This post is a continuation of my review of Rabbi Posen’s Parshegen, here. Many thanks to S. of On the Main Line for help with certain points.

In the beginning of Parshegen, when listing the important works on Targum Onkelos (TO), Rabbi Posen notes that one of the most crucial works ever written on the topic is Shadal’s Ohev Ger (Vienna 1830; rpt. Cracow 1895). He mentions in a footnote that today most Charedi works on TO do not use him, or do not mention it if they did. He notes that in the first generations after Shadal wrote Ohev Ger everyone used it. He refers his article in Italia 19, (2009) (pp. 104-109) on the topic of Shadal as a Parshan of the Targum, where he has a few pages dealing with Charedi works that use him, including the Minchas Yitzchak. Posen notes that the Maharatz Chajes quotes him respectfully, but what is important about this is that the Maharatz Chajes did not see eye to eye with Shadal on other issues[1] and even wrote an essay attacking his criticisms of the Rambam (link). Posen notes that R. D.Z. Hoffman uses him in his Shu”t Melamed Le–hoel. I would add (something Posen is certainly well aware of) that R. Hoffman also uses him many times in his works on Chumash[2].

I would like to add a few more names toRabbi Posen’s list of people who used Shadal. Shoel Umeshiv[3], R. Yosef Zechariah Stern[4], R. Pesach Finfer[5], Dikdukei Sofrim[6], Seridei Eish[7], R. Chaim Heller[8], R. Kalman Kahana[9], R. Wolf Leiter[10] andR Dovid Tzvi Hillman[11]. S. of On the Main Line informs me that he has many more such references and is working on an extensive piece about Shadal in the eyes of talmidei chachomim through the ages.

I also found in the list of works recommended by the great Galician posek R. Meshulam Roth for students to learn in a proposed new school system, at the request ofR. Meir Shapiro, among the many interesting things he wanted talmidim to read when learning Targum Onkelos was Ohev Ger.[12]

When talking about this topic of the usage of Shadal in Charedi and Charedi-acceptable circles, Posen cites the introduction of Rabbi Yaakov Zvi Mecklenburg (1785-1865) to his Ha-Kesav Ve-ha-Kabbalah, printed only in the first edition of the work in 1839[13]. In this introduction he quotes a lengthy letter from Shadal[14] and clearly mentions that one of the works that he used when writing his sefer was from Shadal (which we would know anyway, because Shadal is cited by name many times in the commentary). Posen points out that in all subsequent editions this introduction has been removed. Posen suggests that the son-in-law who reprinted this work after he died (1880) removed it, and perhaps he did so due to the list of people that he used, especially theway he refers to Shadal, perhaps then no longer politically correct. Now, to be a little more accurate, the second edition of the work was printed in 1852 while Rabbi Mecklenburg was quite alive, and there a different version of the introduction appears. In this shorter version of the introduction it includes some of the works he used but there is no longer a specific mention of Shadal, neither in regard to using his work, or the lengthy letter of Shadal, which is now missing. In all subsequent editions printed after he died no introduction was printed. Thus we can see the son-in-law had nothing to do with it, but since it could hardly have been coincidental perhaps it did have to with Shadal’s image in some way, as Posen suggests. In his excellent article on the topic[15] Edward Breuer points out that there were differences between the two introductions, but he only notes that Julius Fuerst, whose name was mentioned in the first version of the introduction, was removed in the second version. Breuer did not note that Shadal’s name was also omitted.

Compare the introductions:

Since many of the controversial aspects of Shadal’s intellectual profile where already well-known by 1839 (e.g., proposing textual emendations of Nakh, fierce criticisms of the Rambam, assigning an author other than Shlomo to Koheles, etc.)[15b] my tentative suggestion as to why Shadal’s name and his letter were omitted by Rabbi Mecklenburg in the second edition could be because 1852 saw the printing of Shadal’s anti-Kabbalah work, the Vikuach Al Chochmas Ha- Kabbalah[16] (subtitled al Kadmus Sefer Ha-zohar). In addition, perhaps the advent of this work explains why later many did not use Ohev Ger on TO, feeling that they could not quote someone who was so anti-Zohar and anti-Kabbalah, even where he is not problematic and writes worthy ideas.

In Matzav Hayashar, R. Shneur Duber after quoting from Shadal’s work Vikuach Al Chochmas Ha- Kabbalah writes:

וה’ שד”ל בספרו ויכוח על חכמת הקבלה… וכל אלו הספרים הנההיראים החרדים לדבר ה’ נזהרים מאוד מלאחזיקם בביתם ומכש”כ מלעיין בהם משוםשהמה מהפכים את הלב האדם הקורא בהם ועושים רושם גמור בלבו רק לי התירו כמה גדולירבנים גדולים משום דאיתא במסכת אבות (פ”ב משנה יד) ודע מה שתשיב…”(מצבהישר, ב עמ’ 66].

It is also possible that R. Yaakov Kamenetsky was referring to the Vikuach in a sort of hidden way in Emes Leyaakov (p. 399). R. Yaakov records that he was asked by someone why is the Yom Tov of Hoshana Rabbah hidden and only found in Kabbalah literature? Before giving an answer R. Yaakov remarks he suspected there was a bit of cynicism in this question against the Zohar. It could be that he was hinting to the opening debate (before it spring boards in to other topics) in Shadal’s Vikuach Al Chochmas Ha-Kabbalah which takes place on Hoshana Rabbah and it is about where is the source for this Yom Tov.[17]

Another possible explanation as to why many did not use the works of Shadal could be understood with the complaints of R. Z. Y. Yolles in Hatorah VeHachochma. R Z. Y. Yolles sent Shadal a nice long letter related to TO in general and some comments on the Ohev Ger[18] in particular, which he liked a lot. He then writes:

ואין לזוז מן הנוסח אשר בידינו… כי עוד אחרת מצאתי לאונקלוס…מסכמת עם הנוסח השומרוני בנטיה מן הנוסח המסור בידינו מאבותינו,… וזהו ענין הצריך עיון… אלו הם דבריך הקשים [19],ואני בושתי ונכלמתי עליך משכיל חכם לב איך תדבר מן נוסחאות התורה, ותדלג מנוסח אל נוסחא כאלו היתה עיר קטנה, ומיודעיה מעטים וכל אשר יחפוץ להרסה יוכל לה, חס לנול האמין בשוא נתעה כזה ולשום אש דת שמרוה כמה אלפים חכמים ונבונים כחומה פרוצה לבל נמשך אחר דמינו, ומלבד שזהו עון פליפי נגד הקב”ה הנה גם אם נלך חפשי לשלוח יד בקודש על פי ההשערה, הלא במיעוט השקפה נראה שהוא דמיון כוזב, וכל ההשערות יהיו למאכולת אש, ואם אמנם כי נאמנו אתי רעיוניך הטהורות לבל יטו לבבך אחר ההבל ולהכניס בומחשבת פיגול… וזאת שאמרת וזהו ענין הצריך עיון המורה שיש ספק אצלך הנה אחשוב לשגיאת הסופר והמהירות וצרי לי מאוד אם יגיע הדבר באזני המתצדים ומחפשי מומי זולתם ויתנו עליך קולם לבלי חוק… הלא טוב הי’ לך לעזוב מאמר זה ולא יבא בתוך דבריך…

Although Shadal was very opposed to changing any texts in the Torah[20] and in a sense could be seen as standing in the breech, it could be that even such comments scared people away from his works.

Returning to the introduction of Rabbi Yaakov Mecklenburg to his Ha-Kesav Ve-ha-Kabbalah; It is of interest to me how he refers to R. Naftali Hirz Wessely (Weisel). He not only includes Wessely in the list of works he used, but in thebeginning of the introduction he says that Wessely is the only good work on Toras Kohanim which ties Torah Shebekhesav to Torah Shebaal Peh. This piece is also not found in the second edition of the introduction and is not noted by Breuer in his aforementioned article. A careful reading of the Ha-KesavVe-ha-Kabbalah shows that he used Wessely’s work numerous times throughout the work. Naturally no new views of Wessely’s were revealed between 1839 and 1852 to make Wessely more controversial.

Incidentally, here is a beautiful portrait of R. Mecklenburg as printed in the Festschrift zum 200 jährigen Bestehen des israelitischen Vereins für Königsberg (1904):

A few years ago in the pages of the excellent journal Ha-maayan, a controversy took place in relation to how to cite various works of people considered questionable (here). In the course of the controversy it turned to quoting Mendelssohn and Wessely, and their stories. Rabbi Posen mentioned that there was nothing wrong with Wessely, to which others argued. This controversy in regard to Wessely was not a new one[21], a few years before in the Kovetz Beis Aharon VeYisroel there was a series of articles based on various manuscripts showing how the gedolim at the time were very against Wessely. Towards the end of the series the author did a strange thing – he collected many citations of big name gedolim who did use Wessely’s work even after the controversy (here). Almost all of these gedolim were well aware of the controversy over Wessely’s Divrei Shalom ve-Emes in which his maskilic program for educational reform was outlined, and they came after the outcry of those early gedolim. So obviously disagreed with them (or were at least willing to accept him as a source to be used and cited by name). To me this was strange, as he undermined his own research – he wound up showing that there was a big controversy with many big people on both sides, so how in the world did he reach his conclusion that Wessely was bad according to everyone? Also of note, י”שר appears after Wessely’s name only in the first piece in the series. Perhaps in the course of his research the author realized that te matter was not as black-and-white as it first seemed.[22]

Nor did the modern controversy about Wessely end there, as a few years later two works of Wessely’s were reprinted; his Sefer Hammidos (2002), and his Yeyn Levanon (2003). In the introduction of both works there are lists of great people who used Wessely’s works. To be sure the kannoim did not remain quiet about this. That same year (2003) in the introduction to the Tomer Devorah reprinted by the Mishar publishing house, an introduction was printed about the evil works of Wessely recently reprinted. A few months ago the Kovetz Eitz Chaim (15, 2011, pp. 13-30) printed another manuscript on the controversy against Wessely, including some letters of various contemporary gedolim against the evil Wessely. In the recent work on R. Elyashiv Shlita, Hashakdan (2, pp. 136-137) they also mention how he was against the reprinting of the works of Wessely. The problem to me is how do they explain all the great Gedolim who did use his works? There is no clear answer.

To add to the lists of Gedolim who used Wessely’s works or quoted him in a positive light see; R. Eleazer Fleckeles[23], R.Moshe Kramer[24], Netziv[25], R. Mordechai Gimpel Yaffe[26], R. Yosef Zechariah Stern[27], R. Eliyahu Feivelson[28], R. Ezriel Hildsheimer[29], Dikdukei Sofrim[30], R. Y. Haberman[31], R. Chaim Bachrach[32], R. Y. Heller[33], R. Shneur Duber[34], R. Lazer Gordon[35], and R. Dovid Tzvi Hoffman[36]. Also see R. Moshe Mendelssohn (a maternal uncle of R Hirsch)[37] for many interesting remarks on Wessely. See also these great posts here and here in regard to Wessley.

I am sure many more sources for usages of both Shadal and Wessley can be found by searching Google Books, Hebrew Books and Otzar Hachochmah and just plain old learning, but I did not have a chance to do that yet.

I would liketo conclude with the following dream: just as R. Shlomo Dubno was vindicated in the past few years by R. Dovid Kamentsky,[38] it is my hope that Wessely too will be vindicated from all false charges against him and people will realize there is nothing wrong with his fine writings which are filled with chochma and yirah.

By Eliezer Brodt

רפאל בנימין פוזן, פרשגן, ביאורים ומקורות לתרגום אונקלוס, בראשית,963 עמודים.

הנ”ל, העקיבות התרגומית בתרגום אונקלוס, מגנס, ירושליםתשס”ד, 362 עמודים.

After many years of waiting, one volume of a highly anticipated work on Targum Onkelos, Parshegen, has finallyappeared. This volume by Rabbi Dr. Rafael Posen is an in-depth study of Targum Onkelos. Many have studied Targum Onkelos over the centuries, and continue to do so – especially when doing Shenayim Mikra Ve-echad Targum weekly, but few have penetrated the depths of this incredible work. To be sure, many others have treated the Targum before this work, most notably Rashi and the Ramban. Different works and articles by many authors have focused on different aspects of the Onkelos. But there are few that have done what Rabbi Posen sets out to do in this work.

Rabbi Posen has long demonstrated his great expertise in the Targum in numerous articles in various journals (both academic and rabbinic) over many years. A few years ago Rabbi Posen published a work on the Targum based on his doctorate called Ha-Iykivut Ha-targumit Be-Targum Onkelos (The Consistency of Targum Onkelos’ Translation). This work, printed by Magnes Press, outlines some of his themes in dealing with the Targum.[1] I highly recommend it for someone who wishes to grow in his appreciation for Onkelos (henceforth TO). One of his themes in this book, which others have also dealt with, is to show the great consistency within TO and the significance of the exception. Many times TO uses a certain word to explain something consistently throughout the Chumash except for one or two places where he uses a different term. Posen successfully shows that there was a coherent system in how and when TO used which words in which places. He explains why he deviated in some places and that it was in no way random or sloppy. It is precisely these deviations, when understood, which can show what makes TO so special and that is not just a simple translation of the Torah.

In this work Posen uses manuscripts and the academic literature available on TO side by side with all the traditional seforim written on TO. He does not just gather information but he dissects and analyzes it all very carefully, sometimes reaching his own original conclusions. He also deals with other important aspects related to understanding why Onkelos translated as he did as it relates to Halacha, Aggadah and other theological issues, such as how TO deals with anthropomorphism, which is probably the most famous TO issue of all. He also deals with the relationship of Onkelos to Midrashei Halacha and Aggadah. In each case he gives a good overview of the prior literature and issues that have been raised on that particular topic.

However in this book he only gives samples of his commentarial work on TO, outlining his ideas, so although he deals with many different pieces in TO (as a quick look at the index will show) it’s not a running commentary of TO in any way.

In the introduction he mentions that he is in middle of writing a work on Targum Onkeles called Parshegen which will be a running commentary on the whole Targum. Parshegen volume one has just been released by Yefeh Nof, his nephew’s publishing house [which will perhaps explain why there is no mention that Rabbi Posen is a Dr. having written a PhD on TO][2].This new volume is just on Genesis and is 963 pages! The presentation of the material is beautiful, well organized, concise and to the point (and if it’s 963 page and concise, you know it’s good). It is therefore a veritable goldmine. Rabbi Posen’s focus is to give the reader a clear explanation of why TO says what it does. Under the assumption that TO always has a very good reason for specifically translating the words, Rabbi Posen demonstrates how exactly TO did this. As he does in his other work, he uses the necessary manuscripts, early prints of the Targum[3] and the academic literature available alongside the seforim written on TO. He does not just gather information, but he dissects and analyzes it very carefully, checking if they are consistent with other places in the Targum. His competent use of manuscripts show how many times they can help one understand different Targumic issues. This path was not followed by many of the more recent Charedi works on TO. Posen also shows how having a good background in the Aramaic language helps a great deal. Another area he focuses on is the various statements of TO that play a role in Halacha and to underscore this, how at times it is even quoted in the Shu”t literature. He also focuses on the Targum’s usage of Midrash (both Halacha and Aggadah) which others have dealt with before. To better understand Onkelos he sometimes compares and contrasts it with the other Targumim.

To mention some other highlights of the work, in the beginning he includes a nice collection of sources about Onkelos and a very good overview of the Targum literature in general, and who likely wrote TO, and where. He included a very cool, lengthy poem about Onkelos, written in Aramaic, which he authored, as well as a running commentary explaining it. The work concludes with a nice appendix (over forty-five pages) dealing with perhaps the most famous issues that his many predecessors, beginning with the Rambam, have dealt with – TO’s approach to anthropomorphism. Parshegen includes a very nice haskamah from Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl, who mentions that he went through this whole work as it was written over the years, adding many comments which Posen found useful and included in this work.

All in all if, one wants to learn TO on a high level and to appreciate how special the Targum is, I highly recommend it. I feel that Rabbi Posen successfully accomplishes the goals he set in the introduction of his book: to write a clear and concise commentary on the Targum Onkelos. If one uses it one will definitely be able to understand why TO enjoys pre-eminence of all the Targumic literature. I only hope that the remaining volumes will appear in the near future as planned.

Parshegen is distributed by Yefeh Nof and it should be available in all stores shortly. For now see Girsa in Jerusalem and Biegeleisen in NY. If one wants some samples pages please contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com.

I wanted to add one notation to this work. An area of halacha in which Targum Onkelos plays an important role isto differentiate between the names of Hashem in the Torah which are Kodesh and which are Chol. The reason why this is important is because the halacha is that every time a sofer writes a name of Hashem in a Sefer Torah he has to articulate that it’s “Leshem Kedushat Hashem.” Failing to do so, the Sefer Torah is pasul. Now Rabbi Posen is well aware of this and deals withTO as it relates to this issue. However, one important work which I did not see him quote from is the Meleches Hakodesh(Prague 1812) of Rabbi Eleazer Fleckeles, who gathered all these ambiguous name, the opinions of everyone who remarked upon them and reached conclusions about each one. In addition, he deals with Onkelos in many of the places.[4]

Another work in relation to this topic, which Rabbi Posen does use, is called Biur Shemos Kodesh Vechol. This work was printed in 1923 by Haham Moses Gaster. For many years it was assumed to be from the Rambam, as per the attribution. Rabbi Kirshbaum wrote some interesting notes on this sefer (Tzion Le-menachem, siman 6). In 1985, Y. Levinger proved that it is a forgery and it is not from the Rambam.[5] Rabbi Posen writes that Rabbis Kapach and Nebenzahl also do not agree that it is from the Rambam. R. Yitzchac Shilat told me that he too does not believe it to be authentic. Rabbi Posen points all this out in a footnote in the end of the book (pp. 922-923). However he should have mentioned this already in the beginning when he quotes the work a few times (see p. 77, 112). Other recent works used this sefer without even realizing that – at best – it is hardly clear that it is an authentic work of the Rambam, such as Miat Tzori (p. 6) and Nikadesh es Shimcha (all over the sefer).

There will be follow-up post about Rabbi Posen’s footnote in Parshegen about Shadal’s path-breaking Ohev Ger (Vienna 1830; rp. Cracow 1895) on Targum Onkelos and it’s use. I will jump off from there and also discuss the use of Shadal and Rabbi Naftali Hirz Wessely in seforim in general.