Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
VOLUME 11
Michael L. Klein
LEIDEN BOSTON
2011
ISSN 1570-1336
ISBN 978 90 04 20295 5
Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
CONTENTS
List of Illustrations ............................................................................
Foreword, Avigdor Shinan and Rimon Kasher .............................
Article Credits ....................................................................................
vii
ix
xv
SECTION I
1. The Aramaic Targumim: Translation and Interpretation ...
2. Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique .....................
3. The Preposition ( Before): A Pseudo-AntiAnthropomorphism in the Targums ......................................
4. Palestinian Targum and Synagogue Mosaics ........................
5. The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and
Anthropopathisms in the Targumim ......................................
6. Associative and Complementary Translation in the
Targumim ....................................................................................
3
19
41
49
59
77
SECTION II
7. A Fragment-Targum of Onqelos from the Cairo Genizah
8. Serugin (Shorthand) of Onqelos from the Cairo Genizah ...
9. New Fragments of Palestinian Targum from the Cairo
Genizah ........................................................................................
10. Complementary
Fragments from the Cairo Genizah ........................................
11. The Targumic Tosefta to Exodus 15:2 ....................................
12. New Fragments of Targum to Esther from the Cairo
Genizah ........................................................................................
13. Introductory Poems (Rshuyot) to the Targum of the
Haftarah in Praise of Jonathan Ben Uzziel ...........................
91
97
107
119
133
141
167
SECTION III
14. Four Notes on the Triennial Lectionary Cycle .....................
15. Not to be Translated in Public .........
179
189
vi
contents
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
203
207
209
213
229
263
267
271
235
239
273
297
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Chapter 9
C.U.L. T-S AS 68.224r (MS E), Exod 36:813
C.U.L. T-S AS 68.224v (MS E), Exod 36:2229
C.U.L. T-S AS 68.144r (MS E), Exod 39:3240
C.U.L. T-S AS 68.144v (MS E), Exod 40:212
C.U.L. T-S B 9.11r (MS H), Gen 15:1116:16 (fragment-targum)
C.U.L. T-S AS 68.83r (MS D), Gen 37:811
C.U.L. T-S AS 68.83v (MS D), Gen 37:1314, 1617
Chapter 12
The plates are published by courtesy of the Syndics of Cambridge
University Library.
T-S B 11.52
T-S B 11.52
T-S B 12.21
T-S B 12.21
T-S B 12.21
T-S B 12.21
T-S B 11.52
T-S B 11.52
T-S B 12.32
T-S B 12.32
T-S AS 70.72
T-S AS 70.72
FOREWORD
The world of Ancient Judaism moved along several axes and within
several circles. One of the most significant was the synagogue, where
many would gatherparticularly on Sabbaths and Festivalsin order
to fulfill the religious obligations prescribed by tradition. It was in the
synagogue that they would pray and hear piyyutim (liturgical poems);
here they would hear derashot (text-based homilies); and here they
would read the sacred Scriptures, which formed the Jewish worldview. Alongside the recitation of the Scriptures, a significant role was
given to the translation of these writings into the vernacular language
spoken by contemporary Jews, notably Greek and Aramaic. One can
hardly speak about the public reading of the Scriptures in that period
without the mediation of the translator. He transposed the words from
one language to another, and from the conceptual milieu of the Bible
to that of the Second Temple and Rabbinic periods, reflecting changes
in theology, halakhic development and socio-historical conditions.
The translations of the Hebrew Bible, and most particularly of the
Pentateuch, are some of the most significant tools available to scholars seeking to provide a comprehensive and accurate cultural history
of the Jews in the centuries immediately preceding and following the
dawn of the Common Era.
Without doubt, Professor Michael Klein (New York, 1940Jerusalem,
2000) was one of the foremost twentieth-century scholars of the
targumim (Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible). His many publications earned him a place of honor among Israeli and international
experts in the field. One would be hard pressed to find a serious work
in the field which does not relate to Michaels contributions to this
rich literary world. His work was characterized by extraordinary diligence, precision and attention to detail; by complete mastery of the
scholarly literature and of the various challenges presented by the targumic texts; and above all by the ability to raise new questions and
offer answers which placed the literature of the targums within the
wider context of Ancient Judaism. He saw this work not only as part
of the culture of the Synagogue, as we have described it here, but also
in the context of midrash, halakhah and aggadah.
foreword
foreword
xi
xii
foreword
precise work, all of which was executed with equal amounts of expertise and love.
Taken together, these three fields point to a comprehensive and systematic scholarly project, multi-layered in nature and wide-ranging in
scope. Such indeed was the scholarship of Michael Klein.
The idea to publish a collection of Michaels articles was his own.
In the last years of his life, in the midst of his battle with illness, he
devoted all his available energy to the creation of this collection and to
the completion and updating of various articles in light of changes and
developments since their publication. To our great regret, Michael was
taken from us while this work was still incomplete. Our great sense of
loss and our wish to provide a fitting testament to Professor Klein by
carrying out his wish to publish a collection of his articles motivated
a number of individuals to lend their efforts to the production of this
work, even if not precisely according to the contours envisaged by
Michael Klein.
Michaels widow, Mrs. Shoshi Klein, was one of the main forces
motivating the publication of this work, despite the fact that she has
had to undergo a very difficult period in her life and that of her family. Michael Marmur, who succeeded Michael Klein as Dean of the
Hebrew Union CollegeJewish Institute of Religion, and Paul V. M.
Flesher of the University of Wyoming, both provided material support, encouragement, advice and direction.
We two editors took this task upon ourselves willingly as an expression of thanks to a colleague thanks to whom we too, like several
other colleagues, are able to pursue our own research. Despite the fact
that Michael had hoped to publish a more comprehensive collection
including some fifty studies, we have included twenty-two articles. In
our opinion, these articles represent well the various areas in which
Michael made a significant contribution to targum scholarship.
Readers may of course wish to consult Michaels other works, many
of which can be easily located, thanks to the proliferation of databases
of various kinds. It appears that the division of the book into three
parts reflects Michaels wishes.
This book should have appeared some years ago, but the incomplete
state of the manuscript material presented a number of difficulties.
After much delay and various unsuccessful attempts to complete the
articles in the spirit of Michaels work, it was decided to publish the
articles in their original state, and not in the semi-revised condition
in which they were left at the time of Michaels death. Ms. Tali Shach
foreword
xiii
ARTICLE CREDITS
All chapters have been previously published, in the following publications:
1. Michael L. Klein, The Aramaic Targumim: Translation and
Interpretation. In The Interpretation of the Bible: The International
Symposium in Slovenia, ed. Joe Kraovec, pp. 31731. Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 289. Ljubljana
& Sheffield: SAZU & Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
2. Michael L. Klein, Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique.
Biblica 57:4 (1976): pp. 51537.
3. Michael L. Klein, The Preposition ( Before): A Pseudo-AntiAnthropomorphism in the Targums. The Journal of Theological
Studies (New Series) 30:2 (1979): pp. 5027.
4. Michael L. Klein, Palestinian Targum and Synagogue Mosaics.
Immanuel 11 (1980): pp. 3345.
5. Michael L. Klein, The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and
Anthropopathisms in the Targumim. In Congress Volume
Vienna 1980, ed. J. A. Emerton, pp. 16277. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
6. Michael L. Klein, Associative and Complementary Translation
in the Targumim. In Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical, and
Geographical Studies: H. M. Orlinsky Volume, Vol. 16, ed. Baruch
A. Levine, and Abraham Malamat, pp. 13440. Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society, 1982.
7. Michael L. Klein, A Fragment-Targum of Onqelos from the
Cairo Genizah. In Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical,
Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield,
ed. Ziony Zevit, Seymour Gitin, and Michael Sokoloff, pp. 1015.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995.
8. Michael L. Klein, Serugin (Shorthand) of Onqelos from the Cairo
Genizah. Maarav, Vol. 8 (1992): pp. 27587.
9. Michael L. Klein, New Fragments of Palestinian Targum From
the Cairo Genizah. Sefarad 49:1 (1989), pp. 12333.
10. Michael L. Klein, Complementary
Fragments from the Cairo Genizah. In Texts, Temples, and
Traditions: A Tribute to Menachem Haran, ed. Michael V. Fox,
xvi
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
article credits
Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Michael L. Klein, Baruch J.
Schwartz, and Nili Shupak, pp. 95*105* (Hebrew). Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996.
Michael L. Klein, The Targumic Tosefta to Exodus 15:2. Journal
of Jewish Studies 26:12 (1975): pp. 6167.
Rimon Kasher and Michael L. Klein, New Fragments of Targum
to Esther from the Cairo Genizah. Hebrew Union College Annual
61 (1990): pp. 89124.
Michael L. Klein, Introductory Poems (Rshyuot) to the Targum
of the Haftarah in Praise of Jonathan Ben Uzziel. In Bits of Honey:
Essays for Samson H. Levey, ed. S. F. Chyet and D. H. Ellenson, pp.
4356. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 74. Atlanta,
GA: Scholars Press, 1993.
Michael L. Klein, Four Notes on the Triennial Lecture Cycle.
Journal of Jewish Studies 32:1 (1987): pp. 6573.
Michael L. Klein, Not to be Translated in Public
. Journal of Jewish Studies 39:1 (1988): pp. 8091.
Michael L. Klein, Text and Vorlage in Neofiti 1. Vetus
Testamentum 22 (1972): pp. 49091.
Michael L. Klein, Deut 31:7: or ?Journal of Biblical
Literature, 92:4 (1973): pp. 58485.
Michael L. Klein, The Notation of Paraot in MS Neofiti 1.
Textus Annual 8 (1973): pp. 17577.
Michael L. Klein, Notes on the Printed Edition of MS Neofiti I.
Journal of Semitic Studies 19:2 (1974): pp. 21630.
Michael L. Klein, Elias Levita and MS Neofiti I. Biblica 56:2
(1975): pp. 24246.
Michael L. Klein, The Messiah That Leadeth Upon a Cloud, in
the Fragment-Targum to the Pentateuch? Journal of Theological
Studies (New Series) 29:1 (1978): pp. 13739.
Michael L. Klein, An Updated Bibliography of Manuscripts and
Editions of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. Hebrew Union
College Annual 7071 (19992000): pp. 16781.
SECTION I
CHAPTER ONE
b. Megillah 9ab.
chapter one
2
See S. Lieberman, Corrections of the Soferim, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine
(Texts and Studies XVIII: New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962), pp. 2837.
3
b. Kiddushin 49a; t. Megillah 4(3):41.
4
[ Philoxenus] (Vienna, 1830; Cracow, 1895; reprinted: Jerusalem: Makor,
1969).
Early studies after Luzzatto tended towards generalization, stating that the targumim remove or ameliorate all anthropomorphic or
anthropopathic descriptions of God. This seemed to suit a general
theory that as Jewish theology became more refined, whether under
Hellenistic influence or due to internal development, and concepts
of the Deity became more sophisticated, the more primitive human
descriptions were eliminated.
However, subsequent twentieth-century studies have shown that
whereas manyindeed mostof the anthropomorphic and anthropopathic descriptions of God have been altered in the Aramaic translations, many others have been translated quite literally.5 If indeed the
descriptions of God as possessed of a human-like body; or the attribution to God of human emotions such as anger and joy, jealousy and
remorse; or Gods motion and physical removal from one place to
another, had become theologically objectionable by the period of targumic activity, how, then, could many blatant examples of anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms have survived in the various extant
targumim?
Moreover, the earliest surviving targum manuscripts from Qumran
are likely to have been copied in the mid-second century B.C.E., not
distant in time from the assumed date of composition of the Book
of Daniel. And it is in that book, which is ascribed to the Hellenistic
period, that the Ancient of Days is depicted as taking His seat, His
garment like white snow, and the hair of His head like lambs wool
(Dan 7:9). It seems that, even in this relatively late period, we must
allow for allegorical interpretation of anthropomorphisms, alongside
the required paraphrastic transformation of other theologically offensive or doctrinally dangerous biblical verses. The following are several examples that will serve to demonstrate these somewhat abstract
principles.
In Deut 11:12, all of the targumim translate literally the phrase the
eyes of the Lord God are upon the land. In Exod 31:18 and Deut 9:10,
the targumim have no difficulty rendering literally the statement that
5
Cf. M. L. Klein, The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms
in the Targumim, Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
32; Leiden: Brill, 1981), pp. 16277 [ch. 5 in the present volume]; idem,
[ Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the
Targumim of the Pentateuch] (Jerusalem: Makor, 1982).
chapter one
the tablets were written by the finger of God.6 Likewise, the phrase
beneath His feet, in Exod 24:10, is translated in the Palestinian targumim by the no less anthropomorphic phrase, beneath the footstool of His feet. And a final example from amongst many, in Exod
15:17, the sanctuary, O Lord, which Your hands established is amplified in most of the targumim to which Your two hands established.
Clearly, the targumim are not deterred by the metaphorical attribution
of human parts to the Deity.
Similarly, there are enough instances in the various targumim to
the Pentateuch to indicate that the meturgemanim were not entirely
adverse to the application of verbs of cognition, emotion, transposition, etc. to God. Examples abound in all of the targumim of Gods
hearing, seeing, or knowing, in the sense of acquiring information,
that are rendered literally.7 In the Palestinian targumim to Deut 31:29
and 32:16, 19, 21, we find humans enraging God; and in verses 16 and
21, they provoke jealousy in Him. Moreover, there are quite a few
instances of the retention of verbs of motion and transposition of God
in the various targumim. In Exod 33:22, we find until I have passed
in Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan. According to Onqelos and Neofiti
to Gen 46:4, God will descend to Egypt with Jacob, just as in PseudoJonathan to Gen 11:7, God descends to confound the language of
the builders of the tower of Babel. In Neofiti to Gen 28:13, we find
the Lord standing beside (lit. above/upon) Jacob, just as God
literally stands before [Moses] on the rock at Horeb, according to
Onqelos at Exod 17:6.8
Having reviewed a representative mass of examples of surviving
anthropomorphisms in the targumim, and having ruled out their
avoidance per se as a major cause of paraphrastic translation in the targumim, we must seek that cause elsewhere. One of the central themes
of the Hebrew Bible is the human search for spirit and for divine rev-
6
Neofiti . . . by a mighty finger from before God. However, as demonstrated elsewhere, the addition of the prepositional phrase ( from before) does not necessarily reflect the avoidance of anthropomorphisms. Cf. M. L. Klein, The Preposition
( Before): A Pseudo-Anti-Anthropomorphism in the Targums, Journal of
Theological Studies 30 (1979), pp. 5027 [ch. 3 in the present volume].
7
Cf. M. L. Klein, . . . , pp. 9399.
8
With slight variation in Pseudo-Jonathan, which, if at all, amplifies the anthropomorphic description behold
I will stand before you, at the place where you will see the footprintpresumably
Gods footprint!
elation. It is, therefore, not at all surprising that no fewer than nine distinct Hebrew verbs in the divine context are translated by the Aramaic
verb revealor rather by the passive was revealed.
The most natural site of this translation is the Sinai theophany
in Exod 19:20, where the phrase the Lord came down ( )upon
Mount Sinai is translated in all of the targumim was revealed ()
upon Mount Sinai.9 So also, the verb ( root )came/happened/chanced upon in Exod 3:18, is translated the Lord, God of
the Hebrews, was revealed ( )upon us.10 Likewise, the verb
has come in Exod 20:20(17) is translated in all of the targumim. As is to be expected, such verbs as , and
(was seen, appeared and made Myself known) which all have
the sense of Gods revealing to man some divine aspect of Himself,
are translated by in the Aramaic. The call Rise up (), O
Lord, and let Your enemies be scattered, in Num 10:35, is rendered
Reveal Yourself in Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan. And finally, Gods
going forth ( ) and His passing through ( )the land of
Egypt, in Exod 11:4; 12:12, are understood by almost all of the targumim as God revealing Himself in order to mete out retribution upon
the Egyptians.
This lengthy and detailed listing will serve to illustrate how the technique of translational convergence is applied by the meturgemanim in
order to emphasize Gods ubiquitous revelation in the world. In this
admittedly radical case, nine distinct Hebrew roots are made to converge into a single theologically instructive root in the Aramaic target
language.
The reverse technique of translational divergence is also employed
by the meturgemanim for interpretational purposes. An outstanding
example of this phenomenon is the translation of the verb
bowed down/prostrated himself.11 And this, coincidentally, reflects
9
The addition of or in the Palestinian targumim (except
Pseudo-Jonathan) is not relevant to the translation of the verb by . In fact,
once the verb of motion has been replaced by the innocuous verb of revelation, the
need to substitute appellations for the divine name is obviated.
10
This is to be contrasted with Num 23:4, , where the revelationary nature of the meeting is minimized by employing the literal translation /
or .
11
Cf. M. L. Klein, . . . , (1982), pp. 15155. See also D. M. Golomb, The
Targumic Renderings of the Verb lehitahwt: A Targumic Translation Convention,
Working with No Data: Semitic and Egyptian Studies, Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin
(ed. D. M. Golomb; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987), pp. 10518. However,
chapter one
13
Cf. Neofiti Gen 44:14 is also translated
. But contrast Gen 50:18 , where the brothers are begging for their
lives, which is translated literally ( Neofiti marginal gloss:
[= ]leaned/fell upon [his neck]).
14
Yet another Aramaic verb occasionally utilized by Neofiti for the translation of
10
chapter one
In Gen 4:14, Cain exclaims:
Behold, You have driven me out this day from the face of the
land, and from Your face I shall be hidden. However, all of the targumim present an opposite, theologically corrected version,
][ but from before You [O, Lord,] it is impossible to be hidden.
Another celebrated example is found in a number of early manuscriptal and printed sources of Onqelos. In Gen 5:24, it is told,
Enoch walked with God,
and he was no more, for God took him. The Onqelos sources render
and he still is, for God did not put him to
death. The explanation for this converse translation is reflected in the
Pseudo-Jonathan targum,
' and he
was no longer with the inhabitants of the earth, for he was removed
and he ascended to heaven by a command [lit.: word] from before
God, and he was named Metatron, the Great Scribe.
The exegetical basis for this departure from the simple sense of the
text is, of course, the unusual Hebrew expression for Enochs death
instead of the standard that is employed for all the other
primeval generations. The interpretation is in consonance with the
ancient tradition of 2 Enoch 16:6; 18:13, where he is depicted as a
scribe and as having been swept up to heaven alive by angels. But
strangely enough, it is not in agreement with early midrashic literatureonly with late medieval traditions.
One last example of a converse translation that is introduced to
protect the honor of Israel is found in Exod 17:11, in the story of the
battle between Israel and Amalek. According to the Hebrew text, when
Moses let down his tiring hands, Amalek prevailed over Israel. It must
have been considered embarrassing in the synagogue to attribute even
a momentary victory to Amalek over Israel. The Masorah to Onqelos,
therefore instructs the meturgeman [ ],[ ]
.17 In the public reading, the text is to be altered from
Amalek was victorious to Amalek was broken/smashed.
This converse translation is effected by the mere deletion of a single
letter!
17
A. Berliner, Die Massorah zum Targum Onkelos (2nd [expanded] ed.; Leipzig,
1877), p. 82; G. E. Weil, La Massorah Magna du Targum du Pentateuch: Noveaux
fragments et autres, Textus 4 (1964), pp. 3334.
11
18
See, e.g., M. L. Klein, Not to be Translated in Public , JJS
39 (1988), pp. 8091 [ch 15 in the present volume].
19
Cf. the Masorah to Gen 27:35, which lists two instances of the translation, the
present verse and Gen 34:13 ( A. Berliner, Die Massorah . . ., p. 24).
12
chapter one
The same distinction between the God of Israel and other gods
underlies the targumic resolution of the rhetorical question in Exod
15:11, Who is like unto You, among the gods/
mighty, O Lord? which is translated in Onqelos
There is none but You, You are the God, O Lord. This
paraphrase leaves no room for theological errorthere are no lesser
gods and there is no basis for dangerous comparisons.
The targumim diverge from the literal sense of the biblical text in
poetic and prophetic passages that lend themselves to eschatological and messianic interpretations.20 In Jacobs blessing of Judah (Gen
49:10) the Hebrew text reads . . . ,
which would seem to literally mean The scepter shall not part from
Judah . . . until he comes to Shiloh. All of the targumim interpret
as a reference to the Messiah, i.e., until Shiloh comes. For example,
Neofiti and the Fragment-Targum (Ms. Vatican Ebr. 440) offer
until the time of arrival of
the King Messiah, unto whom is the kingdom.
Another eschatological interpretation is found in the targumic
toseftot (expansive supplementary passages) to Jacobs blessing of Dan
(Gen 49:18). Here the Hebrew text mentions deliverance, almost eliciting the midrashic interpretation: I wait for Your
deliverance, O Lord. The toseftot, following the Palestinian targumim,
provide lengthy paraphrases, concluding with
rather [I wait] for the deliverance of
the King Messiah, which is an eternal deliverance, or
but rather for the
deliverance of the Messiah, son of David, that He will bring for His
people Israel.21
The last example of eschatological interpretation is from the
Palestinian targumim to Exod 12:42,
It
was a night of vigil to bring them out of Egypt; that same night is the
20
For a broad collection of these verses, see S. H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic
Interpretaion; The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union
College Press, 1974).
21
M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch
(Cincinatti: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986), Vol. 1, p. 171. See, also, idem,
Targumic Toseftot from the Cairo Genizah, Salvacion en la Palabra: Targum,
Derash, Berith: En memoria del Profesor Alejandro Dez Macho (ed. D. Muoz Len;
Madrid: Edicines Cristiandad 1986), [pp. 41718].
13
Lords, one of vigil for all the children of Israel throughout the generations. In the Palestinian targumim the night of the Exodus becomes
the archetype and the calendrical date for four nights of divine vigil
and deliverance in the history of Israel: 1. the eve of Creation (Gen
1:2); 2. the eve of the Covenant of the Pieces (Gen 15:12) complemented by the binding of Isaac (Gen 22); 3. the eve of the Exodus
from Egypt (Exod 12:42); and 4. the eve of the messianic deliverance
in the End of Days.22
This last fourth night is described as follows:
'
[' ][ ] . . .
The fourth night will occur when the world reaches its fixed time to
be redeemed; the iron yokes will be broken and the evil doers will be
destroyed; Moses will go forth from the wilderness and the King Messiah
will go forth from Rome; this one will lead at the head of the flock, and
that one will lead at the head of the flock, and the memra (word) of
the Lord will lead among both of them; [and I] and they will proceed
together; [that is the eve of Passover before the Lord] . . .23
22
For a thorough analysis of this passage and the parallel literature, see R. Le Daut,
La Nuit Pascale. AnBi 22 (Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1963).
23
According to Ms. Paris Hbr. 110, ed. M. L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the
Pentateuch (Analecta Biblica 76; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), Vol. 1, pp. 7980.
Its displacement to Exod 15:18, in this manuscript, is possibly for the sake of inclusion
in the Passover liturgy; cf. A. Shinan [ The Biblical Story
as Reflected in its Aramaic Translations] (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1993),
pp. 11720. All of the Palestinian targumim share the same basic text with minor
variations, including censorship to the allusion to Rome and the bracketed phrases.
14
chapter one
lest My wrath rage against you, and I cook [= scorch] your harvest while heaped on the threshing floor, the grain and chaff together
as one.25
Another no less outstanding example of halakhic influence upon
the targumim is the calendrical interpretation of Lev 23:11, 15. The
phrase the morrow after the sabbath is translated
after the festival day in Onqelos, and more explicitly in the Palestinian targumim,
after the first day of the Passover festival. As is well known, this is
in accord with the Pharisaic ritual calendar and contrary to that of
other sects (Sadducees, Essenes?) who held that the sheaf offering and
the beginning of the counting of seven weeks took place on the first
Sunday after Passoverliterally the morrow after the Sabbath.
There are also, though admittedly less frequent, targumic passages that provide halakhic justification and accommodation to contemporary realities of Jewish communal life. A case in point is Lev
26:1, where the Hebrew Bible forbids the placement of figured stones
for the purpose of kneeling upon in worship. This verse
24
Cf. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (ed. J. Z. Lauterbach; Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society 1935, reprint 1976), Vol. 3, p. 188; and m. H ullin 8:4. Contrast also
the explicit massoretic note to Onqelos, ( ' ' ' Exod 23:19);
( Exod 34:26); ( Deut 14:21); see A. Berliner, Die Massorah . . ., p. 39.
25
According to MS Paris 110, ed. M. L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums . . ., Vol. 1,
p. 86. Similar versions appear in the Palestinian targumim of Neofiti, MS Vatican 440
of the Fragment-Targum (Exod 34:26) and in Pseudo-Jonathan.
15
however, you may place a stoa (= mosaic pavement?) impressed with
figures and images in the floor of your sanctuariesprovided you do
not kneel to them. Since the figures in the floors were not the objects
of worship, they were not considered to be in violation of the Levitical
code. In fact, there exist similar rabbinic statements allowing frescos to
be painted on synagogue walls.26
As the subtitle of this paper indicates and as we have just demonstrated, the targum of even a single word in the Hebrew Bible may
reflect an inextricable combination of both translation and interpretation. On the one hand, the underlying motivation for digression from
the purely mechanical or literal rendition of a verse may be theological, doctrinal or legalistic, but on the other hand, it may be the simple
desire to convey to the listener/reader the essential meaning of the
biblical text in the contemporary idiom of the target language. The
following several examples will serve to illustrate this principle:
Upon discovering that Rebecca was Isaacs wife and not his sister,
Abimelech warns his people anyone
who touches this man or his wife shall be put to death (Gen 26:11).
Neofiti translates the verb literally ; Pseudo-Jonathan
adds a modifier for clarification anyone who touches for
26
E.g., y. Avodah Zarah 42d, according to Cairo Genizah manuscripts published
by J. N. Epstein, [ Additional Fragments of the Jerushalmi],
Tarbiz 3 (19311932), p. 20. See also M. L. Klein, Palestinian Targum and Synagogue
Mosaics, Immanuel 11 (Fall, 1980), pp. 4045 [ch. 4 in the present volume]. Unlike
the strange use of the term stoa in Pseudo-Jonathan, the talmudic passage uses the
familiar term for mosaic, (), borrowed from the Greek.
16
chapter one
27
28
17
29
According to the MS Vatican Ebr. 440, ed. M. L. Klein, The Fragment Targums . . .,
Vol. 1, p. 204. The other Palestinian targumim and Pseudo-Jonathan offer similar
readingsonly Neofiti has been subjected to censorship.
18
chapter one
CHAPTER TWO
1
t. Meg. 4:41, ed. M. S. Zuckermandel, Bamberger and Wahrman (Jerusalem 1937),
228; and b. Qidd. 49a:
. )( ) (,'
2
E.g., G. Vermes, Haggadah in the Onkelos Targum, JSS 8 (1963), 15969, and
J. W. Bowker, Haggadah in the Targum Onqelos, JSS 12 (1967), 5163. But, see
Vermes reference to A. Berliner, who in 1884 produced a limited list of aggadic interpretations in Onqelos.
3
Targum and Testament (Shannon 1972), 70.
4
Vermes, Haggadah in the Onkelos Targum, 161.
20
chapter two
MT:7
RSV:
5
The contradictive or converse translation had been noted as early as the 16th
century by Elias Levita. Toward the end of the Hebrew introduction to his Lexicon
Chaldaicum or ( Isny, 1541), he writes: .
However, Levita cites only two examples from Onqelos (Exod 33:3 and Num 24:1),
the latter of which is somewhat dubious. He also notes two additional examples from
Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. In the last century, the phenomenon was mentioned by S. Maybaum in his Die Anthropomorphien und Anthropopathien bie Onkelos
und die sptern Targumim (Breslau 1870), 21: An vielen Stellen geht Onkelos sogar
so weit, das er . . . selbst das volle Gegentheil des Textes wiedergibt. Maybaum adds
Gen 4:14 to the example given by Levita (Exod 33:3,5). Other more recent writers who
occasionally mention a particular example will be cited below.
6
In his recent book, Aggadah and its Development [( ] Jerusalem
1974), 154 and 238 n. 67, J. Heinemann cites two examples of this type of converse
translation, namely, Gen 37:33 and 48:22 (see numbers 4 and 7 below). Heinemann
sees in these examples, which are outright contradictory of the Hebrew Bible, a crude
and undeveloped mode of translation that is characteristic of the early (pre-Tanaitic)
targum. It lacks the elegance of the creative philology that was later employed by
the Midrash. If Heinemann is correct in his literary analysis and in the early dating
of this translational genre, then the first nine examples cited below take on an added
dimension of significance, in that they all belong to a very early compositional strand
of the Palestinian Targum.
7
The following abbreviations are used throughout the article:
L
= MS LeipzigUniversitt BH fol. 1
MdW A/B/D/E = P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens II (reprint, Hildesheim 1967),
MSS A, B, D, E respectively
N
= MS NrnbergStadtbibliothek Solg. 2.2, fols. 119147
Neof
= MS VaticanNeofiti 1 (fascimile, Jerusalem 1970)
converse translation
21
TJ1:
Neof:
MdW B:
O:
MT:
RSV:
O:
TJ1:
Neof gl
O
Ovar
Ow
P
TJ1
V
2755
I have slain a man for wounding me, a young man for
striking me.
22
chapter two
Neof:
Neof gl:
. . .
O:
In this case, all of the targumim have changed the sense of the verse
from I have slain a man . . . a young man . . . to Neither a man have I
slain . . . nor a young man. . . . The reason for this alteration is harmonization with the following verse, where Lamech argues that if Cain
was granted sevenfold protection (cf. Gen 4:15),8 then he, Lamech,
deserves seventy-sevenfold protection. The implication of v. 24 is that
Lamechs offense was far less severe than Cains.9
The midrash solves the contradiction of these two adjacent verses
by taking v. 23 in an interrogative sense, rather than as an admission
of a double murder: Did I kill a man, on whose account I should
be wounded? or a young man, on whose account I shall be stricken?
With wonder (). Cain killed Abel and his punishment was suspended for seven generations; I, who did not kill anyone, how much
more so that my punishment be suspended for seventy-seven.10 It is
this midrashic tradition that is reflected in the converse translation,
shared by all of the targumim.
3. Gen 5:24
MT:
RSV:
O:
Ow:
Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took
him.
][ ] [
converse translation
23
. . .
'
V, N, L:
'. . .
P:
. . .
'
Neof:
][ . . .
'
Neof gl:
TJ1:
O:
Ow:
TJ1:
V, N, L:
P:
Neof:
is attested in two early editions, and the additional negative , in two MSS
and four early editions. Also, cf. S. D. Luzzatto, Oheb Ger (Cracow: Fischer, 1895 and
reprint, Jerusalem: Makor, 1969), 24. Luzzatto cites the Cremona (1559) edition of
Onqelos which also reads ' . He argues that this was the
original version of Onqelos, and that the more literal variants are the result of scribal
emendations in order to bring Onqelos into closer agreement with the MT. Luzzatos
hypothesis is now supported by this Genizah fragment. Moreover, in view of this
new text, it might be necessary to reconsider the targumic evidence as to early Jewish
attitudes toward the death and ascension of Enoch. Cf. I. Gruenwald, Knowledge
and Vision, Israel Oriental Studies 3 (1973), 6667, n. 20; and J. C. Greenfield,
Prolegomenon, to H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch (New York 21973), xxiii.
12
A. Geiger, Urschrift und bersetzungen der Bibel (Frankfort 21928), 19899. It
will, however, be clear from the discussion below that the chronology established by
Geiger for the various targumim can no longer be accepted.
24
chapter two
and one is no more.
and the other, we do not know what ultimately became
of him.
and one of us, from the time he left us, we do not know
what ultimately became of him.
We find the same terminology when Jacob refers to his two missing,
but living, sons, Joseph and Simeon:
Gen 42:36
MT:
RSV:
P:
Joseph is no more and Simeon is no more.
Neof: [ ]
(text faulty, second half missing due to haplograph)14
P:
Neof:
13
converse translation
25
A wild beast has devoured him; Joseph is without
doubt torn to pieces.
P:
. . .
V, N, L:
. . .
Neof:
2755:
[ sic] [ sic]
MdW D:
'
O:
TJ1:
O, Neof:
polemic. Cf. e.g., Gen. Rab. 25:1 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 23839): The sectarians (i.e.
Christians) challenged R. Abahu, We do not find death attributed to Enoch . . . See,
also, L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews 5 (Philadelphia 1955), 156, n. 58.
26
chapter two
All of the Palestinian targumim, except Neof, add the negative particle
twice: Joseph was not devoured by a beast of the field, nor was he
killed [by human hands]. This interpretation is no doubt related to
the midrash about Jacobs refusal to be comforted (Gen 37:35),16 as
well as to the rabbinic conviction that the patriarchs were endowed
with prophetic powers.17 There may, however, also be a polemical
motive that underlies this converse translation. The Midrash Tanhuma
is suggestive in this matter:
A sectarian18 challenged R. [Judah the Patriarch, 2nd cent. C.E.], Is it
possible that your ancestors did not believe in the resurrection of the
dead as you do? for it is written of Jacob, . . . he refused to be comforted. Now had he known of resurrection would he have said I shall
go down into Sheol in mourning to my son? R. [Judah] answered,
Worlds fool! It is because the patriarch Jacob knew by the prophetic spirit that Joseph was alive, that he refused to be comforted
for one does not accept consolations for the living.19
5. Gen 43:14 MT:
RSV:
O:
TJ1:
If I am bereaved of my children, I am bereaved.
P, V, N, L:
Neof:
MdW D: ]- -
[ ][
O:
TJ1:
literal.
As for me, I have already received tidings through
the holy spirit that if I am bereaved of Joseph, I shall
also be bereaved of Simeon and of Benjamin.
16
Cf. m. Sop. 21:9 and Gen. Rab. 84:21 (ed. J. Theodor-Albeck, 1027): One may be
consoled for the dead, but not for the living [who are missing].
17
Gen. Rab. 84:19 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1024): R. a holy spirit sparkled in him
(Jacob): a wild beast devoured him means Potiphars wife. Cf. L. Ginzberg, Legends
2, 2930 and 5, 332, n. 67.
18
Not an early Christian, in this instance, since he argues against resurrection.
19
Tanh (ed. S. Buber [reprint, Jerusalem 1964]), I, 181 (quoted in the Yalqut
Shimoni, par. 143).
converse translation
27
In this case, all of the Palestinian targumim, except TJ1, have produced
the converse translation: Just as I have not been bereaved of Joseph,
so I shall not be bereaved of Simeon nor of Benjamin. The Genizah
text, MdW D, is apparently faulty in its deletion of the first negative
particle . If simple logic may be applied, it makes no sense to say
Just as this, so not that. Rather, one expects Just as not this, so not
that.
The rationale for a converse translation in this verse is similar to
that of the previous example.
6. Gen 46:30
MT:
RSV:
O:
TJ1,:
P:
Neof:
Neof gl:
Now let me die, since I have seen your face and
know that you are still alive.
]?[
O:
20
Contrast A. Dez-Macho, Neophyti 1 (Madrid-Barcelona 1968), I, 285 (apparatus). Dez-Macho deletes the first negative from the edition. See chapter 19 in this
volume, Notes on the Printed Edition of MS Neofiti 1, 224225.
28
chapter two
Neof:
Onqelos and TJ1 transmit the simple sense of the verse, i.e., Jacob
could now die happily, knowing that Joseph was still alive. TJ1 has,
however, introduced the idea of dying the death of the righteous, i.e.,
a single physical death in this world.21 But, whereas TJ1 implies not
dying a second death in the world-to-come, the other Palestinian targumim deny even the first death in this world. In P and Neof gl we
read: Now if I were to die, it would be as though I did not die.
Neofiti goes one step further, by omitting the words as though.
There is, admittedly, some weakness inherent in this example,
namely, that the converse translation does not fully replace the
straightforward translation. On the other hand, the latter has become
conditional through the addition of the words and .
7. Gen 48:22
MT:
RSV:
O:
Ovar:
TJ1:
P:
V, N:
Neof:
Neof gl1:
Neof gl2:
O:
Ovar:
Which I took from the hand of the Amorite with
my sword and with my bow.
. . .
'
' ]?[ . . .
literal.
. . . by my prayer and by my petition.
21
Tanh (ed. Buber), I, 209: When they came and informed me that Joseph died,
I thought that I would die in two worlds; now seeing that you [Joseph] are alive, I
know that I shall die only once. For a similar interpretation of the word once
and only once, cf. Gen 2:23, MT: ; TJ1: ; Neof:
.
converse translation
29
TJ1:
The rabbis were averse to ascribing battle with bow and sword to
the Patriarch Jacob. By your sword shall you live23 was Esaus lot.
Moreover, Jacob had opposed his sons raid on the city of Shechem.24 It
is, therefore, not surprising that all of the targumim, save two sources
of Onqelos25 and TJ1,26 reflect this midrashic approach. In P, V, N,
Neof, and Neof gl it is expressed by the converse translation: neither
by my sword nor by my bow.
8. Deut 2:6
MT:
RSV:
22
b. B. Bat. 123a. See J. Heinemann, Aggadah and its Development, 154, where
he points out the play on words in ( with my bow) and ( my petition).
23
Gen 27:40.
24
Gen 34:30 and 49:57.
25
In this instance, the body of the text in Sperbers edition represents only MS
British Museum 2363 (y) and the Biblia Hebraica. ed. Sabbioneta (1557), as opposed
to ten other sources that are represented in the apparatus.
26
Heinemann explains TJ1 as a reference to a Maccabean battle over the city of
Shechem; see Aggadah and its Development, 15055.
30
chapter two
O:
TJ1:
Neof:
Neof gl:
][ )(
In this case Neofiti supplies the reason for its converse translation.
This situation is also reflected in Neofiti to Deut 2:28:
MT:
RSV:
You shall sell me food, that I may eat, and give me water for money,
that I may drink.
Neof:
Neof: You will sell us food for money, that we may eat; and you will give
us water for money, that we may drink; even though ( )we are
not lacking anything.
27
Cf. Exod 16:435 and esp. v. 35: And the Israelites ate the manna forty years, till
they came to a habitable land; they ate the manna till they came to the border of the
land of Canaan. See M. McNamara, Targum and Testament, 73.
28
Cf. Num 21:1619 and esp. v. 19:
MT:
Neof:
converse translation
9. Deut 5:21 (24) MT:
RSV:
O:
TJ1:
MdW D:
Neof:
Neof gl:
31
We have seen . . . God speak with man and
man still live.
'
]
'
' )?(
O:
TJ1:
literal.
We have seen that God speaks with a man
in whom there is the holy spirit, and he
survives.
Mdw D, Neof: We have seen that the word (mmra) of
God speaks with man, and he lives.
Neof gl:
It is impossible from [sic!] before God to
speak with man and he should live.
In this verse, it is only in the marginal gloss to Neofiti that we find the
converse translation. Whereas TJ1 qualifies the biblical statement, so
that only men possessed of the holy spirit can survive being spoken to
by God, Neof gl completely denies any such possibility. This translation seems to have been influenced by:
Exod 33:20 MT:
Neof:
29
On the associative power of the targumists, see chapter 19 in this volume, 21630,
nos. 2, 10, 19. In dealing with Neof gl, a word of caution may be in place. The origins
of these glosses are yet unknown. It seems, however, that at least some of the glosses
are merely attempts by late copyists at standardization within Neofiti itself, and as
such do not represent true textual variants. This must be considered a possibility in
the present case.
30
E.g., Deut 5:22(25); 18:16; Jud 13:22.
32
chapter two
In all of the above examples, the various targumim present a meaning that is diametrically opposite to the simple sense of the Biblical
text. This is accomplished by the addition of a negative particle
(, , ) to an originally positive statement, or by the
removal of such a particle from an originally negative statement.31
II. Replacement of the Verb
Another method employed by the targumim in order to produce a
converse translation is the replacement of the original Biblical verb
with another verb of opposite meaning. This is sometimes accompanied by the replacement of other grammatical elements such as prepositions.
10. Exod 33:3
MT:
RSV:
But I will not go up among you.
O:
TJ1:
Neof:
Neof gl:
O:
MT:
RSV:
31
Another excellent example, though not from the Pentateuch, is Job 42:5:
MT:
Tg editions:
Tg MSS:
MS Cambridge Ec 5.9: [ sic] ( )
(apud R. Weiss, The Aramaic Targum of Job [dissertation, Jerusalem: Hebrew
University, 1974] 276, n. 3 [Hebrew]).
RSV: but now my eye sees thee.
Tg editions: literal
Tg MSS: And now my eye has not seen thee.
MS Cambridge Ec 5.9: And my eye has [not] [sic! crossed out] seen thee.
converse translation
33
Neof gl:
O:
TJ1:
Neof:
O:
The gist of Exod 33:25, is that having sinned, Israel is no longer worthy of Gods presence. God will, therefore, send an angel to lead them.
Moreover, because they are a stiff-necked people, they are no longer
able to bear Gods presence in their midst; it would devour them. In
fact, if God wanted to punish Israel, he need only appear for a moment
among them and they would be destroyed. This is a drastic change
from the original and ideal situation, in which Gods dwelling in the
midst of Israel and his personal leadership are marks of distinction,
just as they are protective.32 None of the targumim, except Neof gl,
is willing to accept this terrible change. The presence of God among
Israel must always be desirable. Thus, in v. 3, I will not go up among
you (MT) is rendered I will not remove [the glory of] my Shekhinah
from among you; and in v. 5, I should go up among you is translated I shall remove [the glory of ] my Shekhinah from among you.33
Israel is punished by Gods removing his presence from among them.
11. Deut 15:11 MT:
RSV:
O:
TJ1:
32
For the poor will never cease out of the land.
34
chapter two
Neof gl, V, N: ][
Neof:
][
][
O:
TJ1:
literal.
Because the house of Israel does not obey the
commandments of the Torah, the poor do not
cease from in the land.
Neof gl, V, N: If Israel keeps the commandments of the
Torah, there will not be any poor among them;
however, if they abandon the commandments
of the Torah, [for] the poor will not cease
from in the land.
Neof
For if the Israelites keep the teachings of the
Torah and fulfill its commandments, there
will not be any poor among them in the land.
34
Cf. Sipre Deut., par. 118 [ed. M. Ish Shalom (New York, 1948), 98b]:
:
; , ?
. ,
For the poor will not cease from within the land [Deut 15:11], and elsewhere it
says, For there shall be no poor among you [Deut 15:4]; how can these two [apparently contradictory] verses coexist? [Answer:] When you fulfill the will of God, the
poor will be among others; but when you do not fulfill the will of God, the poor will
be among you.
converse translation
35
deletion of a negative particle, as in examples 19, above. The difference, of course, between the two groups is that in nos. 19, we have a
translation that is converse in both form and meaning, whereas in the
resolved rhetorical question there is no change in meaning at all.
12. Gen 18:25 MT:
RSV:
Far be it from thee! Shall not the Judge of all the
earth do right?
. . .
Neof:
35( )
Neof gl:
. . .
O:
Onqvar:
TJ1:
O:
TJ1:
Neof
Most MSS and editions of Onqelos have converted Shall not the judge
of all the earth do right? into The judge of all the earth will surely
do right. Onqelos has eliminated the negative and the interrogative he. The other targumim retain both of these elements. In Neof,
although the interrogative he has been lost, the targum preserves the
original rhetorical question.36
13. Gen 29:15 MT:
RSV:
O:
Tji:
P:
[][ ]
. . .
MdW E:
Neof:
Neof gl:
35
Neofiti adds: , a dittograph from the beginning of this
verse.
36
Cf. A. Dez Macho, Neophyti 1, I, 100, El juez . . . no har justicia? followed by
M. McNamara, Ibid., 541, Will the judge . . . not do justice?
36
chapter two
O, Tji, MdW E: literal.
P:
Now, in truth, you are my kinsman; it is
[therefore] not seemly that you serve before
me for nothing.
Neof:
Behold, you are my kinsman; it is
[therefore] impossible that you serve before
me for nothing.
Neof gl:
In truth, you are my kinsman; it is
not . . . that you serve me for nothing.
In P, Neof and probably in Neof gl, the question Should you serve
me for nothing? has been resolved into It is not seemly/possible [for
you] to serve me for nothing.
14. Exod 15:11 MT:
RSV:
O:
'
'
'
TJ1:
P:
Neof:
O:
. . . '
37
. . .
37
Masoreten Des Westens II, 63. This may be contrasted with a similar poem published by M. Ginsburger in Aramische Introductionen zum Thargumvortrag an
Festtagen, ZDMG 54 (1900), 12223, which contains only the questions.
converse translation
37
RSV:
O:
TJ1:
][
Neof:
O, TJ1: For the tree of the field is not like man, that it
should come (hide) under siege from before you.
Neof: For the tree of the open field is not like man, who
can flee from you in his moment of distress.
In this case, all of the extant targumim restate the rhetorical question
Are the trees men? as a declarative statement, For the trees are not
like men.
IV. Addition of the Negative Particle
Meaning Lest
The targumim sometimes make use of the converse translation in
order to avert a curse or an evil prediction. This is effected by the
38
Oheb Ger, 18, . . . " '
": and likewise, Who is like thee, O Lord, among the gods/mighty? [Exod
15:11]: There is none besides thee . . . (Onqelos). He [Onqelos] has succeeded in removing any hint of plurality [of God] or similarity [to other beings].
39
Cf. Y. Komlosh, The Bible in Light of the Aramaic Translations (Tel-Aviv 1973),
24041 [Hebrew].
38
chapter two
substitution of the negative particle for the original Hebrew conversive waw.
16. Exod 22:23 MT:
RSV:
TJ1:
MdW A:
Neof:
O:
O, TJ1:
literal.
MdW A: Lest my wrath burn and I kill you . . .
Neof:
Lest my wrath burn, and I kill you with the sword;
lest your wives become widows, and your children
orphans.
MT:
RSV:
O:
'
][ '
. . . . . . . . . []
TJ1:
Neof:
Neof gl:
O, TJ1, Neof gl: For they [their daughters] will mislead your
son[s] away from the fear of me [my worship],
and they will worship the errors of the nations;
converse translation
Neof:
39
In this case, as in Exod 22:23 (above), Neofiti twice inserts the negative
particle : lest they serve other gods . . . lest He destroy you quickly.
However, in Deuteronomy the particle seems to be misplaced, forming
a difficult syntax. Neofiti presently reads: [a] For they will mislead
your sons from following my mmra [b] lest they serve other gods;
[c] so that Gods wrath be strong against you [d] lest he destroy you
quickly. We would expect the word to be inserted at the beginning of (a) and (c) rather than to (b) and (d). It seems that Neofiti is
determined to ward off the most drastic of the predictions, namely,
Israels serving other gods and Israels destructioneven at the expense
of syntactic coherence.
Conclusions
The foregoing examples illustrate the various forms of converse translation as they appear in all of the targumim to the Pentateuch. The
examples are, I believe, exhaustive for Neofiti, Neofiti gl and the published Genizah fragments. They are only selective for Onqelos and TJ1.
This means that the student of these latter two targumim, as well as the
student of the targumim to other parts of the Bible, is likely to discover
additional examples of this phenomenon. If the method demonstrated
above is followed, it will be necessary in each new instance to search
through the related rabbinic (especially midrashic) literature in order
to determine just why the targumist chose to introduce the converse
translation.
The immediate results of the present study are twofold:
1. It broadens our understanding of targumic method and technique.
Descriptive introductions to the targumic literature will henceforth
have to include the converse translation as a targumic device in its
own right.
2. The fact that a targum may diverge so drastically from the Hebrew
originaleven to the extent of producing a converse translation
underscores the caution that must be exercised before a variant
Hebrew Vorlage may be deduced from a targumic variant.
CHAPTER THREE
T. Walker, Targum, A Dictionary of the Bible (ed. J. Hastings, et al.) (New York:
Scribners, 1903), Vol. 4, p. 679.
2
A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, Vol. IV-B, The Targum and the Hebrew
Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1973), p. 37. Several other standard works containing similar
statements are: W. Bacher, Targum, Jewish Encyclopedia (New York, 1901), Vol.
12, p. 60; B. Grossfeld, Bible: Translations, Aramaic (Targumim), Encyclopaedia
Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971), Vol. 4, p. 842 (relies strongly upon Walker and Bacher);
Y. Komlosh, The Bible in the Light of the Aramaic Translations (Tel-Aviv: Bar Ilan
University/Dvir, 1973), p. 103; E. Schrer, History of the Jewish People in the Age of
Jesus Christ (revised and edited by G. Vermes and F. Millar) (Edinburgh: Clark, 1973),
Vol. 1, p. 100; and M. McNamara, Targums, IDB Supp (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976),
p. 860. See also notes 6 and 8 below.
42
chapter three
E.g. the frequent use of kavod (glory, or according to the new translation of the
Jewish Publication Society presence) as a substitute for God himself: the Glory of
the Lord is seen by the Israelites (Exod 16:7, 10; 33:18; Lev 9:6; Num 14:10); abides
upon Mount Sinai (Exod 24:16); and passes before Moses (Exod 33:22). That the word
glory is merely a verbal substitute for God and does not represent an independent
surrogate being is clear from the adjoining verses: for man shall not see Me (Exod
33:20) and until I have passed by (Exod 33:22). The Aramaic equivalent of kavod is
yeqar, and is frequently employed by all of the targums in a similar fashion.
4
An example is Exod 15:17, The sanctuary, O Lord, which Your hands have established, which is translated: Your holy temple, O Lord, which Your two hands have
perfected (Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan and the Fragment Targums).
5
The following editions of targumic texts are utilized in this study: ONQELOS
(= O): A Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, Vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1959); PSEUDOJONATHAN (= PsJ): D. Rieder, Pseudo-Jonathan: Targum Jonathan ben Uziel on the
Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Salomons, 1974); NEOFITI (= N): The Palestinian Targum to
the Pentateuch: Codex Vatican (Neofiti I), Facsimile edition (Jerusalem: Makor, 1970);
CAIRO GENIZA FRAGMENTS (= CG): P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens II (reprint,
Hildesheim: Olms, 1967) pp. 162; FRAGMENT-TARGUMS (= FT): M. L. Klein, The
Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch, Analecta Biblica 76 (Rome: Biblical Institute,
1978).
6
Cf. A. Tal (Rosenthal), Ms. Neophyti I: The Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch,
the preposition
3. Deut 1:41
Targ (O PsJ N)
4. Exod 16:8
Targ (N)
43
44
chapter three
in, or is brought, before the king.13 And again, people do not fear the
king, but rather fear before him.14
We are led to conclude that the use of the indirect preposition
in the Book of Daniel is out of deference to high office or nobility, and
not related to the nature of the Deity. It is used as an expression of
respect or honor towards a human king; and there is no evidence of
it being any more than just that, when used in relation to the divine
God.15 Thus, we find being used in perfect parallel in both human
and divine contexts, in the very same verse: . . . as before Him [i.e., the
God of Daniel] I was found innocent; and also before thee, O king, I
have done no wrong.16
2. Returning to the targums, we find precisely the same situation prevailing. The use of is not confined to the divine context, but is
rather an expression of deference that is frequently applied to man and
to human institutions.
The basic targumic usage of is as the translational equivalent
of the Hebrew prepositions , , etc., in all contexts.17 In
addition, it is used to translate certain semantically related expressions, such as ( in the sight of or before the eyes of ).18 It also
translates the causal preposition ( in the face of, on account
of ).19 None of these verses has ever posed any problem.
The cases that have been considered anti-anthropomorphic are
those in which replaces the nota accusativi , as in example 2,
cited above (Exod 10:8), or in
13
the preposition
Deut 10:12
Targ (O PsJ N)
45
20
E.g., Gen 27:40; 29:15, 18; 31:41; Exod 14:5, 12; 21:2; 23:33; Deut 5:9; 7:16; 17:3,
20:11. These all argue against A. Tal (Rosenthal); see above, n. 6.
21
E.g., Gen 27:32 (PsJ N); Exod 22:19 (N); Deut 30:17 (N); 32:17 (N).
22
CG cited here is an additional fragment of MS. E of P. Kahle (see above, n. 5),
which was published by A. Dez Macho, Nuevos Fragmentos del Targum Palestinese,
Sefarad 15 (1955), 37.
23
Additional examples are: Gen 42:21; Exod 5:15; Num 11:2, 13.
46
chapter three
In this context, there are three verses that are especially misleading:
Num 11:1
Num 11:18
Num 14:28
Now, all three of these verses are translated by O and PsJ before ()
the Lord or before me, which, again, might have been mistaken
for an avoidance of anthropomorphism. However, when we examine
the targumic treatment of this phrase in the human context, we find
the very same translation in no fewer than fourteen instances.24 It is
evident that the biblical idiom in the ears of is taken figuratively in
all contexts, and is translated as such in all of the targumim.25 There
is, therefore, no connection between this normal translational device
and anthropomorphism.26
One last example of the transformation of the Hebrew prepositions ( to) and ( upon, about) into is from the juridical
setting:
Deut 25:1
Targ (N)
One stands respectfully before the court of justice, but one does not
approach it directlyeven if it be only a human institution.
24
O: Gen 20:8; 23:10, 13, 16; 44:18; 50:4; Exod 10:2; 11:2; 17:14; 24:7; Deut 5:1;
31:28, 30; 32:44; and PsJ: Gen 20:8; Exod 24:7; Deut 5:1.
25
PsJ, N, and FT generally render the phrase in the hearing of () , as
does the modern English R.S.V. In fact, the paraphrastic translation in the hearing
of is so common in N that one of the glossators has added it in the margin of that
MS, in a verse that has intended real ears of flesh and blood. The case in point is
Gen 35:4, And the rings that were on their ears, which is correctly translated in a
literal fashion by all of the targums. The thoughtless gloss to N, that were in their
hearing, is of course a hypercorrection.
26
Cf. J. Shunary, Avoidance of Anthropomorphism in the Targum of Psalms,
Textus 5 (1966), p. 139, note 16.
the preposition
47
CHAPTER FOUR
][
.
There are four keys retained in the hand of the Master of All Worlds, the Lord:
which He has not given over neither to an angel nor to a seraph: the key to the rainfall,
50
chapter four
the key to sustenance, the key to the tombs (for resurrection) and the key to the childless woman (to bear children).
4
Gen. 4:7.
][
. . .
If you improve your deeds in this world it will be released and forgiven to you in
the world to come; but if you do not improve your deeds in this world, then your sin
will be kept for the Day of Great Judgment. . . .
5
Gen. 4:8.
. . .
. . . Cain said to Abel: There is no Judge and there is no Justice; nor is there another
world. There is no good reward for the righteous nor retribution for the wicked. And
Abel answered: There is a Judge and there is Justice. . . .
6
Deut. 32:4.
Said Moses the prophet: I saw the Master of All Worlds, the Lord, divide His day
into four portions: three hours He toils in the study of the Torah (Law); three hours
He sits in justice; three hours He makes matches between man and woman, raising
and lowering the status of man; and three hours He provides sustenance for the entire
world.
7
Exod. 12:42.
] [
. . .
. . . The fourth night (of vigil) shall be when the world reaches its fixed time to be
redeemed. The iron yoke shall be broken and the generations of the wicked destroyed.
Moses shall go forth from the wilderness and the King Messiah from the midst of
Rome. This one will lead at the head of the flock, and that one will lead at the head of
the flock; and His memra [i.e., the word of the Lorda common targumic substitute
for God Himself ] shall lead between both of them. . . .
Note: All of the targumic references to the Messiah have been conveniently collected in S. H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation, (Cincinnati: Hebrew
Union College Press, 1974).
8
These finds confirmed the Talmudic statement about a written Targum of Job
having been brought before Rabban Gamliel (b. Shabbat 115a).
9
E.g., M. Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan
University, 1974), p. 9.
51
J. Heinemann, Aggadah and its Development (Jerusalem: Keter, 1974), pp. 143
162 (Hebrew); and Idem. Early Halakha in the Palestinian Targumim, Journal of
Jewish Studies 25 (1974), pp. 114122.
11
A genizah is a room or a bin in a synagogue, which serves as a repository for
old and worn holy books and documents. This was to prevent their being disposed of
in a disrespectful way.
12
E. Y. Kutscher, Studies in Galilean Aramaic, tr. M. Sokoloff, (Ramat-Gan: Bar
Ilan University, 1976), pp. 34.
13
See J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I, 2nd ed. Biblica
et Orientalia 18A, (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971), pp. 1925. Fitzmyer gives an
extensive bibliography on p. 24 n. 61, and more recently, J. C. Greenfield, Aramaic and
Its Dialects, in H. H. Paper, ed., Jewish Languages: Theme and Variation, (Cambridge
Mass.: Association for Jewish Studies, 1978), pp. 3436; and Idem. Standard Literary
Aramaic, Acts due premier congrs smitique, (The Hague-Paris: Mouton, 1974),
pp. 286288 (English).
52
chapter four
other hand, some targums make reference to later events, such as the
Destruction of the Temple (70 C.E.), in the past tense.14 Whereas some
targums foretell the fall of Rome in a prophetic style,15 others refer to
Constantinople by that name.16 One particularly late recension of the
Palestinian Targum (Pseudo-Jonathan) supplies the names of the two
anonymous wives taken by Ishmael, as Adisha and Fatima. Rabbinic
tradition had always identified Ishmael with the Arabs; and it is hardly
coincidental that these happen to be the names of one of Muhammads
wives and one of his daughters. What we have here, then, is a postIslamic addition to the Palestinian Targum.17
14
,
. . .
When You recall for us the orders of sacrifices that we would offer before You,
annuallyour sacrifices atoning for our sins. But, alas, our sins have caused [the present situation, i.e., the destruction of the Temple and the cessation of the cult] and we
can no longer make offerings from our flocks of sheep.
15
Fragment Targums of Gen. 15:12,
That is the wicked Edom [= Rome], the fourth Kingdom that is destined to fall,
and not to rise forever.
The first three kingdoms were Babylonia, Media and Greece.
Another similar passage is found in the Fragment Targums of Num. 24:19,
A King shall arise from the house of Jacob and he will destroy the remnants of the
guilty city, which is Rome.
Interestingly enough, both of these passages are censored in the Neofiti Targum,
which was last copied in Rome, in 1504.
16
Pseudo-Jonathan Targum of the same verse. Num. 24:19,
. . .
A ruler shall arise from the House of Jacob, and he will ruin and destroy the surviving remnant of Constantinople, the guilty city. . . .
As it is well known, the name of this city was Byzantium until the year 330 C.E.,
when Emperor Constantine I established it as his new capital.
17
Pseudo-Jonathan Targum of Gen. 21:21,
And he [Ishmael] dwelled in the wilderness of Paran; and he took Adisha [= Ayesha]
as a wife, but divorced her; and his mother [Hagar] then took Fatima as a wife for
him, from the Land of Egypt.
Ayesha, daughter of Abu Bakr, was Muhammads favorite wife; while Fatima, one of
Muhammads daughters, was the traditional matriarch of the Fatimide dynasty. Once
again, it cannot be mere coincidence that Hagar and the wife that she chose are both
from Egypt, and that the Fatimides later established their capital in Cairo in the 10th
Century C.E. We might add that the identification of anonymous biblical characters
is a common midrashic practice.
53
. . . ' . . .
. . . As Rabbi Joseph translated (into Aramaic) . . .
The discussion here revolves around the identification of a particular category of
damages.
19
Such as: Genesis 35:22,
And Israel [= Jacob] dwelled in that land; and Reuben went and lay with Bilhah,
his fathers concubine; and Israel found out.
Likewise, the story of the Golden Calf in Exodus Chapter 32. These passages reflect
poorly on the patriarchs, and were therefore not to be translated in the public reading.
20
Some of these rules are set out in the Mishnah, m. Megillah ch. 4, (corresponds
to ch. 3 in the printed Talmuds), and in greater detail in the Tosefta, t. Megillah
ch. 4 (3).
21
See S. J. Saller, A Revised Catalogue of the Ancient Synagogues of the Holy Land
(Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1969). A number of additional synagogues
have been discovered during the past decade, and are to be added to Sallers list, e.g.
Ein Gedi on the Dead Sea, Sussiya in the Hebron Hills, Gaza on the Mediterranean
54
chapter four
coast, Magdala on the Sea of Galilee and Shama in the Upper Galilee. Professor
Joseph Naveh of the Hebrew University has recently published a complete collection
of Aramaic and Hebrew inscriptions from the ancient synagogues in his book On
Stone and Mosaic, (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1978) (in Hebrew
). Also a new book on the subject by Hershel Shanks, entitled Judaism In Stone,
has just appeared.
22
For an exposition of this theory with diagrams, see M. Avi-Yonah, Synagogues,
Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration SocietyMassada, 1978), Vol. 4, pp. 11291138, and his earlier article
in Ariel no. 32.
23
V. Corbo, S. Loffreda, et al., La Synagoga di Cafarnao, dopo gli scavi del 1969
(Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1970); and an attempted defense of the original
dating by G. Foerster; Notes on Recent Excavations at Capernaum, Israel Exploration
Journal 21 (1971), pp. 207211; and Qadmoniot 4 (1971), pp. 126131 (Hebrew).
55
the palm branch, citron, rams horn, and incense shovels. The central
panel is comprised of a circle within a square. The corners of the square
contain the figures of four women representing the four seasons. The
outer ring of the circle displays human (some nude) and animal figures, symbolizing the zodiac. The center of the circle contains representations of Helios the sun-god in an animal drawn chariot, flanked
by his entourage of moon and stars. In the floor of the Beth Alpha
synagogue, the lower panel contains the biblical scene of the Binding
of Isaac (Gen. 22); that of Hamat has only dedicatory inscriptions and
lists of donors. Several of the other synagogue mosaics contain human
figures; for example the synagogue in Gaza depicts King David playing
the harp and charming wild beasts (like Orpheus).
Most scholars have assumed that these pagan figures had lost their
original significance by the time they were adopted as decorative elements in the synagogues. For example, Michael Avi-Yonah believed
that:
. . . the signs of the Zodiac with Helios in the center and the seasons in
the corners, were divested of all idolatrous associations. Instead they
were given specifically Jewish significance, so that the Zodiac itself,
for instance, stood for the ordering of the Temple services throughout
the year.24
Edwin R. Goodenough, on the other hand, has argued for the borrowing of the symbols together with their original significance. In the
light of the many early rabbinic condemnations of all image-making,
Goodenough is led to the conclusion that the floors were commissioned by lay leaders of the community and executed by secular or
non-Jewish artisans, without official rabbinic approval or sanction.
Goodenough writes off the statements of rabbis who did not object
to images in synagogues, as hardly a counterbalance to the thunderous
denunciations of images in the early rabbinic literature.25 Let us look
at some of the literary passages in question:
24
Ancient Synagogues, Ariel no. 32 (1973), p. 43. See also E. E. Urbach, The
Rabbinical Laws of Idolatry in the Second and Third Centuries in the Light of
Archaeological and Historical Facts, Israel Exploration Journal 9 (1959), pp. 296297;
and more recently, J. H. Charlesworth, Jewish Astrology in the Talmud, Pseudepigrapha,
Dead Sea Scrolls and Early Palestinian Synagogues, Harvard Theological Review 70
(1977), pp. 195196. (This issue of the HTR appeared in 1979, after the present article
was completed).
25
E. R. Goodenough, Symbolism, Jewish (In the Greco-Roman Period), Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971), Vol. 15, columns 568578; and his monumental
56
chapter four
'
'
In the days of Rabbi Yohanan they began drawing figures on the walls
[frescoes], and he did not protest against the practice.
In the days of Rabbi Abin they began depicting figures in mosaic, and
he did not protest against it.26
Rabbi Yohanan was one of the most prominent rabbis of the third
century. He lived in Tiberias and Sepphoris in the very period during which the earliest known synagogue frescoes (Dura-Europos) were
painted. Likewise, Rabbi Abin II flourished in Tiberias during the 4th
Century; and this passage might be a direct reference to the mosaic
floor of the synagogue in Hamat. The historical importance of this text
can hardly be overestimated. Perhaps the key to these rabbinic innovations lies in another statement by Goodenough:
Symbols and religious experiences and values have a way of disengaging
themselves from their original mythical explanations and going from religion to religion with old forms and values now given new explanations.27
The Helios figure no longer represents the pagan sun-god; it has been
transformed into Gods glory (kavod ) or His divine presence (ekhina).
Although the problem of the pagan symbolism in the synagogue
may have been solved by a transfer of significance, there still remained
the more basic prohibition of the second commandment (Exod. 20: 4;
Deut. 5: 8): You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any
likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or on the earth below,
work Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (New York: Pantheon-Bollington
Foundation, 19531965) 12 vols. + Index Volume 13 (Princeton, 1968).
26
Palestinian Talmud, Avodah Zarah Genizah mss. published by J. N. Epstein,
Additional Fragments of the Jerushalmi, Tarbiz 3 (193132), p. 20.
27
Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 15, Col. 574.
28
S. Lieberman, Midrash Devarim Rabbah (Genizah ms.) 3rd ed. (Jerusalem:
Wahnnann, 1974), p. 16. My friend and colleague Mr. Marc Bregman brought this
reference to my attention.
57
29
Aramaic: Sateya; from the Greek stoa, see M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the
Targumim . . . (New York: Pardes, 1950), p. 972b.
CHAPTER FIVE
1
My sincerest thanks to Professor Menahem Haran and Professor Shlomo Morag
for their devoted guidance in an earlier stage of this study at the Hebrew University,
Jerusalem. The term anthropomorphism is used throughout as an abbreviation for
the more cumbersome pair anthropomorphism and anthropopathism. We shall
deal with both human forms and human feelings attributed to the Deity in the Old
Testament.
2
Cf. J. Barr, Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament, Congress
Volume: Oxford 1959, SVT 7 (1960), p. 34. On the other hand, Barrs distinction
between simple anthropomorphic phrases and theophanies in human form, though
valid in itself, is, I believe, not germane to the present discussion.
60
chapter five
3
A. Marmorstein, Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God 2, Essays in Anthropomorphism
(London, 1937; reprinted New York, 1968), pp. 61, 11322. Marmorstein has collected
the characteristic phrases of each school; e.g., If it were not written in Scripture we
would not dare say it (literalists) versus The Torah speaks in the language of human
beings (allegorists).
4
H. A. Wolfson, Philo (Cambridge, Mass., 1948) 2, p. 127.
5
We need not enter here into the problematics of dating particular targumim, nor
into the distinction between date of composition and date of final redaction.
6
Cf. M. L. Klein, Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique, Biblica 57 (1976),
pp. 51537 [ch. 2 in the present volume], and references in p. 515, n. 2.
Num 11:13
O
Gen 23:16
O
The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, Treatise ii, Ch. 10, (tr. S. Rosenblatt; New Haven,
Connecticut, 1948), pp. 11516. Also in Three Jewish Philosophers (ed. H. Lewy, et al.,
Cleveland and Philadelphia, 1960), Book of Doctrines and Beliefs (ed. A. Altmann),
pp. 8889.
8
Cf. M. L. Klein, The Preposition ( Before), A Pseudo-Anti-Anthropomorphism in the Targums, JTS N. S. 30 (1979), pp. 5067 [ch. 3 in the present volume];
and J. Shunary, Avoidance of Anthropomorphism in the Targum of Psalms, Textus
5 (1966), p. 139.
9
Guide for the Perplexed, Part 1, Ch. 27, [tr. S. Pines; Chicago, 1963), pp. 5759;
cf. Maimonides Yad Ha-H azaqah (Code), Laws of Principles of the Torah, Ch. 1,
810.
62
chapter five
Exod 19:11
]
the Lord will be revealed . . . upon Mount Sinai [
. . . ]
Gen 18:21
O
10
11
12
ber den Geist der bersetzung des Jonathan ben Usiel zum Pentateuch . . .,
MGWJ 6 (1857), p. 107.
13
Targum, in J. Hastings (ed.), A Dictionary of the Bible 4 (Edinburgh and New
York, 1903), p. 679.
14
Targum, Jewish Encyclopedia 12 (New York and London, 1907), p. 60.
15
History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (revised and edited by
G. Vermes and F. Millar; Edinburgh, 1973), Vol. 1, p. 100.
16
The Bible in Aramaic 4B: The Targum and the Hebrew Bible (Leiden, 1973), p. 37.
17
The Bible in the Light of the Aramaic Translations (Tel-Aviv, 1973), p. 103
(Hebrew).
18
Bible: Translations, Aramaic (Targumim), EJ 4 (Jerusalem, 1971), p. 842.
19
Targums, IDB Supp. (Nashville, 1976), p. 860.
20
Die Anthropomorphien und Anthropopathien bei Onkelos und die sptern
Targumim (Breslau, 1870).
21
Die Anthropomorphismen in den Thargumim (Braunschweig, 1891).
22
Dios-Palalara: Memra en los Targumim del Pentateuco (Granada, 1974), and La
Gloria de la Shekin en los Targumim del Pentateuco (Madrid, 1977). This latter work
was unfortunately not available to the writer.
64
chapter five
The Rabbinic Mind (3rd edition, New York, 1972), pp. 33031.
24
The Memra of YHWH and the Development of its Use in Targum Neofiti I, JJS
25 (1974), pp. 41218. See also Haywards reviews of Muozs works in JJS 27 (1976),
pp. 9496; and JJS 30 (1979), pp. 99102.
25
J. Shunary, Avoidance of Anthropomorphism in the Targum of Psalms, Textus
5 (1966), pp. 13344.
26
R. Weiss, The Aramaic Targum of Job (Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University,
Jerusalem, 1974), pp. 27393; published Tel Aviv, 1979 (= Tarbiz 44 [1974/75], pp.
5471 [Hebrew]).
27
The works of H. M. Orlinsky and his students, e.g., review of C. T. Fritsch, The
Anti-Anthropomorphisms of the Greek Pentateuch in Crozer Quarterly 21 (1944), 157;
idem, HUCA 27 (1956), pp. 193200; HUCA 30 (1959), pp. 15367; HUCA 32 (1961),
pp. 23968; A. Soffer, HUCA 28 (1957), pp. 85107; and M. S. Hurwitz, HUCA 28
(1957), pp. 7583. This has all been reinforced most recently by T. Wittstruck, The
So-called Anti-anthropomorphisms in the Greek Text of Deuteronomy, CBQ 38
(1976), pp. 2934.
28
The following is a key to the sigla used for targumic texts:
Neof: MS Vatican Neofiti 1, ed. A. Dez Macho, Neophyti 1 (Madrid, 196879).
Neof gl: marginal and interlinear glosses in Neof.
P: MS Paris Bibliothque nationale Hbr. 110.
V: MS Vatican Ebr. 440. Both P and V ed. M. L. Klein, The Fragment Targums of the
Pentateuch (Rome, 1980).
66
chapter five
Deut 32:41
Neof, V
It is quite clear from these verses, and others, that the targumim felt no
embarrassment or compunction when speaking of Gods hand or his
right hand or both of his hands. The same is true of Gods palms:
Exod 33:22
Neof, V
Neof gl
The single instance of feet attributed to God in the Pentateuch is translated literally in all the extant Palestinian Targumim:
Exod 24:10
Neof, Neof gl, PsJ
The above examples of hand, palm, feet, mouth and eyes are sufficient, I believe, to prove that the targumim are not consistently antianthropomorphic. In fact, we may go one step further: had the early
mturgmn been troubled by biblical anthropomorphisms, he might
have disposed of these obvious instances with little effort. Apparently,
he was simply not interested.
V. Pseudo-Anti-Anthropomorphisms
I have thus far presented examples of anthropomorphisms which are
literally transmitted in the targumim. There is another class of expressions which have been altered in the course of their translation, for
non-theological reasons, but which have nevertheless been presented
in the past as evidence of the anti-anthropomorphic nature of the targumim. (Two of the four examples cited above from Saadiah fall into
this category.)
It is methodologically essential to determine the cause of a particular paraphrase before it may be applied as proof of the theological and
doctrinal motivations of the translator. To reverse the order is to beg
the question. The following are some examples:
The biblical expression crying/complaining in the ears of the Lord
( ) is translated . . . in the hearing of the Lord (
)'in all three cases in Neofiti, and . . . before the Lord ()
in Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan.30 I submit, however, that none of
these transformations is in any way related to the philosophic problem of anthropomorphism. The evidence for this assertion lies in the
fact that the targumim employ the very same idiomatic paraphrase
30
68
chapter five
31
32
33
34
35
E.g., Gen 20:8; 23:10, 13, 16; 50:4; Exod 10:2; 11:2; 17:14.
Gen 6:8; Exod 33:12, 13, 16; 34:9.
Gen 18:3; Exod 33:13, 17; Num 11:11, 15.
On the preposition ( before) see n. 8, above.
Cambridge University Library, T-S NS 76.1.
36
The Aramaic , of course, means according to the word
of two witnesses, just as the Hebrew ( Num 26:56) means according to
the lot and ( Deut 17:11) means according to the instruction. My use
of by the mouth of has come only to convey the literal language of the texts, and
does not ignore their figurative or idiomatic sense.
37
See notes 22 and 24, above, and M. McNamara Logos of the Fourth Gospel
and Memra of the Palestinian Targum, Expository Times 79 (19678), pp. 11517;
L. Sabourin, The MEMRA of God in the Targums, Biblical Theology Bulletin 6
(1976), pp. 7985 (review of Muoz).
38
E.g., G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge,
Mass., 1923) Vol. 1, p. 419: . . . nowhere in the Targums is memra a being of any kind
or in any sense, much less a personal being. With many more targumic texts available
today, that statement still holds.
70
chapter five
For I shall be with you
For I shall be my with you
[For] it [my ]shall be in your support.
39
The ten statements refer to the ten occurrences of the phrase God said (same
Hebrew root as in and )in the creation story at the beginning of
Genesis.
' ]![ 40
'
b) addition of
Gen 26:3
Neof
]![
Gen 31:3
Neof
c) translation of or ( with) by ( in support of )
Gen 28:20
Neof
'
d) addition of and the translation of by
Deut 31:23
Neof
This last compound type is the standard rendition in Neof gl and in
CG.41 There is, however, an unusually high incidence of scribal errors
in the translation of this phrase. For example:
Gen 26:3
Neof
The third person suffix is used instead of the first person. As already
noted, in Gen 39:2, the prepositional ( with) is translated .
Exod 4:15
Neof
Neof gl1
Neof gl2
72
chapter five
(
)
Gen 28:20
MT
CG
'
Gen 28:21
' '
42
Dios Palabra, p. 38, n. 56, Ngl corrige con su variante estar; cf. Hayward,
JJS, 27 (1976), p. 94.
43
74
chapter five
VII. Syntactic Peculiarities of
Some Anti-Anthropomorphisms
46
See P. Joon, Grammaire de lHbreu Biblique (2nd ed., Rome, 1947), 128,
Accusatif avec verbe passif, pp. 383 ff. Cf. A. E. Cowley (ed.), Gesenius Hebrew
Grammar as edited and enlarged by the late E. Kautzsch (2nd ed. [= 28th German ed.],
Oxford, 1910) 121, Construction of passive verbs, pp. 387 ff.
CHAPTER SIX
78
chapter six
phraseology. The targumim, in many of these cases, equalize the varying texts by translating one of them in conformity with the otheror,
less frequently, by altering both versions in a mutually complementary
fashion. These associative and complementary translations are found
both in passages that are relatively close to one another, as well as in
passages remote from one another, and even in different books. The
purpose of this study will be to demonstrate by illustration both of
these types of targumic transformation.
II. Associative Translation
The following examples are taken primarily but not exclusively from
the various targumim to the Pentateuch:
1. The double phrase is quite common in the
Book of Deuteronomy, the Prophets and the Writings. These two nouns
and their respective modifiers appear in this precise combination and
order in no fewer than twelve instances, and they are invariably translated in the targumim / 2
In Exod 6:6 we find the phrase , which
is translated literally in almost all of the targumim. In Ms. Neofiti,
however, we find . The meturgeman
substitutes for because it is situated in the first
position of the compound phrase.
We find just the opposite substitution in Neofiti to Num 20:20,
where the MT reads . Here Neofiti produces
. Since usually occupies the second
position in the double phrase it is inserted here in place of .
A similar case is to be found in Exod 32:11, where the MT reads
, which is translated by Neofiti
, and corrected in the marginal gloss to . In
this last case, an additional associative factor may have been at play,
and that is Deut 9:29, where
does indeed appear in the second position.
79
Exod 16:31
(wafers in honey)
Neof
V (Frag Tg)
and
Num 11:8
(cake with oil or cream of oil)
Neof
V (Frag Tg)
][
80
chapter six
Gen 17:5
Neof
Gen 32:29
Neof
CG Oxford Ms. Heb. B 4
in contrast to: PsJ, O
Neof gl
][
. . . ][ . . .
. . .
. . .
81
When you see the ass of your enemy crouching under its
burden . . .abandon that which is in your heart against your
fellow, and unload [the burden] with him and [re]load [the
burden] with him.
82
chapter six
8. In Gen 12:13, when Abraham and Sarah are about to enter Egypt,
Abraham requests of his wife Say then that you
are my sister. In Gen 20:13, Abraham under similar circumstances
relates to Abimelech that he had requested of Sarah: Whatever place
we come to, say of me, He is my brother. In Neofiti
to these verses we find:
Gen 12:13
Gen 20:13
'
)
In Gen 31:49, Laban calls upon the Lord to be a witness that neither
he nor Jacob will harm one another:
MT
Neof
CG (Leningrad-Antonin 542)
(contrast Onqelos
'
)
In both of these cases, the single verbs and are translated by the compound phrase . . . in Neofiti ( . . .
in CG).
It would seem that the associative source of both elements is Exod
5:21, , whose literal translation in Neofiti is
4
See M. Klein, Notes on the Printed Edition of MS Neofiti 1, JSS 19 (1974), 220,
regarding this reading [ch. 19 in the present volume].
83
][
and
Exod 22:26
Neof
CG A (=CUL T-S 20.155)
] [
'
and
Deut 24:15
Neof
'
84
chapter six
'
'
' '
First, there is the equalization within the citation of 17:5, with the
translation of for . This provides a parallelism between
the two stichs, just as they are balanced in v. 7 with '. This is
Such midrashic anachronism is quite common. The patriarchs studied and fulfilled the entire Bible, even before it was given. See I. Heinemann, Darkei Ha-Agadah,
2nd ed. (Jerusalem 1954), pp. 4041.
85
][
7
The MT reads , but the reconstruction is supported by 2 Kgs 9:10, 36, both
of which read .
86
chapter six
Neof
'
Gen 24:26
Neof
'8
Gen 44:15
Neof
87
Neof
Exod 33:12
Neof
Deut 12:8
Neof
or Deut 18:17
Neof
The source of association for this doublet would seem to be the Hebrew
text of Deut 12:28 .
18. A final example of a doublet whose source is to be found in the
Prophets, is the verb which is translated three times in
the story of the Exodus:
Exod 12:13
Neof
Exod 12:23
Neof
and Exod 12:27
Neof
'
10
The source for this doublet which suggests itself is Isa 31:5,
.
.
10
For the additional )( see the next verse cited (Exod 12:27).
88
chapter six
V. Conclusion
I believe that all of the foregoing examplesand they are only samples
of a ubiquitous targumic practiceillustrate the power of association
in the mind of the meturgeman. If the general learning process in
ancient times placed emphasis on committing texts to memory, this
was the case even more so with the meturgeman, whose profession
involved reciting the Biblical text in translation, by heart, in the synagogue. It was only natural that he would from time to time unwittingly
confuse similar phrases or passages, even if their places of origin were
remote from one another.
This being the situation, one must examine instances of targumic
divergence from the Hebrew Bible for the possibility of associative
translation before arriving at conclusions regarding textual variants
in the Vorlage text.
VI. Epilogue: A Caveat
Having presented all of the above examples of associative and complementary translation in the targumim, a word of caution in the reverse
might be in place. There are cases which on the surface seem to reflect
targumic association with some similar verse. However, upon further
investigation, another, more plausible solution presents itself.
19. A case in point is Deut 31:28, , which is
translated in Neofiti . The addition of
the word would have seemed to reflect the well-attested Hebrew
pair found, for instance, in Deut 16:18. However, the
LXX to Deut 31:28 reads: ,
, , . It
is, therefore, quite possible, that a common variant Vorlage, such as
underlies both the Palestinian
Targum and the Septuagint.
SECTION II
CHAPTER SEVEN
1
The first printed edition of a fragment-targum appeared in the Bomberg Rabbinic
Bible (Venice, 151718). The first modern edition was published by M. Ginsburger, as
Das Fragmententhargum (Berlin, 1899).
92
chapter seven
The leaf begins with the opening verse of a para and ends abruptly
with only a single word on the last line; the verso of the leaf is entirely
blank. These facts raise the question of whether the fragment was part
of a more extensive work or merely a single (experimental?) page.
2
See M. L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch, vol. 1: Introductory
Essays (An-Bib 76; Rome, 1980) 1442; and idem, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian
Targum to the Pentateuch (Cincinnati: 1986) l.xxvi. See also the basic study: idem,
The Extant Sources of the Fragmentary Targum to the Pentateuch, HUCA 46 (1975)
11537. An attempt to solve the mystery of their rationale that came to my attention
after this article was submitted is Ronald M. Campbell, A Fragment-Targum without a
Purpose? The Raison-dtre of MS Vatican Ebr. 440 (Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern
University, Evanston, Ill., 1994 [advisor: P. V. M. Flesher]).
3
Ashkenazic: MSS Vatican Ebr. 440, Nrnberg-Stadtbibliothek Solger 2,2 and
Leipzig-Universitt B. H. fol. 1.
Sephardic: MS Paris Bibliothque nationale Hbr. 110.
Oriental: MSS British Library Or. 10794 and Cambridge University Library (C.U.L.)
T-S AS 72.7577.
4
M. L. Klein, Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections (Cambridge, 1992).
( 10) ( 3) ( 16:1)
( ' 16) ( 13)
( 29) ( 28)
[ ]'
( 31)
( 17:3)
( 6)
( 10)
( 23)
( 24)
( ' 27)
( ' 18:20)
( 27)
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
.15
.16
.17
.18
.19
5
The numbers in parentheses in the Aramaic text and in the English translation
are the biblical citations of chapter and verse. The numbers in the margins are the line
numbers in the manuscript.
94
chapter seven
Translation
1. (Num 16:1) And he separated. (3) Enough for you! For all the community (10) and you also seek the high priesthood
2. (13) also rule [over us] (16) stand ready before the Lordyou, they
3. and Aaron tomorrow (28) but not of my devising. (29) If these [persons]
die
4. the death of all mankind, and the fate of all mankind befalls them, then
God has not
5. sent me. [Arabic: if these die the death of all mankind and they
6. share a common fate (?), then Allah has not spoken (?) to me. When
he had
7. finished all of this speech] (17:3) flat-hammered sheets as plating for
the altar
8. (6) you have caused the death of the Lords people
9. (10) [Arabic: remove (?) yourselves from among this people]
10. (23) And the staff of Aaron of the house of Levi had sprouted and
brought forth buds,
11. produced blossoms, and borne almonds [Arabic: brought forth buds,
12. produced blossoms and borne almonds]. (24) And they saw: And they
made acknowledgment, and each one
13. took his staff. (27) And the Israelites said to Moses as follows: Some of
us
14. were killed by the sword, some of us were swallowed up by the earth
and some of us
15. died in the plague. (18:20) And the Lord said to Aaron: You shall not
have an inheritance in their land
16. nor shall you have a portion among them; I have given you [priestly]
giftsthey shall be your inherited
17. portion among the Israelites (27) and that which you set apart
18. will be considered for you as grain from the threshing floor and as the
rich juice
19. from the wine press.
Palestinian Fragment-Targums
Paris 110
Vatican 440
Saadya
Numbers
16:
17:
18:
1
3
10
13
15
16
22
28
29
31
3
6
10
23
24
27
12
20
27
CHAPTER EIGHT
98
chapter eight
P. Kahle, on the other hand, felt that the serugin manuscripts could
only be used by people who already knew the texts by heart or those
who had immediate access to a full consonantal text (wohl nur von
Leuten, die den Text auswendig wussten, bzw. den Konsonantentext
daneben hatten).5
It has more recently been observed that the serugin phenomenon
may be related to massoretic activity, in addition to its serving as an
economic technique to save on expensive writing materials. With
regard to a recently discovered Genizah fragment, E. J. Revell writes,
It seems clear that its main purpose is to mark the correct positions
for the accents, so the text is perhaps to be taken as a sort of Manual
of the Accent System for a scholar or naqdan.6
In contrast to all of these views, it would seem, that the newly discovered serugin texts of targum, were written in this manner primarily
as an economic expedient, since just the beginnings of verses (in T-S
B 9.9), or just the first letters of each word from the original text are
recorded (T-S AS 66.14 and T-S AS 67.26), regardless of their content,
vocalization or accentuation. Moreover, one must adopt the view of
Neubauer and Kahle, at least in these instances, that this sort of abbreviation can be useful only to someone who has already memorized
most of the targum. This leads us to the conclusion that the present
serugin texts were prepared by, or for, the official meturgeman, either
5
P. Kahle, Beitrage zur Geschichte der hebrischen Punktation, ZAW 21 (1901):
274. Kahle later wrote on the vocalization of the serugin texts in Masoreten des Westens
I (Stuttgart, 1927): 3536; II (Stuttgart, 1930): 31*35*, 8895 (both volumes were
reprinted: Hildesheim, 1967).
In 1962, I. Yeivin published the first known example of serugin in a text with
Babylonian vocalization and accentuation: A Babylonian Fragment of the Bible in the
Abbreviated System, Textus 2 (1962): 120139. This discovery broadened the scope
of serugin to encompass texts with all of the major systems of vocalization. Although
the present targum manuscripts of Onqelos and Jonathan to the Prophets are vocalized in the Tiberian system and their methods of abbreviation differ from that applied
to the Hebrew Bible in the Babylonian tradition, the universal application of serugin
established by Yeivin is relevant.
6
E. J. Revel, A New Biblical Fragment with Palestinian Vocalisation, Textus 7
(1969): 74. Two additional recent works that include treatment of serugin texts of
the Hebrew Biblebut again, concerned primarily with the systems of vocalization
and accentuationare the following: Manfred Dietrich, Neue palestinisch punktierte
Bibelfragmente [based upon a thesis: Tbingen, 1960] (Leiden, 1968): 3537, 36*50*,
74*78*; and E. J. Revell, Biblical Texts with Palestinian Pointing and Their Accents
(Masoretic Studies 4; Missoula, 1977): 203205. This section is titled: Brachygraphy
and Stress Position.
99
7
Y. Meg. 74d: :'
"
. Moreover, in B. Meg. 32a, a prohibition is cited against the reader of
the Hebrew version assisting the meturgeman so as not to give the congregation the
false impression that the torah scroll also contains the Aramaic translation:
8
These descriptions are based upon M. L. Klein, Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections (Cambridge, 1992). The manuscripts were discovered and
identified during a sabbatical year provided by Hebrew Union College, that was spent
as a Visiting Fellow at Clare Hall (Cambridge University) and as a Visiting Research
Associate at the Genizah Research Unit of Cambridge University Library.
100
chapter eight
(Exodus 18)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
folio 1v
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
] [
-
folio 2r
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
.1
.2
.3
.4
I am grateful to Dr. Stefan C. Reif for his kind support and for facilitating the
acquisition of photographs for the plates [not included in this reprinted.]. I also
wish to thank Prof. Malachi Beit Arie, for his assistance with the dating and geographical identification of the manuscripts.
101
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
.5
.6
.7
.8
folio 2v
(25) .1
(26) .2
(27) .3
.4
.5
(2) .6
(3) .7
(4) .8
.9
(Exodus 19)
[ ] /_ ( 21)
[ ]
/_
( ][ 22)
[
]
/_
/_ ( 23)
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
chapter eight
.11
.12
.13
.14
.15
.16
.17
.18
)?(
) (24 _/
_ /
folio 1v
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
.15
.16
.17
) (25
(20:1) :
_ /
/ / / :
) (2 _ /
)(
:
) (3
) (4
) (5
_/
folio 2r
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
.15
.16
] [
) (6
.
) (7 _ /
_ /
(8) :
) (9
) (10
_/
) (11
102
103
.17
.18
folio 2v
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
.15
.16
.17
_/
}{
) (12
_ /
) (13 ) (13/14
) (13/15 ) (13/16
:
) (14/17 ][
][
recto
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
.15
.16
)] (15/18[
][
?
][ :
) (16/19
_ /
) (17/20
_ /
verso
.1
.2
.3
.4
) (18/21
_: /
104
chapter eight
(Exodus 20)
[:]( 16/19) :
[:]( 18/20) :
[( )!( ]20/23) :
[( ]22/25) :
[)!( ]
(15/18)
(17/20)
(19/22)
(21/24)
(23/26)
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
folio 1v
][ ][][
(( )28) :
: ][
][
][
(Numbers 28)
(26)
.1
(27)
.2
(29)
(30)
(31)
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
folio 2r
[( ]2) :
[ ] ( 4) :
[( ]6) :
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
][
[][ ]
(Ezekiel 1)
(1)
.1
(3)
.2
(5)
.3
(7)
.4
(8)
.5
(9)
.6
(10)
.7
][
][
][
][
][
[ ][ ]
105
folio 2v
(11)
.1
(12)
.2
(13)
.3
(14)
.4
(15)
.5
(16)
.6
Postscript
In November 1991, some months after this article was submitted to
the editors of MAARAV, I spent several days in the Rare Book Room
of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York perusing targumic
manuscripts listed in the data base of the J. T. S. Genizah project (prepared by Drs. Niel Danzig and Sol Cohen). Among the interesting discoveries, was a fourth fragment of targum written in seruginand not
from Exodus. Once again, the small size of the page supports the theory that these manuscripts served as inconspicuous aides de mmoire
(i.e. crib notes) for the meturgeman during the Torah reading in the
synagogue. The following is a description of the new fragment and a
transcription of the text.
J.T.S. ENA 2856.29 (+28)
Deuteronomy 32:1943
Paper; 2 leaves (originally 1 bifolium); slightly mutilated; 12.0 x 6.8+
cm; 1 column; 13 lines; lower quarter of 29r and the entire folios 28r,v
and 29v are blank; Oriental semi-cursive script; unpointed, except for
colons after each Hebrew and Aramaic phrase.
Serugin: The first one to three words of Onqelos for each verse are
preceded by a Hebrew lemma of one or two words.
J.T.S. ENA 2856.29 RECTO
[ ]( 20) : ] [
: .( 22) : ][ [
: : ( 24) [: ] :
: [ : ( ]26) [ ] :
[ ] (28) [: ]:
folio 29r
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
(19)
(21)
(23)
(25)
(27)
chapter eight
.6
.7
)(29
)(31
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
)(33
)(35
)(37
)(39
)(41
)(43
: ][ ] (30) : [: :
: (32) : : :
: (34) : :
: (36) : : :
: (38) : : :
: (40) : : :
: (42) : : :
: :
106
CHAPTER NINE
108
chapter nine
109
recto
.1
[ ]
.2
[( 10) : ]
.3
[ ]
.4
[( 11) :][ ]
?
[][ ]
?
[( 12) :][ ]
?
[] [ ]
?
.5
.6
.7
.8
[] [ ]
.9
( ]13) :] [
.10
the parallels in vocabulary between CG E and Neof gl, cited on p. 264. R. Le Daut
had previously noted a similar relationship between the Neofiti marginal glosses
and Cairo Genizah MS F, for the Book of Leviticus, cf. Levitique XXII 26XXIII
44 dans le Targum Palestinien: de limportance des gloses du codex Neofiti I, Vetus
Testamentum 18 (1968) 458471.
9
Determined Forms of the Cardinal Number One in Three Pentateuchal
Targumim, Sefarad 45 (1985) 207215.
chapter nine
verso
.1
.2
110
]) (22 [
?
] (23) : [
?
.3
] (24) [:
.4
] [
.5
] [ ][:
.6
.7
.8
]) (25 [ ][
?
] (26) : [ ][ ] [
?
] [ (27) :] [
] (28) :[ [
.9
??
] [ (29) :]
.10
) (32 ][] [
] o [:
?
.3
.4
.5
[ :
][ ]
]) (34[ ] [
.6
? ?
][ ] (35) : [
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
.15
]) (33 [
? ???
] [ ] (36) : [
?
] [ (37) : ] [
??
?
] [ ][ ] [ (38) :
] [ ][
] [ (39) :
] [
?
?? ?
] [ (40) :
[
]
[
]
111
verso
.1
( ]2)
( 3) : ] [
? ?
?
: ] [
?
( ] [ 4)
?
.2
.3
.4
[( [ ]5) : ]
.5
?
?
[ ]
] [
.6
[ ]
[( 7)
(6) :]
.7
[( ] 8) [: ]
.8
[( ] 9) :] [
.9
??
? ?
[ ] [ ]
.10
[ ]
(10) :
.11
[: ]
????
[( 12) :( ][ ] 11)
?
.12
.13
[]
.14
:]
.15
112
chapter nine
is now clear that the composition is indeed a Palestinian Fragmenttargum, similar to the well-known recensional families of Fragmenttargum preserved in the European manuscripts.11 The following table
compares the verses preserved in the present Genizah manuscript (CG)
to those preserved in the other two recensional families (P, VNL)
with brief gloss-type translations in VNL indicated as such.
Genesis 15: 1, 2
4
7
9
10
11, 12, 17
19
Genesis 16: 5
13
14, 16
CG
CG
CG
CG
P VNL
VNL
VNL (gloss-type)
VNL
P VNL
VNL (gloss-type)
P VNL
P VNL
CG
11
These are the Paris (P) and Vatican, Nrnberg, and Leipzig (VNL) manuscripts,
all published in full, or as variants in the apparatus, in M. L. Klein, The FragmentTargums of the Pentateuch; [Analecta Biblica 76] (Rome: Biblical Institute Press,
1980), 2 Vols.
12
Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum, I, pp. 331, 333 (MS Br) and pp. 339,
341, 357, 359 (MS DD).
113
nial haftarah to Genesis 20:1.13 The texts of the recto and verso are
written by different hands and in different inks. Unfortunately, the
fragment-targum is very badly faded and not entirely legible (not even
with the aid of ultra-violet lighting). All of the descriptive details are
identical with those of HUC MS Genizah 1134 (MS H), and there can
be no doubt that the two fragments belong to the same manuscript.
In fact it is likely that they are actually two consecutive pages of the
original work. The texts on the versos of the two fragments are also
related to one another: the HUC fragment contains an introductory
poem under the heading wehada targum simehu et [Yeru]shalayim,14
and the present Cambridge fragment contains the haftarah itself.
The following is a transcription of the text. For the sake of continuity, the text of the HUC fragment is also given.
HUC Genizah MS 1134 (MS H) Genesis 15:1, 2, 4
recto
?
[ ]
(1)
?
? ?
?
[ ]
[ ]
??
><
?
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
< ][ >
][
.9
[][ ]
.10
13
This is also an attested annual haftarah to parashat Nissavim according to some
Yemenite traditions; cf. I. Fried, Table of Haftarot, Talmudic Encyclopedia, ed. S. J.
Zevin, (Jerusalem, 1961), Vol. 10, Cols. 71314. However, the proximity to Genesis
1516, of the recto, and the association with a Palestinian targum, would argue
strongly in favor of the triennial identification.
14
Following the reading proposed by Y. Yadin, A Note on the Title of the Verso
of the Geniza MS 1134, HUCA 51 (1980) 61.
114
chapter nine
.11
.12
}{
?
][
?
}{
.13
.14
??
.15
][
.16
(2) :
.17
?? ?
?
??
][
??
(4) :][:
.20
][
.18
.19
.21
??
] [
][
])(15:11
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
[ ]
[ ]
][ ] [ ][
[
? ? ?
??
] [ ][
[
?
]
[ ) (12 :
?
?
][
? ? ? ?
??
] [
?
? ??
[ ]
]
?
[
?
]
][ ][
?
??
] :[ ][ ][][ ][
] (17) :[
][
.10
.11
? ?
] [
[ ] [
? ???
[ ] [
[[ ][ ]
]] [
?
[
[
115
.12
[ ]
.13
[ ]
[
.14
[ ]
( 16:13) [:] [ ]
.15
] [
[][ ]
?
[
[ ]
.17
.18
.19
:] [ ]
.20
[( ][ 14) :
[
?
? ?
[ ] [ ] [
[ ]
(16) [
[
.16
??
? ??
] [ ]
.21
III. Additions to MS D
One of the major manuscripts of Palestinian targum first published
by Kahle is MS D, all of whose extant fragments are in the TaylorSchechter Collection in Cambridge. In his edition, Kahle included 14
leaves, or fragments of leaves. In Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian
Targum . . ., I published five additional fragments of MS D, two of
which (T-S Misc. 27.1.4) being the only complete leaves of this manuscript that had been discovered by S. Lund, several years earlier.
During the recent work on the Cambridge catalogue, five additional
smaller fragments came to light,15 representing parts of both previously known and unknown leaves of this manuscript. One of the most
important aspects of MS D is that it spans the entire Pentateuch, preserving fragments from Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy. The new
fragments contain texts from all three of these books.
15
234.
The classmarks of the new fragments are T-S AS 64.27, 239; AS 66.187; AS 68.83,
116
chapter nine
column 2
:( ][ ][ ][8)
.16
?
? ?
.17
[ :]
] [
.18
[]
-
?
[ ]
.19
-
-
{ }][
?
][
.22
.23
.24
[]
? ??
[]
? ?
[]
[ ] [
]
?
( 11)
? ?? ?
.20
.21
.25
16
Following the dating of Prof. M. Beit-Ari, of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
Kahle had dated this codex and two others to the latter half of the 9th Century (MdW
II, p. 2*).
117
verso
column 2
]) (16 [
column 1
.14
.15
)(13
.16
] [
? ? ? ?
--
] [
] [:
.19
.20
])(14 [
][
.17
.18
? ? ?
] [
?
:
??
[ -
]-
??
(17) :
? ??
.21
.22
.23
.24
}{
:
.25
-
-
.26
recto
.1
) (10
:
?
][
?
][ -
CUL T-S 64.27 (MS D) Genesis 48:10
)(=T-S B 8.7
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
[ ]
(11) :][
??
][
] [
] [
(verso contains only Hebrew).
118
chapter nine
recto
.1
? ? ? ?
][ ][
)] (6[
.2
- ] [
.3
] [
.4
(7) : ][
.5
][
??? ?
] )(18
???
??
-
?
?
??
] [ ][:
? ?
) (19][][
?
][
.6
][ ] [
.7
verso
? ?
) (15 ] [
?
(16) : []
??
?? ? ??
] [
][
?
.1
])(13
.2
.3
.4
] [
][
][ :
??
][ ][
] [ -
[
] [ ]
] (14) :[
][
][
] [
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
column 3
?
) (15] [
] [
[
]
]:
(The recto, which seems to contain Deut. 29:2, 5, is very badly faded
)and virtually illegible.
CHAPTER TEN
COMPLEMENTARY FRAGMENTS FROM
THE CAIRO GENIZAH
" "
,
-,
" .
,
,
. E
:
'
, ".
, E
. 1930
, ' ,
; 1
2
' ;
) (Additional Series' ,
3
.1989
, ,
.
.
1
P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, II, (Stuttgart, 1930; reprinted Hildesheim, 1967),
pp. 2948.
2
A. Dez Macho, Nuevos Fragmentos del Targum Palestinense, Sefarad 15 (1955),
3139.
3
M. L. Klein, New Fragments of Palestinian Targum from the Cairo Genizah,
Sefarad 49 (1989), 123133.
120
chapter ten
, ,
.
' ' , ,
,
4
' ).(CUL T-S H12.11
, 5
6
.
' , ' ,
' ' .
,
' ' ) .(2
, ,
.
) " ," "(.
'
7.
.
,
'' ' , .
:
CUL T-S AS 116.453
13.7 6.6" ,
. .
. .
.
121
) recto (1
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
.15
.16
?
/// ?
][
][
] [ }{
][ ][
][][
][ ] [
][
][
][
][
][
][
] [
][
] [
][
][
) verso (2
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
] [
]
[
]
][
] [
][
][
][
][ ][
:
[
] [
] [
[
]
][
][
][
][
][
][
, '
CUL T-S H12.11:
.1
.2
.3
:
:
chapter ten
122
.
" ,
.
" "]' :[ ] [
' . , '',
).(ex homoio archon
][ ][ ][
][ verso ] [
[
] [ ]
][ ] [
][ ][)?( ][ )?(
] [ ] [
] [
) (Grelot
' ) ,(CUL T-S B8.9
'' - -
, , , 8.
,
' ) (CUL T-S NS 138.79; NS 271.183
) .(JTS NS ENA 42.27
8
P. Grelot, Une Tosephta targoumique sur Gense XXII dans un manuscrit
liturgique de la Geniza du Caire, REJ N.S. 16 (1957), 527 . . . :
) , ,(6 ,' ;3534 , .106
123
:
' . . . .' . . .
: ,
) .(T-S B8.9 16.5 12.6" ,
. .
.
JTS NS ENA 42.27
) recto (3
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
[
][ ]
[
][ ]
[
]
[
]
] [)?(
][ ] [
][
][ ][
[
]
][
][
) verso (4
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
[ ][
]
[
]
] [
[ }{
]
] [
][
][ ][ }{
] [
[
][ ]
CUL T-S B8.9, folio 1
recto
.1
.2
chapter ten
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
}{ '
124
)' (5
verso
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
}{
}{
'
CUL T-S NS 138.79
) recto (5
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
] [ ? ] [
] [
.
)' (2
'
)' (3
' )' (11
125
) verso (6
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
.
'
' ' ][
'
)' (7
.
. '
' ' '
}{
' '
][
) verso (8
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.
'][
' ][
' .
.
][
chapter ten
.11
.12
.13
126
'
CUL T-S B8.9
recto
][
' verso
'
][
. . .
CUL T-S NS 138.79
[ ] . . . recto)?( .
][
' '
'' ' '
'' verso ][ '' ][' ][
][ ' ][ '.
][
' ' ' '
127
' '
CUL T-S NS 271.138
[
]
.
verso
.1
.2
.
}{
chapter ten
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
128
? ] :?[
.
/
.
.
-
-- ,
. ,
,
9
.
' ' ,
, , 10.
" ,
,
. , '-
' ,
,Heb e25 .
11.
,
.
.
. ,
' ' . 12
.1513
' ' ,11
1900 12.
) , .(5
.' '" , ' ", )"( ,' 184173
11
) , ,(6' .238237 , ,
Heb c7475. , ,
12
M. Ginsburger, Aramischer Introductionen zum Thargumvortrag an Festtagen,
ZDMG 54 (1900), 122f.
9
10
129
.
" " , .
12 ,
,
.
' ' ,
'][ ]![ ' . ,
,
.Heb e25 ,
' ' ' ) ' . . . "(,
' ' '' ' ' ) "(.
' ' ,25
13,
14. ' '
,
' : . . . ' ,
' :
' .
.
.
: , 14 14.2" ,
. .
. .
JTS ENA 2752.18
) recto (9
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
][ ][ ][ .
][
][ .
][ .
. ][ .
.
.
] [ :
13
M. Ginsburger, 'Les Introductions Aramennes a la Lecture du Targum', REJ 73
(1921), 1516.
14
' , , ," , ;6374 , ) , ,(5'
.365 ' ' , ',
, , " ,' .103
chapter ten
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
130
] ///// [
[
][]
[
]
[
] ////
] [
] [ (13) :
] [
) verso (10
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
(14) - .
-.
) (15 . ][
][
][)!( '- .
-
-] [
] - [
] - [
] . [
- ] [
- ] [
- .
JTS ENA 2752.19
) recto (11
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
-
-.
-
-
)( -
.
.
-
] [ -
. ] [
. ] [ .
][ - .
131
) verso (12
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
. -
. .
] .[ ) ] [ ( .
][ . .
.
)( . . }{-
-. --
. -
[ .
]
[ ] : /)?(
. ] [ :
. ] [ ..
/)?( . . .
CHAPTER ELEVEN
* To Shoshi, the Israelite woman, and to Mattan and Elad born 24 Aug 1973,
1975.
1
Berlin, 1865, pp. 21f. Zunz merely gives the opening word or phrase of each passage, and occasionally, the closing phrase as well.
2
Leipzig, 1889; reprinted: Nrnberg, 1923, pp. 305309.
3
Tosefta du Targoum Yerouschalmi, REJ 30 (1895), pp. 4849.
4
Die Thargumim zur Thoralection am 7. Pesach- und 1. Shabuoth-Tage, MGWJ 39
(1895), pp. 97105, 167175, 193206.
5
Aramische Introductionen zum Thargumvortrag an Festtagen, ZDMG 54 (1900),
pp. 12021, 123. The tosefta to Exod 15:4, which Ginsburger thought he had discovered (habe iche eine von Zunz nicht erwhnte Introduction . . . gefunden), is actually
listed by L. Zunz in Literaturgeschichte . . . p. 21, bottom no. 5, .
For the sake of completeness, I note the following more recent publications of
targumic toseftot to Exod 15, namely, P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens II (Stuttgart,
1930: reprinted Hildesheim, 1967) MS G, pp. 63f.
.- ,(" ' )",- " , .
" ,' '
.117 ,( ' )":
134
chapter eleven
( 2)
'
.
.13
.14
.15
.16
.17
.18
.19
.20
.21
.22
.23
.24
.25
.26
. . . mit dem einen Unterschiede, dass sie im ersten (Parma, de-Rossi 2887 [736])
wirklich mit beginnt, im letzeren (Parma, de-Rossi 3132 [61]) dagegen mit
und mit ' schliesst (ZDMG 54 (1900), 120).
7
Cf. MSS. Codices Hebraici Biblioth. I. B. De-Rossi, (Parmae, 1803), II, p. 143.
The present transcription was made from a microfilm of the MS at the Institute
of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts, at the Jewish National and University Library,
Jerusalem (no. 13780). I hereby express my gratitude to the Biblioteca Palatina di
Parma and to the Institute for their kind permission and assistance.
135
folio 38b
.1
.2
.3
136
chapter eleven
21 they would go out to the field and give birth there, and abandon
their children
22 and return. And an angel would come and take him [the child] and
wash him
23 and place in his hands two stones: from one he sucked milk and
from
24 one he sucked honey. And the Egyptians came and saw them [the
children], and tried
25 to seize them, but the earth opened its mouth and swallowed
them [the children] up, and they [the Egyptians] would bring
26 oxen and plow over them, but they were unable to [harm] them.
And when they grew up
1 and (?) they returned to their fathers house; and when they saw
that [same] hand here
2 at the sea, they opened their mouths and said: This is the Lord
and let us praise Him,
3 the God of our fathers, and let us extol Him.
Commentary
The sections . . . ( lines 1315) and . . . ( lines
23), contain the literal translation of Exod 15:2, and are to be found,
with some variation, in all of the extant targumim. Most of the other
targumim have ,8 while Ms. Paris 110,9 Mahzor Vitry
and other Parma mahzorim10 have . And yet, our MS
(line 14) is unique in its addition of the prepositional lamed (),
8
The reading in Ms. Parma 3132 is probably a corruption of
cf. MSS Parma, de-Rossi 2736 (804) and 3003 (420).
9
Ms. Paris 110, which is a Fragmentary Targum to the entire Pentateuch, is recensionally related to the sections of targum included in the various mahzorim. Two of
the lengthy sections fully preserved in MS Paris 110, are the readings for the Seventh
Day of Passover and for Shavuot (Exod 13:1715:26 and 19:120:14), including many
toseftot and the acrostic poem . A comparative study of the structure of the
tosefta to Exod 15:3 (the order of the Israelite proposals and of Moses answers) supports this recensional grouping. Cf. M. Ginsburger, MGWJ 39 (1895), 195.
Interestingly enough, the reverse is true of Ms. Sassoon 264. For while this MS is
a Yemenite Mahzor, it contains the Fragmentary Targum to the entire Pentateuch in
the non-liturgical recension. It is to be grouped with the Bomberg ed. 1517, and MSS
Vatican 440, Nrnberg 1, Leipzig-University 1 and Moscow-Gnzberg 3, as opposed
to Paris 110.
10
E.g., Mss. Parma, de-Rossi 2411 (1107), 3000 (378) and 2574 (159).
137
which alters the meaning of the entire phrase from The Lord is our
might and praise to Our might and praise are to the Lord.10a
Lines 1520: Cf. Exod 15:8, 1422
Line 20 to end: This tosefta is not to be confused with those of another
tradition, found in TJ2 and TJ1:
'
From [their] mothers breasts the sucklings raised [signaled] with their
fingers to their fathers and said to them, This is our Father Who would
make us suck honey from the rock, and Who anointed us from the flint
stone. The Israelites answered, saying to one another, This is our God,
let us praise Him; the God of our fathers, let us extol Him. (FT according to Ms. Nrnberg 1)11
And:
From their mothers breasts the sucklings would indicate with their fingers to their fathers and say, This is our God, Who used to make us
suck honey from the rock and oil from the flint stone, when our mothers
went out to the field, and gave birth, and abandoned us there. And He
would send an angel who washed us and swaddled us. And now let us
praise Him, God of our fathers, and let us extol Him. (TJ1, according
to MS Br. Mus. Add. 27031)
The common element in all of these sources is the two stones from
which the infants sucked milk/oil and honey. This is basically a midrash
to Deut 32:13, And He made him suck honey out of the crag and oil
out of the flinty rock. The alterations to the more common milk and
10a
Another MS that contains the prepositional lamed is the closely related MS
Oxford Bodleian 2373 (folio 118b, line 18). This ms. is also an Ashkenazic Mahzor
in a German script. Its text generally agrees with MS Parma 2887 against the other
sources. Ms. Oxford 2373 contains many inferior readings, and suffers from several
sizable scribal omissions.
11
This is very closely paralleled in the Bomberg 1517 ed., and in MS Sassoon 264.
Ms. Vatican 440 contains several minor variants.
138
chapter eleven
honey (MS Parma 2887), or to the more logical anointed with oil
(TJ2), are secondary and minor.
However, more important than this common element, are the differences between these toseftot. MS Parma 2887 is built upon a local
midrash, whose purpose is to answer the question, How did the
Israelites recognize the Lord at the Crossing of the Sea [viz.: ] ,
never having experienced Him? The answer is, they recognized the
God Who had cared for them as infants, when their mothers abandoned them in the field. In this tradition, the adult Israelites recall
their childhood, and praise the Lord at the sea.
The tradition of TJ1 and TJ2 is based upon a midrash to Ps 8:3, Out
of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast Thou founded strength.
The association with Exod 15:2, is probably via the common word
strength ( and ). In both TJ1 and TJ2, it is the infants that praise
the Lord.
The joining of the midrash of the two stones with that of recollection in adulthood, in MS Parma 2887, is quite logical. On the other
hand, the juxtaposition in TJ2 and TJ1, of babes praising and babes
recollecting the two stones is artificial and secondary.12
In fact, the parallels to these targumic toseftot in rabbinic literature
bear out this distinction. Exod. Rab. 23:9 and b. Sotah 11B, which parallel MS Parma 2887, bring both of the elements: 1) the two stones;
2) recollection in adulthood. This is not the case with the parallels to
TJ2 and TJ1. Of all the sources that associate from the mouth of babes
with the Song of the Sea, not one adds the element of recollecting the
two stones.13 It seems that the proper association of the midrash of
the two stones with Exod 15:2 in the tradition of MS Parma 2887,
brought about the conflation in TJ1 and TJ2, which originally contained
only the from the mouth of babes midrash. The tosefta according to
MS Parma 2887 is primary; that of TJ2 and TJ1, is secondary.
12
This illogical association of midrashim is carried to the extreme in the confused
and corrupted version of MS Parma, de-Rossi 3000 (378): From our mothers wombs
they indicated [with] a finger to their fathers and said, This is our God, their [sic]
father, Who would make you [sic] suck from heaven [sic] from a rock, and anointed
us. . . . The concept of praising from the womb originates in a midrash to Ps 68:27 (26),
. . . bless the Lord . . . from the source [fountain] of Israel. This midrash is generally
brought alongside that of from the mouth of babes (see next note for citations).
13
E.g., y. Sotah 5:6 (= 20c); t. Sotah 6:4 (2); b. Sotah 30b: Mekilta, Shireta 1 (ed.
M. Ish-Shalom, Vienna, 1870; reprinted New York, 1948), p. 35; Midrash ha-Gadol to
Exod 15:1 (ed. M. Margaliot, Jerusalem, 1967), p. 284.
139
.
The third [decree], to kill every male child of theirs in the birthstool.
But when the wise [wo]men had mercy, they decreed to throw them
into the river.
Line 22, an angel: In the original version, the Lord Himself descends
and cares for the infants.15 This better suits the conclusion of the
Israelites recognizing Him at the sea. However, the removal of direct
Divine intervention and its delegation to various messengers is paralleled in the sources.16
Lines 2324, . . . : As noted above, the original version is honey
and oil (Deut 32:13).17 However, since babies do not usually suck oil,
this phrase had to be altered to either suck honey and be anointed
140
chapter eleven
with oil18 or to suck honey and milk.19 A tertiary version has the
more common reverse order, suck milk and honey.20
Lines 2426, . . . : This episode is missing from most of the
parallel sources. It is, however, to be found in b. Sotah 11b, where it is
associated with Ps 129:3, The plowers plowed across my back. It is
also included in Chronik des Moses (p. 2), and in Sepher hajaschar
(pp. 14142).
Line 25, . . . : Note the similarity between this phrase and
the targum to Num 16:32.
Lines 12, . . . : Cf. Exod 14:31, And Israel saw the great hand
which the Lord used in Egypt.
Conclusion
The tosefta to Exod 15:2 is just one of the many toseftot that have
been included in the targumim to the Pentateuch. These compositions
appear in many versions in the various targumic and midrashic contexts. As we have seen, they may be composite constructions of several originally independent midrashim, in which each component may
have many variants. In our instance, MS Parma, de-Rossi 2887 (736),
represents the fullest version of the targumic tosefta to Exod 15:2. On
the other hand, some of its elements have been shown to be secondary
variants of midrashim to other Biblical verses.
18
MSS Vatican 440, Nrnberg 1, Sassoon 264 and Bomberg ed. 1517. The Bomberg
ed. is incorrectly vocalized give oil instead of anoint us, cf. the
parallel use of the personal pronoun in MS Vatican 440:
)( .
The source of this error in the edition and of the dittograph in MS Vatican 440 may
be traced to Deut 32:13 where both and are substantives.
19
E.g., MSS Parma, de-Rossi 3132 (61) and 2736 (804). Yalkut Shimoni 165 offers
a conflated version, from one stone they sucked honey and milk, and from the other
they were anointed with oil.
20
Chronik des Moses, p. 2: Sepher hajashcar, p. 141.
CHAPTER TWELVE
1
Published by L. Ginzberg, Genizah Studies in Memory of Dr. Solomon Schechter
[Ginzei Schechter] II (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1929), [and
photo reprint Jerusalem: Makor, 1969], p. 86. Naturally, the presence of many or
few additional aggadic passages does not necessarily reflect a paraphrastic or literal
approach in the intervening translational passages.
2
This is demonstrated by the many variants cited in the apparatus of the critical
editions, e.g., B. Grossfeld, The First Targum to Esther to verses 1:1, 3; 2:10; 5:14; 6:1;
8:15; 9:14, 25, 28; 10:2, 3; (Appendix, pp. 19397), and L. Munk, Targum Scheni to
verses 1:22, 29; 3:7, 8; 4:13; 6:11.
3
Cf., e.g., the notes of Grossfeld and Munk to Esther 3:7 in the editions cited in
the preceding note. Also see Munks notes to 1:3; 2:7; 3:9; 5:14; 6:1, 11; 7:10; 8:15, 16.
On the complexity of the targumim to Esther, see P. Grelot, Observations sur les targums I et II dEsther, Biblica 56 (1975) 5373. See, also, L. Diez Merino, El Targum
142
chapter twelve
7
Both authors spent extensive periods of time at the Taylor-Schechter Genizah
Research Unit at Cambridge University Library, during which the fragments were
discovered. We wish to express our gratitude to Dr. Stefan C. Reif, Director of the
Genizah Research Unit, who kindly facilitated our research and assisted in the acquisition of quality photographs for the plates appended to this article.
8
The descriptive details are taken primarily from M. L. Klein, Targum Manuscripts
in the Cambridge Genizah Collections (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for
Cambridge University Library, 1991).
9
We wish to thank Prof. Malachi Beit-Arie, Director of the Jewish National and
University Library, Jerusalem, and Mrs. Edna Engel, M. A., of the Hebrew Paleography
Project, for assisting with the dating of the fragments and confirming the identification of their provenances.
chapter twelve
144
Lemmata in majusculae, with empty space beneath them in the following line.
Having already mentioned that two of the attested names of targums to Esther are Targum Rabbah and Targum Zutta (and variants
thereof ), it is hardly surprising to find that much of the midrashic
material contained in these newly discovered fragments is paralleled
in Esther Rabbah and in Midrash Panim Ah erim to Esther. We shall
indicate these parallelsor possible midrashic sourcesin the brief
notes appended to the texts, following each folio. An English translation comprises the remainder of the article.
)Cambridge University Library T-S B 11.52 (= B 12.21
folio 1r, = plate 1
Esther 5:10
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
) (5:10
'
)(Sam 12:3 2'
[
' ) (Judg 14:18 ][ ]
]????[
'
' ' ' )(Esth 5:12
][
] [ )?( '
' )](Gen 3:1[ ' ' ][
)(Gen 40:16][
] )(Num 16:14 [ )Esth
(5:12
.15
.16
.17
.18
.19
.20
][ ])(5:13 [
[
][ ]
[
]
' ][ ' ) (Prov 13:25 ][
) (5:14
][
'
. )(][
'
'
][ ][
][ ][
' ] [
( ] [ Ez. 6:11) '
][ ] [
[
]
( ][ ][ '6:1) [ ]
][
' ][
][ ' ' '' ][
'
'( ' ''Ps 78:65) ( Ps 44:24)
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
.15
.16
.17
.18
.19
.20
chapter twelve
146
}{ ' )!(
' }{ '
.
' '
' ][
' ' ''
'
.'' ''
.'' ''
' '
][ '
][
}{
.'
][ ] [
chapter twelve
.16
.17
.18
.19
.20
148
'
'
1folio 2v, 2] = Tg II, with slight variants.
1] Text corrupt, confusing who said to whom.
' ' ' }'{
' .
'
)(
' ' ][
) (Ps 70:10 '
) (1 Sam 15:14''' '
' ' ) (Ps 30:6 '
'
' ' ' }'{
) (Isa 49:3
' }'{
' ).(Ps 89:50
.
' .
) (6:11
' }'{
' '
][
{( }1 Sam 2:8) '
(Ps 30:12) ' ' .
][ ][
'( 6:12) .(Ps 30:2)
) '(
'][ ][
(?) .(Esth 6:9, 11) ' '
] [ ][
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
.15
.16
.17
.18
.19
.20
.1
.2
.3
.4
chapter twelve
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
.15
.16
.17
.18
.19
.20
150
. '
)?(
] [ '
) (6:14
' ][ .
) (7:1 (7:2) : ' '
' . ][ //
' ' }'{
(7:3) . ' ' . '
' '
(7:4) . .
}'{
' }{
) (7:5 ' ]'[ ][
][
' '
'
][ ][
][
][ ] [
][ ][ ] [
] [ ] [
] [
[
]
[
][ ]
][
}{
] [
] [ ] ) [(cf. Deut 17:17, 16
[
[ ]
]
[
]
[ ///
]
[
]
) (6:13 ][ ] [
][ ][
[
' ][ ]
) (6:14 : ] [ ] [
] [
][ ) (7:1 :
)] (7:2[ : }{
:
][ ><
(7:3) :] : [
][
][
][ ][
][ (7:4) : :] [
] [
[
][ ]///////////
[
] /// :
152
chapter twelve
116] = Tg 11, with very slight variants. Compare this text with the
second preserved copy in T-S B 11.52, folio 2V, above.
3] Single example of Palestinian vocalization in this MS.
4] The phrase is found in Pseudo-Jonathan to Exod
5:6 (= Heb. ) .
verso = plate 12
( [ ] [ 7:9) ]
////// [ ]
{] [ ][ }
{ }.(Lev 23:40) ][ ][ ][ ][
' :[[ ]:][ ]
][
' ][
( ][ Ps 92:13) [ ' ]
: ][
][ ][
)( ] [
( Esth 2:7) ( ' Zech 1:8)
' ][
][ // [ ]
' ][ :
[
]
:(Song 6:11) ] ' [ ][ ][
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
.15
.16
154
chapter twelve
18. as it is written, The righteous man eats, etc. The righteous man
eats and his soul is satisfied;
19. but the belly of the wicked is empty (Prov 13:25). (5:14). And
Zeresh his wife
20. and all of his friends said to him, What is Mordecais faith?
folio 1v
1. for they are likened unto the stone: if a stone falls on a person it
breaks him
2. and if a person falls on a stone he is [also] broken. Haman said
to his wife,
3. Even if I were to lose all my wealth, I would not let up [lit.: go]
4. until I destroyed him.
5. And he said to his friends, What do you have to say? His friends
responded and said to him,
6. Do not listen to her. Rather, set up a stake fifty cubits high.
7. And Haman went about looking for a stake fifty cubits long, but
could not
8. find any, save one that was in his house, which Parshandatha his
son had brought
9. from Kedronia, which is Kerdos. Because Hamans son [Parshandatha] was
10. ruler there; and there he saw the stake, which was from
11. Noahs ark. And Haman uprooted it from his house, so that the
ours, curse
12. of Darius might be fulfilled in him, as it is written, Whosoever
alters this [decree], shall have the wood[en beam]
13. removed from his house, and he shall be impaled, etc. (Ezra 6:
11). And this advice [lit.: word] found favor with Haman,
14. and he prepared a gallows [lit.: cross] for himself; [ ] he erected
it and perfected it.
15. [
] a [heavenly] voice called out saying, How proper and fitting
16. is this gallows [cross] for you. (6:1) On that night, etc.:
17. On that night sleep [deserted] the carpenters who were preparing
the gallows [cross]
18. for Haman. On that night sleep deserted the smiths who were
preparing
156
chapter twelve
13. and catastrophe upon catastrophe; and we have not yet recovered
from the first catastrophe,
14. nor has there been any relief for our stroke; we have not been
comforted from our pain,
15. and our heartache has not left us; [we are] smashed upon the
ground, and our temple is closed.
16. [Even] the enemy, Pharaoh, and the Egyptians did not plot such
schemes against us,
17. and kings of nations did not contrive such designs,
18. to be prepared for that day [= Esth 3:14], to be destroyed from
upon the face
19. of the earth. The Revealer of Secrets revealed the secret to Mordecai,
that death had been decreed
20. upon the House of Israel. On that night sleep deserted Mordecai
the righteous one, who was
21. awake and did not lie down, who lay down but would not fall
asleep, because the House of
folio 1v
1. Israel were gathered and sat before him, saying, You caused them,
2. the House of Israel, all of this trouble, for if you had risen before
3. Haman and bowed down to him, then all of this oppression would
not have come upon us. Mordecai
4. responded and said to them, to Israel, The garment that the
wicked Haman was wearing
5. had two crosses embroidered on it, one on its front and one on
its back; and if
6. I were to rise and bow down to him, I would in effect be practicing idolatry. And you know
7. that anyone who practices idolatry [will be destroyed] from this
world and from the world to come. And the
8. entire House of Israel was silenced [from/by him]. On that night
sleep deserted the wicked Haman, who was awake
9. and did not lie down, because he was preparing the gallows
[cross]; and he said to the craftsmen, I will
10. pay you your wages quickly, and I will prepare a banquet, and we
will drink
158
chapter twelve
9. that I have said! Now when the wicked Haman saw that his
words were not being accepted
10. by the king, and that his speech was not being heard, he entered
the royal storerooms, being
11. bent over rather than [standing] upright; his head covered in
mourning,
12. his ears deafened, his eyes dimmed, his mouth
13. crooked, and his heart dulled; his clothes torn,
14. his waist belt opened, and his knees knocking one against the
other [= Dan 5:6].
15. And he removed from there the royal garb that was brought to
the king
16. on the first day of his reign, and he took from there all of the royal
accouterments
17. exactly as he had been ordered, and he went out perplexed.
18. He entered the royal stable and led out the horse that was standing in the royal
19. stable, by the reins/saddle (?) on which were hanging golden
bells(?). He took hold of
20. the horses reins, and carried all of the royal accouterments on his
shoulder . . .
folio 2v
1. and tied its straps, and appended its dangles (bells?), and he went
on to Mordecai
2. the righteous one. The messenger arrived and said to Mordecai,
Why do you sit, behold Haman
3. has entered and requested of the king to hang you on the gallows
[or: impale you upon the cross]. At that moment,
4. Mordecai rose and separated the wise men to one side, the students to another
5. side, [women deleted!], the [young?] children [lit. their children/sons] to another side. The wise men clapped their hands,
6. the students rent their garments, the women dishevelled their
hair, and the children
7. cried like lambs that had been denied milk. They were crying
8. for Mordecai and for their own lives, and were saying: Till when,
God, will the foe blaspheme? (Ps 74:10);
160
chapter twelve
6. and the crown at its [so vocalized!] head, and ride the royal
horse. . . . [haplograph, homoioteleuton] I [Esther] gave thanks
and praise
7. when the sack was placed on his back and ashes on his head; I
praised the oppressed (?).
8. At the very moment that she [i.e., Esther] saw him [Mordecai],
she responded and said to him, In you was fulfilled
9. the verse that is written, He raises the poor from the dust,
(1 Sam 2:8), He raises the poor from the dust, and from
10. despondency the lowly of spirit, to seat them with rulers and
make them
11. inherit a seat of glory. And Mordecai, too, gave praise and said,
You turned my lament (Ps 30:12)
12. [You turned] my [lament] to a [swirling] dance; You removed my
sackcloth from me and dressed me
13. in royal attire. I praise You, O Lord, God, my Deliverer, that You
did not let
14. my enemys heart rejoice over me [after Mic 7:78, and Ps 30:2].
(Esth 6: 12) Thereupon, Mordecai returned to the gate of the
palace
15. with great honor and much respect; while Haman was rushed and
went home,
16. with his head covered in mourning. At that moment, Haman had
at his disposal
17. four artisans; the barber who had trimmed Mordecais hair; the
keeper of the bathhouse who had bathed him;
18. the footman who had led the horse; and the herald who called out
before [him]
19. as follows: This is what is done for the man whom the king
desires to honor (Esth 6:9, 11).
20. Hamans daughter gazed [out of the window (cf. Judg 5:28)] [and
saw] her father . . . at that [moment]; and she fell from
folio 2v
1. the window and died. (Esth 6:13) Then Haman told his wife Zeresh,
etc. Then Haman told
2. his wife Zeresh and all his friends everything that had befallen
him;
162
chapter twelve
164
chapter twelve
verso
1. (7:9) [The citron said,] I cannot bear that he be impaled [or, crucified] upon my crest [
]
2. for Abraham is likened [unto me;
]
3. [for I was planted in da]ys of old, as it is written, You shall take
4. on the first [day] the fruit of the [citron] tree and palm branches
(Lev 23:40), and it is not
5. possible for me to be defiled [by his corpse]. The date-palm said,
I cannot
6. bear that he be impaled upon my crest, for Isaac, the righteous
one, is compared
7. unto me; as it is written, The righteous bloom like a date-palm,
(Ps 92:13). [Moreover,] I am partner
8. to the citron, and it is not possible for me to be [def ]iled by his
corpse. The myrtle
9. said, I cannot bear that he be impaled upon my crest, for the
righteous ones
10. are likened [unto me; as it is written, And he was standing among
the myrtles that were
11. at the bottom (Zech 1:8); and it is [also] written, He was foster
father to Hadassah (= myrtle) (Esth 2:7); and from me [branches]
are taken
12. for joy and happiness: for the Havdalah [ceremony], and wedding
and circumcision [celebrations]; and I am partner
13. to the citron and the palm branch [
] on the [Sukkot] festival,
so it is not possible for me to be defiled
14. by his corpse. The [pomegra]nate said, I cannot bear that he be
impaled upon my crest
15. [
] the prayers of Israel are compared unto me
16. [as it is written,] I went down to the nut grove (Song 6:11), and
also the wise ones of Israel . . . .
Bibliography of Textual Sources
S. Buber, , Agadische Abhandlungen zum Buche Ester, Krakau (= Cracow),
1897 and an anonymous photo-reprint in Israel, 1964.
S. Buber, , Sammlung Agadischer Commentare zum Buche Ester, Wilna,
1886, and an anonymous photo-reprint in Israel, 1964. This volume contains several
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
b. Megillah 3a:
.
2
Also compare the Aramaic poem from Mahzor Vitry, par. 168, in the Appendix
below. The legend ignores the chronological gap of over 500 years between these
prophets and the tana; for our present purposes, we, too, suspend disbelief.
3
I will not deal here with the obvious problem, namely, that in fact there are targumim to the entire Hagiographa except Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah, presumably
because they were originally composed partially in Aramaic. The talmudic story would
168
chapter thirteen
The second story speaks of the eighty disciples of Hillel the Elder
(first century B.C.E.first century C.E.), the greatest of whom was
Jonathan ben Uzziel and the smallest of whom, Yohanan ben Zakkai.
It was said of Jonathan ben Uzziel that, when he was involved in the
study of Torah, any bird that flew over him was immediately burnt
(Rashi: from the fire of the divine angels that gathered about, to listen
to his exposition of the Torah).4
Introductory poems to the haftarah as collected from Mahzor
editions and manuscripts were first listed by Leopold Zunz in his
Literaturgeschichte der Synagogalen Poesie.5 In that monumental work,
Zunz merely cited opening and closing phrases of poems; and in this
manner, he lists the poem ( Let me obtain permission from all of you. . .) among three Aramaic introductory poems for
the mturgman (i.e., translator) of the festival haftarah. Zunz noted
that his sources for this poem are Mahzor Vitry and some (unidentified) French manuscripts. He divided this short poem into its three
components and elsewhere offered a probable date of composition as
the Geonic period.6
The other two poems listed by Zunz are . . .
( Let me obtain permission from the exalted God. . .)
and . . . (If my mouth were all musical strings. . .).
Yet a fourth composition listed by Zunz and recognized by Bacher as
belonging to the same genre, is ( Let
me first obtain authority from before the Merciful One. . .). 7
seem to apply the prohibition to the entire Ktvim. Yet, it is well-known that fragments of two exemplars of Targum to Job have survived among the Dead Sea Scrolls
and antedate Jonathan ben Uzziel by some 200 years. Likewise, another talmudic story
relates that Rabban Gamliel I (early first century C.E., and possibly a younger contemporary of Jonathan ben Uzziel) tried to suppress an existent Targum of Job (b. Shabbat
115a; m. Soferim 5:15; and elsewhere).
4
b. Sukkah 28a; b. Bava Batra 134a:
. . .
.
On the comparison of Torah to fire, see, for example, Jeremiah 23:29, Behold, My
word is like fire, declares the Lord. . ., and the many rabbinic homilies on this and
similar verses.
5
(Berlin, 1865), pp. 7980.
6
Ibid., p. 9.
7
Ibid., p. 569, item no. 11, composed by a poet named Yosef, of unknown date. In
an article to which we will refer at length, Wilhelm Bacher gives the full text of this
introductory poem: Alte aramaische Poesien zum Vortrage des Haphtara-Targum,
169
170
chapter thirteen
of Israel and the coming of the Messiah and Elijah the prophet; folio 2v
contains an introductory poem to the targum of the haftarah.12
2. T-S B 11.17
Paper; 1 leaf, 12.8 9.1 cm; 1 column; 1415 lines; Oriental semi-cursive
script; 13th cent.; Tiberian vocalization; recto contains the end of an
introductory poem to the targum of the haftarah (= T-S AS 71.64); bottom of recto and entire verso contain Targum Jonathan with Hebrew
lemmata to Isaiah 5:306:5.
3. T-S H 15.27
Paper; 1 leaf; 18.2 14.1 cm; 1 column; 14 + 2 lines; Oriental semi-cursive script; 12th cent.; unpointed; recto contains an Aramaic introductory poem to the targum of the Torah and haftarah plus two unidentified
incomplete lines at the bottom; verso blank.
The following are the texts, English translations and some explanatory
notes. I have also appended several relevant passages from the abovementioned and previously published poems, so as to complete the picture and facilitate comparative study of the genre.
C.U.L. T-S AS 71.64, folio 2v
.1
] [ .2
[
].3
[ ][
] .4
][ ][ .5
[ ] [ ] .6
[ ] [ ].7
.8
.9
][ .10
.11
: ][ .12
12
I wish to thank Mrs. Edna Engel of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew
Manuscripts at the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem, for providing the dating of all three manuscripts.
171
Translation
C.U.L. T-S AS 71.64, folio 2v
1.
Permission for the Haftarot
2. Let me obtain permission from all of youyour old and your young.
3. Grant now permission, [you] whom He has chosen from among
the nations.
4. He brought you forth from among the Egyptians. May the Lord,
5. God of your fathers, increase you a thousandfold,
6. and bless you as He promised you.
7. That which was spoken by Joshua and interpreted by Jonathan
8. ben Uzziel, master of the scholars, under the instruction of Haggai,
Zechariah
9. and Malachi, the prophets; (that) when he [i.e., Jonathan] was toiling in the [study of] Torah,
10. any bird of wing that flew over him in the air of the heavenly
firmament
11. would be burnt from the flame of the Glory that rested upon him.
12. And interpreting correctly, here is what he said:
Explanatory Notes
2. ... ]This opening phrase is almost identical with that
of Mahzor Vitry (= MV), par. 167. A similar formula for obtaining
permission from young and old (lit., great and small) is found at
the beginning of the second poem in Codex Reuchlinianus (= Cod.
Reuch.): .13
34. ... ]Cf. targumim to Deuteronomy 7:6 and 14:2: /
... , and the Hebrew benediction for reading
the Torah , which would have been recited
several times in the synagogue, only a short while before the recitation of this poem. Cf. MS T-S H 15.27, below,
. Also, cf. Cod. Reuch. poem no. 8:
.
4. ]The toponymic would have been expected, rather
than the gentilic form, especially in conjunction with the verb .
Contrast MS T-S H 15.27, . The gentilic in the present
MS reflects the concept of ( Deut 4:34). It may
also be under the influence of the preceding phrase .
46. ... = ]Onqelos Deuteronomy 1:11. This verse is also included
in MV, par. 167.
13
Further references to parallel poetic compositions in MV are to the edition of
Hurwitz, mentioned above in n. 10.
172
chapter thirteen
7. ]This introductory poem was intended for the first day of
Passover, for which the haftarah is from the Book of Joshua. Folio
1 of the present manuscript contains Onqelos to Exodus 12:2131,
which is part of the Torah reading for that day. Moreover, in MV,
the targum of the haftarah for the first day of Passover, beginning
with the words , follows immediately after the various
introductory poems (par. 180). In Cod. Reuch. poem no. 6, Joshua
is singled out as first of the prophets:
. However, most of the
introductory poems do not refer to any specific prophet, but rely
upon the reader to insert the appropriate name, e.g.,
; or: ' . This indicates that the various introductory poems were intended not only
for the first day of the Passover festival, but for other occasions as
well.
8. ] Probably a reference to the legend cited above that
Jonathan was the foremost disciple of Hillel the Elder (see note 4,
above). Compare the superlative descriptions in other poems, such
as and
, (MV, par. 168), and or ( Cod.
Reuch. poems nos. 2 and 4). In some of the poems, this also serves
as a background against which the reader himself is modestly contrasted: or
and the most self-effacing description
(quoting in part Daniel 2:30)
( Cod. Reuch. poems
nos. 2, 4, and 3, resp.).
89. ... ]Cf. beginning of footnote 1, above.
911. ... ]Cf. footnote 4, above.
10. ... ]This is Onqelos to Deuteronomy 4:17, with minor
adaptation. The form , rather than , is the dominant variant among the manuscriptal sources of Onqelos.
12. ]][The verb is applied to targumic activity in Rabbinic
literature, cf. b. Megillah 3a, where Nehemiah 8:8 is interpreted as
follows: .
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
173
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
.15
.16
Translation
C.U.L T-S H 15.27
Permission for the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel
1. With permission of the King of Kings and the Master of Judges, by
Whose word
2. earth and heaven were created. He chose the three righteous
patriarchs
3. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, father of the Tribes; and chose
4. their children after them from among the nations. He brought them
forth from Egypt
5. with signs and wonders; and drowned Pharaoh and his army in the
seas.
6. And Israel saw, and offered praises. He brought us near Mount Sinai
and made us hear
7. the ten sayings. He gave us the instructions, commandments and
laws
8. through Moses father of all prophets; may His great name be blessed
forever
9. and forever after. Wisdom and might are His; He
10. alters the seasons and times. With permission of our master and
teacher,
11. prince of princes, and with permission of our m[aster] and t[eacher]
Samuel, head of the scholars,
12. and with permission of this holy congregation, may the Almighty
grant them [to witness] the [re]building of Ariel [i.e., the Holy
Temple], the arrival of the Redeemer,
13. and the ingathering of the dispersions of Judah and Israel. With
permission, I will begin to translate the divine
14. Torah, and I will conclude with the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel
15. [
] the time [
]
16. [
]
Explanatory Notes
1.
] Pairs of superlinear strokes are used to indicate rhymed
phrases (-ayya) throughout the poem.
174
chapter thirteen
23. ] Cf. the beginning of MS T-S AS 71.64, for the motif
of chosenness.
4. ]Accusative and dative attached suffixes, characteristic of the
dialect of Onqelos and Jonathan to the Prophets, are employed here
and elsewhere in this poem: and ( line 6). Also,
note the use of the verb ( line 6).
7. ] Hebrew in Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy
4:13; 10:4. In all of these verses the phrase is translated by Onqelos
as / /. Only in the Palestinian targumim do we find
the expression . Also, in Deuteronomy 4:10,
is translated in Onqelos , as opposed
to in Neofiti. The phrase
in the present poem seems to be a hybrid of Onqelos and
Palestinian targum dialects.
89. ... ]This clause is included under the influence of Daniel
2:20, and leads directly into the following two phrases. However, its
wording has been altered to conform almost verbatim with the similar and more popularly known version in the Qadish prayer. The
referent is the subject of the preceding verbs, namely God.
910. .. = ]Daniel 2:2021.
1011. ... ]The person described has not been identified.
The juxtaposition of the title with the personal name
R. Shmuel calls to mind R. Shmuel Hanagid of Granada (9931055
C.E.). But there is no supportive evidence for this identification,
nor am I aware of any parallel for the superlative title prince of
princes.
12. ]The remainder of the composition is in Hebrew.
1314. ... ]This rshut would seem to have been recited
before the targum to the Torah reading, , but served
to obtain permission also for the targum of the haftarah,
.
/ /
14
The present transcriptions are based upon the facsimile edition published by
A. Sperber, Codex Reuchlinianus no. 3 of the Badische Landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe
(Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1956), pp. 76970. There are a number of variants in Bachers transcription. Whereas de Lagardes readings are extremely accurate,
Bachers edition is replete with printers errors, or unintentional corrections of the
texts.
175
CR 1
/
/ .... /
/ /
/ '
/ .
CR 2
/ /
/ .... / /
/ /
' .
CR 4
/ /
/ .... / /
/ /
/ ... . / /
/ / /
/ ' .
CR 5
/ /
/ .... / /
/ /
/ /
/ .../ / /
/ ' / .
CR 6
'
'
MV 167
. .
:
. . .
: :
MV 168
... : :
: :
chapter thirteen
. :
. :
. :
.
: . :
. :
. :
. :
: : ][
. :
. : .
:.
MV 173
.... . . . .
::
MV 174
. .... . . .
: ][ . ::
MV 175
.... . .
. .
MV 176
... . . .
.
MV 177
. ....
.... .
. .
.
MV 179
.... . . ][ .
176
SECTION III
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
180
chapter fourteen
preparing the edition of the targumic texts, that the verso of the MS
was recently discovered to contain fragments of an early lectionary of
the Torah and haftarot.
The scientific study of the Triennial Lectionary Cycle goes back to
the end of the 19th century.4 The sources are many and diverse: early
Bibles with Massorah, Genizah lists, midrashim and piyyutim (esp.
Yannai) that are structured after the lectionary, and Romanian and
Karaite traditions. All of these sources point to the fact that there was
no single universally accepted system, but rather a number of distinct
traditions, varying from 141 to 167 weekly sidrot. The cycle was apparently completed over a non-uniform period of 3 to 3 1/2 years. There
are also strong indications that the readings were not bound to the seasons of nature, nor to the calendar of festivals (as had once been posited), and that different communities may have read different portions
on any particular Sabbath.5 This being the case, every newly discovered
fragment of lectionary must be studied carefully for possible variants
in custom, and in order to build up a corpus of source material, upon
which a history of the lectionaries might eventually be built.
I. An Early Witness to the Triennial Lectionary
of 141 Sidrot
In his article A Bible Manuscript Written in 1260,6 I. Joel discusses
the two systems of triennial sidrot contained in that MS. He mentions
the previously known division of 167 sidrot, which is also contained
in MS Leningrad B19A, and in various later Yemenite MSS. Joel then
obviously did not identify the text on the verso, and his brief nondescript notice did
not attract any subsequent attention.
4
The two major early works are: A. Bchler, The Reading of the Law and Prophets
in a Triennial Cycle, JQR Old Series 5 (1893), 42068; 6 (1894), 173; and J. Mann,
The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, Vol. I. (Cincinnati, 1940; reprint
New York: Ktav, 1971); Vol II with I. Sonne (Cincinnati; Hebrew Union College,
1966). More recent works will be cited in the notes below.
5
J. Heinemann, The Triennial Lectionary Cycle, JJS 19 (1968), 4148; and
idem., The Triennial Cycle and the Calendar, Tarbiz 33 (1964), 36268 (Hebrew).
There are also two Talmudic statements (y. Shabbat 16, 15c and Soferim 16:10) that
might imply the existence of a 175 division. See E. Fleischer, The Pizmonim of the
Anonymus (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974), p. 38,
n. 119 (Hebrew).
6
Kiryath Sepher 38 (1962), 12232 (Hebrew). The shelf mark of this Bible codex is
MS 4790, at the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem.
181
examines the division of 154, which is known from the 2nd Biblia
Rabbinica of Yaakov ben Hayyim (Venice, 152425) and from several
1314th cent. MSS. A similar system appears in the list at the end of
the MS Bible 1260. Finally, he focuses on the unique division of 141
sidrot, found in the body of the MS Bible 1260, and which is otherwise
unattested. Joel provides a convenient chart at the end of his article.7
As is widely known, a number of Genizah MSS of Palestinian
Targum contain notation of triennial sidrot, and even occasional notation of triennial haftarot.8 Furthermore, it has long been observed that
targumic expansions in the Palestinian Targums often occur at the
beginning of triennial sidrot, reflecting the synagogal-liturgical nature
of these targumim.
As already noted by P. Kahle,9 MS T-S 20.155r contains the number
ciphers and , denoting sidrot numbers 15 and 16 of the triennial
cycle. The first is in column 1, line 5, before Exod 21:1, ;
and the second, in column 4, line 21, before Exod 22:24, .
Now, both of these serve as opening verses to sidrot in all three systems of division. However, in the 167 division of MS Leningrad BI9A,
they constitute numbers 17 and 18 for the Book of Exodus; while in
the list at the end of MS Bible 1260, which represents the 154 division,
they are numbers 16 and 17. Only in the body of MS Bible 1260, the
hitherto sole witness of the 141 division, do they appear as numbers
15 and 16. If MS T-S 20.155 is dated to the 8th century, as originally
estimated by Kahle, or even if it is to be more conservatively dated to
the 9th or 10th century,10 we now have a very early testimony for the
least known division of the Triennial Lectionary Cycle.
7
Ibid., pp. 12627 and 13032 (chart). In addition, E. Fleischer (Pizmonim of the
Anonymus, pp. 3340) has demonstrated the early existence of a 155 division that
differs substantially from the known system of 154.
8
E.g., Leningrad, Saltykov-Schedrin, MS Antonin Ebr. III B 120, folio 1v, line 9
(Gen 30:22); MS Antonin Ebr. III B 542, folio 2r, col. 1, line 25 (Gen 35:9). In this
second instance the number cipher 31 is provided, corresponding to the 154 division
of the Biblia Rabbinica. Likewise, the opening words of the haftarah, beginning with
Isa 43:1, are provided here. A third example is Cambridge University Library MS
T-S B 8.12, col. 3, line 3 (Exod 6:2). We might also note that Oxford Bodleian MS
Heb. e43, folio 58v (Kahles MS F) line 6 (Lev 23:9) contains the sidra mark. This
corresponds to sidra no. 20 only according to MS Leningrad B19A or the 167 division.
It is not a new sidra according to the other two triennial divisions (154 and 141).
9
Masoreten des Westens II, p. 1.
10
Ibid., pp. 2*3* late 7th or early 8th Century. This early dating is confirmed by
S. A. Birnbaum, The Hebrew Scripts, (Leiden; Brill, 1971), Vol. I, columns 16467,
where he arrives at a date of 660 CE; and idem, Alphabet, Hebrew: Square Script,
182
chapter fourteen
II. An Unattested Lectionary Division
Encyclopedia Judaica, (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972), Vol. 2, col. 706 and 71314, fig. 8. But,
see J. L. Teicher, A Sixth Century Fragment of the Palestinian Targum? VT 1 (1951)
12529, who, for reasons mainly non-paleographical, would like to date the MS to the
11th to 12th century.
11
This text will be presented by Dr. Shirley Lund, in a paper prepared for the
Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, October 1979, entitled Kahles MS D:
More or Less.
12
B. Z. Wacholder, A List of Triennial Sedarim and Haftarot, in J. Manns The
Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, Vol. I (reprint New York; Ktav,
1971) pp. LILXVII.
183
: ][ ] .2
[
?
( 29:31)
[: ] [ ][ ] .3
:( ] [ ] 28:10)
.4
[
?
( ] 30:22) : ] [ ][.5
[
[
///////////////////////////
: ] .6
Four of the six verses are readily identified as triennial sidrot. These
are Gen 27:28; 28:10; 29:31; and 30:22 which correspond to sidrot
numbers 2528 of the lists in MS Leningrad B19A and of the Bible
codex of 1260. They also correspond to four consecutive sidrot, numbers 2225, in the body of the Codex 1260. The word before
184
chapter fourteen
185
noteworthy feature in this list is that most of the haftarot are represented by several medial verses in addition to the usual opening and
closing verses. The following is the text, together with a schematic outline and analysis:13
Cambridge University Library MS T-S 20.155 + T-S AS 63.24, 51, 96,
117, 129, 153v.
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
???
] .17[ ' ][ ] [:
??
.20 ]'[
????
.21
.22
.23
.24
.25
][ ] [ [2 Kgs 4:8 : ] [
] [
][ 2 Kgs 4:8 : ]
[
] [Gen 23:1 : ][
1 Kgs 1:1 ][ ] [ ] [:
13
We have based our comparison upon the comprehensive List of Haftarot for
;the Annual Sabbaths, by N. Fried, in the Talmudic Encyclopedia (ed. S. J. Zevin
Jerusalem, 1961), Vol. 10, Appendix, Cols. 70128.
186
chapter fourteen
Parashah
[Bereshit, Gen 1:1]
Isa
The names of the parashot Bereshit and Noah are not preserved, but
the opening verses of the Haftarot match those of both the Sephardic
and Ashkenazic traditions for those parashot.
Isa 42:5 is the common Sephardic and Ashkenazic opening verse for
the haftarah of Bereshit. According to Maimonides, and the Yemenite
and Italian traditions, the haftarah begins with Isa 42:1. Since the MS
is torn at its top, one cannot be certain that the text contradicts these
latter traditions. However, this is likely, as in the case of the haftarah
of Lekh Lekha (see below).
Isa 42:14 is a medial and non-thematic verse (i.e. not thematically
related to the Torah reading of the parashah).
[Isa 42:21] is only a possible reconstruction for line 4. It is the final
verse of this haftarah according to the Sephardic, Italian and some
Ashkenazic traditions. The more common Ashkenazic ending, Isa
43:10, could not possibly have fit into the space provided. One must,
14
The following sigla are used: S = SephardicA = AshkenazicM = Maimonides
(Mishneh Torah)Y = YemeniteI = Italian.
187
however, take into account the more likely alternative that the name
of the next parashah occupied the space, and that no
closing verse was provided. The traces of writing are not legible.
Isa 54:1 is the universal opening verse for this haftarah, with the
exception of the Roumanian tradition.
Isa 54:9 is medial and thematic, referring to the flood waters of
Noah.
Isa 54:11 is medial and non-thematic. It is, however, a popularlyknown verse, inasmuch as it opens the haftarah to parashat Reeh, the
third of the seven haftarot of consolation.
Isa 54:15 is medial and non-thematic. No closing verse is provided
for Noah.
Isa 40:27 is the common opening verse in both the Sephardic and
Ashkenazic traditions.
Isa 41:1, 8, 14 are medial in all traditions; and only v. 8, which speaks
of the seed of Abraham, is thematic.
Isa 41:17 is the closing verse according to the Yemenite and Italian
traditions, as well as Maimonides list. It lies one verse beyond the
closing of the common Ashkenazic and Sephardic traditions.
We note, however, that our list cannot represent the YemeniteItalian-Maimonidean tradition, since these all begin with Isa 40:25,
and not 40:27 as in our text. Our text is unique, and does not conform
with any single attested tradition.
2 Kgs 4:1, 37 are the opening and closing verses of the haftarah of
Wa-Yera according to all traditionsexcept the Roumanian.
2 Kgs 4:8 is medial and non-thematic.
1 Kgs 1:1 is the opening verse of Hayyei Sarah according to all traditions, except the Roumanian.
1 Kgs 1:31 conforms with the closing verse according to the
Sephardic, Ashkenazic, Yemenite and Maimonidean traditions. It differs from the Italian and Roumanian customs.
Mal 1:1 is the opening verse for the haftarah of Toledot according
to all traditions, save the Roumanian.
In summation, then:
(1) All preserved opening verses conform with the common Ashkenazic
and Sephardic traditions. The opening verses do not agree with
Maimonides-Yemenite-Italian custom wherever these differ with
Sephardic-Ashkenazic custom (Bereshit, Lekh Lekha).
188
chapter fourteen
(2) The lengths of the haftarot do not always conform with the
Sephardic-Ashkenazic custom (Lekh Lekha).
(3) The list is irregular, providing up to three medial verses, with no
more than one thematically related to the Torah reading.
(4) Closing verses for haftarot are not always provided.
(5) The purpose of such an apparently haphazard and irregular list is
not at all clear at this point.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
1
E.g., A. Geiger, Urschrift und bersetzungen der Bibel (Breslau, 1857), pp. 36770
(= Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1949, 1972, pp. 23738); A. Berliner,
Targum Onkelos, Zweiter Theil (Berlin, 1884), pp. 21718; M. Ginsburger, Verbotene
Thargumim, Monatschrift fr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 44 (1900),
17; M. McNamara, Some Early Rabbinic Citations and the Palestinian Targum to the
Pentateuch, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 41 (1966), 115; and The New Testament and
the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch [Analecta Biblica 27, 27a], Rome: Biblical
Institute Press, 1966, 1978, pp. 4649, 292; J. Heinemann, The Priestly Blessing . . . is
Not Read, Bar-Ilan 6 (1968), 3341 (in Hebrew; English synopsis on p. xiii); P. S.
Alexander, The Rabbinic Lists of Forbidden Targumim, JJS 27 (1976), 17791.
2
b. Megillah 25b; y. Megillah 75c; and m. Soferim 9:9, 10.
190
chapter fifteen
into an Aramaic Targum. Rather, its context was the priestly raising of the hands to bless the people in the synagogue, during which
the priests were to recite the blessing by heart, and not read it from
a written text, .3 It was only due to the formulary similarity with rulings related to the public reading of the Torah,
, , , that the law regarding
the priestly blessing was at a very early period compiled in the same
Mishnah, and received the added phrase . The logic seems
to have been that if it may not be read in the original Hebrew, then
surely it is not to be translated into Aramaic. The later Amoraic statements are, then, an attempt at correction: it was unreasonable for an
innocuous, or even benedictory passage to be omitted from the public
reading. The statement was therefore altered to may be read, but not
translated, . Thus evolved the various contradictory
and inexplicable rulings regarding the reading and translating of the
priestly blessing. This being the case, there remain only the two abovementioned Pentateuchal passages, the story of Reuben and the second
account of the golden calf, that according to the Tannaitic sources
were to be read but not translated in the synagogue.
In contrast to the general agreement found among the rabbinic lists,
we are confronted with quite a lot of variance in the extant manuscripts of the targumim of the Pentateuch. As noted by P. S. Alexander
for the Palestinian Targum according to MS Neofiti 1, this goes far
beyond the two or three passages in the rabbinic lists.4 Likewise, as
already pointed out by A. Berliner over a century ago,5 there are
Masoretic notes to Onqelos which indicate that certain verses of targum are not to be recited in the public synagogal services. These, too,
are not limited to the passages indicated in the rabbinic lists. In fact,
the avoidance of written translation in targumic manuscripts and the
instructional notes against reciting certain passages in public worship
are much more widespread than has been previously recorded. It is
these two phenomena that I should like to describe and explain in the
remainder of the present article.
See. n. 1, Heinemann.
See n. 1, Alexander.
5
A. Berliner, Die Massorah zum Onkelos (Berlin, 1875), p. 20 (= Leipzig, 1877, pp.
59, 84). See also S. Landauer, Die Masorah zum Onkelos (Amsterdam, 1896; reprinted
Jerusalem, Makor, 1971), individual notes on pp. 25, 156. [See, now, M. L. Klein, MTO
(Binghamton: Global-SUNY, 2000), pp. 45 and passim.]
4
191
][
:( )
* Abbreviations:
CG: Cairo Geniza, according to M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian
Targum to the Pentateuch (Cincinnati: HUC Press, 1986) (manuscripts noted by Sigla).
FT P/V/L: Fragment-Targum (MSS Paris/Vatican/Leipzig), according to M. L.
Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch [Analecta Biblica 76] (Rome: Biblical
Institute Press, 1980).
MT: Masoretic Text, Hebrew Bible.
Neof: MS Vatican Neofiti 1, according to A. Dez Macho, Neophyti I (Madrid and
Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 196878).
Neof gl I/ M: Interlinear and marginal glosses in MS Vatican Neofiti I.
O ed: Onqelos according to A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic I (Leiden: Brill, 1959).
O B-K/BM/Vat: Onqelos, according to MSS Budapest-Kaufmann Collection / British
Museum / Vatican Library.
PsJ: Pseudo-Jonathan according to E. G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the
Pentateuch (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1984); and D. Rieder, Pseudo-Jonathan: Targum
Jonathan ben Uziel on the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Salamons, 1974).
192
chapter fifteen
And Reuben went and confounded the bed of Bilhah, his fathers concubine, which was opposite the bed of Leah, his mother; and that was
considered as though he had lain with her.
All the Onqelos texts contain a literal translation of the entire verse.
This is characteristic of Onqelos, as we shall see in the following
examples. In MS Budapest-Kaufmann A3,6 we find a Masoretic footnote, in Hebrew, indicating that the first half of the verse is not to be
translated in public, even though it appears in the written text. This
corresponds to Masoretic notes to Onqelos cited by Berliner as
.
We will return to explain this phenomenon in the course of surveying additional examples in this and other manuscripts.
2. Gen 49:4Reference to the Story of Reuben
For you mounted your fathers bed; you brought disgracemy couch
he mounted!
MT
O
O Vat 448 mg
O B-K A3 mg
PsJ
Neof, FT (V)
CG Z
[ ' ][ ]
] [
Here, as in Gen 35:22, all the Palestinian targumim present the Hebrew
text without any translation, while PsJ resorts to the euphemistic paraphrases as though and confounding the bed. Again, whereas the
body of Onqelos remains literal, we find marginal notes in two manuscripts indicating that the written targum is not to be recited in public.
In MS Vatican Ebr. 448, which is recognized as the best representative
of the Babylonian tradition of Onqelos, the note is in the black ink of
the original hand.7
6
This is a mid-nineteenth-century Yemenite trilingual text, with the standard
Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic versions, verse by verse. It contains only occasional
marginal notes. (Film no. 2812, at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts,
of the Jewish National and University Library.)
7
This manuscript was published in facsimile by A. Dez Macho (Jerusalem: Makor,
1977), and is described in the Introduction (in Hebrew; summarized in English). It dates
193
Whereas the Mishnah does not identify the Story of Reuben, the
Tosefta and the Babylonian Talmud clearly do:
' .
'
.
The Story of Reuben is to be read but not translated. It once happened
that R. Hanania b. Gamliel stood up and read in Kabul, And Reuben
went and lay with Bilhah . . . and the sons of Jacob were twelve in number; and he said to the meturgeman, Translate only the latter part.
[t. Megillah 4:35]
and
.)(
The Story of Reuben is to be read but not translated. It once happened that R. Hanania b. Gamliel went to Kabul and the hazzan of the
Synagogue was reading, And when Israel dwelt. . ., and he said to the
meturgeman, Translate only the latter part; and the rabbis praised him
for it. (b. Megillah 25b)
... ...
... ...
194
chapter fifteen
3. Exod 12:33The Death of the Egyptian First-Born
. . . for they said, We shall all be dead.
MT
O
O Vat 448 mg
PsJ
Neof, FT (PV)
CG AA
][
...
...
[ ][ ]
195
[ ][ ]
/
][
...
'
[ ]
196
chapter fifteen
notes to Onqelos indicating that the offensive phrase is not to be translated in public. Yet two written sources of the Palestinian Targum felt
it unseemly to suggest, in the vernacular, the possibility of the priests
nakedness being exposed upon the altar. This might reflect a hypersensitivity to the phrase ) =( , which in most other
contexts denotes adulterous and incestuous relations.
Probably the most important implication of the present example is
that the principle, not to be translated in public, having been established, its application by pious meturgemanim or copyists could be
extended far beyond the few verses cited in the rabbinic lists.
6. Exod 32The Accounts of the Golden Calf
The Mishnah (m. Megillah 4:10) states:
the first account of the calf may be read and translated; the second may
be read but not translated.
The Tosefta and both Talmuds try to define the first and second
accounts as follows:
t. Megillah 4:36
:
.
. ,][ ][ ][ '
. . . and this is the second story of the calf: And Moses said to Aaron,
What did this people do to you that you have brought such great sin
upon them? (v. 21); Moses saw that the people were out of control
since Aaron had let them out of controlso that they were derision to
any who might oppose them (v. 25). And another verse, . . . the calf that
Aaron made (v. 35).
While it is possible that according to the Tosefta only three verses (21,
25, 35) from the second account are not to be translated, it may also be
that verses 2125 are intended, plus the additional verse 35.
y. Megillah 75c
'
.
' ' ' .
.
197
What constitutes the second account of the calf? R. Simon says in the
name of R. Joshua b. Levi, from the response of Moses to Aaron (v. 21)
to . . . since Aaron had let them out of control . . . (v. 25). Hananiah
b. Shalmeh says in the name of Rav, from Aarons response to Moses
(v. 22) to since Aaron had let them out of control . . . (v. 25). R. Aha
says in the name of R. Ba, And the Lord smote the people [in Aramaic]
for making [prh. worshipping] the calf that Aaron made [in Hebrew]
(v. 35).
It may be that R. Aha merely adds to Hananiah, in which case the two
views of the Palestinian Talmud are verses 2125, 35 or 2225, 35.
B Megillah 25b
' .
.
What is the second account of the calf? From And Moses said (v. 21)
to And Moses saw (v. 25). R. Shimon b. Elazar says, A person should
always be careful with his answers, for from the answer of Aaron to
Moses the skeptics / heretics broke away, as it says, I cast it into the fire
and out came this calf (v. 24).
In the view of the Babylonian Talmud only verses 2125 are not to be
translatedwith perhaps special emphasis on verse 24, which might
be misconstrued as attributing self-generating powers to the calf. The
printed editions of Onqelos give no indication of targumic limitations,
and produce the Aramaic texts in full. In contrast, the manuscripts
of Onqelos, the Masorah to Onqelos, and the Palestinian targumim
reflect the rabbinic rulings in varying degrees, though differing from
one another no less than they differ from the rabbinic lists.
O Vat 448, vv. 2225, 3035. In all these ten verses we find supralinear abbreviated notes in a tiny script above the first words that are
not to be translated in public. The notes read , and
) =( . The selection of verses 2225 is in agreement with Hananiah b. Shalmeh of the Palestinian Talmud, and verse
35 corresponds with views in the Tosefta and the Palestinian Talmud.
However, as we have seen, in none of the lists are verses 3034 included
in the prohibition.
O B-K A3, vv. 2125, 35. A marginal note at verse 21 (fol. 462 = )
reads: ' , these five verses
are read, but not translated in public; a note at verse 26 reads:
, from here on may be translated in public; and a further note at verse 35 reads: ' , this
198
chapter fifteen
10
See n. 5, above.
See n. 9, above; and particularly p. 45 in Weils article.
12
Cf. R. Le Daut, Introduction la littrature targumique (Rome, Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1966), p. 39, n. 3; and P. S. Alexander (n. 1, above), p. 187.
11
199
(1)
(4)
(8)
(20)
(23)
(31)
(35)
200
chapter fifteen
the rabbinic lists might explain why it is only in this instance that the
gloss provides an Aramaic rendition.
The Fragment-Targums. Verse 25 is the only verse contained in
the rabbinic lists that is preserved in any of the Fragment-Targums.
However, both recensional families of the Fragment-Targums share
in a common midrashic expansion with Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti,
which tones down the offensive words. This is similar to the other
expansions in Pseudo-Jonathan cited above:
MT
Moses saw that the people were out of controlsince Aaron had let
them out of controlso that they were derision to any who might
oppose them.
FT (P)
][
And Moses saw that the people were disheveled, for they had removed
the golden crowns that were on their heads, upon which the explicit
name [of God] was incised. And because they did not heed the words of
Moses, they acquired a bad reputation for generations.
Exodus 32, with the accounts of the golden calf, is the pentateuchal passage most extensively discussed in rabbinic literature in the context of
forbidden targumim. In spite of the variance of opinion in the identification of the particular forbidden verses, the general pattern observed
in the extant targumic sources is not significantly different from that in
the other passages that we have surveyed. Onqelos is literal in its basic
text, but has restrictive notes in its margins. Pseudo-Jonathan circumvents the problem by midrashic expansion of the verses in question.
And the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti and its glosses) applies the rule,
not to be translated, to the body of its written text.
7. Num 6:2426The Priestly Blessings
As already indicated at the outset, this third and last passage of the
rabbinic lists is probably the result of a very early recensional error.
Nevertheless, having entered the Mishnah dealing with forbidden targumim, its prohibition became authoritative. And although the ruling
201
202
chapter fifteen
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
1
A. Dez Macho, The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum: Its Antiquity and
Relationship with the Other Targums, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 7 (1960),
pp. 22245.
2
P. Wernberg-Mller, An Inquiry into the Validity of the Text-Critical Argument
for an Early Dating of the Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum, VT 12 (1962),
pp. 31230.
3
Dez Macho, p. 234.
4
Wernberg-Mller, p. 318.
5
Of the seven pentateuchal occurrences of the verb , in four instances Neof reuses the same root (Num 6:2, 5, 6, 12), and in three cases, Neof paraphrases the verb
(Lev 15:31; 22:2; Num 6:3). In Num 6:3, Neof reads for of MT. While the
standard translational equivalent in the other targumim is , Neof never translates
it in this manner.
204
chapter sixteen
205
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
DEUT 31:7, OR ?
In a recent note in these pages, Bernard Grossfeld adduced new evidence, seemingly in favor of a reading in Deut 31:7.1 His argument is basically as follows:
1. By rendering the phrase , Neofiti 1 presupposes a
Hebrew text that reads , a hiphil plus accusative particle.
2. From an internal statistical point of view, a reading in the
MT is quite unlikely, since none of the seven occurrences of the
sequence plus preposition exists in the Pentateuch. In fact,
the only time this verb occurs in the Pentateuch followed by the
preposition with the Hebrew reads and not .
3. While the LXX and the targums are in agreement with the MT, other
versions such as the Peshitta, the Vulgate, the Samaritan and one
manuscript of Onqelos reflect a reading of in the Hebrew.
Grossfeld, therefore, concludes that the reading in the MT is
the result of a scribal error that substituted a waw for a yod.
Further study of the evidence, however, does not support this conclusion. First, the constuction in the sense of come with
occurs at least two additional times in the Pentateuch, viz., Exod 1:1,
, came with Jacob; and Deut
19:5, , goes with his neighbor. In fact, these
two instances plus the verse in question, Deut 31:7,
, you shall go with this people, outnumber the pentateuchal
occurrences of .2
Second, is not the usual haphel form in Neofiti 1. In the similar verse of Deut 31:23, , as well as in Gen
208
chapter seventeen
3
The same form of the haphel occurs in the 1st sg. masc. ( Deut 31:20), as
opposed to for the peal (Gen 29:21).
4
This is not to claim for Neofiti 1 orthographic uniformity either with this word
or with others. See my note Text and Vorlage in Neofiti 1, (Vetus Testamentum 22
(1972), p. 491 [ch. 16 in the present volume]) for examples of the contrary. I merely
indicate that dubious grammatical forms such as cannot legitimately be adduced
as evidence of variant Vorlagen.
5
Other possible examples are Gen 14:9 (contrast v. 2) and Deut 21:14b. In both of
these cases, the preceding verses contain the inflected , clearly indicating the prepositional nature of the following . It is, nevertheless, possible that Neofiti 1 does
not view these two verses as linked to the verbs of the preceding verses. Still another
example is Gen 6:13, , I will destroy them with the earth
(MT); ' , I will destroy them and the earth (Neof); in
contrast with Onqelos and TJ1, )( . In this case, however,
Neof has added a waw to , creating a compound accusative.
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
210
chapter eighteen
See n. 5, above.
Op. cit., 23, n. 125.
11
Folio 137a (Exod 13:16/17), beginning of ;fol. 147b (Exod 17/18), ;fol.
154a (Exod 21/22), ;fol. 364b (Deut 3:23/24), .
12
Fol. 185b (Exod 34/35), ;fol. 252b (Lev 26:2/3), ;fol. 316a (Num
22:1/2), ;fol. 326a (Num. 25:9/10), . This notation differs from the usual
notation of Neofiti 1. In the latter there is always overlap of the writing
on the two lines, and the total blank space is less than the equivalent of a full line.
13
Fol. 11b (Gen 6:8/9), end of ;fol. 20a (Gen 11/12), ;fol. 214a (Lev
8/9); fol. 229b (Lev 15/16), ;fol. 235a (Lev 18/19), ; fol. 239b (Lev
20/21), . We might note that in the case of fol. 235a, the blank space, in which
the scribe later inserted the end-of-paraah note, is of the type that is divided into
two lines.
14
Cp. Martin, op. cit., 23, who identifies the hand of these notes with that of the
text in which they are found.
10
211
into which the end-of-paraah notes were never inserted. This also
accounts for the missing majusculae at the beginning of the Book
of Exodus (see below).
Significantly enough, there are two examples of such blank lines
which correspond to sedarim in the triennial cycle. These may prove
to be useful in tracing the early Palestinian origins of our targum.15
b. Majuscule letters are sometimes employed in the Hebrew headings at the beginning of paraot. Sometimes, they do not affect the
line beneath them;16 other times, there is a blank space in the next
line, just below the majusculae.17 The latter type is also employed to
mark the beginning of the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy.18
The beginning of Exodus was intended to be indicated in the same
manner, but the scribe apparently forgot to later insert the majusculae in the large blank square left for the word . In addition, Exodus is separated from the end of Genesis by a whole blank
line.
c. The last type of paraah indicator is an uneven vertical line that
appears only once in the entire MS.19
Conclusion: The overall picture is quite different from that imparted
by the recent edition of Neofiti 1. In all, 28 of the 54 weekly paraot
are indicated in various different ways by the scribes of our MS. In
addition, two sedarim, exclusive to the triennial cycle, are noted. The
explicit end of-paraah notes, most of which are erroneous, were
added only after the text proper was written. Likewise, the majusculae, which mark the beginning of books, were added later into blank
squares, left for that purpose during the writing of the text.
15
Fol. 311a (Num 20:13/14), ; and fol. 367a (Deut 4:24/25), .
This second example is somewhat dubious, since it is attested to be a triennial seder
in only one source, cp. B. Z. Wacholder, A List of Triennial Sedarim and Haftarot,
in J. Mann, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue 2 ed. (New York
1971) lilxvii.
16
Fol. 429b (Deut 19:9), ;fol. 433b (Deut 31:1), ;fol. 436b (Deut 32:1),
;fol. 442a (Deut 33:1), . The two examples of the word )(in
majusculae, fol. 260b (Num 1:44) and fol. 428b (Deut 28:69), do not correspond with
paraot in the annual cycle nor with sedarim in the triennial cycle, and are thus far
unexplained.
17
Fol. 283a (Num 8:1), ;fol. 301b (Num 16:1), ;fol. 347a (Num 33:1),
;fol. 399b (Deut 16:18), .
18
Fol. 258a, fol. 356a.
19
Fol. 41a (in front of Gen 23:1), .
CHAPTER NINETEEN
1
For details of the editiones principes see M. McNamara, Targumic studies,
C.B.Q. XXVIII (1966), p. 4.
2
A. Berliner, Targum Onkelos (Berlin, 1884; reprinted without Berliners introduction, Jerusalem, 1969).
3
M. Ginsburger, Das Fragmententhargum (Berlin, 1899; reprinted Jerusalem,
1969).
4
Ms Hebr. 440 of the Vatican Library; Solg. MS 2. 2 of the Municipal Library of
Nrnberg; and Leipzig University MS B.H. fol. I.
5
Primarily the lexical works, Arukh of Nathan b. Yehiel (eleventhtwelfth century), and Meturgeman of Elias Levita (sixteenth century), but also nine other medieval
Jewish biblical commentaries, liturgical works, etc. Also, the early thirteenth-century
prayer code, Mahzor Vitry, first published by S. Hurwitz (1889), contains fragments
of the Palestinian Targum in the liturgies of the seventh day of Passover and Shavuot
(2nd edn Nrnberg, 1923, pp. 3059, 31944).
214
chapter nineteen
6
M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan (Berlin, 1903; reprint Jerusalem: Makor, no
date given).
7
P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, II (Stuttgart, 1930; reprint Hildesheim, 1967),
pp. 165.
8
Actually, the existence of fragments of some eight verses of a Targum to Leviticus
from Qumran Cave IV was announced about 15 years ago. These fragments, which
are dated to the first century B.C.E., are, however, yet unpublished. Cf. J. T. Milik, Ten
Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (tr. J. Strugnell, London, 1959), p. 31;
and more recently, M. McNamara, Targum and Testament (Shannon, 1972), p. 66.
9
.1934, (1950), 21 " , ," .
10
P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (2nd edn Oxford, 1959), pp. 2058. A number of
additional fragments have since been published: A. Dez-Macho, Sefarad XV (1955),
319; idem, Studi . . . Rinaldi (Genova, 1967), pp. 17589; W. Baars, V.T. XI (1961), pp.
340 ff.; 22328, (1959) 45 , . ; 712 (1962) 11 , .
; and H. P. Ruger, V. T. XIII (1963), pp. 235 ff.
11
A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, I (Leiden, 1959), vvii, xvi f.
12
A. Dez-Macho, A Fundamental Manuscript for an Edition of the Babylonian
Onqelos to Genesis . . ., In Memoriam Paul Kahle (ed. M. Black and G. Fohrer, Berlin,
1968), pp. 64 ff.
215
is now part of the Neofiti Collection at the Vatican Library,13 had gone
unnoticed for decades because it was erroneously marked Onkelos.
Since 1968, Dez-Macho has published three volumes of the text.14 He
is also preparing a columnar edition of all three targumim, with particular focus on the variants of the Palestinian Targum.15
Neofiti I is a complicated MS. The text proper (N), written in large
square Hebrew script, is profusely annotated by ten different scribal
hands.16 These glosses, usually in a minuscule rabbinic script, appear
in the margins (M, or when two notes apply to the same text: M1 and
M2!) as well as between the lines (I = Interlinear). The text seems to
have been carelessly copied by the scribes,17 and it displays a rather
inconsistent orthography.18 The latter is, in part at least, the result of
the text, in Palestinian Aramaic, having been copied by scribes who
were more familiar with the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud and
of Onqelos. In fact our MS was completed in Rome, in 1504.19
Another frequent source of error, among ancient scribes and modern readers alike, is the graphic similarity of many of the handwritten
letters (e.g. beth/kaph, daleth/re, gimel/nun).
Finally, in no less than 30 places, an objectionable word or phrase
has been erased from the MS, presumably by a censor.
All of these difficulties notwithstanding, one can hardly overestimate the value of MS Neofiti I, and the importance of its accurate
publication.
Dez-Macho has arranged the printed edition in the form of text
(Ed) and apparatus (App), the latter containing the marginal (M) and
13
For additional details, see M. Fitzmaurice-Martin, The Palaeographical Character
of Codex Neofiti 1, Textus III (1963), pp. 135.
14
A. Dez-Macho, Neophyti I, Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana i,
ii, iii (Madrid-Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas, 1968, 1970,
1971). For general reviews see J. A. Fitzmyer, C.B.Q. XXXII (1970), pp. 10712; idem,
J.B.L. XCI (1972), pp. 57578; V. Hamp, B.Z. N.F. XV (1971), pp. 14041; M. Delcor, Bib.
Or. XXIX (1972), 226; Y. Komlo, Kiryath Sefer XLVII (1972), pp. 8488 (Hebrew).
15
A. Dez-Macho, ed., Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia, ser. IV, Targum Palaestinense
in Pentateuchum . . . (Matriti). A sample chapter (Deut. i) of this edition appeared in
1965, and was reviewed by W. Baars, V.T. XVII (1967), pp. 127 f.
16
Fitzmaurice-Martin, art. cit. pp. 16 ff.
17
8681 ,( )"," 1 " " .. Also
Dez-Macho, Neophyti I, II, 18*22*.
18
M. Klein, Text and Vorlage in Neofiti I, V.T. XXII (1972), p. 490 f [ch. 16 in
the present volume].
19
E. Levine, A Paleographical Note on the Colophon of MS. Neofiti I, V.T. XXI
(1971), pp. 49497.
216
chapter nineteen
1. Gen 11:3
MT:
N:
Ed:
App:
20
For the sake of clarity, the following list of abbreviations is given, in spite of the
inherent partial repetition.
App: Critical apparatus in A. Diez-Macho, Neophyti I.
Corr: Correction proposed by the writer.
Ed: Text of Neofiti in edition, A. Dez-Macho, Neophyti I.
I: Interlinear glosses in MS Neofiti I (Makor photocopy).
M: Marginal glosses in MS Neofiti I (Makor photocopy).
MdW: P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, II (Hildesheim, 1967).
N: MS Neofiti I, Vatican Library (photocopy Jerusalem: Makor, 1970), main body
of targum.
O: Onqelos, A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, I (Leiden, 1959).
TJ1: Pseudo-Jonathan Targum, consensus of British Museum MS Add. 27031 and
editio princeps, Asher Forins (Venice, 1590).
TJ2: Fragmentary Palestinian Targum. 11O, MS Hebr. 11O, Bibliothque Nationale,
Paris (photo from microfilm), Fragmentary Palestinian Targum.
440: MS Hebr. 440, Vatican Library (photo from microfilm), Fragmentary Palestinian
Targum.
27031: MS Add. 27031, British Museum (photo from microfilm), Pseudo-Jonathan
Targum.
I wish to express thanks to the above-mentioned museums and libraries, as well
as to the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the Jewish National and
University Library, Jerusalem, and to the Library of Hebrew Union CollegeJewish
Institute of Religion, Jerusalem.
217
MT:
N:
Ed:
App:
[ ]
[ ][ ]
][sic leg prob text ;sed cf .2
It is not merely the second in this verse that has influenced N, but
also the similar phrase in Gen 20:13, , for which N
gives . There is an equalizing tendency in N: in
the latter text, ) =( is added; while in our text, is added. There
is, therefore, no need for emendation.23
3. In Gen 15:12, Dez-Macho reconstructs a censored passage on the
Fourth Kingdom as follows: ] ? ?
[ . The construction is impossible. However,
parallel sources offer a correct alternative: ( 110,
440). Compare also Neofiti to Lev 26:37 .
4. Gen 17:14
MT:
N:
Ed:
App:
[
]
] [
] [
There are several difficulties in the editors reconstruction of this censored text. The construct is the only form attested in N
(verses 11, 23, 24, 25, 26, and Lev 12:3), always without the daleth and
the definite article. Dez-Macho has introduced a construction common to Onqelos and TJ1, but foreign to N. As to the conversive waw
of = , we see no reason for its deletion.
21
Cf. H. Bauer and P. Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramaischen (Hildesheim,
1962), p. 168. See also M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli . . . (New
York, 1950), p. 37a, for a number of examples in Rabbinic Aramaic, and see G. Dalman,
Grammatik des jdisch-palstinischen Aramisch (Darmstadt, 1960), pp. 35559, for
in Galilean Aramaic.
22
M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan (Berlin, 1903), p. 18 and n. 8.
23
This, in spite of TJ1 and most MSS of O, which add the relative daleth. In fact, O
in the Biblia Hebraica (Ixar, 1490) also reads , while the first two Bomberg eds. of
Biblica Rabbinica (151517, 15245) both read ( apud Sperber, Bible in Aramaic,
I, 17. See also Fitzmyer, C.B.Q. XXXII (1970), p. 110).
218
chapter nineteen
5. Gen 19:30
MT:
N:
Ed:
App:
( 30)
( 31) .
...
:
:
...
]?[
...
prob leg c TM Ps et O
MT:
N:
Ed:
][
The absence of the definite article in the very same expression occurs
once again in Gen 30:16 ( MT):
( N), where it is neither noted nor emended by the editor. In
both cases, the only significant variant recorded in BH is the Samaritan
Hebrew. Much more important is that the absence of the article has
served as the basis of a number of aggadic midrashim. The Sifre to
Deut 11:15 f. (par. 43) reads: ?
" ," " ... ; and both
Talmuds explain Gen 30:16 in a similar fashion: , '
" ,( b. Niddah 31a); "
:( y. Sotah 3d). These midrashim deduce
Gods intervention from the indefinite , which would, therefore,
have been intentionally preserved in the targum.24
24
MT:
N:
Ed:
219
[ ]
There is, however, nothing wrong with the reading . The word
replaces the pronominal suffix of the original . A similar example is to be found in Gen 32:20 (21), ( MT):
( N), which is left intact by the editor. Other examples are
Gen 38:15, ( MT): ( N); Lev 19:15,
( MT): ( N); and probably Exod
23:3 ( MT):. . .[( ]N).
8. Gen 25:10
MT:
N:
Ed:
Both elements of this scribal error are most common in N: kaph for
beth, and yod for final nun. The similar phrase,
, in Gen 49:30 and 50:13, is translated . . . 25 Strangely
enough, in Gen 31:15, N reads , for which the edition produces ,
without noting the scribal error.
9. Gen 27:14
MT:
N:
Ed:
Corr:
[ ]
[ ]
MT:
N, Ed:
Corr:
25
26
220
chapter nineteen
kaph in our MS. By slavishly following the text as written, the editor
has produced a strange and otherwise unheard-of construction.
11. Gen 37:22
MT:
N, Ed:
Corr:
][
The graphic similarity of the letters in and tet has brought about the
deletion of the latter. The reading is attested to in two fragments from the Cairo Genizah.27 Also, the expression is almost
always translated in N.28 In fact, in the same chapter (v. 27) the
similar phrase is translated .29
12. Gen 37:30
MT:
N:
Ed:
App:
text add vba
(underlining added)
errore repett et delenda.
Corr:
First misreading a kaph as a beth, the editor then overcorrects the text,
and adds an unnecessary explanatory phrase in the translation, el
muchacho no est (en la eljibe), the boy is not (in the pit). Another
example of the addition of place to the indefinite is Exod 2:12,
( MT): ( N).30 A reading
renders the entire dittograph explicable.
13. Gen 38:24
MT:
N, Ed:
Corr:
27
MS E. N. Adler 2775, published by A. Dez-Macho, Sefarad xv (1955), 33; and
MS D published by P. Kahle, MdW, p. 16.
28
E.g., Exod 22:10, 24:11; Deut 25:11.
29
Cf. Deut 17: 7 ( MT): ( N).
30
Cf. MdW MS D, Gen. 37:30, ][ .
221
Firstly, the text very clearly contains a beth and not a kaph. Secondly,
it is highly unlikely that the targum would have Judah refer to his
father by name alone. Thirdly, MSS 110 and 440 as well as the targumic tosefta32 all contain , and TJ1 has the exact expression
. See also Neofiti to Gen 44:18 (fol. 93b, 1. 17 = Makor photocopy
p. 95a) which is spoken by
Judah. Lastly, in MT (Gen 37:32 and 38:25) the word appears
only once.
15. Gen 43:14
MT:
N:
Ed:
App:
' in text: delend c ms D MdW II
What the apparatus fails to note is that 110, 440, and the printed editions of TJ2, all contain the negative . Furthermore, there is
a wealth of midrashic material on Jacobs knowledge that Joseph was
alive.33 This tradition underlies our reading, and that of TJ1 (which
differs in wording only). In fact, MS D of MdW II (p. 19, Gen 43:14) is
itself suspect. The form is unusual; would be expected,
as is indeed found in all the other sources. Kahle even reconstructs
31
A. Epstein, R.E.J. xxx (1895), p. 45, item no. 3, line 2, and Sperber, Bible in
Aramaic, I, p. 355, apparatus n. 2. See also, ibid. III (Leiden, I962), p. 385, for the
same expression in the midrashic expansion to Hos 1:2, ( MT):
( Targum).
32
Cf. Sperber, ibid. I, p. 354; Epstein, art. cit. 46, item 5, line 16, reprinted by
A. Dez-Macho, Sefarad, XVI (1956), p. 323. See also p. 321 (MS T-S B122, lines 16f.)
in the oath taken by Judah .
33
Cf. E. B. Levine, The Aggadah in Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel and Neofiti I to
Genesis: parallel references, in A. Dez-Macho, Neophyti I, II, 570.
222
chapter nineteen
the qal infinitive in the same verse. It may be that the yod and
the maqqef of - were originally a lamed, and that the alef of
belongs to the previous word . It is not surprising that the
same MS D, in Gen 37:33, translates and expands the passage
( MT) as follows:
-
'
34
.
The editor has exercised excessive liberty in removing the word
from the body of N in Gen 43:14.
16. Gen 49:9
MT:
N:
Ed:
Dez-Macho has removed two words from the text, without noting it
in the apparatus. He seems to have taken them to be a scribal error,
corrected by the following ( compare items 259 below). That
at least the word is not a scribal error is evident from 440 and TJ1:
I compare you, Judah, my son,
to a lions whelp, and from the printed editions of TJ2: . . .
. Probably, both words are part of an intended
parallelism.
17. Exod 2:6
MT:
N:
Ed:
Corr:
][
][
Since the attested spelling throughout N35 and throughout all of the
other targumim36 is , it seems only reasonable to correct the
mistaken nun to a kaph and not a beth. This is so even without entering into etymologies.
18. Exod 9:30
34
MT:
N (?), Ed:
Corr:
'
'
Cf. 110, 440 and TJ1 for the same negative interpretation.
For in Gen 30:38, 40; and for in Gen 24:20.
36
2 MdW MS E, 440 (Gen 30:41) (M. Ginsburger, Fragmententhargum (Berlin,
1899), p. 79, had misread the MS), TJ1, Levitas Meturgeman, p. 83b, and the
Arukh (the last source apud Ginsburger, ibid. p. 98).
35
223
N:
Ed:
37
224
20. Exod 29:36
chapter nineteen
MT:
N (?), Ed:
Corr:
...
...
...
MT:
N:
Ed:
][
Notwithstanding the readings in TJ1 and in O, which add the prepositional lamedh,41 it seems wrong to improve upon the text in our MS,
which is in literal agreement with MT.
22. Exod 31:6
MT:
N:
Ed:
Corr:
][
][
Two letters which closely resemble one another, and are often mistakenly interchanged in N, are gimel and nun. What the editor
takes for a re is but a waw with a slightly wider than usual top. The
word meaning tribe is always translated . . . ,42 and
never . . . , when followed by the name of the tribe. What
is missing is the genitival daleth for the word , and this is supplied
by I.
40
The same holds for 27031. Ginsburger (Pseudo-Jonathan) has miscopied the MS
in Exod 29:36 (p. 152) and in Lev 8:15 (p. 184), and his note to Exod 19:29 (p. 152,
n. 2) is based on the Forins edition (Venice, 1590) and not on 27031! On the inaccuracy of Ginsburgers editions see D. Rieder, Leonnu XXXII (1968), pp. 298303
(Hebrew), and M. C. Doubles, V.T. xv (1965), p. 16. Onqelos is also consistent in its
use of /, except for several MSS in Lev 8:15.
41
TJ1: ; O: . Both of these targumim follow a different
translational tradition than ours, as is evident in their addition of the inflected ,
which is missing in N.
42
E.g., Exod 31:2, 35:30, 34; 38:22f.
MT:
N, Ed:
Corr:
225
MT:
N:
Ed:
Corr:
][
The two strokes of the taw have been separated, to form what looks
like a daleth plus nun. The construction is unheard-of in
N. The word , meaning in place of, instead of, is translated in all
thirty occurrences by , , or , and is never followed by
the genitival daleth.46 For the use of in the very same context,
see Neofiti to Exod 21:23ff. and Lev 24:18, 20.
43
Two additional exceptions are the paraphrastic translations in Lev 26:10,
(to clear out the old grain), and in Num 20:16, ( to save). In Lev 26:13,
is half of the frequent targumic hendiadys . It is worth noting that in all
three of these instances M supplies the standard .
44
Cf. M, TJ1, and O to our verse, and N to Gen 44:17 and 46:4, 31.
45
E.g., /( Gen 36:4, not noted in the edition); /( Num 12:16);
/( Num 15:40).
46
The only possible exception in Gen 30:15, which contains a scribal error and a
super-linear correction . Dez-Macho has correctly replaced the daleth
with the yod, to produce ][.
226
chapter nineteen
IV. Corrected Errors
A common practice among the scribes of N is to correct errors, especially misspellings, that were noticed during the writing of the text. In
most cases the scribes left the errors intact, and merely added the correction immediately following. Most of these errors have been excised
from the text by the editor, without any notation at all.47
In the following instances, however, Dez-Macho has failed to recognize the corrected error phenomenon:
25. Gen 34:10
N:
Ed:
N, Ed:
Corr:
This error is due to the influence of the same word in the two
preceding verses, and in the second half of this verse.
27. Lev 13:21
N, Ed:
Corr:
'
'
MT:
N, Ed:
Corr:
N and the other targumim always distinguish between the translations = and = . The combination is selfcontradictory.
29. Lev 11:45
N, Ed:
App:
Corr:
]bis in text
47
E.g., Gen 2:21 N: , Ed: ;12:3 N: , Ed:
(metathesis is corrected in MS by dots above the letters); 18:11 N: , Ed:
;25:20 N: , Ed: ;47:22 N: , Ed: ;Exod 17:7 N:
, Ed: ;19:2 N: , Ed: , and many more. On the propriety of this
editorial method see Fitzmyer, C.B.Q. XXXII (1970), p. 109.
227
The scribe has simply corrected his own misspelling, by repeating the
word with an additional waw; cf. in the same verse.48
V. Conclusions
The difficulties of reading and interpreting MS Neofiti I have been
illustrated by the examples cited. They are merely examples of the
inevitable, and are not meant to detract from the importance of the
current edition. They do, however, serve to remind us of several longrecognized basic principles:
(a) The targumim are part of an extensive midrashic literature, and
must be read in that context (examples 6, 15).
(b) In spite of minor inconsistencies, Neofiti I is a unified composition.
We must not underestimate the authors power of association, nor
his tendency to harmonize and equalize (2, 10, 12, 14, 19).
(c) Although closely related to the midrashim and other targumim,
Neofiti has its own particular method and language. We must,
therefore, first seek answers to internal problems within Neofiti
itself (4, 18).
(d) The scribes, who willingly preserved the text for us, unwillingly
introduced into it many errors. Some they found and corrected;
we need only to understand their notation (5, 12, 2529). Others
defied their authors and remain for us to discover (8, 9, 11, 13, 14,
17, 20, 22, 23, 24).
(e) Most obvious, yet most important, we must not impose our preconceived emendations upon a text that is already correct (1, 2, 6,
7, 15, 16, 21).
48
This is certainly not to claim orthographic uniformity for N (cf. in verse
44, and p. 218 n. 6 above). Nevertheless, the scribes seem occasionally to have made
some efforts in that direction.
Postscript. Two new volumes of targumic editions have appeared since this article
went to press:
1. A. Dez-Macho, Neophyti I . . . (Madrid, 1974), vol. IV (Numbers). See p. 218 n. 2
above.
2. D. Rieder, Pseudo-Jonathan, Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch,
copied from the London MS. (British Museum add. 27031) (Jerusalem, 1974). This
edition will replace the inaccurate editio princeps by M. Ginsburger. See p. 216 n. 6
and pp. 226 f. n. 2, above.
CHAPTER TWENTY
1
For a brief biographical sketch and bibliography see M. Medan, Levita, Elijah,
Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem 1971) XI, cols. 132135.
2
Ibid., cols. 132 f.; and M. Fitzmaurice Martin, The Palaeographical Character of
Codex Neofiti 1, Textus 3 (1963) p. 15.
3
Ibid., p. 32.
4
G. E. Weil, Le Codex Neofiti I propos de larticle de M. Fitzmaurice Martin,
Textus 4 (1964) p. 227.
5
A. Dez-Macho, Neophyti 1, Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana,
Tomo I, Genesis (Madrid-Barcelona 1968) p. 49*.
6
. Levine, A Paleographic Note on the Colophon of MS Neofiti 1, VT 21 (1971)
pp. 494497.
230
chapter twenty
the arrival of Levita in that city. All connection between Levita and the
copying of our MS was thus precluded.
The second question, however, remained unanswered; viz., did
Levita later come into direct contact with MS Neofiti 1? And more
importantly, did he have access to this copy of the Palestinian Targum
when he composed his famous Lexicon Chaldaicum otherwise known
as the Meturgeman? Levita completed the Meturgeman in 1531, in
Venice, three years after his leaving Rome, and he published it at Isny,
in 1541.7 The Meturgeman often gives citations from the Targum
Yerualmi, but nowhere indicates which Jerusalem (i.e., Palestinian)
Targum is intended. It seems logical that having spent a dozen years
in the home of the owner of MS Neofiti 1, Levita would have known
this targumic text, made use of it in the preparation of his lexicon, and
referred to it in that work under the name Targum Yerualmi. In
fact, R. Grio has preliminarily studied 89 examples of such citations
from the Book of Genesis. One of the four hypotheses formed on this
admittedly limited basis is that Levita actually knew MS Neofiti 1.8 On
the other hand, in view of the variants between Levitas citations and
Neofiti 1 that were collected by Grio, Dez-Macho expresses a preference for an alternate hypothesis, namely that Levita knew a text that
was very similar to Neofiti 1, but not Neofiti 1 itself.9
There is, however, explicit evidence in the Meturgeman that Levita
did not have MS Neofiti before him when he composed the lexicon.
Under the entry TP ( )Levita writes:
. . . . .
10
.
. . .your seal and your cord and your staff (Gen 38:18). The Arukh writes
Targum Yerualmi [translates] tpk whwtrk.11 and I sought this [translation] in the Targum Yerualmi, but did not find [it].
7
231
Now the citation of the Arukh from the Targum Yerualmi, which
Levita says he was unable to find in his copies of this targum, happens
to appear twice in Neofiti 1 to Genesis:
Gen 38:18 MT:
MS Neofiti 1:
232
chapter twenty
targum text. On the other hand, even if he had had such access during
this initial period of composition (and there is no definite evidence of
such), it is clear that for the remainder and greater part of the period
(15271531), Levita had no such contact.
In conclusion, not only did Levita not have a hand in the writing of
Codex Neofiti, 1, but he seems to have had little access, or none at all,
to MS Neofiti 1 during the composition of the Meturgeman.
Appendix: Some Citations of Targum Yerualmi in the Meturgeman
Which Do Not Agree with the Palestinian Targum According to
Vatican MS Neofiti 1.13
Meturgeman
p. 20b
()
27a
()
36b
()
51a
()
69a
()
MS Neofiti 1
Gen 50:26
()
Exod 2:10
Exod 24:11
'Gen 30:27 '
()
Gen 44:5
)
(
14
Exod 16:14
()
13
This comparative list is based on the photo-reprint edition of the editio princeps
of the Meturgeman by an anonymous publisher (see n. 4 above), and on the limited
facsimile edition of MS Neofiti 1, The Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Codex
Vatican (Neofiti 1) (Jerusalem 1970). Brackets in the Meturgeman readings contain
the root under which Levita listed the citation; those in the Neofiti readings contain
variants from the marginal glosses of that MS.
14
Here Levita adds . However, MS Neofiti 1 also reads
and Levita does not mention it as an alternate Yerualmi reading, but only as
Onqelos. This is further proof of Levitas ignorance of MS Neofiti 1.
233
(cont.)
Meturgeman
79a
()
MS Neofiti 1
Num 32:3
Gen 19:2
15
16 Gen 15:11
(= 83a
())
97b
()
98b
()
107a
()
119a
()
121a
()
Gen 6:6
Gen 11:2
Gen 10:14
()
Gen 10:13
()
Gen 31:7
( ,)
()
()
(? )
15
Both of these readings are apparently corruptions based upon targumic variants
to the previous phrase which is translated )( . This error
is found in most of the extant MSS of the Fragmentary Targum (TJ2).
16
M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim . . . (New York 1950), p. 978b, cites
Levita, and adds, read: , i.e., error due to metathesis. Actually, Levita refers to
the beginning of our verse on p. 51a under the root , as follows: .
. If we connect these two entries and compare them with the text
of Neofiti 1, it becomes quite evident that Levita was not quoting this targum:
Meturgeman: ... .
Neofiti 1: ... :
234
chapter twenty
(cont.)
Meturgeman
MS Neofiti 1
()
130b
Gen 48:14
( )Gen 40:16
136b
()
Gen 25:16
164b
()
Gen 10:2
()
()
][
()
17
17
There is no marginal gloss for this phrase, nor for several others listed above,
and yet there is a preponderance of agreement between Levitas Yerualmi citations
and the Neofiti marginal glosses, where these do exist. It would seem that one of the
textual sources of these glosses is very closely related to one of Levitas Yerualmi
sources.
CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE
It was, therefore, not considered at all unusual to find an apparent reference to this well-attested messianic image in one of the Palestinian
Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch. In fact, that source was considered so well founded in the tradition that other differing Palestinian
Targums were often corrected on its authority. The following is the
text as it appears in the first Biblia Rabbinica3 which contains the first
printed edition of any Fragment-Targum. All subsequent editions of
this targum in the various rabbinic Bibles are based upon this editio
princeps.
.
Recently translated:
Moses shall go forth from the wilderness and the King Messiah from
Rome. The one shall lead the way on top of a cloud and the other shall
Ed. S. Buber (reprinted Jerusalem, 1964), Vol 1, p. 140 [Toledot, par. 20].
A play of the Hebrew ( cloud). For additional references, see L. Ginzberg,
Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1959), Vol. 4, p. 381, n. 136.
3
Venice, 151718 [Exod 12:42].
2
236
chapter twenty-one
lead the way on top of a cloud, and the memra of the Lord shall lead the
way between the two of them, and they shall proceed together.4
When M. Ginsburger published another recension of the FragmentTargum, according to MS Paris-Bibliothque nationale Hbr. 110, he
added the preferred variant reading in square brackets:
. ][
One shall lead at the head of the flock [cloud] and the other shall lead
at the head of the flock.
237
To sum up the manuscriptal evidenceall the extant primary sources
of the targumic tosefta on the Four Nights of Vigilcontain
(flock), and not ( cloud).9
The origin of the reading in the printed editions becomes clear,
when we consider that MS Nrnberg served as the Vorlage for the first
printed edition.10 The reading , as it turns out, is not a true varia
lectio, but merely the misinterpretation and erroneous expansion of
the abbreviation in MS Nrnberg (an error on the part of Felix
Pratensis, the editor of the first Biblia Rabbinica, or of one of his typesetters). This is corroborated by the fact that MS Moscow-Gnzburg 3,
which is also a copy of MS Nrnberg, properly understood the abbreviation to represent the word . On the other hand, MS Sassoon
264, which is a copy of the second Biblia Rabbinica (Venice, 15245),
perpetuates the mistaken variant .11
In conclusion, although the image of the Messiah arriving with/on
a cloud is widely attested in rabbinic literature, there is absolutely no
such imagery to be found in any of the presently known Pentateuchal
targums.
8
The printed Fragment-Targum has been so influential that it has actually replaced
the literal translation of Neofiti 1. Thus, e.g., R. Le Daut, La Nuit Pascale (Analecta
Biblica, 22; Rome, 1963rimpression photomcanique 1975), p. 65: sur le sommet
dune nue (ou mieux: en tte du troupeau); but the reverse on p. 266: en tte du
troupeau (Ou: sur le sommet dune nue).
9
In his unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The Fragment Targum (St. Andrews University,
1962), p. 48, M. C. Doubles notes in the critical apparatus to MS Vatican 440 that the
first edition [B] and MS Nrnberg [N] also have the reading twice, instead of
. This is incorrect, as N has the abbreviation in both instances.
10
See M. L. Klein, The Extant Sources of the Fragmentary Targum to the
Pentateuch, Hebrew Union College Annual, Centennial Volume 46 (1975), pp. 115
37. Cf. A. Dez Macho, The Palestinian Targum, Christian News from Israel, 13
(1962), p. 23; and idem., Le Targum Palestinien, in J. E. Menard ed., Exgse Biblique
et Judasme (Strasbourg, 1973), p. 23.
11
See again, M. L. Klein, Extant Sources, Hebrew Union College Annual 46 (1975),
pp. 11537, for a complete genealogy of these sources of the Fragment-Targums.
CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
1
2
240
chapter twenty-two
241
Klein (9).
My thanks to Paul V. M. Flesher for initiating and encouraging this and other
targumic projects.
5
242
chapter twenty-two
Abbreviations
AS
BNU
Additional Series
Bibliothque Nationale et Universitaire, Strasbourg
Gen 2:173:6
JTS 501 (ENA 2107), fol. 1
Dez Macho (4), Klein (6); MS B
Gen 4:416
St. Petersburg Antonin 739
Kahle, Klein (6); MS B
Gen 4:7, 8, 23 (toseftot)
Oxford Bodleian Heb.c74
Ginsburger (1), Klein (6,7); MS X
Gen 4:8 (tosefta)
JTS 605 (ENA 2587), fol. 26b
Klein (6); MS I
Gen 4:8 (tosefta)
CUL T-S NS 184.81r
Klein (6); MS FF
Gen 5:910, 2425
CUL T-S AS 71.240
unpublished; MS B(?)
243
244
chapter twenty-two
245
246
chapter twenty-two
Gen 31:3854
St. Petersburg Antonin 542, fol. 1
Kahle, Klein (6); MS C
Gen 32:1329; 34:925
Oxford Bodleian Heb.b4, fol. 1819
Kahle, Klein (6); MS C
Gen 35:615
St. Petersburg Antonin 542, fol. 2
Kahle, Klein (6); MS C
Gen 36:89, 24
CUL T-S B8.3, fol. 1
Klein (6); MS D
Gen 37:67, 1935
CUL T-S B8.10, fol. 1, 2
Kahle (fol. 2), Klein (6); MS D
Gen 37:811, 1314, 1617
CUL T-S AS 68.83
Klein (8); MS D
Gen 37:1533
JTS ENA 2755, fol. 2
Dez Macho (1), Klein (6); MS E
Gen 38:1626
CUL T-S B8.3, fol. 2
Kahle, Klein (6); MS D
Gen 38:25, 26 (tosefta)
Oxford Bodleian Heb. C75
Klein (6,7); MS X
Gen 38:25, 26 (tosefta)
CUL T-S NS 184.81; 182.2, fol. 1
Klein (6,7); MS FF
247
248
chapter twenty-two
249
250
chapter twenty-two
251
252
chapter twenty-two
253
254
chapter twenty-two
255
+
+ frag + )
CUL T-S NS 116.90 + 117.21 + 118.5152 + T-S H10.223 (frag.) +
T-S 8H22.4
S-Y, pp. 12041; no siglum
Exod 20:78
CUL T-S Misc. 9.44
unpublished
Exod 20:1113/16 (Onq + PT infl.)
CUL T-S NS 276.190
Kasher; no siglum
Exod 20:13/1614/17
Oxford Bodleian Heb. d73, fol. 12
Klein (6); MS CC
Exod 20:16/1922/26
CUL T-S B11.102
unpublished
Exod 20:22/26
CUL T-S NS 182.69, fol. 5
Klein (6); MS FF
3 Acrostic Poems to Exod 20:13
(frag. +
+ )
St. Petersburg Antonin Ebr.B67, fol. 2 + Oxford Bodleian Heb. f33,
fol. 26
Kahle (Antonin), Klein (6); MS G
Exod 20:14/1716/19
CUL T-S AS 72.34
unpublished
Exod 20:24/2523:14
CUL T-S 20.155 + T-S AS 63.24, 51, 96, 117, 129, 153 + AS 69.241 +
NS 286.1
Kahle (20.155), Klein (3,6); MS A
256
chapter twenty-two
257
258
chapter twenty-two
259
260
chapter twenty-two
261
AFTERWORD
It hardly seems credible that twenty years have passed since Shulie,
Michael and I were busy preparing his volume on the Targumic material in the Cambridge Genizah Collections. Equally difficult to believe
is that both Shulie and Michael, individuals with so much still to offer
who were needed in so many different ways, have been taken from
us in their prime. Their loss has not only left Shoshi and me bereft of
our life partners but has also deprived the world of the scholarship of
two dedicated and enthusiastic workers who set impeccable standards
in all that they tackled. I am deeply grateful to the editors of this volume for inviting me to recall Michael as Shulie and I knew him, professionally and personally, in Cambridge and Jerusalem in what were
for the four of us, and our respective families, happy, memorable and
productive times.
The Kleins spent a sabbatical year in Cambridge in 198788 when
Michael was a Visiting Scholar at Clare Hall, and a Visiting Research
Associate at the Genizah Research Unit in the University Library. He
chose to devote that year to the description of the Targum texts in
the Librarys Genizah holdings and we worked with him then, and
for the subsequent three years, in preparing his volume for publication by Cambridge University Press in the Librarys Genizah Series.
Cooperation of this sort, between a specialist, an editor and a sub-editor
preparing a copy for publication, is fraught with serious challenges.
Some scholars are contemptuous of anyone suggesting that possible
improvements might be made in any aspect of what they regard as
their perfect labors while there are editors and sub-editors who fail to
appreciate precisely what the author has in mind. Scholars come in
many varieties and the constitutions of some of them simply rule out
meaningful cooperative ventures.
Unlike such, Michael was the kind of character with whom it was
always a pleasurable and fruitful experience to work, and I cannot
recall a single instance of any tension between us in what was a fairly
complicated process of preparation. He was always among the first to
start work in the morning and among the last to leave in the evening
and he dealt with inquiries and suggestions in a swift, polite and efficient manner, not only in Cambridge and in Jerusalem but wherever
264
stefan reif
afterword
265
268
269
215n13,
272
Kadushin, M. 64
Kahle, P. 36, 45n22, 98, 107, 116n16,
119, 133n5, 179, 181, 204, 214,
220n27, 242
Kasher, Rimon 141165, 242
Klein, M. L. 6n7, 7n11, 9n15, 11n18,
12n21, 15n26, 16n27, 17n29, 49n2,
60n6, 61n8, 77n1, 82n4, 86n8, 92n2,
92n4, 99n8, 108n7, 112n11, 120n6,
120n7, 143n8, 179n2, 190n5, 193n7,
204n7, 208n4, 215n18, 237n10,
237n11, 242, 267269
Kohut, A. 230n11
Komlosh, Y. 37n39, 41n2, 63, 133n5,
215n14, 242
Kutscher, E. Y. 51n12
Landauer, S. 190n5, 242
Lauterbach, J. Z. 14n24
Le Daut, R. 13n22, 33n33, 72, 109n8,
198n12, 216, 236n7, 237n8
Leander, P. 217n21
Levey, S. H. 12n20, 50n7, 236n4
Levine, E. 43n8, 215n19, 216, 221n33,
229
Levita, Elias 9, 20n5, 222n36, 229234
Lewinsky, Y-T. 152
Lieberman, S. 4n2, 56n28
Lund, S. 73, 182n11
Luzzatto, S. D. 4, 23n11, 37, 44n15
Maher, M. 216, 236n7
Mann, J. 180n4, 182, 211n15
Margaliot, M. 138n13
Marmorstein, A. 60n3, 242
Martin, M. F. 209210
Maybaum, S. 20n5, 63, 64
McNamara, M. 19, 30n27, 35n36,
41n2, 49n1, 63, 69n37, 189n1, 213n1,
214n8, 216, 230n8, 236n7
Medan, M. 229n1
Menard, J. E. 237n10
Milik, J. T. 214n8
Moore, G. F. 69n38
Munk, L. 141n2, 141n3, 142n5, 165
Muoz Len, D. 63, 64, 69, 70, 72, 73
Mussafia, Benjamin 230n11
Nathan b. Yehiel (Arukh)
222n36, 230231
Naveh, J. 54n21
Neubauer, A. 97, 98
213n5,
Orlinsky, H. M.
65n27
Revell, E. J. 98
Rieder, D. 224n40, 227n48
Rosenthal (Tal), A. 42n6, 45n20,
129n14
Ruger, H. P. 214n10
Sabourin, L. 69n37
Saller, S. J. 53n21
Schechter, S. 165
Schrer, E. 41n2, 63
Seligsohn, H. 63
Shanks, H. 54n21
Shinan, A. 13n23
Shunary, J. 46n26, 61n8, 65n25
Soffer, A. 65n27
Sokoloff, M. 50n9, 241, 242
Sonne, I. 180n4
Speier, S. 231n11
Sperber, A. 23n11, 41n2, 63, 142, 165,
174n14, 201, 214, 217n23, 221n31,
221n32
Tal (Rosenthal), A. 42n6, 45n20,
129n14
Teicher, J. L. 182n10
Traub, J. 63
Urbach, E. E.
Vermes, G.
55n24
19, 236n4
186
13
73n45
74
73n45
73n45
73n45
73n45
73n45
60
60
73n45
223n37, 223n38
243
226n47
28n21
144, 153
59
81
243
243
243
10, 2021
4:15
4:23
5:910
5:24
5:2425
5:28
6:5
6:6
6:8
6:9
6:12
6:13
6:187:15
6:19
7:7
7:13
7:178:9
8:21
9:523
9:20
10:2
10:13
10:14
11:2
22
2122, 243
243
10, 2225
243
244
62, 244
233
68n32
186
62
208n5
244
207208
44n19, 207n2
207n2
244
59
244
81
234
233
233
233
274
11:3
11:7
12:1
12:3
12:5
12:12
12:13
14:4
14:9
15:1
15:14
15:2
15:4
15:7
15:9
15:10
15:11
15:1114
15:1116:16
15:12
15:13
15:17
15:18
15:19
16:2
16:5
16:13
16:14
16:16
17: 11
17: 14
17: 23
17: 24
17: 25
17: 26
17:5
17:8
17:11
17:18
18:1
18:3
18:11
18:21
18:22
18:25
19:1
19:2
19:4
19:21
19:30
19:33
20:1
20:2
20:8
20:13
21:49
21:616
21:10
22
22:25
22:5
22:59
22:915
22:1516
23:1
23:7
23:10
23:13
23:16
24:34
24:20
24:26
25:10
25:16
25:18
25:19
25:20
26:3
26:11
27:14
27:28
27:29
27:29a
27:32
27:35
27:38
27:40
28:9
28:10
28:13
28:1729:17
28:20
28:21
29:6
29:9
29:15
29:1730:2
29:18
29:21
29:31
30:240
30:15
30:16
30:22
30:27
82, 217
244
244
244
13, 122128
245
9, 124
245
245
245
184, 185, 186
8
46n24, 68n31
46n24, 68n31
46n24, 61,
68n31
245
222n35
86
219
234
186
184, 186
226n47
71
1516
219
183, 184
45, 86
89
45n21
11
219
29n23, 45n20,
183, 184
183, 184
183, 184
6
245
71, 71n41, 72
72, 149
207n2
207n2
3536, 45n20
245
45n20
208n3
62, 184
245
225n46
218
181n8, 183,
184
232
222n35
222n35
245
222n36
71, 71n41, 72
233
219
245
219n26
155
246
45n20
219n26
82
223
246
219
80
219220
8
219n25
246
226
11n19
29n24
46n25, 68
246
181n8, 219n26
53n19, 189,
191192
225n45
246
246
246
8
116117, 246
8
8
116117, 246
246
116117, 246
246
220
220
220, 220n30
221
20, 2526, 222
26
219
246
247
230, 231
220221
221, 231, 246
38:26
39:2
39:3
39:21
40:518
40:16
40:20
40:23
41:626
41:16
41:3241
41:40
41:4357
41:55
42:6
42:7
42:9
42:13
42:21
42:23
42:24
42:3443:10
42:36
43:744:23
43:14
43:15
43:2344:4
43:26
43:28
44:5
44:14
44:15
44:1620
44:17
44:18
45:9
45:21
46:4
46:2647:5
46:28
46:30
46:31
47:11
47:20
47:22
47:26
47:2849:18
47:29
47:2948:10
48:1
48:10
48:1021
275
221, 246
71, 71n41, 208
71, 71n41
71n40, 71n41
247
144, 153, 234
74
84
247
74
247
68
247
45
9
219n26
219n26
2425
45n23
16
44n18
247
2425, 247
247
2627, 221222
44n17
247
9
9
232
9n13
86
247
225n44
46n24, 221,
247, 248
225
61, 69
6, 62, 225n44
248
182
2728
225n44
16
219n25
11, 219n25,
226n47
11, 247, 248
248
68
248
182
117
248
276
48:14
48:22
49:1
49:4
49:57
49:9
49:10
49:18
49:30
50:1
50:4
50:13
50:16
50:18
50:26
181
Exodus
1:1
1:4
1:11
1:1522
1:19
2:6
2:10
2:12
2:22
2:24
3:10
3:11
3:12
3:1314
3:18
4:711
4:12
4:15
4:25
4:26
5:6
5:67
5:15
5:16
5:1819
5:206:10
5:21
6:2
6:6
6:7
7:1022
7:1516
7:20
9:3
9:11
9:2133
9:30
10:2
10:7
10:8
11:2
11:4
11:8
12:12
12:13
12:142
12:2
12:12
12:13
12:2131
12:2134
12:23
12:27
12:33
12:34
12:42
13:17
13:1715:26
13:21
14:1
14:5
14:12
14:1314
14:2931
14:30
14:31
15
15:11
15:12
15:1
15:2
15:3
15:38
15:4
15:616
15:721
15:8
15:9
15:1018
15:11
15:12
15:1315
15:1422
15:17
15:18
15:1819
16:435
222223
46n24, 68n31
223
42
46n24, 68n31
7
8
250
250
250
120, 249, 250
7
87
172
250
87
87, 87n10
194
223n38
1213, 235237,
250, 251
251
136n9
33n32
251
45n20
45n20
251
251
251, 252
140
133, 252
252
252
86, 251, 252
124, 133140,
149
124, 136n9, 252
252
133n5
252
252
137
66, 253
252
12, 3637,
37n38, 124, 253
128, 252
128, 252
137
6, 42n4, 65
13n23, 125, 252
252
30n27
42n3
43
42n3
232
79
61
6
226n47
253
10, 194195
253
46n24, 68n31
253
253
100101
85
46
16
254
253
253
253
253
136n9
253
226n47
254
253
253
62
7
101103
129, 254
254
254
254
224n40
67
255
254
254
5657
9, 45
254, 255
255
254
255
255
104
255
7
255
195196
255
21:1
21:2
21:23ff
22:10
22:19
22:22
22:23
22:24
22:26
23:3
23:5
23:19
23:33
24:7
24:10
24:11
24:16
25:8
28:17
28:18
28:19
28:20
29:36
29:45
30:1
31:2
31:6
31:18
32
32:1
32:11
32:2135
33:3
33:5
33:12
33:13
33:1516
33:16
33:17
33:18
33:20
33:2023
33:22
34:9
34:26
34:28
34:31
34:3435
35:30
35:34
36:813
36:2228
36:2229
277
181
45n20
225
220n28
45n21
83
38
181
83
219
8081
1314
45n20
46n24
6, 59, 61, 66
220n28, 232
42n3
33n32
223
223
223
223
224, 224n40
149
224
224n42
224
56, 62
53n19,
196200
24
78
189
20n5, 3233
20n5, 3233
68n32, 87
68n32, 68n33
33n32
68n32
68n33
42n3
31, 59
59
6, 42n3, 66
68n32
1314
174
256
256
224n42
224n42
108109, 256
256
108110
278
38:22f
39:1013
39:2337
39:3240
40:212
Leviticus
1:1
1:6
1:11
1:12
1:14
1:15
2:1
2:6
2:15
3:9
3:14
3:19
3:21
4:34
5:2
5:3
5:8
5:12
5:16
5:18
5:24
5:25
6:8
6:9
6:19
6:21
7:3
7:9
7:14
7:15
7:16
7:18
7:21
7:24
7:27
8:15
9:6
9:24
10:1920
11:45
12:3
13:21
14:36
15:31
16:32
19:15
22:2
22:2623:44
22:27
23:9
23:11
23:15
23:40
24:14
24:18
24:20
26:1
26:10
26:12
26:13
26:14 ff
26:31
26:37
26:45
Numbers
6:2
6:3
6:5
6:6
6:12
6:2426
10:35
11:1
11:2
11:8
11:11
11:13
11:15
11:18
11:33
12:16
14:4
14:10
14:28
15:40
15:41
16:1
16:118:27
16:4
16:10
16:13
16:14
16:15
16:16
16:22
16:28
16:29
16:31
203
256
52n14, 256
181n8
14
14
149, 152, 164
225
225
225
9, 1415, 57
225n43
149
225n43
194
75
217
149
203n5
203n5
203n5
203n5
203n5
189190,
200201
7
46, 67n30
45
79
68n33
45n23, 61
68n33
46, 67n30
223n37
225n45
80
42n3
46, 67n30
225n45
149
85, 93, 94, 95
9295
9n14
93, 94, 95
93, 94, 95
144, 153
95
93, 94, 95
95
93, 94, 95
93, 94, 95
93, 94, 95
140
93, 94, 95
93, 94, 95
93, 94, 95
74
93, 94, 95
93, 94, 95
93, 94, 95
95
93, 94, 95
93, 94, 95
256
9n14
225n43
78
30n28
7n10
20n5
9n14
9n14
17
9
74
69n36
194
256
257
104
233
Deuteronomy
1:15:9
1:11
1:41
2:6
2:28
4:10
4:13
4:17
4:34
5:1
5:8
5:9
5:19/2226/29
5:21/24
5:22/25
5:25/28
7:4
7:6
7:16
7:19
9:10
9:29
10:4
257
171
43
2930
30
174
174
172
171
46n24
5657
9, 45n20
257
31
31n30
87n9
3839
171
45n20
78n2
56, 62
78
174
10:12
11:2
11:12
11:15
12:8
12:28
14:2
14:21
15:4
15:9
15:11
16:18
17:7
17:3
17:6
17:11
17:14
17:16
17:17
18:16
18:17
19:5
20:1
20:11
20:19
21:12
21:14b
22:4
23:1525:4
24:1
24:15
25:1
25:11
26:214
26:1428:7
26:1527:8
26:17
26:1827:11
28:1518
28:2629
29:2
29:5
29:6
29:12
29:13
29:1315
29:15
29:25
30:17
31:7
31:20
31:21
31:23
31:28
279
45
78n2
5, 67
218
87
87
171
1314
34, 34n34
8384
3334, 34n34
88
220n29
45n20
69
69n36
80
151, 163
151, 163
31n30
87
207
225
45n20
37
231
208n5
81
257
68
8384
46
220n28
257
257
257
149
257
257
257
118, 257
118, 257
257
149
257
118
257
9n14
9, 45n21
207208
208n3
223n37
71, 207208
46n24, 88
280
31:29
31:30
32:13
32:16
32:17
32:19
32:1943
32:21
32:3433:9
32:41
32:44
33:9
33:10
34
34:512
Judges
5:20
5:28
13:2
13:22
14:18
Ezra
6:11
145, 154
Nehemiah
8:8
172
Esther
1:2
2:7
2:17
3:16
3:14
5:107:5
6:137:4
7:9
146, 155
160
80
31n30, 59
144, 145, 153
1 Samuel
2:8
15:14
24:15/16
149, 160
148, 159
83n5
2 Samuel
12:3
144, 153
1 Kings
1:1
1:31
8:42
21:19
21:23
2 Kings
4:1
4:8
4:37
9:10
9:36
13:14
1 Chronicles
3:24
5:1
28:2
235
193
66n29
2 Chronicles
6:32
78n2
143, 150151,
162163
152, 164
87
8
156
143, 144150,
153161
143, 151152,
163164
143, 145, 152,
164
Job
42:5
32n31
Psalms
8:3
30:2
30:6
30:12
33:6
40:5
44:7/6
44:24
68:27/26
70:10
74:10
78:65
89:50
92:13
129:3
138
149, 160
148, 159
149, 160
70
85
29
145, 155
138n12
148
158
145, 155
148, 159
152, 164
140
Proverbs
13:25
Song of Songs
6:11
152, 164
Isaiah
5:306:1
5:306:5
6:1
31:5
33:7
40:25
40:27
169
170
59
87
125
187
185, 186, 187
Jeremiah
17:5
17:7
23:29
8485
8485
168n4
Ezekiel
1:116
1:26
104105
59
Daniel
2:5
2:7
2:9
2:10
2:11
2:15
2:20
2:2021
2:23
2:24
2:25
2:26
2:27
2:30
2:36
43n9
43n9
43n11
43n11, 86
43n11
43n10
174
174
86
43n12, 44n13
44n13
43n9
43n11
172
43n11
2:47
3:13
3:14
3:19
3:22
3:24
4:3
4:5
5:6
5:7
5:13
5:15
5:17
5:19
5:23
6:11
6:13
6:14
6:17
6:19
6:21
6:23
6:27
7:9
7:1314
88
43n9
44n13
43n9
217
217
43n9
44n13
44n13
147, 158
43n9
43n9, 44n13
44n13
43n11
44n14, 44n16
44n13
43n12
43n11
43n11
43n9
44n13
43n9
44n16
44n16
5, 59
235
Hosea
1:2
221n31
Micah
7:78
160
Zechariah
1:8
9:9
10:6
11:2
11:3
11:12
11:13
152, 164
235
182
155
155
146
146
Malachi
1:1
186, 187
Septuagint (LXX)
Deuteronomy
31:28
281
282
81
(10), 2021
2122
10, 2225
62
62
208n5
44n19
80
16
217n23
16n28
82
42
62
35
218n24
46n24, (68n31)
46n24, (68n31)
46n24, (68n31)
46n24, 61,
(68n31)
1516
11
3536
62
218n24
82
80
219220
11n19
46n25
191192
2526
68
45
2425
2627
44n17
46n24
61, 69
6, 62
2728
2829
192193
46n24, (68n31)
Exodus
2:24
9:3
9:11
10:2
10:8
11:2
11:8
12:2131
12:33
(15:2)
15:11
16:8
17:1
17:6
17:11
17:14
18:119:4
18:24
19:11
(19:20)
19:2120:18/21
20:15/1823/26
20:23/26
22:23
23:19
24:7
24:10
31:18
32
33:3
33:5
33:22
34:26
34:28
74
61
44n19
46n24, (68n31)
42
46n24, (68n31)
8
172
194
136
12, 3637
43n7
61
6
10, 194195
46n24, (68n31)
100101
16
62
7
101103
104
195196
38
1314
46n24
61
62
197198
20n5, 3233
20n5, 3233
6
1314
174
Leviticus
8:15
23:11
23:15
23:40
24:14
224n40
14
14
149, 152
225n44
Numbers
6:2426
10:35
11:1
200201
7
46, 67n30
283
61
46, 67n30
80
67n30
9295
20n5
104
171
43
2930
174
174
172
46n24
31
7:4
(7:6)
(7:19)
9:10
10:4
10:12
(11:2)
(14:2)
14:21
15:11
17:6
20:19
31:28
31:30
32:1943
32:44
3839
171
78n2
62
174
45
78n2
171
1314
3334
69
37
46n24
46n24
105106
46n24
87
73n45
74
73n45
73n45
73n45
73n45
73n45
73n45
223n37,
223n38
226n47
28n21
81
50n4
50n5
(10), 2021
2122
2225
233
68n32
208n5
207208
44n19
234
233
233
233
216217
12:3
12:13
14:4
14:9
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:18
16:5
17:11
17:14
17:23
17:24
17:25
17:26
17:5
(17:8)
17:18
18:1
18:3
18:11
18:25
19:1
19:2
19:4
19:21
19:30
19:33
(20:8)
20:13
226n47
82, 217
45
208n5
233
217
85
17
82
217
217
217
217
217
217
80
149
42
8
68n33, 86
219, 226n47
35
8
233
223n37
219
218
218
68n31
82, 217
284
9
8
68n31
68n31
68n31
222n35
86
219
234
226n47
71
15
219
45, 86
89
11
219
6
71, 72
72, (149)
3536
208n3
225n46
218
49n3
232
222n35
222n35
71, 71n41
233
219
219n26
219n26
82
223
219
80
219220
8
219n25
226
(46n25), 68
219n26
191192
225n45
8
8
8
220
220
220
2526
219
38:18
38:24
38:25
39:2
39:3
39:21
40:16
40:20
41:16
41:40
41:55
42:6
42:7
42:9
42:13
42:24
42:36
43:14
(43:15)
43:26
43:28
44:5
44:14
44:15
44:17
44:18
45:9
45:21
46:4
46:30
46:31
(47:11)
47:20
47:22
48:14
48:22
49:4
49:9
49:10
49:30
(50:4)
50:13
50:18
50:26
Exodus
(1:11)
1:19
2:6
2:10
2:12
2:22
2:24
231
220221
221, 231
71, 208
71
71n40, 71n41
234
74
74
68
45
9
219n26
219n26
2425
44n18
2425
2627, 221222
44n17
9
9
232
9n13
86
225n44
221
225
69
6, 225n44
2728
225n44
16
219n25
219n25, 226n47
234
2829
192193
222
12
219
68n31
219
9n13
232
1617
223n38
222
232
220
86
74
285
225
70
7273
71
226
8283
78
149
44n19
222223
68n31
223
42
68n31
8
87
87
87
194
223n38
(1213),
50n7, 236237
86
136
3637
42n4, 65
43
232
79
226n47
194195
68n31
85
46
226n47
7
67
9, 45
195196
225
220n28
83
38
83
219
8081
14n25
66
220n28, 232
223
224
149
224
31:2
31:18
32
32:1
32:11
33:3
33:5
33:12
33:13
33:16
33:17
33:20
33:22
34:9
34:26
(34:28)
35:30
35:34
38:22f
39:1013
Leviticus
1:11
1:12
1:14
1:15
3:9
3:14
3:19
204n10
3:21
5:2
5:3
5:8
5:12
5:16
5:18
5:24
5:25
6:8
6:9
6:21
7:3
204n10
7:9
7:14
7:15
7:16
7:18
204n10
7:24
8:15
9:24
224n42
6n6
199200
24
78
3233
3233
68n32, 87
68n32, 68n33
68n32
68n33
31
66
68n32
14n25
174
224n42
224n42
224n42
223n39
204n10
204n10
204n10
204n10
204n10
204n10
204n9,
204n10
204n9
204n9
204n10
204
204n10
226
204n10
204n10
204
204
204n10
204n9,
204n10
204n9
204n9
204n9
204n9,
204n10
224
9n14
286
(149), 226
217
226
223n37
203204
224
219
203
52n14
14
14
225
225
225
9
225n43
149
225n43
75
217
149
203n5
203n5
203n5
203n5
203n5
200201
67n30
45
79
68n33
68n33
67n30
223n37
225n45
80
67n30
225n45
149
9n14
74
9n14
225n43
78
30n28
9n14
9n14
52n15
(24:24)
25:2
26:55
32:3
Deuteronomy
1:41
2:6
2:28
4:10
(4:13)
5:9
5:21/24
7:4
(7:6)
(7:19)
9:10
(10:4)
10:12
(11:2)
11:12
12:8
(14:2)
14:21
15:9
15:11
17: 7
17:6
17:14
18:17
20:1
20:19
21:12
21:14b
22:4
24:1
24:15
25:1
25:11
(26:17)
(29:12)
29:25
30:17
31:7
31:20
31:21
31:23
31:28
32:4
32:41
33:9
17
9
74
233
43
2930
30
174
174
9
31
3839
171
78n2
6n6
174
45
78n2
67
87
171
14n25
8384
3334
220n29
69
80
87
225
37
231
208n5
81
68
8384
46
220n28
149
149
9n14
9
207208
208n3
223n37
71, 207208
88
50n6
66
66
287
Fragment-Targums (TJ2)
See below for specific references to manuscripts L, N, P, V
References in parentheses indicate the text refers to all targums or all Palestinian
targums
Genesis
(4:14)
15:12
(17:8)
19:2
(20:8)
(23:10)
(23:13)
(23:16)
27:29
(27:35)
(28:21)
(35:4)
43:14
(43:15)
(47:11)
49:9
(50:4)
Exodus
(1: 11)
(6:7)
(10:2)
(11:2)
12:42
15:2
15:17
(17:14)
10
52n15
149
233n15
68n31
68n31
68n31
68n31
45
11
149
46n25
221222
44n17
16
222
68n31
1617
149
68n31
68n31
(1213),
235237
136138
42n4
68n31
(19:20)
(23:19)
(29:45)
(34:28)
7
1314
149
174
Leviticus
(11:45)
22:27
(23:11)
(23:15)
(26:12)
(26:45)
149
52n14
14
14
149
149
Numbers
(15:41)
24:19
(24:24)
149
52n15
17
Deuteronomy
(4:13)
(7:6)
(7:19)
(10:4)
(11:2)
(14:2)
21:12
(26:17)
(29:12)
174
171
78n2
174
78n2
171
231
149
149
Fragment-Targum (L)
Genesis
5:24
15:1
15:2
15:7
15:9
15:10
15:11
2225
112
112
112
112
112
111112
15:12
15:17
15:19
16:5
16:13
35:22
37:33
43:14
111112
111112
112
112
111112
191192
2526
2627
Fragment-Targum (N)
Genesis
5:24
15:1
15:2
15:7
15:9
2225
112
112
112
112
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:17
15:19
16:5
112
111112
111112
111112
112
112
288
16:13
37:33
43:14
48:22
Exodus
12:42
15:2
237
137, 140n18
Deuteronomy
15:11
3334
Fragment-Targum (P)
Genesis
5:24
15:1
15:2
15:11
15:12
15:17
16:5
16:13
29:15
37:33
38:25
40:23
42:13
42:23
42:36
43:14
46:30
48:22
Exodus
12:33
12:42
2225
112
112
111112
111112
111112
112
111112
3536
2526
221
84
2425
16
2425
2627, 221222
2728
2829
194
13n23, 236237
15:2
15:9
15:11
15:17
17:11
20:1
23:19
32
34:26
136
66
3637
65
194195
67
14n25
200
14n25
Numbers
16:1
16:13
16:15
16:28
17:3
17:23
85, 95
95
95
95
95
95
Deuteronomy
14:21
14n25
Esther
6:11
149
Fragment-Targum (V)
Genesis
5:24
15:1
15:2
15:7
15:9
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:17
15:19
16:5
16:13
35:22
37:33
38:25
43:14
48:22
49:4
49:9
49:10
2225
112
112
112
112
112
111112
111112
111112
112
112
111112
191192
2526
221
2627, 221222
2829
192193
222
12
Exodus
12:33
12:42
15:2
15:9
15:17
16:31
17:11
20:23/26
33:22
34:26
Numbers
11:8
14:4
16:1
16:15
16:22
16:28
16:29
194
237
137n11,
140n18
66
65
79
194195
195196
66
14n25
79
80
95
95
95
95
95
Deuteronomy
11:12
15:11
32:41
33:9
95
95
95
95
95
17
289
67
3334
66
66
(10), 2021
44n19
112, 113114
112, 113114
112, 113114
111112
114115
111112
111112
111112
111112
111112
149
68n31
68n31
68n31
68n31
11
71n41, 72
72, (149)
3536
72
82
80
46n25
116117
116117
116117
220
220n30
2526, 222
71n41
71n41
68
45
2627, 221222
44n17
16
68
117
192193
68n31
Exodus
(1:11)
5:67
5:1819
5:21
(6:7)
7:1516
7:20
(10:2)
(11:2)
12:33
(12:42)
(15:2)
15:9
15:11
15:17
17:11
(17:14)
(19:20)
20:23/26
22:22
22:23
22:26
(29:45)
32:22
(34:28)
36:813
36:2229
39:3240
40:212
1617
118
118
8283
149
118
118
68n31
68n31
194
1213
136
66
3637
65
194195
68n31
7
195196
83
38
83
149
198
174
108109
108110
108, 110
108, 110111
Leviticus
(11:45)
22:27
(23:11)
(23:15)
(26:12)
(26:45)
149
52n14
14
14
149
149
Numbers
(15:41)
(24:24)
149
17
290
Deuteronomy
(4:13)
5:21/24
(7:6)
(7:19)
(10:4)
(11:2)
(14:2)
(26:17)
29:2
29:5
(29:12)
29:1315
78n2
171
149
118
118
149
118
81
(10), 2021
2122
10, 2225
208n5
44n19
81
80, 216217
6
82, 217n23
17
42
35
46n24, (68n31)
82
52n17
68n31
68n31
68n31
1516
11
72
72
3536
80
219220
46n25
191192
2526
221
68
45
44n18
2627, 221222
44n17
69
2728
16
2829
192193
222
68n31
Exodus
(1:11)
5:6
9:11
(10:2)
10:8
(11:2)
11:8
12:33
(12:42)
15:2
15:9
15:11
15:17
16:8
17:6
17:11
(17:14)
18:13
(19:20)
20:1
20:5
20:23/26
22:23
23:19
24:7
24:10
29:36
32
33:3
33:5
33:22
34:26
(34:28)
1617
152
44n19
68n31
42
68n31
8
194
1213
136138, 149
66
3637
42n4
43n7
6n8
194195
68n31
46
7
67
45
195196
38
14n25
46n24
66
224n40
198199
3233
3233
6
14n25
174
Leviticus
8:15
(23:11)
(23:15)
24:14
26:1
224n40
14
14
225n44
1415, 57
7
46, 67n30
46, 67n30
80
67n30
52n16
17
Deuteronomy
1:41
2:6
(4:13)
5:1
43
2930
174
46n24
5:21/24
7:4
(7:6)
(7:19)
(10:4)
10:12
(11:2)
(14:2)
14:21
15:11
17:6
20:19
32:13
291
31
3839
171
78n2
174
45
78n2
171
14n25
3334
69
37
139
80
145
Jeremiah
17:5
17:7
8485
8485
1 Samuel
2:8
149
Ezekiel
1:116
104105
1 Kings
8:42
21:19
78n2
85
Hosea
1:2
221n31
Isaiah
54:1
61:962:9
66:1
80
112
66n29
Targum Psalms
30:2
30:12
149
149
Targum Proverbs
13:25
145
Targum Esther I (Rishon)
2:7
5:107:5
6:11
152
146, 147
149
Targum Esther II (Sheni)
1:2
2:7
5:107:5
150151
152
148, 150
6:137:4
7:9
151152
152
292
1:2
5:107:5
143, 150151,
162163
143, 144150,
153161
6:137:4
7:9
143, 151152,
163164
143, 145, 152, 164
Targum 1 Chronicles
28:2
5:1
66n29
193
Targum 2 Chronicles
6:32
78n2
Targumic poems
Exodus
12:12
12:2
14:2931
14:30
15: 11
15:616
15:9
15:11
250
249, 250
251
251, 252
252
252
253
253
19
19:25
20:13
20:23
20:12/1314
Deuteronomy
34
254
254
255
254
254
258
Targumic tosefta
Genesis
38:25
38:26
49:18
Exodus
15:2
15:4
221
221
12
133140
133n5
10
10
Rabbinic sources
146
Chronicle of Moses
139n16
Midrash ha-Gadol
Exod 15:1
Midrash Panim
Aherim (MPA)
Mekilta
Shireta 1
138n13
Midrash Abba
Gurion (MAG)
145, 146,
151, 152, 165
145
Midrash Rabbah
Genesis Rabbah
19:2
25:1
84:19
84:21
88:5
138n13
144, 145, 146,
147, 148,
149, 165
145
25n15
26n17
26n16
145
139n14
139n16,
139n17
138, 139n15,
139n17
142n6, 144
151
152
149
Midrash Tanhuma
Toledot 20
235
Megillah 32a
Niddah 31a
Sanhedrin 42a
Sanhedrin 98a
Shabbat 115a
Sotah 11a
Sotah 11b
Mishnah
Avot 5:1
Megillah 4
Megillah 4:10
70
53n20
189
Sotah 30b
Sotah 49a
Sukkah 28a
Pesikta Rabbati
139n15
139n15,
139n17
Sepher hajaschar
139, 139n16
Shulhan Arukh
Yoreh Deah 265:1
152
Sifre Deuteronomy
43
118
218
34n34
Soferim
5:15
9:9
9:10
16:10
21:9
142n6
168n3
189n2
189n2
180n5
26n16
Babylonian Talmud
Bava Batra 123a
Bava Batra 134a
Bava Kamma 3b
Jerusalem Talmud
Megillah 74d
Megillah 75c
Shabbat 15c
Shabbat 16
Sotah 3d
Sotah 20c
Tosefta
Megillah 4
Megillah 4:35
Megillah 4:35 ff
Megillah 4:36
Megillah 4:38
Megillah 4:41
Sotah 6:4 (2)
53n20
193
189
196
198
4n3, 19n1
138n13
1056
1057
Rashi
Saadiah Gaon
6163, 186,
187
167, 168
6061, 92, 95
99n7
189, 189n2,
196197
180n5
180n5
218
138n13
139n16
Commentators
Maimonides
81
152
4n3
167n1, 172
3n1
189, 189n2,
193, 197
99n7
218
70
235
50n8, 168n3
139n14
138, 139,
139n16,
139n17
138n13
152
168n4
Yalkut Shimoni
165
29n22
168n4
53n18
293
139n15,
140n19
145
146
294
T-S AS 70.206
T-S AS 70.209214
T-S AS 70.229
T-S AS 71.15
T-S AS 71.59
T-S AS 71.64
T-S AS 71.214217
T-S AS 71.240
T-S AS 71.248
T-S AS 71.281
T-S AS 72.34
T-S AS 72.7577
T-S AS 85.39
T-S AS 116.453
T-S B 6.6
T-S B 8.1
T-S B 8.3
T-S B 8.4
T-S B 8.5
T-S B 8.6
T-S B 8.7
T-S B 8.8
T-S B 8.9
T-S B 8.10
T-S B 8.11
T-S B 8.12
T-S B 9.9
T-S B 9.11
T-S B 11.17
T-S B 11.52
T-S B 11.102
T-S B 12.2
T-S B 12.20
T-S B 12.21
T-S B 12.24
T-S B 12.32
T-S B 13.4
T-S H 3.111
T-S H 10.78
T-S H 10.223
244, 253,
257, 260
247, 248, 259
248, 260
247, 248, 260
253, 260
169172, 174
248, 260
243, 260
249, 260
248, 260
255, 260
257, 260
260
120121,
122, 250, 260
256, 258
257, 258
246, 258
245, 258
249, 258
247, 258
117, 248, 258
257, 258
122124,
126, 127128,
245, 258
246, 258
244, 258
83, 181n8,
249, 258
98, 100101
111113,
114115,
244, 258
170
143150,
152, 153155,
159161
255, 258
248, 258
9295
143150,
155159
251, 258
143, 145,
150151,
162163
250, 257, 258
253, 258
249, 250, 258
255, 258
250, 258
120, 121122,
250, 258
170, 171,
172174
255, 259
68, 115, 248,
259
182
247, 259
255, 259
255, 259
255, 259
254, 259
122, 124125,
126127, 245,
259
248, 259
244, 259
257, 259
259
259
246, 248, 259
248, 249, 251,
252, 253, 255,
256, 259
243, 246, 259
249, 259
254, 259
258, 259
250, 259
259
252, 259
122, 125126,
127, 245, 259
255, 259
255, 259
252, 259
252, 259
252, 259
295
Leipzig, University
MS BH fol. 1 see Fragment-Targum
(L)
Leningrad see St Petersburg
London, British Library
Or.10794
257, 260
296
136n9,
137n11,
140n18, 237
142n6
Miscellaneous
Bible codex of 1260
180181, 183
Codex Reuchlinianus
poems 18
Mahzor Vitry
Exodus 15:2
par. 166
par. 167179
par. 180
169, 171172,
174175
136
169n10
167n2, 169,
171172,
174176
172
ILLUSTRATIONS
[Chapter 9]
illustrations
[Chapter 9]
illustrations
[Chapter 9]
illustrations
[Chapter 9]
illustrations
[Chapter 12]
illustrations
(*) The Plates 12.1-12.12 are published by courtesy of the Syndics of Cambridge University Libary
[Chapter 12]
illustrations
[Chapter 12]
illustrations
[Chapter 12]
illustrations
[Chapter 12]
illustrations
[Chapter 12]
10
illustrations
[Chapter 12]
illustrations
11
[Chapter 12]
12
illustrations
[Chapter 12]
illustrations
13
[Chapter 12]
14
illustrations
[Chapter 12]
illustrations
15
[Chapter 12]
16
illustrations