LET’S STUDY ONKELOS

A Guide for Rabbis, Teachers and Torah Students to Study and Teach the Parashat
Hashavua through the Eyes of its Most Important Translator

By Stanley M. Wagner and Israel Drazin

Based on the five volume, Onkelos on the Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy), Understanding the
Bible Text, by Israel Drazin and Stanley M. Wagner, published by Gefen Publishing House,
Jerusalem/New York, 2006-2010.

STUDY GUIDE

VA’YAKHEL (CHAPTER 35:1–38:20)

SUMMARY OF THE TORAH PORTION

The Sabbath laws are re-emphasized; Moses’ charge to collect materials and
construct the Tabernacle; the Israelites respond enthusiastically; the work commences
and the Tabernacle, its courtyard, and its appurtenances are constructed.

THE TABERNACLE DONORS AND THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS

The better part of four parashiot (Terumah, T’tzaveh, Va’yakhel, Pekudei) are
devoted to the building of the Tabernacle in fulfillment of God’s command, “They should
make before Me a Sanctuary, and I shall cause My Shekhinah to dwell among them”
(Targum Onkelos to 25:8). The Israelite response to the call for voluntary contributions
was so overwhelming that Moses issued a command: “Let no man or woman do any
more work (bring donations: Saadiah and Nachmanides) as a contribution for the
Sanctuary. Their work was sufficient for all the tasks to be done (‘to perform the work
of construction’ [Saadiah, Rashi and ibn Ezra]), and (it was, in fact) too much” (36:6-7
pages 252 and 253).1 This was the first, and probably the last time in history that any
institutional leader informed people that there was no longer a need for further
donations!

1
All page numbers refer to the Onkelos on the Torah volume.
1
 The word “brought” is used eight times in different constructs in 35:21-29 (pages
248-251), nine times in Onkelos, to reflect the enthusiasm of the Israelites to participate
in the sacred task of constructing the Tabernacle. We will focus on verse 22 and its
treatment in the Targum and commentaries. The literal Hebrew text seems awkward:
“They came (vayavo’u), the men on (al) the women, every contributing heart (nediv
leiv) brought chain, earring, signet ring, and girdle (chumaz), every object of gold,
every man who would bring a wave offering before the Lord.”

Some of the questions raised by the verse and responses are enlightening:

Since verse 21 has already informed us that “Everyone . . . came (vayavo’u),” why repeat
the statement?
The targumist and Saadiah respond by reading Scripture’s vayavo’u, “they came,” as
vayavee’u, “they brought,” but other translators and commentators retain “came.”

What does the phrase “the men on the women” mean?

Since the Hebrew word al is usually defined as “on,” some commentators were
bothered by the wording “men on (al) women,” which does not seem to make sense to
them. Thus, for example, Nachmanides understands “on” to imply that the women
enthusiastically preceded the men in contributing to the Tabernacle by offering their
jewelry. However, others such as ibn Ezra, Rashi, and Chazkunee note that al is also
used in the Torah as “with” and “and,” as in Leviticus 23:20, 25:31, Numbers 19:5, and
Numbers 28:10, so the verse is simply saying that both men “and” women came. Thus,
our targumist retained al since he understood it as “and.”
Other commentators translated al as “with” or “and,” but read ideas into the passage
that they do not say explicitly. For example Sforno writes that the men had to come
“with” the women to approve of their offering since, otherwise, such expensive
contributions could not be accepted from women (based on the Babylonian Talmud,
Bava Kamma 119a). The issue of the treatment of women aside, as we noted frequently,
Onkelos avoids such expansive interpretations.

How should nediv leiv be translated?

The targumist explains the metaphor nediv leiv, “whose heart was willing,” as
“whose heart was stirring him,” as in verse 21, because he felt more comfortable using
the verb “to stir” in connection with “heart,” and he adds “him,” which is implied.

Changing the tense of nouns and defining chumaz

Two phenomena are evident here, words are pluralized and commentators differ in
how to translate one word that Onkelos keeps in the singular.

2
 Onkelos pluralizes all of the nouns in this verse except the last one since, in all
probability, the people brought more than one chain, earring, and signet ring. We have
already discovered that the targumist often changes the singular to plural and vice
versa when the context requires it. He does not regard it as sacrilegious to do so. But he
does not pluralize chumaz.
He renders chumaz as machukh, as in Numbers 31:50. Our commentary there (page
282) explains this obscure term, as follows:
Ibn Ezra describes it simply as some kind of ornament. Encyclopedia Biblica, volume 4,
column 548, notes that the word appears in Ben Sira 32:5, and identifies it as a stone
or string of stones; its cognate in Arabic denotes a small ball. The Babylonian Talmud,
Shabbat 64a, describes it as an article shaped like a womb. It states that the reason
why we translate it “machokh” (literally, “obscenity” or “joke”) is because it denotes
the body area that could lead to obscenity. The Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 24a,
and the Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 6:4, have a similar definition. Therefore, it may
be that Onkelos has the singular because its Aramaic rendering is not an object, as
are the previous items, but a description of or a comment on an object. Pseudo-
Jonathan and Neophyti use the same word but they pluralize it and describe it as an
object that lies on the breasts. This is one definition in the Jerusalem Talmud. It may
be a type of brassiere, perhaps even an outer garment, so called because its
attractiveness leads males to light-mindedness and frivolity (Perush Jonathan).
Saadiah similarly defines it as an object worn on the chest and upon which are hung
ornaments and jewels. Chazkunee and ibn Ezra render it as a bracelet, the
Septuagint, as a hair clasp.

Does “every man” exclude women, since women were also donors to the Tabernacle?
Although the targumist translates “every man” literally, ibn Ezra and Sforno
maintain that women were included in bringing the “gold wave offering” and that the
phrase should be understood as “everyone.”

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS

ON ONKELOS

It should be clear from the above discussion that translating is not only a scholarly
science but it is an art. The targumist does not feel restrained by the biblical text that he
regards as sacred, but he maintains that it is written, as Rabbi Ishmael put it, “in human
language,” and, hence, could be altered when necessary to explain it. However, why
would Scripture state “every man” if it meant “every one,” as suggested by some? And if
it did mean “every one,” why didn’t the targumist clarify it for us? Is the simple solution
that “every man” is an idiom that obviously could mean “every one,” as in English,
depending on the context in the sentence? We will see that our targumist does not

3
explain metaphors that he felt were easily understood by his readers. But this raises a
question. Doesn’t the issue of explaining metaphors tell us that we need to be careful
when we read the Bible because some phrases that seem to say something if taken
literally mean something entirely different when they are understood as a metaphor or
an idiom?

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In our Beyond the Text (page 245), we raise some important questions that lie at the
very foundation of charitable giving. They are worthy of our serious consideration:
In 35:21 and 29 (see commentary) and elsewhere, we find expressions which describe
the mood of the Israelites who contributed precious materials for the construction of
the Tabernacle: “whose heart was willing,” “whose hearts touched them, “who were
motivated,” “who were inspired.” It seems that these descriptions do not coincide
with the fundamental Jewish prescription for contributions, which is: God commands,
we respond. Why was there an emphasis on the emotional dimension of the support
for the construction? What if the Israelites had not been “inspired,” or “willing,” or
“motivated”? Did that mean they would then be free from the obligation? What if a
Jew is not “inspired” to help the needy? What about the sense of duty? In our society,
responding to the call for communal or human needs is called philanthropy (from the
Greek, meaning “love of man”), or charity (from the Greek, meaning “caring”). Jews
use the word “tzedakah” (from the Hebrew, meaning “justice”). Is there a difference?
What role does the “spirit of giving” play in shaping our generous impulses?

FOR FURTHER STUDY

1. See 36:5 and 7 and commentary, “SUFFICIENT FOR THE TASKS OF THE WORK” on
verse 5 (page 253, continuing on page 252). An extra mem in Scripture that the
targumist ignores.

2. See 36:18 and 19 and commentary (page 254). Are the Tabernacle and Tent of Meeting
the same?

3. See 38:8 and commentary, “WITH THE MIRRORS OF THE WOMEN WHO COME TO
PRAY” (page 263, continuing on page 262, and the appendix page 373). The Targum
clarifies a difficult phrase concerning the women’s gift of mirrors with which the laver
was constructed.