Nachmanides Introduced the Notion that Targum Onkelos Contains Derash
Nachmanides Introduced the Notion that Targum Onkelos Contains Derash
By Israel
Drazin
People today read Targum
Onkelos and search it for derash, halakhah, and homiletical
teachings. The following will show that the rabbis in the Talmuds and Midrashim
and the Bible commentators who used the Targum before the thirteenth
century recognized that the Aramaic translation only contains the Torah’s peshat,
its plain meaning, and not sermonic material. It will survey how the
pre-thirteenth century rabbis and scholars used Onkelos and how
Nachmanides changed the way the Targum was understood. It was only after
this Nachmanides change that other interpreters of Onkelos read derash
into this Targum. The article also introduces the reader to Onkelos
and explains why the Talmudic rabbis required that it be read and why many
Jews failed to observe this rabbinic requirement.
Onkelos and search it for derash, halakhah, and homiletical
teachings. The following will show that the rabbis in the Talmuds and Midrashim
and the Bible commentators who used the Targum before the thirteenth
century recognized that the Aramaic translation only contains the Torah’s peshat,
its plain meaning, and not sermonic material. It will survey how the
pre-thirteenth century rabbis and scholars used Onkelos and how
Nachmanides changed the way the Targum was understood. It was only after
this Nachmanides change that other interpreters of Onkelos read derash
into this Targum. The article also introduces the reader to Onkelos
and explains why the Talmudic rabbis required that it be read and why many
Jews failed to observe this rabbinic requirement.
The Law
The Babylonian
Talmud and the later Jewish codes mandate that Jews read the Torah portion
weekly, twice in the original Hebrew and once in Targum Onkelos.[1]
Moses Maimonides and Josef Karo, whose law codes are regarded in many
circles as binding, felt that it is vital to understand the Bible text through
the eyes of its rabbinically accepted translation Targum Onkelos, and
many authorities agree that no other translation will do.[2]
This raises some questions.
Talmud and the later Jewish codes mandate that Jews read the Torah portion
weekly, twice in the original Hebrew and once in Targum Onkelos.[1]
Moses Maimonides and Josef Karo, whose law codes are regarded in many
circles as binding, felt that it is vital to understand the Bible text through
the eyes of its rabbinically accepted translation Targum Onkelos, and
many authorities agree that no other translation will do.[2]
This raises some questions.
What
is Targum Onkelos?
is Targum Onkelos?
The word Targum
means “translation,” thus Targum Onkelos means a translation by Onkelos.
Targum Onkelos is a translation of the five books of Moses, from the
Hebrew into Aramaic. The rabbis placed their imprimatur upon Targum Onkelos[3]
and considered it the official translation. Although there are other
Aramaic translations[4]
and ancient Greek ones,[5]
and latter translations into other languages, Targum Onkelos is the most
literal. Yet despite being extremely literal, it contains over 10,000
differences from the original Hebrew text.[6]
means “translation,” thus Targum Onkelos means a translation by Onkelos.
Targum Onkelos is a translation of the five books of Moses, from the
Hebrew into Aramaic. The rabbis placed their imprimatur upon Targum Onkelos[3]
and considered it the official translation. Although there are other
Aramaic translations[4]
and ancient Greek ones,[5]
and latter translations into other languages, Targum Onkelos is the most
literal. Yet despite being extremely literal, it contains over 10,000
differences from the original Hebrew text.[6]
The
Significance of Onkelos
Significance of Onkelos
Onkelos was
extolled by all the Bible commentaries. Rashi states that the Onkelos
translation was revealed at Mt. Sinai.[7] Tosaphot[8]
made a similar statement and contends that there are places in the Torah that
simply cannot be understood without the Onkelos translation.
extolled by all the Bible commentaries. Rashi states that the Onkelos
translation was revealed at Mt. Sinai.[7] Tosaphot[8]
made a similar statement and contends that there are places in the Torah that
simply cannot be understood without the Onkelos translation.
Some people
consider these comments as hyperbolic or metaphoric – that the authors meant
that Onkelos is so significant that it is as if it were a divine gift
handed to Moses at Sinai. But whether literal or metaphoric, it is clear that these
sages are expressing a reverence for Onkelos not accorded to any other
book in Jewish history, a reverence approaching the respect they gave to the
Torah itself. This veneration continued and is reflected in the fact that for
many centuries every printed edition of the Pentateuch contained an Onkelos
text that was generally given the preferential placement adjacent to the Torah.
consider these comments as hyperbolic or metaphoric – that the authors meant
that Onkelos is so significant that it is as if it were a divine gift
handed to Moses at Sinai. But whether literal or metaphoric, it is clear that these
sages are expressing a reverence for Onkelos not accorded to any other
book in Jewish history, a reverence approaching the respect they gave to the
Torah itself. This veneration continued and is reflected in the fact that for
many centuries every printed edition of the Pentateuch contained an Onkelos
text that was generally given the preferential placement adjacent to the Torah.
Why
did the rabbis require Jews to read Targum Onkelos?
did the rabbis require Jews to read Targum Onkelos?
It is significant
that the Talmudic dictum was written when there were many important exegetical
rabbinical collections, the Talmuds, Genesis Rabbah, Mekhilta,
Sifra, and Sifrei, among others. Remarkably, the rabbis did not
require Jews to read these books, filled with interesting derash,
explanations written by the rabbis themselves. They only mandated the reading
of Onkelos when reviewing the weekly Torah portion.
that the Talmudic dictum was written when there were many important exegetical
rabbinical collections, the Talmuds, Genesis Rabbah, Mekhilta,
Sifra, and Sifrei, among others. Remarkably, the rabbis did not
require Jews to read these books, filled with interesting derash,
explanations written by the rabbis themselves. They only mandated the reading
of Onkelos when reviewing the weekly Torah portion.
Furthermore,
by the time the Shulchan Arukh was composed in the sixteenth century and
the Talmudic law was stated in it, most of the classical medieval biblical
commentaries, which included derash, were already in circulation. While
Joseph Karo, its author, suggests that one could study Rashi on a weekly basis
in place of the Targum, he quickly adds that those who have “reverence
for God” will study both Rashi and Onkelos. The explanation offered by
TAZ, a commentary on the Shulchan Arukh, is that while Rashi enables the
student to read the Bible and gain access to Talmudic and Oral Law insights, Onkelos
is still indispensable for understanding the text itself.
by the time the Shulchan Arukh was composed in the sixteenth century and
the Talmudic law was stated in it, most of the classical medieval biblical
commentaries, which included derash, were already in circulation. While
Joseph Karo, its author, suggests that one could study Rashi on a weekly basis
in place of the Targum, he quickly adds that those who have “reverence
for God” will study both Rashi and Onkelos. The explanation offered by
TAZ, a commentary on the Shulchan Arukh, is that while Rashi enables the
student to read the Bible and gain access to Talmudic and Oral Law insights, Onkelos
is still indispensable for understanding the text itself.
Thus, the
rabbis, who composed books containing midrashic interpretations, felt that it
was so important for Jews to know the plain meaning of the Torah that they
mandated that Jews read Targum Onkelos every week.[9] When
did people stop seeing that Onkelos contains the Torah’s plain meaning
and read derash into the wording of the Targum?
rabbis, who composed books containing midrashic interpretations, felt that it
was so important for Jews to know the plain meaning of the Torah that they
mandated that Jews read Targum Onkelos every week.[9] When
did people stop seeing that Onkelos contains the Torah’s plain meaning
and read derash into the wording of the Targum?
The Earliest Understanding of Targum Onkelos
There was no
problem understanding the intent of Targum Onkelos until the
thirteenth century, close to a millennium after it was composed. At that time,
Nachmanides was the first commentator to introduce the concept that people
should read Onkelos to find deeper meaning, meaning that went beyond the
plain sense of the text. These included mystical lessons, what Nachmanides
called derekh haemet, the true way.
problem understanding the intent of Targum Onkelos until the
thirteenth century, close to a millennium after it was composed. At that time,
Nachmanides was the first commentator to introduce the concept that people
should read Onkelos to find deeper meaning, meaning that went beyond the
plain sense of the text. These included mystical lessons, what Nachmanides
called derekh haemet, the true way.
The conclusion that Onkelos contains only the simple meaning of
the Torah is supported by an examination of how the ancients, living before the
thirteenth century, consistently and without exception, used Onkelos only
for its peshat. Although many of these Bible commentators were
interested in and devoted to the derash that could be derived from
biblical verses, and although they were constantly using Onkelos for its
peshat, they never employed the Targum to find derash or
to support their conclusion that the verse they were discussing contained derash.
This situation changed when for the first time Nachmanides mined the Targum to
uncover derash.[10]
Nachmanides used Onkelos to support his interpretation of the Torah.
the Torah is supported by an examination of how the ancients, living before the
thirteenth century, consistently and without exception, used Onkelos only
for its peshat. Although many of these Bible commentators were
interested in and devoted to the derash that could be derived from
biblical verses, and although they were constantly using Onkelos for its
peshat, they never employed the Targum to find derash or
to support their conclusion that the verse they were discussing contained derash.
This situation changed when for the first time Nachmanides mined the Targum to
uncover derash.[10]
Nachmanides used Onkelos to support his interpretation of the Torah.
This is significant since many of these
rabbinical commentators were far more interested in derash than in peshat.
If they felt that Onkelos contained derash, they would have
used this translation, which they extolled, as Nachmanides later did, to
support their midrashic interpretations of the Torah. The following are the
ancient sources.
rabbinical commentators were far more interested in derash than in peshat.
If they felt that Onkelos contained derash, they would have
used this translation, which they extolled, as Nachmanides later did, to
support their midrashic interpretations of the Torah. The following are the
ancient sources.
Midrashim and Talmuds
The first
references to a Targum are in the Midrashim and the Babylonian Talmud. A
Targum is mentioned 17 times in the Midrashim[11]
and 18 times in the Babylonian Talmud.[12]
Each of the 35 quotes is an attempt to search the Targum for the meaning
of a word. Although these sources were inclined to midrashic explanations, they
never tried to draw midrashic interpretations from the Targum. Thus, the
Midrashim and the Babylonian Talmud understood that the Targum is a
translation and not a source for derash.
references to a Targum are in the Midrashim and the Babylonian Talmud. A
Targum is mentioned 17 times in the Midrashim[11]
and 18 times in the Babylonian Talmud.[12]
Each of the 35 quotes is an attempt to search the Targum for the meaning
of a word. Although these sources were inclined to midrashic explanations, they
never tried to draw midrashic interpretations from the Targum. Thus, the
Midrashim and the Babylonian Talmud understood that the Targum is a
translation and not a source for derash.
Die Masorah Zum Targum
Onkelos
Onkelos
A volume of
targumic traditions collected in Die Masorah Zum Targum Onkelos is said
to have been composed in the third century but was most likely written a couple
of centuries later,[13]
after the Talmuds. It also has no suggestion that Onkelos contains derash.
The book attempts to describe the Targum completely, but contains only
translational traditions about Onkelos. If the author(s) believed that Onkelos
has derash, he/they would have included traditions about it.
targumic traditions collected in Die Masorah Zum Targum Onkelos is said
to have been composed in the third century but was most likely written a couple
of centuries later,[13]
after the Talmuds. It also has no suggestion that Onkelos contains derash.
The book attempts to describe the Targum completely, but contains only
translational traditions about Onkelos. If the author(s) believed that Onkelos
has derash, he/they would have included traditions about it.
Saadiah Gaon
The works of
Saadiah Gaon, born in 882 C.E., also contain no indication that Onkelos has
derash. Saadiah composed a translation of the Bible into Arabic and used Targum
Onkelos extensively to discover the plain meaning of words. He never even
hinted that his predecessor’s work contains derash.[14]
This is significant since Saadiah emphasized the Torah’s plain meaning and
used Onkelos frequently in his Arabic translation.[15]
He quotes Onkelos on every page without attribution. His uses Onkelos
as a translation so extensively that if readers have difficulty
understanding Onkelos, they can look at the Saadiah translation and be
able to see what the targumist is saying.
Saadiah Gaon, born in 882 C.E., also contain no indication that Onkelos has
derash. Saadiah composed a translation of the Bible into Arabic and used Targum
Onkelos extensively to discover the plain meaning of words. He never even
hinted that his predecessor’s work contains derash.[14]
This is significant since Saadiah emphasized the Torah’s plain meaning and
used Onkelos frequently in his Arabic translation.[15]
He quotes Onkelos on every page without attribution. His uses Onkelos
as a translation so extensively that if readers have difficulty
understanding Onkelos, they can look at the Saadiah translation and be
able to see what the targumist is saying.
Menachem ibn Saruq
Menachem ibn
Saruq, a tenth century Spanish lexicographer, was explicit on the subject. He
called Onkelos a ptr, a translation.[16]
Saruq, a tenth century Spanish lexicographer, was explicit on the subject. He
called Onkelos a ptr, a translation.[16]
Samuel ben Hofni Gaon
Samuel Ben Hofni Gaon headed the
Babylonian Academy at Sura in Babylonia during the years 997-1013 and wrote a
biblical commentary. He refers to Targum Onkelos on several occasions,[17]
uses the Targum to understand the meaning of words, and always treats it
as a literal translation without derash.
Babylonian Academy at Sura in Babylonia during the years 997-1013 and wrote a
biblical commentary. He refers to Targum Onkelos on several occasions,[17]
uses the Targum to understand the meaning of words, and always treats it
as a literal translation without derash.
Rashi
No biblical commentator relied
more on Onkelos than Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, better known as Rashi, born
in 1040. He extols Onkelos, as stated above, mentions the targumist by
name hundreds of times,[18]
and incorporates the targumic interpretation without attribution in hundreds of
other comments. He has a non-rigid blend of peshat and derash in
his commentary,[19] and
frequently quotes the Talmuds and Midrashim as the origin of his derash.
He never uses Onkelos as a source for his derash or treats the Targum
other than as a translation. It should be obvious that since Rashi relied on Onkelos,
whom he considered holy, for peshat, if he saw derash in the Targum
he would have said so.
more on Onkelos than Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, better known as Rashi, born
in 1040. He extols Onkelos, as stated above, mentions the targumist by
name hundreds of times,[18]
and incorporates the targumic interpretation without attribution in hundreds of
other comments. He has a non-rigid blend of peshat and derash in
his commentary,[19] and
frequently quotes the Talmuds and Midrashim as the origin of his derash.
He never uses Onkelos as a source for his derash or treats the Targum
other than as a translation. It should be obvious that since Rashi relied on Onkelos,
whom he considered holy, for peshat, if he saw derash in the Targum
he would have said so.
Rashbam
Rashi’s grandson Samuel ben Meir
(also known as Rashbam, about 1085 – 1174) wrote his Bible commentary in large
measure to liberate people from derash and to show his disagreement with
Rashi’s frequent use of derash.[20]
He seldom mentions his sources, but draws from Onkelos with respect,
usually by name. In Genesis, for example, where Rashi is only named in
37:2, Onkelos is quoted in 21:16, 25:28, 26:26, 28:2, 40:11, and 41:45.
In Deuteronomy, to cite another example, Onkelos is mentioned in
4:28, 16:2, 16:9, 17:18, and 23:13. While he criticizes his grandfather with
and without attribution for his use of derash,[21]
and occasionally disagrees with Onkelos, he never rebukes the targumist
for using derash.[22]
Like his predecessors, he saw no derash in Targum Onkelos.
(also known as Rashbam, about 1085 – 1174) wrote his Bible commentary in large
measure to liberate people from derash and to show his disagreement with
Rashi’s frequent use of derash.[20]
He seldom mentions his sources, but draws from Onkelos with respect,
usually by name. In Genesis, for example, where Rashi is only named in
37:2, Onkelos is quoted in 21:16, 25:28, 26:26, 28:2, 40:11, and 41:45.
In Deuteronomy, to cite another example, Onkelos is mentioned in
4:28, 16:2, 16:9, 17:18, and 23:13. While he criticizes his grandfather with
and without attribution for his use of derash,[21]
and occasionally disagrees with Onkelos, he never rebukes the targumist
for using derash.[22]
Like his predecessors, he saw no derash in Targum Onkelos.
Abraham ibn Ezra
Abraham ibn Ezra (1089 -1164),
like Rashbam, was determined to distance himself from derash and
establish the literal meaning of the biblical text in his Bible commentaries,
as he states in his two introductions. He uses Onkelos frequently as a
translation, and only as a translation, to prove the meaning of words.
like Rashbam, was determined to distance himself from derash and
establish the literal meaning of the biblical text in his Bible commentaries,
as he states in his two introductions. He uses Onkelos frequently as a
translation, and only as a translation, to prove the meaning of words.
Ibn Ezra was the first to note
some few isolated instances of derash in the Targum. This first
observation of derash in Onkelos, I believe, is because derash
did not exist in the original Targum text.[23]
Various over-zealous well-meaning scribes embedded it at a later period,
probably around the time that Ibn Ezra discovered it. Ibn Ezra recognizes that Onkelos’
purpose is to offer peshat because he states that the targumist is
following his (ibn Ezra’s) own method, the “straight (or right) way” of peshat
to interpret the Hebrew according to grammatical rules.[24]
some few isolated instances of derash in the Targum. This first
observation of derash in Onkelos, I believe, is because derash
did not exist in the original Targum text.[23]
Various over-zealous well-meaning scribes embedded it at a later period,
probably around the time that Ibn Ezra discovered it. Ibn Ezra recognizes that Onkelos’
purpose is to offer peshat because he states that the targumist is
following his (ibn Ezra’s) own method, the “straight (or right) way” of peshat
to interpret the Hebrew according to grammatical rules.[24]
Maimonides
Shortly
thereafter, Maimonides, born in 1138, supported part of his rationalistic
philosophy by using Onkelos. Maimonides recognized that the targumist
deviated frequently from a literal rendering of the biblical text to remove
anthropomorphism and anthropopathisms to avoid portraying God in a human
fashion, for this is “a fundamental element in our faith, and the comprehension
of which is not easy for the common people.”[25]
Maimonides never uses Onkelos for derash.
thereafter, Maimonides, born in 1138, supported part of his rationalistic
philosophy by using Onkelos. Maimonides recognized that the targumist
deviated frequently from a literal rendering of the biblical text to remove
anthropomorphism and anthropopathisms to avoid portraying God in a human
fashion, for this is “a fundamental element in our faith, and the comprehension
of which is not easy for the common people.”[25]
Maimonides never uses Onkelos for derash.
Joseph Bechor Schor
Joseph Bechor Schor (born around 1140) adopted the literal methodology of Rashbam.[26] However, he is not as consistent as Rashbam. He inserts homiletical comments along with those that are literal. He mentions Rashbam only twice by name but quotes Onkelos dozens of times to support his own definition of a word when his interpretation is literal. Although he used Onkelos and derash, he never states or even suggests that Onkelos contains derash [27] and never uses Onkelos to support his homiletical remarks.
Radak
David Kimchi
(known as Radak, about 1160 – 1235) wrote biblical commentaries using the
text’s plain sense in contrast to the homiletical elaborations that were
prevalent during his lifetime. He followed the methodology of ibn Ezra and
stressed philological analysis. He refers to Onkelos frequently and
always treats the Targum as a translation. He, like ibn Ezra,
occasionally inserted homiletical interpretations into his commentary from
midrashic legends to add zest and delight readers, but he never used Onkelos
for this purpose.
(known as Radak, about 1160 – 1235) wrote biblical commentaries using the
text’s plain sense in contrast to the homiletical elaborations that were
prevalent during his lifetime. He followed the methodology of ibn Ezra and
stressed philological analysis. He refers to Onkelos frequently and
always treats the Targum as a translation. He, like ibn Ezra,
occasionally inserted homiletical interpretations into his commentary from
midrashic legends to add zest and delight readers, but he never used Onkelos
for this purpose.
Conclusion from Reading the Ancient
Commentators
The consistent
history of all the commentators using Onkelos only for the plain
meaning of the Torah and never mentioning seeing derash in the Targum
is quite persuasive that no derash was in the original Onkelos
text. If any of the commentators who lived before the mid-thirteenth
century believed that Targum Onkelos contained derash, especially
those who delighted in or who were concerned with derash, they would
have said so. None but ibn Ezra did, and he called attention to only a very
small number of probably recent unauthorized insertions.
history of all the commentators using Onkelos only for the plain
meaning of the Torah and never mentioning seeing derash in the Targum
is quite persuasive that no derash was in the original Onkelos
text. If any of the commentators who lived before the mid-thirteenth
century believed that Targum Onkelos contained derash, especially
those who delighted in or who were concerned with derash, they would
have said so. None but ibn Ezra did, and he called attention to only a very
small number of probably recent unauthorized insertions.
Where, then, did the derash
that many people today think that they see in Targum Onkelos come from?
First of all, I am convinced that most of the targumic readings that
individuals read as derash were really intended by the targumist as peshat,
the text’s simple meaning; people differ is what they see. Second, Ch. Heller
has shown us many examples where most, if not all, of the presently found derash
did not exist in the original Targum text.[28]
His findings are supported by the previously mentioned history showing that ibn
Ezra was the first to observe any derash at all in our Targum.
that many people today think that they see in Targum Onkelos come from?
First of all, I am convinced that most of the targumic readings that
individuals read as derash were really intended by the targumist as peshat,
the text’s simple meaning; people differ is what they see. Second, Ch. Heller
has shown us many examples where most, if not all, of the presently found derash
did not exist in the original Targum text.[28]
His findings are supported by the previously mentioned history showing that ibn
Ezra was the first to observe any derash at all in our Targum.
Nachmanides was the first Bible commentator to read derash into Onkelos
Nachmanides was
influenced by kabala, Jewish mysticism. He equated kabala with truth[29]
and felt[30] that
since Torah is truth, it must contain kabala. He stated that no one can attain
knowledge of the Torah, or truth, by his own reasoning. A person must listen to
a kabalist who received the truth from another kabalist, generation after
generation, back to Moses who heard the kabalistic teaching from God.[31]
He decided to disseminate this truth, or at least hint of its existence, and
was the first to introduce mystic teachings of the Torah into a biblical
commentary.[32]
influenced by kabala, Jewish mysticism. He equated kabala with truth[29]
and felt[30] that
since Torah is truth, it must contain kabala. He stated that no one can attain
knowledge of the Torah, or truth, by his own reasoning. A person must listen to
a kabalist who received the truth from another kabalist, generation after
generation, back to Moses who heard the kabalistic teaching from God.[31]
He decided to disseminate this truth, or at least hint of its existence, and
was the first to introduce mystic teachings of the Torah into a biblical
commentary.[32]
He extended his
exegetical methodology into his interpretations of our Targum.[33]
He felt this was appropriate. Onkelos, he erroneously believed, “lived
in the age of the philosophers immediately after Aristotle,” and like the
philosopher was so interested in esoteric teachings that, though born a high
placed Roman non-Jew, he converted to Judaism to learn Torah and later teach
its secret lessons through his biblical translation.[34]
exegetical methodology into his interpretations of our Targum.[33]
He felt this was appropriate. Onkelos, he erroneously believed, “lived
in the age of the philosophers immediately after Aristotle,” and like the
philosopher was so interested in esoteric teachings that, though born a high
placed Roman non-Jew, he converted to Judaism to learn Torah and later teach
its secret lessons through his biblical translation.[34]
Examples of Nachmanides’
problematical interpretations of Onkelos
problematical interpretations of Onkelos
In a detailed separate study,
which is still in draft, I studied all the instances where Nachmanides interprets
Onkelos. I found that Nachmanides mentions Targum Onkelos in his Commentary
to the Pentateuch while analyzing 230 verses. Most of his attempts to
see the targumist teaching homiletical lessons and mysticism seem forced. He
reads more into the Aramaic than the words themselves state.
which is still in draft, I studied all the instances where Nachmanides interprets
Onkelos. I found that Nachmanides mentions Targum Onkelos in his Commentary
to the Pentateuch while analyzing 230 verses. Most of his attempts to
see the targumist teaching homiletical lessons and mysticism seem forced. He
reads more into the Aramaic than the words themselves state.
There are 129 puzzling
interpretations of Onkelos in these 230 verses. This represents about 56
percent of the total 230. However, 55 of the 230 Nachmanidean comments are only
references to the Targum without any analysis. When these 55 comments
are subtracted from the total of 230, we are left with 175 times that
Nachmanides analyzes the Targum. The 129 problematical interpretations
represent about 75 percent of the 175 times that the sage discusses Onkelos and
uses it to support his interpretation of the biblical verse. The following are
seven examples.
interpretations of Onkelos in these 230 verses. This represents about 56
percent of the total 230. However, 55 of the 230 Nachmanidean comments are only
references to the Targum without any analysis. When these 55 comments
are subtracted from the total of 230, we are left with 175 times that
Nachmanides analyzes the Targum. The 129 problematical interpretations
represent about 75 percent of the 175 times that the sage discusses Onkelos and
uses it to support his interpretation of the biblical verse. The following are
seven examples.
1. Genesis 1:31 states: “And
God saw everything that He made, and, behold, it was very good (Torah: tov
meod – Onkelos: takin lachada).”
God saw everything that He made, and, behold, it was very good (Torah: tov
meod – Onkelos: takin lachada).”
This verse
describes the results of the sixth day of creation as “very good.” The Onkelos
translator, who prefers to clarify ambiguous biblical phrases with more
specificity (good is which way), renders it “well established,” implying that
the world was established firmly. He may have recalled Psalms 93:1, “the
world also is established that it can not be moved” and Psalms 96:10,
“the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved.”
describes the results of the sixth day of creation as “very good.” The Onkelos
translator, who prefers to clarify ambiguous biblical phrases with more
specificity (good is which way), renders it “well established,” implying that
the world was established firmly. He may have recalled Psalms 93:1, “the
world also is established that it can not be moved” and Psalms 96:10,
“the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved.”
Nachmanides
reads into the Onkelos words “well established” than the targumist is teaching
that creation contains evil, “the order (of the world) was very properly
arranged that evil is needed to preserve what is good.”[35]
This interpretation is a good homily, but is not the plain meaning of the
verse. It is problematical because “well established” does not suggest “containing
evil,” nor does it imply that evil is necessary to preserve what is good.
reads into the Onkelos words “well established” than the targumist is teaching
that creation contains evil, “the order (of the world) was very properly
arranged that evil is needed to preserve what is good.”[35]
This interpretation is a good homily, but is not the plain meaning of the
verse. It is problematical because “well established” does not suggest “containing
evil,” nor does it imply that evil is necessary to preserve what is good.
2. After creating man,
God, according to Genesis 2:7, “breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life, and man became a living being.” The bible uses nefesh for “breath”
and “being.” In later Hebrew, nefesh came to mean “soul,” a meaning it
did not have in the Pentateuch. Since the Hebrew “breath of life” does not
indicate how humans excel other creations, Onkelos alters the text and
clarifies that “man acquired the power of speech,” ruach memalela
(literally, “speaking breath”). Thus humans transcend animals by their
intelligence in general and their ability to speak, communicate, and reason in
particular. This is the Aristotelian concept, accepted by Moses Maimonides
(1138-1204), that the essence of a human is intelligence and people have a duty
to develop that intelligence.[36]
God, according to Genesis 2:7, “breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life, and man became a living being.” The bible uses nefesh for “breath”
and “being.” In later Hebrew, nefesh came to mean “soul,” a meaning it
did not have in the Pentateuch. Since the Hebrew “breath of life” does not
indicate how humans excel other creations, Onkelos alters the text and
clarifies that “man acquired the power of speech,” ruach memalela
(literally, “speaking breath”). Thus humans transcend animals by their
intelligence in general and their ability to speak, communicate, and reason in
particular. This is the Aristotelian concept, accepted by Moses Maimonides
(1138-1204), that the essence of a human is intelligence and people have a duty
to develop that intelligence.[36]
Nachmanides, the mystic, disagreed
with Maimonides, the rationalist, and interprets the biblical nefesh
anachronistically as “soul.” The Hebrew verse, he declares, alludes to the
superiority of the soul that is composed of three forces: growth, movement, and
rationality.[37] Onkelos,
he maintains, is reflecting this concept of the tri-partite soul and that the
rational soul that God breathed into man’s nostrils became a speaking soul. How
the two Aramaic words, literally meaning “speaking breath,” suggests this
elaborate tri-partite theology is problematical. Again, Nachmanides seemingly
desired to have Onkelos, which he admired, reflect his own idea even
though what he reads into the Targum is not its plain meaning.
with Maimonides, the rationalist, and interprets the biblical nefesh
anachronistically as “soul.” The Hebrew verse, he declares, alludes to the
superiority of the soul that is composed of three forces: growth, movement, and
rationality.[37] Onkelos,
he maintains, is reflecting this concept of the tri-partite soul and that the
rational soul that God breathed into man’s nostrils became a speaking soul. How
the two Aramaic words, literally meaning “speaking breath,” suggests this
elaborate tri-partite theology is problematical. Again, Nachmanides seemingly
desired to have Onkelos, which he admired, reflect his own idea even
though what he reads into the Targum is not its plain meaning.
3. Genesis 4:1 states that
when Eve gave birth to Cain, she exclaimed, “I have acquired a man with the
Lord.” Since this statement has an anthropomorphic sound, suggesting physical
help from God, our Targum adds qadam, “before (the Lord),”
thereby supplanting, or at least softening this implication of physical aid by
distancing God from the birth.
when Eve gave birth to Cain, she exclaimed, “I have acquired a man with the
Lord.” Since this statement has an anthropomorphic sound, suggesting physical
help from God, our Targum adds qadam, “before (the Lord),”
thereby supplanting, or at least softening this implication of physical aid by
distancing God from the birth.
The term qadam
was inserted in Onkelos in verse 4, and in seventy other instances in Genesis
for the same reason as well as 585 additional times in the other volumes of Targum
Onkelos to the Pentateuch.[38]
Nachmanides ignores the targumist’s frequent use of qadam to avoid
anthropomorphism[39] and its
plain meaning. He states that the correct interpretation of the biblical Hebrew
is that Eve said: “This son will be an acquisition from God for me, for when we
die he will exist in our place to worship his creator.” Nachmanides assures us
that this is Onkelos’ opinion as proven by the addition of the word qadam.
Thus, Nachmanides drew a conclusion from the Targum’s single word, a
word that is used over five hundred times for an entirely different purpose and
which cannot, by itself, connote and support his interpretation. Furthermore, qadam
does not have this meaning in the hundreds of other instances where it
appears.
was inserted in Onkelos in verse 4, and in seventy other instances in Genesis
for the same reason as well as 585 additional times in the other volumes of Targum
Onkelos to the Pentateuch.[38]
Nachmanides ignores the targumist’s frequent use of qadam to avoid
anthropomorphism[39] and its
plain meaning. He states that the correct interpretation of the biblical Hebrew
is that Eve said: “This son will be an acquisition from God for me, for when we
die he will exist in our place to worship his creator.” Nachmanides assures us
that this is Onkelos’ opinion as proven by the addition of the word qadam.
Thus, Nachmanides drew a conclusion from the Targum’s single word, a
word that is used over five hundred times for an entirely different purpose and
which cannot, by itself, connote and support his interpretation. Furthermore, qadam
does not have this meaning in the hundreds of other instances where it
appears.
4. In Genesis 17:17, Onkelos
changes a significant detail in the Aramaic translation. Abraham does not
“laugh” (Hebrew, vayitzchak) when he hears he will have a child in his
old age, but “rejoices” (Aramaic, vachadi). This alteration is not made
in 18:12 where Sarah “laughed” when she heard the same news. Rashi explains
that the couple reacted differently. Abraham trusted God and rejoiced at the
good news, while Sarah lacked trust and sneered; therefore God chastised her in
18:13.
changes a significant detail in the Aramaic translation. Abraham does not
“laugh” (Hebrew, vayitzchak) when he hears he will have a child in his
old age, but “rejoices” (Aramaic, vachadi). This alteration is not made
in 18:12 where Sarah “laughed” when she heard the same news. Rashi explains
that the couple reacted differently. Abraham trusted God and rejoiced at the
good news, while Sarah lacked trust and sneered; therefore God chastised her in
18:13.
Nachmanides
states that Onkelos’ rendering in 17:17 is correct because the word tzachak
also means “rejoice,” and Abraham and Sarah’s reactions, he contends, were the
same, proper “rejoicing.”
states that Onkelos’ rendering in 17:17 is correct because the word tzachak
also means “rejoice,” and Abraham and Sarah’s reactions, he contends, were the
same, proper “rejoicing.”
Actually, as
defined by ibn Shoshan and others, tzachak is an outward expression, a
“laugh,” and not an inner feeling of contentment. Bachya ben Asher mentions the
Aramaic rendering, but he does not mention Nachmanides. He recognizes, contrary
to Nachmanides, that tzachak does not mean “rejoice,” but “laugh.” He
states that the targumist made the change to “rejoices” because in the context
in which the word appears here it should be understood as an expression of joy.
This example, while not expressing a theology, as in the first three instances,
also shows Nachmanides insisting by a forced interpretation that the targumist
is understanding the Torah as he does.
defined by ibn Shoshan and others, tzachak is an outward expression, a
“laugh,” and not an inner feeling of contentment. Bachya ben Asher mentions the
Aramaic rendering, but he does not mention Nachmanides. He recognizes, contrary
to Nachmanides, that tzachak does not mean “rejoice,” but “laugh.” He
states that the targumist made the change to “rejoices” because in the context
in which the word appears here it should be understood as an expression of joy.
This example, while not expressing a theology, as in the first three instances,
also shows Nachmanides insisting by a forced interpretation that the targumist
is understanding the Torah as he does.
5. Onkelos
replaces the Torah’s “Is anything too wondrous for the Lord,” in Genesis
18:14, with “Is anything hidden from before the Lord.” The Hebrew “wondrous” is
somewhat vague and is seemingly not exactly on point with the tale of Sarah’s
laughter. The Aramaic explains the text and relates that Sarah’s laughter,
mentioned in the prior verse, although it was not done openly, was not “hidden”
from God. This is also the interpretation of Saadiah, Rashi, Chazkunee, ibn
Ezra, Radak, etc. Thus, in short, all that the targumist is doing is clarifying
the text, a task he performs over a thousand times in his translation.
replaces the Torah’s “Is anything too wondrous for the Lord,” in Genesis
18:14, with “Is anything hidden from before the Lord.” The Hebrew “wondrous” is
somewhat vague and is seemingly not exactly on point with the tale of Sarah’s
laughter. The Aramaic explains the text and relates that Sarah’s laughter,
mentioned in the prior verse, although it was not done openly, was not “hidden”
from God. This is also the interpretation of Saadiah, Rashi, Chazkunee, ibn
Ezra, Radak, etc. Thus, in short, all that the targumist is doing is clarifying
the text, a task he performs over a thousand times in his translation.
However,
Nachmanides states that Onkelos uses “hidden” in the translation to teach a
mystical lesson. Nachmanides, as generally happens, does not explain the
lesson, but the explanation is in Bachya ben Asher and Recanati. Bachya writes
that God added the letter hay to Abram’s name, turning it into Abraham,
and “the letter hay alludes to God’s transcendental powers”; thus God
gave Abraham the power to have a son. Abraham, he continues, exemplified the
divine attribute of mercy and Isaac the divine attribute of justice, and now
both attributes would exist on earth. It is difficult if not impossible to read
this Nachmanidean mystical interpretation of Onkelos into the word
“hidden.”[40]
Nachmanides states that Onkelos uses “hidden” in the translation to teach a
mystical lesson. Nachmanides, as generally happens, does not explain the
lesson, but the explanation is in Bachya ben Asher and Recanati. Bachya writes
that God added the letter hay to Abram’s name, turning it into Abraham,
and “the letter hay alludes to God’s transcendental powers”; thus God
gave Abraham the power to have a son. Abraham, he continues, exemplified the
divine attribute of mercy and Isaac the divine attribute of justice, and now
both attributes would exist on earth. It is difficult if not impossible to read
this Nachmanidean mystical interpretation of Onkelos into the word
“hidden.”[40]
6. Genesis
21:7 quotes Sarah’s excited exclamation of joy:[41]
“Who (meaning which person) would have said to Abraham” that I would give birth
at the advanced age of ninety. The Targum renders her statement as a
thankful praise of God: “Faithful is He
who said to Abraham,” and avoids the risk of the general population reading the
translation and misunderstanding Sarah’s reaction as one of surprise, for she
should not have been surprised. God had assured Abraham that he would have a
son a year previously.[42]
Thus, by making the change, the Targum shows that she is not only not
surprised, but is thankful that God fulfilled His prior promise.
21:7 quotes Sarah’s excited exclamation of joy:[41]
“Who (meaning which person) would have said to Abraham” that I would give birth
at the advanced age of ninety. The Targum renders her statement as a
thankful praise of God: “Faithful is He
who said to Abraham,” and avoids the risk of the general population reading the
translation and misunderstanding Sarah’s reaction as one of surprise, for she
should not have been surprised. God had assured Abraham that he would have a
son a year previously.[42]
Thus, by making the change, the Targum shows that she is not only not
surprised, but is thankful that God fulfilled His prior promise.
Nachmanides
interprets the Torah’s “Who would have said to Abraham” to mean that everyone
will join Abraham and Sarah and rejoice with them over Isaac’s birth because it
is such a “surprise”; the possibility of the birth would never have occurred to
anyone. He writes that Onkelos’ rendition is “close” to his
interpretation of a community celebration. Actually as we stated, Onkelos’
“Faithful is He who said to Abraham” is quite the opposite. Rather than
focusing on the people and the unexpected event, the targumist deviated from the
Hebrew text to avoid depicting Sarah being surprised. His Aramaic version
concentrates on God, not the community, and how the divine promise was
fulfilled.
interprets the Torah’s “Who would have said to Abraham” to mean that everyone
will join Abraham and Sarah and rejoice with them over Isaac’s birth because it
is such a “surprise”; the possibility of the birth would never have occurred to
anyone. He writes that Onkelos’ rendition is “close” to his
interpretation of a community celebration. Actually as we stated, Onkelos’
“Faithful is He who said to Abraham” is quite the opposite. Rather than
focusing on the people and the unexpected event, the targumist deviated from the
Hebrew text to avoid depicting Sarah being surprised. His Aramaic version
concentrates on God, not the community, and how the divine promise was
fulfilled.
7. Genesis
22:2 recounts God commanding Abraham to take his son Isaac to “the land of
Moriah” and offer him there as a sacrifice. Mount Moriah was traditionally
understood to be the later place of the Jerusalem Temple[43]
and the targumist therefore renders “Mount Moriah” as “the land of worship” to
help identify the area for his readers. This is a typical targumic methodology;
the Targum changes the name of places mentioned in the Bible and gives
its later known name.[44]
22:2 recounts God commanding Abraham to take his son Isaac to “the land of
Moriah” and offer him there as a sacrifice. Mount Moriah was traditionally
understood to be the later place of the Jerusalem Temple[43]
and the targumist therefore renders “Mount Moriah” as “the land of worship” to
help identify the area for his readers. This is a typical targumic methodology;
the Targum changes the name of places mentioned in the Bible and gives
its later known name.[44]
Nachmanides
contends that Onkelos is referring to a midrashic teaching that was
recorded years after the targumist’s death in Pirkei d’R. Eliezer:[45]
God pointed to the site and told Abraham that this is the place where Adam,
Cain, Abel, and Noah sacrificed, and the site was named Moriah because Moriah
is derived from the word mora, “fear,” for the people feared God there
and worshipped Him.
contends that Onkelos is referring to a midrashic teaching that was
recorded years after the targumist’s death in Pirkei d’R. Eliezer:[45]
God pointed to the site and told Abraham that this is the place where Adam,
Cain, Abel, and Noah sacrificed, and the site was named Moriah because Moriah
is derived from the word mora, “fear,” for the people feared God there
and worshipped Him.
There are
several problems with Nachmanides’ analysis. First, as we already pointed out,
our targumist frequently updates the name of a site to help his readers
identify its location[46]
and this is a reasonable consistent explanation of the targumic rendering.
Second, the words “land of worship” do not suggest the elaborate midrashic
story that is not recorded until long after the death of the targumist. Third,
the story is a legend; there is nothing in any text to indicate that God had
such a conversation with Abraham or that the ancestors sacrificed in this area;
and it is contrary to the targumist’s style to incorporate legends into his
translation.
several problems with Nachmanides’ analysis. First, as we already pointed out,
our targumist frequently updates the name of a site to help his readers
identify its location[46]
and this is a reasonable consistent explanation of the targumic rendering.
Second, the words “land of worship” do not suggest the elaborate midrashic
story that is not recorded until long after the death of the targumist. Third,
the story is a legend; there is nothing in any text to indicate that God had
such a conversation with Abraham or that the ancestors sacrificed in this area;
and it is contrary to the targumist’s style to incorporate legends into his
translation.
Summary
Thus,
if the Bible commentators before Nachmanides saw derash in Onkelos
we would have expected them to say so, but none did until Abraham ibn Ezra and
he was probably referring either to recent scribal additions to the original Targum
or he was expressing his opinion that his view of peshat on certain
verses differed with those of the targumist. Nachmanides was the first to read derash
and mysticism into the Targum just as he was the first to read
mysticism into the Torah itself. We offered some examples that show the
difficulties of his methodology.
if the Bible commentators before Nachmanides saw derash in Onkelos
we would have expected them to say so, but none did until Abraham ibn Ezra and
he was probably referring either to recent scribal additions to the original Targum
or he was expressing his opinion that his view of peshat on certain
verses differed with those of the targumist. Nachmanides was the first to read derash
and mysticism into the Targum just as he was the first to read
mysticism into the Torah itself. We offered some examples that show the
difficulties of his methodology.
Nachmanides’
introduction of the notion that Onkelos contains mysticism may be the
reason why rabbis,[47]
who respected Nachmanides’ teachings, began for the first time to search the Targum
for derash.
introduction of the notion that Onkelos contains mysticism may be the
reason why rabbis,[47]
who respected Nachmanides’ teachings, began for the first time to search the Targum
for derash.
Dr. Israel
Drazin is the author of thirty-three books, including twelve on Targum Onkelos.
His website is www.booksnthoughts.com.
This article appeared previously on www.oqimta.org.il.
Drazin is the author of thirty-three books, including twelve on Targum Onkelos.
His website is www.booksnthoughts.com.
This article appeared previously on www.oqimta.org.il.
[1] Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 8a, b, Maimonides’
Mishneh Torah, Laws of Prayer 13:25, and Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim,
The Laws of Shabbat 285, 1. The requirement is not in the Jerusalem Talmud
because Targum Onkelos did not exist when this Talmud was composed. See
I. Drazin, Journal of Jewish Studies, volume 50, 1999, pages 246-258,
where I date Onkelos to the late fourth century, based on the
targumist’s consistent use of late fourth century Midrashim.
Mishneh Torah, Laws of Prayer 13:25, and Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim,
The Laws of Shabbat 285, 1. The requirement is not in the Jerusalem Talmud
because Targum Onkelos did not exist when this Talmud was composed. See
I. Drazin, Journal of Jewish Studies, volume 50, 1999, pages 246-258,
where I date Onkelos to the late fourth century, based on the
targumist’s consistent use of late fourth century Midrashim.
[2] Although some authorities, such as the Shulchan
Arukh, discussed below, say that a person can fulfill the rabbinic
obligation by reading Rashi.
Arukh, discussed below, say that a person can fulfill the rabbinic
obligation by reading Rashi.
[3] Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 3a.
[4] The two other complete Jewish Aramaic translations
are Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Neophyti.
are Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Neophyti.
[5] The Septuagint, composed about 250 BCE, and the
translation by Aquila, composed about 130 CE.
translation by Aquila, composed about 130 CE.
[6] There are many reasons for the targumic changes, such
as to clarify passages, to protect God’s honor, to show respect for Israelite
ancestors, etc. These alterations were not made to teach derash, as will
be shown below. The differences between peshat and derash is a
complex subject. Simply stated, peshat is the plain or simple or obvious
meaning of a text. Derash is the reading of a passage with either a
conscious or unconscious intent to derive something from it, usually a teaching
or ruling applicable to the needs or sensibilities of the later day, something
the original writer may have never meant.
as to clarify passages, to protect God’s honor, to show respect for Israelite
ancestors, etc. These alterations were not made to teach derash, as will
be shown below. The differences between peshat and derash is a
complex subject. Simply stated, peshat is the plain or simple or obvious
meaning of a text. Derash is the reading of a passage with either a
conscious or unconscious intent to derive something from it, usually a teaching
or ruling applicable to the needs or sensibilities of the later day, something
the original writer may have never meant.
[7] S.v, m’charef, Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 49a.
[8] S.v. shnayim, Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot
8a, b.
8a, b.
[9] They may have also been implying that one cannot understand
their derash unless they first understood the Torah’s peshat.
their derash unless they first understood the Torah’s peshat.
[10] Our view that Onkelos was written without derash
is also supported by the following interpretation of the Babylonian Talmud,
Megillah 3a. The Talmud recalls a
tradition that the world shuttered when Targum Jonathan to the Prophets
was written. Why, the Talmud asks, did this not occur when Targum Onkelos was
composed? Because, it answers, Onkelos reveals nothing (that is, it
contains no derash), whereas Targum Jonathan reveals secrets (by
means of its derash).
is also supported by the following interpretation of the Babylonian Talmud,
Megillah 3a. The Talmud recalls a
tradition that the world shuttered when Targum Jonathan to the Prophets
was written. Why, the Talmud asks, did this not occur when Targum Onkelos was
composed? Because, it answers, Onkelos reveals nothing (that is, it
contains no derash), whereas Targum Jonathan reveals secrets (by
means of its derash).
[11] See M. M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah 24
(Jerusalem, 1974), pages 225-238, and J. Reifman, Sedeh Aram (Berlin,
1875), pages 12-14. The mention of a Targum in the Midrashim and Talmuds
are not necessarily references to Onkelos; the wording in these sources
and Onkelos frequently differ.
(Jerusalem, 1974), pages 225-238, and J. Reifman, Sedeh Aram (Berlin,
1875), pages 12-14. The mention of a Targum in the Midrashim and Talmuds
are not necessarily references to Onkelos; the wording in these sources
and Onkelos frequently differ.
[12] See Kasher, supra pages 155-161 and Reifman, supra,
pages 8-10.
pages 8-10.
[13] See edition by A. Berliner (Leipzig, 1877). See I.
Drazin, JJS 50.2, supra, and note 15, for a summary of the
scholarly comments on this volume.
Drazin, JJS 50.2, supra, and note 15, for a summary of the
scholarly comments on this volume.
[14] See my study of Saadiah Gaon and Onkelos in
the introduction to Onkelos on the Torah: Leviticus, pages xvii-xxii.
the introduction to Onkelos on the Torah: Leviticus, pages xvii-xxii.
[15] Perushei Rav Saadiah Gaon, in Torat Chaim,
Mossad Harav Kook, Jerusalem, 1986, and Daf-Chen Press, Jerusalem, 1984. The
uses of Onkelos are indexed in Genesis in the 1984 volume on page
471. See E. I. J. Rosenthal, “the Study of the Bible in medieval Judaism,” Studia
Semitica, Cambridge, 1971, pages 244-271, especially pages 248 and 249
regarding Saadiah.
Mossad Harav Kook, Jerusalem, 1986, and Daf-Chen Press, Jerusalem, 1984. The
uses of Onkelos are indexed in Genesis in the 1984 volume on page
471. See E. I. J. Rosenthal, “the Study of the Bible in medieval Judaism,” Studia
Semitica, Cambridge, 1971, pages 244-271, especially pages 248 and 249
regarding Saadiah.
Saadiah established Hebrew
philology as a prerequisite for the study of the literal sense of the Bible and
he used rabbinic interpretations in his translation only when it complied with
reason. He stated at the end of his introduction to the Pentateuch that his
work is a “simple, explanatory translation of the text of the Torah, written
with the knowledge of reason and tradition.” He, along with ibn Ezra and
Onkelos, as we will see, included another meaning only when the literal
sense of the biblical text ran counter to reason or tradition. His failure to
mention that Onkelos contains derash does not prove indisputably
that he saw no derash in the commentary. However, since he copied Onkelos’
interpretations so very frequently in his Arabic translation, it is likely that
if he saw derash in Onkelos he would have mentioned it.
philology as a prerequisite for the study of the literal sense of the Bible and
he used rabbinic interpretations in his translation only when it complied with
reason. He stated at the end of his introduction to the Pentateuch that his
work is a “simple, explanatory translation of the text of the Torah, written
with the knowledge of reason and tradition.” He, along with ibn Ezra and
Onkelos, as we will see, included another meaning only when the literal
sense of the biblical text ran counter to reason or tradition. His failure to
mention that Onkelos contains derash does not prove indisputably
that he saw no derash in the commentary. However, since he copied Onkelos’
interpretations so very frequently in his Arabic translation, it is likely that
if he saw derash in Onkelos he would have mentioned it.
[16] In his Sefer Machberet Menahem (H. Filipowski,
editor), London and Edinburgh, 1854, pages 14a, 16b 17a, 17b, 20a, and others.
editor), London and Edinburgh, 1854, pages 14a, 16b 17a, 17b, 20a, and others.
[17] Peirush Hatorah L’Rav Shmuel ben Hofni Gaon,
Mossad Harav Kook, Jerusalem, 1978, index on page 111.
Mossad Harav Kook, Jerusalem, 1978, index on page 111.
[18] See the listing in Perushei Rashi al Hatorah
by Charles B. Chavel, Mossad Harav Kook, Jerusalem, 1982, pages 628 and 629.
For Rashi’s struggle against derash, see, for example, his commentary to
Genesis 3:8. While Rashi believed he interpreted Scriptures according to
its peshat, ibn Ezra criticized him: “He expounded the Torah
homiletically believing such to be the literal meaning, whereas his books do
not contain it except once in a thousand (times),” Safah Berurah, editor
G. Lippmann, Furth, 1839, page 5a. See also S. Kamin, Rashi’s Exegetical
Categorization with Respect to the Distinction Between Peshat and Derash
(Doctorial Theses), Jerusalem, 1978; M. Banitt, Rashi, Interpreter of the
Biblical Letter, Tel Aviv University, 1985; and Y. Rachman, Igeret Rashi,
Mizrachi, 1991.
by Charles B. Chavel, Mossad Harav Kook, Jerusalem, 1982, pages 628 and 629.
For Rashi’s struggle against derash, see, for example, his commentary to
Genesis 3:8. While Rashi believed he interpreted Scriptures according to
its peshat, ibn Ezra criticized him: “He expounded the Torah
homiletically believing such to be the literal meaning, whereas his books do
not contain it except once in a thousand (times),” Safah Berurah, editor
G. Lippmann, Furth, 1839, page 5a. See also S. Kamin, Rashi’s Exegetical
Categorization with Respect to the Distinction Between Peshat and Derash
(Doctorial Theses), Jerusalem, 1978; M. Banitt, Rashi, Interpreter of the
Biblical Letter, Tel Aviv University, 1985; and Y. Rachman, Igeret Rashi,
Mizrachi, 1991.
[19] Rashi said that he was offering peshat. He
meant that his commentary frequently contains derash that seemed to him
to reflect the plain meaning of the Torah.
meant that his commentary frequently contains derash that seemed to him
to reflect the plain meaning of the Torah.
[20] M. I. Lockshin, Rabbi Samuel ben Meir’s Commentary
on Genesis, Jewish Studies, The Edwin Mellen Press, 1989. See especially
Rashbam to Genesis 37:2 and 49:16 where he criticizes his grandfather
with strong language.
on Genesis, Jewish Studies, The Edwin Mellen Press, 1989. See especially
Rashbam to Genesis 37:2 and 49:16 where he criticizes his grandfather
with strong language.
[21] Lockshin, supra, pages 391-399, notes that
Rashi’s Torah Commentary is the primary focus of Rashbam’s own commentary. Of
some 650 periscopes of interpretation in the latter’s commentary to Genesis,
only about 33 percent concern issues not relevant to Rashi. Of the remaining
two-thirds, in only about 18 percent does Rashbam feel Rashi is correct, and in
just over 48 percent he is in disagreement with him, consistently criticizing
him for substituting derash for peshat, exactly what Rashi
declared he would not do. With this sensitivity to and opposition to derash,
it is very telling that he did not sprinkle even one drop of his venom on the
targumist.
Rashi’s Torah Commentary is the primary focus of Rashbam’s own commentary. Of
some 650 periscopes of interpretation in the latter’s commentary to Genesis,
only about 33 percent concern issues not relevant to Rashi. Of the remaining
two-thirds, in only about 18 percent does Rashbam feel Rashi is correct, and in
just over 48 percent he is in disagreement with him, consistently criticizing
him for substituting derash for peshat, exactly what Rashi
declared he would not do. With this sensitivity to and opposition to derash,
it is very telling that he did not sprinkle even one drop of his venom on the
targumist.
[22] See Genesis 25:28, for example, where Rashbam
issues the accolade: “the plain meaning of scripture is the one offered by the
Targum.” It is significant to note that although Rashbam railed against the
insertion of derash into a biblical commentary, his own commentary was
frequently adulterated, as was Targum Onkelos, by the improper
insertions of derash by later hands. See, for example, Deuteronomy
2:20, 3:23, 7:11, and 11:10 in A. I. Bromberg, Perush HaTorah leRashbam,
Tel Aviv, 5725, page 201, note 25; page 202, note 111; page 206, 7, note 9; and
page 210, note 3.
issues the accolade: “the plain meaning of scripture is the one offered by the
Targum.” It is significant to note that although Rashbam railed against the
insertion of derash into a biblical commentary, his own commentary was
frequently adulterated, as was Targum Onkelos, by the improper
insertions of derash by later hands. See, for example, Deuteronomy
2:20, 3:23, 7:11, and 11:10 in A. I. Bromberg, Perush HaTorah leRashbam,
Tel Aviv, 5725, page 201, note 25; page 202, note 111; page 206, 7, note 9; and
page 210, note 3.
[23] Ch. Heller’s and D. Revel’s were also convinced that
the original text of Onkelos did not have derash. However, they
did not recognize that Nachmanides was the first commentator to argue the
opposite. The first is in A Critical Essay on the Palestinian Targum to the
Pentateuch, NY, 1921, pages 32-57. The second is in Targum Yonatan al
Hatorah, New York, 5685, page 5. See also Bernard Grossfeld in “Targum
Onkelos, Halakhah and the Halakhic Midrashim,” in D.R.G. Beattie and M.
McNamara (editors), The Aramaic Bible , 1994, pages 228-46.
the original text of Onkelos did not have derash. However, they
did not recognize that Nachmanides was the first commentator to argue the
opposite. The first is in A Critical Essay on the Palestinian Targum to the
Pentateuch, NY, 1921, pages 32-57. The second is in Targum Yonatan al
Hatorah, New York, 5685, page 5. See also Bernard Grossfeld in “Targum
Onkelos, Halakhah and the Halakhic Midrashim,” in D.R.G. Beattie and M.
McNamara (editors), The Aramaic Bible , 1994, pages 228-46.
[24] In his epigram preceding one of the recessions of his
commentary on the Pentateuch, ibn Ezra writes that he intends to mention by
name only those authors “whose opinion I consider correct.” He names Onkelos
frequently. In his commentary to Numbers, for example, the Targum is
cited in 11:5 where he gives another interpretation, but respectfully adds, “he
is also correct,” and in 11:22 he comments, “it means exactly what the Aramaic
targumist states.” See also 12:1; 21:14; 22:24; 23:3; 23:10; 24:23 and 25:4.
Asher Weiser, Ibn Ezra, Perushei Hatorah, Mossad Harav Kook, 1977.
commentary on the Pentateuch, ibn Ezra writes that he intends to mention by
name only those authors “whose opinion I consider correct.” He names Onkelos
frequently. In his commentary to Numbers, for example, the Targum is
cited in 11:5 where he gives another interpretation, but respectfully adds, “he
is also correct,” and in 11:22 he comments, “it means exactly what the Aramaic
targumist states.” See also 12:1; 21:14; 22:24; 23:3; 23:10; 24:23 and 25:4.
Asher Weiser, Ibn Ezra, Perushei Hatorah, Mossad Harav Kook, 1977.
While he treats Onkelos
respectfully, ibn Ezra uses the strongly derogatory terms “deceivers” or
“liars,” for the derash-filled Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Deuteronomy
24:6. See D. Revel, Targum Yonatan al Hatorah, New York, 5685, pages 1
and 2.
respectfully, ibn Ezra uses the strongly derogatory terms “deceivers” or
“liars,” for the derash-filled Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Deuteronomy
24:6. See D. Revel, Targum Yonatan al Hatorah, New York, 5685, pages 1
and 2.
[25] The “fundamental element” that Onkelos
addresses is the avoidance of a literal translation of most anthropomorphic and
anthropopathic phrases. See the listing in Moses Maimonides, The Guide of
the Perplexed, translated and with an introduction by Shlomo Pines, The
University of Chicago Press, 1963, volume 2, pages 656 and 658, and 1:28 for
the quote.
addresses is the avoidance of a literal translation of most anthropomorphic and
anthropopathic phrases. See the listing in Moses Maimonides, The Guide of
the Perplexed, translated and with an introduction by Shlomo Pines, The
University of Chicago Press, 1963, volume 2, pages 656 and 658, and 1:28 for
the quote.
Maimonides based his
interpretation of negative commands 128 and 163 in part upon our Targum.
Maimonides, The Commandments, translated by Charles B. Chavel, The
Soncino Press, 1967, pages 116, 117 and 155, 156. This was not because Onkelos
deviated from the plain meaning to teach halakhah. Command 128 forbids
an apostate Israelite to eat the Passover offering. Onkelos translates
the biblical “no alien may eat thereof” as “no apostate Israelite” (Exodus
12:43). The targumist may have thought this was the necessary meaning because Exodus
12:45 and 48 state that a sojourner and an uncircumcised Israelite could not
eat this sacrifice; thus the earlier verse must be referring to someone else.
Command 163 prohibits a priest from entering the Sanctuary with disheveled,
untrimmed hair. Maimonides notes that
Onkelos translates Leviticus
10:6’s “Let not the hair of your heads go loose” as “grow long.” Again, the
targumist may have thought that this was the verse’s simple sense because it is
the language used by the Torah itself in Numbers 6:5 and because when
one loosens one’s hair it becomes longer. Indeed, Rashi states explicitly that
the peshat of “loose” in this instance is “long.”
interpretation of negative commands 128 and 163 in part upon our Targum.
Maimonides, The Commandments, translated by Charles B. Chavel, The
Soncino Press, 1967, pages 116, 117 and 155, 156. This was not because Onkelos
deviated from the plain meaning to teach halakhah. Command 128 forbids
an apostate Israelite to eat the Passover offering. Onkelos translates
the biblical “no alien may eat thereof” as “no apostate Israelite” (Exodus
12:43). The targumist may have thought this was the necessary meaning because Exodus
12:45 and 48 state that a sojourner and an uncircumcised Israelite could not
eat this sacrifice; thus the earlier verse must be referring to someone else.
Command 163 prohibits a priest from entering the Sanctuary with disheveled,
untrimmed hair. Maimonides notes that
Onkelos translates Leviticus
10:6’s “Let not the hair of your heads go loose” as “grow long.” Again, the
targumist may have thought that this was the verse’s simple sense because it is
the language used by the Torah itself in Numbers 6:5 and because when
one loosens one’s hair it becomes longer. Indeed, Rashi states explicitly that
the peshat of “loose” in this instance is “long.”
[26] He is believed to have been a student of Rashbam’s
brother Rabbeinu Tam. See the source in the next note.
brother Rabbeinu Tam. See the source in the next note.
[27] J. Nebo, Perushei Rabbi Josef Bechor Schor al
Hatorah, Mossad Harav Kook, 1994, page 11, Schor went beyond Targum
Onkelos in his concern about biblical anthropomorphisms and his attempts to
whitewash the patriarchs.
Hatorah, Mossad Harav Kook, 1994, page 11, Schor went beyond Targum
Onkelos in his concern about biblical anthropomorphisms and his attempts to
whitewash the patriarchs.
[28] See note 23.
[29] Genesis 6:13, 18; 31:42; 33:20; 35:13; and
others.
others.
[30] This could be seen as a kind of syllogism. Torah is
truth. Kabala is truth. Thus, Torah “must” contain Kabala.
truth. Kabala is truth. Thus, Torah “must” contain Kabala.
[31] Ramban, Writings and Discourses, translated
and annotated by Charles B. Chavel, Shilo, 1978, page 174.
and annotated by Charles B. Chavel, Shilo, 1978, page 174.
[32] Ramban, Commentary on the Torah, translated
and annotated by Charles B. Chavel, Shilo Publishing House, Inc., 1971, volume
1, XII. Chavel points out that the extensive kabalistic influences on future
generations can be traced to Nachmanides.
and annotated by Charles B. Chavel, Shilo Publishing House, Inc., 1971, volume
1, XII. Chavel points out that the extensive kabalistic influences on future
generations can be traced to Nachmanides.
[33] This is my original idea. It is based on several
facts. First, we know that he was the first to read Kabala in the Torah words
and phrases. Second, we know that he had enormous respect for Onkelos;
he referred to Onkelos about 230 times in his Bible commentary; although
he criticized others, he treated Onkelos with great respect, even
reverence. He considered Onkelos to be generally expressing the
truth. Thus it is reasonable to assume that he applied the same syllogism to Onkelos
that he applied to the Torah. Finally, we know of no one before him who
read mysticism into the targumist’s words.
facts. First, we know that he was the first to read Kabala in the Torah words
and phrases. Second, we know that he had enormous respect for Onkelos;
he referred to Onkelos about 230 times in his Bible commentary; although
he criticized others, he treated Onkelos with great respect, even
reverence. He considered Onkelos to be generally expressing the
truth. Thus it is reasonable to assume that he applied the same syllogism to Onkelos
that he applied to the Torah. Finally, we know of no one before him who
read mysticism into the targumist’s words.
[34] Ramban, Writings and Discourses, supra, pages
75-76. Nachmanides’ error in dating Targum Onkelos “immediately after
Aristotle” was not his only historical mistake. He believed that the Talmud’s
implied dating of Jesus at about 100 years before the Common Era was correct. See
Judaism on Trial, editor H. Maccoby, Associated University Presses, Inc.,
1982, pages 28 and 29.
75-76. Nachmanides’ error in dating Targum Onkelos “immediately after
Aristotle” was not his only historical mistake. He believed that the Talmud’s
implied dating of Jesus at about 100 years before the Common Era was correct. See
Judaism on Trial, editor H. Maccoby, Associated University Presses, Inc.,
1982, pages 28 and 29.
[35] The Midrash Genesis Rabbah 9:5, which
is the source of this teaching, mentions “death” and 9:9 “the evil inclination
in man” as examples of seemingly bad things, which are good from a non-personal
world-wide perspective. Bachya ben Asher, the student of Nachmanides’ student
Rashba, who was also a mystic, mentions 9:9, but not the Targum. He did
not see this idea in Onkelos.
is the source of this teaching, mentions “death” and 9:9 “the evil inclination
in man” as examples of seemingly bad things, which are good from a non-personal
world-wide perspective. Bachya ben Asher, the student of Nachmanides’ student
Rashba, who was also a mystic, mentions 9:9, but not the Targum. He did
not see this idea in Onkelos.
[36] Guide of the Perplexed 1:1. The Greek term psyche
had a similar developmental history as the Hebrew nefesh. T. Cahill, Sailing
the Wine-Dark Sea, Doubleday, 2003, writes on page 231.
had a similar developmental history as the Hebrew nefesh. T. Cahill, Sailing
the Wine-Dark Sea, Doubleday, 2003, writes on page 231.
Psyche
was, to begin with, a Greek word for “life,” in the sense of individual human
life, and occurs in Homer in such phrases as “to risk one’s life” and “to save
one’s life.” Homer also uses it of the ghosts of the underworld – the weak,
almost-not-there shades of those who once were men. In the works of the early
scientist-philosophers, psyche can refer to the ultimate substance, the
source of life and consciousness, the spirit of the universe. By the fifth
century B.C., psyche had come to mean the “conscious self,” the
“personality,” even the “emotional self,” and thence it quickly takes on,
especially in Plato, the meaning of “immortal self” – the soul, in contrast to
the body.
was, to begin with, a Greek word for “life,” in the sense of individual human
life, and occurs in Homer in such phrases as “to risk one’s life” and “to save
one’s life.” Homer also uses it of the ghosts of the underworld – the weak,
almost-not-there shades of those who once were men. In the works of the early
scientist-philosophers, psyche can refer to the ultimate substance, the
source of life and consciousness, the spirit of the universe. By the fifth
century B.C., psyche had come to mean the “conscious self,” the
“personality,” even the “emotional self,” and thence it quickly takes on,
especially in Plato, the meaning of “immortal self” – the soul, in contrast to
the body.
[37] Bachya ben Asher also mentions the parts of the soul,
but not the Targum, again not seeing Nachmanides’ idea in Onkelos.
but not the Targum, again not seeing Nachmanides’ idea in Onkelos.
[38] See the five books by I. Drazin on Targum Onkelos
published by Ktav Publishing House. Each contains a listing of the deviations
by the targumist from the Hebrew original.
published by Ktav Publishing House. Each contains a listing of the deviations
by the targumist from the Hebrew original.
[39] In my discussion of Genesis 46:4, I show that
Nachmanides was convinced that Onkelos never deviates to avoid
anthropomorphisms.
Nachmanides was convinced that Onkelos never deviates to avoid
anthropomorphisms.
[40] Bachya mentions neither Nachmanides nor Onkelos,
again not seeing the Nachmanidean interpretation in the Targum.
again not seeing the Nachmanidean interpretation in the Targum.
[41] The “joy” is mentioned in the Targum to verse
6.
6.
[42] Genesis 17:19.
[43] See II Chronicles 3:1.
[44] Rashi gives an additional reason why “Mount Moriah”
is rendered “the land of worship.” He connected “Moriah” to “myrrh,” which was
an ingredient of the sacrificial incense and an important part of the Temple
worship. Rashi states that this is the targumic interpretation. Rashi may be
explaining why the site was called Moriah, which would not be derash,
but the plain sense of the word. Nachmanides interpretation goes far beyond a
simple definition. See Genesis Rabbah 55:7, Exodus 30:23ff, and
Babylonian Talmud, Keritut 6a.
is rendered “the land of worship.” He connected “Moriah” to “myrrh,” which was
an ingredient of the sacrificial incense and an important part of the Temple
worship. Rashi states that this is the targumic interpretation. Rashi may be
explaining why the site was called Moriah, which would not be derash,
but the plain sense of the word. Nachmanides interpretation goes far beyond a
simple definition. See Genesis Rabbah 55:7, Exodus 30:23ff, and
Babylonian Talmud, Keritut 6a.
[45] Chapter 31.
[46] This occurs twenty-three times in Genesis
alone.
alone.
[47] There are many books that explain the derash that
they see in Onkelos. The most widely known is Netina Lager by
Nathan Adler (Wilna, 1886). Others include Biure Onkelos by S. B.
Schefftel (Munich, 1888), and Chalifot Semalot and Lechem Vesimla by B. Z. J.
Berkowitz (Wilna, 1874 and 1843). Modern
writers using this method include Y. Maori, who generally focuses on the Peshitta
Targum, Rafael Posen who writes a weekly column for a magazine distributed
in Israeli synagogues. One can find listings in B. Grossfeld’s three volumes A
Bibliography of Targum Literature, HUC Press, 1972.
they see in Onkelos. The most widely known is Netina Lager by
Nathan Adler (Wilna, 1886). Others include Biure Onkelos by S. B.
Schefftel (Munich, 1888), and Chalifot Semalot and Lechem Vesimla by B. Z. J.
Berkowitz (Wilna, 1874 and 1843). Modern
writers using this method include Y. Maori, who generally focuses on the Peshitta
Targum, Rafael Posen who writes a weekly column for a magazine distributed
in Israeli synagogues. One can find listings in B. Grossfeld’s three volumes A
Bibliography of Targum Literature, HUC Press, 1972.
