seen . . . God speak with man and man still live.

‫חזינא ארי ממליל יוי עם אנשא ויתקיים‬ ‫חמינא ארום ממליל ה' עם בר נש דרוח‬ ‫קודשא ביה ומתקיים‬ ] ‫חמינן ארום ימליל מימריה דאדני‬ ‫חמינן ארום ימלל מימרה די'י עם בר נשא‬ ‫והוא חיה‬ ‫לית איפשר מן קדם י'י לממללא עם)?( בר‬ ‫נשא ויחי‬

O: TJ1:

literal. We have seen that God speaks with a man in whom there is the holy spirit, and he survives. Mdw D, Neof: We have seen that the word (mémra) of God speaks with man, and he lives. Neof gl: It is impossible from [sic!] before God to speak with man and he should live.

In this verse, it is only in the marginal gloss to Neofiti that we find the converse translation. Whereas TJ1 qualifies the biblical statement, so that only men possessed of the holy spirit can survive being spoken to by God, Neof gl completely denies any such possibility. This translation seems to have been influenced by: Exod 33:20 MT: Neof:

‫כי לא יראני האדם וחי‬ ‫לית אפשר דחמי יתי בר נש וייחי‬

RSV: For man cannot see me and live. Neof: It is impossible for man to see me and live.

The almost identical phraseology employed by Neof gl in Deut 5:21(24) can hardly be coincidental: ‫לית איפשר מן קדם י'י לממללא עם בר נשא‬ ‫ויחי‬.29 The popular concept of man dying as a result of having heard or seen God, which is common in the Bible,30 might also have influenced Neof gl.

29 On the associative power of the targumists, see chapter 19 in this volume, 216–30, nos. 2, 10, 19. In dealing with Neof gl, a word of caution may be in place. The origins of these glosses are yet unknown. It seems, however, that at least some of the glosses are merely attempts by late copyists at standardization within Neofiti itself, and as such do not represent true textual variants. This must be considered a possibility in the present case. 30 E.g., Deut 5:22(25); 18:16; Jud 13:22.

32

chapter two

In all of the above examples, the various targumim present a meaning that is diametrically opposite to the simple sense of the Biblical text. This is accomplished by the addition of a negative particle (‫לא‬, ‫לית‬, ‫ )לית אפשר‬to an originally positive statement, or by the removal of such a particle from an originally negative statement.31 II. Replacement of the Verb Another method employed by the targumim in order to produce a converse translation is the replacement of the original Biblical verb with another verb of opposite meaning. This is sometimes accompanied by the replacement of other grammatical elements such as prepositions. 10. Exod 33:3

MT: ‫כי לא אעלה בקרבך‬ RSV: But I will not go up among you. O: ‫ארי לא אסלק שכינתי מבינך‬ TJ1: ‫ארום לית אפשר דאיסלק שכינת יקרי מביניכון‬ Neof: ‫ארום לא אסלק איקר שכינתי מביניכון‬ Neof gl: ‫לית מימרי מדבר קדמיכון‬ O:

For I shall not remove my presence (šekhina) from among you. TJ1: For it is impossible for me to remove the presence of my glory (šekhinath yeqari) from among you. Neof: For I shall not remove my presence (šekhinti) from among you. Neof gl: My word (mémri) will not lead you. and Exod 33:5

MT:

‫רגע אחד אעלה בקרבך וכליתיך‬

RSV:

If for a single moment I should go up among you, I would consume you.

31 Another excellent example, though not from the Pentateuch, is Job 42:5: MT: ‫ועתה עיני ראתך‬ Tg editions: ‫וכדון עיני חמית יתך‬ Tg MSS: ‫ועיני לא חמת יתך‬ MS Cambridge Ec 5.9: ‫[ חמת יתך‬sic] (‫ועיני )לא‬ (apud R. Weiss, The Aramaic Targum of Job [dissertation, Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1974] 276, n. 3 [Hebrew]). RSV: but now my eye sees thee. Tg editions: literal Tg MSS: And now my eye has not seen thee. MS Cambridge Ec 5.9: And my eye has [not] [sic! crossed out] seen thee.

converse translation

33

‫שעא חדא אסליק שכינתי מבינך ואשיצינך‬ ‫שעא חדא איסליק איקר שכינתי מבינך ואישיצינך‬ ‫כקליל זעיר אן אסלק איקר שכינתי מן ביניכון אשיצא‬ ‫יתכון‬ Neof gl: ‫אדבר יקר‬ O: TJ1: Neof:

O:

For a single moment I shall remove my presence (šekhinti) from among you, and I will destroy you. TJ1: For a single moment I shall remove the glory of my presence (’iqar šekhinti) from among you and I will destroy you. Neof: If I were to remove the glory of my presence (’iqar šekhinti) from among you for a brief moment, I would destroy you. Neof gl: . . . I shall lead . . . glory (YQR).

The gist of Exod 33:2–5, is that having sinned, Israel is no longer worthy of God’s presence. God will, therefore, send an angel to lead them. Moreover, because they are a stiff-necked people, they are no longer able to bear God’s presence in their midst; it would devour them. In fact, if God wanted to punish Israel, he need only appear for a moment among them and they would be destroyed. This is a drastic change from the original and ideal situation, in which God’s dwelling in the midst of Israel and his personal leadership are marks of distinction, just as they are protective.32 None of the targumim, except Neof gl, is willing to accept this terrible change. The presence of God among Israel must always be desirable. Thus, in v. 3, “I will not go up among you” (MT) is rendered “I will not remove [the glory of] my Shekhinah from among you”; and in v. 5, “I should go up among you” is translated “I shall remove [the glory of ] my Shekhinah from among you.”33 Israel is punished by God’s removing his presence from among them. 11. Deut 15:11 MT: RSV: O: TJ1:

32

‫כי לא יחדל אביון מקרב הארץ‬ For the poor will never cease out of the land.

‫ארי לא יפסוק מסכינא מגו ארעא‬ ‫צייתין בית ישראל‬/‫ארום מטול דלא נייחין‬ ‫במצוותא דאורייתא לא פסקין מסכנין מיגו‬ ‫ארעא‬

Cf. Exod 13:21; 25:8; and especially, 33:15–16. Cf. R. Le Déaut, “Un phénomène spontané de l’herméneutique juive ancienne: le ‘targumisme,’ ” Biblica 52 (1971), 517. 33

34

chapter two Neof gl, V, N: ‫אין נטרין ]הינון[ ישראל מצוותא דאורייתא‬

Neof:

‫לא ]י[הווי בהון מיסכינון ברם אין שבקין הינון‬ ‫מיצוותא דאורייתא ]ארום[ לא פסקין מיסכניא‬ ‫מגו ארעא‬ ‫ארום אין נטרין בני ישראל אולפן אוריתה‬ ‫ועבדין פיקודיה לא הוי ביניהון מסכינייה בגו‬ ‫ארעא‬

O: TJ1:

literal. Because the house of Israel does not obey the commandments of the Torah, the poor do not cease from in the land. Neof gl, V, N: If Israel keeps the commandments of the Torah, there will not be any poor among them; however, if they abandon the commandments of the Torah, [for] the poor will not cease from in the land. Neof For if the Israelites keep the teachings of the Torah and fulfill its commandments, there will not be any poor among them in the land.

The targumists were faced with the apparent contradiction between this verse and Deut 15:4, “but there will be no poor among you.” The solution (i.e., harmonization) was equally apparent to the targumists: If Israel keeps the commandments, there will be no poor among them; if not, the poor will not cease from their midst.34 TJ1 inserts these conditions in their respective verses. In V, N, and Neof gl, both contingencies appear in v. 11, where they form the combination of a converse translation followed by the straightforward translation. Neofiti presents only the converse translation in v. 11. III. Resolution of the Rhetorical Question Rhetorical questions in the Biblical text are often resolved by the targumim to declarative statements. The process involves the addition or

34

Cf. Sipre Deut., par. 118 [ed. M. Ish Shalom (New York, 1948), 98b]:

‫ ולהלן הוא אומר כי לא יהיה בך אביון כיצד יתקיימו‬:‫כי לא יחדל אביון מקרב הארץ‬ ‫ אביונים באחרים; ובזמן שאין‬,‫שני כתובים הללו? בזמן שאתם עושים רצונו של מקום‬ .‫ אביונים בכם‬,‫אתם עושים רצונו של מקום‬ “ ‘For the poor will not cease from within the land’ [Deut 15:11], and elsewhere it says, ‘For there shall be no poor among you’ [Deut 15:4]; how can these two [apparently contradictory] verses coexist? [Answer:] When you fulfill the will of God, the poor will be among others; but when you do not fulfill the will of God, the poor will be among you.”

converse translation

35

deletion of a negative particle, as in examples 1–9, above. The difference, of course, between the two groups is that in nos. 1–9, we have a translation that is converse in both form and meaning, whereas in the resolved rhetorical question there is no change in meaning at all. 12. Gen 18:25 MT: RSV:

‫חלילה לך השפט כל הארץ לא יעשה משפט‬ Far be it from thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

‫קושטא אינון דינך דיין כל ארעא ברם יעביד דינא‬ . . . ‫הדיין דדאין‬ ‫חולין הוא לך האיפשר מאן דדאין כל ארעא לא יעביד‬ ‫דינא‬ Neof: ‫ דיינא דדיינן כל דיירי ארעא לא‬35( ) ‫מחוס מן קדמך‬ ‫יעבד דינא‬ Neof gl: ‫ סדר דנה הדן‬. . . ‫דיינה דדאן כל‬ O: Onqvar: TJ1:

O: TJ1: Neof

Your laws are truth: the judge of the earth will certainly do justice. Far be it from you: He who judges the entire earth shall not do justice? Far be it from you . . .: Will the judge [who] judges all of the inhabitants of the earth not do justice?

Most MSS and editions of Onqelos have converted “Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?” into “The judge of all the earth will surely do right.” Onqelos has eliminated the negative ‫ לא‬and the interrogative he. The other targumim retain both of these elements. In Neof, although the interrogative he has been lost, the targum preserves the original rhetorical question.36 13. Gen 29:15 MT:

‫הכי אחי אתה ועבדתני חנם‬

RSV:

Because you are my kinsman should you therefore serve me for nothing?

O: Tji: P:

‫המדאחי את ותפלחינני מגן‬ ‫המדאחי אנת חשיב ותיפלחינני מגן‬ ‫הא מן קושטא אחי את לא שפר דתפלח‬ ‫קדמי מגן‬ [‫]המדא[חי את ותפלוח גבי מג]ן‬ ‫הא אחי את לית אפשר למפלח קדמיי מגן‬ ‫ תפלוח גבי מגן‬. . . ‫מן קושטין אחי ולית‬

MdW E: Neof: Neof gl:

35 Neofiti adds: ‫מן למעבד פתגמא הדין‬, a dittograph from the beginning of this verse. 36 Cf. A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1, I, 100, “El juez . . . ¿no hará justicia?” followed by M. McNamara, Ibid., 541, “Will the judge . . . not do justice?”

36

chapter two O, Tji, MdW E: literal. P: Now, in truth, you are my kinsman; it is [therefore] not seemly that you serve before me for nothing. Neof: Behold, you are my kinsman; it is [therefore] impossible that you serve before me for nothing. Neof gl: In truth, you are my kinsman; it is not . . . that you serve me for nothing.

In P, Neof and probably in Neof gl, the question “Should you serve me for nothing?” has been resolved into “It is not seemly/possible [for you] to serve me for nothing.” 14. Exod 15:11 MT:

‫מי כמכה באלים יהוה מי כמכה נאדר בקדש‬

RSV:

Who is like thee, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like thee, majestic in holiness?

O:

‫לית בר מינך את הוא אלהא יוי לית אלא את‬ ‫אדיר בקודשא‬ ‫מן כוותך באילי מרומא ה' מן כוותך הדור‬ ‫בקודשא‬ ‫מאן דכמתך באילי מרומא ה' מאן דכמתך אדיר‬ ‫בקודשא‬ ‫מן כוותך באילי מרומא י'י מן כוותך הדור‬ ‫בקודשא‬

TJ1: P: Neof: O:

There is none besides thee, you are the Lord, O God; There is none but thee majestic in holiness. TJ1, P, Neof: Who is like thee among the gods/mighty on height, O God; Who is like thee majestic in holiness?

Onqelos has paraphrased the question “Who is like thee?” as “There is none besides thee,” by introducing the negative particle ‫לית‬. Ms. G of the Genizah fragments published by P. Kahle contains a poetic expansion on the targum to Exodus 15. Interestingly enough, it preserves the original rhetorical questions and their answers side by side: . . . ‫לית כותך רב את ורב שמך‬

. . . ‫מן כותך באילי מרומא י'י‬

‫לית כותך אדיר בקודשא‬ 37 ‫לית כותך דעבד בימא אורח כבישא‬

. . . ‫מן כותך מגלי רזין‬

‫מן כותך קדישא‬

37 Masoreten Des Westens II, 63. This may be contrasted with a similar poem published by M. Ginsburger in “Aramäische Introductionen zum Thargumvortrag an Festtagen,” ZDMG 54 (1900), 122–23, which contains only the questions.

converse translation

37

Who is like thee among the gods/mighty on height, O God . . . There is none like thee; thou art great and thy name is great. Who is like thee, holy one? There is none like thee, majestic in holiness. Who is like thee, revealer of secrets? There is none like thee, who paved a road in the Sea.

S. D. Luzzatto explained the non-literal translation in Onqelos as an effort on the part of the targumist to remove from the Biblical text any implication of a plurality of divine beings.38 However, having seen that other innocuous rhetorical questions are resolved in a similar manner, one may question whether anything more than stylistic considerations are at work in Exod 15:11.39 15. Deut 20:19 MT:

‫כי האדם עץ השדה לבוא מפניך במצור‬

RSV:

Are the trees in the field men that they should be besieged by you?

O: TJ1:

‫ארי לא כאנשא אילן חקלא למיעל מן קדמך בצירא‬ ‫ארום לא כאנשא אילן דאנפי ברא למטמרא מקדמיכון‬ ‫בציירא‬ ‫ארום לא היך דבר נשא אילנה ]דאפי[ ברא למיערק‬ ‫מן קדמך בשעת עקתיה‬

Neof:

O, TJ1: For the tree of the field is not like man, that it should come (hide) under siege from before you. Neof: For the tree of the open field is not like man, who can flee from you in his moment of distress.

In this case, all of the extant targumim restate the rhetorical question “Are the trees men?” as a declarative statement, “For the trees are not like men.” IV. Addition of the Negative Particle ‫דלא‬ Meaning “Lest” The targumim sometimes make use of the converse translation in order to avert a curse or an evil prediction. This is effected by the

38 Oheb Ger, 18, ‫ השכיל לסלק כל ריח רבוי‬. . . ‫"וכן מי כמכה באלים ה' לית בר מנך‬ "‫ודמיון‬: “and likewise, ‘Who is like thee, O Lord, among the gods/mighty?’ [Exod 15:11]: There is none besides thee . . . (Onqelos). He [Onqelos] has succeeded in removing any hint of plurality [of God] or similarity [to other beings].” 39 Cf. Y. Komlosh, The Bible in Light of the Aramaic Translations (Tel-Aviv 1973), 240–41 [Hebrew].

38

chapter two

substitution of the negative particle ‫ דלא‬for the original Hebrew conversive waw. 16. Exod 22:23 MT:

‫וחרה אפי והרגתי אתכם בחרב והיו נשיכם אלמנות‬ ‫ובניכם יתמים‬

RSV:

And my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows, and your children fatherless.

‫ויתקף רוגזי ואקטיל יתכון בחרבא ויהוין נשיכון‬ ‫ארמלן ובניכון יתמין‬ TJ1: ‫ויתקף רוגזי ואקטול יתכון בחרבא דמותא ויהון‬ ‫נשיכון ארמלן ובניכון יתמין‬ MdW A: ‫דלא יתקוף רוגזי ואקטל יתכון בחרבה ויהווין נשיכון‬ ‫ארמלן ובניכון יתמין‬ Neof: ‫דלא יתקף רוגזי ואקטל יתכון בחרבא דלא יהוויי‬ ‫נשיכון ארמלן ובניכון יתמין‬ O:

O, TJ1: literal. MdW A: Lest my wrath burn and I kill you . . . Neof: Lest my wrath burn, and I kill you with the sword; lest your wives become widows, and your children orphans.

Whereas Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan render the verse literally, the Genizah manuscript and Neofiti add the negative ‫ דלא‬in order to avert the predicted punishment: “Lest my wrath burn . . . lest your wives become widows.” 17. Deut 7:4

MT:

‫כי יסיר את בנך מאחרי ועבדו אלהים אחרים‬ ‫וחרה אף יהוה בכם והשמידך מהר‬

RSV:

For they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.

O:

‫ארי יטעין ית בנך מבתר דחלתי ויפלחון לטעות‬ ‫עממיא ויתקף רוגזא דיוי בכון וישצינך בפריע‬ ‫ארום יטעיין בנתיהון ית בניכון מן בתר פולחני‬ ‫ויפלחון לטעוות עממיא ויתקוף רוגזא דה' בכון‬ ‫וישצנכון בסרהוביא‬ ‫ארום יטעון ית בניכון מן בתר מימרי דלא יפלחון‬ ‫קדם ט]עוון[ אחרניין די יתקוף רוגזיה די'י בכון‬ ‫דלא ישיצי יתכון בפריע‬ . . . ‫ ויפלחון לטעוון‬. . . ‫ ויתקוף רוגזה‬. . . [‫ויתי]צי‬

TJ1: Neof: Neof gl:

O, TJ1, Neof gl: For they [their daughters] will mislead your son[s] away from the fear of me [my worship], and they will worship the errors of the nations;

converse translation

Neof:

39

and God’s wrath will be intense against you, and He will destroy you quickly. For they will mislead your sons away from my word (mémri), lest they worship the errors; that God’s wrath be intense against you, lest he destroy you quickly.

In this case, as in Exod 22:23 (above), Neofiti twice inserts the negative particle ‫דלא‬: “lest they serve other gods . . . lest He destroy you quickly.” However, in Deuteronomy the particle seems to be misplaced, forming a difficult syntax. Neofiti presently reads: “[a] For they will mislead your sons from following my mémra [b] lest they serve other gods; [c] so that God’s wrath be strong against you [d] lest he destroy you quickly.” We would expect the word ‫ דלא‬to be inserted at the beginning of (a) and (c) rather than to (b) and (d). It seems that Neofiti is determined to ward off the most drastic of the predictions, namely, Israel’s serving other gods and Israel’s destruction—even at the expense of syntactic coherence. Conclusions The foregoing examples illustrate the various forms of converse translation as they appear in all of the targumim to the Pentateuch. The examples are, I believe, exhaustive for Neofiti, Neofiti gl and the published Genizah fragments. They are only selective for Onqelos and TJ1. This means that the student of these latter two targumim, as well as the student of the targumim to other parts of the Bible, is likely to discover additional examples of this phenomenon. If the method demonstrated above is followed, it will be necessary in each new instance to search through the related rabbinic (especially midrashic) literature in order to determine just why the targumist chose to introduce the converse translation. The immediate results of the present study are twofold: 1. It broadens our understanding of targumic method and technique. Descriptive introductions to the targumic literature will henceforth have to include the converse translation as a targumic device in its own right. 2. The fact that a targum may diverge so drastically from the Hebrew original—even to the extent of producing a converse translation— underscores the caution that must be exercised before a variant Hebrew Vorlage may be deduced from a targumic variant.

CHAPTER THREE

THE PREPOSITION ‫“( קדם‬BEFORE”): A PSEUDO-ANTI-ANTHROPOMORPISM IN THE TARGUMS It has often been asserted that whereas the Hebrew Bible indulges freely in anthropomorphic and anthropopathic phrases descriptive of God, the various targums have, on the whole, avoided the attribution of human forms and feelings to the Deity. This has been assumed to reflect a refinement in Israelite-Jewish theology that developed during the last millennium B.C.E. For example: The theology of the early books of Israel’s history and religion took no pains to obviate the appearance of a very distinct anthropomorphic character, but the time came when the main feature of Jewish criticism and exegesis was the anxiety to remove or soften down all reference to God that could give rise to misunderstanding in the popular mind. . . . The clearest expression of this hermeneutic principle is to be found in the Targums where “everything was avoided that could lead to erroneous or undignified conceptions of God.”1

And more recently: The Targum aims at the elimination of all phrases which are reminiscent of anthropomorphism, and to substitute for them other expressions which are better suited for the more refined ideas concerning God of later generations. . . . The Targum avoids using Biblical expressions which so speak of God as being possessed of a body just like a human being, with hands and eyes, etc.2

1

T. Walker, “Targum,” A Dictionary of the Bible (ed. J. Hastings, et al.) (New York: Scribner’s, 1903), Vol. 4, p. 679. 2 A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, Vol. IV-B, “The Targum and the Hebrew Bible” (Leiden: Brill, 1973), p. 37. Several other standard works containing similar statements are: W. Bacher, “Targum,” Jewish Encyclopedia (New York, 1901), Vol. 12, p. 60; B. Grossfeld, “Bible: Translations, Aramaic (Targumim),” Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971), Vol. 4, p. 842 (relies strongly upon Walker and Bacher); Y. Komlosh, The Bible in the Light of the Aramaic Translations (Tel-Aviv: Bar Ilan University/Dvir, 1973), p. 103; E. Schürer, History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (revised and edited by G. Vermes and F. Millar) (Edinburgh: Clark, 1973), Vol. 1, p. 100; and M. McNamara, “Targums,” IDB Supp (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), p. 860. See also notes 6 and 8 below.

42

chapter three

To what measure these and other similar generalizations are indeed accurate, must await another forum than the present article. For the moment, it will suffice to note that certain books of the Hebrew Bible may contain occasional examples of “refined” language alongside their many anthropomorphic expressions.3 It is also undeniable—although at times ignored, for the comfort of a generalization—that some of the crudest biblical anthropomorphisms are perpetuated and even amplified in the targums—alongside the common circumlocution and paraphrastic avoidance of human forms.4 The questions as to just when the targums avoid anthropomorphisms and precisely which phrases are avoided or toned down, as well as the more basic question of whether there is evidence of a consistent theology underlying this targumic activity, will require a full-size monograph. The limited purpose of the present study, then, is to examine one widespread targumic feature that has traditionally been labeled as a circumlocutionary device for avoiding direct contact or intercourse between man and God, namely the “buffer preposition” ‫“( קדם‬before”). The following examples, taken from various contexts, demonstrate just how the preposition ‫ קדם‬is introduced:5 1. Gen 17:18 Targum (O PsJ N) 2. Exod 10:8 Targ (O PsJ N)

3

And Abraham said to the Lord And Abraham said before the Lord Go serve the Lord your God Go serve before the Lord your God6

E.g. the frequent use of kavod (“glory,” or according to the new translation of the Jewish Publication Society “presence”) as a substitute for God himself: the Glory of the Lord is seen by the Israelites (Exod 16:7, 10; 33:18; Lev 9:6; Num 14:10); abides upon Mount Sinai (Exod 24:16); and passes before Moses (Exod 33:22). That the word “glory” is merely a verbal substitute for God and does not represent an independent surrogate being is clear from the adjoining verses: “for man shall not see Me” (Exod 33:20) and “until I have passed by” (Exod 33:22). The Aramaic equivalent of kavod is yeqar, and is frequently employed by all of the targums in a similar fashion. 4 An example is Exod 15:17, “The sanctuary, O Lord, which Your hands have established,” which is translated: “Your holy temple, O Lord, which Your two hands have perfected” (Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan and the Fragment Targums). 5 The following editions of targumic texts are utilized in this study: ONQELOS (= O): A Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, Vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1959); PSEUDOJONATHAN (= PsJ): D. Rieder, Pseudo-Jonathan: Targum Jonathan ben Uziel on the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Salomon’s, 1974); NEOFITI (= N): The Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch: Codex Vatican (Neofiti I), Facsimile edition (Jerusalem: Makor, 1970); CAIRO GENIZA FRAGMENTS (= CG): P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens II (reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1967) pp. 1–62; FRAGMENT-TARGUMS (= FT): M. L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch, Analecta Biblica 76 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978). 6 Cf. A. Tal (Rosenthal), “Ms. Neophyti I: The Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch,”

the preposition ‫קדם‬ 3. Deut 1:41 Targ (O PsJ N) 4. Exod 16:8 Targ (N)

43

We have sinned against the Lord We have sinned before the Lord Your complaints are not against us, but against the Lord Your complaints are not against us, but before the Lord7

It had been assumed that these translational adjustments were a result of the refinement of Israel’s concept of the Deity, and of the eventual realization of God’s transcendence and incorporeality. Man no longer addressed God forthrightly, nor did he directly serve the Lord or sin against him. Man did not involve God in these human activities; he could only perform them in the removed presence of the Lord—or as the targum put it, before the Lord. In fact, some scholars have gone as far as to refer to this translational shift as an anti-anthropomorphism.8 The question that must now be asked is: is the introduction of the preposition ‫ קדם‬by the Targum in place of the biblical nota accusativi ‫( את‬which designates God as the direct object of man’s action), or in place of other more direct prepositions, actually intended for the avoidance of biblical anthropomorphisms, or for the obviation of direct relationship between man and God? I believe that there is extensive evidence to show that there is probably no connection at all between the use of the preposition ‫ קדם‬and the alleged antianthropomorphic theology of the targums. 1. A survey of the Aramaic portions of the Book of Daniel show that whereas the king Nebuchadnezzar speaks to the Chaldeans or to Daniel,9 and whereas commoners also speak to one another,10 commoners do not address direct speech to the king, but rather before (‫ )קדם‬the king.11 Likewise, Daniel comes in to Arioch12, but he comes

Israel Oriental Studies 4 (1974), 35: “The usage ‫“[ פלח קדם‬serve before”—MLK] is usually employed in describing the relation between man and God.” And footnote 20: “This expression was used [by the targum—MLK] in order to avoid an anthropomorphism.” 7 O and PsJ have “. . . but against the memra (“word”) of the Lord.” 8 E. Levine extends the use of ‫ קדם‬for anti-anthropomorphic purposes beyond the bounds of targumic literature: “The phrase ‫‘ מן קדם י'י‬from before the Lord’ is used very frequently in the various targumim, and is the only characteristic targumic expression avoiding anthropomorphism and anthropopathism that is found regularly in Jewish Aramaic outside of the targum texts.” (E. Levine, The Aramaic Version of Ruth, Analecta Biblica 58 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1973), p. 90). Cf. above, n. 6. 9 Dan 2:5, 7, 26, 47; 3:14, 24; 5:7,13; 6:17, 21, all using the prepositional lamed. 10 E.g. Dan 2:15. 11 Dan 2:9, 10, 11, 27, 36; 5:17; 6:13, 14. 12 Dan 2:24, or “to his house,” in 6:11.

44

chapter three

in, or is brought, before the king.13 And again, people do not fear the king, but rather fear before him.14 We are led to conclude that the use of the indirect preposition ‫קדם‬ in the Book of Daniel is out of deference to high office or nobility, and not related to the nature of the Deity. It is used as an expression of respect or honor towards a human king; and there is no evidence of it being any more than just that, when used in relation to the divine God.15 Thus, we find ‫ קדם‬being used in perfect parallel in both human and divine contexts, in the very same verse: “. . . as before Him [i.e., the God of Daniel] I was found innocent; and also before thee, O king, I have done no wrong.”16 2. Returning to the targums, we find precisely the same situation prevailing. The use of ‫ קדם‬is not confined to the divine context, but is rather an expression of deference that is frequently applied to man and to human institutions. The basic targumic usage of ‫ קדם‬is as the translational equivalent of the Hebrew prepositions ‫ לפני‬,‫ בפני‬,‫ על פני‬etc., in all contexts.17 In addition, it is used to translate certain semantically related expressions, such as ‫“( לעיני‬in the sight of ” or “before the eyes of ”).18 It also translates the causal preposition ‫“( מפני‬in the face of,” “on account of ”).19 None of these verses has ever posed any problem. The cases that have been considered anti-anthropomorphic are those in which ‫ קדם‬replaces the nota accusativi ‫את‬, as in example 2, cited above (Exod 10:8), or in

13

Dan 2:24, 25; 3:13; 4:3, 5; 5:13, 15, 23; 6:19. Dan 5:19. 15 This comparison of the targumic usage with that of biblical Aramaic was proposed by S. D. Luzzatto, 150 years ago, in his book Ohev Ger (1830; the 2nd edition, Cracow, 1895, has been reprinted: Jerusalem: Makor, 1969); see p. 12. 16 Dan 6:23. Another striking parallelism is found in Dan 5:19, “All the peoples, nations and languages trembled and feared before him” (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar); and 6:27, “Men shall tremble and fear before the God of Daniel.” 17 E.g., Gen 43:15, “And they stood before Joseph,” in the very same manner as Gen 18:22, “And Abraham stood before the Lord.” 18 E.g., Gen 42:24, “And he [ Joseph] bound him [Simeon] before their eyes (‫)לעיניהם‬.” Targ (PsJ N), “And he bound him before them.” 19 E.g. Gen 7:7, “Because of (‫ )מפני‬the waters of the flood’; Targ (O PsJ CG N), “From before (‫ )מן קדם‬the waters of the flood” (meaning, of course, “on account of ”) and Exod 9:11, “Because of the boils”; Targ (O PsJ N), “From before the boils.” 14

the preposition ‫קדם‬ Deut 10:12 Targ (O PsJ N)

45

And to serve the Lord your God And to serve before the Lord your God.

However, one needs only to observe the same translational device in the human context to realize that it is not all related to the avoidance of anthropomorphism. For example: Gen 14:4 Targ (N) Gen 27:29 Targ (N FT) Exod 20:5 Targ (N PsJ)

Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer Twelve years they served before Chedorlaomer Let peoples serve you [i.e., Jacob] Let peoples serve before you And you shall not worship serve them [i.e., idols] And you shall not serve before them.

There are literally tens of cases in the various Palestinian targums of the Pentateuch in which the Hebrew verb ‫“( עבד‬to serve”), taking a human direct object (with or without the accusative ‫)את‬, is transformed into ‫“( פלח קדם‬serve before”).20 Similarly, Biblical phrases that employ the prepositional lamed, such as “to be a slave to someone,” “to sacrifice to idols,” and “to bow down to someone or to some idol” may appear in the targums with the preposition ‫קדם‬.21 Still another group of verbs for which the targums replace the prepositional lamed with ‫ קדם‬is that of “crying, begging, imploring, and praying.” For example: Gen 41:55 Targ (O PsJ N CG) Num 11:2 Targ (N)

And the people cried to Pharaoh And the people cried before Pharaoh22 And the people cried out to Moses And the people cried out before Moses.23

20 E.g., Gen 27:40; 29:15, 18; 31:41; Exod 14:5, 12; 21:2; 23:33; Deut 5:9; 7:16; 17:3, 20:11. These all argue against A. Tal (Rosenthal); see above, n. 6. 21 E.g., Gen 27:32 (PsJ N); Exod 22:19 (N); Deut 30:17 (N); 32:17 (N). 22 CG cited here is an additional fragment of MS. E of P. Kahle (see above, n. 5), which was published by A. Díez Macho, “Nuevos Fragmentos del Targum Palestinese,” Sefarad 15 (1955), 37. 23 Additional examples are: Gen 42:21; Exod 5:15; Num 11:2, 13.

46

chapter three

In this context, there are three verses that are especially misleading: Num 11:1 Num 11:18 Num 14:28

And the people were . . . speaking evil in the ears (‫ )באזני‬of the Lord For you have wept in the ears of the Lord . . . Saith the Lord, as you have spoken in My ears.

Now, all three of these verses are translated by O and PsJ “before (‫)קדם‬ the Lord” or “before me,” which, again, might have been mistaken for an avoidance of anthropomorphism. However, when we examine the targumic treatment of this phrase in the human context, we find the very same translation in no fewer than fourteen instances.24 It is evident that the biblical idiom “in the ears of ” is taken figuratively in all contexts, and is translated as such in all of the targumim.25 There is, therefore, no connection between this normal translational device and anthropomorphism.26 One last example of the transformation of the Hebrew prepositions ‫“( אל‬to”) and ‫“( על‬upon,” “about”) into ‫ קדם‬is from the juridical setting: Deut 25:1 Targ (N)

And they go to the law And they go before the judges

And when Moses sat in judgment: Exod 18:13 Targ (PsJ N)

The people stood about Moses The people stood before Moses

One stands respectfully before the court of justice, but one does not approach it directly—even if it be only a human institution. 24 O: Gen 20:8; 23:10, 13, 16; 44:18; 50:4; Exod 10:2; 11:2; 17:14; 24:7; Deut 5:1; 31:28, 30; 32:44; and PsJ: Gen 20:8; Exod 24:7; Deut 5:1. 25 PsJ, N, and FT generally render the phrase “in the hearing of ” (‫)במשמעיה ד‬, as does the modern English R.S.V. In fact, the paraphrastic translation “in the hearing of ” is so common in N that one of the glossators has added it in the margin of that MS, in a verse that has intended real ears of flesh and blood. The case in point is Gen 35:4, “And the rings that were on their ears,” which is correctly translated in a literal fashion by all of the targums. The thoughtless gloss to N, “that were in their hearing,” is of course a hypercorrection. 26 Cf. J. Shunary, “Avoidance of Anthropomorphism in the Targum of Psalms,” Textus 5 (1966), p. 139, note 16.

the preposition ‫קדם‬

47

In conclusion, the use of the buffer preposition ‫ קדם‬in the targumim as a substitute for the nota accusativi ‫את‬, or for other more direct prepositions, is common in both the divine and the human contexts. It occurs as an expression of deference to a respectable person or institution. It also occurs as a natural result of the idiomatic variance between the biblical Hebrew and Targumic Aramaic, or simply, as the translation of a biblical phrase that was understood figuratively. All of these usages apply equally in reference to man or God. It is, therefore, evident that the introduction by the various targumim of the preposition ‫קדם‬, in all of these cases, is not for the avoidance or circumlocution of biblical anthropomorphisms.

CHAPTER FOUR

PALESTINIAN TARGUM AND SYNAGOGUE MOSAICS The Palestinian Targums The Targums—or early Aramaic translations of the Bible—have their origin in the synagogue, in a period when the Aramaic-speaking masses of Jewish people no longer understood biblical Hebrew, and had to have the weekly Pentateuchal reading translated into their vernacular.1 This is similar to the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Bible) which originated in the Greek-speaking Alexandrian Jewish community of the early Hellenistic period (3rd Century B.C.E.). The need for the Bible to be understood by the people continued to be felt throughout the centuries, in the advent of new conquests and shifts of Jewish population; and this found expression in Saadia Gaon’s (882–942 C.E.) Arabic version, the popular Judeo-Persian translation, and even a late Yiddish (Judeo-German) rendition. For biblical scholarship, the ancient Aramaic Targums are of particular interest, for a number of reasons: 1) Theological. The various targums were never intended to be mere literal renditions of Hebrew scripture. Rather they were explanatory and interpretive—even to the extent of occasionally contradicting the original meaning of the Scripture.2 The Palestinian Targums are particularly expansive in theological matters such as God’s providence and direct intervention in the world,3 sin and the Day of 1 For an introduction to the Targums and a general bibliography see M. McNamara, “Targums,” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume, (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), pp. 856–861. 2 This is not to give the impression that the translators were capricious. They generally fulfilled their task with great fidelity; see my article “Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique,” Biblica 57 (1976), pp. 515–537. 3 In the following notes (3–8) I shall give examples taken from the complete Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, according to MS Neofiti 1. E.g., Gen. 30:22.

‫ארבע מפתחן דאינון מסירין ביד רבון כל עלמ]י[א ייי ולא מסרן למלאכא ולא לשרף‬ .‫מפתחא דמטרא ומפתחא דפרנסתא ומפתחי דקבריה ופתחא דעקרתא‬

“There are four keys retained in the hand of the Master of All Worlds, the Lord: which He has not given over neither to an angel nor to a seraph: the key to the rainfall,

50

chapter four

Judgement,4 reward and retribution,5 God’s “daily work schedule,”6 the Messiah and End of Days.7 2) Textual-Biblical. With the discovery of fragments of three targumic texts at Qumran (4QtgLev, 4QtgJob, 11QtgJob) there is no longer any doubt about the existence of written targums as early as the 1st Century C.E.8 Applying linguistic criteria, scholars have dated the composition of the Qumran targums to the middle of the 2nd Century B.C.E.9 Likewise, other scholars have dated passages in cer-

the key to sustenance, the key to the tombs (for resurrection) and the key to the childless woman (to bear children).” 4 Gen. 4:7.

‫הלא אן תטיב עובדך בעלמא הדין ישתרי וישתבק לך בעלמ]א[ דאתי ואין לא תיטב‬ . . . ‫עובדך בעלמא הדין ליום דינא רבה חטאך נטיר‬

“If you improve your deeds in this world it will be released and forgiven to you in the world to come; but if you do not improve your deeds in this world, then your sin will be kept for the Day of Great Judgment. . . .” 5 Gen. 4:8.

‫ענה קין ואמר לחבל לית דין ולית דיין ולית עולם חורן לית מתן אגר טב לצדיקיא‬ . . . ‫ולית מתפרעה מן רשיעיא עני חבל ואמר לקין אית דין ואית דיין‬

“ . . . Cain said to Abel: ‘There is no Judge and there is no Justice; nor is there another world. There is no good reward for the righteous nor retribution for the wicked.’ And Abel answered: ‘There is a Judge and there is Justice. . . .’ ” 6 Deut. 32:4.

‫אמר משה נבייא אנה חמית לרבון כל עלמייא ייי מפלג יומא ועבד יתה לארבע‬ ‫חלקין תלת שעין לעי באוריתה ותלת שעין יתב בדינה ותלת שעין מזווג זוגין בין גבר‬ ‫לאתתה ומרים וממך ותלת שעין מפרנס כל עלמא‬

“Said Moses the prophet: I saw the Master of All Worlds, the Lord, divide His day into four portions: three hours He toils in the study of the Torah (Law); three hours He sits in justice; three hours He makes matches between man and woman, raising and lowering the status of man; and three hours He provides sustenance for the entire world.” 7 Exod. 12:42.

‫לילי רביעיא כד ישלם עלמא קציה למתפרקא נירי פרזלא יתברון ודרי רשיעא ישתיצון‬ ‫ומשה יסוק מן גו מדברא ]ומלכא משיחא מן גו רומא[ דן ידבר בריש ענא ודין ידבר‬ . . . ‫בריש ענה ומימריה מדבר ביני תריהון‬

“. . . The fourth night (of vigil) shall be when the world reaches its fixed time to be redeemed. The iron yoke shall be broken and the generations of the wicked destroyed. Moses shall go forth from the wilderness and the King Messiah from the midst of Rome. This one will lead at the head of the flock, and that one will lead at the head of the flock; and His memra [i.e., the word of the Lord—a common targumic substitute for God Himself ] shall lead between both of them. . . . ” Note: All of the targumic references to the Messiah have been conveniently collected in S. H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation, (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1974). 8 These finds confirmed the Talmudic statement about a written Targum of Job having been brought before Rabban Gamliel (b. Shabbat 115a). 9 E.g., M. Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 1974), p. 9.

palestinian targum and synagogue mosaics

51

tain Palestinian Targums to that same period on the basis of allusions to historical events.10 Some of the Targums were composed in the pre-Masoretic period, i.e., before the rabbis made their final decision regarding the exact text to be authorized and transmitted, and before the suppression of all deviant mss. This was a period during which variant Hebrew texts of the Bible circulated freely and legitimately. Some of these non-Masoretic texts served as the Vorlagen (underlying originals) for translations; and while the deviant Hebrew texts were suppressed and eventually lost (some of which have been rediscovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls), their translations often survived in the Greek, Syriac, Samaritan and Aramaic Targum versions. 3) Linguistic. The Palestinian Targums are extremely important for the study of Western Aramaic. Some of the mss. from the Cairo Genizah11 date back to the 8th-llth Centuries C.E., and preserve a relatively pure dialect of Western (Galilean) Aramaic.12 For some Christian scholars these texts have had special significance for although removed several centuries from the period of Jesus, their dialect may be closer to the spoken Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the 1st Century C.E. than that of the earlier Aramaic texts from Qumran that are written in a stylized literary dialect.13 In the general context of Semitic languages, the Palestinian Targums are important for completing the picture of Western Aramaic dialects which include Christian Palestinian Aramaic and Samaritan Aramaic. 4) Historical. I have already mentioned the historical allusions in the Targums to events of the Hasmonean period, which according to many scholars must have been recorded contemporaneously. On the 10

J. Heinemann, Aggadah and its Development (Jerusalem: Keter, 1974), pp. 143– 162 (Hebrew); and Idem. “Early Halakha in the Palestinian Targumim,” Journal of Jewish Studies 25 (1974), pp. 114–122. 11 A ‘genizah’ is a room or a bin in a synagogue, which serves as a repository for old and worn holy books and documents. This was to prevent their being disposed of in a disrespectful way. 12 E. Y. Kutscher, Studies in Galilean Aramaic, tr. M. Sokoloff, (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University, 1976), pp. 3–4. 13 See J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I, 2nd ed. Biblica et Orientalia 18A, (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971), pp. 19–25. Fitzmyer gives an extensive bibliography on p. 24 n. 61, and more recently, J. C. Greenfield, “Aramaic and Its Dialects,” in H. H. Paper, ed., Jewish Languages: Theme and Variation, (Cambridge Mass.: Association for Jewish Studies, 1978), pp. 34–36; and Idem. “Standard Literary Aramaic,” Acts due premier congrès sémitique, (The Hague-Paris: Mouton, 1974), pp. 286–288 (English).

52

chapter four

other hand, some targums make reference to later events, such as the Destruction of the Temple (70 C.E.), in the past tense.14 Whereas some targums foretell the fall of Rome in a prophetic style,15 others refer to Constantinople by that name.16 One particularly late recension of the Palestinian Targum (Pseudo-Jonathan) supplies the names of the two anonymous wives taken by Ishmael, as Adisha and Fatima. Rabbinic tradition had always identified Ishmael with the Arabs; and it is hardly coincidental that these happen to be the names of one of Muhammad’s wives and one of his daughters. What we have here, then, is a postIslamic addition to the Palestinian Targum.17 14

Geniza MS F, Neofiti and the Fragment Targums of Lev. 22:27,

‫ לן זמו קרבנינן דהוינן מקרבין קודמך בכל שנה ושנה והוון קורבנינן‬,‫עידן דתתדכר‬ . . . ‫מכפרין לן על חובינן וכדון די גרמו חובייה לית לן מה נקברה מן עדרי ענינן‬ “When You recall for us the orders of sacrifices that we would offer before You, annually—our sacrifices atoning for our sins. But, alas, our sins have caused [the present situation, i.e., the destruction of the Temple and the cessation of the cult] and we can no longer make offerings from our flocks of sheep.” 15 Fragment Targums of Gen. 15:12,

‫דא היא אדום רשיעה הוא מלכותא רביעיתא דעתידין למיפל ולא תהוי לה תקומה‬ :‫לעלמי עלמין‬

“That is the wicked Edom [= Rome], the fourth Kingdom that is destined to fall, and not to rise forever.” The first three kingdoms were Babylonia, Media and Greece. Another similar passage is found in the Fragment Targums of Num. 24:19,

‫עתיד מלך למיקום מן דבית יעקב וישיצי כל מאן דמשתייר מן כרכא חייבא דא‬ :‫היא רומי‬

“A King shall arise from the house of Jacob and he will destroy the remnants of the guilty city, which is Rome.” Interestingly enough, both of these passages are censored in the Neofiti Targum, which was last copied in Rome, in 1504. 16 Pseudo-Jonathan Targum of the same verse. Num. 24:19,

‫ויקום שליט מדבית יעקב ויוביד וישיצי שיזבותא דמשתייא מן קושטינטיני קרתא‬ . . . ‫חייבתא‬

“A ruler shall arise from the House of Jacob, and he will ruin and destroy the surviving remnant of Constantinople, the guilty city. . . .” As it is well known, the name of this city was Byzantium until the year 330 C.E., when Emperor Constantine I established it as his new capital. 17 Pseudo-Jonathan Targum of Gen. 21:21,

‫ויתיב בדברא דפארן ונסיב איתא ית עדישא ותרכה ונסיבת לית אימיה ית פטימא‬ ‫אתתא מארעא דמצרים‬

“And he [Ishmael] dwelled in the wilderness of Paran; and he took Adisha [= Ayesha] as a wife, but divorced her; and his mother [Hagar] then took Fatima as a wife for him, from the Land of Egypt.” Ayesha, daughter of Abu Bakr, was Muhammad’s favorite wife; while Fatima, one of Muhammad’s daughters, was the traditional matriarch of the Fatimide dynasty. Once again, it cannot be mere coincidence that Hagar and the wife that she chose are both from Egypt, and that the Fatimides later established their capital in Cairo in the 10th Century C.E. We might add that the identification of anonymous biblical characters is a common midrashic practice.

palestinian targum and synagogue mosaics

53

5) Sitz im Leben. The birthplace of the Targums was the Synagogue, and there it received its official sanction. As a synagogal institution it enjoyed considerable authority, and the targumic translation of the more learned meturgemanim (translators) were cited as proof texts in legal discussions at the academies.18 As the targumic phenomenon became widespread, the rabbis of the Mishnah and the Talmud sought to control certain of its related practices, and also to prevent the public mistranslation of Scripture. They even prohibited certain verses from being translated at all.19 The rabbis also established strict rules in order to ensure the primacy of the original Hebrew verbum Dei, and to preclude the usurpation of that position by the Aramaic translations. For example, the Hebrew Pentateuch was read from a scroll one verse at a time. It was then translated orally, without reference to a written text, by the meturgeman, who had to be someone other than the original reader. The translation was to be recited in a lower voice than that of the reader. All these precautions were to ensure that the uneducated public not mistake the Aramaic translation for the original Torah.20 The actual place of all this targumic activity is the many Roman- and Byzantine-period synagogues that have been discovered and excavated in Israel during the past 125 years. The nearly 100 synagogues which are spread over the entire country—Mediterranean coast, Mt. Carmel, Galilee, Golan Heights, Yarmuk Valley, Beth Shean Valley, Jordan River Valley, Dead Sea Basin, Hebron Hills, Gaza and the northern Negev—are an indisputable archaeological testimony to the continuous and flourishing existence of Jewish communities in Palestine through at least the 7th Century C.E.21 It is, no doubt, in these very 18

E.g., Babylonian Talmud, b. Bava Qamma 3b.

. . . ‫ כדמתרגם ר' יוסף‬. . . “. . . As Rabbi Joseph translated (into Aramaic) . . .” The discussion here revolves around the identification of a particular category of damages. 19 Such as: Genesis 35:22, “And Israel [= Jacob] dwelled in that land; and Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine; and Israel found out.” Likewise, the story of the Golden Calf in Exodus Chapter 32. These passages reflect poorly on the patriarchs, and were therefore not to be translated in the public reading. 20 Some of these rules are set out in the Mishnah, m. Megillah ch. 4, (corresponds to ch. 3 in the printed Talmuds), and in greater detail in the Tosefta, t. Megillah ch. 4 (3). 21 See S. J. Saller, A Revised Catalogue of the Ancient Synagogues of the Holy Land (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1969). A number of additional synagogues have been discovered during the past decade, and are to be added to Saller’s list, e.g. Ein Gedi on the Dead Sea, Sussiya in the Hebron Hills, Gaza on the Mediterranean

54

chapter four

synagogues, and during these centuries that the Palestinian Targums were recited and ultimately recorded. The Synagogues The Roman-Byzantine synagogues have been categorized into three architectural types: a) the monumental stone basilica with the flagstone pavement; b) the broadhouse with either flagstone or mosaic pavement; and c) the modest simplified basilica structure with an elaborate mosaic floor.22 That these architectural types correspond to a chronological sequence, as had long been assumed, has recently come under question. The recent discovery of several late 4th Century coins under the flagstone floor of the synagogue at Capernaum (on the west bank of the Sea of Galilee) has led its excavators to advance its date from the 2nd Century to the 4th Century C.E.23 Be this as it may, for our present purpose, we shall focus on the various synagogues with mosaic floors. The best preserved and most famous of these mosaic floors were discovered at Hamat on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, just south of Tiberias, and at Beth Alpha in the Beth Shean valley. The synagogue at Hamat has been dated by its excavators to the 4th Century C.E., while that of Beth Alpha is dated by its dedicatory inscription to the beginning of the 6th Century. In both of these cases the mosaic of the nave is divided into three panels. The uppermost, nearest the front platform, depicts a Holy Ark flanked by two menorahs (candelabra) and other holy objects such as

coast, Magdala on the Sea of Galilee and Sham’a in the Upper Galilee. Professor Joseph Naveh of the Hebrew University has recently published a complete collection of Aramaic and Hebrew inscriptions from the ancient synagogues in his book On Stone and Mosaic, (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1978) (in Hebrew ‫על פסיפס‬ ‫)ארבן‬. Also a new book on the subject by Hershel Shanks, entitled Judaism In Stone, has just appeared. 22 For an exposition of this theory with diagrams, see M. Avi-Yonah, “Synagogues,” Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society—Massada, 1978), Vol. 4, pp. 1129–1138, and his earlier article in Ariel no. 32. 23 V. Corbo, S. Loffreda, et al., La Synagoga di Cafarnao, dopo gli scavi del 1969 (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1970); and an attempted defense of the original dating by G. Foerster; “Notes on Recent Excavations at Capernaum,” Israel Exploration Journal 21 (1971), pp. 207–211; and Qadmoniot 4 (1971), pp. 126–131 (Hebrew).

palestinian targum and synagogue mosaics

55

the palm branch, citron, ram’s horn, and incense shovels. The central panel is comprised of a circle within a square. The corners of the square contain the figures of four women representing the four seasons. The outer ring of the circle displays human (some nude) and animal figures, symbolizing the zodiac. The center of the circle contains representations of Helios the sun-god in an animal drawn chariot, flanked by his entourage of moon and stars. In the floor of the Beth Alpha synagogue, the lower panel contains the biblical scene of the Binding of Isaac (Gen. 22); that of Hamat has only dedicatory inscriptions and lists of donors. Several of the other synagogue mosaics contain human figures; for example the synagogue in Gaza depicts King David playing the harp and charming wild beasts (like Orpheus). Most scholars have assumed that these pagan figures had lost their original significance by the time they were adopted as decorative elements in the synagogues. For example, Michael Avi-Yonah believed that: . . . the signs of the Zodiac with Helios in the center and the seasons in the corners, were divested of all idolatrous associations. Instead they were given specifically Jewish significance, so that the Zodiac itself, for instance, stood for the ordering of the Temple services throughout the year.24

Edwin R. Goodenough, on the other hand, has argued for the borrowing of the symbols together with their original significance. In the light of the many early rabbinic condemnations of all image-making, Goodenough is led to the conclusion that the floors were commissioned by lay leaders of the community and executed by secular or non-Jewish artisans, without official rabbinic approval or sanction. Goodenough writes off the statements of rabbis who “did not object” to images in synagogues, as hardly a counterbalance to the thunderous denunciations of images in the early rabbinic literature.25 Let us look at some of the literary passages in question: 24 “Ancient Synagogues,” Ariel no. 32 (1973), p. 43. See also E. E. Urbach, “The Rabbinical Laws of Idolatry in the Second and Third Centuries in the Light of Archaeological and Historical Facts,” Israel Exploration Journal 9 (1959), pp. 296–297; and more recently, J. H. Charlesworth, “Jewish Astrology in the Talmud, Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls and Early Palestinian Synagogues,” Harvard Theological Review 70 (1977), pp. 195–196. (This issue of the HTR appeared in 1979, after the present article was completed). 25 E. R. Goodenough, “Symbolism, Jewish (In the Greco-Roman Period),” Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971), Vol. 15, columns 568–578; and his monumental

56

chapter four ‫ביומי דר' יוחנן שרון ציירין על כותלייה ולא מחי בידון‬ ‫ביומי דר' אבון שרון ציירין על פסיפסס ולא מחי בידון‬ In the days of Rabbi Yohanan they began drawing figures on the walls [frescoes], and he did not protest against the practice. In the days of Rabbi Abin they began depicting figures in mosaic, and he did not protest against it.26

Rabbi Yohanan was one of the most prominent rabbis of the third century. He lived in Tiberias and Sepphoris in the very period during which the earliest known synagogue frescoes (Dura-Europos) were painted. Likewise, Rabbi Abin II flourished in Tiberias during the 4th Century; and this passage might be a direct reference to the mosaic floor of the synagogue in Hamat. The historical importance of this text can hardly be overestimated. Perhaps the key to these rabbinic innovations lies in another statement by Goodenough: Symbols and religious experiences and values have a way of disengaging themselves from their original mythical explanations and going from religion to religion with old forms and values now given new explanations.27

This would seem to be reflected in the following midrashic passages: ‫ כך עתידין‬,‫אמ' ליה הקב"ה כשם שהמזלות מקיפין אותי וכבודי באמצע‬ . . . ‫בניך להרבות וחונים דגלים דגלים ושכינתי באמצע‬ The Holy One Blessed-Be-He showed Abraham all of the Zodiac [Hebrew: mazalot] surrounding his šekhina [Divine Presence]; . . . and said: just as the Zodiac surrounds Me, with My glory in the center, so shall your descendants multiply and camp under many flags, with My šekhina in the center.28

The Helios figure no longer represents the pagan sun-god; it has been transformed into God’s glory (kavod ) or His divine presence (šekhina). Although the problem of the pagan symbolism in the synagogue may have been solved by a transfer of significance, there still remained the more basic prohibition of the second commandment (Exod. 20: 4; Deut. 5: 8): “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or on the earth below, work Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (New York: Pantheon-Bollington Foundation, 1953–1965) 12 vols. + Index Volume 13 (Princeton, 1968). 26 Palestinian Talmud, Avodah Zarah Genizah mss. published by J. N. Epstein, “Additional Fragments of the Jerushalmi,” Tarbiz 3 (1931–32), p. 20. 27 Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 15, Col. 574. 28 S. Lieberman, Midrash Devarim Rabbah (Genizah ms.) 3rd ed. (Jerusalem: Wahnnann, 1974), p. 16. My friend and colleague Mr. Marc Bregman brought this reference to my attention.

palestinian targum and synagogue mosaics

57

or in the waters under the earth.” Moreover, there is the following prohibition in Leviticus 26:1: . . . ‫ ואבן משכית לא תתנו בארצכם להשתחות עליה‬. . . “. . . You shall not place a figured stone in your land upon which to bow down.”

These must have been especially troubling to the worshippers who, in praying, bowed down upon the mosaic floors containing forbidden figures. In fact, there are indications of a Jewish iconoclastic reaction that set in some time after the 7th Century. At Na‘arah, just north of Jericho, the human and animal figures of the mosaic Zodiac were removed in early times. Since the Hebrew and Aramaic captions and inscriptions were left untouched, the defacing is most likely to have been by zealous Jewish hands. Fortunately, the iconoclasm was not universal, and most of the Byzantine-period synagogue figures survived. Rather than the mosaic floors being victim of a strict and literal application of Scripture; the Scripture was reinterpreted and harmonized with synagogal reality. This process is reflected in the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum to Lev. 26:1: ‫ ואבן מציירא לא תתנון בארעכון למגחן עלה ברם סטין חקיק בציורין‬. . . . . . ‫ודיוקנין תשוון בארעית מקדשיכון ולא למסגוד לה‬ . . . and you shall not place a figured stone in your land, upon which to bow down; however you may place a mosaic pavement29 impressed with figures and images in the floors of your sanctuaries [= synagogues]—but not for kneeling to it.

As mentioned above, the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum contains material that is definitely datable to the Islamic period. It would seem that the Targumic expansion of Leviticus 26:1 is intended to ward off potential iconoclasm, by reassuring the worshippers that as long as the figured stones in the synagogue floor are decorative or symbolic and not objects of worship, they are not in violation of biblical law. It is, no doubt, due to this flexible rabbinic interpretation, that the many magnificent synagogue mosaics survived the perils of religious fanaticism, and were buried in peace—to be retrieved and revived by archaeologists in the present century.

29 Aramaic: Sateya; from the Greek stoa, see M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim . . . (New York: Pardes, 1950), p. 972b.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE TRANSLATION OF ANTHROPOMORPHISMS AND ANTHROPOPATHISMS IN THE TARGUMIM1 I. Introduction: The Old Testament Anthropomorphic descriptions of the Deity prevail throughout the entire Old Testament—from the earliest Pentateuchal narratives and the classical prophets through the apocalyptical Book of Daniel. The Lord God moves (walks) about noisily in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:8); he smells the pleasant odor of sacrifices (Gen 8:21); just as incense is placed before his nostril (Deut 33:10). His feet are supported by the likeness of a sapphire pavement (Exod 24:10); and whereas his palm shields his face from being seen, his back may be seen (Exod 33:20–23); the Lord is seated on a high and lofty throne and the skirts of his robe fill the Temple (Isa 6:1); the throne appears to be made of sapphire and the enthroned figure has the semblance of a human being (Ezek 1:26); and finally, the One of ancient days is seated, his garb white as snow, and the hair of his head like lamb’s wool (Dan 7:9). This anthropomorphic God was believed to be visible by man in certain circumstances—even though such an experience was fraught with the danger of death. Thus Manoah says to his wife, “We shall surely die, for we have seen God” (Judg 13:22, RSV, JPS; but “a divine being” in new JPS). Indeed the statement “you cannot see my face, for man may not see me and live” (Exod 33:20) is to be understood in the same manner, i.e., not that God is invisible, but that the one who gazes upon him will surely die.2

1 My sincerest thanks to Professor Menahem Haran and Professor Shlomo Morag for their devoted guidance in an earlier stage of this study at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. The term anthropomorphism is used throughout as an abbreviation for the more cumbersome pair “anthropomorphism and anthropopathism.” We shall deal with both human forms and human feelings attributed to the Deity in the Old Testament. 2 Cf. J. Barr, “Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament,” Congress Volume: Oxford 1959, SVT 7 (1960), p. 34. On the other hand, Barr’s distinction between simple anthropomorphic phrases and theophanies in human form, though valid in itself, is, I believe, not germane to the present discussion.

60

chapter five

Moreover, in Gen 1:26, 27 God says: “Let us make man in our image after our likeness,” and then “God created man in his image, in the image of God he created him”—indicating a similarity of physical form. II. Rabbinic and Medieval Jewish Literature The origins of Jewish anti-anthropomorphism remain shrouded in obscurity. What is clear, however, is that by Mishnaic times (1st–2nd century C.E.), two distinct schools emerged and crystallized. Whereas the school of R. Aqiba interpreted biblical anthropomorphisms quite literally, the anti-anthropomorphic school of R. Ishmael dismissed them as allegory.3 What is also clear is that the anti-anthropomorphic tendencies reflect an internal development within Judaism, and are not the result of Hellenistic influence, which they antedate.4 It is only natural that the targumim, being an integral part of Rabbinic literature, and ultimately deriving from the same schools and the same periods,5 would reflect rabbinic attitudes towards biblical anthropomorphism. This was to be expected especially in view of the fact that all the targumim are paraphrastic and midrashic to varying degrees, even in matters that are not of theological or doctrinal import.6 Indeed, great Jewish medieval scholars such as Sa‘adiah Gaon (882– 942) and Maimonides (1135–1204) were quick to notice that many of the biblical anthropomorphisms are transformed in Onqelos by paraphrase or circumlocution. Sa‘adiah, being convinced of the pure spirituality and transcendence of God, takes all the human traits attributed to God to be allegorical. Accordingly, he writes that “wherever the ‘faithful interpreters of our Torah’ [i.e., the ancient targumists—and particularly Onqelos] found any of these expressions, they refrained

3 A. Marmorstein, Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God 2, Essays in Anthropomorphism (London, 1937; reprinted New York, 1968), pp. 61, 113–22. Marmorstein has collected the characteristic phrases of each school; e.g., “If it were not written in Scripture we would not dare say it” (literalists) versus “The Torah speaks in the language of human beings” (allegorists). 4 H. A. Wolfson, Philo (Cambridge, Mass., 1948) 2, p. 127. 5 We need not enter here into the problematics of dating particular targumim, nor into the distinction between date of composition and date of final redaction. 6 Cf. M. L. Klein, “Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique,” Biblica 57 (1976), pp. 515–37 [ch. 2 in the present volume], and references in p. 515, n. 2.

translation of anthropomorphisms & anthropopathisms 61 from translating them literally.”7 Sa‘adiah then lists the following examples of avoidance of anthropomorphism in Onqelos. Exod 9:3 O

the hand of the Lord [‫]יד יהוה‬ a plague from before the Lord [‫]מחא מן קדם יוי‬

Exod 24:10 beneath his feet [‫]ותחת רגליו‬ O beneath his throne of glory [‫]תחות כורסא דיקריה‬ Exod 17:1 O

by the mouth of the Lord [‫]על פי יהוה‬ by the word of the Lord [‫]על מימרא דיוי‬

Num 11:13 O

in the ears of the Lord [‫]באזני יהוה‬ before the Lord [‫]קדם יוי‬.

There are, however, two serious errors in Sa‘adiah’s argument, which, as we shall see, were later repeated by 19th and 20th century scholars. First, Sa‘adiah ignores all the contradictory examples in which Onqelos transmits anthropomorphisms most literally. Second, some of the targumic passages cited are not anti-anthropomorphisms at all, but rather translational equivalents employed by Onqelos in other contexts as well. For example, Gen 45:21 O

by the mouth of Pharaoh [‫]על פי פרעה‬ by the word of Pharaoh [‫]על מימרא דפרעה‬

Gen 23:16 O

in the ears of the sons of Heth [‫]באזני בני חת‬ before the sons of Heth [‫]קדם בני חת‬.8

Maimonides was more thorough than Sa‘adiah. When speaking of the verb of motion “to descend” (‫ )ירד‬as applied to God, Maimonides notes that in all cases but one it is translated in Onqelos “was revealed.”9 For example,

7

The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, Treatise ii, Ch. 10, (tr. S. Rosenblatt; New Haven, Connecticut, 1948), pp. 115–16. Also in Three Jewish Philosophers (ed. H. Lewy, et al., Cleveland and Philadelphia, 1960), Book of Doctrines and Beliefs (ed. A. Altmann), pp. 88–89. 8 Cf. M. L. Klein, “The Preposition ‫‘( קדם‬Before’), A Pseudo-Anti-Anthropomorphism in the Targums,” JTS N. S. 30 (1979), pp. 506–7 [ch. 3 in the present volume]; and J. Shunary, “Avoidance of Anthropomorphism in the Targum of Psalms,” Textus 5 (1966), p. 139. 9 Guide for the Perplexed, Part 1, Ch. 27, [tr. S. Pines; Chicago, 1963), pp. 57–59; cf. Maimonides’ Yad Ha-Ḥ azaqah (Code), Laws of Principles of the Torah, Ch. 1, §§ 8–10.

62

chapter five

Exod 19:11

the Lord will descend . . . upon Mount Sinai [‫ על‬. . . .‫ירד יהוה‬

‫]הר סיני‬ the Lord will be revealed . . . upon Mount Sinai [‫יתגלי יוי‬

O

‫ טורא דסיני‬. . . ‫]על‬ Gen 18:21 O

I [God] will go down and see [‫]ארדה נא ואראה‬ I will be revealed and judge [‫]אתגלי כען ואדון‬.

Maimonides, however, notes the exception to the rule: Gen 46:4

I [God] will go down with you to Egypt [‫]אנכי ארד‬

which is translated literally in Onqelos, by the root ‫אנא איחות( נחת‬ ‫)עמך למצרים‬. He then attempts to explain away this exception with two alternative arguments: 1) this verse is not a description of reality, but rather a dream; or 2) it refers to an angel, and not to God himself. Elsewhere in his Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides tries to explain why Onqelos always paraphrases the statement “God heard” with the passive indirect “it was heard before God” (‫ )שמיע קדם יוי‬or with “God received [the prayer, etc.]” (‫)קבל יוי‬, whereas the statement “God saw” is only sometimes paraphrased “and it was revealed unto God” (‫)אתגלי קדם יוי‬, while at other times it is translated literally (‫חזא‬ ‫)יוי‬. Maimonides first proposes a distinction between ‘hearing,’ which implies the acquisition of new information through sensory activity, and ‘seeing,’ which connotes “understanding of the mind.” The first implies a perceptive change at some point in time: the second, a timeless cognition. However, Maimonides himself is not satisfied with this answer, since if the phrase “God saw” is not anthropomorphic, then why does Onqelos ever bother to replace it with “was revealed before God”? Maimonides then proposes the hypothesis that Onqelos avoids only those cases in which the object of God’s seeing is sinful or evil. However, here too Maimonides is aware of three exceptions (Gen 6:5, 12 and 29:31) which are translated literally. Unable to fit these three verses into the rule, he suggests that perhaps they are scribal errors!10 Finally, regarding the anthropomorphism perpetuated by Onqelos in Exod 31:18 and Deut 9:10, that the tablets “were written by the finger of God” (‫)כתיבין באצבעא דיוי‬, Maimonides submits that he is at a loss for any explanation.11

10 11

Guide . . ., Part 1, Ch. 48 (tr. Pines, pp. 106–8). Ch. 66 (tr. Pines, pp. 160–61).

translation of anthropomorphisms & anthropopathisms 63 III. Several Modern Views I have dwelt at some length upon Maimonides because this great medieval scholar anticipated two major trends among modern scholars. First, he has retrojected his own sensitivity on the issue to the early Aramaic translators, assuming that they avoided all expressions of anthropomorphism. Second, he has tried to systematize the obvious inconsistencies in the targum, on the assumption that a system does exist. The first of these assumptions has been repeated for centuries right down to our very decade. The generalization that the targumim eliminate or tone down all expressions of anthropomorphism is repeated by H. Seligsohn and J. Traub,12 T. Walker,13 W. Bacher,14 E. Schürer,15 A. Sperber,16 Y. Komlosh,17 B. Grossfeld,18 and M. McNamara,19 to name only a few. The second somewhat contradictory assumption which recognizes that not all prima facie anthropomorphic expressions are avoided, but which assumes a consistent system, has been the underlying premise of three works devoted entirely to the problem of anthropomorphisms in the targumim. I refer to the 19th century dissertations of S. Maybaum20 and M. Ginsburger,21 and to the more recent monumental work of Domingo Muñoz León.22 Maybaum sought the “geheimen Fäden eines Systems in der Weise der Umschreibung des Onkelos” (p. 6). For example, he asserts that the Hebrew verbs “to remember” (‫ זכר‬and ‫)פקד‬, are always transformed into the passive participle in Onkelos, because “an ihn tritt kein neues Wissen heran.” He further asserts that the verb “to see” is translated literally when the

12 “Über den Geist der Übersetzung des Jonathan ben Usiel zum Pentateuch . . .,” MGWJ 6 (1857), p. 107. 13 “Targum,” in J. Hastings (ed.), A Dictionary of the Bible 4 (Edinburgh and New York, 1903), p. 679. 14 “Targum,” Jewish Encyclopedia 12 (New York and London, 1907), p. 60. 15 History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (revised and edited by G. Vermes and F. Millar; Edinburgh, 1973), Vol. 1, p. 100. 16 The Bible in Aramaic 4B: The Targum and the Hebrew Bible (Leiden, 1973), p. 37. 17 The Bible in the Light of the Aramaic Translations (Tel-Aviv, 1973), p. 103 (Hebrew). 18 “Bible: Translations, Aramaic (Targumim),” EJ 4 (Jerusalem, 1971), p. 842. 19 “Targums,” IDB Supp. (Nashville, 1976), p. 860. 20 Die Anthropomorphien und Anthropopathien bei Onkelos und die spätern Targumim (Breslau, 1870). 21 Die Anthropomorphismen in den Thargumim (Braunschweig, 1891). 22 Dios-Palalara: Memra en los Targumim del Pentateuco (Granada, 1974), and La Gloria de la Shekiná en los Targumim del Pentateuco (Madrid, 1977). This latter work was unfortunately not available to the writer.

64

chapter five

object is an event in time, but it is rendered “revealed before the Lord” when the object is an existent state of being. Among the expressions that attribute parts of the body to God, Maybaum distinguishes between those that retained their figurative meaning in later times, and those that were no longer in use and might have been misunderstood by the people (p. 14). Only these latter cases were altered by Onqelos. However, upon thorough investigation, it becomes evident that all these rules and distinctions are not without exception in Onqelos, and are totally invalid in the various Palestinian Targumim. Whereas Maybaum tried to find a system along topical lines, Ginsburger took an Hegelian developmental approach, in three chronological stages. Ginsburger openly admits that no targumim have survived from the earliest period that he posits (p. 8), yet he argues that only the personal substitutes ‫ מימרא‬and ‫ דבירא‬were employed in this early stage, in order to avoid attributing direct conversation to God and man. It was not until the later stages that the same substitutes were employed in place of parts of the body attributed to God and other anthropomorphic verbs. Ginsburger’s developmental theory is complicated and lacking in textual evidence. The most recent works by Muñoz argue, once again, for a thematic or topical system among the targumim in their use of certain substitutive surrogates for God. For example, Muñoz argues that there is consistency and theological significance to the use of ‫ מימרא‬in contexts of creation, revelation and salvation. We shall return to this work in our later discussion of the use of the surrogate ‫ מימרא‬in the various targumim. As opposed to the above mentioned generalizers and systematizers, there is a group of modern scholars who have concluded that there is no consistency in the targumic avoidance of anthropomorphisms. Regarding Onqelos, M. Kadushin has stated the case as follows: Since Targum Onkelos is a rabbinic version, it is once more evident that philosophy and rabbinic thought are two distinct and different worlds. To employ any philosophic criterion in an approach to Targum Onkelos leads us nowhere. We cannot speak of Targum Onkelos, therefore, as making a principle either of the incorporeality of God or of the corporeality of God. . . . The Targum then is not consistent. But now we are not called upon to account for every deviation and non-deviation, for consistency here is not to be expected. The idea of God’s otherness is a very indefinite idea; it permits of exceptions and it ignores inconsistencies.23 23

The Rabbinic Mind (3rd edition, New York, 1972), pp. 330–31.

translation of anthropomorphisms & anthropopathisms 65 R. Hayward has argued for a similar situation in Neofiti and its marginal glosses.24 Other scholars have observed the same inconsistency in the targumim of Psalms25 and Job,26 as well as in various parts of the Septuagint.27 I shall devote the remainder of this article to the substantiation and elaboration of this latter view, demonstrating in some detail that the issue of anthropomorphism was not of theological import, and that the various targumim are extremely inconsistent in their translation of these expressions. Had the early mĕturgĕmānīm truly been concerned about the theological and philosophical implications of anthropomorphisms, they would have avoided them with much greater care and consistency. IV. Human Parts of the Body Attributed to God There are instances in which, not only have the targumim not avoided anthropomorphic expressions, but they have even amplified and intensified them. Two cases in point are: Exod 15:17

The sanctuary, O Lord, which your hands established [‫]כוננו ידיך‬

Neof, Neof . . . which your two hands perfected [‫]תרתין ידך שכללי יתיה‬ gl, P, V, CG28

24 “The Memra of YHWH and the Development of its Use in Targum Neofiti I,” JJS 25 (1974), pp. 412–18. See also Hayward’s reviews of Muñoz’s works in JJS 27 (1976), pp. 94–96; and JJS 30 (1979), pp. 99–102. 25 J. Shunary, “Avoidance of Anthropomorphism in the Targum of Psalms,” Textus 5 (1966), pp. 133–44. 26 R. Weiss, The Aramaic Targum of Job (Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1974), pp. 273–93; published Tel Aviv, 1979 (= Tarbiz 44 [1974/75], pp. 54–71 [Hebrew]). 27 The works of H. M. Orlinsky and his students, e.g., review of C. T. Fritsch, The Anti-Anthropomorphisms of the Greek Pentateuch in Crozer Quarterly 21 (1944), 157; idem, HUCA 27 (1956), pp. 193–200; HUCA 30 (1959), pp. 153–67; HUCA 32 (1961), pp. 239–68; A. Soffer, HUCA 28 (1957), pp. 85–107; and M. S. Hurwitz, HUCA 28 (1957), pp. 75–83. This has all been reinforced most recently by T. Wittstruck, “The So-called Anti-anthropomorphisms in the Greek Text of Deuteronomy,” CBQ 38 (1976), pp. 29–34. 28 The following is a key to the sigla used for targumic texts: Neof: MS Vatican Neofiti 1, ed. A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1 (Madrid, 1968–79). Neof gl: marginal and interlinear glosses in Neof. P: MS Paris Bibliothèque nationale Hébr. 110. V: MS Vatican Ebr. 440. Both P and V ed. M. L. Klein, The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch (Rome, 1980).

66

chapter five

Deut 32:41

And my hand takes hold on judgment [‫]ותאחז במשפט ידי‬

Neof, V

And my right hand takes hold on [true] judgment [‫]ותתוקף בדינה בקושטה יד ימיני‬

This may be compared with the similar translation of a verse in a human context: Exod 15:9 my [Pharaoh’s] hand shall destroy them [‫]תורישמו ידי‬ Neof, P, V, CG, PsJ my right hand shall destroy them [‫]תשיצי יתהון ביד ימיני‬

It is quite clear from these verses, and others, that the targumim felt no embarrassment or compunction when speaking of God’s hand or his right hand or both of his hands. The same is true of God’s palms: Exod 33:22 Neof, V Neof gl

and I shall shield you with my palm [‫ ;כפי‬RSV, Torah: hand] I shall spread [V: cast] my palm over you [‫]כפי‬ I shall cast the palm of my hand [‫ ]כף ידי‬over you.

The single instance of feet attributed to God in the Pentateuch is translated literally in all the extant Palestinian Targumim: Exod 24:10 Neof, Neof gl, PsJ

and beneath his feet [‫ ]ותחת רגליו‬there was the likeness of a pavement of sapphire and beneath the footstool of his feet [‫ותחות אפיפודן‬ ‫]דרגלוי‬.

The paraphrase “footstool of his feet,” if anything, intensifies the anthropomorphism.29 The targumim introduce the anthropomorphic ‘mouth’ even where it is lacking in the original Hebrew: Deut 33:9 Neof, V

for they observed your word [‫]אמרתך‬ for they observed the word of your mouth [‫]מימר פומך‬

CG: Cairo Genizah fragments of Palestinian Targum. Subsequently published in M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian to the Pentateuch (Cincinnati: 1986). Part of the collection appears in P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens II (Stuttgart, 1930, and Hildesheim, 1967), and in scattered articles in various journals. PsJ: Pseudo-Jonathan, ed. D. Rieder, Pseudo-Jonathan: Targum Jonathan ben Uziel wwon the Pentateuch . . . (Jerusalem, 1974). O: Onqelos ed. A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic 1 (Leiden, 1959). 29 Contrast 1 Chron 28:2, “the footstool of our God,” with Tg Chron, “the footstool of the throne of glory of God.” See also tg Isa 66:1.

translation of anthropomorphisms & anthropopathisms 67 Likewise the expansive introductions to the Ten Commandments in the various Palestinian Targumim follow the pattern: “The first statement, as it emerged from the mouth of the Holy One, may his name be blessed . . .” (‫( )דבירא קדמאה כד נפק מן פום קודשא‬Exod 20:1 Neof, P, PsJ). One last example regarding human parts of the body: Deut 11:12 Neof, V

the eyes of the Lord your God are always upon it the eyes of the Lord your God are gazing upon it [‫עיינוי די'י אלהכון‬ ‫]בה מסתכלין‬

The above examples of hand, palm, feet, mouth and eyes are sufficient, I believe, to prove that the targumim are not consistently antianthropomorphic. In fact, we may go one step further: had the early mĕturgĕmān been troubled by biblical anthropomorphisms, he might have disposed of these obvious instances with little effort. Apparently, he was simply not interested. V. Pseudo-Anti-Anthropomorphisms I have thus far presented examples of anthropomorphisms which are literally transmitted in the targumim. There is another class of expressions which have been altered in the course of their translation, for non-theological reasons, but which have nevertheless been presented in the past as evidence of the anti-anthropomorphic nature of the targumim. (Two of the four examples cited above from Sa‘adiah fall into this category.) It is methodologically essential to determine the cause of a particular paraphrase before it may be applied as proof of the theological and doctrinal motivations of the translator. To reverse the order is to beg the question. The following are some examples: The biblical expression “crying/complaining in the ears of the Lord” (‫ )באזני יהוה‬is translated “. . . in the hearing of the Lord” (‫במשמעיה‬ ‫ )די'י‬in all three cases in Neofiti, and “. . . before the Lord” (‫)קדם יוי‬ in Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan.30 I submit, however, that none of these transformations is in any way related to the philosophic problem of anthropomorphism. The evidence for this assertion lies in the fact that the targumim employ the very same idiomatic paraphrase

30

Num 11:1, 18; 14:28.

68

chapter five

in the purely human context in no fewer than 14 instances.31 In fact, the substitution of the Aramaic “in the hearing of ” for the original Hebrew “in the ears of ” was so common, that it actually became a fixed translational equivalent for the marginal annotator of Ms. Neofiti, who then applied it ad absurdum. Thus, in Gen 35:4, the phrase “and the rings that were on their ears,” which is rendered literally in all the targumim, is hyper-corrected in Neof gl to “[the rings] that were in their hearing” (‫!)דאית במשמעהון‬ Another example is the biblical expression “found favor in the eyes of the Lord” which is translated in Neofiti in five instances “. . . before the Lord,”32 and in five others “. . . in the face of the Lord.”33 First, the “face of the Lord” is no less anthropomorphic than is “the eyes of the Lord.” Second, the transformation to “before the Lord” is not for the purpose of avoiding the anthropomorphism. In the purely human context, in Deut 24:1, the wife who fails “to find favor in his [the husband’s] eyes” is rendered by Neofiti “if she does not find favor and grace before him.” We find the same idiomatic paraphrase in a Palestinian Targum (Cambridge University Library T-S Misc. 27.1.4; = Ms. D) to Gen 47:29, where Jacob says to Joseph “If I have found favor in your eyes,” and the targum reads “If, now, I have found favor and grace before you.”34 A third and final example of such pseudo-anti-anthropomorphisms is the Hebrew expression “by the mouth of ” (‫ )על פי‬which is translated in both divine and human contexts “by the word/decree of.” As in the two previous examples, the targumim transmit the intended meaning of the phrase, and not a literal one-for-one translation of its elements. For instance, in Gen 41:40, Pharaoh says to Joseph “and by your mouth shall all my people be directed.” The following are the targumic renderings: Neof CG35 PsJ O

31 32 33 34 35

And by the decree of your mouth [‫ ]גזירת פומך‬shall all my people be fed And [by] the word of [your] mouth [[‫ ]מימר פימ]ך‬shall all [my people] be fed And by the decree of the word of your mouth [‫]גזירת מימר פומך‬ And by your word [‫]מימרך‬.

E.g., Gen 20:8; 23:10, 13, 16; 50:4; Exod 10:2; 11:2; 17:14. Gen 6:8; Exod 33:12, 13, 16; 34:9. Gen 18:3; Exod 33:13, 17; Num 11:11, 15. On the preposition ‫“( קדם‬before”) see n. 8, above. Cambridge University Library, T-S NS 76.1.

translation of anthropomorphisms & anthropopathisms 69 Clearly, in this human context the substitutions of “your word, the word of your mouth, the decree of your mouth” and the composite “decree of the word of your mouth,” have absolutely nothing to do with anthropomorphism. They must rather be compared to the modern renditions “as/at your command” (RSV, Torah), which are simply idiomatic. In Gen 45:21, the Hebrew “by the mouth of Pharaoh” becomes “by the decree of Pharaoh’s mouth” [Neof ], and “by Pharaoh’s word” (‫ ;מימרא‬PsJ, O). Likewise, in Deut 17:6, “upon the mouth of two witnesses,” becomes “upon the mouth of the word [‫ ]פם מימר‬of two witnesses” (Neof )36 and “upon the word [‫ ]מימר‬of two witnesses,” (PsJ, O). Here the modern translations use “evidence” (RSV) and “testimony” (Torah). To sum up, then, it is clear that figurative phrases such as “spoke in the ears of ” or “found favor in the eyes of ” or “upon the mouth of ” which are common in biblical Hebrew, are rendered idiomatically in the targumim. The elimination of ears, eyes and mouth and the introduction of “decree” or “word” (‫ )מימרא‬in these cases, are not to be related to the theology of anti-anthropomorphism. VI. Mēmrā’ The present framework does not allow for a full treatment of the uses of ‫ מימרא‬in the targumim. Nevertheless, in view of the recent works by D. Muñoz Leon, R. Hayward and others,37 it is impossible to discuss the problem of anthropomorphisms in the targumim without at least touching upon the subject of ‫מימרא‬. It is generally accepted that ‫ מימרא‬of the targumim is not a personification or a hypostasis, but rather a nominal substitute.38 Its

36 The Aramaic ‫על פם מימר תרין סהדין‬, of course, means “according to the word of two witnesses,” just as the Hebrew ‫( על פי הגורל‬Num 26:56) means “according to the lot” and ‫( על פי התורה‬Deut 17:11) means “according to the instruction.” My use of “by the mouth of ” has come only to convey the literal language of the texts, and does not ignore their figurative or idiomatic sense. 37 See notes 22 and 24, above, and M. McNamara “Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum,” Expository Times 79 (1967–8), pp. 115–17; L. Sabourin, “The MEMRA of God in the Targums,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 6 (1976), pp. 79–85 (review of Muñoz). 38 E.g., G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge, Mass., 1923) Vol. 1, p. 419: “. . . nowhere in the Targums is memra a ‘being’ of any kind or in any sense, much less a personal being.” With many more targumic texts available today, that statement still holds.

70

chapter five

conceptual origins lie in such biblical verses as Ps 33:6, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, by the breath of his mouth all their hosts.” The idea is also paralleled in early rabbinic literature in statements such as “with ten statements [‫ ]מאמרות‬the world was created” (m. Avot 5:1)39 and the liturgical benediction “Who with his word created the heavens” (‫( )באשר במאמרו ברא שחקים‬b. Sanhedrin 42a). In the targumim ‫ מימרא‬appears as the subject of sentences in place of God’s name or pronoun, in almost every type of context. It is found with 46 different verbs, and in sundry possessive phrases. Applying both deductive and inductive methods, Muñoz León and Hayward try to discover the relationship of ‫ מימרא‬to the Godhead. They also search for a systematic pattern of employment of the term in the targumim (esp. Neofiti and its glosses). There are several verses in Exodus in which the Palestinian targumim seemingly define that relationship: Exod 3:12 MT Neof Neof gl MT Neof Neof gl

‫כי אהיה עמך‬ ‫ארום אהווי מימרי עמכא‬ ‫יהווי בסעדך‬ For I shall be with you For I shall be my ‫ מימרא‬with you [For] it [my ‫ ]מימרא‬shall be in your support.

Hayward believes that the targum is defining the term ‫ מימרא‬and equating it with God’s name ’EHYEH, which represents his past and future “active presence” in creation and history. The difficulty with this theory is that the word in the present verse is no more than the simple verb “to be.” It is not until Exod 3:13–14 that ’EHYEH serves as a proper name: ‫ ויאמר אלהים אל משה אהיה אשר‬.‫ואמרו לי מה שמו מה אמר אליהם‬ .‫ ויאמר כה תאמר לבני ישראל אהיה שלחני אליכם‬.‫אהיה‬ And they will ask me “What is his name?” What shall I say to them? And God said to Moses, “’Ehyeh-’Asher-’Ehyeh.” And he said, thus shall you say to the Israelites, “’Ehyeh sent me to you.”

The variant modern translations for the name are “I Am Who I Am” or “I Will Be Who I Will Be”—both related to the root ‫היה‬, “to be.”

39 The ten statements refer to the ten occurrences of the phrase “God said” (same Hebrew root ‫ אמר‬as in ‫ מאמר‬and ‫ )מימרא‬in the creation story at the beginning of Genesis.

translation of anthropomorphisms & anthropopathisms 71 The phrase “God was/will be with someone” is fairly common in the Pentateuch. The following examples represent the various possible translations in the Palestinian targumim: a) literal Gen 39:2 Neof Gen 39:3 Neof

‫ויהי יהוה את יוסף‬ ‫והוה י'י ית]![ יוסף‬40 ‫וירא אדניו כי יהוה אתו‬ ‫וחמא רבוניה ארום י'י הווה עמיה‬ b) addition of ‫במימרא‬ Gen 26:3 ‫ואהיה עמך‬ Neof ‫ואהווה במימרה]![ עמך‬ Gen 31:3 ‫ואהיה עמך‬ Neof ‫ואהוי בממרי עמך‬ c) translation of ‫ עם‬or ‫“( עמדי‬with”) by ‫“( בסעדא‬in support of ”) Gen 28:20 ‫אם יהיה אלהים עמדי‬ Neof ‫אן יהווי י'י בסעדי‬ d) addition of ‫ במימרא‬and the translation of ‫ עם‬by ‫בסעדא‬ Deut 31:23 ‫ואנכי אהיה עמך‬ Neof ‫ואנה בממרי אהוי בסעדך‬ This last compound type is the standard rendition in Neof gl and in CG.41 There is, however, an unusually high incidence of scribal errors in the translation of this phrase. For example: Gen 26:3 Neof

‫ואהיה עמך‬ ‫ואהווה במימרה עמך‬

The third person suffix is used instead of the first person. As already noted, in Gen 39:2, the prepositional ‫“( את‬with”) is translated ‫ית‬. Exod 4:15 Neof Neof gl1 Neof gl2

‫ואנכי אהיה עם פיך‬ ‫ואנא במימרי אלה עם ממלל פמך‬ ‫אהוי‬ ‫הווי עם מלל פמך‬

The word ‫ אלה‬in Neof is inexplicable; the verb ‫ הווי‬in Neof gl2 is an error for the first person singular imperfect. Even in the Cairo Genizah

On the mechanical translation of the prepositional ‫ את‬by ‫ית‬, see my note, “Deut. 31:7, ‫ תביא‬or ‫ ”?תבוא‬JBL 92 (1973), p. 585 [ch. 17 in the present volume]. Also, cf. Gen 39:21, where Neof uses the preposition ‫ עם‬in the same phrase. 41 E.g., CG Gen 28:20; 39:2, 3 and Neof gl Gen 31:3; 39:21. 40

72

chapter five

MSS there are indications of irregularity in the translation of this phrase. For example: Gen 31:3 CG (E)

‫ואהיה עמך‬ ‫מ( בסעדך‬ ֹ ‫ויהי ממרי )ע‬

The scribe apparently began to write ‫עמך‬, stopped short, marked the mem with a dot, and continued with the expected ‫בסעדך‬. It is impossible at this point to prove that the manuscript from which the scribe was copying also read ‫—עמך‬but the possibility certainly exists. Another telling example from the same Genizah text is Gen 28:20, 21:

Gen 28:20 MT CG

‫אם יהיה אלהים עמדי‬ ‫יהוה ממרה די' בסעדי‬

Gen 28:21

‫והיה יהוה לי לאליהם‬ ‫ויהוי ממ' די' בסעדי לאלהּ‬

Here the second ‫ בסעדי‬is mechanically inserted, even though the sense of the verse is not “God will be with me” but rather “the mēmrā’ of the Lord will be my redeeming God” [Heb: “then YHWH will be my God”]. Neof and PsJ, which both use ‫ יהוי ממריה די'י בסעדי‬in v. 20, correctly refrain from introducing it in v. 21. All these examples of confusion and corruption in the various Palestinian targumim lead me to agree with Muñoz, against Hayward,42 that ‫ אהוי‬in the phrase ‫ ארום אהוי ממרי עמך‬is but a scribal error for ‫יהוי‬. It cannot be taken as a statement of definition or identification, “I shall be my mēmrā’ with you.” It would seem that the scribal error reflected here involved the introduction of the word ‫ מימרא‬without the required adjustment of the verb from first to third person (or the common interchange of the initial ’aleph/yod in imperfect verbs in Neofiti, as R. Le Déaut suggested at the Congress). The second verse cited by Hayward is even more confused and corrupt. Exod 4:12 ‫ואנכי אהיה עם פיך‬ Neof ‫ואנא עם ממרי אהיה עם ממלל פמך‬

42 Dios Palabra, p. 38, n. 56, “Ngl corrige con su variante ‘estará;’ ” cf. Hayward, JJS, 27 (1976), p. 94.

translation of anthropomorphisms & anthropopathisms 73 If, as Hayward argues, the targum has intentionally preserved the Hebrew proper name ’EHYEH, then the sentence remains without the imperfect verb “to be.” Furthermore, instead of the phrase ‫ עם ממרי‬we expect ‫בממרי‬. The verse as it stands is meaningless: “and I, with my mēmrā’, ’EHYEH with the speech of your mouth.” This passage can hardly serve as evidence for the meaning of ‫מימרא‬. Regarding the use of ‫ מימרא‬throughout Ms. Neofiti 1, I must agree with Hayward, as opposed to Muñoz, that it is sporadic or even erratic. Hayward has shown that, among the 46 verbs for which ‫ מימרא‬serves as the subject, only six verbs have ‫ מימרא‬more than five times. Regarding the remaining 40 verbs, Hayward notes that the use of ‫“ מימרא‬appears arbitrary and unmotivated by theological considerations.”43 As to the 72 verbs with which ‫ מימרא‬memra appears in Neof gl, Hayward correctly notes that their range of meaning “is so wide as to once again defy any satisfactory classification.” I would add that, even after recent works by Clarke, Lund and Foster,44 the sources of Neof gl remain for the most part shrouded in mystery. As such, one can hardly make statements about the translational tendencies of Neof gl. It is generally acknowledged that the main body of Neofiti is partially composite, and that at least the beginning of Genesis and the end of Deuteronomy derive from distinct sources. The creation narrative at the beginning of Genesis is of particular interest since, as mentioned above, the repetition of the phrase ‫ ויאמר אלהים‬nine times elicited the Mishnaic comment that the world was created through ten ‫מאמרות‬. It is, therefore, inexplicable that only seven of the nine instances contain ‫ מימרא‬in Neof, and that only one of the two “missing” ‫’מימרא‬s is provided by Neof gl.45 This type of inconsistency (and I have presented only one of many examples) pervades the entire Neofiti, in all its identified underlying sources. I find it difficult to believe that an important theological principle would have been handled so carelessly and inconsistently by the early mĕturgĕmān.

43

JJS 25 (1974), pp. 413–14. E. G. Clarke, “The Neofti I Marginal Glosses and the Fragmentary Targum Witnesses to Gen. VI-IX,” VT 22 (1972), pp. 257–65; and S. Lund and J. A. Foster, Variant Versions of Targumic Traditions Within Codex Neofiti 1. SBL Aramaic Studies 2 (Missoula, 1977). 45 Gen 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 20, 24, 29. The word mēmrā’ is missing in Neof in vv. 1 and 26. It is provided in the gloss to v. 26. The verb ‫ אמר‬has the highest number of occurrences of mēmrā’ in Neofiti (19 times). 44

74

chapter five VII. Syntactic Peculiarities of Some Anti-Anthropomorphisms

There is a preponderance of syntactic irregularities in the targumim, in anti-anthropomorphic contexts. Certain syntactic constructions which are normally avoided or even eliminated by the mĕturgĕmān suddenly appear with relative frequency in anti-anthropomorphic translations. For example, the combination of a passive verb with the nota accusativi ‫ את‬appears in the Hebrew Bible some 28 times.46 In 15 instances Neofiti removes the particle ‫את‬, or transforms the verb from passive to active, or makes some other grammatical change. Thus: Num 26:55 ‫אך בגורל יחלק את הארץ‬ Neof ‫לחוד בעדיון תתפלג ארעא‬ Gen 40:20 Neof

‫יום הלדת את פרעה‬ ‫יום גניסיא דפרעה‬

The other targumim also tend to avoid the combination of passive verb plus accusative. It is therefore significant that the very construction that is normally eliminated by the targumim is introduced into the text in the context of anthropomorphisms. The following cases are typical: ‫אלהים יענה את שלום פרעה‬ ‫מן קדם י'י יתענה ית שלמא דפרעה‬ Num 17:19 ‫אשר אועד לכם שמה‬ Neof ‫די אזדמן ממרי לכון תמן‬ Gen 1:4 ‫וירא אלהים את האור כי טוב‬ Neof ‫וגלי קדם י'י ית נהורא ארום טב‬ Exod 2:24 ‫וישמע אלהים את נאקתם‬ Neof, O ‫ושמיע קדם י'י ית קבלתהון‬ Gen 41:16 Neof

Another type of syntactical irregularity is found in the targum when it alters verbs in anthropomorphic phrases without paying attention to the remainder of the verse—and especially to the prepositions. A case in point is

46

See P. Joüon, Grammaire de l’Hébreu Biblique (2nd ed., Rome, 1947), §128, “Accusatif avec verbe passif,” pp. 383 ff. Cf. A. E. Cowley (ed.), Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar as edited and enlarged by the late E. Kautzsch (2nd ed. [= 28th German ed.], Oxford, 1910) § 121, “Construction of passive verbs,” pp. 387 ff.

translation of anthropomorphisms & anthropopathisms 75 Lev 26:31 ‫ולא אריח בריח ניחחכם‬ Neof ‫ולא אקבל ברעווה בריח קרבניכון‬

There are two possible explanations that suggest themselves: 1. In his preoccupation with obviating the anthropomorphism, the mĕturgĕmān inadvertently violated his normally good sense of grammar. 2. The original text was grammatically correct and some later pious copyist removed the anthropomorphisms from what had been a literal translation. In so doing he introduced only minimal changes, often at the expense of grammar and syntax. In view of the many anthropomorphic phrases that have survived unscathed in the Palestinian targumim, I would tend to accept the second of these two alternatives. VIII. Conclusions The long repeated generalization that the targumim avoid or tone down all biblical anthropomorphisms is no longer acceptable. In fact, the targumim in their present textual state are highly inconsistent on this matter, and the frequency of anti-anthropomorphisms is much smaller than has hitherto been asserted. By systematically comparing certain supposed anti-anthropomorphisms to their counterparts in a non-divine context, we have shown that they are common idiomatic and translational phenomena, and not related at all to theology or philosophy. Finally, it would seem that a goodly number of antianthropomorphisms in MS Neofiti 1 are of secondary origin, and do not belong to the original compositional strand of that text.

CHAPTER SIX

ASSOCIATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY TRANSLATION IN THE TARGUMIM* I. Introduction It is a commonplace that the targumim, like the other ancient versions of the Bible, do much more than simply translate the original Hebrew text into another language. The truism that “every translation is of necessity also an interpretation,” applies in varying degrees to all of the many known targumim. In addition to translating parts of the Bible in a literal fashion, the targumim expand upon the Hebrew texts by introducing halakhic interpretations and harmonizations; and they embellish it with expansive aggadic passages. It has been shown that these divergences from the literal are at times even in conscious contradiction of the original Hebrew text.1 It would seem that the meturgeman was fully aware of the targumic process in which he indulged. In some cases he was trying to harmonize the Biblical text with a prevailing Halakha or dogma, in order to properly instruct the Aramaic speaking congregation. And in other cases, he introduced rabbinic legends about the patriarchs, prophets and kings, for the edification of the ancient synagogue listener. There are, however, other types of alteration that the Biblical text has undergone in the course of its “targumification.” These are for the most part changes that were unwittingly introduced into the text by the meturgeman, and which we shall call associative and complementary translations. A literary characteristic of the Hebrew Bible that reflects common Ancient Near-Eastern style, as well as the particular composite nature of the Bible, is the duplication or even triplication of phrases and passages. These repetitions are usually not identical. While generally expressing similar ideas, they tend to vary both in word order and in

* To Professor Harry M. Orlinsky, master of ancient and modern Bible translation. 1 M.L. Klein, “Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique,” Biblica 57 (1976), 515–537 [ch. 2 in the present volume].

78

chapter six

phraseology. The targumim, in many of these cases, equalize the varying texts by translating one of them in conformity with the other—or, less frequently, by altering both versions in a mutually complementary fashion. These associative and complementary translations are found both in passages that are relatively close to one another, as well as in passages remote from one another, and even in different books. The purpose of this study will be to demonstrate by illustration both of these types of targumic transformation. II. Associative Translation The following examples are taken primarily but not exclusively from the various targumim to the Pentateuch: 1. The double phrase ‫ ביד חזקה ובזרוע נטויה‬is quite common in the Book of Deuteronomy, the Prophets and the Writings. These two nouns and their respective modifiers appear in this precise combination and order in no fewer than twelve instances, and they are invariably translated in the targumim ‫מרממא‬/‫בידא תקיפא ובאדרע מנטלא‬2 In Exod 6:6 we find the phrase ‫בזרוע נטויה ובשפטים גדלים‬, which is translated literally in almost all of the targumim. In Ms. Neofiti, however, we find ‫ביד תקיפא ובסדרי דינין רברבין‬. The meturgeman substitutes ‫ יד תקיפא‬for ‫ זרוע נטויה‬because it is situated in the first position of the compound phrase. We find just the opposite substitution in Neofiti to Num 20:20, where the MT reads ‫בעם כבד וביד חזקה‬. Here Neofiti produces ‫בעמא‬ ‫תקיפא ובאדרע מנטלא‬. Since ‫ זרוע נטויה‬usually occupies the second position in the double phrase it is inserted here in place of ‫יד חזקה‬. A similar case is to be found in Exod 32:11, where the MT reads ‫בכח‬ ‫גדול וביד חזקה‬, which is translated by Neofiti ‫בחילך רבה ובאדרעך‬ ‫מנטלתא‬, and “corrected” in the marginal gloss to ‫ובאדרע מנטלה‬. In this last case, an additional associative factor may have been at play, and that is Deut 9:29, ‫ בכחך הגדול ובזרועך הנטויה‬where ‫זרוע נטויה‬ does indeed appear in the second position.

2

E.g., Deut 7:19; 11:2; 1 Kgs 8:422; 2 Chron 6:32.

associative and complementary translation

79

2. The Pentateuch preserves two distinct descriptions of how the manna tasted—both of which are somewhat obscure:3 ‫וטעמו כצפיחת בדבש‬

Exod 16:31 (wafers in honey)

‫וטעמיה כשישין בדבש‬ ‫וטעמיה כשיישיין בידבש‬

Neof V (Frag Tg)

and Num 11:8

‫והיה טעמו כטעם לשד השמן‬ (cake with oil or cream of oil)

Neof V (Frag Tg)

‫והוה טעמיה כטעם ששי]י[ן בדבש‬ ‫והוה טעמי כטעם כששיין בדבש‬

In the Hebrew version of Exodus the taste of the manna is related to honey, whereas in Numbers it is related to oil. However, the two Palestinian targumim cited employ the translation of the Exodus text in Numbers as well. In fact, the associative borrowing stands out in V, in the repeated comparative preposition (kaf ). The phrase ‫ כששיין בדבש‬was introduced as a whole unit without regard for the preceding word ‫כטעם‬. This is in contrast to the other targumim of this verse which are more or less literal: ‫( כטעם דליש במשחא‬O); ‫( כטעם ביזא די מסרבלא בשומנא‬PsJ); ‫( כשישיין רוטבא דשומנא‬Neof gl ). 3. The patriarchs Abraham and Jacob are informed that their names are to be changed. The statements regarding their previous names are strikingly similar:

3

The following sigla are used in the citation of Targumic texts: CG: Cairo Genizah MSS; Fragments of Palestinian Targum. L: MS Leipzig-Universität B. H. Fol. 1. N: MS Nürnberg, Stadtbibliothek Solger 2.2°. Neof: MS Vatican Neofiti 1, ed. A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1 (Madrid 1968–78). Neof gl: Marginal and interlinear glosses in Neofiti. Onq: Onqelos, ed. A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic I, (Leiden 1959). P: MS Paris Hébr 110 (Bibliothèque Nationàle). PsJ: Pseudo-Jonathan, ed. D. Rieder, Targum Jonathan ben Uziel on the Pentateuch (Jerusalem 1974). P, V and the major variants from N and L are according to M.L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums (Rome 1980). A new comprehensive edition of the CG fragments is in preparation by the present writer [Subsequently published as GMPT (Cincinnati: HUC Press, 1986).] Many of these MSS were published by P. Kahle in his Masoreten des Westens II and by others.

80

chapter six ‫ולא יִ ָקּ ֵרא עוד את שמך אברם‬ ‫ולא יתקרי תוב ית שמך אברם‬

Gen 17:5 Neof

‫לא יעקב יֵ ָא ֵמר עוד שמך‬ ‫לא יעקב יתקרי עוד שמך‬

Gen 32:29 Neof CG Oxford Ms. Heb. B 4 in contrast to: PsJ, O Neof gl

‫לא יעקב יתקרי מן כדון שמך‬ ‫לא יעקב ]א[יתאמר עוד שמך‬ . . . ‫יתאמ]ר[ עוד‬. . .

The meturgemanim of Neofiti and of the Oxford Ms. (Genizah) have produced an associative translation substituting ‫ יתקרי‬for ‫ יתאמר‬in Gen 32. 4. When the spies return from Canaan with their frightening report, the Israelites decide to appoint a leader and return to Egypt. The expression used in Num 14:4 is ‫נִ ְתנָ ה ראש‬, which is translated by the Palestinian Targumim: Neof (=V) PsJ

‫נשוי עלינן מלך‬ ‫נמני עלן מליך‬

in contrast with the literal ‫ נמני רישא‬in Onqelos. The Palestinian targumim have apparently introduced the phrase ‫ימה עלי מלך‬ ָ ‫ ָא ִשׂ‬from Deut 17:14, which is translated ‫אמני עלינן מלך‬ [Neof]; ‫[ נשווייה‬Neof gl]. This also accounts for the added preposition ‫עלינן‬/‫ עלן‬in Numbers. 5. A simple illustration from the Targum to the Prophets is Judg 13: ‫ ואשתו עקרה ולא ילדה‬which is translated ‫ואתתיה עקרה ולית לה ולד‬ rather than the literal ‫( ולא ילידת‬cf. Tg Isa 54:1). In this case, it was Gen 11:3, ‫=( ותהי שרי עקרה אין לה וָ ָלד‬O, PsJ ‫ לית ליה ולד‬. . .) which served as the associative source for the meturgeman. 6. An outstanding example of association in the targumim is the transference of an entire midrashic passage from one book to another. Exod 23:5 Neof

‫ עזב תעזב עמו‬. . . ‫כי תראה חמור שנאך רבץ תחת משאו‬ ‫ משבק‬. . . ‫ארום תחמי חמרא דשנאך רביע תחות טעוניה‬ ‫תשבק כל מה דבלבך על חברך ומפרק תפרק עמה ומטען‬ ‫תטען עמיה‬

associative and complementary translation

81

When you see the ass of your enemy crouching under its burden . . .abandon that which is in your heart against your fellow, and unload [the burden] with him and [re]load [the burden] with him.

The midrash of “abandoning the hatred” is based upon the common meaning of the verb ‫“ עזב‬leave, abandon” and the fact that the owner of the animal is described as “your enemy.” Both of these elements are missing from the similar law in Deut 22:4, ‫לא תראה את חמור‬ ‫ הקם תקים עמו‬. . . ‫אחיך או שורו נפלים בדרך‬. Here the owner is “your brother” and the verb is ‫“ הקם‬raise up.” Nevertheless the Palestinian targum according to Ms. Neofiti 1 reads as follows: ‫ משבוק תשבוק‬. . . ‫לא תחמי ית חמריה ]דאחוך[ או תורה מטלקין באורחא‬ .‫מה דבלבך עלוי ומפרוק תפרוק ומטעון תטעון עמיה‬ The duplication of verbs at the end of both verses ‫מפרוק תפרוק ומטעון‬ ‫תטעון‬, represents a mutually complementary translation of the type that we are about to discuss. In the rabbinic legal discussion (e.g., b. Baba Meṣiʿa 32a) ‫ עזב תעזב‬is interpreted as unloading (=‫ )פריקה‬and ‫ הקם תקים‬as reloading (=‫)טעינה‬. The Palestinian targumim bring both of these activities together in a complementary manner. III. Complementary Translation In the examples cited above, the meturgeman introduces material from one verse into the targum of another. In the following group of cases the diverse elements of two similar verses coalesce in the targumic process. The composite translation is used by the meturgeman in both verses, even though it is not the literal representation of either. Another way of viewing the complementary translation is that in verse A the translator introduces additional elements from verse B, and in verse B he inserts material from A. The process is one of double or mutual association although the resultant targum is the same for both verses. The following examples will serve as illustrations: 7. In Gen 4:2, Cain is described as ‫ ;עובד אדמה‬and in Gen 9:20, Noah is called ‫איש אדמה‬. The Pseudo-Jonathan targum uses the compound phrase ‫ גבר פלח בארעא‬to translate both epithets. This is in contrast with the simple ‫ פלח בארעא‬found in Onqelos and Neofiti to Gen 4:2.

82

chapter six

8. In Gen 12:13, when Abraham and Sarah are about to enter Egypt, Abraham requests of his wife ‫“ אמרי נא אחתי את‬Say then that you are my sister.” In Gen 20:13, Abraham under similar circumstances relates to Abimelech that he had requested of Sarah: “Whatever place we come to, ‫ אמרי לי אחי הוא‬say of me, ‘He is my brother.’ ” In Neofiti to these verses we find: Gen 12:13 Gen 20:13

‫אמרי כען לי אחתי את‬4 ‫אמרי כען עלי אחי הוא‬

Contrast this with Pseudo-Jonathan ‫ אמרי בבעו דאחתי אנת‬and ‫אמרי‬ ‫עלי דאחי הוא‬, respectively. Neofiti contains a mutually complementary translation, which does not suit both contexts equally. Whereas the word ‫“( כען‬now,” “then” or even “please”) could readily be added in 20:13, the preposition ‫עלי‬/‫ לי‬is somewhat out of place in 12:13, producing “say then of me: I am his sister.” The instinctive association was not always checked out fully for its contextual or syntactic suitability. 9. In Gen 16:5, Sarah invokes God’s intervention in defending her dignity, requesting that He judge between her and Abraham: MT Neof (contrast Onqelos

‫ישפט יהוה ביני וביניך‬ ‫יתגלי י'י וידון ביני ובינך‬ ‫)ידין יוי בינא ובינך‬

In Gen 31:49, Laban calls upon the Lord to be a witness that neither he nor Jacob will harm one another: MT Neof CG (Leningrad-Antonin 542) (contrast Onqelos

‫יצף יהוה ביני ובינך‬ ‫יתגלי י'י וידון ביני ובינך‬ ‫יצפי מימרה דיי וידון ביני ובינך‬ ‫)יסך מימרא דיוי בינא ובינך‬

In both of these cases, the single verbs ‫ ישפט‬and ‫ יצף‬are translated by the compound phrase ‫ וידון‬. . . ‫ יתגלי‬in Neofiti (‫ וידון‬. . . ‫יצפי‬ in CG). It would seem that the associative source of both elements is Exod 5:21, ‫יֵ ֶרא יהוה עליכם וישפט‬, whose literal translation in Neofiti is ‫יתגלי‬

4 See M. Klein, “Notes on the Printed Edition of MS Neofiti 1,” JSS 19 (1974), 220, regarding this reading [ch. 19 in the present volume].

associative and complementary translation

83

‫ י'י עליכון וידון‬and CG C.U.L. T-S B 8.12 ‫י]תג[לי ממ]רי[ה די̀ס עליכון‬ [‫ויד]ון‬.5 To “be revealed and to judge” is then the mutually complementary translation for either of the two verbs. 10. Two similar and proximate verses, regarding the results of mistreatment of the underprivileged are as follows: Exod 22:22 Neof CG A (=CUL T-S 20.155)

‫כי אם צעק יצעק אלי שמע אשמע צעקתו‬ ‫ויהווי ארום מצווח יצווח עליך קדמי ואשמע ית‬ ‫קל צלותיה ארום חנן ורחמן אנה‬ ‫ויהווי ]אין[ יצווח עליכון קדם יהוה ואשמע‬ ‫בקל צלותיה ארום חנן ורחמן אנה אמר ממרה‬ ‫דיהוה‬

and Exod 22:26 Neof CG A (=CUL T-S 20.155)

‫והיה כי יצעק אלי ושמעתי כי חנון אני‬ ‫ויהוי ארום יצווח עלך קדמי ואשמע ית קל‬ ‫צלותיה ארום חנן ורחמן אנה‬ ‫ויהווי ארום אין יצווח קדמי ואשמע בקל‬ ‫צלותה ארום ח]נן ורחמן אנה[ אמר ממרה‬ ‫דיהוה‬

In v. 22, the opening verb ‫ ויהווי‬and the descriptive ending ‫ארום‬ ‫ חנן ורחמן אנה‬are supplied from v. 26. Likewise, in v. 26, the object ‫ )וצעקתו=( ית קל צלותיה‬is supplied from v. 22. The targum of each of these verses is complemented by that of the other. Similarly, in Exod 22:22, the reduction of the infinitive absolute plus the conjugated verb ‫ צעק יצעק‬to the simple verb ‫ יצווח‬in CG A, and the reduction of ‫שמע‬ ‫ אשמע‬to ‫ ואשמע‬in both Neofiti and CG A would seem to be the influence of verse 26. As to the addition of the pronominal /‫עליכון‬ ‫עליך‬, I believe its source lies in the two similar verses in the Book of Deuteronomy: Deut 15:9 Neof

‫וקרא עליך אל יהוה‬ ‫ולא יצוח עלך קדם י'י‬

and Deut 24:15 Neof

5

Cf. 1 Sam 24:15(16), ‫ושפט ביני ובינך וירא‬.

‫ולא יקרא עליך אל יהוה‬ ‫דלא יצוח עלך קדם י'י‬

84

chapter six

We note that in both of these verses, which contextually are closely related to the passages in Exodus, the Palestinian Targum uses the verb ‫ צוח‬to translate the Hebrew ‫קרא‬. The borrowing of the pronoun ‫עליך‬/‫ עליכון‬from these verses in Deuteronomy is, therefore, most likely. We might add parenthetically that the addition of the negative particle in Neof to Deut 15:9 is yet another example of associative translation—the source being Deut 24:15, where the MT reads: ‫ולא יקרא‬. Regarding the doublet ‫חנן ורחמן‬, which translates the single Hebrew adjective ‫חנון‬, here too, we have a very common associative targumic technique, to which the following section of this study is devoted. 11. The targumic expansions within the running texts, as well as the various targumic toseftot, very often cite verses from elsewhere in the Bible. These citations were probably made from memory and are not always in perfect agreement with the Hebrew text as preserved in the MT. The deviations introduced by the meturgemanim would at times seem to be the result of the very same associative forces that are at play in the targumic text proper. A case in point is the aggadic explanation as to why the chief butler did not keep his promise to Joseph and mention his plight to the Pharaoh. The Palestinian targumim to Gen. 40:23 attribute his forgetfulness to Joseph’s dependence upon a human being, rather than upon God alone, thereby violating two verses in the Book of Jeremiah.6 Jer 17:5 P Gen 40:23 contrast Tg Jer and Jer 17:7 P Gen 40:23 Tg Jer

‫ארור הגבר אשר יבטח באדם ושם בשר זרועו‬ ‫לייט יהא גוברא דיתרחץ בבשרא ויהא בישרא רוחצניה‬ ‫ליט גברא דאתרחיץ באנשא וישוי בשרא רחצניה‬ ‫ברוך הגבר אשר יבטח ביהוה והיה יהוה מבטחו‬ ‫בריך יהא גוברא דאיתרחיץ בשום מימרא דיי' וישוי‬ ‫מימרא דיי' רוחצניה‬ ‫בריך גברא דאתרחיץ במימרא די'י ויהי מימרא די'י‬ ‫רוחצניה‬

First, there is the equalization within the citation of 17:5, with the translation of ‫ בבשרא‬for ‫באדם‬. This provides a parallelism between the two stichs, just as they are balanced in v. 7 with ‫מימרא די'י‬. This is

6

Such midrashic anachronism is quite common. The patriarchs studied and fulfilled the entire Bible, even before it was given. See I. Heinemann, Darkei Ha-Agadah, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem 1954), pp. 40–41.

associative and complementary translation

85

in contrast to the literal ‫ אנשא‬in Tg Jer. We then find the word ‫זרעו‬ translated in all of the targumim as ‫רחצניה‬, which clearly reflects the Hebrew ‫ מבטחו‬of v. 7. Next we find ‫ ושם‬of v. 5 translated ‫ ויהא‬in P; and ‫ והיה‬of v. 7 translated ‫[ וישוי‬also in Neof gl]. It would seem that the meturgeman, while recalling that the verses used different verbs, did not recall the correct location of each. A factor that may have contributed to the confusion is the similar verse in Ps 40:5 ‫אשרי הגבר‬ ‫אשר שם יהוה מבטחו‬. 12. Another example of a verse from the Prophets cited in a targumic tosefta is found in the same Paris MS of Fragment Targum to the Pentateuch: P Num 16:1

‫היך מא ד]א[כלון כלביא ית אדמיה דנבות כן יכלון‬ ‫כלביא ית אדמיה דאחאב בחלק יזרעאל‬

The only verse in which a comparison is made between the blood of Ahab and that of Naboth is 1 Kgs 21:19, ‫במקום אשר לקקו הכלבים‬ ‫את דם נבות ילקו הכלבים את דמך גם אתה‬. The major deviations of P from the Kings passage are obvious: the substitution of ‫ אכל‬for ‫לקק‬ (=Tg Kings ‫ )לחך‬and the addition of the location ‫בחלק יזרעאל‬. Once again, what we have is the combination of a substitutive and a complementary associative translation, the source of which being 1 Kgs 21:23, ‫ יזרעאל‬7[‫הכלבים יאכלו את איזבל בחל]ק‬, and two similar verses in 2 Kgs 9:10, 36. IV. The Targumic Doublet A widespread feature in the targumim is the rendition of a single verb or noun by a translational doublet. The origin of many of these doublets can be traced to the Hebrew Bible and their use in the targumim would seem to constitute an additional variety of the associative translation. The following are several examples: 13. Gen 15:13 Neof Exod 18:3

‫כי גר יהיה זרעך‬ ‫ארום גיורין ותותבין יהוון זרעיית בניך‬ ‫גר הייתי בארץ נכריה‬

7 The MT reads ‫בחל‬, but the reconstruction is supported by 2 Kgs 9:10, 36, both of which read ‫בחלק‬.

86

chapter six Neof

‫גיור ותותב הוינא בארעא נכריה‬

and with a slight variation: Exod 2:22 Neof

‫גר הייתי בארץ נכריה‬ ‫דייר ותותב הוינא בארע נוכראה‬

The Hebrew doublet ‫ גר ותושב‬is attested in Gen 23:4; Lev 25:35, 47. 14. The doublet ‫ אודי ושבח‬is the frequent translation of the two Hebrew verbs ‫ שיר‬and ‫השתחוה‬, in the Palestinian targumim. For example: Exod 15:1 Neof

‫אשירה ליהוה‬ ‫נודי ונשבח קדם י'י‬

Gen 24:26 Neof

‫ויקד האיש וישתחו ליהוה‬ ‫ועקד גברא ואודי ושבח לשמא די'י‬8

This doublet is found in the prayer in Dan 2:23 ‫לך אלה אבהתי מהודא‬ ‫ומשבח אנה‬. If this is not the direct source of our targumic doublet, it serves as a good parallel. 15. Another example for which an early parallel may be found in the Book of Daniel is the doublet ‫( רב ושליט‬Dan 2:10). In the targumim this doublet translates the Hebrew ‫גביר‬, ‫איש‬, et al., denoting an important person. For example: Gen 27:29 Neof

‫הוה גביר לאחיך‬ ‫הווי רב ושליט על אחך‬

Gen 44:15 Neof

‫כי נחש ינחש איש אשר כמוני‬ ‫ארום מקסם יקסם רב ושליט דכוותי‬

16. One of the most common targumic doublets is ‫חן וחסד‬, which appears as the translation of the single noun ‫ חן‬over twenty times in Neofiti alone. For example: Gen 18:3

8

‫אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך‬

This, of course, is paraphrastic, and only one of six distinct translations of

‫ השתחוה‬in the Palestinian targumim. See M.L. Klein, Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim of the Pentateuch, (Jerusalem 1982), pp. 151–55. See also pp. 145–51 on translational doublets.

associative and complementary translation

87

‫אן כען אשכחת חן וחסד באפיך‬

Neof

‫וגם מצאת חן בעיני‬ ‫ולחוד אשכחת חן וחסד קדמיי‬

Exod 33:12 Neof

This doublet is found in the Hebrew Bible in Esther 2:17, ‫ותשא חן‬ ‫וחסד לפניו‬. 17. The repeated refrain ‫ וירא אלהים כי טוב‬in the story of the creation is translated in Neof ‫וגלי קדם י'י ארום שפר ותקן‬. The doublet ‫ שפר ותקן‬translates the single words ‫ טוב‬and ‫ ישר‬in other contexts as well: ‫איש כל הישר בעיניו‬ ‫גבר כל דשפר ותקן באפוי‬

Deut 12:8 Neof

‫הטיבו אשר דברו‬ ‫הא שפר ותקן כל מה די מלילו‬9

or Deut 18:17 Neof

The source of association for this doublet would seem to be the Hebrew text of Deut 12:28 ‫כי תעשה הטוב והישר בעיני יהוה אלהיך‬. 18. A final example of a doublet whose source is to be found in the Prophets, is the verb ‫ פסח‬which is translated ‫ פסח ואגן‬three times in the story of the Exodus: ‫ופסחתי עליכם‬ ‫ואפסח ואגן עליכון‬

Exod 12:13 Neof Exod 12:23 Neof and Exod 12:27 Neof

‫ופסח יהוה על הפתח‬ ‫ויפסח ויגן מימריה די'י על תרע אבהתה דבני ישראל‬

10

‫אשר פסח על בתי בני ישראל‬ ‫די פסח ויגן על בתיהון דבני ישראל‬

The source for this doublet which suggests itself is Isa 31:5, ‫כצפרים‬ ‫עפות כן יגן יהוה צבאות על ירושלם גנון והציל פסוח והמליט‬.

9

The addition of the word ‫ כל‬is associative, reflecting Deut 5:25(28) ‫היטיבו כל‬

‫אשר דברו‬. 10

For the additional ‫ )אבהתא( דבני ישראל‬see the next verse cited (Exod 12:27).

88

chapter six V. Conclusion

I believe that all of the foregoing examples—and they are only samples of a ubiquitous targumic practice—illustrate the power of association in the mind of the meturgeman. If the general learning process in ancient times placed emphasis on committing texts to memory, this was the case even more so with the meturgeman, whose profession involved reciting the Biblical text in translation, by heart, in the synagogue. It was only natural that he would from time to time unwittingly confuse similar phrases or passages, even if their places of origin were remote from one another. This being the situation, one must examine instances of targumic divergence from the Hebrew Bible for the possibility of associative translation before arriving at conclusions regarding textual variants in the Vorlage text. VI. Epilogue: A Caveat Having presented all of the above examples of associative and complementary translation in the targumim, a word of caution in the reverse might be in place. There are cases which on the surface seem to reflect targumic association with some similar verse. However, upon further investigation, another, more plausible solution presents itself. 19. A case in point is Deut 31:28, ‫כל זקני שבטיכם ושטריכם‬, which is translated in Neofiti ‫כל חכימי שבטיכון דייניכון וסרכיכון‬. The addition of the word ‫ דייניכון‬would have seemed to reflect the well-attested Hebrew pair ‫ שופטים ושוטרים‬found, for instance, in Deut 16:18. However, the LXX to Deut 31:28 reads: τους φυλαρχος υμων, και τους πρεσβυτερους υμων, και τους κριτας υμων, και τους γραμματοεισαγωγεις υμων. It is, therefore, quite possible, that a common variant Vorlage, such as ‫ כל זקני שבטיכם שופטיכם ושוטריכם‬underlies both the Palestinian Targum and the Septuagint.

SECTION II

CHAPTER SEVEN

A FRAGMENT-TARGUM OF ONQELOS FROM THE CAIRO GENIZAH The phenomenon of ‘fragment-targum’ has been known for hundreds of years, among Ashkenazic and Sephardic manuscripts, as well as among the fragments of oriental manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah. However, the previously known fragment-targums were all extracts of the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. This article presents the first extant example of fragment-targum of Onqelos. A comparison with the Palestinian fragment-targums to Numbers 16–18 indicates that this is a unique text and that there is no textual or redactional relationship between it and its Palestinian counterparts, except for the fact that they may both be categorized as fragment-targums.

Targumic studies have enjoyed a rejuvenation in recent decades. Early fragments of targum to Leviticus and Job were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. A complete exemplar of a Palestinian targum was identified among the Hebrew manuscripts of the Vatican Library. Numerous fragments of Palestinian targum and fragment-targum, expansive targumic toseftas, and liturgical targumic poems have turned up in the various collections of Cairo Genizah manuscripts throughout the world. All of these have contributed to the philological study of Jewish Aramaic, rabbinic exegesis of the Bible, medieval Jewish liturgy, and the synagogal and academic settings of targumic literature—subjects on which Jonas Greenfield has himself made significant contributions. The phenomenon of “fragment-targum” has been known for hundreds of years1 but is not fully understood to this very day. Scholars have yet to discover the rationale behind these sporadic collections of single words, phrases, verses, and even brief passages of targum. What is known is that such selective anthologizing was quite common, since at least three or four major textual families of fragment-targum

1 The first printed edition of a fragment-targum appeared in the Bomberg Rabbinic Bible (Venice, 1517–18). The first modern edition was published by M. Ginsburger, as Das Fragmententhargum (Berlin, 1899).

92

chapter seven

have survived.2 Moreover, the medieval copying of these collections, and by inference their use for study or in the synagogue, was indeed widespread. Ashkenazic and Sephardic manuscripts, as well as fragments of Oriental manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah, have come down to us.3 The fragment-targums known until most recently were all extracts of the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. Therefore, it came as a pleasant surprise when, in the process of preparing a descriptive catalog of targum manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah collections,4 I stumbled on a leaf of the first known exemplar of fragment-targum of Onqelos. The brief catalog description of the new manuscript reads as follows: C.U.L. T-S B 12.20 Numbers 16:1–18:27 Paper; 1 leaf; 18.2 × 13.0 cm; 1 column; 19 lines; Oriental semi-cursive script, with occasional square letters (especially ’aleph); 12–13 Century; very sporadic Tiberian vocalization; divine name ‫ ;י'י‬contains a single Hebrew lemma (17:24) and sporadic insertions of Sa‘adya’s Judeo-Arabic translation; bottom line contains only one word, verso blank.

The leaf begins with the opening verse of a parašâ and ends abruptly with only a single word on the last line; the verso of the leaf is entirely blank. These facts raise the question of whether the fragment was part of a more extensive work or merely a single (experimental?) page.

2 See M. L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch, vol. 1: Introductory Essays (An-Bib 76; Rome, 1980) 14–42; and idem, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Cincinnati: 1986) l.xxvi. See also the basic study: idem, “The Extant Sources of the Fragmentary Targum to the Pentateuch,” HUCA 46 (1975) 115–37. An attempt to solve the mystery of their rationale that came to my attention after this article was submitted is Ronald M. Campbell, A Fragment-Targum without a Purpose? The Raison-d’être of MS Vatican Ebr. 440 (Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill., 1994 [advisor: P. V. M. Flesher]). 3 Ashkenazic: MSS Vatican Ebr. 440, Nürnberg-Stadtbibliothek Solger 2,2º and Leipzig-Universität B. H. fol. 1. Sephardic: MS Paris Bibliothèque nationale Hébr. 110. Oriental: MSS British Library Or. 10794 and Cambridge University Library (C.U.L.) T-S AS 72.75–77. 4 M. L. Klein, Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections (Cambridge, 1992).

a fragment-targum of onqelos from the cairo genizah 93 The appended comparative chart indicates that, from among a total of 90 biblical verses between Num 16:1 and 18:27, passages from only 14 verses of Onqelos were included in this fragment-targum. Only seven of these are the same verses for which either of the extant Palestinian fragment-targums preserves passages. In two instances (16:13 and 17:3), the phrases preserved for verses common to the present manuscript and the other fragment-targums are mutually exclusive. It is therefore clear that no textual or redactional relationship exists between the present manuscripts and its Palestinian counterparts, except for the fact that they may be both categorized as fragment-targums.5 C.U.L. MS T-S B 12.20 Numbers

‫( ובען אתון אף כהונתא‬10) ‫( סגי לכון איי כל כנישתא‬3) ‫( ואתפלג‬16:1) ‫( הוו זמינין לקדם י'י את ואינון‬16) ‫( אף אתרברבה‬13)  ֗ ‫רבתא‬ ‫( אם כמותא דכל אנשא‬29) ‫( ארי לא מרעותי‬28) ‫ואהרן מחר‬ [‫ימותון אילין וסוערא דכל אינשא יסתער עליהון לא י]'י‬ ‫שלחני אם מאת הא כמות כל אלנאס וטולבו‬ ‫( פכאן ענד‬31) ‫במטאלבתהם פליס אללה בעת בי‬ ‫( ַט ִסין רדידין‬17:3) ‫פראגה מן קול הדה אלכלאם‬ ‫( אתון גרמתון דמית עמא דיו‬6) ‫( אם ארתפעתם מן בין הדא אלגמאעה‬10) ‫( והא יעא חוטרא דאהרן לבית לוי ואפיק לבלבין‬23) ‫וְ ַאנֵ יץ נַ ץ וכפית שיגדין פאכרגת פרועא ונורת‬ ‫( ויראו ואשתמודעו נסיבו‬24) ֗ ‫נוארא ועקדת לוזא‬ ‫( ואמרו בני יש' למשה למימר הא מיננא‬27) ‫גבר חוטריה‬ ‫קטלית חרבא הא מיננא בלעת ארעא הא מיננא‬ ֵ ‫( ואמר יי' לאהרן בארעהון לא תחסין‬18:20) ‫מיתו במותנא‬ ‫וחולק לא יהי לך ביניהון מתנן יהבית לך אנון חולקך‬ ‫( ותתחשיב לכון‬27) ‫ואחסנתך בגו בני ישראל‬ ‫אפרשתכון כעיבורא מן אידרא וכמלאתא מן‬  ֗ ‫מעצרתא‬

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .10 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 .17 .18 .19

5 The numbers in parentheses in the Aramaic text and in the English translation are the biblical citations of chapter and verse. The numbers in the margins are the line numbers in the manuscript.

94

chapter seven

Translation 1. (Num 16:1) And he separated. (3) Enough for you! For all the community (10) and you also seek the high priesthood 2. (13) also rule [over us] (16) stand ready before the Lord—you, they 3. and Aaron tomorrow (28) but not of my devising. (29) If these [persons] die 4. the death of all mankind, and the fate of all mankind befalls them, then God has not 5. sent me. [Arabic: if these die the death of all mankind and they 6. share a common fate (?), then Allah has not spoken (?) to me. When he had 7. finished all of this speech] (17:3) flat-hammered sheets as plating for the altar 8. (6) you have caused the death of the Lord’s people 9. (10) [Arabic: remove (?) yourselves from among this people] 10. (23) And the staff of Aaron of the house of Levi had sprouted and brought forth buds, 11. produced blossoms, and borne almonds [Arabic: brought forth buds, 12. produced blossoms and borne almonds]. (24) And they saw: And they made acknowledgment, and each one 13. took his staff. (27) And the Israelites said to Moses as follows: Some of us 14. were killed by the sword, some of us were swallowed up by the earth and some of us 15. died in the plague. (18:20) And the Lord said to Aaron: You shall not have an inheritance in their land 16. nor shall you have a portion among them; I have given you [priestly] gifts—they shall be your inherited 17. portion among the Israelites (27) and that which you set apart 18. will be considered for you as grain from the threshing floor and as the rich juice 19. from the wine press.

a fragment-targum of onqelos from the cairo genizah 95 Comparative Chart of Verses Preserved T-S B 12.20 Onqelos

Palestinian Fragment-Targums Paris 110 Vatican 440

Sa‘adya

Numbers 16:

17:

18:

1 3 10 13 15 16 22 28 29 31 3 6 10 23 24 27 12 20 27

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • — • — • • — • • — • • • — • •

• • • •

— — — — — — — — • • — — • • — — — — —

• • • • • •

• — — • • — — • — — • — — • — — — — —

•

• • • • • • • • •

• — — — • — • • • — • — • • — • • — —

CHAPTER EIGHT

SERUGIN (SHORTHAND) OF ONQELOS FROM THE CAIRO GENIZAH Serugin manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible are well known, ever since A. Neubauer’s article, “The Hebrew Bible in Shorthand Writing.”1 However, for almost a century, the phenomenon remained totally unattested among targum texts. Neubauer identified the serugin phenomenon in manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible with the ‫ נטוריקון‬mentioned in rabbinic literature as a form of mnemonic shorthand writing that employs the first letters of words. However, he was at a loss to explain the newly discovered Genizah texts, which preserved some initial and some medial letters, and which were “certainly too complicated for use in primary schools.”2 In a brief response that followed in the same year, M. Friedlander, like most subsequent scholars, concentrated primarily upon the system of vocalization reflected in the manuscripts. Yet, he comments that “the text of these fragments seems to have been intended as a help for readers in the Synagogue or learners in the schools, enabling them to read in accordance with the traditional pronunciation and modulation, and at the same time warning against mistakes likely to be made, especially by beginners, in the reading of texts without vowel-points and accents. . . .”3 In the following year, Friedlander suggested that because the serugin texts did not have the same sanctity as the complete Hebrew Bible, they could be handled more casually. This also explained why so few serugin texts survived—because when they became worn and fell into disuse, they did not have to be confined to a genizah. “They were thrown away or destroyed when no longer wanted.”4

1

JQR 7 (1894–1895): 361–364. Ibid., 364. 3 M. Friedlander, “A Third System of Symbols for the Hebrew Vowels and Accents,” JQR 7 (1894–1895): 564–567. 4 M. Friedlander, “Some Fragments of the Hebrew Bible with Peculiar Abbreviations and Peculiar Signs for Vowels and Accents,” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 18 (1896): 86–98. 2

98

chapter eight

P. Kahle, on the other hand, felt that the serugin manuscripts could only be used by people who already knew the texts by heart or those who had immediate access to a full consonantal text (“wohl nur von Leuten, die den Text auswendig wussten, bzw. den Konsonantentext daneben hatten”).5 It has more recently been observed that the serugin phenomenon may be related to massoretic activity, in addition to its serving as an economic technique to save on expensive writing materials. With regard to a recently discovered Genizah fragment, E. J. Revell writes, “It seems clear that its main purpose is to mark the correct positions for the accents, so the text is perhaps to be taken as a sort of ‘Manual of the Accent System’ for a scholar or naqdan.”6 In contrast to all of these views, it would seem, that the newly discovered serugin texts of targum, were written in this manner primarily as an economic expedient, since just the beginnings of verses (in T-S B 9.9), or just the first letters of each word from the original text are recorded (T-S AS 66.14 and T-S AS 67.26), regardless of their content, vocalization or accentuation. Moreover, one must adopt the view of Neubauer and Kahle, at least in these instances, that this sort of abbreviation can be useful only to someone who has already memorized most of the targum. This leads us to the conclusion that the present serugin texts were prepared by, or for, the official meturgeman, either

5 P. Kahle, “Beitrage zur Geschichte der hebräischen Punktation,” ZAW 21 (1901): 274. Kahle later wrote on the vocalization of the serugin texts in Masoreten des Westens I (Stuttgart, 1927): 35–36; II (Stuttgart, 1930): 31*–35*, 88–95 (both volumes were reprinted: Hildesheim, 1967). In 1962, I. Yeivin published the first known example of serugin in a text with Babylonian vocalization and accentuation: “A Babylonian Fragment of the Bible in the Abbreviated System,” Textus 2 (1962): 120–139. This discovery broadened the scope of serugin to encompass texts with all of the major systems of vocalization. Although the present targum manuscripts of Onqelos and Jonathan to the Prophets are vocalized in the Tiberian system and their methods of abbreviation differ from that applied to the Hebrew Bible in the Babylonian tradition, the universal application of serugin established by Yeivin is relevant. 6 E. J. Revel, “A New Biblical Fragment with Palestinian Vocalisation,” Textus 7 (1969): 74. Two additional recent works that include treatment of serugin texts of the Hebrew Bible—but again, concerned primarily with the systems of vocalization and accentuation—are the following: Manfred Dietrich, Neue palestinisch punktierte Bibelfragmente [based upon a thesis: Tübingen, 1960] (Leiden, 1968): 35–37, 36*–50*, 74*–78*; and E. J. Revell, Biblical Texts with Palestinian Pointing and Their Accents (Masoretic Studies 4; Missoula, 1977): 203–205. This section is titled: “Brachygraphy and Stress Position.”

serugin of onqelos from the cairo genizah

99

as a preparatory learning device or perhaps as a mnemonic aid for use during the synagogal torah reading. In fact, the small dimensions of the manuscripts would have facilitated their inconspicuous use in the synagogue, where, by strict rule, the meturgeman was forbidden to read the targum from a written text, during the public worship.7 Thus, the three newly discovered serugin texts of targum shed some new light on the practice of the meturgeman in the Medieval eastern synagogue. It should be noted that all three of the serugin manuscripts contain texts from Exodus chapters 18–20, and one of them (AS 69.115) is clearly a collection of festival readings for Shavu‘ot, containing torah, maftir and haftarah for the occasion. It is clear from the different methods of abbreviation in each of these manuscripts, as well as from a comparison of the small section of overlap between AS 66.14 and AS 69.115, that none of the three is a copy of either of the others. It is unusual—perhaps a coincidence—that all three seemingly independent sources should contain almost the same passage from the Pentateuch. [See Postscript below.] As can readily be observed from the appended plates [not included in this reprint—ed.], and as noted in the individual descriptions of the manuscripts, all three texts, when pointed, are in the Tiberian system. However, the vocalization is of no special interest—and certainly not the issue at hand. It has, therefore, not been included in the printed transcription. The description of each of the new manuscripts and its method of abbreviation are presented before each of the texts below.8

7 Y. Meg. 74d: ‫ רבי שמואל בר יצחק עאל לכנישתא חמא חד ספר‬:‫ר' חגיי אמר‬ ‫מושט תרגומא מן גו ספרא א"ל אסיר לך דברים שנאמרו בפה בפה ודברים שנאמרו‬ ‫בכתב בכתב‬. Moreover, in B. Meg. 32a, a prohibition is cited against the reader of

the Hebrew version assisting the meturgeman so as not to give the congregation the false impression that the torah scroll also contains the Aramaic translation: ‫דאמר‬

‫עולא מפני מה אמרו הקורא בתורה לא יסייע למתורגמן כדי שלא יאמרו תרגום כתוב‬ ‫בתורה‬.

8 These descriptions are based upon M. L. Klein, Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections (Cambridge, 1992). The manuscripts were discovered and identified during a sabbatical year provided by Hebrew Union College, that was spent as a Visiting Fellow at Clare Hall (Cambridge University) and as a Visiting Research Associate at the Genizah Research Unit of Cambridge University Library.

100

chapter eight

C.U.L. T-S B 9.99 Exodus 18:1–19:4 Paper; 2 leaves (1 bifolium); 13.9 x 7.0 cm; 1 column; 8 lines; 14–15 Century Oriental linear square script; Tiberian vocalization (until middle of folio 2v); divine name ‫ ;ייָ י‬single Hebrew lemma ‫ בחדש‬at Exod 19:1. Serugin: The first four or five words (occasionally three or six) of each verse are written out in full on a separate line. The number of words is dependent upon their collective length. C.U.L. MS T-S B 9.9 Folio 1r

(Exodus 18)

‫תקין‬

9

‫ושמע יתרו רבא דמדין‬ ‫ודבר יתרו חמוהי דמשה‬ ‫וית תרין בנהא דשום חד‬ ‫ושום חד אליעזר ארי‬ ‫ואתא יתרו חמוהי דמשה‬ ‫ואמר למשה אנא חמוך‬ ‫ונפק משה לקדמות חמוהי‬ ‫ואשתעי משה לחמוהי‬

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8

‫וחדי יתרו על כל טבתא‬ ‫ואמר יתרו בריך ייי דשיזיב‬ ‫כען ידענא ארי רב ייי‬ ‫וקריב יתרו חמוהי דמשה‬ ‫והוה ביומא דבתרוהי ויתיב‬ ‫וחזה חמוהי דמשה ית כל‬ ‫אתן‬ ‫ואמר משה לחמוהי ארי‬ ‫כד הוי להון דינא אתן‬

folio 1v (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8

‫ואמ]ר חמוהי[ דמשה ליה לא‬ ‫את אף עמא‬-‫מלאה תלאי אף‬ ‫כען קביל מני אמלכינך ויהי‬ ‫ותזהר יתהון ית קימיא וית‬

folio 2r (17) (18) (19) (20)

.1 .2 .3 .4

I am grateful to Dr. Stefan C. Reif for his kind support and for facilitating the acquisition of photographs for the plates [not included in this reprint—ed.]. I also wish to thank Prof. Malachi Beit Arie, for his assistance with the dating and geographical identification of the manuscripts.

serugin of onqelos from the cairo genizah ‫ואת תחזי מכל עמא גבר}י{ן‬ ‫וידינון ית עמא בכל עידן‬ ‫אם ית פתגמא הדין תעביד‬ ‫וקבל משה למימר חמוהי‬ ‫ובחר משה בגרין דחילה‬ ‫ודינין ית עמא בכל עידן ית‬ [‫ואז]ל‬ ‫ושלח משה ית חמוהי‬ ‫( ב ח ד ש‬19:1) ‫בירחא תליתאה למיפק‬ [‫ונטלו מרפידים ואתו למדב]רא‬ [‫ומשה סליק לקד]ם[ ייי וקרא לי]ה‬ [‫אתון חזיתון דעבית למצ]ראי‬ ‫)ואט( ונטלית‬

101 (21) (22) (23) (24)

.5 .6 .7 .8

folio 2v (25) .1 (26) .2 (27) .3 .4 .5 (2) .6 (3) .7 (4) .8 .9

C.U.L. T-S AS 66.14 AND AS 67.26 Exodus 19:21–20:18/21 Paper; 3 leaves (including 1 bifolium and one mutilated); 16.9 x 6.3 cm; 1 column; 16–18 lines; Oriental semi-cursive script; 12(?) Century; sporadic Tiberian vocalization; divine name /_; most of verso of AS 66.14 blank. This ms also contains a number of words spelled out in full, especially at the end of verses. Haplograph ‫ ודי במיא מלרע‬in 20:4 ex homoioteleuton. Serugin: All of the words of the original Onqelos text are represented in the text. Most are abbreviated by their first two to four letters. Several final words of verses are written out in full, and the negative particle is denoted by the single letter lamed. C.U.L. MS T-S AS 67.26 Folio 1r

(Exodus 19) [‫ למ ח]ו אס‬/_ ‫( ואמ‬21) [‫בע דלמ יפגר ]קד‬ ‫ למח ויפ מנ‬/_ ‫סגי‬ ‫( ]ו[אף כהנ דקר לשמ‬22) ‫י[תק דלמ‬ ] /_ ‫יקט בה‬ ‫ לא‬/_ ‫( ואמ מש קד‬23) ‫יכ עמ למס לטו‬ ‫דסי ארי את‬

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .10

‫‪chapter eight‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬ ‫‪.15‬‬ ‫‪.16‬‬ ‫‪.17‬‬ ‫‪.18‬‬

‫אסה בנ)?( למי‬ ‫תח ית טו וקדש‬ ‫יתי‬ ‫)‪ (24‬ואמ ליה _‪/‬‬ ‫חות ותס את‬ ‫ואה עמ וכהנ ועם‬ ‫ולא יפג למס לקד‬ ‫_‪ /‬דלמ יקט‬ ‫בהון‬

‫‪folio 1v‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬ ‫‪.15‬‬ ‫‪.16‬‬ ‫‪.17‬‬

‫)‪ (25‬ונח מש לות עמ‬ ‫ואמ להו ‪ (20:1) :‬ומל‬ ‫_‪ /‬ית כל פתג‬ ‫האל למי ‪/ / / :‬‬ ‫)‪ (2‬אנ _‪ /‬אלה דאפק‬ ‫מאר דמצ )למ( מבית‬ ‫עבדותא ‪:‬‬ ‫)‪ (3‬לא יה לך אל אחר‬ ‫בר מנ )‪ (4‬לא תעב‬ ‫לך צל וכ דמ‬ ‫די בשמ מלע וד‬ ‫באר מלר לאר‬ ‫)‪ (5‬לא תסג לה ול‬ ‫תפל אר אנ _‪/‬‬ ‫אלה אל קנ מסע‬ ‫חב אב על בנ‬ ‫מרד על דר תלי‬ ‫וע דר רבע לסנ‬

‫‪folio 2r‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬ ‫‪.15‬‬ ‫‪.16‬‬

‫כד משל בני למ] [‬ ‫בת אבהת )‪ (6‬ועב‬ ‫טב לאל דר לרח‬ ‫ולנט פק ‪.‬‬ ‫)‪ (7‬לא תמ בש ד _‪ /‬אלה‬ ‫למגנ אר ל יזכ‬ ‫_‪ /‬ית דימ בש‬ ‫לשק ‪ (8) :‬הו דכ‬ ‫ית ימ דש לקד‬ ‫)‪ (9‬שת יומ תפ ותע‬ ‫כל עבד )‪ (10‬ויו מ‬ ‫שבע שב קד _‪/‬‬ ‫אלה ל תעב כל‬ ‫עבד את וב ובר‬ ‫עבד ואמת ובע‬ ‫וגי דבקר )‪ (11‬אר‬

‫‪102‬‬

‫‪103‬‬ ‫‪.17‬‬ ‫‪.18‬‬

‫‪serugin of onqelos from the cairo genizah‬‬ ‫שת יומ עבד _‪/‬‬ ‫ית שמ וית ארע‬

‫‪folio 2v‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬ ‫‪.15‬‬ ‫‪.16‬‬ ‫‪.17‬‬

‫ית ימ וית כל‬ ‫דבה ונח ביומ‬ ‫שב על כן בר _‪/‬‬ ‫ית יומ ד שב‬ ‫וקדשה }י{‬ ‫)‪ (12‬יק ית אבו וי אמ‬ ‫בד דירכ יומ על‬ ‫ארע ד _‪ /‬אלה יה‬ ‫לך‬ ‫)‪ (13‬ל תק נפ )‪ (13/14‬ל תג‬ ‫)‪ (13/15‬ל תגנ )‪ (13/16‬ל תסה‬ ‫בחב סהד דשק ‪:‬‬ ‫)‪ (14/17‬ל ]תח[מ בית חבר‬ ‫ל תח ]את[ חב‬ ‫ועב ואמ ותו‬ ‫וחמ וכ די‬ ‫לחברך‬

‫‪recto‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬ ‫‪.15‬‬ ‫‪.16‬‬

‫)‪] (15/18‬וכ[ עם חז ית‬ ‫]ק[לי וי בער וי‬ ‫קל שפ וי טו‬ ‫?תנין וחז עמ וזע‬ ‫]ו[קם מרח ‪:‬‬ ‫)‪ (16/19‬ואם למש מל את‬ ‫עם ונק ול יתמ‬ ‫עם מן קד _‪ /‬דל‬ ‫נמות‬ ‫)‪ (17/20‬ואמ מש לעמ‬ ‫לא תדח אר בד‬ ‫לנס יתכ אתג‬ ‫לכ יק ד_‪ /‬ובר‬ ‫דתה דחלתה על‬ ‫אפיכון בד דל‬ ‫תחבון‬

‫‪verso‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬

‫)‪ (18/21‬וק עמ מר‬ ‫ומש קר לצ‬ ‫אמט די תמ‬ ‫יקר ד_‪: /‬‬

‫‪C.U.L. T-S AS 66.14‬‬

104

chapter eight

C.U.L. T-S AS 69.115 Exodus 20:15/18–23/26; Numbers 28:26–31; Ezekiel 1:1–16 Paper; 2 leaves (1 bifolium, mutilated); 8.5+ x 7.0+ cm; 1 column; 7+ lines; Eastern Oriental semi-cursive script; 13–14 Century; Tiberian vocalization, (only folio Ir unpointed); divine name ‫ייי‬. The end of the torah reading is denoted by ‫ חזק‬and Judeo-Arabic ‫כמל‬, at bottom of folio 1r; ‫ כמל‬also appears at the end of the maftir, at the bottom of folio 1v. These are the readings—torah, maftir and haftarah for the Shavu‘oth festival. Serugin: The first two to four words of each verse are written out in full. Occasionally, only the first word appears (Ezek 1:2, 6). Only the word ‫ ואמר‬is abbreviated ‫( ואמ‬Exod 20:17/20, 19/22). The negative particle ‫ לא‬seems to be twice misspelled (Exod 20:20/23, 23/26)! C.U.L. T-S AS 69.115 folio 1r

(Exodus 20) [:]‫( ואמרו למשה‬16/19) : ‫וכל עמה‬ [:]‫( וקם עמה‬18/20) : ‫ואמ משה‬ [‫( לו)!( ת]עבדון‬20/23) : ‫ואמ ייי למשה‬ [‫( ואמ ]מדבח‬22/25) : ‫מדבח אדמתה‬ [‫ולה)!( תסק בדר]גין‬ ‫כמל‬ ‫חזק‬

(15/18) (17/20) (19/22) (21/24) (23/26)

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6

folio 1v

‫וב]יו[מה דבוכריא ב]ק[רוב]יכו[ן‬ (‫( )מןח‬28) :‫ותקרבון עלתא‬ : ‫]ומ[נחתהון סלתא‬ ‫]ע[שרונא עשרונא‬ ‫צפיר בר עזים חד‬ ‫]בר[ מעלת תדירא‬ ‫כמל‬

(Numbers 28) (26) .1 (27) .2 (29) (30) (31)

.3 .4 .5 .6 .7

folio 2r

[‫( בחמ]שא‬2) : ‫והוה בתלתין‬ [ ] ‫( וחזית‬4) : ‫הוה פתגם‬ [‫( וא]רבעא‬6) : ‫ומגווה דמות‬ [‫ורגליהון רגלין כיו]נין‬ [‫וידין כידי אנשא עב]יד‬ [‫מכוונן חדא לקבל ח]דא‬ ‫א]פי[ אנשא‬ [‫]ו[דמות אפיה]ון‬

(Ezekiel 1) (1) .1 (3) .2 (5) .3 (7) .4 (8) .5 (9) .6 (10) .7

serugin of onqelos from the cairo genizah

‫]ו[אפיהון וגפיהון‬ ‫]ובר[יא לקביל אפהא‬ ‫]וד[מות בריתא חזויהין‬ ‫]וב[ריתא באשתלוחיהון‬ ‫]ו[חזית בריתא וה גלגל‬ [‫חזיו ]ג[ילגליא ועובדי]היון‬ ‫פרישין‬

105 folio 2v (11) .1 (12) .2 (13) .3 (14) .4 (15) .5 (16) .6

Postscript In November 1991, some months after this article was submitted to the editors of MAARAV, I spent several days in the Rare Book Room of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York perusing targumic manuscripts listed in the data base of the J. T. S. Genizah project (prepared by Drs. Niel Danzig and Sol Cohen). Among the interesting discoveries, was a fourth fragment of targum written in serugin—and not from Exodus. Once again, the small size of the page supports the theory that these manuscripts served as inconspicuous aides de mémoire (i.e. “crib notes”) for the meturgeman during the Torah reading in the synagogue. The following is a description of the new fragment and a transcription of the text. J.T.S. ENA 2856.29 (+28) Deuteronomy 32:19–43 Paper; 2 leaves (originally 1 bifolium); slightly mutilated; 12.0 x 6.8+ cm; 1 column; 13 lines; lower quarter of 29r and the entire folios 28r,v and 29v are blank; Oriental semi-cursive script; unpointed, except for colons after each Hebrew and Aramaic phrase. Serugin: The first one to three words of Onqelos for each verse are preceded by a Hebrew lemma of one or two words. J.T.S. ENA 2856.29 RECTO [ ]‫( וירא‬20) : ‫]וירא ייי[ וגלי קדם‬ : ‫ ארי קידום‬.‫( כי אש‬22) : ‫ה]ם[ א[קניו‬ : ‫ נפיחי‬: ‫( מזי‬24) [: ‫ אס]ף עליהון‬: ‫אספה‬ : ‫[ אמרית‬: ‫( אמר]תי‬26) [ ]‫ מברא‬: ‫מחוץ‬ [ ] (28) [: ‫ אילו ל]פון‬: ‫לולי‬

folio 29r .1 .2 .3 .4 .5

(19) (21) (23) (25) (27)

‫‪chapter eight‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬

‫)‪(29‬‬ ‫)‪(31‬‬

‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬

‫)‪(33‬‬ ‫)‪(35‬‬ ‫)‪(37‬‬ ‫)‪(39‬‬ ‫)‪(41‬‬ ‫)‪(43‬‬

‫לו חכמו ‪ :‬אילו חכימ]ו[ ‪] (30) :‬איכה‪ [:‬איכדין ‪:‬‬ ‫כי לא ‪ :‬ארי לא ‪ (32) :‬כי מגפן ‪ :‬ארי כפרענות ‪:‬‬ ‫יוי‬ ‫חמת ‪ :‬הא כמרת ‪ (34) :‬הלא הוא ‪ :‬הלא כל עובדהון‬ ‫לי נקם ‪ :‬קדמי פורענותא ‪ (36) :‬כי ידין ‪ :‬ארי ידין ‪:‬‬ ‫ואמר ‪ :‬וימר אן ‪ (38) :‬אשר חלב ‪ :‬דתרב ‪:‬‬ ‫ראו ‪ :‬חזו כען ‪ (40) :‬כי אשא ‪ :‬ארי אתקנית ‪:‬‬ ‫אם שנותי ‪ :‬אם על חד ‪ (42) :‬אשכיר ‪ :‬אירוי גיררי ‪:‬‬ ‫חרנינו ‪ :‬שבחו עממיא ‪:‬‬

‫‪106‬‬

CHAPTER NINE

NEW FRAGMENTS OF PALESTINIAN TARGUM FROM THE CAIRO GENIZAH* In the Introduction to Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian to the Pentateuch,1 I described the efforts to achieve completeness for that collection, yet realistically predicted that, “additional fragments will inevitably be discovered in the future.” Little did I expect these words to be fulfilled personally, and in so short a time. The following are several “new” fragments, discovered in the course of preparing a descriptive catalogue of targum manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah collections.2 I. Additions to MS E The most extensively preserved manuscript of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch is MS E. The largest portion of its extant text, comprised of 12 complete leaves was brought together and published by P. Kahle in Masoreten des Westens II.3 These consisted of fragments from the Genizah collections of the Bodleian Library in Oxford, Cambridge University Library and the Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library in Leningrad. Twenty-five years later, A. Díez Macho discovered four additional leaves of the same manuscript at the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York.4 All 16 leaves, representing about one-sixth of the Book of Genesis, were included in Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum. . . .5 In the process of systematically

* To the memory of Alejandro Díez Macho. 1 Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986, I, p. XX. 2 Cambridge Genizah Targum Manuscripts, to be published by Cambridge University Press for Cambridge University Library. The series editor is Stefan C. Reif, Director of the Taylor-Schechter Genizah Research Unit, to whom I am grateful for his kind encouragement and assistance. 3 Stuttgart, 1930; reprinted Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967, pp. 29–48. 4 He published them in “Nuevos Fragmentos del Targum Palestinense,” Sefarad 15 (1955), 31–39. 5 See n. 1, above.

108

chapter nine

sifting through and cataloging the targum manuscripts in the New and Additional Series of Taylor-Schechter Collection at Cambridge, two additional leaves of MS E were recently identified. The Taylor-Schechter Collection, which is by far the largest Genizah collection in the world, and in many ways the most important, nevertheless represents the “last pickings” of the Cairo Genizah; and the Additional Series contains the worst-preserved fragments of the Cambridge collection.6 Thus, whereas the earlier published fragments of MS E were virtually complete leaves, we must now content ourselves with two badly mutilated fragments. However, the sad physical state of the fragments, while affecting their quantitative value, in terms of continuous text, in no way detracts from their overall importance. In fact, the newly discovered fragments are the only surviving portions of MS E from outside the Book of Genesis. And while no satisfying reason was offered, the possibility had been suggested, on the basis of several parallels, that MS E originally contained the Palestinian Targum only to Genesis.7 That notion can no longer be entertained. The new fragments are T-S AS 68.224 and T-S AS 68.144, which seem to have originally been conjoined as a single bifolium. They cover Exod 36:8–13, 22–29, and Exod 39:32–40; 40:2–12, respectively. Their codicological and textual features are identical with those of the other known fragments of MS E, namely, parchment, Oriental square script, approximately 15 lines per 10 centimeters, very sporadic Palestinian vocalization, and sporadic Tiberian vocalization plus accents (primarily disjunctives). There is an indentation in the text and traces of a decorative samekh in the corresponding margin to indicate a triennial sidra beginning at Exod 39:33 (AS 68.144r). The divine name, characteristically represented elsewhere in MS E by the letter yod plus a circle, is not preserved in the new fragments (it is reconstructed in Exod 39:32). As to be expected for MS E, there is a very high degree of shared readings with the variants in the marginal glosses of MS Neofiti 1 (Neof gl).8 Most significant of these is the determined form of the 6 As well known, earlier collectors, such as the Archimandrite Antonin and Abraham Firkovitch preceded Solomon Schechter by half a century, while Chester, Sayce, the two Adlers and others acquired their collections several years before Schechter’s famous expedition. 7 M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum, I, pp. XXII–XXIII. 8 Cf. E. G. Clarke, “The Neofiti I Marginal Glosses and the Fragmentary Targum Witnesses to Gen VI–IX,” Vetus Testamentum 22 (1972) 257–265. Note especially

new fragments of palestinian targum

109

feminine singular cardinal number one, which is hitherto unattested in the Genizah targum fragments. The form ḥth was recently identified by S. E. Fassberg for the masculine singular.9 On the basis of parallels in the marginal glosses of MS Neofiti 1, Fassberg posited the same form for the feminine gender. The present fragment of MS E indeed confirms that supposition, providing at least two examples of ḥth in Exodus 36:9, 11, corresponding to the MT Hebrew haʾeḥat, and possibly a third example in verse 12. These are in clear contrast to ḥd and ḥdh which correspond to the MT ʾaḥat and ʾeḥat, in verses 10, 12, and 22 (twice). The following is a transcription of the new fragments. Facsimiles of these, and most of the subsequent fragments, appear in the plates at the end of the article. CUL T-S AS 68.224 (MS E) Exodus 36:8–13, 22–29 [‫( ארך ]ארכה דיר[יעת]ה חדה עשרין‬9) :‫( או̖מן עבד יתהון‬8)

recto .1

[‫ותמני אומי̀ן בא]ומתה ופתיה ארבע אמין‬

.2

[‫( ודבק ית‬10) :‫יריעתה חתה מ]שחה חדה לכל יריעתה‬

.3

[‫חמשתי יריעת]ה חדה לקבל חדה וחמשתי יריעתה‬

.4

?

?

[‫( ועבד ענבין דתכלה על סיטרה‬11) :‫]ד[בק חדה לקבל ]חדה‬ ?

[‫]די[ריעת̀ה חתה ברי̖יה ]בבית דבוקה כן עבד בסיטרה‬ ?

?

[‫( חמשין ענבין‬12) :‫]דירי[עתה ברייתה ב]בית דבוקה תניינה‬ ?

[‫]עבד ביריע[תה חת]ה וחמשין ענבין עבד בסיטרה‬ ?

.5 .6 .7 .8

[‫]דיריעתה ד[אי̖ת בד]בוקה תניינה מתחמיין ענבייה‬

.9

‫( ועבד ח]משין‬13) :‫]חדה לקבל ח[דה‬

.10

[

the parallels in vocabulary between CG E and Neof gl, cited on p. 264. R. Le Déaut had previously noted a similar relationship between the Neofiti marginal glosses and Cairo Genizah MS F, for the Book of Leviticus, cf. “Levitique XXII 26–XXIII 44 dans le Targum Palestinien: de l’importance des gloses du codex Neofiti I,” Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968) 458–471. 9 “Determined Forms of the Cardinal Number ‘One’ in Three Pentateuchal Targumim,” Sefarad 45 (1985) 207–215.

‫‪chapter nine‬‬ ‫‪verso‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬

‫‪110‬‬

‫של ַבֿ ֔שין ̖חד לוקבל ̭חד כן‬ ‫])‪ (22‬תרין צירין ללוחה חתהˋ מ[ ְ‬ ‫?‬

‫]עבד לכל לווחי משכנה‪ (23) :‬ועבד ית לווחי[ה למשכ̭נה עשרין‬ ‫?‬

‫‪.3‬‬

‫]ללוהין לסיטרה דרומיה מן דרומה‪ (24) [:‬וארבעי̀ן חומרין‬

‫‪.4‬‬

‫]דכסף עבד תחות עשרין לווחיה תרין חומר[ין תחות לווחה‬

‫‪.5‬‬

‫]חדה לתרין צירוי ותרין חומרין תחות לווחה חדה[ לתרין ִצירו֒י]‪[:‬‬

‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬

‫?‬

‫?‬

‫])‪ (25‬ולסטרה דמשכנה תניינה לסט[רה צפונייה עבד ע]שרין[‬ ‫?‬

‫]לווחין‪ (26) :‬וארבעין חומריהון כסף ת[רין חומ]̀ר[ין ת]חות לווחה[‬ ‫?‬

‫]חדה ותרין חומרין תיות לווחה חדה[‪ (27) :‬ולסט]רה דמשכנה מערבה[‬ ‫]עבד שתה לווחין ‪ (28) :‬ות[רין לווחין עבד[‬

‫‪.9‬‬

‫??‬

‫]בשיפועייה מן[ מערבה‪ (29) :‬ו]הוון‬

‫‪.10‬‬

‫[‬

‫‪CUL T-S AS 68.144 (MS E) Exodus 39:32–40; 40:2–12‬‬ ‫‪recto‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬

‫?‬

‫)‪ (32‬ותכל ]ו[אשלמ]ת כל פלחנה דמשכן זמ[נה ועבדו‬ ‫בני ישראל כל מה ]די פקד י‪ o‬ית משה כן עב[דו‪:‬‬ ‫?‬

‫‪.3‬‬

‫֔ס‬

‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬

‫[ ועמדוי וח̂ומ‪:‬‬ ‫]ית[ משכ̖נה וית כל מ̭נוי ]‬ ‫])‪ (34‬וית[ ח́פיי משכייה דדכרי ]מסמקין וית חפיי[ משכייה‬

‫‪.6‬‬

‫ ? ?‬ ‫]דס[סגונה וי̖ת פרוכ]תה דפרסה‪ (35) :‬ית ארונה ד[סהדו̖תה‬

‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬ ‫‪.15‬‬

‫])‪ (33‬ויביאו ואייתון ית משכנה ל[וות משה‬ ‫? ???‬

‫?‬

‫]וית אריחוי וי[̖ת כפור]תה‪ (36) :‬ית פתורה וית כל מנוי[ ו̖ית לחם‬ ‫?‬

‫]סדור אפי[ה‪ (37) :‬ית מ]נרתה דכיתה וית בוציניה בו[צינ֛יה‬ ‫??‬ ‫ ?‬ ‫]דאנאהרותה וית[ כל מ]נוי[ ̖וית ]משחה ד[אנהרותה‪ (38) :‬וי̀ת‬ ‫]מדבחה דדה[בה וית משחה ד]ר[בותה וי̖ת קטורת‬ ‫]בסמניה וית פרסה[ תרע משכמה‪ (39) :‬וית מדבחה דנחשה‬ ‫ליה ית ארי̖חוי וית כל מ̭נוי‬ ‫]וית קנקלה דנשה[ דאית ֔‬ ‫?‬

‫?? ?‬

‫?‬

‫]וית כיורה וית בסיסי[ה‪ (40) :‬ית וילוות דר́תה ית עמודוי‬ ‫[הון‬ ‫]‬ ‫[ה‬ ‫]‬

new fragments of palestinian targum ‫י[רחה קד̖מיא‬

111 verso .1

‫( ביו]ם‬2)

‫( ותשוי‬3) :‫בחד י]ום לירחה תקים ית משכנה מ[שכן זמנה‬ ? ?  ?  :‫תמן ית ]ארונה דסהדותה ותטל על א[רנה ית פרוכתה‬ ?

‫( ותעל ית ]פתורה ותסדר ית סידריה ו[תעל̀ ית מנרתה‬4) ?

?

?

.2 .3 .4

[‫( ותתן[ ית מדבחה דדהב̀ה לקט]רת‬5) :‫ותס̖דר י]ת בוציניה‬

.5

? ?  [‫ותשוי ית פרס תרע]ה‬ ֛ ‫בסמנין ]קדם ארונה דסהדו[תה‬

.6

?

[‫כיורה בין משכ]נה‬ ֔ [‫( ותתן ית‬7)

(6) :‫למשכמ]ה‬

.7

[‫( ותשו]י ית דרתה‬8) [:‫ובין מד]בחה ותתן תמן בגווה מיה‬

.8

?

?

[‫( ותס]ב ית משחה‬9) :‫חזו]ר חזור ותתן ית פרס תרע דרת[ה‬

.9

?? ? ?  [‫דרבותה ותר ֹבי ]ית משכ[נה וית כל מה דב]יה ותקדש‬

.10

[‫ותרבי ]ית מדבחה דעלתה‬ ֛ (10) :‫יתה וית כל מנוי ויהווי קודש‬

.11

? 

[:‫מדבחה ויה]וי מדבחה קודש קודשין‬ ֔ ‫וית כל מ̭נוי ו̀תקד̀ש ית‬ ????

[‫( ותקרב ית‬12) :‫( ותרבי ית כיורה ]וית[ בסיס]יה ותקדש יתיה‬11) ? 

.12 .13

[‫אה]רן וית בנוי לתרע משכן זמנה ותקדש‬

.14

:‫ית]הון במיה‬

.15

[

II. Another Palestinian Fragment-Targum Identified: Additions to MS H About ten years ago, I published “A Genizah Fragment of Palestinian Targum to Genesis 15:1–4.”10 At that time, the absence of verse 3 was noted; and after raising the possibility of the text being a fragmenttargum, I preferred to attribute the deletion to a scribal error ex homoioteleuton. MS T-S B 9.11 has recently been identified as the immediate successive leaf of that manuscript (MS HUC Genizah 1134), continuing with the Palestinian Targum to Genesis 15:11, 12, 13, and 16:13, 14, 16. It 10 Hebrew Union College Annual 49 (1978) 73–87; and republished in Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum, I, p. 29.

112

chapter nine

is now clear that the composition is indeed a Palestinian Fragmenttargum, similar to the well-known recensional families of Fragmenttargum preserved in the European manuscripts.11 The following table compares the verses preserved in the present Genizah manuscript (CG) to those preserved in the other two recensional families (P, VNL)— with brief gloss-type translations in VNL indicated as such. Genesis 15: 1, 2 4 7 9 10 11, 12, 17 19 Genesis 16: 5 13 14, 16

CG CG

CG CG

P VNL VNL VNL (gloss-type) VNL P VNL VNL (gloss-type) P VNL P VNL CG

The correlation of preserved complete verses with expansive targum is large enough to suggest a common relationship, not only with the same Palestinian Targum tradition, but also with a particular Fragmenttargum genre of that source. On the other hand, the number of verses preserved exclusively by either the CG manuscript or by the VNL recensional group, together with the variant readings that are unique to each of the three recensional families (CG, P, VNL), rules out the possibility of any direct genetic relationship among them. In light of the fact that they are only two other known Genizah manuscripts of Palestinian Fragment-targum, both of whose texts are from the Book of Deuteronomy,12 the present fragment constitutes a significant addition to that corpus. The new fragment is comprised of a single paper leaf, measuring 22 × 16 cm, and containing 21 lines of script. The verso contains Targum Jonathan to Isaiah 61:9–62:9—an attested Palestinian trien-

11 These are the Paris (P) and Vatican, Nürnberg, and Leipzig (VNL) manuscripts, all published in full, or as variants in the apparatus, in M. L. Klein, The FragmentTargums of the Pentateuch; [Analecta Biblica 76] (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), 2 Vols. 12 Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum, I, pp. 331, 333 (MS Br) and pp. 339, 341, 357, 359 (MS DD).

new fragments of palestinian targum

113

nial hafṭarah to Genesis 20:1.13 The texts of the recto and verso are written by different hands and in different inks. Unfortunately, the fragment-targum is very badly faded and not entirely legible (not even with the aid of ultra-violet lighting). All of the descriptive details are identical with those of HUC MS Genizah 1134 (MS H), and there can be no doubt that the two fragments belong to the same manuscript. In fact it is likely that they are actually two consecutive pages of the original work. The texts on the versos of the two fragments are also related to one another: the HUC fragment contains an introductory poem under the heading wehada’ targum simeḥu et [Yeru]shalayim,14 and the present Cambridge fragment contains the hafṭarah itself. The following is a transcription of the text. For the sake of continuity, the text of the HUC fragment is also given. HUC Genizah MS 1134 (MS H) Genesis 15:1, 2, 4 recto ?  [‫מל ֵכי ַא ְר]עא‬ ְ ‫אתכ ַ֔נשו כל‬ ְ ‫האליין מן́ד‬ ִ ‫בתר פתגּמייא‬ ֒ (1) ? ?  ? ? [‫צדיקייא ונ֔ פלו קדמ]והי‬ ִ ‫עם ארבם‬ ̈ ‫סד ִרי ְק ָר ָבא‬ ֔ ִ ‫סדרא‬ ֔ ‫למ‬ ִ ?

[‫וקטל ִמנהון אֹרבעה ֔מ ̈לכין וְ ַחזַּ ר ֔תשע ַמ ְשי ְריַ ין ֲח ַ֔ש]ב‬ ַ ?

‫למא ְד ַק ְבּ ֵלית ֲאגַ ר‬ ָ ‫אברם בליביה וא̄מר וַ איי כען ֲﬠ ַלי מא ַד‬ ?

?

‫למא די‬ ָ ‫דא́ ֵתי או ַד‬ ָ ‫מצותי בעלמא הדין ולית לי חו֔ ַלק בעלמא‬ ??

‫קדמי‬ ַ ‫האלייו דינפלו‬ ִ ‫קטלייא‬ ִ ‫יאיזְ לוּו אחיהו>ן< ָוק ִר ֵיביהוֹן ַד‬ ?

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6

‫צט ְרפוּן עמהון ִליגיונין‬ ַ ִ‫וב ְמ́ ִדינָ ְתהו֔ ן וי‬ ַ ‫בּכר́ ֵכיהון‬ ַ ‫ויתנּוּן‬ ַ

.7

‫קל ַילן‬ ִ ‫אוֹדלמא דהווה ַביְ ִידין ִמצוַ ון‬ ִ ‫וא ַתיין ﬠליי‬ ַ ‫סגין‬

.8

?

דלא‬ ֵ ְ‫וא ְתקי‬ ִ ‫בזמנָ ]א[ קדמייא ִדינֵ פלו קֹדמי‬

.9

[‫]י[שתכח ַביְ ידי בזמנא תניָ ינָ א וְ יִ ְת ַחלל בי שם ָשמייא בגִ ]ין‬

.10

13 This is also an attested annual hafṭarah to parashat Niṣṣavim according to some Yemenite traditions; cf. I. Fried, “Table of Hafṭarot,” Talmudic Encyclopedia, ed. S. J. Zevin, (Jerusalem, 1961), Vol. 10, Cols. 713–14. However, the proximity to Genesis 15–16, of the recto, and the association with a Palestinian targum, would argue strongly in favor of the triennial identification. 14 Following the reading proposed by Y. Yadin, “A Note on the Title of the Verso of the Geniza MS 1134,” HUCA 51 (1980) 61.

‫‪114‬‬

‫‪chapter nine‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬

‫צדיקיא‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫כּדּין ַהווָ ה פתגַ ם ַדנבוּ ִמן קדם אדני על אברם‬

‫‪.12‬‬

‫למימר לא ́ ִת́דחול אברם ַא ְפ ַﬠל גַ ב ְד ִמ ִת ַכנְ ִשין עליך }לי{‬ ‫ ?‬ ‫ומג]ן[‬ ‫ימ ִרי ְת ִריס ַלְך בעלמא ַה ֵדין ַ‬ ‫ִליגְ יוֹנִ ין ַסגִ ין וא́ ֵתיין ַﬠ ֵליך ֵמ ְ‬ ‫ ?‬ ‫בביך }בי{‬ ‫ַﬠ ַליך לעלמא ְד ָא ֵתי ַא ְפ ַﬠל גַ ́ב ִדי ַמ ְס ֵרית בעלי ְד ֵ‬

‫‪.13‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬

‫??‬

‫‪.15‬‬

‫ַב]ייד[יך בעלמא הדין ֲ ́‬ ‫אגַ ר ע ָֹב ֵדיך ָ ́‬ ‫ט ַביָ יא ַמתקני לך‬

‫‪.16‬‬

‫קד ָמך‬ ‫רחמין מן ֶ‬ ‫לﬠ ְל ָמא דאתי ‪̄ (2) :‬מ̄ה תתן ואמר אברם בבעו ְב ִ‬ ‫ַ‬

‫‪.17‬‬

‫וּמא ַהנִ ייה לי‬ ‫קדמיך ְל ַמ ַתן ִלי ָ‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫אדני סגין יְ ַהבת לי וסגין ִאי́ת‬ ‫ ‬ ‫?? ?‬ ‫?‬ ‫??‬ ‫יקן ְד ָלא ְבנִ ין ואליעזר ן ַבר ַבי]יתי[‬ ‫ואנא נָ ִפיק ִמי גו עלמא ַר ַ‬ ‫ ??‬ ‫בּדר ִמ ֵסק וירית יתי ‪ (4) :‬והנ]ה‪[:‬‬ ‫יסין ְ‬ ‫דﬠל ידוי ִא ְת ֲﬠ ֵביד ִלי נִ ִ‬ ‫ַ‬

‫‪.20‬‬

‫]וה[א פתגם ַדנְ בוּ מן קדם אדני על אברם צדיקא למימר לא‬

‫‪.18‬‬ ‫‪.19‬‬

‫‪.21‬‬

‫?‬

‫??‬

‫?‬

‫?‬

‫אהן דנַ ֵפיק מן ְמ ַﬠיְך הוא יִ ַיר]ת יתך[‬ ‫יתך די]ן[ ארום ֶא ָילּ ֵ‬ ‫יירת ַ‬ ‫ַ‬

‫‪CUL T-S B 9.11 (MS H) Genesis 15:11–16:16‬‬ ‫‪recto‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬

‫])‪(15:11‬‬

‫‪.2‬‬

‫]‬

‫‪.3‬‬

‫]‬

‫‪.4‬‬

‫]‬

‫‪.5‬‬

‫]‬

‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬

‫?‬

‫[ ֶדין הוא ט]‬

‫[ ָלא ֲהוַ ה ַק]ריב‬

‫[‬

‫?‬

‫מס ֲא ָבא וַ הייָך היא ]עו[פא מס]אבא אילין[ ִאנִ ין מלכוַ ות]א[‬ ‫עו[פא ַ‬ ‫ ? ? ?‬

‫? ?‬

‫?‬

‫?‬

‫ישן על ב]ית ישראל[ זכוותיה דא]ברם[‬ ‫יצן ִב ַ‬ ‫ד[כד יִ ְהווין ַﬠיְ ציַ ן ֵﬠ ַ‬ ‫?‬

‫?‬

‫?‬

‫?‬

‫שמ ָשא ַאזל]ת‬ ‫מבט[ל יתהון )‪ (12‬ויהי‪ :‬והא ְ‬ ‫?‬ ‫ ?‬ ‫ארבעתי מל]כוותא[‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫אברם וְ ַחוִ י אדני לאברם‬ ‫פלת על ָ‬ ‫[ נַ ַ‬

‫? ? ?  ?‬

‫??‬

‫[‬

‫?‬

‫אימה ]חשכה גדולה נפלת[‬ ‫ול ְמ ַש ֲﬠ ָב́ ָדא ַב́ ְבנו ֺהי ָ‬ ‫ַד ְﬠתידין ַלמקם ַ‬ ‫ ?‬

‫? ??‬

‫עליו אימה דא היא ָ ̄‬ ‫חש[́כה ד]א היא‬ ‫ב ֶבל ] ֵ‬ ‫?‬

‫[‬ ‫?‬

‫ית]א‬ ‫ביﬠ ָ‬ ‫]נ[פלת עליו דא היא א]ד[ום מלכותא ְר ַ‬ ‫?‬

‫דעתידא[‬

‫?‬

‫??‬

‫יהי‪] :‬והוות[ שמשא טמ]ע[ וח]ו[מט]א[ ַהוָ ו]א[‬ ‫מקם‪] (17) :‬ו[ ִ‬ ‫]למי[פל ולא ַל ַ‬

‫‪.10‬‬

‫]‬

‫‪.11‬‬

‫]‬

‫?‬

‫?‬

‫?  ?‬

‫וכרסוון ְר ִמ]יו [‬ ‫[ אברם ָחזֵ י עד ]די ספסלין אס[ ָת ַדרו ָ‬ ‫? ???‬

‫לה ְביַ ן‬ ‫[ ַמקפא שביבין ד]נור ו[ ַש ָ‬

new fragments of palestinian targum ?

? 

?

[‫[ל ורשיעין על די לא ]נטרו[ ִמ ְצוות]א‬

]‫]דאשא ו[למפדין ַד‬ ?

[ [

115

? 

.12

‫[ בחייהון בעלמא הדין וצדיקין על ]די נטרו מצוותא‬

]

.13

]‫לאברם ַכד הוא ע‬ ָ [‫אש ֵתיז́ ַבן ]כל כדין אתחמי‬ ְ [

]

.14

[‫וצלית הגר ב]שם‬ ֵ ‫ואודית‬ ֵ ‫( ותקרא‬16:13) [:‫]ביני גז[ ַריא האל]ין‬

.15

?

? 

‫אמרת ְב ִריְך את הוא אדני אלהא ] חי ו[ ַקיָ ם‬ ְ [‫מימ]רא[ דא]דני ו‬ ?

?

́ ַ ‫די[ חמית ְב ַצ ֲﬠרי ארום ַא‬ [‫מרת ַהא לחוד עלי אתגליַ ]ת‬

]

.17

]

.18

]

.19

:‫]בין ר[קם ובין חל]וצה‬

.20

[‫( על כן ב]גי[ן ְכ ֵדין ְק ָרת‬14) :‫יתי‬ ִ ִ‫שרי רבּוּנ‬ ַ ‫[ על‬ ? ? ?  [ ] ‫[ בירא ד]אתגלי עלוהי [ חי וקיים כל עלמיא‬

[‫ואברם בר ִתמ]נין ושת‬ ַ (16) [ [

.16

??

? ??

‫]שינין הוא[ כד ילדת הגר ית י]שמעאל‬

.21

III. Additions to MS D One of the major manuscripts of Palestinian targum first published by Kahle is MS D, all of whose extant fragments are in the TaylorSchechter Collection in Cambridge. In his edition, Kahle included 14 leaves, or fragments of leaves. In Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum . . ., I published five additional fragments of MS D, two of which (T-S Misc. 27.1.4) being the only complete leaves of this manuscript that had been discovered by S. Lund, several years earlier. During the recent work on the Cambridge catalogue, five additional smaller fragments came to light,15 representing parts of both previously known and unknown leaves of this manuscript. One of the most important aspects of MS D is that it spans the entire Pentateuch, preserving fragments from Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy. The new fragments contain texts from all three of these books.

15

234.

The classmarks of the new fragments are T-S AS 64.27, 239; AS 66.187; AS 68.83,

116

chapter nine

MS D is a classical 3-column parchment codex, from about the year 1000 CE.16 It is written in an Oriental square script, with full Tiberian vocalization and accents, and with Massorah magna and parva. The leaf measures 35.0 × 28.5 cm, with 24 lines to the column. The text is bilingual, with the Palestinian targum following each Hebrew verse. It also contains marginal notation of triennial sidrot, the beginnings of some triennial hafṭarot and the sporadic citation of an unidentified midrash. The following are the texts in their canonical order. A facsimile is presented only of the largest fragment, namely, AS 68.83 (Gen 37). CUL T-S 68.83 (MS D) Genesis 37:8–11, 13–14, 16–17 recto column 3

column 2 :‫( חלמ]תי[ו ]ו[על ד]ב[ריו‬8)

.16

? ? ?  ‫מ ִרין ליהּ ָא ְחו ֺי‬ ̗ ְ ‫וְ ָא‬

.17

[‫ ותני‬:‫ל]ך ארצה‬

‫ָהא ֶמ] ְמ[ ֤לְֹך ִתּ ְמלוְֹ̀ך‬

.18

[‫ְל] ָאבוי ולאחוי ונזף ביה‬

‫מ ְשֹׁ̗לט‬-‫ן‬ ֶ ‫ֲﬠ ֵלי֔ נַ ן וְ ֶא‬ ?  ‫ואוֹסיפו‬ ֵ֤ ‫בּן‬ ̭ ַ ‫ֶתשׁ̖ל ֺֹט‬ [‫תּוּב למשׂנ֣ א ית]יה‬

.19

‫ע̗ ֵסיק ֶחל̖מוי‬-‫על‬ ‫ע̗סיק ֶמלוי‬-‫על‬ {‫ויחלם עוד }]ח[לום‬ ?  ‫חלום אחר וי]ספ[ר‬

.22 .23 .24

[‫הב]וא נבוא אני ואמך‬ ? ??

[‫ואח]יך להשתחות‬

?

? ? 

[‫אבוּ]י וַ ְא ַמר ליה ָמא‬ ‫הדי[ן ] ִ ֣די[ ַח ְל ַמ̭ת‬ ̖ ‫חל]̗מא‬ ?

‫ָהא ֵמי ֵ ֣תי נֵ י̇ ֵתי אנַ ̀א‬ ‫למש̗א ֹל‬ ֶ ‫וְ ֶא ָמְך֣ וְ ַא ֵח֔יְך‬ :‫ארﬠה‬ ְ̄ ‫ַבשל̖מְך כנִ י̗מו ֺס‬ ‫( ויקנאו בו אחיו ואביו‬11)

? ?? ?

.20 .21

.25

16 Following the dating of Prof. M. Beit-Arié, of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Kahle had dated this codex and two others to the latter half of the 9th Century (MdW II, p. 2*).

‫‪new fragments of palestinian targum‬‬

‫‪117‬‬ ‫‪verso‬‬

‫‪column 2‬‬ ‫])‪ (16‬אחי אנכי מב[קש‬

‫‪column 1‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬

‫?‬

‫‪.15‬‬

‫)‪(13‬‬

‫‪.16‬‬

‫]אשלח יתך ְל[וָ ְת̭הוֹן‬ ‫ ? ? ? ?‬ ‫בלשן‪-‬בית‪-‬‬ ‫ֶ‬ ‫]ואמר ליה[‬ ‫]קודשא הא אנא‪[:‬‬

‫‪.19‬‬ ‫‪.20‬‬

‫])‪(14‬ויאמר לו[ לך נא ראה‬ ‫]א[ת שלום אחיך‬

‫‪.17‬‬ ‫‪.18‬‬

‫ ? ? ?‬

‫הג]ידה נא לי[ איפה‬ ‫ ?‬ ‫הם רעים‪ :‬וַ אמר‬

‫??‬

‫אנא‪-‬כﬠן‬ ‫֣‬ ‫ית א̖ ַחי‬ ‫כﬠן[ לי ַהן‪-‬‬ ‫ָתּ̭בע תּנּי‪֣ ]-‬‬ ‫??‬

‫אנ̖ון ָ ̗ר ַﬠיִ ין‪ (17) :‬ויאמר‬ ‫האיש נסעו מזה‬

‫? ??‬

‫‪.21‬‬ ‫‪.22‬‬ ‫‪.23‬‬ ‫‪.24‬‬

‫ואת שלום הצאן‬ ‫והשבני דבר }ויש{‬ ‫ושילחהו מעמק‬ ‫חברון ויבא שכמה‪:‬‬

‫‪.25‬‬

‫ﬠן‬ ‫יל‪-‬כּ ַ ̀‬ ‫ר‪-‬ליהּ ְאזֶ ְ‬ ‫וַ ַא ַמ ֵ‬

‫‪.26‬‬

‫ת‪-‬שׁ ָל ֤ם ַא ֵחיְך‬ ‫ְח́ ִמי יַ ְ‬

‫‪recto‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬

‫)‪ (10‬וְ ַא ֵקרי֤ב יָ ְתהו̀ן ְלוָ ֵ֔תהּ‬

‫כי שמעתי אמרים‬ ‫נלכה דתינה וילך‬ ‫יוסף אחר אחיו‬ ‫וימצאם בדותן‪:‬‬ ‫?‬

‫נטלו‬ ‫וא]מ[ר גֻ בר̀א ֣‬ ‫?‬

‫]מן[ ָה ֔כא ארום‪-‬‬ ‫‪CUL T-S 64.27 (MS D) Genesis 48:10‬‬ ‫)‪(=T-S B 8.7‬‬

‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬

‫?‬

‫ח ֵבּיק‬ ‫וְ נַ ̗ ֶשׁיק [יָ ] ְת̖הוֹן וְ ַ ̗‬ ‫יתה̗ון ‪ (11) :‬וי]אמר[ ישראל‬

‫)‪(+ T-S B 8.7‬‬

‫??‬

‫אל יוסף ]ראה[ פניך‬ ‫לא פללת]י והנה[‬ ‫הרא]ה אתי אלהים[‬ ‫‪(verso contains only Hebrew).‬‬

‫‪118‬‬

‫‪chapter nine‬‬

‫‪CUL T-S 64.239 (MS D) Exodus 5:6–7, 18–19‬‬ ‫‪verso‬‬

‫‪recto‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬

‫ ? ? ? ?‬ ‫פ ֵק]ד[ ַפ ְרעה ביו̗מ]א[‬ ‫)‪] (6‬ו[ ַ ̗‬

‫‪.2‬‬

‫ת‪-‬דּ ֲח ֵקי] ֣ה[ן‬ ‫ה̭הוּא יַ ַ‬

‫‪.3‬‬

‫ְד ַﬠ] ֔מא[ וְ יַ ת ָס ְרכי̖הן‬

‫‪.4‬‬

‫ימר‪ (7) :‬לא ת]אס[פון‬ ‫למ ַ ֽ‬ ‫ֶ‬

‫‪.5‬‬

‫]לתת[ תבן לעם‬

‫??? ?‬

‫] )‪(18‬‬

‫א[זֵ י֣ לו‬

‫???‬

‫??‬

‫וּת̖ ֵבן ָלא‪-‬‬ ‫ָפלוּחוּ ְ‬ ‫  ?‬ ‫יֶ ְתיְ ֵ ֣הב ְ ̭לכוֹן וְ ָסכ̗וֹם‬ ‫?‬

‫??‬

‫ֶל ְב]נַ [ייָ א ֶתּתּ]נ[וּן‪:‬‬ ‫? ?‬

‫)‪ (19‬ו]י[ר]או[ שטרי בני‬ ‫ ?‬ ‫ישראל אתם ]ברע[‬

‫‪.6‬‬

‫?‬

‫?‬

‫ל]אמר[ ל]א תגרעו[‬

‫‪.7‬‬

‫‪CUL T-S AS 66.187 (MS D) Exodus 7:15–16, 20‬‬ ‫)‪(=T-S B 8.5‬‬ ‫‪recto‬‬ ‫‪.22‬‬ ‫‪.23‬‬ ‫‪.24‬‬

‫‪verso‬‬ ‫?  ?‬ ‫)‪ְ (15‬ד ֶא ְת ַה ֵפך ְל ִחוִ י ] ֶת̗ ַס[ב‬ ‫?‬

‫ַביְ ָדְּך‪ (16) :‬ואמרת אל[יו]‬ ‫??‬

‫יהוה אלהי העברים‬

‫?? ? ??‬

‫?‬

‫בנהרא‬ ‫֔‬ ‫ית ַמיָ א ] ְד[ ִ ֣אית‬

‫וּק ַדם‬ ‫]קדם[ פר ֔עֹה ְ ̖‬ ‫?‬

‫ָש ְל ָטנוֹי וְ ֶא ְת ַה ֵפ ֛כוּ‬

‫‪CUL T-S 68.234 (MS D) Deuteronomy 29:13–15‬‬ ‫‪verso‬‬ ‫‪column 2‬‬ ‫ולא א]תכם‬

‫‪.1‬‬

‫])‪(13‬‬

‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬

‫]לבדכם אנ[כי כרת את‬ ‫]הברית[ הזאת ואת‬ ‫]האלה[ הזאת‪ :‬וְ ̗ ָלא‬ ‫  ??‬ ‫]עמכון[ ְל ַב ְלחו]דיכון[‬ ‫]אנא כ[ ַﬠֹן ְמ ַקיֵ ̀ם יַ ת‪-‬‬ ‫ﬠתָ ה‬ ‫שב[ ָ ̖‬ ‫]קמיא ה[ ֵ ֔דין וְ יַ ת ] ֻ‬ ‫]הדה‪ (14) :‬כי[ את אשר‬ ‫]ישנו[ פה עמנו עמד‬ ‫]היום[ לפני יהוה אלהינו‬ ‫]ואת אשר[ איננו פה‬

‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬

‫‪column 3‬‬ ‫?‬

‫)‪ָ ̗ (15‬מ]ה די שרינן בארעא[‬ ‫ְד ֶמ ְצ]רים וית מה די[‬ ‫[‬ ‫ְﬠ ַב ְרנַ ֛ ן ]ביני‬ ‫ִדי ַﬠ ַברנ]ן‪:‬‬

‫[‬

‫‪(The recto, which seems to contain Deut. 29:2, 5, is very badly faded‬‬ ‫)‪and virtually illegible.‬‬

‫‪CHAPTER TEN‬‬

‫השלמות לכתבי יד מגניזת קאהיר‬ ‫‪COMPLEMENTARY FRAGMENTS FROM‬‬ ‫‪THE CAIRO GENIZAH‬‬ ‫אוספי הגניזה—‬ ‫"עניים במקום אחד ועשירים במקום אחר"‬

‫תולדות גניזת קאהיר ידועות לכל בר בי רב‪ ,‬ובהן בייחוד סיפור חלוקתם‬ ‫של כתבי היד בין אספנים שונים במחצית השנייה של המאה ה‪-‬יט‪,‬‬ ‫וגלגולם לספריות הגדולות ברחבי אירופה וארה"ב‪ .‬טלטולים אלה היו‬ ‫מקריים ושרירותיים‪ ,‬וכך אירע לא פעם שכתב יד פוצל לשניים שלושה‬ ‫חלקים או יותר‪ ,‬כאשר קבוצות של דפים מוצאות דרכן לספריות שונות‬ ‫במקומות שונים בעולם‪ .‬קורותיו של כתב יד ‪ E‬של התרגום הארצישראלי‬ ‫לתורה הן דוגמה בולטת לתופעה הנפוצה הזאת‪ :‬שרידיו פזורים‬ ‫כיום בארבע ספריות על פני שתי יבשות—בקיימברידג' ובאוקספורד‬ ‫שבאנגליה‪ ,‬בסנט פטרסבורג שברוסיה ובניו יורק שבארה"ב‪.‬‬ ‫מקרה אופייני זה מאלף במיוחד מבחינת השלכותיו על גילוים מחדש‬ ‫ופרסומם של כתבי היד מגניזת קאהיר‪ ,‬שכן כתב יד ‪ E‬פורסם בהמשכים‬ ‫על ידי שלושה חוקרים שונים במשך כשישים שנה‪ .‬בשנת ‪ 1930‬פירסם‬ ‫פאול קאלה שנים עשר דפים ממנו‪ ,‬מתוך אוספי קיימברידג'‪ ,‬אוקספורד‬ ‫ולנינגראד;‪ 1‬עשרים וחמש שנה לאחר מכן הוציא לאור אלחנדרו דיאז‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫מאצ'ו ארבעה דפים נוספים מספריית בית המדרש לרבנים בניו יורק;‬ ‫ואילו בבחינת ליקוטי בתר ליקוטי גיליתי אנוכי שני דפים נוספים של‬ ‫אותו כתב יד בסדרה הנוספת )‪ (Additional Series‬בקיימברידג'‪ ,‬אותם‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫פרסמתי בשנת ‪.1989‬‬ ‫מתברר‪ ,‬שככל שהופכים בהם‪ ,‬מוסיפים אוספי הגניזה לגלות את‬ ‫אוצרותיהם הבלומים‪ .‬במאמר זה אבקש לפרסם השלמות לשלשה כתבי‬ ‫יד המוכרים לנו מתוך קטעים שפורסמו זה מכבר‪ .‬מכל השלושה זוהו‬

‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, II, (Stuttgart, 1930; reprinted Hildesheim, 1967),‬‬ ‫‪pp. 29–48.‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪A. Díez Macho, “Nuevos Fragmentos del Targum Palestinense,” Sefarad 15 (1955),‬‬ ‫‪31–39.‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫”‪M. L. Klein, “New Fragments of Palestinian Targum from the Cairo Genizah,‬‬ ‫‪Sefarad 49 (1989), 123–133.‬‬

‫‪120‬‬

‫‪chapter ten‬‬

‫לאחרונה קטעים נוספים‪ ,‬המאפשרים להשלים את הטקסט‪ ,‬אם במלואו‬ ‫ואם בחלקים נוספים‪.‬‬ ‫א‬ ‫במאמרו 'ראש ראשי חדשים'‪ ,‬שהופיע לפני כעשרים וחמש שנה‪ ,‬פרסם‬ ‫עזרא פליישר קטע משיר ארמי קדום על פי כתב יד מגניזת קאהיר‪ ,‬הנמצא‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫כיום באוסף הגניזה של אוניברסיטת קיימברידג' )‪.(CUL T-S H12.11‬‬ ‫מאז זכה הקטע להתפרסם פעמיים נוספות‪ ,‬על ידי יוסף היינימן‪ 5‬ועל ידי‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫הכותב הנוכחי‪.‬‬ ‫מדובר בשיר 'אליסון‪ ,‬מה משבח הדין ירחא'‪ ,‬המשבח את חודש‬ ‫ניסן 'דביה איתפרקו אבהן ובנין'‪ .‬ייתכן ששיר זה נועד לפתיחא לקריאת‬ ‫התורה בשבת פרשת החודש לפי מנהג ארץ ישראל‪ ,‬שכן פרשה זו‬ ‫מתחילה במלים 'החודש הזה לכם ראש חדשים' )שמות יב ‪ .(2‬השיר‬ ‫הוא אקרוסטי‪ ,‬והכיל אפוא לפחות עשרים ושתיים שורות‪ ,‬כמספרן של‬ ‫אותיות האלפבית‪ .‬בזמנו הצטערנו על שלא נשתמרו אלא שלוש השורות‬ ‫הראשונות )אותיות אל"ף‪ ,‬בי"ת וגימ"ל(‪.‬‬ ‫לאחרונה סקרתי את אוספי קיימברידג' לשם הכנת קטאלוג של כתבי‬ ‫היד התרגומיים שביניהם‪ 7.‬במהלך הסקירה נתגלו יצירות חדשות שהיו‬ ‫בלתי ידועות עד כה ואף קטעים משלימים ליצירות ידועות‪ .‬בין אלה‬ ‫האחרונים נמצא דף נייר שחום‪ ,‬המכיל עותק שני של השיר הנזכר‬ ‫'אליסון' וכו'‪ ,‬אמנם מקוטע אף הוא‪ .‬להלן תיאורו ונוסחו המלא של‬ ‫כתב היד‪:‬‬ ‫‪CUL T-S AS 116.453‬‬

‫דף נייר אחד שמידותיו ‪ 13.7 × 6.6‬ס"מ‪ ,‬ארבע עשרה עד שש עשרה‬ ‫שורות לעמוד‪ .‬קרוע ושחוק במקצת‪ .‬הכתיב מזרחי מרובע עם ניקוד‬ ‫טברני חלקי‪ .‬רווח כפול או משולש לפני כל אות שבאלפבית‪ .‬כתב היד‬ ‫מכיל כותרת‪.‬‬

‫ע' פליישר‪" ,‬ראש ראשי חדשים‪ ",‬תרביץ לז )תשכ"ח(‪ ,‬עמ' ‪ ;278–265‬השיר מופיע‬ ‫שם בעמ' ‪.272‬‬ ‫י' היינימן‪" ,‬שרידים מיצירתם הפיוטית של המתורגמנים הקדומים‪ ",‬הספרות ד‬ ‫)תשל"ג(‪ ,‬עמ' ‪ ,375–362‬ובעיקר עמ' ‪.356‬‬

‫‪4‬‬

‫‪5‬‬

‫‪6‬‬

‫‪M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch,‬‬ ‫‪Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986, I, pp. 191f.; II, plate 172.‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪M. L. Klein, Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, Cam‬‬‫‪bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.‬‬

‫‪121‬‬

‫‪complementary fragments from the cairo genizah‬‬

‫‪) recto‬לוח ‪(1‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬ ‫‪.15‬‬ ‫‪.16‬‬

‫יקאל? לילה ראש חדש ניסן‬ ‫‪ ///‬אל אלקדוש?‬ ‫]אליסון[ מה משבח הדין‬ ‫]ירחא[ דביה אתפרקו אבהן‬ ‫]ובנין ב[פלגיה דלילי }את{‬ ‫את]גלי[ קיריס וימיני]ה[‬ ‫פש]י[ט]א[ על ישראל‬ ‫גיבריהון דמצראי לחוד‬ ‫]רב[רביהון נפקו מיללין ב] [ל‬ ‫]ו[עילין דנין לפרעה טרוד‬ ‫עמא הדין דלא יתאחרון‬ ‫וה]ון[ כולם מיתין הא‬ ‫בכ]ורינ[ן כולהון קטילין‬ ‫ואין ]ית[עכבון אנן מתקטלין‬ ‫ופרעה ]קם[ וקרא למשה‬ ‫ולאהרן‬

‫]א[‬ ‫] ב[‬ ‫]ג[‬ ‫] ד[‬ ‫]ה[‬ ‫]ו[‬

‫‪) verso‬לוח ‪(2‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬

‫קומו פוקו לכון ]מגו עמי[‬ ‫זיוהון דישראל ]‬ ‫[‬ ‫וחינא וחסדא הוא ש]‬ ‫חייהון דמצראי ]אתעבדו[‬ ‫לשמא חולף די שע]בידו ית[‬ ‫עמא בחירא ט]עינו[ כל‬ ‫דאית להון על עננ]ין[ ושאלין‬ ‫]כ[ל דאיתרעון חולף בגדיהון‬ ‫יומא הוה מתח שעו]הי[ ח]ד[‬ ‫בכפלא‪ :‬עד די ישאלון כל‬ ‫[‬

‫צרכיהון כל אצוותהון‬ ‫טענון בשושפיהון ] [‬ ‫גיף ימא עבדו פק] [ין‬ ‫[ חמא‬ ‫לא]‬

‫]ז[‬ ‫]ח[‬ ‫]ט[‬ ‫]י[‬ ‫]כ[‬ ‫]ל[‬

‫לשם השוואה‪ ,‬הנה שלוש השורות שנשתמרו בכתב יד קיימברידג'‬ ‫‪CUL T-S H12.11:‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬

‫אליסון מה משבח הדין ירחא דביה איתפרקו אבהן ובנין‪:‬‬ ‫בפלגות ליליא איתגלי קיריס וימיניה פשוטה על ישראל‪:‬‬

‫גיברי דמצראי איתעבדו לשמא חולף דשעבידו ית עמא‬

‫‪chapter ten‬‬

‫‪122‬‬

‫הדמיון הרב בין שתי הגרסאות מצביע על כך שאכן מדובר באותה יצירה‪.‬‬ ‫ואם נתגלה שוני מהותי לכאורה בשורות של האות גימ"ל‪ ,‬הרי מדובר‬ ‫בהעתקת קטע ממקום למקום בלבד‪ .‬החסר בכתב היד החדש באות‬ ‫גימ"ל נמצא בו באות חי"ת‪]' :‬אתעבדו[ לשמא חולף די שע]בידו ית[ עמא‬ ‫בחירא'‪ .‬דומה‪ ,‬כי מדובר בטעות סופר בשל מלה מובילה זהה 'דמצראי'‪,‬‬ ‫היינו עקב שווי ההתחלה )‪.(ex homoio archon‬‬

‫תרגום‬ ‫‪CUL T-S AS 116.453‬‬ ‫‪] recto‬הושענא[ כמה משובח ]החודש[ הזה אשר בו נגאלו אבות ]ובנים[‬ ‫]ב[חצות הלילה נת]גלה[ האדון וימינ]ו[ נטויה על ישראל‬ ‫גיבוריהם של המצרים ואף ]ש[ריהם יצאו מייללים ב]קו[ל וצורחים)?(‬

‫דרשו מפרעה גרש את העם הזה שלא יתמהמהו ויהיו כולם מתים‬ ‫הנה בכ]ורינו[ כולם מתים ואם ]ית[עכבו ]גם[ אנחנו נמות‬ ‫ופרעה ]קם[ וקרא למשה ולאהרן ‪ verso‬קומו צאו לכם ]מתוך עמי[‬ ‫[‬ ‫זיום של ישראל ] [ וחן וחסד הוא ]‬ ‫חייהם של המצרים ]נעשו[ לשמה מפני ששיע]בדו את[ העם הנבחר‬ ‫ט]ענו[ כל אשר להם על עננ]ים[)?( ושאלו ]כ[ל אשר רצו בתמורה)?(‬ ‫לבגדיהם‬ ‫היום משך את שעותיו פי שניים עד אשר שאלו כל צורכיהם‬ ‫כל משארותם נשאו בשמלותם ] [ שפת הים עשו ] [‬ ‫לא ] [‬ ‫ב‬ ‫לפני כשלושים וחמש שנה פרסם פייר גרלו )‪ (Grelot‬קטע ליטורגי‬ ‫מאוסף הגניזה שבספריית קיימברידג' )‪ ,(CUL T-S B8.9‬שהכיל תפילת‬ ‫'סליחה' לראש השנה ותרגום ארצישראלי מורחב‪-‬מעין תוספתא תרגומית‪-‬‬ ‫לבראשית כב‪ ,‬המשמש‪ ,‬כידוע‪ ,‬קריאת התורה לראש השנה‪ 8.‬והנה לאחרונה‬ ‫נתגלו שלושה קטעים נוספים של אותו כתב יד‪ ,‬שניים בסדרה החדשה‬ ‫בקיימברידג' )‪ (CUL T-S NS 138.79; NS 271.183‬והשלישי בספריית‬ ‫בית המדרש לרבנים בניו יורק )‪ .(JTS NS ENA 42.27‬ראוי לציין שהקטע‬

‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪P. Grelot, “Une Tosephta targoumique sur Genèse XXII dans un manuscrit‬‬ ‫הטכסט פורסם שוב‪liturgique de la Geniza du Caire,” REJ N.S. 16 (1957), 5–27 . . . :‬‬ ‫קליין )לעיל‪ ,‬הערה ‪ ,(6‬א‪ ,‬עמ' ‪ ;35–34‬ב‪ ,‬לוח ‪.106‬‬

‫‪123‬‬

‫‪complementary fragments from the cairo genizah‬‬

‫שפורסם על ידי גרלו הינו המשך ישיר של הקטע שנתגלה עכשיו בניו יורק‪:‬‬ ‫' ‪ . . .‬ואמר לתרין עולימוהי ‪.' . . .‬‬ ‫להלן תיאורו ונוסחו המלא של כתב היד‪ :‬חמישה דפי נייר‪ ,‬שניים מהם‬ ‫מחוברים יחדיו )‪ .(T-S B8.9‬מידותיהם ‪ 16.5 × 12.6‬ס"מ בממוצע‪ ,‬אחת‬ ‫עשרה עד שלוש עשרה שורות לעמוד‪ .‬דף אחד קרוע ושחוק במקצת‪.‬‬ ‫כתיב מזרחי רהוט למחצה עם ניקוד טברני חלקי‪.‬‬ ‫‪JTS NS ENA 42.27‬‬ ‫‪) recto‬לוח ‪(3‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬

‫לית[‬ ‫ש][ר ]‬ ‫[‬ ‫אלה בר מ]נ[ך ]‬ ‫[‬ ‫קודמוהי ארבעה ]‬ ‫[ך‬ ‫שלם נטרתא ליה ק]‬ ‫גזרתא עמיה תל]תא גזיר[ין)?(‬ ‫ניסיתיה בעש]רה[ ניסיו]נין ובכל[הון‬ ‫אישתכח מהימן ובסוף ]ע[שרה‬ ‫ניסיו]נין[ אמרת ליה סב ית ב]ר[ך‬ ‫[לטור‬ ‫ית יחידך לאת]ר‬ ‫פולחאנא לא סר]ב[ למימרך‬ ‫ולא עבר על פיתגמ]ך[‬

‫‪) verso‬לוח ‪(4‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬

‫[ לס]בא[ סיב‬ ‫]‬ ‫אישתא ו[סכינא ושוי‬ ‫]‬ ‫]ית אעיא[ על כתף בריה וצלח‬ ‫[ת דעתא ואזלו }ת{‬ ‫]‬ ‫ת]ריהון כ[חדא בשלימותא‬ ‫ואתו לא]תר[א דאמרת להון‬ ‫ואחזתיה ענן יקרך כד בעא‬ ‫למיזל ול]א[ ידע ]בהי[דין }א{‬ ‫אתרא ] עד ד[חמא ליה ענן‬ ‫[ ואמר לתרין‬ ‫]י[קרך ב]‬ ‫‪CUL T-S B8.9, folio 1‬‬

‫‪recto‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬

‫עולימוהי חמן אתון מידעם‬ ‫בעלמא ואמרו ליה לית אנן‬

‫‪chapter ten‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬

‫חמן מדעם בעלמא מתיב‬ ‫ואמר ליצחק בריה את חמי‬ ‫מדעם אמר ליה הא אנא חמי‬ ‫עמודא דעננא מרקיעא‬ ‫לארעא בההיא שעתא ידע‬ ‫סבא דיצחק אתבחר לעלתא‬ ‫מתיב ואמר לעולימוהי עמא‬ ‫דמתילין בחמרא אוריכו לכון‬ ‫הכא עם }ע{ חמרא שבו לכם וג'‬ ‫נסיב אעיא ושוי על יצחק בריה‬

‫‪124‬‬

‫)בר' כב ‪(5‬‬

‫‪verso‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬

‫ואישתא וסכינא נסיב הוא‬ ‫בידיה ואזלו }תריה{ תרויהון‬ ‫כחדא מאן דמטו לאתרא }מ{‬ ‫משאיל יצחק לאבוהי במטו‬ ‫מינך אבא הא אישתא ואעיא‬ ‫ואן אימרא לעלתא מתיב‬ ‫עקדא ואמר לעקודא קודם י'י‬ ‫גלי אימרא לעלתא ברי לא אבא‬ ‫עכיב והרהר ולא ברא סריב‬ ‫עליה תרויהון בליבא שלמא‬ ‫ובדעתא שלמתא למעבד‬ ‫רעותך מרי עלמא ובנא‬ ‫מדבחא בחדותא ברא‬ ‫‪CUL T-S NS 138.79‬‬

‫‪) recto‬לוח ‪(5‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬

‫] [תא רתיתא? ובע] [תא‬ ‫] [איתבעית מן קודמך רבון‬ ‫עלמא‪ .‬בה שעתא כד חזו מלאכי‬ ‫מרומא דיצחק על גבי מדבחא‬ ‫ואבוהי שליף סכיניה למיכס יתיה‬ ‫קטרו מספדא ואבלא ובכיא והכין‬ ‫אמרו קדמך אלה שמיא אם‬ ‫יצחק מתנכיס ואזיל מן יימר‬ ‫קדמך עזי וזמרת יה אם יצחק )שמ' טו ‪(2‬‬ ‫מתנכיס ואזיל מן יימר י'י איש‬ ‫מלחמה אם יצחק מתנכיס )שמ' טו ‪(3‬‬ ‫ואזיל מן יימר קדמך מי כמוכה‬ ‫באלים י'י אם יצחק מתנכיס )שמ' טו ‪(11‬‬

‫‪125‬‬

‫‪complementary fragments from the cairo genizah‬‬

‫‪) verso‬לוח ‪(6‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬

‫מן יי]מר[ קודמך י'י י]מל[וך )שמ' טו ‪(18‬‬ ‫והכין מפרש בכ]ת[בך הן אר]אלם[‬

‫צעקו חוצה מלאכי שלום מר‬ ‫יבכיון‪ .‬בה שעתא שלחתא‬ ‫ליה מלאכא מן שמיא ואמרת‬ ‫ליה אברהם אב' וכן כתיב ויקרא‬ ‫אליו מלאך י'י מן השמים וג' תר]י[ן‬ ‫זמנין קראתה יתיה לא תושט‬ ‫ידך בעולימא כמה דכת' אל‬ ‫תשלח ידך אל הנער ואחיתתה‬ ‫עליה טלא מן שמיא וחיית‬ ‫רוחיה ואיתקיימת נשמתיה‬ ‫ואמר קודמך תושבחתא‬

‫)יש' לג ‪(7‬‬

‫‪CUL T-S NS 271.183‬‬ ‫‪) recto‬לוח ‪(7‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬

‫ברוך מחיה המתים‪ .‬אשתבעתא‬ ‫ליה שבועתא דלעלם דלית את‬ ‫משני במימרך ולית את מבטל‬ ‫שבועתך‪ .‬כמה דכת' ויאמר בי‬ ‫נשבעתי נא' י'י וג' אמרת ליה לסבא‬ ‫רחימך דאנא מברך על זרעיה‬ ‫לעלם ומדכר }א{ עקידה לעלם כמה‬ ‫דכת' כי ברך אברכך וג' אחזיתא‬ ‫ליה דיכרא לעלתא דאיתברי מן‬ ‫שיתת ימי בראשית וקריב יתיה‬ ‫חולף יחידיה וצלי ואמר קדמך‬ ‫הכא יהון פלחין דריא וקבע]ת[ עקידת‬ ‫יצחק דוכרנא לעלם ואמרת‬

‫‪) verso‬לוח ‪(8‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬

‫להון לעקדא ועקודא כד בניכון‬ ‫קיימין בעקתא ידכרון קדמאי‬ ‫עקידותא ואנא מרחם עליהון‪.‬‬ ‫רח']מנא[ אידכר לן עקידת יצחק ורחם‬ ‫עלן ונתחשב קדמך כקורבנא‬ ‫דעלתא רח' אי]ס[תכל בעקידותיה‬ ‫ורחם עלן דהא אנן בעקתא רבתא‬ ‫רח' ולא יבטל סיברן מינך‪ .‬ולא‬ ‫תיחוד תרעך באנפן‪ .‬ולא תנזוף‬ ‫בן ולא תגעור בן ולא ]ת[הוי‬

‫‪chapter ten‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬

‫‪126‬‬

‫אויב דילן דאת אוהב דילן ורחימ'‬ ‫דאבהתן בזכות עקידה בהר‬ ‫המוריה אגין עלן הב עינך בן‬

‫תרגום‬ ‫‪JTS NS ENA 42.27‬‬ ‫[ שלם שמרת‬ ‫[ לפניו ארבעה ]‬ ‫אין[ אלהים חוץ ממך ]‬ ‫‪] recto‬‬ ‫[ כרת עמו שלו]ש בריתות[ ניסית אותו בעש]רה[ נסיו]נות ובכול[ם‬ ‫לו ]‬ ‫נמצא נאמן ובסוף עשרת הנסיו]נות[ אמרת לו קח את ב]נ[םך את יחידך‬ ‫[‬ ‫למקו] [ להר הפולחן לא סירב לאימרתך ולא עבר על דבר]ך[ ‪] verso‬‬ ‫[‬ ‫לז]קן[ לקח ]את האש ו[המאכלת ושם ]את העצים[ על כתף בנו וחצה ]‬ ‫הדעת וילכו ]שניהם י[חדיו בשלמות ובאו למ]קו[ם שאמרת להם והראית‬ ‫לו ענן כבודך כאשר ביקש ללכת ולא ידע ]לאי[זה מקום ]עד ש[ראה את‬

‫ענן כבודך ויאמר אל שני‬ ‫‪CUL T-S B8.9‬‬

‫‪ recto‬נעריו הרואים אתם דבר כלשהו ויאמרו לו אין אנחנו רואים שום‬ ‫דבר חזר ושאל את יצחק בנו הרואה אתה דבר כלשהו אמר לו הנני‬ ‫רואה עמוד ענן מהרקיע ]ועד[ לארץ באותה שעה ידע הזקן שיצחק נבחר‬ ‫לעולה חזר ואמר לנעריו עם המשולים לחמור המתינו לכם פה עם החמור‬ ‫שבו לכם וגו' לקח את העצים ושם על יצחק בנו ‪ verso‬והאש והמאכלת‬ ‫לקח הוא בידו וילכו שניהם יחדיו משהגיעו למקום שאל יצחק את אביו‬ ‫בבקשה ממך אבא הנה האש והעצים ואיה השה לעולה ענה העוקד ואמר‬ ‫לנעקד לפני ה' גלוי השה לעולה בני לא האב עיכב והרהר ולא הבן סירב‬ ‫לו שניהם ]הלכו[ בלב שלם ובדעה שלמה לעשות רצונך אדון העולם ובנה‬ ‫את המזבח בחדווה הבן ‪. . .‬‬ ‫‪CUL T-S NS 138.79‬‬ ‫‪ [ ] . . . recto‬חרדה)?( ובקשה נתבקשה מלפניך רבון העולם‪ .‬באותה שעה‬ ‫כאשר מלאכי המרום ראו שיצחק ]נמצא[ על גבי המזבח ואביו שלוף סכין‬

‫לשחוט אותו קשרו מספד ואבל ובכי וכך אמרו בפניך אלוהי השמים אם‬ ‫יצחק הולך ונשחט מי יאמר לפניך 'עזי וזמרת יה' אם יצחק הולך ונשחט‬ ‫מי יאמר 'י'י איש מלחמה' אם יצחק הולך ונשחט מי יאמר לפניך 'מי כמוך‬ ‫באלים י'י' אם יצחק נשחט ‪ verso‬מי יא]מר[ לפניך 'י'י י]מל[וך' וכך ]כתוב[‬ ‫במפורש בכ]ת[בך 'הן אר]אלם[ צעקו חוצה מלאכי שלום מר יבכיון'‪.‬‬ ‫באותה שעה שלחת לו מלאך מן השמים ואמרת לו אברהם אב]רהם[ וכן‬ ‫כתוב 'ויקרא אליו מלאך י'י מן השמים' וגו' פעמיים קראת לו אל תשלח‬

‫‪complementary fragments from the cairo genizah‬‬

‫‪127‬‬

‫ידך אל הנער כמו שכתוב 'אל תשלח ידך אל הנער' והורדת לו טלה מן‬ ‫השמים וחיה רוחו והתקיימה נשמתו ואמר לפניך תשבחה‬ ‫‪CUL T-S NS 271.138‬‬

‫‪' recto‬ברוך מחיה המתים'‪ .‬נשבעת לו שבועה אשר לעולם לא תשנה את‬ ‫אימרתך ולא תבטל את שבועתך‪ .‬כמו שכתוב 'ויאמר בי נשבעתי נא]ום[‬ ‫י'י' וגו' אמרת לו לזקן אהובך שאני מברך את זרעו לעולם וזוכר את‬ ‫העקידה לעולם כמו שכ]תוב[ 'כי ברך אברכך' וגו' הראית לו איל לעולה‬ ‫אשר נברא בששת ימי בראשית והקריב אותו תחת יחידו והתפלל ואמר‬ ‫לפניך כאן יהיו הדורות עובדים }את האלהים{ וקבעת את עקידת יצחק‬ ‫לזכרון עולם ואמרת ‪ verso‬להם לעוקד ולנעקד כאשר בניכם יהיו בצרה‬ ‫יזכירו לפניי את העקידה ואני ארחם עליהם‪ .‬הרח]מן[ זכור לנו עקידת‬ ‫יצחק ורחם עלינו וניחשב לפניך כקרבן עולה הרח]מן[ הסתכל בעקידתו‬ ‫ורחם עלינו כי אנחנו בצרה גדולה הרח]מן[ ואל תתבטל תקוותנו ממך‪.‬‬ ‫ואל תנעל שערך בפנינו‪ .‬ואל תנזוף בנו ואל תגער בנו ואל תהיה אויבנו כי‬ ‫אתה אוהבנו ואהובם של אבותינו בזכות העקידה בהר המוריה הגן עלינו‬ ‫ושים עינך עלינו ‪. . .‬‬ ‫הדף השני של כתב יד קיימברידג' ‪ ,CUL T-S B8.9‬שפורסם גם הוא על‬ ‫ידי גרלו‪ ,‬מכיל תפילת סליחה‪ ,‬שאינה קשורה כלל לפרשת העקידה או‬ ‫לתרגום הארמי לתורה‪ .‬כדי להשלים את ההקשר הליטורגי של כתב היד‬ ‫נציג אותו כלשונו‪ ,‬בלי הערה או תוספת כלשהי‪.‬‬ ‫‪CUL T-S B8.9, folio 2‬‬ ‫‪recto‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬

‫מסכי לאיתפראקה וכל‬ ‫דמתאסר מצפה דנפיק‬ ‫[תא וכל דנחית מחמד‬ ‫]‬ ‫דהוי ליה מסקאנא‪ .‬אנחנא‬ ‫לית דמסיק יתנא מעומקא‬ ‫לית דשארי איסורן מינן לית‬ ‫דפריק לן מן שיעבודן אנחנא‬ ‫דחלין דעויאתן סגן לחדא‬ ‫וגרמו לן לאתנשאה מן קדמך‬ ‫חובן לא שבקן לאשכאחא‬ ‫אסו ועוייתן לא שבקן‬

‫‪verso‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬

‫לאשכאחא תיובתא‪ .‬אם‬ ‫בתיובתא תליא אסותן }מ{‬

‫‪chapter ten‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬

‫‪128‬‬

‫מטעינן לא שביק לן דנתיב‬ ‫לדחלתך הא מטעי יתן‬ ‫מאורחתך הא ליבא טפשא‬ ‫דאית בן לא יילף למדע‬ ‫דחלתך אף אנחנא בטלותא? ]או‪ :‬בפולגתא?[‬ ‫לא הוי לן אסו‪ .‬אנן מחשבין‬ ‫נכלין‪ /‬אנן מחשבין בישן‬ ‫חד על חבריה‪ .‬צבינא‬ ‫מומתא דשיקרא‪ .‬במה‬

‫ג‬ ‫תוספתות תרגומיות ופיוטים ארמיים רבים נתחברו לפרקים יד‪-‬טו‬ ‫ו‪-‬יט‪-‬כ בספר שמות‪ ,‬המשמשים לקריאת התורה בשביעי של פסח ובחג‬ ‫השבועות‪ .‬לעתים הועתקו יצירות אלו בחוברות נפרדות‪ ,‬כאוספים בפני‬ ‫עצמם‪ ,‬ולעתים הוכללו במחזורים של תפילות לחגים ושולבו לתוך סדרי‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫קריאת התורה‪.‬‬ ‫אחד הפיוטים הקדומים והנפוצים ביותר הינו 'אזיל משה'‪ ,‬אשר העתק‬ ‫קדום ביותר ממנו‪ ,‬כתוב על פאפירוס‪ ,‬פורסם על ידי יוסף יהלום‪ 10.‬יהלום‬ ‫תיארך את הפאפירוס למאה החמישית לסה"נ לכל המאוחר‪ ,‬והראה‬ ‫שמבחינה טקסטואלית‪ ,‬כתב היד מצטיין בנוסחו הפשוט והשוטף ובקצבו‬ ‫החלק‪ .‬אשר לגלגולי הטקסט המאוחרים יותר‪ ,‬הוא מציין ש'קרוב‪-‬ביותר‬ ‫לנוסח הפאפירוס נוסח הגניזה בלבד'‪ ,‬והכוונה לכתב יד אוקספורד‬ ‫‪ ,Heb e25‬שנתגלה על ידי פליישר והוזכר במאמרו של היינימן‪ .‬מאז פורסם‬ ‫כתב יד נוסף מגניזת קאהיר עם נוסח שונה של הפיוט‪ 11.‬מכיוון שהפאפירוס‬ ‫מקוטע ושחוק במידה רבה ונשתמרה בו פחות ממחצית הטקסט‪ ,‬חשיבותן‬ ‫של נוסחאות הגניזה נשארה בעינה‪ .‬גם יהלום נזקק לכתב יד אוקספורד‬ ‫הנזכר על מנת לשחזר ולהשלים את נוסחת הפאפירוס‪.‬‬ ‫והנה לאחרונה נתגלו קטעי גניזה נוספים בספריית בית המדרש לרבנים‬ ‫בניו יורק‪ .‬קטעים אלה מכילים שלושה פיוטים ארמיים‪ ,‬ובהם נוסח נוסף‬ ‫ל'אזיל משה'‪ .‬ביניהם משובצים גם תוספתא תרגומית לשמות טו ‪ 12‬ותרגום‬ ‫ארצישראלי לשמות טו ‪.15–13‬‬ ‫הפיוט הראשון הוא 'מאן כוותך' לשמות טו ‪ ,11‬אשר פורסם לראשונה‬ ‫בשנת ‪ 1900‬על ידי משה גינזבורגר על פי כתב יד דה רוסי‪ 12.‬בפיוט זה‬ ‫ראה היינימן )לעיל‪ ,‬הערה ‪.(5‬‬ ‫‪.‬י' יהלום‪'" ,‬אזל משה' בפאפירוס‪ ",‬תרביץ מז )תשל"ח(‪ ,‬עמ' ‪184–173‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫ראה קליין )לעיל‪ ,‬הערה ‪ ,(6‬עמ' ‪ .238–237‬נוסח אחד הוא זה שהוזכר‪ ,‬ואילו השני‪,‬‬ ‫‪ Heb c74–75.‬הדומה יותר לזה של המחזורים‪ ,‬גם הוא מספריית הבודלי באוקספורד‪ ,‬ציונו‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫”‪M. Ginsburger, “Aramäischer Introductionen zum Thargumvortrag an Festtagen,‬‬ ‫‪ZDMG 54 (1900), 122f.‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬

‫‪10‬‬

‫‪129‬‬

‫‪complementary fragments from the cairo genizah‬‬

‫מקלסים משה והמלאכים את האלוהים לסירוגין‪ .‬בכתב היד נשתמרו‬ ‫רק האותיות עי"ן עד ת"ו מהאקרוסטיכון‪ ,‬ואין בו חילופין משמעותיים‪.‬‬ ‫גם התוספתא לפסוק ‪ 12‬מקוטעת היא‪ ,‬וההבדלים בינה לבין הנוסחאות‬ ‫בניאופיטי‪ ,‬בקטעי הגניזה האחרים ובתרגום הקטעים אינם נראים כחשובים‬ ‫במיוחד‪.‬‬ ‫הפיוט השני הוא כאמור 'אזיל משה'‪ ,‬שנשתמר כמעט במלואו עם כותרת‬ ‫']אל[פביט ]כך![ דויושע'‪ .‬השוואת הנוסח החדש עם אלה הידועים כבר‪,‬‬ ‫מראה שהוא שייך דווקא לקבוצת המאוחרים‪ ,‬בניגוד לפאפירוס ולכתב‬ ‫יד אוקספורד ‪ .Heb e25‬ובכל זאת יש בו חילופין מעניינים הראויים לציון‪,‬‬ ‫כגון 'ומצראי דחקין מן בתריהון' במקום 'שנאיהון רדפין ‪) ' . . .‬אות ה"א(‪,‬‬ ‫ו'קלפוני דקיריס' במקום 'דבירה' או 'קל רוח דקודשא' )אות שי"ן(‪.‬‬ ‫הפיוט השלישי הוא 'אנגלי מרומא' לשמות יט ‪ ,25‬המוכר אף הוא‬ ‫מהמחזורים ואשר פורסם לראשונה על ידי גינזבורגר‪ 13,‬ושוב על ידי‬ ‫דודזון והיינימן‪ 14.‬הנוסח שלפנינו מסומן בכותרת 'אלפבית דוירד משה'‬ ‫והוא מורכב משני חלקים‪ ,‬האחד הוא ויכוח בין משה לבין מלאכי מרום‬ ‫המתנגדים לכניסתו השמימה‪' :‬פתחון לי דניעול ‪ . . .‬לית אנן פתחין'‪ ,‬ואילו‬ ‫השני הוא סירובו של משה לרדת ארצה בטרם יקבל את התורה‪' :‬לית‬ ‫אנא נחית עד אורייתא אסב'‪ .‬יש להצטער רק על כך שכתב היד מקוטע‬ ‫ושנוסחו משובש‪ .‬לאור הערות אלו נציג את הטקסטים של כתב יד זה‬ ‫כלשונם ובלי הרחבה כלשהי‪.‬‬ ‫תיאור כתב היד‪ :‬שני דפי קלף‪ ,‬שמידותיהם ‪ 14 × 14.2‬ס"מ בממוצע‪,‬‬ ‫שלוש עשרה עד ארבע עשרה שורות לעמוד‪ .‬קרוע במקצת‪ .‬כתיב מזרחי‬ ‫רהוט למחצה‪ .‬ניקוד טברני ספוראדי‪.‬‬ ‫‪JTS ENA 2752.18‬‬ ‫‪) recto‬לוח ‪(9‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬

‫עונה עלובין דהוון מושפלין אמ]רין[ מל]אכיא[ מן כות]ך[ פונה וחובש‪.‬‬ ‫אמ]ר[‬ ‫מש]ה[ צדקה לובש ונקמה מתלבש אמ מל מן כותך קרב לעובדך‪.‬‬ ‫אמ מש רברבין עובדך וכולא ע]ובד[א ידך‪ .‬אמ מל מן כות‬ ‫שליט באיכסוסייא‪ .‬אמ מש וע]בד[ נסיא לעמוסיא‪ .‬אמ מל‬ ‫מן כות תקוף באראלים‪ .‬אמ מש לשמך מהללים מי כמוך‬ ‫באלים‪ .‬אמ מל מן כותך באילי מרומא ייי מן כותך הדור‬ ‫]בלבושך ד[חיל בתושבחתא עביד נסין ופליאן לעמיה בית יש‪:‬‬

‫‪13‬‬ ‫‪M. Ginsburger, 'Les Introductions Araméennes a la Lecture du Targum', REJ 73‬‬ ‫‪(1921), 15–16.‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬ ‫י' דודזון‪ ,‬אוצר השירה והפיוט‪ ,‬ניו יורק‪ ,‬תרפ"ה‪ ,‬א‪ ;6374 ,‬היינימן )לעיל‪ ,‬הערה ‪ ,(5‬עמ'‬ ‫‪ .365‬היינימן מציין שהוא מסתמך על הנוסח של א' רוזנטל‪' ,‬הפיוטים הארמיים לשבועות'‪,‬‬ ‫עבודת גמר בחוג ללשון עברית‪ ,‬האוניברסיטה העברית‪ ,‬ירושלים תשכ"ו‪ ,‬עמ' ‪.103‬‬

‫‪chapter ten‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬

‫‪130‬‬

‫‪] /////‬ימא וארעא הוון מדיי[נין כחדא ואמרין ימא הות‬ ‫וארע[א הות אמרא לאנא קבל‬ ‫א]מ[ר]א‬ ‫ת[ביעא יתהון ולא ארעא‬ ‫קטיליך ]‬ ‫[ קדמך ארכנת ידך בשבועה‬ ‫הות בעיא ‪] ////‬‬ ‫ואשתבעת לא]רעא דלית את תב[ע יתהון מיניה לעלמא‬ ‫דאתי הא בכן פתחת ארע]א ית פ[מה ובלעת יתהון‪ (13) :‬נחית‬ ‫דברת בחסדך עמא האי]ליין די[ פרקתא ותאחסן יתהון בטור‬

‫‪) verso‬לוח ‪(10‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬

‫אחסנותך מבית שכינת קדשך‪ (14) -‬שמעו‪ .‬שמעו אומיא‬ ‫אתרגזון רתיתא אחדת יתהון כל דירי ארעא דפלשתאי‪-.‬‬ ‫)‪ (15‬אז‪ .‬הא בכן אתבהילו ר]בר[באי אדומאי תקיפי מואבאי‬ ‫רתיתא אחדת יתהון אתמ]סי[ בלבביהון כל דירי ארעא דכנענאי‬ ‫]אל[פביט)!( דויושע‪ '-‬איזל משה וקום על ימא‪ .‬ואמר לימא‬ ‫זע מן קדמוי‪ -‬בשמי תיזיל ותימור לימא שלוחיה אנא‬ ‫ליוצר בראשית גלי ארחך שעה זעירא עד דיעברון‬ ‫בגוך פריקוי דקיריס‪ -‬דע]מא דיש שר[יין בעקא‬ ‫דשנאיהון רדפין מן בתר]יהון‪ -‬הא ימא[ מן קדמיהון‬ ‫ומצראי דחקין מן בתרי]הון‪ -‬ואזל מ[שה וקם על ימא ואמ‬ ‫לימא זע מן קדם אל‪] .‬זע ימא מן[ קדם משה כד חמא בידיה‬ ‫חטר נסייא‪ -‬חימה ורו]גזא עלת[ לימא והוה מתרברב למחזור‬ ‫לבתריה‪ -‬טעו הי לך בר]יה ד[עמרם דאנא מתכבש מן‬ ‫ילוד דאיתה‪ -‬יומין תלתא אנא רב מנך‪ .‬והיך את יכול‬ ‫‪JTS ENA 2752.19‬‬

‫‪) recto‬לוח ‪(11‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬

‫למכבוש יתי‪ -‬כד חמא משה לימא מסרהב וגללוהי מתרברבין‬ ‫עלוהא לית שעתא דא שעת דינא האת לקבלי ואנא לקבלך‪-.‬‬ ‫מתיב משה ואמר לימא דאנא שלוחיה ליוצר בראשית‪-‬‬ ‫נתהפך ימא כד שמע למילתיה וקם ליה למעבד רעותיה‪-‬‬ ‫סוף מליא אמ )מש( ימא למש לית אנא מתכבש מן יליד דאתא‪-‬‬ ‫ענה משה ואמ לימא רב מיני ומנך יכבוש יתך‪ .‬פתח‬ ‫משה פומיה בשירה הכדין שבח בתושבחתא‪ .‬צלותיה‬ ‫דמש עלת בבעו ובתחנונים אמר מילתיה‪ -‬רבונו דעלמא‬ ‫לא תמסור עמך בי]דיה דפרעה[ רשיעא‪ -‬שמע ימא קלפוני‬ ‫דקיריס‪ .‬דהוה ממלל ]עם משה[ מן גו נורא הכדין אמרת‬ ‫לי בספר דאוריתא‪ .‬כען ת]חמי ית דא[יעבד לפרעה‪ .‬תב ימא‬ ‫מן גללוהי ועברו בגוה בני י]שראל[ ‪ -‬אלפבית דוירד משה‪.‬‬ ‫אנגלי מרומא פתחון לי דניעול אמ משה אנן לא פתחין‬

‫‪131‬‬

‫‪complementary fragments from the cairo genizah‬‬

‫‪) verso‬לוח ‪(12‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬

‫ולא שליטין למפתח‪ .‬אמרו מלאכיא למשה נבייא‪ -‬ביה אנא צווח‬ ‫אורנוס פתחון לי‪ .‬אמר משה ביה צווח קדם קירוס למצוח‪ .‬אמ‬ ‫מל למש נבייא‪] .‬א[ין )את סליק ] [ סופך( אתון לא פתחין סופיכון למפתח‪.‬‬ ‫אמ מש ]א[ין את סליק סופך לנחית‪ .‬אמרו מלאכיא למש נבייא‪.‬‬ ‫ואמר משה למלאכיא‪ .‬לית אנא נחית עד אוריתי אסב‬ ‫ועד אצבע גבורתי )א(נכתב‪ .‬עד אסב כלתי ואיזיל‪ .‬עד אסב }א‪{-‬‬ ‫אוריתי ואיחות‪ -.‬לית אנא נחית עד בריוני נחמה ועד‪--‬‬ ‫בלוחות נירמה‪ .‬עד אסב כלתי עד אסב אוריתי ואיחות‪-‬‬ ‫[ נתכון בקרני אנגח‪.‬‬ ‫לית אנא נחית עד גבור נש]‬ ‫עד אסב כלתי ועא או‪[ ] :‬תי אי‪/‬ופה)?( ועד דאימלל‬ ‫פה אל פה‪ .‬עד אסב כלת]י ו[עא או‪ :‬לאנ עד השופרין‬ ‫תוקעין‪ .‬ועד אומה ביתבע] ע[ד אסב כלתי ואזיל‪ .‬עאאו‪.‬‬ ‫לאנ עד ונוריד יקרה ועד לב‪/‬כניס)?( יקרא עד אסב כלתי ו ‪. . .‬‬

CHAPTER ELEVEN

THE TARGUMIC TOSEFTA TO EXODUS 15:2* In his Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie, L. Zunz listed a number of Aramaic passages in the festival liturgy that have their origin in the targumic toseftot (additions, expansions).1 Most prominent in this listing are the many toseftot to the Song of the Sea (Exod 15), which is part of the Torah reading for the Seventh Day of Passover, the traditional date of the Crossing of the Sea. Several of those toseftot were published by S. Hurwitz in his edition of the Mahzor Vitry,2 and two of these were republished by A. Epstein, together with a number of other toseftot not related to Exod 15.3 In 1895, M. Ginsburger published a comparative study of the versions of some of these toseftot, as preserved in the various MSS of the Fragmentary Targums (TJ2), Pseudo-Jonathan (TJ1) and the Mahzor Vitry,4 and five years later he published additional toseftot, listed by Zunz but not included in the Mahzor Vitry.5 These new toseftot were transcribed by Ginsburger from MS Parma, de-Rossi 3132 (61), and he notes that they appear in other MSS as well. In particular, Ginsburger mentions that the tosefta to Exod 15:2 is also found in MS Parma, de Rossi 2887 (736), only there, the literal translation of the first half of the verse introduces the

* To Shoshi, the Israelite woman, and to Mattan and ‘Elad born 24 Aug 1973, 1975. 1 Berlin, 1865, pp. 21f. Zunz merely gives the opening word or phrase of each passage, and occasionally, the closing phrase as well. 2 Leipzig, 1889; reprinted: Nürnberg, 1923, pp. 305–309. 3 “Tosefta du Targoum Yerouschalmi,” REJ 30 (1895), pp. 48–49. 4 “Die Thargumim zur Thoralection am 7. Pesach- und 1. Shabuoth-Tage,” MGWJ 39 (1895), pp. 97–105, 167–175, 193–206. 5 “Aramäische Introductionen zum Thargumvortrag an Festtagen,” ZDMG 54 (1900), pp. 120–21, 123. The tosefta to Exod 15:4, which Ginsburger thought he had discovered (“habe iche eine von Zunz nicht erwähnte Introduction . . . gefunden”), is actually listed by L. Zunz in Literaturgeschichte . . . p. 21, bottom no. 5, ‫והוה כד אתגלי‬. For the sake of completeness, I note the following more recent publications of targumic toseftot to Exod 15, namely, P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens II (Stuttgart, 1930: reprinted Hildesheim, 1967) MS G, pp. 63f. .‫רכח‬-‫ רכג‬,(‫" סיני מה' )תשי"ט‬,‫סוף‬-‫ "נוסח התרגום על קריאת ים‬,‫ קומלוש‬.‫י‬ ‫" פרסומי החברה לחקר המקרא‬,'‫——— ”קטע של תרגום ירושלמי ל'אז ישיר משה‬ .11–7 ,(‫ ספר זיידל יא' )תשכ"ב‬:‫בישראל‬

134

chapter eleven

tosefta, rather than following it.6 Ginsburger, therefore, saw no need to present MS Parma 2887. A comparison of these two MSS shows that Ginsburger was somewhat mistaken. Aside from the many grammatical, syntactical and stylistic differences between the two texts, Parma 3132 is missing an entire midrashic episode (nearly three lines) contained in Parma 2887. I am, therefore, presenting the tosefta according to MS Parma 2887, with an apparatus containing the many variants of 3132. MS Parma 2887 is an Ashkenazic mahzor for the entire year. It contains the Torah readings for the Seventh Day of Passover (folios 34b–41a), and for Shavu‘ot (folios 86b–97a). These are interspersed with many Aramaic acrostic poems and targumic toseftot. The text is written on parchment, in an unvocalized German, fourteenth-century, square script. The MS is very well preserved.7 Biblioteca Palatina di Parma, Codice de-Rossi 2887 (736) folio 38a

‫תוקפן‬ ‫( ̎ע̎וזי ̎וז̎מ̎רת‬2) ‫ורוב תושבחתן לריבון כל עלמא י'י· אמר במימריה והוה‬ ‫לן לפריק· דכד אישתעבידו בני ישר ֹ במצרים בתר מותא‬ ‫דיוסף צדיקא· גזרו עליהון תלתא גזירן תקיפן‬ ‫גזירה קמיתא למיררי חייהון בטינא ובליבנין· תיניינא‬ ·‫בכל פולחן חקלא· תליתאה לקטלא להון כל בנין דוכרין‬ ‫וכד חזו חרשיא דבעיין חיין חכימתא· גזרו למירמי‬ ֹ ‫יתהון בנהרא· וכד מטא זמן מולדיהון דנשיהון דישר‬ ‫הוואן נפקן לאפי חקלא ומולידן תמן ושבקן בניהון‬ ‫והדרן· ומלאכא הוה אתי ושקיל יתיה ומסחי יתיה‬ ‫ויהיב בידוהי תרתין אבנין מן חדא מייץ חלבא ומן‬ ‫חדא מייץ דובשא· ואתו מצר ֹ וחזיין להון ובעו‬ ‫ ופתחא ארעא פומיה ובלעת יתהון· ומייתן‬.‫לתפסיהון‬ ‫תורין ורדיין על גביהון· ולא יכלין להון· וכד הוו מרביין‬

6

.13 .14 .15 .16 .17 .18 .19 .20 .21 .22 .23 .24 .25 .26

“. . . mit dem einen Unterschiede, dass sie im ersten (Parma, de-Rossi 2887 [736]) wirklich mit ‫ תוקפן‬beginnt, im letzeren (Parma, de-Rossi 3132 [61]) dagegen mit ‫והוה‬ ‫ כד אשתעבידו‬und mit '‫ תוקפן וכו‬schliesst” (ZDMG 54 (1900), 120). 7 Cf. MSS. Codices Hebraici Biblioth. I. B. De-Rossi, (Parmae, 1803), II, p. 143. The present transcription was made from a microfilm of the MS at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts, at the Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem (no. 13780). I hereby express my gratitude to the Biblioteca Palatina di Parma and to the Institute for their kind permission and assistance.

the targumic tosefta to exodus 15:2

135 folio 38b

‫והוו מהדרין לבית אבהתהון· וכד חזו ההיא ידא הכא‬ ·‫על ימא· פתחו פומהון ואמרין· דין הוא אלהֹא ונשבחיניה‬ ··‫אלהא דאבהתנא ונרוממיניה‬

.1 .2 .3

This passage follows the ‫ לפריק[ ואמרין‬. . . ‫ תוקפן‬:13–15 | MT ‫ עוזי[ עזי‬:13 ‫ תושבחתן[ תושבחן | לריבון כל עלמא[ דחיל‬: 14| word at fol. 38b, line 2 [‫ גזירה‬:17 | ‫ גזירן[ גזרין‬:16 | ‫ לפריק[ לפרוק | דכד[ והוה כד‬:15 | ‫כל עממיא‬ ‫גזירתא תקיפא | קמיתא קדמיתא | למיררי[ לאמררא | ובליבנין[ ובליבניא‬ [‫ לקטלא להון לקטלא על מתברא | בנין דוכרין‬:18 |‫| תיניינא[ תניינא‬ ‫ חזו חרשיא דבעיין חיין חכימתא[ חסו חכימיא‬:19 | ‫ברא דוכרא דידהון‬ ‫ ובנתא דישראל מה הוו עבדן | וכד מטא[ כד הוה מטי‬+ [‫ בנהרא‬:20 | :22 | ‫ תמן‬+ [‫ ומולידן[ ומולדן | בניהון‬:21 | missing [‫| דנשיהון דישר ֹ הוואן‬ [‫ בידוהי[ בידיה | תרתין‬:23 | ‫ ומלפיף יתיה‬+ [‫ לבתיהון | ומסחי יתיה‬+ [‫והדרן‬ missing [‫ להון‬. . . ‫ ואתו‬:24–26 | ‫ חלבא‬. . . ‫ דובשא[ דובשא‬. . . ‫תרין | חלבא‬ | ‫ והוו מהדרין[ הדרן | לבית אבהתהון[ לבתיהון‬:1 | ‫ עד דהוו מרביין‬+ ; [‫ על ימא[ ביני גללייא הוו ידעין | פתחו‬:2 | ‫וכד[ וכדו | הכא[ תקיפתא‬ The passage ‫ לפרוק‬. . . ‫ כחדא | ואמרין[ תוקפן‬+ [‫ופתחו כולהון | פומהון‬ [‫ אמרין בני ישראל | אלהא‬+; (fol. 38a lines 13–15) is inserted here .‫ דאבהתנא[ דאבהתין‬:3 | ‫אלהן‬ Translation 13 (2) My strength and might [RSV: song]: Our strength 14 and our many praises to the Master of all the world, the Lord, Who declared throughout His memra, and was 15 our redeemer. For when the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt after the death 16 of Joseph the righteous, three harsh decrees were promulgated against them. 17 The first decree was to embitter their lives at mortar and bricks; the second, 18 in work in the field; the third to kill all of their male children. 19 But when the sorcerers saw that the midwives seek clever things [schemes], they decreed that they [the children] be cast 20 into the river. And when the time approached for the Israelite women to give birth

136

chapter eleven

21 they would go out to the field and give birth there, and abandon their children 22 and return. And an angel would come and take him [the child] and wash him 23 and place in his hands two stones: from one he sucked milk and from 24 one he sucked honey. And the Egyptians came and saw them [the children], and tried 25 to seize them, but the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them [the children] up, and they [the Egyptians] would bring 26 oxen and plow over them, but they were unable to [harm] them. And when they grew up 1 and (?) they returned to their fathers’ house; and when they saw that [same] hand here 2 at the sea, they opened their mouths and said: This is the Lord and let us praise Him, 3 the God of our fathers, and let us extol Him. Commentary The sections ‫ לפריק‬. . . ‫( תוקפן‬lines 13–15) and ‫ ונרוממיניה‬. . . ‫( דין‬lines 2–3), contain the literal translation of Exod 15:2, and are to be found, with some variation, in all of the extant targumim. Most of the other targumim have ‫דחיל כל עלמא‬,8 while Ms. Paris 110,9 Mahzor Vitry and other Parma mahzorim10 have ‫רבון כל עלמא‬. And yet, our MS (line 14) is unique in its addition of the prepositional lamed (‫)לריבון‬,

8 The reading ‫ דחיל כל עממיא‬in Ms. Parma 3132 is probably a corruption of ‫דחיל‬ ‫ כל עלמא‬cf. MSS Parma, de-Rossi 2736 (804) and 3003 (420). 9 Ms. Paris 110, which is a Fragmentary Targum to the entire Pentateuch, is recensionally related to the sections of targum included in the various mahzorim. Two of the lengthy sections fully preserved in MS Paris 110, are the readings for the Seventh Day of Passover and for Shavu‘ot (Exod 13:17–15:26 and 19:1–20:14), including many toseftot and the acrostic poem ‫איזיל משה‬. A comparative study of the structure of the tosefta to Exod 15:3 (the order of the Israelite proposals and of Moses’ answers) supports this recensional grouping. Cf. M. Ginsburger, MGWJ 39 (1895), 195. Interestingly enough, the reverse is true of Ms. Sassoon 264. For while this MS is a Yemenite Mahzor, it contains the Fragmentary Targum to the entire Pentateuch in the non-liturgical recension. It is to be grouped with the Bomberg ed. 1517, and MSS Vatican 440, Nürnberg 1, Leipzig-University 1 and Moscow-Günzberg 3, as opposed to Paris 110. 10 E.g., Mss. Parma, de-Rossi 2411 (1107), 3000 (378) and 2574 (159).

the targumic tosefta to exodus 15:2

137

which alters the meaning of the entire phrase from “The Lord is our might and praise” to “Our might and praise are to the Lord.”10a Lines 15–20: Cf. Exod 15:8, 14–22 Line 20 to end: This tosefta is not to be confused with those of another tradition, found in TJ2 and TJ1: ‫מן תדי אימהתא הוו ינקיא מרמיין באצבעתהון לאבהתהון ואמרין להון דין הוא‬ ֹ ‫אבונן דהוה מייניק לן דבש מן כיפא ומשח יתן מן שמיר טינרא עניין בני ישר‬ ‫ואמ' דין לדין דין הוא אלהן ונשבח יתיה אלהא דאבהתן ונרוממה יתיה‬ From [their] mothers’ breasts the sucklings raised [signaled] with their fingers to their fathers and said to them, “This is our Father Who would make us suck honey from the rock, and Who anointed us from the flint stone.” The Israelites answered, saying to one another, “This is our God, let us praise Him; the God of our fathers, let us extol Him.” (FT according to Ms. Nürnberg 1)11

And: ‫מן תדיי אימהון הוון ינקיא מחוון באצבעתהון לאבהתהון ואמרין דין הוא‬ ‫אלקן דהוה מוניק לן דובשא מן כיפא ומשח מן שמיר טינרא בעידן דאימן‬ ‫נפקן לאנפי ברא וילדן ושבקן יתן תמן ומשדר מלאכא ומסחי יתן ומלפף‬ ‫יתן וכדון נשבחיניה אלקא דאבהתן ונרוממיניה‬ From their mothers’ breasts the sucklings would indicate with their fingers to their fathers and say, “This is our God, Who used to make us suck honey from the rock and oil from the flint stone, when our mothers went out to the field, and gave birth, and abandoned us there. And He would send an angel who washed us and swaddled us. And now let us praise Him, God of our fathers, and let us extol Him.” (TJ1, according to MS Br. Mus. Add. 27031)

The common element in all of these sources is the two stones from which the infants sucked milk/oil and honey. This is basically a midrash to Deut 32:13, “And He made him suck honey out of the crag and oil out of the flinty rock.” The alterations to the more common “milk and

10a Another MS that contains the prepositional lamed is the closely related MS Oxford Bodleian 2373 (folio 118b, line 18). This ms. is also an Ashkenazic Mahzor in a German script. Its text generally agrees with MS Parma 2887 against the other sources. Ms. Oxford 2373 contains many inferior readings, and suffers from several sizable scribal omissions. 11 This is very closely paralleled in the Bomberg 1517 ed., and in MS Sassoon 264. Ms. Vatican 440 contains several minor variants.

138

chapter eleven

honey” (MS Parma 2887), or to the more logical “anointed with oil” (TJ2), are secondary and minor. However, more important than this common element, are the differences between these toseftot. MS Parma 2887 is built upon a local midrash, whose purpose is to answer the question, “How did the Israelites recognize the Lord at the Crossing of the Sea [viz.: ‫]זה אלי‬, never having experienced Him? The answer is, they recognized the God Who had cared for them as infants, when their mothers abandoned them in the field. In this tradition, the adult Israelites recall their childhood, and praise the Lord at the sea. The tradition of TJ1 and TJ2 is based upon a midrash to Ps 8:3, “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast Thou founded strength.” The association with Exod 15:2, is probably via the common word “strength” (‫ עוז‬and ‫)עזי‬. In both TJ1 and TJ2, it is the infants that praise the Lord. The joining of the midrash of “the two stones” with that of “recollection in adulthood,” in MS Parma 2887, is quite logical. On the other hand, the juxtaposition in TJ2 and TJ1, of “babes praising” and “babes recollecting the two stones” is artificial and secondary.12 In fact, the parallels to these targumic toseftot in rabbinic literature bear out this distinction. Exod. Rab. 23:9 and b. Soṭah 11B, which parallel MS Parma 2887, bring both of the elements: 1) the two stones; 2) recollection in adulthood. This is not the case with the parallels to TJ2 and TJ1. Of all the sources that associate “from the mouth of babes” with the Song of the Sea, not one adds the element of “recollecting the two stones.”13 It seems that the proper association of the midrash of “the two stones” with Exod 15:2 in the tradition of MS Parma 2887, brought about the conflation in TJ1 and TJ2, which originally contained only the “from the mouth of babes” midrash. The tosefta according to MS Parma 2887 is primary; that of TJ2 and TJ1, is secondary.

12 This illogical association of midrashim is carried to the extreme in the confused and corrupted version of MS Parma, de-Rossi 3000 (378): “From our mothers’ wombs they indicated [with] a finger to their fathers and said, “This is our God, their [sic] father, Who would make you [sic] suck from heaven [sic] from a rock, and anointed us. . . .” The concept of praising from the womb originates in a midrash to Ps 68:27 (26), “. . . bless the Lord . . . from the source [fountain] of Israel.” This midrash is generally brought alongside that of “from the mouth of babes” (see next note for citations). 13 E.g., y. Soṭah 5:6 (= 20c); t. Soṭah 6:4 (2); b. Soṭah 30b: Mekilta, Shireta 1 (ed. M. Ish-Shalom, Vienna, 1870; reprinted New York, 1948), p. 35; Midrash ha-Gadol to Exod 15:1 (ed. M. Margaliot, Jerusalem, 1967), p. 284.

the targumic tosefta to exodus 15:2

139

Lines 18–19, ‫ חכימתא‬. . . ‫תליתאה‬: This passage is based upon Exod 1:15–22. In the Biblical passage there are two distinct decrees, 1) to kill the newborn children in the birthstool (v. 16), and 2) to cast them into the Nile (v. 22). Both of these decrees are preserved in Ms. Parma 3132 (61): [sic] ‫תליתאה לקטלא על מתברא כל ברא דכורא דידהון וכד חסו חכימיא‬

.‫גזרו למרמי יתהון בנהרא‬ The third [decree], to kill every male child of theirs in the birthstool. But when the wise [wo]men had mercy, they decreed to throw them into the river.

Another Ms., Parma 2736 (804), corrects the erroneous ‫ חכימיא‬but deletes the word ‫גזרו‬: ‫תליתאה לקטלא על מדברא כל ברא דיכרא דידהון וכד חסו חכימתא‬ .‫]גזרו[ למרמי יתהון בנהרא‬ In our MS, the “birthstool” motif is missing from the first decree; and the details of the “sorcerers” and the “midwives” are added. Moreover, the meaning of ‫ חכימתא‬is not the usual “wise women,” but rather “wise things [schemes].” The element of the midwives is Biblical (vv. 17–19); the involvement of the sorcerers is midrashic.14

Line 22, an angel: In the original version, the Lord Himself descends and cares for the infants.15 This better suits the conclusion of the Israelites recognizing Him at the sea. However, the removal of direct Divine intervention and its delegation to various messengers is paralleled in the sources.16 Lines 23–24, ‫ דבש‬. . . ‫חלב‬: As noted above, the original version is “honey and oil” (Deut 32:13).17 However, since babies do not usually suck oil, this phrase had to be altered to either “suck honey and be anointed

E.g., Exod. Rab. 1:12; b. Soṭah 11a, ‫שלשה היו באותה עצה‬. Cf. Exod. Rab. 23:9, with the addition of ‫“ בכבודו כביכול‬in His glory, as it were”; Pesikta Rabbati (ed. M. Ish-Shalom, Vienna, 1880), p. 189; Yalkut Shimoni 165 (ed. New York, 1944), p. 107a; Pirke d’R. Eliezer 42 (ed. Warsaw, 1852; reprinted Jerusalem, 1960), p. 99b. 16 Exod. Rab. 1:16 “an angel”; b. Soṭah 11b, “someone”; Tana d’be Eliyahu (ed. M. IshShalom, reprint: Jerusalem, 1960), p. 43, “the ministering angels”; Chronik des Moses, in A. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch (Jerusalem, 1938), II, 1–2, “his angels”; and Sepher hajaschar (ed. L. Goldschmidt, Berlin, 1923), p. 141, “an angel from among his servants.” 17 Exod. Rab. 1:16 and 23:9; b. Soṭah 11b; Pirke d’R. Eliezer 42; and TJ1. 14 15

140

chapter eleven

with oil”18 or to “suck honey and milk.”19 A tertiary version has the more common reverse order, “suck milk and honey.”20 Lines 24–26, ‫ להון‬. . . ‫ואתו‬: This episode is missing from most of the parallel sources. It is, however, to be found in b. Soṭah 11b, where it is associated with Ps 129:3, “The plowers plowed across my back.” It is also included in “Chronik des Moses” (p. 2), and in Sepher hajaschar (pp. 141–42). Line 25, ‫ יתהון‬. . . ‫ופתחא‬: Note the similarity between this phrase and the targum to Num 16:32. Lines 1–2, ‫ ימא‬. . . ‫וכד‬: Cf. Exod 14:31, “And Israel saw the great hand which the Lord used in Egypt.” Conclusion The tosefta to Exod 15:2 is just one of the many toseftot that have been included in the targumim to the Pentateuch. These compositions appear in many versions in the various targumic and midrashic contexts. As we have seen, they may be composite constructions of several originally independent midrashim, in which each component may have many variants. In our instance, MS Parma, de-Rossi 2887 (736), represents the fullest version of the targumic tosefta to Exod 15:2. On the other hand, some of its elements have been shown to be secondary variants of midrashim to other Biblical verses.

18 MSS Vatican 440, Nürnberg 1, Sassoon 264 and Bomberg ed. 1517. The Bomberg ed. is incorrectly vocalized ‫“ ומשה יִ ֵתן‬give oil” instead of ‫“ ומשה יָ ָתן‬anoint us,” cf. the parallel use of the personal pronoun in MS Vatican 440: ‫דהוה מניק יתן דבש מן כיפא‬ ‫ומשח יתן )ממושח( מן שמיר טינרא‬. The source of this error in the edition and of the dittograph in MS Vatican 440 may be traced to Deut 32:13 where both ‫ דבש‬and ‫ שמן‬are substantives. 19 E.g., MSS Parma, de-Rossi 3132 (61) and 2736 (804). Yalkut Shimoni 165 offers a conflated version, “from one stone they sucked honey and milk, and from the other they were anointed with oil.” 20 Chronik des Moses, p. 2: Sepher hajashcar, p. 141.

CHAPTER TWELVE

NEW FRAGMENTS OF TARGUM TO ESTHER FROM THE CAIRO GENIZAH Rimon Kasher and Michael L. Klein It is common knowledge that the Esther Scroll enjoys many Aramaic translations. This is perhaps most vividly described by Rav Hai Gaon, head of the academy in Pumbeditha during the 10–11th centuries, who wrote in one of his responsa, that at that time there existed in Babylonia several distinct targumim to Esther. In response to the specific query he says: “Regarding your comment that your Targum of Esther does not contain any mention of the End [of Days]. . . . What is the source of your targum, and who wrote it?. . . . It can only be a vulgar text [‫ !]תרגום של הדיוטות‬Moreover, there exist here in Babylonia various targums of Esther that are distinct from one another: one with many additional aggadic passages [‫]תוספת הרבה ומדרשות‬, and another without them.”1 A survey of the extant manuscripts and editions of Targum Esther indeed substantiates Hai Gaon’s view. Not only are there two major traditions of Targum Esther, commonly called “Targum Rishon” and “Targum Sheni,” but each of these versions is itself comprised of several sub-traditions.2 And, on the other hand, there are passages of targum that are shared, almost verbatim, by both of these major traditions.3

1 Published by L. Ginzberg, Genizah Studies in Memory of Dr. Solomon Schechter [Ginzei Schechter] II (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1929), [and photo reprint Jerusalem: Makor, 1969], p. 86. Naturally, the presence of many or few “additional aggadic passages” does not necessarily reflect a paraphrastic or literal approach in the intervening translational passages. 2 This is demonstrated by the many variants cited in the apparatus of the critical editions, e.g., B. Grossfeld, The First Targum to Esther to verses 1:1, 3; 2:10; 5:14; 6:1; 8:15; 9:14, 25, 28; 10:2, 3; (Appendix, pp. 193–97), and L. Munk, Targum Scheni to verses 1:22, 29; 3:7, 8; 4:13; 6:11. 3 Cf., e.g., the notes of Grossfeld and Munk to Esther 3:7 in the editions cited in the preceding note. Also see Munk’s notes to 1:3; 2:7; 3:9; 5:14; 6:1, 11; 7:10; 8:15, 16. On the complexity of the targumim to Esther, see P. Grelot, “Observations sur les targums I et II d’Esther,” Biblica 56 (1975) 53–73. See, also, L. Diez Merino, “El Targum

142

chapter twelve

In addition to the traditions of Targums Rishon and Sheni, there seems to be yet a third targumic tradition, which contains verses and passages from either of the other two traditions, but also very substantial unique passages that are unparalleled in the other versions. The 15th century Yemenite manuscript published by A. Sperber (British Library 147 [= Or. 2375]) is a representative example of this textual tradition,4 as are several earlier unpublished manuscripts (e.g., MS Sassoon 282 [Ashkenazic, dated 1189]; MS Vatican Urbaniti 1 [Ashkenazic?, dated 1294]). The plurality of names for Targum Esther is further evidence for the multiplicity of targumic traditions, even if several of the names refer to the same text. Among the dozen attested names are: Targum Zutta, Targum Yerushalmi, Targum Rabba di-Yerushalmi, Tosefta de-Targum Yerushalmi, Targum Rabbati, and Targum Rabbah.5 Additional proof for this plurality may be adduced from the many citations of Targum Esther throughout midrashic literature and the medieval commentaries to Esther, which are not in agreement with any of the presently extant texts.6 We can only conclude that, unlike Onqelos and Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, Targum Esther was never subjected to the processes of standardization or canonization. Even if some widely accepted targumic base text existed, it could be contracted or elaborated upon, in response to the particular needs of a meturgeman and his congregation. It is, therefore, no surprise that among the targumic fragments recently discovered in the Genizah collections of Cambridge University Library, several new composite texts of Targum Esther have come to light. These texts are made up of alternate passages of Targum Rishon and Targum Sheni, as well as passages of unattested expansive targum paralleled only in the Midrash Panim Aḥ erim or in the Midrash Abba

de Ester en la tradición sefardi, en el ms. G-1-5 de el Escorial,” Estudios Biblicos 45 (1987) 57–92. 4 A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, Vol. IV A, pp. 171–205. 5 Additional names are Targum Esther, Targum Rishon, Targum Sheni, Targum Aḥ er, Tosafot Yerushalmi, Targum Tosefta. See L. Munk (note 2, above), Introduction, pp. 3–9. 6 Cf. M. Goshen-Gottstein, Fragments of Lost Targumim, Parts 1, 2 (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1983, 1989), for citations of otherwise unattested passages of targum to Esther preserved in m. Soferim, Esth. Rab. and the fourteenth-century Bible manuscript MS Sassoon 368 (“Farḥ i Bible”).

new fragments of targum to esther from the cairo genizah 143 Gurion.7 They also contain several new midrashic motifs and developments that are unattested in the extant midrashic literature. The following is a brief description of the manuscripts:8 T-S B 11.52 and T-S B 12.21 Esther 5:10–7:5 Aramaic: Targum to Esther, with Hebrew lemmata. Paper; 4 leaves (= 2 continuous bifolia); slightly mutilated. Dimensions (height × width per single leaf): 18.7 × 13.5 cm; one column; 20 lines Oriental-Palestinian square script; unpointed; 11–12th century.9 T-S B 12.32 Esther 1:2 Aramaic: Targum to Esther (Tosefta). Vellum; 1 leaf; mutilated. Dimensions: 14.3 × 14.5 cm; 1 column; 13–14 lines. Oriental square script; unpointed; 10–11th century. This is certainly one of the oldest, if not the oldest fragment of Targum Esther known today. T-S AS 70.72 Esther 5:7–9; 6:13–7:4 Aramaic: Targum to Esther, with Hebrew lemmata. Paper; 1 leaf; very badly mutilated and rubbed. Dimensions: 10.5+ × 14.8+ cm; 1 column; 16+ lines. Spanish semi-cursive script; unpointed; 14–15th century.

7 Both authors spent extensive periods of time at the Taylor-Schechter Genizah Research Unit at Cambridge University Library, during which the fragments were discovered. We wish to express our gratitude to Dr. Stefan C. Reif, Director of the Genizah Research Unit, who kindly facilitated our research and assisted in the acquisition of quality photographs for the plates appended to this article. 8 The descriptive details are taken primarily from M. L. Klein, Targum Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for Cambridge University Library, 1991). 9 We wish to thank Prof. Malachi Beit-Arie, Director of the Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem, and Mrs. Edna Engel, M. A., of the Hebrew Paleography Project, for assisting with the dating of the fragments and confirming the identification of their provenances.

‫‪chapter twelve‬‬

‫‪144‬‬

‫‪Lemmata in majusculae, with empty space beneath them in the fol‬‬‫‪lowing line.‬‬ ‫‪Having already mentioned that two of the attested names of tar‬‬‫‪gums to Esther are Targum Rabbah and Targum Zutta (and variants‬‬ ‫‪thereof ), it is hardly surprising to find that much of the midrashic‬‬ ‫‪material contained in these newly discovered fragments is paralleled‬‬ ‫‪in Esther Rabbah and in Midrash Panim Aḥ erim to Esther. We shall‬‬ ‫‪indicate these parallels—or possible midrashic sources—in the brief‬‬ ‫‪notes appended to the texts, following each folio. An English transla‬‬‫‪tion comprises the remainder of the article.‬‬ ‫)‪Cambridge University Library T-S B 11.52 (= B 12.21‬‬ ‫‪folio 1r, = plate 1‬‬ ‫‪Esther 5:10‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬

‫)‪ (5:10‬אמר נפק בעליך פוק לפנטיא דידיה דכולהון אומי בני‬ ‫זמה ובני זנותה הינון—אך הנין עגלתא דמתרבין חדא‬ ‫מן חדא—אבל בנתהון דיש' מתילין הינון ברחלי דהכין‬ ‫אמר גד לדויד ולרש אין כל )‪—(Sam 12:3 2‬ו'ג ובנת אומין דידך עם‬ ‫דידי—כן אמר שמשון לפלשתאי לולא חרשתם‬ ‫[ תיי‬ ‫בע'ג )‪ (Judg 14:18‬אילו דדברתון בעגלתי לא אשתכחתו]ן[ טל]‬ ‫]????[—ואף המן הות אתתיה הגלא וקטייה בתר רחמיה‬ ‫דכן כ'ת ושלח ואיתי ית רחמוי וית זרש אתתיה—ובת‬ ‫קלא צוחא על המן למה לך כולה התרבותא ומחר את‬ ‫מצטלב—דכן כ'ת אף לא הביאה א'ס ו'ג )‪(Esth 5:12‬‬ ‫ארבעה הינון ]דאמ[רין אף וביה באף אשתציו מן עלמא‬ ‫ומן אינ]ון רב נחתו[מא ונחש והמן וקרח וג)?(—נחש א'מ‬ ‫אף כי א'מ אלהים )‪]—(Gen 3:1‬רב[ נח'תו א'מ אף אני ב]ח[לומי‬ ‫)‪—(Gen 40:16‬קר]ח[‬ ‫וכנשיה אף לא אל א]רץ )‪—(Num 16:14‬המן אמר אף לא ה[ביאה )‪Esth‬‬ ‫‪(5:12‬‬

‫‪.15‬‬ ‫‪.16‬‬ ‫‪.17‬‬ ‫‪.18‬‬ ‫‪.19‬‬ ‫‪.20‬‬

‫ובאף א]שת[ציו כולם ])‪—(5:13‬וכל זה איננו שוה לי וכל[ כדין לא סליק‬ ‫[ רשיעיא‬ ‫עלי מא דא]נ[א אכיל ושתי וב]‬ ‫[ שבעין וצדיקין אכלין זעיר וסבעין‬ ‫אכלין ולא ]‬ ‫דכן כ'ת ]צדיק[ אוכל ו'ג )‪ (Prov 13:25‬צדיקא אכיל ושב]עא[ נפשיה‬ ‫וכרסיה דרשיעה תתחסר—)‪ (5:14‬ואמרת ליה זרש‬ ‫אתתיה וכ]ו[להון רחמוי מה היא הימנותיה דמרדכי‬

‫‪lines 1–10] = Midrash Panim Aḥ erim (henceforth: MPA), p. 72, with‬‬ ‫‪variants.‬‬

new fragments of targum to esther from the cairo genizah 145 6–7] Different from Tg Jonathan to Judg 14:18. It seems likely that this and other targumic renditions of verses below were cited from memory by the present meturgeman, and do not necessarily represent earlier textual variants. Cf. e.g., targumic citations from 1 Samuel and Psalms, in Esth 6: 11, below. Moreover, even the Hebrew Pentateuch is not cited accurately in T-S B 12.32v, lines 7–9, below. 11–15] For this midrash, cf. Gen. Rab. 19:2 and 88:5. It is also alluded to in Midrash Agadat Esther, p. 56. 12] Note the strange order of the characters. This is corrected in the elaboration that follows immediately. 15] This might be a play on the two meanings of ‫אף‬: the particle “even” and the noun “anger, rage.” 15—folio IV, 12] This passage is sporadically paralleled in MPA. 18–19] = Tg Proverbs 13:25. folio 1v, = plate 2

‫דמתילין הינון באבנא אבנא נפל על ברנשה ותברא ליה‬ ‫ברנש נפיל על אבנא והוא מתביר א'מ המן לה לאתתיה‬ .‫אילו א)י(בד]י[ת כולה ממוני לית אנא אזיל עד דמוביד יתיה‬ ‫ואמר לרחמוי מה אתון ענין ענון רחמוי וא'מ ליה‬ ‫לא תשמע לה אלא עביד קיסא דאריך נ' אמין והוה‬ ‫המן ]אז[יל ובעי קר]י[תא דאריכא חמשין אמין ולא‬ ‫אשכח אלא חדא דהוות בביתיה דאייתי יתה פרשנדתא‬ ‫בריה מן קידרוניא דהיא קרדוס מטול דשליטא הוה‬ ‫תמן בריה דהמן וחזה לקריתא תמן והיא הות מן‬ ‫תיבותא דנ]ח[ ועקר יתה המן מן ב]י[תיה מטול דתתקים‬ ‫ביה לווטא דדריוש דכת' ואנשי ]די יה[שנא דנא יתנסח‬ ‫( ושפר פיתג]מא קדמוי[ דהמן‬Ez. 6:11) ‫אע מן ביתיה וזקיף ו'ג‬ ‫ועבר צ]לי[בא לגרמיה ] א[תקין יתיה ושכלליה‬ ‫בת קלא צוחת וא[מרת מה יאי ושפיר‬ ]‫משחי‬ ‫( ]ב[לילה ה]הוא[ וג'ג‬6:1) [‫לך הן צלי]בא‬ ‫ביה בלילה ]נדת[ שנתהון דנגריא למיעבד צליבא‬ ‫להמן—ביה בליליא נדת שנ' דנפ]חיא[ למיעבד‬ ‫ולמקב]עא[ סוכי בצליבא ב' ב'ל נ'ש' ד]מ[לך מלכיא‬ ‫אילו דכת לא איפשר למימר דכ'ת עורה למה תישן‬ '‫(—ביה בליליא ה' אתגלי ק'ב'ה‬Ps 78:65) ‫( ויקץ כישן ייי‬Ps 44:24) ‫ייי‬

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .10 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 .17 .18 .19 .20

5–12] This midrash is based upon a literalist interpretation of Esth 7:9, ‫ עמד בבית המן‬. . . ‫הנה העץ אשר עשה המן‬. Cf. Midrash Abba Gurion (= MAG), p. 37, for a parallel to lines 7–10. See also Yalqut Shim‘oni, par 1056.

‫‪chapter twelve‬‬

‫‪146‬‬

‫‪ is paralleled in printed editions of‬לגרמיה ‪13] The ironic prophecy‬‬ ‫‪ in Sperber’s edition, but missing entirely in MS Paris‬לנפשיה( ‪Tg I‬‬ ‫‪110, ed. Grossfeld).‬‬ ‫‪14–15] = MAG, p. 37.‬‬ ‫‪16] Allusion to the carpenters appears in Tg I to the preceding verse‬‬ ‫‪(5:14).‬‬ ‫‪19–20] These proof verses are also found in Sperber’s edition, p. 194.‬‬ ‫)‪Cambridge University Library T-S B 12.21 (= B 11.52‬‬ ‫‪folio 1r, = plate 3‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬ ‫‪.15‬‬ ‫‪.16‬‬ ‫‪.17‬‬ ‫‪.18‬‬ ‫‪.19‬‬ ‫‪.20‬‬ ‫‪.21‬‬

‫)‪ (6:1‬אדברת שרה לאבימלך בל' הה' אשקיין בנתיה‬ ‫דלוט חמרא לאב' בל' ה' אתגלי פתגמא על לבן בחלמא‬ ‫בלי'לי בל' הה' אתעביד קרבא עם סיסרא דכתיב‬ ‫הכוכבים ממס' )‪ (Judg 5:20‬בל' ה' נ'ש' דאבהתא מן מערת‬ ‫כפילה דכת' הילל בראש כי נפל )‪ (Zech 11:12‬ואין ראש אלא אבר'‬ ‫דהוא הוא ראש לאבהתא ב'ה נ'ש' דמשה ואהרן‬ ‫ומרים דכ' קול ייללת הרועים כי שדדה וג' )‪ (Zech 11:13‬ב' ה' אתגלין‬ ‫נבואן לנביאין וחלמין לחלמי חלמייא‪ .‬ב' ה' אתרגיש‬ ‫עלמא כוליה מדינן וכל דיאריהון אבלא רבא בכל‬ ‫כרכיא מספדא ואליא בכל מדינתא עולמין אסירין‬ ‫סקין סאבין וסאבן ספקן על לבהון וכולהון צוחין }ב'{‬ ‫במרר ובקל רב ממללין ואמ' ויי דחזינן עקא על עקא‬ ‫ותברא על תברא מן תברא קדמיא לא אתסינן ועל‬ ‫מחתן לא הות אס]ו[תא ומדוונן לא אתנחמנן ]ו[כיב‬ ‫לבן לא עבר מינן רטישין על ארעא ומקדשן סגר‬ ‫סנאה ופרעה ומצריי לא עצון עלינן כחדא עצתא‬ ‫ומלכי עממיא לא חשבון עלינן כמחשבתא הדא‬ ‫למהוי עתידין ליומי הדין לשתציא מעל אפי }אר{‬ ‫ארעה גלי רזין גלא רזא למרדכי דגזירת מותא‬ ‫בה נ'ש' מר' צדיקא דהוה‬ ‫על בית ישראל‪.‬‬ ‫שהיר ולא שכיב והוה שכיב ולא דמיך דהון בית'‬

‫‪1] Reference to Sarah and Abimelech is also found in the traditional‬‬ ‫‪editions of Tg I, but absent from MS Paris 110.‬‬ ‫‪3–7] = MPA, p. 74. Avoth d’Rabbi Nathan (= AdRN), ed. Schechter,‬‬ ‫‪p. 24, adds Miriam to Moses and Aaron. See, also, Yalqụt Shim‘oni,‬‬ ‫‪par. 1057.‬‬ ‫‪7—folio 1v, 9] = Tg I, with slight variants.‬‬ ‫‪16–18] The negative particles in lines 16 and 17, and the reflexive‬‬ ‫‪ in Tg I), are euphemistic‬לשציותא ‪ in 18 (contrast‬למשתציא ‪’itpe‘el‬‬ ‫‪diversions of catastrophe directed at Israel.‬‬

‫‪new fragments of targum to esther from the cairo genizah 147‬‬ ‫‪folio IV, = plate 4‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬ ‫‪.15‬‬ ‫‪.16‬‬ ‫‪.17‬‬ ‫‪.18‬‬ ‫‪.19‬‬ ‫‪.20‬‬ ‫‪.21‬‬

‫}בית{ יש' כנישין ויתבין קדמוהי ואמרין לה את גרמתלהון)!(‬ ‫לדבית יש' כל בישתא הדה דאין }ק{ את' קמת מן קדם‬ ‫המן וסגדת ליה לא אתת עלינן כל עקתא הדא‪ .‬מחזיר‬

‫מרדכי ואמ' להון ליש' לבושא דהוה לביש המן רשיעא‬ ‫צירין עלוי תרין צליבין חד מן קדמוי וחד מן אחרוי ואן‬ ‫קמת וסגדת ליה משתכחת פלח לעבדה זרה ואתון ידעין‬ ‫כל דפלח לעב' זרה ]יביד[ מן הן עלמא ומן עלמא דאתי ושתקן‬ ‫מניה כל בית יש' בה ב' נ'ש' דהמן רשיעא דהוה שהיר‬ ‫ולא שכיב מטול דהוה מתקן צליבא ואמ' לאומניא אגרכון‬ ‫בפריע אנא יהיב לכון ומשקיא אנא מתקן לכון ונשתי‬ ‫ונחדי בהן צליבא דאנן עבדין‪ .‬ב'ב' נ'ש' דאסתר‬ ‫דהות עבדא לחמא למעלא ית המן בשרותא עם‬ ‫אחשורוש‪ .‬ב'ה' נ'ש' דגבריאל דהוה מטרף לביה‬ ‫דאחש' ומחי יתיה על אפוי ולא דמך אחש' כול ליליא‬ ‫ושלח וקרא לכן רבר]ב[נוי ושלטנוי ואמ' להון שמעו‬ ‫מיני מה אנא אמיר לכ]ון[ רימשא יקירא ומרירא הוא‬ ‫עליי הן רימשא מה דאכלת לא הני ליה ומה דשתית‬ ‫לא הני לי ולבי מטרף עלי ועלמא כוליה תלי על ראשי }ד{‬ ‫דילמא אמרית עאבד טב עם ברנש ולא עבדת או‬ ‫בני מדינתא שושן שחיקין עליי במדעם‪ .‬אמ' ליה בגבריאל‬ ‫אן בעית תתאסי ש]ד[יר ואייתי ספר דוכרן יומתא וח] [‬

‫‪11–13, 15, 17] Sporadic phrases identical to Tg I.‬‬ ‫‪13–14] Parallel to MPA, p. 74. Note how this passage is spliced into‬‬ ‫‪surrounding material from Tg I.‬‬ ‫‪20] Contrast Tg I, where the angel Michael intervenes.‬‬ ‫‪folio 2r, = plate 5‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬ ‫‪.15‬‬

‫)‪ (6:10‬ליה‪ .‬עני מל' ואמ' להמן גברא דאמ' טבתא על מלכא‬ ‫ושיזב יתיה מן קטלא טיבעי ובטבעיה יזל בכל מדינ'‬ ‫וה]דין[ אי]קרא[ ל]א[ יתמ' מיניה‪ .‬ע' ה' ואמ' למ' פרורתקיין ואיגרן‬ ‫אישתדרון בכל מדינתא למובדא ית עמיה דמרדכי‬ ‫כוליה יתבטלון והדין אי לית ליה ע' מל' ואמ להמן‬ ‫איגרן ופרורתקיין דשדרת אנא מבטל יתהון וכל דין‬ ‫יק' לא ית' מיניה‪ .‬תנינות נזף ביה מל' ואמ' ליה‬ ‫המן המן בעגלא בעגלא לא תבטל פתגמא מכל מה‬ ‫דאמרת )‪ (6:11‬וכד חמא המן רש' דפתגמוי לא מתקבליין‬ ‫קדם מל' ומילוי לא משתמעין על לבית גנזי מל' כד‬ ‫כפיפא קומתיה ולא פשיטא כד אבל וחפי ראשיה‬ ‫כד אדנוי מטרשן וכד עינוי מחשכן וכד פומיה }מס{‬ ‫מסתלף וכד לביה מטמטם וכד מאנוי מבזעין כד‬ ‫קטרי חרציה משתרין וארכבתיה דא לדא נקשן )‪(Dan 5:6‬‬ ‫ונסב מן תמן ית לבושא דמלכותא דאתיו יתיו יתיה למל'‬

‫‪chapter twelve‬‬ ‫‪.16‬‬ ‫‪.17‬‬ ‫‪.18‬‬ ‫‪.19‬‬ ‫‪.20‬‬

‫‪148‬‬

‫ביומא קדמיא דקם במלכותא ונסב מן תמן כל מאני‬ ‫מלכותא כמדעם דאתפקד ונפק מתמן כד מבהל‬ ‫ועל לאוריא דמל' ונסב מן תמן סוסיא דקאים באוריא‬ ‫דמל' ברייא דמיתלין ביה מסחפין די דהבא ואחד‬ ‫ברסניה דסוסיה וכל מאני מלכותא טעין על כתפיה‬ ‫‪1—folio 2v, 2] = Tg II, with slight variants.‬‬ ‫‪1] Text corrupt, confusing who said to whom.‬‬

‫‪folio 2V, = plate 6‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬ ‫‪.15‬‬ ‫‪.16‬‬ ‫‪.17‬‬ ‫‪.18‬‬ ‫‪.19‬‬ ‫‪.20‬‬

‫ומקטרין קטרוהי ומחלזין חילוזין ואזן ועל אל מרדכי‬ ‫צד' אתא מבסרנא ואמ' למר' מה את יתיב הא המן }ע'{‬ ‫עליל ושאיל מן מל' למתלי יתך על צליבא‪ .‬בה בשעתא‬

‫קם מר' ואפריש חכימי לחד סיטרא תלמידי לחד‬ ‫סיטרא בניהון לחד סיטרא חכימין טפחין על ידיהון‬ ‫תלמידי מבזעין מאניהון נשי סזורן סעריהון בניה‬ ‫בכין איך ענא)ל( דיתמנע חלבה מנהון והוון בכיין‬ ‫על מר' ועל נפשתהון והוון אמ' עד מתי אל]ה[ים יחרף‬ ‫צר )‪ (Ps 70:10‬הדה היא דאמ' שמואל לשאול ומה קול הצאן הזה‬ ‫באזני )‪ (1 Sam 15:14‬וק'ב'ה' שמע צלותיה דמר' וצלותא דישראל‬ ‫ודוד אמ' כי רגע באפו חיים ברצונו וג' )‪ (Ps 30:6‬כיון דחמא מרד'‬ ‫להמן דאתי ונגיד סוסיא שארי מיתזיע ובכי וכן‬ ‫אמ' אתי המן דיסבין ודרישין בסוסיא וכד חזה יתיה‬ ‫דאתי ואית עמיה רברבניה דמל' צווח ואמ' רב'ו }דע'{‬ ‫דעלמא את כתבת ישראל אשר בך אתפאר )‪ (Isa 49:3‬מה‬ ‫הני קדמך דקטל לי רשיעא הדן והוא מתגאה‬ ‫ואמ' טעותי מסרת למרדכי ועמיה בידי בה }שע'{‬ ‫שעתא אמ' מרדכי איה חסדיך הראשונים ייי )‪.(Ps 89:50‬‬ ‫ואן כן גזרת עלי תהי מיתותי כפרה על חוביי‪ .‬כיון‬ ‫דקרב המן צד מרדכי אמ' ליה‪ .‬מרדכי את קאים‬

‫‪2–20] Closely paralleled in MPA, except for the theological argument‬‬ ‫‪in line 17.‬‬ ‫‪Cambridge University Library T-S B 11.52‬‬ ‫‪folio 2r, = plate 7‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬

‫)‪ (6:11‬בצלותא וצלותך קטלת יתי וזכה סקך לעשרה אלפין‬ ‫ככרי כספא דאמרית למעלא מן בית גנזיי לבית גנזי‬ ‫מל' מן קדם דאיתיכון קדם אבוכון דבשמיא דבכל }ע'{‬ ‫עידן הוא פריק יתכון מן בעלי דבביכון השתן קום לך‬ ‫מר' צד' מן סקך ומן קיטמך ולבוש לבושא דמלכותא‬

new fragments of targum to esther from the cairo genizah 149 ‫בראשה ורכיב על סוסיא דמלכא אודית ושבחת‬ ֵ ‫וכתרא‬ ‫כד יהיב סקא על גבה וקטמא על ]ראש[ה שבחת לעאקין‬ ‫ובההיא שעתא דחזיתיה ענת ואמרת ליה עלך איתקיים‬ {‫( מקים מעפרא מסכינא ומן }קל‬1 Sam 2:8) ‫כת דכ' מקים מעפר דל‬ ‫קלקלתא למכיכי רוחא למתביתהון עם שליטין וכורסי‬ (Ps 30:12) '‫ ואף מרדכי שבח ואמ' הפכת מספ‬.‫איקרא יחסין יתהון‬ ‫]א[פכתה ]ספי[דא דידי לחזרתא אעברת סקא מני ואלבשת יתי‬ ‫לבושא דמלכותא אשבחך ייי אלהי פרוקי דלא חדת‬ '‫( בכן חזר מרדכי לתרע בית מל‬6:12) .(Ps 30:2) ‫לבהון דבעלי דבבי עלי‬ ‫ביקר רב וברבו סגיאה והמן אסתחף ואזל לביתיה‬ ‫אבל וראשיה מכסי ובההיא שעתא הוה בידוי דהמן‬ ‫ארבע אומנן ספר דספר)יא ואמ'( למרדכי ובניא דאסחי‬ '‫]יתי[ה גולי]ר[ דהוה נגיד לסוסיא כרוזא דהוה מכריז קדמ‬ (?)‫ אדיקת‬.(Esth 6:9, 11) ‫ואמ' כהין יתעבד לגברא דמל' צבי ביקריה‬ ‫ברתיה דהמן ]וחמת ל[אבהא בההיא ש]ע[תא ונפלת מן‬

.6 .7 .8 .9 .10 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 .17 .18 .19 .20

1–19] = Tg II, with some variants. 6] Single example of Tiberian vocalization in this MS. 6] Comparison with Tg II reveals that the present version suffers from a scribal omission (‫ רכיב על סוסיא דמלכא‬. . . ), and that the subject of the following verbs is Esther. 9–11] With variants to Tg Jonathan to 1 Sam. 12–14] With variants to Tg Psalms. 13] The phrase ‫ אלה פרוק‬is commonly found in the Palestinian targumim (but not in Onqelos, and only once in Pseudo-Jonathan) as the translation of ‫( ]להיות ל__[ לאלהים‬e.g., Gen 17:8; 28:21; Exod 6:7; 29:45; Lev 11:45; 26:12, 45; Num 15:41; Deut 26:17; 29:12). It also appears in Pseudo-Jonathan to Exod 15:2, in another context. There are other lexical affinities to the Palestinian targumim throughout this text. A salient exception to this observation is the citation from Onqelos to Lev 23:40, below. However, that occurs in the later Spanish manuscript, T-S AS 70.72, below. 18] MS: ‫!גוליד‬ 20—folio 2v, 1] Closely paralleled in MPA p. 76, and in Esth. Rab. 10:5. Also, cf. Tg I, MS Paris 110 (ed. Grossfeld), to Esth 6: II, with variants. folio 2v, = plate 8

'‫( ויספר המן לזרש אש' וג' ותני ה‬6:13) .‫}מן{ כוותא ומיתת‬ ‫לזרש אתתיה ולכלהון רחמוי ית כל מה דארע יתיה ואמרין‬ ‫ליה רחמוי וזרש אתתיה )לן( שמיעא לן מן קדמתא דהוה‬ ‫ג' גברין במדינת בכל חנניה מישאל עזריה ועל דלא שמעו‬

.1 .2 .3 .4

‫‪chapter twelve‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬ ‫‪.15‬‬ ‫‪.16‬‬ ‫‪.17‬‬ ‫‪.18‬‬ ‫‪.19‬‬ ‫‪.20‬‬

‫‪150‬‬

‫למלוי דנבוכדנצר שדא יתהון לאתון נורא‪ .‬נפק מן שלהב'‬ ‫ושלהבתיה)?( דנורא ואכל למן דאכלו קורציהון וחנניה מישאל‬ ‫ועזריה פלטון מן ]אתון נו[רא יקיד' אן איתיו מרדכי מן בני‬ ‫בניהן או עבדי דמין לחד מנהון ואת שרית למפל קדמוי‬ ‫מפל תפל ולא תקום )‪ (6:14‬עוד הינון ממללין עימיה וסריסוי‬ ‫דמל' קריבו וסרהיבו ]למיתיא[ ית המן למשקיא דעבדת אסתר‪.‬‬ ‫)‪ (7:1‬ויבא המלך והמן‪ (7:2) :‬ויאמר המ' לאס' גם ביום השני במש‬ ‫ואמר מל לאס' ביומא תנינא‪ .‬במשקיא דחמרא מ]ה[ ‪//‬‬ ‫שאלתיך אס' מל' ומה בקשתך דמן פלגה דמלכותא }וא'{‬ ‫ואעביד‪ (7:3) .‬ותען אס' המ'‪ .‬ענת אס' מלכתא ואמרת אן‬ ‫אשכחת חסד ורחמין קדמך מל' ואן על מל' שפיר‬ ‫תתיהיב לי נפשי בשאלתי ועמי בבעותי‪ (7:4) .‬כי נמכרנו‪.‬‬ ‫ארום אזדבנית אנא ועמי למשציא ולתקטלא }ולמ'{‬ ‫ולמיבדא ואלו לעבדין ולאמהן אזדבנין שתקא הוית‬ ‫ארום לית בעל דבביה דמל' שוי בטננא דמלכא }וי{‬ ‫)‪ (7:5‬ויאמר המלך אחש' ואמר מלכא ]אחש'[ ל]תר[גמניה‬

‫‪1–20] = Tg II, with slight variants.‬‬ ‫‪4–19] Compare this text with the second preserved copy in T-S AS‬‬ ‫‪70.72r, below.‬‬ ‫‪11] There is only a Hebrew lemma, but no targum, in this MS for‬‬ ‫‪Esth 7:1.‬‬ ‫‪13] Note the brief reversion to Hebrew in the middle of the verse.‬‬ ‫‪Cambridge University Library T-S B 12.32‬‬ ‫‪recto = plate 9‬‬ ‫‪Esther 1:2‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬

‫ארפסות ריגליה בדרגא ]קד[מאה תורא דדהבא פשיט‬ ‫ידיה ומסקיה לדרגא תינינא ומן דרגא תניינא‬ ‫לתליתאה ומן תליתאה לרביעאה ומן רבי' לח' ומן‬ ‫ח' לשתיתאה עד דנחתין נישריא וחטפין למלכא‬ ‫שלמה ומסקין ליה ומותיבין יתיה על מותביה‬ ‫ותנינא דכספא חדה תגיל למותביה גבי שמעו‬ ‫מלכייא ואומייא ית שמעיה ]דכו[רסיא דמ]לכא[‬ ‫שלמה אתכנשו ואתו כחדא כד חזו כל ה]דין[‬ ‫גבורתא איתמהו ואישתט]חו[ ונפלו ע]ל אפיהון[‬ ‫ואמרין ליה כל מלך לא ]אתעב[ד כ]ור[סיא ] [‬ ‫וכל אומא ואומא לא ]יכלין למתק[נא כו]ותית וכד[‬ ‫חזו מלכיא שבחיה דכר]סיא יהבו שבחא למאן[‬ ‫סליק מלכא שלמה[‬ ‫דברא עלמא כולא ואל]‬ ‫[‬ ‫]וי[תיב על כורסייה יסקין ]‬

‫‪new fragments of targum to esther from the cairo genizah 151‬‬ ‫‪1—verso 6] Sporadically paralleled in Tg II. The text on the verso con‬‬‫‪tains many variants of word-order and vocabulary to Tg II.‬‬ ‫‪verso = plate 10‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬

‫דוביא צוחין אימריא ]פ[עין ונימריא גייעין ויונקיא‬ ‫צרחין ונישריא טייסין וטאוסיא ממללין }ושונר{‬ ‫ושונריא פערין ותרנגליא מקרקרין ונצייא‬ ‫מחספין וכד הוו סהדייא שמעין הוון אמרין‬ ‫חמון היך אתון סהדין דלא בגין אנן עלמא‬ ‫מיתעקר וכד הוא שלמה יתיב כורסייה‬ ‫והוא כרוזא נפיק ומכרין לא ירבה לו נשים‬ ‫ו]לא י[רבה לו סוסים כסף וזהב ולא ירבה לו‬ ‫]מאד ולא יסור[ לבב]ו )‪ [(cf. Deut 17:17, 16‬והות יונה בפומה‬ ‫[יה השם המפורש וכד‬ ‫[א בלילא ]‬ ‫]‬ ‫[ יהבא כלילא בראשיה‬ ‫]‬ ‫[ ‪ ///‬בחוביה ספר תורה‬ ‫]‬ ‫[ הוה עובדיה דכורסיא‬ ‫]‬

‫‪6–13] Cf. Esth. Rab. 1:12.‬‬ ‫‪7–9] These verses are quoted inaccurately and out of their original‬‬ ‫‪order.‬‬ ‫‪11] Cf. MAG p. 6, for this phrase.‬‬ ‫‪Cambridge University Library T-S AS 70.72‬‬ ‫‪recto = plate 11‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬ ‫‪.15‬‬ ‫‪.16‬‬

‫)‪ (6:13‬חנניה מישאל ועזריה פ]ל[טן מאתון נורא ] אין[‬ ‫איתון מרדכי מבנוי ]דגבר[יא האינון אין עובדוי דמ]יין[‬ ‫[‬ ‫מה מנהון ואת שרית למפל קדמו' מפל ]ת[פול ]‬ ‫֓֔‬ ‫)‪ (6:14‬עודם‪ :‬עוד הי]נון מללין[ עמיה ושולטניה דעמ]א די[‬ ‫מלכא קר]יבו וסרהיבו[ למתייא ית המן למשתיי‬ ‫דעבדת ]אס[תר )‪ (7:1‬ויבא‪ :‬ועאל מלכא והמן למשתי עם‬ ‫)‪] (7:2‬וי[אמר‪ :‬ואמר מלכא }לא{‬ ‫אסתר מלכתא‪:‬‬

‫לאסתר אוף ביומא   ‬

‫תנינא דמשקיא‬

‫דחמרא מה שאלתיך אסתר מלכתא ויתיהב לך ומא ]ב[עותיך >עד