Alternative Targum Traditions: The Use of Variant Readings for the Study in Origin and History of Targum Jonathan

Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture Managing Editor

Paul V.M. Flesher University of Wyoming

Editorial Board

Bruce Chilton Bard College

Willem Smelik University College, London

Moshe Bernstein Yeshiva University

Edward M. Cook Catholic University of America

Luis Díez Merino University of Barcelona

VOLUME 9

Alternative Targum Traditions The Use of Variant Readings for the Study in Origin and History of Targum Jonathan

By

Alberdina Houtman Harry Sysling

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2009

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Houtman, Alberdina. Alternative targum traditions : the use of variant readings for the study in origin and history of targum Jonathan / by Alberdina Houtman and Harry Sysling. p. cm. — (Studies in the Aramaic interpretation of scripture ; v. 9) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-17842-7 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Prophets (Nevi’im). Aramaic—Versions—Targum Jonathan—History. 2. Bible. O.T. Prophets (Nevi’im—Quotations in rabbinical literature. I. Sysling, Harry. II. Title. III. Series. BS1286.A4A734 2009 224.04’2—dc22 2009022045

ISSN 1570-1336 ISBN 978 90 04 17842 7 Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, 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. Brill has made all reasonable efforts to trace all right holders to any copyrighted material used in this work. In cases where these efforts have not been successful the publisher welcomes communications from copyright holders, so that the appropriate acknowledgements can be made in future editions, and to settle other permission matters. 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. printed in the netherlands

Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................... ix Abbreviations and Signs .......................................................................... xi 1. Bible and Targum ............................................................................ xi 2. Rabbinic Literature . ......................................................................... xi 3. Journals, Books & Series ................................................................ xii 4. Signs Used in the Reproduction of the Texts .............................. xiii Introduction . .............................................................................................. 1 Why this book? ......................................................................................... 1 What to expect? ........................................................................................ 2 Chapter One – Preliminary Issues .......................................................... 7 A. Definition: What is a Targum? .......................................................... 7 1. The semantic field of ‘targum’ in rabbinic literature ...................... 7 2. The character of Targum as a Bible translation according to rabbinic literature .......................................................................... 14 3. Characteristics of Jewish Bible translations according to early Christian sources ............................................................................ 15 4. Modern definitions . ........................................................................ 16 5. Different targum types .................................................................... 21 6. Targum characteristics ................................................................... 25 7. Qumran Aramaic versions . ............................................................ 27 B. Background to the Targums . ........................................................... 32 1. The raison d’être . ............................................................................. 32 2. Sitz im Leben . ................................................................................... 35 C. Survey and Conclusions ................................................................... 39

vi

contents

Chapter Two – Tosefta Targums and Other Targumic Traditions to the Books of Samuel ......................................................................... 41 A. Survey of Previous Research on the Tosefta Targums ................. 42 1. Excursus: the case of the Pentateuch . ............................................ 46 B. Piyyut . ................................................................................................. 48 1. Aramaic poetry . ............................................................................... 50 C. Description of the Corpus . .............................................................. 54 1. The main sources .............................................................................. 56 2. Distribution among the sources .................................................... 60 D. Characterisation of the Toseftan Material According to their Designations ........................................................................................... 61 1. Sefer aer .......................................................................................... 61 2. Lishna Aerina ................................................................................ 78 3. Jerushalmi . ....................................................................................... 82 4. Tosefta . ............................................................................................. 97 5. No special designation . ................................................................. 108 6. Special cases .................................................................................... 113 E. Survey and Conclusions . ................................................................. 131 1. Do all the Tosefta Targums treated here deserve their name? ... 131 2. Are there linguistic tendencies to be noted in the toseftan material? . ...................................................................................... 134 3. Are there other common tendencies to be discovered in the toseftan material? ......................................................................... 134 Chapter Three – Quotations of Targumic Passages from the Prophets in Rabbinic and Medieval Sources .................................... 137 A. Survey of Previous Research on Targumic Quotations .............. 137 B. How to Define a Quotation ............................................................ 142 1. Explicit quotations ......................................................................... 144 2. Implicit quotations ........................................................................ 147 3. Philological interpretation of biblical words . .............................. 152

contents

vii

C. Exchangeability of Aramaic and Hebrew Quotations ................ 153 D. Sources: Characterisation of the Material in the Different Sources ................................................................................................... 155 1. Quotations from the Prophets in the Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch . ............................................................................. 155 2. Quotations from the Prophets in Targum Esther Sheni and Targum Canticles . ........................................................................ 172 3. Quotations from the Prophets in the Tosefta Targums . ............. 181 4. Quotations from the Prophets in magical texts .......................... 192 5. Quotations from the Prophets in the Babylonian Talmud . ...... 194 6. Quotations from the Prophets in the Palestinian Talmud ........ 208 7. Quotations in the Midrashim ....................................................... 214 E. Survey and Conclusions . ................................................................. 231 Chapter Four – Summary and Conclusions ....................................... 235 A. Evaluation of the Terminology . ..................................................... 235 B. Assessment of the Variants . ........................................................... 237 C. The Origin and Early Development of the Targum of the Prophets ................................................................................................ 238 1. The common opinion ..................................................................... 239 2. Evaluation of the evidence . ......................................................... 240 3. Sitz im Leben .................................................................................. 247 4. Epilogue .......................................................................................... 249 Appendix One – Targumic Quotations from the Prophets in the Order of the Works in which they Appear ....................................... 251 A. Targum, Magical Texts and Rabbinic Literature ......................... 251 1. Targum ............................................................................................ 251 2. Magical texts ................................................................................... 253 3. Talmud . .......................................................................................... 254 4. Midrash ........................................................................................... 255

viii

contents

B. Medieval Works ............................................................................... 257 1. Late Midrash and Kabbalah . ....................................................... 257 2. Dictionaries and lexical works . ................................................... 258 3. Bible and Bible commentaries ...................................................... 261 4. Tosafot and other commentaries on rabbinic literature . .......... 263 5. Piyyut and prayer books ............................................................... 264 Appendix Two – Targumic Quotations from the Prophets in the Biblical Order ....................................................................................... 266 Bibliography . .......................................................................................... 270 Primary Literature ............................................................................... 270 Secondary Literature . .......................................................................... 276 Index of Primary Sources ..................................................................... 290 Biblical References . .............................................................................. 290 Early Christian Literature ................................................................... 299 Early Jewish Literature . ....................................................................... 299 Rabbinic Literature . ............................................................................. 299 Medieval Literature .............................................................................. 304

Acknowledgements It is a pleasant duty to express at this point our gratitude to a number of people and institutions that played an indispensable role in the realisation of this work. We are indebted to The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and The Protestant Theological University (PThU) for their generous financial support without which this work would have been impossible. We wish to thank Gerard van Zanden for the correction of the text, the editing of the layout, and the production of the index. He did a wonderful job in turning a demanding two-authored manuscript into a uniform book. It was a pleasure working with him. We are indebted to Johanna Tanja who checked the information on the Targum manuscripts and to Joop van Klink for his selfless advise in computer matters. Helen Richardson corrected our English. Hector Patmore read the last version of the manuscript, and his critical eye detected some remaining flaws. Our colleagues from the Targum research group in Kampen, under the mild guidance of Jan Wim Wesselius, contributed to the realisation of this book by the friendly and stimulating interest they took in our work. Apart from the members mentioned already, we name David Kroeze, Renaud Kuty, Rinske Scholten and Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman. Especially Eveline’s knowledge of Targum Samuel was of great help to us. Our work relies heavily on previous work by the Israeli scholars Moshe Goshen-Gottstein of blessed memory and Rimon Kasher. Without their pioneering work our task would have been much harder. We are very grateful to the members of the editorial board of Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture for accepting this work into their series and to Brill Academic Publishers for working our manuscript into a well-finished book. Last but not least we especially offer our gratitude to the initiator of Targum studies in Kampen, Professor Johannes C. de Moor. Without his initiative and his contagious enthusiasm there would probably never have been a Targum research group in Kampen and this book would perhaps not have been written. In appreciation of all his efforts and his great learning, we dedicate this work to him. Amersfoort, March 2009

Abbreviations and Signs 1. Bible and Targum CGF FT(s) FTN

Cairo Genizah Fragments Fragment Targum(s) Fragment Targum, ms Nürnberg — Stadtsbibliothek Solger 2.2 FTP Fragment Targum, ms Paris — Bibliothèque Nationale Hébr. 110 FTV Fragment Targum, ms Vatican Ebr. 440 HT Hebrew text of the Bible, not necessarily the MT MT Masoretic text Neof Targum Neofiti Neof [M] Targum Neofiti, marginal glosses NT New Testament PsJon Pseudo-Jonathan PT(s) Palestinian Targum(s) Tg Targum TJ Targum Jonathan TO Targum Onkelos TT(s) Tosefta Targum(s)

2. Rabbinic Literature AgBer Aggadat Bereshit ARN Avot de Rabbi Nathan b. Babylonian Talmud BerRabbati Bereshit Rabbati DeutR Deuteronomy Rabbah EcclR Ecclesiastes Rabbah EcclZ Ecclesiastes Zutta ExodR Exodus Rabbah CantR Song of Songs Rabbah GenR Genesis Rabbah LamR Lamentations Rabbah LevR Leviticus Rabbah m. Mishnah MasSof Massekhet Soferim

xii

abbreviations

Mek Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael MidrPss Midrash Psalms MidrSam Midrash Samuel MRS Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai . NumR Numbers Rabbah PesR Pesikta Rabbati PRE Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer PRK Pesikta de-Rav Kahana RuthR Ruth Rabbah SER Seder Eliahu Rabbah SifrDeut Sifre Deuteronomy SifrNum Sifre Numbers t. Tosefta Tan Tanhuma . TanB Tanhuma Buber . y. Palestinian Talmud YalkSh Yalkut Shimoni

3. Journals, Books & Series AS Aramaic Studies BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia BIOSCS Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library BThB Biblical Theology Bulletin CAL Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum EJ Encyclopaedia Judaica FJB Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge GGA Göttingsche Gelehrte Anzeigen GNB96 Groot Nieuws Bijbel 1996 HAR Hebrew Annual Review IEJ Israel Exploration Journal JAB Journal for the Aramaic Bible JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBA M. Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods, Ramat-Gan 2002 JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

abbreviations

xiii

JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JPA M. Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Ramat-Gan 1990 JPS Jewish Publication Society translation 1985 JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JSS Journal of Semitic Studies LAB Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum M Edn Margulies LevR MGWJ Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums NBG51 Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap vertaling 1951 NBV De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling 2004 NTS New Testament Studies RB Revue Biblique REJ Revue des Études Juives RQ Revue de Qumran SC Sources Chrétiennes Th-A Edn Theodor-Albeck GenR TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie WBC World Biblical Commentary WCJS World Congress of Jewish Studies WO Die Welt des Orients WV95 Willibrordvertaling, revised edition 1995 WZJT Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft

4. Signs Used in the Reproduction of the Texts     [‫ ]א‬     [  ]     [? ]   <  >       (  )      {‫ }א‬

textual emendation missing text difficult to read completion by the editor text to be erased completion by the copyist

Introduction Why this book? In Kampen, the Netherlands, we have a history of Targum studies. In 1987 Johannes de Moor started a long-term project for the production of a bilingual concordance to the Targum of the Prophets, which was completed in 2005.1 Parallel to this assignment a series of smaller projects was initiated for in-depth studies of individual books of Targum Jonathan. In the course of these projects the members of the team discovered that there is a shortage of knowledge on the origin and development of Targum Jonathan. On the one hand, the limited variation in the manuscript tradition of Targum Jonathan suggests that once the text assumed its final form great care was taken to preserve this form. On the other hand, the period before the fixation of the text is veiled in mist. Internal evidence, such as historical allusions and diverse theological tendencies, suggests a long formative period. External evidence, in particular the finds in Qumran, points to an early existence of Aramaic Bible translations. That is about all we know. It is self-evident that study of contemporary literary sources as well as modern secondary literature on the subject is necessary for the investigation into the development of Targum Jonathan. But that is not enough; new investigation of the primary sources is needed as well. In our view there are two possible keys to open up the formative period, namely the Tosefta Targums and targumic quotations that are found in rabbinic and medieval Jewish literature. In the present study we will try out the possibilities and limits of this approach. A second reason why we embarked on this project is the need for a classification of targumic variants for new critical editions. At the 2001 congress of the International Organization for Targumic Studies (iots) in Basel, the participants established a working group to explore the feasibility of creating a consistent set of text editions for all rabbinic Targums. This was called the Targum Edition Exploratory Committee (teec).2 Its first charge was to determine whether such a project 1  J.C. de Moor et al. (eds), A Bilingual Concordance to the Targum of the Prophets, 21 Vols, Leiden [etc.], 1995–2005. 2  The committee existed of Moshe Bernstein, Luis Díez Merino, Paul Flesher, Alberdina Houtman (chair), Rimon Kasher, Stephen Kaufman and Willem Smelik.

2

introduction

was feasible, and if so, to set out specific goals and to devise a process and an administrative structure to accomplish it. The committee determined that a text edition project was both desirable and possible, provided that sufficient funds could be raised and human resources recruited, and wrote a proposal for its realisation by the name of ITTEP (International Targum Text Edition Project).3 At the 2004 congress of the iots this proposal was accepted. It was clear, however, that more preliminary work was needed before this enterprise could really start. Amongst other things a design had to be made for the classification of variant readings. Any new project should not only employ the technological advances of the past twenty-five years, but also represent a genuine advance in textual criticism. An active assessment of the different readings, aimed at inferring the base from which variants were generated and the genealogical relationship among the variants, was set out to be the principal goal of the project. For that reason, documentary assessment, Targum by Targum, would need to be coordinated with an evaluation of the criteria of adjudication. In that way, the project would offer a basis for the study of the history of interpretation as well as textual and linguistic study. Only on the basis of the assessment of the variants could it be decided whether they should be incorporated in the apparatus and what place and value they should be given. With the present work, which endeavours to study and classify variant traditions in the Targum of the Prophets, we hope to contribute to a better assessment of part of the variant readings of the Prophets in the build-up to a new critical edition of Targum Jonathan. In the course of our investigations, we also felt the need to think through the terminology used in this field of study, especially the terms ‘t/Targum’, ‘Tosefta Targum’ and ‘quotation’ since it is not always clear what is meant by these terms. Therefore part of our work is devoted to matters of definition.

What to expect? As mentioned above, we believe that there are two lines of research that can possibly shed light on the formative period, namely (1) investigation into the Tosefta Targums and (2) study of the quotations from alternative Targum traditions that occur in rabbinic and medieval 3  http://targum.info/IOTS/TEECprop36.pdf (accessed Oct. 31, 2008).

introduction

3

Jewish literature. Let us briefly explain what we mean, starting with the Tosefta Targums. The origin of the Tosefta Targums and their relation to Targum Jonathan is still largely unexplained. As regards their contents they seem to be rooted in Palestine, while some of them also reflect some knowledge of the Babylonian Talmud and late Midrashim, though the evidence is not entirely conclusive.4 Their language also exhibits at times a Babylonian influence.5 These seemingly contradictory characteristics are hard to reconcile. In rough outline there are three possibilities: (1) the Tosefta Targums may contain ancient traditions that have been adapted to a more formal style at a later date; (2) they may be later extensions of an originally formal translation; or (3) they may be alternative translations that existed alongside the formal translations and probably had another function. If the first case holds true, then part of the pre-history of Targum Jonathan could well be recoverable through an analysis of these Toseftas as possible remnants of the older Palestinian Targum tradition. We must though also consider the possibility that the Toseftas are not a corpus at all, but that they are rather a stray collection of all kinds of targumic traditions, varying from old traditions that for one reason or another did not become part of Targum Jonathan to younger traditions that are the result of later developments. The second line of research concerns the targumic quotations in other Jewish sources. In view of the numerous quotes in rabbinic and medieval exegetical works, it is clear that the ancient Aramaic interpretations played an important role in the work of later exegetes. The interesting point now is that besides numerous more or less literal quotations from Targum Jonathan, there are also quotations that have no parallel in this corpus. These quotations may turn out to be of considerable importance for the reconstruction of possible precursors of Targum Jonathan. In any case they show that the material surviving in Targum Jonathan is only a portion of an originally larger body of targumic traditions.

4  See e.g. W.F. Smelik, The Targum of Judges, Leiden 1995, 1–23, 163–65, 643–45. 5  See e.g. A. Tal, ‫לשון התרגום לנביאים ראשונים ומעמדה בכלל ניבי הארמית‬, Tel Aviv 1975, 191–200; R. Kasher, ‫תוספתות תרגום לנביאים‬, Jerusalem 1996, 14–16.

4

introduction

Although it is because of the briefness of some of the quotations not always possible to classify the material dialectically, part of it is decidedly Palestinian. Therefore, with these fragments of what GoshenGottstein coined ‘lost targums’ we now have Palestinian-type renderings of the Targum to the Prophets where hitherto we only had Targum Jonathan and the Tosefta Targums.6 In our view, the Tosefta Targums and the ‘lost targums’ must be analysed in relation to the text of Targum Jonathan. The material must be studied as concerns its linguistic usage as well as its cultural and theological content. Though of course we are not the first to try this approach, we are the first to combine the two lines of research in one study. In the following chapters we will give amongst other things an overview of the work that has already been done. The major studies on the subject are the book of Rimon Kasher on the Tosefta Targums and of the late Moshe Goshen-Gottstein on the fragments of lost targums.7 Both studies are in Hebrew, and therefore regrettably not as easily accessible as desirable. Moreover the books are currently unavailable. Also some of the other — especially the older — scholarly publications are not always easy to get to. In the present study therefore we bring together older knowledge and insights and in the process try to advance knowledge of the subject. The combination of the two lines of research, the Tosefta Targums and the targumic quotations, will hopefully shed new light on the long-standing question of whether the different traditions should be interpreted as converging or diverging tendencies within the evolution of the text, or as representing two different traditions each with its own typologically different variants. Moreover, we hope that our investigations will bring us nearer to an answer to the question of whether there ever existed a complete Palestinian Targum of the Prophets. For reasons of efficiency we decided to concentrate our research on the Tosefta Targums to Targum Samuel, because our colleague Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman is working on a pilot project for a new scholarly 6  M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, ‘Aspects of Targum Studies’, 9th WCJS, Panel Sessions Bible Studies and Ancient Near East, Jerusalem 1988, 35–44, at 39. His collection of ‘lost Targums’ was published in: M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים מתרגומי המקרא‬ ‫הארמיים‬, 2 Vols, Ramat-Gan 1983–1989. 7  R. Kasher, ‫תוספתות תרגום לנביאים‬, Jerusalem 1996; M. Goshen-Gottstein (with the assistance of Rimon Kasher), ‫שקיעים מתרגומי המקרא הארמיים‬, 2 Vols, RamatGan, 1983–1989.

introduction

5

edition of that Targum. By focussing on evidence for Targum Samuel our finds can be helpful to her work. In turn her experience on the manuscript material of this Targum may shed light on our subject of research. The chapter on the targumic quotations on the other hand includes targumic quotations from all the Books of the Prophets in targumic and rabbinic literature and in magical texts. The set-up of this book is as follows. After the present short account of the reasons for this book and its methodological approach, we proceed with Chapter One in which some introductory issues are dealt with, such as: what is (a) t/Targum; why did it come into being; and how was it used? In Chapter Two we deal with the Tosefta Targums to the Books of Samuel. We will survey previous work on the Tosefta Targums and attempt to characterise the toseftan material on Samuel according to the main sources. We will also see whether all traditions that are generally included in the designation ‘Tosefta Targum’ deserve their name. In Chapter Three we deal with the targumic quotations. Also here we start with a survey of previous research. Next, we deal with the question of definition. Finally, we give a characterisation of the material in the different sources. In the final chapter we combine the findings of the preceding chapters and try to come to some conclusions concerning the status of the variant targumic material and what this may mean for the origin and development of Targum Jonathan. In an appendix all the known targumic quotations from the Prophets are listed, both from the material treated in this study as well as from medieval Jewish works.

Chapter One

Preliminary Issues Before we can start with the presentation of our research, some introductory questions have to be dealt with, namely: what is (a) t/Targum,1 why did it come into being, and how was it used? In this chapter we will sketch in broad outlines the state of research on these issues and position ourselves within the discussion.

A. Definition: What is a Targum? The term ‘targum’ has a very wide spectrum of meaning and has been used indiscriminately for all kinds of Aramaic renderings of Scripture, ranging from the relatively literal Targum Onkelos to the free, midrashlike Aramaic translations of the Writings, while it is sometimes even used to denote a work such as the Qumran Genesis Apocryphon. In this section we will investigate how the term has been used in ancient and modern times and how we can possibly come to a more precise definition. We will start by describing how the word was used in ancient rabbinic literature. Then we will focus on its meaning as a Bible translation. We will first see how the rabbis evaluated t/Targum in the sense of Bible translation and then consult some non-rabbinic sources on the subject. Next we turn to a few modern definitions and see whether they can be used for our purposes. Finally we will consider some borderline cases, namely the Qumran Aramaic versions. The Tosefta Targums, which make up another special case, deserve more attention than can be given here and will therefore be discussed in closer detail in Chapter Two.

1. The semantic field of ‘targum’ in rabbinic literature In rough outline, √‫ תרגם‬can have two different meanings: (1) ‘to speak aloud, deliver, proclaim’ and (2) ‘to translate, interpret’.2 This broad 1  We write ‘Targum’ with a capital letter when it refers to extant written targumic works and ‘targum’ in lower case when it concerns the genre, the act, or particular instances of rendering into Aramaic. 2  See also Z. Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, in: S. Safrai et al.

8

chapter one

semantic field allows the verb and its related nouns to be used in quite a few different ways. We recount the different possibilities with some examples.

1.1. Aramaic language In some cases the word ‘targum’ is used for words or passages in the Bible that are originally in Aramaic. It becomes then synonymous with ‘Aramaic’ and has nothing to do with translation. We give two examples. The first example comes from a tannaitic source, m.Yad 4:5,3 where it says: ‫תרגום שבעזרא ושבדניאל מטמא את הידים תרגום שכתבו עברית ועברית שכתבו‬ ‫תרגום וכתב עברי אינו מטמא את הידים לעולם אינו מטמא עד שיכתבנו אשורית‬ :‫על העור ובדיו‬ ‘Targum’ that is in Ezra and in Daniel renders the hands unclean. ‘Targum’ that has been written in Hebrew script,4 or Hebrew that has been written in ‘targum’5 or in Hebrew script, does not render the hands unclean. It never renders the hands unclean unless it is written in Assyrian script, on leather, and in ink.

The second example is taken from a much later source, namely the post-talmudic Massekhet Soferim 1:9–10. This text prescribes how to treat foreign words in the Bible text. ‫ כל‬,‫ והכי קאמר‬,‫ אלא שיש בה ששה דברים של תרגום‬,‫כל התורה כולה עברית היא‬ ,‫ שהדותא‬,‫ גל‬,‫ כגון יגר‬,‫ ושל תרגום אל יהפכם‬,‫הדברים של עברית אל יכתוב תרגום‬ ,‫ שהן שני לשונות‬,‫ ויש אומרים לא דברו אלא על יגר שהדותא ועל גלעד‬,‫עדות‬ ‫עיברית ותרגום‬ The whole Torah is completely in Hebrew, but it contains six words of ‘targum’. And thus it says: all the words in Hebrew one should not write in ‘targum’, and in ‘targum’ one should not reverse them, such as ‫ יגר‬versus ‫ גל‬and ‫ שהדותא‬versus ‫עדות‬. And there are some who say, that they did only say this about ‫ יגר שהדותא‬and ‫ גלעד‬because there it concerns two languages, Hebrew and ‘targum’. (eds), The Literature of the Sages. Second Part: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science, and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature, Assen 2006, 243–78, at 244–45. For the origin of the word targum, see e.g. F. Starke, ‘Zur Herkunft von akkad. ta / urgumannu(m) “Dolmetscher”’, WO 24 (1993), 20–39. 3  Slightly different versions of this tradition occur in b.Meg 8b–9a and in b.Shab 115b. For a discussion of the differences, see W. Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, two parts, Hildesheim 1965, I.205. 4  I.e. the ancient Hebrew characters as opposed to the so-called Assyrian script. 5  Here the word must mean ‘Aramaic translation’.

preliminary issues

9

Here, just as in the previous example, it is clear that the word ‘targum’ should be interpreted as Aramaic language. Even up to the present day in some cultural contexts ‘targum’ is regarded as synonymous with Aramaic to such an extent that the Aramaic-speaking Jews of Kurdistan refer to their language as ‘targum’.6

1.2. Translation in general Technically speaking words deriving from the field √‫ תרגם‬can apply to the act of translating from and into any language. For instance, in the story of Joseph and his brothers in Egypt in the Targums to Genesis 42:23, the Hebrew word ‫‘ מליץ‬interpreter’ is translated as ‫ תורגמן‬/ ‫מתורגמן‬.7 In rabbinic literature, however, the words are used almost exclusively for the translation of the Bible, and even more specifically, for the translation of the Bible into Aramaic. In some cases, however, the words are also employed for translations into Greek. In Palestinian rabbinic literature there are, for example, quite a few references to the translation practice of Aquila (‫)תירגם עקילס‬.8 This ‘targum’ was a Greek translation of the Bible that was prepared by Aquila the Proselyte around 125 ce, probably under rabbinic supervision. This revision was well appreciated among the Greek-speaking Jews for whom it was a welcome replacement for the Septuagint that had been adopted for use by the young Christian church as the authoritative translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Accordingly, in the Palestinian Talmud and Midrash-collections the translation of Aquila is often mentioned in a positive way. For example, within a discussion on Greek Bible translations, R. Jeremiah in the name of R. iyya bar Ba said:9 ‫תירגם עקילס הגר התורה לפני ר' אליעזר ולפני ר' יהושע וקילסו אותו‬ Aquilas the Proselyte translated the Torah before R. Eliezer and before R. Joshua, and they praised him. 6  See e.g. E. Brauer, The Jews of Kurdistan (completed and edited by Raphael Patai), Detroit 1993, 20–21, 49. 7  See Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 245. 8  G. Veltri, ‘Der griechische Targum Aquilas: Ein Beitrag zum rabbinischen Übersetzungsverständnis’, in: M. Hengel & A.M. Schwemer (eds), Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum, Tübingen 1994, 92­–115. 9  y.Meg 1:8, 71c. In b.Meg 3a there is a parallel tradition that attributes the translation to Onkelos. This is probably just a corruption of Aquilas. See P.S. Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures’, in: M.J. Mulder & H. Sysling (eds), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen [etc.] 1988, 217–53, at 217–18.

10

chapter one

1.3. Oral translation in the synagogue At a certain point in time, probably the period following the second Jewish Revolt,10 a habit was established to translate the weekly Torah reading and its prophetic complement orally into Aramaic.11 This translation, which went by the name targum, was to be recited after every verse of the weekly portion of the Torah, and after every third verse of the haftarah reading.12 Particular portions of the Bible, although read, were not translated while others were neither read nor translated. The oral character was stressed in later sources by forbidding the reader to prompt the meturgeman, lest anyone should say that the targum was included in the text of the Bible and thus belonged to the Written Torah.13 1.4. Written Targum Targum also served a purpose in private devotional study and in the school system.14 For this purpose written copies were in circulation. From the Qumran finds it is known that written Aramaic translations were already in use during the Second Temple Period. Moreover, there is a well-known story in the Talmud about Rabban Gamaliel Berabbi who was found sitting at the table of Yoanan ben Nizuf with the Targum of the Book of Job in his hand. When he was told by R. alafta that his grandfather once instructed builders to suppress a 10  It is not definitely certain when this started. Zeev Safrai has suggested on good grounds that the origin of the custom probably lies in the Ushan period. See Z. Safrai, ‘The Origins of Reading the Aramaic Targum in Synagogue’, Immanuel 24 / 25 (1990), 187–93; Idem, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 246. 11  See e.g. L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, Hildesheim 1966 (repr. of Frankfurt am Main 1892), 344; P.S. Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Salamanca 1983, Leiden 1985, 14–28, esp. 23–26; S.D. Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee of the Third-Sixth Centuries’, in: L.I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, New York & Jerusalem 1992, 253–86. The rules for reading the Targum are formulated in the early tannaitic sources like the Mishnah and the Tosefta. See esp. m.Meg 4:4, 6, 10 and t.Meg 3:20, 21, 28, 31–41. They are worked out in more detail in the Talmuds ad locum. 12  For some background and exceptions to this rule, see e.g. W.F. Smelik, ‘Orality, Manuscript Reproduction and the Targums’, in: A. den Hollander et al. (eds), Paratext and Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions, Leiden [etc.] 2003, 49–81, esp. 52–60. 13  See the remark of Ulla in b.Meg 32a. 14  See e.g. Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, 22–23.

preliminary issues

11

Targum of Job beneath a layer of stones, he too gave orders to store his Targum away.15

1.5. Interpretation In the Babylonian Talmud the verb √‫ תרגם‬frequently involves interpretation of halakhic traditions.16 It occurs in this sense about 140 times concerning mishnayot, beraitot and amoraic statements, whereas in the Palestinian Talmud it occurs only 7 times in this sense.17 Let us look at one example from the Babylonian Talmud. In b.RhS 18a the gemara gives an explanation of the difficult expression of m.RhS 1:2 ‘On New Year all that come into the world pass before Him like the children of Maron’: ‫מאי כבני מרון? הכא תרגימו כבני אמרנא‬ What is meant by ‘like the children of Maron’? In Babylonia it is interpreted as ‘like sheep’.

Apparently the word Maron is here connected with Aramaic ‘sheep’.18 Like sheep that pass through a wicket to be counted one by one, so all creatures will pass in a single file, one by one, before their Creator to be judged.

1.6. Preaching 19 In the Palestinian Talmud and Genesis Rabbah we find a story about Yose Meoni who ‘interpreted’ (‫ )תירגם‬in the synagogue of Tiberias.20 From the context one gets the undeniable impression that it means here that he preached. The text from the Palestinian Talmud reads: ‫ למה לית אתון לעין‬."‫ "שמעו זאת הכהנים‬.‫תירגם יוסי מעוני בכנישתא בטיבריה‬ '‫באוריית‬ 15  b.Shab 115a. See also t.Shab 13:2 (edn Lieberman); y.Shab 16:1, 15c; MasSof 15:2. The story is used there as an argument in the discussion whether translated Scripture has the same degree of holiness as Hebrew Scripture. For an illuminating discussion on this issue, see W.F. Smelik, ‘The Rabbinic Reception of Early Bible Translations as Holy Writings and Oral Torah’, JAB 1 (1999), 249–72. 16  See Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, II.42–44; Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 244 sub 1; W.F. Smelik, ‘Language, Locus, and Translation’, JAB 3 (2001), 199–224, at 201. 17  See Smelik, ‘Language, Locus, and Translation’, 201. 18  See Sokoloff, JBA, 234. 19  See H. Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, Tübingen 1996, 13–14; Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 245 sub 2. 20  y.Sanh 2:5, 20c; GenR 80:1 (Th- A 950).

12

chapter one Yose Meoni preached (‫ )תירגם‬in the synagogue of Tiberias: ‘Hear this, O priests’.21 Why do you not labour in the Torah?

What follows is an attack on the Jewish rulers who deny the priests their rights on the basis of an interpretation of the same Bible text. It is not entirely clear whether the noun ‘targum’ in Sifra Shemini 1:9 also has this shade of meaning.22 The Sifra-text in question deals with Lev 10:10–11 that prohibits the use of alcoholic beverages by the priests because they ‘must teach the Israelites all the laws which the Lord has imparted to them through Moses’. The text discusses whether ‘targum’ should be considered teaching in the sense meant in Leviticus. The text according to the printed edition excludes ‘targum’ from this category, but there are several textual witnesses that include it. Apparently there were shifting attitudes towards t/Targum as source of public teaching.23

1.7. Mouth-piece The noun ‘meturgeman’, or ‘turgeman’, may — apart from its meaning as translator — also refer to someone who transmits the lesson of his rabbi to a larger audience.24 In this sense it is a synonym for Amora.25 When a sage lectured to his students, it was customary for him not to address them directly but through a meturgeman /Amora. He whispered his words to his assistant, who then articulated them aloud to the public. This usage combines the two basic meanings ‘to speak aloud, deliver, proclaim’ and ‘to translate, interpret’, because the meturgeman /Amora not only made the words of the sage audible to the public, he also explained and rephrased them in language that was understandable to the audience. It seems probable that this relationship between a rabbi and his spokesman is inspired by the relationship between Moses and Aaron.26 In Exod 4:15–16 it says: 21  Hos 5:1. Unless stated differently, the English translations of the Bible in this book are according to the New JPS Translation, Philadephia 1985. 22  For the text, see J.H. Weiss, Sifra: Commentar zu Leviticus, Wien 1862, 46d. 23  See for a full discussion of this text S.D. Fraade, ‘Scripture, Targum, and Talmud as Instruction: A Complex Textual Story from the Sifra’, in: J. Magness & S. Gitin, Hesed ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs, Atlanta 1998, 109–21. 24  See e.g. b.Sot 37b, b.Taan 4b. 25  See Zunz, Vorträge, 350–51; Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, 24; Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 13–14. 26  See Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, 24–25; Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 13–14.

preliminary issues

13

(15) You shall speak to him and put the words into his mouth — I will be with you and with him as you speak, and tell both of you what to do — (16) and he shall speak for you to the people. Thus he shall serve as your spokesman,27 with you playing the role of God to him.

In Targum Onkelos the last verse half is interpreted as ‘thus he shall be a meturgeman for you, with you playing the role of master (‫ )רב‬to him.’ The same interpretation also occurs in Targum Onkelos to Exod 7:1.28

1.8. To proclaim Quite another use of the basic meaning ‘to speak aloud, deliver, proclaim’ can be found in Leviticus Rabbah, where it says:29 ‫אוילים יליץ אשם א' ר' יודן הטיפש הזה מתרגם חובתו מפיו ואמ' לא חטאת אני‬ ‫חייב ולא אשם אני חייב‬ ‘Fools mock at guilt’.30 R. Judan said: That fool proclaims (‫ )מתרגם‬his guilt from his own mouth and says ‘am I not bound to bring a sinoffering and am I not bound to bring a guilt-offering?’

1.9. ‫שגיון‬ In Targum Psalms 7:1 we encounter an extraordinary and unique use of the word ‘targum’, namely as a substitute word for the Hebrew ‫שגיון‬. It is not entirely clear what the Hebrew word means. Some modern translations leave it as it is by rendering ‘Shiggaion of David’.31 Others choose a neutral term like ‘meditation’.32 Most modern Dutch translations interpret it as ‘dirge’ (klaaglied).33 The targumic reading is probably based upon an interpretation of the word as an abstract noun of the verb √‫ שאג‬meaning ‘to roar, shout’. As we have seen above, √‫תרגם‬ also has a connotation of loud speech. In this sense it can be used as an equivalent for the word ‫שגיון‬. The meturgeman of this Psalm, however, did not leave it at that, but specified more particularly. In his view it ְ 27  Literally ‘as mouth’ (‫)ל ֶפה‬. 28  See for the meaning of this passage for the understanding of the targumic genre from the perspective of descriptive translation studies, S.D. Fraade, ‘Locating Targum in the Textual Polysystem of Rabbinic Pedagogy’, Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39 (2006), 69–91, esp. 85–91. 29  LevR 9:5 (edn Margulies, I.180–81). 30  Prov 14:9a. 31  King James Version, Jewish Publication Society. 32  World English Bible. 33  NBG51, WV95, GNB96, NBV.

14

chapter one

was not just ‘a shout’ or ‘an exclamation’, but rather ‘an exclamation of thanksgiving’, ‫תירגמא דאודיתא‬.34

2. The character of Targum as a Bible translation according to rabbinic literature The familiar statement of R. Yehudah bar Ilai in t.Meg 3:41 teaches that ‫המתרגם פסוק כצורתו הרי זה בדי והמוסיף הרי זה מגדף‬, ‘He who translates a verse literally is a liar, while he who adds anything thereto is a blasphemer’.35 From this may be deduced that a targum in its ideal form was not a literal translation, but rather an interpretative rendition. The interpretation, however, should always be solely based on Scripture. A later talmudic commentary on the passage defines Targum as follows: ‫‘ אלא מאי תרגום תרגום דידן‬If so, which is (the proper) Targum? Our Targum!’,36 meaning the official Targum Onkelos.37 Obviously a point had been reached where the rabbis wanted to check further diversification of Targums and establish a single authoritative text that had to meet the requests outlined in the Tosefta text cited above. Nevertheless, in the course of time some elaborate targum traditions that did not appear in the official Targums became quite popular, especially around the feasts. This practice was defended in the Middle Ages by Juda ben Barzillai as follows: ‫ותרגום של ארץ ישראל שיש בו תוספות הגדות הוסיפו החזנין שלהן מחמתן ואמרו‬ 38.‫שמותר לאומרו בבית הכנסת מפני שפירוש הוא‬ And the Targum of the Land of Israel, in which there are aggadic additions, the azanim ­­­­added from them spontaneously and said that it is allowed to tell them in the synagogue because it is explanation.

This shows that in actual practice, at least in the Middle Ages, the more elaborate Palestinian targum traditions were tolerated, because they were presented as an explanation of the liturgical reading rather than 34  See D.M. Stec, The Targum of Psalms, Collegeville 2004, 35. Ed Cook in his Internet translation opted for the more traditional meaning of ‘targum’ by translating ‘A rendition of the thanksgiving of David’ (http: /  / targum.info / pss / ps1.htm (accessed Aug. 1, 2008)). Although this certainly is a possible translation, it does not explain the relation to the Hebrew text. 35  This baraita is preserved in a slightly different form in b.Qid 49a. 36  b.Qid 49a. 37  And probably also Targum Jonathan. 38  ‫ספר העתים‬, ms Halberstamm as cited in G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdischpalästinischen Aramäisch, Darmstadt 1960, 30. This text dates from ± 1100 ce.

preliminary issues

15

as a translation. The targum that served as a translation of the liturgical reading, however, had to conform to the rule of R. Yehudah bar Ilai. So, a distinction was drawn between targum that served as a translation of Scripture and targum that served as an explanation of the same. From the words of R. Yehudah bar Ilai it seems that the meturgemanim’s guideline was the doctrine of the universal truth of Scripture.39 This doctrine implies that all elements of the Written Torah, be they words, or other graphic signs, are significant, consistent, and relevant for all generations.40 It is this tenet that not only allowed, but also incited the meturgemanim to proceed as they did. What we now consider additions may have been considered necessary circumlocutions by the meturgemanim. The accepted characteristics of the official Targums, as described below in section 6, can easily be explained from this supposition.

3. Characteristics of Jewish Bible translations according to early Christian sources Early Christian sources speak about Jewish Bible translations, though not about the Aramaic Targums. This is not surprising, since the Greek translations were obviously more easily accessible to them than the Aramaic ones because of the language barrier. Above, we mentioned the Greek translation of Aquila that was popular among the Greekspeaking Jewish society. The church father Origen criticised this translation because of its hyper-literalness. He called Aquila depreciatively a ‘slave of the Hebrew word’.41 This hyper-literalness was certainly not due to a lack of knowledge of Greek grammar and syntax, since Aquila is known to have had an excellent command of that language. Therefore, there must have been more compelling reasons to stay as close as this to the Hebrew. One reason may have been the sacred character of the text in which every element was considered meaningful: not only the words themselves, but also their order within the verse.42 The 39  See A. Goldberg, ‘The Rabbinic View of Scripture’, in: P.R. Davies & R.T. White (eds), A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, Sheffield 1990, 153–66. This essay was originally published in German: ‘Die Schrift der rabbinische Schriftausleger’, FJB 15 (1987), 1–15; A. Samely, ‘Scripture’s Implicature: The Midrashic Assumptions of Relevance and Consistency’, JSS 37 (1992), 167– 205, esp. 191–94; D.I. Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE, Tübingen 1992, esp. 212–25. 40  This is also reflected in the NT, e.g. Mat 5:17–18 and Luke 16:17. 41  Origen, Ad Afric., 4 (SC 302, 526). 42  Another reason was suggested by Alexander, by positing that the translation

16

chapter one

significance of the word order was also recognised by Jerome, who was a Bible translator himself. In his letter to Pammachius, on the best method of translating, he defended the preference of a sense for sense paraphrase over a word for word translation. He made, however, one exception, namely ‘the case of the holy Scriptures where even the order of the words is a mystery’.43 Apparently he considered the word order to be inspired. In the same letter, Jerome criticised Aquila for his attempt ‘to translate not words only but their etymologies as well’.44 The example he gave is Deut 7:13, where Aquila conveyed the etymology of the Hebrew words rather than their plain meaning. He went on then to criticise Aquila because he translated even particles in the Hebrew that are generally not translated, such as the object marker. As an example he gave Aquila’s rendering of Gen 1:1, where the Hebrew particle ‫את‬, here clearly an object marker, had been translated by the Greek preposition σύν, ‘with’.45 Thus, cloaked in their criticism, these two church fathers gave us three characteristics of the translation of Aquila that are also known from the Aramaic Targums: (1) The translation is a word for word translation that preserves the original word order; (2) Aquila tried not only to give the plain meaning of the words, but also their supposed original or associated meanings; (3) Aquila translated every single element of the Hebrew text, in accordance with the rule that nothing in the Bible is meaningless.

4. Modern definitions In modern times, several attempts have been made to give a definition of Targum. Not surprisingly the definitions concentrate on the concepts ‘Bible translation’ and ‘Aramaic’. Within these boundaries, however, there are still several possibilities. The most important difference is whether or not to restrict the term Targum to Jewish translations or to include Christian translations as well. Roger le Déaut, for instance, chose to reserve the term for Jewish translations. He wrote: probably served as a crib for the Greek speaking Jews to learn Hebrew. See P.S. Alexander, ‘How did the Rabbis Learn Hebrew?’, in: W. Horbury (ed.), Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, Edinburgh 1999, 71–89, at 83. 43  Jerome, Ep. 57 ad Pammach., 5 (CSEL 54, 508). 44  Jerome, Ep. 57 ad Pammach., 11 (CSEL 54, 523). 45  For a discussion of Aquila’s translation of ‫את‬, see L.L. Grabbe, ‘Aquila’s Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis’, JJS 33 / 1–2 (1982), 527–36, at 532–33.

preliminary issues

17

… il désigne la traduction d’un texte biblique en araméen (ce qui exclut la Septante), fait par des Juifs pour des Juifs (ce qui élimine la Peshitta, dans son ensemble) pour l’usage dans le culte synagogal ou l’enseignement.46

Klaus Beyer, on the other hand, kept the way open for Christian translations: Unter Targumen versteht man die jüdisch-aramäischen Übersetzungen des Alten Testaments, im weiterem Sinne auch die christlicharamäischen.47

The specific translational character of the Targums is generally not touched upon in the definition. Lately Alexander Samely filled this lacuna by proposing a definition that does justice to the interpretative aspect of the targumic translations: Targum is an Aramaic narrative paraphrase of the biblical text in exegetical dependence on its wording.48

Samely’s approach is in a way a breakthrough, because it concentrates on the character of Targum rather than on its origin and function. This is an advantage over the earlier definitions. It lacks, however, information on the cultural background. In our view, a definition should contain at least the aspects of cultural background and character. The third aspect of function is interesting, but at this stage not necessary for our purposes. As regards the background, it seems prudent to reserve the term, as Le Déaut does, for Jewish Aramaic Bible translations in order not to make the field too wide. Moreover, it is clear that in the works that are generally accorded the name ‘Targum’, the Jewish cultural background plays a dominant role without which they cannot be understood. Let us add, therefore, the word ‘Jewish’ to the proposed definition: Targum is a Jewish Aramaic narrative paraphrase of the biblical text in exegetical dependence on its wording.

This definition is, however, still rather broad and does not help to solve the question of whether or not, for example, the Genesis Apocryphon may be called a Targum or not. Since nowadays there is a consensus 46  R. le Déaut, ‘La Septante, un Targum?’, in: R. Kuntzmann & J. Schlosser (eds), Études sur le judaïsme hellénistique, Paris 1984, 147–95, at 153. 47  K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, Göttingen 1983, 273. 48  A. Samely, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums, Tübingen 1992, 180.

18

chapter one

that the Genesis Apocryphon is not a Targum, we must try to define where the difference lies. It seems to rest on the fact that the undisputed Targums follow the Hebrew text slavishly in its exact wording. Although they sometimes give an interpretative rather than a verbatim translation, nevertheless they always contain some rendering of each Hebrew word in the order in which they appear in the biblical text. So maybe we should sharpen the definition a little more by stressing that it is an interpretative translation of the exact wording, including the word order. This means that the text is translated according to the verbum e verbo method rather than according the sensus de sensu approach. Therefore we prefer to change the term ‘paraphrase’ to ‘interpretative word-by-word translation’, whereby the expression word-byword is used as a means of expressing the fact that each Hebrew word is rendered in its original order. This would lead to the following: Targum is a Jewish Aramaic interpretative word-by-word translation of the biblical text in exegetical dependence on its wording.

This may well serve as an umbrella for all the texts we generally call Targum, but it is still rather wide. We could nuance it still more by defining sub-categories. These sub-categories may be geographical, such as ‘Babylonian Targum’ or ‘Palestinian Targum’, or they may relate to their function, such as ‘liturgical Targum’ or ‘school-Targum’. One could also differentiate between Targums with an official status, such as Onkelos and Jonathan, and Targums that do not have that status, such as the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch. Another subdivision may be made concerning their completeness. There are comprehensive Targums on one or more complete biblical books, and there are Targums that have only selected texts.49 The last category can be further subdivided into haftarah collections on the one hand and fragmentary Targums and Tosefta Targums on the other. One could also classify according to literary character, selecting relatively literal translations, such as Targum Onkelos, and expansive exegetical translations, such as Targum Writings.50 49  See W.F. Smelik, The Targum of Judges, Leiden 1995, 92. 50  Lehman, in his useful article on the Genesis Apocryphon, remarked the following about the character of the different Targums: ‘It may be said that the various Targumim are mainly characterised by the ratio existing between interpretativenarrative portions and strictly translative portions. We have only to compare, e.g. the Targum Sheni to Esther — which deviates into midrashic material throughout its text — and Targum Onqelos which on the whole adheres as literally as possible to the Masoretic text except for occasional use of the interpretative method. Somewhere in

preliminary issues

19

All these possible subdivisions have advantages and disadvantages, dependent on the goal for which they are used. For our goal, i.e. the mutual comparison of different targum traditions, the division according to literary character seems to be the most fruitful, though also a functional subdivision might prove to be useful. Finally, one must be aware that there is an extra complication in the matter of subdivision and classification of t /Targums because the term is used indiscriminately for a literary work and for individual traditions.51 One can talk, for instance, about ‘the Targum of the Prophets’, but also about ‘the different targums of Gen 1:1’. Philip Alexander proposed a division according to external features of targumic extensions, a division that is more suitable for characterising individual traditions than complete literary works. He distinguished two basically different types, which he called type a and type b.52 In his division, type a displays a one-to-one base translation with explanatory additions that can easily be detached. In type b the biblical text is dissolved in paraphrase so that the original wording of the biblical text can hardly be recognised.53 Although this distinction meant a step forward in classing the different types of targum, something essential is missing. His categorisation, as we understand it, encompasses only extended targums. A great part, however, of the Targums Onkelos and Jonathan does not contain any additions, either detachable, or inextricable. In those parts, either a literal translation is given, supplying semantically related Aramaic equivalents for each Hebrew word, or an interpretabetween these two extremes we find Targum Jonathan, leaning mainly to the task of translating the text, yet also taking vast midrashic liberties. Targum Yerushalmi belongs even further in the “midrashic” column.’ M.R. Lehman, ‘1 Q Gen. Ap. in the Light of the Targumim and Midrashim’, RQ 1 (1958–59), 249–63, at 251. 51  See n. 1. 52  Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, 17–21; Idem, ‘Jewish Aramaic Bible Translations’, 228–37. Another, more detailed division is given by Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 257–58. 53  Willem Smelik drew attention to the problems involved in type a. He rightly remarked that although Targum Jonathan as a whole should probably be classified under type a, it turns out that it is not at all easy to identify the pluses indisputably and detach them (W.F. Smelik, ‘Translation and Commentary in One: The Interplay of Pluses and Substitutions in the Targum of the Prophets’, JSJ 19 /3 (1998), 245–60, esp. 246–52, 59–60). The same point was raised by David Shepherd, who however focussed less on the division as such, but rather on the assumption that the additions in the type a Targum could be detached at the wish of the meturgeman (D. Shepherd, ‘Translating and Supplementing: A(nother) Look at the Targumic Versions of Genesis 4.3–16’, JAB 1 (1999), 125–46).

20

chapter one

tive word-by-word translation is given, in which one or more words are substituted by Aramaic words that are not semantically related. In an illuminating article, Willem Smelik pointed out that Targum Jonathan is characterised by a subtle interplay between pluses and substitutions.54 Basically this holds true for all rabbinic Targums. What distinguishes them is only the ratio between literal translations, pluses and substitutions. If we assume that these two elements, substitutions and additions, are the main building blocks by which an interpretative translation of the Hebrew Bible text can be made, then there are four possible combinations: »  neither of the two means is used »  addition is used, but not substitution »  substitution is used, but not addition »  both substitution and addition are used

The detachability of an addition is connected with the use of substitution. If additions are used without substitutions, then the odds are that the additions are easily detachable without disturbing the flow of thought or the syntax of the base translation. These cases would thereby fall under Alexander’s type a. If, on the other hand, a certain targumic interpretation of a verse contains both substitutions and additions, then the odds are that the additions cannot be easily detached, since the whole meaning and structure of the verse will be changed. It would thereby fall under Alexander’s type b. A complicating factor in the classification of targumic types is the occurrence of so-called doublets or multiple renderings. Sometimes a word or expression in the Hebrew text is translated twice or even more times.55 There may be different reasons for this. In some cases, a verb is taken as a double-duty verb if it serves different parts of the verse, socalled gapping.56 In other cases, it seems that the meturgeman wanted 54  See above, n. 53. 55  Z. Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Profeten, Breslau 1872, 39–40; P. Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, New Haven 1907 [= 1927], 139–41; E.Z. Melammed, ‫מפרשי המקרא‬, 2 Vols, Jerusalem 19782, I.331–32; B.B. Levy, Targum Neophyti, 2 Vols, Lanham [etc.] 1986, I.52–53; L. Díez Merino, ‘Procedimientos targúmicos’, in: V. Collado-Bertomeu & V. Vilar-Hueso (eds), II. Simposio Bíblico Español (Córdoba 1985), Valencia  &  Cordoba 1987, 461–86, esp. 482–83; Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations’, 227; J.C. de Moor, ‘Multiple Renderings in the Targum of Isaiah’, JAB 3 (2001), 161–80. 56  M. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, Winona Lake 1980, 122–27, 401–4; Smelik, ‘Translation and Commentary in One’, 256.

preliminary issues

21

to preserve two different readings of the source text. In still other cases, it seems that the multiple renderings reflect uncertainty on the part of the meturgeman as to the correct interpretation of the Hebrew,57 or that the meturgeman aimed at maximising the sense of Scripture if the Hebrew allowed different interpretations.58 It depends therefore on the situation, whether one or all of the renderings must be seen as a ‘straight translation’, or as a substitution, or whether some of them must be considered an addition. In our view, the main division in these cases should be whether the Aramaic lemmas can be directly linked to a Hebrew lemma or not. If there is no straight link, then the word or phrase concerned must be considered an addition, whereby it depends on the interpretation of the verse as a whole as to whether it must be considered a detachable or an undetachable addition. This complication does, however, not influence the division into four types in a fundamental way. In conclusion we can say that Alexander’s distinction does not suffice to characterise all sorts of targumic interpretation. On the basis of what was stated above, at least two types need to be added, for which we will present a proposal in the following section.

5. Different targum types Instead of the two types proposed by Alexander, we suggest a subdivision into four types that are based upon the combinations we have just discussed.59 For each type examples are given from Targum Jonathan on Samuel.

5.1. Literal word-by-word translation This type includes targums that offer a literal translation of the Hebrew text, supplying semantically related Aramaic equivalents for each Hebrew word. An example of the type is found in 1 Sam 8:1: :‫ָׂשם ֶאת ָּבנָיו ׁש ְֹפ ִטים ְליִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ֶ ‫מּואל ַוּי‬ ֵ ‫ָקן ְׁש‬ ֵ ‫וַיְ ִהי ַּכ ֲא ֶׁשר ז‬ :‫והוה כד סיב שמואל ומני ית בנוהי דיינין על ישראל‬

mt tj

When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons judges over Israel. 57  Smelik, Targum of Judges, 97. 58  Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations’, 227. 59  For another possible subdivision, see Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 257–58.

22

chapter one

5.2. Extended translation with detachable glosses This type includes targums that offer a literal translation of the Hebrew text, combined with smaller or larger additions. The additions can be bracketed out without disturbing the flow of thought or the syntax of the base translation. Two subtypes can be discerned. In the first subtype the additional material is inserted into the text. To illustrate this we take as an example Targum Jonathan 1 Sam 1:18b. After Hannah had poured out her grief in the Temple and asked God for a son, God promised her through Eli that her request would be granted. Thereupon we read the following: :‫ֶיה – ֹלא ָהיּו ָלּה עֹוד‬ ָ ‫ּופנ‬ ָ ‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫ַּת ֶלְך ָה ִא ָּׁשה ְל ַד ְר ָּכּה ַוּת‬ ֵ‫ו‬ :‫ואזלת אתתא לאורחה ואכלת ואפין בישין לא הוו לה עוד‬

mt tj

The Hebrew may be translated as: So the woman went her way, and ate, and she had no longer her countenance.

This is a rather strange sentence, and therefore the Targum chose to add an adjective to the word ‘countenance’, indicating in what way her facial expression had changed after the good news. This led to the following translation: So the woman went her way, and ate, and she had no longer a sad countenance.

In the second subtype longer additions precede or follow the actual translation. An example of this approach can be found in 1 Sam 2 in the interpretative translation of the song of Hannah. The verses 2–5 are interpreted as prophecies concerning specific persons or groups. Let us look at 1 Sam 2:2a: – – – – – – – – – – – ‫על סנחריב מלכא דאתור אתנביאת ואמרת דעתיד דיסק הוא וכל חילותיה‬

mt

– – – – – – – – – – – – – ‫על ירושלם ונס סגי יתעביד ביה תמן יפלון פגרי משריתיה בכין יודון כל‬

mt

‫ֵאין ָקדֹוׁש ַּכיהֹוָה ִּכי ֵאין ִּב ְל ֶּתָך‬ – – – – ‫עממיא אומיא ולשניא ויימרון לית דקדיש אלא יוי ארי לית בר מנך‬

mt

tj

tj

tj

The biblical ‘There is no holy one like the Lord; truly, there is none beside You’ is translated as follows:

preliminary issues

23

Concerning Sennacherib, the king of Assyria she prophesied and said that he was to come up against Jerusalem, he and all his armies. And a great miracle would be done through him. There the corpses of his army would fall. Thereupon all peoples and nations of every language would confess saying ‘There is no holy one like the Lord; truly, there is none beside You.’

The biblical text itself is translated fairly literally, but there is a long addition preceding the translation that pictures the context in which this confession will be made according to the meturgeman.

5.3. Interpretative word-by-word translation This type includes targums that offer a word-by-word translation of the Hebrew text, with substitutions that recast the passage into terms of the current world in which they live or interpret the meaning of the text. The first example is taken from 1 Sam 15:6a.60 ‫א ִֹס ְפָך ִעּמֹו‬ ‫ֲמ ֵל ִקי ֶּפן‬ ָ ‫ֹאמר ָׁשאּול ֶאל ַה ֵּקינִ י ְלכּו ֻּסרּו ְרדּו ִמּתֹוְך ע‬ ֶ ‫ַוּי‬ ‫ואמר שאול לשלמאה איזיל זור אתפרש מגו עמלקאה דלמא אשיצינך עימיה‬

mt tj

And Saul said unto the Shalmaites, “Go, depart, part from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them.”

The Hebrew text reads ‘Kenites’ instead of ‘Shalmaites’. Throughout the Targums, the Kenites are identified with the Arab tribe of the Shalmaites, which is in line with the views expressed in rabbinic literature.61 In this way this substitution actualises the text to the world of the audience. The second example, which is taken from 1 Sam 1:1a, gives an interpretation of an ambiguous word. ‫ֶא ְפ ָריִ ם‬ ‫ֵמ ַהר‬ ‫צֹופים‬ ִ ‫וַיְ ִהי ִאיׁש ֶא ָחד ִמן ָה ָר ָמ ַתיִ ם‬ ‫והוה גברא חד מרמתא מתלמידי נבייא מטורא דבית אפרים‬

mt tj

The Hebrew word ‫ צופים‬is generally interpreted as a gentilitial name or as a toponym and is translated accordingly as Zuphites or Zophim. The meturgeman, however, read it as a participle qal from √‫‘ צפה‬to 60  See E. van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, Leiden 2002, 118. 61  See L. Smolar & M. Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, New York & Baltimore 1983, 48, 117.

24

chapter one

keep watch, look out’ and interpreted it as a cipher for prophet, which leads to the following translation:62 There was a man from Ramah, from the pupils of the prophets, from the hill country of the House of Ephraim

5.4. Extended interpretative translation This type includes targums that offer a strongly interpretative translation of the Hebrew text. The smaller or larger additions cannot be removed since they cohere with substitutions of (parts of) the original text. For this type we take a look at 1 Sam 15:17 and its targumic interpretation. – ‫ַאּתה ְּב ֵעינֶיָך‬ ָ ‫– ָקטֹן‬ – ‫ִאם‬ – ‫מּואל ֲהלֹוא‬ ֵ ‫ֹאמר ְׁש‬ ֶ ‫ַוּי‬ ‫ואמר שמואל הלא מן שריותך הויתא שיט וחלש – בעיני נפשך‬

mt

‫– רֹאׁש‬ – – – – – – – – – – ‫ברם זכות שבטא דבנימין אבוך היא גרמת לך דבעא למעבד בימא קדם‬

mt

:‫ַעל יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ְל ֶמ ֶל‬ ‫ יהוה‬‫ָאּתה – – וַּיִ ְמ ָׁש ֲח‬ ָ ‫ִׁש ְב ֵטי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ :‫בני ישראל – בדיל כין רביך יוי למהוי מלכא על ישראל‬

mt

tj

tj

tj

The Hebrew text may be translated in English as: And Samuel said, “You may look small to yourself, but you are the head of the tribes of Israel. The Lord anointed you king over Israel.”

In the version of Targum Jonathan this verse may be translated as: And Samuel said, “Were you not from your beginning despised and weak in your own eyes? But the merit of the tribe of Benjamin your father brought it about for you, because he tried to cross the sea before the [other] sons of Israel. On account of this the Lord anointed you to be king over Israel.”

The Hebrew text contrasts Saul’s own initial perception of his status (cf. 1 Sam 9:21) with the status God awarded to him as head of the tribes of Israel. The Targum tries to find a reason for this apparent contradiction in an aggadic tradition about Benjamin who was the first to enter the sea. Benjamin’s act of trust was judged as a merit by God, which subsequently led to the honour bestowed on Saul. Although, 62  Cf. 1 Sam 9:5. See Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 93; Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 187–88, 265.

preliminary issues

25

with the exception of the double occurrence of the pronoun ‫אתה‬, each word of the Hebrew text is translated in its original order, the base text is hardly recognisable, due to the aggadic nature of the translation. The additions cannot be removed without distorting the text severely. Notwithstanding, the meaning stays close to the original intention of the text. Finally, there are also cases that formally belong to this same category, but where the result of the targumic operation renders a drastic turn, or even a total rewriting, of the original meaning. This is the case, for instance, in the Targum of Canticles. In this Targum a new midrash-type story, which tells of the relationship between God and Israel, is created out of the biblical text. In the first chapters, for example, the complete story of the Exodus passes. Nevertheless, in this new story almost every word of the Hebrew text is translated or reflected on. This is well formulated by Philip Alexander: ‘Each element in the original is taken as a symbol or cypher to be decoded and arranged in a coherent story, within the broad hermeneutical perspective that the text is an allegorical statement about God’s relationship to Israel through Tora.’63 In our view, this kind of Aramaic rewording of a text can hardly be called ‘targum’. It seems a kind of amalgamation between the genres of targum, midrash and rewritten Bible. Since this type of targum does not occur within the corpus of Targum Jonathan, we need not pursue this difficult question here further.

6. Targum characteristics In the above characterisation, the attention was focussed on the exegetical changes and additions. Before we proceed, it is good also to give some attention to the general translational approach of those texts that are commonly designated as Targums, because even texts that do not as a rule contain exegetical additions, such as Targum Onkelos and Targum Jonathan to the Former Prophets, are not simple word-by-word translations but pursue distinct tactics. What kind of tactics can be discerned?

63  Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations’, 236. See also Alexander, ‘Textual Criticism and Rabbinic Literature: The Case of the Targum of the Song of Songs’, BJRL 75 (1993), 159–73, at 172. A similar view is expressed in the Dutch study of M.J. Mulder, De targum op het Hooglied, Amsterdam 1975, 23–24.

26

chapter one

»  The Targums are interpretative translations; they strive to open the source text to the audience.64 »  The original word order is maintained. As stated above,65 the doctrine of the universal truth of Scripture implies that all elements of the Written Torah, be they words, or other graphic signs, or even blank spaces, are significant, consistent, and relevant for all generations. Within this framework, the specific order of the words is also a matter of concern.66 Since Aramaic and Hebrew are cognate languages, it was relatively easy to hold on to the original word order, much easier than it was, for instance, for Aquila in his Greek translation of the Bible. It is therefore the more remarkable that in some cases the word order in the Aramaic Targum deviates from the Hebrew order.67 On the other hand, Shepherd, in his comparative study of Aramaic translations of Job, showed that although the rabbinic Targum of Job contains a few transpositions, these are negligible in comparison to the number of transpositions in the other Aramaic versions. He concludes therefore that in the case of the rabbinic Targum, divergence of the word order is so rarely found that transposition may be considered a practically unused tool in the hands of the meturgeman responsible for this rendering of the Hebrew text of Job.68 We cannot speak with certainty about all rabbinic Targums, but from our team’s experience with the work on a bilingual concordance to the Targum of the Prophets we can claim with confidence that the same holds true for Targum Jonathan.69 »  Obscurities are resolved without deleting elements present in the Hebrew. The same applies here as in the preceding category, namely 64  In contrast to a literalist translation that strives to bring the reader to the source text. See S.P. Brock, ‘Translating the Old Testament’, in: D.A. Carson & H.G.M. Williamson (eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, Cambridge 1988, 87–98, at 91. 65  See above, p. 15. 66  See for example the remark of Aquila (above, p. 16), that in the case of the Holy Scriptures even the order of the words is a mystery. 67  For some examples from Targum Jonathan, see Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Propheten, 16–17. 68  D. Shepherd, Targum and Translation. A Reconsideration of the Qumran Aramaic Version of Job, Assen 2004, 223. 69  From 1987–2005 a team of the Dutch Protestant Theological University in Kampen worked on a bilingual concordance of Targum Jonathan under the directorship of Johannes de Moor. This resulted in a series of 21 volumes that were published between 1995–2005 with Brill in Leiden, entitled A Bilingual Concordance to the Targum of the Prophets.

preliminary issues

27

that the rule is not applied consistently. There are cases where some minor elements in the Hebrew text have been skipped over, but they are exceptions.70 »  Ambiguities in the text that are due to the meaning of a particular Hebrew word are resolved by differentiation. Hebrew words with a general meaning may be translated by different Aramaic equivalents depending on the context, i.e. functionally equivalent rather than formally equivalent. To give an often-used example, the Hebrew word ‫‘ כהן‬priest’ is translated by the Aramaic ‫ כהנא‬when it refers to a priest of the God of Israel, whereas it is translated by ‫ כומרא‬when it refers to an idolatrous priest.71 »  On the level of interpretation the Targum is exclusive because usually only one interpretation of a verse is offered. The targumic interpretations are often based on word substitutions of rare and difficult terms by their supposed meanings.72 »  By means of stock phrases, standard translations and simplifications, the coherence of the Bible is strengthened. »  Expressions that might seem disrespectful with regard to God or His people are avoided. Anthropomorphic and anthropopathic references to God are often, though not always, reworded in more neutral wording.73

7. Qumran Aramaic versions Let us now look, with the above in mind, to some works about which there is as yet no scolarly agreement concerning whether they should be called Targum or not. We start with the so-called Genesis Apocryphon. The scroll containing an Aramaic version of Genesis stories, which was found in 1947 with six other scrolls in Qumran, was named ‘A 70  For the case of Tg Job, see Shepherd, Targum and Translation, 111–22. 71  E.g. Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, 115–16; Smolar & Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, 36–38; Smelik, ‘Translation and Commentary in One’, 258; Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 146. 72  This is a hermeneutic principle that occurs abundantly in tannaitic literature. In the tannaitic Midrashim such simple renderings are generally introduced with the term ‫אין … אלא‬. See e.g. S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, New York 1962, 48–52; W. Reiss, ‘Wortsubstition als Mittel der Deutung. Bemerkungen zur Formel ‫’אין … אלא‬, FJB 6 (1978), 27–69. 73  For a balanced view on this question, see e.g. M.L. Klein, ‘The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume, Vienna 1980, Leiden 1981, 162–77.

28

chapter one

Genesis Apocryphon’ by its first editors, Nahman Avigad and Yigael Yadin.74 In their view, the text is the earliest Aramaic example of pseudo-epigraphic literature that has come down to us.75 Soon afterwards, Manfred Lehmann characterised it differently, by writing: ‘1 Q Gen. Ap., too, oscillates between midrashic deviations from the Masoretic text and literal translations. However, the former outweigh the latter. We can thus place 1 Q Gen. Ap. in the midrashic column of the Targumim.’76 Paul Kahle and Matthew Black thought in the same direction, wondering whether the text should not rather be considered an early specimen of a written Aramaic Pentateuch Targum from Palestine than an example of pseudepigraphic literature.77 Black elaborated this suggestion in an appendix to his book The Scrolls and Christian Origins.78 He pointed to the fact that the order of the Aramaic text in the scroll follows chapter and verse of the Hebrew original, and that it contains ancient exegetical traditions and explanatory additions in the manner of the Targums. Fitzmyer, in his commentary on the Genesis Apocryphon, acknowledged Black’s analysis for part of the text, especially for the part that corresponds to Genesis 14, but rejected the idea of labelling the whole composition a Targum. Though there certainly are passages where the word-by-word translation of the Hebrew text of Genesis suggests ‘targum’, so too there are passages where the embellishment of the text is strongly reminiscent of aggadic midrash.79 By a comparison of the Genesis Apocryphon with the Pentateuchal Targums Onkelos, Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan, for the parts where the text really seems to be a translation of the Hebrew text, Fitzmyer concluded that the Genesis Apocryphon is older than any of the Targums mentioned.80 As it happens, some of the features that are char74  N. Avigad & Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea. Description and Contents of the Scroll, Facsimiles, Transcription and Translation of Columns II, XIX–XXII, Jerusalem 1956, 8. 75  Avigad & Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon, 39. 76  Lehmann, ‘1 Q Genesis Apocryphon’, 251. 77  M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of the New Testament, London 1961, Appendix C: Aramaic Texts from Qumran, 192–98, at 193. 78  See n. 77. 79  J.A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary, Rome 20043, 18. Paul Kahle, in his book The Cairo Geniza (Oxford 1959) retracted his earlier suggestion that the work was probably a Targum and instead characterised it as a Midrash book (198). 80  Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 28–34.

preliminary issues

29

acteristic of the Targums are absent from the Genesis Apocryphon. There is, for instance, in the Genesis Apocryphon none of the tendency to substitute for the Tetragrammaton any phrase like ‘the Memra of the Lord’ or the like, in order to avoid disrespectful associations.81 Another feature that is regularly encountered in the Targums, namely the disambiguation of multi-interpretable words, especially in connection with the holy and the profane, is also absent in the Genesis Apocryphon.82 Whereas the Hebrew Bible for example uses the same word ‫ כהן‬for both Israelite priests and idolatrous priests, the meturgemanim, as we have seen above, generally chose to differentiate between them, reserving the word ‫ כהן‬for a priest of the God of Israel. In the Genesis Apocryphon, however, it was apparently not considered inappropriate to call Melchizedek a ‫כהן‬.83 On the basis of both the handwriting84 and the language85, the scroll can be dated between the first century bce and the first century ce. This fits in with Fitzmyer’s observation that as regards translation policy the Genesis Apocryphon seems to be older than the rabbinic Targums. If we now evaluate the Genesis Apocryphon on the basis of our definition of Targum and on the list of generally accepted characteristics of the genre, we must conclude that according to those criteria the Genesis Apocryphon should not be considered a Targum: »  the exact wording of the biblical text is not respected consistently; »  there is no circumlocutory rendition of the divine name; »  it contains no disambiguation of multi-interpretable words. Let us now turn to the Aramaic version of Job. From Qumran Cave XI an Aramaic version of Job has surfaced in a fragmentary state, which 81  Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 33. 82  Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 111–19; Smolar & Aberbach, Studies, 154. 83  Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 34; P. Grelot, ‘De l’apocryphe de la Genèse aux Targoums: sur Genèse 14, 18–20’, in: Z.J. Kapera (ed.), Intertestamental Essays: In Honour of Józef Tadeusz Milik, Kraków 1992, 77–90, at 81. 84  The handwriting of the scroll is ‘Herodian’ and should be dated somewhere between the middle of the first century bce and the end of the Qumran settlement at 70 ce. See e.g. N. Avigad, ‘The Palaeography of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Documents’, Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jerusalem 19652, 56–87, esp. 71–72; Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 13. 85  The language can be dated somewhere in the first century bce or ce. See E.Y. Kutscher, ‘Dating the Language of the Genesis Apocryphon’, JBL 76 (1957), 288–92; Idem, ‘The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon: A Preliminary Study’, Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1–35, at 22; Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 17–25.

30

chapter one

became known as 11Q10 or 11QTgJob.86 The manuscript can probably be dated to the first century ce.87 The text is, however, possibly based on an older Vorlage, since the language can approximately be dated to the second century bce.88 This version has a decidedly different character from the later rabbinic Targum of Job. The number of expansions in the Aramaic version from Qumran is small in comparison to the large number in the later rabbinic Targum.89 The version from Qumran lacks homiletic expansions and allusions to midrashim.90 While the term ‘targum’ has been applied to the Aramaic translation of Job from the very beginning,91 it still remains to be seen whether this is an appropriate designation. In order to avoid unwished-for association with the community of Qumran, other designations have been proposed, such as ‘old Targum’,92 ‘first century targum’,93 or ‘Hasmon-

86  M. Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave 11, Ramat-Gan 1974. Another tiny fragment of the same text was found in Cave 4. See J.T. Milik & R. de Vaux, Qumrân Grotte 4. II Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128 – 4Q157), Oxford 1977, 90. 87  The script is of the type labelled by Albright as ‘Herodian’ (W.F. Albright, ‘A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age: The Nash Papyrus’, JBL 56 (1937), 145– 76, at 151). 88  J.P.M. van der Ploeg & A. van der Woude (Le Targum de Job de la Grotte XI de Qumrân, Leiden 1971, 4) and Sokoloff (The Targum to Job, 25) date it to the second half of the second century bce; B. Jongeling et al. (eds), Aramaic Texts from Qumran, Leiden 1976, 5–6 date it to the first half of the second century bce; T. Muraoka, ‘The Aramaic of the Old Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI’, JJS 25 / 3 (1974), 425–43 at 442 dates it to the second half of the third century bce or the first half of the second century bce. Against these early datings, Stephen Kaufman opts for a dating in the first century bce on grammatical grounds (S.A. Kaufman, ‘The Job Targum from Qumran’, JAOS 93 (1973), 317–27, at 327), while Bruce Zuckerman comes to the same probable date on the basis of palaeographical considerations concerning the Vorlage of the Qumran Targum (B. Zuckerman, ‘The Date of 11Q Targum Job: A Paleographic Consideration of its Vorlage’, JSP 1 (1987), 57–78, esp. 74–75). 89  Jongeling et al., Aramaic Texts from Qumran, 4; R. Weiss, ‫התרגום הארמי לספר‬ ‫איוב‬, Tel Aviv 1979, 20. 90  Weiss, ‫התרגום הארמי לספר איוב‬, 20–21. 91  The tone was set from the beginning by J.P.M. Van der Ploeg by using the word targum in his preliminary communication about the scroll: ‘Le targum de Job de la grotte 11 de Qumran, Première communication’, Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen afd. Letterkunde, Amsterdam 1962. 92  So Muraoka in his articles ‘The Aramaic of the Old Targum of Job’ and ‘Notes on the Old Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI’, RQ 9 (1977), 117–25. 93  J.A. Fitzmyer, ‘The First-Century Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI’, in: Idem, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, Missoula 1979, 161–82 (first published as ‘Some Observations on the Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI’, CBQ 36 (1974), 503–24).

preliminary issues

31

ean targum’.94 The text as we have it may fittingly be described by our definition of Targum. If, on the other hand, we compare it with the list of generally accepted characteristics of the Targum, some differences can be noted. As regards the word order, the Qumran Aramaic version of Job is less strict in its following of the Hebrew text than the later rabbinic Targum. Stephen Kaufman, in his review article of the editio princeps, noted that the translator of the Qumran Aramaic version ‘… was not bound to the word order of MT as is almost always the case in later targums’.95 Takamitsu Muraoka tried to explain the deviating word order from a possibly Eastern provenance, by pointing out that particular transpositions in the word order seem to reflect a SumeroAkadian word order in which the verb generally follows the subject or the object, or both.96 Whatever the reason, from the synoptic study of David Shepherd, who compared the three ancient Aramaic versions of Job, it becomes clear that among these versions the rabbinic Targum is the most true to the Hebrew word order.97 The same study shows that for the book of Job the Qumran and Peshitta version omission is employed on a frequent basis for a variety of reasons in the attempt to produce a linguistically intelligible and stylistically acceptable translation. The rabbinic Targum, by contrast, presents virtually no evidence for such practices and omits elements in translation only exceptionally.98 As concerns the very literal way of translating, it can be noted that the translator responsible for the Qumran Aramaic version saw himself as interpres rather than expositor.99 That means that according to the criteria set out above, the Qumran Aramaic translation does not fall into the category of ‘Targum’. The last item to be discussed in this section is the Aramaic version of Leviticus.100 Among the texts of Qumran cave 4 are two small Aramaic fragments corresponding to parts of Leviticus 16. These fragments 94  Beyer, Die Aramäischen Texte, 274. 95  Kaufman, ‘The Job Targum from Qumran’, 324. 96  Muraoka, ‘The Aramaic of the Old Targum of Job’, 439–41. 97  Shepherd, Targum and Translation, 218. 98  Shepherd, Targum and Translation, 117. 99  Brock, ‘Translating the Old Testament’, 95. 100  Most of the following is based on L.T. Stuckenbruck & D.N. Freedman, ‘The Fragments of a Targum to Leviticus in Qumran Cave 4 (4Q156): A Linguistic Comparison and Assessment’, in: P.V.M. Flesher (ed.), Targum and Scripture, Leiden 2002, 79–95.

32

chapter one

have become known as 4QTgLev or, more neutrally, 4Q156. Despite their small size and their poorly preserved state they have received much scholarly attention,101 especially because of the light they throw on Aramaic translation of Scripture during the Second Temple period.102 Loren Stuckenbruck and David Freedman have compared these Aramaic fragment texts synoptically with the Hebrew text as well as with the other Pentateuchal Targums, the Peshitta and the Samaritan Pentateuch.103 This comparison led to the following conclusions: the text is apparently not related to any of the other known Aramaic versions. As concerns the criteria we introduced above, it can be said that in one case the word order of the Qumran Aramaic version deviates from the order of the Hebrew text, namely in Lev 16:14. Also in Lev 16:14 one Hebrew word, ‫פני‬, has been left unrendered in the Qumran Aramaic version. For the Hebrew object marker ‫ את‬the fragments have once ‫( על‬16:20), and leave it twice unrendered (16:21). This fragment is too small to say anything definite concerning its translational style. The fact, however, that even in this tiny fragment there are cases of changed word order and words that have been left unrendered, seems to place this Aramaic version of Leviticus in the same category as the Qumran Aramaic version of Job.

B. Background to the Targums The next item we want to discuss briefly in this introductory chapter is the background to the Targums. What is their reason for existence and how did they function? Let us start with the first, namely the raison d’être.

1. The raison d’être For a long time, the common opinion was that the Targums came into being during the Second Temple Period because of a social necessity to translate the Bible into the vernacular of the people due to the loss of knowledge of Hebrew.104 This view was shaken by the famous dis101  See L.T. Stuckenbruck, ‘Bibliography on 4QtgLev (4Q156)’, JSP 10 (1992), 53–55. 102  The script has been assigned by Milik to the late second / early first century bce. See J.T. Milik, ‘Targum’, in: R.G.M. De Vaux, et al. (eds), Qumran Cave 4: Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128–4Q157), Oxford 1977, 86. 103  See n. 100. 104  E.g. Zunz, Vorträge, 65; P. Schäfer, ‘Bibelübersetzungen II (Targumim)’, in:

preliminary issues

33

coveries in the Judean desert that have shown that Hebrew was still very much alive during that time.105 The newly acquired knowledge can mean two different things: either the idea of a language necessity is true, which would restrict the Targums to certain areas or groups of people, or there was another reason for the origin of the Targums. Let us start with the first possibility. The Targum could have originated in a nearly monoglot milieu where the knowledge of Hebrew was sparse, such as probably was the case in the Galilee.106 This explanation is close to the traditional view, but restricts the possible place of origin to an area where Aramaic was the main language. The nearly monoglot situation could also concern certain groups in society, like women and illiterates.107 This was the view of Rashi, who wrote in his commentary to b.Meg 21b ‘that the Targum is meant to teach women and commoners, who do not understand the sacred language’. Samuel Luzzatto in his book ‫אוהב גר‬ followed Rashi, by stating that Targum Onkelos was not conceived for the learned, but for the commoners.108 He continued, however, to state that the main concern of Onkelos in his Targum was to remove any stumbling block from the path of the masses and the proselytes, so that their hearing of the reading of the Scriptures would be beneficial to them.109 Thus, Luzzatto introduced here yet another category of people who might have problems with Hebrew, namely the converts. Since Onkelos himself is reported to have been a proselyte,110 this is an interesting thought. Part of the motivation for his targumic activity would then have been love for his fellow proselytes who had problems with Hebrew. TRE 6, 216–28, at 216; M.L. Klein, ‘Palestinian Targum and Synagogue Mosaics’, Immanuel 11 (1980), 33–45. 105  For a good overview of the scholarly discussion on the language situation in Palestine in the first centuries ce, see e.g. Smelik, Targum of Judges, 1–23. 106  This is suggested as a possibility by Smelik, Targum of Judges, 9. 107  See e.g. Massekhet Soferim 18:5 where it says: ‘… And he translates in order that the rest of the people may understand, as well as women and children’. 108  ‘‫ אבל בעבור ההדיוטות‬,‫’לא נעשה בעבור החכמים‬, S.D. Luzzatto, ‫ מאמר‬.‫אוהב גר‬ ‫מחקרי על תרגום אנקלוס הגר‬, Vienna 1830 (repr. Jerusalem 1969), 1. In modern scholarship this view is still adhered to for the case of the Palestinian Targums. See e.g. A. Shinan, ‘The Aramaic Targum as a Mirror of Galilean Jewry’, in: L.I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, New York & Jerusalem 1992, 241–51, at 244. 109  Luzzatto, ‫אוהב גר‬, 1. In his later article ‘Nachträgliches über die Thargumim’, WZJT 5 (1844), 124–37, at 124, he extends this allegation to Targum Jonathan. 110  E.g. b.Meg 3a, b.BB 99a, b.AZ 11a.

34

chapter one

A variant to this view was brought forward by Paul Flesher on the basis of the translational characteristics of Targum Neofiti. In his opinion Neofiti’s character, as being a ‘straight-translation’ combined with additional material, can best be explaned by being composed for an audience with varying knowledge of Hebrew. A straightforward wordby-word translation is suitable for people who have some familiarity with the Hebrew version of the Bible, because the recognition of the Hebrew original in the Aramaic translation would give them confidence in the reliability of the translation. Such a translation is however difficult to understand for people who know little to no Hebrew, since the grammatical structures and choice of vocabulary are often foreign to their daily speech. By means of small additions the composer tried to adapt the literal translation to the more common parlance, in this way making the translation acceptable for a broad audience with different language abilities.111 The second possibility is that there was another reason for the coming into being of the Targums: the adaptation and interpretation of Scripture. As early as in his 1976 article on Hebrew and Aramaic in the first century, ayyim Rabin suggested that being able to speak Mishnaic Hebrew was no guarantee for understanding all the vocabulary or constructions of an archaic and rich literature in the Hebrew language.112 Or in the words of the third century Palestinian Amora R. Yoanan: ‘The language of the Torah is one thing and the language of the Sages is another’.113 Therefore, some sort of explanation was needed even for native speakers. Moreover, the rabbinic authorities aimed at propagating interpretations that they approved of, while suppressing undesirable readings.114 These two needs could be fulfilled by a concise word-by-word commentary on the biblical text. Since most people probably mastered Hebrew as well as Aramaic, both languages could theoretically be used. However, Hebrew was considered inappropriate for this purpose because the uninstructed could easily mis111  P.V.M. Flesher, ‘Targum as Scripture’, in: Idem (ed.), Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translation and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke, Leiden & Boston 2002, 61–75, esp. 72–75. 112  . Rabin, ‘Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century’, in: S. Safrai & M. Stern (eds), The Jewish People in the First Century, Assen 1976, 1007–39, at 1030. 113  b.AZ 58b and b.ul 137b, as cited by Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views’, 272. 114  See e.g. A. Shinan, ‘Midrashic, Paytanic, and Targumic Literature’, in: S.T. Katz (ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism IV: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, Cambridge 2006, 678–98, at 692.

preliminary issues

35

take the paraphrase as part of the sacred text.115 The choice for a standard literary form of Aramaic seemed therefore advisable. This cognate language made it possible to stay close to the Hebrew text, while at the same time being clearly distinguishable as not being part of Scripture. In a recent article, titled ‘Is There a Raison d’être for an Aramaic Targum in a Hebrew Speaking Society?’, Abraham Tal came up with a hypothesis that relies heavily on the suggestion of Rabin discussed above.116 The novelty of his article is that he worked the issue out in more detail while at the same time adding an extra aspect. In his paper, he first described the developments of the Samaritan Pentateuch, concerning both linguistic innovations and harmonisations with respect to contents. The Qumran variants he attributed to the same phenomenon. Then he discussed the references in rabbinic literature to the deviant biblical text of R. Meir. In his view, this proliferation was unacceptable to normative Judaism. Therefore a search was begun for a means to secure the Bible text while at the same time meeting the apparent need for modernisation. The solution was found, according to Tal, in the presentation of an actualised Aramaic translation. Making use of the Standard Literary Aramaic of the Second Temple Period, instead of a popular dialect, this translation dovetailed nicely with the Hebrew text. The choice of Aramaic over the contemporaneous Hebrew prevented the wrong conception that the interpretation could be seen as Holy Scripture. Clear prescriptions for the use of Targum in the liturgy, such as the reading of the Bible from a scroll as opposed to the recitation by heart of the Targum, and the division of tasks between separate persons, were aimed at suppressing any possible misunderstanding still further. According to this view, the raison d’être of the Targums was a campaign to avoid the corruption of the Written Torah.

2. Sitz im Leben There is, of course, a close connection between the reason for existence of a certain work and its sociological setting. However, where the reasons for existence are fixed, though not retrievable with certainty, the sociological settings may differ in the course of time. At this point we pass over the later developments and concentrate on the settings in the rabbinic period. 115  See also Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views’, 284. 116  A. Tal, ‘Is there a Raison d’être for an Aramaic Targum in a Hebrew-speaking Society?’, REJ 160 (2001), 247–64.

36

chapter one

2.1. The synagogue The early rabbinic sources, both halakhic and aggadic, provide us with ample evidence that from a certain point in time the Targums were closely associated with the synagogal services.117 Examination of this evidence shows that the habit of accompanying the scriptural reading in the synagogue with an oral Aramaic translation probably originated in the Ushan period.118 Apart from this external evidence, there is also the internal targumic evidence. It has been noted, for instance, that the Palestinian Targums of the Torah seem to have been composed for an audience in a liturgical setting. This can, among other things, be deduced from the insertion of vocatives and from the midrashic expansions at the beginning and /or the end of the traditional scriptural readings.119 The more literal Targums Onkelos and Jonathan, however, do not have these characteristics. Does this mean that they had a different Sitz im Leben? Or do they probably represent a different stage in the development of the Targum tradition? There is sufficient evidence that these Targums were used in the synagogues, but this evidence does not go back beyond the tenth or eleventh century.120 Were they probably originally used then in another function? And what may that function have been? Let us consider the possibility of the school system as the original setting for these Targums. 2.2. The school Many modern scholars have proposed connecting the more literal Aramaic Bible translations with the school system.121 Within this general 117  See e.g. A. Shinan, ‫אגדתם של המתורגמנים‬, Jerusalem 1979, 1–38; A.D. York, ‘The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School’, JSJ 10 (1979), 74–86; Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, 14–28; R. Kasher, ‘The Aramaic Targumim and Their Sitz im Leben’, 9th WCJS: Panel Sessions Bible Studies and Ancient Near East, Jerusalem 1988, 75–85, esp. 75–77; Z. Safrai, ‘The Origins of Reading the Aramaic Targum in Synagogue’, Immanuel 24 / 25 (1990), 187–93; Idem, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 245–49; Smelik, The Targum of Judges, 31–39. 118  See Safrai, ‘The Origins of Reading’, 189–91; Idem, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 246; see also Smelik, ‘The Rabbinic Reception of Early Bible Translations’, 272, who arrives at the same dating on different grounds. 119  For a thorough listing of these characteristics, see A. Shinan, ‫אגדתם של‬ ‫המתורגמנים‬, Jerusalem 1979, 30–38, 63–83, 185–202. See also Kasher, ‘The Aramaic Targumim’, 76–77. 120  See Kasher, ‘The Aramaic Targumim’, 75. 121  E.g. A.D. York, ‘The Targum in the Synagogue and in the school’, JSJ 10 (1979), 74–86; Kasher, ‘The Aramaic Targumim’, 77–79; Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the

preliminary issues

37

theory, however, two different lines of thought can be distinguished. The first line connects the Targum with the basic education in the primary school, the Beit Sefer. In the Beit Sefer the Targum was studied in conjunction with the Bible, probably for the purpose of understanding the words. The Targum served as an explanation of the Hebrew text. In that context it is not surprising that the notoriously difficult book of Job should be among the first books of the Bible to be translated.122 The second line of thought, according to which the Targum is connected to the school system, was set out by Philip Alexander. Alexander has proposed on several occasions that the Targum had a function in the acquisition of the Hebrew language by non-native speakers.123 In his view, Hebrew had steadily declined, perhaps ever since the return from the Babylonian exile, until by 200 ce it had effectively disappeared as a vernacular.124 From at least the third century onwards the everyday vernacular of the Rabbis would have been Aramaic.125 So children had to learn Hebrew at school, because they did not learn it anymore in a natural way from their parents. According to Alexander, this was done in the first stage by rote learning portions of Scripture. In the second stage a translation of the text in the vernacular was used to help the students understand the meaning. This translation was absolutely crucial to the learning process. It had to be carefully constructed so as to correlate as closely as possible with the original. Therefore each word had to be translated in its original order and obscurities had to be resolved without deleting elements present in the Hebrew.126 The Targum functioned as a crib to aid the student pass over from his native tongue to the Hebrew text.127 On the basis of this Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, 22–23; Idem, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures’, 240; Idem, ‘How Did the Rabbis Learn Hebrew?’, 71–89; Smelik, The Targum of Judges, 28–31; Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 249. For a general overview of the ancient Jewish educational system, see S. Safrai, ‘Education and the Study of the Torah’, in: S. Safrai & M. Stern (eds), The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, 2 Vols, Assen & Amsterdam 1974–76, II.945–70. 122  Kasher, ‘The Aramaic Targumim’, 82. 123  See n. 121. 124  Alexander, ‘How Did the Rabbis’, 73. 125  Alexander, ‘How Did the Rabbis’, 76. He allows for the possibility that for some Rabbis Greek would be the first language. 126  See above, pp. 26–27. Only incidentally Hebrew words were left untranslated. See e.g. Isa 40:12 where the word ‫ מדד‬has apparently no equivalent in the Aramaic translation. 127  Alexander, ‘How Did the Rabbis’, 82.

38

chapter one

theory, Alexander proposed that the original Sitz im Leben may have been the primary school, and that it was only subsequently taken over from there as part of the reading of the Torah in synagogue.128

2.3. Individual and academic study Apart from the study at school, the Targums also had a function in the study of adults. Two different kinds of study can be distinguished. The first is the study of the male members of the congregation who could be called to read the Torah and had therefore to prepare their weekly portion. In this preparation also the Targums played a role, as may be deduced from the following saying of R. Ammi:129 One should always complete his weekly portions of Scripture with the congregation, the biblical text twice and the Targum once.

The meaning of this saying is not entirely clear, but it seems that in preparation of the sabbath service the male members of the congregation prepared together by studying the weekly portion of Scripture together with its Targum. The second kind is the study of scholars in the Beit Midrash who studied Targum as part of the Oral Torah. This may be illustrated by a famous saying of Rav Joseph that was uttered in response to a question about Sennacherib’s claim that he had God’s orders to destroy Jerusalem,130 R. Joseph said: But for the Targum of this verse, I would not know its meaning: Because this people have wearied of the Davidic dynasty, which rules them with gentleness like the waters of Shiloah which flow tranquilly, and have set their desire upon Rezin and the son of Ramaliah.

The reference is to TJ Isa 8:6. This dictum shows that the Targum was seen and used as a repository of Oral Torah to which scholars could turn in order to find the correct interpretation of Scripture. The double function of the Targums in the synagogal service and in study becomes clear from the prescription concerning forbidden passages. There are clear prescriptions concerning certain scriptural 128  Alexander, ‘How Did the Rabbis’, 81. 129  Rav Ammi was a third century Palestinian Amora. The dictum can be found in b.Ber 8ab. 130  Rav Joseph was an early fourth century Babylonian Amora, who was famous because of his extensive knowledge of the oral law. He is connected with the redaction of the Targum. The dictum can be found in b.Sanh 94b.

preliminary issues

39

passages that they are to be read but not translated in public.131 In the Tosefta it says ‘But the teacher of Scripture teaches [these passages] in his usual way.’132 Here an important distinction is drawn between the translating of scriptural passages in the public context of the synagogal service and the rendering of those same passages in the context of the Beit Midrash.133 Moreover, the idea of an educational function besides the liturgical function explains the existence of Targums of parts of Scripture that are not used in the liturgy.

C. Survey and Conclusions In the first section of this chapter we dealt with the question of definition. We decided to define Targum as ‘a Jewish Aramaic interpretative word-by-word translation of the biblical text in exegetical dependence on its wording.’ This definition can be used for Targums as literary works as well as for the individual targumic rendering of biblical passages. Depending on which of the two is meant, different subdivisions can be made. For the last category of the individual targumic renderings, we proposed a subdivision into four types. On the basis of our own definition and some generally accepted targumic characteristics we decided to exclude the Aramaic biblical versions from Qumran from the corpus of Targum. Secondly, we have given a short overview of the state of the art on the questions of the raison d’être and function of the Targums. We saw that the old view that the Targums came into being out of necessity because of the supposed dwindling knowledge of Hebrew is not fully satisfactory. The alternative that is proposed by Abraham Tal, namely that the Targums were created in an attempt to avoid the corruption of the Written Torah, is attractive, but not really provable. With regard to function we saw that the Targums functioned in various ways. They were used in the synagogue, in the educational system and in private worship. The theory of Philip Alexander that the 131  m.Meg 4:10; t.Meg 4(3):31–38; y.Meg 4:11, 75c; b.Meg 25b; MasSof 9:9–10. See Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, 14–28; M.L. Klein, ‘Not to be Translated in Public — ‫’לא מתרגם בציבורא‬, JJS 39 (1988), 80–91. 132  t.Meg 4(3):38. 133  See Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views’, 260–61.

40

chapter one

Targums were utilised in primary education not just to understand the Bible text, but as a crib to teach Hebrew to non-native speakers, is innovative, but as yet hard to prove. In conclusion we must say that there is still no consensus on the origin and function of the Targums. More research is needed to substantiate the views that have been brought forward. We hope that the following chapters may, in all modesty, contribute something to the ongoing debate.

Chapter two

Tosefta Targums and Other Targumic Traditions to the Books of Samuel Within Targum research the so-called Tosefta Targums1 (TTs) occupy a special place. They are, generally speaking, additions to the Targums Onkelos and Jonathan, hence the name ‘tosefta’ which is Aramaic for addition. The designations ‘Tosefta Targum’ and ‘targumic Tosefta’ are somewhat misleading because we do not know whether in all cases they refer to additions, but since these designations are commonly used in scholarly literature on the subject, we decided to adopt the usage for the time being. At the end of this chapter we shall recapitulate and decide whether the name can be maintained for all the traditions it is generally used for, or that we have to look for more appropriate designations for some of them. The TTs preserve alternative targumic readings, which apparently circulated widely. They are often more elaborate than the official targum traditions that have been preserved in the official Targums Onkelos and Jonathan. Their provenance and date vary considerably and there is no apparent system in the sources in which they occur, although there are certain TTs that only occur in some specific geographic areas.2 Moreover, the TTs do not occur in the Babylonian redaction.3 This absence in the Babylonian tradition may well explain the designation Tosefta, since in relation to this authoritative redaction they can be considered additions. In this chapter we will first survey some previous work on the TTs (a). Then we make a short excursus on the genre of piyyut in order to sketch a framework for some of the Aramaic poems that are also 1  Notwithstanding our decision to write ‘Targum’ with a capital letter when it refers to extant written targumic works and ‘targum’ in lower case when it concerns the genre, the act, or particular instances of rendering into Aramaic (see above, p. 7, n. 1), we write here Tosefta Targum(s) with capital letters because it is such a central theme in this book, even though in most of the cases it concerns particular instances. 2  R. Kasher, ‫ ביאר ותרגום לעברית‬,‫ ההדיר‬:‫תוספתות תרגום לנביאים‬, Jerusalem 1996, 60; A. Houtman, ‘Different Kinds of Tradition in Targum Jonathan to Isaiah’, in: P. van Reenen, A. den Hollander & M. van Mulken (eds), Studies in Stemmatology II, Amsterdam & Philadelphia 2004, 269–83, esp. 275, 277–79. 3  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 60–62.

42

chapter two

sometimes included in the field of TTs (b). After that we will describe the corpus that is used for this study (c), followed by an attempt to characterise the material according to the main sources (d). Finally, we will try to come to some conclusions (e).

A. Survey of Previous Research on the Tosefta Targums The seemingly random occurrences of the TTs and their diverse character caught scholarly attention as early as in the nineteenth century. Because the TTs are sometimes designated in the sources as ‫תוספתא‬ ‫דארעא דישראל‬, ‘Tosefta of the Land of Israel’, or the like, the study of the TTs to the Targum of the Prophets has in the history of research often been combined with the question of whether or not there ever existed a complete Palestinian Targum of the Prophets comparable to the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch.4 Leopold Zunz, one of the founders of the critical study of rabbinic literature, the so-called Wissenschaft des Judentums, suggested that the TTs were remnants of a once complete Palestinian Targum of the Prophets. He based this on the above-mentioned designation of the TTs as Palestinian, but also on the reference of several medieval Jewish authors to a ‘Targum jeruschalmi’ on certain parts of the Prophets.5 Samuel David Luzzatto refuted Zunz’ suggestion on linguistic grounds.6 He used for his arguments the additions of David Kimi in his commentary on the Prophets, and furthermore some pieces of a fifteenth century manuscript — known today as ms H. 116.7 According to Luzzatto, the language of these toseftan additions, which he considered to be marginal notes, resembles that of the Babylonian Talmud and they can, therefore, hardly be considered remnants of a Palestinian Targum.8 4  See also W.F. Smelik, The Targum of Judges, Leiden [etc.] 1995, 77–85. 5  L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt, Frankfurt am Main 18922, 80–83. 6  S.D. Luzzatto, ‘Nachträgliches über die Thargumim’, WZJT 5 (1844), 124–37, at 132. 7  Presently part of the Montefiore Endowment, Lauderdale Rd synagogue, London. See on ms H 116 of Jew’s College, A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic: Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts, Leiden 1968, IVB.139; D.M. Stec, The Text of the Targum of Job, Leiden 1994, 54–55. 8  Luzzatto, ‘Nachträgliches’, 132: ‘… die Sprache dieser Zusäße stimmt mit der des babylonischen Thalm. überein, und ich sehe keinen Grund, sie als Stücke eines jerusalemischen Thargums zu betrachten, wie Zunz thut, vielmehr scheinen sie mir gleichfalls babylonischen Ursprungs, nur um einige Jahrhunderte jünger als das ursprungliche Thargum.’

tosefta targums

43

In his important study on the history of Targum Jonathan, Zacharias Frankel only briefly touched on the subject and, although admitting that apart from Targum Jonathan there may have existed another Targum of the Prophets, he doubted — on the same linguistic grounds as Luzzatto — whether this could have been a Palestinian Targum.9 At about the same time, the Christian orientalist Paul de Lagarde, who was a fierce opponent of the new scientific approach of the Wissenschaft des Judentums,10 published the text of Targum Jonathan according to Codex Reuchlin, including its marginalia.11 These marginal readings are indicated by various introductions, such as ‫תרגום‬ ‫ירושלמי‬, ‫ספר אחר‬, 12 ‫פליג‬, ‫לישנא אחרינא‬, and ‫ואית דמתרגמין‬. The marginal readings and their introductory formulas were subsequently thoroughly investigated by Wilhelm Bacher.13 Bacher distinguished between mainly aggadic readings (with the sigla ‫ תרגום ירושלמי‬and ‫)ספר אחר‬, that in his view were taken from another source, and nonaggadic readings (with the designations ‫לישנא אחרינא‬, ‫פליג‬, ‫ואית‬ ‫ )דמתרגמין‬that were variants within the targum text itself.14 On the basis of his findings, Bacher postulated a Palestinian Targum of the Prophets by analogy with the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch. Pinkhos Churgin, in his classic study on Targum Jonathan,15 criticised the work of Bacher. In his view all groups of marginalia in Codex Reuchlin contain fragments that either explain or complement the rendering of Targum Jonathan, so that there is scarcely any foundation for a supposition that they represent distinct sources.16 Neither 9  Z. Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Propheten, Breslau 1872, 40. 10  This opposition was apparently based on anti-modernist and anti-Semititic sentiments rather than on scholarly arguments. See e.g. R.B. Lougee, Paul de Lagarde 1827–1891: A Study of Radical Conservatism in Germany, Cambridge (Mass.) 1962, 94–96, 193–215. 11  P. de Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, Göttingen 1872, repr. Osnabrück 1967. 12  This is probably a passive participle of √‫‘ פלג‬differing in opinion’. Bacher connects it to the talmudic expression ‫‘ פלוגתא‬different opinion’ (work cited in note 13 on this page). The word is always written after the variant. 13  ‘Kritische Untersuchungen zum Prophetentargum’, ZDMG 28 (1874), 1–72. 14  Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, at 35: ‘1) Die vorwiegend agadische Gruppe (‫)ספר אחר ;]תרג' אחר[ תרגום ירושלמי‬, bei welcher schon die Benennungen auf eine von der gewöhnlichen verschiedene Version schliessen lassen. 2) Die nichtagadische Gruppe ('‫)ואית דמתרגמי ;פליג ;ליש' אח‬, deren Bezeichnungen ebenfalls darauf hinweisen, dass wir es mit Varianten innerhalb eines und desselben Targum zu thun haben’. 15  P. Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, New Haven 1907 [= 1927]. 16  Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 151–52.

44

chapter two

is there, according to him, a basis for a theory of an old Palestinian Targum of the Prophets of which the ‫ספר אחר‬, and the ‫תרגום ירושלמי‬ might be remnants, as Bacher suggested.17 The Russo-Austrian rabbinical scholar Abraham Epstein also had his doubts about a Palestinian origin for all the TTs.18 On the basis of research into the language and contents of TTs to the Pentateuch in early Bible editions, he concluded that at least some of them seem to have been composed quite late, that is after the Babylonian Talmud gained influence, and outside Palestine. In the twentieth century the research was continued and could be substantially extended thanks to the gradual publication of the material of the Cairo Genizah. The key person in the process of disclosure of this material was the late Michael Klein who carefully described the Targum fragments of the Cairo Genizah, including the TTs, for which Targum research owes him much.19 Abraham Tal, in his book on the language of the Targum of the Former Prophets, discussed the dialect of the TTs in relation to Targum Jonathan.20 He made a distinction between TTs that are additions in the literal sense of the word — that is TTs that are added in the margins of Targum Jonathan, sometimes even in a different handwriting — and TTs that are incorporated within the regular text. For the first type he advocated a late date for the origin of much of the extant material on the basis of both the language and the content. In his view, the composers of these TTs were not native speakers, but scholars who had acquired their knowledge of Aramaic from Babylonian as well as Palestinian sources.21 The latter type is in his view older and may have been inserted at an early stage of the transmission history of Targum Jonathan. Any original grammatical differences have been smoothed out in the process of redaction and transmission. On the lexical level, however, the different origins can often still be detected.22 17  Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 152. 18  A. Epstein, ‘Tosefta du Targum Yerouschalmi’, REJ 30 (1895), 44–51. 19  M.L. Klein, ‘Targumic Poems from the Cairo Genizah’, HAR 8 (1984), 89–99; Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 Vols, Cincinnati 1986; ‘Targumic Toseftot from the Cairo Genizah’, in: D. Muños León (ed.), Salvación en la Palabra. Targum-Derash-Berith: En memoria del professor Alejandro Díez Macho, Madrid 1986, 409–18; Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, Cambridge 1992. 20  A. Tal, ‫לשון התרגום לנביאים ראשונים ומעמדה בכלל ניבי הארמית‬, Tel Aviv 1975, 191–200. 21  Tal, ‫לשון התרגום‬, 192. 22  Tal, ‫לשון התרגום‬, 196–97.

tosefta targums

45

Pierre Grelot studied and compared several TTs to the Books of the Prophets in connection with Targum Jonathan.23 In some cases he argued for the priority of the Palestinian Targum as found in the TTs, where in his view the more paraphrastic Palestinian version constituted the basis for Targum Jonathan. The short translation of Targum Jonathan seems in those cases to be a reduction of the longer TT.24 In other cases, however, he came to the conclusion that the TTs are Palestinian Amoraic adaptations of Targum Jonathan, stemming from the same milieu as Pesikta Rabbati and Targum Writings.25 In his view it is not certain whether there ever existed a complete Targum of the Prophets contemporaneous with the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch, but Palestinian targums of the haftarah readings at least must have existed. It is not impossible, according to him, that these targums were committed to writing at the same time and in the same milieu as the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch, on the basis of older oral traditions.26 The German scholar Uwe Gleßmer defended in 1988 a doctoral dissertation on the origin and history of the Targums of the Pentateuch in the light of the TTs.27 A few years later he wrote together with Heinz Fahr a study on a TT to the Book of Joshua.28 Both studies suggest that the TTs concerned preserve early stages of the Palestinian Targum tradition.29 Rimon Kasher made a significant contribution to the study of the TTs of the Prophets by collecting, publishing, translating and discussing 23  P. Grelot, ‘L’exégèse messianique d’Isaïe, LXIII, 1–6’, RB 70 (1963), 371–80; ‘Une Tosephta targoumique sur Zacharie 2:14-15’, RB 73 (1966), 197–211; ‘Deux Tosephtas targoumiques inédites sur Isaïe LXVI’, RB 79 (1972), 511–43 [this article has to be read with the note that appeared a year later: ‘À propos d’une tosephta targoumique’, RB 80 (1973), 363]; ‘Le Targoum d’Isaïe, X, 32-34 dans ses diverses recensions’, RB 90 (1983), 202–28. 24  Grelot, ‘Une tosephta targoumique sur Zacharie, II, 14-15’ (see, however, the critique of R.P. Gordon, ‘Sperber’s “Additional Targum” to Zechariah 2:14-15; Studying a Targumic Cento’, in: Idem, Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets: From Nahum to Malachi, Leiden [etc.] 1994, 96–107); ‘Le Targoum d’Isaïe, X, 32-34 dans ses diverses recensions’, 212. 25  ‘Deux Tosephtas targoumiques inédites sur Isaïe LXVI’, 543. 26  Grelot, ‘Le Targoum d’Isaïe, X, 32-34’, 227. 27  U. Gleßmer, Entstehung und Entwicklung der Targume zum Pentateuch als literar­kritisches Problem, dargestellt am Beispiel der Zusatztargume, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University of Hamburg 1988. 28  H. Fahr & U. Gleßmer, Jordandurchzug und Beschneidung als Zurechtweisung in einem Targum zu Josua 5 (Edition des MS T.-S. B 13,12), Glückstadt 1991. 29  Gleßmer, Entstehung und Enwicklung, 467, 471, 474; Fahr & Gleßmer, Jordan­ durchzug, 109–10.

46

chapter two

all the TTs known to him in his book ‫תוספתות תרגום לנביאים‬.30 In this important study he also touches on the question of date and provenance of the TTs. According to Kasher the varied nature of the TTs makes it improbable that they stem from a common ‘Urtext’. He rather believes that meturgemanim at different times and places made their own TTs for the benefit of liturgical reading, sometimes using existing traditions, at other times creating new ones.31 Most recently, our fellow countrywoman Alinda Damsma defended a dissertation on Targum Ezekiel and its relationship to the targumic Toseftas at University College London.32 Both critical text and translation of the TTs to the Book of Ezekiel are presented in her study, accompanied by an analysis of their contents, with special reference to the long segments of unique mystical lore that are preserved in the TTs to Ezekiel 1. It transpires that this material sheds light on a relatively dark chapter in the reception history of early Jewish mysticism, being closely related to Hekhalot literature, and to the Shiur Qomah tradition in particular. As to the TTs to the Book of Ezekiel as a whole, this study underscores Rimon Kasher’s observations on the heterogeneous character of the TTs. It is furthermore established that the intriguing mixture of Aramaic usage that characterizes the TTs to Ezekiel bears strong resemblances with Late Jewish Literary Aramaic, the literary dialect of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to the Pentateuch and the Targums to the Writings, which is dated to the geonic period. To summarise, we can conclude that no consensus has been reached yet concerning the origin and nature of the TTs, which is not surprising given the diverse character of all the traditions that are included under the umbrella term Tosefta Targums.

1. Excursus: the case of the Pentateuch For the Pentateuch we have the interesting situation of several targum collections that give only a selection of translated parts. Besides the TTs, there is also the intriguing phenomenon of the Fragment Targums. These collections seem, at least in part, to have been consciously 30  See n. 2. See further, R. Kasher, ‘‫חנוכה‬-‫’התוספתות התרגומיות להפטרת שבת‬, Tarbiz 45 (1975), 27–45; Idem, ‘?‫’האם יש מקור אחד לתוספתות התרגום לנביאים‬, AJS Review 21 (1996), 1–21. 31  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 19–20; Idem, ‘‫’האם יש מקור אחד‬, 20–21. 32  A. Damsma, An Analysis of Targum Ezekiel and its Relationship to the Targumic Toseftot, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University College London, September 2008.

tosefta targums

47

selected and assembled.33 In some respects the corpus of TTs may be compared to these Fragment Targums. Klein described the TTs to the Pentateuch as ‘expansive passages of aggadic midrash which have their source in the Palestinian-Targum tradition’.34A certain similarity to the Fragment Targums is obvious and accordingly the two corpora sometimes have been compared.35 This comparison is further encouraged by the heading of the Fragment Targum according to ms Paris Bibliothèque Nationale Hébreu 110 that reads ‫אתחיל תוספות‬ … ‫‘ וחילופין תרגו<ם> ירוש<למי> לתורה … בעזרת האל הנאזר בגבורה‬I begin [copying] additions and variants, the Jerus Targ to the Pentateuch; with the help of the God, who is girded with might.’ It seems therefore that both corpora consist of additions as well as variant readings. There are, however, also differences to be noted. According to Klein the major differences between the TTs in Onkelos and the Fragment Targums can be summarised as follows.36 Firstly, the TTs are in his view expansive passages of aggadic midrash, while the Fragment Targums also carry brief verses, phrases or even single words. By the way, as we shall see below, this is not true for the TTs to Samuel that we investigated. Secondly, even though Palestinian in origin, the TTs have been used to supplement Onkelos and consequently have undergone a conscious dialectal adaptation to the language of Onkelos. The Fragment Targums on the other hand have retained the language of the Palestinian Targums. In Klein’s view, moreover, a piece of targum is ‘tosefta’ only when it does not occur in a manuscript of one of the other categories, and he further claims that targumic poetry is not to be categorised as ‘tosefta’, simply because it is in verse.37

33  M.L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources, 2 Vols, Rome 1980, I.12. 34  Klein, Genizah Manuscripts, I.xxvi. 35  E.g. Bacher, Kritische Untersuchungen, 55–58. 36  Klein, Genizah Manuscripts, I.xxvi–xxvii. This description is taken up by Philip Alexander, in his survey article ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures’, in: M.J. Mulder & H. Sysling (eds), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen [etc.] 1988 (repr. Peabody, Mass. 2004), 217–53, at 221–22. 37  M.J. Bernstein, ‘A New Manuscript of Tosefta Targum’, Proceedings of the 9th WCJS, Div. A, Jerusalem 1986, 151–58, at 151. The rather vague references to Klein’s work in note 1 of this article could, however, not be traced.

48

chapter two

According to Bernstein this definition has the virtue of simplicity, but it eliminates tosefta as a literary genre, and the issue therefore merits further and deeper discussion.38 In his opinion an investigation should be made to discover which literary form was the original milieu of these texts and whether they were composed independently or as part of running narratives. Thereby it must be borne in mind that, apart from the differences between the Fragment Targum and the TTs that were noted by Klein, the Fragment Targum covers the entire Pentateuch, while the extant TTs are limited to a few select passages from Genesis and Exodus.39 Incidentally, this is not true for the TTs to the Prophets, for they are relatively evenly spread over all the prophetic books. Since there is no Fragment Targum of the Prophets, no comparison can be made to the TTs of that part of the Bible, which makes the issue in a way even more complicated. However, given that in addition to similarities there are also essential differences between the Targums of the Pentateuch and Targum Jonathan as regards their literary history, the possibility that the TTs to the Prophets may have served a similar goal as the Fragment Targums cannot be dismissed offhand. We will therefore return to this question in the concluding chapter of this book.

B. Piyyut There is one specific literary genre that has to be described briefly here before we proceed to the description of the corpus, and that is the liturgical poetry. The liturgical poetry, the so-called piyyut,40 originated in all probability in the Galilean synagogues in the fourth to fifth centuries ce, thus in the same time and milieu that the Targums also flourished. These liturgical poems were presumably meant as innovations to counterbalance the perfunctory recitation of fixed texts.41 38  Bernstein, ‘A New Manuscript’, 151. 39  Bernstein, ‘A New Manuscript’, 151. 40  For a short introduction, see e.g. W.J. van Bekkum, ‘Pijjut’, TRE 26, 634–40; E. Fleischer, ‘Piyyut’, in: S. Safrai et al. (eds), The Literature of the Sages. Second Part: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science, and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature, Assen 2006, 363–74. We wish to thank Professor Wout van Bekkum for some useful remarks on an earlier draft of the section. 41  In accordance with the dictum in m.Avot 2:13, where it says ‘When you pray, do not make your prayer a fixed form’. See e.g. Fleischer, ‘Piyyut’, 364, 366.

tosefta targums

49

In this process of innovation, the azanim, whose role gradually developed from servant of the congregation to liturgical leader, played an important role. In their reciting of the prayers, they started to vary the fixed prayers with piyyutim, either of their own invention or using existing material, combining their liturgical duties with poetic skill. In those piyyutim the liturgical motifs of the Shema and the Amidah would be ingeniously meshed with topics from the appropriate Torah and haftarah portions. These productions generally show great scholarly erudition in their frequent allusions to the full range of biblical and rabbinic literature and in the artistic liberties their creators, the paytanim, took with the Hebrew language, by recasting usual roots in unusual morphological forms, and by investing words with new grammatical status.42 Those liberties sometimes went so far that to our ears their language might seem strange and artificial. That may, of course, be partly due to our inadequate understanding. But besides that, recent analysis of their language indicates that their particular usage would probably have been well suited to an audience that understood both Hebrew and Aramaic, since they obviously presume knowledge of contemporary Galilean Aramaic without which part of the wordplay would be lost.43 Moreover, even though they are in Hebrew, they seem to be closely related — in their usage and in the traditions they presume — to the extant Targums that, as a matter of course, are in Aramaic.44 One could say with Shinan that prayer, piyyut, Targum and homilies are primarily ‘literature of the synagogue’, while Mishnah, Talmud and Midrashim are ‘literature of the Beit Midrash’.45 According to Laura Lieber, in a groundbreaking article on the subject,46 the 42  Fleischer, ‘Piyyut’, 372. 43  See S.D. Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee of the Third-Sixth Centuries’, in: L.I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, New York & Jerusalem 1992, 253–86, at 280 and the works cited there in n. 62. Yet it must be noted that even with knowledge of both languages many of the intricate allusions and puns probably went over the head of the average synagogue-goer. 44  Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views’, 280. 45  See e.g. A. Shinan, ‘The Aggadah of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Rabbinic Aggadah: Some Methodological Considerations’, in: D.R.G. Beattie & M. McNamara (eds), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context, Sheffield 1994, 203–17, at 203. 46  L. Lieber, ‘“Oh my Dove, Let Me See Your Face!” Targum, Piyyut, and the Literary Life of the Ancient Synagogue’, in: A. den Hollander et al. (eds), Paratext and Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions. The Textual Markers of

50

chapter two

Targums are an important key to the understanding of the piyyutim by the lay audience of the synagogue. They form, as it were, a bridge between the academic literature of the Beit Midrash and the poems and sermons that were meant for the larger public in the synagogues. We may refer in this context to the saying of R. Juda ben Barzillai that was mentioned already in the previous chapter about the aggadic traditions from the Palestinian Targum that were used freely by the azanim.47 As concerns their form, the piyyutim contain poetic devices such as parallelism, assonance and metre, and mostly follow some poetic scheme, such as acrostic or anadiplosis (‫)שרשור‬, placing the last word of each line or section at the beginning of the next. Another popular device is the use of millot keva, placing a particular word or short phrase that is essential for the understanding of the text in a fixed place in each line.48 A relatively early phenomenon in the development of piyyut is the incorporation of short intermezzos meant to function as refrains or choral responses.49 In the later stages of the piyyut, from about 500 ce onwards, rhyme also became an important technique. These liturgical-exegetical poems that accompanied the Torah readings are generally in Hebrew, but there are also Aramaic examples, as we shall see in the next section.

1. Aramaic poetry There is ample evidence of an early existence of Aramaic poetry. According to Heinemann, the oldest Aramaic poems are ancient oral compositions, the origin of which is even older than that of the classical piyyut.50 Within the texts of Qumran, for example, some specimens of early Aramaic poetry have been found, such as the description of Sarai’s beauty in the Genesis Apocryphon.51 Contextualization, Leiden [etc.] 2003, 109–35. 47  See above, p. 14. 48  Fleischer, ‘Piyyut’, 370. 49  Fleischer, ‘Piyyut’, 371. 50  J. Heinemann, ‘‫’שרידים מיצירתם הפיוטית של המתורגמנים הקדמונים‬, Ha-Sifrut 4 (1973), 362–75, at 373–74. 51  See J.C. Vanderkam, ‘The Poetry of 1 Q  Ap Gen xx-2-8’, RdQ 10 (1979), 57–66; A.S. Rodrigues Pereira, Studies in Aramaic Poetry (c. 100 B.C.E. — c. 600 C.E.): Selected Jewish, Christian and Samaritan Poems, Assen 1997, 11–26 (commentary), 305 (text), 385 (translation).

tosefta targums

51

From talmudic times we know of the funeral songs, which were for a great part written in Aramaic, in accordance with the talmudic saying that Aramaic is the language for dirges.52 A collection of these Aramaic eulogies has been published by Michael Sokoloff and Joseph Yahalom.53 Also the Targums, especially the Palestinian ones, contain some striking poetic passages. In some cases these are composed of translated biblical poetry, such as for instance the lyrical description of the Messiah in Gen 49:11–12 or the rephrasing of the Song of David in 2 Sam 22.54 In other cases we find poetical introductions that were probably recited by the meturgemanim during the morning services on special sabbaths and holidays, and which served as illumination to central verses from the festive readings. This kind of poetry has from the end of the nineteenth century onwards been recognised as a particular targumic genre, the so-called ‘Introductory Poems’.55 They are Aramaic poetic introductions to the liturgical reading of Scripture on special occasions,56 and are in that sense functionally related to the piyyut. Leopold Zunz, Wilhelm Bacher and Moses Ginsburger were among the first to publish and discuss some of these poems.57 In the twentieth century this work was continued by Yehuda Komlosh, Joseph Heinemann, Ezra Fleischer, Michael Klein, Pierre Grelot, Alphons Samuel Rodrigues Pereira, Michael Sokoloff and Joseph Yahalom,58 and 52  y.Meg 1:1, 71b; y.Sot 7:2, 21c. By contrast, funeral songs for great scholars were in Hebrew. See H. Sysling, ‘Laments at the Departure of a Sage: Funeral Songs for Great Scholars as Recorded in Rabbinic Literature’, in: M.F.J. Baasten & R. Munk (eds), Studies in Hebrew Language and Jewish Culture, Dordrecht 2007, 81–102. 53  Sokoloff & Yahalom, ‫ישראל‬-‫שירת בני מערבא — שירים ארמיים של יהודי ארץ‬ ‫בתקופה הביזנטית‬, Jerusalem 1999, 282–329. 54  For a discussion of the Aramaic version of the Song of David, see Rodrigues Pereira, Studies in Aramaic Poetry, 27–57 (commentary), 306–08 (text), 386–90 (translation); Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 634–64. 55  According to the terminology of Klein (Genizah Manuscripts, I.xxviii–xxix), who also called them ‘reshuyot’ by analogy with the Hebrew poems that served as an introduction to certain liturgical prayers. See M.L. Klein, ‘Introductory Poems (R’shuyot) to the Targum of the Hafarah in Praise of Jonathan Ben Uzziel’, in: S.F. Chyet & D.H. Ellenson (eds), Bits of Honey: Essays for Samson H. Levey, Atlanta 1993, 43–56. 56  Especially Passover, Shavuot, Ninth of Av, Purim, and New Moon of Nisan. 57  L. Zunz, Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie, 2 Vols, Berlin 1865–1867, 18– 22, 74–80, 150–51; W. Bacher, ‘Alte aramäische Poesien zum Vortrage des haphtaraTargum’, MGWJ 22 (1873), 220–28; M. Ginsburger, ‘Aramäische Introduktionen zum Thargumvortrag an Festtagen’, ZDMG 54 (1900), 113–24; Idem, ‘Les Introductions Araméenes a la Lecture du Targoum’, REJ 73 (1921), 14–26, 186–94. 58  Y. Komlosh, ‘‫’כתבי יד של תרגומים‬, in: Y.L. Maymon (ed.), )‫ ספר יובל (תשי'ח‬,‫סיני‬,

52

chapter two

more recently by Michael Rand.59 These poems originated in Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine period when Aramaic was the main language in Palestine, and they continued to be used for certain well-defined parts of the liturgy long after any practical reason to use Aramaic had ceased.60 According to Zunz, we find a remnant of this usage until the fourteenth century: on the seventh day of Passover and the first day of Shavuot the Torah-reading and the haftarah were followed by a Targum, partly according to the Palestinian Targum tradition as becomes clear from the Mazorim of this period.61 This custom may, however, at certain places have continued even longer, until early modern times, witness the fact that for example the Roman Rite Festival Prayer Book that was printed in Bologna in 1540 still contains the Aramaic version of the haftarot for Passover and Shavuot.62 In some communities these Aramaic readings were preceded by the named Aramaic introductory poems. In fact, even today most European and America traditional synagogues chant an Aramaic introductory poem on Shavuot, before the Torah lection, the Akdamut Milin.63 A few of these poems are demonstrably old, such as for instance the famous ‫איזל משה‬, ‘Go, Moses!’,64 of which a copy has been found in a (1957–58), 466–81; Heinemann, ‘‫’שרידים‬, 362–75; E. Fleischer, ‘‫’ראש ראשי חדשים‬, Tarbiz 37 (1967–68), 265–78; Klein, ‘Targumic Poems’, 89–99; Idem, Genizah Manuscripts, passim (see the list in the first volume, p. L); Idem, ‘Introductory Poems’; P. Grelot, ‘Un poème acrostiche araméen sur Exode 12’, Semitica 38 (1990), 159–65; Idem, ‘Trois poèmes acrostiches sur Exode 12,2’, RB 106/1 (1999), 41–65; Idem, ‘Deux poèmes araméens sur Exode 20:1–2’, REJ 159 (2000), 49–61; Rodrigues Pereira, Studies in Aramaic Poetry, 58–109 (commentary), 309–17 (texts), 391–402 (translation); M. Sokoloff & J. Yahalom, ‘Aramaic Piyyuim from the Byzantine Period’, JQR 75/3 (1985), 309–21; Idem, ‫שירת בני מערבא‬, Jerusalem 1999. 59  M. Rand, ‘Observations on the Relationship between JPA Poetry and the Hebrew Piyyut Tradition: The case of the Kinot’, in: A. Gerhards & C. Leonhard (eds), Jewish and Christian Liturgy and Worship, Leiden & Boston 2007, 127–44. 60  Many of the poems listed by Zunz occur in the eleventh/twelfth century French Mazor Vitry. 61  See Zunz, Vorträge, 426–27. 62  Bacher, ‘Alte aramäische Poesien’, 220–21. Especially in Italy the custom of translating into Aramaic all the haftarot for Passover and those for the two days of Shavuot, was preserved until recently. See e.g. E. Fleischer, ‘Prayer and Piyyu in the Worms Mazor’, in: M. Beit-Arié (ed.), Worms Mazor: MS. Jewish National and University Library Heb. 40 781/1, Jerusalem 1985, 36–78, at 42 n. 62. 63  M.L. Klein, ‘Targumic Poems’, 89. 64  For a recent discussion of the poem, see H. Sysling, ‘“Go, Moses, and stand by the sea”: An acrostic poem from the Cairo Genizah to Exodus 14:30’, in: R. Roukema et al. (eds), The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman, Leuven 2006, 139–54.

tosefta targums

53

fourth or fifth century papyrus in Berlin.65 Others are of a later date. These later poems are mostly not anonymous but give the name of the writer hidden in the text in an acrostic or otherwise. Some of the older poems, that were probably originally composed as introductions to the Palestinian Targum for festive occasions, survived after Targum Onkelos replaced the Palestinian Targum. At that stage they were sometimes adapted to the language of Targum Onkelos / Jonathan in the same manner as happened to the Tosefta Targums,66 and occasionally they also attained the status of a Tosefta Targum. Like the classical Hebrew piyyut, these Aramaic poems often use acrostics as the literary scheme. Furthermore they may be written in the style of dialogues or disputes. The originally oral character becomes visible in the use of returning formulas.67 The Aramaic is often interspersed with Greek words.68 Remarkable is for instance the use of the word ‫( קיריס‬κύριος) as a designation for God, because this name does not occur in any rabbinic literature apart from the Palestinian Targums.69 It may be that the expression was banned from rabbinic literature after the Christians started to use it as a designation for both God the Father and for Jesus.70 The occurrence of the word in the Palestinian targum tradition would then point to either its antiquity or to a disregard of rabbinic authority. The content of the targumic poems is characterised by mythological tendencies that are totally absent from the authoritative Targums Onkelos and Jonathan.71 Also this might point to a certain independence of rabbinic authority, since the rabbis are not known for their fondness of these themes. Whereas mythological themes in rabbinic literature, 65  Papyrus P 8498, edited by J. Yahalom, ‘‫’”אזל משה” בפפרוס‬, Tarbiz 47 (1978), 173– 82. See also Sokoloff & J. Yahalom, ‫שירת בני מערבא‬, 82–86. 66  See Klein, ‘Targumic Poems’, 95. 67  Heinemann, ‘‫’שרידים‬, 371. For the Christian use of the title (ὁ) κύριος for Jesus, see e.g. J.A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Semitic Background of the New Testament Kyrios-Title’, in: Idem, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, Missoula 1979, 115–42. 68  Sokoloff & Yahalom, ‘Aramaic Piyyuim from the Byzantine Period’, 318–19. 69  E.g. PsJon Num 11:26, Neof Deut 32:1. See JPA 492a. The word also occurs as a title in Palestinian synagogue inscriptions, as becomes clear from J. Naveh, ‫על פסיפס‬ ‫ואבן — הכתובות הארמיות והעבריות‬, Tel Aviv 1978, Index, 151. 70  Heinemann, ‘‫’שרידים‬, 368. 71  See e.g. the mythological portrayal of Moses as described by Sokoloff & Yahalom, ‫שירת בני מערבא‬, 39–41. See also Heinemann, ‘‫’שרידים‬, 158–60. Another view, denying the mythological tendencies as one of the characteristics of this genre, was recently expressed by M. Kister, ‘‫’שירת בני מערבא — היבטים בעלמה של שירה עלומה‬, Tarbiz 76/1 (2008), 105–84, esp. 153–62.

54

chapter two

if they occur at all, are often justified by biblical proof-texts or softened down by exegetical qualifiers such as ‫‘ כביכול‬as it were’,72 in the liturgical poetry they are used overtly, in their own right. In the corpus we have studied we find, for example, a large TT to 1 Sam 17:42 in the form of an acrostic poem, consisting of a dialogue between Goliath and David.73 This kind of poetic insertion increases the dramatic effect of the biblical text and focuses attention on central points in the narrative.74 It is conceivable that this became a rather popular device to enliven the synagogue worship. It may even be that sometimes things got out of hand, witness the following tradition that is based on Eccl 7:5,75 ‫ מאיש שומע שיר כסילים אלו המתורגמנין‬,‫ אלו הדרשנים‬,‫טוב לשמוע גערת חכם‬ ‫שמגביהין קולם בשיר להשמיע את העם‬ ‘It is better to listen to a wise man’s reproof’, these are the interpreters, ‘than to listen to the song of fools’, these are the meturgemanim who raise their voices in poetry to instruct the people.

C. Description of the Corpus The targumic traditions that are generally called Tosefta Targums are found scattered in various manuscripts and printed editions. They can be found in Targum manuscripts, in haftarah collections, in prayer books, and in medieval rabbinic works. They may occur as an integral part of the text or as marginal additions. At times they have been transmitted separately.76 Sometimes they are marked as Tosefta or Jerusalemite targum or the like, while at other times they go without 72  See M. Fishbane, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, Oxford 2003, 213. 73  See E. van Staalduine-Sulman, ‘The Aramaic Song of the Lamb’, in: J.C. de Moor & W.G.E. Watson (eds), Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose, Neukirchen 1993, 265–92; J.C. de Moor & E. van Staalduine-Sulman, ‘The Aramaic Song of the Lamb’, JSJ 24 (1993), 266–79; Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 109–11; E. van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, Leiden 2002, 364–83. See below, pp. 114–118. 74  A. Shinan, ‘The Late Midrashic, Paytanic, and Targumic Literature’, in: S.T. Katz (ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. IV. The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, Cambridge 2006, 678–98, at 693–94. 75  EcclR 7:5, EcclZ 7:5, YalqSh Eccl §973. A comparable tradition occurs in EcclR 9:17 and YalqSh Eccl §989. See Zunz, Vorträge, 358. 76  Bernstein, ‘A New Manuscript’, 151; Klein, ‘Targumic Toseftot’, 410; U. Gleßmer, Einleitung in die Targume zum Pentateuch, Tübingen 1995, 165; C. Leonhard, The Jewish Pesach and the Origins of the Christian Easter: Open Questions in Current Research, Berlin 2006, 356–57.

tosefta targums

55

any special designation. The language of the TTs varies: sometimes it is close to the dialect of Onkelos and Jonathan, sometimes it shows a clear Babylonian influence, and at still other times it is outspoken Palestinian. In many cases the TTs are clearly additions to the rather basic translation of Targum Jonathan, while at other times they seem to be totally independent of it. In some cases targumic traditions in Targum Jonathan seem to be abridged versions of longer versions that have been preserved as TTs. This very diverse character of the TTs makes it difficult to categorise them. Depending on the scholarly interest, one could opt for a subdivision based on geography, source, function, form, or relation to Targum Jonathan. Until now, the TTs have in scholarly research mostly been defined in relation to Targum Jonathan. For instance, Pinkhos Churgin, in his monograph on Targum Jonathan, used the term ‘interpolated targum’ for the TTs, a designation which in itself is telling. In his view Targum Jonathan fell prey to later editors who forced into it other material. The Targum was susceptible, according to Churgin, to changes due to its purpose as a didactical instrument and to its place in public worship.77 Later midrashic material was inserted as interpolation into the simple and straightforward translation of Targum Jonathan.78 In addition there are interpolations of an exegetical character, which attempt to clarify either the Hebrew text or the accepted rendering of Targum Jonathan.79 Among these interpolations Churgin also reckons the double translations within Targum Jonathan.80 So his definition of ‘interpolated targum’ encompasses more than what is generally considered Tosefta Targum. Kasher, in his book on the subject, included all kinds of variant traditions that occur in combination with Targum Jonathan in his corpus.81 This is a clear and practical choice, though it may be challenged on different grounds, as we shall argue later. Kasher distinguished three types of extensions: a preceding extension, an interwoven extension, and a concluding extension. A small number of the TTs differ essentially from Targum Jonathan. These targums he termed substitute tar-

77  Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 126. 78  Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 126–39. 79  Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 139–45. 80  Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 139–41. 81  Excluding variant traditions that occur as quotations in other rabbinic or medieval literature such as described in Chapter Three of the present work, unless they also occur elsewhere in manuscripts or early editions of Targum Jonathan.

56

chapter two

gums.82 Within this last category he made the following subdivision: 1. independent substitute targums,83 2. interwoven substitute targums,84 and 3. literal substitute targums.85 In any case, Kasher’s classification invariably takes Targum Jonathan as its point of departure and describes the variant traditions in relation to that text. For the present study we have concentrated on the TTs on Samuel that were brought together by Rimon Kasher in his book on the Tosefta Targums, completed with a TT on 1 Sam 2:9 that was discovered by the late Michael Klein,86 a Jerushalmi variant on 1 Sam 6:19, and some marginal readings of the sefer aer type of Codex Reuchlin that were not included in Kasher’s study.87 We decided to include these sefer aer additions in order to probe Bacher’s supposition that they might be remnants of an independent tradition.88 Altogether there are forty-six TTs on Samuel, of which three are on the same verse, namely 1 Sam 17:8. In the following subparagraphs we will first describe the main sources of the TTs to Targum Samuel, before proceeding to discuss and characterise the individual traditions.

1. The main sources Although our work makes extensive use of the book of Kasher, the names we use for the textual witnesses may differ. Names change through time and habit, and sometimes through simple human mistakes. In this work we use the names that occur in the work of our Kampen colleagues Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman and David Kroeze in an attempt to minimise confusion and to set a kind of standard for future work.89 The sigla of Kasher are given in brackets for easy comparison.

82  ‫( תרגום חילופי‬Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 20, 26–28). 83  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 27. 84  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 27. 85  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 27–28. 86  T-S NS 128.14. See Klein, Targumic Manuscripts, 51, nr 615. 87  We did not include the sefer aer variant ‫ ויתלעבון‬to 1 Sam 31:4 since that seems to be a correction of the base text of Reuchlin that reads ‫ויתעלבון‬, a case of metathesis of consonants. Both readings make sense and both are supported by several manuscripts. 88  See above, p. 43. 89  See http://www.targum.nl/ (accessed Oct. 31, 2008).

tosefta targums

57

1.1. Codex Reuchlin The most important source for our investigation is Codex Reuchlin, a Bible manuscript of the Prophets with Targum Jonathan alternating. It has been written in Ashkenazi script, by Zera bar Yehudah, and is dated 4866 (1105–1106 ce). The place of provenance is probably Italy. The codex contains a very valuable collection of alternative targum traditions of which some may be designated as TTs.90 1.2. Other continuous Targum manuscripts Besides Codex Reuchlin there are several other continuous Targum manuscripts that contain TTs. This group can be subdivided according to the cultural geographical background of the manuscripts. We start with the Sephardi manuscripts: »» ms Opp Add 40 75–76 (Kasher 1‫)א‬. Bodleian Library, Oxford. Bilingual Targum of the Prophets. The manuscript can be attributed to the school of Joshua ben Abraham Ibn Gaon of Soria, early 14th century. For our purposes only the first volume is relevant, i.e. ms Opp Add 40 75. »» ms Madrid 7542 (Kasher 1‫)ד‬. Former Prophets and Ruth in Aramaic and Latin written by Alfonso de Zamora in 1533. »» ms H. 116 (Kasher 1‫)ה‬. TJ from 1 Sam 5:11 onwards, Targum to Psalms, Job, and Proverbs. TJ completed in 1486 ce, probably in North Africa.91 »» ms M1–M3 Salamanca (Kasher 1‫)ח‬. Targum of the Prophets and the Writings with a Latin translation. Written by Alfonso de Zamora, volume 3 completed in Alcalá de Henares, 1532. For our purposes only the first volume is relevant, i.e. ms M1. »» ms Hébreu 75 (Kasher 1‫)י‬. Targum Onkelos, Targum Jonathan, Megillat Antiochus in Aramaic, and Testament Naphtali. The manuscript was probably produced in Spain, in the fourteenth or fifteenth century. »» ms Kennicott 5 (Kasher 1‫)כ‬, Oxford. Former Prophets with Targum Jonathan and the commentaries of Rashi, Kimi and Levi ben Gershon. Spain, probably 1487. TTs integrated in the text. The manuscript is replete with errors and abbreviations. 90  See also Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 15. This codex is available in a facsimile edition: A. Sperber, Codex Reuchlinianus no. 3 of the Badische Landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe (formerly Durlach no. 55): with a general introduction: Masoretic Hebrew, Copenhagen 1956 91  See also Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 14–15.

58

chapter two

The following Ashkenazi manuscripts were used: »» ms El. f. 6 (not in Kasher), Thüringer Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Jena. Prophets with Targum Jonathan alternating. Tosefta Targums integrated in the text. German square, irregular handwriting, sublinear vocalisation, thirteenth or fourteenth century. »» ms Or. fol. 1210–1211 (not in Kasher). Staatsbibliothek, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin. Bible with Targum, including Targum Chronicles. Tosefta Targums integrated in the text. Written by Barukh b. Zera; Masorahs, punctuation and decorations by Simson, dated 1343. »» ms Laud Or. 326 (Kasher ‫)ב‬, Bodleian Library, Oxford. Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets, preceded by various readings of different schools for the Writings. Not punctuated. Ashkenazi square script, twelfth century. »» ms 11 Göttweig (Kasher ‫)ח‬. Convent Göttweig, Austria. Pentateuch and Prophets with Targum, alternating with the Hebrew verse. Tosefta Targums integrated in the text. Ashkenazi script, fourteenth century. »» ms Hébreu 17–18 (Kasher ‫)ך‬, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Bible with Targum Onkelos, Targum Jonathan and Targum Writings, including Targum Sheni to Esther and the Dream of Mordecai in Aramaic, Targum alternating with the Hebrew verse. Tosefta Targums integrated in the text. Ashkenazi script, fourteenth or fifteenth century. For our purposes only the second volume is relevant, i.e. ms Hébreu 18. »» ms Add. 26,879 (Kasher ‫)נ‬, British Library, London. Prophets with Targum (without Jeremiah) and the commentary of Rashi. Tosefta Targums integrated in the text. Franco‑German square script, both Masorahs and commentary of Rashi, thirteenth century. »» ms Parma 3187, 3188, 3189 (Kasher ‫)ת‬, Biblioteca Palatina Parma. Former Prophets, Later Prophets and Writings (incomplete), with Targum, including the Dream of Mordecai in Aramaic. The Twelve Prophets are missing. Psalms without Targum. Thirteenth or fourteenth century. For our purposes only the first volume is relevant, i.e. ms Parma 3187. »» ms Marburg 4 (Kasher 6‫)ז‬. Marburg — Hessisches Staatsarchiv Bestand 147, Handschriften-Mappe B. 1 Sam 17:8–17:21. Provenance unknown.92 92  We placed it here with the Ashkenazi witness because it contains a TT that

tosefta targums

59

Whereas normally the Yemenite manuscripts, being close to the Babylonian tradition, do not contain TTs, the following late Yemenite manuscript has some TTs added in the margin: »» ms Or. 1471 (Kasher 2 ‫)ט‬. British Library, London. Former Prophets with Targum Jonathan, including an Arabic translation for Judges 4:23–5:31. Targum alternating with the Hebrew verse. Tosefta Targums in the margin. Yemenite script. Dated 1589 ce.

1.3. Collection of haftarot »» ms Gaster 1478 (no siglum in Kasher). According to Kasher this is a typewriter copy of ms 1020 that was lost.93 The Gaster list is a photocopy of handwritten descriptions and it is not always legible. But it seems to say: ‘Hagadah. Midrash Hagadot from Haphtaroth (Persia) copies of Agadic portions in [Happ..?. illegible word]’.94 1.4. Early editions Sephardi »» Leiria (Kasher 1‫)ב‬. First printed edition, Leiria 1494. Former Prophets with Targum and the commentaries of Kimi and Levi ben Gershon. Italian »» First Rabbinic Bible (Kasher 3‫)א‬. Published in 1516/17 by Daniel Bomberg in Venice, edited by Felix Pratensis. The Prophets are provided with Targum Jonathan and Kimi’s commentary. 1.5. Cairo Genizah manuscripts »» T-S NS 128.14 (not in Kasher).95 University Library, Taylor-Schechter Collection, Cambridge. Prophets with Targum Jonathan (fragments): 1 Sam 2:8–2:10, and in the margin 2:11; 3:19–3:20. Tiberian vocalisation. Judaeo-Arabic heading in the middle of verso followed by an Aramaic liturgical composition. Oriental semi-cursive script. Date unknown. »» T-S B11.56 (not in Kasher).96 University Library, Taylor-Schechter Collection, Cambridge. Fragment of a codex, 8 folios, Targum occurs mainly in that group. 93  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 306. 94  We owe this information to Ms Anne Young of the Special Collections of the John Rylands Library of the University of Manchester. 95  M.L. Klein, Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, Cambridge 1992, 41, nr. 615. 96  Klein, Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, 22, nr. 261.

60

chapter two

Jonathan 2 Sam 5:10–9:10a. Targum Jonathan to the Prophets with Hebrew lemmata. Oriental semi-cursive script, unvocalised. Date unknown.

1.6. Bible commentaries Sephardi »» ms Parma 2883 (Kasher 6‫)ס‬, Kimi’s commentary to the Prophets, Italy 1328.97 Kimi cites pieces of targum under the heading ‫תרגום‬ ‫של תוספתא‬.98 »» ms Vatican 71 (Kasher 6‫)כ‬, Kimi’s commentary to the Prophets, Italian handwriting, 1346. Kimi cites pieces of targum under the heading ‫תרגום של תוספתא‬.99 Ashkenazi »» ms Munich 5 (Kasher ‫)ם‬, written in 1233 in Ashkenaz, contains among other things a commentary to the Prophets ascribed to Rashi.100 This commentary contains many targum citations. Apparently the source was a manuscript where the additions were incorporated without any sign; it says e.g. ‫ יונתן תרגם המקרא הזה‬followed by what we would call a TT. 1.7. Mazorim »» ms Add. 27,070 (Kasher ms London 634, 3‫)ה‬, Roman rite, fifteenth or sixteenth century. »» ms Add. 17,058 (Kasher ms London 636, no siglum), Roman rite, fifteenth century.

2. Distribution among the sources If we now examine how the TTs are distributed among these sources, the following picture emerges. Of the 46 traditions examined, only 8 occur in more than one source, viz. 1 Sam 17:8b; 17:8c; 17:39; 17:42; 18:19; 2 Sam 6:23; 12:12; 22:3–47 passim). The last one of these only occurs in two Mazorim, ms Add. 27,070 and ms Add. 17,058. By far the 97  Although Kimi was born in France, and his commentary appeared in Italy, born of a family of Spanish immigrants he considered himself a Sephardi. For example his book ‫ ספר השרשים‬is ascribed to Rabbi David Kimi ha-Sephardi. 98  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 14. 99  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 14. 100  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 15.

tosefta targums

61

most TTs, 34, are known to us only from Codex Reuchlin. Four traditions are known from other single witnesses, two from ms Kennicott 5 (2 Sam 18:25; 20:22), one from the Leiria edition (2 Sam 19:30), and one from the Genizah fragment T-S NS 128.14 (1 Sam 2:9).

D. Characterisation of the Toseftan Material According to their Designations The following paragraphs are the result of our attempt to characterise the TTs according to their designations. In order to ease the comparison we give both the text of Targum Jonathan according to the Sperber edition and the variant reading. In the case of substitute targums the words that differ from Targum Jonathan are underlined. When necessary also the Masoretic text is given. The bibliographic information refers to previous publication or scholarly discussion.101

1. Sefer aer In Codex Reuchlin we find twenty marginal readings that refer to a sefer aer, another book, of which nineteen are discussed here.102 The variants are easily recognisable because they are marked in the margin by two dotted bows, as shown in the picture.

Within the text a small circle indicates the place to which the variant refers. All variants are unique in the sense that they do not appear in other known sources. They are as follows: 1 Sam 2:22; 4:12; 17:18; 21:16; 26:9; 26:20; 28:19; 30:16; 2 Sam 1:6; 1:21; 3:5; 3:27; 6:19; 15:4; 15:11, 21:1; 21:3; 21:5; 21:12. Five of these traditions are aggadic, which is more or less in line with Bacher’s observation that in the whole codex about a quarter of the material designated as sefer aer is aggadic.103 We shall first examine these aggadic instances and then proceed to discuss and classify the other variants with the designation sefer aer. 101  No special reference is given to the work of Kasher, since the reference in the headings of the TT will suffice. 102  See above, n. 87. 103  Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 22.

62

chapter two

1.1. Aggadic variants

1 Sam 2:22 (Kasher 42) Codex Reuchlin 57r

>‫ספ<ר> אח<ר‬

TJ

MT

‫ָקן ְמאֹד וְ ָׁש ַמע ֵאת ָּכל ועלי סיב לחדא ושמע ית‬ ֵ ‫וְ ֵע ִלי ז‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ַיעֲׂשּון ָּבנָיו ְל ָכל יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל כל דעבדין בנוהי לכל‬ ‫ישראל‬ ‫וית דמשהן ית קרבני נשיא‬ ‫ָׁשים וית דשכבין ית נשיא‬ ִ ‫וְ ֵאת ֲא ֶׁשר יִ ְׁש ְּכבּון ֶאת ַהּנ‬ ‫דמדכיין דאתן לצלאה‬ ‫דאתין לצלאה‬ ‫ַהּצ ְֹבאֹות‬ ‫בתרע משכן זמנא׃‬ ‫מֹועד׃‬ ֵ ‫ֶּפ ַתח א ֶֹהל‬

Translation Another book. [Now Eli was very old when he heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel], and how they delayed the purifying offers of the women who came to pray [at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.] Notes and commentary This is a substitute targum that explains the Hebrew text. The Hebrew of the second part of the verse is unclear and calls for interpretation. According to Koehler-Baumgartner the general meaning of the verb qal √‫ צבא‬is ‘to serve’ (in the army, or in worship). TJ translates the definite participle ‫ הצבאות‬as ‘coming to pray’. The variant reading agrees with this interpretation of ‫הצבאות‬, but is more prudish in its translation of the verb qal √‫ שכב‬by avoiding any sexual connotation. According to this reading the sin of Eli’s sons was not that they had sex, but that they delayed the purifying offers of the women. This is in accordance with b.Yoma 9ab where it says ‘Notwithstanding R. Samuel ben Namani who said in the name of R. Yoanan: Whosoever says, The sons of Eli sinned [sexually] is but mistaken; it is because they delayed offering up their sacrificial birds. Scripture accounts it to them as if they had lain with them.’ The notion of the importance of keeping the correct times for rituals occurs also in TJ Zeph 3:18.104 Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xiv Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 23105 Sperber, The Bible, II.99 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 223 104  See below, pp. 196–197. 105  Bacher refers erroneously to 1 Sam 2:23.

tosefta targums

63

1 Sam 4:12 (Kasher 44) Codex Reuchlin 59r

TJ

>‫ספ<ר> אח<ר‬ ‫ורהט גברא משבטא דבית בנימן מסדרא ורהט שאול בר קיש גברא דמן שיבט‬ ‫בנימן מסידרי קרבא ואתא לשילו ביומא‬ ‫ואתא לשילו ביומא ההוא‬ ‫ההוא על יד מלאכא דארהטיה [מ]תמן‬ ‫ולבושוהי מבזעין ועפרא רמי ברישיה׃‬

Translation Another book. And Saul, son of Kish, a man from the tribe of Benjamin, ran from the battle lines and reached Shiloh the same day by means of an angel that made him run [from] there; [his clothes were rent and there was earth thrown on his head.] Notes and commentary The first character of the last word is difficult to decipher. By the look of it one would think of an aleph, but that does not make sense. It might be either a mem, as proposed by all previous editors, or it might be a deleted character. The dialect is close to the language of Targum Jonathan, though the unassimilated form of the preposition ‫ מן‬may point to a Palestinian background.106 This is a substitute targum that attempts to explain the Hebrew expression ‫‘ ביום ההוא‬on the same day’. The identification of Saul with the anonymous messenger is based upon the story of the death of Saul and Jonathan in 2 Sam 1:2–4. This identification is early and widespread in Jewish literature. See for instance Pseudo-Philo, LAB, 54:4, MidrPss 7:2, and MidrSam 11:1. In these sources it is noted that Saul must have been very swift, because he ran a very long distance (Aphek to Shiloh is about 40 km) in short time. The introduction of an angel that helped him arrive at his destination that fast is as far as we know unique, but it fits in with the tendency noted by Rimon Kasher of a certain predilection for the angelic world in the TTs.107 It may be that the tradition is inspired by 1 Sam 23:27, where it says that a messenger (‫ )מלאך‬came to Saul and told him to hurry because the Philistines had invaded the land. There is no known connection to a liturgical tradition. 106  See G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, Darmstadt 1960, 227. 107  R. Kasher, ‘Angelology and the Supernal Worlds in the Aramaic Targums to the Prophets’, JSJ 27 (1996) 168–91, esp. 185.

64

chapter two

Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xv Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 24 Sperber, The Bible, II.102 Komlosh, ‫המקרא באור התרגום‬, 318–19 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 238

2 Sam 3:5 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 86v

>‫ ספ<ר> אח<ר‬

‫ למיכל אישת דוד‬

TJ

‫ושתיתאה יתרעם‬ ‫לעגלה אתת דויד‬ ‫אלין אתילידו לדויד בחברון׃‬

Translation Another book. [And the sixth was Ithream] by David’s wife Michal. [These were born to David in Hebron.] Notes and commentary De Lagarde (and Bacher who follows him), Sperber and Van Staalduine read ‫איתת‬, but we cannot make that out in the text. The reading is unclear, but the penultimate character seems to be a shin rather than a taw, in which case the gloss would be Hebrew. This is a substitute targum that harmonises the text with other rabbinic interpretations. In a TT to 2 Sam 6:23 it says that Ithream was born to Michal on her dying day.108 In Tg 1 Chron 3:3 it says ‘And the sixth was Ithream by David’s wife Eglah, which is Michal the daughter of Saul,’ in this way combining the two traditions. In b.Sanh 21a and YalqSh 2 Sam §141 the name Eglah ‘calf’ is explained as a pet name, whereas in MidrPss 59:4 and YalqSh Pss §777 it is explained as a nickname because just as a calf does not accept a yoke, she did not accept the yoke of her father. In y.Sanh 2:3, 20b, YalqSh Torah §136 and YalqSh 1 Sam §103 the name is connected to the way Michal lowed like a cow when her son was born. Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xviii Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 23 Sperber, The Bible, II.162 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 494 108  See below, pp. 110–111.

tosefta targums

65

2 Sam 6:19 (Kasher 61) Codex Reuchlin 90r

TJ

>‫ספ<ר> אח<ר‬

‫חד מן שיתא בתורא וחד‬ ‫מן שיתא בהינא דחמרא‬

MT

‫ופליג לכל עמא לכל המונא‬ ‫דישראל למגבר ועד אתא‬ ‫לגבר גריצתא דלחים חדא‬ ‫ופלוג חד ומנתא חדא‬

‫וַיְ ַח ֵּלק ְל ָכל ָה ָעם ְל ָכל ֲהמֹון‬ ‫יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ְל ֵמ ִאיׁש וְ ַעד ִא ָּׁשה‬ ‫ַאחת‬ ַ ‫ְל ִאיׁש ַח ַּלת ֶל ֶחם‬ ‫יׁשה ֶא ָחת‬ ָ ‫ַא ִׁש‬ ֲ ‫וְ ֶא ְׁש ָּפר ֶא ָחד ו‬

‫ואזל כל עמא גבר לביתיה׃‬

ֹ‫ֵלְך ָּכל ָה ָעם ִאיׁש ְל ֵביתו׃‬ ֶ ‫ַוּי‬

Translation Another book. [And he distributed among all the people — the entire multitude of Israel, man and woman alike — to each a loaf of bread], one sixth of a bull and one sixth of a hin of wine. [Then all the people left for their homes.] Notes and commentary The interpretation of the difficult Hebrew words ‫ אשפר‬and ‫ אשישה‬is interpreted according to the rule of notaricon as ‫ אחד מששה בפר‬and ‫אחד משישה בהין‬. This interpretation occurs also in the parallel text in Tg 1 Chron 16:3. There, however, the word ‘six’ is spelled as ‫ אשתא‬instead of ‫שיתא‬. This phenomenon of a prostetic aleph at the beginning of a word occurs often in the Palestinian Targums. In Onkelos and Jonathan the word for ‘six’ is always spelled without the aleph. That in the sefer aer variant the spelling ‫ שיתא‬is used may point to a later adaptation to the language of Targum Jonathan. The first part of the offered solution also occurs in NumR 4:20, b.Pes 36b and YalqSh 2 Sam §143. The second part is interpreted in these texts as ‘one sixth of an efa’, with the dissenting view of R. Samuel that it meant a bottle of wine, on the basis of Hos 3:1, where the word also occurs. So, the translation given here as well as in Tg 1 Chron 16:3 is a double translation using both possibilities, i.e. ‫ אשישה‬as measure (hin/efa) and as wine.109 Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xix Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 23 Sperber, The Bible, II.169 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 520–21 109  See also Rashi on 1 Chron 16:3.

66

chapter two

2 Sam 21:1 (Kasher 66) Codex Reuchlin 108r

TJ

>‫ספ<ר> אח<ר‬

‫על דקטל ית כהניא דהוו מספקין מזון לגבונאי׃‬

‫והוה כפנא ביומי דויד תלת שנין‬ ‫שתא בתר שתא ובעא דויד רחמין‬ ‫מן קדם יוי ואמר יוי על שאול ועל‬ ‫בית חייבי קטול‬ ‫על דקטל ית גבעונאי׃‬

Translation Another book. [There was a famine during the reign of David, year after year for three years. David inquired of the Lord, and the Lord replied, “It is because of Saul and the House of those guilty of killing,] because he killed the priests who provided food for the Gibeonites.” Notes and commentary The text is hardly legible because the margin has been trimmed. This is a substitute targum that attempts to answer the question of how Saul killed the Gibeonites, because this is not related directly in Scripture. In Josh 9:27 it says that Joshua made the Gibeonites hewers of wood and drawers of water for the community and for the altar of the Lord, in the place that God would choose. In 1 Sam 22:16–19 the story is told how all the inhabitants of the priest town of Nob were killed on Saul’s command. These two givens are combined to supply the explanation given in the TT. This explanation occurs also in other sources, such as for instance b.BQ 119a:110 Again, should you say that these statements refer only to a case where a robbery was directly committed by hand, whereas where it was merely caused indirectly this would not be so, come and hear: ‘It is for Saul and for his bloody House because he slew the Gibeonites’; for indeed where do we find that Saul slew the Gibeonites? It must therefore be because he slew Nob, the city of the priests, who used to supply them with water and food. Scripture considers it as though he had slain them.

Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xix Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 23 Sperber, The Bible, II.200 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 615–16 110  See also b.Yev 78b; LevR 22:6; NumR 5:3, 8:4.

tosefta targums

67

All the aggadic variants are substitute targums that are meant to be read instead of the reading given in Targum Jonathan. All the variant readings, however, cover only part of the verses concerned. That means that the variant traditions have to be supplemented from TJ. This was probably just an efficiency measure of the copyist to avoid unnecessary copying.

1.2. Other sefer aer variants This group can be divided into two subgroups: targums that are mainly explanatory and targums that bring the Aramaic closer to the Hebrew text. We start with the first group, the explanatory targums.

1 Sam 17:18 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 67v

TJ

‫לרב דממנא אל אלפא גובריא‬

‫וית עסר גובנין דחלבא האלין תוביל‬ ‫לרב אלפא‬ ‫וית אחך תסער לשלם וית טיבהון תיתי׃‬

>‫ספ<ר> אח<ר‬

Translation Another book. [Take these ten cheeses of milk] to the commander who is appointed over a thousand men [and inquire after your brothers’ health and bring back a report of them.] Notes and commentary This is a specification of the literal translation Targum Jonathan gives of the Hebrew ‫שר האלף‬. Bibliographic information

Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 27 Sperber, The Bible, II.128 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 357

1 Sam 21:16 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 74r

>‫ספ<ר> אח<ר‬

‫הדין כשר למיעל לביתי‬

TJ

‫חסיר שטיא אנא ארי איתיתון ית דין לאשתטאה קדמי‬ :‫הדין ייעול לביתי‬

68

chapter two

Translation Another book. [Do I lack madmen that you have brought this fellow to rave for me?] Is this one worthy to enter my house? Notes and commentary The text is hardly legible because of a trimmed margin. In this case TJ stays closer to the HT that reads ‫ביתי‬-‫הזה יבוא אל‬. This is in accordance with Bacher’s observation that in general Targum Jonathan stays closer to the HT than the sefer aer variants.111 By adding the word ‫כשר‬, the variant reading explains the Hebrew wording as a rhetorical question denying the worthiness of David. Bibliographic information

Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvii Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 27 Sperber, The Bible, II.141 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 418

1 Sam 26:9 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 79r

>‫ ספ<ר> אח<ר‬

TJ

‫ואמר דויד לאבישי לא תחבלניה ארי‬ :‫מן אושיט ידיה במשיחא דיוי וזכא‬ ‫ בדינא‬

Translation Another book. [But David said to Abishai, “Don’t do him violence! For who can stretch out his hand against the Lord’s anointed and go unpunished] in judgment?” Notes and commentary The addition of the wordgroup ‫ בדינא‬is intended to make clear that what is meant here is punishment on the Day of Judgment, since in this world he might probably escape judgment. Given that the word ‫ דינא‬is added very often in the Targums,112 we should not consider it an addition, but rather see the whole expression ‫ זכא בדינא‬as a translation of the Hebrew ‫נקה‬. Bibliographic information

Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xviii 111  Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 27–28. 112  As becomes clear from the index to BCTP 21, 197 and the places it refers to.

tosefta targums

69

Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 27 Sperber, The Bible, II.149 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 449

1 Sam 26:20 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 80r

TJ

>‫ספ<ר> אח<ר‬

MT

‫וכען לא יתאשד דמי לארעא‬ ‫ַאר ָצה‬ ְ ‫וְ ַע ָּתה ַאל יִ ּפֹל ָּד ִמי‬ ‫ָצא ֶמ ֶלְך מן קדם מימרא דיוי ארי נפק‬ ָ ‫ִמ ֶּנגֶד ְּפנֵי יְ הֹוָה ִּכי י‬ ‫מלכא דישראל למבעי ית‬ ‫יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ְל ַב ֵּקׁש ֶאת ַּפ ְרעֹׁש‬ ‫חלש חד‬ ‫ֶא ָחד‬ ‫כמא דרדיף בר ניצצא‬ ‫ כמא דמתרדיף קוראה‬:‫ַּכ ֲא ֶׁשר יִ ְרּדֹף ַהּק ֵֹרא ֶּב ָה ִרים‬ ‫ית קוראה בטוריא‬ ‫בטוריא׃‬

Translation Another book. [Oh, let my blood not spill itself to the ground, from before the Memra of the Lord! For the king of Israel has come out to seek a single flea — ] as a bird of prey hunts a partridge in the hills. Notes and commentary The missing subject in the last clause of the Hebrew version is solved differently in the two Aramaic translations we have here. TJ keeps to his principle of replacing each word in the given order by an Aramaic equivalent or substitute. The meturgeman of TJ solves the problem of the missing subject by translating the verb as an itpeel of which the partridge is the subject. The translator of the sefer aer instead solves the problem by inserting a bird of prey as subject. Bibliographic information

Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xviii Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 25 Sperber, The Bible, II.150 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 454

1 Sam 28:19 (Kasher 60) Codex Reuchlin 81v

>‫ספ<ר> אח<ר‬

‫ומחר את ובנך גביי בגניז חיי עלמא‬

TJ

‫וימסר יוי אף ית ישראל עמך בידא דפלשתאי‬ ‫ומחר את ובנך עמי‬ ‫ואף ית משריתא דישראל ימסר יוי בידא‬ ‫דפלישתאי׃‬

70

chapter two

Translation Another book. [Further, the Lord will deliver the Israelites who are with you into the hands of the Philistines.] Tomorrow you and your sons shall be by my side in the storehouse of eternal life [and the Lord will also deliver the Israelite forces into the hands of the Philistines.] Notes and commentary The cryptic expression ‘tomorrow you and your sons will be with me’ is explained as ‘by my side in the storehouse of eternal life’.113 This text is explained in the same manner in other rabbinic sources, but there the explanation is always ‘in my compartment’ (‫ בתוך‬/‫במחיצתי‬ ‫)מחיצתי‬.114 From the rabbinic sources it becomes clear that it means there that Saul would die in a state of grace, since God had forgiven his sins. The expression is reminiscent of the words that Jesus spoke to the criminals hanging besides him ‘today you will be with me in paradise’.115 The preposition ‫ גבי‬/‫ גב‬does not occur in TO/TJ, but is frequently used in the Palestinian Targums. Bibliographic information

Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xviii Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 23 Sperber, The Bible, II.153 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 462–63

1 Sam 30:16 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 83r

>‫ספ<ר> אח<ר‬

TJ

‫ואחתיה והא רטישין על אפי כל‬ ‫ארעא אכלין ושתן‬ ‫ועבדין שירותא‬ ‫וחגגין‬ ‫בכל עדאה סגיאה דשבו מארע‬ :‫פלשתאי ומיארעא דבית יהודה‬

MT

‫ַוּי ִֹר ֵדהּו וְ ִהּנֵה נְ ֻט ִׁשים ַעל ְּפנֵי ָכל‬ ‫ָארץ א ְֹכ ִלים וְ ׁש ִֹתים‬ ֶ ‫ָה‬ ‫וְ ח ְֹג ִגים‬ ‫ְּבכֹל ַה ָּׁש ָלל ַהּגָדֹול ֲא ֶׁשר ָל ְקחּו‬ ‫הּודה׃‬ ָ ְ‫ּומ ֶא ֶרץ י‬ ֵ ‫ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ְּפ ִל ְׁש ִּתים‬

Translation Another book. [So he led him down, and there they were, scattered all over the ground, eating and drinking] and making use [of all the vast spoil they had taken from the land of the Philistines and from the land of Judah.] 113  Cf. 1 Sam 25:29. See below, p. 148. 114  b.Ber 12b; b.Eruv 53b; TanB Emor 4; Tan Emor 2; MidrSam 10:5, 23:5, 24:5; PRE 32; YalqSh 1 Sam §140; LevR 26:7. 115  Luke 23:43.

tosefta targums

71

Notes and commentary The variant reading paraphrases the Hebrew word ‫חגגים‬. It may be that this is because the verb ‫ חגג‬in the Pentateuch and the Prophets has almost always a religious connotation. Probably the meturgeman wanted to make clear that here it concerned a definitely non-religious use.116 Bibliographic information

Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xviii Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 28 Sperber, The Bible, II.155

2 Sam 3:27 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 87v

>‫ספ<ר> אח<ר‬

TJ

MT

‫ַּטהּו יֹוָאב ותב אבנר לחברון ואפנייה‬ ֵ ‫ַאבנֵר ֶח ְברֹון ַוּי‬ ְ ‫ָׁשב‬ ָ ‫ַוּי‬ ‫יואב לגו תרעא למללא עמיה‬ ‫ֶאל ּתֹוְך ַה ַּׁש ַער ְל ַד ֵּבר ִאּתֹו‬ ‫ברז על מה דאשתלי‬ ‫בשליא‬ ‫ַּב ֶּׁש ִלי‬ ‫ומחהי תמן בסטר ירכיה‬ ‫ָמת‬ ָ ‫ַּכהּו ָׁשם ַהח ֶֹמׁש ַוּי‬ ֵ ‫ַוּי‬ ‫ומית‬ >‫וא<ית> דא<מרין‬ ‫בדמא דעשהאל אחוהי׃‬ :‫ָאחיו‬ ִ ‫האל‬ ֵ ‫ֲׂש‬ ָ ‫ְּב ַדם ע‬ ‫חלף דקטל עשאל‬ ‫אחוהי׃‬

Translation Another book. [When Abner returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside within the gate to talk to him] in secret concerning what he had done wrong; [there he struck him in the belly and he died.] And there are those who say that is was because he killed Asahel, his brother. Notes and commentary The Hebrew word ‫‘ שלי‬quietness’ receives a double translation in the marginal reading of Codex Reuchlin. It is translated as ‫‘ ברז‬in secret’ and associatively as an itpeel of the root ‫ שלי‬as ‘what he had done wrong’. The last part of the verse, which is translated literally in Targum Jonathan, is paraphrased in the variant reading in harmonisation with 2 Sam 3:30. However, strictly speaking this does not belong to the sefer a er variant. It is marked separately in the margin with the designation ´‫ואית דאמרין( וא´ דא‬, ‘there are who say’). 116  Van Staalduine-Sulman called this phenomenon ‘monotheistic precision’. See her book, The Targum of Samuel, 122–23.

72

chapter two

Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xviii Sperber, The Bible, II.164 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 499

2 Sam 15:11 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 99v

TJ

>‫ספ<ר> אח<ר‬

‫מקצתהון זמימין ומקצתהון אזלין מן תומהון‬

‫ועם אבשלום אזלו מאתן גברין‬ ‫מירושלם‬ ‫זמינין ואזלין לתומהון‬ :‫ולא ידעין כל מדעם‬

Translation Another book. [Two hundred men of Jerusalem accompanied Absalom;] some of them were invited and some of them went in good faith, [suspecting nothing.] Notes and commentary The text is hardly legible because of a trimmed margin. Apparently the translator responsible for the marginal reading of Codex Reuchlin saw a contradiction in this verse. In his view the people who went with Saul were either invited and therefore part of the conspiracy, or they went in good faith suspecting nothing of the goal of the mission. Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xix Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 27 Sperber, The Bible, II.186 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 574

2 Sam 21:3 (Kasher 67) Codex Reuchlin 108r

>‫ספ<ר> אח<ר‬

TJ

‫ואמר דויד לגבעונאי מא אעביד לכון‬ ‫ובמא אכפר‬ ‫ובעו רחמין דתעדי כפנא מאחסנת עמא דייי‬ ‫ובריכו ית אחסנת עמא דיוי׃‬

Translation Another book. [David said to the Gibeonites, “What shall I do for you? How shall I make expiation] so that you will beg for mercy that the famine will cease from the heritage of the people of the Lord?”

tosefta targums

73

Notes and commentary Apparently the meturgeman responsible for this tradition resisted the idea that the Gibeonites could bless the heritage of the people of God, as the MT and Targum Jonathan suggest. The plea to stop the famine is in accordance with 2 Sam 21:1 where it says that there was a famine because Saul killed the Gibeonites. Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xix Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 26 Sperber, The Bible, II.200 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 616

2 Sam 21:5 (Kasher 68) Codex Reuchlin 108r

TJ

>‫ספ<ר> אח<ר‬

‫ודחשב למפסק חייותנא יתחשב‬ ‫ליה כאילו‬ '‫אישתצנא מלמדר וגומ‬

‫ואמרו למלכא גברא דשיצינא‬ ‫ודחשיב עלנא‬ ‫אשתיצינא מלמדר בכל תחום‬ ‫ארעא דישראל׃‬

Translation Another book. [They said to the king, “The man who destroyed us] and who planned to cut off our sustenance, it is reckoned to him as if we were exterminated from living [in all the territory of Israel.”] Notes and commentary This TT comes obviously from the same source as 2 Sam 21:1 since the two traditions seem to refer to each other.117 This strengthens the idea that the designation sefer aer points rather to an actual work than to a type. The abbreviation ´‫‘ וגו‬etc.’ indicates that the compiler is writing with a frame of reference to some other complete targum, in this case apparently the accepted TJ-text. Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xix Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 26 Sperber, The Bible, II.200 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 617 117  See above, pp. 66–67.

74

chapter two

Just as in the aggadic sefer aer variants, all the variant readings of this subgroup cover only part of the text. The next subgroup we want to examine consists of targums that bring the Aramaic closer to the Hebrew text. Bacher, in his ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, contended that in general the sefer aer variants are farther removed from the Hebrew text apart from a few cases that prove the rule.118 This is, as we shall see, not our experience.

2 Sam 1:6 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 84r

TJ

>‫ספ<ר> אח<ר‬

‫איזדמנא איזדמית‬

‫ואמר עולימא דמחוי ליה‬ ‫אתערעא אתערעית‬ ‫בטורא דגלבוע והא שאול סמיך על מורניתיה‬ :‫והא רתכיא ומשרית פרשיא אדביקוהי‬

Translation Another book. [The young man who brought him the news said,] “I called [at Mount Gilboa, and there was Saul leaning on his spear, and the chariots and the cavalry closing in on him.”] Notes and commentary The variant reading gives another rendering of the Hebrew ‫נקרא‬ ‫נקריתי‬, which is apparently a paronomastic construction of nifal √‫קרא‬ according to its second meaning (Koehler-Baumgartner ‫ קרא‬II), ‘happen to be’. In its choice for itpaal √‫ זמן‬instead of √‫ערע‬, the variant reading also leaves open the possibility of the first meaning of nifal √‫קרא‬ (Koehler-Baumgartner ‫ קרא‬I), ‘be summoned’, in this way maximising the sense of Scripture. Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xviii Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 28 Sperber, The Bible, II.158

118  Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 28.

tosefta targums

75

2 Sam 1:21 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 84v

>‫ספ<ר> אח<ר‬

TJ

MT

‫טורי גלבוע לא ייחות עליכון טלא‬ ‫ָה ֵרי ַב ִּג ְלּב ַֹע ַאל ַטל‬ ‫ומטרא לא תהי בכון‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ֲל‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַאל ָמ ָטר ע‬ ‫וחקל טורייא‬ ‫עללא כמסת דיעבדון מנה חלתא‬ ‫ּוׂש ֵדי ְתרּומֹת‬ ְ ‫ּבֹורים ָמגֵן ארי תמן אתברו תריסי גבריא‬ ִ ‫ִּכי ָׁשם נִ ְג ַעל ָמגֵן ִּג‬ :‫תריסא דשאול דמשיח כד במשחא‬ :‫יח ַּב ָּׁש ֶמן‬ ַ ‫ָׁשאּול ְּב ִלי ָמ ִׁש‬

Translation Another book. [O hills of Gilboa — let there not fall dew on you, and let there not be rain on you] O field of the hills. [For there the shields of warriors were broken, the shield of Saul, polished as if with anointing oil.] Notes and commentary TJ gives an explanation of the difficult phrase ‫ ושדי תרומת‬of the Hebrew text by focussing on the word ‫תרומת‬, taking it as a technical term for the heave offering. It reads ‘a yield that is sufficient to make from it a heave offering’. The variant reading of Codex Reuchlin obviously connects the word ‫ תרומת‬to ‫רמה‬, ‘high place’. Van Staalduine-Sulman chose a different solution, by inserting the words of the variant reading in the existing text of TJ instead of seeing them as a replacement. The advantage of this solution is that it enhances the poetical structure of the verse. It means moreover that the expression ‫ ושדי תרומת‬is in fact translated twice, using different meanings of the word ‫תרומת‬. This leads to the following reconstruction: Codex Reuchlin 84v

>‫ ספ<ר> אח<ר‬

TJ

‫טורי גלבוע לא ייחות עליכון טלא‬ ‫ומטרא‬ ‫ וחקל טורייא‬

MT

‫ָה ֵרי ַב ִּג ְלּב ַֹע ַאל ַטל‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ֲל‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַאל ָמ ָטר ע‬ ‫ּוׂש ֵדי ְתרּומֹת‬ ְ

‫לא תהי בכון עללא כמסת דיעבדון‬ ‫מנה חלתא‬ ‫ּבֹורים ָמגֵן ארי תמן אתברו תריסי גבריא‬ ִ ‫ִּכי ָׁשם נִ ְג ַעל ָמגֵן ִּג‬ :‫תריסא דשאול דמשיח כד במשחא‬ :‫יח ַּב ָּׁש ֶמן‬ ַ ‫ָׁשאּול ְּב ִלי ָמ ִׁש‬

76

chapter two

Translation Another book. [O hills of Gilboa —  let there not be dew or rain on you.] O field of the hills, [let there be no sufficient yield on you that they make from it a dough offering. For there the shields of warriors were broken, the shield of Saul, polished as if with anointing oil.] If this reconstruction is correct, then it is not a substitute targum but an interwoven expansion (in the phrasing of Kasher). It is also possible to consider it as the original version that was later disturbed by the editors of Targum Jonathan. Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xviii Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 25 Sperber, The Bible, II.159 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 484–85

2 Sam 15:4 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 99v

>‫ספ<ר> אח<ר‬

TJ

MT

‫ואמר אבשלום מן ימנינני‬ ‫ַאב ָׁשלֹום ִמי יְ ִׂש ֵמנִ י‬ ְ ‫ֹאמר‬ ֶ ‫ַוּי‬ ‫ָארץ וְ ָע ַלי יָבֹוא ָּכל ִאיׁש דיין בארעא וקדמי ייתי כל‬ ֶ ‫ׁש ֵֹפט ָּב‬ ‫גברא דיהי ליה דין ומצו‬ ‫ּומ ְׁש ָּפט‬ ִ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר יִ ְהיֶה ּלֹו ִריב‬ ‫ואיזכיניה בדיניה‬ :‫ואדינניה בקשוט‬ :‫וְ ִה ְצ ַּד ְק ִּתיו‬

Translation Another book. [And Absalom said, “If only I were appointed judge in the land and everyone with a legal dispute or a quarrelling came before me,] I would justify him in his case.” Notes and commentary The translation of the marginal reading of Codex Reuchlin stays closer to the Hebrew text that reads ‫‘ והצדקתיו‬I would give him justice’. It still departs, however, from the Hebrew text by the addition of the word ‫בדיניה‬. Note that a similar addition also occurs in 1 Sam 26:9 as a sefer aer variant.119 119  See above, pp. 68–69.

tosefta targums

77

Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xix Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 25 Sperber, The Bible, II.185 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 573, n. 696

2 Sam 21:12 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 108v

>‫ ספ<ר> אח<ר‬

TJ

‫ואזל דויד ונסיב ית גרמי שאול וית גרמי יהונתן בריה מלות‬ ‫יתבי יביש גלעד דגנבו יתהון‬ ‫ מרחוב בית שאן‬ ‫משורא דבית שן‬ ‫דצלבונון תמן פלשתאי ביומא דקטלו פלשתאי ית שאול בגלבוע׃‬

Translation Another book. [And David went and took the bones of Saul and of his son Jonathan from the citizens of Jabesh Gilead, who had made off with them] from the public square of Beth Shean, [where the Philistines had hung them up on the day the Philistines killed Saul at Gilboa.] Notes and commentary The translation ‫ רחוב‬stays closer to the Hebrew that uses the word ‫רחב‬. A variant like this may be either simply a variant reading, or a conscious Hebraisation, or the result of an unconscious adaptation to the Hebrew text.120 Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xx Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 25 Sperber, The Bible, II.201 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 619

Just as in the other subgroups discussed, all the variant readings cover only part of the text. Probably the remainder of the verses was so close to the base text of Targum Jonathan that the copier who inserted the marginal readings did not consider it neccesary to copy the whole verse. It is remarkable, however, that only one of them, 2 Sam 21:5, uses the expression ´‫‘ וגו‬etc.’ to indicate that the text has to be supplemented. 120  For the latter possibility, see W.F. Smelik, ‘Orality, Manuscript Resproduction and the Targums’, in: A.A. den Hollander et al. (eds), Paratext and Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions, Leiden [etc.] 2003, 49–81, at 76–80.

78

chapter two

All variants in the category are substitute targums, except 1 Sam 26:9 that can be classified as concluding expansion. If the theory of Van Staalduine-Sulman concerning 2 Sam 1:21 is accepted, then this variant must be considered an interwoven expansion.

1.3. Summary 1. We have discussed above nineteen cases of sefer aer variants. All of them occur only in Codex Reuchlin. Five of these can be characterised as aggadic interpreations. Not surprisingly these are generally longer than the other sefer aer variants. 2. In ten cases the variants give an explanation of a word or phrase. 3. In four cases the variant reading keeps closer to the Hebrew text then Targum Jonathan. 4. The language of all the variants is close to Targum Jonathan, except in the case of 1 Sam 28:19, where the unusual preposition ‫ גב‬is used.

2. Lishna Aerina The lishna aerina variants in Codex Reuchlin are indicated in the margin by the abbreviation ‫ל׳ א׳‬. A small dot in the text indicates the variant’s location. We decided to include here only the larger variants that were used by Kasher, because in the same category also small orthographic variants occur as in 1 Sam 12:7 ‫ ואתווכח‬for the reading in the base text ‫ואיתוכח‬, and even differences in vocalisation as in 1 Sam 25:6 ‫ ְל ַחיֵיְך‬for ‫ ְל ָחיָיְך‬in the base text. It is clear that they need not be included in our discussion about the character of the TTs. A doubtful case is 2 Sam 3:33, where in the lament for Abner a lexical substitute is given for one of the words.121 However, since the variant is so small we decided not to include it. The following cases, on the other hand, may be of interest.

1 Sam 11:11 (Kasher 47) Codex Reuchlin 65v

>‫ל<ישנא> א<חרינא‬

TJ

‫והוה ביומא דבתרוהי ומני‬ ‫שאול ית עמא תלת משרין‬ ‫ועלו בגו משריתא במטרת‬ ‫צפרא ומחו ית בני עמון‬

MT

‫ָׂשם ָׁשאּול ֶאת‬ ֶ ‫וַיְ ִהי ִמ ָּמ ֳח ָרת ַוּי‬ ‫אׁשים ַו ָּיבֹאּו‬ ִ ‫ֹלׁשה ָר‬ ָ ‫ָה ָעם ְׁש‬ ‫ַאׁשמ ֶֹרת ַהּב ֶֹקר‬ ְ ‫ְבתֹוְך ַה ַּמ ֲחנֶה ְּב‬ ‫ַוּיַּכּו ֶאת ַעּמֹון‬

121  ‫ גבר הדיוט‬instead of ‫רשיעין‬. See De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvii (line 30).

tosefta targums ‫עד ארבע שעי יומא ומן‬ ‫אסקות עלת תדירא‬ ‫דצפרא‬

79

‫עד מיחם יומא‬

‫ַעד חֹם ַהּיֹום‬

‫והוו דאשתארו ואתבדרו‬ ‫ולא אשתארו בהון תרין‬ ‫דערקין כחדא׃‬

‫ָארים ַו ָּיפֻצּו וְ ֹלא‬ ִ ‫וַיְ ִהי ַהּנִ ְׁש‬ :‫ָחד‬ ַ ‫נִ ְׁש ֲארּו ָבם ְׁשנַיִ ם י‬

Translation Another version. [The next day, Saul divided the troops into three columns; at the morning watch they entered the camp and struck down the Ammonites] until the fourth hour of the day, from the daily burnt offering of the morning. [The survivors scattered; no two were left fleeing together.] Notes and commentary This is a substitute targum, the language of which is close to the language of TJ. It is a unique variant. The variants in Reuchlin that are designated as lishna aerina mostly do not contain aggadah, but are rather exegetical or paraphrastic. This one is clearly exegetical.122 Targum Jonathan follows the Hebrew text closely, defining the period of battle as having started at the morning watch — which is actually the last night watch that ends with dawn — and as having lasted until the heat of the day. Within rabbinic literature there is discussion whether ‘the heat of the day’ is the fourth or the sixth hour,123 but the consensus seems to be that it is the sixth hour when it is hot everywhere, in the sun as well as in the shade. The expression ‘the heat of the sun’ on the other hand is related to the fourth hour, when in the sun it is hot, but in the shade still cool. The alternative tradition defined the period as starting with the daily burnt offering — which was brought at the first light of day124 — and ending by the fourth hour. The time of the conclusion of the battle is probably an attempt to harmonise verse 11 to verse 9 where the people were promised that they would be saved by the time the sun grew hot, which is the fourth hour. Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 28 Sperber, The Bible, II.114 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 287 122  Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 28–29. 123  GenR 48:8 (Wilna edition); b.Ber 27a; y.Ber 4:1, 7b. 124  m.Tam 3:2.

80

chapter two

1 Sam 12:2 (Kasher 48) Codex Reuchlin 66r

>‫ל<ישנא> א<חרינא‬

TJ

MT

‫וכען הא מלכא מדבר‬ ‫וְ ַע ָּתה ִהּנֵה ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ‫ברישכון‬ ‫ֵיכם‬ ֶ ‫ִמ ְת ַה ֵּלְך ִל ְפנ‬ ‫ּובנַי ואנא קשית וסבית ובני קשישית וסיבית ובני הא אוטיבו‬ ָ ‫ָׂש ְב ִּתי‬ ַ ‫ָקנְ ִּתי ו‬ ַ ‫ַאנִ י ז‬ ֲ‫ו‬ ‫אורחתהון והא אינון באולפן עימכון‬ ‫הא אנון עמכון‬ ‫ִהּנָם ִא ְּת ֶכם‬ ‫ֵיכם ואנא הליכית קדמיכון‬ ֶ ‫ַאנִ י ִה ְת ַה ַּל ְכ ִּתי ִל ְפנ‬ ֲ‫ו‬ ‫ֻרי ַעד ַהּיֹום ַהּזֶה׃ מזעורי עד יומא הדין׃‬ ַ ‫ִמּנְ ע‬

Translation Another version. [Henceforth the king will lead at your head. As for me,] I have grown old and grey­ and my sons, behold, they mended their ways. And behold, they are under instruction with you­ [and I have been your leader from my youth to this day.] Notes and commentary This is a substitute Targum.125 The dialect is close to the language of TJ. It is a unique variant. As noted above, the lishna aerina variants mostly do not contain aggadah, but are rather exegetical or paraphrastic. According to Bacher, this variant is an exception to that rule.126 In our opinion, however, it is justifiable to categorise this as an exegetical variant, since it tries to rationalise the enigmatic ‫ הנם אתכם‬of the Hebrew text. The phrase is interpreted metaphorically as a conversion of the sons of whom it was said in 1 Sam 8:3 that they ‘did not follow in his way’ and about whose sins we read in the sefer aer variant to 1 Sam 2:22.127 The reference to the instruction is very common in Targum Jonathan.128 The wording ‫ קשישית וסבית‬is a variant reading without consequences as regards contents or provenance. Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 29 Sperber, The Bible, II.115 Komlosh, ‫המקרא באור התרגום‬, 319 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 289

125  According to Kasher ‫‘ תרגום משולב‬interwoven targum’. 126  Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 28–29. 127  See above, p. 62. 128  See BCTP 21, 142–43.

tosefta targums

81

1 Sam 12:11 (Kasher 50) Codex Reuchlin 66v

TJ

>‫ל<ישנא> א<חרינא‬

MT

‫ושלח יוי ית גדעון‬ 129  ‫וית שמשון‬

‫ֻּב ַעל‬ ַ ‫וַּיִ ְׁש ַלח יהוה ֶאת יְ ר‬ ‫וְ ֶאת ְּב ָדן‬

‫וית יפתח וית שמואל ושיזיב‬ ‫יתכון מיד בעלי דבביכון‬ ‫מסחור סחור ויתיבתון לרחצן׃‬

‫ַּצל‬ ֵ ‫מּואל ַוּי‬ ֵ ‫וְ ֶאת יִ ְפ ָּתח וְ ֶאת ְׁש‬ ‫יכם ִמ ָּס ִביב‬ ֶ ‫ֶא ְת ֶכם ִמּיַד אֹיְ ֵב‬ :‫ַּת ְׁשבּו ֶּב ַטח‬ ֵ‫ו‬

‫[ו]ית שמשון‬ ‫[מ]שיבט דן‬

Translation Another version. [And the Lord sent Gideon] and Samson from the tribe of Dan [and Jephtah and Samuel, and delivered you from the enemies around you and you dwelt in security.] Notes and commentary This unique variant is an interwoven extension according to Kasher. The dialect is close to the language of TJ. The text is slightly trimmed at the right margin. There would not have been enough room for the reading supposed by Kasher, viz. ‫[ו]ית שמשון [דאתי מן] שיבט דן‬. In TJ the Hebrew name ‫ בדן‬is in most traditions translated as ‘Samson’. Not so, however, in the base text of Codex Reuchlin where it is left untranslated. The variant reading connects the two Targum traditions by stating that Samson was from the tribe of Dan.130 This is in accordance with b.RhS 25a, where it says,131 ‫ ולמה נקרא שמו‬,‫בדן זה שמשון‬ ‫בדן דאתי מדן‬, ‘Bedan, that is Simson. And why was he called Bedan? Because he came from Dan.’ Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 6–7 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 292–95

2.1. Summary 1. We discussed three lishna aerina variants that all proved to be of exegetic interest. All three try to make sense of an enigmatic Hebrew text or of apparent incongruities. 129  The basetext of Codex Reuchlin reads ‫וית בדן‬. 130  For other examples of such conflations, see Smelik, ‘Orality, Manuscript Reproduction and the Targums’, 77. 131  See also YalqSh 1 Sam §114.

82

chapter two

2. The dialect of the cases examined is close to the language of TO/TJ. 3. The variants are substitutions rather than additions.

3. Jerushalmi The Jerushalmi variants in Codex Reuchlin are indicated in the margin by the abbreviation ‫ ירוש׳‬or ‫ירו׳‬. A small dot in the text indicates where the variant refers to. There are also variants that are indicated by the longer designation ‫תרג׳ ירוש׳‬. We discuss first the former group and then the latter in order to check whether there is any difference between them.

1 Sam 3:14 (Kasher 43) Codex Reuchlin 58v

>‫ירוש<למי‬

TJ

‫ובכין קיימית לבית עלי אם ישתבקון חובי בית עלי‬ ‫בנכסת קדשין ובקרבנין עד עלמא׃‬ ‫אלהין במעסק באוריתא‬ ‫ובעובדין טבין‬

Translation Jerushalmi. [Assuredly, I swear concerning the house of Eli that the iniquity of the house of Eli will never be expiated by sacrifice or offering], but only by occupancy with the Torah and by good deeds. Notes and commentary This concluding expansion132 is partly in accordance with the explanation found in b.Yev 105a, where it says:133 For R. Samuel b. Ammi stated in the name of R. Jonathan: Whence is it deduced that a decree which is accompanied by an oath is never annulled? — From the Scriptural text, ‘Assuredly, I swear concerning the house of Eli, that the iniquity of the house of Eli will never be expiated by sacrifice or offering for ever.’  Rabbah said: It will not be expiated ‘by sacrifice or offering’, but it will be expiated by the words of the Torah.

132  Kasher classifies it erroneously as a substitute targum. 133  See also b.RhS 18a.

tosefta targums

83

Here, only the words of the Torah are mentioned and not the good deeds. In the Palestinian Talmud yet another aspect is stressed, namely the salvatory power of prayer. This becomes clear from y.RhS 2:6, 58b:134 He (R. Kahana) said to him: Rabbi, I am of the house of Eli, and it is written concerning the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be expiated with sacrifice nor offering forever. ‘With sacrifice nor offering’ atonement is not made for him; but with prayer atonement is made for him.

So it seems that this Tosefta stands exegetically closer to the Babylonian tradition despite its introductory formula that designates it as Palestinian. The element of the good deeds also occurs in the TT to 1 Sam 2:9.135 The combination of Torah and good deeds occurs for instance in LevR 30:12, where in an explanation of the lulav, the etrog is seen as a symbol of the ideal Israelite: just as the etrog has both a good taste and a good smell, so the ideal Israelite has both knowledge of the Torah and good deeds. There is no known connection to a liturgical tradition. Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xv Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 5–6 Sperber, The Bible, II.101 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 232–33

1 Sam 6:19 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 61r

TJ

>‫ירוש<למי‬

‫על דחדיאו בתבריהון‬ ‫דישראל ובזו ית ארונא‬ ‫דיהוה כד גלא‬

‫וקטל בגברי בית שמש‬ ‫על דחדיאו דחזו בארונא דיוי‬ ‫כד גלי‬

MT

‫ַוּיְַך ְּבַאנְ ֵׁשי ֵבית ֶׁש ֶמׁש‬ ‫ִּכי ָראּו ַּב ֲארֹון יהוה‬

‫וקטל בסבי עמא שבעין גברא‬ ‫ַוּיְַך ָּב ָעם ִׁש ְב ִעים ִאיׁש‬ ‫ַאּבלּו ובקהלא חמשין אלפין גברא‬ ְ ‫ֲח ִמ ִּׁשים ֶא ֶלף ִאיׁש וַּיִ ְת‬ ‫ואתאבלו עמא ארי מחא יוי‬ ‫ָה ָעם ִּכי ִה ָּכה יהוה ָּב ָעם‬ ‫בעמא מחא סגיאה׃‬ ‫דֹולה׃‬ ָ ‫ַמ ָּכה ְג‬

134  See also y.Sanh 1:2, 18c. 135  See below, pp. 109–110.

84

chapter two

Translation Jerushalmi. [And He killed the men of Beth-shemesh] because they rejoiced in the destruction of Israel and spurned the Ark of the Lord when it was exposed. [And He killed among the elders of the people seventy men and among the assembly fifty thousand men. And the people mourned, for the Lord had struck a great blow among the people. Notes and commentary This variant reading seeks a justification for the slaughter in Bethshemesh, since the punishment seems to be out of proportion for just looking at the Ark. The explanation is based on the fact that qal √‫ראה‬ with the preposition ‫ ב‬can have a meaning of ‘seeing with emotion’, ‘enjoying to see’ (Koehler-Baumgartner 852). The verb can also have a meaning of ‘looking with disdain’, as it is used for example in Cant 1:6. The variant reading combines these two possibilities in its explanation in order to maximise the sense of Scripture, which is a not uncommon phenomenon in targumic practice.136 The Ark is probably seen here as a pars pro toto for the Torah. In Tg Cant 3:10 the Ark is mentioned as one of the pillars of the world.137 According to rabbinic tradition (m.Avot 1:2) the three pillars are the Torah, the Temple service and deeds of loving-kindness. There is no known connection to a liturgical tradition. Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xv Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 22 Sperber, The Bible, II.106 Komlosh, ‫המקרא באור התרגום‬, 317–18 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 252

1 Sam 12:5 (Kasher 49) Codex Reuchlin 66r

>‫ירוש<למי‬

TJ

MT

‫יהם ֵעד יהוה ָּב ֶכם ואמר להון סהיד מימרא דיוי‬ ֶ ‫ֹאמר ֲא ֵל‬ ֶ ‫ַוּי‬ ‫וְ ֵעד ְמ ִׁשיחֹו ַהּיֹום ַהּזֶה ִּכי ֹלא בכון וסהיד משיחיה יומא הדין‬ ‫ארי אשכחתון בידי מידעם‬ ‫אּומה‬ ָ ‫ָדי ְמ‬ ִ ‫אתם ְּבי‬ ֶ ‫ְמ ָצ‬

136  Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations’, 227. 137  See P.S. Alexander, The Targum of Canticles, Collegeville 2003, 127.

tosefta targums ‫ונפלת ב[רת קלא] מן‬ ‫שמי[א ואמרת] סהיד‬

‫ואמרו סהיד׃‬

85 ‫ֹאמר ֵעד׃‬ ֶ ‫ַוּי‬

Translation Jerushalmi [He said to them, “The Memra of the Lord is witness towards you, and His anointed is witness today, that you have found nothing in my possession.”] And an angelic voice came down from heaven and said, “witness!” Notes and commentary The text of the manuscript is partly illegible because the margin of the left hand side has been trimmed. The text between square brackets is an emendation. Kasher emended the text apparently from TTs to Jud 5:5 and to 1 Kgs 3:27 in Codex Reuchlin which are also marked as Jerushalmi.138 In those cases it is clearly written ‫נפלת ברת קלא‬. This is remarkable, since the combination of the verb √‫ נפל‬with ‫ברת‬/‫בת קול‬ ‫ קלא‬does not occur elsewhere in rabbinic literature. There, it almost always occurs with the verb ‫ יצא‬in Hebrew or ‫ נפק‬in Aramaic. The combination with √‫ נפל‬must be based on the biblical use in Dan 4:28 where the expression ‫ קל מן שמיא נפל‬occurs. The goal of this addition is probably to make sense of the singular form ‫ ויאמר‬in the Hebrew text where a plural would be expected. The same explanation is found in b.Mak 23b, where it says: ‘And he said’. Should it not be ‘and they said’? [But] it was a Bat Kol that came forth and said ‘I am witness in this matter.’

A problem that remains with this solution is that Bat Kol is feminine and therefore the inflection of the verb had to be adapted. Most textual witnesses of Targum Jonathan solved the problem of the apparent incongruity by translating the singular as a plural. The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Kora in most traditions. Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 6 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 290–91

138  The TT to Judg 5:5 is marked as '‫ תרג' ירוש‬and is written in the lower margin.

86

chapter two

1 Sam 17:8 (Kasher 53a) Codex Reuchlin 67r

>‫ירוש<למי‬

TJ

MT

‫ַו ַּי ֲעמֹד וַּיִ ְק ָרא ֶאל ַמ ַע ְרכֹת וקם ואכלי על סדרי‬ ‫ֹאמר ָל ֶהם ָל ָּמה ישראל ואמר להון למא‬ ֶ ‫יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ַוּי‬ ‫תפקון לסדרא קרבא‬ ‫ֵת ְצאּו ַל ֲערְֹך ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬ ‫הלא אנא גלית פלישתאה‬ ‫הלא אנא פלשתאה‬ ‫ֲהלֹוא ָאנ ִֹכי ַה ְּפ ִל ְׁש ִּתי‬ ‫דעבדית עימכון קרבא באפק‬ ‫ונצחית יתכון ונסבית מן‬ ‫ידיכון ית ארונא דייי‬ ‫ואתון עבדין לשאול‬ ‫ואתון עבדין לשאול‬ ‫ֲב ִדים ְל ָׁשאּול‬ ָ ‫ַאּתם ע‬ ֶ ְ‫ו‬ ‫בחרו לכון גברא‬ ‫ְּברּו ָל ֶכם ִאיׁש‬ ‫ואם אתון אמרין על מימרא‬ ‫דייי מרי נצחן קרביא אנחנו‬ ‫מתרחצין קרו ליה‬ ‫ויחות לותי׃‬ ‫וייחות לותי׃‬ :‫ֵרד ֵא ָלי‬ ֵ ‫וְ י‬

Translation Jerushalmi. [He stopped and called out to the ranks of Israel and he said to them, “Why do you go out to wage war?] Am I not Goliath, the Philistine who was engaged in war with you at Aphek, and who conquered you and took from you the Ark of the Lord? And you are Saul’s servants. And if you say, ‘On the Memra of the Lord, the Master of victories in war we trust’: call Him and let Him come down against me.” Notes and commentary Goliath introduces himself here in much more detail than in the Hebrew text, which is a not uncommon principle in the Targums. In their struggle to prove that the Bible is complete and coherent, the meturgemanim focused strongly on sacred history.139 Locations, dates and characters that were considered to have played a key-role in sacred history receive much attention and are often the subject of elaboration. Where possible, the meturgemanim attempted to point out the particular incidents in the past to which a certain text was thought to refer, and to identify anonymous personages.140 As a means to this goal they used passages from other parts of Scripture and common sense. In this case Goliath is connected to the capture of the Ark as described in 139  D. Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine, Missoula 1975, 67–74. 140  Y. Komlosh, ‫המקרא באור התרגום‬, Tel Aviv 1973, 352; A. Samely, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuchal Targums, Tübingen 1992, 166.

tosefta targums

87

1 Sam 4:1–11. This is an old tradition that already occurs in the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo.141 A rather remarkable point in this tradition is that Goliath challenges God to the fight and not, as the simple reading of the biblical text suggests, a man of flesh and blood. This interpretation is probably based on Exod 15:3 where God is called ‫איש מלחמה‬, ‘a man of war’. So, if Goliath says that they have to choose a man (‫)איש‬, this was interpreted as the man of war from Exod 15:3, which is God. The meturgeman uses as well the expression that occurs in TO to Exod 15:3, namely ‫ייי מרי נצחון קרביא‬, ‘the Lord, the Master of the victory of wars’. The exegesis of the expression ‫ איש מלחמה‬in Exod 15:3 is also known from the Talmud where it says in b.Sot 42b concerning our verse, ‘The word ‘man’ signifies none other than the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said: The Lord is a man of war.’142 The addition that the people of Israel might put forward that their trust was in God is probably a reference to 2 Kgs 18:22 where the same hypothetical argument occurs. The tradition as a whole is designated Jerushalmi and as such fits into the characteristics that Bacher gave to this type, namely that it tends to give aggadic explanations for ambiguities in the text.143 The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in the Italian tradition. Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 17–18 Sperber, The Bible, II.127 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 348

141  LAB 54:3. 142  See further TanB Metzora 10. See also A. Marmorstein, The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God: 1. The Names and Attributes of God, Oxford & London 1927, 65–67. 143  Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 4.

88

chapter two

1 Sam 17:10 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 67r

TJ

>‫ירוש<למי‬

‫ואמר פלשתאה אנא חסידית ית סדרי ישראל יומא‬ ‫הדין‬ ‫דבעיתי מנכון קרבא ולא‬ ‫תגיחון קריבן קדמיי‬ :‫איתו לי גברא ונגיח קרבא כחדא‬

Translation Jerushalmi. [And the Philistine said, “I put to shame the ranks of Israel today] for I asked from you a battle, but you would not fight battles before me. [Get me a man so that we can wage war together.”] Notes and commentary The addition is meant to explain why Goliath’s speech was shaming. It is because the people of Israel refused to put up a fight against him, which was considered an act of cowardice. The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in the Italian tradition. Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Sperber, The Bible, II.127 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 345

1 Sam 17:16 (Kasher 54) Codex Reuchlin 67v

>‫ירו<שלמי‬

TJ

‫וקריב פלשתאה‬ ‫מקדים ומחשיך ואתעתד ארבעין יומין׃ מקדים ומחשיך בעידן קרבן תדירא דצפרא‬ ‫ודרמשא וחסיד ארבעין יומין׃‬

Translation Jerushalmi. [The Philistine stepped forward] morning and evening at the time of the daily burnt offerings of the morning and the evening and jeered for forty days. Notes and commentary Apparently the meturgeman responsible for this variant wanted to give an explanation for the fact that Goliath stepped forward morning and evening. In his view this was to prevent the Israelites from bringing their daily burnt offerings. The Babylonian Talmud gives a

tosefta targums

89

comparable explanation,144 ‘And the Philistine stepped forward near morning and evening.’ R. Yoanan said: To make them omit the recital of the Shema morning and evening.’ The fact that the Jerushalmi variant of Codex Reuchlin refers to the Temple service, instead of to prayer, may be an indication of a Palestinian background. The translation ‫‘ וחסיד‬and he jeered’ for the Hebrew ‫‘ ויתיצב‬he took his stand’ is probably a case of harmonisation with 1 Sam 17:10, 25, 26. The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in the Italian tradition. Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 18 Sperber, The Bible, II.128 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 356

1 Sam 17:18 (Kasher 55) Codex Reuchlin 67v

>‫ירוש<למי‬

TJ

‫וית עסר גובנין דחלבא האלין תוביל‬ ‫לרב אלפא וית אחך תסער לשלם‬ ‫וית גט פיטורי נשיהון תיסב ותיתי׃‬ ‫וית טיבהון תיתי׃‬

Translation Jerusalemite. [Take these ten cheeses of milk to the commander over a thousand and inquire after your brothers’ health] and you shall take and bring the bill of divorcement of their wives. Notes and commentary The dialect is close to the language of TJ. As concerns contents, there is a parallel in b.Shab 56a ( = b.Ket 9ab), where it says, For R. Samuel b. Namani said in R. Jonathan’s name: Every one who went out in the wars of the House of David wrote a bill of divorcement for his wife, for it is said, ‘and bring these ten cheeses unto the captain of their thousand, and look how your brothers fare, and take their pledge.’  What is meant by ‘their pledge’? R. Joseph learned: The things that pledge man and woman [to one another].

R. Samuel b. Namani and R. Jonathan are both Palestinian scholars, so the tradition may well be Palestinian. 144  b.Sot 42b.

90

chapter two

The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in the Italian tradition. Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 7 Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 152 Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, II.128 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 357–58

1 Sam 10:22 (Kasher 45) Codex Reuchlin 65r

TJ

>‫תרג<ום> ירוש<למי‬ ‫ושאילו עוד במימרא דיוי ושאילו עוד במימרא דייי‬ ‫האית תוב הכא גברא‬ ‫האית עוד הכא גברא‬ ‫דחזיא ליה מלכותא‬ ‫ואמר ייי הא הוא‬ ‫בבית אולפנא טמיר ומצלי‬ ‫וקרי במאני ריגוג אוריתא‬

‫ואמר יוי הא הוא טמיר‬ ‫במניא׃‬

MT

‫וַּיִ ְׁש ֲאלּו עֹוד ַּביהוה‬ ‫ֲה ָבא עֹוד ֲהֹלם ִאיׁש‬ ‫ֹאמר יהוה ִהּנֵה הּוא‬ ֶ ‫ַוּי‬ ‫ֶח ָּבא ֶאל ַה ֵּכ ִלים׃‬ ְ‫נ‬

Translation Targum Jerushalmi. They again inquired of the Memra of the Lord, “Is there another man here to whom the kingship is appropriate?” And the Lord replied, “Yes; he is hiding in the study house and he is praying and reading in the desirable instruments of the Torah.” Notes and commentary This is a substitute targum. The word ‫ עוד‬is the adverb used in the official Targums for the notion ‘furthermore’. In the other Targums both this form and the form ‫ תוב‬occur. Although the forms ‫ מנא‬and ‫מאנא‬ are probably mere orthographic variants, the official Targums always use ‫מנא‬, while the PTs and the TTs generally use ‫מאנא‬. The word ‫ריגוג‬ is Late Jewish Literary Aramaic. In 2 Chron 32:27 the Hebrew expression ‫ כלי חמדה‬is translated as ‫מאני רגוג‬, whereas the same expression is translated elsewhere in Targum Jonathan as ‫מני חמדתא‬.145 The expression ‘desirable instrument’ for the Torah is, according to Kasher, typically Palestinian. In m.Avot 3:14 it says,146 145  Jer 25:34, Hos 13:15, Nah 2:10. 146  See also y.Taan 2:1, 61a.

tosefta targums

91

Beloved are Israel, for to them was given the precious instrument (‫כלי‬ ‫ ;)חמדה‬still greater was the love, in that it was made known to them that to them was given the precious instrument by which the world was created, as it is written ‘For I give you good instruction; do not forsake my teaching (Prov 4:2).’

By introducing the concept ‘study house’ the meturgeman actualised the text to his time and culture. In conclusion it seems that this Targum has a Palestinian background, as suggested in the introductory formula. There is no known connection to a liturgical tradition. Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xv Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 17 Sperber, The Bible, II.113 Komlosh, ‫המקרא באור התרגום‬, 319 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 281

1 Sam 11:2 (Kasher 46) Codex Reuchlin 65r

>‫תרג<ום> ירוש<למי‬

TJ

MT

‫ָחׁש ָה ַעּמֹונִ י ואמר להון נחש מלכא‬ ָ ‫יהם נ‬ ֶ ‫ֹאמר ֲא ֵל‬ ֶ ‫ַוּי‬ ‫דבני עמון אם תעבדון‬ ‫ְּבזֹאת ֶא ְכרֹת ָל ֶכם‬ ‫כהדא אגזר לכון קים‬ ‫במירק לכון כל עינא במחקותי מן אוריתא‬ ‫ָמין‬ ִ ‫ִּבנְ קֹור ָל ֶכם ָּכל ֵעין י‬ ‫דילכון תפקדתא דכתיבא‬ ‫דימניא‬ ‫בגוה דלא ידכון עמונאי‬ ‫ומואבאי למיעל בקהלא דייי‬ ‫ואשוינה חסדא על כל ואשוינה חיסודא על כל‬ ‫יה ֶח ְר ָּפה ַעל ָּכל‬ ָ ‫וְ ַׂש ְמ ִּת‬ ‫ישראל׃‬ ‫ישראל׃‬ ‫יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל׃‬

Translation Targum Jerushalmi. [But Naash, king of Ammonites, answered them, “If you do like this, I will make a pact with you], by my erasing from that Torah of yours the commandment that is written therein, that the Ammonites and the Moabites are not deserving to enter the congregation of the Lord. I will make this a humiliation for all Israel.”

92

chapter two

Notes and commentary The first part of the TT is an allegoric Midrash, interpreting ‘right eye’ as ‘Torah’.147 A similar interpretation is found in MidrSam 14:7 where it says, ‘The rabbis say that it refers to the book of the Torah. Naash the Ammonite said to them, “Bring me the book of the Torah so that I will eradicate from it ‘no Ammonite shall be admitted’ (Deut 23:4).”’ There is no known connection to a liturgical tradition. Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xv–xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 6 Sperber, The Bible, II.113 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 285

1 Sam 17:4 (Kasher 51) Codex Reuchlin 67r

>‫תרג<ום> ירוש<למי‬

‫גברא פולומרכא‬ ‫דאיתיליד מביני תרתי גניסן‬ ‫מן שמשון דהוה מן שיבט דן‬ ‫ומן ערפא דהות מן בני מואב‬ ‫גלית שמיה‬

TJ

‫ונפק‬ ‫גברא מביניהון‬ ‫ממשרית פלשתאי‬

MT

‫ֵצא‬ ֵ ‫ַוּי‬ ‫ִאיׁש ַה ֵּבנַיִ ם‬ ‫ִמ ַּמ ֲחנֹות ְּפ ִל ְׁש ִּתים‬

‫גלית שמיה‬ ‫ָליָת ְׁשמֹו‬ ְ ‫ּג‬ ‫ מגת רומיה שית אמין וזרתא׃‬:‫ָרת‬ ֶ ‫ָבהֹו ֵׁשׁש ַאּמֹות ָוז‬ ְ ‫ִמּגַת ּג‬

Translation Targum Jerushalmi. A man, a general who was born from between two lineages: from Samson, who was from the tribe of Dan and from Orpah who was from the sons of Moab [stepped forward]. His name was Goliath [of Gath, and he was six cubits and a span tall]. Notes and commentary This is a substitute targum. Being a Greek loanword (πολέμαρχος), the word ‫( פולומרכא‬or variant spellings) occurs mainly in Palestinian sources. The word deciphered by Kasher as ‫ תרתי‬is barely legible. TJ gives a fairly literal translation, although obviously the translator had some problems with the Hebrew expression ‫איש הבנים‬. He chose to translate it as ‘a man from among them’. The variant translation we find in Codex Reuchlin gives two other alternatives. First, the 147  See for other examples of allegoric interpretation, Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 23–24.

tosefta targums

93

expression is translated as ‘general’, the person who stands between his own army and the enemy. Then, the expression is interpreted as ‘between two lineages’. This is done rather smartly, because the second explanation serves as well as translation of the expression ‫ממחנות‬ ‫פלשתים‬, ‘from the camps (plural!) of the Philistines’. The tradition that Goliath stems from Orpah is demonstrably old, since it occurs already in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities.148 Within targumic literature it is found in Tg 1 Chron 20:4, 6, 8.149 The tradition is based on 2 Sam 21:15–22 where Goliath is mentioned as one of the four sons of the Raphah (or: Harafah) who fell by the hand of David and his servants.150 In b.Sot 42b we find a discussion about the identification of the Rafah/Harafah and Orpah. There is no parallel in rabbinic literature for the tradition that Goliath was a descendant of Samson. The link is probably rationally based on the physical strength of both giants. The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in the Italian tradition. Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 7 Sperber, The Bible, II.126 Komlosh, ‫המקרא באור התרגום‬, 319 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 344–46

1 Sam 17:5 (Kasher 52) Before we discuss the variant reading that occurs as a ‘Targum Jerushalmi’ in Codex Reuchlin, it is useful to compare the Hebrew text and Targum Jonathan. ‫ וכובע נחשת על ראשו ושריון קשקשים הוא לבוש ומשקל‬MT ‫ וקולס דנחש על רישיה ושרין גלבין הוא לביש ומתקל‬TJ ‫ השריון חמשת אלפים שקלים נחשת‬MT ‫ שרינא חמשא אלפין תקלי נחשא‬TJ

The biblical verse deals with the armour of Goliath: 148  Pseudo-Philo, LAB 61:5. 149  See also Ruth Zutta 1:5, YalqSh Ruth §600. 150  See also the TT on 2 Sam 21:15–19, below, pp. 119–127.

94

chapter two He [Goliath] had a bronze helmet on his head, and wore a breastplate of scale armour, a bronze breastplate weighing five thousand shekels.

TJ gives a literal translation. The Hebrew expression ‫שריון קשקשים‬, literally ‘a breastplate of scales’, is rendered in Targum Jonathan as ‫שרין‬ ‫גלבין‬, which probably means the same.151 Van Staalduine-Sulman in her commentary translates ‫ שריון גלבין‬as ‘a breastplate with notches’, because in her view Targum Jonathan considered the biblical word ‫ קשקשים‬as metaphorical language.152 ‘Notches’ is also the translation given in the database of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon,153 based on the association with ‫ גלבא‬in the meaning of ‘razor / k nife’.154 Abraham Tal, in his study of the language of the Targum of the Former Prophets, explained that although in Targum Onkelos the word means ‘razor / k nife’, in Targum Jonathan it clearly means ‫קליפה‬, ‘shell /skin’.155 In b.Nid 51b the word ‫ קשקשת‬is explained as ‘covering’ by means of our text in 1 Sam 17:5,156 ‫מגלן דקשקשת לבושא הוא דכתיב ושריון קשקשים הוא לבוש‬ from where do we get that kashkeshet means the covering? Because it is written, ‘and he wore a coat of mail (1 Sam 17:5aβ)’

In the Arukh 2:296, s.v. ‫גלך‬, it reads ‫תרג´ ושרין גלכים‬. Moreover, the comment has been made that Kimi has the same reading, and that Levita’s Meturgeman gives the reading ‫גלכן‬, but that in some of its editions also the reading ‫ גלבין‬is found. Kimi ad locum reads:157 ‘T[argum] J[onatan] (reads) ‫ ושרין גלכין‬with a kaf, but in other versions it is written with a bet and that is the same as ‫’… קלפין‬. Apparently Kimi, Nathan ben Yeiel and Elias Levita had different manuscripts at their disposal. ִ see 151  See Jastrow, Dictionary, 243, who equates the word with ‫[ ַק ְל ִפין‬or ‫ק ְל ִפין‬, Jastrow, Dictionary, 1381] which is used in TO in Lev 11:9, 10 (‘fins and scales’), and Deut 14:9. Dalman in his Aramäisch-Neuhebräisches Handwörterbuch (78) renders the word as ‘Schuppe’, which also means the same. 152  Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 346. 153  http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/ (accessed Oct. 19, 2008). 154  See also J. Levy, Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim, 2 Vols, Leipzig 1867–68, 139, where the word ‫ גלבא‬is derived from the Greek γλυφίς and translated as ‘Kerbe’. The expression ‫ שירין גלבין‬is accordingly translated as ‘ein Panzer mit Kerben / Einschitten’. 155  Tal, ‫לשון התרגום‬, 206. 156  See also b.ul 66b. 157  Quoted from the Mikraot Gedolot.

tosefta targums

95

In the margin of Codex Reuchlin we find the following interesting variant reading:158 Codex Reuchlin 67r

>‫תרג<ום> יר<ושלמי‬

‫ושיריין דגלד נוני ימא רבא הוא לביש‬ ‫ועלוהי שריין דנחשא ומתקל‬

TJ

‫וקולס דנחש על רישיה‬ ‫ושרין גלבין הוא לביש ומתקל שרינא‬ ‫חמשא אלפין תקלי נחשא׃‬

Translation Targum Jerushalmi. [He had a bronze helmet on his head,] and wore a breastplate of the skin of the fishes of the great sea, and over it a bronze breastplate weighing [five thousand bronze shekels.] Notes and commentary The language of this variant is close to the dialect of TJ, except for the word ‫גלדא‬. This word occurs mostly in Syriac and Babylonian sources,159 but might as well point to Late Jewish Literary Aramaic.160 The reading makes sense of the fact that ‫‘ שרין גלבין‬a breastplate of scales’ is mentioned as well as ‘a breastplate weighing five thousand bronze shekels’. The scales are taken literally as the scales of a fish, which could not have weighed five thousand bronze shekels. Therefore the meturgeman understood the text as referring to two breastplates, the one worn over the other. The medieval exegetes Namanides and Kimi gave similar interpretations. Namanides in his commentary on Lev 11:9 wrote: ‫ הם‬,)‫ מלשון תער הגלבים (יחזקאל ה א‬,‫ ושריון גלבין‬,‫ויונתן בן עוזיאל תרגם‬ ‫ יתכוין לומר כי היה כסוי פי טבעת השריון ההוא כקליפי עור הדג‬,‫הרצענין‬ ‫ והבן זה‬,‫ כי כן עושים גם היום‬,‫שמבשלין העור החזק ומכסים השריונות בהן‬ And Jonathan ben Uziel translated ‫‘ ושריון גלבין‬a breastplate of scales’, from the expression ‫‘ תער הגלבים‬razor of barbers’ (Ezek 5:1), which are the leatherworkers. [By so translating, Jonathan thus] intended to say that the coverings at the openings of the rings in this coat of mail was like that of the scales of a fish whose strong skin they boil to cover the mail armours by them, a practice they do to this day. Understand that.

158  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 106, nr. 52. 159  See Sokoloff, JBA, 280; Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum, 117. 160  There are several occurences in PsJon Num 7.

96

chapter two

Kimi in his commentary to 1 Sam 17:5 wrote: ‫ושריון קשקשים — ת´י ושריון גלכין בכ´ף ויש נוסחאות כתוב בבי´ת והוא קלפין‬ ‫שתרגום קשקשת ובדברי רבו´ ז´ל לובשי שריון קליפה ופי´ כי כל טבעת וטבעת של‬ ‫שריון תלויה כמין קשקשת לסתום נקב הטבעות כדי שלא יבא חץ בתוך הטבעת‬ ‘And a breastplate of scales’ — T[argum] J[onathan]: a breastplate of ‫גלכין‬ with a kaph and there are also versions written with beth and that is [the same as] ‫‘ קלפין‬scales’ which is the [Aramaic] translation of [the Hebrew word] scales (‫)קשקשת‬. And in the words of our teachers of blessed memory ‘the wearers of scaled armouring’, its meaning being that every ring of the coat of mail was suspended as a kind of scale to block the hole of the rings to prevent an arrow from entering the ring.

Bacher stated in his ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, that the variant readings that are designated Targum Jerushalmi often give an aggadic explanation.161 This is certainly true in the given case. For this specific verse he mentioned the talmudic passages cited above (b.Nid 51b, b.ul 66b) as possible sources.162 To us, however, this identification seems unlikely. In the first place the talmudic traditions occur in an entirely different context, namely in a discussion of kashrut of fishes. The text in Samuel is used there to throw light on the halakhah related to Lev 11:9–10 and Deut 14:9 and not vice versa. In the second place, these traditions say nothing about the double layer of armour that is proposed by the meturgeman. The same holds true for a citation of our verse in Sifra Shemini 3:5, in a halakhic discussion on the question of whether fishes with only two scales are ritually permitted or not. So, if the meturgeman made use of known traditions, these have probably got lost. We must, however, not exclude the possibility that the meturgeman himself created the explanation from a necessity to make sense of the double references in the biblical text. The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in the Italian tradition. Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 7 Sperber, The Bible, II.126 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 346

161  Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 4. 162  Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 7.

tosefta targums

97

3.1. Summary 1. We have discussed above eleven cases of Jerushalmi variants, of which 7 are designated simply ‘Jerushalmi’, and 4 ‘Targum Jerushalmi’. It is hard to say on the basis of the material discussed above, whether there is a difference between the variants that are designated simply ‘Jerushalmi’ and those that are designated ‘Targum Jerushalmi’. One gets the impression that in rough outline the variants designated simply ‘Jerushalmi’ are generally explanatory expansions, while the ‘Targum Jerushalmi’ are substitute Targums. The difference is, however, not always clear. 2. All the traditions discussed are unique to Codex Reuchlin, although there are variant traditions of 1 Sam 17:8 in other witnesses with other designations. 3. Six of the eleven variants are part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze according to the Italian tradition, four with a designation ‘Jerushalmi’ and two with a designation ‘Targum Jerushalmi’. This may point to an Italian source. 4. Four of the eleven variants have no known connection to a liturgical reading. 5. According to Kasher, one could generally say that all variant readings with the designation ‘Jerushalmi’ or ‘Targum Jerushalmi’ have a relation to Palestinian Aramaic, and so the designation really makes sense. The variants from Samuel we discussed above endorse this thesis. 6. The combination of Palestinian characteristics and a connection to the Italian reading tradition in these ‘Targum Jerushalmi’ variants that are incorporated in the Italian Codex Reuchlin may be explained from the known cultural and religious influence from Palestine on the Jews in Italy.

4. Tosefta The text of 1 Sam 17:8 led in the targumic tradition to several exegetic extensions. Besides the literal translation of Targum Jonathan there are three different extensive targums known today.163 The first one oc163  This material has already been treated at length by Kasher and Van StaalduineSulman whose results we summarise here and supplement where possible. See R. Kasher, ‘?‫’האם יש מקור אחד לתוספתות התרגום לנביאים‬, AJS Review 21 (1996), 1–21, at 9–13; Idem, ‫תוספתות‬, 106–08; Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 348–54. See also D.J.D. Kroeze & E. van Staalduine-Sulman, ‘A Giant among Bibles: “Erfurt

98

chapter two

curs only in Codex Reuchlin and is known as ‘Jerushalmi’. As such it has been described above.164 The second one occurs in Kimi’s commentary with the designation ‘Targum shel Tosefta’, which, however, in other witnesses occurs as ‘Tosefta’, or without any designation at all.165 The third one is known solely from Sephardi sources, where it is in all cases called Tosefta.166 We will first treat them separately and then compare them.

1 Sam 17:8 (Kasher 53b) Kimi (ms Parma 2883)

TJ

‫ובתרגו<ם> של תוספתא תרגם הפסוק כן‬ ‫וקם ואכלי על סדרי ישראל ואמר וקם ואכרז על סדרי קרבא דישראל ואמר להון‬ ‫למה אתון נפקין לסדרא קרבא עם פלשתאי‬ ‫להון למא תפקון לסדרא קרבא‬ ‫הלא אנא גליית פלישתאה דמן גת דקטלית תרין‬ ‫הלא אנא פלשתאה‬ ‫בני עלי כהנא חפני ופינחס ושיבית ארון קיימא‬ ‫דיי ואבלית יתיה לבית דגון טעותי והוה תמן‬ ‫בקירוי פלישתאי תלתא ירחי ואף כל קרב וקרב‬ ‫דהוה לכון עם פלשתאי נפקנא לפום קלא ורמינא‬ ]‫קטילייא כעפרא דארעא ועדיין לא אכשרו ית[י‬ ‫פלישתאי למהוי רב אלפא עליהון‬ ‫ואתון בני ישראל מה עבד לכון שאול בר קיש‬ ‫ואתון עבדין לשאול בחרו לכון‬ ‫דמניתון יתיה מלכא עילויכון אם גבר גיבר הוא‬ ‫גברא וייחות לותי׃‬ ‫יחות ויעביד עימי קרבא׃‬

Translation And in the Tosefta Targum the verse is translated as follows: And he stood up and shouted to the battle ranks of Israel and said to them: “Why do you go out to wage war with the Philistine? Am I not Goliath from Gath who killed the two sons of Eli the priest, Hofni and Pinehas, and who captured the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord and carried it away to the House of Dagon, my idol and it was there in the midst of the Philistines three months? And also each war that you had with the Philistines, I went out shouting and throwing around the killed ones like dust of the land. And yet the Philistines did not think me fit to be 1” or ms Or. fol. 1210–1211 at the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin’, AS 4/2 (2006), 193–205, at 203–204. 164  See above, pp. 86–87. 165  See Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 231. Apart from the manuscripts mentioned by Kasher, Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman discovered that also Jena El.f.6 and the badly damaged ms Berlin Or 1210–1211 contain this Tosefta with only minor variations. 166  See Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 231.

tosefta targums

99

head of a thousand over them. And you, sons of Israel, what did Saul, the son of Kish do for you that you appointed him king over you? If he is a strong man, let him come down and wage war with me! Notes and commentary This tradition occurs in the Ashkenazi ms Laud Or. 326; ms 11, Göttweig; ms Add. 26,879; ms Hébreu 18; ms Or. fol. 1210–1211. It is further found in the Sephardi ms Hébreu 75, in the Yemenite ms Or. 1471, in the first Rabbinic Bible and in some undefined manuscripts.167 As in the shorter TT of Codex Reuchlin, Goliath introduces himself extensively,168 mentioning besides the capturing of the Ark, the killing of the sons of Eli as one of his achievements. These two events are closely connected in the Hebrew Bible169 and it is therefore not surprising to find them here together also. A new element here is that Goliath tries to bring home to the people of Israel that Saul is a weak man by asking them to send Saul ‘if he is a strong man’, suggesting that he knows better. The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in the Italian tradition. Bibliographic information Kasher, ‘‫’האם יש מקור‬, 9–12 Komlosh, ‫המקרא באור התרגום‬, 319 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 348–54

1 Sam 17:8 (Kasher 53c) ms M1 Salamanca

TJ

‫תוספתא‬ ‫וקם ואכלי על סדרי קרבא דישראל‬ ‫וקם ואכלי על סדרי ישראל‬ ‫ואמר להון למא תפקון לסדרא קרבא ואמר להון למה אתון נפקין לסדרא קרבא עם‬ ‫פלשתאי‬

167  Marburg Staatsarchiv 4 (Kasher 6‫)ז‬, Kimi ms Vatican 71 (Kasher 6‫)כ‬. 168  See above, pp. 86–87. 169  1 Sam 4:11, 17, 19, 21.

100

chapter two ms M1 Salamanca

‫הלא אנא גלית דמן גת דקטלית תרין בני עלי כהנא חפני ופינחס‬ ‫ושביתי ית ארון קימא דייי ואובילית יתיה לבית דגון טעותי והוה‬ ‫תמן שבעא ירחין ולא יכיל לי מרי קימכון ועל כל קרב וקרב דהוה‬ ‫לפלשתאי אנא נפקנא לחקלא ונצחנא ורמינא קטילין כעפרא‬ ‫דארעא וכל דא אנא עביד להו[ן] ולא ממנן יתי עליהון לא מלכא‬ ‫ולא איסטרטיגא והדין שאול דמגבעת בנימין מה עבד לכון ארי‬ ‫מניתון יתיה מלכא עיליכון כען אמרו ליה אם גבר תקיף הוא ייחות‬ ‫ויעביד עמי קרבא ואם גבר חלש הוא‬ ‫בחרו לכון גברא וייחות לותי׃‬

TJ

‫הלא אנא‬ ‫פלשתאה ואתון‬ ‫עבדין לשאול‬

‫בחרו לכון גברא‬ ‫וייחות לותי׃‬

Translation Tosefta. And he stood up and shouted to the battle ranks of Israel and said to them: “Why do you go out to wage war with the Philistine? Am I not Goliath from Gath who killed the two sons of Eli the priest, Hofni and Pinehas and who captured the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord? And carried it away to the House of Dagon, my idol and it was there seven months? And the Master of your covenant could not overpower me. And on each war that the Philistines had, I went out to the field and was victorious, throwing the killed ones about like dust of the land. And all this I did for them, but they did not appoint me king over them, or military commander. And this Saul, from Givat Benjamin, what did he do for you that you appointed him king over you? Behold, tell him that if he is a strong man, let him come down and wage war with me. But if he is a weak man, choose you a man and let him come down against me. Notes and commentary Apart from ms M1 Salamanca, this TT occurs in the Leiria edition and in the Sephardi manuscripts H. 116, Kennicott 5, Madrid 7542 and Opp Add 40 75. The TT in Kennicott 5 is incorporated in the text without any indication. Goliath suggests here that God could not redeem his Ark from the hands of the Philistines. He boasts of all his military victories and seems frustrated that the Philistines did not reward him properly. The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in the Italian tradition. Bibliographic information

Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 33–34 Kasher, ‘‫’האם יש מקור‬, 9–12 Melammed, ‫מפרשי המקרא‬, I.351–52 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 348–54

‫‪tosefta targums‬‬

‫‪101‬‬

‫‪Comparison of the versions‬‬ ‫‪In his description of the shorter version found in Codex Reuchlin,‬‬ ‫‪Bacher stated that this version has been changed and enlarged in the‬‬ ‫‪editions.170 There seems to be no ground for this allegation, since there‬‬ ‫‪are some essential differences. Let us compare the two longer ver‬‬‫‪sions in some detail. One branch occurs according to Kasher mainly‬‬ ‫‪in Ashkenazi sources, while the other occurs exclusively in Sephardi‬‬ ‫‪sources. Van Staalduine-Sulman follows Kasher in his division into the‬‬ ‫‪two branches. The division is not very strict, however, as becomes clear‬‬ ‫‪from a comparison of the representatives of the supposed branches as‬‬ ‫‪given by Kasher.171‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬

‫‪Ashkenazi‬‬ ‫)‪Kimi (ms Parma 2883‬‬

‫בתרגו<ם> של תוספתא תרגם הפסוק‬ ‫כן‬ ‫וקם ואכרז על סדרי קרבא דישראל‬ ‫ואמר להון למה אתון נפקין לסדרא‬ ‫קרבא עם פלשתאי‬ ‫הלא אנא גליית פלישתאה דמן גת‬ ‫דקטלית תרין בני עלי כהנא חפני‬ ‫ופינחס ושיבית ארון קיימא דיי‬ ‫ואבלית יתיה לבית דגון טעותי‬ ‫והוה תמן‬ ‫בקירוי פלישתאי‬ ‫תלתא ירחי‬

‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪ 7‬ואף כל קרב וקרב דהוה לכון עם‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬

‫פלשתאי נפקנא לפום קלא‬ ‫ורמינא קטילייא כעפרא דארעא‬ ‫ועדיין לא אכשרו ית[י] פלישתאי למהוי‬ ‫רב אלפא עליהון‬ ‫ואתון בני ישראל מה עבד לכון שאול‬ ‫בר קיש‬ ‫דמניתון יתיה מלכא עילויכון‬

‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪ 13‬אם גבר גיבר הוא יחות ויעביד עימי‬

‫קרבא׃‬ ‫‪14‬‬

‫‪Sephardi‬‬ ‫‪ms M1 Salamanca‬‬

‫תוספתא‬ ‫וקם ואכלי על סדרי קרבא דישראל‬ ‫ואמר להון למה אתון נפקין לסדרא‬ ‫קרבא עם פלשתאי‬ ‫הלא אנא גלית דמן גת‬ ‫דקטלית תרין בני עלי כהנא חפני‬ ‫ופינחס ושביתי ית ארון קימא דייי‬ ‫ואובילית יתיה לבית דגון טעותי‬ ‫והוה תמן‬ ‫שבעא ירחין‬ ‫ולא יכיל לי מרי קימכון‬ ‫ועל כל קרב וקרב דהוה לפלשתאי‬ ‫אנא נפקנא לחקלא ונצחנא‬ ‫ורמינא קטילין כעפרא דארעא‬ ‫וכל דא אנא עביד להו[ן] ולא ממנן יתי‬ ‫עליהון לא מלכא ולא איסטרטיגא‬ ‫והדין שאול דמגבעת בנימין מה עבד‬ ‫לכון‬ ‫ארי מניתון יתיה מלכא עיליכון‬ ‫כען אמרו ליה‬ ‫אם גבר תקיף הוא ייחות ויעביד עמי‬ ‫קרבא‬ ‫ואם גבר חלש הוא‬ ‫בחרו לכון גברא וייחות לותי׃‬

‫‪170  Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 17–18, at 18.‬‬ ‫‪’, 9–13.‬האם יש מקור אחד‘ ‪)53; Idem,‬ג( ‪)53 and‬ב( ‪, 106–108, nrs.‬תוספתות ‪171  Kasher,‬‬

102

chapter two

Let us compare these differences in the light of the weight Kasher awards them. The main differences are underlined. 2. Kimi ‫ ואכרז‬versus M1 Salamanca ‫ואכלי‬. Clear division between the two groups. The reading ‫ ואכלי‬is in accordance with TJ. 3. The ‘Ashkenazi’ adjective ‫ פלישתאה‬also occurs in most Sephardi witnesses. 4. The attributive adjunct ‫ בקירוי פלישתאי‬occurs only in the witnesses of the ‘Ashkenazi’ group. 5. According to Kasher the duration of the stay is an important difference between the two branches. However, if we look at the apparatus to the ‘Ashkenazi’ version of Kimi, we see that 4 witnesses have the reading ‘seven’ instead of ‘three’ months, and two witnesses have ‘six’.172 In the ‘Sephardi’ branch there is one witness that reads ‘six’.173 7. There are many different readings among the text witnesses that partly overlap the two readings given here. No clear division can be made between the two supposed branches. 9. The jealousy of Saul that is expressed in his complaint that they did not appoint him to a high rank is stronger in the ‘Sephardi’ version where he apparently aspired to kingship. However, if we consider which witnesses Kasher has for his ‘Ashkenazi’ version, we see that these include also a Sephardi text (ms Hébreu 75), a Yemenite (ms London 130) and an Italian text (First Rabbinic Bible), so one can hardly speak of an ‘Ashkenazi’ group. 14. The extra clause of the ‘Sephardi’ group occurs also in most of the witnesses of the other group. On the basis of this evidence we must conclude that the division between the two versions is not as clear as Kasher and Van StaalduineSulman suggest.

172  Kasher, ‫תוסםתות‬, 231; Idem, ‘‫’האם יש מקור אחד‬, 11, n. 28. Also the Ashkenazi ms Or. fol. 1210–1211 has the reading ‘seven’ (see Kroeze & Van Staalduine, ‘A Giant among Bibles’, 204. 173  Kasher, ‫תוםפתות‬, 231; Idem, ‘‫’האם יש מקור אחד‬, 11, n. 29.

tosefta targums

103

1 Sam 17:39 (Kasher 56) ms Madrid 7542

TJ

‫תוספתא‬ ‫וזריז דוד ית חרביה מעל ללבושוהי ולא וזריז דוד … לית בהון נסא‬ ‫אבא למיזל ארי לא אילוף ואמר דויד‬ ‫לשאול לית אנא יכיל למיזל באלין ארי‬ ‫לית בהון נסא‬ ‫דלא איזיל לגביה אלא באבנא ותרמילא‬ ‫משום דמגדפא הוא ודיניה בסקילא דהכין‬ ‫כתיב בספר אוריתא דמשה דמן דארגיז‬ ‫קדם ייי אלהא דשמיא ואפיק שמיה קדישא‬ ‫בחיסודין דלירגמוניה באבנא‬ ‫ואעדינון דוד מיניה׃‬ ‫ואעדינון דוד מניה׃‬

Translation Tosefta. And David girded [his sword over his garment. Then he tried to walk, but he was not used to it; and David said to Saul, “I cannot walk in these, for there is no experience174 in them.] I shall not go unto him other than with stone and bag, because he is a blasphemer, and his judgment will be by stoning. Because so it is written in the book of the Torah of Moses, that whosoever angers the Lord God of heaven and utters the name of the Holy one in revilement they will stone him to death.” So David put them off. Notes and commentary This is an interwoven expansion. The dialect is presumably Babylonian, since the use of the -‫ ל‬prefix in the prefix-conjugation is an unmistakable characteristic of Eastern Aramaic.175 This tradition occurs also in other Sephardi sources such as ms H.116, ms M1 Salamanca, and ms Opp Add 40 75 and in the Leiria edition. Within the Ashkenazi tradition it occurs in ms Parma 3187 where it is integrated into the main text of Targum Jonathan.176 This interpretation refers to Lev 24:11–15, however without a direct citation from Targum Onkelos as one would have expected in a Babylonian tradition. The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in the Italian tradition. 174  The word ‫ נסא‬may also be translated as ‘miracle’. 175  See e.g. E.Y. Kutscher, ‘Aramaic’, EJ 3, Jerusalem 1971, 259–87, at 275; Tal, ‫לשון‬ ‫התרגום‬, 191; Gleßmer, Einleitung in die Targume zum Pentateuch, 36. 176  See Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 363 n. 1282.

104

chapter two

Bibliographic information

Sperber, The Bible, II.130 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 363

1 Sam 18:19 (Kasher 58) Jews’ College H. 116

>‫תוספ<תא‬

TJ

‫והוה בעדן דמטא אתיהבא‬ ‫דמירב בת שאול לדוד‬ ‫והיא אתיהיבת לעדריאל‬ ‫דממחולת לאתו׃‬ ‫דהוה קא סבר דקידושהא בטעות נינהו משום דמלוה‬ ‫הוא ואף מיכל מבתר דאינסבה ליה אפקא מיניה‬ ‫בלא גט משום דסבר דקידושהא נמי בטעות נינהו‬ ‫דבפחות משוה פרוטה קידשה ומן דמקדיש בפחות‬ ‫מן שוה פרוטה לא קדיש ולא מידי ודויד לא אפסיד‬ ‫קליה (ית) [מינה] דקא סבר דערליא טפי משוה‬ ‫פרוטה נינהו משום דחזו לכלביה דשאול ולשונריה‬

Translation Tosefta. [But at the time that Merab, daughter of Saul, should have been given to David, she was given in marriage to Adriel, the Meholatite.] For her engagement was always considered to be in error because it was a debt. And also Michal, after she was given in marriage to him, he took her from him without a bill of divorce, because he thought that the engagement was likewise in error, for he engaged her for less than a peruta. And whosoever engages for less than a peruta is not engaged, and it’s futile. But David did not lose his claim on her, for he considered that the foreskins were worth more than a peruta because they were suitable for the dogs of Saul and his cats. Notes and commentary This is a concluding expansion. The TT is incorporated in the text in the same handwriting with only a reference in the margin. The language of this TT is clearly Babylonian. See e.g. the expression 177 ‫ קא סבר‬and

177  In Babylonian Aramaic, the combination of ‫ קא‬and a participle denotes a continuous and a habitual action in the present. See E.Y. Kutscher, ‘Aramaic’, 281; Tal, ‫לשון התרגום‬, 192.

tosefta targums

105

the words 178 ‫ נינהו‬and 179 ‫ נמי‬and 180 ‫טפי‬. The TT occurs exclusively in Sephardi witnesses. Apart from the Jews’ College manuscript it occurs in the Leiria edition, in ms Madrid 7542 and ms M1 Salamanca. The content is very close to b.Sanh 19b, where in a discussion on the legitimacy of David’s marriages Saul contended that the hundred foreskins had no value, while David held that they had value at least as food for dogs and cats. The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in the Italian tradition. Bibliographic information

Luzzatto, ‘Nachträgliches über die Thargumim’, 132 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 392–93

2 Sam 12:12 (Kasher 63) Jews’ college H. 116

TJ

‫תוספתא‬ ‫ולמא דאמרת ישלים על חד ארבע הכי תיהוי‬ ‫ארבע נפשן יפקון מבנך(?) בדיל נפשיה‬ ‫דאוריה רביא ואמנון ואבשלום ואדניה‬ ‫ארי את עבדת בסתרא ואנא אעביד‬ ‫ית פתגמא הדין קדם כל ישראל‬ ‫וקדם שמשא׃‬

Translation Tosefta. And why did you say, ‘he shall restore fourfold’? Because four lives will go from your sons for the life of Uria, the child, Amnon, Absalom and Adonia. [You acted in secret, but I will make this happen in the sight of all Israel and in broad daylight.] Notes and commentary This is a preceding expansion. Other witnesses are, according to Kasher, the Sephardi manuscripts Opp Add 4.76, Madrid 7542, M1 Salamanca, and Kennicott 5. In ms Kennicott 5 the TT appears after 2 Sam 178  A particle meaning ‘they are’ that is frequently used in Babylonian Aramaic. See also Tal, ‫לשון התרגום‬, 192. 179  An adverb meaning ‘also, likewise’ that is frequently used in Babylonian Aramaic. See also Tal, ‫לשון התרגום‬, 192. 180  An adverb meaning ‘much, more’ that is frequently used in Babylonian Aramaic. See also Tal, ‫לשון התרגום‬, 192.

106

chapter two

12:14 without any introduction. This seems in fact to be a more logical place since there the death of the boy is announced. The tradition refers back to 2 Sam 12:6 where David ordains that the rich man who took the poor man’s lamb had to repay fourfold what he had taken. This may be compared to b.Yoma 22b, where it says, ‘But here was also the matter of Bathsheba. For that he was punished, as it is written, “And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, the child, Amnon, Tamar and Absalom.”’ ‘The child’ is according to 2 Sam 12:15 the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David. There is no known connection to a liturgical tradition. Bibliographic information

Luzzatto, ‘Nachträgliches über die Thargumim’, 133 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 552, 555

2 Sam 19:30 (Kasher 64) Leiria

TJ

‫תוספתא‬

‫ובההיא שעתא נפקת [ברת] קלא‬ ‫ואמר<ת> רחבעם וירבעם יפלגון‬ >‫מלכות<א‬

‫ואמר ליה מלכא למא תמליל עוד‬ ‫פתגמך אמרית את וציבא תפלגון ית‬ ‫אחסנתא׃‬

Translation Tosefta. [The king said to him, “You need not speak further. I decree that you and Ziba shall divide the property.”] And at that moment a Bat Kol came down and said, ‘Rehoboam and Jeroboam will divide the kingdom.’ Notes and commentary This is a concluding expansion that has a very close parallel in b.Shab 56b where it says,181 Rab Judah said in Rab’s name: When David said to Mephibosheth, ‘Thou and Ziba divide the land,’ a Bat Kol came forth and declared to him, ‘Rehoboam and Jeroboam shall divide the kingdom.’

181  See also b.Yoma 22b.

tosefta targums

107

The heavenly decree that the kingdom of Saul will in the future be divided is explained as retaliation for the fact that David made this illconsidered and unjust decision. In one of the preceding verses, verse 28, David is compared to an angel of God. So, while David, the ‘angel of God’ decreed that the land should be divided between Mephibosheth and Ziba, now a Bat Kol comes and decrees that the kingdom shall be divided between Rehoboam and Jeroboam. There is no known connection to a liturgical tradition. Bibliographic information

Sperber, The Bible, II.196 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 604–605

4.1. Summary 1. We discussed 6 TTs with the designation ‘Tosefta’. The variant readings with the designation Tosefta are all predominantly Sephardi, except for one of the long TTs on 1 Sam 17:8 that occurs in all strands. 2. The TTs on 1 Sam 18:19, 2 Sam 12:12 and 2 Sam 19:30 are closely related to the Babylonian Talmud. These verses have no known connection to a liturgical reading. 3. Apart from the extensive targums on 1 Sam 17:8, that are partly substitute targums, these TTs are toseftot in the true sense of the word, supplying additions to Targum Jonathan. 4. The language of 1 Sam 17:39 and 1 Sam 18:19 has also some clear Babylonian characteristics. According to Kasher, TTs with the designation ‘Tosefta’ all have a clear relation to Eastern Aramaic,182 so what we found in the TTs to the Books of Samuel seems to be the rule rather than coincidence. 5. Apparently the Sephardi tradition was strongly affiliated with the Babylonian tradition. This is in line with what is known from other fields, as for instance the liturgy.

182  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 15. See also Tal, ‫לשון התרגום‬, 191–92.

108

chapter two

5. No special designation There are also additions that are incorporated directly in the text without any marker. It concerns the following cases.183

1 Sam 2:6 (Kasher 41) Codex Reuchlin 56v

TJ

‫כל אילין גבורתא דיהוה דהוא שליט‬ ‫כל אלין גבורתא דיוי דהוא שליט‬ ‫בעלמא ממית ואמר לאחאה מחית‬ ‫בעלמא ממית ואמר לאחאה מחית‬ ‫לשאול ואף עתיד לאסקא בחיי עלמא׃ לשאול ואף עתיד לאסקא בחיי עלמא‬ ‫ברם קרח בר יצהר בר קהת בר לוי דמיניה‬ ‫נפק שמואל ברי איתחת לשאול על עיסק‬ ‫דקם ואיתפלג על משה ואהרן צדיקיא‬ ‫יסקון מבית בליעתהון ויודון דלית אלה‬ ‫בר מיניה׃‬

Translation All these are the mighty work of the Lord who is the ruler of the world. He puts to death and promises to make alive. He brings down to Sheol and will also cause to rise in eternal life. Truly,184 Kora the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi,185 from whom went forth my son Samuel, was brought down to Sheol because of the question that he rose up against and disagreed with the righteous Moses and Aaron. They will go out from the place where they were swallowed and confess that there is no god beside Him. Notes and commentary This is a concluding expansion to Targum Jonathan. The dialect is close to the language of TJ. The addition is incorporated in the regular text and is not marked in any way as a Tosefta. It is a unique variant. The verse is part of the haftarah to the first day of New Year. The meturgeman transformed the first part of the song of Hannah into a historical survey of which this verse is the conclusion. After 183  As we noted above during the discussion of 1 Sam 18:19 (pp. 104–105) and 2 Sam 12:12 (pp. 105–106), ms Kennicott 5 sometimes incorporates the TTs in the text where other manuscripts mark it as Tosefta. 184  We prefer to translate the word ‫ ברם‬here as an interjection (cf. Jastrow, Dictionary, 196) instead of a conjunction. As a conjunction it would introduce an exception to the rule, while the story of Kora on the contrary seems to confirm it (pace Van Staalduine-Sulman ad locum). 185  Num 16:1.

tosefta targums

109

having described the mighty deeds of the Lord in history, praise is given to Him who lays down the rules about life and death. M.Sanh chapter 10 discusses who have a share in the World to Come and who have not. According to R. Aqiba in m.Sanh 10:3, the company of Kora shall not rise to eternal life, because it is written in Num 16:33 ‘They went down alive into Sheol, with all that belonged to them; the earth closed over them and they vanished from the midst of the congregation’. ‘The earth closed over them’ means ‘in this world’, and ‘they vanished from the midst of the congregation’ means ‘in the World to Come’. R. Eliezer, however did not agree with this harsh judgment. He applied the words of 1 Sam 2:6 to Kora and his company, ‘The Lord deals death and gives life, casts down into Sheol and raises up’. It seems that the meturgeman of our TT agreed with R. Eliezer. The version that occurs in Codex Reuchlin uses a concrete case as illustration for the meaning of the verse. One gets the impression that the meturgeman knew the halakhic discussion about who have a portion in the World to Come. The confession at the end probably refers to Deut 32:39 that also contains a reference to God’s power to deal death and give live and is therefore associatively linked to this verse.186 See in this respect also 1 Sam 2:2, 2 Sam 7:22, and 1 Chron 17:20. Bibliographic information

De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, 68 Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 49 Sperber, The Bible, II.97 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 213–14

1 Sam 2:9 (not in Kasher) T-S NS 128.14

‫גויית עבדוהי צדיקי{א} יטר‬ ‫מגיהנם‬ ‫ו{רשי}עיא בגיהנם בחשוכא‬ ‫יתדנון‬ ‫להודעא ארי לא מין דאית‬ ‫ביה חילא זכי ל{…} {ד}ינא‬ ‫אילהין דאית ליה עוב{די}ן טבין‬ ‫זכי למלכא דאתי‬

TJ

MT

‫גוית עבדוהי צדיקיא יטר‬ ‫ַר ְג ֵלי חסידו יִ ְׁשמֹר‬ ‫מגיהנם‬ ‫ורשיעיא בגהנם בחשוכא‬ ‫ּור ָׁש ִעים ַּבח ֶֹׁשְך יִ ָּדּמּו‬ ְ ‫ידדנון‬ ‫ להודעא ארי לא מן דאית‬:‫ִּכי ֹלא ְבכ ַֹח יִ ְג ַּבר ִאיׁש‬ ‫ביה חילא זכי ליום דינא׃‬

186  In rabbinic hermeneutic terms Heqqesh or Gezerah Shavah.

110

chapter two

Translation He keeps the bodies of His righteous servants from Gehenna, but the wicked will be punished in Gehenna in darkness — to make known that one who has strength is not found worthy for the day of judgment, but only if he has good deeds will he be found worthy for the coming King. Notes and commentary This is a concluding expansion. The dialect is close to the language of TJ, the form ‫ יתדנון‬actually being a more regular form than the form ‫ ידדנון‬that occurs in Sperber’s edition. The addition is incorporated in the regular text and is not marked in any way as a Tosefta. This text does not occur in the collection of Kasher. The verse is part of the haftarah reading for the first day of New Year in all rites, dealing with the birth of Samuel and Hannah’s song of praise. It is a unique variant. Both Targum Jonathan and the elaborated version that is found in this fragment translate the Hebrew Qere ‫ חסידיו‬instead of the Ketiv ‫חסידו‬. The addition may have been prompted by the urge to avoid the impression that strong people are by definition judged negatively. It makes clear that they can be judged positively, but only on account of their good deeds and not on account of their strength. This may point to the possible exhortative function of this TT. Take note also of the expression ‫ מלכא דאתי‬that serves as a prelude to the next verse where the messianic King is introduced. Bibliographic information

Klein, Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, 51, nr. 615

2 Sam 6:23 (Kasher 62) ms Salamanca 1

TJ

‫ולמיכל בת שאול לא הוה לה‬ ‫ולד עד יום מותה׃‬ ‫ברם ביום מותה הוה לה בר ושמיה יתרעם׃‬

Translation [So to her dying day Michal daughter of Saul had no children.] But on the day of her death she had a son and his name was Ithream.

tosefta targums

111

Notes and commentary This tradition also occurs in the Leiria edition and in Genizah fragment T-S B11.56. According to 2 Sam 3:5 Ithream was David’s sixth son, born to his wife Eglah. In the rabbinic tradition Eglah is identified as Michal, as we saw above in the TT to 2 Sam 3:5.187 In the parallel text in 1 Chron 3:3 it says ‫שתיתאה יתרעם לעגלה אנתתיה היא מיכל ברת שאול‬. This TT harmonises the peshat interpretation of 2 Sam 6:23 that Michal had no children with the tradition that she was the mother of Ithream. The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Shemini in all traditions. Bibliographic information

Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, II.169 Klein, Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, 22 nr. 261

2 Sam 20:22 (Kasher 65) Kennicott 5

‫ואתת איתתא לכל עמא בחכמתא‬

TJ

‫ואתת איתתא לות כל‬ ‫עמא בחכמתה‬

MT

‫ַּתבֹוא ָה ִא ָּׁשה ֶאל ָּכל‬ ָ‫ו‬ ‫ָה ָעם ְּב ָח ְכ ָמ ָתּה‬

‫ חמשין גברין‬:‫ואמר{ת} להון‬ ‫בע{א} מנכון למיקטל ולא‬ ‫תתחבל קרת<א> ואמרו ניתן‬ ‫ותבת ואמרת ארבעין ואמרו ניתן‬ ‫ותבת ואמרת עשרין ואמרו ניתן‬ ‫ותבת ואמרת עשרה ואמרו ניתן‬ ‫ותבת ואמרת גברא דשמיה שבע‬ ‫בר בכרי‬ ‫ולא נפק מפומיה‬ ‫וַּיִ ְכ ְרתּו ֶאת רֹאׁש ֶׁש ַבע ופסקו ית ריש שבע בר עד דפסקו ית רישיה ורמיה ליואב‬ ‫ותקע בשופרא ואתבדרו מעל‬ ‫בכרי ורמו לות יואב‬ ‫ַׁש ִלכּו ֶאל‬ ְ ‫ֶּבן ִּב ְכ ִרי ַוּי‬ >‫קרת<א‬ ‫ותקע בשופרא‬ ‫ּׁשֹופר‬ ָ ‫יֹוָאב וַּיִ ְת ַקע ַּב‬ ‫ואתבדרו מעל קרתא‬ ‫ַו ָּיפֻצּו ֵמ ַעל ָה ִעיר‬ ‫גבר לקרוהי ויואב תב‬ ‫ִאיׁש ְלא ָֹה ָליו וְ יֹוָאב‬ ‫ לירושלם לות מלכא׃‬:‫רּוׁש ִַלם ֶאל ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ָ ְ‫ָׁשב י‬

Translation The woman came to all the people in her wisdom. And she said to them, “Fifty men he asks from you to kill and the town shall not be ruined.” And they said. “It is given.” She came back and said, “Forty.” And they said, “It is given.” She came back and said, “Twenty.” And 187  See above, pp. 64–65.

112

chapter two

they said, “It is given.” She came back and said, “Ten.” And they said, “It is given.” And she came back and said, “A man whose name is Sheba son of Bichri.” Nothing came from his mouth until they cut of his head and threw it to Joab and he blew the Shofar and they dispersed from the town [each man to his own town, and Joab returned to the king in Jerusalem.] Notes and commentary This must be considered a substitute targum rather than an interwoven expansion, since the wording of the last parallel part is clearly dependent upon the preceding elaboration. The name of Sheba son of Bichri is for instance not mentioned because he was already introduced in the elaboration so that now a suffix could suffice. This targum has no connection to a known liturgical reading. The addition is incorporated in the text without any indication, but since this is quite usual in ms Kennicott 5, no special interest has to be attached to that. See for parallels to the negotiation of the wise woman GenR 94:9 (Th-A 1184); LevR 19:6; MidrSam 32:3 (141); EcclR 9; TanB VaYera 12; AgBer 22:3 (45). The difficult phrase about the silence of Sheba son of Bichri may be an allusion to Isa 53:7. This may seem far-fetched because here it concerns a scoundrel, whereas in Isaiah 53 it concerns the righteous servant, but in both cases the victims undergo their lot silently. According to the Christian tradition, the death of the Servant is a case of vicarious suffering.188 Without complaint, without opening his mouth, the Servant is led to be slaughtered in order to save the lives of others. Likewise, the death of Sheba son of Bichri, which he endures silently, prevents the annihilation of the whole town. The question of whether one person could die for the benefit of many others also occurs elsewhere in rabbinic literature.189 The rule is that where the blood of an arbitrary person is asked for, it is preferable to let the many be killed than to choose a random victim. But when the blood of a specific person is demanded, it is permissible to hand him over in order to save the lives of the others. As an example we give t.Ter 7:20a, A company of people who were told by a crowd, “give us one of you that we may kill him, and if not, behold, we will kill you all.” Let them all be killed rather than handing over one soul from Israel. But if they specified him to them, as they specified Sheba the son of Bichri, they will give them so that not all will be killed. 188  See e.g. John 11:49–52. 189  t.Ter 7:20; y.Ter 8:10, 46b; GenR 94:9 (Th-A 1184–85).

tosefta targums

113

As concerns form, the negotiation tactics ascribed to the wise women resemble the tactics of Abraham in his plea for Sodom and Gomorra. The repetitive ‫ ותבת ואמרת‬give a strong cadence to the text, almost turning it into poetry. Bibliographic information

Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 612–13

5.1. Summary 1. We discussed four cases of substantial variant traditions that are incorporated in the text without any designation. 2. The language is, as might be expected, close to the language of TO / TJ. 3. They are toseftot in the true sense of the word, supplying additions to Targum Jonathan. 4. The stress on good deeds in 1 Sam 2:9 may point to an exhortative function of this TT. 5. Since all the TTs in ms Kennicott 5 are incorporated into the text without any special designation, even though they are marked in other witnesses as ‘tosefta’, we should probably exclude 2 Sam 20:22 from our considerations concerning unmarked additions. 6. In 1 Sam 2:6 and 2 Sam 6:23 the variant reading starts with the word ‫‘ ברם‬but, however’, whereas the reading in 1 Sam 2:9 starts with ‫‘ אלהין‬except, only’, both words indicating a kind of objection or argument. Consultation of the textual databases of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon show that these words occur regularly in the TTs,190 probably reflecting internal discussions.

6. Special cases Finally there remain some special cases to be discussed, namely TTs that are poetry or midrashic compilations. We start with the poetry.

190  http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/ (accessed Oct. 1, 2008).

‫‪chapter two‬‬

‫‪114‬‬

‫‪6.1. Poetry‬‬

‫)‪1 Sam 17:42 (Kasher 57‬‬ ‫‪TJ‬‬

‫ואסתכי פלשתאה וחזא‬ ‫ית דויד ושטיה ארי הוה‬ ‫יניק וסמוק שפיר בריויה׃‬

‫‪ms Munich 5‬‬

‫יונתן תרגם המקרא הזה בטוב וסתומות רבות מפורשין‬ ‫בה והא לך תרגמו‬ ‫ואיסתכי פלשתאה וחזא ית דוד ושטיה ארי הוה יניק‬ ‫וסימוק ושפיר בריויה‬ ‫ואמר ליה‬ ‫איזל טליא וחוס על טליותך למה את מתגרי עם בר איוון‬ ‫בחירת טליא ושפירת לחדא אמ<ר> גלית לדוד‬ ‫גיגונא דהילולא לא גנן לך אידכר גננך והדר לאחורך‬ ‫אבוך‬ ‫דמי זיוך לזיוא דמלכי‬ ‫דרחיצנא בך דאת ירתת מלכו‬ ‫חבל עלך טליא דגמדך מצרך חבל על ינקותך דבעית‬ ‫להתקטלא‬ ‫ווי לך אימרא דמתגרת עם ולית אימרא דיכיל למיקם‬ ‫דובא‬ ‫בדובא‬ ‫זעירא את ולבך קשי‬ ‫וי לך דאת מתגרת במאן‬ ‫דקשי מינך‬ ‫חזווך ובישרך אתן לעופא אם לא תיזל ותרעי ענך‬ ‫דשמיא‬ ‫טובך טליא אם תיזל מן‬ ‫דלא ארוק בך ותטבע ברוקי‬ ‫קדמי‬ ‫יומא בישא דנפקת בגויה אבוך צוח ואמך מיללא וי וי‬ ‫כוף רישך והדר לאחורך‬ ‫דלא ישלוט בך סייפי דחריף‬ ‫לבך דרמא ייי משפל יתיה אמר דוד לגלית‬ ‫מימר אלהי דאתא עמי‬ ‫הוא ישיזב אימרא מפום‬ ‫דובא‬ ‫ניחא דילי ורוגזא דילך‬ ‫את בשום טעותך ואנא בשמא‬ ‫דייי צבאות‬ ‫סייפך דחריף אנא אפסוק אמר דוד לגלית‬ ‫בה ית רישך‬ ‫עינוותנותיה דשאול בר קיש היא תגרום לך ותפיל קומתך‬ ‫דחסידתא יתיה‬ ‫פתחנא פומי ובלענא יתך אמר גלית לדוד‬ ‫צורת אפך שפירא וסומקא ושפירת בריוא ויאית בחיזוא‬ ‫קלא אישתמעת בפלשתאי דאימרא מיכתש עם דובא‬ ‫ריגשא רבא הוה בחמשה דדא אמרה לדא אנא איסק‬ ‫אבנין‬ ‫בקדמיתא‬

tosefta targums

115

ms Munich 5

‫שמיה דאברהם צדיק(י)א כתיבא על קדמיתא‬ ‫דיצחק כתיבא על תיניינא‬ ‫דיעקב בוכרא כתיבא על תליתיתא‬ ‫על רבעיתא וחמשיתא כתיב שומהון דמשה ואהרון נבייא‬ ‫שמיה דאברהם אמרא אנא איסק לקילעא בקדמיתא ואימחי ית פלשתאה עורלאה‬ ‫הדין על עורלתיה ואעדי חיסודין מן דבית ישראל‬ ‫בה שעתה ההיא זקף דוד עינוהי למרומא וחזא מלאכין דמתיעעין על גולית פלשתאה‬ ‫בה שעתה ההיא הוא רעוא מן קדם ייי דעל אבנא דאהרן וסליקת לקלעא על דהוה‬ ‫רדיף שלמא ומחת פלשתאה על בית עינוהי למישרת שלמא על ידיה בתחומא דישראל‬ ‫בה שעתא ההיא זיויה דאפיה אישתני וקיטרי חרציה אישתרו וארכובתיה נקשן‬ ‫וסיפיה נפל ואעא דמרניתיה איתבר‬ ‫ודעבד עם ההוא דרא לעביד עמנו לעלם‬

Translation Jonathan translated this scripture well, and many undefined things are explained therein and here is for you his translation. The Philistine faced and looked at David, and disdained him, for he was a young boy, and ruddy, and handsome in appearance. And he said to him: Go, young one, and have consideration for your youth. Why would you attack a son of lions? You are chosen, youthful, and very handsome, said Goliath to David Your father did not yet erect a bridal canopy for you Think of your canopy and turn back Your splendour resembles the splendour of kings So I trust that you will inherit the kingdom Alas for you, boy, that your tinyness is your problem Sorry for your youth, that you ask to be killed Woe to you lamb, that you are provoking a bear There is no lamb that can withstand a bear You are young, but your heart is hard Woe to you that you are provoking someone who is stronger than you Your appearance and your flesh I will give to the birds of heaven, if you do not go and shepherd your sheep. It will be good for you, boy, if you go away from me, so that I do not spit on you and you will drown in my spittle. It was a bad day, on which you went out into it. Your father cried out and your mother said ‘woe, woe’ Bow your head and turn back That my sharp sword will not rule over you

116

chapter two

Your heart that is haughty, the Lord will humiliate it Said David to Goliath: The Memra of God that goes with me will save the lamb from the mouth of the bear Rest will be mine and anger yours, you in the name of your idols and I in the name of the Lord of Hosts. Your sharp sword, I will split your own head with it Said David to Goliath: The humility of Saul the son of Kish that you sneered at Will cause your stature to fall I open my mouth and swallow you Said Goliath to David: The form of your face is beautiful and ruddy You are beautiful in looks and handsome in appearance A rumour was heard by the Philistines That the lamb would be fighting with the bear Great excitement was among the five stones one saying to the other: I will go out first. The name of Abraham the righteous was written on the first Of Isaac, the bound one, was written on the second Of Jacob, the first-born was written on the third On the fourth and the fifth were the names of the prophets Moses and Aaron The name of Abraham said: I will go out in the sling first and I shall wipe out that uncircumcised Philistine because of his prepuce And I shall take away the shame from the House of Israel At that very time David lifted up his eyes to heaven and saw the angels deliberating on Goliath the Philistine At that very time, it was the Lord’s wish that the stone of Aaron would go out and it mounted the sling because he was a pursuer of peace. And it hit the Philistine on his forehead to minister peace by it in the territory of Israel At that very time the countenance of his face changed And the knots of his loins loosened And his knees shook and his sword fell and the wood of his spear was broken What He did with that generation, may He do it with us forever.

tosefta targums

117

Notes and commentary This popular poem occurs in the Sephardi manuscripts H. 116, Kennicott 5, M1 Salamanca, Madrid 7542, Leiria 1494, and in the Ashkenazi manuscripts Munich 5 and Göttweig 11. Ms H. 116 and Leiria 1494 attached it to 17:43, while ms Kennicott 5 divided it over the verses 42 and 43. Ms Munich 5 is a commentary to the Torah and the Prophets, which explains the somewhat unusual Hebrew introduction. The translation of Targum Jonathan that is first cited is a rather literary translation that contains no explanation. So when the introduction says that Targum Jonathan explained many undefined things, this must refer to the poem that follows, rather than to the translation. In the parallel traditions this poem is mostly introduced as ‘tosefta’. The poem is a dialogue between Goliath and David and makes use of an alphabetic acrostic191 and of the popular rabbinic device of enumeration192 in the list of the five stones. The language has many clear Babylonian characteristics, such as the enclitic pronoun in the participles in forms like ‫ בחירת‬and ‫שפירת‬.193 In the ‫ע‬-strophe David mentions that Goliath sneered at Saul. This does not occur in the biblical text, but it is known from targumic interpretations such as the TTs to 1 Sam 17:8. The description of David’s handsome appearance in the ‫צ‬-strophe corresponds to the description of the anointed in TJ 1 Sam 23:8. The tradition about the stones is based on the combination of 1 Sam 17:40 ‘he picked five smooth stones from the wadi’ and verse 49 of the same chapter ‘David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone’. A similar tradition occurs in MidrSam 21:1, where however the names and the order in which they appear are different. A similar tradition also occurs in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities,194 which means that this is certainly an ancient motif. As Kasher has noted in his commentary, it is strange that in the quarrel between the stones, only the 191  Note the confusion between ‫ ה‬and ‫ ח‬and the missing ‫ת‬-strophe. 192  For a description of this principle, see the classical study of W.S. Towner, The Rabbinic ‘Enumeration of Scriptural Examples’: A Study of a Rabbinic Pattern of Discourse with Special Reference to Mekhilta d’ R. Ishmael, Leiden 1973. These number motifs are also popular within the so-called targumic derashot. See Z. Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, in: Safrai et al., The Literature of the Sages. Second Part, 243–78, at 248. 193  Tal, ‫לשון התרגום‬, 191. 194  Pseudo-Philo, LAB 61:5.

118

chapter two

motivation of the stone with Abraham’s name on it is given, while eventually the stone of Aaron was chosen for the task. This might imply that the composer of this TT used parts of an originally longer tradition in which all the stones motivated why exactly they should be chosen for the task at hand.195 The name of Abraham on the first stone in the sling refers to the fact that he was the first one (‫ )אחד ויחיד‬who was circumcised in God’s covenant. This is stressed by the contrast to the uncircumcised Philistine. The name of Aaron on the last stone refers to the frontlet of pure gold on which was written ‘Holy to the Lord’ that Aaron wore on his forehead, according to Exod 28:36–38. Jewish tradition assigns two labels to Aaron, Ohev Shalom ‘Lover of Peace’ and Rodef Shalom ‘Pursuer of Peace’. See e.g. m.Avot 1:12b where it says, ‘Hillel said: Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind and bringing them closer to the Torah.’ The attribution of this saying to Hillel is one of the arguments used by Eveline van StaalduineSulman in favour of an early date for this poem.196 However, the tradition of Aaron as a lover and pursuer of peace occurs throughout rabbinic and medieval literature and its occurrence here can therefore not be used as an argument for an early date. The motif of the angelic council is unique to this fragment, but accords with the regard of the angelic world than can be found elsewhere in the corpus of TTs.197 The Aramaic word that is used in the present manuscript and in ms Gottweig 11 for the deliberation of the angels is an itpaal of √‫ יעע‬which is categorised by CAL as Late Jewish Literary Aramaic. The Sefardic witnesses use the more common itpaal of √‫יעץ‬. According to Kasher this poem is connected to the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in one of the texts of Maimonides. Bibliographic information

Sperber, The Bible, II.130–31 Van Staalduine-Sulman, ‘The Aramaic Song of the Lamb’, 265–92; Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 364–83 De Moor & Van Staalduine-Sulman, ‘The Aramaic Song of the Lamb’, 266–79

195  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 111. 196  Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 381. 197  Kasher, ‘Angelology and the Supernal Worlds’, esp. 179.

‫‪tosefta targums‬‬

‫‪119‬‬

‫‪6.2. Targumic derashah‬‬

‫)‪2 Sam 21:15–19 (Kasher 69‬‬ ‫‪TJ‬‬

‫‪ms Gaster 1478‬‬

‫יומא בתרא דפסח דשמ<ו>אל‬ ‫(‪ )15‬והוה עוד קרבא לפלשתאי עם‬ ‫(‪ )15‬והות עוד קרבא לפלשתאי עים ישראל ונחת‬ ‫דוד ועבדוהי ואגיחו קרבא עם פלשתאי ואשתלהי‬ ‫ישראל ונחת דויד ועבדוהי עמיה‬ ‫ואגיחו קרבא עם פלשתאי ואשתלהי דוד‬ ‫דויד׃‬ ‫(‪ )16‬וישבי בנב דבבני גברא ומתקל (‪ )16‬וישבי בנוב דמן בני עורפא גיברתא ומתקאל‬ ‫סופיניה מתקאל תלת מאה סלעין דנחשא והוא‬ ‫סופניה מתקל תלת מאה סלעין‬ ‫דנחשא והוא אסיר אספניקי חדתא אסיר אספניקי חדתא ואמר למקטל ית דוד‬ ‫ואמר למתקל ית דויד׃‬ ‫ונחתו תרויהון לסדרא קרבא דין עם דין כחדא‬ ‫דוד בר ישי מלכא דישראל וישבי בנב דוד בר ישי‬ ‫מלכא דיש<ראל> נחת מסדרי קרבא דיש<ראל>‬ ‫וישבי בנב רשיעא נחת מסדרי קרבא דיפלשתאי‬ ‫ואשתלהי דוד בר ישי ריש קרבא דישראל הוא‬ ‫דוד בר ישי‬ ‫שפיר בריויה ויאי בחזויה חכים בחוכמתא‬ ‫שפיר בריויה ויאי בחזויה חכים‬ ‫וסוכלתן בעיצה ריש גיבריא‬ ‫בחכמתא וסכלתן בעיצא גבר‬ ‫בגברותא ריש גבריא‬ ‫)‪(2 Sam 23:8‬‬

‫הוה תקע בשופרה מזיע לרשיעיא מסיע לענותניא‬ ‫תמני מאה קטילין דמתחות רגלוהי בזמן חדא‬ ‫ועימיה ישבי בנב ולא יכיל ליה ואשתלהי וכד‬ ‫חזא ישבי בנב ית דוד דאשתלהי נחת מן רתיכוהי‬ ‫וארים יתיה מן ארעא לרום שמיא מהלך יומא‬ ‫חד וכד חזא דוד דחיל מיניה וזקף עינוהי לשמי‬ ‫מרומא (וארים יתיה מן ארעא לרום שמיא מהלך‬ ‫יומא חד) ונחת עננא וחפת ית דוד בר ישי מלכא‬ ‫דיש<ראל> ואסיק יתיה לשמיא (כד חזא דוד‬ ‫דחיל מיניה וזקף עינוהי לשמי מרומא) ואמר‬ ‫בבעו מינך מארי עלמא לא יתחל שמך רבא‬ ‫דאתקרי על אבהתנא ושזבינני מידא דפלשתאה‬ ‫ערלה הדין וקביל מיניה מארי עלמא בדיל זכות‬ ‫אב<רהם> יצ<חק> ויעק<ב> משה ואה<רן>‬ ‫ופרק יתיה מן ידוהי ויתקדש שמיה רבא על ידיה‬ ‫בה בשעתא ההיא תוב זקף דוד עינוהי לשמי‬ ‫מרומא וחזא והא איסרהון דישראל ואיסרהון‬ ‫דפלשתאי דמגיחין קרבא דין עם דין ומשרי‬ ‫ומצלי ובכי ומתחנן וכן אמר בצלותיה יוי אלהי‬ ‫ואלהא דאבהתי אלהיה דאבא ישי לא תמסרינני‬

‫‪chapter two‬‬ ‫‪ms Gaster 1478‬‬

‫דידא דפלשתאה ערלא הדין דלמא יקטל יתי ויזיל וישתבח בבית דגן‬ ‫טועתיה ויימר טעותי מסרתיה בידי וקטלתיה ולא יימר חס ושלום לית‬ ‫אלה פריק בישראל וליהודה ולא תתחשב נפשי עם קטולי כהניא ועם‬ ‫תבעיה מיתיא ריבוניה דעלמא כוליה אם אית רעוא קדמך תיעול צלותי‬ ‫ובעותי לקדמך ושלח לי פריק ואעביד קלא על כל בני וקריבי וייתי חד‬ ‫מבני צרויה ויסעדינני‬ ‫בה בשעתא ההיא מתיבא רוחא דקודשא ואמרה ליה דוד בר ישי לא הכדין‬ ‫כתיב בספר אוריתא דמשה אשר לא ישא פנים ולא יקח שוחד זקוף כען‬ ‫עינך וחזי נשמתהון דתמנן וחמשה כהנין בנוהי דאחימלך בר אחיטוב‬ ‫דסעדין לישבי בנב ואמרין על ידי דוד אקטליננא ואף פומך אסהיד בך‬ ‫למימר אנכי סבותי בכל נפש בית אביך והא גזר דינך אתחתם לאיתקטלא‬ ‫יומא דין אלא קביל עלך דלא אשתאר לאחימלך בר אחיטוב אלהין בר‬ ‫חדא ושמיה אביתר וייתי אבישי בר צרויה דלא הות בעיצת כהניא ויקטול‬ ‫יתיה‬ ‫מתיבא ואמר ליה עד אימתי‬ ‫עני וכן אמר ליה עד שבעה דרין‬ ‫וקבל עלוהי וקם על רתיכיא ונחת ועל לגו סדרי קרבא דישר<אל>‬ ‫וכד חזא ישבי בנב עני וכן אמר מן הוא דאנא סברית יתיה אכלוהו עופא‬ ‫דשמיא ונבילתיה לא מטא לארעא‬ ‫עני דוד ואמר ליה שטיא דבעלמא כד נפקית לקדמותך שטיתי ולא צלותי‬ ‫יתך כען סליקית ואתקבלת צלותי קדם מלך עלמיא יהי שמיה רבא מברך‬ ‫לעלמא ולעלמי עלמיא וימסר יתך בידי ויקטלינך‬ ‫בה בשעתא ההיא צוח גבריאל מלא<כא> בצוחתא רבתא ואמר ריבוניה‬ ‫דעלמא כוליה דוד בר ישי משיחא מלכא דישראל הוא דאית בעלמא‬ ‫מתקטיל כען הב לי רשו דאיזיל ואסעיד יתיה‬ ‫בה בשעתא ההיא טוריא נדו ורמתא אזדעזדעו והודעוהי פתגמא ברוחא‬ ‫דקודשא לאבישי בר צרויה והוא שרי במשרית ארמאה והוא עביד קרבין‬ ‫עם ארמאה בארבע מאה פרסין וההוא יומא מעלי דשבתא הוה בתר תשע‬ ‫שעין ותלתא כד יתיב אבישי בר צרויה למיחף ית רישיה ונחת כנישתא‬ ‫דיש<ראל> דהוא דמיא ליונה וקאימא קדם אבישי בר צרויה חכים‬ ‫בחכמתא גיבר בגיברותא למא את קאים [ב]שלוה ודוד מלכא דיש<ראל>‬ ‫בצערא והוה מתקטל בה‬ ‫בה בשעתא ההיא קם אבישי בר צרויה ולבש מניה זיניה ואתקן במאני‬ ‫קרביה ורכיב על כודנתא דיליה דאיתעבידו ביה ניסין וגבורן וקפצת ליה‬ ‫ארעא ארבע מאה פרסין ורהט ואתא ונחת ועל לגו סידרי קרבא דפלשתאי‬ ‫וסעיד ית מלכא דוד ומחא ית ישבי בנב פלשתאה וקטליה‬ ‫עד לא תיפוק נפשיה דפלשתאה מתיב וכן אמר ליה לך אנא אמר דוד בר‬ ‫ישי ולך [אנא] אמר אבישי בר צרויה הלא אתון אינון גיברי ישראל‬ ‫דמתקרן גיברין איכא הוא גיברותכון דביתרין גרוון קטלתן יתי‬ ‫מתיב אבישי בר צרויה וכן אמר ליה בשעתא דאנא קטיל יתך ורמי יתך‬ ‫לשאול תיזיל ותבשר לעורפא אימך חיבתא בקרבא דדירא בגו שאול‬ ‫ותימר ליה תרין גיברי ישראל קטלו יתי אלהין דוד בר ישי דמן שמיא‬ ‫סעידין ליה כען את הוה צבי דנא דיך לך שעתא חד עד דיתקטיל ית דוד‬ ‫מלכא דיש<ראל> דהכדין כתיב קרא ומפרש‬

‫‪120‬‬

‫‪tosefta targums‬‬

‫‪121‬‬ ‫‪TJ‬‬

‫‪ms Gaster 1478‬‬

‫(‪ )17‬וסעד ליה אבישי בר צרויה (‪ )17‬וסעיד ליה אבישי בר צרויה ומחא ית פלשת<אה>‬ ‫וקטליה בכין קיימו גברי דוד ליה למימר לא תיפוק‬ ‫ומחא ית פלשתאה וקטליה‬ ‫עוד עימנא לאגחא קרבא ולא תיטפי ית מלכותא‬ ‫בכין קיימו גברי דויד ליה‬ ‫דישראל‬ ‫למימר לא תפוק עוד עמנא‬ ‫לקרבא ולא תטפי ית מלכותא‬ ‫דישראל׃‬ ‫(‪ )18‬והוה בתר כין והוה עוד‬ ‫(‪ )18‬והוה בתר כן …‬ ‫קרבא בגוב עם פלשתאי בכין‬ ‫קטל סבכי דמן חושת ית סף‬ ‫דבבני גברא׃‬ ‫(‪ )19‬והוה עוד קרבא בגוב עם‬ ‫(‪ )19‬והוה עוד קרבא בגוב עם פלשתאי … ואעא‬ ‫פלשתאי וקטל דויד בר ישי מחי דמורניתיה כאכסן דגרדיאין‬ ‫פרוכית בית מקדשא ית גלית‬ ‫גתאה ואע דמורניתיה כאכסן‬ ‫דגרדיאין׃‬ ‫והות עוד קרבא בגוב עם פלשתאי מתיב ויאב בר‬ ‫ואעא דמורניתיה כאכסן‬ ‫צרויה ואמר ליה לאבישי אחוהי ולישאר גיבריא‬ ‫דגרדיאין‬ ‫)‪(1 Sam 17:7‬‬ ‫דישראל דוד בר ישי נפק בישנין ועל ביומין וסגי קרבין‬ ‫ערעו והלא הוא חלש למיחת לסידרי קרבא כען חד‬ ‫מיננא לא יעביד מילוהי ולא יקיים גזירתיה‬ ‫ואיתחוה פתגמא ברוחא דקודשא לדוד בר ישי ורכיב‬ ‫על רתיכוהי ונחת לגו קרבא ונחתו בתרוהי יואב‬ ‫ואבעישי גיבריא דיש<ראל> ואסתחר דוד לאחורוהי‬ ‫ואחזינון ורמא ית קשתיה מיניה בנכילו על ארעא‬ ‫עני וכן אמר יואב בר צרויה אבישי (יואב) בר צרויה‬ ‫גיברא דישראל נחת מן רתיכך והב לי קשתי דנפלת‬ ‫מיני ונחת יואב בר צרויה ואיתקף בה בקשתיה דדוד‬ ‫ולא יכיל לארמא יתיה מן ארעא ואושיט דוד ריש‬ ‫אצבעת רגליה דימינא וארים יתיה ואחית על ידיה‬ ‫לשמאלא עני וכן אמר להון גיבריא דיש<ראל> איכא‬ ‫הוא גיברותכון דאתון אמרין גיברין אנחנא דקשתי‬ ‫לא יכילתון למיתון לי מן ארעא והלא קשתי על חד‬ ‫תרין בחרבי על חד ארעא בקשתי ובמורניתי ואינון‬ ‫תלן לי ידא דשמאלא ואתון אמרין דוד גבר חלש הוא‬ ‫ותקיף רוגזא דדוד ונסיב ית קשתתהון מינהון‬ ‫ותברינון ואחדרינון מבתריהון ונחת מבתרוהי יהונדב‬ ‫בר שמעא אחוהי דדוד בכין קטל דוד בר ישי מחי‬ ‫פרוכיא בית מקדשא ית גלית גיתאה‬ ‫ואעא דמורניתיה כאכסן דגרדיאין‬ ‫(‪ )20‬והוה עוד קרבא בגת והוה (‪ )20‬והות עוד קרבא …‬ ‫גבר דמשחן ואצבעת ידוהי‬ ‫ואצבעת רגלוהי שית ושית‬ ‫עסרין וארבע מנין ואף הוא‬ ‫אתיליד לגברא׃‬

122

chapter two

Translation The last day of Passover from Samuel. (15) Again war broke out between the Philistines and Israel. And David went down with those who served him and they waged war against the Philistines. And David grew weary. (16) And Ishbi-benob — who was from among the sons of Orpah the giantess, and the weight of whose spear was the weight of three hundred Sela bronze, and who was girded with a new armour — said to kill David. And the two went down to the battle-line, the one together with the other. David the son of Jesse, king of Israel, and Ishbi-benob. David, the son of Jesse, king of Israel, went down from the battle-line of Israel and Ishbi-benob, the wicked, went down from the battle-line of the Philistines. And David, the son of Jesse, head of war of Israel was wearied. He was David, the son of Jesse, his appearance was handsome, and nice were his looks, he was wise in wisdom and intelligent in advice. He was the head of the heroes. He sounded the ram’s horn, frightening the wicked, helping the humble. Eight hundred killed were under his feet at once. And with him was Ishbi-benob, but he could not overpower him, and he became weary. And when Ishbi-benob saw that David became weary, he came down from his wagon and lifted him up from the earth to the height of heaven, a day’s walk. And when David saw [this] he became afraid of him and he raised his eyes to the heaven above (and lifted him from the earth to the height of heaven, a day’s walk). And a cloud descended and covered David, the son of Jesse, king of Israel, and lifted him up to heaven (when David saw [this] he became afraid of him and he raised his eyes to the heaven above) and he said: ‘Please, Lord of the world, let Your great name, that was called out on our fathers not be profaned and save me from the hand of that uncircumcised Philistine. And the Lord of the world listened to him because of the merit of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses and Aaron and delivered him from his hand so that His great name would be sanctified by him. At that very time David again raised his eyes to the heaven above and he saw and behold, the guardian angel of Israel and the guardian angel of the Philistines were waging war with each other. And he started to pray and to weep and begged for mercy and he said in his prayer ‘Lord my God and God of my fathers, God of my father Jesse. Do not deliver me into the hand of this uncircumcised Philistine. That he may not

tosefta targums

123

kill me and will go and boast in the House of Dagon his idol and say, ‘my idol delivered him in my hand and killed him.’ And that he will not say, God forbid, that there is no God who saves in Israel and for Judah. And let my soul not be counted among the murderers of the priests and the demanders of the dead. Master of the whole world, if you wish, let my prayer and my request go up before you and send me a saviour. And I will produce a call to all my sons and relatives that one of the sons of Zeruiah may come and help me. At the same hour, the Holy Spirit answered and said to him: David, son of Jesse, is it not written in the book of the Torah of Moses ‘who shows no favour and takes no bribe’.198 Lift up your eyes now and see the souls of the eighty-five priests, the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub who are helping Ishbi-benob and who say ‘By the hands of David he killed us.’ And also your mouth witnessed against you, by saying ‘I am to blame for all the deaths in your father’s house.’199 Behold, the decree of your sentence is sealed, that you will be killed today. But accept upon you that no son of Ahimelech son of Ahitub will remain except one son and his name is Abiathar. Then Abishai the son of Zeruiah, who was not in the council of priests, will come and kill him. He answered and said to him: until when? And he responded and said to him: until seven generations. And he accepted it and stood on his wagon and went down and came to the battle-line of Israel. And when Ishbi-benob saw [it] he answered and said: who is this about whom I thought that the birds of heaven would eat him and his corpse would not touch the ground again? David answered and said to him: you, greatest fool in the world. When I went out to meet you I was so stupid not to pray concerning you.200 Now I went up and my prayer was accepted before the King of the Worlds, may His great name be blessed forever and ever, and let Him deliver you in my hand and kill you. At the same hour the angel Gabriel cried out with a loud cry and said: Master of the entire world, David, the son of Jesse the anointed king of Israel is in the world being killed. Give me now permission that I will go and help him. 198  Deut 10:17, citation in Hebrew. The habit to cite Scripture in Hebrew is characteristic of Targum Esther as we will see in Chapter Three, p. 172. 199  1 Sam 22:22. 200  The text is probably corrupt and therefore difficult to understand and translate. Within the context the given translation seems the most probable. See the discussion in Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 120.

124

chapter two

At the same hour, the mountains moved and the hills were shaken and the word was made known by the Holy Spirit to Abishai the son of Zeruiah while he was dwelling in an Aramaean camp and waging war with the Aramaeans four hundred parasangs away. And that day was Friday after nine hours and a third when Abishai son of Zeruiah sat down to wash his head. And the congregation of Israel, which was like a dove, stood before Abishai son of Zeruiah wise in wisdom and strong in strength. Why do you stand in peace while David king of Israel is in trouble and being killed in it? At the same hour Abishai son of Zeruiah stood up and girded his armour and prepared himself with war equipment and rode on his mule, on which miracles were performed and mighty deeds, and the earth shrank four hundred parasangs and he was swift and arrived. And he descended and went up into the middle of the battle lines of the Philistines and he helped David the king and he struck Ishbi-benob the Philistine and killed him. Before the soul of the Philistine went out, he answered and said to him, I say to you, David son of Jesse, and to you I say Abishai son of Zeruiah: Are you not the heroes of Israel who are called heroes? Where is then your strength that by two cubs you killed me? Abishai son of Zeruiah answered and said to him, at this hour that I kill you and throw you into Sheol, go and tell Orpah, your mother, the guilty one, in the grave, who dwells in Sheol and tell her201 ‘two heroes of Israel killed me, but David son of Jesse, was assisted from heaven. Well now, you would wish that I would mark off for you one hour until David the king of Israel will be killed, because so it is written, read and explained (17) ‘Abishai son of Zeruiah came to his aid; he attacked the Philistine and killed him. It was then that David’s men declared to him on oath, “you shall not go with us into battle anymore, lest you extinguish the kingdom of Israel!”’ (18) ‘After this there was …’ (19) ‘Again there was fighting with the Philistines at Gob … whose spear had a shaft like a weaver’s bar.’ Again there was fighting with the Philistines at Gob. Joab the son of Zeruiah answered and said to Abishai his brother and to the remainder of the heroes of Israel, “David son of Jesse went out of years and came into days and many battles happened. And is he not too weak to go down to the battle lines? Well 201  In the text it reads ‫ליה‬, ‘him’, but this is probably an error.

tosefta targums

125

now, will not one of us act according to his word and fulfil his decree?” And the word was announced by the Holy Spirit to David son of Jesse and he rode upon his wagon and went down in the midst of the battle and after him went down Joab and Abishai the heroes of Is. And David turned around and saw them. And he threw his bow from him in deceit on the earth and responded and said thus, “Joab, son of Zeruiah, Abishai (Joab)202 son of Zeruiah, hero of Israel, get down from your wagon and give me my bow that has fallen from me.” And Joab, son of Zeruiah, got down and made an effort with the bow of David and he could not lift it up from the ground. And David stretched out the tip of the toe of his right foot and lifted it up and brought it to his left hand. He responded and said thus to them, “Heroes of Is, where is your strength? That you say ‘we are heroes’ and my bow you could not give me from the ground? And if not my bow, so twice my sword and four times my bow and my spear that are dangling from my left hand? And you say: David is a weak man?” And David’s anger became strong and he took their bows from them and broke them and made them turn back from him. And Jonadab, son of Shimah the brother of David203 went down after him. Then David, son of Jesse, weaver of the curtains of the sanctuary, killed Goliath the Gittite and the wood of his spear was like a weaver’s pin. (20) Once again there was fighting … Notes and commentary This TT consists of verses that are read at the last day of Passover in the Aleppo tradition. Outside the Land of Israel, the last day of Passover is celebrated on both the seventh and eighth days of the festival. The most common haftarah for the eighth day is Isa 10:32–12:6 that starts with the arrival of Sanherib in Nob.204 We see here that both traditions are connected to the story of Nob. The brackets in the text are probably inserted by the copyist or a later corrector to indicate that the text between brackets has to be omitted. The language is mixed, it is close to the dialect of Targum Jonathan, but the word ‫איסרא‬, for instance, is Jewish Babylonian Aramaic.

202  This word is placed within brackets in the manuscript, probably to indicate that it has to be deleted. 203  2 Sam 13:3. 204  According to the prescription in b.Meg 31a.

126

chapter two

First, in the almost literal citation of TJ 2 Sam 21:15–16 the two main characters of the story are introduced. In verse 16, the Hebrew word ‫ ָה ָר ָפה‬is translated as Orpah, in accordance with rabbinic tradition.205 The expression ‫ מארי עלמא‬does not occur in the official Targums, but is met with the Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch, in the Targums to the Writings and in 2 TTs, namely this one and a TT to 2 Kgs 4:1. Within Jewish literature it occurs mostly in later compilations such as the Yalkut Shimoni and the Zohar. Within the Babyloninan Talmud it occurs only three times, viz. b.Ber 6a, b.Git 88b and b.Sanh 38a. Also its Hebrew equivalent only occurs in relatively late sources such as Exodus Rabbah. There is a parallel in the description of David in verse 16 in a TT to 1 Kgs 1:1.206 The description uses the translation of TJ 2 Sam 23:8, which is another indication that this TT is later than Targum Jonathan.207 The ascension of David is a unique motif that does not occur elsewhere in rabbinic literature. Maybe the story was known to the writer of Acts, who wrote in Acts 2:34 ‘For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand” (Ps 110:1a).’ This very denial may point to the existence of a tradition about the ascension of David. The names of the fathers by whose merit David is ultimately saved are the same as the ones on the sling stones in the TT to 1 Sam 17:43. In the same verse 16, the battle between David and Ishbi-benob is given an angelological bent. The battle on earth between David and Ishbi-benob has a counterpart in the supernal worlds between the angel of Israel and the angel of the Philistines. This motif may already be found in the book of Daniel, and it is well developed in Qumran literature.208 David is afraid to be counted among the killers of the priests. This is probably a reference to his being the cause of the killing of the priests of Nob (1 Sam 22:22). In rabbinic literature the struggle between Ishbi-benob and David is related to this issue by explaining the name Ishbi-benob as ‫‘ איש שבא על עסקי נוב‬a man who came because of the case of Nob’.209

205  See above, p. 93. 206  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 33. 207  See E. van Staalduine-Sulman, ‘Reward and Punishment in the Messianic Age (Targ. 2 S. 23.1–8)’, JAB 1 (1999), 273–96, at 289. 208  Kasher, ‘Angelology and the Supernal Worlds’, 180. 209  b.Sanh 95a; MidrPss 18:30.

tosefta targums

127

The phrase ‘David, son of Jesse’ serves as a millah keva,210 in this way strengthening the messianic intention of the story. There is a strong affinity between the interpretation of 2 Sam 21:16 and b.Sanh 95a, where both this verse and Isa 10:32 (haftarah for the eighth day of Passover) are elaborated. See for instance the element of the dove, the miraculous journey of Abishai son of Zeruiah, the comparison of David and Abishai with two cubs, and the mentioning of Orpah in her grave. In the HT of verse 19 it is Elhanan who killed Goliath. This TT makes use of the TJ’s identification of Goliath’s killer as David.211 No parallels are known to the long variant reading of this verse. As concerns style, this is what Zeev Safrai fittingly called a ‘targumic derashah’.212 These so-called targumic derashot are similar in style to the petita, which was an accepted format of the public sermon. It may be that at certain festive occasions these targumic derashot might partly replace the reading of the haftarah as can be inferred from y.Meg 4:2, 75a, where it says,213 ‫המפטיר בנביא לא יפחות מעשרים ואחד פסוקין הוא אמרה ואמר טעמא בשאין‬ ‫שם תורגמן אבל אם יש שם תורגמן קוראים שלשה‬ The reader of the haftarah should not [read] less than twenty-one verses, he [Rav] said that, and he said that the argument applies if there is no meturgeman, but if there is, they read only three.

Bibliographic information

Gaster, ‘Das Buch Josua’, ZDMG 62 (1908), 528–32 Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 33–34 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 620–30

210  See above, p. 50. 211  See also RuthR 2:5; YalqSh 2 Sam §156; YalqSh 1 Chron §1075. 212  Z. Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, in: S. Safrai et al. (eds), The Literature of the Sages. Second Part: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science, and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature, Assen 2006, 243–78, esp. 248–49. 213  See also b.Meg 23b, where it says ‘This rule (of reading twenty-one verses) was laid down only for a place where there is no translator, but where there is a translator a stop may be made [earlier].’

‫‪128‬‬

‫‪chapter two‬‬

‫)‪2 Sam 22:3, 8, 11, 13, 17, 28, 47 (Kasher 70‬‬ ‫‪TJ‬‬

‫)‪ms Add. 17,058 (Mazor‬‬

‫(‪ )3‬אלהי דאתרעי בי קרבני לדחילתיה תקפי‬ ‫דמן קדמוהי מתיהיב לי תקוף ופרקן‬ ‫לאתגברא על בעלי דבבי רחצני דעל מימריה‬ ‫אנא רחיץ בעדן עקא מגין עלי מבעלי דבבי‬ ‫ואמר לארעא קרני בפוקניה סמכני דהוה‬ ‫מימריה סמך לי כד הויתי עריק מן קדם רדפי‬ ‫פרקני מבעלי דבבי‬ ‫ואף מיד כל חטופין שזיב יתי‬ ‫ואף מיד כל חטופין פריק יתי׃‬ ‫ומידא דשאול מלכא הוה פריק לי‬ ‫ואידזעזעו טורייא ואיתהפיכו עימקי‬ ‫(‪ )8‬ואתרגיפת ואתרגושת ארעא שכלולי‬ ‫ימא‬ ‫שמיא זעו ואתרכינו‬ ‫ארי תקוף רוגזיה‬ ‫ארי תקיף רגזיה׃‬ ‫דאלהא חייא וקיימא‬ ‫ואשרי שכינתיה על כרובין קלילין‬ ‫(‪ )11‬ואתגלי בגבורתיה על כרובין קלילין‬ ‫ואיתגלי ביקר על כנפי רוחא ודבר‬ ‫ודבר בתקוף על כנפי רוחא׃‬ ‫בתקוף‬ ‫מזיו יקריה דאלהא חייא וקיימא‬ ‫(‪ )13‬מזיו יקריה מבהקין שמי שמיא‬ ‫מבהיקין שמייא ושמי שמייא …‬ ‫מזופיתיה כגומרין דנור דלקא ממימריה׃‬ ‫ישלח נביאוהי מלך תקיף דשכינתיה‬ ‫(‪ )17‬שלח נביוהי מלך תקיף דיתיב בתקוף‬ ‫בשמי מרומא …‬ ‫רומא דברני שיזבני מעממין סגיאין׃‬ ‫ויהון עמא בית ישראל דמיתקרן‬ ‫(‪ )28‬וית עמא בית ישראל דמתקרן בעלמא‬ ‫בעלמא הדין עם חשיך את עתיד‬ ‫הדין עם חשיך את עתיד למפרק ובמימרך‬ ‫למפרק יתהון ולמיקרי להון עם‬ ‫תקיפיא דמתגברין עליהון תמאיך׃‬ ‫חביב דבכל עידן עינך במכיכי רוחא‬ ‫מתייתבא ובמימרך תקיפיא דמתגברין‬ ‫עליהון תמאיך‬ ‫בכן על ניסא ופורקנא דאיתעביד‬ ‫(‪ )47‬בכין על נסא ופרקנא דעבדתא לעמך‬ ‫אודיו ואמרו קיים הוא יוי ובריך תקיפא דמן למשיחך ולשארא דעמך דישתארון‬ ‫ישבחון ויודון ויימרון קיים הוא אלהא‬ ‫קדמוהי מתיהיב לנא תקוף ופרקן ומרמם‬ ‫חייא גיברא ודחילא ובריך תקיף דמן‬ ‫אלה תקוף פרקננא׃‬ ‫קדמוהי מתייהב לי תקוף ופורקן …‬

‫‪Translation‬‬ ‫‪(3) [O God, who chose me and drew me near to His fear. My strong‬‬‫‪hold from Whom strength and redemption is given to me to over‬‬‫‪power my enemies. My security on Whose Memra I trust in time of‬‬ ‫‪distress, shielding me against my enemies, Who promised to raise my‬‬ ‫‪horn in his salvation, Who supported me. For His Memra supported‬‬ ‫‪me when I was fleeing from my pursuers. He redeemed me from my‬‬ ‫‪enemies.] And He saved me even from the hand of all the robbers and‬‬ ‫‪from the hand of king Saul He delivered me.‬‬

tosefta targums

129

(8) The mountains were shaken, the depths of the sea were overturned, for strong is the anger of the living and existing God. (11) And He let His Shekhinah dwell upon swift cherubs and revealed Himself in glory on the wings of the wind and led with strength. (13) From the splendour of the glory of the living and existing God the heavens and the heavens of heavens shine [from his wrath, like coals of burning fire from his Memra.] (17) He sends His prophets, the strong King, Whose Shekhinah is in the heavens above. [He led me out and rescued me from many nations.] (28) And the people of the House of Israel, who in this world are called a luckless people, You will safe them and call them a beloved people. For every time Your eye dwells on the lowly in spirit and with Your Memra You humble the strong ones who overpower them. (47) Therefore, for the miracle and the salvation that was performed for Your anointed one and for the remnant of Your people that will remain, let them praise and give thanks, and say “Enduring is the living God, the strong one, the fearful one and blessed be the powerful one from before whom strength and salvation is given to me [and exalted be God, the strength of our salvation.”]

Notes and commentary It is not clear whether the text of the verses 3, 13, 17 and 47 has to be complemented with the text of Targum Jonathan. Since the text is rather different from TJ, and since this tradition occurs in a Mazor, this does not seem probable.214 Moreover, also the second text witness, ms Add. 27,070, gives an almost identical text.215 It seems therefore more probable that this is a collation of fragments of an independent targum tradition. It is remarkable that the wording of verse 47 shows an internal coherence with verse 32 that is missing in Targum Jonathan. The language is close to TO and TJ. The expression ‫ אלהא חייא‬that occurs in the verses 8, 13, and 47 is probably meant as the Aramaic

214  Unfortunately we were not able to consult the manuscripts in order to see if the dots that Kasher adds at the end of the lines are part of the text. 215  Kasher mentions a third textual witness, 6‫ע‬, but this manuscript does not appear in his list. Upon inquiry with Kasher, this problem could not be solved. It probably concerns the fragment from the Taylor Schechter Collection in Cambridge that was used by Sperber in his apparatus, since the variants Kasher gives match the text of Sperber.

130

chapter two

equivalent of the Hebrew expression ‫ אלהים חי‬or ‫אלהים חיים‬.216 In the official Targums this expression is always rendered as ‫יוי קיימא‬. Translations using √‫ חיי‬further occur in PsJon Num 23:19, 24:4 and in Tg Esther Sheni 3:3. All the verses of this collation are from the haftarah for the last day of Passover according to most traditions. It is therefore not surprising that we find this tradition in two Mazorim, namely the present one and ms Add. 27,070. As concerns the style, this tradition consists of parts of 2 Sam 22 that in itself is a poem. By using only parts the poetic structure is lost, although the major theme, which is the redemptive power of God, is preserved and even enhanced, as in verse 28. The way of relating separate verses is reminiscent of the targumic derashah, though this example is less clear than the preceding one. Moreover, where in the preceding example the verses were consecutive, here the compiler skipped large parts. This is not forbidden given the rule in m.Meg 4:4 that one may skip in the prophetic reading. Bibliographic information

Sperber, The Bible, II.202–06 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 642–64, passim

6.3. Summary 1. We discussed three miscellaneous cases, one poem and two targumic derashot. 2. The poem is intriguing both as concerns contents and form, but it is so far removed from what we defined as ‘targum’ in the previous chapter, that at best we could call it a targumic poem. This poem was very popular as becomes clear from the numerous witnesses. 3. The two other cases may be considered targumic derashot. They are true targums as far as the translation of the biblical parts is concerned. The difference from regular continuous targums lies in the additions and omissions. 4. 2 Sam 21:15–19 is unique in the sense that it occurs only in a single witness and because the contents of verse 19 have no known parallel in rabbinic literature.

216  This expression occurs as ‫ אלהים חי‬in 2 Kgs 19:4, 16 and in Isa 37:14, 17 and as ‫ אלהים חיים‬in Deut 5:26, 1 Sam 17:26, 36, and in Jer 10:10 and 23:36.

tosefta targums

131

E. Survey and Conclusions Having examined the Tosefta Targums on Samuel, we want to come to some conclusions by trying to answer the following questions: 1. Can the name Tosefta Targum be maintained for all the traditions discussed here, or do we have to look for more appropriate designations for some of them? 2. Are there linguistic similarities to be discovered across the toseftan material? 3. Are there other common tendencies to be discovered in the toseftan material?

1. Do all the Tosefta Targums treated here deserve their name? We started this chapter by stating that the designations ‘Tosefta Targum’ and ‘targumic Tosefta’ are somewhat misleading because we do not know whether in all cases they really concern toseftot, that is, additions. Moreover, it is also not self-evident that it concerns ‘targum’ in the sense we defined it in Chapter One. Although the two terms are generally used interchangeably, strictly speaking they mean different things. In the expression ‘Tosefta Targum’ the stress is on the fact that it is a targum, the word Tosefta serving as a kind of adjective. So in order to use this expression correctly, the targumic tradition it is used for should be in accordance with the definition for targum we proposed in Chapter One. In the expression ‘targumic tosefta’, on the other hand, the stress is on the fact that it is a ‘tosefta’, an addition. The adjective ‘targumic’ says something about the character of the addition. In the literature the two expressions are mostly used interchangeably. In both cases it concerns additional material, so the TTs would belong to either type 2 or type 4 according to the characterisation we proposed in Chapter One. If we now reconsider the material discussed above, we see that at least part of the sefer aer variants are simple substitutions that render an interpretative word-by-word translation (type 3).217 They should therefore be taken as variant readings rather than TTs. The following are the cases concerned: 2 Sam 3:5, 1 Sam 30:16, 2 Sam 1:6, 2 Sam 1:21, 2 Sam 15:4, 2 Sam 21:12. But also the other, more extensive sefer aer traditions should be considered substitutions rather than additions. 217  In the case of 2 Sam 21:12 it could even be considered a literal word-by-word translation (type 1).

132

chapter two

All the sefer aer traditions obey the general rules of the official Targums Onkelos and Jonathan and also their language is rather close to these works. The copyist of Codex Reuchlin worked as a critical editor who obviously had several sources at his disposal. The designation sefer aer seems to refer simply to one of the manuscripts of Targum Jonathan that he had at his disposal. In our view, these variants should not be called TTs, but neither do they need any other special designation. The same applies for the lishna aerina variants. Their character and language are close to Targum Jonathan and their name seems not to be meant as the definition of a type but to refer to a specific source that the copyist used in addition to his base text. We would therefore suggest not using the terms ‘Tosefta Targum’ or ‘targumic Tosefta’ for these categories. That is of course not to say that they do not deserve a place in the text-critical study of the Targums or in the search for remnants of a Palestinian Targum of the Prophets. The next category we discussed were the variant traditions with the designation ‘Jerushalmi’ or ‘Targum Jerushalmi’. We know these designations from the Targums to the Pentateuch and it may be no coincidence that they are used here as well. The Fragment Targums that we briefly discussed in the excursus on pp. 46–48 also traditionally go by this name.218 In part these Targums merely give variant renderings of single words; where longer passages are given they present paraphrastic translations, bearing the marks of late aggadic compositions. Their fragmentary character arises from the fact that they are simply collections of variant readings and additions to some complete Targum, whether this was Onkelos or another Targum still remains undecided.219 That these Targums were really intended to supplement some complete Targum becomes clear from the fact that they are often unintelligible without the text of a running version. This short description of the Fragment Targums, that are also known as Targum Jerushalmi, also fits the variant traditions found in Codex Reuchlin under the same heading. There is, however, a difference, as has been noted already in the excursus at the beginning of this chapter. 218  The editio princeps of the Fragment Targum was published under the title ‘Targum Jerushalmi’ in the first edition of the Mikraot Gedolot (Venice 1516–17). In the older literature the Fragment Targum was designated as ‘Jerushalmi II’, while Pseudo-Jonathan was known as Jerushalmi I. See e.g. G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, Leipzig 1905, 27–29. 219  See the discussion in M.L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources, 2 Vols, Rome 1980, I.12–19.

tosefta targums

133

The ‘Jerushalmi’ material in the Fragment Targums has retained the language of the Palestinian Targums,220 while the ‘Jerushalmi’ fragments of the Prophets that were discussed are in large measure close to the language of Onkelos and Jonathan, although there are traces of a Palestinian origin. More research is needed in order to determine the place of the ‘Jerushalmi’-additions of Codex Reuchlin within the development of the Targums of the Prophets, but they certainly have pride of place in the research. But what about the question we asked ourselves at the beginning of this section concerning the designation Tosefta Targum? For want of a better designation, and because one of the traditions is very close to a tradition that occurs elsewhere as ‘Tosefta’ (1 Sam 17:8), they can — pending further research — be considered Tosefta Targums. The traditions that were discussed under the heading ‘Tosefta’ certainly deserve their name. They serve as additions to Targum Jonathan and are apparently influenced by the Babylonian tradition. Also the traditions that are incorporated in the text without any designation can be considered Tosefta Targums. The examples discussed are not as firmly connected to the Babylonian tradition as the preceding category, but that may be due to the small sample. More research is needed to detect any possible differences between the two categories. Then, finally, there remain some special cases. In our view, the Aramaic poem that was discussed should not be included in the corpus of TTs. Although the Targum was taken as point of departure, the poem itself can by no means be considered a targum. As Kister noted correctly, this kind of poem was born out of the Targums,221 but is not itself a targum. One might consider calling this type of poem targumic Tosefta, but we would rather consider a more appropriate name such as ‘targumic poem’.222 The last example, that covers 2 Sam 22:3, 8, 11, 13, 17, 28, 47, can certainly be considered a Tosefta Targum. It consists entirely of targumic material that seems to stem from another tradition than Targum Jonathan. However, given the creative compilation of the material also the term targumic derashah might be appropriate. The other example, 2 Sam 21:15–19, is more problematic since there is a great misbalance between the targumic citations and 220  This might argue in favour of a Palestinian base text for the Fragment Targums. 221  See Kister, ‘‫’שירת בני מערבא‬, 113–14. 222  As we saw above (p. 47), also Klein denied them the designation ‘tosefta’.

134

chapter two

the added aggadic material. In this case we would certainly prefer the term targumic derashah, instead of Tosefta Targum.

2. Are there linguistic tendencies to be noted in the toseftan material? The language of the variant traditions varies: sometimes it is close to the dialect of Onkelos and Jonathan, sometimes it has a clear Babylonian influence, and at still other times it is outspoken Palestinian. There are, however, some general tendencies to be noted within the groups we have distinguished. The language of the sefer aer and the lishna aerina variants is generally close to Targum Jonathan. Also the language of the longer variants that are incorporated in the Targum Jonathan text without any designation is, in line with expectations, close to the dialect of Targum Jonathan. The Jerushalmi variants show affinity with Palestinian Aramaic, while the variants that are designated Tosefta Targum or the like generally show Eastern Aramaic traits. In the concluding chapter we will try to see what that may mean for the question of whether there ever existed a Palestinian Targum to the Prophets.

3. Are there other common tendencies to be discovered in the toseftan material? We have noticed that the language in which the variant traditions are worded is not a common denominator. Let us now see whether there are perhaps other connecting factors, such as motives or themes. We start with the motives. From what we have seen above, it is probable that there existed collections of targumic expositions on various passages that were either used directly in the weekly lectures or served as study material. The latter may be deduced from the fact that famous commentators like Kimi used targumic material for their exposition as we saw in the treatment of 1 Sam 17:8,223 but also from the fact that from the twenty-one passages we termed Tosefta Targum, eight have no connection at all to a known liturgical reading cycle.224 According to Shinan and Kasher, who assume that the Sitz im Leben of the TTs was the synagogue, this lack of connection to known reading cycles 223  See above, pp. 98–99. 224  In Kasher’s research of all the TTs to the Prophets, this ratio was even higher, namely 60 out of 130 (Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 17–18), but he included also some traditions that we would not consider TTs.

tosefta targums

135

means that we do not know enough about possible alternative reading cycles.225 In our view there is not enough ground for such an assumption; it is equally possible that the TTs functioned also in other settings, such as the Beit Midrash. So, if the selection of the verses that were supplemented with additions was not determined fully by liturgical reasons, what may then the criteria have been that saved them from oblivion? That is not easy to determine. The most obvious reason would, of course, be that the TTs shed light on certain verses that were at face value hard to understand. That is certainly true for 1 Sam 3:14, 2 Sam 6:19 and 2 Sam 20:22. In the other cases, however, the peshat reading makes perfect sense. So there the meturgemanim must have had other reasons for their liberal interpretations. In 1 Sam 11:2, for instance, a perfectly sound verse is interpreted allegorically. It may be that there the underlying reason is to stress the importance of the Torah. It is considered a greater humiliation for Israel if something of the Torah was erased than if everyone’s right eye were to be gouged out. The targumic interpretations of 2 Sam 12:12 and 19:30 both use the principle of measure-for-measure, probably to stress the principle of divine judgment. The exegesis of 1 Sam 10:22 has a strong didactic approach, stressing the importance of study and prayer. We must therefore conclude that in the sample of TTs that we studied within the framework of this book no common motive can be detected for the cherishing of the traditions preserved. The next question is whether there are thematic tendencies to be noted in the toseftan material. It comes as no surprise that the heroic story of David and Goliath from 1 Sam 17 seemed to be very popular, given the numerous variant traditions we find to parts of that chapter.226 This popularity becomes especially clear in the targumic poem to 1 Sam 17:42. The targumic derashah on the battle against Ishbi-benob in 2 Sam 21:15–19 belongs to the same category. Another trait that can be noted from the examples cited is the relatively great interest in the angelic world. Five variant targums, viz. 1 Sam 4:12, 12:5, 17:42 and 2 Sam 19:30 and 21:16 introduce angels at places where the biblical text does not give direct occasion for such an insertion.227 This is in accordance with Kasher’s observation for all of

225  A. Shinan, ‫אגדתם של המתורגמנים‬, Jerusalem 1979, 105; Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 18. 226  Eleven of the forty-six cases discussed come from this chapter. 227  In 2 Sam 22:11 the cherubs already occur in the biblical text.

136

chapter two

the Prophets.228 Kasher’s explanation of the phenomenon is that while TJ reflects the ‘official translation’ that was authorised by the rabbis, the TTs reflect more popular beliefs that were used in the weekly instruction in the synagogue. This explanation is not wholly sufficient for the cases in Samuel. Two of the variants, 1 Sam 4:12 and 2 Sam 19:30 do not belong to a known liturgical tradition, while for one of them, 1 Sam 17:42, the relation is rather vague. So these traditions were probably widely accepted and not just adaptations to the popular need of the synagogue audience. It seems that the worldview of the meturgemanim responsible for these traditions was rather close to that of some apocalyptic and esoteric literature.229 With this same worldview may perhaps also be connected the traditions in 1 Sam 2:6 and 1 Sam 28:19 that refer to the hereafter. As might be expected, the Torah also plays an important role in the variant traditions. 1 Sam 6:19 and 1 Sam 11:2 contain hidden warnings against disrespectful behaviour towards the Torah. In 1 Sam 3:14, 12:2 and 10:22 the importance of Torah study is stressed. In 1 Sam 3:14 this is combined with the importance of good deeds, an element that is also found in 1 Sam 2:9. Finally we want to mention some cases that contain a reference to the Temple service without connection to the biblical text.230 In 1 Sam 2:22 the sons of Eli delayed the purifying offers of the women who came to pray; in 1 Sam 11:11 the expression ‘heat of the day’ is explained with reference to the Temple service; and in 1 Sam 17:16 the expression ‘morning and evening’ is connected to the time of the daily burnt offerings in the Temple. To conclude, we find some thematic currents. One current is the fondness for heroic stories of which the battle between David and Goliath is a good example. We might call this folk literature. The second current has esoteric and apocalyptic overtones that become apparent in allusions to the supernatural. The third current is firmly rooted in rabbinic tradition (m.Avot 1:2) that says that the world is sustained by the Torah, the Temple service and by deeds of loving-kindness.

228  Kasher, ‘Angelology and the Supernal Worlds’, ‫תוספתות‬, 48. 229  Kasher, ‘Angelology and the Supernal Worlds’, 190. The same phenomenon of great interest in the angelic world also occurs in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. See A. Shinan, ‫ האגדה בתרגום התורה הארמי המיוחס ליונתן בן עוזיאל‬:‫תרגום ואגדה בו‬, Jerusalem 1992, 120–28. 230  See also the TT on Isa 66:23, below, p. 185.

Chapter Three

Quotations of Targumic Passages from the Prophets in Rabbinic and Medieval Sources A. Survey of Previous Research on Targumic Quotations Quotations of targumic passages can be found in various sources: in the Targums themselves, in Talmudim and Midrashim, in medieval dictionaries, biblical and talmudic commentaries, in magical texts, and in liturgical and mystical literature. As has been noted already in the sixteenth century by Azariah de Rossi,1 most of these quotations are not identical to the extant ad locum targums. The first critical investigations of these ‘lost targums’2 were made by several representatives of the Wissenschaft des Judentums. In 1832 Leopold Zunz published in his Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge a list of citations of targumic passages from the Prophets in the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmud, in midrashic works, and among medieval authors such as Yehuda of Paris, Abudarham, Ephraim of Bonn, David Kimi, Rashi, and Abraham Farissol, and also in the Codex Reuchlin.3 Zunz seemed to realize that with the study of these targumic fragments one is treading on dangerous ground, for he writes with reference to what he calls ‘Targum jeruschalmi’: Diese Targums haben den Gelehrten schon grosses Herzleid zugefügt, so dass Mancher, wenn vom hierosolymitanischen Targum die Rede ist, seine Leser nur mit einigen Schimpfworten abfertigt.4

His own study of the material led him to the conclusion that there once existed a complete Palestinian Targum to the Torah and the Prophets.5 1  See J. Weinberg, The Light of the Eyes: Azariah de’ Rossi. Translated from the Hebrew with an Introduction and Annotations, New Haven & London 2001, 184–85 (’Imre Bina, section one, ch. IX). 2  An expression coined by Moshe Goshen-Gottstein. See the English introduction of M. Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים מתרגומי המקרא הארמיים‬, 2 Vols, Ramat-Gan 1983 & 1989, I.XII. 3  L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt, Frankfurt am Main 18922 (1832), repr. Hildesheim 1966. 4  Zunz, Vorträge, 69–70. 5  Zunz, Vorträge, 83 ‘die Aussagen der alten Autoren lauten so, als hätten sie Targumim zu vollständigen Büchern der Schrift gesehen’.

138

chapter three

This topic has provoked continuing discussion among scholars and Zunz’ position has had its supporters and its opponents.6 The Italian scholar Samuel David Luzzatto was the first, in 1844, to argue against such a theory.7 His arguments, however, were not based on targumic quotations but on the Tosefta Targums (which he called ‘Zusatzthargumim’) discussed in the previous chapter.8 In his important study on the history of Targum Jonathan (1872) Zacharias Frankel only briefly touched on the subject and, although admitting that apart from Jonathan there existed another Targum of the Prophets, he doubted whether this could have been a Palestinian Targum.9 In the same year Paul de Lagarde published the text of Targum Jonathan according to Codex Reuchlin, including its marginalia.10 The marginal readings and their sigla were thoroughly investigated by Wilhelm Bacher (1874).11 Bacher distinguished between aggadic readings with the sigla ‫תרגום ירושלמי‬, ‫ תרגום אחר‬and ‫ספר אחר‬, that were taken from another source, and non-aggadic readings with the sigla ‫לישנא אחרינא‬, ‫פליג‬, ‫ואית דמתרגמין‬, that were variants within the targum text itself.12 In his view, the readings labelled as jeruschalmi are often strongly related to the Babylonian Talmud and to later Midrashim, 6  See the survey of R.P. Gordon, Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets: From Nahum to Malachi, Leiden [etc.] 1994, 34–38; cf. P.S. Alexander, ‘Jewish-Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures’, in: M.J. Mulder & H. Sysling (eds), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen [etc.] 1984 (repr. Peabody, Mass. 2004), 223–24; W.F. Smelik, The Targum of Judges, Leiden [etc.] 1995, 75–85. 7  S.D. Luzzatto, ‘Nachträgliches über die Thargumim’, WZJT 5 (1844), 124–37, esp. 132ff. 8  See above, pp. 41–136, esp. 42. 9  Z. Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Propheten, Breslau 1872, cf. 40: ‘Zunz (…) schliesst aus mehrfachen bei Aruch, Raschi, Kimchi u. A. angeführten Stellen, dass es ein jerusalemisches Targum zu den propheten gegeben habe; die doppelten Uebersetzungen dürften ebenfalls darauf hinweisen, dass es noch ein anderes Targum — wenn auch nicht jerusalemisch; sämtliche Uebersetzungen sind im babyl. Dialekt verfasst — zu den Propheten gegeben habe’. 10  P. de Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, Göttingen 1872, repr. Osnabrück, 1967; on the marginalia, see the introduction, VI–XLII. 11  W. Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen zum Propheten-targum’, ZDMG 28 (1874), 1–72. 12  Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 35: ‘1) Die vorwiegend agadische Gruppe …, bei welcher schon die Benennungen auf eine von der gewöhnlichen verschiedene Version schliessen lassen. 2) Die nichtagadische Gruppe … deren bezeichnungen ebenfalls darauf hinweisen, dass wir es mit Varianten innerhalb eines und desselben Targum zu thun haben’.

targumic quotations

139

and although they are linguistically Palestinian, they must have originated in a period when the Babylonian Talmud had been accepted in Palestine.13 Readings of the second group, however, and even some of the readings labelled as sefer aer, may pre-date the Babylonian Targum, and may represent the Old Palestinian Targum.14 The discussion on a possible Palestinian Targum to the Prophets led to the publication of other quotations in various sources. In 1886, quotations of Nathan ben Yeiel’s Arukh were given by Paul de Lagarde in his critical review of the Onkelos edition that was published by Abraham Berliner in 1884.15 Further material from the Arukh was provided by Jakob Bassfreund in his study of the Fragment Targum (1896).16 In the same period, Wilhelm Bacher collected the quotes of Ibn Janah’s Sefer Ha-Shorashim,17 and a few years later he studied anew the marginalia of Codex Reuchlin, comparing them with the quotations he found in Menaem ben Solomon’s Even Boan and in the commentaries of Rashi and Kimi on the Prophets (1899).18 A rich collection of quotations was provided in the same year by Moses Ginsburger. In his edition of the Fragment Targum he offered a list of quotations from various medieval sources: Nathan ben Yeiel’s Arukh, David Kimi’s Sefer Ha-Shorashim, the commentary of R. Simeon ben Abraham on the minor tractates of the Talmud, Abraham Yari’s Sefer Ha-Manhig, the commentary on the Pentateuch of Menaem Recanate, David Abudarham’s Sefer Abudarham, Menaem ben Aaron Ibn Zera’s Tseda la-Derekh, Elia Levita’s Meturgeman, Abraham ben Meir de Balmes’ Sefer Miqneh Avram, and the Ba‘al Ha-Turim on the Pentateuch.19

13  See Gordon, Studies, 26; Smelik, Targum of Judges, 80. 14  Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 55–58. 15  P. de Lagarde, ‘Targum Onkelos. Herausgegeben und erläutert von dr. A. Berliner. Mit Unterstützung der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin … Berlin 1884’, (review) GGA 22 (1886), 861–80, esp. 870–71. 16  J. Bassfreund, ‘Das Fragmenten-Targum zum Pentateuch, sein Ursprung und Charakter und sein Verhältnis zu den anderen pentateuchischen Targumim’, MGWJ 40 (1896), 1–14, 49–67, 97–109, 145–63, 241–52, 352–65, 396–405, esp. 53ff., 64ff. 17  W. Bacher, Sepher Haschoraschim: Wurzelwörterbuch der hebr. Sprache von Abulwalîd Merwân Ibn Ganâh (R. Jona), Berlin 1893–96. 18  W. Bacher, ‘Notes on the Critique of the Text of the Targum of the Prophets’, JQR 11 (1899), 651–55. 19  See M. Ginsburger, Das Fragmententhargum (Thargum jeruschalmi zum Pentateuch), Berlin 1899, 91–122.

140

chapter three

Following in the footsteps of these nineteenth century scholars were anokh Albeck, who published a list of targumic quotations in his edition of Midrash Genesis Rabbah (1965);20 Geoffrey Cowling, who compared the quotations in the Arukh with Targum Neofiti (1968);21 Stephen Kaufman, who drew attention to targumic quotations on a magic bowl from Nippur;22 Raimundo Griño, who studied the quotations in Elias Levita’s Meturgeman, comparing them with the text of the Neofiti-targum;23 and Alejandro Díez Macho, who made a study of the quotations of Palestinian targums in the Midrash Bereshit Zutta of Samuel ben Nissim Masnuth.24 Of major importance is the relatively recent work of Moshe GoshenGottstein (in cooperation with Rimon Kasher) who started to assemble systematically all the targumic quotes that are not identical to the extant targums. A first volume appeared in 1983, a second one in 1989, both with extensive comments on the collected quotes.25 Some additions to the first volume were given by Michael Klein in his review of the book (1985).26 Despite the fact that this work offered a rich and at first sight complete number of quotes, new material has come to light in recent years. In cooperation with Joseph Yahalom, Michael Sokoloff edited the corpus of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry in which there are several targumic quotations (1999).27 Quotations in magical texts can be found in the work of Joseph Naveh and Shaul Shaked (1985), in that of Peter Schäfer and Joseph Naveh (1994), and in the work of Dan Levene (2003).28 20  . Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabba, Jerusalem 1965, I.44–54 (included in volume 3 of J. Theodor–. Albeck, Bereschit Rabba mit kritischem Apparat und Kommentar, Jerusalem 1965). 21  G.J. Cowling, The Palestinian Targum: Textual and Linguistic Investigations in Codex Neofiti I and Allied Manuscripts (thesis), University of Aberdeen 1968, 285–308. 22  S.A. Kaufman, ‘A Unique Magic Bowl from Nippur’, JNES 32 (1973), 170–74. 23  R. Griño, ‘El Meturgeman y Neofiti I’, Biblica 58 (1977), 153–88. 24  A. Díez Macho, ‘Las citas del Targum Palestinense en el Midrash Bereshit Zua’, in: A. Caquot et al. (eds), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor, Neukirchen-Vluijn 1985, 117–26. 25  See n. 2. 26  See M.L. Klein, JBL 104 (1985), 709–11; see also M.J. Bernstein, JQR 80/3–4 (1990), 376–79. 27  M. Sokoloff & J. Yahalom, ‫ישראל‬-‫שירת בני מערבא — שירים ארמיים של יהודי ארץ‬ ‫בתקופה הבינזטית‬, Jerusalem 1999. 28  See J. Naveh & S. Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of

targumic quotations

141

In our view, the fundamental research of Goshen-Gottstein did not receive the response it deserved. In the introduction to his work GoshenGottstein stated that ‘in the light of facts to be presented in this and in the following volumes, theories concerning certain basic issues as regards the rise and crystallization of targumic traditions will have to be reviewed: the crystallization of Onkelos and its language features; the Palestinian Targum of the Prophets; the original Jewish Targum of Proverbs, etc.’29 This might have been a too ambitious goal, but certainly the material should have received more attention in recent years. The fact that Goshen-Gottstein’s studies were published in Hebrew may have caused a neglect of its contents. Therefore, one of the aims of our study is to make his stimulating research more accessible to the scholarly world. Goshen-Gottstein’s work presents a rich, annotated collection of material for future research that may lead to new insights into major questions of targumic studies. There are, however, certain shortcomings in the as yet unfinished30 work. Firstly, the material collected is far from being complete, despite the remark that ‘this is the first time that an attempt has been made to present an almost exhaustive picture’.31 Secondly, the arrangement of the material raises methodological problems. The quotations are divided into eight groups: a. Palestinian citations with express indication of provenance b. Unmarked [nondescript] quotations (without express indication of provenance) c. Targumic quotes embedded in a midrashic unit d. Targumic renderings from Proverbs e. Lexical alternatives (of the Targums as known to us) f. Unique targums (with unique features, lexically or morphologically) g. Targumic variants h. Quotations from ms Sassoon 368 Late Antiquity, Jerusalem 1985; P. Schäfer & S. Shaked, Magische Texte aus der Kairoer Geniza, Band 1, Tübingen 1994; D. Levene, A Corpus of Magic Bowls: Incantation Texts in Jewish Aramaic from Late Antiquity, London [etc.] 2003. 29  Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, I.XII. 30  Originally, three volumes were planned (Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, I.XXII), two of which have been published so far. 31  Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, I.XIII. To give a few examples from the quotations in the Palestinian Targums: not mentioned are Tg Isa 1:2 and 65:17 (PTs on Deut 32:1); Tg Isa 40:4 (PsJon Exod 12:37, Num 14:14); Tg Isa 63:2–3 (PTs Gen 49:11); Tg Jer 17:8 (PTs Num 21:34); Tg Jer 32:18 (PTs Exod 20:5); Tg Ezek 18:13 (CGF / FTP Exod 13:17); Tg Ezek 37:12 (PTs Gen 30:22); Tg Ezek 39:9–10 (PTs Num 11:26); Tg Ob 18 (PsJon Gen 30:25).

142

chapter three

In our view, such a division of the material is questionable in several ways: »  The division between (a) and (b), although useful, blurs the fact that both types of quotations, with and without introductory formulas, may comprise explicit quotations as well as free renderings of biblical texts, allusions, or combinations of scriptural passages. »  With regard to division (c), Goshen-Gottstein points out that it is difficult to determine whether the Aramaic passage which is part of a midrashic unit ‘is a fixed Targum quoted extra locum or, perhaps, an on-the-spot spontaneous rendering of the Hebrew verse’.32 But this, apart from the passages that are explicitly labelled as targumic quotes, is not only true for quotes that are embedded in a midrashic unit, but even more for lexical alternatives (e) and targumic variants (g). »  No clear distinction is drawn between lexical alternatives (e), unique targums (f) and targumic variants (g). »  Goshen-Gottstein’s introduction fails to define more precisely what is meant by a quotation and to describe methodologically how to discern between explicit or marked quotations on the one hand and allusions, verbal echoes or reminiscences on the other.

B. How to Define a Quotation In this study we have examined anew the many Aramaic quotations of the Prophets in various sources that are at variance with the text of Targum Jonathan, trying to clarify the unresolved question of the possible existence of a Palestinian Targum to the Prophets, as formulated by Zunz. We will start with some methodological considerations regarding the question of how to define a quotation, before concentrating on the characteristics of the quotations themselves and on the peculiarities of the sources in which they are found. From a methodological point of view, we might first ask ourselves how to recognize a quotation. What exactly is a quotation? It is not so easy to define and select ‘quotations’.33 Some of them are clearly visible, 32  Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, I.XVII. 33  We leave aside here the so-called ‘quoted direct speech’, which is a subcategory of the broader term ‘quotation’. See for its use and function in the Hebrew Bible, G.W. Savran, Telling and Retelling: Quotation in Biblical Narrative, Bloomington & Indianapolis 1988.

targumic quotations

143

others are not. There are direct quotations that are indicated by the use of introductory formulas, but also quotations that look like free renderings of biblical texts or allusions to certain biblical passages.34 Or a quotation is well indicated, but not very precise. In this respect targumic citations display the features that are common to all literary quotations: paraphrase of the quoted text, alterations in sense and reference, and combined citations.35 In particular the implicit quotations, lacking introductory formulas or other identifying marks, present a major problem of definition. In older studies on quotations in different sources, this problem was often disregarded, but recently some studies have dealt with it methodologically. Building on the studies of Robert Gordis36 and Michael Fox37 on quotations in wisdom literature, Julie Hughes defines a quotation as ‘a phrase which is marked, explicitly or implicitly, as referring to the words of a speaker who is not the implied speaker of the composition’.38 A phrase may be marked by an introductory formula or by the use of explicit verbs of speaking or thinking.39 Verba dicendi may also be implied, only recognizable for the reader by a change in perspective (grammatical number or person). In this case, we might

34  It is widely recognised that it is very difficult to differentiate between formula quotations and allusions, and to identify the latter; see with regard to the NT, M. Wilcox, ‘Text form’, in: D.A. Carson & H.G.M. Williamson (eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, Cambridge 1988, 193–204, esp. 193–94. 35  See E.E. Ellis, ‘Biblical Interpretation in the New Testament Church’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 692; cf. M. Fishbane, ‘Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 339–99, esp. 347–55 (‘Use of citations and citation-formula’); D. Dimant, ‘Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 379–419, esp. 385ff., 401ff.; J.A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament’, NTS 7 (1960–61), 297–333; B.M. Metzger, ‘The Formulas Introducing Quotations of Scripture in the NT and the Mishna’, JBL 70 (1951), 297–307; R. Gordis, ‘Quotations as a Literary Usage in Biblical, Oriental and Rabbinic Literature’, HUCA 22 (1949), 157–219; G. Stanton, ‘Matthew’, in: Carson & Williamson, It is Written, 205–19. 36  See R. Gordis, ‘Quotations in Wisdom Literature’, JQR 30 (1939/40), 23–47; Idem, ‘Quotations as a Literary Usage’, 157–219. 37  M.V. Fox, ‘The Identification of Quotations in Biblical Literature’, ZAW 92 (1980), 416–31. 38  J.A. Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot, Leiden & Boston 2006, 44. 39  Fox, ‘Identification’, 421.

144

chapter three

call such phrases with Joseph Fitzmyer ‘virtual quotations’.40 With regard to allusions, Hughes comes to a sort of working definition and describes it as ‘a reference which is recognised by a reader as referring to a textual source, knowledge of which contributes to the meaning for the reader’.41 The reader may recognize an allusion by seeking to identify verbal similarity to a (scriptural) passage, or correspondence of a group of words with a particular scriptural saying or expression. Bearing in mind the above definitions, which were used by Hughes for the study of the Qumran Hodayot, we now turn to the targum quotations that can be found in different sources. We may differentiate basically between the following types.

1. Explicit quotations In the sources under discussion a great variety in the form of citations and the use of citation-formulas is visible. The manner in which a targumic passage is quoted or alluded to is to a great extent related to the source in which it is employed. We will discuss the characteristics of the sources later on, but first we will attempt to define more precisely what can be described as a quotation. The easiest recognizable type of quoting a passage is that of the explicit quotation, that is, quotations that are marked by an introductory formula. They are mostly cited as an exegetical motive to support and justify the explanation given.42

1.1. Quotations that are indicated by an introductory formula and refer to a specific biblical verse or part of a verse Within this type one might distinguish, as Goshen-Gottstein does,43 between (a) introductions with express indication of the provenance of the quotation, such as ‘the Targum says …’, ‘in the Palestinian Targum it is rendered …’ and the like, and (b) formulas that are used to give authority to the reasoning in the discourse: ‘as it is written’, ‘as it is said’, etc. Some of the latter formulas are well known from classical rabbinic and Christian sources, others are unique for targumic 40  Fitzmyer, ‘Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations’, 304. 41  Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 52. 42  See for the development of the ‘exegetical motive’ from biblical times onward (cf. the formula ‘as it is written in the law of Moses’ in Josh 8:31 and elsewhere), D. Weiss Halivni, Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara: The Jewish Predilection for Justified Law, Cambridge (Mass.) & London 1986, 7–17, esp. 14–15. 43  Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, I.XV–XVI.

targumic quotations

145

quotations. We find in the Palestinian Targums, for instance, expressions such as ‘as it is written explicitly’, or ‘as Scripture explains and says’ (sometimes with an addition as ‘in the book of the Torah of the Lord …’) and other variants. Quotations in the Targums on the Writings are introduced by expressions like ‘for thus it is written and explained’. In these sources, as well as in the Tosefta Targums we also encounter the so-called ‘fulfilment-formulas’,44 such as ‘to fulfil the Scripture that says’, and ‘in you is fulfilled the verse that is written in the sacred Prophets’. In addition, we may note that there are other subtypes of these formula quotations that are characteristic of certain sources. As a third subtype (c), mainly occurring in talmudic sources, we may define formulas that indicate that the targum is an authoritative source for the interpretation of a biblical verse, or for the explanation of a mishnah,45 such as ‘and we translate …’, ‘as Rav Joseph translates’, ‘Rav Joseph said: Were it not for the targum of this verse, we should not know what it means …’, etc. A fourth subtype (d), finally, is that of formulas used in oaths or incantations, such as ‘I swear you in the name of He who …’.46 Although the proposed distinction, as suggested by GoshenGottstein, is useful, it might blur the fact that both types of formula quotations may comprise full and explicit quotations of scriptural verses on the one hand (in some cases showing smaller grammatical changes or additions) as well as free renderings of biblical texts, allusions, or combinations of scriptural passages on the other. This latter group of marked quotations, which does not refer to one specific biblical verse, is discussed next.

1.2. Quotations indicated by an introductory formula, that are not followed by a specific biblical verse but by an allusion to a certain biblical passage, a free rendering of biblical texts, or a combination of several scriptural passages The following are a few examples. In the Palestinian Targums on Num 44  Pace Ellis, ‘Biblical Interpretation’, 693 n. 11 (‘It apparently does not occur at Qumran or in rabbinic writings …’). See Fitzmyer, ‘Explicit Quotations’, 13–14. 45  See b.RhS 22b (2 Sam 5:21); b.Yoma 32b (Jer 46:20); b.BQ 3b (Obad 6), b.Pes 66a (Isa 19:18). The view of Z. Safrai (‘The Targum as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, in: S. Safrai et al., The Literature of the Sages. Second Part, Assen 2006, 252), that ‘nowhere in targumic literature … targum [is] ever used as a source of authority in halakhic argument or … in an aggadic discussion …’ seems questionable. 46  Cf. the quotation of Isa 40:12 on a Cairo Genizah amulet below, p. 193.

146

chapter three

11:2647 a quotation is found which is regularly introduced, but is then followed, first by an allusion to the coming of Gog and Magog and their armies, as described in Ezek 38:1ff.,48 and secondly, by a free rendering of Ezek 39:9–10. In Targum Neofiti the text runs as follows: The two of them [Eldad and Medad] prophesied together and said: ‘At the very end of days Gog and Magog49 will march on Jerusalem, and they will fall into the hands of King Messiah; and for seven full years the Israelites will light fires from their weapons, and [during all that time] they will not need to go to the forest.’50

Another example is taken from quotations in the Writings. In the Targum to Cant 1:1, referring to the tradition of the Ten Songs,51 Isa 30:29 is quoted: The tenth song will be recited by the children of the exile when they depart from their exile, as is clearly written by Isaiah the prophet: ‘You shall have this song of joy, as on the night when the festival of Passover is sanctified, and [you shall have] gladness of heart, like the people who go to appear before the Lord three times in the year with all kinds of musical instruments and [with] the sound of the pipe, [who go] to ascend into the Mountain of the Lord, and to worship before the Mighty One of Israel.’

The quotation of Isa 30:29 has some elements in common with Targum Jonathan (the Mighty One of Israel as a rendering of ‘the Rock of Israel’; the references to the feast of Passover — not mentioned explicitly in Targum Jonathan but presupposed), but unlike the official targum it is much more a paraphrase, a free rendering of the Isaiah text, which is re-interpreted as ‘an eschatological marching song’ (Loewe).52 47  A. Shinan, ‫אגדתם של מתורגמנים‬, 2 Vols, Jerusalem 1979, II.220ff., 227ff.; H. Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim: The Resurrection of the Dead in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Parallel Traditions in Classical Rabbinic Literature, Tübingen 1996, 235–42. The quotation is not included in Goshen-Gottstein’s ‫שקיעים‬. 48  The biblical text speaks of Gog of the land of Magog (Ezek 38:1), coming from the farthest north with ‘a vast horde, a mighty army’ (38:15). 49  FTP / FTV add: and their armies. 50  FTP / FTV add: nor will they cut down a tree. In Neofiti one should read ‫לחורשא‬, to the forest’, instead of ‫וחרש‬, ‘and the carpenter’, as in FTP and FTV. The translation of Díez Macho (Neophyti 1 4:108, ‘y los carpinteros no tendrán que salir (por leños)’, does not fit Ezek 39:10 (‘They will not need to take wood out of the field or cut down any trees in the woods’). See Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 237 n. 40. 51  See below, p. 179. 52  See R. Loewe, ‘Apologetic Motifs in the Targum to the Song of Songs’, in: A. Altmann (ed.), Biblical Motifs, Cambridge (Mass.) 1966, 159–96, at 169.

targumic quotations

147

Sometimes a quotation is not very precise. In the lengthy introduction to Num 16:1 in ms Paris of the Fragment Targum one finds as a quotation, preceded by the formula ‘a Bat Kol came forth and said …’, the sentence ‘Just as the dogs have eaten the blood of Naboth, so shall the dogs eat the blood of Ahab in the plot of ground of Jezreel’. This looks like a rendering of 1 Kgs 21:19, but in the biblical text the addition ‘in the plot of ground of Jezreel’ is not found. In other passages it is only connected with the predicted death of Ahab’s wife Jezebel, and not of Ahab himself. The use of the verb √‫אכל‬, too, indicates that the writer had in mind the Jezebel texts, for it is used in the Hebrew of 1 Kgs 21:23, 2 Kgs 9:10, 36–37 and in Targum Jonathan’s translation of these verses. So this imprecise rendition looks like a memorised citation in which several scriptural passages are combined.

2. Implicit quotations A second type of quotation indicates those that are not introduced formally. Since they are not marked as quotes, it has to be established in each case whether these embedded quotes are really Targum quotes or ‘on-the-spot spontaneous rendering of the Hebrew verse’.53 Such quotations, consisting either of complete verses or of some words, may be recognized by their specific wording, which refers the reader to a known source, by comparison with the ad locum targum, or by the context in which they are employed.

2.1. Quotations without introductory formula that refer to a specific biblical verse or part of a verse As in the foregoing, these are sometimes literal renderings of the Hebrew text, or almost literal, with minor changes or additions. In MidrSam 5:10 (31a), to give one example, an Aramaic rendering is given of 1 Sam 2:4, within an enumeration of scriptural proof texts, ‫ איתברת קשתהון דגיבריא ותשישיא אחסינו חיליהון‬,´‫קשת גבורים חתים וגו‬ ‘The bows of the mighty are broken’, etc. — The bows of the mighty are broken, and the weak54 strengthen their armies.55

53  Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, I.XVII. 54  See M. Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Ramat-Gan 1990, 593. 55  Cf. Tg Amos 2:14 (‫)לא יחסין חיליה‬. The reading of JPS here is: ‘And the faltering are girded with strength’.

148

chapter three

The quoted verse is a fairly literal translation of the Hebrew verse, whereas Targum Jonathan has a free rendering, referring to the struggle between the mighty kingdom of the Seleucids (‘the Greek heroes’) and the weak Maccabees (‘the House of the Hasmonean’):56 ‫על מלכות יון אתנביאת ואמרת קשתת דגברי יונאי יתברו ודבית חשמנאי דהוו‬ ‫חלשין יתעבדן להון גבורן‬ Concerning the kingdom of Greece she [Hannah] prophesied and said: ‘The bows of the mighty Greek will be broken and those of the house of the Hasmonean who are weak, mighty deeds will be done for them’.

There are, however, also other types.

2.2. Quotations without introductory formula that seem to allude to well-known texts, current sayings, or that are based on stereotype rendering As an example we can take the quotation which is found in Targum PsJon on Deut 31:16. In this verse Moses’ death is announced by God with the words: ‘You are soon to lie with your fathers’. To this statement the meturgeman adds: ‘and your soul shall be stored in the storehouse of eternal life with your fathers’, alluding to 1 Sam 25:29, a key reference to the various conceptions of the soul’s dwelling-place after death in rabbinic sources. PsJon’s interpretation of 1 Sam 25:29 is close to that of Targum Jonathan (which reads ‘may the soul of my lord be stored in the storehouse of eternal life before the Lord your God’), but it might also be explained as a current Aramaic expression denoting the fate of the soul in the future life.57 In addition, Targum Jonathan on Jer 32:18 clarifies the expression ‘but repay the guilt of parents into the laps of their children after them’ by adding ‘when they go on to commit sin after them’. This addition is also found in Onkelos, Neofiti and FTP on Exod 20:5, with the addition of ‘the sons’ and ‘their fathers’: ‘when the sons go on to commit sins after their fathers’.58 The addition of Targum Jonathan may be seen as a stereotype rendering of the phrase ‘repay the guilt of parents’, and 56  See E. van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, Leiden 2002, 210; GoshenGottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, II.60. 57  See on the interpretation of 1 Sam 25:29 and its connection with rabbinic conceptions, Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 209. The formulation chosen in PsJon to denote the place where Moses’ soul resides corresponds most closely with that found in SifreDeut 305 (326–37). 58  These additions also occur in ms Or. 1474 of TJ, see the apparatus of the edition of Sperber.

targumic quotations

149

not so much as a quotation. Such stereotyped phrases may have been brought about by the current theological views of the meturgeman. The text of Jer 32:18 in itself is a ‘quotation’ and elaboration of Exod 20:5.59

2.3. Quotations without introductory formula that consist of free renderings of biblical texts The free quotation in PsJon Exod 12:37 and Num 14:14 of Isa 40:4 is part of a long midrash on the seven clouds:60 The children of Israel set out from Pelusium to Succoth, a hundred thirty miles. There they were covered by the seven clouds of glory, four on their four sides, and one above them, so that rain or hail would not fall on them, and so that they would not be burned by the burning heat of the sun; and one beneath them so that thorns and serpents and scorpions would not harm them; and one went before them to level the valleys and to lower the mountains, to prepare a dwelling place for them …

This targumic midrash seems to be a shortening of the tradition mentioned in Mekhilta de R. Ishmael, Beshala, petita (Horovitz-Rabin, 81) where our verse is fully quoted in Hebrew.61 The PsJon text merely alludes to what is said in Isa 40:4 (‘Let every valley be raised, / Every hill and mountain made low’), adapting the text to its context, the midrash of the seven clouds.

2.4. Quotations without introductory formula that are based on analogy of words or expressions in the Hebrew text TJ Isa 41:25 (‘I will bring a king openly who is strong as the north wind, and he will come as the going forth of the sun in its might from the east …’) seems to quote the expression ‘as the going forth of the sun in its might’ in TJ Judg 5:31, which is in itself a literal Aramaic rendering of the Hebrew phrase. The link between both verses is the expression ‘the going forth / the rising of the sun’: 59  See P. Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, New Haven 1927, 105; L. Smolar & M. Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, New York & Baltimore 1983, 191 n. 403. See also PTs on Exod 34:7, Num 14:18, PsJon Lev 26:39. 60  See W.S. Towner, The Rabbinic ‘Enumeration’ of Scriptural Examples: A Study of a Rabbinic Pattern of Discourse with Special Reference to Mekhilta d’ R. Ishmael, Leiden 1973, 164–68. 61  One may ask whether PsJon’s quotation is an Aramaic rendering of ‫כל הנמוך‬ ‫ מגביהו וכל הגבוה משפילו‬which precedes the quotation of Isa 40:4 in the Mekhilta (influence of Ezek 21:31 ‫)?השפלה הגבה והגבה השפיל‬. See also MRS Beshala 13 (edn Epstein-Melamed, 47); ‫מגביה להם את השפל ומשפיל להם את הגבוה‬, SifreNum 83 (edn Horovitz, 79; ‫)הגבוה מנמיכו והנמוך מגביהו‬, Tan Beshala 3 (219), Tg Cant 2:6.

150

chapter three MT Judg 5:31 MT Isa 41:25

‫כצאת השמש בגברתו‬ ‫ממזרח שמש‬

TJ TJ

‫ שמשא בגבורתיה‬62 ‫כמפק‬ ‫כמפק שמשא בגבורתיה‬

Although it is open to debate, it is possible here to speak of quotations,63 bearing in mind the definition of Hughes given above. The expression used in TJ Isa 41:25 may be recognised by the reader as referring to a specific textual source and knowing this source contributes to the meaning for the reader. Such a way of ‘quoting’ may be the result of editorial activity, bringing in line two analogous passages.64 A similar case is the quotation of TJ 2 Kgs 19:3 (= Isa 37:3) in the Song of David (2 Sam 22:5) as well as in TJ Hos 13:13. The point of connection is the word ‫משבר‬, ‘birthstool’, in all of these passages: MT 2 Sam 22:5

‫כי אפפני משברי ֿ מות‬

MT Hos 13:13

‫כי עת לא יעמד במשבר‬ ‫בנים‬

MT 2 Kgs 19:3, Isa 37:3

‫כי באו בנים עד‬ ‫משבר‬ ‫וכח אין ללדה‬

TJ

‫ארי אקיפתני עקא‬ ‫כאתא דיתבא מתברא‬ ‫וחיל לית לה למילד‬ TJ ‫כען איתי עלוהי עקא‬ ‫כאיתא דיתבא על מתברא‬ ‫וחיל לית לה למילד‬ TJ ‫ארי אקפתני עקא‬ ‫כאתא דיתבא על מתברא‬ ‫וחיל לית לה למילד‬

The quotations in TJ 2 Sam 22:5 and in TJ Hos 13:13 (‘[Now I shall bring upon him] distress like that of a woman who sits on the birthstool, but she has no strength to give birth’) for the greater part correspond to the text of TJ 2 Kgs 19:3 / Isa 37:3 (‘[… for] distress [has encompassed us] like a woman who sits on the birthstool, but she has no strength to 62  In a number of mss ‫במיפק‬. See Smelik, Targum of Judges, 481 n. 865. 63  Cf. Smelik, Targum of Judges, 483 n. 886 ‘Surprisingly, TJon Isa 41:25 appears to quote TJon 5:31 …’. 64  See on the interpretation of Tg Judg 5:31, W.F. Smelik, ‘On Mystical Transformation of the Righteous into Light in Judaism’, JSJ 26 (1995), 122–44, at 133–35; Smelik, Targum of Judges, 480–85; D.J. Harrington and A.J. Saldarini (Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets, Edinburgh 1987, 69) incorrectly translate ‘and may his mercies be ready to give light with the light of his splendor 343 times over, like the rising of the sun in its might’. One should not read ‘mercies’ but ‘friends’, ‘lovers’, see Sokoloff, JPA, 521. On the number 343 (7 x 7 x 7), see Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 125; Smelik, Targum of Judges, 482. Cf. TJ Isa 30:26, 2 Sam 23:4. We have to remark here that in TJ Judg the expression emphasizes the transformation into light of the righteous ‘lovers’, but in Isa 41:25 the strength of the king that will arise.

targumic quotations

151

give birth’).65 As in the foregoing example, the quotation is based on the analogy of words in the Hebrew text.66 As a third example we may refer to the ‘quotation’ of Micah 5:4 in the Tosefta Targum of Zech 4:2. It speaks of the vision of a company of scholars or teachers, with king David at its head: And I was looking a second time and behold, a company of scholars (teachers) was coming: King David came at the head of seven good leaders and eight princes, as is written of him …

The names of these leaders and princes are mentioned. Obviously, it is a reference to the ‘seven shepherds and eight leaders of men’ mentioned in Micah 5:4. In Targum Jonathan these shepherds and leaders are identified with ‘kings’ (‫ )מלכין‬and ‘[great] officers of men’ (‫רברבי‬ ‫)אנשא‬. The Tosefta Targum seems to presuppose this rendering, but unlike Targum Jonathan it reads ‘good leaders’ (‫ )פרנסין טבין‬and ‘princes’ (‫)נסיכין‬:67 MT Micah 5:4

TJ Micah 5:4

TT Zech 4:2

‫שבעה רעים ושמנה‬ ‫נסיכי אדם‬

‫שבעה מלכין ותמניא‬ ‫רברבי אנשא‬

‫שבעה פרנסין טבין‬ ‫ותמניא נסיכין‬

Connected with this type of citation is the phenomenon found in some of the Targums on the Minor Prophets that a certain targum is made up of lines borrowed from other targumic passages, and therefore ‘represents an interesting pastiche, or cento, of targumic quotations’.68 A fine example is the Tosefta Targum on Zech 2:14–15 that comprises a 65  The targums on 2 Kgs 19:3 and Isa 37:3 are in itself an attempt to make sense of the difficult Hebrew text, which can be rendered as follows: ‘for the sons have reached the birthstool, but there is no strength to give birth’. The Aramaic word ‫ מתבר‬is used in Onkelos, PsJon (sg.) and Neofiti (pl.) on Exod 1:16 for the rendering of Hebrew ‫‘ אבניים‬stones’ (> ‘birthstool’), see Sokoloff, JPA, 336. 66  The expression is also found in Tg Psalms 18:5. See on the composition of TJ 2 Sam 22 as a poem, the studies of Van Staalduine-Sulman, Targum of Samuel, 634– 64 and of A.S. Rodrigues Pereira, Studies in Aramaic Poetry (c. 100 B.C.E. – c. 600 C.E.), Assen 1997, 27–57 and especially 33–35, discussing the possible reasons of the meturgeman to include the quotation from Isa 37:3 / 2 Kgs 19:3. 67  See on the interpretation of this tradition, Smelik, Targum of Judges, 140; Smelik incorrectly translates ‘one for each of them’ (139), instead of ‘as it is written of him’. See also R. Kasher, ‫ ביאר ותרגום לעברית‬,‫ ההדיר‬:‫תוספתות תרגום לנביאים‬, Jerusalem 1996, 219ff [144(‫)א‬:62–64]; Idem, ‘‫’התוספתות התרגומיות להפטרת שבת–חנוכה‬, Tarbiz 45 (1975/76), 27–54, at 43–44; Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, II.78; Smelik, ‘Mystical Transformation’, 139. 68  Gordon, Studies, 96.

152

chapter three

miscellany of quotations taken from TJ Ezek 43 and TJ Zeph 3. They have been the subject of a number of studies69 and therefore we do not need to discuss them further here.

3. Philological interpretation of biblical words In his study of targumic units of quotation Goshen-Gottstein includes what he labels ‘alternative renderings, either of lexical or of exegetical interest’.70 In our view, however, these lexical alternatives do not belong to the category of citations, since they do not refer to a specific textual source. In most of the cases, it is impossible to decide whether these Aramaic exegetical interpretations of certain Hebrew words are related to Targum Jonathan or to an unknown Palestinian Targum of the Prophets. In Josh 7:21, for instance, mention is made of ‘a fine Shinar mantle’ among the spoil of the captured city Jericho. In Targum Jonathan this is rendered as ‘a beautiful Babylonian mantle’ (‫)אצטלאי בבלאי חד שפיר‬. The word ‫אצטלא‬, from the Greek στολή,71 also occurs in b.Sanh 44a, but there the interpretation of Rav is ‘a silk mantle’ (‫)איצטלא דמילתא‬72 to which another explanation is added, that of Rav Samuel who interprets it as ‘a cloak dyed with alum’ (‫)סרבלא דצריפא‬73. Yet another interpretation is offered by R. anina b. Isaac in GenR 85:14 (Th-A 1050), who thinks that it concerns ‘a purple Babylonian robe’ (‫פורפירה‬ ‫)בבליא‬.74 It cannot be proved that the exegesis of Rav is dependent on Targum Jonathan or vice versa, and therefore we do not find here a quotation, but different opinions on the meaning of a Hebrew word. In Midrash Lamentations Rabbah, petita 24, Rabbi Eleazar ben Yaakov gives a threefold explanation of the word ‫‘( תשואה‬uproar’), namely ‘troubles, noises, and darkness’. For the second Aramaic 69  P. Grelot, ‘Une tosephta targoumique sur Zacharie, II, 14–15’, RB 73 (1966), 97– 211; Kasher, ‘‫’התוספתות התרגומיות‬, 27–45; Gordon, Studies, 96ff. 70  Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, I.XX. 71  See M. Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods, Ramat-Gan 2002, 125. 72  For this expression, see also b.Yev 66b, b.MQ 28b, b.BM 17a. 73  See Sokoloff, JBA, 829, who translates ‘a clean / bleached sarbela-garment’. 74  According to Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, II.118–19, the Bavli renderings remain close to the Babylonian idiom, and Genesis Rabba to Palestinian idiom. But the word ‫ אצטלא‬also occurs in Palestinian sources, see S. Krauss, Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, 2 Vols, Berlin 1898–99, repr. Hildesheim 1964, II.120. See PsJon Gen 45:22, Deut 34:6, 22:12, 22:3, Gen 3:7; TO Gen 25:2.

targumic quotations

153

explanation (‫מרגשות‬, ‘noises’), he refers to Isa 22:2. As in the foregoing case, it is possible that Eleazar ben Yaakov’s exegesis is here dependent on Targum Jonathan, which reads ‘because of the noise (‫)אתרגושא‬ with which the joyful town is filled …’, but this cannot be proven.75 The fact that the meturgemanim, like the rabbis, were sensitive to the multiplicity of meaning of certain words,76 may illustrate that the targums were used for educational purposes.77

C. Exchangeability of Aramaic and Hebrew Quotations Although we are studying here the Aramaic scriptural quotations, we have to be aware of the fact that especially in the Palestinian Targums a quotation may appear in Aramaic in one of the targums but in Hebrew in another. Often a quotation is in Hebrew, or it starts in Hebrew and ends in Aramaic, and vice versa. So, for example, in the Palestinian Targums on Gen 30:22, a text which is known as the Midrash of the Four Keys,78 the quotations of proof texts are in Aramaic in Targum Neofiti,79 but in the Fragment Targums partly in Hebrew partly in Aramaic. In ms Vatican of the Fragment Targum the quotation of Deut 28:12 is in Aramaic,80 in ms Paris in Hebrew. The quotations of Ps 145:16 and Ezek 37:12 that follow are in Hebrew in both recensions of 75  For similar examples, see Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, I.XX, who points to the threefold Aramaic interpretation of the Hebrew ‫ תאלמנה‬in Ps 31:19 in GenR 1:5 (Th-A 2); see also the fourfold interpretation of the word ‫( יחליץ‬Isa 58:11) in LevR 34:15 (M 811). 76  See for the rabbi’s sensitivity for the philological aspects of Hebrew and Aramaic language, R. Kasher, ‘Scripture in Rabbinic Literature’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 555–56. See also Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, I.XX–XXI and Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations’, 227. 77  See also the quotations of Josh 5:2–3 in GenR 31:8 (Th-A 281), Josh 7:20 in y.Sanh 6:3 (23b), Judg 3:20, 22–23 in GenR 99:3 (Th-A 1275); 2 Kgs 17:30–31 in y.AZ 3:2 (42cd), b.Sanh 63b; Isa 2:4 in y.Shab 6:4 (8b); Isa 3:18–23 in y.Shab 6:1 (8a); Isa 41:19 in GenR 15:1 (Th-A 136), b.RhS 23a, y.Ket 7:9, TanB Terumah 9; Amos 6:2, 4 in NumR 10:3. 78  See the study of this passage in Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 136–63. 79  The quotation of Deut 28:12 in the Midrash of the Four Keys differs from Onkelos; Neofiti’s ad locum targum is closer to the text of Onkelos (but in both cases it reads ‫ לכון‬instead of ‫ לך‬in Onkelos; so also PsJon which however has further embellishments of the text; see Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 140, 143–44). The quotation from Ps 145:16 is not identical to the text of P. de Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice, Göttingen 1873, repr. Osnabrück 1967, 83. The quotation from Ezek 37:12 is, apart from some orthographic variants, that of Targum Jonathan. 80  The Aramaic is identical to the text of Onkelos. In ms Nürnberg almost the whole verse is rendered in Hebrew.

154

chapter three

the Fragment Targum.81 The ad locum text (Gen 30:22), however, is in Aramaic in all of the sources. Another example is taken from the Palestinian Targums on Gen 35:9.82 There we find Hebrew quotations of Gen 1:28, 18:1 and of the source text in ms Paris of the Fragment Targums, but in the marginal readings of Neofiti and in ms Vatican of the Fragment Targums these quotes are in Aramaic.83 In the Cairo Genizah Fragments these citations are first in Hebrew and then in Aramaic.84 These examples are taken from the midrashic expansions that are connected with the beginning of a certain parashah and we might ask whether such quotations in Hebrew are intended to preserve the association with the sources from which they are drawn, to ensure that the reader will not miss the desired connotation. But certainly this phenomenon deserves further study and discussion. Sometimes a Hebrew quotation is followed by an Aramaic explanation of several words in the quoted text. In Tg Esther Sheni 2:7 first a Hebrew quotation is given of Isa 55:13, with the introductory formula: ‘concerning whom the prophet Isaiah prophesied, saying …’. This Hebrew quotation is followed by an Aramaic explanation of the Hebrew words ‫( נעצוץ‬Aramaic ‫‘ הגתא‬thorn’) and ‫( סרפד‬Aramaic ‫ארבניא‬ ‘nettle’), and closed with an Aramaic translation of Isa 55:13a.85 Tg Esther also offers various instances of quotations that are in Hebrew in one of the manuscripts, but in Aramaic in another. An interesting example is the quotation of Isa 65:24 in Tg Esther Sheni 1:1. In 81  For the differences with the Masoretic text, see Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 145. 82  See on this midrash the Dutch study of T. Jansma, Twee Haggada’s uit de Palestijnse Targum van de Pentateuch, Leiden 1950. See also M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, Oxford 1967, who discusses its relation to a Kerova of Yannai on Gen 35:5, and C.H. Perrot, La Lecture de la Bible dans la Synagogue: Les anciennes lectures palestiniennes du Shabbat et des fêtes, Hildesheim 1973, 199–204. 83  In Neofiti the scriptural proof texts are left out. The quotation in FTV of Gen 18:1 is not identical to the ad locum targum. Here (Gen 35:9) we read ‘in the Plain of the Vision’, but in Gen 18:1 it reads ‘in the Plain of azoza’. 84  See M.L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 Vols, Cincinnati 1986, I.73; cf. Shinan, ‫אגדתם של מתורגמנים‬, II.235. 85  See also the Hebrew quotation of the first three words of Jer 20:7 in Tg Esther Sheni 1:2. Likewise, the first words of Haggai 2:8 are cited in Hebrew, followed by the longer Aramaic rendition. See for these examples, Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, I.XVI. In y.Sanh 2:3 (20b) and MidrSam 23 (58a) we have an example of a Hebrew quotation (1 Sam 25:6) with an Aramaic explanation of one single word (Hebrew ‫ לחי‬being explained as ‫)לקיומא‬.

targumic quotations

155

ms Or. 2375 of the British Museum that is used in Sperber’s edition (IVa.171) the quotation is given in Hebrew, but in ms Sassoon 282 the same citation is in Aramaic.86

D. Sources: Characterisation of the Material in the Different Sources In the following section we will describe and make an attempt at characterising the material in the various sources. We will analyse quotations that are found in the following sources: Palestinian Targums (1), Targum Esther Sheni and Targum Canticles (2), Tosefta Targums (3), magical texts (4), Babylonian Talmud (5), Palestinian Talmud (6), and Midrashim (7).

1. Quotations from the Prophets in the Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch 1.1. Survey In the Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch, Targum Neofiti, the Fragment Targums, the Cairo Genizah Fragments and Pseudo-Jonathan, there are a few quotations of verses in the Prophets or of allusions to scriptural passages in them. Several of these quotations are found in midrashic passages that introduce one of the pericopes of the triennial Palestinian or the annual Babylonian reading cycle, or that are connected with the festal readings.87 Not all of them are included in Goshen-Gottstein’s collection of material. In our view there are ten direct quotations, that is, quotations with an introductory formula that explicitly refer to a specific biblical verse, and six allusions to scriptural passages, as shown in the survey below.88

86  See Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, II.72. 87  At the beginning of Tishri the story of Rachel (Gen 30:22ff.) was read; the reading of Exod 13:17 is connected with the seventh day of Passover; the reading of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:5) with Shavuot. 88  Leaving aside the direct speech quoted, as for instance in PsJon Gen 40:12 quoting Gen 40:11 with the formula ‫‘ ודי אמרת‬and as regards what you said …’; see Shinan, ‫אגדתם של מתורגמנים‬, II.X.

156

chapter three

Direct quotations (with introductory formula) Tg1  Kgs 18:37 Tg 1 Kgs 21:19, 23 (2 Kgs 9:10, 36–37) Tg 1 Kgs 22:28 ( = Tg 2 Chron 18:27) Tg Isa 51:6 Tg Isa 63:2–3 Tg Jer 17:5,7 Tg Ezek 18:13 Tg Ezek 37:12(13) Tg Ezek 39:9–10 Tg Obad 18

FTP, intr. to parashat Kora, Num 16:1 FTP, intr. to parashat Kora, Num 16:1 FTP, intr. to parashat Kora, Num 16:1 PTs Deut 32:1 PTs Gen 49:11 PTs Gen 40:23 CGF (TT) / FTP Exod 13:17 PTs Gen 30:22 PTs Num 11:26 PsJon Gen 30:25

GG 89, ‫שקיעים‬, 2:19–21

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, 2:21 GG, ‫שקיעים‬, 2:25f. GG, ‫שקיעים‬, 2:27f.

Allusions to prophetic passages or to a conflation of texts Tg 1 Sam 25:29 Tg Isa 1:2 Tg Isa 40:4 Tg Isa 65:17 Tg Jer 17:8 Tg Jer 32:18

PsJon Deut 31:16 PTs Deut 32:1 PsJon Exod 12:37, Num 14:14 PTs Deut 32:1 PTs Num 21:34 PTs Exod 20:5

Before comparing these targumic fragments with the official Targum Jonathan, we will make some general observations.

1.2. Direct quotations with introductory formulas We have already described above several types of quotation. In the Palestinian Targums most of these types can be found. Our main division was between explicit and implicit quotations, and we have already given several examples taken from the Palestinian Targums to illustrate these two types and the subtypes that can be derived from them. The explicit or direct quotations are characterised by the use of introductory formulas. In the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch there are a great number of such introductory formulas. We may differentiate between: 89  M. Goshen Gottstein, ‫שקיעים מתרגומי המקרא הארמיים‬, 2 Vols, Ramat-Gan 1983–1989.

targumic quotations

157

»» formulas that make use of the expression ‘as it is written explicitly,’ or ‘as Scripture explains and says,’ and variants; sometimes with a specification such as ‘in the book of the Torah of the Lord’ »» references to biblical characters, such as Moses, or Isaiah, or Eldad and Medad »» references to a heavenly voice (Bat Kol) or to the Holy Spirit »» rather vague references, often in the middle of a discourse, such as ‘and the Lord said’, ‘then the Lord said …’. List of introductory formulas Aramaic

Translation

‫דכ(י)ן כתבה מפרש ואמר‬ )… ‫(וכן … כתבא‬ ‫וכן כתבא ומפרש ואמר‬ )‫(דכן … מפרש‬

as it is written explicitly, and it says … and thus Scripture explains and says …

Source

PTs Gen 35:9 Neof Gen 30:22 / FTP Exod 12:2

CGF Gen 35:9 ‫ בכין כדין‬for this reason … ‫ בגין כדין כתבא מפרש‬for this reason does Scrip- Neof [M] Gen 35:9 ‫ ואמר‬ture explain and say … ‫ למקימה מה דאמר כתבא‬to fulfil what Scripture )‫ (למקיימא מא … כתבה‬says … ‫ דכן הוא מפרש ואמר‬for so it is explicit [in Scripture] and it says … )… ‫ וכן‬/… ‫(דהכן‬  

Neof / FTV Exod 12:42 FTP Exod 15:18 FTP Gen 30:22 FTP / FTV Deut 32:1 FTP / Neof Deut 32:3

‫ כדן כתיב ומפרש בספר‬therefore it is written ‫ אורייתה דייי‬and specified in the book of the Torah of the Lord …

Neof Lev 22:28 90

‫ ולא אדכר כתבא דכתיב‬and he [Joseph] did not ‫ ומפרש‬remember the Scripture that is explicitly written … ‫ ולא אדכר כתבא דכתיב‬and he did not remem‫ בספר אוריתא דייי‬ber the Scripture, for it ‫ דמתילא בםפר קרביא‬is written in the book of the Torah of the Lord, which is like the book of Wars

FTP / FTV Gen 40:23

Neof Gen 40:23

90  Cf. Neof Num 21:14: ‫בגין כדן כתיב ומפרש בספר אורייתה דיי דמתילה בספר קרבייה‬.

158

chapter three Aramaic

Translation

‫ הא בכין פרש משה‬behold, Moses, the ‫ נבייה דיי ואמר עמי בני‬prophet of the Lord, … ‫ ישראל‬then explained and said: My people, children of Israel …

Source

Neof [M] Lev 22:28 FTV / FTP (in the same way, with variants)

FTP Num 16:1 ‫ משה איתנבי … ואמר‬Moses prophesied … and said … ‫ אליה אתנבי … ואמר‬Elijah prophesied … and said … ‫ מיכיהו בר ימלא אתנבי‬Michayhu son of Yimlah … ‫ ואמר‬prophesied … and said … ‫ וכן ישעיהו נבייא פירש‬and thus did Isaiah the … ‫ ואמר‬prophet explain and say …

Neof Deut 32:1

‫ אמר יעקב ברוח‬Jacob said in the Holy … ‫ קודשא‬Spirit …

PsJon Gen 30:25

‫ נפקת ברת קלא‬a Bat Kol came forth, … ‫ ואמרת‬and said …

FTP Num 16:1

‫ ותרויהון מתנביין כחדא‬and they [Eldad and … ‫ ואמרון‬Medad] both prophesied together, and said … … ‫ ובכין אמר ליה יי‬and then the Lord said to him … … ‫ בכין אמר יו ליה‬the Lord, then, said to him … … ]‫ ארי אמר ]יו׳‬for [the Lord] said …

Neof Num 11:26 (so also FTP / FTV / PsJon with variants) FTP Exod 13:17 CGF Exod 13:17 CGF Exod 13:17

The quotation in Neofiti on Gen 40:23 is rather strange. It seems totally out of place, for it differs from the introductory phrases in the Fragment Targums, and uses a formula that is also used in the targums on Numbers 21:14. The first part of it, ‘it is written in the book of the Torah of the Lord’ (see also Neofiti Lev 22:27),91 can only indicate a formula that introduces passages from the Torah. And here it is followed by a citation from the prophet Jeremiah (17:5). Do we have to 91  Cf. Neofiti Deut 1:5; 31:26 ‘The book of this Torah’ (see also y.Taan 3:1 [66d]); 31:24 ‘when Moses completed writing the words of this Torah in a book’; TJ Joshua 10:13 ‘Is it not written in the book of the Torah?’ (MT ‫ ;)ספר הישר‬2 Sam 1:18 ‘Behold it is written in the book of the Torah’.

targumic quotations

159

suppose that the word Torah here has the wider meaning of Scripture as a whole,92 or should we think of a mistake made by the meturgeman who had in mind the formula used elsewhere?

1.3. Allusions and free renderings of biblical texts As we saw in the foregoing, quotations with a formula of introduction do not always refer to a specific biblical text, but in some cases they are followed by an allusion to a certain biblical passage, or they offer a free rendering of a biblical text. As an example we have given the allusion to the coming of Gog and Magog and their armies, as described in Ezek 38:1ff., in the introduction to the Palestinian Targums of Num 11:26, that is followed by a free rendering of Ezek 39:9–10. In Targum Neofiti, as we saw, the text runs as follows: The two of them [Eldad and Medad] prophesied together and said: At the very end of days Gog and Magog [FTP / FTV add: and their armies] will march on Jerusalem, and they will fall into the hands of King Messiah; and for seven full years the Israelites will light fires from their weapons, and [during all that time] they will not need to go to the forest [FTP / FTV add: nor will they cut down a tree].

The text of Pseudo-Jonathan is even more expansive and seems to be a word-by-word commentary on the whole of the Gog–Magog chapters in the book of Ezekiel: The two of them prophesied together and said: Behold, a king will come up from the land of Magog at the end of the days. He will gather kings wearing crowns, and prefects clad in armour, and all the peoples will obey him. They will wage war in the land of Israel with the returned exiles. But the Lord will be prepared for them in the hour of distress, and he will kill all of them by a burning breath and by fiery flames coming from beneath the throne of glory. Their bodies will fall on the mountains of the land of Israel and all the animals of the field and the birds of heaven will come to eat of their corpses.93

There are other examples of such a free rendering of biblical texts. In a targumic midrash, the Palestinian Targums on Num 21:34 relate the story of the wicked Og, king of Butnin.94 Moses is confronted with Og and exclaims according to Targum Neofiti: 92  See Shinan, ‫אגדתם של מתורגמנים‬, II.236, who states: ‫מסתבר כי "אורייתא" לאו‬ ‫דווקא והכוונה למקרא כולו‬. 93  See on this passage Shinan, ‫אגדתם של מתורגמנים‬, II.227–29; Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 235–42. 94  On the readings Butnin, Butnim, or Botnayyim, see M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers, Edinburgh 1995, 123 n. 37. Cf. Neof Deut 3:1, 3–4, 10–11, 13.

160

chapter three Is not this Og who jeered at Abraham and Sarah, saying to them: ‘Abraham and Sarah are like beautiful trees standing beside springs of water, but producing no fruit’?95

The midrash here clearly refers to Jer 17:8 ‘He shall be like a tree planted by waters, sending forth its roots by a stream … It does not cease to yield fruit’. The meturgeman freely re-interprets the text, substituting the subject,96 adding a few words (‘beautiful’, ‘springs of water’97), leaving out part of the sentence, and transforming the positive (‘do not cease to yield’) into a negative (‘do not produce’). In this respect and in its Palestinian wording, it differs strongly from the fairly literal rendering of Targum Jonathan.98

1.4. Imprecise quotations We have already given examples of quotations that are not very precise, as is the case in the introduction to Num 16:1 of the Fragment Targum (ms Paris), where one finds as a quotation the sentence ‘Just as the dogs have eaten the blood of Naboth, so shall the dogs eat the blood of Ahab in the plot of ground of Jezreel’.99 As we saw, this looks like a rendering of 1 Kgs 21:19, but in the biblical text the addition ‘in the plot of ground of Jezreel’ is only connected with the predicted death of Ahab’s wife Jezebel, and not of Ahab himself. The writer presumably had in mind the similarly worded Jezebel texts (1 Kgs 21:23, 2 Kgs 9:10, 36–37). 1.5. Use of key words to allude to analogous passages Connected with this type of citation is the use, especially in the Palestinian Targums, of certain key words to allude to analogous passages. In the PTs on Deut 32:1, for instance, there is an allusion to the first 95  There are smaller variations in the different targums, between ‫( קיימין‬Neof, FTV) and ‫( שתילין‬PsJon), or a combination of both (FTP). For PsJon’s reading ‫פרקטונין דמיין‬, see below. The same tradition is found in FTV and Neof [M] on Deut 3:2. 96  PsJon changes the use of the 3rd person in the direct speech into a 2nd person address: ‘You are like trees planted by the water channels but do not produce fruit …’. 97  Reading ‫מבועין דמין‬. So in all of the Palestinian Targums with the exception of PsJon, where we do find the reading ‫( פרקטוניו דמיין‬see M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, Philadelphia 1903; repr. New York 1971, 1240; Krauss, Lehnwörter, II.496). See also PsJon on Gen 14:3, Num 24:6. 98  This quotation is not mentioned in Robert Hayward’s fine survey of early citations of Targum Jeremiah (The Targum of Jeremiah, Edinburgh 1987, 8–12). 99  See above, p. 147.

targumic quotations

161

words of the poem in Isa 1:2ff.  In Deut 32:1 as well as in Isa 1:2 heaven and earth are called to witness, but the verses show a different position of the verbs. Deut 32:1 reads ‘Give ear, heavens, to what I say; / listen, earth, to the words I speak’, and Isa 1:2 ‘Listen, heavens, and give ear, earth, for it is the Lord who speaks’.100 The differences are explained in the midrashic introduction to the last words of Moses in the Palestinian Targums of Deut 32:1ff. In Targum Neofiti this runs as follows: For two prophets arose to bear witness against Israel — Moses the prophet and Isaiah the prophet. Moses, since he was near the heavens and far from the earth, said to the heavens: ‘give ear’, and to the earth, ‘listen’; Isaiah, the prophet, however, who arose after him, since he was near the earth and far from the heavens, said to the earth: ‘give ear,’ and to the heavens, ‘listen.’ And both of them, because they feared the Holy Name, arose to bear witness against Israel. For this reason Moses, the prophet of the Lord, arose and took courage and said: ‘Give ear, heavens, to what I say; listen, earth, to the words I speak.’

The midrash of the two prophets is basically the same in all of the Palestinian Targums, and in the similar tradition in Sifre Deuteronomy §306, although the sequence of events is not the same in the various sources. As the following survey shows, Neofiti’s sequence of persons (first Moses, then Isaiah) and utterances (heavens earth ‹—› earth heavens) differs from that in the other Palestinian Targums, and is close to Midrash Sifre Deuteronomy: Neof FTP FTV PsJon SifreDeut

Moses Isaiah Isaiah Moses Isaiah Moses Isaiah Moses Moses Isaiah

near the heavens near the earth near the earth near the heavens far from the heavens far from the earth near the earth near the heavens near the heavens far from the heavens

far from the earth far from the heavens far from the heavens far from the earth near the earth near the heavens far from the heavens far from the earth far from the earth near the earth

As such, it is a fine example of a text alluding to the wording of analogous passages, quoting only the words that are of central importance for the discussion. 100  As will be clear from the translation, the parallelism is not perfect, although the targum presupposes that there are four imperative forms. This has been overlooked by commentators, see e.g. M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy, Edinburgh 1997, 148 n. 9.

162

chapter three

Further examples from the Palestinian Targums of allusions to wellknown texts, free renderings of biblical text or stereotype renderings have been given already in section b 2.

1.6. The relationship of the quotations from the Prophets in the Palestinian Targums to the official Targum of Jonathan There are different ways of classifying the quotations we have found and of comparing them with the Babylonian Targum Jonathan. We might differentiate between quotations that are very literal (peshat type) and those that are more midrashic (derash type) in relation to Targum Jonathan. Examples of both these exegetical ‘types’ are to be found in the Palestinian Targums. Or one might classify them dialectically as ‘Palestinian’, as opposed to ‘Babylonian’. There is still another possibility of comparing them, by looking at their contents. Sometimes there are striking differences, exegetically, between the targum quotation and the official targum. We will give one example of a quotation which is fairly literal as compared to Targum Jonathan, and which, at the same time, differs strongly from it with regard to its exegesis. In the Fragment Targum (ms Paris) of Num 16:1 an Aramaic targum of the Prophets is quoted on 1 Kgs 18:37. If for the moment we leave out the additions, the targum quoted remains close to the Hebrew text, apart from some minor modifications:101 MT 1 Kgs 18:37 ‫ענני יהוה ענני וידעו העם הזה כי אתה יהוה האלהים ואתה הסבת את לבם‬ ‫אחרנית‬ Answer me, O Lord, answer me, that this people may know that You, O Lord, are God; for You have turned their hearts backward.

Fragment Targum (ms Paris) Num 16:1 ‫עני יתי יי עני יתי וידעון כל עמא הדין ארום את הוא אלההון … ואסטיית לבהון‬ ‫לאחוריהון‬

101  For a detailed treatment of the lengthy introduction to parashat Kora (Num 16:1ff.) in ms Paris, see H. Sysling, ‘Three Harsh Prophets: A Targumic Tosefta to Parashat Korah’, Aramaic Studies 2 (2004), 223–42. One of the conclusions (240–42) is that the prologue on the utterances of three stubborn prophets has to be seen as a later development of the tradition ascribed to rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in y.Sanh 10:1 (28a).

targumic quotations

163

Answer me, O Lord, answer me, that all these people may know that You are their God …102 and (that You) have turned their hearts backward.

The text of Targum Jonathan is much more paraphrastic: ‫קביל צלותי יוי באישתא קביל צלותי יוי במטר וידעון עמא הדין במעבדך להון‬ ‫נסא ארי את יוי אלהים ואת ברחמתך יתהון משתאיל להון במימרך לאתבותהון‬ ‫לדחלתך ואנון יהבו ית לבהון פליג‬ Receive my prayer, Lord, with the fire, receive my prayer, Lord, with rain; and may this people know that by Your doing for them the sign that You, Lord, are God, and that by Your loving them You are asking for them by Your Memra to bring them back to the fear of You. And they gave their divided heart.

Obviously, there are several modifications of the Hebrew text in Targum Jonathan. The twofold ‫ ענני‬in the Hebrew text is translated by the words ‫‘ קביל צלותי‬receive my prayer’.103 In contrast to the Hebrew text it repeats the divine name. The additions, partly in line with talmudic sources, cannot easily be left out.104 The last part of the Hebrew verse is interpreted in two ways, first by ‘by Your loving them You are asking for them … to bring them back to the fear of You’, and secondly by ‘and they gave their divided heart’. This is very remarkable for it can only mean that God is asking for them to repent. A positive interpretation of the verse close to the wording of the Septuagint, but neither found in rabbinic sources nor in the ‘Palestinian’ quotation in the Fragment Targum.105 The additions in ms Paris of the Fragment Targum are connected rather loosely with the translation as such and could, in contrast with 102  The additions are: ‘… first God and last God; and that all the gods they worship in Your presence are false gods. And if You do not answer me, and display the miracles of Your might in this hour, then it will have been You who stiffened their necks and turned their faces about …’. 103  This expression is not uncommon in the Targum of 1–2 Kings, see 1 Kgs 8:28, 29, 30, 35, 45, 49, 52, 17:22; 2 Kgs 13:4, 22:19. In the Targum of Psalms, Hebrew ‫ ענני‬is in most cases rendered as ‫( עני יתי‬Tg Ps 69:14, 17, 18 etc.), but in a few cases as ‫קב(י)ל צלותי‬ (Tg Ps 4:2, 13:4, 60:7, cf. Tg Ps 27:7). Cf. Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, II.20 n. 5–6. 104  See Sysling, ‘Three Harsh Prophets’, 236–37. Cf. b.Ber 6b, 9b. See our observations on the ‘extended interpretative translations’, above, pp. 24–25. 105  See M. Greenberg, ‘“You Have Turned Their Hearts Backward” (I Kings 18:37)’, in: J.J. Petuchowski & E. Fleischer (eds), Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann, Jerusalem 1981, Hebrew section, 52–66, at 57. The Greek translation (Lucianic recension) reads: καί σύ ἔστρεψας τήν καρδίαν τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου ὀπίσω. The rabbinic sources remain close to the Hebrew text, see Greenberg, ‘You Have Turned’, 54–57 on y.Sanh 10:1 (28a) and b.Ber 9b, 31b/32a. See also Smolar & Aberbach, Studies, 146 n. 110.

164

chapter three

the additions in Targum Jonathan, easily be left out.106 The fact that the quotation of 1 Kgs 18:37 in ms Paris, which has all the features of a Palestinian targum,107 differs from Targum Jonathan in being an (almost) verbatim rendering of the Hebrew text raises an important question. Does it mean that a Palestinian Targum or selections of Palestinian Targums existed which offered a more literal interpretation than the ones we know today?108 But such a difference between a verbatim rendering and a more paraphrastic one is not visible in the case of many of the other quotations.

1.6.1.  Quotations that are identical with Targum Jonathan The quotation from Ezek 37:12 in the PTs of Gen 30:22 (see above) is part of a detailed aggadic exegesis which has been entitled the Midrash of the Four Keys, connected with Gen 30:22 as the opening verse of the 29th sidra of the triennial Palestinian cycle.109 The quotation in Neofiti, which is preceded by an introductory formula, corresponds with Targum Jonathan of Ezek 37:12, in itself a fairly literal rendering of the Hebrew text. Remarkably, the Fragment Targums (FTP, FTV) do not follow Neofiti, but offer a Hebrew quotation; the fact that FTN does not quote Ezek 37:12 but Ezek 37:13, may have been influenced by b.Taan 2a, which also quotes this last verse.110 1.6.2.  Quotations that are partly identical with Targum Jonathan In the lengthy introductory midrash which relates the story of Moses’ impending death in the Palestinian Targums on Deut 32:1, Moses 106  See note 101. The first addition (‘first God and last God’) seems to be based on Isa 44:6 (‘I am the first and I am the last’), or 48:12 (‘I am the first, I am the last also’), and see also Isa 41:4. The second (‘and all the gods they worship in your presence are false gods’) echoes such scriptural passages as Ps 96:5 and 1 Chron 16:26 (‘For all the gods of the nations are idols’). We are not convinced that, as Goshen-Gottstein (‫שקיעים‬, II.20) states, this phrase is inspired by the commandment ‘You shall have no other gods (‫ )אלהים אחרים‬beside me’ (Exod 20:3, Deut 5:7), associating ‫ אחרים‬with ‫ אחרנית‬in 1 Kgs 18:37. 107  See Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, II.20. 108  See the remark of M.J. Mulder in his review of Goshen-Gottstein’s ‫שקיעים‬, in Bibliotheca Orientalis 42 (1985), 386–87: ‘Öfter ergibt sich auch, dass ein verlorenes Targum eine verbatim Tradition kannte, weil das ad locum Targum einen midraschischen Charakter hat. Deutet dies darauf hin, das früher „buchstäblich übersetzte” Targume da waren, wo wir jetzt nur noch Targume midraschischen Charakters haben … ?’. 109  See also GenR 73:4 (Th-A 848), b.Taan 2ab (Ezek 37:13), DeutR 7:6, 110, TanB VaYera 35, 1:53b, TanB VaYetzei 16 (1:78a), MidrPss 78:5 (Ezek 37:13). 110  Cf. Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 145.

targumic quotations

165

establishes as witnesses heaven and earth. For all things will wear out, but heaven and earth, when they shall melt away and shall be consumed, will be renewed: ‘However, I shall eventually create new heavens and a new earth’ (FTP / FTV).111 The latter part of the quotation is identical with Targum Jonathan on Isa 65:17, which presents a fairly literal translation of the Hebrew text. But in the Palestinian Targums the wording of the first part is adapted to the structure of the midrash, opening with ‫ברם אנא עתיד ברי‬, ‘However, I shall eventually create (new heavens and a new earth)’ (FTP / FTV) or with ‫ברם עתיד‬ ‫הוא ייי למברה‬, ‘However, the Lord is to create (new heavens and a new earth)’ (Neof), as against Targum Jonathan’s ‫ארי האנא ברי‬, ‘For behold, I create (new heavens and a new earth)’. A second example may be taken from the Palestinian Targums on Gen 49:11 where a picture of a warring Messiah is presented, which consists of a paraphrase of the source text and of Isa 63:2–3. In Neofiti this reads: … (and he kills kings with rulers,) and he makes the mountains red from the blood of their slain (and makes the valleys white from the fat of their warriors.) His garments are rolled in blood; he is like a presser of grapes.

With some minor variations this is found in all of the Palestinian Targums.112 The first part of the ‘quotation’ (‘and he makes the mountains red from the blood of their slain’) resembles Targum Jonathan (with the exception of those slain instead of their slain). The second part is an amalgam of Gen 49:11 and Isa 63:2b, and does not fit the interpretation of Targum Jonathan on the latter verse.113 111  Neofiti transforms the first person direct speech into a third person utterance: ‘However, the Lord is to create new heavens and a new earth.’ 112  The PTs are in accord with each other, apart from some minor variations (FTP incorrectly reads ‫ מזגזגין‬instead of ‫מעגעגין‬, cf. Sokoloff, JPA, 172, 395; CGF reads ]‫ לדפ[ום‬instead of ‫)לרפום‬. 113  M. McNamara (The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Rome 1978, 230–33) states that the picture of the warring Messiah in Rev 10:11–16 is influenced by the PTs to Gen 49:11. In Revelation it says of the Messiah that He is clad in a robe dipped in blood (13) and He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty (15). In our view the first part is directly dependent on Gen 49:11 (‘He washes his garment in wine and his vesture in the blood of grapes’), the second part may be a reflection of Isa 63:2ff. That the PTs, likewise, are based on Isa 63:2ff., is no reason to assume that the author of Revelation ‘knew of the PT rendering to Gn 49,11f. and is influenced in his thought and language by it’ (McNamara, New Testament, 233). See also the criticism of R. Syrén, The Blessings in

166

chapter three

1.6.3.  Quotations that differ from Targum Jonathan Targum Jonathan on 1 Kgs 22:28 is a literal rendering of the Hebrew text with the exception of its interpretation of Hebrew ‫לא דבר יהוה בי‬, ‘the Lord has not spoken through me’, by ‘(then) there was no favour before the Lord in me’: And Micah said: If indeed you return in peace, there was no favour before the Lord in me.114

An additional explanation (‘and he has not spoken to me by the spirit of prophecy’) is found in Tg 2 Chron 18:27. The Fragment Targum (ms Paris) on Num 16:1, quoting our verse, also has a double rendering, but it is expressed differently: ‘then I am not among the Lord’s prophets’, and ‘(then) the Memra of the Lord has not spoken through me’. This rendering seems to be influenced by the preceding Moses scene in the Fragment Targum where similar expressions are used.115 A second example is to be found in the Palestinian Targums on Deut 32:1 where a saying of the prophet Isaiah (Isa 51:6) is quoted. In each of the Targums this quotation is introduced with a different opening formula (see above). In Neofiti it runs as follows: And thus did Isaiah the prophet explain and say: ‘Raise your eyes to the heavens and look upon the earth beneath, for the heavens shall melt away like smoke and the earth shall wear out like a garment’.

The official Targum of Isa 51:6 is not very literal, with regular substitutions and changes in words and phrases: Raise your eyes to the heavens, and consider the earth beneath; though the heavens will pass as the smoke which passes, and the earth wear out as a covering wears out, and its inhabitants, even they, will die in like manner, my victory shall stand for ever, my virtue will never be checked.

It tends to strengthen the metaphoric language (‘melt away like smoke’ becomes ‘will pass as the smoke which passes’; ‘wear out like the Targums: A Study on the Targumic Interpretations of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33, Åbo 1986, 105 n. 116. 114  A sefer aer variant in Codex Reuchlin reads: ‘then the prophecy of the Lord is not with me.’ 115  FTP furthermore differs from Targum Jonathan and Targum Chronicles by its use of ‫ חזר‬as against ‫תוב‬. See for the details of the Micah scene in the long midrash in FTP on Num 16:1, Sysling, ‘Three Harsh Prophets’, 238–40.

targumic quotations

167

a garment’ becomes ‘wear out as a covering wears out’). The Palestinian Targums on Deut 32:1 differ strongly from Targum Jonathan.116 Le Déaut remarked that here we find a vestige of a Palestinian Targum of the Prophets.117 Without going that far (the existence of a Palestinian Targum of the Prophets has still to be proven), we might perhaps conclude that (a) this is a second example of a more verbatim rendering, and that (b) the variations in the use of opening formulas might show that the Palestinian Targum tradition may have been an unstable and fluctuating one. In Targum PsJon on Gen 30:25 we find a quotation from Obad 18, which is rather paraphrastic and differs sharply from Targum Jonathan: When Rachel had borne Joseph, Jacob said in the Holy Spirit: Those of the House of Joseph are destined to be like a flame to destroy those of the House of Esau. He said: From now on I will not be afraid of Esau and his legions.

Targum Jonathan on our verse of Obadiah remains close to the wording of the Hebrew text, but clarifies the metaphoric statements in the Hebrew text (‘strong as’, ‘mighty as’, ‘weak as’).118 The sentence ‘shall burn them and consume them’ is interpreted as ‘shall have dominion over them and slaughter them’. Hebrew ‘has spoken’ is explained as ‘has been decided’: The people of the House of Jacob shall be strong as fire, and the people of the House of Joseph mighty as flame, but the people of the House of Esau shall be weak as straw; and they shall have dominion over them and slaughter them, and there shall be no survivor left of the House of Esau, for through the Memra of the Lord it has been decided thus.

116  They all read ‫טולו‬, ‘lift up’, as against ‫זקופי‬, ‘raise’, in TJ. TJ furthermore differs from the PTs by its use of ‫עדי‬, ‘pass’, for Hebrew nifal √‫‘( מלח‬melt away’) as against ‫מסי‬, ‘melt away’, in the PTs. The use of itpeel √‫סכל‬, ‘gaze’, is in line with Neof and FTV (but see FTP ‫ואסהידו‬, ‘establish as witness’, which is clearly intended to connect it with the preceding remark of Moses ‘Which things … can I establish as witnesses for these people?’). For the (intentional?) use of ‫ תתכלי‬instead of ‫תבלי‬, see McNamara, Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy, 147 n. 5, 8. 117  R. Le Déaut & J. Robert, Targum du Pentateuque, 5 Vols, Paris 1978–81, IV.261 n. 7 ‘Noter que le texte araméen de N est différent du texte traditionnel du Targum des Prophètes … et pourrait constituer un vestige de la version palestinienne’. 118  Cf. the remark of K.J. Cathcart & R.P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets, Edinburgh 1989, 2: ‘The dictates of simplicity and intelligibility are also responsible for Tg.’s habitual conversion of metaphors into similes …’.

168

chapter three

In our view, the PsJon tradition is independent of the Targum Jonathan tradition, and seems to be a free interpretation of Obad 18. The tradition that Esau will fall into the hands of a descendent of Joseph, is also mentioned in GenR 73:7 (Th-A 851) and 75:5 (Th-A 883–84), even though Jer 49:20 is quoted as a proof text.119

1.6.4.  Quotations that are, with regard to their exegetical interpretation and contents, partly in line with Targum Jonathan In the Palestinian Targums on Gen 40:23 it is said of Joseph: Now Joseph abandoned the grace of above and the grace of below and the grace that had accompanied him from his father’s house; and he trusted in the chief cupbearer, in flesh that passes on and in flesh that tastes the cup of death; and he did not remember the scripture that is explicitly written: ‘Cursed be the man who trusts in flesh, and whose trust is flesh,’ and ‘Blessed shall be the man who trusts in the name of the Memra of the Lord, and who makes the Memra of the Lord his trust’; therefore, the chief cupbearer did not remember Joseph, and he forgot him, until the fixed time arrived [for Joseph] to be redeemed.

Such is the reading of the Fragment Targum (ms Paris), which differs from Neofiti, where only the curse is cited and the blessing has been left out. The quotation from Jer 17:5, 7 is introduced by three different formulas, of which the reference in Neofiti to ‘the book of the Torah of the Lord’ seems to be completely out of place.120 With Targum Jonathan the Palestinian Targums have in common the interpretation of ‘strength’ (lit. ‘arm’) in the Hebrew text by ‘trust’ (or ‘confidence’): TJ Jer 17:5 Thus says the Lord: Cursed is the man who puts confidence in man, and makes flesh his confidence, but his heart passes away from the Memra of the Lord.

TJ Jer 17:7 Blessed is the man who trusts in the Memra of the Lord, for the Memra of the Lord will be his confidence.

In this way, all of the targums give particular importance to the play on words in the Hebrew text, augmenting its force by a fourfold repetition of the word ‘trust’, thereby creating a strong parallel between the curse and the blessing. The Palestinian Targums differ from Targum 119  Cf. b.BB 123b, where the Hebrew text of Obad 18 is quoted. 120  See above, pp. 158–159.

targumic quotations

169

Jonathan in their use of ‫ בבשר‬for Hebrew ‫באדם‬. Neofiti takes Hebrew ‫ הגבר‬as ‫בר נשא‬, whereas the Fragment Targums follow Targum Jonathan with ‫ גברא‬/ ‫גוברא‬. As Hayward rightly observes there are grammatical irregularities in Neofiti, which reads for example the feminine form ‫די תרחץ‬, although the subject is masculine (but this should perhaps be seen as a misreading for ‫)דיתרחיץ‬. In our view Neofiti is closer to the Palestinian Tradition as represented by the Fragment Targums than to Targum Jonathan in its Palestinian wording (e.g. the use of ‫)לייט יהוי‬ and the interpretation of the noun ‫בשר‬.121

1.6.5.  Quotations that are linguistically in line with Targum Jonathan, but differ from it as regards their exegetical contents The quotations in the Palestinian Targums on Exod 13:17, both in the Fragment Targums and in the Cairo Genizah Fragments, are rather enigmatic. In the middle of a discourse on the dry bones that were revived by God through the prophet Ezekiel, one person is excluded from the resurrection. When the prophet Ezekiel asks God: What were the deeds of this one man, that he does not rise?, the answer has the form of a quotation from Ezek 18:13 ‘He gave [loans] against securities, and collected with interest; so he shall not live’, the latter phrase being explained as ‘He shall not live in the life to come’.122 Fragment Targum (ms Paris) Exodus 13:17 And when Pharaoh let the people go, the Lord did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines because it was nearby. Two hundred thousand [men] who left Egypt thirty years before the Lord’s fixed time — two hundred thousand brave infantrymen; they were all from the tribe of Ephraim, holding shields and weapons and spears. They, they are the dry bones which the Lord revived through the prophet Ezekiel in the valley of Dura. And drinking vessels from which wicked Nebuchadnezzar drank, were [made] from some of these bones. And when the Lord revived them through the prophet Ezekiel, they struck that wicked man on his mouth; and one bone joined to another bone; and they came to life, and arose on their feet, very large camps. They all arose, except one person who did not rise. The prophet said before 121  We are not convinced that Hayward is right when he remarks (Targum of Jeremiah, 10) ‘The very repetition of ‘flesh’ in the quotation of Jer may also have been produced by Tg. Neof.’s introductory paraphrase, ‘in flesh that passes, in flesh which tastes …’, since the repetition is found in all of the PTs, as is the long paraphrase on ‘flesh that passes’’. 122  See for this interpretation of the text, ExodR 31:6 (cf. 31:4, 13, 14). For other explanations, see also b.BM 61b, b.Tem 6b.

170

chapter three the Lord: ‘What were the deeds of this one man, that he does not rise?’ And then the Lord said to him: ‘He gave [loans] against securities, and collected with interest; so he shall not live.’ And thus the Lord showed the prophet Ezekiel this sign, that He will eventually resurrect the dead. And therefore, the Lord said to him [Moses]: ‘Lest the people tremble when they see their dead brothers, and they will be frightened and return to Egypt’.123

The rendering of the quotation, Ezek 18:13, in Targum Jonathan is fairly literal and in line with the Palestinian Targums, except for the interpretation of ‘shall he live? He shall not live!’ which in Targum Jonathan is translated as ‘shall he survive? He shall not survive!’, implying, perhaps, ‘that God is involved in the process of human survival’:124 He has given [money] for interest and has taken away usury; shall he survive? He shall not survive. He has committed all these abominations, he shall surely die; the guilt for his violent death shall be on him.

The Palestinian Targums correspond with each other in presenting a literal translation, apart from the shortening of the Hebrew text in the Fragment Targum (‘so he shall not live’) as against the Cairo Genizah Fragments (‘Shall he live? He shall not live!’).

1.7. Summary It remains now to sum up the results of our investigation of the quotations from the Prophets in the Palestinian Targums. 1. A number of these quotations are part of lengthy midrashic introductions that are connected with the weekly sabbath readings: the introduction to parashat Kora (Num 16:1, three quotations), parashat Ha’azinu (Deut 32:1, three quotations), parashat Beshala (Exod 13:17), the opening verse of the 29th sidra of the triennial cycle (Gen 30:22), and to other important liturgical chapters (Exod 20:5). These midrashic introductions are of a homiletic nature, — they might be called targumic derashot125 — , and are characterised by 123  See on the tradition of a premature exodus of the Ephraimites, L. Ginzberg, Eine unbekannte jüdische Sekte, New York 1922, repr. Hildesheim 1972, 336–40; J. Heinemann, ‫אגדות ותולדותיהן‬, Jerusalem 1974, 137–41; M.J. Mulder, ‘1 Chronik 7, 21B– 23 und die rabbinische Tradition’, JSJ 6 (1975), 141–66; Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 230–35. 124  See S.H. Levey, The Targum of Ezekiel, Edinburgh 1987, 59 n. 4. 125  See Safrai, ‘Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, in: Safrai, Literature of the Sages, 248–49. M.L. Klein, The Fragment–Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources, 2 Vols, Rome 1980, I.21, calls them toseftot, ‘midrashic expansions’. See above, pp. 127, 130, 133.

targumic quotations

171

certain common form-elements, such as number motifs, benedictory formulas, and explicit quotations of scriptural passages. 2. The quotations are taken from the following prophetic books: 1 Samuel (1x), 1 Kings (3x), Isaiah (5x), Jeremiah (3x), Ezekiel (3x), Obadiah (1x). 3. Direct quotations do not always refer to a specific biblical text, but in certain cases they are followed by an allusion to a biblical passage, or they offer a free rendering of a biblical text. Some of the quotations are not very precise, and may be seen as memorised citations in which various scriptural passages are combined. 4. Only a few times are the quotations partly or completely identical with Targum Jonathan; more often they deviate linguistically and with regard to their exegetical contents from the official Targum of the Prophets. In a few cases the quotation is far more literal than Targum Jonathan. In other cases there are agreements as well as differences. The differences sometimes are of a linguistic nature, especially in the choice of certain translation equivalents, or the sources diverge exegetically. The fact that quotations may differ from the official Targum not only linguistically and with regard to their form, but also with regard to their contents has not received enough attention in current research. 5. The quotations given in the Palestinian Targums offer insufficient grounds for the assumption that a complete Palestinian Targum of the Prophets once existed. The number of direct quotations is very small and generally they belong to the lengthy midrashic introductions of the weekly sabbath reading. They show that the midrashic genre, in which scriptural quotations are used to support the exegesis given, became part of the targumic practice. The fact that there are great differences in the form of the citations (the introductory formulas, the variations in the use of opening formula on one and the same verse, Hebrew versus Aramaic quotations, adaptations to the context) in the different Palestinian Targums shows that the Palestinian Targum tradition may have been an unstable and fluctuating one, which was not subjected to an editorial hand.

172

chapter three

2. Quotations from the Prophets in Targum Esther Sheni and Targum Canticles 2.1. Survey It is well known that the Targums on Esther, especially Esther Sheni, and Canticles are of an expansive nature, and in many respects show affinities with the midrash genre.126 Like the Midrashim they abound in scriptural citations, often forming chains of citations, as is the case in the long introduction that precedes the actual translation of the first verse in Targum Esther Sheni. Unlike the Midrash, however, it does not attribute certain interpretations to named sages, or juxtapose certain alternative interpretations with formulas such as ‫דבר אחר‬.127 Most of the quotations in the sources under discussion are in Hebrew. There are eight Aramaic citations from the Prophets in the texts considered here, taken from the books of Samuel (2), Isaiah (3), Jeremiah (1), Haggai (1) and Zechariah (1). They are all formulaic quotations, using a variety of introductory phrases: in you is fulfilled the verse that is written in the sacred Prophets128 (Tg Esther Sheni 6:11, quoting 1 Sam 2:8) and concerning him [Mordecai] David prophesied when he said … (Tg Esther Sheni 2:5, quoting 2 Sam 19:23) for thus it is written and explained by the prophet Isaiah who wrote thus … (Tg Cant 1:1, quoting Isa 30:29) concerning whom the prophet Isaiah prophesied, saying … (Tg Esther Sheni 2:7, quoting Isa 55:13) as it is written (Tg Esther Sheni 1:1, quoting Isa 65:24) so when the prophet Jeremiah arrived … He declared saying … (Tg Esther Sheni 1:2, quoting Jeremiah 20:7) for so it is written explicitly (Tg Esther Sheni 1:4, quoting Haggai 2:8) for thus it says (concerning Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah) … (Tg Esther Sheni 2:7, quoting Zech 1:8)

126  See Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 225, 234–37. 127  See Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 3–4; P.S. Alexander, The Targum of Canticles, Collegeville 2003, 29–31. 128  So in the edition of Grossfeld, 63 (B. Grossfeld, The Targum Sheni to the Book of Esther. A critical edition based on ms. Sassoon 282 with critical apparatus, New York 1994). The reading of Sperber, Bible in Aramaic, 4A.197, is ‘in the sacred writings.’

targumic quotations

173

2.2. Exchangeability of Aramaic and Hebrew quotations Turning to the quotations themselves, we note first that in Targum Esther Sheni we sometimes find citations that are in Hebrew in one of the manuscripts, but in Aramaic in another.129 Such is the case, for instance, in Tg Esther Sheni 1:1, where the quotation of Isa 65:24 is in Hebrew in Sperber’s edition (based on ms Or. 2375 of the British Museum),130 whereas it is in Aramaic in ms Sassoon 282.131 Or first the quotation is given in Hebrew, followed by its Aramaic rendering,132 as is the case in Tg Esther Sheni 1:2 where the first three words of Jer 20:7 (‫ )פתיתני יהוה ואפת‬are cited in Hebrew, followed by an Aramaic translation of verse 7a (‫)תקיפתא יתי ויכילתא שבשתני יהוה ואשתבשית‬. A similar case is the quotation of the first part of the Hebrew text of Haggai 2:8 in Tg Esther Sheni 1:4. The Hebrew is followed by a longer quotation in Aramaic (see below). As we saw before,133 in Tg Esther Sheni 2:7 first a Hebrew quotation is given of Isa 55:13, which is followed by an Aramaic explanation of two Hebrew words, and ends with an Aramaic translation of Isa 55:13a. 2.3. Relationship to Targum Jonathan Only a small number of the quotations in the Targums Canticles and Esther Sheni are (partly) in line with Targum Jonathan. Let us give a few examples. The rhetorical question of David in 2 Sam 19:23 ‘Should a (single) man in Israel be put to death this day?’, responding to the wish of some of his servants to kill Shimei, is translated fairly literal in both Targum Jonathan and in the different manuscripts of Tg Esther Sheni 2:5. The wording of Tg Esther Sheni, however, is Palestinian (‫)יומא דנן‬,134 and it remains closer to the Hebrew text, using the Aramaic equivalent ‫ימות‬ of Hebrew ‫ יומת‬whereas Targum Jonathan chooses the itpeel of √‫קטל‬ (‘should a single men in Israel be killed this day’):

129  It has to be remarked that most of the quotations in Esther Sheni are Hebrew quotations. 130  Sperber, Bible in Aramaic, IVA.171. 131  See Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, II.72. 132  See on this phenomenon Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, I.XVI. 133  See above, p. 154. 134  ms Urbinati 1. The reading in De Lagarde (240) is ‫יומא הדין‬, the reading of Sperber (4A.184) ‫היומא הדין‬.

174

chapter three

MT TJ Tg Esther Sheni135

‫איש בישראל‬ ‫יומת‬ ‫היום‬ ‫יומא דין יתקטיל גברא בישראל‬ ‫גברא בישראל‬ ‫יומא דנן ימות‬

Translation of the quotation is given here within its context: A Jewish man was in the fortress of Susa whose name was Mordecai; and why was he called a Jewish man? Only because he feared sin, and concerning him, David prophesied when he said: ‘Shall there die on this day a man of Israel?’

The fact that 2 Sam 19:23 is quoted here in the Targum is probably based on the connection between the expressions ‫ איש בישראל‬in the Hebrew text of 2 Sam and ‫ איש יהודי‬in Esther 2:5.136 Also in line with Targum Jonathan is the quotation of Jer 20:7 in Tg Esther Sheni 1:2:137 So when the prophet Jeremiah arrived, and saw the city of Jerusalem destroyed, and the Babylonian armies surrounding it, he cried out intensely and wept bitterly. He declared saying: ‘You enticed me, O Lord, and I was enticed [Hebrew]. You have confounded me, and I have been confounded. You overpowered me and prevailed [Aramaic].’

As we have seen, first the quotation is given in Hebrew, followed by its Aramaic rendering.138 The Aramaic is, regarding the equivalents chosen, in line with Targum Jonathan, although its language is Palestinian. Targum Jonathan’s ‘and prevailed over me’ is an addition to Hebrew ‘you prevailed’.139 Both renderings of the Hebrew verse have chosen the stronger Aramaic verb √‫שבש‬, ‘to confound’ as a translation equivalent to Hebrew √‫פתה‬, ‘entice’, presumably to avoid a too 135  ms Urbinati 1. 136  Cf. B. Grossfeld, The Two Targums of Esther, Edinburgh 1991, 133 n. 5. See the discussion in b.Meg 12b–13a on the question of why Mordecai is called here a Jew and elsewhere a Benjaminite: The Rabbis, however, said: The tribes competed with one another [for him]. The tribe of David said: I am responsible for the birth of Mordecai, because David did not kill Shimei the son of Gera [a Benjaminite] and the tribe of Benjamin said: He is actually descended from me … Why then was he called ‘a Jew’? Because he repudiated idolatry. For anyone who repudiates idolatry is called ‘a Jew’, as it is written ‘There are certain Jews (Dan 3:12)’. See also TT 1 Kgs 2:36; Agg. Esther 2:5 (18); Tg Esther Rishon 2:5. Cf. B. Ego, Targum Scheni zu Esther, Tübingen 1996, 216. 137  See De Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice, 233. It is not given in Sperber, Bible in Aramaic (cf. IVA.179). 138  Cf. Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, I.XVI. 139  On Aramaic √‫שבש‬, see Jastrow, Dictionary, 1518.

targumic quotations

175

strongly anthropomorphic expression.140 It is of interest that the same quotation is also found in the Midrash Pesikta de Rav Kahana (13:14).141 We may compare the Hebrew text and the three Aramaic translations of Jer 20:7, as follows: MT TJ Tg Esther Sheni 1:2 PRK 13:14

‫ותוכל‬ ‫חזקתני‬ ‫פתיתני יהוה ואפת‬ ‫ויכילת לי‬ ‫ואשתבשית תקיפתני‬ ‫שבישתני יוי‬ ‫שבשתני יהוה ואשתבשית תקיפתא יתי ויכילתא‬ ‫ואשתדלית‬ ‫שדלתני י״י‬

The passage quoted in Pesikta de-Rav Kahana translates the Hebrew verb √‫ פתה‬with the Aramaic √‫שדל‬, ‘to persuade, entice’, which is common in Palestinian sources,142 although the verb is also used in Onkelos and Jonathan.143 It maintains the strong anthropomorphism in line with other Palestinian explanations of the text.144 In Tg Esther Sheni 2:7 (and also in 7:9) a quotation is given of part of Zech 1:8: … and she was called Hadassah, a name for righteous ones, for thus it says concerning Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah: ‘… standing among the myrtles [‫]הדסיא‬, that were in the captivity — and ‫ צולה‬is Babylonia, as it is written, ‘who says to the ‫צולה‬: dry up’ (Isa 44:27)145

The equation of Hebrew ‫מצולה‬, ‘deep’, with the captivity of Babylon is apparently based on the reading of Targum Jonathan, where Hebrew ‫ אשר במצלה‬is interpreted as ‫די בבבל‬, ‘which were in Babylon’: and he was standing among the myrtle trees which were in Babylon

This equation is also found in b.Sanh 93a, where likewise Isa 44:27 is cited as a proof text, and were the myrtle trees represent the righteous. This might have been supposed in Jonathan’s rendering ‘myrtle trees’, 140  See the remark of Hayward, Targum of Jeremiah, 105 n. 5 ‘Tg. removes a potential blasphemy’. 141  Edn Mandelbaum, 238. 142  See Sokoloff, JPA, 538. 143  See TO Exod 22:15; TJ Judg 14:15, 16:5 (all for Hebrew √‫)פתה‬. 144  See e.g. the lengthy explanation of Jer 20:7 in PesR 21 (107a); cf. GoshenGottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, II.135. 145  According to ms Urbinati 1 which reads the last sentence as follows: ‫והוא קאים‬ ‫ ;בין הסדה די בגלותא וצולה היא בבל‬for the reading ‫בגלותא‬, see also Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice, 241; the reading of Sperber (ms British Museum Or. 2375; Sperber, Bible in Aramaic, IVA.185) is: ‫והוא קאים בין הדסיא די בצלותא וצלוה [וצולה ?] היא בבל‬.

176

chapter three

and is clearly expressed in the marginal reading of Codex Reuchlin: ‘among the righteous who were in exile in Babylon’. Only partly in line with Targum Jonathan is the quotation of 1 Sam 2:8 in Tg Esther Sheni 6:11: Now at that moment that she [Esther] saw Mordecai, the son of her father’s brother, she responded by saying to him: ‘In you is fulfilled the verse that is written in the sacred Prophets: He raises up the poor out of the dust and lifts up those downcast of spirit from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory.’

We will give a synoptic presentation of the Hebrew version and the Aramaic translations of 1 Sam 2:8. MT 1 Sam 2:8a TJ Tg Esther Sheni 6:11146 MT 1 Sam 2:8b TJ Tg Esther Sheni 6:11

‫מקים מעפר דל מאשפות ירים אביון‬ ‫מקים מעפרא מסכינא מקלקלתא מרים חשיכא‬ ‫מקים מן אפרא מסכינא ומן קיקלתא [מרים?] למכיכי‬ ‫רוחא‬ ‫להושיב עם נדיבים וכסא כבוד ינחלם‬ ‫לאתבותהון עם צדיקיא רברבי עלמא וכרסי יקרא מחסין‬ ‫להון‬ )‫למותבא יתהון [עם שלטונין] וכרסיא דיקרא מחסי(ן‬ ‫יתהון‬

The first part of Tg Esther Sheni is in line with Targum Jonathan,147 and so is the last, apart from the dissimilarity in the use of the accusative of the personal pronoun (‫)יתהון ›—‹ להון‬. The rest differs strongly from Jonathan. As a rendering of Hebrew ‫‘ אביון‬poor’, it offers the expression ‫מכיכי רוח‬, ‘(those) downcast of spirit’, which does not occur elsewhere in the Targums for the Hebrew word,148 whereas Targum Jonathan reads ‫חשיכא‬, ‘lean, poor’. For Hebrew ‫נדיבים‬, ‘nobles’, the citation gives ‫שלטונין‬, ‘princes’; Jonathan on the other hand offers a double translation: ‫צדיקיא רברבי עלמא‬, ‘the righteous ones, the chiefs 146  According to Grossfeld, Targum Sheni. 147  Sperber’s ms (Bible in Aramaic, IVA.197) remains close to Targum Jonathan, whereas Grossfeld’s ms reads ‫ מן אפרא‬for TJ’s ‫מאפרא‬, and ‫ מן קיקלתא‬for TJ’s ‫מקלקלתא‬. MT Ps 113:7–8 is mostly, apart from some variants, identical with 1 Sam 2:8. But the final part differs from it: (Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice, 68) ‫מקים מעפרא‬ ‫‘( מסכינא מקיקלתא ירים חשוכה לאותבא עם רברביא עם רברבי עמיה‬He raises the poor from the dust, and lifts up the needy from the dunghill, to make them sit with the princes of his people’). 148  But see TJ Isa 57:15, Tg Prov 23:23 (for Hebrew ‫)שפל רוח‬, TJ Isa 66:2 (for Hebrew ‫)נכי רוח‬, Tg Ps 34:19 (for Hebrew ‫)דכאי רוח‬. Cf. Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, II.61.

targumic quotations

177

of the world’,149 in line with the eschatological interpretation of 1 Sam 2:1–10 in this Targum.150 Of interest is the quotation of Haggai 2:8 in Tg Esther Sheni 1:4. First the Hebrew text is partly quoted, followed by a longer piece in Aramaic. We may present the Hebrew text and the two Aramaic translations of Haggai 2:8 as follows: MT Haggai 2:8 TJ Tg Esther Sheni 1:4

‫הכסף ולי הזהב נאם יהוה צבאות‬ ‫לי‬ ‫דילי כספא ודילי דהבא אמר יוי צבאות‬ ‫דידי כספא ודידי דהבא אמר ייי מרי חילותיה‬

The first part is in line with Targum Jonathan apart from the dialectical differences between ‫ דידי‬and ‫דילי‬.151 The translation of the divine name ‫יהוה צבאות‬, however, differs from the literal translation of Targum Jonathan. Apart from Tg 1 Chron 14:24, it is not found elsewhere in the Targums, although the noun )‫ צבא(ות‬is often translated in other contexts with )‫חיל(וון‬.152 Although the Targums on Esther are known as expansive translations, the citations in them are not necessarily freer than those in Targum Jonathan. A fine example is the quotation of Isa 65:24 in Tg Esther Sheni 1:1: Since the days of old, since ancient times, when distress came upon the people of the House of Israel, they would pray before their Father in Heaven and He would answer them, as it is written: ‘Now it came to pass, before they call, I will answer; while they are still speaking, I will respond.’

As said before, the citation is in Hebrew in Sperber’s edition (ms Or. 2375), but in Aramaic in ms Sassoon 282.153 Remarkably, the verse quoted is a literal translation, whereas Targum Jonathan has replaced the neutral expressions (‘call’, ‘answer’, ‘speak’, ‘respond’), by prayer 149  See on these differences, also Ego, Targum Scheni, 309 n. 727. We are not convinced that, as she argues, there is a better contrast in Tg Esther Sheni (between downcast of spirit and princes) than in Targum Jonathan (the poor versus the righteous ones). She neglects the fact that Targum Jonathan gives a double translation. 150  See Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 215–16. 151  See Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, II.31. According to Sokoloff, JPA, 146, dil– is extremely rare in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (see, however, y.Taan 66c, y.BM 10b), as compared with did–; see also Tal, ‫לשון התרגום‬, 7–8; M. Kosovsky, Concordance to the Talmud Yerushalmi, 8 Vols, Jerusalem 1979–2002, II.858–59. 152  See e.g. Neof Deut 20:9, Num 2:23, 10:22. Other examples in Sokoloff, JPA, 199. 153  See Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, II.72.

178

chapter three

formulas (‘pray’, ‘accept the prayer’; ‘beseech’, ‘do [their] request’), as can be learned from the following survey: MT Isa 65:24 Tg Esther Sheni 1:1 TJ

‫והיה טרם יקראו ואני אענה עוד הם מדברים ואני אשמע‬ ‫ויהי עד לא יקראון אנא עני עד לא ימללון אנא אשמע‬ ‫ויהי עד לא יצלון קדמי אקביל צלותהון ועד לא יבעון מן‬ ‫קדמי אעביד בעותהון‬

This more lenient approach towards its source-text is in line with Targum Jonathan’s tendency ‘to transform human utterances to God into prayers’.154 A similar case is the quotation of Isa 55:13 in Tg Esther Sheni 2:7, a passage which discusses the meaning of the name Hadassah: Now why was she called Hadassah? Because the righteous ones are likened to the myrtle, concerning whom the prophet Isaiah prophesied, saying: [Hebrew quotation] ‘Instead of the thorn shall the cypress come up, and instead of the nettle shall the myrtle come up.’ What does ‫ הנעצוץ‬mean? Thorn. [Aramaic quotation] ‘In place of the thorn will rise a cypress’; thus in place of the righteous Mordecai, the wicked Haman will ascend the scaffold. ‫ סרפד‬means nettle; [continuation of the Aramaic quotation] thus in place of a nettle a myrtle will arise; so in place of Vashti, Esther will reign.

In Tg Esther Sheni first a Hebrew quotation is given of Isa 55:13, with the introductory formula: ‘… concerning whom the prophet Isaiah prophesied, saying …’. This Hebrew quotation is followed by an Aramaic explanation of the Hebrew word ‫( נעצוץ‬Aramaic ‫ = הגתא‬thorn), followed by an Aramaic translation of the first part of Isa 55:13a, and of Hebrew ‫( סרפד‬Aramaic ‫ארבניא‬, ‘nettle’), followed by the second part of Isa 55:13a. The translation offered is a literal one, and it is followed by a symbolic interpretation: ‘thus in place of the righteous Mordecai, the wicked Haman will ascend the scaffold … so in place of Vashti, Esther will reign.’ Targum Jonathan equates the thorn and nettle with the wicked and sinners, and the cypress and myrtle with the righteous and ‘those who fear sin’. In this way, it gives only a symbolic interpretation of the text, whereas Targum Esther starts with a literal rendering.155

154  Van Staalduine-Sulman, Targum of Samuel, 175. For the importance of prayer in Targum Jonathan, see Smolar-Aberbach, Studies, 164–69. 155  Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, II.68–69; cf. b.Meg 10b.

targumic quotations

179

Quite the contrary of the above is the situation in the following example. In Tg Cant 1:1 we find an expansive midrashic tradition on the Ten Songs which were uttered in the world, from the first song of Adam to the tenth song which the children of Israel will sing when they are released from their captivity:156 The tenth song will be recited by the children of the exile when they depart from their exile, as is clearly written by Isaiah the prophet: You shall have this song of joy, as on the night when the festival of Passover is sanctified, and [you shall have] gladness of heart, like the people who go to appear before the Lord three times in the year with all kinds of musical instruments and [with] the sound of the pipe, [who go] to ascend into the Mountain of the Lord, and to worship before the Mighty One of Israel.

The quotation in Tg Cant 1:1 of Isa 30:29 is a free rendering of the Isaiah-text, re-interpreting the verse as ‘an eschatological marching song’,157 and adding references to the yearly pilgrimage to the Mountain of the Lord on the night of Passover. Targum Jonathan on the other hand faithfully renders the MT, apart from a few additions and changes: For you, there shall be a song, as on the night when a festival is hallowed; there shall be gladness of heart just as when they flow with (a hymn of) thanksgiving and with a flute, to go to the holy Mountain of the Lord, to appear before the Strong One of Israel.

Although one might suppose that the rendering of our verse in Tg Canticles shows evidence of the existence of a — more expansive? — Palestinian Targum,158 it seems more likely that it is an elaboration of Targum Jonathan, with which it has in common first the reference to the Passover feast (the Hebrew text merely speaks of ‘a feast’) and, secondly, the interpretation of Hebrew ‫צור ישראל‬, ‘the Rock of Israel,’ as ‫תקיפא דישראל‬, ‘the Strong One of Israel’.

156  See on the tradition of the Ten Songs, Mekhilta Shirta 1:1 (Horovitz-Rabin, 116– 17), MRS Beshala 15 (edn Epstein-Melamed, 71), b.Pes 95b, GenR 6:2 (Th-A 41–42), Tan Beshala 10, MidrPss 113:1. The tenth Song of Tg Cant is number one in the Mekhiltot. See Towner, Enumeration, 164–68; McNamara, New Testament, 209–14 (discusses the relation of the rabbinic and targumic material to Rev 5:9–13, 14:3, 15:3f). 157  It is characterised as such by Loewe, ‘Apologetic Motifs’, 169. 158  See Alexander, Targum of Canticles, 78 n. 13.

180

chapter three

2.4. Summary 1. It should be realised that the Targums on the Writings are of a peculiar nature. With them we are on the borderline between targum and midrash. Unlike the classical midrashim, we do not find in these ‘targumic midrashim’ references to named authorities, but like the midrashim they are often characterised by the frequent use of scriptural quotations. Most of them are in Hebrew, but some are in Aramaic. In Targum Esther Sheni and Targum Canticles we discovered eight quotations in Aramaic, all of them formula quotations using a variety of introductory formulas, and taken from the books of 1–2 Samuel (2), Isaiah (3), Jeremiah (1), Haggai (1) and Zechariah (1). 2. There is great variation between the different manuscripts of the Targums Esther Sheni and Canticles. Citations that are in Hebrew in some of the manuscripts are in Aramaic in others. There is, moreover, great variation in the form of these quotations (additions, spelling-variations, use of prepositions, etc.). Such differences in the form of the quotations might demonstrate that the Targum tradition of the Writings was a fluctuating one and that it was not so strictly edited as to form an authoritative translation. 3. As we have seen, the quotations in Tg Canticles and Tg Esther Sheni are only in a few cases exegetically in line with Targum Jonathan (2 Sam 19:23 quoted in Esther Sheni 2:5; Jer 20:7 quoted in Esther Sheni 1:2 and Zech 1:8 quoted in Esther Sheni 2:7 and 7:9). The wording of these quotations, however, is Palestinian. In the case of Esther Sheni 1:2, where Jer 20:7 is quoted, the Palestinian Targum follows Targum Jonathan in choosing the verb √‫ שבש‬as a translation equivalent to Hebrew √‫פתה‬, avoiding a strong anthropomorphism, whereas the Palestinian Midrash Pesikta de-Rav Kahana uses Aramaic √‫שדל‬, maintaining the anthropomorphism. More often the quotations are only partly in line with Targum Jonathan or differ strongly from it. 4. The Targums on the Writings are known to be expansive translations, whereas Targum Jonathan is often seen as a fairly literal translation. There are, however, several examples of translations in the Targums on Esther that are (far) more literal than the official Targum (Isa 65:24 in Esther Sheni 1:1; Isa 55:13 in Esther Sheni 2:7). On the other hand, also an example is given of the reverse, a faithful and literal translation of Isa 30:29 in Targum Jonathan as compared to a free rendering in Targum Canticles 1:1.

targumic quotations

181

3. Quotations from the Prophets in the Tosefta Targums 3.1. Survey of quotations The Tosefta Targums of Targum Samuel have been studied in the previous chapter. Here we concentrate on quotations from the Prophets that are found in the whole corpus. They may consist of quotations of the verse with which a certain Tosefta is connected (and sometimes such a verse is quoted twice), or of quotations taken from another chapter or another book. Some of these Tosefta texts are almost completely made up of lines that are composed of citations and allusions (Tosefta Targums on 2 Kgs 4:1, Isa 66:1, Ezek 1:1, Zech 2:14). First we will give a survey of the known citations: Targum Prophets

Tosefta Targum

Introductory formula

Tg Judg 5:9 Tg 1 Sam 15:29 Tg 2 Sam 3:29 Tg 2 Sam 21:17

TT on Judg 5:3 TT on Zech 2:14 TT on 1 Kgs 2:1, 2:30 ‘and thus [it says] …’ TT on 2 Sam 21:15–19 ‘for thus it is written, read and explained’ Tg 1 Kgs 8:27 TT on Isa 66:1 ‘As it was said by Solomon, the ( = Tg 2 Chron 6:18) king …’ Tg 1 Kgs 18:3 TT on 2 Kgs 4:1 Tg 2 Kgs 21:16 TT on Isa 66:1 ‘as was written …’ ‘The prophet Isaiah said …’ Tg Isa 6:1 TT on Isa 6:1159 Tg Isa 14:13–14 TT on Ezek 1:1 ‘and thus he said …’ Tg Isa 60:8 TT on Isa 66:23 ‘in order to fulfil [the Scripture] (, that says …)’ Tg Isa 66:1 TT on Isa 66:1 ‘But now, said the Lord …’ Tg Jer 49:11 TT on 2 Kgs 4:1 ‘and the Lord of the World answered …, and said … ‘The prophet Ezekiel said …’ Tg Ezek 1:1 TT on Ezek 1:1160 Tg Hos 1:2–3 TT on Hos 1:2 ‘and the Lord of the World answered me (and said) … Tg Micah 5:4 TT on Zech 4:2 Tg Zeph 3:5 TT on Zech 2:14

159  See on this Tosefta Targum the Dutch study by A. Houtman, ‘De Targoem van Jesaja 6:1’, in: J.W. Wesselius (ed.), Een handvol koren: Opstellen van enkele vrienden bij het vertrek van Dr. F. Sepmeijer van de Theologische Universiteit Kampen, Kampen 2003, 11–15. She concludes that the Tosefta is based on Targum Jonathan, and expands the official Targum with additions taken from the Babylonian Talmud (b.AZ 5a). 160  This quotation has been discussed extensively by A. Damsma, An Analysis of Targum Ezekiel and its Relationship to the Targumic Toseftot, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University College London 2008, 97–99.

182

chapter three

3.2. Exchangeability of Aramaic and Hebrew quotations As in the more expansive targums on the Writings we often find quotations in the Tosefta Targums that are in Hebrew within Aramaic ones. As an example we may point out the Hebrew citation of Jer 23:19 in the Tosefta Targum of Ezek 1:1.161 In the same passage, one will find an explicit Aramaic quotation of Isa 14:13–14 (with the introductory phrase ‘And thus he said …’), followed by a Hebrew citation of the same verse. The lenghty TT ends with a quotation of the ‘source text’, Ezek 1:1, with several deviations from TJ Ezek 1:1.162 3.3. Relationship to Targum Jonathan It has often been noticed that the Tosefta Targums, which in all likelihood are Palestinian in origin,163 were recast in the dialect of Targum Jonathan at a certain time. When we take a closer look at the citations in the Tosefta Targums, we will see that they often correspond to the text of Targum Jonathan, sometimes with minor differences between both texts. But there are also citations that differ from Targum Jonathan, being more expansive or remaining closer to the Hebrew text where Targum Jonathan offers a free interpretation. Let us first look at a few examples of the latter. The Tosefta Targum on 2 Kgs 4:1164 opens with a formula of introduction and then offers a fairly literal translation of the Hebrew text of Jer 49:11 (‘Leave your orphans with me, / I will rear them; / Let your widows rely on me!’): And the Master of the World answered me: ‘Trust on me,’ and he said to me: ‘Leave your orphans with me, and I will establish (them); and your widows, let them rely on me!’

In the Tosefta Targum every single Hebrew word is represented by its Aramaic equivalent, apart from a few modifications. Targum Jonathan, on the other hand, offers a free interpretation of our verse, transforming the image of orphans and widows into the metaphor of the solitary House of Israel: You, O House of Israel, shall not be forsaken. I will establish your orphans and your widows shall trust in my Memra. 161  See Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 180ff. [125‫א‬: 107–108]. 162  See the discussion of this quotation in Damsma, Analysis of Targum Ezekiel, 97–99. 163  See the description of the common opinion and the evaluation of the evidence below, pp. 239–247. 164  See Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 140 [94:9].

targumic quotations

183

We may compare both translations of our verse: MT Jer 49:11 TT 2 Kgs 4:1165 TJ Jer 49:11

‫עזבה יתמיך אני אחיה ואלמנתיך עלי תבטחו‬ ‫לשבוק יתמך אנא אקיים וארמלתיך עלי תתרחיץ‬ ‫אתון בית ישראל לא תשתבקון יתמיכון‬ ‫אנא אקיים וארמלתכון על מימרי יתרחצן‬

Targum Jonathan opens with an exhortation to the audience, ‘You, O House of Israel’, which resembles similar formulas of admonition in Palestinian sources.166 It transforms the imperative of the Hebrew into a general admonition, adding a negative particle, and changes the singular suffixes into plural ones. It furthermore adds an object (‘your orphans’) to Hebrew ‘I will rear’ (in the Aramaic translations: ‘I will establish’). In this it is more expansive than the Tosefta Targum. The same applies to the following example. Targum Jonathan on Hosea 1:2–3 offers an allegorical interpretation of the command to Hosea to marry a wife of whoredom: )2(  The

beginning of the word of the Lord with Hosea. The Lord said to Hosea, “Go, speak a prophecy against the inhabitants of the idolatrous city, who continue to sin. For the inhabitants of the land surely go astray from behind the worship of the Lord.”  )3( So he went and prophesied concerning them that, if they repented, they would be forgiven; but if not, they would fall as the leaves of a fig tree fall. But they continued to do wicked deeds.

The command ‘Go, get yourself a wife of whoredom’ (Hosea 1:2) is here transformed into a new command to deliver a prophecy against an idolatrous city.167 This to avoid the idea that the prophet could receive a divine command to act immorally by marrying a harlot. The translation of Targum Jonathan is only slightly connected with the Hebrew text and freely interprets its source text, offering an allegorical explanation of the text, adding homiletical themes on repentance and forgiveness and making a pun on the name Diblaim, which is associated with Hebrew ‫דבילה‬, ‘a cake of pressed figs’.168 165  Sperber’s reading (Aramaic Bible, II.277) differs: ‫שבוק יתמך ואנא איקיימינון‬ ‫וארמלתך עלי תתרחץ‬. 166  Cf. the exhortation formula ‫ אתון כנישתא דישראל‬in PsJon Lev 18:26, 20:22. For the more common ‫ עמי עמי בית ישראל‬and variants, see Shinan, ‫אגדתם של מתרגמנים‬, 192–96. 167  See Cathcart & Gordon, Minor Prophets, 29 n. 5; for a similar transformation of a command to perform a symbolic act, see TJ Zech 11:4 (and see Cathcart & Gordon, 212 n. 16). On the halakhic problems involved, see Smolar & Aberbach, Studies, 43–44, Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 82–83, and see b.Pes 87ab. 168  See Smolar & Aberbach, Studies, 216 n. 557. In b.Pes 87b the name is associated

184

chapter three

The quotation of our text in the TT on Hosea 1:2 on the other hand is closer to the Hebrew text, following the Hebrew word order: (2b) Thus said the Holy One Blessed be He to Hosea, “Go, get yourself a wife of whoredom, and she will bear you children of whoredom.” (3) And he went and married Gomer, daughter of Diblaim. Gomer (is her name), for the whole world runs after her and (they) gratify their lust on her … And she conceived and bore him two sons and a daughter.169

Although there are several additions (‘and she will bear you [children of whoredom],’ ‘two sons and a daughter’170) and transformations, it sticks more closely to the Hebrew text than Targum Jonathan does. It avoids the metaphorical interpretation. Linguistically, however, the Tosefta Targum is in line with the Aramaic of Jonathan.171 The Tosefta Targum likewise has a pun on names, not on Diblaim but on Gomer.172 It is of interest to see that sometimes a citation in one manuscript is more in line with Targum Jonathan than in another. For example, in a TT to Isa 66:23, Isa 60:8 is quoted. In ms Parma 555 the first part of this quotation is literal and differs therein from Targum Jonathan that interprets it as a metaphor. The second part, on the other hand, resembles Targum Jonathan. In ms Urbinati 1, however, the whole citation is more in line with Targum Jonathan. We may compare the different versions: MT Isa 60:8 TJ Isa 60:8 TT Isa 66:23 ms Parma 555173

‫מי אלה כעב תעופינה וכיונים אל ארבתיהם‬ ‫מן אלין דאתן בגלי כעננין קלילין ולא לאתעכבא גלותא‬ ‫דישראל דמתכנשין ואתן לארעהון הא כיונין דתיבן לגו שובכיהון‬ )‫(לקיומי‬ ‫מאן אילין דבעננא פרחן הרי במנחתא וכיונין דיתבין לגו‬ ‫שובכיהון הרי בצפרא‬

with ‫דבה‬, ‘ill fame’, as well as with ‫דבילה‬, ‘cake of fig’. In the talmudic explanations, however, no comparison is drawn between Diblaim and the fallen leaves of a fig tree. 169  Cf. Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 202 [132:12–15]. 170  This seems to be derived from the plural ‫ ;ילדי זנונים‬for the daughter, see Hos 1:6. 171  See for the expression ‫סב לך‬, TJ Isa 8:1, TJ Jer 36:2, TJ Ezek 4:1. For Aramaic ‫ועדיאת וילידת‬, see TJ Isa 8:3 (Palestinian Aramaic would read ‫)ועברת וילדת‬. Cf. Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, II.76–77. 172  The explanation is the same as the one given by Rav in b.Pes 87ab (‫אמר רב שהכל‬ ‫)גומרים בה‬. Cf. Jastrow, Dictionary, 255 (‘all people could gratify their lust on her’). 173  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 170 [120:35–36].

targumic quotations TT Isa 66:23 ms Urbinati 1174

185

)‫(לקיומי כתבא דאמיר‬ ‫מאן אילין בגלאי כעננין קלילין די לא לאיתעכבא הרי בצפרא‬ ‫גלותא דישראל דאתאן לארהון הא כיונין דיתובין לגו‬ ‫שובביהון הרי במנחתא‬

Targum Jonathan uses the images of cloud and doves in our verse for a description of the return of the exiles: Who are these that come suddenly like swift clouds, and are not to be checked? The exiles of Israel, who are gathered and come to their land, even like doves which return to the midst of their cotes.175

In the Parma ms of the TT on Isa 66:23 the picture of the returning of the exiles is combined with the idea of the restoration of the cult: And when the clouds of glory come, they carry you in the morning and bring you to the Temple, and you will pray before Me, and after the prayer you will return to your places. And so also in the time of the evening offering, in order to fulfil [the Scripture, that says:] ‘Who are these who fly like a cloud’, that is in the evening. ‘And like doves which return to the midst of their cotes’, that is in the morning.

The first part of the quotation is literal and differs from Targum Jonathan. It does not refer directly to the exiles of Israel. The second part, however, is in line with Targum Jonathan. ms Urbinati 1 lacks the words ‘and bring you in the Temple’. The quotation of Isa 60:8 is introduced with the phrase ‘to fulfil the Scripture that says’, whereas ms Parma abbreviates this with ‘to fulfil’. The quotation is here more in line with Targum Jonathan, both versions referring to ‘the exiles of Israel (who) will come to their land’. One further notes that the order of events (morning / evening) differs in the manuscripts: [ms Urbinati 1] … in order to fulfil the Scripture that says: ‘Who are these (that come) suddenly like swift clouds without being checked,’ that is in the morning. ‘The exiles of Israel who come to their land, even like doves which return to the midst of their cotes’.176 174  See P. Grelot, ‘Deux tosephtas targoumiques inédites sur Isaïe LXVI’, RB 19 (1972), 536–37. 175  A similar image is used in TJ Isa 35:6 (‘Then, when they see the exiles of Israel who are gathered and going up to their land, even as swift harts, and not to be checked …’). See also PTs on Exod 19:4 (Neof: ‘I have born you on the clouds of the Glory of my Shekhinah upon the wings of swift eagles and brought you nigh to the instruction of my Law’). 176  The ms here reads ‫שובביהון‬, which seems to be the result of a writer’s error. From the midrashic explanations of Isa 66:23 in PesR 1, Grelot (‘Deux tosephtas’, 542– 43) concludes that the Urbinati text is based on traditions of Amoraim in the 3rd or

186

chapter three

The differences in the manuscript tradition of the Tosefta Targum may indicate that these targums did not undergo a strong editorial process. Most of the other quotations in the Tosefta Targums are in line with Targum Jonathan, or show minor variations or additions. In some cases, they are built up out of a mixture of several verses. We will give a few examples. Although quite clearly based on the text of TJ Judg 5:3, the Tosefta Targum to the same verse has several additions and variations. Targum Jonathan gives a free interpretation of the Hebrew text: Hear, O kings! Listen, O rulers! Deborah was saying in prophecy before the Lord, “I am praising, thanking and blessing before the Lord, God of Israel”.

The Tosefta Targum expands the text, identifying kings and rulers, and explaining that ‘the subjection of Israel was not due to the strength of the oppressors’:177 Hear, O kings, who came with Sisera for war! Listen, O rulers, who were with Jabin, king of Hazor! Neither by your power nor by your strength did you prevail and come up against the House of Israel. Deborah said in prophecy, “I am sent to praise before the Lord, God of Israel”.

The quotation of the last phrase is not exactly the wording of Targum Jonathan, whose text reads: ‘I am praising, thanking and blessing before the Lord, God of Israel.’ Smelik argues that ‘the final phrase of the Tosefta agrees with [TJ Judg] 5:9 rather than 5:3.’178 In our view, however, it is formed as a combination of the two nearly like-worded verses 5:9 (Deborah said in prophecy: ‘I am sent to praise [the scribes of Israel] …’) and 5:3 (Deborah was saying in prophecy … before the Lord, God of Israel’). In the TT to Zech 2:14 it is said of God: ‘for he cannot act deceitfully, and he does not repent of what he has promised’,179 an expression 4th century, and belongs to the milieu out of which also Pesikta Rabbati originated. It is very difficult, however, to ascertain whether the Tosefta is dependent on Pesikta Rabbati or vice versa, as Grelot admits. 177  As formulated by Smelik, Targum of Judges, 398. 178  Smelik, Targum of Judges, 398. 179  A shorter variant in TJ Zeph 3:5 (‫לית קדמוהי למעבד שקר‬, ‘he cannot act deceitfully’). There is a very close relationship between TJ Zeph 3:5, and TT Zech 2:14, see Gordon, Studies, 96ff.

targumic quotations

187

which can be taken as a quotation or verbal echo from 1 Sam 15:29 (‘Moreover, the Glory of Israel does not deceive or change his mind, for he is not human that he should change his mind’). Targum Jonathan gives a free interpretation of 1 Sam 15:29 (because of the abrupt transition from the preceding verse: the fact that the kingdom of Israel is taken away from Saul?),180 which emphasises the theological idea that God’s words are unalterable. God faithfully fulfils his promises and he does not repent or change his mind, as human beings do:181 And if you say: ‘I will turn from my sins …’ it is already decreed upon you from before the Master of Israel’s victory, before whom there is no deceit, and he does not repent of what he has promised; for he is not like the sons of men who say and act deceitfully, decree and do not carry out.

The TT to Zech 2:14 alludes to this formula in what has been called a pastiche or cento of targumic citations.182 There are echoes of various scriptural passages in this Tosefta: Rejoice and give praise, O congregation of Zion, for the Glory of the Lord is revealed, and the world will shine with the splendour of His glory;183 for He has promised to make His Shekhinah dwell in your midst. For He cannot act deceitfully, and He does not repent what He has promised; like the morning light which becomes stronger than everything throughout the whole world, so are His praise, His glory and His justice.

When we compare both renderings of 1 Sam 15:29 we see that there are minor variations and that in Targum Jonathan ‫‘ למעבד‬to act’ is lacking: MT 1 Sam 15:29 TJ 1 Sam 15:29 TT Zech 2:14

‫ולא ינחם‬ ‫ישקר‬ ‫לא‬ ‫ולא תאיב ממא דאמר‬ ‫דלית קדמוהי שקר‬ ‫ולית קדמוהי למעבד שקר ולא תייב מן מא דאמר‬

We might have here in the Tosefta Targum a free quotation of Targum Jonathan on 1 Sam 15:29. As Robert Gordon has shown, the first part of 180  See Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 333–34. 181  See on this theme in Targum Jonathan, Smolar & Aberbach, Studies, 134; E.B. Levine, The Aramaic Version of the Bible: Contents and Context, Berlin & New York 1988, 54. 182  See Gordon, Studies, 98–107. On the relation between our quotation and Num 23:19, see Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 334. 183  See on this expression, Smelik, ‘Mystical Transformation’, 133ff.; for possible reminiscences of Ezek 43:2, see Gordon, Studies, 99.

188

chapter three

this ‘quotation’ is exactly the same as the wording of TJ Zeph 3:5, which in many ways has influenced the rendering of the Tosefta Targum. 184 Fully in line with Targum Jonathan are the quotations of 2 Sam 3:29 in the TTs on 1 Kgs 2:1185 and 2:30.186 Targum Jonathan offers a fairly literal translation, clarifying the Hebrew expression ‫‘ נפל בחרב‬one slain by the sword’ by ‫מתקטיל בחרבא‬, ‘(one) who is killed by the sword’: May the guilt fall upon the head of Joab and upon all his father’s house. May the house of Joab never be without one who is flowing, or one with a skin disease, or one who handles the spindle, and who is killed by the sword, or one lacking bread.

The Tosefta Targums are in accord with Targum Jonathan, including the clarification just mentioned. The meaning of Hebrew ‫מחזיק בפלך‬ ‘one who handles the spindle (?)’ is unclear,187 as is the Aramaic rendering ‫מתקיף באגר‬, a reading which is given support in the Tosefta Targums, but which cannot so easily be understood.188 The Arukh (1:22, s.v. ‫ אגד‬3) gives the reading of Targum Jonathan as ‫‘ ומתקיף באגיד‬one who seizes a staff’189 which is in line with the reading κρατῶν σκυτάλης of the Greek version, and might contextually indicate crippled people. At times there are only minor differences between the text quoted and the original. In the TT on Isa 66:1 we find a fairly literal quotation of TJ 1 Kgs 8:27, with some spelling-variants: As it was said by Solomon the king: “For who would imagine and who would consider that the Lord has indeed chosen to make his Shekhinah reside in the midst of the sons of men who dwell upon the earth. Behold the heavens and the heavens of heavens cannot contain Your glory, how much less the House which I have built”.190

The quotation in the Tosefta Targum is introduced by the formula ‘As it was said by Solomon the king’. Compared with the text of Targum 184  See Gordon, Studies, 105 and his criticism of Grelot’s view (in ‘Une Tosephta targoumique’) that the Tosefta text antedates the standard Targum and is thought to be related to a Palestinian Targum to the Prophets. See also Kasher, ‘‫התוספתות‬ ‫’התרגומיות‬, 27–45. 185  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 124 [72:9–10], from a Genizah fragment. 186  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 26 [75:1–2] (ms Oxford 2329). 187  See Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 500. 188  Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 500, thinks that it could mean ‘one who seizes wages’, i.e. who hires himself out for wages. 189  See also Jastrow, Dictionary, 10. 190  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 169 [120:5–7].

targumic quotations

189

Jonathan it shows minor spelling variants.191 A more conspicuous variation is that instead of the expression ‫‘ לא יכלון לסוברא‬they cannot contain (Your glory)’ in Targum Jonathan, the Tosefta Targum reads ‫לא יכלון לסובלא‬. Variation between √‫ סבל‬and √‫ סבר‬occurs elsewhere, see Tg 2 Chron 2:5, 6:18. The Arukh (6:12, s.v. ‫ )סבר‬reads ‫תרג׳ הא שמיא‬ ‫ושמי שמיא לא יסוברונך‬, supporting the reading of Targum Jonathan, but remaining closer to the wording of the Hebrew text. Of interest is the ‘Palestinian’ quotation of Tg 1 Kgs 8:27 in the parallel text, Tg 2 Chron 6:18, which has several additions: For who would imagine and who would consider that the Lord indeed has chosen to make His Shekhinah reside in the midst of the sons of men who inhabit the earth … For it is impossible for the upper heavens, the middle heavens, and the lower heavens to contain the glory of Your Shekhinah, for You are the God who sustains everything, the heavens and the earth and the depths and everything which is in them — how much less this House which I have built.

This targum, which seems to be based on Targum Jonathan,192 explains the Hebrew expression ‘heavens and the heavens of heavens’ as meaning ‘the upper heavens, the middle heavens, and the lower heavens.’ Instead of ‘Your glory’ it reads ‘the glory of Your Shekhinah.’ For the addition ‘for You are the God who sustains everything, the heavens and the earth and the depths and everything which is in them’, one may compare Tg 2 Chron 2:5. In the same TT on Isa 66:1 the base text is quoted twice. First, only Isa 66:1a (‘Thus said the Lord: / The heaven is My throne, / And the earth is My footstool’) is cited, followed by a free comment on the next two lines (‘Where could you build a House for Me, / What place could serve as My abode?’): [a] And he [Isaiah] prophesied to the people of Israel, thus said the Lord: ‘The heaven is the throne of My glory and why do you behave proudly before me in this House that was built for my name? Even the upper and lower (heavens) cannot carry the Shekhinah of my glory’.193

The quotation here of Isa 66:1a is in line with Targum Jonathan’s rendering. In the second part of the Tosefta the base verse is quoted again, 191  Cf. Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, II.157 ‘nothing but a variant of Targum Jonathan’. 192  See D.R.G. Beattie & J. Stanley McIvor, The Targum of Ruth / The Targum of Chronicles, Edinburgh 1994, 15–16. 193  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 169 [120:3–5].

190

chapter three

this time from the beginning to the end, after having mentioned the story of Isaiah’s death: [b] Until Isaiah was killed, he was admonishing them and said: “Do not think that because of your merits this House was built. It was rather because of the merit of the righteous that the Holy One Blessed be He let his Shekhinah dwell in it.” But now said the Lord: Where could you build a House for My name, what place could serve as the abode of My Shekhinah?194

We may compare both of these citations in the Tosefta Targum with Targum Jonathan’s rendering of our verse: MT Isa 66:1

‫כה אמר יהוה‬ ‫השמים כסאי והארץ הדם רגלי‬ ‫אי זה בית אשר תבנו לי ואי זה מקום מנוחתי‬ TJ Isa 66:1 ‫כדנן אמר יוי שמיא כורסי יקרי וארעא כיבש קדמי‬ ‫אידין ביתא דתבנון קדמי ואידין אתר בית אשריות שכינתי‬ TT Isa 66:1 (a) … ‫כדנן [אמר] ייי שמיא כורסי יקרי‬ TT Isa 66:1 (b) ‫וברם השתא אמר ייי שמיא כורסי יקרי וארעא כיבש קדמיי אידין‬ ‫ביתא דת<יבנון> קדמיי אידין ואידין אתר בית אשריות שכינתי‬

The Tosefta seems to be built on Targum Jonathan. It follows the additions of Targum Jonathan, avoiding to speak of God in anthropomorphic terms and replacing the expressions by more reverential ones as ‘My throne’, ‘My footstool’, and ‘My abode’, by ‘the throne of My glory’, ‘a stepping stool195 before Me’, and ‘the abode of My Shekhinah’. At one point, however, it differs from Targum Jonathan. Instead of ‫כדנן‬, ‘now’, it opens with ‫וברם השתא‬, ‘but now’. A third quotation in the TT on Isa 66:1 is that of 2 Kgs 21:16. Here the Tosefta closely follows the text of Targum Jonathan:196 And the blood of Isaiah the prophet was spread, as was written: ‘Moreover, Manasseh shed so much innocent blood that he filled Jerusalem from end to end197 — besides the sin he committed in causing those of the House of Judah to do what was displeasing before the Lord’.198 194  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 170 [120:15–18]. 195  B.D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum, Edinburgh 1987, 126, translates ‘a highway before me’, instead of ‘stepping stool’; but see Jastrow, Dictionary, 611. 196  See Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, II.22–23. 197  For the expression ‫‘ ספא בספא‬from end to end’, see TJ 2 Kgs 10:21. 198  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 170 [120:12–14]. For the traditions on the martyrdom and death of Isaiah, see A. Houtman, ‘The Targumic Versions of the Martyrdom of Isaiah’, in: M.F.J. Baasten & R. Munk (eds), Studies in Hebrew Language and Jewish

targumic quotations

191

As we have seen so far, the Tosefta Targums sometimes remain close to the Hebrew text where Targum Jonathan offers a free interpretation of the same text. At other times, however, the TT is strongly paraphrastic in contrast with the rendering of Targum Jonathan. In Isa 14:14 we read: ‘I will mount the back of a cloud — / I will match the Most High.’ Targum Jonathan interprets the difficult Hebrew ‫על במתי עב‬, as ‘above all the people’, and the following ‫ אדמה לעליון‬as ‘I will be higher than them all’: I will ascend above all the people, / I will be higher than them all

Perhaps wordplay is involved between Aramaic ‫עלאי‬, ‘higher’, and Hebrew ‫עליון‬, ‘Most High’.199 The TT on Ezek 1:1200 seems to presuppose Targum Jonathan, but offers a free interpretation of the verse describing the arrogance of the king of Babylon: And thus he said: ‘I will ascend to the highest of heavens, and I will destroy the highest beings, and I will wage war with the highest angels [lit.: holy ones], and consider the seat of my kingdom as higher than the seats on high, for thus it is written therein [in Scripture]: I will mount the back of a cloud, I will match the Most High’.201

3.4. Summary 1. We have discussed above 15 quotations from the Prophets in the so-called Tosefta Targums. Citations in them are taken from the biblical books Judges (1), Samuel (3), Kings (3), Isaiah (4), Jeremiah (1), Hosea (1), Micah (1) and Zephaniah (1). As we saw, some of the Toseftas are made up of several quotations (three for example in the TT on Isaiah 66:1). 2. Viewed linguistically, the quotations, being part of the Toseftas, are recast in the dialect of Targum Jonathan, showing a few traces only of their presupposed Palestinian origin. With regard to their translation techniques and their contents, some of these Tosefta quotations differ from Targum Jonathan. As we have seen, the quotation of Jer 49:11 in the Tosefta Targum (on 2 Kgs 4:1) is a far more literal Culture, Dordrecht 2007, 189–201. See also TT 2 Kgs 24:4. Cf. b.Yev 49b, y.Sanh 10:2 (28c), Tosafot on b.Taan 26b. According to y.Taan 4:5 (68d) on the seventeenth of Tammuz an idol was set up in the Temple by Manasseh. See m.Taan 4:6, b.Sanh 103b, 109b. 199  See Chilton, Isaiah Targum, 32n. 200  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 180ff [125(‫ )א‬15–22, 97–98, 181, 183]. 201  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 181 [15–17].

192

chapter three

rendition of the Hebrew text than the translation of Targum Jonathan. It is difficult, however, to describe the relationship between both translations. Do we have to suppose that the Tosefta quotation is based on an older version of Targum Jeremiah?202 Or is the Tosefta quotation based on a more literal Palestinian translation of (certain parts of) Jeremiah? The same questions arise when we look at the quotation of Hosea 1:2–3 in the TT on Hosea 1:2, which is closer to the Hebrew text, following the Hebrew word order, than the free translation of Targum Jonathan. The latter, avoiding the possibility that God could give an immoral command, offers an allegorical explanation of the text, which may have been based on a discussion of the halakhic problems involved in b.Pes 87ab. However, in a few cases the reverse is visible: the translation of Isa 14:14 in Targum Jonathan is more literal than in the Tosefta Targum of Ezek 14:14, which is strongly paraphrastic. Apart from Isa 60:8 (see below), most of the other quotations are in line with Targum Jonathan, or show additions and (minor) variations. The variations may be due to imprecise quotations that consist of a combination of verses (Judg 5:3 in the Tosefta Targum of the same verse). 3. As we have seen, sometimes a quotation in one manuscript of the Tosefta Targums is more in line with Targum Jonathan than in other manuscripts as shown in the quotation of Isa 60:8 in ms Parma and ms Urbinati 1 of the TT on Isa 66:23. This might demonstrate that, as in the case of the Targums Esther Sheni and Canticles, the Targum tradition of the Tosefta Targums was a fluctuating one and not so strongly edited as to form an authoritative translation.

4. Quotations from the Prophets in magical texts Much work has been done in recent years in the field of incantation texts on magical bowls or amulets.203 These texts contain many biblical quotations, which are mostly in Hebrew but sometimes also in Aramaic.204 Only a few Aramaic quotations from the Prophets have 202  As has been suggested already by P. Churgin (Targum Jonathan, 42), the official Targums may have been subjected to later revisions and additions. 203  For a recent survey see Levene, Corpus of Magic Bowls. 204  In studying these magical texts we have to be aware that often liturgical formulas are used that are based on prophetic texts. On this problem, which is a field in itself, see Levene, Corpus of Magic Bowls, 11–14. A study of these liturgical formulas would exceed the limits of our study.

targumic quotations

193

been published so far. One of them is a quotation of Isa 40:12 on an amulet among the incantation texts from the Cairo Genizah (Amulet 15, Israel Museum, No. 69.3.146).205 Elsewhere this verse (‘Who measured the waters with the hollow of His hand?’) is quoted in Hebrew on two incantation bowls, one in the Jewish National and University Library (Heb. 4º 6079), which quotes only part of our verse, and another in the Metropolitan Museum in New York (No 86.1.259), citing the whole verse.206 The Aramaic quotation on the Cairo Genizah amulet which is of unknown provenance, adjusts the verse grammatically to the form of an oath: He said to them: (I) swear to you in (the name) of He ‘who has measured the water in the hollow of His hand’ (Isa 40:12), that wherever …

Although the text transforms the syntax of the Hebrew sentence and adapts the verbal forms it remains much closer to the Hebrew than Targum Jonathan on our verse does: Who says these things? One who lives, speaks and acts, before whom all the waters of the world are reckoned as the drop in the hollow of a hand.

Apart from several additions, part of the Hebrew verse (‫ )מדד‬remains untranslated in Targum Jonathan, as is the suffix in ‘(in the hollow of) His hand’. Evidently, the quotation of the text on the amulet, although it is a fragmentary one, gives an Aramaic translation of the Isaiah verse which diverges from the official Targum Jonathan.207 Well-known since its first publication in 1973 by Stephen A. Kaufman is the inscription on a magic bowl from Nippur.208 The text on the bowl consists of a series of biblical quotations, which is quite unusual on magical bowls.209 First the Hebrew text of Ezek 21:22–23 and of Jer 2:2 is cited. The text closely agrees with the Masoretic text, apart from some plene-spellings. This is followed by the Aramaic rendering of Jer 2:2, which in translation reads: 205  Naveh & Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls, 104–105. For the magic story in which this quotation occurs, see 25, 111–122. 206  Cf. Naveh & Shaked, Amulets, 190–91. 207  As concluded already by Naveh & Shaked, Amulets, 110: ‘We have here a version of Is. 40:12 which is close to the Peshitta. The Targum to this verse diverges from the Hebrew text.’ 208  See Kaufman, ‘Magic Bowl’, 170–75. 209  See the discussion on 171–72, and the conclusion (172): ‘Thus the evidence strongly favors the conclusion that this is indeed a “magic bowl”, and that its inscription is an incantation’.

194

chapter three Go, Jeremiah the prophet, and prophesy before the people of Jerusalem, saying: Thus said the Lord: I accounted to your favour the good things of the days of old, the love of your fathers who believed in My Memra and followed My two messengers, Moses and Aaron, in the wilderness forty years without provisions in a land not sown.

This targum is in line with Targum Jonathan, apart from the addition of the prophet’s name and epitheton (‘Go, Jeremiah the prophet’) and the change of the imperfect (‫ )ותתנבי‬to the imperative (‫)ואתנבי‬.210 The spelling of the divine name is ‫ יהוה‬instead of ‫יוי‬. There are a few variations: ‫מן טבות‬, where Targum Jonathan reads ‫טבוות‬, and ‫עמא דירושלים‬, where Targum Jonathan reads ‫עמא דבירושלם‬, ‫ דלא מזדרעא‬instead of ‫לא‬ ‫מזדרא‬. The Aramaic text in turn is followed by the Hebrew of Jer 2:3, and of either Jer 2:1 or Ezek 21:23, and ends with the Targum of one of these verses. The magic bowl dates from 350–500 ce, and from the use of the targumic passages the editor, Stephen Kaufman, concludes: ‘… that Targum Jonathan to the Prophets was already considered to be an ancient, authoritative and sacred document (in Babylonia, at least) by the time of the composition of this incantation …’.211 On the basis of other bowls from Nippur, Christa Müller-Kessler arrives at similar conclusions for Targum Onkelos.212 With regard to both Targums, she sharpens Kaufman’s conclusion and states: ‘Both Targums are either translated before the destruction of the town of Nehardea [that is 259 C.E.] or shortly after in the newly founded Jewish Academies in Sura and Pumbeditha.’213

5. Quotations from the Prophets in the Babylonian Talmud 5.1. Survey of quotations As we have seen in the above, quotations in the Babylonian Talmud make use of formulas that indicate that the Targum is an authoritative 210  See Kaufman, ‘Magic Bowl’, 173. 211  Kaufman, ‘Magic Bowl’, 173. 212  See the examples given of (a) a bowl found at Nippur with a biblical quotation (Exod 15:12) followed by its Aramaic translation, using the wording of Targum Onkelos but with minor spelling variations, and (b) a bowl with quotations from Exod 15:9–12 followed by Aramaic translations, in C. Müller-Kessler, ‘The Earliest Evidence for Targum Onqelos from Babylonia and the Question of its Dialect and Origin’, JAB 3 (2001), 181–98, at 193–95. See also her recent study Die Zauberschaletexte in der Hilprecht-Sammlung, Jena und weitere Nippur-Texte anderen Sammlungen, Wiesbaden 2005, 194–96. 213  See Müller-Kessler, Die Zauberschale-Texte, 184.

targumic quotations

195

source for the interpretation of a biblical verse, or for the explanation of a mishnah. The formulas often refer to Rabbi Joseph bar iyya, to whom the final redaction of Targum Jonathan is ascribed by some scholars.214 Rabbi Joseph, who died in 333 ce, was head of the school of Pumbeditha. According to traditional sources he possessed a deep knowledge of both the Written and Oral Torah, and therefore was nicknamed ‘Sinai’.215 Most of the quotations from Targum Jonathan in the Babylonian Talmud are ascribed to him with the following formulas: (a) ‫‘ כדמתרגם רב יוסף‬as Rav Joseph translates’ TJ 2 Kgs 2:12 TJ Isa 5:17 TJ Isa 19:18 TJ Isa 33:21 TJ Isa 41:16 TJ Jer 46:20 TJ Hosea 4:2 TJ Amos 7:14 TJ Obad 6 TJ Zeph 3:18 TJ Zech 9:6

b.MQ 26a b.Pes 68a b.Men 110a b.Yoma 77b b.AZ 44a b.Yoma 32b b.Qid 13a b.Ned 38a b.BQ 3b b.Ber 28a b.Qid 72b

(b) ‫‘ אמר רב יוסף אלמלא תרגומא דהאי קרא לא הוה ידענא מאי קאמר‬Rav Joseph said, Were it not for the Targum of this verse, we should not know what it means’. TJ Isa 8:6 b.Sanh 94b TJ Zech 12:11 b.MQ 28b b.Meg 3a

For the sake of completeness, we may include the following formula: 214  See W. Bacher, Die Agada der babylonischen Amoräer, Frankfurt am Main, 1913; repr. Hildesheim, 1967, 101–07; Ergänzungen, 11; Die Agada der palästinischen Amoräer, 3 Vols, Strassburg 1892–99, repr. Hildesheim 1965, III.298–302 (‘Von Huna tradierte Aussprüche Josephs’). 215  Cf. Bacher, Agada der babylonischen Amoräer, 102: ‘weil er eine umfassende Kenntniss der gesammten überlieferten Lehre, die am Berge der Offenbarung ihren Ursprung hat, besass, und mit seinem Wissen gleichsam den Inbegriff der ganzen Tradition darstellte’. Of rabbi Joseph it is also said (b.ul 18b): ‫יוסף בר חייא מכוליה‬ ‫עלמא גמיר‬, ‘Joseph bar iyya learns from the whole world’; see on the meaning of this expression, W. Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, Leipzig 1899, 1905, repr. Darmstadt 1965, II.29.

196

chapter three

(c) ‫‘ תני רב יוסף‬Rav Joseph learnt’ Tg Jer 52:16 Tg Ezek 9:6

b.Shab 26a b.AZ 4a

These, however, although being understood as such, are not quotations of targumic passages, but Aramaic explanations that Rav Joseph gave of difficult Hebrew expressions, without any reference to the official Targum. In addition to the formulas that are connected with the exegetical activity of Rav Joseph, the following introductory phrases are found in the Babylonian Talmud: (d) ‫‘ ומתרגמינן‬and we translate’ TJ 2 Sam 5:21 b.RhS 22b TJ Isa 41:16 b.AZ 44a TJ Isa 62:5 b.MQ 2a

(e) ‫‘ אמר רב הונא‬Rav Huna said’ TJ Isa 10:32

b.Sanh 95a

5.2. Relationship to Targum Jonathan It is hardly surprising that generally the quotations in the Babylonian Talmud are in line with Targum Jonathan, apart from orthographic and spelling variants, and a few additions. There are, however, a few exceptions: one quotation that is completely different and another that is partly in line with Targum Jonathan but contains extra material. We will start with these exceptions. In b.Ber 28a a quotation of Zeph 3:18 is found, introduced by the formula ‘As Rav Joseph translates’. As we shall see it differs completely from Targum Jonathan on our verse. The Hebrew text of Zeph 3:18 is notoriously difficult to understand. It could possibly be translated as follows: Those disconsolate (being far) from a festal day, / I shall take away your (cries of) woe / and you will no longer endure reproach216 216  For a text-critical analysis of the text, with full use of the ancient translations and medieval commentaries, see D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, Fribourg & Göttingen, 4 Vols, 1982–2005, III.915–920 (1992). The proposed translation there is: ‘Je rassemblerai ceux qui gémissent privés de toute fête. Ils avaient été séparés de toi — opprobre qui pesait sur elle (Jérusalem)’.

targumic quotations

197

Targum Jonathan gives a free paraphrase of the text: Those who were delaying among you the times of your festivals I have removed from your midst. Woe to them, for they were taking up their arms against you and were reviling you

It is difficult to explain why Hebrew ‫נוגי ממועד‬, is rendered ‘those who were delaying among you the times of your festivals’. We are not convinced that it might have been based on the reading ‫נוגים מועד‬, deriving the first verbal form from Hebrew ‫ יגה‬II (‘thrust away’), as has been suggested by Robert Gordon.217 It seems more plausible that the meturgemanim connected the Hebrew ‫ נוגי‬with the Aramaic √‫נגה‬, which has the meaning ‘to become late’, afel ‘to prolong’.218 Undoubtedly, the interpretation is connected with the return of the exiles, whereas in b.Ber 28a the verse is used to reproach those who want to delay the reading of the afternoon prayer: Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: If one says the musaf tefillah after seven hours, then according to Rabbi Judah the Scripture says of him [Hebrew quotation]: ‘I will gather them that are destroyed because of the festival, who belong to you …’. How do you know that the word nuge here implies destruction? As Rav Joseph translates: ‘Destruction comes upon (destruction upon)219 the enemies of the House of Israel, because they delayed the times of the festivals in Jerusalem.’ Rabbi Eleazar said: If one says the morning tefillah after four hours, then according to Rabbi Judah the Scripture says of him: ‘I will gather them that sorrow because of the festival, who belong to you …’. How do we know that the word nuge is a term of sorrow? Because it is written: ‘My soul melts away for sorrow [tuga]’ (Ps 119:28). Rabbi Naman b. Isaac said: We learn it from here: ‘Her virgins are afflicted [nugot] and she herself is in bitterness’ (Lam 1:4).

As Gordon and Cathcart remark, the Aramaic quotation here substantially deviates from the standard text.220 There are, however, certain points of correspondence between the rendering of Targum Jonathan and the quotation in b.Ber 28a: (1) the notion of ‘delay’ (although the verbs used differ), (2) the expression ‘the times of the / your festival’. It is 217  See Gordon, Studies, 50 n. 42; and see Cathcart-Gordon, Minor Prophets, 174 n. 42. 218  See Sokoloff, JBA, 728–29. 219  The standard edition reads ‫תברא‬, but ms Münich has the reading ‫תברא על תברא‬, which is also the reading attested by Sekhel Tov on Gen 42:38. Cf. Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, II.85 and see TJ Jer 4:20. For the meaning of ‫ תברא‬see Sokoloff, JBA, 1192–93 (‘calamity’). 220  See Cathcart-Gordon, Minor Prophets, 15.

198

chapter three

not easily explained why the quotation uses the Aramaic ‫תברא‬, ‘calamity’, ‘destruction’, for Hebrew ‫נוגי‬, but in the Targum of Lamentations √‫ תבר‬is a standard translation for Hebrew √‫יגה‬, hifil and possibly piel, ‘to make suffer’, ‘to inflict’.221 From the continuation of the discussion in b.Ber 28a it appears that different explanations existed of the obscure expression )‫נוגי (ממועד‬. The interpretation of Rabbi Eleazar (in the name of Rabbi Judah) of the word ‫ נוגי‬as ‘those inflicted’, referring to Ps 119:28 and Lam 1:4, seems to have a more solid philological basis, and is defended by medieval exegetes and modern text critical analysis.222 In our opinion, the quotation which is handed down by Rabbi Joshua ben Levi is not so much a misquotation,223 but based on an Aramaic version which strongly deviates from the standard version, offering a double translation of the word ‫נוגי‬, first interpreted as ‘calamity’, ‘destruction’, and secondly as ‘delay’, ‘prolongation’. It is difficult to decide, but this version might have been a more ancient one than the official translation, in which the double translation has been dissolved. That the talmudic variant is the older one is also argued by Gordon, who derives this from the fact that in the standard version external enemies are in view (those who were ‘taking up their arms against you’) whereas the talmudic variant refers to an internal dispute on cultic observance. In his view the talmudic tradition may go back to the early third century, that is to a time prior to the standardising of the targumic text.224 Another example of a quotation in the Babylonian Talmud that differs from the official Targum Jonathan, is the quotation of Zech 9:6 in b.Qid 72b. The Hebrew text reads in translation: And a mongrel people225 shall settle in Ashdod. I will uproot the grandeur of Philistia.

Modern exegesis interprets the word ‫ ממזר‬in the Hebrew text as referring to a mixed population in Ashdod of Jews and non-Jews.226 In 221  See Tg Lam 1:5 (‫)ארום יי תבר יתה‬, 1:12 (‫)יי דיתבר יתי‬, 3:32 (‫ארום אלהין ברישא‬ ‫)יתבר‬, 3:33 (‫)בגין כן גרם לאסתקפא תברא בבני אנשא‬. For the (Western) text, according to Codex Vat. Urbinas Hebr. 1, see C.M.M. Brady, The Rabbinic Targum of Lamentations, Leiden & Boston 2003, 147–54. 222  See Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, III.919–20. 223  Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 148 (376). 224  Gordon, Studies, 50–52. 225  Hebr. ‫‘ ממזר‬bastard’. 226  See e.g. Th. Chary, Aggée-Zacharie Malachie, Paris 1969, 159–60. Cf. Neh 13:23–24.

targumic quotations

199

Targum Jonathan it seems to be interpreted as ‫(‘ מעם זר‬those of) a foreign people’,227 and applied to the House of Israel that will dwell in future times in a Philistine city: And the House of Israel shall dwell in Ashdod where they were as foreigners, and I will put an end to the grandeur of Philistia.

The verse is quoted in b.Qid 72b, as well as in the Arukh. The Talmud refers to a discussion between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose on the question of whether the mamzer will be pure in the future world or not.228 Rabbi Meir argues that they will not become pure, whereas Rabbi Yose is convinced of the opposite. As for R. Meir, it is well: hence it is written ‘and the bastard shall dwell in Ashdod.’229 But according to R. Yose, why ‘and the bastard shall dwell in Ashdod?’ — as Rav Joseph translates [the verse]: ‘The House of Israel shall dwell in security in their land, where they were [formerly] as strangers.’230

We may compare the different versions: MT Zech 9:6 TJ Zech 9:6 b.Qid 72b Arukh, s.v. ‫( ממזר‬5:162)

‫וישב ממזר באשדוד והכרתי גאון פלשתים‬ ‫ויתבון בית ישראל באשדוד דהוו בה כנוכראין‬ ‫ואבטיל רבות פלשתאי‬ ‫יתבון בית ישראל לרוחצן בארעהון דהוו דמו בה‬ ‫לנוכראין‬ ‫דיתבון בני ישראל לרוחצן בארעהון דהוון דמיין‬ ‫בה לנוכראין‬ 231

The quotation in the Talmud is only partly in line with Targum Jonathan,232 and it contains extra material, for in substitution for Hebrew ‫‘ וישב באשדוד‬shall settle in Ashdod’, it reads: ‘shall dwell in security in their land’. The quotation in the Arukh of Elias Levita is substantially the same as the talmudic quotation, with minor variations. 227  Cf. A. Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bible in Ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums, Frankfurt am Main 19282, 52. 228  See on this debate also y.Qid 3:15 (65a). 229  According to Rabbi Meir the verse means that the mamzerim will live apart from the other Jews and will remain impure. 230  In Rabbi Yose’s view the bastard refers to the Israelites who once lived as strangers in Ashdod. According to Joshua 13:1–3, Ashdod was seen as part of Israel, but it was not yet conquered, so the Israelites were as strangers there. 231  Antwerp Polyglot Bible, 1569/73 adds: ‫דלית להון אבא‬. 232  Pace Cathcart & Gordon, Minor Prophets, 15, 204 n. 10 (‘Substantially the same Tg. is given in b. Qidd. 72b, the Aruch (sub mmzr), and by Menachem ben Salomo’).

200

chapter three

Assuming that the quotation which is put in the mouth of Rabbi Yose (ben alafta) is dependent on the targum text, we might suppose that it reflects a variant reading of the text, or a rendering by heart, which is based on the common interpretation of the verse, taking Ashdod as referring to the city which according to what is written in Josh 15:46–47 was once part of the land of Israel but where the Israelites still lived as strangers. The remaining quotations in the Babylonian Talmud are (nearly) identical with Targum Jonathan, or show minor variants. We will discuss some of these quotations. The Hebrew text of Isa 5:17 is notoriously difficult to explain. A possible translation of it could be: Then lambs shall graze as in their meadows, and strangers shall eat (on the?) wasted places (ruins?) of the fat ones.

In Targum Jonathan the lambs represent the righteous and the fat ones or fatlings symbolise the wicked.233 The theme of the righteous who will possess the wealth of the wicked is a popular one in the Isaiah Targum.234 Offering a symbolic and rather free interpretation of our passage, Targum Jonathan renders it as follows: Then shall the righteous be nurtured (and increase)235 as was said concerning them,236 and the righteous shall possess the possessions of the wicked.

In b.Pes 68a a quotation is found of Isa 5:17 together with its Aramaic translation, as textual evidence in a halakhic discussion on the mishnaic rules connected with the preparation of the lamb for the Passover offering (cf. m.Pes 6:1), and the meaning of the cleansing (‫ )מיחוי‬of its bowels: Rabbi (Eliezer) said: What is iyya bar Rab’s reason? Because it is written ‘and strangers shall eat the (on the?) wasted places (ruins?) of the fat ones.’ How does this imply it? As Rav Joseph translated: and the righteous shall possess the possessions of the wicked. 233  Connecting Hebrew ‫ מחים‬with ‫‘ מחוי‬blotted out’ (see Jastrow, Dictionary, 758)? See on the symbolism, Y. Komlosh, ‫המקרא באור התרגום‬, Tel Aviv 1973, 385. 234  Cf. TJ Isa 30:23. See on this theme Smolar & Aberbach, Studies, 173. 235  Many mss and several editions add: ‫ויסגון‬. See Sperber, Bible in Aramaic, III.11. 236  For this interpretation of Hebrew ‫כדברם‬, see Komlosh, ‫המקרא‬, 385.

targumic quotations

201

As noted by Chilton,237 the quotation is in line with Targum Jonathan and ‘employs precisely the same words (in the same order) as appear in the Targum’. There are, however, as Chilton also notes, grammatical differences: TJ Isa 5:17 ‫רשיעיא צדיקיא יחסנון‬ ‫כמא דאמיר עליהון ונכסי‬ b.Pes 68a ‫כדמתרגם רב יוסף ונכסיהון דרשיעיא צדיקיא יחסנון‬

Use of the proleptic pronominal suffix in the Talmud text to express the genitive form in the quotation seems more idiomatic. It may reflect the custom of the memorised quotation or testify to the instability of the Jonathan text, which presumably underwent a long editorial process. It may perhaps be due to the fact that Isa 10:32 is one of the festal readings for the seventh day of Passover,238 that it evoked long aggadic explanations in both Targum Jonathan and the Babylonian Talmud. The Hebrew text reads in translation: This same day at Nob / He shall stand and wave his hands. / O mount of Fair Zion! / O hill of Jerusalem!

In Targum Jonathan the scriptural verse here is transformed into a long story about the attack of king Sennacherib of Assyria against Jerusalem:239 While the day was still young and he had much time to enter, behold Sennacherib the king of Assyria came and stood at Nob, the city of the priests,240 opposite the wall of Jerusalem. He answered and said to his forces, ‘Is not this Jerusalem, against which I stirred up all my armies? Behold it is fainter than all the fortresses of the peoples which I have suppressed with the strength of my hands.’ He stood over it shaking his head, waving back and forth with his hand against the Mount of the Sanctuary which is in Zion, and against the courts which are in Jerusalem. 237  Chilton, Isaiah Targum, XXVIII. 238  C. Perrot, ‘The Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 147. 239  Whether this long aggadic explanation is an uncharacteristic addition to TJ Isaiah, as Chilton states (Isaiah Targum, 26 n.), is difficult to decide. According to Smolar & Aberbach (Studies, 76–77) the story alludes to the march upon Jerusalem of the Roman emperor Titus in the year 70 ce. 240  The city is called this in 1 Sam 22:19. It is told in 1 Sam 22 that 85 priests were killed in Nob by Doeg the Edomite by order of king David.

202

chapter three

The same story is told, with other details, in b.Sanh 95a, and in a far more expansive form in Codex Reuchlin. We may compare the text of Isa 10:32 in these three different texts: Targum Jonathan ‫הלא דא היא ירושלם די עלה ארגישית כל משריתי ועלה כבישית כל מדינתי הא‬ ‫היא חלשא מכל כרכי עממיא דכבישית בתקוף ידי עלה קם מניד ברישיה מוביל‬ ‫ומיתי בידיה על טור בית מקדשא דבציון ועל עזרתא דבירושלם‬ b.Sanh 95a241 ?‫הלא דא היא קרתא דירושלם דעלה ארגשית כל משריתי ועלה כבשית כל מדינתא‬ ‫הלא היא זעירא וחלשא מכל כרכי עממיא דכבשית בתקוף ידי עלה וקם ומניד‬ ‫ברישיה מוביל ומייתי בידיה על טור בית מקדשא דבציון ועל עזרתא דבירושלם‬

Codex Reuchlin ‫הלא דא היא קרתא דירושלם דעלה ארגישית כל משרייתי ועלה כבישית כל‬ ‫מדינתי הא היא זעירא והא היא חלשא מן כל כרכי עממיא דכבשית בתקוף ידיי‬ ‫עלה תוה וקם תוה מניד ברישיה ומוביל ומייתי בידיה על טור בית מקדשא דציון‬ ‫ועל עזרתא דבירושלם‬

The quotation in b.Sanh 95a is mostly in line with Targum Jonathan, but has a few additions (‫קרתא‬, ‫ )הלא היא זעירא‬and orthographic variations. The Reuchlin-text seems to be based largely on the Talmud text, for it has the same additions and variations.242 Minor variations are also visible in the quotation of Isa 19:18 in b.Men 110a. The Hebrew text speaks of the ‘Town of Heres’ or ‘Town of Destruction’: In that day, there shall be five towns in the land of Egypt speaking the language of Canaan and swearing loyalty to the Lord of Hosts; one shall be called Town of Heres.

In the Isaiah manuscript of the Dead Sea scrolls and in several other manuscripts, the text does not read ‫ עיר ההרס‬but ‫עיר החרס‬, ‘City of the Sun’. This reading is also found in the Vulgate (civitas solis)243 and in the Targum, identifying it with the Egyptian city Heliopolis: In that time, there shall be five towns in the land of Egypt speaking the speech of the Canaanite and swearing (loyalty) by the name of the Lord 241  See also SER 8 (edn Friedmann, 45). 242  For a thorough treatment of the text see P. Grelot, ‘Le Targoum d’Isaïe, X, 32–34 dans ses diverses recensions’, RB 90 (1983), 202–28. 243  For the reading of the Septuagint, Πόλις–ασεδεκ, ‘city of righteousness’, see I.L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems, Leiden 1948, 68.

targumic quotations

203

of Hosts; of one city, Beth Shemesh [‘House of the Sun’], which is about to be devastated, it shall be said, This is one of them.

In fact there is in Targum Jonathan a double interpretation of the word ‫חרס‬, which on the one hand is explained as ‘(house of the) sun’, on the other as ‘destruction’ (‘which is about to be devastated’). A similar interpretation of our text is given in b.Men 110a. To underline the given exegesis, the targum is quoted with the introductory formula ‘As Rav Joseph renders it in Aramaic’: One shall be called the city of Heres — What is meant by the city of Heres? — As R. Joseph rendered it in Aramaic: The city of Beth Shemesh [‘House of the Sun’],244 which is about to be devastated, will be said to be one of them. But whence do we know that the city of Heres signifies the sun? For it is written, ‘who commands the sun [‫ ]חרס‬not to shine’ (Job 9:7).

A comparison of the quotation in the Talmud and Targum Jonathan shows that there are a few grammar and spelling variations: TJ Isa 19:18 ‫קרתא בית שמש דעתידא למחרב יתאמר היא חדא מנהון‬ b.Men 110a ‫קרתא דבית שמש דעתיד למיחרב איתאמר דהיא חדא מנהון‬

A similar case concerns the quotation of Isa 33:21 (‘For there the Lord in His greatness shall be for us / Like a region of rivers, of broad streams, / Where no floating vessel can sail / And no mighty craft can travel’) in b.Yoma 77b. Both in Targum Jonathan and in b.Yoma 77b the Hebrew expression ‫צי אדיר‬, ‘mighty craft’, is explained as ‘a Liburnian ship’. Targum Jonathan reads: But from there the might of the Lord will be revealed to do good for us / From a region of rivers, going forth, overflowing, broad (streams), / Where no fishermen’s ship can sail / Nor any Liburnian ship245 can pass through.

In b.Yoma 77b only part of Isa 33:21 is quoted: One might have assumed that one may cross it in a big Liburnian ship, therefore Scripture says: Neither shall gallant ship pass thereby. How does that follow from the text? — As R. Joseph interprets it: No fishermen’s ship can sail, nor any Liburnian ship can pass through.246 244  Cf. Jer 43:13 ‘He shall smash the obelisks of the Temple of the Sun (Beth Shemesh) which is in the land of Egypt …’. 245  For Aramaic ‫בורני רבתא‬, see Jastrow, Dictionary, 150 (‘Liburnian (ship)’). Cf. PsJon Deut 28:68, Num 24:24, TJ Ezek 30:9. See also Krauss, Lehnwörter, II.302. 246  See also b.RhS 23a (‫)בורני גדולה‬, y.Sheq 6:2 (50a) (‫)ליברנין גדולה‬.

204

chapter three

As in the example above there are minor variations between the quotation in the Talmud text and Targum Jonathan: TJ Isa 33:21 ‫דלא תיזיל ביה ספינת ציידין ובורני רבתא לא תגוזיניה‬ b.Yoma 77b ‫לא תזיל ביה בספינת ציידין ובורני רבתי לא תזוגינה‬

In b.RhS 22b a literal translation of a few words from 2 Sam 5:21 (‘The Philistines abandoned their idols there, and David and his men took them’) is given: How do we know that the word massi’in [in the Mishnah] connotes ‘burning’? — Because it is written in the Scripture, ‘wayisa’em David and his men’ and we translate ‘and David burnt them’.

The targum is quoted here as an authoritative source for the explanation of a mishnah. The quotation is a literal one, although there are minor spelling variants. The translation in Targum Jonathan of Hebrew ‘and David and his men took them’, by ‘and David and his men burnt them’ may be the result of harmonising two contradictory verses, for in 1 Chron 14:12 it is stated of the idols that were abandoned: ‘and David ordered these to be burned’. Elsewhere in the Talmud, in a discussion between Rabbi Yose and the Rabbis (b.AZ 44a),247 another explanation of ‫ וישאם‬is given by Rabbi Yose, namely ‘to scatter’, referring to the targum of Isa 41:16. But Rabbi Yose’s interpretation is contradicted there by the other Rabbis who are of the opinion that the verb must be taken in its literal sense. The quotation in b.RhS 22b is fully in line with Targum Jonathan, although there are some spelling variants: the Talmud text reads ‫ואוקדינן דוד‬, whereas Targum Jonathan has )‫ואוקידנון דויד (וגברוהי‬. As said before, another explanation of ‫ וישאם‬is given in b.AZ 44a. There the Targum of Isa 41:16 is quoted as evidence: … It is an expression for scattering,248 as R. Joseph translated the word in the passage, You shall winnow them and the wind shall carry them off, and we translate it ‘You shall winnow them and a wind will disperse them!’

There are a few differences between the quotation and its source text: TJ Isa 41:16 ‫תדרינון ורוחא תטילנון‬ b.AZ 44a ‫ומתרגמינן תזרינון ורוח תטלטלינון‬ 247  See also t.AZ 3:19 (edn Zuckermandel, 465). 248  The text reads ‫לישנא דזרויי‬, but see the variant readings in R. Rabbinovicz, ‫ספר‬ ‫דקדוקי סופרים‬, Munich 1867/68 ad locum n. 7; cf. Sokoloff, JBA, 351 (‫)לישנה דדרויי‬.

targumic quotations

205

The reading ‫ תזרינון‬in the Bavli text is somewhat suspicious, the better reading being ‫תדרינון‬,249 which is in line with the reading of Targum Jonathan. The reading ‫ תטלטלינון‬is based on a palpel form of the verb ‫טול‬, whereas Targum Jonathan chooses a pael form.250 In the biblical story of Elijah’s ascent to heaven in a whirlwind it is told that his personal pupil Elisha, on seeing his master ascending to heaven, exclaimed: ‘Oh, father, father! Israel’s chariot and horsemen!’ (2 Kgs 2:12). In the targum of our verse, the word ‘father’ is interpreted as ‘rabbi’, ‘teacher’, as is done elsewhere in rabbinic literature:251 Elisha saw it, and he cried out, ‘My master, my master, who was (a) better (protection) for her, for Israel, by his prayer than chariots and horsemen.’ When he could no longer see him, he grasped his garments and rent them in two (pieces).

In b.MQ 26a this targum is quoted as a further explanation of the mishnaic rule on the rending of clothes of those who are closely related to the dead: Whence derive we (these rulings)? — From what is written: ‘Elisha saw it, and he cried out, My father, my father! Israel’s chariots and horsemen!’ ‘My father, my father’, that is, (to rend on the loss of) one’s father or mother. ‘The chariots of Israel and horsemen’, that is (for) a Master who taught one Torah. How exactly does it convey this (meaning)? — As R. Joseph rendered it (in Aramaic): ‘My master, my master, who was (a) better (protection) for them, for Israel, with his prayer than chariots and horsemen’.

When comparing both Aramaic texts we discover some variants: TJ 2 Kgs 2:12 b.MQ 26a

‫רבי רבי דטב ליה לישראל בצלותיה מרתכין ומפרשין‬ ‫רבי רבי דטב להון לישראל בצלותיה מרתכין ופרשין‬

The quotation is fairly literal, but there are minor differences: the Bavli text reads ‫ להון‬instead of ‫ליה‬, taking ‘Israel’ as a collective noun, and does not repeat the apocopate form of the preposition, reading ‫פרשין‬ instead of ‫מפרשין‬. 249  See Sokoloff, JBA, 351. 250  Jastrow, Dictionary, 536, 523. 251  Cf. SifreDeut 305, 327 (‫ ;)אבי אבי רבי רבי אבי שגדלני רבי שלמדני תורה‬b.Mak 24a (‫)רבי רבי מרי מרי‬, b.Ket 103b. See also Akiba’s exclamation at the death of Rabbi Eliezer in Evel Rabbati 9:2; cf. Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 188–89 n. 13; P. Kuhn, Gottes Trauer und Klage in der Rabbinischen Überlieferung (Talmud und Midrasch), Leiden 1978, 108ff.; Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 278–79 (on 1 Sam 10:8–12).

206

chapter three

A much discussed scriptural verse is Zech 12:11 (‘In that day, the mourning in Jerusalem shall be as great as the mourning at Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddon’). The targum of the verse is quoted both in b.Meg 3a and b.MQ 28b. Targum Jonathan connects the mourning at Hadad-rimmon first with the mourning for Ahab who died in a battle with the king of Aram,252 identified with Ben-hadad, son of Tabrimmon.253 In the fact that ‘the plain of Megiddo(n)’ only occurs in Zech 12:1 and in 2 Chron 35:22 the targum finds reason to introduce here a mourning for Josiah son of Amon, who died in a fight with the Egyptian king Neco and for whom there were rites of mourning and lamenting in Jerusalem:254 In that time, the mourning in Jerusalem shall be as great as the mourning for Ahab son of Omri whom Hadad-rimmon son of Tabrimmon killed, and as the mourning for Josiah son of Amon whom Pharaoh the Lame killed in the plain of Megiddon.

This targum is quoted in b.Meg 3a with orthographic variants and some changes and the addition of ‘in Ramoth-gilead’: The meaning of the Torah is expressed clearly, but in the Prophets some things are expressed clearly, but others enigmatically.255 [For instance] it is written: ‘In that day, the mourning in Jerusalem shall be as great as the mourning at Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddon.’ And R. Joseph said: Were it not for the targum of this verse, we should not know what it means. [It runs as follows]: ‘In that day,256 the mourning in Jerusalem shall be as great as the mourning for Ahab son of Omri whom Hadad-rimmon son of Tabrimmon killed in Ramoth-gilead,257 and as the mourning for Josiah son of Amon whom Pharaoh the Lame killed in the plain of Megiddo.’

In b.MQ 28b the same quotation is found, but here it is introduced by ‘Rabbi Aqiba said: In that day …’, etc.258 The fact that Pharao Neco 252  As recorded in 1 Kgs 22:29–38. 253  See 1 Kgs 15:18. There is no mention of mourning rites for Ahab in the biblical story about his death, as Gordon, Studies, 55, rightly remarks. 254  See also 2 Kgs 23:28–30. 255  See on the meaning of this sentence, Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 12. 256  The text reads ‫‘ ביומא ההוא‬on that day’, where the targum has ‫‘ בעידנא ההוא‬in that time’. b.MQ 28b is in line with TJ. 257  As mentioned in 1 Kgs 22:4, 12, 20, 29; 2 Chron 18:5, 11, 14, 19, 28. 258  Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 42 n. 63 states that this shows that Aqiba knew the Targum of our verse, but that seems doubtful; see Cathcart & Gordon, Minor Prophets, 219 n. 29.

targumic quotations

207

is nicknamed ‘the Lame’ has to do with an old story that he became lame by attempting to ascend the throne of Solomon, and this is based on a homiletic explanation of his name, equating it with ‫נכה‬, ‘crippled, lame’.259 We may compare the three different Aramaic versions of Zech 12:11. Targum Jonathan ‫בעדנא ההוא יסגי מספדא בירשלם כמספד אחאב בר עמרי דקטל הדד רמון בר טב‬ ‫רמון וכמספד יושיה בר אמון דקטל פרעה חגירא בבקעת מגדון‬

b.Meg 3a ‫ביומא ההוא יסגי מספדא בירושלים כמספדא דאחאב בר עמרי דקטל יתיה‬ ‫הדדרימון בן טברימון ברמות גלעד וכמספדא דיאשיה בר אמון דקטל יתיה פרעה‬ ‫חגירא בבקעת מגידו‬

b.MQ 28b ‫בעידנא ההוא יסגי מספדא בירושלם כמספדא דאחאב בר עמרי דקטל יתיה‬ ‫הדדרימון בן טברימון וכמספד דיאשיה בר אמון דקטל יתיה פרעה חגירא בבקעת‬ ‫מגידו‬

The quotations in the Talmud texts are fairly literal, apart from some additions (‘in Ramoth-gilead’ in b.Meg 3a, as mentioned already; use of the pronominal object with suffix, ‫יתיה‬, in both of the Talmud texts), a few changes (‘in that day’ in b.Meg 3a), and variants, of which ‫בן‬ ‫טברימון‬, as against ‫ בר טב רמון‬is the most conspicuous.

5.3. Summary 1. We have discussed above 17 targumic quotations of passages from the Prophets in the Babylonian Talmud. These quotations are generally ascribed to Rav Joseph bar iyya, who must have played an important role in the propagation (and possibly redaction) of Targum Jonathan. That he himself was not the author is clear from the expression (used to introduce 2 quotations) ‘Rav Joseph said, Were it not for the Targum of this verse, we should not know what it means’ which strongly suggests that he quotes from an existing text. The quotations in the Babylonian Talmud are furthermore introduced by formulas such as ‘as Rav Joseph translates’ (11 quotations), ‘and we translate’ (3 quotations), ‘Rav Huna said’ (1 quotation). 259  Jastrow, Dictionary, 910. See Targum en Peshitta on 2 Kgs 23:29, LevR 20:1, EcclR 9:1, PRK 26:1 (edn Mandelbaum, 383); see Smolar & Aberbach, Studies, 94.

208

chapter three

2. The quotations in the Babylonian Talmud are mainly in line with Targum Jonathan, although there are often minor variations, additions and spelling variants. In one case, the quotation of Zeph 3:18 in b.Ber 28a, it is completely different from Targum Jonathan. We have argued that the talmudic variant might be older than the standard Jonathan version, which possibly underwent an editorial revision. A second quotation that differs from Targum Jonathan is that of Zech 9:6 in b.Qid 72b. The quotation seems to be dependent on Targum Jonathan, but may represent a variant reading of the text. 3. The quotations that show minor variants might reflect the custom of memorised citation or they might testify to the instability of the Jonathan text. This would imply that the editorial process was still going on in talmudic times.

6. Quotations from the Prophets in the Palestinian Talmud Surprisingly, there are no direct quotations of targumic passages from the Prophets in the Palestinian Talmud. Nowhere do we find quotation formulas that introduce a citation from Targum Jonathan or from an unknown Palestinian targum. With regard to the implicit quotations, the evidence regarding the Palestinian Talmud is very scant. There are, however, a few passages in which the Palestinian Talmud might show knowledge of a targum of the Prophets, as is the case with y.Taan 2:1, 65b where Joel 2:13 is quoted.260 In this prophetic verse a formulaic enumeration of divine attributes is found, as known from God’s revelation to Moses in the Book of Exodus (34:6–7): Rend your hearts / Rather than your garments, / And turn back to the Lord your God. For he is gracious and compassionate, / Slow to anger, abounding in kindness, / And renouncing punishment

In y.Taan 2:1, 65b, the Hebrew expression ‫‘ ארך אפים‬slow to anger’ is translated by Rabbi Levi with 261‫‘ רחיק רגיז‬who keeps anger at a distance’ (or ‘who is far removed from anger’). This is in line with Targum Jonathan on Joel 2:13 where however a pael form is used: ‫מרחיק‬ ‫רגז‬, which is the normal rendering of our expression in both Onkelos and Jonathan.262 Goshen-Gottstein rightly remarks that the quotation 260  See also PRK 24:11 (Mandelbaum, 364). Cf. Tan Tazria, 9. 261  See Sokoloff, JPA, 515, who reads ‫ רחיק רגוז‬quoting from a Geniza-fragment. 262  See TO Exod 34:6, Num 14:18; TJ Jonah 4:2, Nah 1:3.

targumic quotations

209

only dialectically differs from the official targum, for in the Palestinian Targums our liturgical phrase is likewise rendered with ‫רחיק רגיז‬.263 Goshen-Gottstein has brought forward a number of other passages that contain indirect quotations, but in our view it is questionable whether they are to be seen as quotations at all. Some of them are characterised by Goshen-Gottstein as ‘variants to known targums’. To this type belongs the quotation of Joshua 7:20 in y.Sanh 6:3, 23b. When Joshua summons Achan to ‘pay honour to the Lord … and make confession to him’ (7:19) Achan admits that he has violated the proscriptions made: Achan answered Joshua and said: It is true, I have sinned against the Lord, the God of Israel.

In Targum Jonathan the Hebrew word ‫(‘ אמנה‬it is) true’ is translated as ‫‘ בקשטא‬in truth’ or ‘sincerely’.264 In y.Sanh 6:3, 23b the meaning of the Hebrew word is explained with Aramaic ‫‘ קושטא‬truth’. There is, however, no evidence that the Aramaic explanation given refers to an existing targum. It lacks the preposition that we find in Targum Jonathan and in Palestinian targumic sources a regular substitute would be ‫מן קושטא‬.265 Equally doubtful is the quotation of the expression ‫‘ לחי‬to life’ (1 Sam 25:6) in y.Sanh 2:3, 20b. From the Hebrew story we learn that David sent ten young men to Nabal commanding his men to wish him all the best: Say as follows: To life! Greetings [lit.: peace] to you and greetings to your household and greetings to all that is yours.

Targum Jonathan adds a suffix and translates ‫לחיך‬, ‘to your life’, to avoid any misunderstanding of the addressee.266 In y.Sanh 2:3, 20b the expression is explained in Aramaic as ‫לקיומא‬, which either means ‘to life’,267 a literal translation of the Hebrew, or ‘to the protector, patron’.268 263  See Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, II.28. Cf. Neof and FTV on Exod 34:6 (‫רחיק‬ ‫)רגז‬, Neof and FTV Num 14:18 (‫)רחק רגז‬. 264  Cf. TO Gen 12:10, ‫ בקושטא‬as a translation of the same Hebrew word. In the Palestinian Targum Neofiti the reading is ‫מן קושטא‬. 265  See Sokoloff, JPA, 508. 266  See Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 437. 267  Cf. the translation of G.A. Wewers, Übersetzung des Talmud Yerushalmi: Sanhedrin Gerichtshof Iv 4, Tübingen 1981, 66: ‘(Der Ausdruck meint:) für das Bestehen.’ 268  See Sokoloff, JPA, 489, following S. Liebermann, Greek in Jewish Palestine,

210

chapter three

In our view it remains doubtful whether the meaning ‘protector’, ‘patron’, for Aramaic ‫ קיום‬is testified in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic and whether it fits the interpretation of 1 Sam 25:6. Irrespective of the translation one chooses, however, it remains impossible to decide whether we find here a quotation of an unknown targum, or just an ad hoc translation of the Hebrew expression. In y.Shab 6:4, 8b the irenic picture of nations that no longer take up their swords against each other, as described in Isa 2:4 and its parallel Micah 4:3, is quoted: And they shall beat their swords into plowshares / And their spears into pruning hooks

In Targum Jonathan the Hebrew ‫ אתים‬is translated with Aramaic ‫סיגין‬, which has the same meaning, ‘ploughshares’.269 Hebrew ‫מזמרות‬ is translated with Aramaic ‫‘ מגלין‬pruning hooks’ or ‘sickles’.270 In the rendering in y.Shab 6:4, 8b other equivalents are chosen. Hebrew ‫ אתים‬is here translated with Aramaic ‫אטין‬, which can be seen as a direct translation equivalent. Hebrew ‫ מזמרות‬is rendered ‫ מיגזיין‬which presumably is a corruption of ‫‘ מיגזירין‬cutting tools’.271 The Palestinian Talmud here is not dependent on Targum Jonathan, and as in the above, it remains impossible to decide whether use is made of a Palestinian targum tradition or of an on-the-spot spontaneous rendering of the Hebrew words. In Isa 3:16–4:1 it is told that because of the pride of the women of Jerusalem, God will remove the symbols of their pride. Isa 3:18–23 gives a catalogue of the beauty that will be removed: In that day, my Lord will strip off the finery of the anklets, the fillets, and the crescents; of the eardrops, the bracelets, and the veils; the turbans, the armlets, and the sashes; of the talismans and the amulets; New York 1942, 65. In MidrSam 23 (58a) the reading is ‫לקיומו‬. 269  Jastrow, Dictionary, 988. Cf. Tg Joel 4:10 ‘Beat your ploughshares (‫ )סכיכון‬into swords, and your sickles (‫ )מגליכון‬into spears’. 270  See Jastrow, Dictionary, 728–29; cf. Tg Joel 4:10. In Tg Isa 18:5 the Hebrew ‫ מזמרות‬is rendered as ‫‘ חרבא‬sword’. The word is also common in Palestinian Jewish Aramaic, see Sokoloff, JPA, 290. 271  See Sokoloff, JPA, 290. J. Levy (Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, Berlin und Wien, 1924) III.14 explains ‫ מיגזיין‬from the Greek μαγάς, μαγάδις, a musical instrument, following the comments of Benyamin Musafia in the Arukh (5:74, s.v. ‫)מגזיין‬.

targumic quotations

211

the signet rings and the nose rings; of the festive robes, the mantles, and the shawls; the purses, the lace gowns, and the linen vests; and the kerchiefs and the capes.

In y.Shab 6:4, 8b the passage is quoted and the Hebrew words are explained with Aramaic equivalents. Except for a few points of agreement, it differs in many aspects from the translation of the list of beauty in Targum Jonathan, as can be seen from the following survey: anklets fillets crescents eardrops bracelets veils turbans armlets sashes talismans amulets signet rings nose rings festive robes mantles shawls purses lace gowns linen vests kerchiefs capes

MT

TJ

‫העכסים‬ ‫והשביסים‬ ‫והשהרנים‬ ‫הנטיפות‬ ‫והשירות‬ ‫והרעלות‬ ‫הפארים‬ ‫והצעדות‬ ‫והקשורים‬ ‫ובתי הנפש‬ ‫והלחשים‬ ‫הטבעות‬ ‫ונזמי האף‬ ‫המחלצות‬ ‫והמעטפות‬ ‫והמטפחות‬ ‫והחריטים‬

‫מסניא‬ ‫ושביסיא‬ ‫וסבכיא‬ ‫ענקיא‬ ‫ושירי ידיא‬ ‫וחנסנסיא‬ ‫כליליא‬ ‫ושירי רגליא‬ ‫וקולמזמסיא‬ ‫וקדשיא‬ ‫וחליטתא‬ ‫עזקתא‬ ‫וטלטוליא‬ ‫כיתוניא‬ ‫ושושיפיא‬ ‫ולבורסיא‬ ‫ומחכיא‬

‫והגלינים‬ ‫והסדינים‬ ‫והצניפות‬ ‫והרדידים‬

‫ומחזיתא‬ ‫וקרטיסיא‬ ‫וכתריא‬ ‫וכבינתא‬

y.Shabbat

‫קורדיקייה‬ ‫שלטוניה‬ ‫עונקייה‬ ‫של מיני‬ ‫שיראין‬ ‫בלנידייא‬ ‫כליליא‬ ‫פרופסלה‬ ‫קרקישיא‬ ‫אסטו מוכריאה‬ ‫קדשיא‬ ‫חיזקייא‬ ? ‫פירזומטא‬ ‫קולבין ומעפרן‬ ‫סבניין רברבן‬ ‫זונרין מציירין‬ ‫ואילוסריקא‬ ‫מציירין‬ ‫גלגלייה‬ ‫סדיניא‬ ‫אולרייא‬ ‫לסוטא‬

As it is customary in Palestinian sources, the Aramaic words in tractate Shabbat are heavily influenced by both Latin and Greek. The word ‫קורדיקייה‬, ‘shoes made from the bark of the oak’, for instance, is derived from Latin, corticea or from Greek, κορδικία.272 Comparing the 272  See Krauss, Lehnwörter, II.519; S. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-fsutah: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta, New York 1973, Shabbat, 68; Sokoloff, JPA, 484. For ‫ שלטוניה‬see Krauss, Lehnwörter, II.581; for ‫ עונקייה‬id. II.415 and cf. II.327 (see also Tg Judg 8:21, Isa 3:19, ‫ ;)ענקיא‬for ‫ של מיני‬id. II.581.

212

chapter three

lists in Targum Jonathan and in the Palestinian Talmud, we can see that there are a few Hebrew words only that are translated with (more or less) the same equivalents. Hebrew ‫‘ פארים‬turban’ is rendered in both corpora as ‫כליליא‬.273 The translation chosen in Targum Jonathan (‫ )שירי ידיא‬for Hebrew ‫‘ שירות‬bracelets’ corresponds to that of the Palestinian Talmud, namely ‫שיראין‬.274 Hebrew ‫‘ טבעות‬signet rings’ is rendered in Targum Jonathan as ‫( עזקתא‬sg.) and in the Palestinian Talmud as ‫חיזקייא‬, but the consonants ‫ ח‬and ‫ ע‬regularly interchange, so that it may be represented by ‫עיזקייא‬.275 In Targum Jonathan 276 ‫ ענקיא‬is given as a rendering of Hebrew ‫‘ נטיפות‬eardrops’ but in the Palestinian Talmud the corresponding 277 ‫ עונקייה‬is the translation of Hebrew ‫‘ שהרנים‬crescents’. In both of the lists the Aramaic ‫‘ קדשיא‬ear-, nose-ring’278 is found, but in Targum Jonathan it is represented in Hebrew by ‫‘ ובתי הנפש‬talismans’ whereas in the Palestinian Talmud it is rendered in Hebrew as ‫‘ והלחשים‬amulets’. In all other respects, the lists given differ. Remarkably, the Palestinian Talmud offers a double translation of Hebrew ‫‘ חריטים‬purses’, first translating the word by ‫זונרין‬ ‫‘ מציירין‬decorated belts’,279 and then by ‫‘ ואילוסריקא מציירין‬decorated (embroidered) silk garment’, from the Greek ὁλοσηρικόν ‘entirely of silk’.280 The double translation might show that the Aramaic expression was no longer understood or had to be clarified by expressions borrowed from the Greek. From the great number of differences in both lists we may conclude that the Palestinian Talmud here offers an on-the-spot translation of the Isaiah text, or is based on an unknown Aramaic translation of the passage. Isa 21:13 belongs to a series of harsh prophetic oracles or ‘burdens’281 against several people. In the JPS translation it reads: 273  See Sokoloff, JPA, 260 (‘woman’s headdress’) and cf. Neof Exod 39:28. 274  See Sokoloff, JPA, 549 (‘silk garments’); Jastrow, Dictionary, 1568. 275  For the interchange of the consonants ‫ ח‬and ‫ ע‬in Palestinian Aramaic, see G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, Darmstadt 1960, 98–99. In Sokoloff the word ‫ חיזקייא‬is not represented, but see Sokoloff, JPA, 401 s.v. ‫ ;עזקה‬the form ‫ עיזקייא‬is found in b.Shab 8b. 276  See Jastrow, Dictionary, 1096. 277  See Sokoloff, JPA, 399 (‘necklace’). 278  See Sokoloff, JPA, 478. 279  Sokoloff, JPA, 174. See for this reading also Menaem ben Solomo’s Even Boan, s.v. ‫חרט‬. 280  Sokoloff, JPA, 39; Krauss, Lehnwörter, II.19. 281  See on the meaning of the word ‫משא‬, J.D.W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33 (WBC 24), Waco 1985, 190.

targumic quotations

213

The “In the Steppe”282 Pronouncement. In the scrub, in the steppe, you will lodge, O caravans of the Dedanites!

In Targum Jonathan the oracle is called ‘an oracle of a cup of cursing283 to give to the Arabians to drink’, referring to the complete doom intended for the nation involved: An oracle of a cup of cursing to give to the Arabians to drink. In the forest in the evening the caravans of the sons of Dedan will lodge.

In y.Taan 4:5, 69b, Isa 21:13 is quoted as follows: That is what is written ‘The oracle on Arabia.’ — A large (heavy) burden284 on the Arabs. ‘In the scrub, in the evening, you will lodge’ — Who allowed you to lodge in the forest of the Lebanon? But [it says] ‘o caravans of the Dedanites’ — will caravans of the sons of the Dedanites act in this manner?285

There are a few similarities in the interpretation of both texts (e.g. in the translation of Hebrew ‫ (ביער) בערב‬as ‘in the evening’), but comparing the latter part of both texts, we will notice the differences: TJ Isa 21:13 y.Taan 4:5, 69b 286

‫ברמשא יביתון שירת בני דדן‬ ‫כן אורחהון דבני דודייא עבדין‬

Whereas Targum Jonathan uses Aramaic ‫‘ שיירה‬caravan’ for Hebrew ‫ארחות‬, the Palestinian Talmud makes use of a translation-equivalent (‫)אורחא‬, although the noun ‫ שיירה‬also occurs in Palestinian sources.287

6.1. Summary Apart from the quotations we have treated here, there are a few other citations in the Palestinian Talmud that we have discussed already in the previous sections.288 As said before it remains surprising that 282  The title is ambiguous and perhaps one should translate it ‘Pronouncement (Oracle / Burden) on Arab’. 283  The same expression is found elsewhere for Hebrew ‫( משא‬cf. Tg Isa 13:1, 15:1, 17;1, 19:1, 21:11, 21:13). 284  See on the expression ‫מטול רב‬, Sokoloff, JPA, 301. 285  See also LamR 2:5. 286  In LamR 2:5 the reading is slightly different: ‫ארחתהון דבני דדנייא עבדיו‬. 287  See Sokoloff, JPA, 547. 288  See the quotation of 1 Sam 9:24 in y.Meg 1:14[12] (72c), MidrSam 14:4 (45a) and of 2 Kgs 17:30–31 in y.AZ 3:2 (42cd) which have been discussed in our subsection on quotations in the Babylonian Talmud. For the quotation of Isa 33:21 in y.Sheq 6:2

214

chapter three

there are no direct quotations of targumic passages in the Palestinian Talmud.289 Only a few implicit quotations might show knowledge of Targum Jonathan or of a Palestinian Targum of the Prophets. The best example is that of the liturgical phrase in Joel 2:13, quoted in y.Taan 2:1, 65b. With regard to its exegetical contents, it does not differ from Targum Jonathan, but dialectically it represents the Palestinian form that is also found in the Palestinian Targums. In other cases, it is often difficult to decide whether use is made of an existing targum or of an on-the-spot spontaneous rendering of the Hebrew text.

7. Quotations in the Midrashim 7.1. Genesis Rabbah To the earliest works of aggadic midrash belongs Genesis Rabbah, which was composed in the fifth or sixth century.290 Recently, it has been remarked that in the aggadic midrashim often short glosses are found that ‘are in Aramaic and can be viewed as snippets of Targum’.291 Albeck has given numerous parallels between Genesis Rabbah on the one hand and Targum Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan on the other.292 Parallels between Genesis Rabbah and Targum Neofiti have been advanced by Aberbach and Grossfeld.293 When we look for quotations of a targum of the Prophets, we note however that in Genesis Rabbah there are only a few direct quotations of targumic passages and just a small number of indirect quotations. A direct quotation is found in the first parashah of Genesis Rabbah. In discussing the relation between creation and Torah,294 the meaning of (50a), see above, p. 203. See note 77 for the quotation of Isa 41:19 in y.Ket 7:9 (31d). See also 2 Sam 3:29 as quoted in y.Qid 61a. 289  See also W.F. Smelik in ‘Language, Locus, and Translation between the Talmudim’, JAB 3 (2001), 199–204, at 203. 290  See M.B. Lerner, ‘The Works of Aggadic Midrash and the Esther Midrashim’, in: Safrai, Literature of the Sages. Second Part, 149. 291  See M. Hirshman, ‘Aggadic Midrash’, in S. Safrai et al., Literature of the Sages. Second Part, 116. 292  See Albeck, Einleitung, 44–54. 293  See M. Aberbach & B. Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis: A Critical Analysis Together With An English Translation of the Text, New York 1982; B. Grossfeld, Targum Neofiti 1: An Exegetical Commentary to Genesis Including Full Rabbinic Parallels, New York 2000. 294  See on this discussion P.S. Alexander, ‘Pre-Emptive Exegesis: Genesis Rabba’s Reading of the Story of Creation’, JJS 43 (1992), 230–45, at 237; P. Schäfer, ‘Bereshit

targumic quotations

215

the word ’Amon is discussed by Rabbi Hosha‘ya. One of the meanings given to the word is ‘great’, and this is illustrated by a quotation from Nahum 3:8. The biblical text reads: Were you any better than No-Amon, / Which sat by the Nile, / Surrounded by water — / Its rampart a river, / Its wall consisting of sea?

In GenR 1:1 (Th-A 1) the verse is quoted together with its Aramaic rendering: ‫אמון רבתה היך מה דאת אמר התיטבי מנא אמון ומתורגמנינן האת טבא‬ ‫מאלכסנדריא רבתא דיתבא ביני נהרותא‬ Amon means great, as in the verse ‘Were you any better than No-Amon?’, and we translate: Were you any better than the great Alexandria, which is situated between the rivers?

Apart from an orthographic variant this quotation is in line with Targum Jonathan on Nahum 3:8.295 The identification of No-Amon (the Egyptian city of Thebes) with Alexandria is an old one and is found both in the Vulgate (Alexandria populorum) as elsewhere in Targum Jonathan (TJ Jer 46:25; Ezek 30:14–16).296 A direct quotation from the Prophets is also found in GenR 31:8 (Th-A 281) where Joshua 5:2 is quoted and an explanation is given for the Hebrew sentence ‫עשה לך חרבות צרים‬, ‘make for yourself flint knives’: ‘Make for yourself an ark’ (Gen 6:14). R. Issi said: In four places this phrase ‘Make for yourself’ is employed; in three places it is explained, while in one it is not explained … ‘Make for yourself knives of flint’, means [Aramaic] flint knives.

Hebrew ‫ חרבות צרים‬is explained by Rabbi Issi as Aramaic ‫גלבין דטינר‬, which seems to have the same meaning.297 This diverges from the rendering of Targum Jonathan which translates the expression by ‫‘ אזמילון חריפין‬sharp cutting tools’,298 identifying the cutting tool with Bara Elohim: Bereshit Rabba, Parashah 1, Reconsidered’, in: A. Houtman, A.F. de Jong & M. Misset-Van de Weg (eds), Empsychoi Logoi. Religious Innovations in Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst, Leiden & Boston 2008, 268–89, at 268–69. 295  H. Odeberg, The Aramaic Portions of Bereshit Rabba with Grammar of Galilaean Aramaic, 2 Vols, Lund & Leipzig 1939, I.122, incorrectly notes that the interrogative particle indicates that it is not written in Galilean Aramaic. 296  Cf. R.P. Gordon in Cathcart & Gordon, Minor Prophets, 140 n. 17. 297  Cf. Sokoloff, JPA, 128 (‘razor, knife’; cf. Neof Num 6:3, 8:7) and 224 (‘flint’). 298  See Jastrow, Dictionary, 46. See TJ Isa 44:13.

216

chapter three

the surgeon’s knife used for circumcision in talmudic times.299 In Codex Reuchlin this is given as ‫איזמילין טיזרין‬,300 or ‫איזמילין טינרין‬, ‘cutting tools of flint’.301 The Palestinian rendering of Genesis Rabbah is found in a modified form in Kimi’s Shorashim. There the reading is not ‫גלבין דטינר‬, but ‫‘ גלבין דטור‬knifes of rock (?)’. In a Tosefta Targum, furthermore, the command to Joshua, ‘make for yourself knives of flint’, is explained as ‘make for yourself weapons of war, swords and sharp spears, the weapons of the people of Israel … (‫מאני קרבא סיפיו‬ ‫)ורומחין חידאן מאנ[י] קרבא עם ישראל‬. The continuation of the Tosefta Targum makes clear that these weapons are seen as symbols for the ‘wise leaders, in whose heart there is no obduracy’ (‫גברין חכמין דלא הוו‬ ‫)בלבהון טפשותא‬, who are ordained by Joshua to punish the people for their transgressions.302 In GenR 99:3 (Th-A 1275) a midrashic explanation is given of Gen 49:27, ‘Benjamin is a ravenous wolf’. The ravening of the wolf is compared with Ehud’s attack on king Eglon of Moab (Judg 3:19–23): ‘Benjamin is a ravenous wolf’ — this alludes to the judge descended from him. As a wolf seizes, so did Ehud seize Eglon’s heart. Thus it is written: ‘And when Ehud approached him, he was sitting alone in his cool upper chamber’ (Judg 3:20). This means, [Aramaic] in a cool upper chamber. ‘And he said: Your majesty, I have a secret message for you’ (Judg 3:19). Thus has the Master of the World spoken to me, said he, Take a sword and plunge it into his bowels. ‘And the filth [?] came out’ (Judg 3:22) — [Aramaic] his excrements. ‘Then Ehud went forth into the vestibule’ (Judg 3:23) — R. Yudan said: (It means) [Aramaic] into the palace. R. Berekhya said: It means, the place where the ministering angels sat in ordered fashion.

In the above midrash, several Hebrew expressions in Judg 3:19–23 are explained by Aramaic ones. First of all, Hebrew ‫עלית המקרא‬, the word ‫ מקרא‬occurring only here and in Judg 3:24, is clarified in the midrash by the Aramaic equivalent ‫‘ עליתא קרירתא‬the cool upper chamber’, whereas Targum Jonathan translates the same expression by ‫‘ עלית בית קיטא‬the upper chamber of his summer house’.303 Hebrew ‫פרשדנה‬, a hapax legomenon of uncertain meaning, in Judg 3:22 is trans-

299  Cf. Smolar & Aberbach, Studies, 54, and see y.Shab 19:1 (16d), b.Shab 130ab. 300  So incorrectly Sperber, Bible in Aramaic, II.7. 301  See Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, I.140–41. Cf. Sokoloff, JPA, 224. 302  Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, nr. 1, 70 (ms T-S B 13.12, line 32–38). 303  See Smelik, Targum of Judges, 373 n. 275. Cf. Tg Amos 3:15.

targumic quotations

217

lated here by ‫‘ פרתיה‬his excrements’.304 Targum Jonathan circumscribes the sentence more vividly with ‫‘ ונפק אכליה שפיך‬the filth came pouring out’, taking the Hebrew word ‫ פרשדנה‬as a combination of ‫פרש‬ ‘dung’, ‘excrements’, and ‫‘ שדא‬to cast out’.305 For Hebrew ‫‘( מסדרונה‬hall, vestibule?’) there are two explanations in Genesis Rabbah. R. Yudan gives as its meaning ‫‘ פלטורא‬palace’.306 According to R. Berekhya, starting from its root ‫סדר‬, it refers to the ministering angels that sat in the place in ordered fashion (‫)מסודרין‬. In Targum Jonathan Aramaic ‫‘ אכסדרא‬vestibule’, from Greek ἐξέδρα, is chosen.307 We may conclude then that there are important differences here between the quotation of Judg 3:19–23 in Genesis Rabbah and the rendering of Targum Jonathan, both in their choice of lexical equivalents as well as in the different interpretations of the passage given.308 In a rather cryptic passage in one of Isaiah’s prophetic messages (Isa 21:5), the preparations for a meal as the beginning of a military campaign seem to be described: “Set the table!” To “Let the watchman watch!” “Eat and drink!” To “Up, officers! grease the shields!”

In Targum Jonathan the singular forms of the first sentence are given plural Aramaic renderings:309 Arrange the tables, set up watchmen, eat and drink. Arise, officers, rub down and polish the weapons.

In GenR 63:14 (Th-A 699) the verse is quoted to explain the sentence ‘and he [Esau] did eat and drink’ (Gen 35:34): ‘And he did eat and drink’ — He brought in with him a company of ruffians who said: We will eat his dishes and mock at him, while the Holy Spirit exclaimed, ‘Set the table!’ — (that is) arrange the table. ‘Light the lamp (ha-zafith)’310 — arrange the lamp. R. Abba bar Kahana said: There are places where a lamp is called zafith. ‘(Rise) up, officers’ — this 304  Sokoloff, JPA, 452. 305  Smelik, Targum of Judges, 374. 306  See Sokoloff, JPA, 435. 307  See Krauss, Lehnwörter, II.44–45. 308  See for a similar conclusion, Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, II.119–20. 309  Sperber, Bible in Aramaic, III.40. 310  Hebrew ‫ צפה הצפית‬is here explained as meaning ‘let the lamp shine’.

218

chapter three means Michael and Gabriel. ‘Grease the shields’ — make a record that the birthright belongs to Jacob.

As in Targum Jonathan the plural is chosen for the verbal forms in the first sentence, but whereas Jonathan reads ‫פתורין‬, ‘tables’, here the singular ‫ פתורא‬is used.311 The interpretation of the rest of the sentence in Genesis Rabbah, with its reference to the archangels Michael and Gabriel, differs completely from the rendering of Targum Jonathan. Several elements, however, of this midrash are found in the Targum Jerushalmi reading that is found in Codex Reuchlin:312 Targum Jerushalmi. ‘Set the table’. Arrange the table before Bel-shazzar,313 king of Babylon. Light the lamp, eat and drink. Up, Michael and Gabriel, the two officers, call to account the kingdom of Babylon and give the kingdom to Cyrus and Darius, the kings of Persia and Media.

Here, there are some similarities with the interpretation of Genesis Rabbah: use of the singular ‫ ;פתורא‬the interpretation of ‫ צפה הצפית‬as meaning ‘light the lamp’ (although here the expression ‫אדליקו בוצינה‬ is used,314 whereas in Genesis Rabbah we read ‫ ;)סדר מנרתא‬the reference to Michael and Gabriel (but they are called here ‘the two officers’, which is lacking in Genesis Rabbah). Both Genesis Rabbah and Codex Reuchlin may go back to a Palestinian translation and interpretation of our passage, which differs in many respects from Targum Jonathan.315 Some of the quotations in Genesis Rabbah that lack any introductory formula, we have discussed already elsewhere.316 In Isa 29:17 it is said of the Lebanon in a chiastic form that it ‘shall return into a fruitful land’ and that ‘the fruitful land shall be esteemed as a forest’. In Targum Jonathan Hebrew ‫ יער‬is interpreted as ‘thickets of people’: Is it not a very little while, until Lebanon shall return to be as a fruitful field. And the fruitful field will cause many cities to be inhabited?

In GenR 24:1 (Th-A 230) a similar interpretation of the word is found: 311  Aramaic ‫‘ פתורא‬table’ occurs both in Eastern and Western texts, cf. Jastrow, Dictionary, 1250; Sokoloff, JPA, 454. 312  P. de Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, Leipzig 1872, XXIX. 313  The text reads Belteshazzar, but the reference is to King Belshazzar of Daniel 5. 314  See on ‫בוצין‬, Sokoloff, JPA, 88. 315  The reference to Cyrus and Darius in Codex Reuchlin is also found in a similar explanation of our verse in CantR 3:4. 316  See for the quotation of Joshua 7:21 in GenR 85:14 (Th-A 1050), above p. 152. The quotation of Isa 41:19 in GenR 15:1 (Th-A 135–36) is mentioned on p. 153, n. 77.

targumic quotations

219

Is it not a very little while, until Lebanon shall return into a fruitful field — (that is) into a royal palace. And the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest — (that is) as forests of men.

There are several differences between both texts. In Targum Jonathan the word ‫ יער‬is used as a metaphor for ‘cities that will be inhabited (by people), whereas in Genesis Rabbah the word is explained as ‘many people’. In Targum Jonathan the explanation of ‘fruitful field’ as ‘royal palace’ is lacking.

7.2. Leviticus Rabbah In the Midrash Leviticus Rabbah there are no direct quotations of a targum of the Prophets. The passages which have been brought forward by Goshen-Gottstein are mostly alternative renderings of Hebrew words or expressions and, in our view, do not necessarily reflect a targumic interpretation of the text. In LevR 31:9 (730), for instance, the meaning of ‫ לא נעדר‬in Zeph 3:5 is explained by ‫‘ לא פסק‬it [God’s sitting in judgement] does not cease’,317 whereas Targum Jonathan interprets the words as ‫(‘ לא מתעכב‬God’s judgement) is not held back’.318 In 1 Sam 28:8 it is told of king Saul that he disguised himself to visit the woman of Endor: ‘Saul disguised himself; he put on different clothes …’. A literal Aramaic translation (‫ )לבושין אחרנין‬is found in Targum Jonathan, whereas in LevR 26:7 (M 599) it is rendered as ‫מאנין‬ ‫‘ פגניקא‬garments of a commoner’.319 In the Book of Judges it is told of Sisera, the army commander of King Jabin of Canaan, that his army was defeated by the Israelites. He escaped on foot and tried to seek refuge in the tent of a certain woman Jael. When they meet each other it is said (Judg 4:18): Jael came out to greet Sisera and said to him, “Come in, my lord, come in here, do not be afraid.” So he entered her tent, and she covered him with a blanket.

The Hebrew word ‫‘ שמיכה‬blanket’ does not occur elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, as has been noted already by Resh Lakish in LevR 23:10 (M 542): ‘We have searched the whole of Scripture, and we have not found any 317  See also MidrPss 19:11 (85ab). 318  Cf. Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים‬, II.79–80. 319  See Sokoloff, JPA, 426; Kraus, Lehnwörter, II.421. The same interpretation is found in MidrSam 24:1 (59b).

220

chapter three

article named semikha’. In Targum Jonathan the word is rendered with ‫גונכא‬, also meaning ‘blanket’.320 In the passage we have mentioned already of Leviticus Rabbah it is told that there were different opinions on the meaning of the word among the Palestinian and Babylonian sages: What is the meaning of ‘with a semikha’? Our rabbis here (in Palestine) say (it means) ‘with a scarf (‫’)סודרא‬,321 and our rabbis there (in Babylon) say (it means) ‘with a cloak’ (‫)משיכלא‬.322

There are many examples in Leviticus Rabbah of such alternative renderings of certain difficult words. See the following selection of passages: 1.  The different renderings of Hebrew ‫‘ מרצחין‬murderers’ in Isa 1:21. See TJ ‫‘ קטולי נפשן‬killers of souls’ and LevR 4:1 (M 76) ‫עבדין קטולין‬. 2.  The explanations of the expression ‫‘ נמהרי לב‬the anxious of heart’ in Isa 35:4. See TJ ‫[‘ דמוחן בליבהון‬those who are] anxious in their heart’, as against LevR 19:5 (M 428) ‫‘ מפגרי לבה‬those crushed at heart’. 3.  The interpretation of the word ‫‘ צמידים‬bracelets’, in Ezek 23:24. See TJ ‫ שירין‬and LevR 33:6 (M 767) ‫‘ קדישין‬prostitutes’. 4.  The interpretation of the expression ‫‘ על מטות שן‬on ivory beds’ in Amos 6:4. See TJ ‫‘ בשין דפיל‬on beds of ivory’ and LevR 33:6 (M 767) ‫‘ על ערסין דשן דפיל‬on ivory bedsteads’.323 5.  The interpretation of the expression ‫‘ מגילה עפה‬a flying scroll’, in Zech 5:1. See TJ ‫ מגילה פרחא‬and LevR 6:2 (M 130) ‫[מגילה] טייסא‬. In LevR 34:15 (M 811) one Hebrew word (‫ )יחליץ‬from Isa 58:11 is given four different Aramaic interpretations: And give strength (‫ )יחליץ‬to your bones. It (‫ )יחליץ‬means: he will loosen (‫)ישמוט‬,324 he will arm (‫)יזיין‬,325 he will deliver (‫)ישיזיב‬,326 and he will give rest (‫)ינוח‬.327 320  See Arukh 2:320, s.v. ‫‘( גנכא‬eine zottige oder faserige Decke’); Jastrow, Dictionary, 224; cf. Tg 2 Kgs 8:15. On the variant readings in the mss, see Smelik, Targum of Judges, 389 n. 365. 321  See Sokoloff, JPA, 370. 322  See Jastrow, Dictionary, 852 (‘a sort of cloak’). According to the Arukh (5:272), the word means ‘Waschbecken’. 323  Cf. NumR 10:3 (‫)על ערסין דפיל‬. 324  This explanation is derived from Deut 25:9 ‘and loose his sandal from his foot’. The reading of TO on Deut 25:9 is ‫ותשרי‬. A variant reading (‫ )ישלוף‬is given in the Arukh, 3:411 s.v. ‫חלץ‬. 325  Which is derived from Deut 3:18, ‘You shall pass over armed (‫’)חלוצים‬. 326  See Ps 140:2, ‘Deliver me, o Lord, from evil men’. 327  Which is derived from the liturgical phrase: ‘be pleased and give us rest

targumic quotations

221

According to Goshen-Gottstein such multiple renderings may be due to a certain didactic tradition, and may not represent ‘the actually proposed ad locum renderings of four alternatives’. In our view we do not find here a targumic tradition at all, but a midrashic explanation of a Hebrew verb, expressed in Aramaic words for didactic or other reasons. It does not tell us anything on the use of a Palestinian Targum tradition.

7.3. Lamentations Rabbah Like Isa 21:13, a verse we have discussed above, Isa 22:1 belongs to a series of harsh prophetic oracles or ‘burdens’. In the JPS translation it reads: The “Valley of Vision” Pronouncement

As elsewhere in the Book of Isaiah, Targum Jonathan explains the word ‫ משא‬as an ‘oracle of prophecy’, which is directed against Jerusalem: The oracle of prophecy against the city which lies in the valley, against which the prophets prophesied …

In a Genizah fragment of Lamentations Rabbah published by Rabinovitz,328 the same exegetical interpretation of the expression ‘valley of vision’ is found: R. Yoanan opened (his discourse with) the oracle of the valley of vision, (that is) [Aramaic] a large (heavy) burden329 in the valley of prophecy. In the valley of vision — [Aramaic] (in the valley) of prophecy

From the fragment we may learn that a common exegesis of the expression ‘valley of vision’ existed,330 but it does not necessarily show that Lamentations Rabbah is dependent here on Targum Jonathan. A common exegetical background is also visible in the interpretation of ‘your conduct and your acts have brought this upon you’ (Jer 4:18) in Targum Jonathan and Lamentations Rabbah. We may compare the Aramaic rendering in both texts:

(‫’)והחליצנו‬, which is said in the benediction after the sabbath meal. 328  Z.M. Rabinovitz, ‫ לצורתם הקדומה של מדרשי חז"ל לפי כת"י מן‬,‫גנזי מדרש‬ ‫הגניזה — קטעי מדרש‬, Tel Aviv 1976, 123–26. 329  See above, n. 284. 330  See also the (Hebrew) explanations given in LamR, petita 24: ‘a valley concerning which all the seers prophesied’; ‘a valley from which all the seers originated’.

222

chapter three

TJ Jer 4:18 LamR, petita 16

… ‫אורחתך בשתא ועובדך מקלקליא גרמו אלין ליך‬ … ‫אורחתיך בישאתא ועובדיך דמרידאתא‬

The interpretation of ‘conduct (lit. ways)’ in both corpora is the same: Your evil ways. Both of the texts offer the same negative interpretation of ‘deeds’, but the qualifications given are different: ‘corrupt deeds’ in Targum Jonathan, and ‘rebellious deeds’ in Lamentations Rabbah. As in the previous case, it might show that Lamentations Rabbah is dependent on Targum Jonathan, but it does not necessarily do so. In Ezek 24 the city of Jerusalem is twice called a ‘city of blood’ (Ezek 24:6, 9) and in an allegorical way compared to ‘a cauldron whose scum is in it’. Ezek 24:6 runs as follows: Assuredly, thus said the Lord God: / Woe to the city of blood — / A caldron whose scum is in it / Whose scum has not been cleaned out!

In Targum Jonathan the ‘city of blood’ has become ‘the city in whose midst innocent blood was shed’. The same interpretation is found in LamR, petita 5. We may compare both texts: MT Ezek 24:6 ‫הדמים‬ ‫עיר‬ ‫אוי‬ TJ Ezek 24:6 ‫קרתא דאשדי דם זכי בגוה‬ ‫וי על‬ LamR, petita 5 ‫אוי מן קמי דקרתא דשפכו דמים בגווה‬

The Lamentations Rabbah text remains closer to the Hebrew and linguistically it represents the Palestinian dialect.331 Here, each part of verse 6, at the beginning of the petita, is followed by an Aramaic paraphrase: Rabbi Abbahu, in the name of R. Yose ben aninah, opened (his discourse with) Assuredly, thus said the Lord [God]: Woe to the city of blood — [Aramaic] Alas for the city in the midst of which they shed blood. A caldron whose scum is in it — [Aramaic] in which the dregs remain. And whose scum has not gone out of it — [Aramaic] Whose dregs have not gone out from it.

Whereas Targum Jonathan uses Aramaic ‫‘ זיהומא‬filth’ or ‘sediment’332 for Hebrew ‫חלאתה‬, Lamentations Rabbah chooses ‫חפשישו‬, ‘scum’ or ‘sediment’.333 In the same petita also Ezek 24:9 is quoted, in which the 331  The use of the afel √‫ שדי‬in TJ is scarcely known in Palestinian sources. See also Sokoloff, JPA, 563 s.v. ‫שפך‬. 332  See Jastrow, Dictionary, 391. 333  Cf. Sokoloff, JPA, 212. The Arukh 3:467 s.v. ‫חפשית‬, quoting our passage, reads ‫חפישותא‬.

targumic quotations

223

phrase ‘woe to the city of blood’ is repeated. Both in Targum Jonathan and in Lamentations Rabbah on Ezek 24:9 the same Aramaic interpretation of the phrase is given. Here, in our view, the interpretation of Lamentations Rabbah of the expression ‘woe to the city of blood’, both in Ezek 24:6 and 24:9 is dependent on Targum Jonathan.

7.4. Ecclesiastes Rabbah In the Song of the Vineyard in Isaiah 5, sung by the beloved or friend of a bridegroom,334 the owner of a beautiful vineyard complains of the fact that it does not produce good grapes but only ‘stinking things’ (5:5). The owner then decides that he will lay it waste and declares: And upon the clouds I will lay a command / not to rain on it (5:6)

In Targum Jonathan the rain-giving is compared to prophecy: and I will command the prophets that they prophesy no prophecy concerning them335

In EcclR 11:3 a fairly literal quotation of this last sentence is found, with the introductory formula ‘Aquila the Proselyte renders …’. There are only minor differences between the Targum Jonathan and the quotation: TJ Isa 5:6 ‫ועל נבייא אפקיד דלא יתנבון עליהון נבואה‬ EcclR 11:3 ‫ועל נביאיא אפקוד דלא יתנבאון להון‬ ‫נבואתה‬

The most conspicuous one is the reading ‫עליהון‬, ‘against them’, ‘concerning them’, in Targum Jonathan, as against ‫‘ להון‬about them’, in Ecclesiastes Rabbah. The remaining differences are orthographic ones. There is also an example in Ecclesiastes Rabbah of alternative renderings of certain difficult words. In 2 Kgs 8:16 Hebrew ‫האמנות‬, which is of uncertain meaning, is rendered in Targum Jonathan as ‫סקופיא‬, ‘lintels, thresholds’,336 whereas in EcclR 9:18 there is a difference of opinion on its rendering. Rabbi Levi suggests ‫‘ ציפריא‬circles, garlands’,337 whereas the other rabbis suggest ‫‘ שיגמיא‬hinges (of bamboo wood)’.338 334  In TJ the ‘beloved’ or ‘friend’ is equated with ‘Israel — which is like a vineyard, the seed of Abraham, my friend’. The latter expression is taken from Isa 48:1. See A. Houtman, ‘The Role of Abraham in Targum Isaiah’, AS 3 (2005), 7–8. 335  Cf. TJ Micah 2:6 (for Hebrew ‫)אל תטפו יטיפון‬. 336  Cf. Jastrow, Dictionary, 1019. 337  Cf. Jastrow, Dictionary, 1298. It is not found in Palestinian sources. 338  See Sokoloff, JPA, 537.

224

chapter three

7.5. Canticles Rabbah In Ezekiel 16, the city of Jerusalem is compared to a whore, and she is called a sister of the two cities Samaria and Sodom. In 16:61 it is said of Jerusalem: You shall remember your ways and feel ashamed, when you receive your older sisters and your younger sisters, and I give them to you as daughters, though they are not of your covenant.

In Targum Jonathan the relationship of Jerusalem and her sisters is described in terms of a war that will cause expansion of the territory of Judea, and that in the future shall include Samaria and Sodom and their neighbouring cities:339 And you shall remember your ways and feel ashamed, when you wage war against countries that are mightier than you, together with those that are smaller than you, and I hand them over to you to surrender, even though you did not observe the Torah.

The sisters are compared here with countries that shall be conquered in the future by Judea. In CantR 1:5 the sisters are ‘cities’ or ‘villages’, that in future times will be given to Jerusalem as a marriage gift from God: R. Yoanan said: Jerusalem will one day become the metropolis of all countries, and draw people to her in streams to do her honour … It is written ‘… and I give them to you as daughters, though they are not of your covenant. What is meant by ‘daughters’? Villages. ‘… though they are not of your covenant’ — not from your (marriage) deed, but as a deed [marriage gift] from the Lord.

There are great differences in the interpretation of Targum Jonathan on the one hand and Canticles Rabbah on the other. In Targum Jonathan ‘sisters’ is used as a metaphor for ‘countries’, countries that are mightier than Judaea and countries that are smaller. The expression ‘covenant’ is taken to mean ‘Torah’. In Canticles Rabbah the sisters are ‘cities’ and the ‘covenant’ is understood as a marriage deed.

339  See Levey, Targum of Ezekiel, 55 n. 30.

targumic quotations

225

7.6. Midrash Samuel In 1 Sam 3 the young Samuel receives a message from God announcing his verdict on the priestly house of Eli: ‘And I declare to him that I sentence his house to endless punishment for the iniquity he knew about — how his sons were blaspheming at will340 — and he did not rebuke them’ (1 Sam 3:13). Targum Jonathan gives a fairly literal interpretation of the latter part of the verse: MT 1 Sam 3:13b Targum Jonathan

‫כי מקללים להם בניו ולא כהה בם‬ ‫ארי מרגזין להון בנוהי ולא כהא בהון‬

In translation: ‘because (of the fact) that his sons are blaspheming (for them), and he did not rebuke them.’ For Hebrew √‫( קלל‬piel), Targum Jonathan uses √‫( רגז‬afel) ‘to excite, ‘to blaspheme’. Extremely literal is Targum Jonathan’s translation of the words ‘and he did not rebuke them’. In MidrSam 10:1 (28b), where these last words are quoted, however, the verb used is not √‫ כהא‬341 but √‫גער‬, which also has the meaning ‘to rebuke’.342 Here, Midrash Samuel seems independent of Targum Jonathan. 1 Samuel 17 relates the story of David and Goliath. David’s brothers are fighting in the army of Saul, waiting for a confrontation with the Philistines and Goliath. David’s father Jesse tells him to go to his brothers (1 Sam 17:17) and to ask for their well-being (17:18): Take these ten cheeses to the captain of their thousand. Find out how your brothers are and bring a pledge (guarantee) from them.343

In Targum Jonathan the phrase ‘and bring a pledge (guarantee) from them’ (‫ )ואת ערבתם תקח‬is interpreted as ‘and bring (a report of) their well-being back’ (‫)וית טיבהון תיתי‬. MidrSam 20:5 (54a) explains Hebrew ‫( חרצי החלב‬lit. ‘things that are cut off, pieces of milk [of cheese]’) in its literal meaning as ‘kids taken away from their mothers’, and interprets ‘enquire after your brothers welfare’ as meaning ‘[ask] a token of them’, 344 ‫דוגמא דידהון‬. 340  Or: ‘were blaspheming God’. One of the tiqqune soferim, see E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis [etc.] 1992, 66; Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, I.151. 341  In Codex Reuchlin, however, the verb √‫ נזף‬is used, which also means ‘to rebuke’. 342  See Sokoloff, JPA, 134. 343  JPS translates: ‘… and bring some token from them’. 344  Cf. Jastrow, Dictionary, 282–83.

226

chapter three

As has been noted by Van Staalduine-Sulman it is remarkable that in Targum Jonathan (and likewise in Midrash Samuel) Hebrew ‫ ערבון‬is not interpreted in the line of rabbinic sources, where it bears the technical meaning of a ‘guarantee for a financial transaction’ or in a more specific way as ‘guarantee that a divorce was valid’. This last meaning however is found in a marginal note of Codex Reuchlin, that explains ‫ ערבון‬as ‫‘ גט פיטורי נשיהון‬a bill of divorce345 of their [Davids brother’s] wives’.346 This may be taken directly from b.Shab 56a: Everyone who went out in the wars of the House of David wrote a bill of divorce (‫ )גט כריתות‬for his wife, for it is said: Take these ten cheeses to the captain of their thousand. Find out how your brothers are and bring a pledge from them. What is meant by ‫ ?ערובתם‬R. Joseph learnt: The things which pledge man and woman [to one another].

In this case, also, the rendering of Midrash Samuel seems independent of Targum Jonathan. Like Targum Jonathan it bears no connection with the interpretation in talmudic sources, where the word ‘pledge’ is understood as the pledge that is the sign of the marriage between man and woman.

7.7. Midrash Tanuma In the above, we discussed the expression ‘as the going forth of the sun in its might’ in Judg 5:31 and its quotation in TJ Isa 41:25.347 The influence of this phrase in the development of the idea of the mystical transformation of the righteous in rabbinic and pre-rabbinic sources is shown in a recent study by W.F. Smelik.348 In Midrash Tanuma Bereshit 6, the whole verse is quoted, introduced by the phrase ‘as we translate (in Aramaic)’. There are some small differences between the targumic text and its quotation in Midrash Tanuma: TJ Judg 5:31 Tan Bereshit 6 349

‫ורחמוהי יהון עתידין לאזהרא בזיהור יקריה על חד תלת‬ ‫מאה ארבעין ותלתה כמפק שמשא בגבורתיה‬ ‫ורחמוהי צדיקיא יהון עתידין לאזהרא כזהור יקרה על חד‬ ‫תלת מאה ארבעין ותלתא כמפק שמשא בגבורתה‬

Apart from some spelling variations, the differences can be made visible in the English translation of the quotation: 345  See Jastrow, Dictionary, 1161; cf. TO Deut 24:3, PsJon Exod 21:11; m.Git 9:3 346  See above, Chapter Two, p. 89. 347  See above, p. 149. 348  Smelik, ‘Mystical Transformation’. 349  A Hebrew quotation of the verse is found in Tan Noa 3.

targumic quotations

227

… and his lovers, the righteous,350 will be destined to shine like the splendour of his glory a three hundred and forty-three times more, as the rising of the sun in his might.’

The addition ‘the righteous’ is also found in several of the Western manuscripts of Targum Jonathan, as has been remarked by Smelik.351 The reading ‫ כזהור‬is found in ms Or. 1471 of the British Museum and in Codex Reuchlin.352 We may assume that Midrash Tanuma here is based on a Western manuscript of Targum Jonathan.353

7.8. Midrash Psalms In MidrPss 60:2 (on Ps 60:3–4) the meaning of the word ‫פצמתה‬, ‘(You have made the land quake), You have torn it open’ (Ps 60:4) is discussed. To illustrate its meaning the targum of Jer 36:23 is quoted: What is (the meaning of) ‫‘( פצמתה‬You have torn it open’)? (It means: ‘You have split apart) her doors [the doors of the earth]’. As it is said: ‘When Yehudi had read three columns …’, and we translate in Aramaic ‫פצימין‬, ‘splittings’ [i.e. columns]’.

Hebrew ‫ דלתות‬in Jer 36:23 means ‘columns’ or ‘leaves’ of a scroll.354 In Targum Jonathan the Aramaic equivalent is ‫פצין‬. According to the Arukh (6:393–94, s.v. ‫ )פצם‬the reading of the targum is ‫פצים‬. The Aramaic rendering in our fragment (‫ )פצימין‬is a plural form of ‫פצים‬. The different readings may be due to the confusion of the forms ‫( פצא‬pl. ‫ )פצין‬and ‫( פצים‬pl. ‫)פצימין‬, which both have the meaning ‘board’ or ‘column’.355

7.9. Pesikta de-Rav Kahana The verse ‘Arise, shine, for your light has dawned’ (Isa 60:1), which is the opening verse of a festive haftarah reading, has found several comments of Resh Lakish in PRK 21:3. In one of these comments he 350  Smelik, ‘Mystical Transformation’, 133 translates ‘… and his (righteous) lovers’, but it seems better to take ‘righteous’ as an apposition to ‘lovers’. 351  See Smelik, ‘Mystical Transformation’, 133 n. 58, where he gives four additions to Sperber’s apparatus. 352  See also the Western manuscripts mentioned in Smelik, Targum of Judges, 480 n. 864. 353  See Smelik, ‘Mystical Transformation’, 133 n. 58. 354  Cf. A. Demsky & M. Bar-Ilan, ‘Writing in Ancient Israel and Early Judaism’, in Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 13; Tov, Textual Criticism, 204. 355  See also Hayward, Targum of Jeremiah, 9.

228

chapter three

illustrates the verse by a parable of a king with a daughter. A man asks for her hand, but in the eyes of the king he is not worthy to marry her. A second one is refuted on the same grounds. But when the third comes, the king says in Aramaic words: ‘Arise, shine, for your light has come’. Here, we find a fairly literal Aramaic quotation of Isa 60:1 (‫ )קומי הנהרי דאתיא נהוריך‬which differs from Targum Jonathan on our verse (‫)קומי אנהרי ירושלים ארי מטא זמן פרקניך‬. Apart from the use of the haphel-form in the quotation of the Pesikta de-Rav Kahana356 as against the ‘aphel form in Targum Jonathan the latter is far more interpretative by its direct address to Jerusalem,357 and by taking ‘light’ as a symbol of ‘salvation’.358 In the Pesikta de-Rav Kahana there are furthermore several examples of alternative renderings of certain difficult words in the Hebrew text: 1. The interpretation of the word ‫‘ נ(ו)קד‬sheep breeder’ in 2 Kgs 3:4. See TJ (‫ )מרי גיתי‬and PRK 6:2, 116 (‫)רעי‬. In the same verse Hebrew ‘the wool of (a hundred thousand) rams’ is rendered in TJ as ‫דכרין דרעיא‬ ‘(and a hundred thousand) rams of the pasture’. In PRK Rabbi Abba bar Kahana renders this with ‫‘ פרובטא‬small livestock’.359 2. The interpretation of the word ‫‘ בא(ו)רים‬with lights’ in Isa 24:15. See TJ (]‫‘ )במיתי נהורא [לצדיקיא‬when the light comes (to the righteous)’ and PRK 21:1, 319 (‫‘ )באילין פנסיא‬by these (two) lights’.360 3. The interpretation of the word ‫‘ רקמה‬embroidered garments’ in Ezek 16:10. See TJ (‫)לבושי ציורין‬361 and PRK 11:8, 184 (‘Rabbi Simay says [it means] ‫‘ פורפירין‬purple garments’; Aquila translates ‫‘ פילקטין‬manycoloured garments’).362

356  A variant reading, however, gives: ‫קומי אנהרי דאתא נהוריך‬. Cf. edn Mandelbaum, 321. 357  Cf. Tg Isa 54:1, 10, 15, 17; 56:9, 60:4, 12, 17. 358  See on rain and dew as a symbol of salvation and resurrection, Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 159–61. 359  See Krauss, Lehnwörter, II.481. 360  That is, the sun and the moon. See Sokoloff, JPA, 438. 361  Cf. Jastrow, Dictionary, 1275–76. 362  Perhaps one should read here ‫פקילטון‬, see Krauss, Lehnwörter, II.112 (‘bunte Kleider’).

targumic quotations

229

7.10. Pesikta Rabbati In a Genizah fragment of a version of pesikta anochi363 an Aramaic rendering of Zeph 2:3 (‘Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land, who have fulfilled his law; seek righteousness, seek humility. Perhaps you will find shelter on the day of the Lord’s anger’) is quoted that differs strongly from Targum Jonathan: MT Zeph 2:3 (a) Targum Jonathan Ginze Schechter, 175

‫בקשו את יהוה כל ענוי הארץ אשר משפטו פעלו‬ ‫תבעו ית דחלתא דיוי כל ענתני ארעא דדיני רעותיה עבדו‬ ‫האווין תובעין אורחיה דמלכיה דעלמא כל מכיכיה‬ ‫דארעה דעבדי[ן דינא‬

MT Zeph 2:3 (b) Targum Jonathan Ginze Schechter, 175

‫בקשו צדק בקשו ענוה‬ ‫תבעו קושטא תבעו ענותנותא‬ ‫ ודעבדין] קושטא ומהלכין במכיכו קמי מרי דעלמה ועד‬ ‫איין כתיב בהון‬

MT Zeph 2:3 (c) Targum Jonathan Ginze Schechter, 175

‫אולי תסתרו ביום אף יהוה‬ ‫מא אם יתגן עליכון ביום רוגזא דיוי‬ ‫א[ולי תסתרו ביום אף יהוה] דעתד לכון קברהו מן‬ ‫ההיא שעתא דרוגזא‬

Here, Targum Jonathan is more literal than the quotation in the Genizah fragment, adding only a few explanatory words: Seek the fear of the Lord, all you humble of the land, who have kept the judgements of His pleasure; seek truth, seek humility. Perhaps you will be protected on the day of the Lord’s anger

The Palestinian quotation of our verse in the Genizah fragment is more interpretative and diverges from Targum Jonathan in many ways: Keep seeking the way of the King of the World, all you low ones of the land, who fulfil the law and who keep the truth, and who are going in lowliness before the Lord of the World. And still it is written about them 'Perhaps you will find shelter on the day of the Lord's anger (Hebr.) who prepared for you His [?]364 graves for [?] that hour of anger. 363  Ms T-S 124 Cambridge University Library. Following Goshen-Goldstein (‫שקיעים‬, II.30), we placed it under the header Pesikta Rabbati, although it is not certain whether it comes from this collection or from another collection of pesiktot. Ginzberg calls it therefore more neutrally a ‘new pesikta’ (Genizah Studies: In Memory of Doctor Salomon Schechter (= Ginze Schechter). I. Midrash and Haggadah, New York 1928; repr. New York 1969, 172). 364  Goshen-Gottstein (‫שקיעים‬, II.30 n. 2) suggests reading ‫ קברהון‬for the difficult ‫קברהו‬.

230

chapter three

Here, differences from Targum Jonathan are found (a) on a grammatical level (use of the periphrastic imperative,365 reading perfect tenses for the imperatives ]‫בקשו [ענוה‬, ]‫( ;)בקשו [צדק‬b) in its use of translation equivalents (‫‘ מכיכי‬low ones’) and substitutes for the divine name; (c) in the interpretation of ‘you will find shelter on the day of the Lord’s anger’ as ‘the Lord prepared for you his graves [as a shelter?] for that hour of anger’. As in other midrashim we have discussed, in Pesikta Rabbati there are several examples of alternative renderings of certain difficult words in the Hebrew text: 1. The interpretation of the word ‫‘ ספירים‬sapphires’, in Isa 54:11. See TJ (‫ )אבני טבן‬and PRK 18:4, 295 (‫ ;)סמפירינין‬PesR 32, 148a/b (‫ ;)סנפירינין‬MidrPss 87:1, 376 (‫)סנפירונין‬. 2. The interpretation of the word ‫‘ כדכד‬ruby (?)’ in Isa 54:12. See TJ (‫ )מרגולין‬and PRK 18:5, 296 (‫ אבני כדכדיינון‬/ ‫ ;)אבני כדכודיה‬PesR 32, 148a/b (‫)אבני כדכדא‬.

7.11. Summary What can be said of the quotations of passages from the Prophets in the Midrash collections we have investigated? First we may note that there are surprisingly few Aramaic quotations in this large corpus, which by its nature is based on scriptural evidence for its midrashic explanations. Within this small number there are only a few direct quotations, that is quotations with an introduction formula (Nahum 3:8 quoted in GenR 1:1, Josh 5:2 in GenR 31:8, Judg 3:19–23 in GenR 99:3, Isa 21:5 in GenR 63:14; Isa 22:1 in a Genizah fragment of LamR, Ezek 24:6 in LamR, petita 5; Isa 5:6 in EcclR 11:3; Ezek 16:61 in CantR 1:5; Judg 5:31 in Midrash Tanuma Bereshit 6 and Jer 36:23 in MidrPss 60:2). Of these direct quotations the first (Nahum 3:8 in GenR 1:1) is, apart from being an orthographic variant, in line with Targum Jonathan, and the same is true for the quotation of Isa 5:6 in EcclR 11:3. In the case of Judg 5:31, the quotation seems to be based on a different, Western Vorlage of the Aramaic text. In the other cases, the translation differs from Targum Jonathan, remaining somewhat more closely to the Hebrew 365  Assuming that ‫ האווין‬is the correct reading. Goshen-Gottstein (‫שקיעים‬, II.30) also mentions the use of the paraphrastic imperative ‫ה[א]ווין תובעין‬, referring to J.C. Greenfield, ‘The Periphrastic Imperative in Aramaic and Hebrew’, IEJ 19 (1969), 199–210. We have to be cautious, however, for this reading is far from certain. In his edition of the fragment, Ginzberg notes that the reading of the last 4 (!) characters of the word ‫ האווין‬is very doubtful (Ginze Schechter, 175 n. 20).

targumic quotations

231

text (Ezek 24:6 in LamR, petita 5), or showing exegetical differences (Josh 5:2 in GenR 31:8, Judg 3:19–23 in GenR 99:3, Isa 21:5 in GenR 63:15; Ezek 16:61 in CantR 1:5). Sometimes, it is difficult to establish whether the translation given is dependent on Targum Jonathan or not (Isa 22:1 in a Genizah fragment of Lamentations Rabbah, Jer 4:18 in LamR, petita 16; Jer 36:23 in MidrPss 60:2). Looking at the indirect quotations, we see that there are often differences from Targum Jonathan. This, for instance, is the case in the following cases: Isa 29:17 quoted in GenR 24:1; 1 Sam 3:13b in MidrSam 10:1, 1 Sam 17:17 quoted in MidrSam 20:5; Isa 60:1 quoted in PRK 21:3 and Zeph 2:3 quoted in a Genizah fragment of pesikta anochi. In line with Targum Jonathan is the quotation of Isa 5:6 in EcclR 11:3. As we saw, numerous examples of alternative renderings of Hebrew words have been adduced by Goshen-Gottstein. We have given some examples of such alternative renderings, but in our view they do not necessarily reflect a targumic interpretation of the text.

E. Survey and Conclusions In this chapter we have discussed quotations of targumic passages in the Palestinian Targums, in the Tosefta Targums, in Targum Esther Sheni and Targum Canticles, in magical texts, in Talmudim and Midrashim, in order to shed some new light on the early history of targumic practice. Within this context we have also paid attention to the long debated question as to whether there ever existed a complete Palestinian Targum to the Prophets. Before we summarise our findings, it has to be noted that a full picture cannot be given without further study of the quotations that are found in the works of medieval authors such as are mentioned in the first section of our chapter. We are also in need of a comparable study of the quotations from the Torah in the works we have investigated here. In this study, we have first of all given a survey of previous research on the subject. We have offered some criticism on the valuable work of Goshen-Gottstein, which fails to define more precisely what is meant by a quotation. Following the suggestions of Hughes, we have tried to define the difference between explicit or direct quotation on the one hand and indirect quotation or allusion on the other. It is important to see that direct quotations, that are quotations with an introductory formula, may also comprise free renderings of biblical texts, allusions, or combinations of scriptural passages. In line with the definition of

232

chapter three

a quotation that is given by Hughes, we have excluded from our research the ‘alternative renderings, either of lexical or exegetical interest’ (Goshen-Gottstein), which do not refer to a specific textual source. Philological interpretations of certain difficult Hebrew words are often the issue. We now come to some general observations: 1. The number of direct quotations in the works under discussion is not very high. We have studied 47 quotations that are introduced by all kinds of introductory formulas. Some of these are well known from the Jewish literature of the intertestamental period, or from Christian sources or early rabbinic writings. Each of the sources we have studied has its own specific way of indicating the provenance of a certain quotation or giving authority to the reasoning in a discourse. In talmudic sources we may find formulas that indicate that the quoted targum is an authoritative source for the interpretation of a biblical verse or for the explanation of a mishnah. 2. In the Palestinian Targums, quotations are especially found in the lengthy midrashic introductions that are connected with the weekly sabbath readings or the readings for certain festivals. These introductions are of a midrashic nature and are characterised by certain common elements of form. As in the midrashim, they abound in quotations of scriptural passages. This is also the case in the more midrash-like Targums on Canticles and Esther. 3. Some of the direct and indirect quotations are, apart from orthographic variants, completely in line with Targum Jonathan, or show minor variations. Other quotations differ from the official Targum. The differences sometimes are of a linguistic nature, but at other times the quotations differ with regard to their contents. Although this is sometimes assumed, the fact that they deviate from Targum Jonathan does not mean that they are always more interpretative than Targum Jonathan, for in quite a few cases the situation is just the opposite: they are far more literal than Targum Jonathan. Such is the case, for instance, with the quotation of 1 Kgs 18:37 in the lengthy introduction of parashat Kora (Num 16:1ff.) in the Fragment Targum, or with the quotation of Isa 51:6 in the Palestinian Targums on Deut 32:1. We have given two examples of a more literal translation in Targum Esther Sheni (Isa 65:24 in Esther Sheni 1:1, Isa 55:13 in Esther Sheni 2:7). There is, however, not a regular pattern of

targumic quotations

233

such more literal translations that might lead us to conclude that a more verbatim Palestinian Targum existed. 4. The quotations in the Babylonian Talmud are mainly ascribed to Rav Joseph bar iyya, who must have played an important role in the propagation (and redaction?) of Targum Jonathan. That he himself was not the author is clear from the expression ‘Rav Joseph said, Were it not for the Targum of this verse, we should not know what it means’, which strongly suggests that he quotes from an existing text. 5. It comes as no surprise that most of the quotations in the Babylonian Talmud are in line with Targum Jonathan, although there are often minor variations. In one case, Zeph 3:18 in b.Ber 28a, the quotation is completely different from Targum Jonathan. We have argued that the talmudic variant might be older than the standard Jonathan version, which possibly underwent an editorial revision. The quotation of Zech 9:6 in b.Qid 72b, which also differs from the official targum, seems to be dependent on Targum Jonathan, but may represent a variant reading of the text. 6. With regard to the quotations on magical bowls, we may repeat here the conclusions of Christa Müller-Kessler that both Targum Onkelos and Targum Jonathan ‘are either translated before the destruction of the town of Nehardea [in 259 ce] or shortly after the newly founded Jewish academies in Sura and Pumbeditha’. In an earlier publication, Stephen Kaufman dated a magic bowl from Nippur with targumic quotations between 350–500 ce. As already mentioned, Joseph bar iyya, who lived in the fourth century ce, may have played an important role in the redaction of the official targum and its acceptance among the rabbinic leaders. The fact that a few quotations in the Babylonian Talmud from the books of Zephaniah and Zechariah differ completely from the known version of Targum Jonathan, might show that the redactional process was not closed at the time of Joseph bar iyya. The quotations that show minor variants might reflect the custom of memorising the citation or might testify to the instability of the Jonathan text. 7. The oldest Palestinian quotations are those in the Palestinian Targums, which are usually dated between the third and fifth centuries ce. These quotations, as we saw, are only partly in line with Targum Jonathan, but more often they deviate from it linguistically or with regard to their exegetical contents. In Genesis Rabbah, one of the

234

chapter three

earliest aggadic midrashim, dating from the fifth or sixth century, one quotation is found (Nahum 3:8 in GenR 1:1) that is almost completely in line with Targum Jonathan. 8. The Palestinian targum tradition as a whole seems to have been an unstable and fluctuating one. The fact that there are great differences in the form of the quotations — the introductory formulas, the variations in the use of opening formula on one and the same verse, Hebrew versus Aramaic quotations in the different manuscripts, adaptations to the context — suggests that it was not subjected to an editorial hand. Often, the quotations give the impression of on the spot renderings of certain passages or of key words and expressions. The number of direct quotations is limited and there is, in our view, insufficient evidence for the assumption that a complete Palestinian Targum once existed.

Chapter four

Summary and Conclusions At the start of this research project we set ourselves the following tasks: 1. To shed new light on the unclear story of the development of the Targum of the Prophets by means of an investigation into the Tosefta Targums and the targumic quotations, including the question of whether there ever existed a complete Palestinian Targum of the Prophets. 2. An assessment of the variant readings of the Targum of the Prophets, especially those of the Books of Samuel, in the build-up to a new critical edition. 3. An evaluation of the terminology used in this field of study, especially the terms ‘t/Targum’, ‘Tosefta Targum’ and ‘quotation’. In this chapter we summarize and bring together the results of our investigations, starting with the last item and then working our way back to the first and most important issue.

A. Evaluation of the Terminology In Chapter One we noticed that the term ‘targum’ has a very wide spectrum of meaning and has been used indiscriminately for all kinds of translations of Scripture. We decided that it is good to reserve the technical term ‘targum’ for a specific kind of Aramaic Bible translation and we suggested the following definition: Targum is a Jewish Aramaic interpretative word-by-word translation of the biblical text in exegetical dependence on its wording.

This is still a rather broad term that may be narrowed down by different adjectives, depending on the context in which it functions, since linguistic research obviously needs other terminology than literary or exegetical research. It proved to be the case that for our goal, i.e. the mutual comparison of different targum traditions, the division according to literary character is the most fruitful. We also considered the question of categorizing individual targum traditions by external features, in response to Alexander’s division

236

chapter four

into a- and b-type targums. We distinguished the following types: 1. Literal word-by-word translation. 2. Extended translation with detachable glosses. 3. Interpretative word-by-word translation. 4. Extended interpretative translation. In Chapter Two we examined in greater depth the so-called Tosefta Targums to the Books of Samuel, and in the process we also touched upon matters of terminology. The term ‘Tosefta Targum’ has the advantage of its widespread use, though it is not in all cases applied accurately. We propose not to abandon the term altogether, but to restrict its use to targumic traditions that serve as additions to Targum Jonathan. That includes textual additions to Targum Jonathan itself (e.g. 1 Sam 3:14) as well as complete alternative targumic renderings of certain verses that are preserved as a supplement to Targum Jonathan (e.g. 1 Sam 10:22). Minor textual variants that are presented as coming from another text tradition, such as for instance the sefer aer variant ‫ איזדמנא איזדמית‬in 2 Sam 1:6 in Codex Reuchlin, should in our view not be termed Tosefta Targum. Some extensive traditions that technically speaking can be called Tosefta Targums may need an extra denominator to describe them properly and distinguish them from other sorts of TTs. For instance, the long TT 1 Sam 17:42 may be appropriately called a ‘targumic poem’, whereas the compilation of 2 Sam 21:15–19 may be termed ‘targumic derashah’. In Chapter Three we discussed the Aramaic quotations of the Prophets, which can be found in a wide range of sources. We have tried to define more precisely such terms as ‘quotation’, ‘allusion’, ‘free renderings of biblical texts’, and the like, basing our comments on earlier studies of these terms. Following the suggestions of Julie Hughes in her study on the Hodayot,1 we define the term quotation as ‘a phrase which is marked, explicitly or implicitly, as referring to the words of a speaker who is not the implied speaker of the composition’. For the term allusion we have adopted her working definition describing it as ‘a reference which is recognized by a reader as referring to a textual source, knowledge of which contributes to the meaning for the reader’.2 1  J.A. Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot, Leiden & Boston 2006. 2  Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 52.

summary and conclusions

237

We have made a general distinction between (a) explicit quotations, that is quotations which are marked by introductory formulas, and (b) implicit quotations which are not introduced formally. The fact that a quotation starts with a formula of introduction may indicate that it refers to a specific biblical verse (or part of it), but it may also allude to a certain biblical passage or give a free rendering of biblical texts. With regard to the implicit quotations that have no formula of introduction, the situation is more complicated. We have made a distinction between (1) quotations that refer to a specific biblical verse, (2) quotations that seem to allude to well-known texts, current sayings, or which form a stereotype rendering of certain biblical phrases, (3) quotations that consist of free renderings of biblical texts, and (4) quotations that are based on the analogy of words or expressions in the Hebrew text. We have excluded targumic ‘quotations’, which have been defined by Goshen-Gottstein as ‘alternative renderings, of either lexical or of exegetical interest’,3 since they apparently do not refer to a specific textual source.

B. Assessment of the Variants As explained in the Introduction,4 the plans laid down in the ITTEP proposal were one of the reasons that motivated us to write the present book. In the proposal two goals were formulated.5 The first goal was defined as the creation of a single text for each targum that forms the best scholarly approximation of the earliest form of the text that can be identified. This text will be as fixed as possible, with all the necessary text-critical decisions made. Apparatuses could include variant readings in important manuscripts, indications of regional or stemmatological variances, orthography, interesting variations and additions, and so on. The second goal was defined as the creation of tools and textual data with which to study each targum as a living tradition over the centuries. For the realisation of the first goal serious text-critical and stemmatological research is needed. The simple variant readings that are found in particular in the marginal readings with the designations 3  M. Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים מתרגומי המקרא הארמיים‬, 2 Vols, Ramat-Gan 1983– 1989, I:XX. 4  See above, pp. 1–2. 5  See http://www.targum.info/IOTS/TEECprop36.pdf, 5–6 (accessed Oct. 29, 2008).

238

chapter four

sefer aer and lishna aerina of Codex Reuchlin and in quotations in rabbinic and medieval Jewish texts may be useful in this kind of research. However, especially in the case of the quotations, each instance must be studied on its merits since it must first be decided whether it concerns actual quotations or on-the-spot Aramaic renderings of certain difficult Hebrew words. The TTs on the other hand can hardly play a role in the construction of a reliable base text of Targum Jonathan, but, if used with care, they can be of aid in the reconstruction of the later textual history.6 The TTs should be incorporated into one of the databases that are planned within the framework of the second goal of ITTEP. Such a database already exists within the enterprise of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon,7 but these data can be further corrected and supplemented with additional material. It is also desirable that not only one representative, but all the textual witnesses be included in the TT-database and that they be tagged indicating their source and provenance. In that way these data may be helpful in research into the development of regional customs. It is advisable that the targumic quotations be similarly collected in a database. Such a database should, besides the text of the quotation, also indicate the source in which the quotations occur, whereby the main division should be between early rabbinic and medieval sources.

C. The Origin and Early Development of the Targum of the Prophets We start this last section with a short overview of the common opinion regarding the story of the development of the Targums (1),8 before we evaluate our findings in the light of the question of whether there is evidence of a once complete Palestinian Targum of the Prophets (2). Finally we consider what our findings may or may not reveal concerning the use of the Targum of the Prophets in different times and ages (3). 6  See A. Houtman, ‘Different Kinds of Tradition in Targum Jonathan to Isaiah’, in: P. van Reenen, A. den Hollander & M. van Mulken (eds), Studies in Stemmatology II, Amsterdam & Philadelphia 2004, 269–83, at 283. 7  http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/ (accessed Oct. 29, 2008). 8  This overview is largely based upon P.S. Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures’, in: M.J. Mulder & H. Sysling (eds), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen [etc.] 1988; repr. Peabody, Mass. 2004, 217–253, at 247–50.

summary and conclusions

239

1. The common opinion The Targums originated in Palestine in the late Second Temple period. The oldest Targums were probably written in a formal dialect, such as the language of the Aramaic Qumran documents. As evidence shows, from early times expansive and non-expansive Targums existed side by side. From the number of recensions of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch it becomes clear that the Palestinian Targums were never standardised. After the Bar Kochba war, when the centre of rabbinic authority moved to Galilee, some of the Targums were recast into the local dialect. This probably had to do with the newly established practice of translating the weekly Torah reading and its prophetic complement orally into Aramaic. At some point, probably before this linguistic adaptation, recensions of a Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch and of the Prophets were taken to Babylonia where they were subjected to a thorough revision and standardization, which among other things involved a shortening to bring the texts into closer conformity to the Hebrew Bible. In the meanwhile in Palestine the ancient targum tradition stayed alive and — like any living tradition — continued to develop. In the post-talmudic period the authoritative Babylonian recensions returned to Palestine, where, although they did not entirely repress the Palestinian recensions, they certainly influenced them linguistically. Probably because the faithful and sober translations did not entirely satisfy the needs of the Palestinian audience, which was educated in a midrashic tradition, truncated forms of the Palestinian Targums emerged, which were designed to supplement the authoritative Targums. These truncated forms survived as Fragment Targums and TTs. This reconstruction is largely based on an analysis of the Pentateuch Targums of which fortunately various recensions have survived. The origin and history of the Targum(s) of the Prophets, for which less evidence is available, is argued by analogy. This is not unreasonable, though one must bear in mind that besides the similarities between the Targums of the Pentateuch and of the Prophets there are also some notable differences. There is, for instance, a difference in status between the Books of the Torah and those of the Prophets, the Torah being on the highest hierarchical level. Apart from this difference in status, there is also a difference in nature and purpose. Whereas the Torah is meant as a guideline for daily life, the Books of the Prophets

240

chapter four

also contain more esoteric wisdom that has no practical purpose. This is well illustrated from a passage in b.Meg 3a: Rabbi Jeremiah (some say Rabbi iyya bar Abba) said, “The translation of the Torah was made by Onkelos the Proselyte, that he learned from Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. The translation of the Prophets was made by Jonathan ben Uzziel, who learned it from the Prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. At that time, the Land of Israel shuddered 400 Persian miles by 400 Persian miles. A Bat Kol came forth, saying ‘Who is it that revealed My secrets to human beings?’ Jonathan ben Uzziel stood up and said, ‘I am the one who revealed Your secrets to human beings. But You know very well that I did it not for my own honour, nor for the honour of my father’s house, but rather I did it for Your honour, in order to minimize arguments within the people of Israel.”

The gemara continues the discussion, seeking out the difference between the Targum of Onkelos, which elicited no shuddering on the part of the Land of Israel as did the translation of the Prophets. It is argued that the Torah is meant to be an accessible book, with a clear meaning available to anyone who makes the effort to study it, while the meaning of the Books of the Prophets, who often communicated their visions in difficult, even undecipherable, poetic language, is not meant to be easily accessible to everyone.9 Finally, there is also a difference in function with regard to the liturgy. Whereas the Torah is read in its entirety, either in one or in three years, only selected parts of the Prophets are read as haftarah to the Torah. The Torah is at the centre of the Jewish liturgy, the Prophets functioning primarily to shed light on the Torah reading.

2. Evaluation of the evidence If, for the moment, we disregard the differences between the Torah and the Prophets, and assume that the situation sketched above also holds true for the origin and history of the Targum(s) of the Prophets, then there must have existed at least one complete Palestinian Targum of the Prophets. Traces of this/these older version(s) may then have 9  Also in later Christian circles there was a certain reluctance to accept the Targum of the Prophets. Cardinal Jiménez de Cisneros, Archbishop of Toledo, had all the Targums prepared for use in the Complutensian Polyglot Bible that was published at Alcalá (Spain) between 1514 and 1517. However, on further consideration, the Targums of the Prophets and the Writings were not incorporated into the Complutensian Bible, because they were considered to be corrupt and full of ‘talmudic fables’. They were instead to be kept in the Public Library of the Complutensian University, to enable teachers and students to consult them.

summary and conclusions

241

survived both in Targum Jonathan itself and in variant traditions. It is no easy task, however, to recognize these traces and to use them to reconstruct the possibly older version(s), because of the marked internal development of the Palestinian tradition and the later adaptation to the language of Onkelos and Jonathan. The original Palestinian Targum that may have formed the base of Targum Jonathan has been lost, and at best some remnants have survived in the Palestinian tradition. It is very difficult to decide whether they survived in their original wording or were subject to later developments. If we sketch the development schematically the following picture emerges: 1. Targum(s) to the Prophets in Jewish Literary Aramaic 2a Redaction in Babylonia → TJ 2b Organic development in Palestine, adaptation to local dialects 3. TJ accepted in Palestine and supplemented with local Palestinian traditions that were adapted to the language of Onkelos and Jonathan, and with later exegetical material that emerged from the Babylonian schools. So, if with regard to the Tosefta Targums we find targums of the Prophets other than Targum Jonathan in a local Palestinian dialect, they probably belong to stage 2b. If, on the other hand, we find traditions in Jewish Literary Aramaic, they might either belong to stage 1 or stage 3. If we are lucky there are some tell-tale signs that give away a little more information, as becomes clear for instance from the linguistic investigations of Alinda Damsma in her dissertation on Targum Ezekiel, who succeeded in dating some Tosefta Targums to the geonic period on the basis of linguistic resemblances to Late Jewish Literary Aramaic.10 Another tell-tale indication of a late stage of development is the awareness shown of Babylonian traditions. This all means that whereas it is in some cases possible to date traditions to the second or third stage of development, it is extremely difficult to find traces of the first stage in which we were initially especially interested. Considering next the evidence of the quotations, we may first point out that the oldest Palestinian quotations are those in the Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch, which are usually dated between the third and fifth centuries, with of course the notable exception of Pseudo-Jonathan 10  A. Damsma, An Analysis of Targum Ezekiel and its Relationship to the Targumic Toseftot, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University College London 2008.

242

chapter four

which also contains material of a much later date. These quotations, as we saw in our study, often deviate from Targum Jonathan linguistically and/or with regard to their exegetical contents. The number of these quotations in the Palestinian Targums is small and they mostly form part of the ‘midrashic’ introductions, which are connected with the liturgical readings. The texts of the quotations vary from Aramaic renderings that are more literal than Targum Jonathan (e.g. 1 Kgs 18:37 in FTP Num 16:1) to very free renderings (e.g. Ezek 39:9–10 in PsJon Num 11:26). The same phenomenon is observed in the Palestinian Targums Esther Sheni and Tg Canticles, where we saw translations that are far more literal than Targum Jonathan (e.g. Isa 65:24 in Esther Sheni 1:1) alongside a free rendering that is more expansive than the official Targum (Isa 30:29 in Tg Cant 1:1). Also the targumic quotations in the Tosefta Targums show the same mix of more literal (e.g. Jer 49:11 in the TT on 2 Kgs 4:1) and more paraphrastic renderings (e.g. Isa 14:14 in TT Ezek 14:14). This variety in nature of the targumic quotations within other Palestinian Targums is in accordance with the findings of Qumran, where very literal Aramaic translations were also found besides paraphrastic renderings. Apparently the two different ways of interpreting a Hebrew text existed side by side through the ages without a notable development from paraphrastic to literal or vice versa. As might be expected, the quotations in the Babylonian Talmud are generally in line with Targum Jonathan, which already stood in high esteem at the time of the Talmud (as is clear from the way it is cited). The more remarkable is a targumic rendering of Zeph 3:18 in b.Ber 28a, which is completely different from Targum Jonathan. We have argued that in this case the talmudic variant may be older than the redacted version of Targum Jonathan. The evidence from the Palestinian Talmud and from the midrashic literature is very scarce. Within the relatively small corpus of quotations there are great differences in the way the quotations are introduced, in their wording in different manuscripts, and in adaptations to the context. This implies a free and fluctuating Palestinian Targum tradition that was probably not subjected to an editorial hand. The scarcity of the quotations, combined with the fact that different targumic traditions apparently existed side by side, and the fact that the traditional exegetical literature from Palestine did not appeal to the Targums as an authoritative source, as the Babylonian tradition does, may indicate that the Targums had a lesser status in Palestine than they had in Babylonia.

summary and conclusions

243

Just as in the case of the Tosefta Targums, and perhaps even less so because of the brevity of most of the quotations, it is practically impossible to deduce the origin of the quotations from their linguistic characteristics. Where the language does not seem to be of help in tracing early stages of the Targum of the Prophets, the only possible way to detect older traditions is probably from the subject matter. In a few cases it can be demonstrated that traditions have very ancient roots. We saw this in the identification of Saul with the anonymous messenger in 1 Sam 4:12 and in the connection of Goliath with the capture of the Ark in 1 Sam 17:8, traditions that already occur in the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo. But traditions can have long lives, especially when they are well liked, so the fact that certain traditions already existed as early as in the first century, does not necessarily mean that all the works that use these traditions come from that same time period. That leaves us empty-handed again. Can we perhaps learn anything from the manuscripts and early editions in which the TTs occur? A problem with this kind of evidence is that most of the manuscripts are relatively late and that we know for certain that what survived is only a small part of what there once was, due to the unfavourable historical circumstances of the Jews in Europe. It is an important fact to note, however, that the earliest Babylonian manuscripts do not contain TTs, neither do the Yemenite manuscripts that were produced before the first printed editions of the Targums appeared. The sole Yemenite manuscript that we encountered that contains a TT is ms Or. 1471, which is dated 1589 ce. That means that the TTs were most probably added to the textual tradition of TJ after it came to Palestine and from there found their way to the Western world. It seems moreover reasonable to assume that additions that occur in all traditions are older than traditions that occur only in one strand.11 In our sample this concerns especially the TT to 1 Sam 17:8, which occurs in all traditions in three different versions. It stands to reason that the three versions are rooted in an ancient prototype. The targumic poem of 1 Sam 17:42 also has a broad distribution. Van StaalduineSulman has argued for an early date for this tradition on intertextual 11  See e.g. S.A. Kaufman & Y. Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20: Reconstructing the Palestinian Targum’, Textus 16 (1991), 13–78, at 20–21, who follow this stemmatological principle in their reconstruction.

244

chapter four

grounds,12 and its occurrence in different traditions might lend support to her proposition. However, although the poem may have ancient roots, its present form is probably post-talmudic. The poem as we have it now has some clear Babylonian linguistic characteristics; it apparently reworked older traditions and it contains references to Targum Jonathan.13 In this specific case therefore the broad distribution may in fact be the result of its literary qualities rather than its age. Another indication for an early origin of individual traditions may be their incorporation into the text of Targum Jonathan.14 This is the case for instance in 1 Sam 2:9 and 2 Sam 6:23. The fact that these variants also occur in Genizah fragments may add to the plausibility of this reasoning. On the basis of the analogy with the Pentateuchal Targums, and because it is not very likely that Targum Jonathan was constructed from scratch, it seems reasonable to presuppose a once complete Palestinian Targum to the Prophets. This hypothesis is supported by the many instances of Palestinian targum to verses that are not part of known liturgical reading cycles. The case remains hypothetical, however, because of lack of sufficient evidence. But from the moment that Targum Jonathan received its Babylonian recension, which, on the basis of the fact that R. Joseph (d. 333) already referred to it and on the evidence from the magic bowls, must have been somewhere in the third century ce, we stand on slightly firmer ground. It seems clear that Targum Jonathan was supplemented in Palestine with local traditions. We found in our sample two Genizah fragments which contain additions that are incorporated into the text. From Palestine the TTs spread out into the Western World. It appears that the Sephardi community was more apt to incorporate the TTs into their tradition than the Ashkenazi community. Nine TTs found their way into Sephardi texts (1 Sam 17:8; 17:39; 17:42; 18:19; 18:25; 2 Sam 6:23; 12:12; 19:30; 20:22), as against only three in Ashkenazi texts (1 Sam 17:8; 17:39; 17:42). The latter all concern the battle between David and Goliath, which may be no coincidence in a strongly anti-Jewish environment. There are no TTs in our sample which occur exclusively in 12  See the literature mentioned on p. 118. 13  See above, p. 117–118. 14  See e.g. A. Tal, ‫לשון התרגום לנביאים ראשונים ומעמדה בכלל ניבי הארמית‬, Tel Aviv 1975, 1996.

summary and conclusions

245

the Ashkenazi tradition. Research into the TTs of the other books of the Prophets is needed to see whether this distribution is accidental or a common trend. Of the two targumic derashot that occurred in our sample, one (2 Sam 21:15–19) was found only in ms Gaster 1478, a typewritten copy of ms 1020 that apparently contained aggadic traditions to the haftarot. The other, which consists of verses from the haftarah to the Seventh Day of Passover, (2 Sam 22:3, 8, 11, 13, 17, 28, 47) was found only in two closely related Italian Mazorim. This occurrence in especially Italian Mazorim is not surprising, given the fact that in Italy the custom of translating into Aramaic all the haftarot for Passover and those for the two days of Shavuot has been preserved until recently.15 It may be that these kinds of derashot were assembled for special occasions, in a creative way making use of existing material. This seems to be a late development. In the material we studied we found one acrostic Aramaic poem concerning 1 Sam 17:42, consisting of a dialogue between Goliath and David. The poem occurs in two Ashkenazi manuscripts from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and in five Sephardi texts from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It may be that the content of this poem is old, but the present form seems to be post-talmudic. As becomes clear from its wide distribution, this poem was very popular in the Middle Ages in Europe. Let us at the end of this section look back for a moment upon the short excursus we made in Chapter Two on the Pentateuch Targums.16 We discussed there briefly the case of the Fragment Targums, which are collections of fragmentary targumic traditions that seem to have been consciously selected and assembled as a supplement to another Targum. We noticed the resemblance to the corpus of TTs that also consists of additions as well as variant readings. For the case of the Pentateuch, the late Michael Klein noted the following differences between the two corpora:17 1. The TTs are expansive passages of aggadic midrash, while the Fragment Targums also carry brief verses, phrases or even single words. 15  See e.g. E. Fleischer, ‘Prayer and Piyyu in the Worms Mazor’, in: M. BeitArié (ed.), Worms Mazor: MS. Jewish National and University Library Heb. 40 781/1, Jerusalem 1985, 36–78, at 42 n. 62. 16  See above, pp. 46–48. 17  M.L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 Vols, Cincinnati 1986, I.xxvi–xxvii.

246

chapter four

2. Even though Palestinian in origin, the TTs have been used to supplement Onkelos and consequently have undergone a conscious dialectal adaptation to the language of Onkelos. The Fragment Targums on the other hand have retained the language of the Palestinian Targums. Moshe Bernstein added to this another difference: 3. The Fragment Targum covers the entire Pentateuch, while the extant TTs are limited to a few select passages from Genesis and Exodus.18 If we now review and compare what we found in our work on the Tosefta Targums with the observations for the Pentateuch, we notice the following: Ad 1. The corpus of TTs to the Books of Samuel does not only consist of expansive passages of aggadic Midrash, but contains, as do the Fragment Targums, also brief verses and phrases. Cases of single words were found in the categories sefer aer and lishna aerina, but we decided not to count them as TTs. Ad 2. The TTs to the Books of Samuel have probably been used to supplement Targum Jonathan, just as the TTs to the Pentateuch supplemented Onkelos, and therefore their language has been adapted to Targum Jonathan to some extent. It is still unsolved to which work the Fragment Targums are supplements as Klein has shown.19 It may be that they were meant as supplements to a Targum other than Onkelos, which would explain their Palestinian usage. Ad 3. As becomes clear from the work of Kasher on all the TTs of the Prophets, the TTs are relatively evenly spread over all the biblical books. In this respect they are comparable to the Fragment Targums rather than to the TTs of the Pentateuch. It seems obvious that the TTs to the Prophets functioned as a supplement to Targum Jonathan. This may be deduced from the fact that many of the TTs do not make sense without the text of Targum Jonathan. Moreover, in a number of cases the abbreviation '‫ וגו‬indicates that the copyist is writing within a frame of reference of some 18  M.J. Bernstein, ‘A New Manuscript of Tosefta Targum’, Proceedings of the 9th WCJS: Division A, The Period of the Bible, Jerusalem 1986, 151–58, at 151. 19  M.L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources, 2 Vols, Rome 1980, I.12–19.

summary and conclusions

247

other complete targum.20 He cites only the variant portions of verses and refers the reader to the base-targum for the completion of the verse. The same occurs in the Fragment Targums.21 So, in this respect there is not much difference. The main problem is that we do not really have a consciously selected and assembled corpus to the extent of the Fragment Targums, though at times small collections seem to have been transmitted separately.22 It is to be feared that, unless new evidence surfaces, the question of whether the TTs may be considered a corpus comparable to the Fragment Targums, or that they are rather a stray collection of all kinds of targumic traditions, varying from old traditions that for one reason or another did not become part of Targum Jonathan to younger traditions that are the result of later developments, will remain unresolved.

3. Sitz im Leben Regardless of whether or not there was ever a complete Palestinian Targum to the Prophets, the fact is, that we have evidence of a Palestinian targum tradition that apparently existed side by side with Targum Jonathan. What can this evidence teach us about how the Targums functioned? According to Kasher, the two targum traditions, the short one from Targum Jonathan and the longer one as represented in the TTs, existed side by side, having different functions. Targum Jonathan functioned in the schools (biblical language and exegesis), whereas the TTs functioned in the synagogues (homily and education).23 Along the same lines Gleßmer argued that the term ‘Jerushalmi’ came to denote targums for liturgical purposes in medieval literature.24 We are not sure whether this division can be made so sharply. In Codex Reuchlin 20  In our sample we find the expression in 2 Sam 21:5. This is, however, a sefer aer variant that we decided not to attribute automatically to the TTs, although in this specific case it would have been defensible to do so. Examples from the remainder of the Prophets are (based on the book of Kasher): Josh 7:5, 1 Kgs 5:11, 1 Kgs 5:13, 1 Kgs 19:10/14, 2 Kgs 4:1, Isa 41:2, Isa 66:24, Hos 1:2 (in Kasher erroneously as Hos 2:1). 21  Klein, The Fragment-Targums, I.15 22  Bernstein, ‘A New Manuscript’, 151; Klein, ‘Targumic Toseftot’, 410; U. Gleßmer, Einleitung in die Targume zum Pentateuch, Tübingen 1995, 165; C. Leonhard, The Jewish Pesach and the Origins of the Christian Easter: Open Questions in Current Research, Berlin 2006, 356–57. 23  R. Kasher, ‫ ביאר ותרגום לעברית‬,‫ ההדיר‬:‫תוספתות תרגום לנביאים‬, Jerusalem 1996, 63. 24  U. Gleßmer, Entstehung und Entwicklung der Targume zum Pentateuch als literarkritisches Problem, dargestellt am Beispiel der Zusatztargume, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University of Hamburg 1988, 69–70.

248

chapter four

some marginal readings are introduced as ‫פירוש‬, ‘exposition’, and in at least one case the writer quotes a deviating targum tradition in support of his exegesis.25 This probably points to an academic use of deviating targum traditions. Also for instance the TT to 1 Kgs 16:34–17:1 — where an explanation is given of the targum of 1 Kgs 17:1ff that ends with the words ‘therefore Elijah flew into a rage and Elijah said all this targum’ — suggests an academic rather than a homiletic use.26 Moreover, we saw in Chapter Two that the commentary to the Prophets in ms Munich 5, written in 1233 in Ashkenaz, contains many targum citations among which also Tosefta Targums. From these examples it becomes clear that rabbinic scholars used the targumic material, both from Targum Jonathan and from the TTs and other variant traditions that were in circulation. From the academies this knowledge leaked out into the synagogues. From the targumic derashah that we found in two Mazorim, for example, we may gather that the academic knowledge was also used in the liturgy. It is difficult though to understand what the purpose of these derashot was, since we can hardly suppose that the average synagogue visitor in fifteenth-century Italy knew Aramaic. More study is necessary to solve this question. Another division that has been suggested is between translation and explanation. Whereas Targum Jonathan was meant as an authoritative translation, the deviating targum traditions functioned as an explanation. This view is supported, as we have seen in Chapter One, by Juda ben Barzillai, who said: ‫ותרגום של ארץ ישראל שיש בו תוספות הגדות הוסיפו החזנין שלהן מחמתן ואמרו‬ 27.‫שמותר לאומרו בבית הכנסת מפני שפירוש הוא‬ And the Targum of the Land of Israel, in which there are aggadic additions, the azanim ­­­­added from them spontaneously and said that it is allowed to tell them in the synagogue because it is explanation.

This shows that in actual practice, at least in the Middle Ages, the more elaborate Palestinian targum traditions were tolerated, because they were presented as an explanation of the liturgical reading rather than as a translation. The Targum that served as a translation of the liturgical reading, however, had to conform to the rule of Rabbi Yehudah 25  W.F. Smelik, The Targum of Judges, Leiden [etc.] 1995, 77. 26  Published in Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 133 nr. 87. 27  ‫ספר העתים‬, ms Halberstamm as cited in G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdischpalästinischen Aramäisch, Darmstadt 1960, 30. This text dates from ± 1100 ce.

summary and conclusions

249

bar Ilai. So, a distinction was drawn between a targum that served as a translation of Scripture and a targum that served as an explanation of the same. If we now turn to the targumic quotations, we see that the quotations in the targumic literature may have had a homiletical function, connecting different parts of Scripture as proof of the unity of Scripture. In the midrashic and talmudic literature their function was mainly expositional. In later medieval literature the quotations always had an academic function, be it expositional, as in the medieval commentaries, or linguistic, as in the dictionaries. From the fact that the Targums had a liturgical use long after any possible language necessity had ceased, and more than that, even in times and circumstances where probably the majority of the audience did not understand Aramaic, it can be deduced that in later times the use of Targums in the liturgy was traditional rather than functional. Where it originally had started as a daring innovation, it developed gradually into a conservative element.

4. Epilogue To conclude this book we would like to quote the famous saying of Ecclesiastes 12:12b: The making of many books is without limit And much study is a wearying of the flesh

This is very true, as all scholars will readily confirm. But although our study was indeed wearying, it is not to deny that it was also rewarding. We gained new insights, but then again we did not find as many and as clear answers as we would have liked to present to the reader. Initially, we had hoped to discover more of the prehistory of Targum Jonathan, especially with regard to the much-debated question of a possible Palestinian Targum to the Prophets. As it stands now, we have not sufficient evidence to declare ourselves either against or in favour of this hypothesis. On the positive side our research has provided a systematic approach to the Tosefta Targums and targumic quotations that can be used for text critical ends. Moreover, our investigations have shed new light on the relation between Targum Jonathan and alternative targum

250

chapter four

traditions. It turned out that not only in the Tosefta Targums, but also in the targumic quotations, the differences are not only linguistic, but also exegetical. No development could be detected from either literal to more paraphrastic or vice versa. Both ways of translation were apparently used alongside each other though the ages. In the course of our work we became aware of some lacunas in our present knowledge that perhaps future studies can help to fill. This concerns the following: »» Obviously the research into the Tosefta Targums has to be extended to the remainder of the Books of the Torah and the Prophets. Among other things, attention should be paid to the question whether the distribution among the different traditions that was noticed in the present study is accidental or a common trend. »» More linguistic research is needed with regard to both the Tosefta Targums and the targumic quotations. »» The research into the targumic quotations has to be extended to the medieval works, an initial impetus for which is given in Appendix One. »» The liturgical function of the Targums in times and places where Aramaic was not a commonly known language remains an enigma and deserves further research. A last point that deserves scholarly attention is the influence of historical and cultural circumstances on the development of the Targums. This need will be partly filled by a new research program that started last year at the Protestant Theological University in Kampen in cooperation with the Evangelical Theological Faculty in Leuven. This project is called ‘A Jewish Targum in a Christian World’ and investigates the influence of the historical circumstances on the development of the Targums in Europe in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period. We express the hope that worldwide more projects will be undertaken to elucidate the origin and development of the rabbinic Targums and to pave the way for new scholarly editions.

Appendix one

Targumic quotations from the Prophets in the order of the works in which they appear In this appendix a list of quotations is given according to the works in which they appear. The first 18 categories coincide more or less with the material discussed in Chapter Three, though not all items are discussed there in full. The second part, from category 19 onwards, contains material from other, mostly medieval, sources. We wish to stress that we did not identify, nor study, all the material given there ourselves. We compiled the list partly from references in other works, in particular the valuable work of Goshen-Gottstein, and partly from cases we have come across during our own research. In Appendix 2 the same citations are arranged in the order of the biblical books. Therefore we decided not to include this material in the index. Scholars who want to check whether there are any known targumic citations of certain passages from the Prophets can use Appendix Two.

A. Targum, Magical Texts and Rabbinic Literature 1. Targum Palestinian Targums Quotation 1 2

Tg 1 Sam 25:29 Tg 1 Kgs 18:37

3

Tg 1 Kgs 21:19, 23 (2 Kgs 9:10, 36–37)

Context PsJon Deut 31:16 FTP, intr. to parashat Kora, Num 16:1 FTP, intr. to parashat Kora, Num 16:1

Bibliographic information1 GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.19–21 (8.14), cf. II.52ff.

1  In this bibliographic information the following abbreviations are used: GG, ‫ = שקיעים‬M. Goshen-Gottstein, ‫שקיעים מתרגומי המקרא הארמיים‬, 2 Vols, Ramat-Gan 1983­–1989; Bacher, ‘Notes’ = W. Bacher, ‘Notes on the Critique of the Text of the Targum of the Prophets’, JQR 11 (1899); Bacher, SH = W. Bacher (ed.), Sepher Haschoraschim: Wurzelwörterbuch der hebr. Sprache von Abulwalîd Merwân Ibn Ganâh (R. Jona), Berlin 1893–96; Sokoloff-Yahalom, JPAP = M. Sokoloff & J. Yahalom, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry from Late Antiquity: Critical Edition with Introduction and Commentary, Jerusalem 1999. Other abbreviations speak for themselves.

252 4

appendix one

5 6

Tg 1 Kgs 22:28 (= Tg 2 Chron 18:27) Tg Isa 1:2 Tg Isa 40:4

7

Tg Isa 51:6

FTP, intr. to parashat Kora, Num 16:1 PTs Deut 32:1 PsJon Exod 12:37, Num 14:14 PTs Deut 32:1

8 Tg Isa 63:2–3 9 Tg Isa 65:17 10 Tg Jer 17:5, 7

PTs Gen 49:11 PTs Deut 32:1 PTs Gen 40:23

11 Tg Jer 17:8 12 Tg Jer 32:18 13 Tg Ezek 18:13

PTs Num 21:34 PTs Exod 20:5 CGF (TT) / FTP Exod 13:17 PTs Gen 30:22 PTs Num 11:26 PsJon Gen 30:25

14 Tg Ezek 37:12 (13) 15 Tg Ezek 39:9–10 16 Tg Obad 18

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.21 (8.15)

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.25–26 (8.20) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.27–28 (8.22)

Targum Jonathan (quoting other passages in Targum Jonathan) 17 Tg Judg 5:31 18 Tg 2 Kgs 19:3 (= Tg Isa 37:3)

TJ Isa 41:25 TJ Hos 13:13 (cf. TJ 2 Sam 22:5)

Targum Writings 19 Tg 1 Sam 2:8 20 Tg 2 Sam 19:23 21 Tg Isa 30:29 22 Tg Isa 55:13 23 Tg Isa 65:24 24 Tg Jer 20:7 25 Tg Hag 2:8

Tg Esther Sheni 6:11 (ms Urbinati 1) Tg Esther Sheni 2:5 (ms Urbinati 1) Tg Canticles 1:1 Tg Esther Sheni 2:7 (ms Urbinati 1) Tg Esther Sheni 1:1 (Mikraot Gedolot) Tg Esther Sheni 1:2 (ms Urbinati 1) Tg Esther Sheni 1:4 (edn Grossfeld 36–37)

2  Refers erroneously to Hag 2:4.

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.61–62 (9.24) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.62–63 (9.25) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.66–68 (9.31) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.68–69 (9.32) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.72 (9.36) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.xvi; II.135 (11.39) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.xvi, II.31 (8.262)

appendix one 26 Tg Zech 1:8

Tg Esther Sheni 2:7 (ms Urbinati 1)

253 GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.80–81 (9.45)

Tosefta Targums 27 Tg Judg 5:9 28 Tg 1 Sam 15:29 29 Tg 2 Sam 3:29 30 Tg 2 Sam 21:17 31 Tg 1 Kgs 8:27 (= Tg 2 Chron 6:18) 32 Tg 1 Kgs 18:3 / Tg 2 Kgs 4:1 33 Tg 2 Kgs 21:16 34 Tg Isa 6:1

TT Judg 5:3 TT Zech 2:14 TT 1 Kgs 2:1 TT 1 Kgs 2:30 TT 2 Sam 21:15–19 TT Isa 66:1 TT 2 Kgs 4:1 TT Isa 66:1 TT Isa 6:1

35 Tg Isa 14:13–14 TT Ezek 1:1 36 Tg Isa 60:8

TT Isa 66:23

37 Tg Isa 66:1 38 Tg Jer 49:11 39 Tg Ezek 1:1

TT Isa 66:1 TT 2 Kgs 4:1 TT Ezek 1:1

40 Tg Hos 1:2–3

TT Hos 1:2

41 Tg Micah 5:4

TT Zech 4:2

42 Tg Zeph 3:5

TT Zech 2:14

Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 124ff. (72:9–10); 126ff. (75:1–2) Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 116ff. (69:61) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.157–58 (12.04); Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 169ff. (120:5–7) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.63–64 (9.26); Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 140ff. GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.22–23 (8.16); Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 169ff. (120:12–14/16) Houtman, ‘De Targoem van Jesaja 6:1’ Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 180ff. (125[‫]א‬:17); 189f., 190ff., 193ff. GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.70–71 (9.35); Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 170 (120:35–36) Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 169ff. (120:3, 17–18) Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 184 (125[‫ ]א‬126– 127); Damsma, Analysis of Targum Ezekiel, 38–39 GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.76–77 (9.41); Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 202–03 (132:3–5) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.78 (9.43); Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 219ff. (144[‫]א‬:62–64) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.79–80 (9.44); Kasher, ‫תוספתות‬, 213ff. (144[‫]א‬:3–4)

2. Magical texts 43 Tg Isa 40:12

Incantation Naveh–Shaked, Amulets, 110 Texts – Cairo Geniza (Amulet 15, Israel Museum)

254

appendix one

44 Tg Jer 2:1–2

Nippur-bowl

45 Tg Ezek 21:23 (?) Nippur-bowl

Kaufman, ‘A Unique Magic Bowl’, 170–75 Kaufman, ‘A Unique Magic Bowl’, 170–75

3. Talmud Babylonian Talmud 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

b.Sanhedrin 44a b.Rosh ha-Shanah 22b b.Avodah Zarah 44a Tg 2 Kgs 2:12 b.Moed Qatan 26a Tg 2 Kgs 17:30–31 b.Sanhedrin 63b Tg Isa 5:17 b.Pesaim 68a Tg Isa 8:6 b.Sanhedrin 94b Tg Isa 10:32 b.Sanhedrin 95a Tg Isa 19:18 b.Menaot 110a Tg Isa 33:21 b.Yoma 77b Tg Isa 41:16 b.Avodah Zarah 44a Tg Isa 41:19 b.Rosh ha-Shanah 23a Tg Isa 62:5 b.Moed Qatan 2a Tg Jer 46:20 b.Yoma 32b Tg Jer 52:16 b.Shabbat 26a Tg Ezek 9:6 b.Avodah Zarah 4a Tg Hos 4:2 b.Qiddushin 13a Tg Amos 7:14 b.Nedarim 38a Tg Obad 6 b.Baba Qamma 3b Tg Zeph 3:18 b.Berakhot 28a Tg Zech 9:6 b.Qiddushin 72b Tg Zech 12:11 b.Megillah 3a b.Moed Qatan 28b

Tg Josh 7:21 Tg 2 Sam 5:21

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.118–19 (11.21)

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.126–27 (11.32)

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.133–34 (11.37)

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I:84–85 (2.39)

Palestinian Talmud 67 68 69 70

Tg Josh 7:20 Tg 1 Sam 9:24 Tg 1 Sam 25:6 Tg 2 Sam 3:29

y.Sanhedrin 6:1 (23b) y.Megillah 1:14[12] (72c) y.Sanhedrin 2:3 (20b) y.Qiddushin 1:7 (61a)

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.156 (12.03) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.122–23 (11.26) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.123–24 (11.28) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.124–25 (11.30)

appendix one

74

Tg 1 Kgs 18:37 y.Sanhedrin 10:1 (28a) Tg 2 Kgs 17:30–31 y.Avodah Zarah 3:2 (42cd) Tg Isa 2:4 y.Shabbat 6:4 (8b) (= Tg Micah 4:3) Tg Isa 3:18–23 y.Shabbat 6:4 (8b)

75 76 77 78

Tg Isa 21:13 Tg Isa 33:21 Tg Isa 41:19 Tg Joel 2:13

71 72 73

y.Taanit 4:5 (69b) y.Sheqalim 6:2 (50a) y.Ketuvot 7:9 (31d) y.Taanit 2:1 (65b)

255 GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.126–27 (11.32) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.127–28 (11.34) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.128–32 (11.35); I.73–74 (2.21, Tg Isa 3:22) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.65 (9.28) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.133–34 GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.28–29 (8.23)

4. Midrash Genesis Rabbah 79 Tg Josh 5:2–3 80 Tg Josh 7:21 81 Tg Judg 3:20, 22, 23, (24) 82 Tg Isa 21:5 83 Tg Isa 29:17 84 Tg Isa 41:19 85 Tg Ezek 7:11 86 Tg Nah 3:8

GenR 31:8 (Th-A 281) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.140–41 (7.20) GenR 85:14 (Th-A 1050) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.118–19 (11.21) GenR 99:3 (Th-A 1275) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.119–20 (11.22) GenR 63:14 (Th-A 699) GenR 24:1 (Th-A 230) GenR 15:1 (Th-A 136) GenR 31:1 (Th-A 277) GenR 1:1 (Th-A 1–2)

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.64–65 (9.27) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.66 (9.30) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.133–34 (11.37) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.73 (9.38)

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.120 (11.23) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.124 (11.29) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.23 (8.17) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.132 (11.36) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.69–70 (9.33) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.XX, II.134–35 (11.38) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.136–37 (11.41) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.29 (8.24) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.77 (9.42) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.79–80 (9.44) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.137 (11.42)

Leviticus Rabbah 87 88 89 90 91 92

Tg Judg 4:18 Tg 1 Sam 28:8 Tg Isa 1:21 Tg Isa 35:4 Tg Isa 57:18–19 Tg Isa 58:11

LevR 23:10 (M 542) LevR 26:7 (M 599) LevR 4:1 (M 76) LevR 19:5 (M 428) LevR 16:9 (M 366) LevR 34:15 (M 809ff.)

93 94 95 96 97

Tg Ezek 23:42 Tg Amos 6:2, 4 Tg Amos 7:7 Tg Zeph 3:5 Tg Zech 5:1

LevR 33:6 (M 767) LevR 5:3 (M 104–05) LevR 33:2 (M 758) LevR 31:10 (M 730) LevR 6:3 (M 130)

256

appendix one

Numbers Rabbah 98

Tg Amos 6:2, 4

NumR 10:3

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.29 (8.24)

Lamentations Rabbah 99 Tg Isa 21:13 100 Tg Isa 22:1 101 102 103 104

Tg Isa 22:2 Tg Jer 4:18 Tg Ezek 24:6 Tg Ezek 24:9

LamR 2:5 (Buber 108) LamR (Rabinovitz, ‫גנזי מדרש‬, 123–26) LamR, petita 24 LamR, petita 16 LamR, petita 5 LamR, petita 5

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.65 (9.28) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.66 (9.29) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.24 (8.18) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.72–73 (9.37) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.75 (9.40) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.75–76 (9.40)

Ecclesiastes Rabbah 105 Tg 2 Kgs 18:16 106 Tg Isa 5:6

EcclR 9:18 EcclR 11:3

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.127 (11.33)

CantR 3:3 CantR 1:5

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.64–65 (9.27) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.73–74 (9.39)

MidrSam 5:10 MidrSam 10:1 MidrSam 14:4 MidrSam 20:5 MidrSam 23:9 MidrSam 24:1 MidrSam (Rabinovitz, ‫גנזי מדרש‬, 203)

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.60 (9.23) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.122 (11.25) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.122–23 (11.26) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.123 (11.27)

Canticles Rabbah 107 Tg Isa 21:5 108 Tg Ezek 16:61

Midrash Samuel 109 110 111 112 113 114 115

Tg 1 Sam 2:4 Tg 1 Sam 3:13 Tg 1 Sam 9:24 Tg 1 Sam 17:18 Tg 1 Sam 25:6 Tg 1 Sam 28:8 Tg 2 Sam 24:15

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.124 (11.29)

Midrash Tanuma 116 117 118 119

Tg Judg 5:31 Tg Judg 18:27 Tg Isa 41:19 Tg Isa 41:19

Tan Bereshit 6 TanB Re’eh 14 TanB Terumah 9 Tan Terumah 9

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.121 (11.24) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.133–34 (11.37) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.133–34 (11.37)

MidrPss 28:2

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.24–25 (8.19)

Midrash Psalms 120 Tg Isa 26:13

appendix one 121 Tg Isa 54:11–12 122 Tg Jer 36:23 123 Tg Zeph 3:5

MidrPss 87:1 MidrPss 60:2 MidrPss 19:11

257

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.26–27 (8.21) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.79–80 (9.44)

Pesikta de Rav-Kahana 124 125 126 127

Tg Judg 18:27 Tg 2 Kgs 3:4 Tg Isa 24:15 Tg Isa 54:11–12

128 129 130 131

Tg Isa 60:1 Tg Jer 20:7 Tg Ezek 16:10 Tg Joel 2:13

PRK 10:8 (M 169–70) PRK 6:2 (M 116) PRK 21:1 (M 319) PRK 18:2, 4, 5 (M 294–96) PRK 21:3 (M 321) PRK 13:14 (M 238) PRK 11:8 (M 184) PRK 24:11 (M 364)

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.121 (11.24) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.125–26 (11.31) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.112–13 (5.08) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.26–27 (8.21)

PesR 32 (148a/b) Pesikta anochi

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.26–27 (8.21) Ginze Schechter, 175; GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.30–31 (8.25)

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.70 (9.34) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.135 (11.39) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.136 (11.40 3) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.28–29 (8.23)

Pesikta Rabbati 132 133

Tg Isa 54:11–12 Tg Zeph 2:3

B. Medieval Works 1. Late Midrash and Kabbalah Sekhel Tov, Menaem ben Solomon 134 135 136

Tg Josh 10:21 Tg Judg 4:21 Tg Zeph 3:18

Sekhel Tov, Exod 11:7 Sekhel Tov, Gen 31:25 Sekhel Tov, Gen 42:38

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.120 (6.06) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.68–69 (2.13) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.84–85 (2.39)

YalqSh, Isa 420 YalqSh, Ezek 383

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.64–65 (9.27) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.73–74 (9.39)

edn Margaliot, I.232

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.78 (2.28)

Yalkut Shimoni 137 138

Tg Isa 21:5 Tg Ezek 16:61

Sefer ha-Zohar 139

Tg Isa 60:7

3  Refers erroneously to PRK 18:8.

258

appendix one

2. Dictionaries and Lexical Works Sefer ha-Shorashim, Jonah ibn Jana 140

Tg 2 Sam 5:24

141

Tg 2 Kgs 5:7

142

Tg Isa 5:5

143

Tg Isa 63:3

144 145 146

Tg Jer 9:20 Tg Ezek 47:12 Tg Zech 13:9

Sefer ha-Shorashim, s.v. ‫בכה‬ Sefer ha-Shorashim, s.v. ‫אגר‬ Sefer ha-Shorashim, s.v. ‫צרב‬ Sefer ha-Shorashim, s.v. ‫בעט‬ Sefer ha-Shorashim, s.v. ‫ביר‬ Sefer ha-Shorashim, s.v. ‫אב‬ Sefer ha-Shorashim, s.v. ‫בחר‬

Bacher, SH, 63 Bacher, SH, 32 GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.74 (2.22); Bacher, SH, 437 Bacher, SH, 70 Bacher, SH, 63 Bacher, SH, 9 Bacher, SH, 61

Sefer ha-Rikmah, Jonah ibn Jana 147

Tg Isa 5:5

Sefer ha-Rikma, edn Wilensky, 130

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.74 (2.22)

Arukh, Nathan ben Yeiel4 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163

Tg Judg 3:16 Tg 1 Sam 1:6 Tg 1 Sam 9:13 Tg 1 Sam 12:21 Tg 1 Sam 13:18 Tg 1 Sam 17:5 Tg 1 Sam 20:3 Tg 2 Sam 6:5 Tg 2 Sam 12:31 Tg 2 Sam 13:17–18 Tg 2 Sam 17:9 Tg 2 Sam 18:17 Tg 2 Sam 21:19 Tg 2 Sam 22:12 Tg 2 Sam 23:8 Tg 1 Kgs 8:27

Arukh II.308 s.v. 2 ‫גמד‬ Arukh V.111 s.v. ‫מחס‬ Arukh VI.436, s.v. ‫פרס‬ Arukh V.44 s.v. 2 ‫למה‬ Arukh I.209 s.v. 1 ‫אפא‬ Arukh II.296 s.v. ‫גלך‬ Arukh V354 s.v. 1 ‫נסיס‬ Arukh II.204 s.v. ‫ברתא‬ Arukh V.239 s.v. 2 ‫מרג‬ Arukh II.334 s.v. 2 ‫גף‬ Arukh VII.125 s.v.4 ‫קמץ‬ Arukh VII.125 s.v.4 ‫קמץ‬ Arukh I.80 s.v. ‫אכסן‬ Arukh VII.277 s.v. ‫רכפה‬ Arukh VIII.193 s.v. 4 ‫תב‬ Arukh VI.12 s.v. 2 ‫סבר‬

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.70 (2.16)

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.157–58 (12.04)

4  Not included are quotations that are in agreement with Targum Jonathan

appendix one

167 168

Tg 2 Kgs 23:7 Arukh IV.229 s.v. 7 ‫כל‬ Tg 2 Kgs 24:14 Arukh V.310 s.v. 3 ‫נגר‬ Tg Isa 3:22 Arukh II.196 s.v. ‫ברנק‬, cf. Arukh V.109 s.v.‫מחך‬ Tg Isa 41:16 Arukh III.135 s.v. 4 ‫דר‬ Tg Isa 56:12 Arukh VIII.122 s.v. ‫שען‬

169

Tg Isa 58:11

Arukh III.411 s.v. ‫חלץ‬

170

Tg Ezek 1:3

Arukh II.29 s.v. 2 ‫בז‬

171 172 173

Tg Ezek 24:6 Tg Ezek 41:13 Tg Zech 14:6

Arukh III.467 s.v. ‫חפשית‬ Arukh II.264 s.v. ‫גזזטרא‬ Arukh II.293 s.v. ‫גלד‬

164 165 166

259 GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.72 (2.20) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.105 (4.15) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.73 (2.21) Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 81 note dd 5 GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.XX, II.134–35 (11.38) Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 82 note c 6; GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.82 (2.34); Damsma, Analysis of Targum Ezekiel, 148–50 GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.75 (9.40) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.106 (4.17)

Arukh Qatsar 174 175

Tg 1 Kgs 19:11 Tg 2 Kgs 3:15

Arukh Qatsar, s.v. ‫וותק‬ Arukh Qatsar, s.v. ‫טדי‬

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.110 (5.05) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.144 (7.26)

Arukh Goren, Menaem ben Eljakim 176

Tg 1 Kgs 18:42

Arukh Goren s.v. ‫גהר‬

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.103–04 (4.11) Perles, Beiträge, 11

Sefer ha-Shorashim, David Kimi 177

Tg Josh 5:2–3

Sefer ha-Shorashim, s.v. ‫גלב‬

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.140 (7.20)

Even Boan, Menaem ben Solomon 178 179 180 181 182 183

Tg Josh 3:16 Tg Judg 4:11 Tg Judg 5:22 Tg Judg 8:16 Tg Judg 14:6 Tg 1 Sam 7:11

Even Boan, s.v. 2 ‫נד‬ Even Boan, s.v. ‫צען‬ Even Boan, s.v. ‫דהר‬ Even Boan, s.v. ‫דע‬ Even Boan, s.v. ‫הדם‬ Even Boan, s.v. ‫כר‬

5  Refers erroneously to Isa 55:12. 6  Refers erroneously to Ezek 1:2.

Bacher, ‘Notes’, 652 Bacher, ‘Notes’, 652 Bacher, ‘Notes’, 653 Bacher, ‘Notes’, 653 Bacher, ‘Notes’, 653 Bacher, ‘Notes’, 653

260

appendix one

184 Tg 1 Sam 13:6 185 Tg 1 Sam 15:32 186 Tg 2 Sam 2:29 187 Tg 1 Kgs 6:18 188 Tg 1 Kgs 14:10 189 Tg 2 Kgs 4:42 190 Tg 2 Kgs 23:7 191

Tg Isa 3:20

192

Tg Isa 3:22

193 Tg Isa 8:20 194 Tg Isa 13:21 195 Tg Isa 40:20 196 Tg Isa 58:6 197 Tg Jer 13:2 198 Tg Jer 14:18 199 Tg Jer 15:18 200 Tg Jer 36:23 201 Tg Jer 38:12 202 Tg Jer 48:2 203 Tg Jer 51:27 204 Tg Ezek 45:9 205 Tg Zech 9:6

Bacher, ‘Notes’, 653 Bacher, ‘Notes’, 653; GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.71 (2.17) Bacher, ‘Notes’, 653 Even Boan, s.v. ‫בתר‬ Bacher, ‘Notes’, 653; GG, Even Boan, s.v. 2 ‫פקע‬ ‫שקיעים‬, I.120–21 (6.07) Bacher, ‘Notes’, 653; GG, Even Boan, s.v. ‫גלל‬ ‫שקיעים‬, I.103 (4.11) Bacher, ‘Notes’, 653–54; Even Boan, s.v. ‫צקל‬ GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.104 (4.13) Bacher, ‘Notes’, 654; GG, Even Boan, s.v. 4 ‫בת‬ ‫שקיעים‬, I.72–73 (2.20) Bacher, ‘Notes’, 654; GG, Even Boan, s.v. 4 ‫בת‬ ‫שקיעים‬, I.112 (5.07) Bacher, ‘Notes’, 654; GG, Even Boan, s.v. ‫חרט‬ ‫שקיעים‬, I.73–74 (2.21) Bacher, ‘Notes’, 654 Even Boan, s.v.2 ‫שחר‬ Even Boan, s.v. 7 ‫אח‬, 4 ‫ צי‬Bacher, ‘Notes’, 654; Bacher, ‘Notes’, 654; GG, Even Boan, s.v. 1 ‫ארך‬ ‫שקיעים‬, I.106 (4.16) Bacher, ‘Notes’, 654; Even Boan, s.v. ‫חרצב‬ Bacher, ‘Notes’, 655 Even Boan, s.v. ‫נק‬ Bacher, ‘Notes’, 655; GG, Even Boan, s.v. 2 ‫סחר‬ ‫שקיעים‬, I.79–80 (2.31) Bacher, ‘Notes’, 655; GG, Even Boan, s.v. 2 ‫אנש‬ ‫שקיעים‬, I.80 (2.31) Bacher, ‘Notes’, 655 Even Boan, s.v. ‫פצם‬ Bacher, ‘Notes’, 655 Even Boan, s.v. 3 ‫אצל‬ Bacher, ‘Notes’, 655; GG, Even Boan, s.v. 4 ‫דם‬ ‫שקיעים‬, I.80–81 (2.32) Bacher, ‘Notes’, 655; GG, Even Boan, s.v. ‫טפסר‬ ‫שקיעים‬, I.81 (2.33) Bacher, ‘Notes’, 655; GG, Even Boan, s.v. 1 ‫גרש‬ ‫שקיעים‬, I.107 (4.18) Bacher, ‘Notes’, 655 Even Boan, s.v. ‫ממזר‬ Even Boan, s.v. ‫חוג‬ Even Boan, s.v. 2 ‫עדן‬

Ha-Madrikh ha-Maspik, Tanum ben Joseph Yerushalmi 206 Tg 2 Kgs 3:15

edn Toledano, s.v. ‫רהט‬

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.111 (5.05‫)א‬

appendix one

261

Glossary, Jewish-German, student of Moses ha-Darshan 207 Tg 2 Kgs 16:17

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.105 (4.14); Perles, Beiträge, 149

Sefer ha-Tishbi, Eliah Levita 208 Tg Amos 6:5

Sefer ha-Tishbi, s.v. ‫פזם‬

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.113 (5.10)

3. Bible and Bible Commentaries Fari-Bible7 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230

Tg Josh 2:15 Tg Josh 5:2–3 Tg Judg 14:18 Tg Judg 19:22 Tg Judg 20:13 Tg 1 Sam 2:12 Tg 1 Sam 10:27 Tg 2 Sam 17:29 Tg 2 Sam 22:28 Tg 1 Kgs 2:5 Tg 1 Kgs 19:11 Tg 1 Kgs 21:10, 13 Tg 2 Kgs 3:15 Tg 2 Kgs 4:3 Tg Isa 1:22 Tg Isa 25:4 Tg Isa 26:20 Tg Isa 58:9 Tg Isa 62:5 Tg Jer 2:16 Tg Jer 46:4 Tg Jer 48:12

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.139–40 (7.19) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.140–41 (7.20) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.141 (7.21) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.164 (7.61) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.164 (7.61) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.164 (7.61) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.164 (7.61) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.141–42 (7.22) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.142–43 (7.23) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.143 (7.24) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.143–44 (7.25) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.164 (7.61) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.144 (7.26) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.144–45 (7.27) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.145 (7.28) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.145 (7.29) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.146 (7.30) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.146–47 (7.31) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.147 (7.32) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.147–48 (7.33) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.148 (7.34) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.149 (7.35)

7  This manuscript, also known as ms Sassoon 368, contains a curious collection of more than 150 apparent targumic quotations. In the margins of the pages 183–89 there are comparisons between ‘our Targum’ (‫ )תרגום שלנו‬and ‘Palestinian Targum’ (‫ )תרגום ירו׳‬with explanations in rabbinic Hebrew (‫ )לשון רז'ל‬and Arabic. See D.S. Sassoon, Ohel Dawid: Descriptive Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the Sassoon Library, London, London 1932, I.6–14.

262 231 232 233 234 235 236 237

appendix one Tg Ezek 9:2 Tg Ezek 16:7 Tg Ezek 36:20 Tg Ezek 39:9 Tg Hos 6:5 Tg Jonah 1:3, 4:2 Tg Jonah 1:7

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.149–50 (7.36) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.150 (7.37) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.150–51 (7.38) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.151 (7.39) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.152 (7.40) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.152 (7.41) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.153 (7.42)

Commentary on the Torah, Rashi 238 Tg 2 Sam 6:6 239 Tg 2 Sam 6:14 240 Tg Isa 33:21

Rashi on Deut 19:5 edn Chavel, 559 Rashi on Exod 28:4 edn Chavel, 275 Rashi on Num 24:24 edn Chavel, 486

Commentary on the Prophets and Writings, Rashi 241

Tg Isa 16:10

242 Tg Isa 58:12 243 Tg Ezek 16:61 244 Tg Micah 7:3

Rashi, com. on Isa 15:5 Rashi, ad loc. Rashi, ad loc. Rashi, ad loc.

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.76 (2.25); Maarsen, Parschandatha II.44 Maarsen, Parschandatha II.127 GG, ‫שקיעים‬, II.73–74 (9.39) Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 82 note f

Commentary on the Psalms, Rashi 245 Tg 1 Kgs 8:27 246 Tg Jer 22:14 247 Tg Jer 46:22

Rashi, Ps 55:23 Rashi, Ps 60:4 Rashi, Ps 74:6

Maarsen, Parschandatha III.52 Maarsen, Parschandatha III.56 Maarsen, Parschandatha III.72

Commentary on the Prophets, Kimi 248

Tg Judg 11:1

ad loc.

249 250

Tg 1 Sam 1:11 Tg 1 Sam 17:8

ad loc. ad loc.

251 252

Tg 1 Sam 27:7 Tg 1 Kgs 22:21

ad loc. ad loc.

253

Tg 2 Kgs 4:1, 6, ad loc. 7 (4:7 TT)

Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 81 note a; Smelik, Judges, 542 Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 81 note a; Van Staalduine-Sulman, Samuel, 348 Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 81 note a Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 81 note a, b

appendix one ad loc.

254

Tg 2 Kgs 13:21

255 256

Tg Isa 14:18–19 ad loc. Tg Jer 48:37 ad loc., Ezek 5:1

257 258 259 260 261

Tg Ezek 5:1 Tg Ezek 21:3–4 Tg Ezek 32:14 Tg Ezek 34:9 Tg Ezek 43:17

ad loc. ad loc. ad loc. ad loc. ad loc.

263 Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 81 note a GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.75 (2.24) Zunz Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 82 note a GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.82–83 (2.35) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.83–84 (2.37) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.84 (2.38)

Commentary on Job, Ramban 262

Tg Isa 33:7

com. on Job 15:29

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.77–78 (2.27)

Perush ha-Torah, Hezekiah ben Manoa 263

Tg Ezek 16:6

com. on Exod 12:6

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.122 (6.10)

Mayan Gannim, Samuel ben Nissim Masnut 264 Tg Isa 33:7

com. on Job 15:29

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.77–78 (2.27)

Commentary on Jeremiah, Joseph ben Joseph Namias 265 Tg Jer 2:6 266 Tg Jer 23:36 267 Tg Jer 25:16

edn Bamberger, ad loc. edn Bamberger, ad loc. edn Bamberger, ad loc.

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.78–79 (2.29) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.121–22 (6.09) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.113 (5.09)

4. Tosafot and other commentaries on Rabbinic Literature Tosafot on the Babylonian Talmud 268 Tg Jer 1:11

Tos. on b.Bekhorot 8a

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.56 (1.20)

Perush ha-Geonim, Hai Gaon 269 Tg 1 Kgs 20:38

edn Epstein, 76

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.72 (2.19)

264

appendix one

Commentary on the Babylonian Talmud, Rashi 270 271

Tg 1 Kgs 20:38 Tg Isa 66:1

Rashi on b.ullin 123b Rashi on b.Taanit 26b

272

Tg Hab 2:1

Rashi on b.Taanit 23a

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.72 (2.19) Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 81 note d Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 82 note h

Commentary on the Mishnah, Samson ben Abraham of Sens 273

Tg 1 Kgs 20:38

com. on m.Kelim 28:8

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.72 (2.19)

Amude Kesef, Joseph Ibn Caspi 274

Tg Judg 10:16

Amude Kesef, 52

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.69 (2.14)

Commentary on b.Berakhot, Jonah of Gerondi 275 Tg 1 Sam 9:13 276 Tg 1 Kgs 19:11

edn RozenkranztsShriftzetser, 26 com. on b.Berakhot 9b

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.70 (2.16) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.110 (5.05)

Beit ha-Beira, Menaem Meiri 277 Tg Isa 31:9

com. on b.Ketuvot 15b

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.76–77 (2.26)

Or Ha–Sekhel, Abraham ben Gedaliah ibn Asher 278 Tg 2 Sam 19:18 com. on GenR 76:4

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.71 (2.18)

Shitah Mekubetset, Bezalel Ashkenazi 279 Tg Isa 31:9

com. on b.Ketuvot 17b

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.76–77

5. Piyyut and Prayer Books Ancient piyyutim 280 281 282 283 284 285 286

Tg 1 Sam 12:21 Tg 2 Kgs 4:1 Tg 2 Kgs 8:12 Tg 2 Kgs 19:35 Tg Isa 40:12 Tg Jonah 1:4 Tg Micah 7:19

Sokoloff–Yahalom, JPAP 206 Sokoloff–Yahalom, JPAP 184 Sokoloff–Yahalom, JPAP 144 Sokoloff–Yahalom, JPAP 214 Sokoloff–Yahalom, JPAP 258 Sokoloff–Yahalom, JPAP 194 Sokoloff–Yahalom, JPAP 96

appendix one

265

Arugat ha–Bosem, Abraham ben Azriel 287 Tg Jer 2:21 288 Tg Ezek 24:17

edn Urbach, I.271 edn Urbach, II.53

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.121 (6.08) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.83 (2.36)

Perush Kerovot 289 Tg 1 Sam 16:23 Perush Kerovot 290 Tg 2 Sam 6:16

Perush Kerovot, Mazor ms Hamburg 152, 156a

291 Tg 2 Kgs 3:15

Perush Kerovot

Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 81, note aa Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 80 note dd; GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.110 (5.04); Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 42 8 Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 81, note aa; GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.144 (7.26)

Siddur aside Ashkenaz, Salomon ben Samson of Worms 292 Tg 2 Kgs 5:18

edn Herschler, 104

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.111 (5.06)

Mazor Vitry, Simah ben Samuel of Vitry 293 294 295 296

Tg Judg 5:31 Tg Judg 15:6 Tg Isa 5:24 Tg Ezek 18:13

edn Hurwitz, 738 edn Hurwitz, 314 edn Hurwitz, 324 edn Hurwitz, 305

GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.70 (2.15) GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.74–75 (2.23)

Perush ha-Berakhot we-ha-Tefillot, David ben Joseph Abudarham 297 Tg 1 Sam 9:13

edn Venedig [1546], f. 26b 298 Tg 2 Sam 14:22 Perush, 95 299 Tg Isa 54:11 edn Amsterdam [1726], f. 84a; edn Venedig [1546], f. 83c

8  Refers erroneously to 2 Sam 6:11.

Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 80 note e GG, ‫שקיעים‬, I.102–03 (4.10) Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 81 note e

Appendix two

Targumic quotations from the Prophets in the biblical order In this Appendix the citations are arranged in the order of the biblical books. The numbers refer to Appendix One.

Tg Joshua Josh 2:15 Josh 3:16 Josh 5:2–3 Josh 7:20 Josh 7:21 Josh 10:21

Tg Samuel 209 178 79, 177, 210 67 46, 80 134

Tg Judges Judg 3:16 Judg 3:20, 22, 23, (24) Judg 4:11 Judg 4:18 Judg 4:21 Judg 5:9 Judg 5:22 Judg 5:31 Judg 8:16 Judg 10:16 Judg 11:1 Judg 14:6 Judg 14:18 Judg 15:6 Judg 18:27 Judg 19:22 Judg 20:13

148 81 179 87 135 27 180 17, 116, 293 181 274 248 182 211 294 117, 124 212 213

1 Sam 1:6 1 Sam 1:11 1 Sam 2:4 1 Sam 2:8 1 Sam 2:12 1 Sam 3:13 1 Sam 7:11 1 Sam 9:13 1 Sam 9:24 1 Sam 10:27 1 Sam 12:21 1 Sam 13:6 1 Sam 13:18 1 Sam 15:29 1 Sam 15:32 1 Sam 16:23 1 Sam 17:5 1 Sam 17:8 1 Sam 17:18 1 Sam 20:3 1 Sam 25:6 1 Sam 25:29 1 Sam 27:7 1 Sam 28:8

149 249 109 19 214 110 183 150, 275, 297 68, 111 215 151, 280 184 152 28 185 289 153 250 112 154 69, 113 1 251 88, 114

2 Sam 2:29 2 Sam 3:29 2 Sam 5:21 2 Sam 5:24 2 Sam 6:5

186 29, 70 47 140 155

appendix two 2 Sam 6:6 2 Sam 6:14 2 Sam 6:16 2 Sam 12:31 2 Sam 13:17–18 2 Sam 14:22 2 Sam 17:9 2 Sam 17:29 2 Sam 18:17 2 Sam 19:18 2 Sam 19:23 2 Sam 21:17 2 Sam 21:19 2 Sam 22:12 2 Sam 22:28 2 Sam 23:8 2 Sam 24:15

238 239 290 156 157 298 158 216 159 278 20 30 160 161 217 162 115

Tg Kings 1 Kgs 2:5 1 Kgs 6:18 1 Kgs 8:27 1 Kgs 14:10 1 Kgs 18:3 1 Kgs 18:37 1 Kgs 18:42 1 Kgs 19:11 1 Kgs 20:38 1 Kgs 21:10, 13 1 Kgs 21:19, 23 1 Kgs 22:21 1 Kgs 22:28

218 187 31, 163, 245 188 32 2, 71 176 174, 219, 276 269, 270, 273 220 3 252 4

2 Kgs 2:12 2 Kgs 3:4 2 Kgs 3:15 2 Kgs 4:1 2 Kgs 4:1, 6, 7 2 Kgs 4:3 2 Kgs 4:42 2 Kgs 5:7 2 Kgs 5:18 2 Kgs 8:12

48 125 175, 206, 221, 291 32, 281 253 222 189 141 292 282

267

2 Kgs 9:10, 36–37 2 Kgs 13:21 2 Kgs 16:17 2 Kgs 17:30–31 2 Kgs 18:16 2 Kgs 19:3 2 Kgs 19:35 2 Kgs 21:16 2 Kgs 23:7 2 Kgs 24:14

3 254 207 49, 72 105 18 283 33 164, 190 165

Tg Isaiah Isa 1:2 Isa 1:21 Isa 1:22 Isa 2:4 Isa 3:18–23 Isa 3:20 Isa 3:22 Isa 5:5 Isa 5:6 Isa 5:17 Isa 5:24 Isa 6:1 Isa 8:6 Isa 8:20 Isa 10:32 Isa 13:21 Isa 14:13–14 Isa 14:18–19 Isa 16:10 Isa 19:18 Isa 21:5 Isa 21:13 Isa 22:1 Isa 22:2 Isa 24:15 Isa 25:4 Isa 26:13 Isa 26:20 Isa 29:17 Isa 30:29

5 89 223 73 74 191 166, 192 142, 147 106 50 295 34 51 193 52 194 35 255 241 53 82, 107, 137 75, 99 100 101 126 224 120 225 83 21

268

appendix two

Isa 31:9 Isa 33:7 Isa 33:21 Isa 35:4 Isa 37:3 Isa 40:4 Isa 40:12 Isa 40:20 Isa 41:16 Isa 41:19 Isa 51:6 Isa 54:11 Isa 54:11–12 Isa 55:13 Isa 56:12 Isa 57:18–19 Isa 58:6 Isa 58:9 Isa 58:11 Isa 58:12 Isa 60:1 Isa 60:7 Isa 60:8 Isa 62:5 Isa 63:2–3 Isa 63:3 Isa 65:17 Isa 65:24 Isa 66:1

277, 279 262, 264 54, 76, 240 90 18 6 43, 284 195 55, 167 56, 77, 84, 118, 119 7 299 121, 127, 132 22 168 91 196 226 92, 169 242 128 139 36 57, 227 8 143 9 23 37, 271

Tg Jeremiah Jer 1:11 Jer 2:1–2 Jer 2:6 Jer 2:16 Jer 2:21 Jer 4:18 Jer 9:20 Jer 13:2 Jer 14:18 Jer 15:18 Jer 17:5, 7

268 44 265 228 287 102 144 197 198 199 10

Jer 17:8 Jer 20:7 Jer 22:14 Jer 23:36 Jer 25:16 Jer 32:18 Jer 36:23 Jer 38:12 Jer 46:4 Jer 46:20 Jer 46:22 Jer 48:2 Jer 48:12 Jer 48:37 Jer 49:11 Jer 51:27 Jer 52:16

11 24, 129 246 266 267 12 122, 200 201 229 58 247 202 230 256 38 203 59

Tg Ezekiel Ezek 1:1 Ezek 1:3 Ezek 5:1 Ezek 7:11 Ezek 9:2 Ezek 9:6 Ezek 16:6 Ezek 16:7 Ezek 16:10 Ezek 16:61 Ezek 18:13 Ezek 21:3–4 Ezek 21:23 (?) Ezek 23:42 Ezek 24:6 Ezek 24:9 Ezek 24:17 Ezek 32:14 Ezek 34:9 Ezek 36:20 Ezek 37:12 (13) Ezek 39:9 Ezek 39:9–10

39 170 257 85 231 60 263 232 130 108, 138, 243 13, 296 258 45 93 103, 171 104 288 259 260 233 14 234 15

appendix two Ezek 41:13 Ezek 43:17 Ezek 45:9 Ezek 47:12

172 261 204 145

Tg Hosea Hos 1:2–3 Hos 4:2 Hos 6:5

40 61 235

Tg Joel Joel 2:13

Tg Amos Amos 6:2, 4 Amos 6:5 Amos 7:7 Amos 7:14

94, 98 208 95 62

Tg Obadiah Obad 6 Obad 18

63 16

Tg Jonah Jonah 1:3 Jonah 1:4 Jonah 1:7 Jonah 4:2

236 285 237 236

Tg Micah Micah 4:3 Micah 5:4 Micah 7:3 Micah 7:19

73 41 244 286

Tg Nahum Nah 3:8

Tg Habakkuk Hab 2:1

86

272

Tg Zephaniah Zeph 2:3 Zeph 3:5 Zeph 3:18

133 42, 96, 123 64, 136

Tg Haggai Hag 2:8

78, 131

269

25

Tg Zechariah Zech 1:8 Zech 5:1 Zech 9:6 Zech 12:11 Zech 13:9 Zech 14:6

26 97 65, 205 66 146 173

Bibliography Primary Literature Aggadat Bereshit S. Buber, ‫ = ( אגדת בראשית‬Agadath Bereshith: midraschische Auslegungen zum ersten Buche Mosis), Krakow 1902; repr. Jerusalem 1973 Aggadat Esther S. Buber, ‫ = ( אגדת אסתר‬Aggadat Esther: Agadische Abhandlungen zum Buch Esther), Krakow 1897; repr. Tel Aviv 1982 Amude Kesef (Joseph ibn Caspi) S.Z. Werbluner (ed.), ‫עמודי כסף ומשכיות כסף – שני פרושים על ספר המורה‬ ‫לרמב''ם‬, ( = Die Kommentare von Joseph Kaspi), Frankfurt am Main 1848 Arugat ha-Bosem (Abraham ben Azriel) E.E. Urbach (ed.), ‫ כולל פרושים לפיוטים … חברו אברהם בן‬:‫ספר ערוגת הבשם‬ ‫עזריאל‬, 4 parts in 3 Vols, Jerusalem 1939–1963 Arukh (Nathan ben Yeiel) A. Kohut, Aruch Completum, sive Lexicon vocabula et res, quae in libris targumicis, talmudicis et midraschicis continentur, explicans auctore Nathane filio Jechielis, 8 Vols, Vienna 1878–1892 (A ninth part with additamenta was published in 1937 in Vienna by Samuel Krauss); repr. New York 1955 Arukh Qatsar Nathan ben Yeiel, ‫ספר הערוך הקצר‬, Constantinople 1511 (see further Perles, Beiträge, 1–9) Arukh Goren (Menaem ben Eljakim) Ms 1518 (Neubauer), Bodleian Library, Oxford (see further Perles, Beiträge, 9–56) Avot de-Rabbi Nathan S. Schechter, Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, New York 1967 Babylonian Talmud I. Epstein, Talmud Bavli 1–35, London 1935–1952 L. Goldschmidt, Der Babylonische Talmud, 1–9 Berlin 1897–1935 Rashi, Asher ben Jehiel, Moses Maimonides, Samson ben Abraham, Jacob ben Asher, Yitshaq ben Aharon & Yehoshua ben Shimon Boaz, ‫ עם פירוש רש״י ותוספות ורבינו אשר‬:‫תלמוד בבלי‬, Krakow 1602 Beit ha-Beirah (Menaem Meiri) B.Z. Prag (ed.), ‫ עם פתיחתה כוללת סדר הקבלה‬:‫בית הבחירה על מסכת אבות‬ ‫ושלשלת גדולי הדורות‬, Jerusalem 1964

bibliography

271

Bereshit Rabbati H . . Albeck, Midraš Berešit Rabbati ex libro R. Mosis Haddaršan collectus, Jerusalem 1940 Bible (Hebrew) R. Kittel et al. (eds), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Stuttgart 1973 Canticles Rabbah S. Dunsky, ‫ מדרש חזית‬,‫ שיר השירים‬:‫מדרש רבה‬, Jerusalem & Tel Aviv 1980 Commentary on the Torah (Rashi) Ch.B. Chavel (ed.), ‫פרוש רש״י על התורה‬, Jerusalem 1982/83 Commentary on the Torah (Hezekiah ben Manoa) Ch.B. Chavel (ed.), ‫פרוש התורה לחזקיה בן מנוח‬, Jerusalem 1982 Commentary on the Prophets (David Kimi) M. Cohen (ed.), ‫מקראות גדולות הכתר‬, Ramat-Gan 1992–… ‫נביאים אחרונים עם פירוש רד״ק‬, Pesaro 1516 Commentary on Jeremiah (Joseph ben Joseph Namias) M.L. ( = M.A.) Bamberger (ed.), Commentar zu dem Buche Jeremias von Rabbi Josef ibn Nachmias, Frankfurt am Main 1913 M.A. Bamberger (ed.), ,‫ מגילת אסתר‬,‫פירושי רבי יוסף בן נחמיאש על משלי‬ ‫ פרקי אבות וסדר עבודת יום הכפורים‬,‫ירמיהו‬, Tel Aviv 1982 Commentary on the Prophets and Writings I. Maarsen, Parschandatha: The Commentary of Raschi on the Prophets and Hagiographs, 3 Vols, Amsterdam & Jerusalem 1930–1936 Commentary on Job (Ramban) Ch.B. Chavel (ed.), ‫כתבי רבנו משה בן נחמן‬, 2 Vols, Jerusalem 1963–64 Commentary on Mishnah Toharot (Samson ben Abraham of Sens) ‫סדר טהרות‬, Amsterdam 1647 (this commentary is also contained in most editions of the Talmud) Commentary on the Talmud (Rashi) See Babylonian Talmud Commentary on the Talmud (Samson ben Abraham of Sens) See Babylonian Talmud Commentary on b.Berakhot (Jonah of Gerondi) A.Z. Rozenkranzts & R.M.M. Shriftzetser (eds), ‫ מסכת‬:‫הלכות רב אלפס‬ ‫ברכות‬, Vilna 1910 (this commentary is also contained in most editions of the Talmud) Deuteronomy Rabbah S. Liebermann, Midrash Debarim Rabbah, Jerusalem 1964 Ecclesiastes Rabbah ‫ על חמשה חומשי תורה וחמש מגלות‬:‫ספר מדרש רבה‬, Wilna 1884–1911; repr. Jerusalem 1962

272

bibliography

Epistula ad Africanum M. Harl & N. de Lange (eds), Philocalie, 1–20 sur les écritures et La lettre à Africanus sur l’histoire de Suzanne (Par Origène), SC 302, Paris 1983 Epistula ad Pammachium I. Hilberg (ed.), Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae: Pars I, Epistulae I–LXX, CSEL 54, Leipzig 1910 Even Boan (Menaem ben Solomon) L. Dukes (ed.), ‫אבן בחן מהחכם ר׳ מנחם בן שלמה ז״ל‬, Esslingen 1846 Exodus Rabbah A. Shinan, Midrash Shemot Rabba: Chapters I–XIV, Jerusalem & Tel Aviv 1984 Genesis Rabbah J. Theodor & Ch. Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabba, 3 Vols, Jerusalem 1965 Glossary, Jewish-German Ms Hebr. 66, Munich (See Perles, Beiträge, 145–53) Ha-Madrikh ha-Maspik (Tanum ben Joseph Yerushalmi) B. Toledano, Sefer al-muršid al-kafi: (ha-madrikh ha-maspik), . Tel Aviv 1961 H. Shy, Almurshid al-kafi: ha-madrikh ha-maspik. : milono shel Tanum ha-Yerushalmi le-Mishneh Torah la-Rambam, Jerusalem 2005 Lamentations Rabbah S. Buber, ‫ = ( מדרש איכה רבה‬Midrasch Echa Rabbati: Sammlung agadischer Auslegungen der Klagelieder), Wilna 1899; repr. Tel Aviv 1964 Z.M. Rabinovitz, ‘‫’מדרש איכה רבה בקטעי גניזה‬, Proceedings of the sixth WCJS, Jerusalem 1977, III.437–39 Leqa Tov S. Buber, ‫מדרש לקח טוב‬, Wilna 1880 Leviticus Rabbah M. Margulies, Midrash Wayyikra Rabbah, 5 Vols, Jerusalem 1953–60; repr. in 3 Vols, Jerusalem 1972 Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum J. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum: With Latin Text and English Translation, 2 Vols, Leiden 1996 Mazor Vitry S.H. Hurwitz (ed.), ‫ אחד מתלמידי רש״י‬,‫מחזור ויטרי לרבנו שמחה‬, Berlin 1893; repr. Jerusalem, 1963 Massekhet Soferim M. Higger, ‫מסכת סופרים‬, New York 1937; repr. Jerusalem 1970 Mayan Gannim (Samuel ben Nissim Masnuth) S. Buber (ed.), Majan-Gannim: Commentar zu Job von Rabbi Samuel ben Nissim Masnuth, Berlin 1889

bibliography

273

Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael H.S. Horovitz & I.A. Rabin, Mekhilta d’Rabbi Ismael cum variis lectionibus et adnotationibus, Jerusalem 1970 Mekhilta de-Rabbi Simeon ben Yoai J.N. Epstein, & E.Z. Melammed, ‫‏‏עפ״י כתבי יד‬:‫מכילתא דרבי שמעון בן יוחאי‬ ‫מן הגניזה וממדרש הגדול‬, Jerusalem 1955 Midrash ha-Gadol M. Margulies, Z.M. Rabinowitz & S. Fish, Midrash Ha-Gadol on the Pentateuch, 5 Vols, Jerusalem 1975–1983 Midrash Psalms S. Buber, ‫מדרש תהלים‬, Wilna 1992; repr. Jerusalem 1976 Midrash Samuel S. Buber, ‫מדרש שמואל‬, Krakow 1893; repr. Jerusalem 1965 (together with ‫)מדרש משלי‬ Midrash Tannaim D. Hoffmann, Midrasch Tannaim zum Deuteronomium, 2 Vols, Berlin 1909; repr. Jerusalem 1966 /67 Mikraot Gedolot Biblia Rabbinica: A Reprint of the 1525 Venice Edition, introduction by M. Goshen-Gottstein, 4 Vols, Jerusalem 1972 M. Cohen (ed.), ‫מקראות גדולות הכתר‬, Ramat-Gan 1992–… Mishnah H . . Albeck, ‫ מפורשים בידי חנוך אלבק ומנוקדים ניקוד חדש‬:‫ששה סדרי משנה‬ ‫בידי חנוך ילון‬, 6 Vols, Jerusalem & Tel Aviv 1952–1959 G. Beer, Faksimile-Ausgabe des Mischnacodex Kaufmann A 50, Den Haag 1930; repr. Jerusalem 1968 Or ha-Sekhel (Abraham ben Gedaliah ibn Asher) ‫ כולל ביאור המדרשים הנדרשים לרז״ל בחמישה חומשי תורה‬:‫ספר אור השכל‬ ‫ובחמש מגילות‬, Venice 1567; repr. Ashdod 1997 Palestinian Talmud Talmud Yerushalmi, Krotoschin 1866; repr. Jerusalem 1969 Y. Sussmann, Talmud Yerushalmi According to Ms. or. 4720 (Scal. 3) of the Leiden University Library with Restorations and Corrections, Jerusalem 2001 Perush ha-Berakhot we-ha-Tefillot (David ben Joseph Abudarham) ‫ פירוש הברכות והתפלות‬,‫דוד בן יוסף אבודרהם‬, Lissabon 1489; repr. Jerusalem 1963 Perush ha-Geonim (ai Gaon) J.N. Epstein (ed.), Der Gaonäische Kommentar zur Ordnung Tohoroth: eine kritische Einleitung zu dem R. Hai Gaon zugeschriebenen Kommentar, Berlin 1915

274

bibliography

Perush Kerovot Mazor ms Hamburg 152 Pesikta de-Rav Kahana B. Mandelbaum, Pesikta de Rav Kahana According to an Oxford Manuscript, 2 Vols, New York 1962 Pesikta Rabbati M. Friedmann, Pesikta Rabbati: Midrasch für den Fest–cyclus und die ausgezeichneten Sabbathe, Vienna 1880; repr. Tel Aviv 1962 L. Ginzberg, Genizah Studies: In Memory of Doctor Solomon Schechter ( = Ginze Schechter): I. Midrash and Haggadah, New York 1928; repr. New York 1969 Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer D. Luria, ‫ספר פרקי רבי אליעזר הגדול‬, Warschau 1852; repr. Jerusalem 1964 Piyyut M. Sokoloff & J. Yahalom (eds), Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry from Late Antiquity: Critical Edition with Introduction and Commentary, Jerusalem 1999 Ruth Rabbah ‫ על חמשה חומשי תורה וחמש מגלות‬:‫ספר מדרש רבה‬, Wilna 1884–1911; repr. Jerusalem 1962 Seder Eliyahu Rabbah M. Friedmann, Seder Eliahu Rabba and Seder Eliahu Zuta, Vienna 1902; repr. Jerusalem 1969 (together with Pseudo-Seder Eliahu Zuta) Sefer ha-Rikmah (Jonah ibn Jana) M. Wilensky (ed.), Sefer Hariqma (Kitāb al–Luma`) ab Jona ibn Ganā: Lingua Arabica Conscriptus Hebraice vertit Jehuda Ibn Tibbon, 2 Vols. Berlin 1928–30; repr. Jerusalem, 1964 Sefer ha-Shorashim (Jonah ibn Jana) W. Bacher (ed.), Sepher Haschoraschim: Wurzelwörterbuch der hebr. Sprache von Abulwalîd Merwân Ibn Ganâh (R. Jona), Berlin 1893–96 Sefer ha-Shorashim (Kimi) J.H.R. Biesenthal & F. Lebrecht (eds), Rabbi David Kimchi Radicum Liber sive Hebraeum Bibliorum Lexicon cum animadversionibus Eliae Levitae, Berlin 1847; repr. Jerusalem 1966/67 Sefer ha-Tishbi (Eliah Levita) ‫ספר התשבי לאליהו התשבי שרשיו כמנין תשבי‬, Isny 1541 Sefer ha-Zohar M. Margaliot (ed.), ‫ספר הזהר על חמשה חומשי תורה מהתנא שמעון בן יוחאי‬, 3 Vols, Jerusalem 1970

bibliography

275

Sekhel Tov S. Buber, Sechel Tob: Commentar zum ersten und zweiten Buch Mosis, Berlin 1900/01; repr. Tel Aviv 1973 Semaot / Evel Rabbati D. Zlotnick, The Tractate “Mourning” (Śĕmaot): Regulations Relating to Death, Burial, and Mourning, New Haven & London 1966 Shitah Mekubetset (Bezalel Ashkenazi) … ‫ והוא חדושי מסכת כתובות אשר בשם תלמוד קטן יכנה‬:‫ספר אספת זקנים‬ ‫וקראו בשם שיטה מכובצת‬, Constantinople 1738 Siddur H . aside Ashkenaz (Salomon ben Samson of Worms) M. Herschler (ed.), ‫ = ( סידור רבינו שלמה‬Siddur of R. Solomon ben Samson of Garmaise including the Siddur of the Haside Ashkenas), Jerusalem 1971 Sifra J.H. Weiss, Sifra: Commentar zu Leviticus, Vienna 1862 Sifre Deuteronomy L. Finkelstein (H.S. Horovitz), Siphre ad Deuteronomium, Berlin 1939; repr. New York 1969 Sifre Numbers H.S. Horovitz, Siphre d’Be Rab, Leipzig 1917; repr. Jerusalem 1966 Sifre Zutta H.S. Horovitz, ‘Siphrei Zuta al Sepher Bemidbar’, in: Horovitz, Siphre d’Be Rab (appendix), Leipzig 1917 Tanuma Buber S. Buber, Midrash Tanchuma, Ein aggadischer Commentar zum Pentateuch, 2 Vols, Wilna 1885 Targum A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic: Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts, 5 Vols, Leiden 1959–73; repr. Leiden 1992 Targum Pentateuch A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana, 6 Vols, Madrid & Barcelona 1968–1979 M.L. Klein, The Fragment–Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources, 2 Vols, Rome 1980 D. Rieder, Targum Jonathan ben Uziel on the Pentateuch, Jerusalem 1974 E.G. Clarke (W.E. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd, F. Spitzer), Targum PseudoJonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance, Hoboken (NJ) 1984 M.L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 Vols, Cincinnati 1986 Targum Prophets A. Sperber, Codex Reuchlinianus no. 3 of the Badische Landesbibliothek

276

bibliography

in Karlsruhe (formerly Durlach no. 55): with a general introduction: Masoretic Hebrew, Copenhagen 1956 P. de Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, Leipzig 1872; repr. Osnabruck 1967 Targum Writings P. de Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice, Göttingen 1873; repr. Osnabrück 1967 É. Levine, ‫ כתב‬:‫ ואסתר‬,‫ איכה‬,‫ שיר השירים‬,‫ קוהלת‬,‫ רות‬:‫תרגום לחמש מגילות‬ 1 ‫ אורבינטי‬,‫יד וטיקן‬, Jerusalem 1977 D.M. Stec, The Text of the Targum of Job: An Introduction and Critical Edition, Leiden 1994 B. Grossfeld, The First Targum to Esther According to the MS Paris Hebrew 110 of the Bibliotheque Nationale, New York 1983 B. Grossfeld, The Targum Sheni to the Book of Esther: A Critical Edition Based on ms. Sassoon 282 with Critical Apparatus, New York 1994 R. Le Déaut, Targum des Chroniques (Cod. Vat. Urb. Ebr. 1), Rome 1971 Tosafot See Babylonian Talmud Tosefta S. Lieberman (ed.), The Tosefta According to Codex Vienna, with Variants from Codex Erfurt, Genizah Mss. and Editio Princeps (Venice 1521): Together with References to Parallel Passages in Talmudic Literature and a Brief Commentary by Saul Lieberman, Second Augmented Edition, Jerusalem 1992 M.S. Zuckermandel (ed.), Tosephta based on the Erfurt and Vienna Codices, New Edition, Jerusalem 1970 Yalkut Shimoni D. Hyman, D.N. Lerrer & I. Shiloni (eds), ‫ילקוט שמעוני על התורה לרבנו‬ ‫שמעון הדרשן‬, 9 Vols, Jerusalem 1973–1991

Secondary Literature Aberbach, M. & B. Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis: A Critical Analysis Together With An English Translation of the Text, New York 1982 Albeck, H. Einleitung und Register zum Bereschit Rabba, Jerusalem 1965, I.44–54 (included in volume 3 of J. Theodor–H. Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabba, Jerusalem 1965) Albright, W.F. ‘A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age: The Nash Papyrus’, JBL 56 (1937), 145–76 Alexander, P.S. ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Salamanca 1983, Leiden 1985, 14–28

bibliography

277

— ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 217–253 — ‘Pre-Emptive Exegesis: Genesis Rabba’s Reading of the Story of Creation’, JJS 43 (1992), 230–45 — ‘Textual Criticism and Rabbinic Literature: The Case of the Targum of the Song of Songs’, BJRL 75 (1993), 159–73 — ‘How did the Rabbis Learn Hebrew?’, in: W. Horbury (ed.), Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, Edinburgh 1999, 71–89 — The Targum of Canticles, Collegeville 2003 Aufrecht, W.E. ‘Some Observations on the Überlieferungsgeschichte of the Targums’, in: P.V.M. Flesher (ed.), Targum Studies. Volume One: Textual and Contextual Studies in the Pentateuchal Targums, Atlanta 1992, 77–78 Avigad, N. & Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea. Description and Contents of the Scroll, Facsimiles, Transcription and Translation of Columns II, XIX–XXII, Jerusalem 1956 — ‘The Palaeography of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Documents’, Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jerusalem 19652, 56–87 Bacher, W. ‘Alte aramäische Poesien zum Vortrage des haphtara-Targum’, MGWJ 22 (1873), 220–28 — ‘Kritische Untersuchungen zum Prophetentargum’, ZDMG 28 (1874), 1–72 — Die Agada der palästinensischen Amoräer, 3 Vols, Strassburg 1892–99; repr. Hildesheim 1965 — ‘Notes on the Critique of the Text of the Targum of the Prophets’, JQR 11 (1899), 651–55 — Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, two parts, Leipzig 1899–1905; repr. Hildesheim 1965 — Die Agada der babylonischen Amoräer, Frankfurt am Main 1913; repr. Hildesheim 1967 Barthélemy, D. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 4 Vols, Fribourg & Göttingen 1982–2005 Bassfreund, J. ‘Das Fragmenten–Targum zum Pentateuch, sein Ursprung und Charakter und sein Verhältnis zu den anderen pentateuchischen Targumim’, MGWJ 40 (1896), 1–14, 49–67, 97–109, 145–63, 241–52, 352–65, 396–405 Beattie, D.R.G. & J. Stanley McIvor, The Targum of Ruth / The Targum of Chronicles, Edinburgh 1994 Beattie, D.R.G. & M. McNamara (eds), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context, Sheffield 1994 Bernstein, M.J. ‘A New Manuscript of Tosefta Targum’, Proceedings of the 9th WCJS: Division A, The Period of the Bible, Jerusalem 1986, 151–58

278

bibliography

— ‘Goshen–Gottstein’s Fragments of Lost Targumim’ (review), JQR 80/3– 4 (1990), 376–79 Beyer, K. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, Göttingen 1983 Black, M. The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of the New Testament, London 1961 — An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, Oxford 1967 Brady, C.M.M. The Rabbinic Targum of Lamentations, Leiden & Boston 2003, 147–54 Brauer, E. The Jews of Kurdistan (completed and edited by Raphael Patai), Detroit 1993 Brewer, D.I. Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE, Tübingen 1992 Brock, S. ‘Translating the Old Testament’, in: Carson & Williamson, It is Written, 87–98 Brockelmann, C. Lexicon Syriacum, Halle 19282; repr. Hildesheim 1995 Carson, D.A. & H.G.M. Williamson (eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, Cambridge 1988 Cathcart, K.J. & R.P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets, Edinburgh 1989 Chary, Th. Aggée–Zacharie Malachie, Paris 1969 Chilton, B. The Isaiah Targum, Edinburgh 1987 Churgin, P. Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, New Haven 1907 [= 1927]; repr. in Smolar-Aberbach, Studies, 229–380 Cowling, G.J. The Palestinian Targum: Textual and Linguistic Investigations in Codex Neofiti I and Allied Manuscripts, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University of Aberdeen 1968 Dalman, G. Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, Leipzig 1905; repr. Darmstadt 1960 Damsma, A. An Analysis of Targum Ezekiel and its Relationship to the Targumic Toseftot, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University College London 2008 (to be published in the series Studies in Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture) De Lagarde, P. ‘Targum Onkelos: Herausgegeben und erläutert von dr. A. Berliner. Mit Unterstützung der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin… Berlin 1884’ (review), GGA 22 (1886), 861–880 De Moor J.C. & E. van Staalduine-Sulman, ‘The Aramaic Song of the Lamb’, JSJ 24 (1993), 266–79 De Moor, J.C. et al. (eds), A Bilingual Concordance to the Targum of the Prophets, 21 Vols, Leiden [etc.], 1995–2005 De Moor, J.C. ‘Multiple Renderings in the Targum of Isaiah’, JAB 3 (2001), 161–80

bibliography

279

De Vaux, R.G.M., J.W.B. Barns, J.T. Milik (eds), Qumran Cave 4: Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128–4Q157), Oxford 1977 Díez Macho, A. ‘Nuevos fragmentos del Targum Palestinense’, Sefarad 15 (1955), 31–39 — ‘Las citas del Targum Palestinense en el Midrash Bereshit Zua’, in: A. Caquot et al. (eds), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor, Neukirchen–Vluijn 1985, 117–26 Díez Merino, L. ‘Tosefta targúmica a Génesis y Exodo’, Anuario de filología 8 (1982), 137–144 — ‘Procedimientos targúmicos’, in: V. Collado-Bertomeu & V. VilarHueso (eds), II. Simposio Bíblico Español (Córdoba 1985), Valencia & Cordoba 1987, 461–86 — ‘Mahzor Vitry and the Palestinian Targum to the Prophets’, in: U. Haxen et al. (eds), Jewish Studies in a New Europe: Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of Jewish Studies in Copenhagen 1994, Copenhagen 1998, 199–211 Dimant, D. ‘Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 379–419 Ego, B. Targum Scheni zu Esther, Tübingen 1996 Ellis, E.E. ‘Biblical Interpretation in the New Testament Church’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 691–725 Epstein, A. ‘Tosefta du Targoum Yerouschalmi’, REJ 30 (1895), 44–51 Fahr, H. & U. Gleßmer, Jordandurchzug und Beschneidung als Zurechtweisung in einem Targum zu Josua 5 (Edition des MS T.–S. B 13,12), Glückstadt 1991 Fishbane, M. ‘Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 339–77 — Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, Oxford 2003 Fitzmyer, J.A. ‘The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament’, NTS 7 (1960–1961), 297–333 — ‘Some Observations on the Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI’, CBQ 36 (1974), 503–24 — A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, Missoula 1979 — The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary, Rome 20043 Fleischer, E. ‘‫’ראש ראשי חדשים‬, Tarbiz 37 (1967–68), 265–78 — ‘Prayer and Piyyu in the Worms Mazor’, in: M. Beit-Arié (ed.), Worms Mazor: MS. Jewish National and University Library Heb. 40 781/1, Jerusalem 1985, 36–78 — ‘Piyyut’, in: Safrai et al. (eds), The Literature of the Sages. Second Part, 363–74

280

bibliography

Flesher, P.V.M. ‘Exploring the Sources of the Synoptic Targums to the Pentateuch’, in: Idem (ed.), Targum Sudies. Volume One: Textual and Contextual Studies in the Pentateuchal Targums, Atlanta 1992, 101–34 — ‘Targum as Scripture’, in: Idem (ed.), Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translation and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke, Leiden & Boston 2002, 61–75 Fox, M.V. ‘The Identification of Quotations in Biblical Literature’, ZAW 92 (1980), 416–31 Fraade, S.D. ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee of the Third–Sixth Centuries’, in: L.I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, New York & Jerusalem 1992, 253–86 — ‘Scripture, Targum, and Talmud as Instruction: A Complex Textual Story from the Sifra’, in: J. Magness & S. Gitin, Hesed ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs, Atlanta 1998, 109–21 — ‘Locating Targum in the Textual Polysystem of Rabbinic Pedagogy’, BIOSCS 39 (2006), 69–91 Frankel, Z. Zu dem Targum der Propheten, Breslau 1872 Gaster, M. ‘Das Buch Josua in hebräisch-samaritanischer Rezension: Entdeckt und zum ersten Male herausgegeben von M. Gaster’, in: ZDMG 62 (1908), 209–79, 494–549 Geiger, A. Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bible in Ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums, Frankfurt am Main 19282; repr. of first edition by Elibron Classics 2006 Ginsburger, M. ‘Aramäische Introductionen zum Thargumvortrag an Festtagen’, ZDMG 44 (1900), 113–24 — ‘Les introductions araméennes a la lecture du Targum’, REJ 73 (1921), 14–26, 186–94 Ginzberg, L. Eine unbekannte jüdische Sekte, New York 1922; repr. Hildesheim 1972 — Genizah Studies: In Memory of Doctor Solomon Schechter ( = Ginze Schechter). I. Midrash and Haggadah, New York 1928; repr. New York 1969 Gleßmer, U. Entstehung und Entwicklung der Targume zum Pentateuch als literarkritisches Problem, dargestellt am Beispiel der Zusatztargume, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University of Hamburg 1988 — Einleitung in die Targume zum Pentateuch, Tübingen 1995 Goldberg, A. ‘Die Schrift der rabbinische Schriftausleger’, FJB 15 (1987), 1–15 — ‘The Rabbinic View of Scripture’, in: P.R. Davies & R.T. White (eds), A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and

bibliography

281

History, Sheffield 1990, 153–66 (translation of ‘Die Schrift der rabbinische Schriftausleger’) Golomb, D. ‘“A Liar, a Blasphemer, a Reviler”: The Role of Biblical Ambiguity in the Palestinian Pentateuchal Targumim’, in: P.V.M. Flesher, Targum Studies. Volume One: Textual and Contextual Studies in the Pentateuchal Targums, Atlanta 1992 Gordis, R. ‘Quotations in Wisdom Literature’, JQR 30 (1939/40), 23–47 — ‘Quotations as a Literary Usage in Biblical, Oriental and Rabbinic Literature’, HUCA 22 (1949), 157–219 Gordon, R.P. Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets: From Nahum to Malachi, Leiden [etc.] 1994 — ‘Sperber’s “Additional Targum” to Zechariah 2:14–15: Studying a Targumic Cento’, in: Idem, Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets, 96–107 Goshen–Gottstein, M. ‘‫’לקראת חקר השקיעין של מסורות התרגומים הארמיים‬, in: Y.D. Gilat et al. (eds), Studies in Rabbinic Literature, Bible and Jewish History, Ramat-Gan 1982, 43–47 — (with the assistance of Rimon Kasher) ,‫שקיעים מתרגומי המקרא הארמיים‬ 2 Vols, Ramat-Gan 1983–1989 — ‘aspects of Targum Studies’, Proceedings of the 9th WCJS: Panel Sessions Bible Studies and Ancient Near East, Jerusalem 1988, 35–44 Grabbe, L.L. ‘Aquila’s Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis’, JJS 33/1–2 (1982), 527–36 Greenberg, M. ‘“You Have Turned Their Hearts Backward” (I Kings 18:37)’, in: J.J. Petuchowski & E. Fleischer (eds), Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann, Jerusalem 1981, Hebrew section, 52–66 Greenfield, J.C. ‘The Periphrastic Imperative in Aramaic and Hebrew’, IEJ 19 (1969), 199–210 Grelot, P. ‘L’exégèse messianique d’Isaïe, LXIII, 1–6’, RB 70 (1963), 371–80 — ‘Une Tosephta targoumique sur Zacharie II’, 14–15, RB 73 (1966), 197–211 — ‘Deux Tosephtas targoumiques inédites sur Isaïe LXVI’, RB 79 (1972), 511–43 — ‘À propos d’une tosephta targoumique’, RB 80 (1973), 363 — ‘Le Targoum d’Isaïe, X, 32–34 dans ses diverses recensions’, RB 90 (1983), 202–28 — ‘Un poème acrostiche araméen sur Exode 12’, Semitica 38 (1990), 159–165 — ‘De l’apocryphe de la Genèse aux Targoums: sur Genèse 14, 18–20’, in: Z.J. Kapera (ed.), Intertestamental Essays: In Honour of Józef Tadeusz Milik, Kraków 1992

282

bibliography

— ‘Trois poèmes acrostiches sur Exode 12,2’, RB 106/1 (1999), 41–65 — ‘Deux poèmes araméens sur Exode 20:1–2’, REJ 159 (2000), 49–61 Griñó, R. ‘El Meturgeman y Neofiti I’, Biblica 58 (1977), 153–88 Grossfeld, B. The Two Targums of Esther, Edinburgh 1991 —  Targum Neofiti 1: An Exegetical Commentary to Genesis Including Full Rabbinic Parallels, New York 2000 Harrington D.J. & A.J. Saldarini, Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets, Edinburgh 1987 Hayward, R. The Targum of Jeremiah, Edinburgh 1987 Heinemann, J. ‘‫’שרידים מיצירתם הפיוטית של המתורגמנים הקדמונים‬, Ha-Sifrut 4 (1973), 362–75 — ‫אגדות ותולדותיהן‬, Jerusalem 1974 Hirshman, M. ‘Aggadic Midrash’, in: Safrai et al., Literature of the Sages. Second Part, 107–32 Houtman, A. ‘De Targoem van Jesaja 6:1’, in: J.W. Wesselius (ed.), Een handvol koren: Opstellen van enkele vrienden bij het vertrek van Dr. F. Sepmeijer van de Theologische Universiteit Kampen, Kampen 2003, 11–15 — ‘Different Kinds of Tradition in Targum Jonathan to Isaiah’, in: P. van Reenen, A. den Hollander & M. van Mulken (eds), Studies in Stemmatology II, Amsterdam & Philadelphia 2004, 269–83 —  ‘The Role of Abraham in Targum Isaiah’, AS 3 (2005) 3–14 — ‘The Targumic Versions of the Martyrdom of Isaiah’, in: M.F.J. Baasten & R. Munk (eds), Studies in Hebrew Language and Jewish Culture, Dordrecht 2007, 189–201 Hughes, J.A. Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot, Leiden & Boston 2006 Jansma, T. Twee Haggada’s uit de Palestijnse Targum van de Pentateuch, Leiden 1950 Jastrow, M. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, Philadelphia 1903; repr. New York 1971 Jongeling, B., C.J. Labuschagme & A.S. van der Woude (eds), Aramaic Texts from Qumran, Leiden 1976 Kahle, P. The Cairo Genizah, Oxford 1959 Kasher, R. ‘‫’התוספתות התרגומיות להפטרת שבת–חנוכה‬, Tarbiz 45 (1975), 27–45 — ‘The Interpretation of Scripture in Rabbinic Literature’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 547–94 — ‘The Aramaic Targumim and Their Sitz im Leben’, Proceedings of the 9th WCJS: Panel Sessions Bible Studies and Ancient Near East, Jerusalem 1988, 75–85

bibliography

283

— ‘Angelology and the Supernal Worlds in the Aramaic Targums to the Prophets’, JSJ 27 (1996), 168–91. — ‘?‫’האם יש מקור אחד לתוספתות התרגום לנביאים‬, AJS Review 21 (1996), 1–21 — ‫ ביאר ותרגום לעברית‬,‫ ההדיר‬:‫תוספתות תרגום לנביאים‬, Jerusalem 1996 Kaufman, S.A. ‘A Unique Magic Bowl from Nippur’, JNES 32 (1973), 170–74 — ‘The Job Targum from Qumran’, JAOS 93 (1973), 317–27 Kaufman S.A. & Y. Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20: Reconstructing the Palestinian Targum’, Textus 16 (1991), 13–78 Kister, M. ‘‫ היבטים בעולמה של שירה עלומה‬:‫’שירת בני מערבא‬, Tarbiz 76/1 (2008), 84–105 Klein, G. ‘Bemerkungen zu Herrn Dr. Bacher’s “Kritische Untersuchungen zum Prophetentargum”’, ZDMG 29 (1876), 157–61 Klein, M.L. ‘The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume, Vienna 1980, Leiden 1981, 162–77 — ‘Palestinian Targum and Synagogue Mosaics’, Immanuel 11 (1980), 33–45 — ‘Targumic Poems from the Cairo Genizah’, HAR 8 (1984), 89–99 — ‘Fragments of Lost Targumim: Part One’ (review), JBL 104 (1985), 709–11 — Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 Vols, Cincinnati 1986 — ‘Targumic Toseftot from the Cairo Genizah’, in: D. Muños León (ed.), Salvacíon en La Palabra. Targum – Derash – Berith: En memoria del Professor Alejandro Díez Macho, Madrid 1986, 409–18 — ‘Not to be Translated in Public – ‫’לא מתרגם בציבורא‬, JJS 39 (1988), 80–91 — Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, Cambridge 1992 — ‘Introductory Poems (R’shuyot) to the Targum of the Hafarah in Praise of Jonathan ben Uzziel’, in: S.F. Chyet & D.H. Ellenson (eds), Bits of Honey: Essays for Samson H. Levey, Atlanta 1993, 43–56 Koehler, L. & W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden 1958 Komlosh, Y. ‘‫’כתבי יד של תרגומים‬, in: Y.L. Maymon (ed.), (‫ ספר יובל‬,‫סיני‬ ‫(תשי׳ח‬, (1957–58), 466–81 — ‫המקרא באור התרגום‬, Tel Aviv 1973 Kosovsky, M. Concordance to the Talmud Yerushalmi, 8 Vols, Jerusalem 1979–2002 Krauss, S. Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmudim Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, 2 Vols, Berlin 1898–99; repr. Hildesheim 1964

284

bibliography

Kroeze D.J.D. & E. van Staalduine–Sulman, ‘A Giant among Bibles: “Erfurt 1” or Cod. Or. Fol. 1210–1211 at the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin’, AS 4/2 (2006), 193–205 Kuhn, P. Gottes Trauer und Klage in der Rabbinischen Überlieferung (Talmud und Midrasch), Leiden 1978 Kutscher, E.Y. ‘Dating the Language of the Genesis Apocryphon’, JBL 76 (1957), 288–92 — ‘Aramaic’, in: Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem 1971, III.259–87 Lagarde, P. de, ‘Targum Onkelos. Herausgegeben und erläutert von dr. A. Berliner. Mit Unterstützung der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin… Berlin 1884’ (review), GGA 22 (1886), 861–880 Le Déaut, R. ‘The Current State of Targumic Studies’, BThB 4 (1974), 3–32 — ‘La Septante, un Targum?’, in: R. Kuntzmann & J. Schlosser (eds), Études sur le judaïsme hellénistique, Paris 1984, 147–195 Le Déaut R. & J. Robert, Targum du Pentateuque, 5 Vols, Paris 1978–1981 Lehman, M.R. ‘1 Q Gen. Ap. in the Light of the Targumim and Midrashim’, RQ 1 (1958–59), 249–63 Leonhard, C. The Jewish Pesach and the Origins of the Christian Easter: Open Questions in Current Research, Berlin 2006 Lerner, M.B. ‘The Works of Aggadic Midrash and the Esther Midrashim’, in: Safrai et al. (eds), Literature of the Sages. Second Part, 133–229 Levene, D. A Corpus of Magic Bowls: Incatation Texts in Jewish Aramaic from Late Antiquity, London [etc.] 2003 Levey, S.H. The Targum of Ezekiel, Edinburgh 1987 Levine, E.B. The Aramaic Version of the Bible: Contents and Context, Berlin & New York 1988 Levy, B.B. Targum Neophyti, 2 Vols, Lanham [etc.] 1986 Levy, J. Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim, 2 Vols, Leipzig 1867–68 — Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, Berlin & Vienna 1924 Lieber, L. ‘“Oh my Dove, Let Me See Your Face!” Targum, Piyyut, and the Literary Life of the Ancient Synagogue’, in: A.A. den Hollander et al. (eds), Paratext and Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions: The Textual Markers of Contextualization, Leiden [etc.] 2003, 109–35 Lieberman, S. Greek in Jewish Palestine, New York 1942 — Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, New York 19622 — Tosefta Ki-fsutah: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta, 9 Vols, New York 1955–88 Loewe, R. ‘Apologetic Motifs in the Targum to the Song of Songs’, in: A. Altmann (ed.), Biblical Motifs, Cambridge (Mass.) 1966, 159–96

bibliography

285

Lougee, R.B. Paul de Lagarde 1827–1891: A Study of Radical Conservatism in Germany, Cambridge (Mass.) 1962 Luzzatto, S.D. ‫ מאמר מחקרי על תרגום אנקלוס הגר‬:‫אוהב גר‬, Vienna 1830; repr. Jerusalem 1969 — ‘Nachträgliches über die Thargumim’, WZJT 5 (1844), 124–37 Marmorstein, A. The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God: 1. The Names and Attributes of God, Oxford & London 1927 McNamara, M. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Rome 1978 — Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers, Edinburgh 1995 — Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy, Edinburgh 1997 Melammed, E.Z. ‫ דרכיהם ושיטותיהם‬:‫מפרשי המקרא‬, 2 Vols, second enlarged edition, Jerusalem 1978 Metzger, B.M. ‘The Formulas Introducing Quotations of Scripture in the NT and the Mishna’, JBL 70 (1951), 297–307 Milik, J.T. & R. de Vaux, Qumrân Grotte 4. II Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128 – 4Q157), Oxford 1977 Mulder, M.J. De targum op het Hooglied, Amsterdam 1975 — Review of Goshen–Gottstein’s ‫שקיעים‬, BiOr 42 (1985), 386–87 Mulder M.J. & H. Sysling (eds), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen [etc.] 1988; repr. Peabody (Mass.) 2004 Müller–Kessler, C. ‘The Earliest Evidence for Targum Onqelos from Babylonia and the Question of its Dialect and Origin’, JAB 3 (2001), 181–98 — Die Zauberschale-texte in der Hilprecht-Sammlung, Jena und weitere Nippur-Texte anderen Sammlungen, Wiesbaden 2005 Muraoka, T. ‘The Aramaic of the Old Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI’, JJS 25 /3 (1974), 425–43 — ‘Notes on the Old Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI’, RQ 9 (1977), 117-25 Naveh, J. ‫על פסיפס ואבן – הכתובות הארמיות והעבריות‬, Tel Aviv 1978 Naveh, J. & S. Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity, Jerusalem 1985 Neubauer, A. Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, 2 Vols, Oxford 1886–1906; R.A. May (ed.), Supplement of Addenda and Corrigenda to Volume I (A. Neubauer’s Catalogue), Oxford 1994 O’Connor, M. Hebrew Verse Structure, Winona Lake 1980 Odeberg, H. The Aramaic Portions of Bereshit Rabba with Grammar of Galilaean Aramaic, 2 Vols, Lund & Leipzig 1939 Patte, D. Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine, Missoula 1975

286

bibliography

Pautasso, L.G. ‘Gen. 44:18 – A Case for the Textual Relevance of the Targumic Tosefta’, Henoch 10 /2 (1988), 205–218 Perles, J. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Hebräischen and Aramäischen Studien, Munich 1884 Perrot, C.H. La Lecture de la Bible dans la Synagogue: Les anciennes lectures palestiniennes du Shabbat et des fêtes, Hildesheim 1973 —  ‘The Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 137–159 Rabbinovicz, R. ‫ספר דקדוקי סופרים‬, Munich 1867/68; repr. Jerusalem 2002 Rabin, H. ‘Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century’, in: S. Safrai & M. Stern (eds), The Jewish People in the First Century, Assen & Amsterdam 1976, 1007–1039 Rabinovitz, Z.M. ‫ לצורתם הקדומה של מדרשי חז״ל לפי כת״י מן‬,‫גנזי מדרש‬ ‫הגניזה – קטעי מדרש‬, Tel Aviv 1976 Rand, M. ‘Observations on the Relationship between JPA Poetry and the Hebrew Piyyut Tradition: The Case of the Kinot’, in: A. Gerhards & C. Leonhard (eds), Jewish and Christian Liturgy and Worship, Leiden & Boston 2007, 127–44. Reiss, W. ‘Wortsubstition als Mittel der Deutung: Bemerkungen zur Formel ‫’אין … אלא‬, FJB 6 (1978), 27–69 Rodrigues Pereira, A.S. Studies in Aramaic Poetry (c. 100 B.C.E. – c. 600 C.E.): Selected Jewish, Christian and Samaritan Poems, Assen 1997 Safrai, S. ‘Education and the Study of the Torah’, in: Safrai & Stern, The Jewish People in the First Century, II.945–70 Safrai, S. & M. Stern (eds), The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, 2 Vols, Assen & Amsterdam 1974–76 Safrai, S., Z. Safrai, J. Schwartz & P.J. Tomson (eds), The Literature of the Sages. Second Part: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science, and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature, Assen 2006 Safrai, Z. ‘The Origins of Reading the Aramaic Targum in Synagogue’, Immanuel 24/25 (1990), 187–93 — ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, in: Safrai et al., The Literature of the Sages. Second Part, 243–78 Samely, A. ‘Scripture’s Implicature: The Midrashic Assumptions of Relevance and Consistency’, JJS 37 (1992), 167–205 — The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums, Tübingen 1992 Sassoon, D.S. Ohel Dawid: Descriptive Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the Sassoon Library, London, 2 Vols, London 1932

bibliography

287

Savran, G.W. Telling and Retelling: Quotation in Biblical Narrative, Bloomington & Indianapolis 1988 Schäfer, P. ‘Bibelübersetzungen II (Targumim)’, in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie VI (1980), 216–28 — ‘Bereshit Bara Elohim: Bereshit Rabba Parashah 1, Reconsidered’, in: A. Houtman, A.F. de Jong & M. Misset–van de Weg (eds), Empsychoi Logoi. Religious Innovations in Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst, Leiden & Boston 2008, 267–89 Schäfer P. & S. Shaked, Magische Texte aus der Kairoer Geniza, Band 1, Tübingen 1994 Seeligmann, I.L. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems, Leiden 1948 Segal, J.B. with a contribution by Erica C.D. Hunter, Catalogue of Aramaic and Mandaic Incantation Bowls in the British Museum, London 2000 Shepherd, D. ‘Translating and Supplementing: A(nother) Look at the Targumic Versions of Genesis 4.3–16’, JAB 1 (1999), 125–46 — Targum and Translation. A Reconsideration of the Qumran Aramaic Version of Job, Assen 2004 Shinan, A. ‫אגדתם של המתורגמנים‬, 2 Vols, Jerusalem 1979 — ‘The Aramaic Targum as a Mirror of Galilean Jewry’, in: L.I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, New York & Jerusalem 1992, 241–51 — ‫ האגדה בתרגום התורה הארמי המיוחס ליונתן בן עוזיאל‬:‫תרגום ואגדה בו‬, Jerusalem 1992 — ‘The Aggadah of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Rabbinic Aggadah: Some Methodological Considerations’, in: D.R.G. Beattie & M. McNamara, The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context, Sheffield 1994, 203–17 — ‘The Late Midrashic, Paytanic, and Targumic Literature’, in: S.T. Katz (ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism IV: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, Cambridge 2006, 678–98 Smelik, W.F. The Targum of Judges, Leiden [etc.] 1995 — ‘On Mystical Transformation of the Righteous into Light in Judaism’, JSJ 26 (1995), 122–44 — ‘Translation and Commentary in One: The Interplay of Pluses and Substitutions in the Targum of the Prophets’, JSJ 19/3 (1998), 245–60 — ‘The Rabbinic Reception of Early Bible Translations as Holy Writings and Oral Torah’, JAB 1 (1999), 249–72 — ‘Language, Locus, and Translation between the Talmudim’, JAB 3 (2001), 199–224 — ‘Orality, Manuscript Reproduction, and the Targums’, in: A.A. den Hollander et al. (eds), Paratext and Megatext as Channels of Jewish and

288

bibliography

Christian Traditions, Leiden [etc.] 2003, 49–81 Smolar, L. & M. Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, New York & Baltimore 1983 Sokoloff, M. The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave 11, Ramat-Gan 1974 — Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Ramat-Gan 1990 — Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods, Ramat-Gan, 2002 Sokoloff, M. & J. Yahalom, ‘Aramaic Piyyutim from the Byzantine Period’, JQR 75/3 (1985), 309–321 — ‫שירת בני מערבא – שירים ארמיים של יהודי ארץֿישראל בתקופה הבינזטית‬ ( = Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry from Late Antiquity: Critical Edition with Introduction and Commentary), Jerusalem 1999 Stanton, G. ‘Matthew’, in: Carson & Williamson, It is Written, 205–19 Starke, F. ‘Zur Herkunft von akkad. ta/urgumannu(m) “Dolmetscher”’, WO 24 (1993), 20–39 Stec, D.M. The Targum of Psalms, Collegeville 2004 Steinschneider, M. Die Hebraeischen Handschriften der K. Hof– und Staatsbibliothek in Muenchen, Munich 18952 Stuckenbruck, L.T. ‘Bibliography on 4QtgLev (4Q156)’, JSP 10 (1992), 53–55 Stuckenbruck. L.T & D.N. Freedman, ‘The Fragments of a Targum to Leviticus in Qumran Cave 4 (4Q156): A Linguistic Comparison and Assessment’, in: P.V.M. Flesher (ed.), Targum and Scripture, Leiden 2002 Syrén, R. The Blessings in the Targums: A Study on the Targumic Interpretations of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33, Åbo 1986 Sysling, H. Teiyyat Ha-Metim: The Resurrection of the Dead in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Parallel Traditions in Classical Rabbinic Literature, Tübingen 1996 — ‘Three Harsh Prophets: A Targumic Tosefta to Parashat Korah’, AS 2 (2004), 223–42 — ‘“Go, Moses, and stand by the sea”: An acrostic poem from the Cairo Genizah to Exodus 14:30’, in: R. Roukema et al. (eds), The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman, Leuven 2006, 139–54 — ‘Laments at the Departure of a Sage: Funeral Songs for Great Scholars as Recorded in Rabbinic Literature’, in: M.F.J. Baasten & R. Munk (eds), Studies in Hebrew Language and Jewish Culture, Dordrecht 2007, 81–102. Tal, A. ‫לשון התרגום לנביאים ראשונים ומעמדה בכלל ניבי הארמית‬, Tel Aviv 1975 — ‘‫’תרגום של תוספתא‬, in: Idem, ‫לשון התרגום לנביאים ראשונים ומעמדה בכלל‬ ‫ניבי הארמית‬, Tel Aviv 1975, 191–200 — ‘Is there a Raison d’être for an Aramaic Targum in a Hebrew-speaking Society?’, REJ 160 (2001), 247–64 Tov, E. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis [etc.] 1992

bibliography

289

Towner, W.S. The Rabbinic ‘Enumeration’ of Scriptural Examples: A Study of a Rabbinic Pattern of Discourse with Special Reference to Mekhilta d’ R. Ishmael, Leiden 1973 Van Bekkum, W.J. ‘Pijjut’, Theologische Realenzyklopädie XXVI, 1996, 634–640 Van der Ploeg, J.P.M. ‘Le targum de Job de la grotte 11 de Qumran, Première communication’, Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen afd. Letterkunde, Amsterdam 1962 Van der Ploeg, J.P.M. & A. van der Woude, Le Targum de Job de la Grotte XI de Qumrân, Leiden 1971 Van der Toorn, K., B. Becking & P.W. van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, second extensively revised edition, Leiden 1999 Van Staalduine–Sulman, E. ‘The Aramaic Song of the Lamb’, in: J.C. de Moor & W.G.E. Watson (eds), Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose, Neukirchen 1993, 265–92 — ‘Reward and Punishment in the Messianic Age (Targ. 2 Sam. 23.1–8)’, JAB 1 (1999), 273–96 — The Targum of Samuel, Leiden 2002 Vanderkam, J.C. ‘The Poetry of 1 Q Ap Gen xx–2–8’, RdQ 10 (1979), 55–66 Veltri, G. ‘Der griechische Targum Aquilas: Ein Beitrag zum rabbinischen Übersetzungsverständnis’, in: M. Hengel & A.M. Schwemer (eds), Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum, Tübingen 1994, 92–115 Watts, J.D.W. Isaiah 1–33, Waco 1985 Wewers, G.A. Übersetzung des Talmud Yerushalmi: Sanhedrin Gerichtshof Iv 4, Tübingen 1981 Weinberg, J. The Light of the Eyes: Azariah de’ Rossi. Translated from the Hebrew with an Introduction and Annotations, New Haven & London 2001 Weiss, R. ‫התרגום הארמי לספר איוב‬, Tel Aviv 1979 Weiss Halivni, D. Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara: The Jewish Predilection for Justified Law, Cambridge (Mass.) & London 1986 Wilcox, M. ‘Text form’, in: Carson & Williamson, It is Written, 193–204 — ‘The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School’, JSJ 10 (1979), 74–96 Yahalom, J. ‘‫’״אזל משה״ בפפרוס‬, Tarbiz 47 (1978), 173–82 — ‘ ‘Syriac for Dirges, Hebrew for Speech’: Ancient Jewish Poetry in Aramaic and Hebrew’, in: Safrai et al. (eds), The Literature of the Sages. Second Part, 375–91 Zuckerman, B. ‘The Date of 11Q Targum Job: A Paleographic Consideration of its Vorlage’, JSP 1 (1987), 57–78 Zunz, L. Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie, 2 Vols, Berlin 1865–1867 — Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, Frankfurt am Main 1892; repr. Hildesheim 1966

Index of Primary Sources Biblical references Hebrew Bible Genesis

1:28 6:14 18:1 30:22 35:34 40:11 42:38 49:11 49:11–12 49:27

Exodus

4:15–16 13:17 15:3 15:9–12 15:12 20:3 20:5 28:36–38 34:6–7

Leviticus 10:10–11 11:9 16:14 16:20 16:21 24:11–15

Numbers 16:1 16:33 23:19

Deuteronomy 3:18 5:7 5:26 10:17 14:9 23:4

154 215 154 155, 164, 170 217 155 197 165 51 216 12 155, 170 87 194 194 164 149, 155, 170 118 208 12 95 32 32 32 103 170, 232 109 187 220 164 130 123 96 92

25:9 28:12 32:1 32:39

Joshua

5:2 5:2–3 7:20 7:21 8:31 9:27 15:46–47

Judges

3:19–23 3:19–24 3:20 3:22–23 4:18 5:31

1 Samuel 1:1a 1:18b 2:2 2:2a 2:4 2:8 2:9 2:22 3:13 4:1–11 4:12 6:19 8:1 8:3 9:5 9:21 9:24 10:22 11:2 11:11

220 153 161, 170 109 215, 230 153 153, 209 152, 218 144 66 200 230 216 153 153 219 150, 226, 230 23 22 109 22 147 176 109, 244 80 225, 231 87 243 83 21 80 24 24 213 90 91 78

index of primary sources 12:2 12:5 12:11 15:6a 15:17 15:29 17:4 17:5 17:8 17:10 17:17 17:17–18 17:25 17:26 17:36 17:40 17:42 17:49 22:16–19 22:19 22:22 23:27 25:6 25:29 26:20 28:8 30:16

2 Samuel 1:2–4 1:21 3:5 3:27 3:29 3:30 5:21 6:23 7:22 12:15 13:3 15:4 19:23 20:22 21:1 21:15–22 22:3 22:5 22:8 22:11 22:13 22:17

80 84 81 23 24 187 92 93, 96 86, 243 89 231 225 89 89, 130 130 117 243, 245 117 66 201 123, 126 63 78, 154, 210 70, 148 69 219 70 63 75 111 71 214 71 145, 204 111, 244 109 106 125 76 173 111 73 93, 245 245 150 245 135, 245 245 245

22:28 22:47

1 Kings 15:18 18:37

21:19 21:23 22:4 22:12 22:20 22:29 22:29–38

2 Kings

2:12 3:4 8:16 9:10 9:36–37 17:30–31 18:22 19:3 19:4 19:16 23:28–30

Isaiah

1:2 1:21 2:4 3:16–4:1 3:18–23 5:5–6 5:6 5:17 10:32 10:32–12:6 14:14 19:18 21:5 21:13 22:1 22:2 24:15 29:17 30:29 33:21 35:4 37:3

291 245 245 206 162, 164, 232, 242 147, 160 147, 160 206 206 206 206 206 205 228 223 147, 160 147, 160 153, 213 87 150 130 130 206 161 220 153, 210 210 153 223 230 200 127, 201 125 191, 242 145, 202 217, 230 212, 221 221, 230 153 228 218, 231 242 203, 213 220 150

292 37:14 37:17 40:4 40:12 41:4 41:19 41:25 44:6 44:27 48:1 51:6 53:7 54:11 54:12 55:13 58:11 60:1 60:8 63:2 65:24 66:1 66:23

Jeremiah 2:1–3 2:2 4:18 10:10 17:5 17:8 20:7 23:19 23:36 32:18 36:23 43:13 46:20 49:11 49:20

Ezekiel

5:1 16:10 16:61 21:22–23 21:31 23:24 24:6 24:9 33:9–10

index of primary sources 130 130 149 193 164 153, 214, 218 150 164 175 223 232 112 230 230 154, 232 153, 220 227, 231 184 165 154, 178, 232, 242 190 185 193 193 221, 231 130 158 160 154 182 130 149 230 203 145 182, 242 168

37:12 37:13 38:1 38:15 39:9–10 39:10 43:2

Hosea 1:2 3:1 5:1 13:13

Joel

2:13

Amos 6:2 6:4

Obadiah 6

Micah 4:3 5:4

Nahum 3:8

Zephaniah 2:3 3:5 3:18

Haggai 2:8

Zechariah 95 228 224, 230 193 149 220 222, 230 222 146

5:1 9:6 12:1 12:11

Psalms 31:19 60:4 96:5

153 164 146, 159 146 242 146 187 183 65 12 150 208, 214 153 153, 220 145 210 151 215, 230, 234 229 219 196, 208, 233, 242 154, 177 220 199, 208, 233 206 206 153 227 164

index of primary sources 110:1a 113:7–8 119:28 140:2 145:16

Proverbs 4:2 14:9a

Job

9:7

Canticles 1:6

Lamentations 1:4

Ecclesiastes 7:5 12:12b

126 176 197 220 153

Esther

91 13

Nehemiah

2:5

Daniel 3:12 4:28

13:23–24

1 Chronicles

203

3:3 14:12 16:26 17:20

84

2 Chronicles

197

18:5 18:11 18:14 18:19 18:28 32:27 35:22

54 249

293 174 174 85 199 111 204 164 109 206 206 206 206 206 90 206

New Testament Matthew 5:17–18

Luke

16:17 23:43

John

11:49–52

Acts

15

2:34

Revelation

15 70

5:9–13 10:11–16 14:3 15:3

112

126 179 165 179 179

Septuagint Isaiah 19:18

202

Translation of Aquila Genesis 1:1

16

Deuteronomy 7:13

16

294

index of primary sources Vulgate

Isaiah 19:18

Nahum

202

3:8

215

35:9 40:12 40:23 45:22 49:11

154, 157 155 156, 168 152 141, 156, 165

Targum Targum Onkelos Genesis 12:10 25:2 42:23

Exodus 4:15–16 7:1 15:3 15:12 20:5 22:15 34:6

Leviticus 11:9 11:10

Numbers 14:18

Deuteronomy 14:9 24:3 25:9

209 152 9 12 13 87 194 148 175 208 94 94

3:7 14:3 18:1 30:22 30:25

1:16 12:2 12:37 12:42 13:17

15:18 18:13 19:4 20:5 21:11 34:6 34:7 39:28

151 157 141, 156 157 141, 156, 158, 169 157 169 185 141, 148, 156 226 209 149 212

208

Leviticus 94 226 220

Palestinian Pentateuchal Targums Genesis

Exodus

152 160 154 141, 153, 156 141, 156, 158, 167

18:26 20:22 22:27 22:28 26:39

Numbers 2:23 6:3 7 8:7 10:22 11:26 14:14 14:18

183 183 158 157 149 177 215 95 215 177 53, 141, 145, 156, 158, 242 141, 156 149, 209

index of primary sources 16:1

147, 156, 158, 160, 162, 166, 242 158 141, 156, 159 130 130 160 203

21:14 21:34 23:19 24:4 24:6 24:24

Deuteronomy 1:5 3:1 3:2 3:3–4 3:10–11 3:13 20:9 22:3 22:12 28:12 28:68 31:16 31:24 31:26 32:1 32:3 34:6

158 159 160 159 159 159 177 152 152 153 203 148, 156 158 158 53, 141, 156, 160, 167, 232 157 152

Qumran Targum Leviticus 16:14 16:20 16:21

32 32 32

Targum Prophets Joshua 7:5 10:13

Judges 5:3 5:5 5:9 5:31 8:21

247 158 181, 186, 192 85 181, 186 149 211

14:15 16:5

1 Samuel 1:1a 1:10b 2:2a 2:6 2:8 2:9

2:22 3:13 3:14 4:12 6:19 8:1 10:22 11:2 11:11 12:2 12:5 12:7 12:11 15:6 15:17 15:29 17:4 17:5 17:8 17:10 17:16 17:17 17:18 17:39 17:42 17:43 18:19 18:25 21:16 23:8 25:29 26:9 26:20 28:8 28:19

295 175 175 23 22 22 108, 113, 136 172, 176 56, 61, 83, 109, 113, 136 61, 136 225 82, 135, 236 61, 63, 135 56, 83, 136 21 90, 135, 236 91, 135, 136 78, 136 80, 136 84, 135 78 81 23 24 181, 187 92 93 56, 60, 86, 97, 107, 117, 133, 244 88 88, 136 225 61, 67, 89, 225 60, 103, 107, 244 54, 60, 114, 135, 236, 244 126 60, 104, 107, 244 244 61, 67 117 156 61, 68, 76, 78 61, 69 219 61, 69, 78, 136

296 30:16 31:4

2 Samuel 1:6 1:18 1:21 3:5 3:27 3:29 3:33 5:21 6:19 6:23

12:6 12:12 15:4 15:11 18:25 19:23 19:30 20:22 21:1 21:3 21:5 21:12 21:15–19 21:16 22:3 22:3–47 22:5 22:8 22:11 22:13 22:17 22:28 22:47 23:4 23:8

1 Kings 1:1 2:1 2:30 2:36 3:27 5:11 5:13

index of primary sources 61, 70, 131 56 61, 74, 131, 236 158 61, 75, 78, 131 61, 64, 131 61, 71 181, 188 78 196, 204 61, 65, 135 60, 64, 110, 113, 244 106 60, 105, 135, 244 61, 76, 131 61, 72 61 172, 180 61, 106, 135, 244 61, 111, 135, 244 61, 66, 73 61, 72 61, 73, 77, 247 61, 77, 131 93, 119, 130, 133, 135, 236 126, 135 128, 133 60 150 128, 133 128, 133 128, 133 128, 133 128, 133 128, 133 150 126 126 181, 188 181, 188 174 85 247 247

8:27 8:28 8:29 8:30 8:35 8:45 8:49 8:52 16:34–17:1 17:22 18:3 18:37 19:10 19:14 21:19 21:23 22:28

2 Kings 2:12 3:4 4:1

8:15 8:16 9:10 9:36–37 10:21 13:4 19:3 21:16 22:19 23:29 24:4

Isaiah

1:2 1:21 3:19 5:5–6 5:17 6:1 8:1 8:3 8:6 10:32 13:1 14:13–14 14:14 15:1 17:1

181, 188 163 163 163 163 163 163 163 248 163 181 156 247 247 156 156 156, 166 195, 205 228 126, 181, 191, 242, 247 220 223 156 156 190 163 150 181 163 207 191 141, 156 220 211 223 195 181 184 184 38, 195 196, 201 213 181 192 213 213

index of primary sources 18:5 19:1 19:18 21:5 21:11 21:13 22:1 22:2 24:15 29:17 30:23 30:26 30:29 33:21 35:4 35:6 37:3 40:4 40:12 41:2 41:16 41:25 44:13 44:27 51:6 54:1 54:10 54:11 54:12 54:15 54:17 55:13 56:9 57:15 60:4 60:8 60:12 60:17 62:5 63:2-3 65:17 65:24 66:1 66:2 66:23 66:24

Jeremiah 4:20 17:5

210 213 195 217 213 213 221 153 228 218 200 150 146, 172, 179 195, 203 220 185 150 141, 149, 156 37, 145, 193 247 195, 204 149, 226 215 175 156, 166 228 228 230 230 228 228 172, 178, 180 228 176 228 181, 184, 192 228 228 196 141, 156, 165 141, 156 172, 177, 180 181, 188 176 136, 181, 184, 192 247 197 156, 168

17:7 17:8 20:7 25:34 32:18 36:2 36:23 46:20 46:25 49:11 52:16

Ezekiel

1:1 4:1 9:6 14:14 16:10 16:61 18:13 23:24 24:6 24:9 30:9 30:14–16 37:12 39:9–10

Hosea 1:2 1:2–3 4:2 13:13 13:15

Joel

4:10

Amos 2:14 3:15 6:4 7:14

Obadiah 6 18

Jonah 4:2

297 156, 168 141, 156 172, 180 90 141, 148, 156 184 227 195 215 181, 191 196 181, 191 184 196 192, 242 228 224 141, 156 220 222 223 203 215 141, 156 141, 156, 159 247 181, 183, 192 195 150 90 210 147 216 220 195 195 141, 156, 168 208

298

index of primary sources

Micah 2:6 5:4

223 151, 181

Nahum 1:3 2:10 3:8

Zephaniah 2:3 3:5 3:18

2:8

172, 177

Zechariah

11:4 12:11

229 181, 186 62, 195, 196, 208

172, 175, 180 181, 186 151 151, 181 220 195, 198, 199, 208 183 195, 207

Targum Writings Psalms 4:2 7:1 13:4 18:5 27:7 34:19 60:7 69:14 69:17 69:18

23:23

Canticles 1:1

2:6 3:10

Lamentations 1:5 1:12 3:32–33

Esther Rishon

Haggai

1:8 2:14 2:14–15 4:2 5:1 9:6

208 90 215

Proverbs

163 13 163 151 163 176 163 163 163 163

2:5

Esther Sheni 1:1

1:2 1:4 2:5 2:7 3:3 6:11 7:9

1 Chronicles 3:3 14:24 16:3 20:4 20:6 20:8

2 Chronicles 2:5 6:18 18:27 32:27

176 146, 172, 179, 242 149 84 198 198 198 174 154, 172, 177, 180, 232, 242 154, 172, 180 172, 177 172, 180 154, 172, 175, 178, 180, 232 130 172, 176 175, 180 64 177 65 93 93 93 189 181, 189 156, 166 90

index of primary sources

299

Early christian literature Origen

Jerome

Ad Africanum

Epistula 57 ad Pammachium

5 11

16 16

4

15

Early jewish literature Pseudo-Philo Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum

54:3 54:4 61:5

87 63 93, 117

Rabbinic literature Mishnah Pesaim 6:1

Taanit 4:6

Megillah 4:4 4:6 4:10

Gittin 9:3

Sanhedrin 10:3

200

Avot

1:2 1:12b 2:13 3:14

191 10, 130 10 10, 39

Tamid 3:2

Yadayim

226

109 84, 136 118 48 90 79

4:5

8

3:28 3:31–41 3:41 4(3):31–38

10 10 14 39

Tosefta Terumot 7:20a

Shabbat 13:2

Megillah 3:20 3:21

112 11 10 10

Avodah Zarah 3:19

204

300

index of primary sources Palestinian Talmud

Berakhot 4:1

Terumot 8:10

Shabbat

6:1 6:4 16:1 19:1

Pesaim 36b

Sheqalim 6:2

Rosh ha-Shanah 2:6

Taanit

2:1 3:1 4:5

Megillah

79

1:1 1:8 1:14 4:2 4:11

112 153 153, 210 11 216

Ketuvot

65

Qiddushin

7:9

Sotah 7:2

3:15 61a

203, 213

Sanhedrin

83 90, 208, 214 158 191, 213

1:2 2:3 2:5 6:3 10:1 10:2

Avodah Zarah 3:2

51 9 213 127 39 153, 214 51 199 214 83 64, 154 11 153, 209 162 191 153, 213

Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 6a 6b 8ab 9b 12b 27a 28a 31b

Shabbat

8b 26a 56a 56b 115a

126 163 38 163 70 79 195, 196, 197, 198, 208, 233, 242 163 212 196 89, 226 106 11

115b 130ab

Eruvin 53b

Pesaim 66a 68a 87ab 95b

Yoma 9ab 22b 32b 77b

8 216 70 145 195, 200–201 183, 192 179 62 106 145, 195 195, 203

index of primary sources Rosh ha-Shanah 1:2 18a 22b 23a 25a

Taanit 2a 2ab 4b 26b

Megillah 3a 8b–9a 10b 12b–13a 21b 23b 25b 31a 32a

Moed Qatan 2a 26a 28b

Yevamot 49b 66b 78b 105a

Ketuvot 9ab 103b

Nedarim 38a

Sotah

37b 42b

Gittin 88b

Qiddushin 13a 49a

11 11, 82 145, 196, 204 153, 203 81 164 164 12 191 9, 33, 195, 206, 240 8 178 174 33 127 39 125 10 196 195, 205 152, 195, 206 191 152 66 82 89 205 195

72b

Baba Qamma 3b 119a

Baba Metsia 17a 61b

Baba Batra 99a 123b

Sanhedrin

19b 21a 38a 44a 63b 93a 94b 95a 103b 109b

Makkot 23b 24a

Avodah Zarah 4a 5a 11a 44a 58b

Menaot 110a

ullin 12 87, 89, 93 126 195 14

18b 66b 137b

Temurah 6b

Niddah 51b

301 195, 198, 208, 233 145, 195 66 152 169 33 168 105 64 126 152 153 175 38, 195 126, 196, 202 191 191 85 205 196 181 33 195, 196, 204 34 195, 202 195 94, 96 34 169 94, 96

302

index of primary sources Midrash (alphabetical)

Aggadat Bereshit 22:3

Canticles Rabbah 1:5 3:4

112 224, 230 218

Deuteronomy Rabbah 7:6

164

Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:5 9 9:1 9:17 9:18 11:3

Ecclesiastes Zutta 7:5

Evel Rabbati 9:2

Exodus Rabbah 31:4 31:6 31:13 31:14

Genesis Rabbah 1:1 1:5 6:2 15:1 24:1 31:8 48:8 63:14 73:4 73:7 75:5 80:1 85:14 94:9 99:3

54 112 207 54 223 223, 230 54

Lamentations Rabbah 2:5 petita 5 petita 16 petita 24

Leviticus Rabbah 4:1 6:2 9:5 19:5 19:6 20:1 22:6 23:10 26:7 30:12 31:9 33:6 34:15

213 222, 230 222, 231 221 220 220 13 220 112 207 66 219 70, 219 83 219 220 153, 220

Massekhet Soferim 205 169 169 169 169 215, 230, 234 153 179 153, 218 218, 231 153, 215, 230 79 217, 230 164 168 168 11 152, 218 112 153, 216, 230

1:9–10 9:9–10 15:2 18:5

8 39 11 33

Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Beshala petita 149 Shirta 1:1 179

Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yoai Beshala 13 Beshala 15

Midrash Psalms 7:2 18:30 19:11 59:4 60:2 78:5 87:1 113:1

Midrash Samuel 5:10 10:1 10:5

149 179

63 126 219 64 227, 230 164 230 179 147 225, 231 70

index of primary sources 11:1 14:4 14:7 20:5 21:1 23 23:5 24:1 24:5 32:3

Numbers Rabbah 4:20 5:3 8:4 10:3

63 213 92 225, 231 117 154, 210 70 219 70 112

Pesikta de-Rav Kahana 6:2 11:8 13:14 18:4 18:5 21:1 21:3 24:11 26:1

Pesikta Rabbati 1 21 32 pesikta anochi

228 228 175 230 230 228 227, 231 208 207 185 175 230 229

Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer 32

Ruth Rabbah 2:5

Ruth Zutta 1:5

Sekhel Tov

Gen 42:38

Sifra

Shemini 1:9 Shemini 3:5

Sifre Deuteronomy

305 327

70

127 93

149

Tanuma Bereshit Beshala 3 10

Emor 2

Noa 3

Tazria 9

226, 230 149 179 70 226 208

Tanuma Buber Emor 4

Metzora 10

Terumah 9

VaYera 12 35

VaYetzei 16

197 12 96

148, 205 205

Sifre Numbers

83

6

65 66 66 153, 220

303

70 87 153 112 164 164

Yalqut Shimoni Torah §136

64

304 1 Samuel §103 §114 §140

2 Samuel §141 §143 §156

Psalms §777

index of primary sources 64 81 70 64 65 127

Ruth

§600

Ecclesiastes §973 §989

1 Chronicles §1075

64

Medieval Literature Arukh

1:22 2:296 2:320 3:411 3:467 5:74 5:162 5:272 6:12 6:393–94

188 94 220 220 222 210 199 220 189 227

93 54 54 127