SAIS 011 Shinan, Kasher, Marmur, Flesher (Eds.) - Michael Klein On The Targums - Collected Essays 1972-2002 - 2011 PDF

Michael Klein on the Targums:
Collected Essays 19722002

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 Dez Merino, University of Barcelona
VOLUME 11
Michael L. Klein
Michael Klein on the Targums:
Collected Essays 19722002
Edited by
Avigdor Shinan and Rimon Kasher
with Michael Marmur and Paul V. M. Flesher
LEIDEN BOSTON
2011
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Klein, Michael L.
Michael Klein on the Targums : collected essays 19722002 / edited by Avigdor Shinan and
Rimon Kasher ; with Michael Marmur and Paul V.M. Flesher.
p. cm. (Studies in the Aramaic interpretation of Scripture ; v. 11.)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-20295-5 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. AramaicCriticism,
interpretation, etc. 2. Bible. O.T. AramaicVersions. I. Shinan, Avigdor. II. Kasher, Rimon.
III. Marmur, Michael. IV. Flesher, Paul Virgil McCracken. V. Title.
BS709.4.K56 2011
221.42dc22
2011010561
ISSN 1570-1336
ISBN 978 90 04 20295 5
Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
CONTENTS
List of Illustrations ............................................................................ vii

Foreword, Avigdor Shinan and Rimon Kasher ............................. ix
Article Credits .................................................................................... xv
SECTION I
1. The Aramaic Targumim: Translation and Interpretation ... 3

2. Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique ..................... 19
3. The Preposition ( Before): A Pseudo-Anti-
Anthropomorphism in the Targums ...................................... 41
4. Palestinian Targum and Synagogue Mosaics ........................ 49
5. The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and
Anthropopathisms in the Targumim ...................................... 59
6. Associative and Complementary Translation in the
Targumim .................................................................................... 77
SECTION II
7. A Fragment-Targum of Onqelos from the Cairo Genizah 91

8. Serugin (Shorthand) of Onqelos from the Cairo Genizah ... 97
9. New Fragments of Palestinian Targum from the Cairo
Genizah ........................................................................................ 107
10. Complementary
Fragments from the Cairo Genizah ........................................ 119
11. The Targumic Tosefta to Exodus 15:2 .................................... 133
12. New Fragments of Targum to Esther from the Cairo
Genizah ........................................................................................ 141
13. Introductory Poems (Rshuyot) to the Targum of the
Haftarah in Praise of Jonathan Ben Uzziel ........................... 167
SECTION III
14. Four Notes on the Triennial Lectionary Cycle ..................... 179

15. Not to be Translated in Public ......... 189
vi contents
16. Text and Vorlage in Neofiti 1 ................................................... 203

17. Deut 31:7: or ?......................................................... 207
18. The Notation of Paraot in MS Neofiti 1 ............................... 209
19. Notes on the Printed Edition of MS Neofiti 1 ...................... 213
20. Elias Levita and MS Neofiti 1 ................................................... 229
21. The Messiah That Leadeth Upon a Cloud, in the
Fragment-Targum to the Pentateuch? .................................... 235
22. An Updated Bibliography of Manuscripts and Editions of
Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch From the Cairo
Genizah ........................................................................................ 239
Afterword, Stefan Reif ....................................................................... 263

The Bibliography of Michael L. Klein ............................................ 267
Index of Modern Authors ................................................................ 271
Index of Scriptural References, Rabbinic Sources and
Manuscripts .................................................................................... 273
Illustrations ......................................................................................... 297
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Chapter 9
C.U.L. T-S AS 68.224r (MS E), Exod 36:813
C.U.L. T-S AS 68.224v (MS E), Exod 36:2229
C.U.L. T-S AS 68.144r (MS E), Exod 39:3240
C.U.L. T-S AS 68.144v (MS E), Exod 40:212
C.U.L. T-S B 9.11r (MS H), Gen 15:1116:16 (fragment-targum)
C.U.L. T-S AS 68.83r (MS D), Gen 37:811
C.U.L. T-S AS 68.83v (MS D), Gen 37:1314, 1617
Chapter 12
The plates are published by courtesy of the Syndics of Cambridge
University Library.
T-S B 11.52
T-S B 11.52
T-S B 12.21
T-S B 12.21
T-S B 12.21
T-S B 12.21
T-S B 11.52
T-S B 11.52
T-S B 12.32
T-S B 12.32
T-S AS 70.72
T-S AS 70.72
FOREWORD
The world of Ancient Judaism moved along several axes and within
several circles. One of the most significant was the synagogue, where
many would gatherparticularly on Sabbaths and Festivalsin order
to fulfill the religious obligations prescribed by tradition. It was in the
synagogue that they would pray and hear piyyutim (liturgical poems);
here they would hear derashot (text-based homilies); and here they
would read the sacred Scriptures, which formed the Jewish world-
view. Alongside the recitation of the Scriptures, a significant role was
given to the translation of these writings into the vernacular language
spoken by contemporary Jews, notably Greek and Aramaic. One can
hardly speak about the public reading of the Scriptures in that period
without the mediation of the translator. He transposed the words from
one language to another, and from the conceptual milieu of the Bible
to that of the Second Temple and Rabbinic periods, reflecting changes
in theology, halakhic development and socio-historical conditions.
The translations of the Hebrew Bible, and most particularly of the
Pentateuch, are some of the most significant tools available to schol-
ars seeking to provide a comprehensive and accurate cultural history
of the Jews in the centuries immediately preceding and following the
dawn of the Common Era.
Without doubt, Professor Michael Klein (New York, 1940Jerusalem,
2000) was one of the foremost twentieth-century scholars of the
targumim (Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible). His many pub-
lications earned him a place of honor among Israeli and international
experts in the field. One would be hard pressed to find a serious work
in the field which does not relate to Michaels contributions to this
rich literary world. His work was characterized by extraordinary dili-
gence, precision and attention to detail; by complete mastery of the
scholarly literature and of the various challenges presented by the tar-
gumic texts; and above all by the ability to raise new questions and
offer answers which placed the literature of the targums within the
wider context of Ancient Judaism. He saw this work not only as part
of the culture of the Synagogue, as we have described it here, but also
in the context of midrash, halakhah and aggadah.
x foreword
It appears that Michaels love of Aramaic translations of the Bible

derived from the special attraction to be found in considering the
various hermeneutical possibilities which the scholar must take into
account when considering the reasons for an ancient translator to
depart from the plain meaning of the original text. It is not surprising,
therefore, that Michael devoted most of his attention to translations
of the Pentateuch. The prevalence and variety of these translations
allow for an examination of the panoply of methods employed by the
ancient translators. These methods ranged from literal translation (of
which the classic representative, for the most part, is Targum Onkelos)
to translations adorned by numerous aggadic additions (such as the
targumim of the Land of Israel: Targum Neofiti, the Cairo Geniza
fragments, and the Fragment Targums) to periphrastic and interpre-
tive translation (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan). All these approaches are
to be found with short liturgical piyyutim interspersed among the
translations.
This variety brought Professor Klein to address the universe of tar-
gum from three different perspectives, which complement and enrich
each other as together they present a comprehensive picture:
1. Critical Scientific Editions with Commentary
In this category lie Michaels exemplary editions of the Fragmentary

Targums (1980), along with the remains of Palestinian targumim from
the Cairo Genizah (1986) and his scientific edition of the masorah
to Targum Onkelos, based on newly discovered manuscripts (2000).
Along with these publications Michael presented his colleagues in the
scholarly community with a raft of articles relating to previously un-
researched and unknown texts: Aramaic translations of passages from
the Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Megillot. Only a rare few are
prepared to devote days and nights to the preparation and publication
of texts for the benefit of scholars who will come after them. Michael
Klein was determined to fulfill this task. The world of scholarship
acknowledges the debt it owes to those who have labored to set the
foundation upon which it stands. This present volume (particularly its
second part) includes a number of these foundational studies.
foreword xi
2. Analysis of the Varieties of the Targumic Method

Applied to Different Texts
Michael Kleins Ph.D. dissertation, written for the Hebrew University

in Jerusalem and published in 1982, examines the methods employed
by the Pentateuchal targumim in the avoidance of anthropomorphism.
His innovative conclusion was that when it comes to this central ques-
tion the targumim are not consistent. Contrary to the commonly-held
conception, the texts include many literal translations which make
no attempt to avoid anthropomorphisms. The first and third sections
of the present volume contain several studies which demonstrate the
breadth of Michaels scholarship. Some of these studies focus on a par-
ticular targumic text and others relate to techniques characteristic of
this literature in general. Among them are to be found the interpreta-
tion of difficult targumic expressions; discussions of the Bible version
upon which a translation is based; examinations of the links between
targums and translation practices reflected in the world of the ancient
synagogue and archaeological evidence; explications of theological
suppositions reflected in the targums; and extensive treatments of the
history of the targumim, with particular emphasis on Targum Neofiti
(which entered scholarly consciousness during the second half of the
twentieth century). In all these articles, Michaels erudition, careful
judgment in drawing conclusions, and innovative capacity are appar-
ent. Thanks to Michael Klein, these qualities were put to the service of
targum scholarship, which advanced significantly as a result.
3. Bibliographical Studies
Kleins diligent work with manuscripts led him to publish a number of

studies whose purpose was to catalogue and describe manuscripts, such
as the detailed catalogue of the targum manuscripts in the Cambridge
University Genizah collections (1992), and the list of the Aramaic tar-
gum manuscripts in the St. Petersburg (formerly Leningrad) Library
(1989). Here too it is important to note that only a few scholars are
willing to give of their talents and their time in order to provide
such an important bibliographical foundation. In this regard too, the
scholarship of the Aramaic translations would not have been able to
advance on a secure footing without Michaels devoted, rigorous and
xii foreword
precise work, all of which was executed with equal amounts of exper-
tise and love.
Taken together, these three fields point to a comprehensive and sys-
tematic scholarly project, multi-layered in nature and wide-ranging in
scope. Such indeed was the scholarship of Michael Klein.
The idea to publish a collection of Michaels articles was his own.
In the last years of his life, in the midst of his battle with illness, he
devoted all his available energy to the creation of this collection and to
the completion and updating of various articles in light of changes and
developments since their publication. To our great regret, Michael was
taken from us while this work was still incomplete. Our great sense of
loss and our wish to provide a fitting testament to Professor Klein by
carrying out his wish to publish a collection of his articles motivated
a number of individuals to lend their efforts to the production of this
work, even if not precisely according to the contours envisaged by
Michael Klein.
Michaels widow, Mrs. Shoshi Klein, was one of the main forces
motivating the publication of this work, despite the fact that she has
had to undergo a very difficult period in her life and that of her fam-
ily. Michael Marmur, who succeeded Michael Klein as Dean of the
Hebrew Union CollegeJewish Institute of Religion, and Paul V. M.
Flesher of the University of Wyoming, both provided material sup-
port, encouragement, advice and direction.
We two editors took this task upon ourselves willingly as an expres-
sion of thanks to a colleague thanks to whom we too, like several
other colleagues, are able to pursue our own research. Despite the fact
that Michael had hoped to publish a more comprehensive collection
including some fifty studies, we have included twenty-two articles. In
our opinion, these articles represent well the various areas in which
Michael made a significant contribution to targum scholarship.
Readers may of course wish to consult Michaels other works, many
of which can be easily located, thanks to the proliferation of databases
of various kinds. It appears that the division of the book into three
parts reflects Michaels wishes.
This book should have appeared some years ago, but the incomplete
state of the manuscript material presented a number of difficulties.
After much delay and various unsuccessful attempts to complete the
articles in the spirit of Michaels work, it was decided to publish the
articles in their original state, and not in the semi-revised condition
in which they were left at the time of Michaels death. Ms. Tali Shach
foreword xiii
and later Ms. Sara Meirowitz worked diligently on these manuscripts,

and it is also due to them that this book now sees the light of day. The
continued interest of Brill in this project, despite its many delays, is
a testament both to the quality of Michaels work and the loyalty and
faithfulness of a great publishing house.
Professor Michael Klein was a colleague, an important and highly
valued scholar, and a wonderful man of great integrity. It is our heart-
felt hope that the appearance of this volume in some sense fulfills his
dying wish, just as it provides a new generation of targum scholars
with a selection of articles whose relevance has not dimmed and whose
importance has not diminished.
Avigdor Shinan, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Rimon Kasher, Bar Ilan University
ARTICLE CREDITS
All chapters have been previously published, in the following pub-

lications:
1. Michael L. Klein, The Aramaic Targumim: Translation and

Interpretation. In The Interpretation of the Bible: The International
Symposium in Slovenia, ed. Joe Kraovec, pp. 31731. Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 289. Ljubljana
& Sheffield: SAZU & Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
2. Michael L. Klein, Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique.
Biblica 57:4 (1976): pp. 51537.
3. Michael L. Klein, The Preposition ( Before): A Pseudo-Anti-
Anthropomorphism in the Targums. The Journal of Theological
Studies (New Series) 30:2 (1979): pp. 5027.
4. Michael L. Klein, Palestinian Targum and Synagogue Mosaics.
Immanuel 11 (1980): pp. 3345.
5. Michael L. Klein, The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and
Anthropopathisms in the Targumim. In Congress Volume
Vienna 1980, ed. J. A. Emerton, pp. 16277. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
6. Michael L. Klein, Associative and Complementary Translation
in the Targumim. In Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical, and
Geographical Studies: H. M. Orlinsky Volume, Vol. 16, ed. Baruch
A. Levine, and Abraham Malamat, pp. 13440. Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society, 1982.
7. Michael L. Klein, A Fragment-Targum of Onqelos from the
Cairo Genizah. In Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical,
Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield,
ed. Ziony Zevit, Seymour Gitin, and Michael Sokoloff, pp. 1015.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995.
8. Michael L. Klein, Serugin (Shorthand) of Onqelos from the Cairo
Genizah. Maarav, Vol. 8 (1992): pp. 27587.
9. Michael L. Klein, New Fragments of Palestinian Targum From
the Cairo Genizah. Sefarad 49:1 (1989), pp. 12333.
10. Michael L. Klein, Complementary
Fragments from the Cairo Genizah. In Texts, Temples, and
Traditions: A Tribute to Menachem Haran, ed. Michael V. Fox,
xvi article credits
Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Michael L. Klein, Baruch J.

Schwartz, and Nili Shupak, pp. 95*105* (Hebrew). Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996.
11. Michael L. Klein, The Targumic Tosefta to Exodus 15:2. Journal
of Jewish Studies 26:12 (1975): pp. 6167.
12. Rimon Kasher and Michael L. Klein, New Fragments of Targum
to Esther from the Cairo Genizah. Hebrew Union College Annual
61 (1990): pp. 89124.
13. Michael L. Klein, Introductory Poems (Rshyuot) to the Targum
of the Haftarah in Praise of Jonathan Ben Uzziel. In Bits of Honey:
Essays for Samson H. Levey, ed. S. F. Chyet and D. H. Ellenson, pp.
4356. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 74. Atlanta,
GA: Scholars Press, 1993.
14. Michael L. Klein, Four Notes on the Triennial Lecture Cycle.
Journal of Jewish Studies 32:1 (1987): pp. 6573.
15. Michael L. Klein, Not to be Translated in Public
. Journal of Jewish Studies 39:1 (1988): pp. 8091.
16. Michael L. Klein, Text and Vorlage in Neofiti 1. Vetus
Testamentum 22 (1972): pp. 49091.
17. Michael L. Klein, Deut 31:7: or ?Journal of Biblical
Literature, 92:4 (1973): pp. 58485.
18. Michael L. Klein, The Notation of Paraot in MS Neofiti 1.
Textus Annual 8 (1973): pp. 17577.
19. Michael L. Klein, Notes on the Printed Edition of MS Neofiti I.
Journal of Semitic Studies 19:2 (1974): pp. 21630.
20. Michael L. Klein, Elias Levita and MS Neofiti I. Biblica 56:2
(1975): pp. 24246.
21. Michael L. Klein, The Messiah That Leadeth Upon a Cloud, in
the Fragment-Targum to the Pentateuch? Journal of Theological
Studies (New Series) 29:1 (1978): pp. 13739.
22. Michael L. Klein, An Updated Bibliography of Manuscripts and
Editions of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. Hebrew Union
College Annual 7071 (19992000): pp. 16781.
SECTION I
CHAPTER ONE
THE ARAMAIC TARGUMIM:

TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION
It is well known, and no doubt in the course of the present Symposium,

our contemporary Slovenian translators of the Bible will attest to it,
that a translation is perforce an interpretation of the original work.
This is a timeless and universal truth, which scholars of ancient, as well
as modern, Bible translations have come to recognize as axiomatic.
And yet, analysis of the various translations and the study of the
interpretations that they reflect remain fascinating subjects. That is
because no two independent translations of the same text are ever the
sameexcept in the miraculous legend of the origins of the Septuagint,
as told in the rabbinic version of the Letter of Aristeas. There, seventy-
two elders, isolated from one another, produced literally the same
Greek translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch.1 Moreover, according to
that story, they all introduced the same intentional changes into the
text, for the sake of clarification or out of deference to King Ptolmey.
The ancient Aramaic targumim to the Hebrew Bible are no excep-
tion to the general rule. They display, in varying degrees, interpretative
translations which range from the alteration of a single letter to the
addition of lengthy midrashic passages. It will be the purpose of this
paper to survey the motivation of the meturgemanim, the targumic
translators, in altering the original biblical text, while translating it
from Hebrew into Aramaic, as well as to analyze some of the tech-
niques that they employed to that end.
We will draw most of our examples from the more expansive
Palestinian targumim to the Pentateuch, which display a very rich
admixture of literal translation and interpretative paraphrase. However,
we shall not ignore the more literal targum of Onqelos, and we will
even have the occasion to refer to the Masorah to Onqelos, which
instructs the meturgeman on required deviations from the literal ren-
dition of certain verses, during the public reading of the Torah in the
synagogue.
1
b. Megillah 9ab.
4 chapter one
Inasmuch as the Pentateuch was considered a sacred text of divine

origin, it is indeed amazing that the meturgemanim, with the approval
of the rabbis, were bold enough to tamper with its text and to alter
its wording at all. We would be justified in assuming that only under
compelling circumstances was such re-writing or interpretation of
Scripture undertaken. That circumstance seems to have been the con-
ceived danger of misinterpretation on the part of the listeners. Some
rabbinic traditions record important precedents, according to which
the Hebrew biblical text itself had undergone changes called
( amendments of the scribes), in order to protect the dignity
and the integrity of the holy script.2 Moreover, the translators of the
Septuagint had been praised by the rabbis for the textual changes that
they introduced.
The tension between preserving the infallible divine text and con-
veying its true message in another language is reflected in the famous
Talmudic statement
He who translates a verse literally is a liar; but
he who adds to it is a blasphemer.3 It must have been an arduous task
for the meturgeman to walk the middle golden path. And as is now
evident from the multiplicity of extant targumim, no general consen-
sus was ever reached by the rabbis or by the translators.
One of the earliest scholars in recent times to study the subject was
S. D. Luzzatto, in his masterly analysis of Targum Onqelos, titled Ohev
Ger, over a century and a half ago.4 Luzzatto listed some thirty-two
categories of changes that Onqelos introduced into the text of the
Pentateuch. And while the modern scholar cannot adopt Luzzattos
full taxonomy of paraphrastic translation, the single most salient cat-
egory that he presents in its many different forms constitutes the first
and major theological category for us as well, namely, passages directly
related to the Deity. This includes biblical descriptions of the physical
nature and form of God; human actions, motions and emotions attrib-
uted to God in the Hebrew Bible; and verses which describe direct
relationships and interactions between human beings and God.
2
See S. Lieberman, Corrections of the Soferim, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine
(Texts and Studies XVIII: New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962), pp. 2837.
3
b. Kiddushin 49a; t. Megillah 4(3):41.
4
[ Philoxenus] (Vienna, 1830; Cracow, 1895; reprinted: Jerusalem: Makor,
1969).
the aramaic targumim 5
Early studies after Luzzatto tended towards generalization, stat-

ing that the targumim remove or ameliorate all anthropomorphic or
anthropopathic descriptions of God. This seemed to suit a general
theory that as Jewish theology became more refined, whether under
Hellenistic influence or due to internal development, and concepts
of the Deity became more sophisticated, the more primitive human
descriptions were eliminated.
However, subsequent twentieth-century studies have shown that
whereas manyindeed mostof the anthropomorphic and anthro-
popathic descriptions of God have been altered in the Aramaic trans-
lations, many others have been translated quite literally.5 If indeed the
descriptions of God as possessed of a human-like body; or the attribu-
tion to God of human emotions such as anger and joy, jealousy and
remorse; or Gods motion and physical removal from one place to
another, had become theologically objectionable by the period of tar-
gumic activity, how, then, could many blatant examples of anthropo-
morphisms and anthropopathisms have survived in the various extant
targumim?
Moreover, the earliest surviving targum manuscripts from Qumran
are likely to have been copied in the mid-second century B.C.E., not
distant in time from the assumed date of composition of the Book
of Daniel. And it is in that book, which is ascribed to the Hellenistic
period, that the Ancient of Days is depicted as taking His seat, His
garment like white snow, and the hair of His head like lambs wool
(Dan 7:9). It seems that, even in this relatively late period, we must
allow for allegorical interpretation of anthropomorphisms, alongside
the required paraphrastic transformation of other theologically offen-
sive or doctrinally dangerous biblical verses. The following are sev-
eral examples that will serve to demonstrate these somewhat abstract
principles.
In Deut 11:12, all of the targumim translate literally the phrase the
eyes of the Lord God are upon the land. In Exod 31:18 and Deut 9:10,
the targumim have no difficulty rendering literally the statement that
5
Cf. M. L. Klein, The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms
in the Targumim, Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
32; Leiden: Brill, 1981), pp. 16277 [ch. 5 in the present volume]; idem,
[ Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the
Targumim of the Pentateuch] (Jerusalem: Makor, 1982).
6 chapter one
the tablets were written by the finger of God.6 Likewise, the phrase
beneath His feet, in Exod 24:10, is translated in the Palestinian tar-
gumim by the no less anthropomorphic phrase, beneath the foot-
stool of His feet. And a final example from amongst many, in Exod
15:17, the sanctuary, O Lord, which Your hands established is ampli-
fied in most of the targumim to which Your two hands established.
Clearly, the targumim are not deterred by the metaphorical attribution
of human parts to the Deity.
Similarly, there are enough instances in the various targumim to
the Pentateuch to indicate that the meturgemanim were not entirely
adverse to the application of verbs of cognition, emotion, transposi-
tion, etc. to God. Examples abound in all of the targumim of Gods
hearing, seeing, or knowing, in the sense of acquiring information,
that are rendered literally.7 In the Palestinian targumim to Deut 31:29
and 32:16, 19, 21, we find humans enraging God; and in verses 16 and
21, they provoke jealousy in Him. Moreover, there are quite a few
instances of the retention of verbs of motion and transposition of God
in the various targumim. In Exod 33:22, we find until I have passed
in Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan. According to Onqelos and Neofiti
to Gen 46:4, God will descend to Egypt with Jacob, just as in Pseudo-
Jonathan to Gen 11:7, God descends to confound the language of
the builders of the tower of Babel. In Neofiti to Gen 28:13, we find
the Lord standing beside (lit. above/upon) Jacob, just as God
literally stands before [Moses] on the rock at Horeb, according to
Onqelos at Exod 17:6.8
Having reviewed a representative mass of examples of surviving
anthropomorphisms in the targumim, and having ruled out their
avoidance per se as a major cause of paraphrastic translation in the tar-
gumim, we must seek that cause elsewhere. One of the central themes
of the Hebrew Bible is the human search for spirit and for divine rev-
6
Neofiti . . . by a mighty finger from before God. However, as demonstrated else-
where, the addition of the prepositional phrase ( from before) does not nec-
essarily reflect the avoidance of anthropomorphisms. Cf. M. L. Klein, The Preposition
( Before): A Pseudo-Anti-Anthropomorphism in the Targums, Journal of
Theological Studies 30 (1979), pp. 5027 [ch. 3 in the present volume].
7
Cf. M. L. Klein, . . . , pp. 9399.
8
With slight variation in Pseudo-Jonathan, which, if at all, amplifies the anthro-
pomorphic description behold
I will stand before you, at the place where you will see the footprintpresumably
Gods footprint!
elation. It is, therefore, not at all surprising that no fewer than nine dis-
tinct Hebrew verbs in the divine context are translated by the Aramaic
verb revealor rather by the passive was revealed.
The most natural site of this translation is the Sinai theophany
in Exod 19:20, where the phrase the Lord came down ( )upon
Mount Sinai is translated in all of the targumim was revealed ()
upon Mount Sinai.9 So also, the verb ( root )came/hap-
pened/chanced upon in Exod 3:18, is translated the Lord, God of
the Hebrews, was revealed ( )upon us.10 Likewise, the verb
has come in Exod 20:20(17) is translated in all of the tar-
gumim. As is to be expected, such verbs as , and
(was seen, appeared and made Myself known) which all have
the sense of Gods revealing to man some divine aspect of Himself,
are translated by in the Aramaic. The call Rise up (), O
Lord, and let Your enemies be scattered, in Num 10:35, is rendered
Reveal Yourself in Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan. And finally, Gods
going forth ( ) and His passing through ( )the land of
Egypt, in Exod 11:4; 12:12, are understood by almost all of the targu-
mim as God revealing Himself in order to mete out retribution upon
the Egyptians.
This lengthy and detailed listing will serve to illustrate how the tech-
nique of translational convergence is applied by the meturgemanim in
order to emphasize Gods ubiquitous revelation in the world. In this
admittedly radical case, nine distinct Hebrew roots are made to con-
verge into a single theologically instructive root in the Aramaic target
language.
The reverse technique of translational divergence is also employed
by the meturgemanim for interpretational purposes. An outstanding
example of this phenomenon is the translation of the verb
bowed down/prostrated himself.11 And this, coincidentally, reflects
9
The addition of or in the Palestinian targumim (except
Pseudo-Jonathan) is not relevant to the translation of the verb by . In fact,
once the verb of motion has been replaced by the innocuous verb of revelation, the
need to substitute appellations for the divine name is obviated.
10
This is to be contrasted with Num 23:4, , where the revela-
tionary nature of the meeting is minimized by employing the literal translation /
or .
11
Cf. M. L. Klein, . . . , (1982), pp. 15155. See also D. M. Golomb, The
Targumic Renderings of the Verb lehitahwt: A Targumic Translation Convention,
Working with No Data: Semitic and Egyptian Studies, Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin
(ed. D. M. Golomb; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987), pp. 10518. However,
8 chapter one
the second major category of translational paraphrasis as described by

Luzzatto, namely, protection of the honor of the patriarchs and the
enhancement of their piety.
The Genesis narratives abound with examples of the patriarchs
bowing down and prostrating themselves before human beings. This
ancient form of greeting or obeisance was a totally innocuous social
custom in its original Hebrew context. In the course of centuries,
with the change in social mores, and perhaps under the influence of
the Book of Esther, where great emphasis is placed upon Mordecais
refusal to bow down to Haman (Esth 3:16), it became unacceptable
for the righteous forefathers of the nation to have prostrated them-
selves before fellow human beings. Kneeling and bowing in Judaism
had become restricted to the rituals of the Temple and synagogue.
Therefore, the meturgemanim felt it necessary to re-interpret the
verb in its various contexts. Thus in Neofiti to Gen 18:1,
Abraham does not bow to the ground before the three men (= angels
in disguise), but rather he inquired of
their welfare in the custom of the land. Likewise, Lot before the two
angels in Gen 19:1; Abraham before the sons of Heth in Gen 23:7;
Jacob upon meeting his brother Esau in Gen 33:3; etc. Moreover, in
Josephs dream and Jacobs rebuke (Gen 37:7, 9, 10), his brothers
sheaves do not bow down to his sheaf, nor do the heavenly bodies, his
parents and his brothers, bow down to him. Instead, Neofiti describes
them all as inquiring of his welfare () .
Likewise, it was unseemly that the patriarchs should be the object
of the kneeling, in a manner suggesting their being worshipped. In
Exod 11:8, when Moses tells Pharaoh, your servants will come . . . and
bow down to me, Neofiti once again interprets the objectionable
phrase will inquire of my welfare. In this instance, even Onqelos
and Pseudo-Jonathan translate with interpretive
and will beg of me.12 Similarly, in Isaacs blessing of Jacob (Gen
27:29a) let nations bow down to you is translated
Golomb places inordinate emphasis on the presence or absence of the adverbial

appendage , which makes no sense once is translated to greet. Since,
as a rule, all Hebrew elements are represented even in the most paraphrasic targumim,
the ingenious solution of was employed, where appropriate.
12
This is the explanation that underlies the note in the Masorah to Onqelos at Exod
11:8, . Cf. G. E. Weil, Second Fragment dune Massorah alpha-
betique du Targum babylonien du Pentateuque [6], (Concordance des Paraphrases
Hapax a ou Faibles Occurrences), Textus 13 (1986), 12.
in Neofiti by yet another interpretative phrase

kingdoms will be subjected unto you.
Another paraphrastic translation in Neofiti of the verb
is the Aramaic doublet gave thanks and praise. In the
Hebrew Bible, when Josephs brothers appear before him, they bow
down to him several times. In the Aramaic targumim, however, only
upon their entering Josephs presence (Gen 42:6 and 43:26) is
translated ; 13 but having once greeted him at the beginning
of their audience, the next occurrence (43:28) is translated
as an expression of appreciation.
Finally, to complete this brief demonstration of translational diver-
gence, in a context of Divine worship, when Abraham tells his two
lads, we shall bow down and then return
to you (Gen 22:5), it is rendered in Neofiti we shall pray. In
contrast to all of the above, the Aramaic root is reserved almost
exclusively in Neofiti for idolatrous contexts, e.g., the prohibition of
bowing down to graven images in the Second Commandment (Exod
20:5 = Deut 5:9); kneeling on figured stones (Lev 26:1); bowing down
to the god(s) of the daughters of Moab (Num 25:2); and the admoni-
tions against idol worship (Deut 30:17).14
A third targumic technique that was employed by the meturgeman
to safeguard the faith and to glorify biblical figures and protect them
from public shame is that of converse translation.15 In these instances
the Aramaic targum produces the very opposite of the simple sense of
the Hebrew verse. This targumic phenomenon was already noted by the
Renaissance Jewish scholar, Elias Levita.16 The following are several
examples:
13
Cf. Neofiti Gen 44:14 is also translated
. But contrast Gen 50:18 , where the brothers are begging for their
lives, which is translated literally ( Neofiti marginal gloss:
[= ]leaned/fell upon [his neck]).
14
Yet another Aramaic verb occasionally utilized by Neofiti for the translation of
is which is the more common translation of the Hebrew
. This verb seems to serve mutually contrastive contexts, e.g., idolatry (Deut 29:25);
Balaam before God (Num 24:4, 16; Heb. ;)the Israelites or Moses and Aaron
before God (Lev 9:24; Num 16:4; 20:6; also Heb. ).
15
See M. L. Klein, Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique, Biblica 57
(1976), pp. 51537 [ch 2 in the present volume].
16
Lexicon Chaldaicum, (Isny, 1541; photo-reproduced Tel Aviv, 1966(?);
no publisher noted). Towards the end of his Hebrew Introduction (no pagination),
Levita writes: .
10 chapter one
In Gen 4:14, Cain exclaims:

Behold, You have driven me out this day from the face of the
land, and from Your face I shall be hidden. However, all of the tar-
gumim present an opposite, theologically corrected version,
][ but from before You [O, Lord,] it is impos-
sible to be hidden.
Another celebrated example is found in a number of early manuscrip-
tal and printed sources of Onqelos. In Gen 5:24, it is told,
Enoch walked with God,
and he was no more, for God took him. The Onqelos sources render
and he still is, for God did not put him to
death. The explanation for this converse translation is reflected in the
Pseudo-Jonathan targum,
' and he
was no longer with the inhabitants of the earth, for he was removed
and he ascended to heaven by a command [lit.: word] from before
God, and he was named Metatron, the Great Scribe.
The exegetical basis for this departure from the simple sense of the
text is, of course, the unusual Hebrew expression for Enochs death
instead of the standard that is employed for all the other
primeval generations. The interpretation is in consonance with the
ancient tradition of 2 Enoch 16:6; 18:13, where he is depicted as a
scribe and as having been swept up to heaven alive by angels. But
strangely enough, it is not in agreement with early midrashic litera-
tureonly with late medieval traditions.
One last example of a converse translation that is introduced to
protect the honor of Israel is found in Exod 17:11, in the story of the
battle between Israel and Amalek. According to the Hebrew text, when
Moses let down his tiring hands, Amalek prevailed over Israel. It must
have been considered embarrassing in the synagogue to attribute even
a momentary victory to Amalek over Israel. The Masorah to Onqelos,
therefore instructs the meturgeman [ ],[ ]
.17 In the public reading, the text is to be altered from
Amalek was victorious to Amalek was broken/smashed.
This converse translation is effected by the mere deletion of a single
letter!
17
A. Berliner, Die Massorah zum Targum Onkelos (2nd [expanded] ed.; Leipzig,
1877), p. 82; G. E. Weil, La Massorah Magna du Targum du Pentateuch: Noveaux
fragments et autres, Textus 4 (1964), pp. 3334.
We might note here the distinction made in the Masorah between

the written or studied targum ( )and the publicly recited (
). The former may express the accurate and literal translation
of the verse, while the latter is the politically correct translation, to
use a modern term. This will explain why some of the finest medi-
eval codices of Onqelos, such as Ms. Vatican Ebr. 448, include the full
Aramaic version of the forbidden targumim in the body of the text,
accompanied by an interlinear or marginal note
not to be translated in public.18
A less drastic paraphrastic alteration of an embarrassing text may
be found in all of the targumim to Gen 27:35. In the Hebrew ver-
sion, Isaac tells Esau, your brother
came with guile and took away your blessing. It would, however, be
unseemly to attribute deceit or guile to the patriarch Jacob. Instead,
the Aramaic versions produce [ ] your
brother came with wisdom or with cleverness.19
As we have just seen, the targumim make it their purpose to protect
the true faith and to emphasize the righteousness of the patriarchs
and other positive biblical figures. On the other hand, they enter a
polemical and denigrating mode when relating to pagan worship
or negative figures. Whereas the Hebrew Bible employs the generic
for both the God of Israel and foreign gods , or
for more specifically national gods , the targumim refuse
to use the cognate for pagan gods, which might imply their
being possessed of some divine or superior quality. Instead the targu-
mim most frequently refer to the foreign gods by the derogatory term
error, the errors of the nations, or
the error of the Egyptians.
A similar distinction is made by the targumim between Israelite
priests and their pagan counterparts ( Gen 47:22, 26).
These indeed are additional examples of translational divergence in
the targumim. The Hebrew Bible refers to each group by the same
terms or , whereas the targumim divide them into two
pairs of translations / and /.
18
See, e.g., M. L. Klein, Not to be Translated in Public , JJS
39 (1988), pp. 8091 [ch 15 in the present volume].
19
Cf. the Masorah to Gen 27:35, which lists two instances of the translation, the
present verse and Gen 34:13 ( A. Berliner, Die Massorah . . ., p. 24).
12 chapter one
The same distinction between the God of Israel and other gods
underlies the targumic resolution of the rhetorical question in Exod
15:11, Who is like unto You, among the gods/
mighty, O Lord? which is translated in Onqelos
There is none but You, You are the God, O Lord. This
paraphrase leaves no room for theological errorthere are no lesser
gods and there is no basis for dangerous comparisons.
The targumim diverge from the literal sense of the biblical text in
poetic and prophetic passages that lend themselves to eschatologi-
cal and messianic interpretations.20 In Jacobs blessing of Judah (Gen
49:10) the Hebrew text reads . . . ,
which would seem to literally mean The scepter shall not part from
Judah . . . until he comes to Shiloh. All of the targumim interpret
as a reference to the Messiah, i.e., until Shiloh comes. For example,
Neofiti and the Fragment-Targum (Ms. Vatican Ebr. 440) offer
until the time of arrival of
the King Messiah, unto whom is the kingdom.
Another eschatological interpretation is found in the targumic
toseftot (expansive supplementary passages) to Jacobs blessing of Dan
(Gen 49:18). Here the Hebrew text mentions deliverance, almost elicit-
ing the midrashic interpretation: I wait for Your
deliverance, O Lord. The toseftot, following the Palestinian targumim,
provide lengthy paraphrases, concluding with
rather [I wait] for the deliverance of
the King Messiah, which is an eternal deliverance, or
but rather for the
deliverance of the Messiah, son of David, that He will bring for His
people Israel.21
The last example of eschatological interpretation is from the
Palestinian targumim to Exod 12:42,
It
was a night of vigil to bring them out of Egypt; that same night is the
20
For a broad collection of these verses, see S. H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic
Interpretaion; The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union
College Press, 1974).
21
M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch
(Cincinatti: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986), Vol. 1, p. 171. See, also, idem,
Targumic Toseftot from the Cairo Genizah, Salvacion en la Palabra: Targum,
Derash, Berith: En memoria del Profesor Alejandro Dez Macho (ed. D. Muoz Len;
Madrid: Edicines Cristiandad 1986), [pp. 41718].
Lords, one of vigil for all the children of Israel throughout the genera-
tions. In the Palestinian targumim the night of the Exodus becomes
the archetype and the calendrical date for four nights of divine vigil
and deliverance in the history of Israel: 1. the eve of Creation (Gen
1:2); 2. the eve of the Covenant of the Pieces (Gen 15:12) comple-
mented by the binding of Isaac (Gen 22); 3. the eve of the Exodus
from Egypt (Exod 12:42); and 4. the eve of the messianic deliverance
in the End of Days.22
This last fourth night is described as follows:

'
[' ][ ] . . .
The fourth night will occur when the world reaches its fixed time to
be redeemed; the iron yokes will be broken and the evil doers will be
destroyed; Moses will go forth from the wilderness and the King Messiah
will go forth from Rome; this one will lead at the head of the flock, and
that one will lead at the head of the flock, and the memra (word) of
the Lord will lead among both of them; [and I] and they will proceed
together; [that is the eve of Passover before the Lord] . . .23
As is well known, the Torah was considered the basis of instruction as
well as the source of authority for the halakhah, the mandatory Jewish
way of life. The Aramaic targum was the medium through which pre-
sumably large segments of the community received that instruction. It
is, therefore, reasonable to expect that the meturgeman would adjust
his rendition of the Torah to accommodate prevailing rabbinic views
of the halakhah.
One extraordinary example of targumic paraphrase that is halakhi-
cally motivated is the translation in Onqelos of the phrase
you shall not boil a kid in its mothers milk as
you shall not eat meat in milk. This reflects the rabbinic
22
For a thorough analysis of this passage and the parallel literature, see R. Le Daut,
La Nuit Pascale. AnBi 22 (Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1963).
23
According to Ms. Paris Hbr. 110, ed. M. L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the
Pentateuch (Analecta Biblica 76; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), Vol. 1, pp. 7980.
Its displacement to Exod 15:18, in this manuscript, is possibly for the sake of inclusion
in the Passover liturgy; cf. A. Shinan [ The Biblical Story
as Reflected in its Aramaic Translations] (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1993),
pp. 11720. All of the Palestinian targumim share the same basic text with minor
variations, including censorship to the allusion to Rome and the bracketed phrases.
14 chapter one
interpretation of the biblical triplicate of this prohibition (Exod 23:19;

34:26 and Deut 14:21), namely, not to cook any mixture of meat and
milk, nor to eat, nor to derive any benefit from the cooked mixture.24
The Palestinian targumim are even more explicit and expansive.
The simple command you shall not boil a kid in its mothers milk
has been transformed into a tripartite legal exposition: 1. a hortatory
opening, reflecting the synagogal Sitz im Leben of these targumim,
O My people, My people, House of Israel; 2. the
rabbinic interpretation of the law, extending the forbidden activity to
include eating, and the forbidden mixture to any meat and milknot
merely of the kid and its mothers milk,
you are not permitted
either to cook or to eat meat and milk, both mixed together; and
3. a threat of punishmentmeasure for measure,

lest My wrath rage against you, and I cook [= scorch] your har-
vest while heaped on the threshing floor, the grain and chaff together
as one.25
Another no less outstanding example of halakhic influence upon
the targumim is the calendrical interpretation of Lev 23:11, 15. The
phrase the morrow after the sabbath is translated
after the festival day in Onqelos, and more explic-
itly in the Palestinian targumim,
after the first day of the Passover festival. As is well known, this is
in accord with the Pharisaic ritual calendar and contrary to that of
other sects (Sadducees, Essenes?) who held that the sheaf offering and
the beginning of the counting of seven weeks took place on the first
Sunday after Passoverliterally the morrow after the Sabbath.
There are also, though admittedly less frequent, targumic pas-
sages that provide halakhic justification and accommodation to con-
temporary realities of Jewish communal life. A case in point is Lev
26:1, where the Hebrew Bible forbids the placement of figured stones
for the purpose of kneeling upon in worship. This verse
24
Cf. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (ed. J. Z. Lauterbach; Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society 1935, reprint 1976), Vol. 3, p. 188; and m. H ullin 8:4. Contrast also
the explicit massoretic note to Onqelos, ( ' ' ' Exod 23:19);
( Exod 34:26); ( Deut 14:21); see A. Berliner, Die Massorah . . ., p. 39.
25
According to MS Paris 110, ed. M. L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums . . ., Vol. 1,
p. 86. Similar versions appear in the Palestinian targumim of Neofiti, MS Vatican 440
of the Fragment-Targum (Exod 34:26) and in Pseudo-Jonathan.
seems to have become distressing during the late Roman or Byzantine

period, when many of the synagogue floors in the land of Israel were
decorated with stone mosaics depicting human and animal figures,
personifications of the zodiac and the four seasons, Helios in the sun
chariot (e.g., Beit Alpha and Hamat at Tiberias), and biblical scenes,
such as Abraham and the binding of Isaac (Beit Alpha) or King David
as Orpheus (Gaza).
The Pseudo-Jonathan targum, therefore, saw it necessary to add a
comforting halakhic addition to the literal translation of the verse:
you shall not place a figured
stone in your land to kneel upon. Here the meturgeman adds

however, you may place a stoa (= mosaic pavement?) impressed with
figures and images in the floor of your sanctuariesprovided you do
not kneel to them. Since the figures in the floors were not the objects
of worship, they were not considered to be in violation of the Levitical
code. In fact, there exist similar rabbinic statements allowing frescos to
be painted on synagogue walls.26
As the subtitle of this paper indicates and as we have just demon-
strated, the targum of even a single word in the Hebrew Bible may
reflect an inextricable combination of both translation and interpreta-
tion. On the one hand, the underlying motivation for digression from
the purely mechanical or literal rendition of a verse may be theologi-
cal, doctrinal or legalistic, but on the other hand, it may be the simple
desire to convey to the listener/reader the essential meaning of the
biblical text in the contemporary idiom of the target language. The
following several examples will serve to illustrate this principle:
Upon discovering that Rebecca was Isaacs wife and not his sister,
Abimelech warns his people anyone
who touches this man or his wife shall be put to death (Gen 26:11).
Neofiti translates the verb literally ; Pseudo-Jonathan
adds a modifier for clarification anyone who touches for
26
E.g., y. Avodah Zarah 42d, according to Cairo Genizah manuscripts published
by J. N. Epstein, [ Additional Fragments of the Jerushalmi],
Tarbiz 3 (19311932), p. 20. See also M. L. Klein, Palestinian Targum and Synagogue
Mosaics, Immanuel 11 (Fall, 1980), pp. 4045 [ch. 4 in the present volume]. Unlike
the strange use of the term stoa in Pseudo-Jonathan, the talmudic passage uses the
familiar term for mosaic, (), borrowed from the Greek.
16 chapter one
evil [purpose]; and Onqelos replaces the verb with , achieving

the essential meaning anyone who harms this man or his wife.
In Gen 12:5, Abraham and Sarah depart for Canaan
with the souls they had acquired, but literally, with the
souls that they had made. This was understood by the targumim and
the midrashim to mean with the souls they had proselytized. Thus
Onqelos renders: with the souls that
they had subjugated to the Torah; and the more explicit Palestinian
targumim, that they converted.
The common Hebrew verb is most frequently translated by the
Aramaic cognate . In Gen 42:23, Josephs brothers speak among
themselves in their native tongue, unaware that he understands them,
since there is a translator mediating between them,
. Here the Palestinian Fragment-Targum (MS Paris 110)
reads and
they were not aware that Joseph understood the language of the holy
temple, i.e., Hebrew, which the rabbis presumed to be the vernacular
of the patriarchs.27
Another more frequent meaning of the Hebrew verb is accept
or agree. Accordingly, the Masorah to Onqelos lists ten instances
where is translated by the Aramaic root .28 For example, in
Exod 18:24, Moses did not merely hear the advice of Jethro, but he
accepted it. This is not unlike the modern English translations which
employ verbs such as hearkened to or heeded.
The last translational characteristic of the targumim that is worthy
of mention in the framework of this brief survey is the translation
of toponyms and gentilic names. The simple approach to such words
would be to reproduce them literally, or in transliteration if the target
language uses a different alphabet. However, since the purpose of the
targum was to make the Bible intelligible to the congregation hundreds
of years after its composition, it was only reasonable that geographi-
cal and gentilic names be updated in the process of translation. This
approach was adopted at least in part by the Palestinian targumim.
In Gen 47:11, Joseph settles his family in the city or region of
Raamses, which the Palestinian targumim identify as Pelusium. Like-
wise, in Exod 1:11, the two store-cities built by the Israelites, Pithom and
27
Ed. M. L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums . . ., Vol. 1, p. 63.
28
A. Berliner, Die Massorah . . ., pp. 1516, at Gen 16:2.
Raamses are translated Tanis and Pelusium. The river of Egypt

in the boundaries of the promised land (Gen 15:18) is rendered
the Nile of Egypt in Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan. And
one example from among many in the cryptic prophesy of Balaam, in
Num 24:24, Ships shall come from the coast of Kittim
is translated Great
masses will go forth in warships from the province of Italy.29
In the preceding survey, we have presented a sampling of the many
translational techniques employed by the targumim, when they depart
from the literal one-to-one translation of the biblical text. We have
demonstrated how a single Hebrew lexeme may be rendered in quite
a number of different translations or paraphrases in the Aramaic, in
a process that we called translational divergence. We have also dem-
onstrated the reverse process of many Hebrew words and phrases
coalescing into a single Aramaic translation, in what we have termed
translational convergence. The most radical technique of converse
translation has also been illustrated, whereby the meturgeman pro-
duces the diametrical opposite of the original Hebrew text. Lastly, we
indicated other targumic transformations, in consideration of social
conditions that developed subsequent to the biblical period, or the
updating of toponyms and ethnonyms to contemporary usage.
As important as the recognition of these targumic characteristics
might be in and of itself, we have tried to go one step farther, in ana-
lyzing the underlying motivation for the employment of these trans-
lational techniques. Here, we showed that the introduction of changes
into the sacred text was anything but arbitrary. The meturgeman
responds to the most serious needs of the reader/listener, by providing
a theologically and doctrinally correct interpretation of the Hebrew
Bible. Prophesies, blessings, and cryptic poems are given appropriate
eschatological or messianic explication. The patriarchs of the penta-
teuchal narratives are glorified and their human foibles whitewashed,
in accord with the saintly images that they acquired in rabbinic lit-
erature. In contrast, pagan cults and negative biblical characters are
derogated and vilified far beyond their depiction in the Hebrew text.
29
According to the MS Vatican Ebr. 440, ed. M. L. Klein, The Fragment Targums . . .,
Vol. 1, p. 204. The other Palestinian targumim and Pseudo-Jonathan offer similar
readingsonly Neofiti has been subjected to censorship.
18 chapter one
The text is brought up to date with regard to ritual practice. In this

way, the congregation receives its lesson in daily halakhic observance
through the targumic medium. And the narratives are made intelli-
gible by the translation of toponyms and gentilic names into their con-
temporary equivalents, often reflecting Greek names of the Hellenistic
period.
In summation, the foregoing will hopefully have served to reinforce
the connection between the theme of the present symposium, Biblical
Interpretation, and its timely occasion, the publication of the new
Slovenian translation. Translation and interpretation are inextricable.
They seem always to have been socertainly as far back as the Aramaic
targumim of the Bible.
CHAPTER TWO
CONVERSE TRANSLATION: A TARGUMIC TECHNIQUE
He who translates a biblical verse literally is a liar; but he who elabo-

rates on it is a blasphemer. This is how Rabbi Judah (2nd cent. C.E.)
couched the translators dilemma.1 However, this dilemma does not
seem to have deterred the early Jewish translators of the Bible, the tar-
gumists, from their activities. The wide gamut of surviving targumim,
ranging indeed from the very literal to the most expansive midrashic
paraphrase, indicates that, in fact, no single standard of translation
prevailed. Moreover, even individual targumim are rarely consistent in
their translational method. For instance, Onqelos, which was consid-
ered to be the literal translation of the Pentateuch par excellence, has
recently been rediscovered to contain a significant amount of aggadic
paraphrase.2 On the other hand, Pseudo-Jonathan, which is the most
expansionistic of the Pentateuchal targumim, will quite often be sim-
plistic and literal, even when all of the other Palestinian targumim
embroider upon the biblical verse.
The non-literal aggadic interpretation is to be found, more or less, in
all of the targumim. The technique of these aggadic passages has been
described by M. McNamara as follows:
It is both translation and expansion, peshat as well as derash or midrash.
The interpretative tradition could not ignore the biblical text. When a free
paraphrase, or a midrash, is given, it has to be inserted into the rendering
of the biblical text, occasionally to the detriment of syntax. This results in
what we may call the targumic interpolations in the text itself.3
G. Vermes refers to these passages as haggadic interpretations and
increments.4 The impression imparted by these and other similar
1
t. Meg. 4:41, ed. M. S. Zuckermandel, Bamberger and Wahrman (Jerusalem 1937),
228; and b. Qidd. 49a:
. )( ) (,'
2
E.g., G. Vermes, Haggadah in the Onkelos Targum, JSS 8 (1963), 15969, and
J. W. Bowker, Haggadah in the Targum Onqelos, JSS 12 (1967), 5163. But, see
Vermes reference to A. Berliner, who in 1884 produced a limited list of aggadic inter-
pretations in Onqelos.
3
Targum and Testament (Shannon 1972), 70.
4
Vermes, Haggadah in the Onkelos Targum, 161.
20 chapter two
descriptions is that the targumic aggadah is additive and interpretative

of the original Hebrew text, but not contradictive of it. The purpose of
the present article is to demonstrate that the contradictive rendition
is not uncommon in the various targumim to the Pentateuch. In fact,
its occurrence is frequent enough for it to be considered among the
commonly acknowledged targumic techniques, and not merely as an
anomalous phenomenon.5
I. Addition or Deletion of the Negative Particle
The most patent examples of converse translation in the targumim

are those in which the targumist adds a negative particle , or
to an otherwise positive statement, or where he deletes the
particle from an originally negative statement.6
1. Gen 4:14 MT:7
RSV: Behold, thou hast driven me this day from the ground
and from thy face I shall be hidden.
5
The contradictive or converse translation had been noted as early as the 16th
century by Elias Levita. Toward the end of the Hebrew introduction to his Lexicon
Chaldaicum or ( Isny, 1541), he writes: .
However, Levita cites only two examples from Onqelos (Exod 33:3 and Num 24:1),
the latter of which is somewhat dubious. He also notes two additional examples from
Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. In the last century, the phenomenon was men-
tioned by S. Maybaum in his Die Anthropomorphien und Anthropopathien bie Onkelos
und die sptern Targumim (Breslau 1870), 21: An vielen Stellen geht Onkelos sogar
so weit, das er . . . selbst das volle Gegentheil des Textes wiedergibt. Maybaum adds
Gen 4:14 to the example given by Levita (Exod 33:3,5). Other more recent writers who
occasionally mention a particular example will be cited below.
6
In his recent book, Aggadah and its Development [( ] Jerusalem
1974), 154 and 238 n. 67, J. Heinemann cites two examples of this type of converse
translation, namely, Gen 37:33 and 48:22 (see numbers 4 and 7 below). Heinemann
sees in these examples, which are outright contradictory of the Hebrew Bible, a crude
and undeveloped mode of translation that is characteristic of the early (pre-Tanaitic)
targum. It lacks the elegance of the creative philology that was later employed by
the Midrash. If Heinemann is correct in his literary analysis and in the early dating
of this translational genre, then the first nine examples cited below take on an added
dimension of significance, in that they all belong to a very early compositional strand
of the Palestinian Targum.
7
The following abbreviations are used throughout the article:
L = MS LeipzigUniversitt BH fol. 1
MdW A/B/D/E = P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens II (reprint, Hildesheim 1967),
MSS A, B, D, E respectively
N = MS NrnbergStadtbibliothek Solg. 2.2, fols. 119147
Neof = MS VaticanNeofiti 1 (fascimile, Jerusalem 1970)
converse translation 21
O:

TJ1:

Neof:

MdW B:

O, Neof, Behold you have banished me today from upon the
MdW B: face of the earth, and it is impossible for me [man] to
hide from before You [O Lord].
TJ1: Behold you have banished me today from upon the
face of the earth, and is it possible for me to be hidden
from before You?
None of the extant targumim is prepared to accept the biblical concept
of man hiding from, or avoiding, the presence of God.
They, therefore, alter the meaning of this verse, either by introduc-
ing an interrogative element: Is it possible to hide from You? (TJ1),
or by simply stating the opposite: It is impossible for me/man to hide
from You (O, Neof, MDW B).
2. Gen 4:23 MT:
RSV: I have slain a man for wounding me, a young man for
striking me.
O:

TJ1:

Neof gl = Marginal and interlinear glosses in Neof

O = Onqelos, according to A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, Vol. I
(Leiden 1959)
Ovar = Variant readings cited in apparatus of O
Ow = An unpublished fragment of Onqelos from Genizah Volume 1,
Westminster College, Cambridge, fol. 190B, obverse (= microfilm
no. 15200 and photograph no. 2046, print no. 186, at the Institute
for Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts, Jerusalem)
P = MS ParisBibliothque National Hebr. 110
TJ1 = D. Rieder, Targum Jonathan ben Uziel on the Pentateuch copied
from the London MS [British Museum add. 27031] (Jerusalem
1974)
V = MS Vatican Ebr. 440
2755 = MS Jewish Theological SeminaryE. N. Adler Collection 2755,
fol. 2
22 chapter two
Neof:

Neof gl: . . .
O: Neither have I slain a man, on whose account I bear a
sin; nor have I wounded a young man, on whose
account my offspring will be destroyed.
TJ1, Neof: Neither have I slain a man, in whose stead [on whose
account] I shall be slain; nor have I wounded a young
man, because of whom [that] my offspring be lost
[destroyed].
In this case, all of the targumim have changed the sense of the verse
from I have slain a man . . . a young man . . . to Neither a man have I
slain . . . nor a young man. . . . The reason for this alteration is harmo-
nization with the following verse, where Lamech argues that if Cain
was granted sevenfold protection (cf. Gen 4:15),8 then he, Lamech,
deserves seventy-sevenfold protection. The implication of v. 24 is that
Lamechs offense was far less severe than Cains.9
The midrash solves the contradiction of these two adjacent verses
by taking v. 23 in an interrogative sense, rather than as an admission
of a double murder: Did I kill a man, on whose account I should
be wounded? or a young man, on whose account I shall be stricken?
With wonder (). Cain killed Abel and his punishment was sus-
pended for seven generations; I, who did not kill anyone, how much
more so that my punishment be suspended for seventy-seven.10 It is
this midrashic tradition that is reflected in the converse translation,
shared by all of the targumim.
3. Gen 5:24 MT:
RSV: Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took
him.
O:
Ow: ][ ] [

8
Literally, will be avenged sevenfold.
9
Cf. p. San. 27d, where Lamechs argument is classified as a qal wa-homer (argu-
mentum a fortiori).
10
Gen. Rab. (ed. J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck (reprint Jerusalem 1965), 22425). Cf.
commentary ad. loc.:
.'
The textual basis of this midrash is the word taken as the interrogative of
Rabbinic Hebrew.
TJ1: . . .
'

V, N, L: '. . .
P: . . .
'
Neof: ][ . . .
'
Neof gl:
O: And Enoch walked in fear of God, and he was not, for
God put him to death.
Ow: And Enoch [walked] in fear of God, and he is, [for]
God did [n]ot put him to death.11
TJ1: . . . . and behold he was no longer with the inhabitants
of the earth, for he was taken away and he ascended
to heaven by a word (mmar) from before God; and
he was called Metatron the Great Scribe.
V, N, L: . . . and he was not, for he was taken away by a word
(mmar) from before God.
P: . . . and we do not know what ultimately became of
him, for he was led away from before God.
Neof: . . . and his whereabouts are unknown, [for] he was
taken away by a word (mmar) from before God.
As Geiger recognized, a century ago, the targumim are ambivalent
towards the death and ascension of Enoch.12 Enochs relatively short
life span (365 years, as contrasted with 962 years of Jared, his father,
and 969 years of Methuselah, his son) and the unusual Hebrew expres-
sion for his demise ( instead of )elicited much early Jewish
exegesis. The Hebrew Bible was understood to imply that the righteous
Enoch did not actually die, but that God took him alive, presumably
11
According to A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, I, p. 8, (apparatus) the variant
is attested in two early editions, and the additional negative , in two MSS
and four early editions. Also, cf. S. D. Luzzatto, Oheb Ger (Cracow: Fischer, 1895 and
reprint, Jerusalem: Makor, 1969), 24. Luzzatto cites the Cremona (1559) edition of
Onqelos which also reads ' . He argues that this was the
original version of Onqelos, and that the more literal variants are the result of scribal
emendations in order to bring Onqelos into closer agreement with the MT. Luzzatos
hypothesis is now supported by this Genizah fragment. Moreover, in view of this
new text, it might be necessary to reconsider the targumic evidence as to early Jewish
attitudes toward the death and ascension of Enoch. Cf. I. Gruenwald, Knowledge
and Vision, Israel Oriental Studies 3 (1973), 6667, n. 20; and J. C. Greenfield,
Prolegomenon, to H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch (New York 21973), xxiii.
12
A. Geiger, Urschrift und bersetzungen der Bibel (Frankfort 21928), 19899. It
will, however, be clear from the discussion below that the chronology established by
Geiger for the various targumim can no longer be accepted.
24 chapter two
to heaven. This early exegesis is preserved in the Westminster Genizah

fragment of Onqelos and in several other later sources of this targum.13
TJ1 offers the most elaborate, and probably the latest, development of
this tradition, that once in heaven, Enoch was called Metatron, the
Great Scribe. Even the less explicit versions of P, we do not know
what ultimately became of him, and of Neof, his whereabouts are
unknown, are indications that he did not die. This phraseology prob-
ably has its origin in Exod 32:1, MT: ( RSV: We
do not know what has become of him) which is translated in Neof:
( We do not know what has ultimately
become of him).
This same expression is employed when Josephs brothers tell him
that he (Joseph) is missing, knowing that he was alive:
Gen 42:13 MT:
RSV: and one is no more.
P:
Neof:
P: and the other, we do not know what ultimately became
of him.
Neof: and one of us, from the time he left us, we do not know
what ultimately became of him.
We find the same terminology when Jacob refers to his two missing,
but living, sons, Joseph and Simeon:
Gen 42:36 MT:
RSV: Joseph is no more and Simeon is no more.
P:

Neof: [ ]

(text faulty, second half missing due to haplograph)14
P: Joseph, [from] when he descended to you in Dothan, I
do not know what ultimately became of him; and Simeon,
[from] the time he descended to Egypt for provisions, I do
not know what ultimately became of him.
Neof: Joseph, from when I sent him to you to Dothan, I do not
[know] what ultimately became of him.
13
See n. 11, above. See, also, J. W. Bowker, JSS 12 (1967), 5960.
14
See the citations from P and Neof in example no. 4 below, on Jacobs knowledge
that Joseph was still alive.
In both of these cases, as in that of Enoch, the Hebrew word

is rendered . Whereas these targumim only
implicitly reflect the early tradition that Enoch did not die, the Genizah
fragment of Onqelos employs an explicit converse translation:
(MT) is rendered instead of the literal , and
becomes '.15
4. Gen 37:33 MT:
RSV: A wild beast has devoured him; Joseph is without
doubt torn to pieces.
O:
TJ1:

P: . . .
V, N, L:
. . .
Neof:
2755: [ sic] [ sic]
MdW D:

'

O, Neof: A wild beast has devoured him; Joseph has surely
been killed.
TJ1: Neither the beast of the field has devoured him, nor
has he been killed at the hands of man; rather,
through the holy spirit, I see a wicked woman
standing opposite him.
P, V, N, L: Neither the beast of the field has devoured him, nor
has my son [Joseph] been killed. . . .
2755: Neither [sic! added above line] the beast of the field
has devoured him, nor has my son been killed.
MdW D: Neither has my son Joseph been killed, nor has a wild
beast devoured him; rather, a wicked woman, who
is like the beast of the field, stands opposite him.
However, I am confident of the Master of all worlds,
God, that He will save him from the hands of the
woman, and show me Josephs countenance, safe and
sound, while I am still alive.
15
The translation shared by most of the sources of Onqelos (
)reflects a reaction that became dominant in Jewish exegesis as an anti-Christian
polemic. Cf. e.g., Gen. Rab. 25:1 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 23839): The sectarians (i.e.
Christians) challenged R. Abahu, We do not find death attributed to Enoch . . . See,
also, L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews 5 (Philadelphia 1955), 156, n. 58.
26 chapter two
All of the Palestinian targumim, except Neof, add the negative particle
twice: Joseph was not devoured by a beast of the field, nor was he
killed [by human hands]. This interpretation is no doubt related to
the midrash about Jacobs refusal to be comforted (Gen 37:35),16 as
well as to the rabbinic conviction that the patriarchs were endowed
with prophetic powers.17 There may, however, also be a polemical
motive that underlies this converse translation. The Midrash Tanhuma
is suggestive in this matter:
A sectarian18 challenged R. [Judah the Patriarch, 2nd cent. C.E.], Is it
possible that your ancestors did not believe in the resurrection of the
dead as you do? for it is written of Jacob, . . . he refused to be com-
forted. Now had he known of resurrection would he have said I shall
go down into Sheol in mourning to my son? R. [Judah] answered,
Worlds fool! It is because the patriarch Jacob knew by the pro-
phetic spirit that Joseph was alive, that he refused to be comforted
for one does not accept consolations for the living.19
5. Gen 43:14 MT:
RSV: If I am bereaved of my children, I am bereaved.
O:
TJ1:

P, V, N, L:

Neof:

MdW D: ]- -
[ ][
O: literal.
TJ1: As for me, I have already received tidings through
the holy spirit that if I am bereaved of Joseph, I shall
also be bereaved of Simeon and of Benjamin.
16
Cf. m. Sop. 21:9 and Gen. Rab. 84:21 (ed. J. Theodor-Albeck, 1027): One may be
consoled for the dead, but not for the living [who are missing].
17
Gen. Rab. 84:19 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1024): R. a holy spirit sparkled in him
(Jacob): a wild beast devoured him means Potiphars wife. Cf. L. Ginzberg, Legends
2, 2930 and 5, 332, n. 67.
18
Not an early Christian, in this instance, since he argues against resurrection.
19
Tanh (ed. S. Buber [reprint, Jerusalem 1964]), I, 181 (quoted in the Yalqut
Shimoni, par. 143).
P, V, N, L: As for me, just as I have not been bereaved of my son

Joseph, [so] I shall not be bereaved [of Simeon] and
of Benjamin.20
MdW D: As for me, just as I have [sic!] been bereaved of my
son Joseph, I shall not [continue to be berea]ved
neither of S[imeon] nor of Benjamin.
In this case, all of the Palestinian targumim, except TJ1, have produced
the converse translation: Just as I have not been bereaved of Joseph,
so I shall not be bereaved of Simeon nor of Benjamin. The Genizah
text, MdW D, is apparently faulty in its deletion of the first negative
particle . If simple logic may be applied, it makes no sense to say
Just as this, so not that. Rather, one expects Just as not this, so not
that.
The rationale for a converse translation in this verse is similar to
that of the previous example.
6. Gen 46:30 MT:
RSV: Now let me die, since I have seen your face and
know that you are still alive.
O:

TJ1,:

P:

Neof: ]?[

Neof gl:

O: If I were now to die, I would be consoled, after
having seen your face, that you are alive.
TJ1: If I were now to die, I would be consoled that I am
dying the death of the righteous, after having seen
your countenance, that you are still alive.
P, Neof gl: If I were now to die, it would be as though I were
not dying, after having seen your countenance,
that you are still alive.
20
Contrast A. Dez-Macho, Neophyti 1 (Madrid-Barcelona 1968), I, 285 (appara-
tus). Dez-Macho deletes the first negative from the edition. See chapter 19 in this
volume, Notes on the Printed Edition of MS Neofiti 1, 224225.
28 chapter two
Neof: [If] I were now to die, I would not be dying, after

having seen your countenance, that you are still
alive.
Onqelos and TJ1 transmit the simple sense of the verse, i.e., Jacob
could now die happily, knowing that Joseph was still alive. TJ1 has,
however, introduced the idea of dying the death of the righteous, i.e.,
a single physical death in this world.21 But, whereas TJ1 implies not
dying a second death in the world-to-come, the other Palestinian tar-
gumim deny even the first death in this world. In P and Neof gl we
read: Now if I were to die, it would be as though I did not die.
Neofiti goes one step further, by omitting the words as though.
There is, admittedly, some weakness inherent in this example,
namely, that the converse translation does not fully replace the
straightforward translation. On the other hand, the latter has become
conditional through the addition of the words and .
7. Gen 48:22 MT:
RSV: Which I took from the hand of the Amorite with
my sword and with my bow.
O:
Ovar: . . .
TJ1:

P:

V, N:

Neof:

Neof gl1: '

Neof gl2: ' ]?[ . . .

O: literal.
Ovar: . . . by my prayer and by my petition.
21
Tanh (ed. Buber), I, 209: When they came and informed me that Joseph died,
I thought that I would die in two worlds; now seeing that you [Joseph] are alive, I
know that I shall die only once. For a similar interpretation of the word once
and only once, cf. Gen 2:23, MT: ; TJ1: ; Neof:
.
TJ1: which I took from the hands of the Amorites,

when you entered it [i.e., the city of Shechem],
and I stood by and helped you with my sword and
with my bow.
P: and I have not taken it neither with my sword nor
with my bow, but rather with my merits and my
good deeds.
V, N, Neof: and I took it from the hands of my brother Esau
neither with my sword nor with my bow, but
rather with my merits and with my good deeds.
Neof gl: which I took with my merits and my good deeds
from the hands of the Amoriteswhich are better
than my sword and my bow.
A complete explanation of this converse translation is found in the
Babylonian Talmud:
. . . which I took from the Amorite with my sword and my bow. Was it
with his sword and his bow that he took it? But, is it not already written
For I trust not in my bow, neither can my sword save me (Ps 44:7[6])?
Rather, interpret my sword as prayer and my bow as petition.22
The rabbis were averse to ascribing battle with bow and sword to
the Patriarch Jacob. By your sword shall you live23 was Esaus lot.
Moreover, Jacob had opposed his sons raid on the city of Shechem.24 It
is, therefore, not surprising that all of the targumim, save two sources
of Onqelos25 and TJ1,26 reflect this midrashic approach. In P, V, N,
Neof, and Neof gl it is expressed by the converse translation: neither
by my sword nor by my bow.
8. Deut 2:6 MT:

RSV: You shall purchase food from them for money,
that you may eat and you shall buy water of
them for money, that you may drink.
22
b. B. Bat. 123a. See J. Heinemann, Aggadah and its Development, 154, where
he points out the play on words in ( with my bow) and ( my peti-
tion).
23
Gen 27:40.
24
Gen 34:30 and 49:57.
25
In this instance, the body of the text in Sperbers edition represents only MS
British Museum 2363 (y) and the Biblia Hebraica. ed. Sabbioneta (1557), as opposed
to ten other sources that are represented in the apparatus.
26
Heinemann explains TJ1 as a reference to a Maccabean battle over the city of
Shechem; see Aggadah and its Development, 15055.
30 chapter two
O:

TJ1:

Neof:

][ )(

Neof gl:

O, TJ1, Neof gl: literal.
Neof: You need not purchase food from them with
money, for the manna descends to you from
heaven,27 likewise, you need not purchase water
from them, for the well of water ascends to
mountain tops [and descends] to deep valleys
with you.28
In this case Neofiti supplies the reason for its converse translation.
This situation is also reflected in Neofiti to Deut 2:28:
MT:
RSV: You shall sell me food, that I may eat, and give me water for money,
that I may drink.
Neof:

Neof: You will sell us food for money, that we may eat; and you will give
us water for money, that we may drink; even though ( )we are
not lacking anything.
27
Cf. Exod 16:435 and esp. v. 35: And the Israelites ate the manna forty years, till
they came to a habitable land; they ate the manna till they came to the border of the
land of Canaan. See M. McNamara, Targum and Testament, 73.
28
Cf. Num 21:1619 and esp. v. 19:
MT:
Neof:

RSV: And from Mattanah to Nahaliel and from Nahaliel to Bamoth.
Neof: And after the well was given to them as a gift (), it went on to become
ever-increasing streams ( ;)and after it had become ever-increasing streams, it
went on to ascend to mountain tops with them, and to descend to the deep valleys
with them.
9. Deut 5:21 (24) MT:

RSV: We have seen . . . God speak with man and
man still live.
O:
TJ1: '

MdW D: ]
Neof: '

Neof gl: ' )?(

O: literal.
TJ1: We have seen that God speaks with a man
in whom there is the holy spirit, and he
survives.
Mdw D, Neof: We have seen that the word (mmra) of
God speaks with man, and he lives.
Neof gl: It is impossible from [sic!] before God to
speak with man and he should live.
In this verse, it is only in the marginal gloss to Neofiti that we find the
converse translation. Whereas TJ1 qualifies the biblical statement, so
that only men possessed of the holy spirit can survive being spoken to
by God, Neof gl completely denies any such possibility. This transla-
tion seems to have been influenced by:
Exod 33:20 MT:
Neof:
RSV: For man cannot see me and live.
Neof: It is impossible for man to see me and live.
The almost identical phraseology employed by Neof gl in Deut 5:21(24)
can hardly be coincidental: '
.29 The popular concept of man dying as a result of having heard or
seen God, which is common in the Bible,30 might also have influenced
Neof gl.
29
On the associative power of the targumists, see chapter 19 in this volume, 21630,
nos. 2, 10, 19. In dealing with Neof gl, a word of caution may be in place. The origins
of these glosses are yet unknown. It seems, however, that at least some of the glosses
are merely attempts by late copyists at standardization within Neofiti itself, and as
such do not represent true textual variants. This must be considered a possibility in
the present case.
30
E.g., Deut 5:22(25); 18:16; Jud 13:22.
32 chapter two
In all of the above examples, the various targumim present a mean-

ing that is diametrically opposite to the simple sense of the Biblical
text. This is accomplished by the addition of a negative particle
(, , ) to an originally positive statement, or by the
removal of such a particle from an originally negative statement.31
II. Replacement of the Verb
Another method employed by the targumim in order to produce a

converse translation is the replacement of the original Biblical verb
with another verb of opposite meaning. This is sometimes accompa-
nied by the replacement of other grammatical elements such as prepo-
sitions.
10. Exod 33:3 MT:
RSV: But I will not go up among you.
O:
TJ1:
Neof:
Neof gl:
O: For I shall not remove my presence (ekhina) from
among you.
TJ1: For it is impossible for me to remove the presence
of my glory (ekhinath yeqari) from among you.
Neof: For I shall not remove my presence (ekhinti) from
among you.
Neof gl: My word (mmri) will not lead you.
and
Exod 33:5 MT:
RSV: If for a single moment I should go up among you, I
would consume you.
31
Another excellent example, though not from the Pentateuch, is Job 42:5:
MT:
Tg editions:
Tg MSS:
MS Cambridge Ec 5.9: [ sic] ( )
(apud R. Weiss, The Aramaic Targum of Job [dissertation, Jerusalem: Hebrew
University, 1974] 276, n. 3 [Hebrew]).
RSV: but now my eye sees thee.
Tg editions: literal
Tg MSS: And now my eye has not seen thee.
MS Cambridge Ec 5.9: And my eye has [not] [sic! crossed out] seen thee.
O:
TJ1:
Neof:

Neof gl:
O: For a single moment I shall remove my presence
(ekhinti) from among you, and I will destroy you.
TJ1: For a single moment I shall remove the glory of my
presence (iqar ekhinti) from among you and I will
destroy you.
Neof: If I were to remove the glory of my presence (iqar
ekhinti) from among you for a brief moment, I
would destroy you.
Neof gl: . . . I shall lead . . . glory (YQR).
The gist of Exod 33:25, is that having sinned, Israel is no longer wor-
thy of Gods presence. God will, therefore, send an angel to lead them.
Moreover, because they are a stiff-necked people, they are no longer
able to bear Gods presence in their midst; it would devour them. In
fact, if God wanted to punish Israel, he need only appear for a moment
among them and they would be destroyed. This is a drastic change
from the original and ideal situation, in which Gods dwelling in the
midst of Israel and his personal leadership are marks of distinction,
just as they are protective.32 None of the targumim, except Neof gl,
is willing to accept this terrible change. The presence of God among
Israel must always be desirable. Thus, in v. 3, I will not go up among
you (MT) is rendered I will not remove [the glory of] my Shekhinah
from among you; and in v. 5, I should go up among you is trans-
lated I shall remove [the glory of ] my Shekhinah from among you.33
Israel is punished by Gods removing his presence from among them.
11. Deut 15:11 MT:
RSV: For the poor will never cease out of the land.
O:
TJ1: /

32
Cf. Exod 13:21; 25:8; and especially, 33:1516.
33
Cf. R. Le Daut, Un phnomne spontan de lhermneutique juive ancienne: le
targumisme, Biblica 52 (1971), 517.
34 chapter two
Neof gl, V, N: ][
][
][

Neof:

O: literal.
TJ1: Because the house of Israel does not obey the
commandments of the Torah, the poor do not
cease from in the land.
Neof gl, V, N: If Israel keeps the commandments of the
Torah, there will not be any poor among them;
however, if they abandon the commandments
of the Torah, [for] the poor will not cease
from in the land.
Neof For if the Israelites keep the teachings of the
Torah and fulfill its commandments, there
will not be any poor among them in the land.
The targumists were faced with the apparent contradiction between
this verse and Deut 15:4, but there will be no poor among you. The
solution (i.e., harmonization) was equally apparent to the targumists:
If Israel keeps the commandments, there will be no poor among them;
if not, the poor will not cease from their midst.34 TJ1 inserts these con-
ditions in their respective verses. In V, N, and Neof gl, both contingen-
cies appear in v. 11, where they form the combination of a converse
translation followed by the straightforward translation. Neofiti pres-
ents only the converse translation in v. 11.
III. Resolution of the Rhetorical Question
Rhetorical questions in the Biblical text are often resolved by the tar-
gumim to declarative statements. The process involves the addition or
34
Cf. Sipre Deut., par. 118 [ed. M. Ish Shalom (New York, 1948), 98b]:
:
; , ?
. ,
For the poor will not cease from within the land [Deut 15:11], and elsewhere it
says, For there shall be no poor among you [Deut 15:4]; how can these two [appar-
ently contradictory] verses coexist? [Answer:] When you fulfill the will of God, the
poor will be among others; but when you do not fulfill the will of God, the poor will
be among you.
deletion of a negative particle, as in examples 19, above. The differ-

ence, of course, between the two groups is that in nos. 19, we have a
translation that is converse in both form and meaning, whereas in the
resolved rhetorical question there is no change in meaning at all.
12. Gen 18:25 MT:
RSV: Far be it from thee! Shall not the Judge of all the
earth do right?
O:
Onqvar: . . .
TJ1:

Neof: 35( )

Neof gl: . . .
O: Your laws are truth: the judge of the earth will
certainly do justice.
TJ1: Far be it from you: He who judges the entire earth
shall not do justice?
Neof Far be it from you . . .: Will the judge [who] judges all
of the inhabitants of the earth not do justice?
Most MSS and editions of Onqelos have converted Shall not the judge
of all the earth do right? into The judge of all the earth will surely
do right. Onqelos has eliminated the negative and the interroga-
tive he. The other targumim retain both of these elements. In Neof,
although the interrogative he has been lost, the targum preserves the
original rhetorical question.36
13. Gen 29:15 MT:
RSV: Because you are my kinsman should you
therefore serve me for nothing?
O:
Tji:
P:

MdW E: [][ ]
Neof:
Neof gl: . . .
35
Neofiti adds: , a dittograph from the beginning of this
verse.
36
Cf. A. Dez Macho, Neophyti 1, I, 100, El juez . . . no har justicia? followed by
M. McNamara, Ibid., 541, Will the judge . . . not do justice?
36 chapter two
O, Tji, MdW E: literal.

P: Now, in truth, you are my kinsman; it is
[therefore] not seemly that you serve before
me for nothing.
Neof: Behold, you are my kinsman; it is
[therefore] impossible that you serve before
me for nothing.
Neof gl: In truth, you are my kinsman; it is
not . . . that you serve me for nothing.
In P, Neof and probably in Neof gl, the question Should you serve
me for nothing? has been resolved into It is not seemly/possible [for
you] to serve me for nothing.
14. Exod 15:11 MT:
RSV: Who is like thee, O Lord, among the gods?
Who is like thee, majestic in holiness?
O:

TJ1: '

P: '

Neof: '

O: There is none besides thee, you are the Lord, O
God;
There is none but thee majestic in holiness.
TJ1, P, Neof: Who is like thee among the gods/mighty on
height, O God;
Who is like thee majestic in holiness?
Onqelos has paraphrased the question Who is like thee? as There is
none besides thee, by introducing the negative particle . Ms. G of
the Genizah fragments published by P. Kahle contains a poetic expan-
sion on the targum to Exodus 15. Interestingly enough, it preserves the
original rhetorical questions and their answers side by side:
. . . . . . '

37
. . .
37
Masoreten Des Westens II, 63. This may be contrasted with a similar poem pub-
lished by M. Ginsburger in Aramische Introductionen zum Thargumvortrag an
Festtagen, ZDMG 54 (1900), 12223, which contains only the questions.
Who is like thee among the gods/mighty on height, O God . . .

There is none like thee; thou art great and thy name is great.
Who is like thee, holy one?
There is none like thee, majestic in holiness.
Who is like thee, revealer of secrets?
There is none like thee, who paved a road in the Sea.
S. D. Luzzatto explained the non-literal translation in Onqelos as an
effort on the part of the targumist to remove from the Biblical text any
implication of a plurality of divine beings.38 However, having seen that
other innocuous rhetorical questions are resolved in a similar manner,
one may question whether anything more than stylistic considerations
are at work in Exod 15:11.39
15. Deut 20:19 MT:
RSV: Are the trees in the field men that they should be
besieged by you?
O:
TJ1:

Neof: ][

O, TJ1: For the tree of the field is not like man, that it
should come (hide) under siege from before you.
Neof: For the tree of the open field is not like man, who
can flee from you in his moment of distress.
In this case, all of the extant targumim restate the rhetorical question
Are the trees men? as a declarative statement, For the trees are not
like men.
IV. Addition of the Negative Particle

Meaning Lest
The targumim sometimes make use of the converse translation in

order to avert a curse or an evil prediction. This is effected by the
38
Oheb Ger, 18, . . . " '
": and likewise, Who is like thee, O Lord, among the gods/mighty? [Exod
15:11]: There is none besides thee . . . (Onqelos). He [Onqelos] has succeeded in remov-
ing any hint of plurality [of God] or similarity [to other beings].
39
Cf. Y. Komlosh, The Bible in Light of the Aramaic Translations (Tel-Aviv 1973),
24041 [Hebrew].
38 chapter two
substitution of the negative particle for the original Hebrew con-

versive waw.
16. Exod 22:23 MT:

RSV: And my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with
the sword, and your wives shall become widows,
and your children fatherless.
O:

TJ1:

MdW A:

Neof:

O, TJ1: literal.
MdW A: Lest my wrath burn and I kill you . . .
Neof: Lest my wrath burn, and I kill you with the sword;
lest your wives become widows, and your children
orphans.
Whereas Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan render the verse literally,
the Genizah manuscript and Neofiti add the negative in order
to avert the predicted punishment: Lest my wrath burn . . . lest your
wives become widows.
17. Deut 7:4 MT:

RSV: For they would turn away your sons from
following me, to serve other gods; then the
anger of the Lord would be kindled against
you, and he would destroy you quickly.
O:

TJ1:
'

Neof:
][ '

Neof gl: . . . . . . . . . []
O, TJ1, Neof gl: For they [their daughters] will mislead your
son[s] away from the fear of me [my worship],
and they will worship the errors of the nations;
and Gods wrath will be intense against you,

and He will destroy you quickly.
Neof: For they will mislead your sons away from my
word (mmri), lest they worship the errors;
that Gods wrath be intense against you, lest
he destroy you quickly.
In this case, as in Exod 22:23 (above), Neofiti twice inserts the negative
particle : lest they serve other gods . . . lest He destroy you quickly.
However, in Deuteronomy the particle seems to be misplaced, forming
a difficult syntax. Neofiti presently reads: [a] For they will mislead
your sons from following my mmra [b] lest they serve other gods;
[c] so that Gods wrath be strong against you [d] lest he destroy you
quickly. We would expect the word to be inserted at the begin-
ning of (a) and (c) rather than to (b) and (d). It seems that Neofiti is
determined to ward off the most drastic of the predictions, namely,
Israels serving other gods and Israels destructioneven at the expense
of syntactic coherence.
Conclusions
The foregoing examples illustrate the various forms of converse trans-

lation as they appear in all of the targumim to the Pentateuch. The
examples are, I believe, exhaustive for Neofiti, Neofiti gl and the pub-
lished Genizah fragments. They are only selective for Onqelos and TJ1.
This means that the student of these latter two targumim, as well as the
student of the targumim to other parts of the Bible, is likely to discover
additional examples of this phenomenon. If the method demonstrated
above is followed, it will be necessary in each new instance to search
through the related rabbinic (especially midrashic) literature in order
to determine just why the targumist chose to introduce the converse
translation.
The immediate results of the present study are twofold:
1. It broadens our understanding of targumic method and technique.

Descriptive introductions to the targumic literature will henceforth
have to include the converse translation as a targumic device in its
own right.
2. The fact that a targum may diverge so drastically from the Hebrew
originaleven to the extent of producing a converse translation
underscores the caution that must be exercised before a variant
Hebrew Vorlage may be deduced from a targumic variant.
CHAPTER THREE
THE PREPOSITION ( BEFORE):

A PSEUDO-ANTI-ANTHROPOMORPISM IN THE TARGUMS
It has often been asserted that whereas the Hebrew Bible indulges
freely in anthropomorphic and anthropopathic phrases descriptive of
God, the various targums have, on the whole, avoided the attribution
of human forms and feelings to the Deity. This has been assumed to
reflect a refinement in Israelite-Jewish theology that developed during
the last millennium B.C.E. For example:
The theology of the early books of Israels history and religion took no
pains to obviate the appearance of a very distinct anthropomorphic
character, but the time came when the main feature of Jewish criticism
and exegesis was the anxiety to remove or soften down all reference to
God that could give rise to misunderstanding in the popular mind. . . .
The clearest expression of this hermeneutic principle is to be found in
the Targums where everything was avoided that could lead to errone-
ous or undignified conceptions of God.1
And more recently:
The Targum aims at the elimination of all phrases which are reminis-
cent of anthropomorphism, and to substitute for them other expressions
which are better suited for the more refined ideas concerning God of
later generations. . . . The Targum avoids using Biblical expressions which
so speak of God as being possessed of a body just like a human being,
with hands and eyes, etc.2
1
T. Walker, Targum, A Dictionary of the Bible (ed. J. Hastings, et al.) (New York:
Scribners, 1903), Vol. 4, p. 679.
2
A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, Vol. IV-B, The Targum and the Hebrew
Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1973), p. 37. Several other standard works containing similar
statements are: W. Bacher, Targum, Jewish Encyclopedia (New York, 1901), Vol.
12, p. 60; B. Grossfeld, Bible: Translations, Aramaic (Targumim), Encyclopaedia
Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971), Vol. 4, p. 842 (relies strongly upon Walker and Bacher);
Y. Komlosh, The Bible in the Light of the Aramaic Translations (Tel-Aviv: Bar Ilan
University/Dvir, 1973), p. 103; E. Schrer, History of the Jewish People in the Age of
Jesus Christ (revised and edited by G. Vermes and F. Millar) (Edinburgh: Clark, 1973),
Vol. 1, p. 100; and M. McNamara, Targums, IDB Supp (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976),
p. 860. See also notes 6 and 8 below.
42 chapter three
To what measure these and other similar generalizations are indeed

accurate, must await another forum than the present article. For the
moment, it will suffice to note that certain books of the Hebrew Bible
may contain occasional examples of refined language alongside their
many anthropomorphic expressions.3 It is also undeniablealthough
at times ignored, for the comfort of a generalizationthat some of the
crudest biblical anthropomorphisms are perpetuated and even ampli-
fied in the targumsalongside the common circumlocution and para-
phrastic avoidance of human forms.4 The questions as to just when the
targums avoid anthropomorphisms and precisely which phrases are
avoided or toned down, as well as the more basic question of whether
there is evidence of a consistent theology underlying this targumic
activity, will require a full-size monograph. The limited purpose of
the present study, then, is to examine one widespread targumic feature
that has traditionally been labeled as a circumlocutionary device for
avoiding direct contact or intercourse between man and God, namely
the buffer preposition ( before).
The following examples, taken from various contexts, demonstrate
just how the preposition is introduced:5
1. Gen 17:18 And Abraham said to the Lord

Targum (O PsJ N) And Abraham said before the Lord
2. Exod 10:8 Go serve the Lord your God
Targ (O PsJ N) Go serve before the Lord your God6
3
E.g. the frequent use of kavod (glory, or according to the new translation of the
Jewish Publication Society presence) as a substitute for God himself: the Glory of
the Lord is seen by the Israelites (Exod 16:7, 10; 33:18; Lev 9:6; Num 14:10); abides
upon Mount Sinai (Exod 24:16); and passes before Moses (Exod 33:22). That the word
glory is merely a verbal substitute for God and does not represent an independent
surrogate being is clear from the adjoining verses: for man shall not see Me (Exod
33:20) and until I have passed by (Exod 33:22). The Aramaic equivalent of kavod is
yeqar, and is frequently employed by all of the targums in a similar fashion.
4
An example is Exod 15:17, The sanctuary, O Lord, which Your hands have estab-
lished, which is translated: Your holy temple, O Lord, which Your two hands have
perfected (Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan and the Fragment Targums).
5
The following editions of targumic texts are utilized in this study: ONQELOS
(= O): A Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, Vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1959); PSEUDO-
JONATHAN (= PsJ): D. Rieder, Pseudo-Jonathan: Targum Jonathan ben Uziel on the
Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Salomons, 1974); NEOFITI (= N): The Palestinian Targum to
the Pentateuch: Codex Vatican (Neofiti I), Facsimile edition (Jerusalem: Makor, 1970);
CAIRO GENIZA FRAGMENTS (= CG): P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens II (reprint,
Hildesheim: Olms, 1967) pp. 162; FRAGMENT-TARGUMS (= FT): M. L. Klein, The
Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch, Analecta Biblica 76 (Rome: Biblical Institute,
1978).
6
Cf. A. Tal (Rosenthal), Ms. Neophyti I: The Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch,
the preposition 43
3. Deut 1:41 We have sinned against the Lord

Targ (O PsJ N) We have sinned before the Lord
4. Exod 16:8 Your complaints are not against us, but against the Lord
Targ (N) Your complaints are not against us, but before the Lord7
It had been assumed that these translational adjustments were a result

of the refinement of Israels concept of the Deity, and of the eventual
realization of Gods transcendence and incorporeality. Man no longer
addressed God forthrightly, nor did he directly serve the Lord or sin
against him. Man did not involve God in these human activities; he
could only perform them in the removed presence of the Lordor as
the targum put it, before the Lord. In fact, some scholars have gone as
far as to refer to this translational shift as an anti-anthropomorphism.8
The question that must now be asked is: is the introduction of the
preposition by the Targum in place of the biblical nota accusa-
tivi ( which designates God as the direct object of mans action),
or in place of other more direct prepositions, actually intended for
the avoidance of biblical anthropomorphisms, or for the obviation
of direct relationship between man and God? I believe that there
is extensive evidence to show that there is probably no connection
at all between the use of the preposition and the alleged anti-
anthropomorphic theology of the targums.
1. A survey of the Aramaic portions of the Book of Daniel show

that whereas the king Nebuchadnezzar speaks to the Chaldeans or to
Daniel,9 and whereas commoners also speak to one another,10 com-
moners do not address direct speech to the king, but rather before
( )the king.11 Likewise, Daniel comes in to Arioch12, but he comes
Israel Oriental Studies 4 (1974), 35: The usage [ serve beforeMLK] is

usually employed in describing the relation between man and God. And footnote
20: This expression was used [by the targumMLK] in order to avoid an anthro-
pomorphism.
7
O and PsJ have . . . but against the memra (word) of the Lord.
8
E. Levine extends the use of for anti-anthropomorphic purposes beyond
the bounds of targumic literature: The phrase 'from before the Lord is
used very frequently in the various targumim, and is the only characteristic targumic
expression avoiding anthropomorphism and anthropopathism that is found regularly
in Jewish Aramaic outside of the targum texts. (E. Levine, The Aramaic Version of
Ruth, Analecta Biblica 58 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1973), p. 90). Cf. above, n. 6.
9
Dan 2:5, 7, 26, 47; 3:14, 24; 5:7,13; 6:17, 21, all using the prepositional lamed.
10
E.g. Dan 2:15.
11
Dan 2:9, 10, 11, 27, 36; 5:17; 6:13, 14.
12
Dan 2:24, or to his house, in 6:11.
44 chapter three
in, or is brought, before the king.13 And again, people do not fear the
king, but rather fear before him.14
We are led to conclude that the use of the indirect preposition
in the Book of Daniel is out of deference to high office or nobility, and
not related to the nature of the Deity. It is used as an expression of
respect or honor towards a human king; and there is no evidence of
it being any more than just that, when used in relation to the divine
God.15 Thus, we find being used in perfect parallel in both human
and divine contexts, in the very same verse: . . . as before Him [i.e., the
God of Daniel] I was found innocent; and also before thee, O king, I
have done no wrong.16
2. Returning to the targums, we find precisely the same situation pre-

vailing. The use of is not confined to the divine context, but is
rather an expression of deference that is frequently applied to man and
to human institutions.
The basic targumic usage of is as the translational equivalent
of the Hebrew prepositions , , etc., in all contexts.17 In
addition, it is used to translate certain semantically related expres-
sions, such as ( in the sight of or before the eyes of ).18 It also
translates the causal preposition ( in the face of, on account
of ).19 None of these verses has ever posed any problem.
The cases that have been considered anti-anthropomorphic are
those in which replaces the nota accusativi , as in example 2,
cited above (Exod 10:8), or in
13
Dan 2:24, 25; 3:13; 4:3, 5; 5:13, 15, 23; 6:19.
14
Dan 5:19.
15
This comparison of the targumic usage with that of biblical Aramaic was pro-
posed by S. D. Luzzatto, 150 years ago, in his book Ohev Ger (1830; the 2nd edition,
Cracow, 1895, has been reprinted: Jerusalem: Makor, 1969); see p. 12.
16
Dan 6:23. Another striking parallelism is found in Dan 5:19, All the peoples,
nations and languages trembled and feared before him (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar); and
6:27, Men shall tremble and fear before the God of Daniel.
17
E.g., Gen 43:15, And they stood before Joseph, in the very same manner as Gen
18:22, And Abraham stood before the Lord.
18
E.g., Gen 42:24, And he [ Joseph] bound him [Simeon] before their eyes
(). Targ (PsJ N), And he bound him before them.
19
E.g. Gen 7:7, Because of ( )the waters of the flood; Targ (O PsJ CG N),
From before ( ) the waters of the flood (meaning, of course, on account of )
and Exod 9:11, Because of the boils; Targ (O PsJ N), From before the boils.
the preposition 45
Deut 10:12 And to serve the Lord your God

Targ (O PsJ N) And to serve before the Lord your God.
However, one needs only to observe the same translational device in

the human context to realize that it is not all related to the avoidance
of anthropomorphism. For example:
Gen 14:4 Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer

Targ (N) Twelve years they served before Chedorlaomer
Gen 27:29 Let peoples serve you [i.e., Jacob]
Targ (N FT) Let peoples serve before you
Exod 20:5 And you shall not worship serve them [i.e., idols]
Targ (N PsJ) And you shall not serve before them.
There are literally tens of cases in the various Palestinian targums of

the Pentateuch in which the Hebrew verb ( to serve), taking a
human direct object (with or without the accusative ), is trans-
formed into ( serve before).20
Similarly, Biblical phrases that employ the prepositional lamed,
such as to be a slave to someone, to sacrifice to idols, and to bow
down to someone or to some idol may appear in the targums with
the preposition .21
Still another group of verbs for which the targums replace the prep-
ositional lamed with is that of crying, begging, imploring, and
praying. For example:
Gen 41:55 And the people cried to Pharaoh

Targ (O PsJ N CG) And the people cried before Pharaoh22
Num 11:2 And the people cried out to Moses
Targ (N) And the people cried out before Moses.23
20
E.g., Gen 27:40; 29:15, 18; 31:41; Exod 14:5, 12; 21:2; 23:33; Deut 5:9; 7:16; 17:3,
20:11. These all argue against A. Tal (Rosenthal); see above, n. 6.
21
E.g., Gen 27:32 (PsJ N); Exod 22:19 (N); Deut 30:17 (N); 32:17 (N).
22
CG cited here is an additional fragment of MS. E of P. Kahle (see above, n. 5),
which was published by A. Dez Macho, Nuevos Fragmentos del Targum Palestinese,
Sefarad 15 (1955), 37.
23
Additional examples are: Gen 42:21; Exod 5:15; Num 11:2, 13.
46 chapter three
In this context, there are three verses that are especially misleading:
Num 11:1 And the people were . . . speaking evil in the ears
( )of the Lord
Num 11:18 For you have wept in the ears of the Lord
Num 14:28 . . . Saith the Lord, as you have spoken in My ears.
Now, all three of these verses are translated by O and PsJ before ()
the Lord or before me, which, again, might have been mistaken
for an avoidance of anthropomorphism. However, when we examine
the targumic treatment of this phrase in the human context, we find
the very same translation in no fewer than fourteen instances.24 It is
evident that the biblical idiom in the ears of is taken figuratively in
all contexts, and is translated as such in all of the targumim.25 There
is, therefore, no connection between this normal translational device
and anthropomorphism.26
One last example of the transformation of the Hebrew preposi-
tions ( to) and ( upon, about) into is from the juridical
setting:
Deut 25:1 And they go to the law

Targ (N) And they go before the judges
And when Moses sat in judgment:
Exod 18:13 The people stood about Moses

Targ (PsJ N) The people stood before Moses
One stands respectfully before the court of justice, but one does not
approach it directlyeven if it be only a human institution.
24
O: Gen 20:8; 23:10, 13, 16; 44:18; 50:4; Exod 10:2; 11:2; 17:14; 24:7; Deut 5:1;
31:28, 30; 32:44; and PsJ: Gen 20:8; Exod 24:7; Deut 5:1.
25
PsJ, N, and FT generally render the phrase in the hearing of () , as
does the modern English R.S.V. In fact, the paraphrastic translation in the hearing
of is so common in N that one of the glossators has added it in the margin of that
MS, in a verse that has intended real ears of flesh and blood. The case in point is
Gen 35:4, And the rings that were on their ears, which is correctly translated in a
literal fashion by all of the targums. The thoughtless gloss to N, that were in their
hearing, is of course a hypercorrection.
26
Cf. J. Shunary, Avoidance of Anthropomorphism in the Targum of Psalms,
Textus 5 (1966), p. 139, note 16.
the preposition 47
In conclusion, the use of the buffer preposition in the targumim

as a substitute for the nota accusativi , or for other more direct
prepositions, is common in both the divine and the human contexts.
It occurs as an expression of deference to a respectable person or
institution. It also occurs as a natural result of the idiomatic variance
between the biblical Hebrew and Targumic Aramaic, or simply, as the
translation of a biblical phrase that was understood figuratively. All of
these usages apply equally in reference to man or God. It is, therefore,
evident that the introduction by the various targumim of the preposi-
tion , in all of these cases, is not for the avoidance or circumlocu-
tion of biblical anthropomorphisms.
CHAPTER FOUR
PALESTINIAN TARGUM AND SYNAGOGUE MOSAICS
The Palestinian Targums
The Targumsor early Aramaic translations of the Biblehave their

origin in the synagogue, in a period when the Aramaic-speaking masses
of Jewish people no longer understood biblical Hebrew, and had to
have the weekly Pentateuchal reading translated into their vernacular.1
This is similar to the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Bible) which
originated in the Greek-speaking Alexandrian Jewish community of
the early Hellenistic period (3rd Century B.C.E.).
The need for the Bible to be understood by the people continued to
be felt throughout the centuries, in the advent of new conquests and
shifts of Jewish population; and this found expression in Saadia Gaons
(882942 C.E.) Arabic version, the popular Judeo-Persian translation,
and even a late Yiddish (Judeo-German) rendition.
For biblical scholarship, the ancient Aramaic Targums are of par-
ticular interest, for a number of reasons:
1) Theological. The various targums were never intended to be

mere literal renditions of Hebrew scripture. Rather they were explana-
tory and interpretiveeven to the extent of occasionally contradict-
ing the original meaning of the Scripture.2 The Palestinian Targums
are particularly expansive in theological matters such as Gods provi-
dence and direct intervention in the world,3 sin and the Day of
1
For an introduction to the Targums and a general bibliography see M. McNamara,
Targums, Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume, (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1976), pp. 856861.
2
This is not to give the impression that the translators were capricious. They gen-
erally fulfilled their task with great fidelity; see my article Converse Translation: A
Targumic Technique, Biblica 57 (1976), pp. 515537.
3
In the following notes (38) I shall give examples taken from the complete
Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, according to MS Neofiti 1.
E.g., Gen. 30:22.
][
.
There are four keys retained in the hand of the Master of All Worlds, the Lord:
which He has not given over neither to an angel nor to a seraph: the key to the rainfall,
50 chapter four
Judgement,4 reward and retribution,5 Gods daily work schedule,6 the

Messiah and End of Days.7
2) Textual-Biblical. With the discovery of fragments of three targu-

mic texts at Qumran (4QtgLev, 4QtgJob, 11QtgJob) there is no lon-
ger any doubt about the existence of written targums as early as the
1st Century C.E.8 Applying linguistic criteria, scholars have dated
the composition of the Qumran targums to the middle of the 2nd
Century B.C.E.9 Likewise, other scholars have dated passages in cer-
the key to sustenance, the key to the tombs (for resurrection) and the key to the child-
less woman (to bear children).
4
Gen. 4:7.
][
. . .
If you improve your deeds in this world it will be released and forgiven to you in
the world to come; but if you do not improve your deeds in this world, then your sin
will be kept for the Day of Great Judgment. . . .
5
Gen. 4:8.

. . .
. . . Cain said to Abel: There is no Judge and there is no Justice; nor is there another
world. There is no good reward for the righteous nor retribution for the wicked. And
Abel answered: There is a Judge and there is Justice. . . .
6
Deut. 32:4.

Said Moses the prophet: I saw the Master of All Worlds, the Lord, divide His day
into four portions: three hours He toils in the study of the Torah (Law); three hours
He sits in justice; three hours He makes matches between man and woman, raising
and lowering the status of man; and three hours He provides sustenance for the entire
world.
7
Exod. 12:42.

] [
. . .
. . . The fourth night (of vigil) shall be when the world reaches its fixed time to be
redeemed. The iron yoke shall be broken and the generations of the wicked destroyed.
Moses shall go forth from the wilderness and the King Messiah from the midst of
Rome. This one will lead at the head of the flock, and that one will lead at the head of
the flock; and His memra [i.e., the word of the Lorda common targumic substitute
for God Himself ] shall lead between both of them. . . .
Note: All of the targumic references to the Messiah have been conveniently col-
lected in S. H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation, (Cincinnati: Hebrew
Union College Press, 1974).
8
These finds confirmed the Talmudic statement about a written Targum of Job
having been brought before Rabban Gamliel (b. Shabbat 115a).
9
E.g., M. Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan
University, 1974), p. 9.
palestinian targum and synagogue mosaics 51
tain Palestinian Targums to that same period on the basis of allusions

to historical events.10 Some of the Targums were composed in the
pre-Masoretic period, i.e., before the rabbis made their final decision
regarding the exact text to be authorized and transmitted, and before
the suppression of all deviant mss. This was a period during which
variant Hebrew texts of the Bible circulated freely and legitimately.
Some of these non-Masoretic texts served as the Vorlagen (underlying
originals) for translations; and while the deviant Hebrew texts were
suppressed and eventually lost (some of which have been rediscovered
among the Dead Sea Scrolls), their translations often survived in the
Greek, Syriac, Samaritan and Aramaic Targum versions.
3) Linguistic. The Palestinian Targums are extremely important for the

study of Western Aramaic. Some of the mss. from the Cairo Genizah11
date back to the 8th-llth Centuries C.E., and preserve a relatively pure
dialect of Western (Galilean) Aramaic.12 For some Christian scholars
these texts have had special significance for although removed several
centuries from the period of Jesus, their dialect may be closer to the
spoken Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the 1st Century C.E. than that of
the earlier Aramaic texts from Qumran that are written in a stylized
literary dialect.13
In the general context of Semitic languages, the Palestinian Targums
are important for completing the picture of Western Aramaic dialects
which include Christian Palestinian Aramaic and Samaritan Aramaic.
4) Historical. I have already mentioned the historical allusions in

the Targums to events of the Hasmonean period, which according to
many scholars must have been recorded contemporaneously. On the
10
J. Heinemann, Aggadah and its Development (Jerusalem: Keter, 1974), pp. 143
162 (Hebrew); and Idem. Early Halakha in the Palestinian Targumim, Journal of
Jewish Studies 25 (1974), pp. 114122.
11
A genizah is a room or a bin in a synagogue, which serves as a repository for
old and worn holy books and documents. This was to prevent their being disposed of
in a disrespectful way.
12
E. Y. Kutscher, Studies in Galilean Aramaic, tr. M. Sokoloff, (Ramat-Gan: Bar
Ilan University, 1976), pp. 34.
13
See J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I, 2nd ed. Biblica
et Orientalia 18A, (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971), pp. 1925. Fitzmyer gives an
extensive bibliography on p. 24 n. 61, and more recently, J. C. Greenfield, Aramaic and
Its Dialects, in H. H. Paper, ed., Jewish Languages: Theme and Variation, (Cambridge
Mass.: Association for Jewish Studies, 1978), pp. 3436; and Idem. Standard Literary
Aramaic, Acts due premier congrs smitique, (The Hague-Paris: Mouton, 1974),
pp. 286288 (English).
52 chapter four
other hand, some targums make reference to later events, such as the
Destruction of the Temple (70 C.E.), in the past tense.14 Whereas some
targums foretell the fall of Rome in a prophetic style,15 others refer to
Constantinople by that name.16 One particularly late recension of the
Palestinian Targum (Pseudo-Jonathan) supplies the names of the two
anonymous wives taken by Ishmael, as Adisha and Fatima. Rabbinic
tradition had always identified Ishmael with the Arabs; and it is hardly
coincidental that these happen to be the names of one of Muhammads
wives and one of his daughters. What we have here, then, is a post-
Islamic addition to the Palestinian Targum.17
14
Geniza MS F, Neofiti and the Fragment Targums of Lev. 22:27,
,
. . .
When You recall for us the orders of sacrifices that we would offer before You,
annuallyour sacrifices atoning for our sins. But, alas, our sins have caused [the pres-
ent situation, i.e., the destruction of the Temple and the cessation of the cult] and we
can no longer make offerings from our flocks of sheep.
15
Fragment Targums of Gen. 15:12,

:
That is the wicked Edom [= Rome], the fourth Kingdom that is destined to fall,
and not to rise forever.
The first three kingdoms were Babylonia, Media and Greece.
Another similar passage is found in the Fragment Targums of Num. 24:19,

:
A King shall arise from the house of Jacob and he will destroy the remnants of the
guilty city, which is Rome.
Interestingly enough, both of these passages are censored in the Neofiti Targum,
which was last copied in Rome, in 1504.
16
Pseudo-Jonathan Targum of the same verse. Num. 24:19,

. . .
A ruler shall arise from the House of Jacob, and he will ruin and destroy the sur-
viving remnant of Constantinople, the guilty city. . . .
As it is well known, the name of this city was Byzantium until the year 330 C.E.,
when Emperor Constantine I established it as his new capital.
17
Pseudo-Jonathan Targum of Gen. 21:21,

And he [Ishmael] dwelled in the wilderness of Paran; and he took Adisha [= Ayesha]
as a wife, but divorced her; and his mother [Hagar] then took Fatima as a wife for
him, from the Land of Egypt.
Ayesha, daughter of Abu Bakr, was Muhammads favorite wife; while Fatima, one of
Muhammads daughters, was the traditional matriarch of the Fatimide dynasty. Once
again, it cannot be mere coincidence that Hagar and the wife that she chose are both
from Egypt, and that the Fatimides later established their capital in Cairo in the 10th
Century C.E. We might add that the identification of anonymous biblical characters
is a common midrashic practice.
5) Sitz im Leben. The birthplace of the Targums was the Synagogue,

and there it received its official sanction. As a synagogal institution it
enjoyed considerable authority, and the targumic translation of the
more learned meturgemanim (translators) were cited as proof texts
in legal discussions at the academies.18 As the targumic phenomenon
became widespread, the rabbis of the Mishnah and the Talmud sought
to control certain of its related practices, and also to prevent the public
mistranslation of Scripture. They even prohibited certain verses from
being translated at all.19 The rabbis also established strict rules in order
to ensure the primacy of the original Hebrew verbum Dei, and to pre-
clude the usurpation of that position by the Aramaic translations. For
example, the Hebrew Pentateuch was read from a scroll one verse at a
time. It was then translated orally, without reference to a written text,
by the meturgeman, who had to be someone other than the original
reader. The translation was to be recited in a lower voice than that of
the reader. All these precautions were to ensure that the uneducated
public not mistake the Aramaic translation for the original Torah.20
The actual place of all this targumic activity is the many Roman- and
Byzantine-period synagogues that have been discovered and excavated
in Israel during the past 125 years. The nearly 100 synagogues which
are spread over the entire countryMediterranean coast, Mt. Carmel,
Galilee, Golan Heights, Yarmuk Valley, Beth Shean Valley, Jordan
River Valley, Dead Sea Basin, Hebron Hills, Gaza and the northern
Negevare an indisputable archaeological testimony to the continu-
ous and flourishing existence of Jewish communities in Palestine
through at least the 7th Century C.E.21 It is, no doubt, in these very
18
E.g., Babylonian Talmud, b. Bava Qamma 3b.
. . . ' . . .
. . . As Rabbi Joseph translated (into Aramaic) . . .
The discussion here revolves around the identification of a particular category of
damages.
19
Such as: Genesis 35:22,
And Israel [= Jacob] dwelled in that land; and Reuben went and lay with Bilhah,
his fathers concubine; and Israel found out.
Likewise, the story of the Golden Calf in Exodus Chapter 32. These passages reflect
poorly on the patriarchs, and were therefore not to be translated in the public reading.
20
Some of these rules are set out in the Mishnah, m. Megillah ch. 4, (corresponds
to ch. 3 in the printed Talmuds), and in greater detail in the Tosefta, t. Megillah
ch. 4 (3).
21
See S. J. Saller, A Revised Catalogue of the Ancient Synagogues of the Holy Land
(Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1969). A number of additional synagogues
have been discovered during the past decade, and are to be added to Sallers list, e.g.
Ein Gedi on the Dead Sea, Sussiya in the Hebron Hills, Gaza on the Mediterranean
54 chapter four
synagogues, and during these centuries that the Palestinian Targums

were recited and ultimately recorded.
The Synagogues
The Roman-Byzantine synagogues have been categorized into three

architectural types: a) the monumental stone basilica with the flag-
stone pavement; b) the broadhouse with either flagstone or mosaic
pavement; and c) the modest simplified basilica structure with an
elaborate mosaic floor.22 That these architectural types correspond to a
chronological sequence, as had long been assumed, has recently come
under question. The recent discovery of several late 4th Century coins
under the flagstone floor of the synagogue at Capernaum (on the west
bank of the Sea of Galilee) has led its excavators to advance its date
from the 2nd Century to the 4th Century C.E.23 Be this as it may, for
our present purpose, we shall focus on the various synagogues with
mosaic floors.
The best preserved and most famous of these mosaic floors were
discovered at Hamat on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, just
south of Tiberias, and at Beth Alpha in the Beth Shean valley. The syn-
agogue at Hamat has been dated by its excavators to the 4th Century
C.E., while that of Beth Alpha is dated by its dedicatory inscription to
the beginning of the 6th Century.
In both of these cases the mosaic of the nave is divided into three
panels. The uppermost, nearest the front platform, depicts a Holy Ark
flanked by two menorahs (candelabra) and other holy objects such as
coast, Magdala on the Sea of Galilee and Shama in the Upper Galilee. Professor
Joseph Naveh of the Hebrew University has recently published a complete collection
of Aramaic and Hebrew inscriptions from the ancient synagogues in his book On
Stone and Mosaic, (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1978) (in Hebrew
). Also a new book on the subject by Hershel Shanks, entitled Judaism In Stone,
has just appeared.
22
For an exposition of this theory with diagrams, see M. Avi-Yonah, Synagogues,
Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration SocietyMassada, 1978), Vol. 4, pp. 11291138, and his earlier article
in Ariel no. 32.
23
V. Corbo, S. Loffreda, et al., La Synagoga di Cafarnao, dopo gli scavi del 1969
(Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1970); and an attempted defense of the original
dating by G. Foerster; Notes on Recent Excavations at Capernaum, Israel Exploration
Journal 21 (1971), pp. 207211; and Qadmoniot 4 (1971), pp. 126131 (Hebrew).
the palm branch, citron, rams horn, and incense shovels. The central
panel is comprised of a circle within a square. The corners of the square
contain the figures of four women representing the four seasons. The
outer ring of the circle displays human (some nude) and animal fig-
ures, symbolizing the zodiac. The center of the circle contains repre-
sentations of Helios the sun-god in an animal drawn chariot, flanked
by his entourage of moon and stars. In the floor of the Beth Alpha
synagogue, the lower panel contains the biblical scene of the Binding
of Isaac (Gen. 22); that of Hamat has only dedicatory inscriptions and
lists of donors. Several of the other synagogue mosaics contain human
figures; for example the synagogue in Gaza depicts King David playing
the harp and charming wild beasts (like Orpheus).
Most scholars have assumed that these pagan figures had lost their
original significance by the time they were adopted as decorative ele-
ments in the synagogues. For example, Michael Avi-Yonah believed
that:
. . . the signs of the Zodiac with Helios in the center and the seasons in
the corners, were divested of all idolatrous associations. Instead they
were given specifically Jewish significance, so that the Zodiac itself,
for instance, stood for the ordering of the Temple services throughout
the year.24
Edwin R. Goodenough, on the other hand, has argued for the bor-
rowing of the symbols together with their original significance. In the
light of the many early rabbinic condemnations of all image-making,
Goodenough is led to the conclusion that the floors were commis-
sioned by lay leaders of the community and executed by secular or
non-Jewish artisans, without official rabbinic approval or sanction.
Goodenough writes off the statements of rabbis who did not object
to images in synagogues, as hardly a counterbalance to the thunderous
denunciations of images in the early rabbinic literature.25 Let us look
at some of the literary passages in question:
24
Ancient Synagogues, Ariel no. 32 (1973), p. 43. See also E. E. Urbach, The
Rabbinical Laws of Idolatry in the Second and Third Centuries in the Light of
Archaeological and Historical Facts, Israel Exploration Journal 9 (1959), pp. 296297;
and more recently, J. H. Charlesworth, Jewish Astrology in the Talmud, Pseudepigrapha,
Dead Sea Scrolls and Early Palestinian Synagogues, Harvard Theological Review 70
(1977), pp. 195196. (This issue of the HTR appeared in 1979, after the present article
was completed).
25
E. R. Goodenough, Symbolism, Jewish (In the Greco-Roman Period), Ency-
clopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971), Vol. 15, columns 568578; and his monumental
56 chapter four
'
'
In the days of Rabbi Yohanan they began drawing figures on the walls
[frescoes], and he did not protest against the practice.
In the days of Rabbi Abin they began depicting figures in mosaic, and
he did not protest against it.26
Rabbi Yohanan was one of the most prominent rabbis of the third
century. He lived in Tiberias and Sepphoris in the very period dur-
ing which the earliest known synagogue frescoes (Dura-Europos) were
painted. Likewise, Rabbi Abin II flourished in Tiberias during the 4th
Century; and this passage might be a direct reference to the mosaic
floor of the synagogue in Hamat. The historical importance of this text
can hardly be overestimated. Perhaps the key to these rabbinic innova-
tions lies in another statement by Goodenough:
Symbols and religious experiences and values have a way of disengaging
themselves from their original mythical explanations and going from reli-
gion to religion with old forms and values now given new explanations.27
This would seem to be reflected in the following midrashic passages:
,' "
. . .
The Holy One Blessed-Be-He showed Abraham all of the Zodiac
[Hebrew: mazalot] surrounding his ekhina [Divine Presence]; . . . and
said: just as the Zodiac surrounds Me, with My glory in the center, so
shall your descendants multiply and camp under many flags, with My
ekhina in the center.28
The Helios figure no longer represents the pagan sun-god; it has been
transformed into Gods glory (kavod ) or His divine presence (ekhina).
Although the problem of the pagan symbolism in the synagogue
may have been solved by a transfer of significance, there still remained
the more basic prohibition of the second commandment (Exod. 20: 4;
Deut. 5: 8): You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any
likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or on the earth below,
work Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (New York: Pantheon-Bollington

Foundation, 19531965) 12 vols. + Index Volume 13 (Princeton, 1968).
26
Palestinian Talmud, Avodah Zarah Genizah mss. published by J. N. Epstein,
Additional Fragments of the Jerushalmi, Tarbiz 3 (193132), p. 20.
27
Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 15, Col. 574.
28
S. Lieberman, Midrash Devarim Rabbah (Genizah ms.) 3rd ed. (Jerusalem:
Wahnnann, 1974), p. 16. My friend and colleague Mr. Marc Bregman brought this
reference to my attention.
or in the waters under the earth. Moreover, there is the following

prohibition in Leviticus 26:1:
. . . . . .
. . . You shall not place a figured stone in your land upon which to bow
down.
These must have been especially troubling to the worshippers who, in
praying, bowed down upon the mosaic floors containing forbidden
figures.
In fact, there are indications of a Jewish iconoclastic reaction that set
in some time after the 7th Century. At Naarah, just north of Jericho,
the human and animal figures of the mosaic Zodiac were removed in
early times. Since the Hebrew and Aramaic captions and inscriptions
were left untouched, the defacing is most likely to have been by zeal-
ous Jewish hands.
Fortunately, the iconoclasm was not universal, and most of the
Byzantine-period synagogue figures survived. Rather than the mosaic
floors being victim of a strict and literal application of Scripture; the
Scripture was reinterpreted and harmonized with synagogal reality.
This process is reflected in the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum to Lev. 26:1:
. . .
. . .
. . . and you shall not place a figured stone in your land, upon which to
bow down; however you may place a mosaic pavement29 impressed with
figures and images in the floors of your sanctuaries [= synagogues]but
not for kneeling to it.
As mentioned above, the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum contains material
that is definitely datable to the Islamic period. It would seem that the
Targumic expansion of Leviticus 26:1 is intended to ward off poten-
tial iconoclasm, by reassuring the worshippers that as long as the
figured stones in the synagogue floor are decorative or symbolic and
not objects of worship, they are not in violation of biblical law. It is,
no doubt, due to this flexible rabbinic interpretation, that the many
magnificent synagogue mosaics survived the perils of religious fanati-
cism, and were buried in peaceto be retrieved and revived by archae-
ologists in the present century.
29
Aramaic: Sateya; from the Greek stoa, see M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the
Targumim . . . (New York: Pardes, 1950), p. 972b.
CHAPTER FIVE
THE TRANSLATION OF ANTHROPOMORPHISMS AND

ANTHROPOPATHISMS IN THE TARGUMIM1
I. Introduction: The Old Testament
Anthropomorphic descriptions of the Deity prevail throughout the

entire Old Testamentfrom the earliest Pentateuchal narratives and
the classical prophets through the apocalyptical Book of Daniel. The
Lord God moves (walks) about noisily in the Garden of Eden (Gen
3:8); he smells the pleasant odor of sacrifices (Gen 8:21); just as incense
is placed before his nostril (Deut 33:10). His feet are supported by the
likeness of a sapphire pavement (Exod 24:10); and whereas his palm
shields his face from being seen, his back may be seen (Exod 33:2023);
the Lord is seated on a high and lofty throne and the skirts of his robe
fill the Temple (Isa 6:1); the throne appears to be made of sapphire and
the enthroned figure has the semblance of a human being (Ezek 1:26);
and finally, the One of ancient days is seated, his garb white as snow,
and the hair of his head like lambs wool (Dan 7:9).
This anthropomorphic God was believed to be visible by man in
certain circumstanceseven though such an experience was fraught
with the danger of death. Thus Manoah says to his wife, We shall
surely die, for we have seen God (Judg 13:22, RSV, JPS; but a divine
being in new JPS). Indeed the statement you cannot see my face, for
man may not see me and live (Exod 33:20) is to be understood in the
same manner, i.e., not that God is invisible, but that the one who gazes
upon him will surely die.2
1
My sincerest thanks to Professor Menahem Haran and Professor Shlomo Morag
for their devoted guidance in an earlier stage of this study at the Hebrew University,
Jerusalem. The term anthropomorphism is used throughout as an abbreviation for
the more cumbersome pair anthropomorphism and anthropopathism. We shall
deal with both human forms and human feelings attributed to the Deity in the Old
Testament.
2
Cf. J. Barr, Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament, Congress
Volume: Oxford 1959, SVT 7 (1960), p. 34. On the other hand, Barrs distinction
between simple anthropomorphic phrases and theophanies in human form, though
valid in itself, is, I believe, not germane to the present discussion.
60 chapter five
Moreover, in Gen 1:26, 27 God says: Let us make man in our

image after our likeness, and then God created man in his image,
in the image of God he created himindicating a similarity of phy-
sical form.
II. Rabbinic and Medieval Jewish Literature
The origins of Jewish anti-anthropomorphism remain shrouded in

obscurity. What is clear, however, is that by Mishnaic times (1st2nd
century C.E.), two distinct schools emerged and crystallized. Whereas
the school of R. Aqiba interpreted biblical anthropomorphisms quite
literally, the anti-anthropomorphic school of R. Ishmael dismissed
them as allegory.3 What is also clear is that the anti-anthropomorphic
tendencies reflect an internal development within Judaism, and are
not the result of Hellenistic influence, which they antedate.4 It is only
natural that the targumim, being an integral part of Rabbinic liter-
ature, and ultimately deriving from the same schools and the same
periods,5 would reflect rabbinic attitudes towards biblical anthropo-
morphism. This was to be expected especially in view of the fact that
all the targumim are paraphrastic and midrashic to varying degrees,
even in matters that are not of theological or doctrinal import.6
Indeed, great Jewish medieval scholars such as Saadiah Gaon (882
942) and Maimonides (11351204) were quick to notice that many of
the biblical anthropomorphisms are transformed in Onqelos by para-
phrase or circumlocution. Saadiah, being convinced of the pure spiri-
tuality and transcendence of God, takes all the human traits attributed
to God to be allegorical. Accordingly, he writes that wherever the
faithful interpreters of our Torah [i.e., the ancient targumistsand
particularly Onqelos] found any of these expressions, they refrained
3
A. Marmorstein, Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God 2, Essays in Anthropomorphism
(London, 1937; reprinted New York, 1968), pp. 61, 11322. Marmorstein has collected
the characteristic phrases of each school; e.g., If it were not written in Scripture we
would not dare say it (literalists) versus The Torah speaks in the language of human
beings (allegorists).
4
H. A. Wolfson, Philo (Cambridge, Mass., 1948) 2, p. 127.
5
We need not enter here into the problematics of dating particular targumim, nor
into the distinction between date of composition and date of final redaction.
6
Cf. M. L. Klein, Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique, Biblica 57 (1976),
pp. 51537 [ch. 2 in the present volume], and references in p. 515, n. 2.
translation of anthropomorphisms & anthropopathisms 61
from translating them literally.7 Saadiah then lists the following

examples of avoidance of anthropomorphism in Onqelos.
Exod 9:3 the hand of the Lord []
O a plague from before the Lord []
Exod 24:10 beneath his feet []
O beneath his throne of glory []
Exod 17:1 by the mouth of the Lord []
O by the word of the Lord []
Num 11:13 in the ears of the Lord []
O before the Lord [] .
There are, however, two serious errors in Saadiahs argument, which,
as we shall see, were later repeated by 19th and 20th century schol-
ars. First, Saadiah ignores all the contradictory examples in which
Onqelos transmits anthropomorphisms most literally. Second, some
of the targumic passages cited are not anti-anthropomorphisms at
all, but rather translational equivalents employed by Onqelos in other
contexts as well. For example,
Gen 45:21 by the mouth of Pharaoh []
O by the word of Pharaoh []
Gen 23:16 in the ears of the sons of Heth []
O before the sons of Heth [] .8
Maimonides was more thorough than Saadiah. When speaking of the
verb of motion to descend ( )as applied to God, Maimonides notes
that in all cases but one it is translated in Onqelos was revealed.9 For
example,
7
The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, Treatise ii, Ch. 10, (tr. S. Rosenblatt; New Haven,
Connecticut, 1948), pp. 11516. Also in Three Jewish Philosophers (ed. H. Lewy, et al.,
Cleveland and Philadelphia, 1960), Book of Doctrines and Beliefs (ed. A. Altmann),
pp. 8889.
8
Cf. M. L. Klein, The Preposition ( Before), A Pseudo-Anti-Anthropomor-
phism in the Targums, JTS N. S. 30 (1979), pp. 5067 [ch. 3 in the present volume];
and J. Shunary, Avoidance of Anthropomorphism in the Targum of Psalms, Textus
5 (1966), p. 139.
9
Guide for the Perplexed, Part 1, Ch. 27, [tr. S. Pines; Chicago, 1963), pp. 5759;
cf. Maimonides Yad Ha-H azaqah (Code), Laws of Principles of the Torah, Ch. 1,
810.
62 chapter five
Exod 19:11 the Lord will descend . . . upon Mount Sinai [ . . . .

]
O the Lord will be revealed . . . upon Mount Sinai [
. . . ]
Gen 18:21 I [God] will go down and see []
O I will be revealed and judge [] .
Maimonides, however, notes the exception to the rule:
Gen 46:4 I [God] will go down with you to Egypt []
which is translated literally in Onqelos, by the root (
) . He then attempts to explain away this exception with
two alternative arguments: 1) this verse is not a description of real-
ity, but rather a dream; or 2) it refers to an angel, and not to God
himself.
Elsewhere in his Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides tries to
explain why Onqelos always paraphrases the statement God heard
with the passive indirect it was heard before God ( ) or
with God received [the prayer, etc.] () , whereas the statement
God saw is only sometimes paraphrased and it was revealed unto
God () , while at other times it is translated literally (
). Maimonides first proposes a distinction between hearing, which
implies the acquisition of new information through sensory activ-
ity, and seeing, which connotes understanding of the mind. The
first implies a perceptive change at some point in time: the second, a
timeless cognition. However, Maimonides himself is not satisfied with
this answer, since if the phrase God saw is not anthropomorphic,
then why does Onqelos ever bother to replace it with was revealed
before God? Maimonides then proposes the hypothesis that Onqelos
avoids only those cases in which the object of Gods seeing is sin-
ful or evil. However, here too Maimonides is aware of three excep-
tions (Gen 6:5, 12 and 29:31) which are translated literally. Unable to
fit these three verses into the rule, he suggests that perhaps they are
scribal errors!10 Finally, regarding the anthropomorphism perpetuated
by Onqelos in Exod 31:18 and Deut 9:10, that the tablets were written
by the finger of God () , Maimonides submits that
he is at a loss for any explanation.11
10
Guide . . ., Part 1, Ch. 48 (tr. Pines, pp. 1068).
11
Ch. 66 (tr. Pines, pp. 16061).
III. Several Modern Views
I have dwelt at some length upon Maimonides because this great

medieval scholar anticipated two major trends among modern schol-
ars. First, he has retrojected his own sensitivity on the issue to the
early Aramaic translators, assuming that they avoided all expressions
of anthropomorphism. Second, he has tried to systematize the obvious
inconsistencies in the targum, on the assumption that a system does
exist. The first of these assumptions has been repeated for centuries right
down to our very decade. The generalization that the targumim elimi-
nate or tone down all expressions of anthropomorphism is repeated
by H. Seligsohn and J. Traub,12 T. Walker,13 W. Bacher,14 E. Schrer,15
A. Sperber,16 Y. Komlosh,17 B. Grossfeld,18 and M. McNamara,19 to
name only a few. The second somewhat contradictory assumption
which recognizes that not all prima facie anthropomorphic expres-
sions are avoided, but which assumes a consistent system, has been
the underlying premise of three works devoted entirely to the problem
of anthropomorphisms in the targumim. I refer to the 19th century
dissertations of S. Maybaum20 and M. Ginsburger,21 and to the more
recent monumental work of Domingo Muoz Len.22 Maybaum sought
the geheimen Fden eines Systems in der Weise der Umschreibung
des Onkelos (p. 6). For example, he asserts that the Hebrew verbs to
remember ( and ), are always transformed into the passive
participle in Onkelos, because an ihn tritt kein neues Wissen heran.
He further asserts that the verb to see is translated literally when the
12
ber den Geist der bersetzung des Jonathan ben Usiel zum Pentateuch . . .,
MGWJ 6 (1857), p. 107.
13
Targum, in J. Hastings (ed.), A Dictionary of the Bible 4 (Edinburgh and New
York, 1903), p. 679.
14
Targum, Jewish Encyclopedia 12 (New York and London, 1907), p. 60.
15
History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (revised and edited by
G. Vermes and F. Millar; Edinburgh, 1973), Vol. 1, p. 100.
16
The Bible in Aramaic 4B: The Targum and the Hebrew Bible (Leiden, 1973), p. 37.
17
The Bible in the Light of the Aramaic Translations (Tel-Aviv, 1973), p. 103
(Hebrew).
18
Bible: Translations, Aramaic (Targumim), EJ 4 (Jerusalem, 1971), p. 842.
19
Targums, IDB Supp. (Nashville, 1976), p. 860.
20
Die Anthropomorphien und Anthropopathien bei Onkelos und die sptern
Targumim (Breslau, 1870).
21
Die Anthropomorphismen in den Thargumim (Braunschweig, 1891).
22
Dios-Palalara: Memra en los Targumim del Pentateuco (Granada, 1974), and La
Gloria de la Shekin en los Targumim del Pentateuco (Madrid, 1977). This latter work
was unfortunately not available to the writer.
64 chapter five
object is an event in time, but it is rendered revealed before the Lord

when the object is an existent state of being. Among the expressions
that attribute parts of the body to God, Maybaum distinguishes
between those that retained their figurative meaning in later times,
and those that were no longer in use and might have been misunder-
stood by the people (p. 14). Only these latter cases were altered by
Onqelos. However, upon thorough investigation, it becomes evident
that all these rules and distinctions are not without exception in
Onqelos, and are totally invalid in the various Palestinian Targumim.
Whereas Maybaum tried to find a system along topical lines,
Ginsburger took an Hegelian developmental approach, in three chron-
ological stages. Ginsburger openly admits that no targumim have sur-
vived from the earliest period that he posits (p. 8), yet he argues that
only the personal substitutes and were employed in this
early stage, in order to avoid attributing direct conversation to God
and man. It was not until the later stages that the same substitutes
were employed in place of parts of the body attributed to God and
other anthropomorphic verbs. Ginsburgers developmental theory is
complicated and lacking in textual evidence.
The most recent works by Muoz argue, once again, for a thematic
or topical system among the targumim in their use of certain substitu-
tive surrogates for God. For example, Muoz argues that there is con-
sistency and theological significance to the use of in contexts
of creation, revelation and salvation. We shall return to this work in
our later discussion of the use of the surrogate in the various
targumim.
As opposed to the above mentioned generalizers and systematizers,
there is a group of modern scholars who have concluded that there
is no consistency in the targumic avoidance of anthropomorphisms.
Regarding Onqelos, M. Kadushin has stated the case as follows:
Since Targum Onkelos is a rabbinic version, it is once more evident that
philosophy and rabbinic thought are two distinct and different worlds.
To employ any philosophic criterion in an approach to Targum Onkelos
leads us nowhere. We cannot speak of Targum Onkelos, therefore, as
making a principle either of the incorporeality of God or of the corpo-
reality of God. . . . The Targum then is not consistent. But now we are not
called upon to account for every deviation and non-deviation, for con-
sistency here is not to be expected. The idea of Gods otherness is a very
indefinite idea; it permits of exceptions and it ignores inconsistencies.23
23
The Rabbinic Mind (3rd edition, New York, 1972), pp. 33031.
R. Hayward has argued for a similar situation in Neofiti and its mar-
ginal glosses.24 Other scholars have observed the same inconsistency
in the targumim of Psalms25 and Job,26 as well as in various parts of
the Septuagint.27
I shall devote the remainder of this article to the substantiation and
elaboration of this latter view, demonstrating in some detail that the
issue of anthropomorphism was not of theological import, and that
the various targumim are extremely inconsistent in their translation of
these expressions. Had the early mturgmnm truly been concerned
about the theological and philosophical implications of anthropomor-
phisms, they would have avoided them with much greater care and
consistency.
IV. Human Parts of the Body Attributed to God
There are instances in which, not only have the targumim not avoided
anthropomorphic expressions, but they have even amplified and inten-
sified them. Two cases in point are:
Exod 15:17 The sanctuary, O Lord, which your hands established []
Neof, Neof . . . which your two hands perfected []
gl, P, V, CG28
24
The Memra of YHWH and the Development of its Use in Targum Neofiti I, JJS
25 (1974), pp. 41218. See also Haywards reviews of Muozs works in JJS 27 (1976),
pp. 9496; and JJS 30 (1979), pp. 99102.
25
J. Shunary, Avoidance of Anthropomorphism in the Targum of Psalms, Textus
5 (1966), pp. 13344.
26
R. Weiss, The Aramaic Targum of Job (Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University,
Jerusalem, 1974), pp. 27393; published Tel Aviv, 1979 (= Tarbiz 44 [1974/75], pp.
5471 [Hebrew]).
27
The works of H. M. Orlinsky and his students, e.g., review of C. T. Fritsch, The
Anti-Anthropomorphisms of the Greek Pentateuch in Crozer Quarterly 21 (1944), 157;
idem, HUCA 27 (1956), pp. 193200; HUCA 30 (1959), pp. 15367; HUCA 32 (1961),
pp. 23968; A. Soffer, HUCA 28 (1957), pp. 85107; and M. S. Hurwitz, HUCA 28
(1957), pp. 7583. This has all been reinforced most recently by T. Wittstruck, The
So-called Anti-anthropomorphisms in the Greek Text of Deuteronomy, CBQ 38
(1976), pp. 2934.
28
The following is a key to the sigla used for targumic texts:
Neof: MS Vatican Neofiti 1, ed. A. Dez Macho, Neophyti 1 (Madrid, 196879).
Neof gl: marginal and interlinear glosses in Neof.
P: MS Paris Bibliothque nationale Hbr. 110.
V: MS Vatican Ebr. 440. Both P and V ed. M. L. Klein, The Fragment Targums of the
Pentateuch (Rome, 1980).
66 chapter five
Deut 32:41 And my hand takes hold on judgment []

Neof, V And my right hand takes hold on [true] judgment
[]
This may be compared with the similar translation of a verse in a
human context:
Exod 15:9 my [Pharaohs] hand shall destroy them []
Neof, P, V, CG, PsJ my right hand shall destroy them []
It is quite clear from these verses, and others, that the targumim felt no
embarrassment or compunction when speaking of Gods hand or his
right hand or both of his hands. The same is true of Gods palms:
Exod 33:22 and I shall shield you with my palm [ ;RSV, Torah:
hand]
Neof, V I shall spread [V: cast] my palm over you []
Neof gl I shall cast the palm of my hand [ ] over you.
The single instance of feet attributed to God in the Pentateuch is trans-
lated literally in all the extant Palestinian Targumim:
Exod 24:10 and beneath his feet [ ] there was the likeness of
a pavement of sapphire
Neof, Neof gl, PsJ and beneath the footstool of his feet [
].
The paraphrase footstool of his feet, if anything, intensifies the
anthropomorphism.29
The targumim introduce the anthropomorphic mouth even where it

is lacking in the original Hebrew:
Deut 33:9 for they observed your word []
Neof, V for they observed the word of your mouth []
CG: Cairo Genizah fragments of Palestinian Targum. Subsequently published in M. L.

Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian to the Pentateuch (Cincinnati: 1986). Part
of the collection appears in P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens II (Stuttgart, 1930, and
Hildesheim, 1967), and in scattered articles in various journals.
PsJ: Pseudo-Jonathan, ed. D. Rieder, Pseudo-Jonathan: Targum Jonathan ben Uziel
wwon the Pentateuch . . . (Jerusalem, 1974).
O: Onqelos ed. A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic 1 (Leiden, 1959).
29
Contrast 1 Chron 28:2, the footstool of our God, with Tg Chron, the footstool
of the throne of glory of God. See also tg Isa 66:1.
Likewise the expansive introductions to the Ten Commandments in

the various Palestinian Targumim follow the pattern: The first state-
ment, as it emerged from the mouth of the Holy One, may his name be
blessed . . . (( ) Exod 20:1 Neof, P,
PsJ). One last example regarding human parts of the body:
Deut 11:12 the eyes of the Lord your God are always upon it
Neof, V the eyes of the Lord your God are gazing upon it [ '
]
The above examples of hand, palm, feet, mouth and eyes are suffi-
cient, I believe, to prove that the targumim are not consistently anti-
anthropomorphic. In fact, we may go one step further: had the early
mturgmn been troubled by biblical anthropomorphisms, he might
have disposed of these obvious instances with little effort. Apparently,
he was simply not interested.
V. Pseudo-Anti-Anthropomorphisms
I have thus far presented examples of anthropomorphisms which are

literally transmitted in the targumim. There is another class of expres-
sions which have been altered in the course of their translation, for
non-theological reasons, but which have nevertheless been presented
in the past as evidence of the anti-anthropomorphic nature of the tar-
gumim. (Two of the four examples cited above from Saadiah fall into
this category.)
It is methodologically essential to determine the cause of a particu-
lar paraphrase before it may be applied as proof of the theological and
doctrinal motivations of the translator. To reverse the order is to beg
the question. The following are some examples:
The biblical expression crying/complaining in the ears of the Lord
( ) is translated . . . in the hearing of the Lord (
)'in all three cases in Neofiti, and . . . before the Lord ()
in Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan.30 I submit, however, that none of
these transformations is in any way related to the philosophic prob-
lem of anthropomorphism. The evidence for this assertion lies in the
fact that the targumim employ the very same idiomatic paraphrase
30
Num 11:1, 18; 14:28.
68 chapter five
in the purely human context in no fewer than 14 instances.31 In fact,

the substitution of the Aramaic in the hearing of for the original
Hebrew in the ears of was so common, that it actually became a fixed
translational equivalent for the marginal annotator of Ms. Neofiti, who
then applied it ad absurdum. Thus, in Gen 35:4, the phrase and the
rings that were on their ears, which is rendered literally in all the tar-
gumim, is hyper-corrected in Neof gl to [the rings] that were in their
hearing (!)
Another example is the biblical expression found favor in the eyes
of the Lord which is translated in Neofiti in five instances . . . before
the Lord,32 and in five others . . . in the face of the Lord.33 First, the
face of the Lord is no less anthropomorphic than is the eyes of
the Lord. Second, the transformation to before the Lord is not for
the purpose of avoiding the anthropomorphism. In the purely human
context, in Deut 24:1, the wife who fails to find favor in his [the
husbands] eyes is rendered by Neofiti if she does not find favor
and grace before him. We find the same idiomatic paraphrase in a
Palestinian Targum (Cambridge University Library T-S Misc. 27.1.4;
= Ms. D) to Gen 47:29, where Jacob says to Joseph If I have found
favor in your eyes, and the targum reads If, now, I have found favor
and grace before you.34
A third and final example of such pseudo-anti-anthropomorphisms
is the Hebrew expression by the mouth of ( ) which is trans-
lated in both divine and human contexts by the word/decree of. As
in the two previous examples, the targumim transmit the intended
meaning of the phrase, and not a literal one-for-one translation of its
elements. For instance, in Gen 41:40, Pharaoh says to Joseph and by
your mouth shall all my people be directed. The following are the
targumic renderings:
Neof And by the decree of your mouth [ ] shall all my people
be fed
CG35 And [by] the word of [your] mouth [[ ] ]shall all [my people]
be fed
PsJ And by the decree of the word of your mouth []
O And by your word [].
31
E.g., Gen 20:8; 23:10, 13, 16; 50:4; Exod 10:2; 11:2; 17:14.
32
Gen 6:8; Exod 33:12, 13, 16; 34:9.
33
Gen 18:3; Exod 33:13, 17; Num 11:11, 15.
34
On the preposition ( before) see n. 8, above.
35
Cambridge University Library, T-S NS 76.1.
Clearly, in this human context the substitutions of your word, the

word of your mouth, the decree of your mouth and the composite
decree of the word of your mouth, have absolutely nothing to do
with anthropomorphism. They must rather be compared to the mod-
ern renditions as/at your command (RSV, Torah), which are sim-
ply idiomatic. In Gen 45:21, the Hebrew by the mouth of Pharaoh
becomes by the decree of Pharaohs mouth [Neof ], and by Pharaohs
word ( ;PsJ, O). Likewise, in Deut 17:6, upon the mouth of
two witnesses, becomes upon the mouth of the word [ ] of
two witnesses (Neof )36 and upon the word [ ]of two witnesses,
(PsJ, O). Here the modern translations use evidence (RSV) and tes-
timony (Torah).
To sum up, then, it is clear that figurative phrases such as spoke in
the ears of or found favor in the eyes of or upon the mouth of
which are common in biblical Hebrew, are rendered idiomatically in
the targumim. The elimination of ears, eyes and mouth and the intro-
duction of decree or word ( )in these cases, are not to be
related to the theology of anti-anthropomorphism.
VI. Mmr
The present framework does not allow for a full treatment of the uses
of in the targumim. Nevertheless, in view of the recent works
by D. Muoz Leon, R. Hayward and others,37 it is impossible to discuss
the problem of anthropomorphisms in the targumim without at least
touching upon the subject of .
It is generally accepted that of the targumim is not a per-
sonification or a hypostasis, but rather a nominal substitute.38 Its
36
The Aramaic , of course, means according to the word
of two witnesses, just as the Hebrew ( Num 26:56) means according to
the lot and ( Deut 17:11) means according to the instruction. My use
of by the mouth of has come only to convey the literal language of the texts, and
does not ignore their figurative or idiomatic sense.
37
See notes 22 and 24, above, and M. McNamara Logos of the Fourth Gospel
and Memra of the Palestinian Targum, Expository Times 79 (19678), pp. 11517;
L. Sabourin, The MEMRA of God in the Targums, Biblical Theology Bulletin 6
(1976), pp. 7985 (review of Muoz).
38
E.g., G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge,
Mass., 1923) Vol. 1, p. 419: . . . nowhere in the Targums is memra a being of any kind
or in any sense, much less a personal being. With many more targumic texts available
today, that statement still holds.
70 chapter five
conceptual origins lie in such biblical verses as Ps 33:6, By the word of

the Lord the heavens were made, by the breath of his mouth all their
hosts. The idea is also paralleled in early rabbinic literature in state-
ments such as with ten statements [ ]the world was created
(m. Avot 5:1)39 and the liturgical benediction Who with his word cre-
ated the heavens (( ) b. Sanhedrin 42a).
In the targumim appears as the subject of sentences in place
of Gods name or pronoun, in almost every type of context. It is found
with 46 different verbs, and in sundry possessive phrases.
Applying both deductive and inductive methods, Muoz Len and
Hayward try to discover the relationship of to the Godhead.
They also search for a systematic pattern of employment of the term
in the targumim (esp. Neofiti and its glosses). There are several verses
in Exodus in which the Palestinian targumim seemingly define that
relationship:
Exod 3:12 MT
Neof
Neof gl
MT For I shall be with you
Neof For I shall be my with you
Neof gl [For] it [my ]shall be in your support.
Hayward believes that the targum is defining the term and
equating it with Gods name EHYEH, which represents his past and
future active presence in creation and history. The difficulty with
this theory is that the word in the present verse is no more than the
simple verb to be. It is not until Exod 3:1314 that EHYEH serves
as a proper name:
.
. .
And they will ask me What is his name? What shall I say to them? And
God said to Moses, Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh. And he said, thus shall you
say to the Israelites, Ehyeh sent me to you.
The variant modern translations for the name are I Am Who I Am
or I Will Be Who I Will Beboth related to the root , to be.
39
The ten statements refer to the ten occurrences of the phrase God said (same
Hebrew root as in and )in the creation story at the beginning of
Genesis.
The phrase God was/will be with someone is fairly common in

the Pentateuch. The following examples represent the various possible
translations in the Palestinian targumim:
a) literal
Gen 39:2
Neof ' ]![ 40
Gen 39:3
Neof '
b) addition of
Gen 26:3
Neof ]![
Gen 31:3
Neof
c) translation of or ( with) by ( in support of )
Gen 28:20
Neof '
d) addition of and the translation of by
Deut 31:23
Neof
This last compound type is the standard rendition in Neof gl and in
CG.41 There is, however, an unusually high incidence of scribal errors
in the translation of this phrase. For example:
Gen 26:3
Neof
The third person suffix is used instead of the first person. As already
noted, in Gen 39:2, the prepositional ( with) is translated .
Exod 4:15
Neof
Neof gl1
Neof gl2
The word in Neof is inexplicable; the verb in Neof gl2 is an
error for the first person singular imperfect. Even in the Cairo Genizah
40
On the mechanical translation of the prepositional by , see my note, Deut.
31:7, or ?JBL 92 (1973), p. 585 [ch. 17 in the present volume]. Also, cf.
Gen 39:21, where Neof uses the preposition in the same phrase.
41
E.g., CG Gen 28:20; 39:2, 3 and Neof gl Gen 31:3; 39:21.
72 chapter five
MSS there are indications of irregularity in the translation of this

phrase. For example:
Gen 31:3
CG (E) (
)
The scribe apparently began to write , stopped short, marked the
mem with a dot, and continued with the expected . It is impos-
sible at this point to prove that the manuscript from which the scribe
was copying also read but the possibility certainly exists. Another
telling example from the same Genizah text is Gen 28:20, 21:
Gen 28:20 Gen 28:21
MT
CG ' ' '
Here the second is mechanically inserted, even though the sense

of the verse is not God will be with me but rather the mmr of
the Lord will be my redeeming God [Heb: then YHWH will be my
God]. Neof and PsJ, which both use ' in v. 20,
correctly refrain from introducing it in v. 21. All these examples of
confusion and corruption in the various Palestinian targumim lead
me to agree with Muoz, against Hayward,42 that in the phrase
is but a scribal error for . It cannot be taken
as a statement of definition or identification, I shall be my mmr
with you. It would seem that the scribal error reflected here involved
the introduction of the word without the required adjustment
of the verb from first to third person (or the common interchange of
the initial aleph/yod in imperfect verbs in Neofiti, as R. Le Daut sug-
gested at the Congress).
The second verse cited by Hayward is even more confused and
corrupt.
Exod 4:12
Neof
42
Dios Palabra, p. 38, n. 56, Ngl corrige con su variante estar; cf. Hayward,
JJS, 27 (1976), p. 94.
If, as Hayward argues, the targum has intentionally preserved the

Hebrew proper name EHYEH, then the sentence remains without the
imperfect verb to be. Furthermore, instead of the phrase we
expect . The verse as it stands is meaningless: and I, with my
mmr, EHYEH with the speech of your mouth. This passage can
hardly serve as evidence for the meaning of .
Regarding the use of throughout Ms. Neofiti 1, I must agree
with Hayward, as opposed to Muoz, that it is sporadic or even erratic.
Hayward has shown that, among the 46 verbs for which serves as
the subject, only six verbs have more than five times. Regarding
the remaining 40 verbs, Hayward notes that the use of appears
arbitrary and unmotivated by theological considerations.43 As to the
72 verbs with which memra appears in Neof gl, Hayward cor-
rectly notes that their range of meaning is so wide as to once again
defy any satisfactory classification. I would add that, even after recent
works by Clarke, Lund and Foster,44 the sources of Neof gl remain for
the most part shrouded in mystery. As such, one can hardly make
statements about the translational tendencies of Neof gl.
It is generally acknowledged that the main body of Neofiti is par-
tially composite, and that at least the beginning of Genesis and the end
of Deuteronomy derive from distinct sources. The creation narrative at
the beginning of Genesis is of particular interest since, as mentioned
above, the repetition of the phrase nine times elicited the
Mishnaic comment that the world was created through ten .
It is, therefore, inexplicable that only seven of the nine instances con-
tain in Neof, and that only one of the two missing s
is provided by Neof gl.45 This type of inconsistency (and I have pre-
sented only one of many examples) pervades the entire Neofiti, in all
its identified underlying sources. I find it difficult to believe that an
important theological principle would have been handled so carelessly
and inconsistently by the early mturgmn.
43
JJS 25 (1974), pp. 41314.
44
E. G. Clarke, The Neofti I Marginal Glosses and the Fragmentary Targum
Witnesses to Gen. VI-IX, VT 22 (1972), pp. 25765; and S. Lund and J. A. Foster,
Variant Versions of Targumic Traditions Within Codex Neofiti 1. SBL Aramaic Studies
2 (Missoula, 1977).
45
Gen 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 20, 24, 29. The word mmr is missing in Neof in vv. 1 and 26.
It is provided in the gloss to v. 26. The verb has the highest number of occur-
rences of mmr in Neofiti (19 times).
74 chapter five
VII. Syntactic Peculiarities of

Some Anti-Anthropomorphisms
There is a preponderance of syntactic irregularities in the targumim, in

anti-anthropomorphic contexts. Certain syntactic constructions which
are normally avoided or even eliminated by the mturgmn suddenly
appear with relative frequency in anti-anthropomorphic translations.
For example, the combination of a passive verb with the nota accu-
sativi appears in the Hebrew Bible some 28 times.46 In 15 instances
Neofiti removes the particle , or transforms the verb from passive
to active, or makes some other grammatical change. Thus:
Num 26:55
Neof
Gen 40:20
Neof
The other targumim also tend to avoid the combination of passive
verb plus accusative. It is therefore significant that the very construc-
tion that is normally eliminated by the targumim is introduced into
the text in the context of anthropomorphisms. The following cases are
typical:
Gen 41:16
Neof '
Num 17:19
Neof
Gen 1:4
Neof '
Exod 2:24
Neof, O '
Another type of syntactical irregularity is found in the targum when
it alters verbs in anthropomorphic phrases without paying attention
to the remainder of the verseand especially to the prepositions. A
case in point is
46
See P. Joon, Grammaire de lHbreu Biblique (2nd ed., Rome, 1947), 128,
Accusatif avec verbe passif, pp. 383 ff. Cf. A. E. Cowley (ed.), Gesenius Hebrew
Grammar as edited and enlarged by the late E. Kautzsch (2nd ed. [= 28th German ed.],
Oxford, 1910) 121, Construction of passive verbs, pp. 387 ff.
Lev 26:31
Neof
There are two possible explanations that suggest themselves:
1. In his preoccupation with obviating the anthropomorphism, the

mturgmn inadvertently violated his normally good sense of
grammar.
2. The original text was grammatically correct and some later pious
copyist removed the anthropomorphisms from what had been a lit-
eral translation. In so doing he introduced only minimal changes,
often at the expense of grammar and syntax. In view of the many
anthropomorphic phrases that have survived unscathed in the
Palestinian targumim, I would tend to accept the second of these
two alternatives.
VIII. Conclusions
The long repeated generalization that the targumim avoid or tone

down all biblical anthropomorphisms is no longer acceptable. In fact,
the targumim in their present textual state are highly inconsistent on
this matter, and the frequency of anti-anthropomorphisms is much
smaller than has hitherto been asserted. By systematically comparing
certain supposed anti-anthropomorphisms to their counterparts in
a non-divine context, we have shown that they are common idiom-
atic and translational phenomena, and not related at all to theology
or philosophy. Finally, it would seem that a goodly number of anti-
anthropomorphisms in MS Neofiti 1 are of secondary origin, and do
not belong to the original compositional strand of that text.
CHAPTER SIX
ASSOCIATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY TRANSLATION

IN THE TARGUMIM*
I. Introduction
It is a commonplace that the targumim, like the other ancient ver-

sions of the Bible, do much more than simply translate the original
Hebrew text into another language. The truism that every translation
is of necessity also an interpretation, applies in varying degrees to
all of the many known targumim. In addition to translating parts of
the Bible in a literal fashion, the targumim expand upon the Hebrew
texts by introducing halakhic interpretations and harmonizations; and
they embellish it with expansive aggadic passages. It has been shown
that these divergences from the literal are at times even in conscious
contradiction of the original Hebrew text.1
It would seem that the meturgeman was fully aware of the targumic
process in which he indulged. In some cases he was trying to harmo-
nize the Biblical text with a prevailing Halakha or dogma, in order to
properly instruct the Aramaic speaking congregation. And in other
cases, he introduced rabbinic legends about the patriarchs, prophets
and kings, for the edification of the ancient synagogue listener.
There are, however, other types of alteration that the Biblical text
has undergone in the course of its targumification. These are for the
most part changes that were unwittingly introduced into the text by
the meturgeman, and which we shall call associative and complemen-
tary translations.
A literary characteristic of the Hebrew Bible that reflects common
Ancient Near-Eastern style, as well as the particular composite nature
of the Bible, is the duplication or even triplication of phrases and
passages. These repetitions are usually not identical. While generally
expressing similar ideas, they tend to vary both in word order and in
* To Professor Harry M. Orlinsky, master of ancient and modern Bible translation.

1
M.L. Klein, Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique, Biblica 57 (1976),
515537 [ch. 2 in the present volume].
78 chapter six
phraseology. The targumim, in many of these cases, equalize the vary-

ing texts by translating one of them in conformity with the otheror,
less frequently, by altering both versions in a mutually complementary
fashion. These associative and complementary translations are found
both in passages that are relatively close to one another, as well as in
passages remote from one another, and even in different books. The
purpose of this study will be to demonstrate by illustration both of
these types of targumic transformation.
II. Associative Translation
The following examples are taken primarily but not exclusively from
the various targumim to the Pentateuch:
1. The double phrase is quite common in the

Book of Deuteronomy, the Prophets and the Writings. These two nouns
and their respective modifiers appear in this precise combination and
order in no fewer than twelve instances, and they are invariably trans-
lated in the targumim / 2
In Exod 6:6 we find the phrase , which
is translated literally in almost all of the targumim. In Ms. Neofiti,
however, we find . The meturgeman
substitutes for because it is situated in the first
position of the compound phrase.
We find just the opposite substitution in Neofiti to Num 20:20,
where the MT reads . Here Neofiti produces
. Since usually occupies the second
position in the double phrase it is inserted here in place of .
A similar case is to be found in Exod 32:11, where the MT reads
, which is translated by Neofiti
, and corrected in the marginal gloss to . In
this last case, an additional associative factor may have been at play,
and that is Deut 9:29, where
does indeed appear in the second position.
2
E.g., Deut 7:19; 11:2; 1 Kgs 8:422; 2 Chron 6:32.
associative and complementary translation 79
2. The Pentateuch preserves two distinct descriptions of how the

manna tastedboth of which are somewhat obscure:3
Exod 16:31
(wafers in honey)
Neof
V (Frag Tg)
and
Num 11:8
(cake with oil or cream of oil)
Neof ][
V (Frag Tg)
In the Hebrew version of Exodus the taste of the manna is related
to honey, whereas in Numbers it is related to oil. However, the two
Palestinian targumim cited employ the translation of the Exodus
text in Numbers as well. In fact, the associative borrowing stands
out in V, in the repeated comparative preposition (kaf ). The phrase
was introduced as a whole unit without regard for the
preceding word . This is in contrast to the other targumim of
this verse which are more or less literal: ( O);
( PsJ); ( Neof gl ).
3. The patriarchs Abraham and Jacob are informed that their names
are to be changed. The statements regarding their previous names are
strikingly similar:
3
The following sigla are used in the citation of Targumic texts:
CG: Cairo Genizah MSS; Fragments of Palestinian Targum.
L: MS Leipzig-Universitt B. H. Fol. 1.
N: MS Nrnberg, Stadtbibliothek Solger 2.2.
Neof: MS Vatican Neofiti 1, ed. A. Dez Macho, Neophyti 1 (Madrid 196878).
Neof gl: Marginal and interlinear glosses in Neofiti.
Onq: Onqelos, ed. A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic I, (Leiden 1959).
P: MS Paris Hbr 110 (Bibliothque Nationle).
PsJ: Pseudo-Jonathan, ed. D. Rieder, Targum Jonathan ben Uziel on the Pentateuch
(Jerusalem 1974).
P, V and the major variants from N and L are according to M.L. Klein, The
Fragment-Targums (Rome 1980).
A new comprehensive edition of the CG fragments is in preparation by the present
writer [Subsequently published as GMPT (Cincinnati: HUC Press, 1986).] Many of
these MSS were published by P. Kahle in his Masoreten des Westens II and by others.
80 chapter six
Gen 17:5
Neof
Gen 32:29
Neof
CG Oxford Ms. Heb. B 4

in contrast to: PsJ, O ][
Neof gl . . . ][ . . .
The meturgemanim of Neofiti and of the Oxford Ms. (Genizah) have
produced an associative translation substituting for in
Gen 32.
4. When the spies return from Canaan with their frightening report,
the Israelites decide to appoint a leader and return to Egypt. The
expression used in Num 14:4 is , which is translated by the
Palestinian Targumim:
Neof (=V)
PsJ
in contrast with the literal in Onqelos.
The Palestinian targumim have apparently introduced the phrase
from Deut 17:14, which is translated
[Neof]; [ Neof gl]. This also accounts for the added preposition
/ in Numbers.
5. A simple illustration from the Targum to the Prophets is Judg 13:

which is translated
rather than the literal ( cf. Tg Isa 54:1). In this case, it was
Gen 11:3, =( O, PsJ . . .) which
served as the associative source for the meturgeman.
6. An outstanding example of association in the targumim is the trans-

ference of an entire midrashic passage from one book to another.
Exod 23:5 . . .
Neof . . .

When you see the ass of your enemy crouching under its
burden . . .abandon that which is in your heart against your
fellow, and unload [the burden] with him and [re]load [the
burden] with him.
The midrash of abandoning the hatred is based upon the common
meaning of the verb leave, abandon and the fact that the owner
of the animal is described as your enemy. Both of these elements
are missing from the similar law in Deut 22:4,
. . . . Here the owner is your
brother and the verb is raise up. Nevertheless the Palestinian
targum according to Ms. Neofiti 1 reads as follows:
... ][
.
The duplication of verbs at the end of both verses
, represents a mutually complementary translation of the type
that we are about to discuss. In the rabbinic legal discussion (e.g., b.
Baba Mesia 32a) is interpreted as unloading (= )and
as reloading (=). The Palestinian targumim bring
both of these activities together in a complementary manner.
III. Complementary Translation
In the examples cited above, the meturgeman introduces material

from one verse into the targum of another. In the following group of
cases the diverse elements of two similar verses coalesce in the targu-
mic process. The composite translation is used by the meturgeman in
both verses, even though it is not the literal representation of either.
Another way of viewing the complementary translation is that in verse
A the translator introduces additional elements from verse B, and in
verse B he inserts material from A. The process is one of double or
mutual association although the resultant targum is the same for both
verses. The following examples will serve as illustrations:
7. In Gen 4:2, Cain is described as ; and in Gen 9:20, Noah

is called . The Pseudo-Jonathan targum uses the compound
phrase to translate both epithets. This is in con-
trast with the simple found in Onqelos and Neofiti to
Gen 4:2.
82 chapter six
8. In Gen 12:13, when Abraham and Sarah are about to enter Egypt,
Abraham requests of his wife Say then that you
are my sister. In Gen 20:13, Abraham under similar circumstances
relates to Abimelech that he had requested of Sarah: Whatever place
we come to, say of me, He is my brother. In Neofiti
to these verses we find:
Gen 12:13 4
Gen 20:13
Contrast this with Pseudo-Jonathan and
, respectively. Neofiti contains a mutually complemen-
tary translation, which does not suit both contexts equally. Whereas
the word ( now, then or even please) could readily be added
in 20:13, the preposition / is somewhat out of place in 12:13,
producing say then of me: I am his sister. The instinctive association
was not always checked out fully for its contextual or syntactic suit-
ability.
9. In Gen 16:5, Sarah invokes Gods intervention in defending her

dignity, requesting that He judge between her and Abraham:
MT
Neof '
(contrast Onqelos )
In Gen 31:49, Laban calls upon the Lord to be a witness that neither
he nor Jacob will harm one another:
MT
Neof '
CG (Leningrad-Antonin 542)
(contrast Onqelos )
In both of these cases, the single verbs and are trans-
lated by the compound phrase . . . in Neofiti ( . . .
in CG).
It would seem that the associative source of both elements is Exod
5:21, , whose literal translation in Neofiti is
4
See M. Klein, Notes on the Printed Edition of MS Neofiti 1, JSS 19 (1974), 220,
regarding this reading [ch. 19 in the present volume].
' and CG C.U.L. T-S B 8.12 ][ ][

[].5 To be revealed and to judge is then the mutually comple-
mentary translation for either of the two verbs.
10. Two similar and proximate verses, regarding the results of mis-
treatment of the underprivileged are as follows:
Exod 22:22
Neof

CG A (=CUL T-S 20.155) ][

and
Exod 22:26
Neof

CG A (=CUL T-S 20.155)
] [

In v. 22, the opening verb and the descriptive ending
are supplied from v. 26. Likewise, in v. 26, the object
)=( is supplied from v. 22. The targum of each of
these verses is complemented by that of the other. Similarly, in Exod
22:22, the reduction of the infinitive absolute plus the conjugated verb
to the simple verb in CG A, and the reduction of
to in both Neofiti and CG A would seem to be the
influence of verse 26. As to the addition of the pronominal /
, I believe its source lies in the two similar verses in the Book of
Deuteronomy:
Deut 15:9
Neof '
and
Deut 24:15
Neof '
5
Cf. 1 Sam 24:15(16), .
84 chapter six
We note that in both of these verses, which contextually are closely

related to the passages in Exodus, the Palestinian Targum uses the
verb to translate the Hebrew . The borrowing of the pronoun
/ from these verses in Deuteronomy is, therefore, most
likely.
We might add parenthetically that the addition of the negative par-
ticle in Neof to Deut 15:9 is yet another example of associative trans-
lationthe source being Deut 24:15, where the MT reads: .
Regarding the doublet , which translates the single Hebrew
adjective , here too, we have a very common associative targumic
technique, to which the following section of this study is devoted.
11. The targumic expansions within the running texts, as well as the
various targumic toseftot, very often cite verses from elsewhere in the
Bible. These citations were probably made from memory and are not
always in perfect agreement with the Hebrew text as preserved in the
MT. The deviations introduced by the meturgemanim would at times
seem to be the result of the very same associative forces that are at play
in the targumic text proper. A case in point is the aggadic explanation
as to why the chief butler did not keep his promise to Joseph and
mention his plight to the Pharaoh. The Palestinian targumim to Gen.
40:23 attribute his forgetfulness to Josephs dependence upon a human
being, rather than upon God alone, thereby violating two verses in the
Book of Jeremiah.6
Jer 17:5
P Gen 40:23
contrast Tg Jer
and Jer 17:7
P Gen 40:23 '
'
Tg Jer ' '

First, there is the equalization within the citation of 17:5, with the
translation of for . This provides a parallelism between
the two stichs, just as they are balanced in v. 7 with '. This is
6
Such midrashic anachronism is quite common. The patriarchs studied and ful-
filled the entire Bible, even before it was given. See I. Heinemann, Darkei Ha-Agadah,
2nd ed. (Jerusalem 1954), pp. 4041.
in contrast to the literal in Tg Jer. We then find the word

translated in all of the targumim as , which clearly reflects the
Hebrew of v. 7. Next we find of v. 5 translated in P;
and of v. 7 translated [ also in Neof gl]. It would seem that
the meturgeman, while recalling that the verses used different verbs,
did not recall the correct location of each. A factor that may have
contributed to the confusion is the similar verse in Ps 40:5
.
12. Another example of a verse from the Prophets cited in a targu-

mic tosefta is found in the same Paris MS of Fragment Targum to the
Pentateuch:
P Num 16:1 ][

The only verse in which a comparison is made between the blood of
Ahab and that of Naboth is 1 Kgs 21:19,
. The major deviations of
P from the Kings passage are obvious: the substitution of for
(=Tg Kings )and the addition of the location . Once
again, what we have is the combination of a substitutive and a comple-
mentary associative translation, the source of which being 1 Kgs 21:23,
7[ ], and two similar verses in
2 Kgs 9:10, 36.
IV. The Targumic Doublet
A widespread feature in the targumim is the rendition of a single verb

or noun by a translational doublet. The origin of many of these dou-
blets can be traced to the Hebrew Bible and their use in the targumim
would seem to constitute an additional variety of the associative trans-
lation. The following are several examples:
13. Gen 15:13
Neof
Exod 18:3
7
The MT reads , but the reconstruction is supported by 2 Kgs 9:10, 36, both
of which read .
86 chapter six
Neof
and with a slight variation:
Exod 2:22
Neof
The Hebrew doublet is attested in Gen 23:4; Lev 25:35, 47.
14. The doublet is the frequent translation of the two

Hebrew verbs and , in the Palestinian targumim. For
example:
Exod 15:1
Neof '
Gen 24:26
Neof '8
This doublet is found in the prayer in Dan 2:23
. If this is not the direct source of our targumic doublet, it
serves as a good parallel.
15. Another example for which an early parallel may be found in

the Book of Daniel is the doublet ( Dan 2:10). In the targu-
mim this doublet translates the Hebrew , , et al., denoting an
important person. For example:
Gen 27:29
Neof
Gen 44:15
Neof
16. One of the most common targumic doublets is , which

appears as the translation of the single noun over twenty times in
Neofiti alone. For example:
Gen 18:3
8
This, of course, is paraphrastic, and only one of six distinct translations of
in the Palestinian targumim. See M.L. Klein, Anthropomorphisms and
Anthropopathisms in the Targumim of the Pentateuch, (Jerusalem 1982), pp. 15155.
See also pp. 14551 on translational doublets.
Neof
Exod 33:12
Neof
This doublet is found in the Hebrew Bible in Esther 2:17,
.
17. The repeated refrain in the story of the cre-

ation is translated in Neof ' . The doublet
translates the single words and in other contexts
as well:
Deut 12:8
Neof
or Deut 18:17
Neof 9
The source of association for this doublet would seem to be the Hebrew
text of Deut 12:28 .
18. A final example of a doublet whose source is to be found in the

Prophets, is the verb which is translated three times in
the story of the Exodus:
Exod 12:13
Neof
Exod 12:23
Neof '
10
and Exod 12:27

Neof
The source for this doublet which suggests itself is Isa 31:5,
.
9
The addition of the word is associative, reflecting Deut 5:25(28)
.
10
For the additional )( see the next verse cited (Exod 12:27).
88 chapter six
V. Conclusion
I believe that all of the foregoing examplesand they are only samples
of a ubiquitous targumic practiceillustrate the power of association
in the mind of the meturgeman. If the general learning process in
ancient times placed emphasis on committing texts to memory, this
was the case even more so with the meturgeman, whose profession
involved reciting the Biblical text in translation, by heart, in the syna-
gogue. It was only natural that he would from time to time unwittingly
confuse similar phrases or passages, even if their places of origin were
remote from one another.
This being the situation, one must examine instances of targumic
divergence from the Hebrew Bible for the possibility of associative
translation before arriving at conclusions regarding textual variants
in the Vorlage text.
VI. Epilogue: A Caveat
Having presented all of the above examples of associative and comple-

mentary translation in the targumim, a word of caution in the reverse
might be in place. There are cases which on the surface seem to reflect
targumic association with some similar verse. However, upon further
investigation, another, more plausible solution presents itself.
19. A case in point is Deut 31:28, , which is

translated in Neofiti . The addition of
the word would have seemed to reflect the well-attested Hebrew
pair found, for instance, in Deut 16:18. However, the
LXX to Deut 31:28 reads: ,
, , . It
is, therefore, quite possible, that a common variant Vorlage, such as
underlies both the Palestinian
Targum and the Septuagint.
SECTION II
CHAPTER SEVEN
A FRAGMENT-TARGUM OF ONQELOS FROM THE

CAIRO GENIZAH
The phenomenon of fragment-targum has been known for hundreds of

years, among Ashkenazic and Sephardic manuscripts, as well as among
the fragments of oriental manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah. However,
the previously known fragment-targums were all extracts of the Palestinian
Targum to the Pentateuch. This article presents the first extant exam-
ple of fragment-targum of Onqelos. A comparison with the Palestinian
fragment-targums to Numbers 1618 indicates that this is a unique text
and that there is no textual or redactional relationship between it and its
Palestinian counterparts, except for the fact that they may both be catego-
rized as fragment-targums.
Targumic studies have enjoyed a rejuvenation in recent decades. Early
fragments of targum to Leviticus and Job were discovered among the
Dead Sea Scrolls. A complete exemplar of a Palestinian targum was
identified among the Hebrew manuscripts of the Vatican Library.
Numerous fragments of Palestinian targum and fragment-targum,
expansive targumic toseftas, and liturgical targumic poems have
turned up in the various collections of Cairo Genizah manuscripts
throughout the world. All of these have contributed to the philologi-
cal study of Jewish Aramaic, rabbinic exegesis of the Bible, medieval
Jewish liturgy, and the synagogal and academic settings of targumic
literaturesubjects on which Jonas Greenfield has himself made sig-
nificant contributions.
The phenomenon of fragment-targum has been known for hun-
dreds of years1 but is not fully understood to this very day. Scholars
have yet to discover the rationale behind these sporadic collections
of single words, phrases, verses, and even brief passages of targum.
What is known is that such selective anthologizing was quite common,
since at least three or four major textual families of fragment-targum
1
The first printed edition of a fragment-targum appeared in the Bomberg Rabbinic
Bible (Venice, 151718). The first modern edition was published by M. Ginsburger, as
Das Fragmententhargum (Berlin, 1899).
92 chapter seven
have survived.2 Moreover, the medieval copying of these collections,

and by inference their use for study or in the synagogue, was indeed
widespread. Ashkenazic and Sephardic manuscripts, as well as frag-
ments of Oriental manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah, have come
down to us.3
The fragment-targums known until most recently were all extracts
of the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. Therefore, it came as a
pleasant surprise when, in the process of preparing a descriptive cata-
log of targum manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah collections,4 I
stumbled on a leaf of the first known exemplar of fragment-targum
of Onqelos. The brief catalog description of the new manuscript reads
as follows:
C.U.L. T-S B 12.20
Numbers 16:118:27
Paper; 1 leaf; 18.2 13.0 cm; 1 column; 19 lines; Oriental semi-cursive
script, with occasional square letters (especially aleph); 1213 Century;
very sporadic Tiberian vocalization; divine name ;'contains a single
Hebrew lemma (17:24) and sporadic insertions of Saadyas Judeo-Arabic
translation; bottom line contains only one word, verso blank.
The leaf begins with the opening verse of a para and ends abruptly
with only a single word on the last line; the verso of the leaf is entirely
blank. These facts raise the question of whether the fragment was part
of a more extensive work or merely a single (experimental?) page.
2
See M. L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch, vol. 1: Introductory
Essays (An-Bib 76; Rome, 1980) 1442; and idem, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian
Targum to the Pentateuch (Cincinnati: 1986) l.xxvi. See also the basic study: idem,
The Extant Sources of the Fragmentary Targum to the Pentateuch, HUCA 46 (1975)
11537. An attempt to solve the mystery of their rationale that came to my attention
after this article was submitted is Ronald M. Campbell, A Fragment-Targum without a
Purpose? The Raison-dtre of MS Vatican Ebr. 440 (Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern
University, Evanston, Ill., 1994 [advisor: P. V. M. Flesher]).
3
Ashkenazic: MSS Vatican Ebr. 440, Nrnberg-Stadtbibliothek Solger 2,2 and
Leipzig-Universitt B. H. fol. 1.
Sephardic: MS Paris Bibliothque nationale Hbr. 110.
Oriental: MSS British Library Or. 10794 and Cambridge University Library (C.U.L.)
T-S AS 72.7577.
4
M. L. Klein, Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections (Cam-
bridge, 1992).
a fragment-targum of onqelos from the cairo genizah 93
The appended comparative chart indicates that, from among a total

of 90 biblical verses between Num 16:1 and 18:27, passages from only
14 verses of Onqelos were included in this fragment-targum. Only seven
of these are the same verses for which either of the extant Palestinian
fragment-targums preserves passages. In two instances (16:13 and 17:3),
the phrases preserved for verses common to the present manuscript
and the other fragment-targums are mutually exclusive. It is there-
fore clear that no textual or redactional relationship exists between the
present manuscripts and its Palestinian counterparts, except for the
fact that they may be both categorized as fragment-targums.5
C.U.L. MS T-S B 12.20

Numbers
( 10) ( 3) ( 16:1) .1
( ' 16) ( 13) .2
( 29) ( 28) .3
[ ]' .4
.5
( 31) .6
( 17:3) .7
( 6) .8
( 10) .9
( 23) .10
.11
( 24) .12
( ' 27) .13
.14
( ' 18:20) .15
.16
( 27) .17
.18
.19
5
The numbers in parentheses in the Aramaic text and in the English translation
are the biblical citations of chapter and verse. The numbers in the margins are the line
numbers in the manuscript.
94 chapter seven
Translation
1. (Num 16:1) And he separated. (3) Enough for you! For all the commu-
nity (10) and you also seek the high priesthood
2. (13) also rule [over us] (16) stand ready before the Lordyou, they
3. and Aaron tomorrow (28) but not of my devising. (29) If these [persons]
die
4. the death of all mankind, and the fate of all mankind befalls them, then
God has not
5. sent me. [Arabic: if these die the death of all mankind and they
6. share a common fate (?), then Allah has not spoken (?) to me. When
he had
7. finished all of this speech] (17:3) flat-hammered sheets as plating for
the altar
8. (6) you have caused the death of the Lords people
9. (10) [Arabic: remove (?) yourselves from among this people]
10. (23) And the staff of Aaron of the house of Levi had sprouted and
brought forth buds,
11. produced blossoms, and borne almonds [Arabic: brought forth buds,
12. produced blossoms and borne almonds]. (24) And they saw: And they
made acknowledgment, and each one
13. took his staff. (27) And the Israelites said to Moses as follows: Some of
us
14. were killed by the sword, some of us were swallowed up by the earth
and some of us
15. died in the plague. (18:20) And the Lord said to Aaron: You shall not
have an inheritance in their land
16. nor shall you have a portion among them; I have given you [priestly]
giftsthey shall be your inherited
17. portion among the Israelites (27) and that which you set apart
18. will be considered for you as grain from the threshing floor and as the
rich juice
19. from the wine press.
a fragment-targum of onqelos from the cairo genizah 95
Comparative Chart of Verses Preserved

T-S B 12.20 Palestinian Fragment-Targums
Onqelos Saadya Paris 110 Vatican 440
Numbers
16: 1
3
10
13
15
16
22
28
29
31
17: 3
6
10
23
24
27
18: 12
20
27
CHAPTER EIGHT
SERUGIN (SHORTHAND) OF ONQELOS FROM

THE CAIRO GENIZAH
Serugin manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible are well known, ever since
A. Neubauers article, The Hebrew Bible in Shorthand Writing.1
However, for almost a century, the phenomenon remained totally
unattested among targum texts.
Neubauer identified the serugin phenomenon in manuscripts of the
Hebrew Bible with the mentioned in rabbinic literature as
a form of mnemonic shorthand writing that employs the first letters
of words. However, he was at a loss to explain the newly discovered
Genizah texts, which preserved some initial and some medial let-
ters, and which were certainly too complicated for use in primary
schools.2
In a brief response that followed in the same year, M. Friedlander,
like most subsequent scholars, concentrated primarily upon the sys-
tem of vocalization reflected in the manuscripts. Yet, he comments
that the text of these fragments seems to have been intended as a help
for readers in the Synagogue or learners in the schools, enabling them
to read in accordance with the traditional pronunciation and modula-
tion, and at the same time warning against mistakes likely to be made,
especially by beginners, in the reading of texts without vowel-points
and accents. . . .3
In the following year, Friedlander suggested that because the serugin
texts did not have the same sanctity as the complete Hebrew Bible,
they could be handled more casually. This also explained why so few
serugin texts survivedbecause when they became worn and fell into
disuse, they did not have to be confined to a genizah. They were
thrown away or destroyed when no longer wanted.4
1
JQR 7 (18941895): 361364.
2
Ibid., 364.
3
M. Friedlander, A Third System of Symbols for the Hebrew Vowels and Accents,
JQR 7 (18941895): 564567.
4
M. Friedlander, Some Fragments of the Hebrew Bible with Peculiar Abbreviations
and Peculiar Signs for Vowels and Accents, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical
Archaeology 18 (1896): 8698.
98 chapter eight
P. Kahle, on the other hand, felt that the serugin manuscripts could
only be used by people who already knew the texts by heart or those
who had immediate access to a full consonantal text (wohl nur von
Leuten, die den Text auswendig wussten, bzw. den Konsonantentext
daneben hatten).5
It has more recently been observed that the serugin phenomenon
may be related to massoretic activity, in addition to its serving as an
economic technique to save on expensive writing materials. With
regard to a recently discovered Genizah fragment, E. J. Revell writes,
It seems clear that its main purpose is to mark the correct positions
for the accents, so the text is perhaps to be taken as a sort of Manual
of the Accent System for a scholar or naqdan.6
In contrast to all of these views, it would seem, that the newly dis-
covered serugin texts of targum, were written in this manner primarily
as an economic expedient, since just the beginnings of verses (in T-S
B 9.9), or just the first letters of each word from the original text are
recorded (T-S AS 66.14 and T-S AS 67.26), regardless of their content,
vocalization or accentuation. Moreover, one must adopt the view of
Neubauer and Kahle, at least in these instances, that this sort of abbre-
viation can be useful only to someone who has already memorized
most of the targum. This leads us to the conclusion that the present
serugin texts were prepared by, or for, the official meturgeman, either
5
P. Kahle, Beitrage zur Geschichte der hebrischen Punktation, ZAW 21 (1901):
274. Kahle later wrote on the vocalization of the serugin texts in Masoreten des Westens
I (Stuttgart, 1927): 3536; II (Stuttgart, 1930): 31*35*, 8895 (both volumes were
reprinted: Hildesheim, 1967).
In 1962, I. Yeivin published the first known example of serugin in a text with
Babylonian vocalization and accentuation: A Babylonian Fragment of the Bible in the
Abbreviated System, Textus 2 (1962): 120139. This discovery broadened the scope
of serugin to encompass texts with all of the major systems of vocalization. Although
the present targum manuscripts of Onqelos and Jonathan to the Prophets are vocal-
ized in the Tiberian system and their methods of abbreviation differ from that applied
to the Hebrew Bible in the Babylonian tradition, the universal application of serugin
established by Yeivin is relevant.
6
E. J. Revel, A New Biblical Fragment with Palestinian Vocalisation, Textus 7
(1969): 74. Two additional recent works that include treatment of serugin texts of
the Hebrew Biblebut again, concerned primarily with the systems of vocalization
and accentuationare the following: Manfred Dietrich, Neue palestinisch punktierte
Bibelfragmente [based upon a thesis: Tbingen, 1960] (Leiden, 1968): 3537, 36*50*,
74*78*; and E. J. Revell, Biblical Texts with Palestinian Pointing and Their Accents
(Masoretic Studies 4; Missoula, 1977): 203205. This section is titled: Brachygraphy
and Stress Position.
serugin of onqelos from the cairo genizah 99
as a preparatory learning device or perhaps as a mnemonic aid for

use during the synagogal torah reading. In fact, the small dimensions
of the manuscripts would have facilitated their inconspicuous use in
the synagogue, where, by strict rule, the meturgeman was forbidden
to read the targum from a written text, during the public worship.7
Thus, the three newly discovered serugin texts of targum shed some
new light on the practice of the meturgeman in the Medieval eastern
synagogue.
It should be noted that all three of the serugin manuscripts contain
texts from Exodus chapters 1820, and one of them (AS 69.115) is
clearly a collection of festival readings for Shavuot, containing torah,
maftir and haftarah for the occasion. It is clear from the different
methods of abbreviation in each of these manuscripts, as well as from
a comparison of the small section of overlap between AS 66.14 and
AS 69.115, that none of the three is a copy of either of the others. It is
unusualperhaps a coincidencethat all three seemingly independent
sources should contain almost the same passage from the Pentateuch.
[See Postscript below.]
As can readily be observed from the appended plates [not included
in this reprinted.], and as noted in the individual descriptions of the
manuscripts, all three texts, when pointed, are in the Tiberian system.
However, the vocalization is of no special interestand certainly not
the issue at hand. It has, therefore, not been included in the printed
transcription.
The description of each of the new manuscripts and its method of
abbreviation are presented before each of the texts below.8
7
Y. Meg. 74d: :'
"
. Moreover, in B. Meg. 32a, a prohibition is cited against the reader of
the Hebrew version assisting the meturgeman so as not to give the congregation the
false impression that the torah scroll also contains the Aramaic translation:

.
8
These descriptions are based upon M. L. Klein, Targumic Manuscripts in the Cam-
bridge Genizah Collections (Cambridge, 1992). The manuscripts were discovered and
identified during a sabbatical year provided by Hebrew Union College, that was spent
as a Visiting Fellow at Clare Hall (Cambridge University) and as a Visiting Research
Associate at the Genizah Research Unit of Cambridge University Library.
100 chapter eight
C.U.L. T-S B 9.99
Exodus 18:119:4
Paper; 2 leaves (1 bifolium); 13.9 x 7.0 cm; 1 column; 8 lines; 1415
Century Oriental linear square script; Tiberian vocalization (until
middle of folio 2v); divine name ; single Hebrew lemma at
Exod 19:1.
Serugin: The first four or five words (occasionally three or six) of
each verse are written out in full on a separate line. The number of
words is dependent upon their collective length.
C.U.L. MS T-S B 9.9

Folio 1r
(Exodus 18)
(1) .1
(2) .2
(3) .3
(4) .4
(5) .5
(6) .6
(7) .7
(8) .8
folio 1v
(9) .1
(10) .2
(11) .3
(12) .4
(13) .5
(14) .6

(15) .7
(16) .8
folio 2r

] [ (17) .1
- (18) .2
(19) .3
(20) .4
9
I am grateful to Dr. Stefan C. Reif for his kind support and for facilitating the
acquisition of photographs for the plates [not included in this reprinted.]. I also
wish to thank Prof. Malachi Beit Arie, for his assistance with the dating and geo-
graphical identification of the manuscripts.
}{ (21) .5
(22) .6
(23) .7
(24) .8
folio 2v
(25) .1
(26) .2
[]
(27) .3
( 19:1) .4
.5
[ ] (2) .6
[ ][ ] (3) .7
[ ] (4) .8
)( .9
C.U.L. T-S AS 66.14 AND AS 67.26
Exodus 19:2120:18/21
Paper; 3 leaves (including 1 bifolium and one mutilated); 16.9 x 6.3
cm; 1 column; 1618 lines; Oriental semi-cursive script; 12(?) Century;
sporadic Tiberian vocalization; divine name /_; most of verso of AS
66.14 blank. This ms also contains a number of words spelled out in
full, especially at the end of verses. Haplograph in 20:4
ex homoioteleuton.
Serugin: All of the words of the original Onqelos text are repre-
sented in the text. Most are abbreviated by their first two to four
letters. Several final words of verses are written out in full, and the
negative particle is denoted by the single letter lamed.
C.U.L. MS T-S AS 67.26

Folio 1r
(Exodus 19)
[ ] /_ ( 21) .1
[ ] .2
/_ .3
.4
( ][ 22) .5
[ ] .6
/_ .7
/_ ( 23) .8
.9
.10
102 chapter eight
)?( .11
.12

) (24 _/ .13
.14
.15
.16
_ / .17
.18
folio 1v
) (25 .1
(20:1) : .2
_ / .3
/ / / : .4
) (2 _ / .5
)( .6
:
) (3 .7
) (4 .8
.9
.10
.11
) (5 .12
_/ .13
.14
.15
.16
.17
folio 2r
] [ .1
) (6 .2
.3
. .4
) (7 _ / .5
.6
_ / .7
(8) : .8
.9
) (9 .10
) (10 .11
_/ .12
.13
.14
.15
) (11 .16
_/ .17
.18
folio 2v
.1
.2
_/ .3
.4
}{ .5
) (12 .6
.7
_ / .8
.9
) (13 ) (13/14 .10
) (13/15 ) (13/16 .11
: .12
) (14/17 ][ .13
][ .14
.15
.16
.17
C.U.L. T-S AS 66.14

recto
)] (15/18[ .1
][ .2
.3
? .4
][ : .5
) (16/19 .6
.7
_ / .8
.9
) (17/20 .10
.11
.12
_ / .13
.14
.15
.16
verso
) (18/21 .1
.2
.3
_: / .4
104 chapter eight
C.U.L. T-S AS 69.115
Exodus 20:15/1823/26; Numbers 28:2631; Ezekiel 1:116

Paper; 2 leaves (1 bifolium, mutilated); 8.5+ x 7.0+ cm; 1 column;
7+ lines; Eastern Oriental semi-cursive script; 1314 Century; Tiberian
vocalization, (only folio Ir unpointed); divine name . The end of the
torah reading is denoted by and Judeo-Arabic , at bottom of
folio 1r; also appears at the end of the maftir, at the bottom of
folio 1v. These are the readingstorah, maftir and haftarah for the
Shavuoth festival.
Serugin: The first two to four words of each verse are written out in
full. Occasionally, only the first word appears (Ezek 1:2, 6). Only the
word is abbreviated ( Exod 20:17/20, 19/22). The negative
particle seems to be twice misspelled (Exod 20:20/23, 23/26)!
C.U.L. T-S AS 69.115

folio 1r
(Exodus 20)
[:]( 16/19) : (15/18) .1
[:]( 18/20) : (17/20) .2
[( )!( ]20/23) : (19/22) .3
[( ]22/25) : (21/24) .4
[)!( ] (23/26) .5
.6
folio 1v
(Numbers 28)
][ ][][ (26) .1
(( )28) : (27) .2
: ][ .3
][ (29) .4
(30) .5
][ (31) .6
.7
folio 2r
(Ezekiel 1)
[( ]2) : (1) .1
[ ] ( 4) : (3) .2
[( ]6) : (5) .3
[ ] (7) .4
[ ] (8) .5
[ ] (9) .6
][
[][ ] (10) .7
folio 2v
][ (11) .1
][ (12) .2
][ (13) .3
][ (14) .4
][ (15) .5
[ ][ ] (16) .6
Postscript
In November 1991, some months after this article was submitted to

the editors of MAARAV, I spent several days in the Rare Book Room
of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York perusing targumic
manuscripts listed in the data base of the J. T. S. Genizah project (pre-
pared by Drs. Niel Danzig and Sol Cohen). Among the interesting dis-
coveries, was a fourth fragment of targum written in seruginand not
from Exodus. Once again, the small size of the page supports the the-
ory that these manuscripts served as inconspicuous aides de mmoire
(i.e. crib notes) for the meturgeman during the Torah reading in the
synagogue. The following is a description of the new fragment and a
transcription of the text.
J.T.S. ENA 2856.29 (+28)
Deuteronomy 32:1943
Paper; 2 leaves (originally 1 bifolium); slightly mutilated; 12.0 x 6.8+
cm; 1 column; 13 lines; lower quarter of 29r and the entire folios 28r,v
and 29v are blank; Oriental semi-cursive script; unpointed, except for
colons after each Hebrew and Aramaic phrase.
Serugin: The first one to three words of Onqelos for each verse are
preceded by a Hebrew lemma of one or two words.
J.T.S. ENA 2856.29 RECTO

folio 29r
[ ]( 20) : ] [ (19) .1
: .( 22) : ][ [ (21) .2
: : ( 24) [: ] : (23) .3
: [ : ( ]26) [ ] : (25) .4
[ ] (28) [: ]: (27) .5
106 chapter eight
: ][ ] (30) : [: : )(29 .6
: (32) : : : )(31 .7

: (34) : : )(33 .8
: (36) : : : )(35 .9
: (38) : : : )(37 .10
: (40) : : : )(39 .11
: (42) : : : )(41 .12
: : )(43 .13
CHAPTER NINE
NEW FRAGMENTS OF PALESTINIAN TARGUM

FROM THE CAIRO GENIZAH*
In the Introduction to Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian to the

Pentateuch,1 I described the efforts to achieve completeness for that
collection, yet realistically predicted that, additional fragments will
inevitably be discovered in the future. Little did I expect these words
to be fulfilled personally, and in so short a time. The following are sev-
eral new fragments, discovered in the course of preparing a descrip-
tive catalogue of targum manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah
collections.2
I. Additions to MS E
The most extensively preserved manuscript of Palestinian Targum to

the Pentateuch is MS E. The largest portion of its extant text, com-
prised of 12 complete leaves was brought together and published by P.
Kahle in Masoreten des Westens II.3 These consisted of fragments from
the Genizah collections of the Bodleian Library in Oxford, Cambridge
University Library and the Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library
in Leningrad. Twenty-five years later, A. Dez Macho discovered
four additional leaves of the same manuscript at the library of the
Jewish Theological Seminary in New York.4 All 16 leaves, represent-
ing about one-sixth of the Book of Genesis, were included in Genizah
Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum. . . .5 In the process of systematically
* To the memory of Alejandro Dez Macho.

1
Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986, I, p. XX.
2
Cambridge Genizah Targum Manuscripts, to be published by Cambridge University
Press for Cambridge University Library. The series editor is Stefan C. Reif, Director
of the Taylor-Schechter Genizah Research Unit, to whom I am grateful for his kind
encouragement and assistance.
3
Stuttgart, 1930; reprinted Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967, pp. 2948.
4
He published them in Nuevos Fragmentos del Targum Palestinense, Sefarad
15 (1955), 3139.
5
See n. 1, above.
108 chapter nine
sifting through and cataloging the targum manuscripts in the New

and Additional Series of Taylor-Schechter Collection at Cambridge,
two additional leaves of MS E were recently identified.
The Taylor-Schechter Collection, which is by far the largest Genizah
collection in the world, and in many ways the most important, nev-
ertheless represents the last pickings of the Cairo Genizah; and
the Additional Series contains the worst-preserved fragments of the
Cambridge collection.6 Thus, whereas the earlier published fragments
of MS E were virtually complete leaves, we must now content ourselves
with two badly mutilated fragments. However, the sad physical state of
the fragments, while affecting their quantitative value, in terms of con-
tinuous text, in no way detracts from their overall importance. In fact,
the newly discovered fragments are the only surviving portions of MS
E from outside the Book of Genesis. And while no satisfying reason
was offered, the possibility had been suggested, on the basis of several
parallels, that MS E originally contained the Palestinian Targum only
to Genesis.7 That notion can no longer be entertained.
The new fragments are T-S AS 68.224 and T-S AS 68.144, which
seem to have originally been conjoined as a single bifolium. They cover
Exod 36:813, 2229, and Exod 39:3240; 40:212, respectively. Their
codicological and textual features are identical with those of the other
known fragments of MS E, namely, parchment, Oriental square script,
approximately 15 lines per 10 centimeters, very sporadic Palestinian
vocalization, and sporadic Tiberian vocalization plus accents (primar-
ily disjunctives). There is an indentation in the text and traces of a
decorative samekh in the corresponding margin to indicate a triennial
sidra beginning at Exod 39:33 (AS 68.144r). The divine name, char-
acteristically represented elsewhere in MS E by the letter yod plus a
circle, is not preserved in the new fragments (it is reconstructed in
Exod 39:32).
As to be expected for MS E, there is a very high degree of shared
readings with the variants in the marginal glosses of MS Neofiti 1
(Neof gl).8 Most significant of these is the determined form of the
6
As well known, earlier collectors, such as the Archimandrite Antonin and
Abraham Firkovitch preceded Solomon Schechter by half a century, while Chester,
Sayce, the two Adlers and others acquired their collections several years before
Schechters famous expedition.
7
M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum, I, pp. XXIIXXIII.
8
Cf. E. G. Clarke, The Neofiti I Marginal Glosses and the Fragmentary Targum
Witnesses to Gen VIIX, Vetus Testamentum 22 (1972) 257265. Note especially
new fragments of palestinian targum 109
feminine singular cardinal number one, which is hitherto unattested in

the Genizah targum fragments. The form hth was recently identified
by S. E. Fassberg for the masculine singular.9 On the basis of parallels
in the marginal glosses of MS Neofiti 1, Fassberg posited the same
form for the feminine gender. The present fragment of MS E indeed
confirms that supposition, providing at least two examples of hth in
Exodus 36:9, 11, corresponding to the MT Hebrew haehat, and pos-
sibly a third example in verse 12. These are in clear contrast to hd and
hdh which correspond to the MT ahat and ehat, in verses 10, 12, and
22 (twice).
The following is a transcription of the new fragments. Facsimiles of

these, and most of the subsequent fragments, appear in the plates at
the end of the article.
CUL T-S AS 68.224 (MS E) Exodus 36:813, 2229

? recto
[( ] [] 9) :( 8) .1
[ ] .2
[( 10) : ] .3
[ ] .4
?
[( 11) :][ ] .5
?
[][ ] .6
? ?
[( 12) :][ ] .7
?
[] [ ] .8
?
[] [ ] .9
[ ( ]13) :] [ .10
the parallels in vocabulary between CG E and Neof gl, cited on p. 264. R. Le Daut
had previously noted a similar relationship between the Neofiti marginal glosses
and Cairo Genizah MS F, for the Book of Leviticus, cf. Levitique XXII 26XXIII
44 dans le Targum Palestinien: de limportance des gloses du codex Neofiti I, Vetus
Testamentum 18 (1968) 458471.
9
Determined Forms of the Cardinal Number One in Three Pentateuchal
Targumim, Sefarad 45 (1985) 207215.
110 chapter nine
verso

]) (22 [ .1
?
] (23) : [ .2
?
] (24) [: .3
] [ .4
] [ ][: .5
? ?
]) (25 [ ][ .6
?
] (26) : [ ][ ] [ .7
?
] [ (27) :] [ .8
] (28) :[ [ .9
??
[ ] [ (29) :] .10
CUL T-S AS 68.144 (MS E) Exodus 39:3240; 40:212

recto
?
) (32 ][] [ .1
] o [: .2
?
]) (33 [ .3
? ???
[ : ][ ] .4
]) (34[ ] [ .5
? ?
][ ] (35) : [ .6
?
] [ ] (36) : [ .7
?
] [ (37) : ] [ .8
?? ?
] [ ][ ] [ (38) : .9
] [ ][ .10
] [ (39) : .11

] [ .12
? ?? ? ?
] [ (40) : .13
[ ] .14
[ ] .15
verso
[ ( ]2) .1
( 3) : ] [ .2
? ? ?
: ] [ .3
?
( ] [ 4) .4
? ? ?
[( [ ]5) : ] .5
? ?
[ ]
] [ .6
?
[ ]
[( 7) (6) :] .7
?
[( ] 8) [: ] .8
?
[( ] 9) :] [ .9
?? ? ?
[ ] [ ] .10
[ ]
(10) : .11
?
[: ]
.12
????
[( 12) :( ][ ] 11) .13
?
[] .14
[ :] .15
II. Another Palestinian Fragment-Targum Identified:

Additions to MS H
About ten years ago, I published A Genizah Fragment of Palestinian

Targum to Genesis 15:14.10 At that time, the absence of verse 3 was
noted; and after raising the possibility of the text being a fragment-
targum, I preferred to attribute the deletion to a scribal error ex
homoioteleuton.
MS T-S B 9.11 has recently been identified as the immediate succes-
sive leaf of that manuscript (MS HUC Genizah 1134), continuing with
the Palestinian Targum to Genesis 15:11, 12, 13, and 16:13, 14, 16. It
10
Hebrew Union College Annual 49 (1978) 7387; and republished in Genizah
Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum, I, p. 29.
112 chapter nine
is now clear that the composition is indeed a Palestinian Fragment-

targum, similar to the well-known recensional families of Fragment-
targum preserved in the European manuscripts.11 The following table
compares the verses preserved in the present Genizah manuscript (CG)
to those preserved in the other two recensional families (P, VNL)
with brief gloss-type translations in VNL indicated as such.
Genesis 15: 1, 2 CG P VNL

4 CG
7 VNL
9 VNL (gloss-type)
10 VNL
11, 12, 17 CG P VNL
19 VNL (gloss-type)
Genesis 16: 5 P VNL
13 CG P VNL
14, 16 CG
The correlation of preserved complete verses with expansive targum is

large enough to suggest a common relationship, not only with the same
Palestinian Targum tradition, but also with a particular Fragment-
targum genre of that source. On the other hand, the number of verses
preserved exclusively by either the CG manuscript or by the VNL
recensional group, together with the variant readings that are unique
to each of the three recensional families (CG, P, VNL), rules out the
possibility of any direct genetic relationship among them.
In light of the fact that they are only two other known Genizah
manuscripts of Palestinian Fragment-targum, both of whose texts are
from the Book of Deuteronomy,12 the present fragment constitutes a
significant addition to that corpus.
The new fragment is comprised of a single paper leaf, measuring
22 16 cm, and containing 21 lines of script. The verso contains
Targum Jonathan to Isaiah 61:962:9an attested Palestinian trien-
11
These are the Paris (P) and Vatican, Nrnberg, and Leipzig (VNL) manuscripts,
all published in full, or as variants in the apparatus, in M. L. Klein, The Fragment-
Targums of the Pentateuch; [Analecta Biblica 76] (Rome: Biblical Institute Press,
1980), 2 Vols.
12
Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum, I, pp. 331, 333 (MS Br) and pp. 339,
341, 357, 359 (MS DD).
nial haftarah to Genesis 20:1.13 The texts of the recto and verso are
written by different hands and in different inks. Unfortunately, the
fragment-targum is very badly faded and not entirely legible (not even
with the aid of ultra-violet lighting). All of the descriptive details are
identical with those of HUC MS Genizah 1134 (MS H), and there can
be no doubt that the two fragments belong to the same manuscript.
In fact it is likely that they are actually two consecutive pages of the
original work. The texts on the versos of the two fragments are also
related to one another: the HUC fragment contains an introductory
poem under the heading wehada targum simehu et [Yeru]shalayim,14
and the present Cambridge fragment contains the haftarah itself.
The following is a transcription of the text. For the sake of continu-
ity, the text of the HUC fragment is also given.
HUC Genizah MS 1134 (MS H) Genesis 15:1, 2, 4

recto
?
[ ]

(1) .1
? ? ? ?
[ ]

.2
?
[ ]
.3
?

.4
? ?

.5
??

>< .6
?

.7

.8
?
< ][ >

][ .9
[][ ] .10
13
This is also an attested annual haftarah to parashat Nissavim according to some
Yemenite traditions; cf. I. Fried, Table of Haftarot, Talmudic Encyclopedia, ed. S. J.
Zevin, (Jerusalem, 1961), Vol. 10, Cols. 71314. However, the proximity to Genesis
1516, of the recto, and the association with a Palestinian targum, would argue
strongly in favor of the triennial identification.
14
Following the reading proposed by Y. Yadin, A Note on the Title of the Verso
of the Geniza MS 1134, HUCA 51 (1980) 61.
114 chapter nine

.11
}{ .12
?
][
.13
?
}{ .14
??
][
.15
?
(2) :
.16

.17
?? ? ? ??
][ .18
??
(4) :][:
.19
?
][ .20
? ??
] [
][

.21
CUL T-S B 9.11 (MS H) Genesis 15:1116:16

recto
?
[ [ ] [ ] ])(15:11 .1
?
][ ] [ ][
[ ] .2
? ?? ? ? ? ?
] [ ][

[ ] .3
? ? ? ?
[ ]
[ ) (12 : ] .4
? ?
][

[ ] .5
? ?? ? ? ? ?

] [ .6
? ? ??
[ [ ]
] .7
? ?
[ ]

][ ][ .8
?? ? ?
] :[ ][ ][][ ][
] (17) :[
][ .9
? ? ? ?
] [
[ ] [ ] .10
? ???

[ ] [ ] .11
? ? ?
[[ ][ ] ]] [ .12
? ?
[ [ ] ] .13
[ ]
[ ]
[ ] .14
?
[ ]

( 16:13) [:] [ ] .15
?
] [
[][ ] .16
? ?
[
[ ] ] .17
[( ][ 14) :

[ ] .18
? ? ?
[ ] [ ] [ ] .19
??
[ ]
(16) [ :] [ ] .20
? ??
[ ] [ ] .21
III. Additions to MS D
One of the major manuscripts of Palestinian targum first published

by Kahle is MS D, all of whose extant fragments are in the Taylor-
Schechter Collection in Cambridge. In his edition, Kahle included 14
leaves, or fragments of leaves. In Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian
Targum . . ., I published five additional fragments of MS D, two of
which (T-S Misc. 27.1.4) being the only complete leaves of this manu-
script that had been discovered by S. Lund, several years earlier.
During the recent work on the Cambridge catalogue, five additional
smaller fragments came to light,15 representing parts of both previ-
ously known and unknown leaves of this manuscript. One of the most
important aspects of MS D is that it spans the entire Pentateuch, pre-
serving fragments from Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy. The new
fragments contain texts from all three of these books.
15
The classmarks of the new fragments are T-S AS 64.27, 239; AS 66.187; AS 68.83,
234.
116 chapter nine
MS D is a classical 3-column parchment codex, from about the year

1000 CE.16 It is written in an Oriental square script, with full Tiberian
vocalization and accents, and with Massorah magna and parva. The
leaf measures 35.0 28.5 cm, with 24 lines to the column. The text is
bilingual, with the Palestinian targum following each Hebrew verse.
It also contains marginal notation of triennial sidrot, the beginnings
of some triennial haftarot and the sporadic citation of an unidenti-
fied midrash. The following are the texts in their canonical order.
A facsimile is presented only of the largest fragment, namely, AS 68.83
(Gen 37).
CUL T-S 68.83 (MS D) Genesis 37:811, 1314, 1617

recto
column 3 column 2
[] :( ][ ][ ][8) .16
? ?? ? ? ?
[]
.17
?
[ :] ] [ .18
? ?? ?
[] - .19
? ? ?
[]

.20
[ ] [
] [ ] .21
?
- .22
- .23

: { }][ .24
?
( 11) ][ .25
16
Following the dating of Prof. M. Beit-Ari, of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
Kahle had dated this codex and two others to the latter half of the 9th Century (MdW
II, p. 2*).
verso
column 2 column 1
]) (16 [ .14
? ? ? ?
] [ )(13 .15
? ??
: ] [ .16
? ? ? ?
-
--
] [ .17
]-
[ - ] [: .18
??
(17) : ])(14 [ .19
][ .20
? ??
.21
}{ .22
.23
: : .24
?
][
-
-
.25
?
][ -
- .26
CUL T-S 64.27 (MS D) Genesis 48:10

)(=T-S B 8.7
recto
) (10 .1
?
[ ]
.2
)(+ T-S B 8.7 (11) :][ .3
??
][ .4
] [ .5
] [ .6
(verso contains only Hebrew).
118 chapter nine
CUL T-S 64.239 (MS D) Exodus 5:67, 1819

verso recto
??? ? ? ? ? ?
[ ] )(18 ][ ][
)] (6[ .1
?? ???
-
- ] [ .2
?
] [ .3
? ??
] [ ][: (7) : ][

.4
? ?
) (19][][ ][ .5
?
][ .6
? ?
][ ] [ .7
CUL T-S AS 66.187 (MS D) Exodus 7:1516, 20

)(=T-S B 8.5
verso recto
? ?? ? ?? ? ?

] [ ) (15 ] [ .22
?
][
(16) : [] .23
? ??
.24
CUL T-S 68.234 (MS D) Deuteronomy 29:1315

verso
column 3 column 2
] ])(13 .1
?
) (15] [ ] [ .2
] [ ][ .3
[ ] ][ : .4
??
[ ]: ][ ][ .5
] [ - .6
[
] [ ] .7
] (14) :[ .8
][ .9
][ .10
] [ .11
(The recto, which seems to contain Deut. 29:2, 5, is very badly faded
)and virtually illegible.
CHAPTER TEN

COMPLEMENTARY FRAGMENTS FROM
THE CAIRO GENIZAH

" "
,
-,
" .
,
,
. E
:
'
, ".

, E
. 1930
, ' ,
; 1
2
' ;

) (Additional Series' ,
3
.1989
, ,
.
.
1
P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, II, (Stuttgart, 1930; reprinted Hildesheim, 1967),
pp. 2948.
2
A. Dez Macho, Nuevos Fragmentos del Targum Palestinense, Sefarad 15 (1955),
3139.
3
M. L. Klein, New Fragments of Palestinian Targum from the Cairo Genizah,
Sefarad 49 (1989), 123133.
120 chapter ten
, ,
.
' ' , ,
,
4
' ).(CUL T-S H12.11
, 5
6
.
' , ' ,
' ' .
,
' ' ) .(2
, ,
.
) " ," "(.
'
7.
.
,
'' ' , .
:
CUL T-S AS 116.453

13.7 6.6" ,
. .
. .
.
4
' " , ", )"( ,' ;278265
' .272
5
' " , ",
)"( ,' ,375362 ' .356
6
M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch,
Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986, I, pp. 191f.; II, plate 172.
7
M. L. Klein, Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
complementary fragments from the cairo genizah 121
) recto (1
? .1
/// ? .2
][ ][ .3
][ .4
] [ ] [ }{ .5
][ ][ .6
][][ .7
][ .8
][ ] [ .9
] [ ][ .10
.11
][ ][ .12
][ .13
][ .14
][ ][ .15
.16
) verso (2
] [ .1
][ [ ] .2
[ ] .3
][ ][ .4
] [ .5
][ ][ .6
][ .7
][ .8
][ ][ ][ .9
: .10
][ .11
] [ .12
] [ .13
][ [ ] .14
, '
CUL T-S H12.11:
: .1
: .2
.3
122 chapter ten
.
" ,
.
" "]' :[ ] [
' . , '',
).(ex homoio archon
CUL T-S AS 116.453
] recto[ ][ ][
][ ][ ][
][ ][ )?(

][ ][ ][
][ verso ] [
[ ] [ ]
][ ] [
][ ][)?( ][ )?(

] [ ] [
] [
) (Grelot
' ) ,(CUL T-S B8.9
'' - -
, , , 8.
,
' ) (CUL T-S NS 138.79; NS 271.183
) .(JTS NS ENA 42.27
8
P. Grelot, Une Tosephta targoumique sur Gense XXII dans un manuscrit
liturgique de la Geniza du Caire, REJ N.S. 16 (1957), 527 . . . :
) , ,(6 ,' ;3534 , .106
:
' . . . .' . . .
: ,
) .(T-S B8.9 16.5 12.6" ,
. .
.
JTS NS ENA 42.27
) recto (3
[ ][ ] .1
[ ][ ] .2
[ ] .3
[ ] .4
] [)?( .5
][ ] [ .6
][ .7
][ ][ .8
[ ] .9
][ .10
][ .11
) verso (4
[ ][ ] .1
[ ] .2
] [ .3
[ }{ ] .4
] [ .5
][ .6
.7
][ ][ }{ .8
] [ .9
[ ][ ] .10
CUL T-S B8.9, folio 1

recto
.1
.2
124 chapter ten
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
)' (5 }{ ' .11
.12
verso
.1
}{ .2
}{ .3
.4
.5
.6
' .7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
CUL T-S NS 138.79
) recto (5
] [ ? ] [ .1
] [ .2
. .3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
)' (2 .9
' .10
)' (3 .11
.12
' )' (11 .13
) verso (6
][ ' ][ )' (18 .1

][ ][ .2
.3
)' (7 . .4
.5
' .6
' ' ][ .7
.8
' .9
.10
.11
.12
.13
CUL T-S NS 271.183
) recto (7
. .1
.2
.3
. ' .4
' ' ' .5
.6
}{ .7
' ' .8
.9
.10
.11
][ .12
.13
) verso (8
.1
.2
. .3
'][ .4
.5
' ][ .6
.7
' . .8
. .9
][ .10
126 chapter ten
' .11
.12
.13
JTS NS ENA 42.27

[ [ ] [ ] ] recto
[ ] [ ][ ] [ ]
][ ][
[ ] [ ][ ] verso
[ ][ ] [ ] [ ]
] [ ][
][ ] [

CUL T-S B8.9

recto

][

' verso

'
][
. . .
CUL T-S NS 138.79

[ ] . . . recto)?( .
][

' '
'' ' '
'' verso ][ '' ][' ][
][ ' ][ '.
][
' ' ' '
' '

CUL T-S NS 271.138

' recto ' .
. ' ][
'' '
][ ' ' '

} {
verso
.][
][
][ .
.

. . .
' ,CUL T-S B8.9

, ,
.
, .
CUL T-S B8.9, folio 2
recto
.1
.2
[ ] .3
. .4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
verso
. .1
}{ .2
128 chapter ten
.3
.4
.5
.6
? ] :?[ .7
. .8
/ .9
. .10
. .11
-
-- ,
. ,
,
9
.
' ' ,
, , 10.
" ,
,
. , '-
' ,
,Heb e25 .
11.
,
.
.

. ,
' ' . 12
.1513
' ' ,11
1900 12.
9
) , .(5
10
.' '" , ' ", )"( ,' 184173
11
) , ,(6' .238237 , ,
Heb c7475. , ,
12
M. Ginsburger, Aramischer Introductionen zum Thargumvortrag an Festtagen,
ZDMG 54 (1900), 122f.
.
" " , .
12 ,
,
.
' ' ,
'][ ]![ ' . ,
,
.Heb e25 ,
' ' ' ) ' . . . "(,
' ' '' ' ' ) "(.
' ' ,25
13,
14. ' '
,
' : . . . ' ,
' :
' .
.
.
: , 14 14.2" ,
. .
. .
JTS ENA 2752.18
) recto (9
][ ][ ][ . .1
][
][ . .2
][ . .3
. ][ . .4
. .5
. .6
] [ : .7
13
M. Ginsburger, 'Les Introductions Aramennes a la Lecture du Targum', REJ 73
(1921), 1516.
14
' , , ," , ;6374 , ) , ,(5'
.365 ' ' , ',
, , " ,' .103
130 chapter ten
] ///// [ .8
[ ][] .9
[ ] .10
[ ] //// .11
] [ .12
] [ (13) : .13
] [ .14
) verso (10
(14) - . .1
-. .2
) (15 . ][ .3
][ .4
][)!( '- . .5
- .6
.7
-] [ .8
] - [ .9
] - [ .10
] . [ .11
- ] [ .12
- ] [ .13
- . .14
JTS ENA 2752.19
) recto (11
- .1
-. .2
- .3
- .4
)( - .5
. .6
. .7
- .8
] [ - .9
. ] [ .10
. ] [ . .11
][ - . .12
.13
) verso (12
. - .1
. . .2
] .[ ) ] [ ( . .3
][ . . .4
. .5
)( . . }{- .6
-. -- .7
. - .8
[ . ] .9
[ ] : /)?( .10
. ] [ : .11
. ] [ .. .12
/)?( . . . .13
CHAPTER ELEVEN
THE TARGUMIC TOSEFTA TO EXODUS 15:2*
In his Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie, L. Zunz listed a num-

ber of Aramaic passages in the festival liturgy that have their origin in
the targumic toseftot (additions, expansions).1 Most prominent in this
listing are the many toseftot to the Song of the Sea (Exod 15), which
is part of the Torah reading for the Seventh Day of Passover, the tra-
ditional date of the Crossing of the Sea. Several of those toseftot were
published by S. Hurwitz in his edition of the Mahzor Vitry,2 and two
of these were republished by A. Epstein, together with a number of
other toseftot not related to Exod 15.3 In 1895, M. Ginsburger pub-
lished a comparative study of the versions of some of these toseftot,
as preserved in the various MSS of the Fragmentary Targums (TJ2),
Pseudo-Jonathan (TJ1) and the Mahzor Vitry,4 and five years later
he published additional toseftot, listed by Zunz but not included in
the Mahzor Vitry.5 These new toseftot were transcribed by Ginsburger
from MS Parma, de-Rossi 3132 (61), and he notes that they appear in
other MSS as well. In particular, Ginsburger mentions that the tosefta
to Exod 15:2 is also found in MS Parma, de Rossi 2887 (736), only
there, the literal translation of the first half of the verse introduces the
* To Shoshi, the Israelite woman, and to Mattan and Elad born 24 Aug 1973,
1975.
1
Berlin, 1865, pp. 21f. Zunz merely gives the opening word or phrase of each pas-
sage, and occasionally, the closing phrase as well.
2
Leipzig, 1889; reprinted: Nrnberg, 1923, pp. 305309.
3
Tosefta du Targoum Yerouschalmi, REJ 30 (1895), pp. 4849.
4
Die Thargumim zur Thoralection am 7. Pesach- und 1. Shabuoth-Tage, MGWJ 39
(1895), pp. 97105, 167175, 193206.
5
Aramische Introductionen zum Thargumvortrag an Festtagen, ZDMG 54 (1900),
pp. 12021, 123. The tosefta to Exod 15:4, which Ginsburger thought he had discov-
ered (habe iche eine von Zunz nicht erwhnte Introduction . . . gefunden), is actually
listed by L. Zunz in Literaturgeschichte . . . p. 21, bottom no. 5, .
For the sake of completeness, I note the following more recent publications of
targumic toseftot to Exod 15, namely, P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens II (Stuttgart,
1930: reprinted Hildesheim, 1967) MS G, pp. 63f.
.- ,(" ' )",- " , .
" ,' '
.117 ,( ' )":
134 chapter eleven
tosefta, rather than following it.6 Ginsburger, therefore, saw no need

to present MS Parma 2887.
A comparison of these two MSS shows that Ginsburger was some-
what mistaken. Aside from the many grammatical, syntactical and
stylistic differences between the two texts, Parma 3132 is missing an
entire midrashic episode (nearly three lines) contained in Parma 2887.
I am, therefore, presenting the tosefta according to MS Parma 2887,
with an apparatus containing the many variants of 3132.
MS Parma 2887 is an Ashkenazic mahzor for the entire year. It
contains the Torah readings for the Seventh Day of Passover (folios
34b41a), and for Shavuot (folios 86b97a). These are interspersed
with many Aramaic acrostic poems and targumic toseftot. The text is
written on parchment, in an unvocalized German, fourteenth-century,
square script. The MS is very well preserved.7
Biblioteca Palatina di Parma, Codice de-Rossi 2887 (736)
folio 38a
( 2) .13
' .14
.15
.16
.17
.18
.19
.20
.21
.22
.23
.24
. .25
.26
6
. . . mit dem einen Unterschiede, dass sie im ersten (Parma, de-Rossi 2887 [736])
wirklich mit beginnt, im letzeren (Parma, de-Rossi 3132 [61]) dagegen mit
und mit ' schliesst (ZDMG 54 (1900), 120).
7
Cf. MSS. Codices Hebraici Biblioth. I. B. De-Rossi, (Parmae, 1803), II, p. 143.
The present transcription was made from a microfilm of the MS at the Institute
of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts, at the Jewish National and University Library,
Jerusalem (no. 13780). I hereby express my gratitude to the Biblioteca Palatina di
Parma and to the Institute for their kind permission and assistance.
the targumic tosefta to exodus 15:2 135
folio 38b
.1
.2
.3
This passage follows the [ . . . :1315 | MT [ :13

[ | [ : 14| word at fol. 38b, line 2
[ :17 | [ :16 | [ | [ :15 |
| | [ | [
[ | :18 || [
[ :19 |
| [ + [ :20 |
:22 | + [ [ | :21 | missing [|
[ [ | :23 | + [ | + [
missing [ . . . :2426 | . . . [ . . . |
| [ | [ :1 | + ;
[ [ | :2 | [ | [
The passage . . . | [ + [ |
[ | +; (fol. 38a lines 1315) is inserted here
. [ :3 |
Translation
13 (2) My strength and might [RSV: song]: Our strength

14 and our many praises to the Master of all the world, the Lord,
Who declared throughout His memra, and was
15 our redeemer. For when the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt after
the death
16 of Joseph the righteous, three harsh decrees were promulgated
against them.
17 The first decree was to embitter their lives at mortar and bricks;
the second,
18 in work in the field; the third to kill all of their male children.
19 But when the sorcerers saw that the midwives seek clever things
[schemes], they decreed that they [the children] be cast
20 into the river. And when the time approached for the Israelite
women to give birth
136 chapter eleven
21 they would go out to the field and give birth there, and abandon
their children
22 and return. And an angel would come and take him [the child] and
wash him
23 and place in his hands two stones: from one he sucked milk and
from
24 one he sucked honey. And the Egyptians came and saw them [the
children], and tried
25 to seize them, but the earth opened its mouth and swallowed
them [the children] up, and they [the Egyptians] would bring
26 oxen and plow over them, but they were unable to [harm] them.
And when they grew up
1 and (?) they returned to their fathers house; and when they saw
that [same] hand here
2 at the sea, they opened their mouths and said: This is the Lord
and let us praise Him,
3 the God of our fathers, and let us extol Him.
Commentary
The sections . . . ( lines 1315) and . . . ( lines

23), contain the literal translation of Exod 15:2, and are to be found,
with some variation, in all of the extant targumim. Most of the other
targumim have ,8 while Ms. Paris 110,9 Mahzor Vitry
and other Parma mahzorim10 have . And yet, our MS
(line 14) is unique in its addition of the prepositional lamed (),
8
The reading in Ms. Parma 3132 is probably a corruption of
cf. MSS Parma, de-Rossi 2736 (804) and 3003 (420).
9
Ms. Paris 110, which is a Fragmentary Targum to the entire Pentateuch, is recen-
sionally related to the sections of targum included in the various mahzorim. Two of
the lengthy sections fully preserved in MS Paris 110, are the readings for the Seventh
Day of Passover and for Shavuot (Exod 13:1715:26 and 19:120:14), including many
toseftot and the acrostic poem . A comparative study of the structure of the
tosefta to Exod 15:3 (the order of the Israelite proposals and of Moses answers) sup-
ports this recensional grouping. Cf. M. Ginsburger, MGWJ 39 (1895), 195.
Interestingly enough, the reverse is true of Ms. Sassoon 264. For while this MS is
a Yemenite Mahzor, it contains the Fragmentary Targum to the entire Pentateuch in
the non-liturgical recension. It is to be grouped with the Bomberg ed. 1517, and MSS
Vatican 440, Nrnberg 1, Leipzig-University 1 and Moscow-Gnzberg 3, as opposed
to Paris 110.
10
E.g., Mss. Parma, de-Rossi 2411 (1107), 3000 (378) and 2574 (159).
which alters the meaning of the entire phrase from The Lord is our
might and praise to Our might and praise are to the Lord.10a
Lines 1520: Cf. Exod 15:8, 1422
Line 20 to end: This tosefta is not to be confused with those of another

tradition, found in TJ2 and TJ1:

'
From [their] mothers breasts the sucklings raised [signaled] with their
fingers to their fathers and said to them, This is our Father Who would
make us suck honey from the rock, and Who anointed us from the flint
stone. The Israelites answered, saying to one another, This is our God,
let us praise Him; the God of our fathers, let us extol Him. (FT accord-
ing to Ms. Nrnberg 1)11
And:

From their mothers breasts the sucklings would indicate with their fin-
gers to their fathers and say, This is our God, Who used to make us
suck honey from the rock and oil from the flint stone, when our mothers
went out to the field, and gave birth, and abandoned us there. And He
would send an angel who washed us and swaddled us. And now let us
praise Him, God of our fathers, and let us extol Him. (TJ1, according
to MS Br. Mus. Add. 27031)
The common element in all of these sources is the two stones from
which the infants sucked milk/oil and honey. This is basically a midrash
to Deut 32:13, And He made him suck honey out of the crag and oil
out of the flinty rock. The alterations to the more common milk and
10a
Another MS that contains the prepositional lamed is the closely related MS
Oxford Bodleian 2373 (folio 118b, line 18). This ms. is also an Ashkenazic Mahzor
in a German script. Its text generally agrees with MS Parma 2887 against the other
sources. Ms. Oxford 2373 contains many inferior readings, and suffers from several
sizable scribal omissions.
11
This is very closely paralleled in the Bomberg 1517 ed., and in MS Sassoon 264.
Ms. Vatican 440 contains several minor variants.
138 chapter eleven
honey (MS Parma 2887), or to the more logical anointed with oil
(TJ2), are secondary and minor.
However, more important than this common element, are the dif-
ferences between these toseftot. MS Parma 2887 is built upon a local
midrash, whose purpose is to answer the question, How did the
Israelites recognize the Lord at the Crossing of the Sea [viz.: ] ,
never having experienced Him? The answer is, they recognized the
God Who had cared for them as infants, when their mothers aban-
doned them in the field. In this tradition, the adult Israelites recall
their childhood, and praise the Lord at the sea.
The tradition of TJ1 and TJ2 is based upon a midrash to Ps 8:3, Out
of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast Thou founded strength.
The association with Exod 15:2, is probably via the common word
strength ( and ). In both TJ1 and TJ2, it is the infants that praise
the Lord.
The joining of the midrash of the two stones with that of recol-
lection in adulthood, in MS Parma 2887, is quite logical. On the other
hand, the juxtaposition in TJ2 and TJ1, of babes praising and babes
recollecting the two stones is artificial and secondary.12
In fact, the parallels to these targumic toseftot in rabbinic literature
bear out this distinction. Exod. Rab. 23:9 and b. Sotah 11B, which par-
allel MS Parma 2887, bring both of the elements: 1) the two stones;
2) recollection in adulthood. This is not the case with the parallels to
TJ2 and TJ1. Of all the sources that associate from the mouth of babes
with the Song of the Sea, not one adds the element of recollecting the
two stones.13 It seems that the proper association of the midrash of
the two stones with Exod 15:2 in the tradition of MS Parma 2887,
brought about the conflation in TJ1 and TJ2, which originally contained
only the from the mouth of babes midrash. The tosefta according to
MS Parma 2887 is primary; that of TJ2 and TJ1, is secondary.
12
This illogical association of midrashim is carried to the extreme in the confused
and corrupted version of MS Parma, de-Rossi 3000 (378): From our mothers wombs
they indicated [with] a finger to their fathers and said, This is our God, their [sic]
father, Who would make you [sic] suck from heaven [sic] from a rock, and anointed
us. . . . The concept of praising from the womb originates in a midrash to Ps 68:27 (26),
. . . bless the Lord . . . from the source [fountain] of Israel. This midrash is generally
brought alongside that of from the mouth of babes (see next note for citations).
13
E.g., y. Sotah 5:6 (= 20c); t. Sotah 6:4 (2); b. Sotah 30b: Mekilta, Shireta 1 (ed.
M. Ish-Shalom, Vienna, 1870; reprinted New York, 1948), p. 35; Midrash ha-Gadol to
Exod 15:1 (ed. M. Margaliot, Jerusalem, 1967), p. 284.
Lines 1819, . . . : This passage is based upon Exod

1:1522. In the Biblical passage there are two distinct decrees, 1) to
kill the newborn children in the birthstool (v. 16), and 2) to cast them
into the Nile (v. 22). Both of these decrees are preserved in Ms. Parma
3132 (61):
[sic]
.
The third [decree], to kill every male child of theirs in the birthstool.
But when the wise [wo]men had mercy, they decreed to throw them
into the river.
Another Ms., Parma 2736 (804), corrects the erroneous but
deletes the word :

.][
In our MS, the birthstool motif is missing from the first decree; and
the details of the sorcerers and the midwives are added. Moreover,
the meaning of is not the usual wise women, but rather wise
things [schemes]. The element of the midwives is Biblical (vv. 1719);
the involvement of the sorcerers is midrashic.14
Line 22, an angel: In the original version, the Lord Himself descends
and cares for the infants.15 This better suits the conclusion of the
Israelites recognizing Him at the sea. However, the removal of direct
Divine intervention and its delegation to various messengers is paral-
leled in the sources.16
Lines 2324, . . . : As noted above, the original version is honey

and oil (Deut 32:13).17 However, since babies do not usually suck oil,
this phrase had to be altered to either suck honey and be anointed
14
E.g., Exod. Rab. 1:12; b. Sotah 11a, .
15
Cf. Exod. Rab. 23:9, with the addition of in His glory, as it
were; Pesikta Rabbati (ed. M. Ish-Shalom, Vienna, 1880), p. 189; Yalkut Shimoni
165 (ed. New York, 1944), p. 107a; Pirke dR. Eliezer 42 (ed. Warsaw, 1852; reprinted
Jerusalem, 1960), p. 99b.
16
Exod. Rab. 1:16 an angel; b. Sotah 11b, someone; Tana dbe Eliyahu (ed. M. Ish-
Shalom, reprint: Jerusalem, 1960), p. 43, the ministering angels; Chronik des Moses,
in A. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch (Jerusalem, 1938), II, 12, his angels; and Sepher
hajaschar (ed. L. Goldschmidt, Berlin, 1923), p. 141, an angel from among his ser-
vants.
17
Exod. Rab. 1:16 and 23:9; b. Sotah 11b; Pirke dR. Eliezer 42; and TJ1.
140 chapter eleven
with oil18 or to suck honey and milk.19 A tertiary version has the
more common reverse order, suck milk and honey.20
Lines 2426, . . . : This episode is missing from most of the

parallel sources. It is, however, to be found in b. Sotah 11b, where it is
associated with Ps 129:3, The plowers plowed across my back. It is
also included in Chronik des Moses (p. 2), and in Sepher hajaschar
(pp. 14142).
Line 25, . . . : Note the similarity between this phrase and

the targum to Num 16:32.
Lines 12, . . . : Cf. Exod 14:31, And Israel saw the great hand
which the Lord used in Egypt.
Conclusion
The tosefta to Exod 15:2 is just one of the many toseftot that have
been included in the targumim to the Pentateuch. These compositions
appear in many versions in the various targumic and midrashic con-
texts. As we have seen, they may be composite constructions of sev-
eral originally independent midrashim, in which each component may
have many variants. In our instance, MS Parma, de-Rossi 2887 (736),
represents the fullest version of the targumic tosefta to Exod 15:2. On
the other hand, some of its elements have been shown to be secondary
variants of midrashim to other Biblical verses.
18
MSS Vatican 440, Nrnberg 1, Sassoon 264 and Bomberg ed. 1517. The Bomberg
ed. is incorrectly vocalized give oil instead of anoint us, cf. the
parallel use of the personal pronoun in MS Vatican 440:
)( .
The source of this error in the edition and of the dittograph in MS Vatican 440 may
be traced to Deut 32:13 where both and are substantives.
19
E.g., MSS Parma, de-Rossi 3132 (61) and 2736 (804). Yalkut Shimoni 165 offers
a conflated version, from one stone they sucked honey and milk, and from the other
they were anointed with oil.
20
Chronik des Moses, p. 2: Sepher hajashcar, p. 141.
CHAPTER TWELVE
NEW FRAGMENTS OF TARGUM TO ESTHER FROM THE

CAIRO GENIZAH
Rimon Kasher and Michael L. Klein
It is common knowledge that the Esther Scroll enjoys many Aramaic

translations. This is perhaps most vividly described by Rav Hai Gaon,
head of the academy in Pumbeditha during the 1011th centuries,
who wrote in one of his responsa, that at that time there existed in
Babylonia several distinct targumim to Esther. In response to the spe-
cific query he says: Regarding your comment that your Targum of
Esther does not contain any mention of the End [of Days]. . . . What is
the source of your targum, and who wrote it?. . . . It can only be a vul-
gar text [ !] Moreover, there exist here in Babylonia
various targums of Esther that are distinct from one another: one
with many additional aggadic passages [] , and
another without them.1
A survey of the extant manuscripts and editions of Targum Esther
indeed substantiates Hai Gaons view. Not only are there two major
traditions of Targum Esther, commonly called Targum Rishon and
Targum Sheni, but each of these versions is itself comprised of several
sub-traditions.2 And, on the other hand, there are passages of targum
that are shared, almost verbatim, by both of these major traditions.3
1
Published by L. Ginzberg, Genizah Studies in Memory of Dr. Solomon Schechter
[Ginzei Schechter] II (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1929), [and
photo reprint Jerusalem: Makor, 1969], p. 86. Naturally, the presence of many or
few additional aggadic passages does not necessarily reflect a paraphrastic or literal
approach in the intervening translational passages.
2
This is demonstrated by the many variants cited in the apparatus of the critical
editions, e.g., B. Grossfeld, The First Targum to Esther to verses 1:1, 3; 2:10; 5:14; 6:1;
8:15; 9:14, 25, 28; 10:2, 3; (Appendix, pp. 19397), and L. Munk, Targum Scheni to
verses 1:22, 29; 3:7, 8; 4:13; 6:11.
3
Cf., e.g., the notes of Grossfeld and Munk to Esther 3:7 in the editions cited in
the preceding note. Also see Munks notes to 1:3; 2:7; 3:9; 5:14; 6:1, 11; 7:10; 8:15, 16.
On the complexity of the targumim to Esther, see P. Grelot, Observations sur les tar-
gums I et II dEsther, Biblica 56 (1975) 5373. See, also, L. Diez Merino, El Targum
142 chapter twelve
In addition to the traditions of Targums Rishon and Sheni, there

seems to be yet a third targumic tradition, which contains verses
and passages from either of the other two traditions, but also very
substantial unique passages that are unparalleled in the other ver-
sions. The 15th century Yemenite manuscript published by A. Sperber
(British Library 147 [= Or. 2375]) is a representative example of this
textual tradition,4 as are several earlier unpublished manuscripts (e.g.,
MS Sassoon 282 [Ashkenazic, dated 1189]; MS Vatican Urbaniti 1
[Ashkenazic?, dated 1294]).
The plurality of names for Targum Esther is further evidence for the
multiplicity of targumic traditions, even if several of the names refer
to the same text. Among the dozen attested names are: Targum Zutta,
Targum Yerushalmi, Targum Rabba di-Yerushalmi, Tosefta de-Targum
Yerushalmi, Targum Rabbati, and Targum Rabbah.5 Additional proof
for this plurality may be adduced from the many citations of Targum
Esther throughout midrashic literature and the medieval commentar-
ies to Esther, which are not in agreement with any of the presently
extant texts.6 We can only conclude that, unlike Onqelos and Targum
Jonathan to the Prophets, Targum Esther was never subjected to the
processes of standardization or canonization. Even if some widely
accepted targumic base text existed, it could be contracted or elabo-
rated upon, in response to the particular needs of a meturgeman and
his congregation.
It is, therefore, no surprise that among the targumic fragments
recently discovered in the Genizah collections of Cambridge University
Library, several new composite texts of Targum Esther have come to
light. These texts are made up of alternate passages of Targum Rishon
and Targum Sheni, as well as passages of unattested expansive targum
paralleled only in the Midrash Panim Ah erim or in the Midrash Abba
de Ester en la tradicin sefardi, en el ms. G-1-5 de el Escorial, Estudios Biblicos 45

(1987) 5792.
4
A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, Vol. IV A, pp. 171205.
5
Additional names are Targum Esther, Targum Rishon, Targum Sheni, Targum
Ah er, Tosafot Yerushalmi, Targum Tosefta. See L. Munk (note 2, above), Introduction,
pp. 39.
6
Cf. M. Goshen-Gottstein, Fragments of Lost Targumim, Parts 1, 2 (Ramat-Gan:
Bar-Ilan University Press, 1983, 1989), for citations of otherwise unattested passages
of targum to Esther preserved in m. Soferim, Esth. Rab. and the fourteenth-century
Bible manuscript MS Sassoon 368 (Farh i Bible).
new fragments of targum to esther from the cairo genizah 143
Gurion.7 They also contain several new midrashic motifs and develop-
ments that are unattested in the extant midrashic literature.
The following is a brief description of the manuscripts:8
T-S B 11.52 and T-S B 12.21

Esther 5:107:5
Aramaic: Targum to Esther, with Hebrew lemmata.
Paper; 4 leaves (= 2 continuous bifolia); slightly mutilated.
Dimensions (height width per single leaf): 18.7 13.5 cm; one col-
umn; 20 lines
Oriental-Palestinian square script; unpointed; 1112th century.9
T-S B 12.32
Esther 1:2
Aramaic: Targum to Esther (Tosefta).
Vellum; 1 leaf; mutilated.
Dimensions: 14.3 14.5 cm; 1 column; 1314 lines.
Oriental square script; unpointed; 1011th century.
This is certainly one of the oldest, if not the oldest fragment of Targum
Esther known today.
T-S AS 70.72
Esther 5:79; 6:137:4
Aramaic: Targum to Esther, with Hebrew lemmata.
Paper; 1 leaf; very badly mutilated and rubbed.
Dimensions: 10.5+ 14.8+ cm; 1 column; 16+ lines.
Spanish semi-cursive script; unpointed; 1415th century.
7
Both authors spent extensive periods of time at the Taylor-Schechter Genizah
Research Unit at Cambridge University Library, during which the fragments were
discovered. We wish to express our gratitude to Dr. Stefan C. Reif, Director of the
Genizah Research Unit, who kindly facilitated our research and assisted in the acquisi-
tion of quality photographs for the plates appended to this article.
8
The descriptive details are taken primarily from M. L. Klein, Targum Manuscripts
in the Cambridge Genizah Collections (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for
Cambridge University Library, 1991).
9
We wish to thank Prof. Malachi Beit-Arie, Director of the Jewish National and
University Library, Jerusalem, and Mrs. Edna Engel, M. A., of the Hebrew Paleography
Project, for assisting with the dating of the fragments and confirming the identifica-
tion of their provenances.
144 chapter twelve
Lemmata in majusculae, with empty space beneath them in the fol-

lowing line.
Having already mentioned that two of the attested names of tar-

gums to Esther are Targum Rabbah and Targum Zutta (and variants
thereof ), it is hardly surprising to find that much of the midrashic
material contained in these newly discovered fragments is paralleled
in Esther Rabbah and in Midrash Panim Ah erim to Esther. We shall
indicate these parallelsor possible midrashic sourcesin the brief
notes appended to the texts, following each folio. An English transla-
tion comprises the remainder of the article.
)Cambridge University Library T-S B 11.52 (= B 12.21
folio 1r, = plate 1
Esther 5:10
) (5:10 .1
.2
' .3
)(Sam 12:3 2' .4
.5
[ ' ) (Judg 14:18 ][ ] .6
]????[ .7
' .8
.9
' ' ' )(Esth 5:12 .10
][ .11
] [ )?( ' .12
' )](Gen 3:1[ ' ' ][ .13
)(Gen 40:16][
] )(Num 16:14 [ )Esth .14
(5:12
][ ])(5:13 [ .15
[ ][ ] .16
[ ] .17
' ][ ' ) (Prov 13:25 ][ .18
) (5:14 .19
][ .20
lines 110] = Midrash Panim Ah erim (henceforth: MPA), p. 72, with

variants.
67] Different from Tg Jonathan to Judg 14:18. It seems likely that

this and other targumic renditions of verses below were cited from
memory by the present meturgeman, and do not necessarily represent
earlier textual variants. Cf. e.g., targumic citations from 1 Samuel and
Psalms, in Esth 6: 11, below. Moreover, even the Hebrew Pentateuch
is not cited accurately in T-S B 12.32v, lines 79, below.
1115] For this midrash, cf. Gen. Rab. 19:2 and 88:5. It is also
alluded to in Midrash Agadat Esther, p. 56.
12] Note the strange order of the characters. This is corrected in the
elaboration that follows immediately.
15] This might be a play on the two meanings of : the particle
even and the noun anger, rage.
15folio IV, 12] This passage is sporadically paralleled in MPA.
1819] = Tg Proverbs 13:25.
folio 1v, = plate 2
.1
' .2
. )(][ .3
' .4
' .5
][ ][ .6
.7
.8
.9
][ ][ .10
' ] [ .11
( ] [ Ez. 6:11) ' .12
][ ] [ .13
[ ] .14
( ][ ][ '6:1) [ ] .15
][ .16
' ][ .17
][ ' ' '' ][ .18
' .19
'( ' ''Ps 78:65) ( Ps 44:24) .20
512] This midrash is based upon a literalist interpretation of Esth 7:9,

. . . . Cf. Midrash Abba Gurion
(= MAG), p. 37, for a parallel to lines 710. See also Yalqut Shimoni,
par 1056.
146 chapter twelve
is paralleled in printed editions of 13] The ironic prophecy

in Sperbers edition, but missing entirely in MS Paris( Tg I
110, ed. Grossfeld).
1415] = MAG, p. 37.
16] Allusion to the carpenters appears in Tg I to the preceding verse
(5:14).
1920] These proof verses are also found in Sperbers edition, p. 194.
)Cambridge University Library T-S B 12.21 (= B 11.52
folio 1r, = plate 3
) (6:1 ' ' .1

' ' ' .2
' ' ' .3
' ) (Judg 5:20' ' '' .4
' ) (Zech 11:12 ' .5
' '' .6
' ' ) (Zech 11:13' ' .7
.' ' .8
.9
.10
}'{ .11
' .12
.13
][ ][ .14
.15
.16
.17
}{ .18
.19
'' ' . .20
' .21
1] Reference to Sarah and Abimelech is also found in the traditional

editions of Tg I, but absent from MS Paris 110.
37] = MPA, p. 74. Avoth dRabbi Nathan (= AdRN), ed. Schechter,
p. 24, adds Miriam to Moses and Aaron. See, also, Yalqut Shimoni,
par. 1057.
7folio 1v, 9] = Tg I, with slight variants.
1618] The negative particles in lines 16 and 17, and the reflexive
in Tg I), are euphemistic in 18 (contrast itpeel
diversions of catastrophe directed at Israel.
folio IV, = plate 4
}{ ' )!( .1
' }{ ' .2
. .3
' ' .4
.5
.6
' ][ .7
' ' '' .8
' .9
.10
.'' '' .11
.12
.'' '' .13
' ' .14
][ ' .15
][ .16
.17
}{ .18
.19
.' .20
][ ] [ .21
1113, 15, 17] Sporadic phrases identical to Tg I.

1314] Parallel to MPA, p. 74. Note how this passage is spliced into
surrounding material from Tg I.
20] Contrast Tg I, where the angel Michael intervenes.
folio 2r, = plate 5
) (6:10 . ' ' ' .1

' .2
][ ][ ][ ' .' ' ' ' .3
.4
' ' .5
.6
' ' . ' ' .7
.8
) (6:11 ' .9
' ' .10
.11
}{ .12
.13
)(Dan 5:6 .14
' .15
148 chapter twelve
.16
.17
' .18
' .19
.20
1folio 2v, 2] = Tg II, with slight variants.

1] Text corrupt, confusing who said to whom.
folio 2V, = plate 6
.1
' ' ' }'{ .2
' . .3
' .4
.5
.6
)( .7
' ' ][ .8
) (Ps 70:10 ' .9
) (1 Sam 15:14''' ' .10
' ' ) (Ps 30:6 ' .11
.12
' .13
' ' ' }'{ .14
) (Isa 49:3 .15
.16
' }'{ .17
' ).(Ps 89:50 .18
. .19
' . .20
220] Closely paralleled in MPA, except for the theological argument

in line 17.
Cambridge University Library T-S B 11.52
folio 2r, = plate 7
) (6:11 .1
.2
' }'{ .3
.4
' ' .5
.6
][ .7
.8
{( }1 Sam 2:8) ' .9
.10
(Ps 30:12) ' ' . .11
][ ][ .12
.13
'( 6:12) .(Ps 30:2) .14
.15
.16
) '( .17
'][ ][ .18
(?) .(Esth 6:9, 11) ' ' .19
] [ ][ .20
119] = Tg II, with some variants.

6] Single example of Tiberian vocalization in this MS.
6] Comparison with Tg II reveals that the present version suffers
from a scribal omission ( . . . ), and that the sub-
ject of the following verbs is Esther.
911] With variants to Tg Jonathan to 1 Sam.
1214] With variants to Tg Psalms.
13] The phrase is commonly found in the Palestinian tar-
gumim (but not in Onqelos, and only once in Pseudo-Jonathan) as
the translation of ( ] __[ e.g., Gen 17:8; 28:21; Exod 6:7;
29:45; Lev 11:45; 26:12, 45; Num 15:41; Deut 26:17; 29:12). It also
appears in Pseudo-Jonathan to Exod 15:2, in another context. There
are other lexical affinities to the Palestinian targumim throughout
this text. A salient exception to this observation is the citation from
Onqelos to Lev 23:40, below. However, that occurs in the later Spanish
manuscript, T-S AS 70.72, below.
18] MS: !
20folio 2v, 1] Closely paralleled in MPA p. 76, and in Esth. Rab. 10:5.
Also, cf. Tg I, MS Paris 110 (ed. Grossfeld), to Esth 6: II, with variants.
folio 2v, = plate 8
'( ' ' 6:13) .}{ .1

.2
)( .3
' .4
150 chapter twelve
. ' .5
)?( .6
] [ ' .7
.8
) (6:14 .9
' ][ . .10
) (7:1 (7:2) : ' ' .11
' . ][ // .12
' ' }'{ .13
(7:3) . ' ' . ' .14
' ' .15
(7:4) . . .16
}'{ .17
.18
' }{ .19
) (7:5 ' ]'[ ][ .20
120] = Tg II, with slight variants.

419] Compare this text with the second preserved copy in T-S AS
70.72r, below.
11] There is only a Hebrew lemma, but no targum, in this MS for
Esth 7:1.
13] Note the brief reversion to Hebrew in the middle of the verse.
recto = plate 9
Esther 1:2
][ .1
.2
' ' .3
' .4
.5
.6
][ ][ .7
][ .8
][ ] [ .9
][ ][ ] [ .10
] [ ] [ .11
] [ .12
[ ] .13
[ ][ ] .14
1verso 6] Sporadically paralleled in Tg II. The text on the verso con-

tains many variants of word-order and vocabulary to Tg II.
verso = plate 10
][ .1
}{ .2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
] [ .8
] [ ] ) [(cf. Deut 17:17, 16 .9
[ [ ] ] .10
[ ] .11
[ /// ] .12
[ ] .13
613] Cf. Esth. Rab. 1:12.

79] These verses are quoted inaccurately and out of their original
order.
11] Cf. MAG p. 6, for this phrase.
Cambridge University Library T-S AS 70.72
recto = plate 11
) (6:13 ][ ] [ .1
][ ][ .2
[ ' ][ ] .3
) (6:14 : ] [ ] [ .4
] [ .5
][ ) (7:1 : .6
)] (7:2[ : }{ : .7
.8
][ >< .9
(7:3) :] : [ .10
][ ][ .11
][ ][ .12
][ (7:4) : :] [ .13
] [ .14
[ ][ ]/////////// .15
[ ] /// : .16
152 chapter twelve
116] = Tg 11, with very slight variants. Compare this text with the
second preserved copy in T-S B 11.52, folio 2V, above.
3] Single example of Palestinian vocalization in this MS.
4] The phrase is found in Pseudo-Jonathan to Exod
5:6 (= Heb. ) .
verso = plate 12
( [ ] [ 7:9) ] .1
////// [ ] .2
{] [ ][ } .3
{ }.(Lev 23:40) ][ ][ ][ ][ .4
' :[[ ]:][ ] .5
][ ' ][ .6
( ][ Ps 92:13) [ ' ] .7
: ][ .8
][ ][ .9
)( ] [ .10
( Esth 2:7) ( ' Zech 1:8) .11
' ][ .12
][ // [ ] .13
' ][ : .14
[ ] .15
:(Song 6:11) ] ' [ ][ ][ .16
116] The motif of a debate between the various trees is paralleled in

Tg II, Esth. Rab. 9:2, and MAG, pp. 4142, with many variations.
34] This citation is from Onqelos, and not from the more expan-
sive Palestinian targumim. As noted above, this is to be expected in a
1415th cent. Spanish manuscript.
911] Cf. Tg I and Tg II to Esth 2:7, for similar interpretations of
the name Hadassah.
12] On the use of aromatic myrtle branches at wedding and circum-
cision ceremonies, see b. Ketubot 17a, b. Sotah 49a, Shulhan Arukh:
Yoreh Deah 265:1. Y-T. Lewinsky, Enyclopedia of Folklore, Customs and
Tradition in Judaism (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1970), Vol. I, p. 85b [Hebrew],
cites it as a contemporary Yemenite custom.
16] The basis of the pomegranates argument lies in the uncited end
of the verse, .
English Translation
folio 1r
1. (5:10) Said: Your husband has gone out; you, now, go out towards
him. For all the nations are
2. offspring of depravity and prostitutionlike young cows that
reproduce from
3. one another. But the daughters of Israel are likened to ewes, just as
4. God said to David, But the poor man had naught [but a single
ewe lamb] etc. (2 Sam 12:3). And the gentile daughters
5. are interchanged with one another, [lit.: are yours with mine], as
Samson said to the Philistines, If you had not plowed
6. with my heifer you would not have discovered my [riddle],
(Judg 14:18).
7. So too [with] Haman, his wife circulated and cavorted (?) with his
friends,
8. as it is written, He sent for his friends and for Zeresh his wife,
(Esth 5:10). And a
9. heavenly voice called out to Haman, Why all this bragging of
yours, when tomorrow you
10. will be crucified, as it is written, Esther did not invite, etc.
(5:12).
11. There are four who said af and with the same af [prh.
anger/rage] they were destroyed from the world;
12. And who are they? The chief baker, the serpent, Haman and
Korah, etc. (?). The serpent said,
13. Did God really [af ] say? (Gen 3:1); the [chief ] baker said, I
too [af ] in my dream. (Gen 40:16); Korah
14. and his band, Not even [af ] to a land . . . . (Num 16:14); Haman
said, She did not even [af ] invite . . . . (Esth 5:12).
15. And they were all destroyed with af (anger). (5:13). Yet all this is
worth nothing to me. Yet all of this
16. that I eat and drink does not count for me [ ]. The wicked
17. eat [much] but are not satisfied; whereas the righteous eat little
and are sated,
154 chapter twelve
18. as it is written, The righteous man eats, etc. The righteous man
eats and his soul is satisfied;
19. but the belly of the wicked is empty (Prov 13:25). (5:14). And
Zeresh his wife
20. and all of his friends said to him, What is Mordecais faith?
folio 1v
1. for they are likened unto the stone: if a stone falls on a person it
breaks him
2. and if a person falls on a stone he is [also] broken. Haman said
to his wife,
3. Even if I were to lose all my wealth, I would not let up [lit.: go]
4. until I destroyed him.
5. And he said to his friends, What do you have to say? His friends
responded and said to him,
6. Do not listen to her. Rather, set up a stake fifty cubits high.
7. And Haman went about looking for a stake fifty cubits long, but
could not
8. find any, save one that was in his house, which Parshandatha his
son had brought
9. from Kedronia, which is Kerdos. Because Hamans son [Parshan-
datha] was
10. ruler there; and there he saw the stake, which was from
11. Noahs ark. And Haman uprooted it from his house, so that the
ours, curse
12. of Darius might be fulfilled in him, as it is written, Whosoever
alters this [decree], shall have the wood[en beam]
13. removed from his house, and he shall be impaled, etc. (Ezra 6:
11). And this advice [lit.: word] found favor with Haman,
14. and he prepared a gallows [lit.: cross] for himself; [ ] he erected
it and perfected it.
15. [ ] a [heavenly] voice called out saying, How proper and fitting
16. is this gallows [cross] for you. (6:1) On that night, etc.:
17. On that night sleep [deserted] the carpenters who were preparing
the gallows [cross]
18. for Haman. On that night sleep deserted the smiths who were
preparing
19. nails to be set in the gallows [cross]. On that night sleep deserted
the King of Kings.
20. Were it not written [in Scriptures], one would not dare say it, as
it is written: Rouse Yourself; why do You sleep,
21. O Lord (Ps 44:24); [and] And the Lord awoke, like one who had
been
22. sleeping (Ps 78:65). On that very night the Holy One Blessed be
He was revealed . . .
folio 1r
1. Sarah was taken to Abimelech [cf. Gen 20:2]. On that night the
daughters of Lot
2. gave their father wine to drink [cf. Gen 19:33]. On that night
the message was revealed unto Laban in a nocturnal dream [cf.
Gen 31:24].
3. On that night battle was done with Sisera, as it is written:
4. The stars from their courses (Judg 5:20). On that night sleep
deserted the Patriarchs of the double
5. cave, as it is written: Wail, O berosh [lit. cypress-tree], for
[the cedar] has fallen (Zech 11:2)and rosh can only refer to
Abraham
6. who was head of the Patriarchs. On that night sleep deserted
Moses, Aaron,
7. and Miriam, as it is written: Hark! the wailing of the shepherds, for
[their glory] is spoiled, etc. (Zech 11:3). On that night prophecies
8. were revealed unto prophets, and dreams unto dreamers of dreams.
On that night the world
9. was in turmoil, all countries and all of their inhabitants, great
mourning in all
10. the cities, eulogy and wailing in all of the provinces. Young men
were bound
11. in sackcloth, old men and old women beat their chests. And they
all cried out
12. bitterly and loudly, uttering and saying, Woe, that we have wit-
nessed oppression upon oppression
156 chapter twelve
13. and catastrophe upon catastrophe; and we have not yet recovered
from the first catastrophe,
14. nor has there been any relief for our stroke; we have not been
comforted from our pain,
15. and our heartache has not left us; [we are] smashed upon the
ground, and our temple is closed.
16. [Even] the enemy, Pharaoh, and the Egyptians did not plot such
schemes against us,
17. and kings of nations did not contrive such designs,
18. to be prepared for that day [= Esth 3:14], to be destroyed from
upon the face
19. of the earth. The Revealer of Secrets revealed the secret to Mordecai,
that death had been decreed
20. upon the House of Israel. On that night sleep deserted Mordecai
the righteous one, who was
21. awake and did not lie down, who lay down but would not fall
asleep, because the House of
folio 1v
1. Israel were gathered and sat before him, saying, You caused them,
2. the House of Israel, all of this trouble, for if you had risen before
3. Haman and bowed down to him, then all of this oppression would
not have come upon us. Mordecai
4. responded and said to them, to Israel, The garment that the
wicked Haman was wearing
5. had two crosses embroidered on it, one on its front and one on
its back; and if
6. I were to rise and bow down to him, I would in effect be practic-
ing idolatry. And you know
7. that anyone who practices idolatry [will be destroyed] from this
world and from the world to come. And the
8. entire House of Israel was silenced [from/by him]. On that night
sleep deserted the wicked Haman, who was awake
9. and did not lie down, because he was preparing the gallows
[cross]; and he said to the craftsmen, I will
10. pay you your wages quickly, and I will prepare a banquet, and we
will drink
11. and rejoice with this gallows [cross] that we have made. On that
night sleep deserted Esther,
12. who was preparing food, to receive Haman at the dinner together
with
13. Ahasuerus. On that night sleep deserted [the angel] Gabriel, who
was tormenting [lit.: agitating the heart of ]
14. Ahasuerus, and slapping him on his face, so that Ahasuerus would
not fall asleep the entire night.
15. And he summoned all of his lords and officials, and said to them:
Listen
16. to what I have to tell you; this night has been a heavy and bitter
17. night for me; whatever I ate was of no help, and whatever I drank
18. did not help me; I was perturbed [lit.: my heart was agitated],
[as though] the whole world were hanging over my head.
19. Had I, perhaps, promised to do someone a favor and not fulfilled
it; or do the
20. citizens of Susa have some complaint against me? [lit.: are they
depressed on my account?] Gabriel said to him,
21. If you want to be healed, send for the book of daily records; and
[they were read] . . .
folio 2r
1. to him. The king responded and said to Haman: A person who

spoke well of the king
2. and saved him from death, let my acclaim and his acclaim go
forth in all of the provinces,
3. and let this honor not be denied him! Haman answered the king
and said, The proclamations and letters
4. have been circulated in all the provinces to destroy the people of
Mordecai
5. let them all be rescinded, if only not this one. The king answered
and said to Haman,
6. The letters and proclamations that I have sent, I hereby rescind;
and let none of
7. this honor be denied him! The king reprimanded him a second
time and said to him,
8. Haman, Haman, hurry, hurry, do not omit a single detail of all
158 chapter twelve
9. that I have said! Now when the wicked Haman saw that his
words were not being accepted
10. by the king, and that his speech was not being heard, he entered
the royal storerooms, being
11. bent over rather than [standing] upright; his head covered in
mourning,
12. his ears deafened, his eyes dimmed, his mouth
13. crooked, and his heart dulled; his clothes torn,
14. his waist belt opened, and his knees knocking one against the
other [= Dan 5:6].
15. And he removed from there the royal garb that was brought to
the king
16. on the first day of his reign, and he took from there all of the royal
accouterments
17. exactly as he had been ordered, and he went out perplexed.
18. He entered the royal stable and led out the horse that was stand-
ing in the royal
19. stable, by the reins/saddle (?) on which were hanging golden
bells(?). He took hold of
20. the horses reins, and carried all of the royal accouterments on his
shoulder . . .
folio 2v
1. and tied its straps, and appended its dangles (bells?), and he went
on to Mordecai
2. the righteous one. The messenger arrived and said to Mordecai,
Why do you sit, behold Haman
3. has entered and requested of the king to hang you on the gallows
[or: impale you upon the cross]. At that moment,
4. Mordecai rose and separated the wise men to one side, the stu-
dents to another
5. side, [women deleted!], the [young?] children [lit. their chil-
dren/sons] to another side. The wise men clapped their hands,
6. the students rent their garments, the women dishevelled their
hair, and the children
7. cried like lambs that had been denied milk. They were crying
8. for Mordecai and for their own lives, and were saying: Till when,
God, will the foe blaspheme? (Ps 74:10);
9. which is what Samuel said to Saul, And what is this bleating of

the sheep
10. in my ears? (1 Sam 15:14). The Holy One, blessed be He, heard
the prayer of Mordecai and the prayer of Israel,
11. [as] David said: For He is angry but a moment, and when He is
pleased there is life, etc. (Ps 30:6). As soon as Mordecai saw
12. Haman approaching and leading the horse, he began to tremble
and cry, and this
13. is what he said, [Here] comes Haman, who acquires (?) and studies
[or: wheels and deals in] horses; and when he saw him
14. approaching, accompanied by royal officials, he cried out and
said: O Master
15. of the World, You have written: Israel, in whom I will be glori-
fied. (Isa 49:3). Of what
16. use would it be to You if this wicked man were to kill me and
then brag,
17. saying, my idol placed Mordecai and his people in my hands?
At that
18. moment, Mordecai said: Where is Your steadfast love of old, O
Lord? (Ps 89:50).
19. And if this is indeed what You have decreed upon me, then let
my death be an atonement for my sins. When
20. Haman came up close to Mordecai, he said to him, Mordecai,
you stand
folio 2r
1. in prayer, and your prayer has killed me, and your sackcloth has
out-weighed [lit.: merited] the ten thousand
2. talents of silver that I had promised to transfer from my store-
rooms to the storerooms of
3. the king. This is because you are [favored] before your Father in
Heaven, Who at all
4. times delivers you from your enemies. Now rise up,
5. righteous Mordecai, from your sackcloth and from your ashes
and don the royal attire,
160 chapter twelve
6. and the crown at its [so vocalized!] head, and ride the royal
horse. . . . [haplograph, homoioteleuton] I [Esther] gave thanks
and praise
7. when the sack was placed on his back and ashes on his head; I
praised the oppressed (?).
8. At the very moment that she [i.e., Esther] saw him [Mordecai],
she responded and said to him, In you was fulfilled
9. the verse that is written, He raises the poor from the dust,
(1 Sam 2:8), He raises the poor from the dust, and from
10. despondency the lowly of spirit, to seat them with rulers and
make them
11. inherit a seat of glory. And Mordecai, too, gave praise and said,
You turned my lament (Ps 30:12)
12. [You turned] my [lament] to a [swirling] dance; You removed my
sackcloth from me and dressed me
13. in royal attire. I praise You, O Lord, God, my Deliverer, that You
did not let
14. my enemys heart rejoice over me [after Mic 7:78, and Ps 30:2].
(Esth 6: 12) Thereupon, Mordecai returned to the gate of the
palace
15. with great honor and much respect; while Haman was rushed and
went home,
16. with his head covered in mourning. At that moment, Haman had
at his disposal
17. four artisans; the barber who had trimmed Mordecais hair; the
keeper of the bathhouse who had bathed him;
18. the footman who had led the horse; and the herald who called out
before [him]
19. as follows: This is what is done for the man whom the king
desires to honor (Esth 6:9, 11).
20. Hamans daughter gazed [out of the window (cf. Judg 5:28)] [and
saw] her father . . . at that [moment]; and she fell from
folio 2v
1. the window and died. (Esth 6:13) Then Haman told his wife Zeresh,
etc. Then Haman told
2. his wife Zeresh and all his friends everything that had befallen
him;
3. and his friends and Zeresh his wife said to him, We heard that
long ago there were
4. three men in the land of Babylon, H ananiah, Mishael, and Azariah;
and because they did not heed
5. the words of Nebuchadnezzar, he cast them into the fiery furnace.
6. A flame of fire burst out and devoured those who slandered them;
and H ananiah, Mishael,
7. and Azariah were saved from the blazing fiery [furnace]. If
Mordecai is one of
8. their descendants, or if his deeds are like [those of] one of them,
and you have begun to fall before him,
9. you will continue to fall and you will not rise. (Esth 6:14) While
they were still speaking with him, the kings
10. eunuchs arrived, and hastened to bring Haman to the banquet
that Esther had prepared.
11. (Esth 7:1) So the king and Haman came. (7:2) And the king said
to Esther, again on the second day at the banquet:
12. And the king said to Esther on the second day, at the wine ban-
quet, What
13. is your wish, Queen Esther? and what is your request? [up to] half
of the kingdom,
14. and I shall do it. (7:3) And Queen Esther replied: Queen Esther
replied, saying, If
15. I have found favor and mercy before you, O king, and if it pleases
the king,
16. let my life be granted me as my wish, and my people, as my
request. (7:4) For we have been sold:
17. For we have been sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, mur-
dered,
18. and annihilated. Now, had we only been sold as bondmen and
bondwomen, I would have kept silent,
19. because the kings enemy is not worthy of the kings trouble.
20. (7:5) Then King Ahasuerus said: Then King [Ahasuerus] said to
his interpreter, . . .
162 chapter twelve
recto
1. (Esth 1:2) [When] the palm of his foot [touched] the first step, a
golden ox would extend
2. its foreleg, and lift him, [i.e., King Solomon] to the second step;
and from the second step to the
3. third; and from the third to the fourth; and from the fourth to the
fifth; and from
4. the fifth to the sixth; until the eagles would descend and grasp
King
5. Solomon, and lift him up and seat him upon his throne.
6. And a silver serpent rejoiced in seating him (?). Kings
7. and nations heard the reputation of King Solomons throne.
8. They gathered and came as one. When they saw all of these
9. mighty acts, they were astounded. They prostrated themselves
and fell upon [their faces]
10. and said to him, no king has commissioned [such a throne,]
11. and no nation [can produce anything like it. And when]
12. kings viewed the glory of the thr[one they offered praise to the
One]
13. Who created the entire world. [And when King Solomon ascended]
14. and sat on his throne, [ ] would ascend [ ]
verso
1. the bears would growl, the sheep would bleat, the leopards would
rumble (?), the young ones (?)
2. would cry out, and the eagles would fly, the peacocks would mur-
mur(?),
3. and the cats would howl, the roosters would cackle, and the hawks
4. would [ ]. And when witnesses would hear, they would say
5. Beware when you testify, lest on our account the world
6. be uprooted. And when Solomon was seated upon his throne
7. the herald would go forth and announce, He shall not have many
wives;
8. he shall not have many horses; he shall not amass silver and gold
9. [in excess,. lest] his heart [go astray] [Deut 17:17,16, but not in
original order]. And there was a dove, in whose mouth
10. [ ] at night [ ] the explicit [divine] name
11. [ ] placed the crown on his head
12. [ ] a Torah scroll in his lap
13. [ ] the makings of the throne
Cambridge University Library T-S AS 70.72
recto
1. (6:13) H ananiah, Mishael, and Azariah escaped from the fiery:

[ ] furnace. [If ]
2. Mordecai is a descendant of these [men, or] if his deeds are simi[lar]
3. to theirs, and you have begun to fall before him, then you will
utterly fall [ ].
4. (6:14) While they were still: While they were still [speaking with]
him, the popular(?) officials
5. of the king ap[proached and hastened] to bring Haman to the
banquet
6. that Esther had prepared. (7:1) So he came. So the king and
Haman came to banquet with
7. Queen Esther. (7:2) [And he] said: And the king said
8. to Esther, again, on the second day of the wine
9. banquet, What is your request, Queen Esther, and it shall be
granted you, and what is your petition [up to]
10. half the kingdom and it shall be done. (7:3) And she replied:
[And] Queen Esther [replied],
11. saying, If I have found f[avor and me]rcy before you,
12. O king, and if it pleases the king, let my life be granted me as my
request, and my people,
13. as my petition. (7:4) For we have been sold. For [we have been
sold,] I and my people,
14. to be destroyed, [murdered and] annihilated. Now had
15. we [only] been sold as bondmen and bondwomen [ ]
16. the damage [is not] worthy of the kings trouble. [ ]
164 chapter twelve
verso
1. (7:9) [The citron said,] I cannot bear that he be impaled [or, cru-
cified] upon my crest [ ]
2. for Abraham is likened [unto me; ]
3. [for I was planted in da]ys of old, as it is written, You shall take
4. on the first [day] the fruit of the [citron] tree and palm branches
(Lev 23:40), and it is not
5. possible for me to be defiled [by his corpse]. The date-palm said,
I cannot
6. bear that he be impaled upon my crest, for Isaac, the righteous
one, is compared
7. unto me; as it is written, The righteous bloom like a date-palm,
(Ps 92:13). [Moreover,] I am partner
8. to the citron, and it is not possible for me to be [def ]iled by his
corpse. The myrtle
9. said, I cannot bear that he be impaled upon my crest, for the
righteous ones
10. are likened [unto me; as it is written, And he was standing among
the myrtles that were
11. at the bottom (Zech 1:8); and it is [also] written, He was foster
father to Hadassah (= myrtle) (Esth 2:7); and from me [branches]
are taken
12. for joy and happiness: for the Havdalah [ceremony], and wedding
and circumcision [celebrations]; and I am partner
13. to the citron and the palm branch [ ] on the [Sukkot] festival,
so it is not possible for me to be defiled
14. by his corpse. The [pomegra]nate said, I cannot bear that he be
impaled upon my crest
15. [ ] the prayers of Israel are compared unto me
16. [as it is written,] I went down to the nut grove (Song 6:11), and
also the wise ones of Israel . . . .
Bibliography of Textual Sources
S. Buber, , Agadische Abhandlungen zum Buche Ester, Krakau (= Cracow),

1897 and an anonymous photo-reprint in Israel, 1964.
S. Buber, , Sammlung Agadischer Commentare zum Buche Ester, Wilna,
1886, and an anonymous photo-reprint in Israel, 1964. This volume contains several
small midrashim to the Book of Esther, including =( MP A) and

=( MAG).
B. Grossfeld, The First Targum to Esther, According to the MS Paris Hebrew 110 of the
Bibliothque Nationale [New York: Sepher-Hermon, 1983].
P. de Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice [Leipzig, 1872] and reprinted Osnabruck: Otto
Zeller, 1967.
L. Munk, , Targum Scheni zum Buche Esther [Berlin, 1876].
S. Schechter, , Aboth de Rabbi Nathan [New York: Feldheim, 1945]
(= AdRN).
A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, Vol. IV A, The Hagiographa [Leiden: Brill, 1968].
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
INTRODUCTORY POEMS (RSHUYOT) TO THE TARGUM OF

THE HAFT ARAH IN PRAISE OF JONATHAN BEN UZZIEL

The two most popular talmudic legends about Jonathan ben Uzziel
(first century B.C.E.first century C.E.) relate to his study of Torah and
to his translation of Torah. Both stories contain supernatural motifs
that endeared them to the people and eventually led to their inclu-
sion in Aramaic introductory poems, rshuyot, to the targum of the
haftarot.
The first story1 tells that Jonathan ben Uzziel delivered the Targum
of Prophets as received from the mouths of Haggai, Zechariah and
Malachi;2 and the entire Land of Israel trembled on that day. A heav-
enly voice (bat-qol) called out, Who is it that revealed my secrets unto
mankind? To which Jonathan boldly responded, It is I who revealed
your secrets. Surely you realize that I did it neither for personal honor
nor for the honor of my fathers housebut that there not increase
dispute among Israel (Rashi ad loc.: over the interpretation of obscure
biblical passages).
He further wished to reveal the targum of the Hagiographa, but the
heavenly voice called out, Enough! And why was that? Because it
contains the fixed time (for the coming) of the Messiah (Rashi: in the
Book of Daniel).3
1
b. Megillah 3a:

.
2
Also compare the Aramaic poem from Mahzor Vitry, par. 168, in the Appendix
below. The legend ignores the chronological gap of over 500 years between these
prophets and the tana; for our present purposes, we, too, suspend disbelief.
3
I will not deal here with the obvious problem, namely, that in fact there are tar-
gumim to the entire Hagiographa except Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah, presumably
because they were originally composed partially in Aramaic. The talmudic story would
168 chapter thirteen
The second story speaks of the eighty disciples of Hillel the Elder
(first century B.C.E.first century C.E.), the greatest of whom was
Jonathan ben Uzziel and the smallest of whom, Yohanan ben Zakkai.
It was said of Jonathan ben Uzziel that, when he was involved in the
study of Torah, any bird that flew over him was immediately burnt
(Rashi: from the fire of the divine angels that gathered about, to listen
to his exposition of the Torah).4
Introductory poems to the haftarah as collected from Mahzor
editions and manuscripts were first listed by Leopold Zunz in his
Literaturgeschichte der Synagogalen Poesie.5 In that monumental work,
Zunz merely cited opening and closing phrases of poems; and in this
manner, he lists the poem ( Let me obtain permis-
sion from all of you. . .) among three Aramaic introductory poems for
the mturgman (i.e., translator) of the festival haftarah. Zunz noted
that his sources for this poem are Mahzor Vitry and some (unidenti-
fied) French manuscripts. He divided this short poem into its three
components and elsewhere offered a probable date of composition as
the Geonic period.6
The other two poems listed by Zunz are . . .
( Let me obtain permission from the exalted God. . .)
and . . . (If my mouth were all musical strings. . .).
Yet a fourth composition listed by Zunz and recognized by Bacher as
belonging to the same genre, is ( Let
me first obtain authority from before the Merciful One. . .). 7
seem to apply the prohibition to the entire Ktvim. Yet, it is well-known that frag-
ments of two exemplars of Targum to Job have survived among the Dead Sea Scrolls
and antedate Jonathan ben Uzziel by some 200 years. Likewise, another talmudic story
relates that Rabban Gamliel I (early first century C.E., and possibly a younger contem-
porary of Jonathan ben Uzziel) tried to suppress an existent Targum of Job (b. Shabbat
115a; m. Soferim 5:15; and elsewhere).
4
b. Sukkah 28a; b. Bava Batra 134a:
. . .

.
On the comparison of Torah to fire, see, for example, Jeremiah 23:29, Behold, My
word is like fire, declares the Lord. . ., and the many rabbinic homilies on this and
similar verses.
5
(Berlin, 1865), pp. 7980.
6
Ibid., p. 9.
7
Ibid., p. 569, item no. 11, composed by a poet named Yosef, of unknown date. In
an article to which we will refer at length, Wilhelm Bacher gives the full text of this
introductory poem: Alte aramaische Poesien zum Vortrage des Haphtara-Targum,
introductory poems to the targum 169
The texts of these Aramaic introductory poems to the haftarot were

first published towards the end of the nineteenth century, within the
editions of two other works:
1. As an appendix to his edition of the Targum to the Prophets, based

upon Codex Reuchlinianus, P. de Lagarde published the poems
that appear at the end of that manuscript.8 The eight compositions
in that collection were published, categorized and described by
W. Bacher almost immediately after their first appearance.9
2. In 1889, S. Hurwitz produced the first edition of Mahzor Vitry. The
section of that work devoted to the Sabbath liturgy contains a series
of introductory passages to be recited on the festivals after reading
the targum to the first three verses of the haftarah.10
In the course of preparing the catalogue Targumic Manuscripts in the

Cambridge Genizah Collections,11 I recently came upon three fragments
containing Aramaic introductory poems in praise of Jonathan ben
Uzziel. Two of the fragments preserve complete and distinct composi-
tions, whereas the third contains an identical copy of a portion of one
of the other two poems, followed by the targum of Isaiah 5:306:1.
The following is a brief physical description of the manuscripts:
1. T-S AS 71.64
Paper; 2 leaves (1 bifolium); mutilated; 16.2 12.0 cm (per leaf);
1 column; 1315 lines; Oriental semi-cursive script; 13th cent.; Tiberian
vocalization; folio 1 contains Onqelos with Hebrew lemmata to Exodus
12:2131; folio 2r contains a Hebrew poem for the return to the Land
Monatsschrift fr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, XXII (= N.F. 5; 1873),

22028.
8
Prophetae Chaldaice (Leipzig, 1872), pp. 49093.
9
See n. 7, above, and n. 14, below.
10
S. Hurwitz, Machsor Vitry (2nd ed.; Nrnberg, 1923), pp. 15865, paragraphs
16779. At the end of par. 166, we find the instructions:
' . This rule
is, presumably, in order to avoid an interruption between the opening benediction to
the haftarah and the actual reading of a minimal passage.
11
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for Cambridge University Library,
1992). My thanks to Dr. Stefan C. Reif, Director of the Taylor-Schechter Genizah
Research Unit, for his kind assistance in every matter.
of Israel and the coming of the Messiah and Elijah the prophet; folio 2v
contains an introductory poem to the targum of the haftarah.12
2. T-S B 11.17
Paper; 1 leaf, 12.8 9.1 cm; 1 column; 1415 lines; Oriental semi-cursive
script; 13th cent.; Tiberian vocalization; recto contains the end of an
introductory poem to the targum of the haftarah (= T-S AS 71.64); bot-
tom of recto and entire verso contain Targum Jonathan with Hebrew
lemmata to Isaiah 5:306:5.
3. T-S H 15.27
Paper; 1 leaf; 18.2 14.1 cm; 1 column; 14 + 2 lines; Oriental semi-cur-
sive script; 12th cent.; unpointed; recto contains an Aramaic introduc-
tory poem to the targum of the Torah and haftarah plus two unidentified
incomplete lines at the bottom; verso blank.
The following are the texts, English translations and some explanatory
notes. I have also appended several relevant passages from the above-
mentioned and previously published poems, so as to complete the pic-
ture and facilitate comparative study of the genre.
C.U.L. T-S AS 71.64, folio 2v

.1
] [ .2
[ ].3
[ ][ ] .4
][ ][ .5
[ ] [ ] .6
[ ] [ ].7
.8
.9
][ .10
.11
: ][ .12
12
I wish to thank Mrs. Edna Engel of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew
Manuscripts at the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem, for provid-
ing the dating of all three manuscripts.
Translation
C.U.L. T-S AS 71.64, folio 2v

1. Permission for the Haftarot
2. Let me obtain permission from all of youyour old and your young.
3. Grant now permission, [you] whom He has chosen from among
the nations.
4. He brought you forth from among the Egyptians. May the Lord,
5. God of your fathers, increase you a thousandfold,
6. and bless you as He promised you.
7. That which was spoken by Joshua and interpreted by Jonathan
8. ben Uzziel, master of the scholars, under the instruction of Haggai,
Zechariah
9. and Malachi, the prophets; (that) when he [i.e., Jonathan] was toil-
ing in the [study of] Torah,
10. any bird of wing that flew over him in the air of the heavenly
firmament
11. would be burnt from the flame of the Glory that rested upon him.
12. And interpreting correctly, here is what he said:
Explanatory Notes
2. ... ]This opening phrase is almost identical with that
of Mahzor Vitry (= MV), par. 167. A similar formula for obtaining
permission from young and old (lit., great and small) is found at
the beginning of the second poem in Codex Reuchlinianus (= Cod.
Reuch.): .13
34. ... ]Cf. targumim to Deuteronomy 7:6 and 14:2: /
... , and the Hebrew benediction for reading
the Torah , which would have been recited
several times in the synagogue, only a short while before the recita-
tion of this poem. Cf. MS T-S H 15.27, below,
. Also, cf. Cod. Reuch. poem no. 8:
.
4. ]The toponymic would have been expected, rather
than the gentilic form, especially in conjunction with the verb .
Contrast MS T-S H 15.27, . The gentilic in the present
MS reflects the concept of ( Deut 4:34). It may
also be under the influence of the preceding phrase .
46. ... = ]Onqelos Deuteronomy 1:11. This verse is also included
in MV, par. 167.
13
Further references to parallel poetic compositions in MV are to the edition of
Hurwitz, mentioned above in n. 10.
7. ]This introductory poem was intended for the first day of

Passover, for which the haftarah is from the Book of Joshua. Folio
1 of the present manuscript contains Onqelos to Exodus 12:2131,
which is part of the Torah reading for that day. Moreover, in MV,
the targum of the haftarah for the first day of Passover, beginning
with the words , follows immediately after the various
introductory poems (par. 180). In Cod. Reuch. poem no. 6, Joshua
is singled out as first of the prophets:
. However, most of the
introductory poems do not refer to any specific prophet, but rely
upon the reader to insert the appropriate name, e.g.,
; or: ' . This indi-
cates that the various introductory poems were intended not only
for the first day of the Passover festival, but for other occasions as
well.
8. ] Probably a reference to the legend cited above that
Jonathan was the foremost disciple of Hillel the Elder (see note 4,
above). Compare the superlative descriptions in other poems, such
as and
, (MV, par. 168), and or ( Cod.
Reuch. poems nos. 2 and 4). In some of the poems, this also serves
as a background against which the reader himself is modestly con-
trasted: or
and the most self-effacing description
(quoting in part Daniel 2:30)
( Cod. Reuch. poems
nos. 2, 4, and 3, resp.).
89. ... ]Cf. beginning of footnote 1, above.
911. ... ]Cf. footnote 4, above.
10. ... ]This is Onqelos to Deuteronomy 4:17, with minor
adaptation. The form , rather than , is the dominant vari-
ant among the manuscriptal sources of Onqelos.
12. ]][The verb is applied to targumic activity in Rabbinic
literature, cf. b. Megillah 3a, where Nehemiah 8:8 is interpreted as
follows: .
C.U.L. T-S H 15.27

.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
][ .12
.13
.14
//// /// // .15
/////// .16
Translation
C.U.L T-S H 15.27

Permission for the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel
1. With permission of the King of Kings and the Master of Judges, by
Whose word
2. earth and heaven were created. He chose the three righteous
patriarchs
3. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, father of the Tribes; and chose
4. their children after them from among the nations. He brought them
forth from Egypt
5. with signs and wonders; and drowned Pharaoh and his army in the
seas.
6. And Israel saw, and offered praises. He brought us near Mount Sinai
and made us hear
7. the ten sayings. He gave us the instructions, commandments and
laws
8. through Moses father of all prophets; may His great name be blessed
forever
9. and forever after. Wisdom and might are His; He
10. alters the seasons and times. With permission of our master and
teacher,
11. prince of princes, and with permission of our m[aster] and t[eacher]
Samuel, head of the scholars,
12. and with permission of this holy congregation, may the Almighty
grant them [to witness] the [re]building of Ariel [i.e., the Holy
Temple], the arrival of the Redeemer,
13. and the ingathering of the dispersions of Judah and Israel. With
permission, I will begin to translate the divine
14. Torah, and I will conclude with the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel
15. [ ] the time [ ]
16. [ ]
Explanatory Notes
1.
] Pairs of superlinear strokes are used to indicate rhymed
phrases (-ayya) throughout the poem.
23. ] Cf. the beginning of MS T-S AS 71.64, for the motif

of chosenness.
4. ]Accusative and dative attached suffixes, characteristic of the
dialect of Onqelos and Jonathan to the Prophets, are employed here
and elsewhere in this poem: and ( line 6). Also,
note the use of the verb ( line 6).
7. ] Hebrew in Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy
4:13; 10:4. In all of these verses the phrase is translated by Onqelos
as / /. Only in the Palestinian targumim do we find
the expression . Also, in Deuteronomy 4:10,
is translated in Onqelos , as opposed
to in Neofiti. The phrase
in the present poem seems to be a hybrid of Onqelos and
Palestinian targum dialects.
89. ... ]This clause is included under the influence of Daniel
2:20, and leads directly into the following two phrases. However, its
wording has been altered to conform almost verbatim with the simi-
lar and more popularly known version in the Qadish prayer. The
referent is the subject of the preceding verbs, namely God.
910. .. = ]Daniel 2:2021.
1011. ... ]The person described has not been identified.
The juxtaposition of the title with the personal name
R. Shmuel calls to mind R. Shmuel Hanagid of Granada (9931055
C.E.). But there is no supportive evidence for this identification,
nor am I aware of any parallel for the superlative title prince of
princes.
12. ]The remainder of the composition is in Hebrew.
1314. ... ]This rshut would seem to have been recited
before the targum to the Torah reading, , but served
to obtain permission also for the targum of the haftarah,
.
Appendix of Parallel Compositions from Codex Reuchlinianus (CR)14

and from Mahzor Vitry (MV, apud Hurwitz)
CR, Introductory passage
/ /
14
The present transcriptions are based upon the facsimile edition published by
A. Sperber, Codex Reuchlinianus no. 3 of the Badische Landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe
(Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1956), pp. 76970. There are a number of vari-
ants in Bachers transcription. Whereas de Lagardes readings are extremely accurate,
Bachers edition is replete with printers errors, or unintentional corrections of the
texts.
CR 1
/
/ .... /
/ /
/ '
/ .
CR 2
/ /
/ .... / /
/ /
' .
CR 4
/ /
/ .... / /
/ /
/ ... . / /
/ / /
/ ' .
CR 5
/ /
/ .... / /
/ /
/ /
/ .../ / /
/ ' / .
CR 6

'
'

MV 167
. .
:

. . .
: :
MV 168
... : :
: :
. :
. :
. :
.
: . :
. :
. :
. :
: : ][
. :
. : .
:.
MV 173
.... . . . .
::
MV 174
. .... . . .
: ][ . ::
MV 175
.... . .
. .

MV 176
... . . .
.
MV 177
. ....

.... .
. .
.
MV 179
.... . . ][ .

SECTION III
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
FOUR NOTES ON THE TRIENNIAL LECTIONARY CYCLE
Introduction
One of the most celebrated manuscripts in Targumic studies is

Cambridge University Library MS Taylor-Schechter 20.155. It was first
published by Paul Kahle in 1930,1 and it immediately aroused much
scholarly interest, as well as commensurate scholarly controversy. To
this day, it remains the earliest extant fragment of Palestinian Targum
to the Pentateuch except for the few surviving verses of Targum to
Leviticus from Qumran.
The Targumic text of T-S 20.155 has long been recognized as
extremely important for several reasons: (a) the relatively pure
Aramaic dialect in which it is written; (b) the non-normative halakha
that is reflected in its exegesis; and (c) its early superlinear Palestinian
vocalization.
In recent years nine additional fragments of this MS were discov-
ered at Cambridge. They have been prepared for publication, and will
be appearing shortly.2 As a result the MS now consists of C.U.L. T-S
20.155 plus T-S AS 63.24, 51, 72, 85, 95, 96, 117, 129, 153.
With all the preoccupation with the targumic text on the recto of
the MS, scholars have overlooked other aspects of the MS, just as
they have totally ignored its verso, which does not seem to have ever
been mentioned in the literature.3 It was indeed by accident, while
1
Masoreten des Westens II (Stuttgart, 1930; reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1967),
pp. 15.
2
M. L. Klein, Nine Fragments of the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch from
the Cairo Genizah (additions to MS A), HUCA 50 (1979). The entire manuscript will
also be included in the complete collection of Genizah MSS of Palestinian Targum to
the Pentateuch that is in an advanced stage of preparation.
3
The following is the description of the MS as given by E. J. Worman in his
catalogue, Taylor-Schechter Collection: Hand-list of pieces in Glass (190609), p. 41:
RECTO Bible. Targum to Exodus 21, 22, with Palestinian superlinear punctuation.
Most like the Yerushalmi, but having numerous variations. Part of a scroll, fragments
of 5 columns. Col. 2 begins 21:18, 19; col. 4 ends 22:27.28 41 cm. small square
heb. VERSO Liturgy? Written lengthwise on the scroll large square Heb. Worman
180 chapter fourteen
preparing the edition of the targumic texts, that the verso of the MS
was recently discovered to contain fragments of an early lectionary of
the Torah and haftarot.
The scientific study of the Triennial Lectionary Cycle goes back to
the end of the 19th century.4 The sources are many and diverse: early
Bibles with Massorah, Genizah lists, midrashim and piyyutim (esp.
Yannai) that are structured after the lectionary, and Romanian and
Karaite traditions. All of these sources point to the fact that there was
no single universally accepted system, but rather a number of distinct
traditions, varying from 141 to 167 weekly sidrot. The cycle was appar-
ently completed over a non-uniform period of 3 to 3 1/2 years. There
are also strong indications that the readings were not bound to the sea-
sons of nature, nor to the calendar of festivals (as had once been pos-
ited), and that different communities may have read different portions
on any particular Sabbath.5 This being the case, every newly discovered
fragment of lectionary must be studied carefully for possible variants
in custom, and in order to build up a corpus of source material, upon
which a history of the lectionaries might eventually be built.
I. An Early Witness to the Triennial Lectionary

of 141 Sidrot
In his article A Bible Manuscript Written in 1260,6 I. Joel discusses

the two systems of triennial sidrot contained in that MS. He mentions
the previously known division of 167 sidrot, which is also contained
in MS Leningrad B19A, and in various later Yemenite MSS. Joel then
obviously did not identify the text on the verso, and his brief nondescript notice did
not attract any subsequent attention.
4
The two major early works are: A. Bchler, The Reading of the Law and Prophets
in a Triennial Cycle, JQR Old Series 5 (1893), 42068; 6 (1894), 173; and J. Mann,
The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, Vol. I. (Cincinnati, 1940; reprint
New York: Ktav, 1971); Vol II with I. Sonne (Cincinnati; Hebrew Union College,
1966). More recent works will be cited in the notes below.
5
J. Heinemann, The Triennial Lectionary Cycle, JJS 19 (1968), 4148; and
idem., The Triennial Cycle and the Calendar, Tarbiz 33 (1964), 36268 (Hebrew).
There are also two Talmudic statements (y. Shabbat 16, 15c and Soferim 16:10) that
might imply the existence of a 175 division. See E. Fleischer, The Pizmonim of the
Anonymus (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974), p. 38,
n. 119 (Hebrew).
6
Kiryath Sepher 38 (1962), 12232 (Hebrew). The shelf mark of this Bible codex is
MS 4790, at the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem.
four notes on the triennial lectionary cycle 181
examines the division of 154, which is known from the 2nd Biblia
Rabbinica of Yaakov ben Hayyim (Venice, 152425) and from several
1314th cent. MSS. A similar system appears in the list at the end of
the MS Bible 1260. Finally, he focuses on the unique division of 141
sidrot, found in the body of the MS Bible 1260, and which is otherwise
unattested. Joel provides a convenient chart at the end of his article.7
As is widely known, a number of Genizah MSS of Palestinian
Targum contain notation of triennial sidrot, and even occasional nota-
tion of triennial haftarot.8 Furthermore, it has long been observed that
targumic expansions in the Palestinian Targums often occur at the
beginning of triennial sidrot, reflecting the synagogal-liturgical nature
of these targumim.
As already noted by P. Kahle,9 MS T-S 20.155r contains the number
ciphers and , denoting sidrot numbers 15 and 16 of the triennial
cycle. The first is in column 1, line 5, before Exod 21:1, ;
and the second, in column 4, line 21, before Exod 22:24, .
Now, both of these serve as opening verses to sidrot in all three sys-
tems of division. However, in the 167 division of MS Leningrad BI9A,
they constitute numbers 17 and 18 for the Book of Exodus; while in
the list at the end of MS Bible 1260, which represents the 154 division,
they are numbers 16 and 17. Only in the body of MS Bible 1260, the
hitherto sole witness of the 141 division, do they appear as numbers
15 and 16. If MS T-S 20.155 is dated to the 8th century, as originally
estimated by Kahle, or even if it is to be more conservatively dated to
the 9th or 10th century,10 we now have a very early testimony for the
least known division of the Triennial Lectionary Cycle.
7
Ibid., pp. 12627 and 13032 (chart). In addition, E. Fleischer (Pizmonim of the
Anonymus, pp. 3340) has demonstrated the early existence of a 155 division that
differs substantially from the known system of 154.
8
E.g., Leningrad, Saltykov-Schedrin, MS Antonin Ebr. III B 120, folio 1v, line 9
(Gen 30:22); MS Antonin Ebr. III B 542, folio 2r, col. 1, line 25 (Gen 35:9). In this
second instance the number cipher 31 is provided, corresponding to the 154 division
of the Biblia Rabbinica. Likewise, the opening words of the haftarah, beginning with
Isa 43:1, are provided here. A third example is Cambridge University Library MS
T-S B 8.12, col. 3, line 3 (Exod 6:2). We might also note that Oxford Bodleian MS
Heb. e43, folio 58v (Kahles MS F) line 6 (Lev 23:9) contains the sidra mark. This
corresponds to sidra no. 20 only according to MS Leningrad B19A or the 167 division.
It is not a new sidra according to the other two triennial divisions (154 and 141).
9
Masoreten des Westens II, p. 1.
10
Ibid., pp. 2*3* late 7th or early 8th Century. This early dating is confirmed by
S. A. Birnbaum, The Hebrew Scripts, (Leiden; Brill, 1971), Vol. I, columns 16467,
where he arrives at a date of 660 CE; and idem, Alphabet, Hebrew: Square Script,
II. An Unattested Lectionary Division
In addition to the sidra-markers that we have noted in footnote 8,

there are two more examples that have come to light most recently in a
MS of Palestinian Targum, namely Cambridge University Library, MS
Taylor-Schechter Misc. 27.4.11 On folio 1r, before Gen 46:28, we find
the notations S(idra)41, and the beginning of the haftara from Zech
10:6. This is in full agreement with the 154 division as represented by
the list at the end of Codex Bible 1260.
On folio 2r of this same MS, we find the cipher =( 38), before
Gen 48:1; and in the margin, we find the beginning of the haftara from
2 Kgs 13:14. This haftara matches the sidra according to all sources
cited in Mann-Wacholder.12 On the other hand, the cipher 38 does
not correspond with any of the known triennial divisions. According
to MS Leningrad (167), Gen 48:1 is the beginning of sidra no. 43;
and according to the 154 and 141 divisions of MS Bible 1260, it is the
beginning of sidra nos. 42 and 39 respectively. In view of the multi-
plicity of known triennial lectionary cycles, we are led to suspect that
we have here the vestige of yet another unknown cycle that was even
shorter than 141.
An apparent difficulty in this MS is the fact that the two markers
(41 and 38) represent different cycles, and that the higher of the two
numbers precedes the lower. It may be that the notations derive from
two different scribal hands. This might also explain why the unique
cipher for sidra no. 38 is situated within the column and not in its
usual position in the margin to the right of the column.
Encyclopedia Judaica, (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972), Vol. 2, col. 706 and 71314, fig. 8. But,
see J. L. Teicher, A Sixth Century Fragment of the Palestinian Targum? VT 1 (1951)
12529, who, for reasons mainly non-paleographical, would like to date the MS to the
11th to 12th century.
11
This text will be presented by Dr. Shirley Lund, in a paper prepared for the
Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, October 1979, entitled Kahles MS D:
More or Less.
12
B. Z. Wacholder, A List of Triennial Sedarim and Haftarot, in J. Manns The
Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, Vol. I (reprint New York; Ktav,
1971) pp. LILXVII.
III. A Torah Lectionary
The original MS Cambridge University T-S 20.155 is written in the

form of a Torah scroll, in narrow ruled columns, on one side of the
parchment only. The Torah and haftarah lectionaries were appar-
ently added on the verso, two or three centuries later. They are writ-
ten across the height of the scroll, perpendicular to the direction of
the writing on the recto, and it is therefore virtually certain that by
that time the original targumic text had already fallen into disuse. On
the other hand, an extensive portion of the original parchment scroll,
or perhaps its entirety, must have still been intact, since the Torah
lectionary is written on the reverse side of the Targum to Exod 4,
and the haftarah lectionary is on the reverse side of Exod 2123. The
writing of the lectionary forms one very long single column, of which
fragments of some 32 lines are preserved. The script probably dates
to the 1012th Century C.E. It does not seem to have been executed
by a skilled professional scribe, since many of the letters are irregular,
and words often run into one another. This is particularly true in the
haftarah lectionary.
The following is the text of the Torah Lectionary:
Cambridge University Library MS T-S AS 63.72, 85, 95

[ 27:28]
[( 27:40) : ][ ].1
?

( 28:9) : ][ ] .2
[
? ?
[: ] [ ][ ] .3
( 29:31) :( ] [ ] 28:10)
.4
[
?
( ] 30:22) : ] [ ][.5
[
[ /////////////////////////// : ] .6
Four of the six verses are readily identified as triennial sidrot. These
are Gen 27:28; 28:10; 29:31; and 30:22 which correspond to sidrot
numbers 2528 of the lists in MS Leningrad B19A and of the Bible
codex of 1260. They also correspond to four consecutive sidrot, num-
bers 2225, in the body of the Codex 1260. The word before
28:10 indicates that this is also the beginning of an annual parashah

(no. 7). This provides a reasonable explanation for the inclusion of 28:9,
the last verse of the previous parashah. The presence of 27:40 seemed
at first somewhat strange. It does not correspond to the beginning or
end of any known sidrah or parashah; nor is it likely to represent one
of some unknown tradition, as it comes only twelve verses after the
previous sidrah. Moreover, its contents, the blessing of Esau to live by
his sword, would provide a rather inauspicious opening-verse for a
synagogal Torah reading (exceptions to this rule not withstanding).
When we review the lists at the end of the Pentateuch in MS
Leningrad B19A, we discover that there are actually two separate and
distinct lists of sidrot and parashot. Also, the parashah list contains
more than a mere listing of the weekly readings. It is constructed as
follows:
1. the number of verses in each parashah; 2. the number of verses in

each book; 3. the middle verse of each book. Genesis 27:40 happens
to be the verse that marks the middle of the book of Genesis:
.
In contrast, then, with MS Leningrad, the present Genizah MS com-

bines the sidrah and parashah lists, viz. the word in the midst
of the list of sidrot. It also includes the half-book notation in the same
list. This is all done in strict Biblical order so that our very small frag-
ment contains sundry items in the following order: one sidrah (Gen
27:28); the median verse of the Book of Genesis (27:40); the last verse
of the sixth parashah of the annual cycle (28:9); the beginning of a
sidrah which coincides with the beginning of the seventh parashah
(28:10); and finally two additional sidrot (29:31; 30:22). This might be
an indication of transition from the triennial cycle to the annual.
IV. A Haftarah Lectionary
The major segment of the MS is comprised of T-S 20.155 plus six inter-
locking smaller fragments. All together they contain 27 lines that are
mostly legible. The script is the same as that of the Torah lectionary, and
there is no doubt that both texts were originally part of a single MS.
The text is an expanded annual lectionary which preserves the haf-
tarot for at least six parashot, together with the names of four parashot:
( Gen 12:1), ( 18.1), ( 23:1), and ( 25:19). The
noteworthy feature in this list is that most of the haftarot are repre-
sented by several medial verses in addition to the usual opening and
closing verses. The following is the text, together with a schematic out-
line and analysis:13
Cambridge University Library MS T-S 20.155 + T-S AS 63.24, 51, 96,

117, 129, 153v.
Isa 42:25 [] '[ ] .1
] [ ][ .2
] [][ Isa 42:14 :] [ .3
[ //////////////// ] [ ]: .4
Isa 54:1 ][ ] [ ] [ .5
]'Isa 54::9 : [ ][ .6
][ ][ .7
Isa 54:11 : ][ ][ .8
?????
Isa 45:15 :][ .9
Gen 12:12 ][ : .10
Isa 40:27[ ]///// .11
] [ ]Isa 41:1 : [ .12
][ ] [ ] [: .13
] Isa 41:8[ ] [: .14
?
]Isa 41:14 .15 [ ] '[
????
] .16 [ Isa 41:17 : ][ ] [
??? ?
] .17[ ' ][ ] [:
? ??
Gen 18:1 .18] [
? ?
]2 Kgs 4:1 .19 [ ][ ] [
?
.20 ]'[
????
][ ] [ [2 Kgs 4:8 : ] [ .21
] [ .22
][ 2 Kgs 4:8 : ] .23
[
] [Gen 23:1 : ][ .24
1 Kgs 1:1 ][ ] [ ] [: .25
13
We have based our comparison upon the comprehensive List of Haftarot for
;the Annual Sabbaths, by N. Fried, in the Talmudic Encyclopedia (ed. S. J. Zevin
Jerusalem, 1961), Vol. 10, Appendix, Cols. 70128.
] [ ][ ]1 Kgs 1:31 .26

[:
[14 ] Mal 1:1 Gen 25:18 .27
Parashah Verses from Haftarah (traditions)14

[Bereshit, Gen 1:1] Isa 42:5 opening (S A )
42:14 medial
? [42:21] closing (S I )
[Noah, Gen 6:9] Isa 54:1 opening (S A M Y I )
54:9 medial thematic
54:11 medial
54:15 medial
Lekh [Lekha] Gen 12:1 Isa 40:27 opening (S A )
41:1 medial
41:8 medial thematic
41:14 medial
41:17 closing (M Y I )
Wa-ye [ra EI]aw Gen 18:1 2 Kgs 4:1 opening (S A M Y I )
4:8 medial
4:37 closing (S A M Y I )
Wa-yihyu Hayyei Sarah Gen 23:1 1 Kgs 1:1 opening (S A M Y I )
1:31 closing (S A M Y )
We-Eleh Toledoth Gen 25:19 Mal 1:1 opening (S A M Y I )
The names of the parashot Bereshit and Noah are not preserved, but
the opening verses of the Haftarot match those of both the Sephardic
and Ashkenazic traditions for those parashot.
Isa 42:5 is the common Sephardic and Ashkenazic opening verse for
the haftarah of Bereshit. According to Maimonides, and the Yemenite
and Italian traditions, the haftarah begins with Isa 42:1. Since the MS
is torn at its top, one cannot be certain that the text contradicts these
latter traditions. However, this is likely, as in the case of the haftarah
of Lekh Lekha (see below).
Isa 42:14 is a medial and non-thematic verse (i.e. not thematically
related to the Torah reading of the parashah).
[Isa 42:21] is only a possible reconstruction for line 4. It is the final
verse of this haftarah according to the Sephardic, Italian and some
Ashkenazic traditions. The more common Ashkenazic ending, Isa
43:10, could not possibly have fit into the space provided. One must,
14
The following sigla are used: S = SephardicA = AshkenazicM = Maimonides
(Mishneh Torah)Y = YemeniteI = Italian.
however, take into account the more likely alternative that the name
of the next parashah occupied the space, and that no
closing verse was provided. The traces of writing are not legible.
Isa 54:1 is the universal opening verse for this haftarah, with the
exception of the Roumanian tradition.
Isa 54:9 is medial and thematic, referring to the flood waters of
Noah.
Isa 54:11 is medial and non-thematic. It is, however, a popularly-
known verse, inasmuch as it opens the haftarah to parashat Reeh, the
third of the seven haftarot of consolation.
Isa 54:15 is medial and non-thematic. No closing verse is provided
for Noah.
Isa 40:27 is the common opening verse in both the Sephardic and
Ashkenazic traditions.
Isa 41:1, 8, 14 are medial in all traditions; and only v. 8, which speaks
of the seed of Abraham, is thematic.
Isa 41:17 is the closing verse according to the Yemenite and Italian
traditions, as well as Maimonides list. It lies one verse beyond the
closing of the common Ashkenazic and Sephardic traditions.
We note, however, that our list cannot represent the Yemenite-
Italian-Maimonidean tradition, since these all begin with Isa 40:25,
and not 40:27 as in our text. Our text is unique, and does not conform
with any single attested tradition.
2 Kgs 4:1, 37 are the opening and closing verses of the haftarah of
Wa-Yera according to all traditionsexcept the Roumanian.
2 Kgs 4:8 is medial and non-thematic.
1 Kgs 1:1 is the opening verse of Hayyei Sarah according to all tradi-
tions, except the Roumanian.
1 Kgs 1:31 conforms with the closing verse according to the
Sephardic, Ashkenazic, Yemenite and Maimonidean traditions. It dif-
fers from the Italian and Roumanian customs.
Mal 1:1 is the opening verse for the haftarah of Toledot according
to all traditions, save the Roumanian.
In summation, then:
(1) All preserved opening verses conform with the common Ashkenazic
and Sephardic traditions. The opening verses do not agree with
Maimonides-Yemenite-Italian custom wherever these differ with
Sephardic-Ashkenazic custom (Bereshit, Lekh Lekha).
(2) The lengths of the haftarot do not always conform with the
Sephardic-Ashkenazic custom (Lekh Lekha).
(3) The list is irregular, providing up to three medial verses, with no
more than one thematically related to the Torah reading.
(4) Closing verses for haftarot are not always provided.
(5) The purpose of such an apparently haphazard and irregular list is
not at all clear at this point.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
NOT TO BE TRANSLATED IN PUBLIC
Introduction
The subject of forbidden targumim has been discussed periodically

in papers devoted to the specific topic, as well as in more general
studies of the relationship between the targumim and other rabbinic
literature.1 The point of departure of these studies has understandably
been the lists contained in the Tannaitic sources and the discussion of
those lists in the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds. Much effort has
been expended in trying to establish a correct version of the lists, in
identifying the passages in question, and in search of a rationale for
each of the particular forbidden items.
As readily observed, there is almost complete unanimity among
the rabbinic lists regarding the passages in the Pentateuch that may
be read, but not translated, . The Mishnah
(m. Megillah 4:10), Tosefta (t. Megillah 4:35 ff ), and the later Talmudic
sources2 all agree that the Story of Reuben (Gen 35:22) and the sec-
ond account of the [golden] calf (Exod 32:2135) fall into this cat-
egory. The only other Pentateuchal passage assigned to this group is
the priestly blessing (Num 6:2426), according to the Babylonian
and Palestinian Talmuds (b. Megillah 25b; y. Megillah 75c). But this
seems to be based upon a compounded error. J. Heinemann has argued
rather convincingly that the statement regarding the priestly blessing
was not originally related to the weekly Torah reading or its rendition
1
E.g., A. Geiger, Urschrift und bersetzungen der Bibel (Breslau, 1857), pp. 36770
(= Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1949, 1972, pp. 23738); A. Berliner,
Targum Onkelos, Zweiter Theil (Berlin, 1884), pp. 21718; M. Ginsburger, Verbotene
Thargumim, Monatschrift fr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 44 (1900),
17; M. McNamara, Some Early Rabbinic Citations and the Palestinian Targum to the
Pentateuch, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 41 (1966), 115; and The New Testament and
the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch [Analecta Biblica 27, 27a], Rome: Biblical
Institute Press, 1966, 1978, pp. 4649, 292; J. Heinemann, The Priestly Blessing . . . is
Not Read, Bar-Ilan 6 (1968), 3341 (in Hebrew; English synopsis on p. xiii); P. S.
Alexander, The Rabbinic Lists of Forbidden Targumim, JJS 27 (1976), 17791.
2
b. Megillah 25b; y. Megillah 75c; and m. Soferim 9:9, 10.
190 chapter fifteen
into an Aramaic Targum. Rather, its context was the priestly rais-
ing of the hands to bless the people in the synagogue, during which
the priests were to recite the blessing by heart, and not read it from
a written text, .3 It was only due to the formulary similar-
ity with rulings related to the public reading of the Torah,
, , , that the law regarding
the priestly blessing was at a very early period compiled in the same
Mishnah, and received the added phrase . The logic seems
to have been that if it may not be read in the original Hebrew, then
surely it is not to be translated into Aramaic. The later Amoraic state-
ments are, then, an attempt at correction: it was unreasonable for an
innocuous, or even benedictory passage to be omitted from the public
reading. The statement was therefore altered to may be read, but not
translated, . Thus evolved the various contradictory
and inexplicable rulings regarding the reading and translating of the
priestly blessing. This being the case, there remain only the two above-
mentioned Pentateuchal passages, the story of Reuben and the second
account of the golden calf, that according to the Tannaitic sources
were to be read but not translated in the synagogue.
In contrast to the general agreement found among the rabbinic lists,
we are confronted with quite a lot of variance in the extant manu-
scripts of the targumim of the Pentateuch. As noted by P. S. Alexander
for the Palestinian Targum according to MS Neofiti 1, this goes far
beyond the two or three passages in the rabbinic lists.4 Likewise, as
already pointed out by A. Berliner over a century ago,5 there are
Masoretic notes to Onqelos which indicate that certain verses of tar-
gum are not to be recited in the public synagogal services. These, too,
are not limited to the passages indicated in the rabbinic lists. In fact,
the avoidance of written translation in targumic manuscripts and the
instructional notes against reciting certain passages in public worship
are much more widespread than has been previously recorded. It is
these two phenomena that I should like to describe and explain in the
remainder of the present article.
3
See. n. 1, Heinemann.
4
See n. 1, Alexander.
5
A. Berliner, Die Massorah zum Onkelos (Berlin, 1875), p. 20 (= Leipzig, 1877, pp.
59, 84). See also S. Landauer, Die Masorah zum Onkelos (Amsterdam, 1896; reprinted
Jerusalem, Makor, 1971), individual notes on pp. 25, 156. [See, now, M. L. Klein, MTO
(Binghamton: Global-SUNY, 2000), pp. 45 and passim.]
not to be translated in public 191
1. Gen 35:22The Story of Reuben*
And Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his fathers concubine.
MT
O ed [var] ][
O B-K A3mg

PsJ

Neof
Neof gl I (!)
Neof gl M
FT V(L) :( )
As mentioned above, the Story of Reuben is the first of the passages
cited in the rabbinic lists as to be read, but not translated. This ruling
is reflected in all of the extant Palestinian targumim in varying degrees.
The basic text of Neofiti has retained the verb in Hebrew. This
is extended in the interlinear and marginal glosses to additional words
and to the entire forbidden phrase. The Fragment-Targum V, which
usually begins each verse with a one- or two-word Hebrew lemma,
writes out the Hebrew passage in full; and, together with FT(L), adds
the words not to be translated. And Pseudo-Jonathan presents a
midrashic paraphrase:
* Abbreviations:
CG: Cairo Geniza, according to M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian
Targum to the Pentateuch (Cincinnati: HUC Press, 1986) (manuscripts noted by Sigla).
FT P/V/L: Fragment-Targum (MSS Paris/Vatican/Leipzig), according to M. L.
Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch [Analecta Biblica 76] (Rome: Biblical
Institute Press, 1980).
MT: Masoretic Text, Hebrew Bible.
Neof: MS Vatican Neofiti 1, according to A. Dez Macho, Neophyti I (Madrid and
Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 196878).
Neof gl I/ M: Interlinear and marginal glosses in MS Vatican Neofiti I.
O ed: Onqelos according to A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic I (Leiden: Brill, 1959).
O B-K/BM/Vat: Onqelos, according to MSS Budapest-Kaufmann Collection / British
Museum / Vatican Library.
PsJ: Pseudo-Jonathan according to E. G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the
Pentateuch (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1984); and D. Rieder, Pseudo-Jonathan: Targum
Jonathan ben Uziel on the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Salamons, 1974).
192 chapter fifteen
And Reuben went and confounded the bed of Bilhah, his fathers con-
cubine, which was opposite the bed of Leah, his mother; and that was
considered as though he had lain with her.
All the Onqelos texts contain a literal translation of the entire verse.
This is characteristic of Onqelos, as we shall see in the following
examples. In MS Budapest-Kaufmann A3,6 we find a Masoretic foot-
note, in Hebrew, indicating that the first half of the verse is not to be
translated in public, even though it appears in the written text. This
corresponds to Masoretic notes to Onqelos cited by Berliner as
.
We will return to explain this phenomenon in the course of survey-
ing additional examples in this and other manuscripts.
2. Gen 49:4Reference to the Story of Reuben
For you mounted your fathers bed; you brought disgracemy couch
he mounted!
MT
O

O Vat 448 mg [ ' ][ ]
O B-K A3 mg
PsJ

Neof, FT (V)
CG Z ] [
Here, as in Gen 35:22, all the Palestinian targumim present the Hebrew
text without any translation, while PsJ resorts to the euphemistic para-
phrases as though and confounding the bed. Again, whereas the
body of Onqelos remains literal, we find marginal notes in two manu-
scripts indicating that the written targum is not to be recited in public.
In MS Vatican Ebr. 448, which is recognized as the best representative
of the Babylonian tradition of Onqelos, the note is in the black ink of
the original hand.7
6
This is a mid-nineteenth-century Yemenite trilingual text, with the standard
Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic versions, verse by verse. It contains only occasional
marginal notes. (Film no. 2812, at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts,
of the Jewish National and University Library.)
7
This manuscript was published in facsimile by A. Dez Macho (Jerusalem: Makor,
1977), and is described in the Introduction (in Hebrew; summarized in English). It dates
Whereas the Mishnah does not identify the Story of Reuben, the
Tosefta and the Babylonian Talmud clearly do:
' .
'
.
The Story of Reuben is to be read but not translated. It once happened
that R. Hanania b. Gamliel stood up and read in Kabul, And Reuben
went and lay with Bilhah . . . and the sons of Jacob were twelve in num-
ber; and he said to the meturgeman, Translate only the latter part.
[t. Megillah 4:35]
and

.)(
The Story of Reuben is to be read but not translated. It once hap-
pened that R. Hanania b. Gamliel went to Kabul and the hazzan of the
Synagogue was reading, And when Israel dwelt. . ., and he said to the
meturgeman, Translate only the latter part; and the rabbis praised him
for it. (b. Megillah 25b)
Thus, although the rabbinic restriction seems originally to have been
intended for Gen 35:22, it was applied by the meturgemanim, or by
those religious authorities who later instructed them in their art, to
Gen 49:4 as well.
Another biblical allusion to the story of Reuben is found in 1 Chr
5:1, . . . and when he defiled his fathers bed . . .:
MT ... ...
Tg ... ...
This Targum makes no attempt to ameliorate the story. In fact, it
amplifies it by adding the verb , which is the literal translation
of , by association with in Gen 49. However, since the
Book of Chronicles was not read in the synagogue, its translator was
not restricted by the rabbinic lists.
to the eleventh century and contains an early Babylonian vocalization in addition to

the super-imposed Tiberian pointings. A preliminary edition of the Masoretic notes to
Onqelos in this manuscript was published by L. Dez Merino, The Targumic Masora
of the Vat. Ebr. 448, Estudios Masoreticos (V Congreso de la IOMS), ed. E. Fernndez
Tejero (Madrid: CSIC, 1983). [See, now, Klein, MTO, referenced in n. 5, above.]
194 chapter fifteen
3. Exod 12:33The Death of the Egyptian First-Born
. . . for they said, We shall all be dead.

MT
O
O Vat 448 mg ][
PsJ ...
Neof, FT (PV) ...
CG AA
Here, there is no longer unanimity among the Palestinian targumim.
Genizah MS AA is aligned with Onqelos and PsJ in presenting a literal
translation, in contrast to Neofiti and the Fragment-Targums, which
substitute all the Egyptians shall be dead for we shall all be dead.
Were it not for the marginal note in Onqelos according to MS Vat
Ebr 448, one would hardly have suspected that the paraphrase in the
Palestinian targumim came to avoid the public translation of an offen-
sive verse. After all, according to the tosefta and the Babylonian Talmud,
the admonitions and punishments (Lev 26:14 ff.) as well as the bless-
ings and curses (Num 27:12 ff.), which are explicitly directed at Israel,
may be read and translated. In the present verse, the referent of the
pronoun we is clearly the Egyptians. That clarity is reinforced by the
lengthy expansion in Neofiti and the Fragment-Targums: for they /
the Egyptians said, If the Israelites remain here another moment. . . .
And yet, the fear of expressing the words we shall all be dead, even
when quoting the ancient Egyptians, was enough to prevent its transla-
tion in the synagogue. Once again, what is found as a directive note to
the meturgeman in the relatively literal Onqelos (MS Vat 448) is incor-
porated into the body of the more paraphrastic Palestinian targumim.
4. Exod 17:11The Battle with Amalek
. . . and when he (Moses) let down his hands Amalek prevailed.8

MT
O
O BM 2363 mg8
O Vat 448 mg [ ][ ]
8
This is one of the basic manuscripts in Sperbers edition.
Masorah Onqelos9 [ ][ ]

Leningrad Antonin
Ebr. III B 82
PsJ
Neof, FT (P, V)
/
CG AA ][
9

Onqelos and PsJ present a literal translation of the temporary victory of
Amalek over Israel. The Masorah to Onqelos indicates that this embar-
rassing translation is not to be recited in public. The word ,
prevailed, is to be replaced by , was defeated / broken, by
the deletion of a single letter, gimmel, for the synagogal reading.
All the Palestinian targumim alter the body of the written targum
text. Whereas the change is thorough-going in the Genizah manu-
script, Those of the house of Amalek were defeated, and fell by the
sword, the change in Neofiti and in the Fragment-Targums is only
partial. These versions add the words, and they fell by the sword / in
battle, to the end of the sentence, but leave the original prevailed in
place, thus producing a self-contradictory text. Perhaps is a
secondary scribal correction, under the influence of the Hebrew MT
and the immediately preceding and parallel phrase , which
is universally translated .
5. Exod 20:23/26Laws of the Altar
Do not ascend My altar by steps, that your nakedness be not exposed

upon it.
MT ...
O
PsJ
Neof, FT(V)
CG F '
CG FF
[ ]
This is an example of a verse that is not included in the rabbinic lists
of forbidden targumim, nor for which there are any known Masoretic
9
This Genizah manuscript was published by G. E. Weil, La Massorah Magna du
Targum du Pentateuque, Textus 4 (1964), 3054.
196 chapter fifteen
notes to Onqelos indicating that the offensive phrase is not to be trans-

lated in public. Yet two written sources of the Palestinian Targum felt
it unseemly to suggest, in the vernacular, the possibility of the priests
nakedness being exposed upon the altar. This might reflect a hyper-
sensitivity to the phrase ) =( , which in most other
contexts denotes adulterous and incestuous relations.
Probably the most important implication of the present example is
that the principle, not to be translated in public, having been estab-
lished, its application by pious meturgemanim or copyists could be
extended far beyond the few verses cited in the rabbinic lists.
6. Exod 32The Accounts of the Golden Calf
The Mishnah (m. Megillah 4:10) states:

the first account of the calf may be read and translated; the second may
be read but not translated.
The Tosefta and both Talmuds try to define the first and second
accounts as follows:
t. Megillah 4:36
:
.
. ,][ ][ ][ '
. . . and this is the second story of the calf: And Moses said to Aaron,
What did this people do to you that you have brought such great sin
upon them? (v. 21); Moses saw that the people were out of control
since Aaron had let them out of controlso that they were derision to
any who might oppose them (v. 25). And another verse, . . . the calf that
Aaron made (v. 35).
While it is possible that according to the Tosefta only three verses (21,
25, 35) from the second account are not to be translated, it may also be
that verses 2125 are intended, plus the additional verse 35.
y. Megillah 75c
'
.

' ' ' .
.
What constitutes the second account of the calf? R. Simon says in the
name of R. Joshua b. Levi, from the response of Moses to Aaron (v. 21)
to . . . since Aaron had let them out of control . . . (v. 25). Hananiah
b. Shalmeh says in the name of Rav, from Aarons response to Moses
(v. 22) to since Aaron had let them out of control . . . (v. 25). R. Aha
says in the name of R. Ba, And the Lord smote the people [in Aramaic]
for making [prh. worshipping] the calf that Aaron made [in Hebrew]
(v. 35).
It may be that R. Aha merely adds to Hananiah, in which case the two
views of the Palestinian Talmud are verses 2125, 35 or 2225, 35.
B Megillah 25b
' .

.
What is the second account of the calf? From And Moses said (v. 21)
to And Moses saw (v. 25). R. Shimon b. Elazar says, A person should
always be careful with his answers, for from the answer of Aaron to
Moses the skeptics / heretics broke away, as it says, I cast it into the fire
and out came this calf (v. 24).
In the view of the Babylonian Talmud only verses 2125 are not to be
translatedwith perhaps special emphasis on verse 24, which might
be misconstrued as attributing self-generating powers to the calf. The
printed editions of Onqelos give no indication of targumic limitations,
and produce the Aramaic texts in full. In contrast, the manuscripts
of Onqelos, the Masorah to Onqelos, and the Palestinian targumim
reflect the rabbinic rulings in varying degrees, though differing from
one another no less than they differ from the rabbinic lists.
O Vat 448, vv. 2225, 3035. In all these ten verses we find supra-
linear abbreviated notes in a tiny script above the first words that are
not to be translated in public. The notes read , and
) =( . The selection of verses 2225 is in agree-
ment with Hananiah b. Shalmeh of the Palestinian Talmud, and verse
35 corresponds with views in the Tosefta and the Palestinian Talmud.
However, as we have seen, in none of the lists are verses 3034 included
in the prohibition.
O B-K A3, vv. 2125, 35. A marginal note at verse 21 (fol. 462 = )
reads: ' , these five verses
are read, but not translated in public; a note at verse 26 reads:
, from here on may be translated in public; and a fur-
ther note at verse 35 reads: ' , this
198 chapter fifteen
verse is read but not translated in public. This is in perfect agreement

with the Tosefta and the first opinion in the Palestinian Talmud.
Masorah to Onqelos. In his work Die Massorah zum Targum
Onkelos, A. Berliner lists the verses in Exod 32 for which there are
Masoretic notes , bei ffentlicher Vorlesung
nicht zu bersetzen.10 These are Exod 32:22, 30, 32, 35, which, obvi-
ously, do not coincide with the rabbinic lists, nor with the extant tar-
gumic manuscripts. Most enlightening, however, is the Masoretic note
in a fragment in the Cairo Genizah, published by G. E. Weil.11 At Exod
32:22, we find the note: , For those
verses which are not translated in public there is [nevertheless writ-
ten] targum. This will explain why, as we have seen throughout, the
Onqelos manuscripts contain a full and literal Aramaic translation of
the forbidden passages.12 For whereas these offensive passages were
not to be recited in translation during public synagogal worship, they
were indeed written in the manuscripts. Likewise, they were studied in
the schools, as indicated in the Tosefta (t. Megillah 4:38),
, But the scribe [or schoolmaster] teaches according to his usual
practice [tr. apud Alexander].
Pseudo-Jonathan. There are no indications regarding the public read-
ing in the only extant manuscript of Pseudo-Jonathan (Br. Mus. Add.
27031), nor in the editio princeps of this targum (Venice, 1590). All
that one finds in Pseudo-Jonathan is a characteristic midrashic expan-
sions, which in several verses neutralizes the objectionable phrase. For
example, in v. 22, , You know that this
people is bent on evil, is translated:
, You know that they are the descen-
dants of righteous men, but an evil impulse has led them astray. Or,
the theologically problematic phrase in verse 24,
, I cast it in the fire, and out came this calf! is rendered in
Pseudo-Jonathan:
, I cast it in the fire, and Satan entered into it, and out
came this figure of a calf. Yet some of the forbidden phrases survive
10
See n. 5, above.
11
See n. 9, above; and particularly p. 45 in Weils article.
12
Cf. R. Le Daut, Introduction la littrature targumique (Rome, Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1966), p. 39, n. 3; and P. S. Alexander (n. 1, above), p. 187.
in Pseudo-Jonathan, without any notation that they are not to be read

in public.
Neofiti. Unlike all the other extant targumim and as already pointed
out by A. Dez Macho,13 Neofiti leaves certain offensive passages
untranslated, in Hebrew, throughout both accounts of the golden calf.
The verses affected are 1, 4, 8, 19, 20 (entire verse), 23, 24, 31, 35. This
selection differs from that of all the rabbinic lists and of all the other
targumic sources. On the one hand, it includes verses from the first
account and verse 31; on the other hand, it excludes verses 21, 22 and
25 that are in most of the lists. There is, however, logic to the selec-
tion of verses in Neofiti. This Targum has carefully refrained from
translating the verb , to make, in the context of the golden calf
or a substitute god:
(1)
(4)
(8)
(20)
(23)
(31)
(35)
In addition, Neofiti avoids translating the dangerous description of
how the calf emerged in verse 24: , and
the sight of its worship that Moses confronted (v. 19),
. These hardly seem to be the haphazard vestiges of a broader
prohibition, but rather an intentional and original application of the
principle, The account of the golden calf is read but not translated.14
The glosses in Ms. Neofiti contain additional notes and untrans-
lated Hebrew phrases. Thus at verse 1 we find the marginal note
; and at verse 4, an extension of the Hebrew description
of how the calf was made: , And he took
it from them and cast it in a mold. In one instance the interlinear
gloss provides the Aramaic translation for a phrase retained in Hebrew
in the body of Neofiti: for Neofiti
( v. 31). The fact that this is the only verse in the second
account, among those not translated in Neofiti, that is not included in
13
Neophyti I, (Madrid and Barcelona, 1970), vol. II, p. 209, critical apparatus to
Exod 32:1, haec prohibitio non habetur in Misna, Megillah 4, 10 pro Ex 32, 120.
14
Contrast Alexander (n. 1, above), p. 188.
200 chapter fifteen
the rabbinic lists might explain why it is only in this instance that the
gloss provides an Aramaic rendition.
The Fragment-Targums. Verse 25 is the only verse contained in
the rabbinic lists that is preserved in any of the Fragment-Targums.
However, both recensional families of the Fragment-Targums share
in a common midrashic expansion with Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti,
which tones down the offensive words. This is similar to the other
expansions in Pseudo-Jonathan cited above:
MT

Moses saw that the people were out of controlsince Aaron had let
them out of controlso that they were derision to any who might
oppose them.
FT (P)
][

And Moses saw that the people were disheveled, for they had removed
the golden crowns that were on their heads, upon which the explicit
name [of God] was incised. And because they did not heed the words of
Moses, they acquired a bad reputation for generations.
Exodus 32, with the accounts of the golden calf, is the pentateuchal pas-
sage most extensively discussed in rabbinic literature in the context of
forbidden targumim. In spite of the variance of opinion in the identifi-
cation of the particular forbidden verses, the general pattern observed
in the extant targumic sources is not significantly different from that in
the other passages that we have surveyed. Onqelos is literal in its basic
text, but has restrictive notes in its margins. Pseudo-Jonathan circum-
vents the problem by midrashic expansion of the verses in question.
And the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti and its glosses) applies the rule,
not to be translated, to the body of its written text.
7. Num 6:2426The Priestly Blessings
As already indicated at the outset, this third and last passage of the
rabbinic lists is probably the result of a very early recensional error.
Nevertheless, having entered the Mishnah dealing with forbidden tar-
gumim, its prohibition became authoritative. And although the ruling
remained inexplicable to the rabbis of the Talmud, it had a widespread

effect on targumic tradition as reflected in surviving manuscripts.
The manuscripts and early printed editions of Onqelos cited in
Sperbers Bible in Aramaic are divided almost equally. Some translate
the blessings, while others preserve them only in Hebrew. To this lat-
ter group, which is influenced by the Mishnah, we may add Ms. Vat
Ebr. 448, the most important among the numerous sources not cited
in Sperbers work. Pseudo-Jonathan in the manuscript and in the first
edition contains both the Hebrew and the Aramaic for each of the
three verses. This is unusual on several counts. (1) The manuscript
usually contains no Hebrew text at all. (2) The editio princeps con-
tains a full Hebrew text (and Onqelos) on facing pages; the Hebrew
in Pseudo-Jonathan is therefore duplicative and redundant. (3) The
Aramaic translation in Pseudo-Jonathan is midrashic and expansive,
a feature that is itself considered sufficient in the other cases of forbid-
den passages.
The only manuscript of Palestinian Targum in which the Priestly
Blessings appear is Neofiti, and it conforms with the Mishnaic ruling
and presents the three verses in Hebrew only.
Conclusion
The rabbinic ruling prohibiting the public translation of a certain two

particularly offensive passages (the story of Reuben and the second
account of the golden calf) during the synagogal Torah reading was
in the course of time extended both in nature and scope. In the redac-
tional stage of the Mishnah, the Priestly Blessings were mistakenly
subsumed under this prohibition. The restrictive ruling was further
extended in the various Palestinian targumim to additional passages
deemed offensive or embarrassing, such as a reference to the story of
Reuben; the temporary superiority of Amalek over Israel; the unseemly
nakedness of priests on the altar; the first account of the golden calf;
and the potentially dangerous statement, We shall all be dead, which
it was perhaps popularly feared might indeed evoke such a curse.
Likewise, the nature of the ruling was variously interpreted and
applied. In the Onqelos manuscripts, the Aramaic translation was usu-
ally written out in full. The prohibition was interpreted as applying to
the public reading only. Marginal glosses and Masoretic notes were
202 chapter fifteen
often appended, in order to alert the synagogal reader to a phrase or

verse that was not to be translated in public: . On
the other hand, the Palestinian targumim for the most part applied the
restrictive ruling to the written manuscripts as well. Thus, whatever
verses are included in the prohibition appear in these texts in Hebrew,
without Aramaic rendering at all.
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
TEXT AND VORLAGE IN NEOFITI 1
In the Congress Volume Oxford 1959, A. Dez Macho presented a long

list of readings in which Palestinian Targum Neofiti 1 was at vari-
ance with the Massoretic Text, but in agreement with attested pre-
Massoretic readings.1 Subsequently, P. Wernberg-Mller questioned
the text-critical validity of almost every example cited by Dez Macho.2
In the main, Wernberg-Mller concerned himself with the versional
parallels, demonstrating that they do not represent pre-Massoretic
traditions. Both scholars seem to have agreed in most cases that the
Hebrew Vorlage of the Neofiti contained variant readings from those
of the MT. In question was the dating of the versional and manuscrip-
tal parallels to these variants.
Careful reading of Neofiti 1 brings one to question whether some
of the examples cited actually represent Vorlage variants; or are they
merely translational and orthographic peculiarities.
In Lev 15:31, both Dez Macho3 and Wernberg-Mller4 take
( Neof) to indicate a Vorlage of , as opposed to
( MT). Their argument centers about the dating of the witnesses
to this variant. However, in Lev 22:2, Neofiti reads for
(MT). In this case, there are no other attested variants, nor is it likely
that the Neofiti Vorlage read in place of . Obviously, Neofiti
is paraphrasing with . So it seems likely also in Lev 15:31.5
1
A. Dez Macho, The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum: Its Antiquity and
Relationship with the Other Targums, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 7 (1960),
pp. 22245.
2
P. Wernberg-Mller, An Inquiry into the Validity of the Text-Critical Argument
for an Early Dating of the Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum, VT 12 (1962),
pp. 31230.
3
Dez Macho, p. 234.
4
Wernberg-Mller, p. 318.
5
Of the seven pentateuchal occurrences of the verb , in four instances Neof re-
uses the same root (Num 6:2, 5, 6, 12), and in three cases, Neof paraphrases the verb
(Lev 15:31; 22:2; Num 6:3). In Num 6:3, Neof reads for of MT. While the
standard translational equivalent in the other targumim is , Neof never translates
it in this manner.
204 chapter sixteen
It should further be noted, that the Hebrew heading to this verse

reads as in MT. That these headings are early and might date
back to the earliest recording of this Targum is supported by the fact
that MSS A, E, and F of Kahles Cairo Genizah fragments6 as well
as the additional Geniza fragment published by Baars7 contain such
headings. Of course, there remains the possibility that such a heading
was corrected by a later scribe to conform with the MT.
The only case in which Wernberg-Mller concurs with Dez Macho
that there is exclusive agreement of Neofiti 1 with the pre-Massoretic
tradition8 is Lev 6:8. Here Neo reads for of MT. But, again,
is this truly a variant reading? In the first seven chapters of Leviticus,
there are no fewer than nine instances of translated as !9
Furthermore, there are in these very same chapters at least eighteen
additional examples of the masculine suffix written as ___instead of
the expected ___.10 What we have is a case of inconsistent orthog-
raphy rather than a variant Vorlage. When one considers that
could be vocalized minne as well as minna, it becomes obvious that
one of the copyists of Neof perhaps inadvertently reverted to scripta
defectiva.
Somewhat more puzzling are the examples of the reverse, namely,
the feminine suffix written as ___instead of ___. Dez Macho
noted Lev 6:9 ( Neof) for ( MT) as representing a Vorlage
variant.11 Wernberg-Mller suggested that we have an inferior read-
ing, probably due to confusion on the part of the copyist.12 This indeed
it is, here, and elsewhere throughout Neof. Firstly, the very same word
appears for in Lev 5:12. Secondly, there are at least three
6
P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens II (reprint) Hildesheim, 1967, pp. 162.
7
W. Baars, A Targum on Exod. xv 721 From the Cairo Geniza, Vetus
Testamentum 11 (1961), pp. 34042. [See now M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of
Palestinian Targum (Cincinnati, 1986).]
8
9
Lev 3:19; 5:2, 3; 6:8; 7:3, 14, 15, 16, 18.
10
( Neof ) for ( MT) Lev 1:11, 15; for 1:12, 3:14, 21, 5:16, 24;
for 1:14; for 1:15, 5:8; ( sic)/ for 3:9,
19, 7:3; for 5:25; for 6:21; for 7:9, 18; for
7:24.
11
Dez Macho, p. 234.
12
text and vorlage in neofiti 1 205
additional examples of such confusion with the feminine suffix in the

first seven chapters of Leviticus.13
In conclusion, we may not infer a Vorlage variant from a single
reading in the Neofiti. What appears at first glance to be an agreement
with the versions or variance with the MT, may be nothing more than
a paraphrastic or orthographic peculiarity of Neofiti.
13
( N) for ( MT) Lev 1:6; for 4:34; for 5:12.
Note also the inconsistent spelling of / for
in 2:1, 6, 15, where spelling
of this word varies in the very same verse. The same inconsistence exists with /
for MT in 7:21, 27.
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
DEUT 31:7, OR ?
In a recent note in these pages, Bernard Grossfeld adduced new evi-

dence, seemingly in favor of a reading in Deut 31:7.1 His argu-
ment is basically as follows:
1. By rendering the phrase , Neofiti 1 presupposes a

Hebrew text that reads , a hiphil plus accusative particle.
2. From an internal statistical point of view, a reading in the
MT is quite unlikely, since none of the seven occurrences of the
sequence plus preposition exists in the Pentateuch. In fact,
the only time this verb occurs in the Pentateuch followed by the
preposition with the Hebrew reads and not .
3. While the LXX and the targums are in agreement with the MT, other
versions such as the Peshitta, the Vulgate, the Samaritan and one
manuscript of Onqelos reflect a reading of in the Hebrew.
Grossfeld, therefore, concludes that the reading in the MT is

the result of a scribal error that substituted a waw for a yod.
Further study of the evidence, however, does not support this con-
clusion. First, the constuction in the sense of come with
occurs at least two additional times in the Pentateuch, viz., Exod 1:1,
, came with Jacob; and Deut
19:5, , goes with his neighbor. In fact, these
two instances plus the verse in question, Deut 31:7,
, you shall go with this people, outnumber the pentateuchal
occurrences of .2
Second, is not the usual haphel form in Neofiti 1. In the simi-
lar verse of Deut 31:23, , as well as in Gen
1
JBL 91 (1972), pp. 533534.
2
As noted by Grossfeld in n. 16, these are Gen 29:6, 9; but he writes (twice)
mistakenly after the second of these references. Note also the two additional cases of
in Gen 7:7, 13. However, in both of these verses, has a pronominal suffix
(, ;)in the latter of the two, the pronominal suffix is not in agreement with
the antecedent verb .
208 chapter seventeen
6:19, is rendered , and the yod follows the radical ayin.3

On the other hand, in the peal form , the yod appears between
the taw and the ayin. Inasmuch as lacks the characteristic waw
of the peal, we cannot assign it to that construction with absolute
certainty. However, by the same token, the position of the yod makes
it methodologically wrong to adduce as evidence of a hiphil in
the Vorlage of Neofiti 1.4
Third, the word as the preposition with is sometimes mechan-
ically translated instead of in Neofiti 1. A case in point is Gen
39:2 ( MT); cf. ( ' MT), and the Lord
was with Joseph.5
In conclusion, the reading in the targum (Neofiti 1)
of Deut 31:7 does not necessarily contradict the reading
that is preserved in the MT and other versions.
3
The same form of the haphel occurs in the 1st sg. masc. ( Deut 31:20), as
opposed to for the peal (Gen 29:21).
4
This is not to claim for Neofiti 1 orthographic uniformity either with this word
or with others. See my note Text and Vorlage in Neofiti 1, (Vetus Testamentum 22
(1972), p. 491 [ch. 16 in the present volume]) for examples of the contrary. I merely
indicate that dubious grammatical forms such as cannot legitimately be adduced
as evidence of variant Vorlagen.
5
Other possible examples are Gen 14:9 (contrast v. 2) and Deut 21:14b. In both of
these cases, the preceding verses contain the inflected , clearly indicating the prepo-
sitional nature of the following . It is, nevertheless, possible that Neofiti 1 does
not view these two verses as linked to the verbs of the preceding verses. Still another
example is Gen 6:13, , I will destroy them with the earth
(MT); ' , I will destroy them and the earth (Neof); in
contrast with Onqelos and TJ1, )( . In this case, however,
Neof has added a waw to , creating a compound accusative.
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
THE NOTATION OF PARAOT IN MS NEOFITI 1
Three books of the complete Palestinian Targum, MS Neofiti 1, have

already been edited and published by A. Dez-Macho.1 One aspect
of the MS mentioned by the editor2 and discussed in some detail by
M. F. Martin3 is the notation of the weekly paraot. In their preoccupa-
tion with the paleographical analysis of these notations, both of these
scholars fail to note certain other important aspects.
The impression obtained from Martins list is that only seven paraot
are indicated in the entire MS,4 in three different ways:
a. the name of the paraah in the upper left corner of a page;

b. the name of the paraah in the center of a page, above the first line;
c. a note declaring the end of a paraah (- /[sic!] )
written in a blank line between two paraot.
In the edition, only the third type is recordedand that, inconsis-

tently. The first note in Genesis is recorded in the critical apparatus
only;5 the next two are given in the text proper without translation or
additional notes;6 the first note in Leviticus is recorded, translated and
footnoted;7 while the last three in that same book are merely presented
and translated.8
More disturbing is the fact that although four of these seven paraah
notes are misplaced by the scribe, only one of these errors is indicated
1
A. Dez-Macho, Neophyti 1, Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana,
Tom. I, II, III (Madrid-Barcelona 1968, 1970, 1971).
2
Ibid., 27* f. (Introduccin General).
3
M. F. Martin, The Paleographical Character of Codex Neofiti 1, Textus 3 (1963)
22f.
4
, , , , , ) ( , .
5
I, 35. Here, Dez-Macho correctly notes, nomen paraah erasum [ pro
]. Martin (op. cit., 22, n. 121) mistakenly writes: It ( ) is erroneous,
this being .
6
I, 63, 95.
7
III, 50f., n. 13 Anotacin del propio manuscrito.
8
III, 106f., 126f., 144f.
210 chapter eighteen
by either Martin or Dez-Macho.9 The following scribal errors are

unsuspectingly transmitted in the printed edition:
1. Vol. III, 51 (Lev 8/9) . This, however, is not the

end of , but rather the end of .
2. p. 107 (Lev 15/16) . This is not the
end of , but rather that of .
3. p. 127 (Lev 18/19) . This, again, is not the
end of , but that of -. Here, Martin notes that there
are erasures before the first word and under the last word.10 He
offers no explanation. The edition does not even note the erasures.
Furthermore, the repeated notation of the end of the same paraah
( )in two different places in the same text is an obvious error
that is detectable without reference to external sources.
Actually, MS Neofiti 1 contains a number of additional types of paraah

indicators that are not mentioned at all by Martin or Dez-Macho:
a. The blank space of a full line (or its equivalent) is left between
paraot. If the last line of the previous paraah is fully written on, or
almost so, then the entire following line is left blank by the scribe.11
If, however, the last line of the previous paraah is only partially
written on, then its remainder and part of the following line are
left blank.12 In fact, the written notations / are
inserted in such blank spaces,13 and were probably added later
after the writing of the text itself.14 This accounts for the unusually
high percentage of misplacement, and for the many blank spaces
9
See n. 5, above.
10
Op. cit., 23, n. 125.
11
Folio 137a (Exod 13:16/17), beginning of ;fol. 147b (Exod 17/18), ;fol.
154a (Exod 21/22), ;fol. 364b (Deut 3:23/24), .
12
Fol. 185b (Exod 34/35), ;fol. 252b (Lev 26:2/3), ;fol. 316a (Num
22:1/2), ;fol. 326a (Num. 25:9/10), . This notation differs from the usual
notation of Neofiti 1. In the latter there is always overlap of the writing
on the two lines, and the total blank space is less than the equivalent of a full line.
13
Fol. 11b (Gen 6:8/9), end of ;fol. 20a (Gen 11/12), ;fol. 214a (Lev
8/9); fol. 229b (Lev 15/16), ;fol. 235a (Lev 18/19), ; fol. 239b (Lev
20/21), . We might note that in the case of fol. 235a, the blank space, in which
the scribe later inserted the end-of-paraah note, is of the type that is divided into
two lines.
14
Cp. Martin, op. cit., 23, who identifies the hand of these notes with that of the
text in which they are found.
the notation of paraot in ms neofiti 1 211
into which the end-of-paraah notes were never inserted. This also
accounts for the missing majusculae at the beginning of the Book
of Exodus (see below).
Significantly enough, there are two examples of such blank lines
which correspond to sedarim in the triennial cycle. These may prove
to be useful in tracing the early Palestinian origins of our targum.15
b. Majuscule letters are sometimes employed in the Hebrew head-
ings at the beginning of paraot. Sometimes, they do not affect the
line beneath them;16 other times, there is a blank space in the next
line, just below the majusculae.17 The latter type is also employed to
mark the beginning of the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy.18
The beginning of Exodus was intended to be indicated in the same
manner, but the scribe apparently forgot to later insert the majus-
culae in the large blank square left for the word . In addi-
tion, Exodus is separated from the end of Genesis by a whole blank
line.
c. The last type of paraah indicator is an uneven vertical line that
appears only once in the entire MS.19
Conclusion: The overall picture is quite different from that imparted

by the recent edition of Neofiti 1. In all, 28 of the 54 weekly paraot
are indicated in various different ways by the scribes of our MS. In
addition, two sedarim, exclusive to the triennial cycle, are noted. The
explicit end of-paraah notes, most of which are erroneous, were
added only after the text proper was written. Likewise, the majuscu-
lae, which mark the beginning of books, were added later into blank
squares, left for that purpose during the writing of the text.
15
Fol. 311a (Num 20:13/14), ; and fol. 367a (Deut 4:24/25), .
This second example is somewhat dubious, since it is attested to be a triennial seder
in only one source, cp. B. Z. Wacholder, A List of Triennial Sedarim and Haftarot,
in J. Mann, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue 2 ed. (New York
1971) lilxvii.
16
Fol. 429b (Deut 19:9), ;fol. 433b (Deut 31:1), ;fol. 436b (Deut 32:1),
;fol. 442a (Deut 33:1), . The two examples of the word )(in
majusculae, fol. 260b (Num 1:44) and fol. 428b (Deut 28:69), do not correspond with
paraot in the annual cycle nor with sedarim in the triennial cycle, and are thus far
unexplained.
17
Fol. 283a (Num 8:1), ;fol. 301b (Num 16:1), ;fol. 347a (Num 33:1),
;fol. 399b (Deut 16:18), .
18
Fol. 258a, fol. 356a.
19
Fol. 41a (in front of Gen 23:1), .
CHAPTER NINETEEN
NOTES ON THE PRINTED EDITION OF MS NEOFITI 1
I. Background: Modern Publication of the

Pentateuchal Targum
The present resurgence of targumic studies has been enhanced, to no

small degree, by the discovery and current publication of the complete
Palestinian Targum, as preserved in Codex Neofiti I. Actually, all three
major targumim to the Pentateuch, Onqelos, Pseudo-Jonathan (TJ1),
and the Fragmentary Palestinian Targum (TJ2), have been accessible
in various editions of the Biblia Hebraica and Biblia Rabbinica since
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.1 These have been reproduced
in Rabbinic Bibles (Miqraot Gedolot), essentially unchanged, to this
very day.
Only towards the end of the last century did critical editions
of these texts begin to appear. In 1884 A. Berliner republished the
Sabbioneta (1557) edition of Onqelos.2 In 1899 M. Ginsburger pub-
lished the Fragmentary Palestinian Targum, according to MS 110 of
the Bibliothque Nationale in Paris.3 He also appended to this edition
two lists of variant readings from a number of medieval targumic MSS4
and other secondary sources.5 Four years later, Ginsburger published
the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum, as preserved in MS Add. 27031 of the
1
For details of the editiones principes see M. McNamara, Targumic studies,
C.B.Q. XXVIII (1966), p. 4.
2
A. Berliner, Targum Onkelos (Berlin, 1884; reprinted without Berliners introduc-
tion, Jerusalem, 1969).
3
M. Ginsburger, Das Fragmententhargum (Berlin, 1899; reprinted Jerusalem,
1969).
4
Ms Hebr. 440 of the Vatican Library; Solg. MS 2. 2 of the Municipal Library of
Nrnberg; and Leipzig University MS B.H. fol. I.
5
Primarily the lexical works, Arukh of Nathan b. Yehiel (eleventhtwelfth cen-
tury), and Meturgeman of Elias Levita (sixteenth century), but also nine other medieval
Jewish biblical commentaries, liturgical works, etc. Also, the early thirteenth-century
prayer code, Mahzor Vitry, first published by S. Hurwitz (1889), contains fragments
of the Palestinian Targum in the liturgies of the seventh day of Passover and Shavuot
(2nd edn Nrnberg, 1923, pp. 3059, 31944).
214 chapter nineteen
British Museum.6 The first round of modern publication of all three

targumim was thus completed at the beginning of our century.
The next major addition to the corpus targumicum came in
1930, with P. Kahles publication of fragments of seven MSS of the
Palestinian Targum from the Cairo Genizah.7 The significance of these
texts was immediately recognized in that (a) they constitute our earli-
est substantial MSS of the Palestinian Targum, some of them written
in the sixth-eighth centuries;8 (b) they are linguistically and dialectally
among the purest texts available for the study of Galilean Aramaic;9
(c) they reflect non-masoretic Hebrew variants, as well as anti-Mish-
naic interpretations.10
Finally, in 1959 A. Sperber published a new edition of Onqelos with
a comprehensive critical apparatus, based on 16 major MSS and early
editions.11 Although Sperber did not exhaust all of the extant MSS,12
he produced the first edition of any targum in such dimension and
detail.
II. Publication of MS Neofiti I
The identification of MS Neofiti I, by A. Dez-Macho in 1956, as a copy

of the complete Palestinian Targum ranks among the most impor-
tant discoveries in modern targumic research. The MS which once
belonged to the library of the Collegium Neophytorum in Rome, and
6
M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan (Berlin, 1903; reprint Jerusalem: Makor, no
date given).
7
P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, II (Stuttgart, 1930; reprint Hildesheim, 1967),
pp. 165.
8
Actually, the existence of fragments of some eight verses of a Targum to Leviticus
from Qumran Cave IV was announced about 15 years ago. These fragments, which
are dated to the first century B.C.E., are, however, yet unpublished. Cf. J. T. Milik, Ten
Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (tr. J. Strugnell, London, 1959), p. 31;
and more recently, M. McNamara, Targum and Testament (Shannon, 1972), p. 66.
9
.1934, (1950), 21 " , ," .
10
P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (2nd edn Oxford, 1959), pp. 2058. A number of
additional fragments have since been published: A. Dez-Macho, Sefarad XV (1955),
319; idem, Studi . . . Rinaldi (Genova, 1967), pp. 17589; W. Baars, V.T. XI (1961), pp.
340 ff.; 22328, (1959) 45 , . ; 712 (1962) 11 , .
; and H. P. Ruger, V. T. XIII (1963), pp. 235 ff.
11
A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, I (Leiden, 1959), vvii, xvi f.
12
A. Dez-Macho, A Fundamental Manuscript for an Edition of the Babylonian
Onqelos to Genesis . . ., In Memoriam Paul Kahle (ed. M. Black and G. Fohrer, Berlin,
1968), pp. 64 ff.
notes on the printed edition of ms neofiti 1 215
is now part of the Neofiti Collection at the Vatican Library,13 had gone
unnoticed for decades because it was erroneously marked Onkelos.
Since 1968, Dez-Macho has published three volumes of the text.14 He
is also preparing a columnar edition of all three targumim, with par-
ticular focus on the variants of the Palestinian Targum.15
Neofiti I is a complicated MS. The text proper (N), written in large
square Hebrew script, is profusely annotated by ten different scribal
hands.16 These glosses, usually in a minuscule rabbinic script, appear
in the margins (M, or when two notes apply to the same text: M1 and
M2!) as well as between the lines (I = Interlinear). The text seems to
have been carelessly copied by the scribes,17 and it displays a rather
inconsistent orthography.18 The latter is, in part at least, the result of
the text, in Palestinian Aramaic, having been copied by scribes who
were more familiar with the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud and
of Onqelos. In fact our MS was completed in Rome, in 1504.19
Another frequent source of error, among ancient scribes and mod-
ern readers alike, is the graphic similarity of many of the handwritten
letters (e.g. beth/kaph, daleth/re, gimel/nun).
Finally, in no less than 30 places, an objectionable word or phrase
has been erased from the MS, presumably by a censor.
All of these difficulties notwithstanding, one can hardly over-
estimate the value of MS Neofiti I, and the importance of its accurate
publication.
Dez-Macho has arranged the printed edition in the form of text
(Ed) and apparatus (App), the latter containing the marginal (M) and
13
For additional details, see M. Fitzmaurice-Martin, The Palaeographical Character
of Codex Neofiti 1, Textus III (1963), pp. 135.
14
A. Dez-Macho, Neophyti I, Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana i,
ii, iii (Madrid-Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas, 1968, 1970,
1971). For general reviews see J. A. Fitzmyer, C.B.Q. XXXII (1970), pp. 10712; idem,
J.B.L. XCI (1972), pp. 57578; V. Hamp, B.Z. N.F. XV (1971), pp. 14041; M. Delcor, Bib.
Or. XXIX (1972), 226; Y. Komlo, Kiryath Sefer XLVII (1972), pp. 8488 (Hebrew).
15
A. Dez-Macho, ed., Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia, ser. IV, Targum Palaestinense
in Pentateuchum . . . (Matriti). A sample chapter (Deut. i) of this edition appeared in
1965, and was reviewed by W. Baars, V.T. XVII (1967), pp. 127 f.
16
Fitzmaurice-Martin, art. cit. pp. 16 ff.
17
8681 ,( )"," 1 " " .. Also
Dez-Macho, Neophyti I, II, 18*22*.
18
M. Klein, Text and Vorlage in Neofiti I, V.T. XXII (1972), p. 490 f [ch. 16 in
the present volume].
19
E. Levine, A Paleographical Note on the Colophon of MS. Neofiti I, V.T. XXI
(1971), pp. 49497.
interlinear (I) glosses, as well as additional editorial notes. On alternate

pages, facing the text and apparatus, is a Spanish translation by Dez-
Macho, and at the end of each volume are translations into French
by R. Le Daut and into English by M. McNamara and M. Maher. In
addition, a list of selected midrashic parallels to Pseudo-Jonathan and
to Neofiti I, by E. B. Levine, is appended to vol. II (parallels to Genesis)
and vol. III (to Exodus and Leviticus).
Inevitably, errors of reading and interpretation infiltrate a work so
extensive and so complex. It is, therefore, the purpose of the body of
this article to point out a number of questionable readings and inter-
pretations, and to suggest their correction (Corr).20
III. Readings and Interpretations
1. Gen 11:3 MT:

N: [sic] '
Ed: [][ ]
App: in text .
The translations are arrojemoslos en el horno, throw them in a fur-
nace. But the emendation is unnecessary. Biblical Aramaic attests the
20
For the sake of clarity, the following list of abbreviations is given, in spite of the
inherent partial repetition.
App: Critical apparatus in A. Diez-Macho, Neophyti I.
Corr: Correction proposed by the writer.
Ed: Text of Neofiti in edition, A. Dez-Macho, Neophyti I.
I: Interlinear glosses in MS Neofiti I (Makor photocopy).
M: Marginal glosses in MS Neofiti I (Makor photocopy).
MdW: P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, II (Hildesheim, 1967).
N: MS Neofiti I, Vatican Library (photocopy Jerusalem: Makor, 1970), main body
of targum.
O: Onqelos, A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, I (Leiden, 1959).
TJ1: Pseudo-Jonathan Targum, consensus of British Museum MS Add. 27031 and
editio princeps, Asher Forins (Venice, 1590).
TJ2: Fragmentary Palestinian Targum. 11O, MS Hebr. 11O, Bibliothque Nationale,
Paris (photo from microfilm), Fragmentary Palestinian Targum.
440: MS Hebr. 440, Vatican Library (photo from microfilm), Fragmentary Palestinian
Targum.
27031: MS Add. 27031, British Museum (photo from microfilm), Pseudo-Jonathan
Targum.
I wish to express thanks to the above-mentioned museums and libraries, as well
as to the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the Jewish National and
University Library, Jerusalem, and to the Library of Hebrew Union CollegeJewish
Institute of Religion, Jerusalem.
root ( Dan 3:19, 22) in the context of heating a furnace (,

the very same word as in our text).21 Furthermore, TJl reads . There,
too, rather than accept Ginsburgers similar emendation
,22 we may assume a scribal error of waw for zayin.
2. Gen 12:13 MT:
N: [ ]
Ed: [ ][ ]
App: ][sic leg prob text ;sed cf .2
It is not merely the second in this verse that has influenced N, but
also the similar phrase in Gen 20:13, , for which N
gives . There is an equalizing tendency in N: in
the latter text, ) =( is added; while in our text, is added. There
is, therefore, no need for emendation.23
3. In Gen 15:12, Dez-Macho reconstructs a censored passage on the

Fourth Kingdom as follows: ] ? ?
[ . The construction is impossible. However,
parallel sources offer a correct alternative: ( 110,
440). Compare also Neofiti to Lev 26:37 .
4. Gen 17:14 MT:
N: [ ]
Ed: ] [
App: ] [
There are several difficulties in the editors reconstruction of this cen-
sored text. The construct is the only form attested in N
(verses 11, 23, 24, 25, 26, and Lev 12:3), always without the daleth and
the definite article. Dez-Macho has introduced a construction com-
mon to Onqelos and TJ1, but foreign to N. As to the conversive waw
of = , we see no reason for its deletion.
21
Cf. H. Bauer and P. Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramaischen (Hildesheim,
1962), p. 168. See also M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli . . . (New
York, 1950), p. 37a, for a number of examples in Rabbinic Aramaic, and see G. Dalman,
Grammatik des jdisch-palstinischen Aramisch (Darmstadt, 1960), pp. 35559, for
in Galilean Aramaic.
22
M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan (Berlin, 1903), p. 18 and n. 8.
23
This, in spite of TJ1 and most MSS of O, which add the relative daleth. In fact, O
in the Biblia Hebraica (Ixar, 1490) also reads , while the first two Bomberg eds. of
Biblica Rabbinica (151517, 15245) both read ( apud Sperber, Bible in Aramaic,
I, 17. See also Fitzmyer, C.B.Q. XXXII (1970), p. 110).
5. Gen 19:30 MT: ( 30)

( 31) .
...
N: :

:
...
Ed: ]?[

...
App: prob leg c TM Ps et O
Clearly, we have before us much more than a scribal substitution of
one word for another. This is rather a partially corrected haplogra-
phy of an entire phrase. The scribe skipped over . . . and
wrote the end of the verse . . . . He even began to write
the lemma for verse 31,[]. Realizing his omission, he returned to
, to complete the first half of the verse, never bothering to correct
the first (mistaken) to .
6. Gen 19:33 MT:
N:
Ed: ][
The absence of the definite article in the very same expression occurs
once again in Gen 30:16 ( MT):
( N), where it is neither noted nor emended by the editor. In
both cases, the only significant variant recorded in BH is the Samaritan
Hebrew. Much more important is that the absence of the article has
served as the basis of a number of aggadic midrashim. The Sifre to
Deut 11:15 f. (par. 43) reads: ?
" ," " ... ; and both
Talmuds explain Gen 30:16 in a similar fashion: , '
" ,( b. Niddah 31a); "
:( y. Sotah 3d). These midrashim deduce
Gods intervention from the indefinite , which would, therefore,
have been intentionally preserved in the targum.24
24
O also reads in both instances.
7. Gen 19:21 MT:

N:
Ed: [ ]
There is, however, nothing wrong with the reading . The word
replaces the pronominal suffix of the original . A similar exam-
ple is to be found in Gen 32:20 (21), ( MT):
( N), which is left intact by the editor. Other examples are
Gen 38:15, ( MT): ( N); Lev 19:15,
( MT): ( N); and probably Exod
23:3 ( MT):. . .[( ]N).
8. Gen 25:10 MT:
N:
Ed:
Both elements of this scribal error are most common in N: kaph for
beth, and yod for final nun. The similar phrase,
, in Gen 49:30 and 50:13, is translated . . . 25 Strangely
enough, in Gen 31:15, N reads , for which the edition produces ,
without noting the scribal error.
9. Gen 27:14 MT:
N:
Ed: [ ]
Corr: [ ]
The scribal interchanging of he and taw is extremely common in N.26
It is true that the contracted pronominal suffix is more frequent
than the older form. The latter, however, is well attested in N,
even in our chapter (v. 38). It is, therefore, unnecessary to assume that
the scribe introduced a taw from thin air.
10. Gen 31:35 MT:
N, Ed:
Corr:
While O, TJ1 and I translate the phrase literally, / , N
reflects the influence of Gen 18:11, ( MT):
(N). This is merely another example of the mistaken writing of beth for
25
For additional examples see Gen 33:13; 47:20, 22.
26
E.g., Gen 31:23, 42; 35:9; 42:7, 9.
kaph in our MS. By slavishly following the text as written, the editor
has produced a strange and otherwise unheard-of construction.
11. Gen 37:22 MT:
N, Ed:
Corr: ][
The graphic similarity of the letters in and tet has brought about the
deletion of the latter. The reading is attested to in two frag-
ments from the Cairo Genizah.27 Also, the expression is almost
always translated in N.28 In fact, in the same chapter (v. 27) the
similar phrase is translated .29
12. Gen 37:30 MT:
N:

Ed:
App: text add vba
(underlining added)
errore repett et delenda.

Corr:

First misreading a kaph as a beth, the editor then overcorrects the text,
and adds an unnecessary explanatory phrase in the translation, el
muchacho no est (en la eljibe), the boy is not (in the pit). Another
example of the addition of place to the indefinite is Exod 2:12,
( MT): ( N).30 A reading
renders the entire dittograph explicable.
13. Gen 38:24 MT:
N, Ed:
Corr:
This is an example of the scribal confusion of gimel and nun. We need
only refer to the following verse in N for a correct reading:
27
MS E. N. Adler 2775, published by A. Dez-Macho, Sefarad xv (1955), 33; and
MS D published by P. Kahle, MdW, p. 16.
28
E.g., Exod 22:10, 24:11; Deut 25:11.
29
Cf. Deut 17: 7 ( MT): ( N).
30
Cf. MdW MS D, Gen. 37:30, ][ .
. . . Also, a number of targumic

toseftot (additional passages) to Gen 38:26 read .31
14. Gen 38:25, a midrashic expansion based upon Gen 37:32:
MT:
N:

Ed (p. 255, I. 18 f):

Corr:

Firstly, the text very clearly contains a beth and not a kaph. Secondly,
it is highly unlikely that the targum would have Judah refer to his
father by name alone. Thirdly, MSS 110 and 440 as well as the targu-
mic tosefta32 all contain , and TJ1 has the exact expression
. See also Neofiti to Gen 44:18 (fol. 93b, 1. 17 = Makor photocopy
p. 95a) which is spoken by
Judah. Lastly, in MT (Gen 37:32 and 38:25) the word appears
only once.
15. Gen 43:14 MT:
N:

Ed:

App: ' in text: delend c ms D MdW II
What the apparatus fails to note is that 110, 440, and the printed edi-
tions of TJ2, all contain the negative . Furthermore, there is
a wealth of midrashic material on Jacobs knowledge that Joseph was
alive.33 This tradition underlies our reading, and that of TJ1 (which
differs in wording only). In fact, MS D of MdW II (p. 19, Gen 43:14) is
itself suspect. The form is unusual; would be expected,
as is indeed found in all the other sources. Kahle even reconstructs
31
A. Epstein, R.E.J. xxx (1895), p. 45, item no. 3, line 2, and Sperber, Bible in
Aramaic, I, p. 355, apparatus n. 2. See also, ibid. III (Leiden, I962), p. 385, for the
same expression in the midrashic expansion to Hos 1:2, ( MT):
( Targum).
32
Cf. Sperber, ibid. I, p. 354; Epstein, art. cit. 46, item 5, line 16, reprinted by
A. Dez-Macho, Sefarad, XVI (1956), p. 323. See also p. 321 (MS T-S B122, lines 16f.)
in the oath taken by Judah .
33
Cf. E. B. Levine, The Aggadah in Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel and Neofiti I to
Genesis: parallel references, in A. Dez-Macho, Neophyti I, II, 570.
the qal infinitive in the same verse. It may be that the yod and
the maqqef of - were originally a lamed, and that the alef of
belongs to the previous word . It is not surprising that the
same MS D, in Gen 37:33, translates and expands the passage
( MT) as follows:
-

'
34
.
The editor has exercised excessive liberty in removing the word
from the body of N in Gen 43:14.
16. Gen 49:9 MT:
N:
Ed:
Dez-Macho has removed two words from the text, without noting it
in the apparatus. He seems to have taken them to be a scribal error,
corrected by the following ( compare items 259 below). That
at least the word is not a scribal error is evident from 440 and TJ1:
I compare you, Judah, my son,
to a lions whelp, and from the printed editions of TJ2: . . .
. Probably, both words are part of an intended
parallelism.
17. Exod 2:6 MT:
N:
Ed: ][
Corr: ][
Since the attested spelling throughout N35 and throughout all of the
other targumim36 is , it seems only reasonable to correct the
mistaken nun to a kaph and not a beth. This is so even without enter-
ing into etymologies.
18. Exod 9:30 MT:
N (?), Ed: '
Corr: '
34
Cf. 110, 440 and TJ1 for the same negative interpretation.
35
For in Gen 30:38, 40; and for in Gen 24:20.
36
2 MdW MS E, 440 (Gen 30:41) (M. Ginsburger, Fragmententhargum (Berlin,
1899), p. 79, had misread the MS), TJ1, Levitas Meturgeman, p. 83b, and the
Arukh (the last source apud Ginsburger, ibid. p. 98).
As to the reading, it is not at all certain whether N has or . But

assuming a reading of , M also has , and is corrected in the appa-
ratus to . It is strange that the same correction was not considered
for N.
The word is translated 37 or 38 throughout N,
always preserving the temporal element . In the translation of ,
and in the use of , N clearly distinguishes between the temporal
and the local. Thus, in Gen 32:7 ( MT):
( ' N), and in Exod 10:7,
( MT): '
( N).
The translation of our verse, que porque estis ante signos temeis
delante de Yahwe neustro Dios, followed by the English, because you
are before signs you fear before Yahwe our God (p. 430) is unaccept-
able on three counts: (a) it eliminates the essential temporal element;
(b) it translates the word signos, while the word required for
this meaning is ( ;c) it uses the word twice, once as signs,
and once again as the personal pronoun (2. m. pl.) for the participle
. We must rather consider in our text as some unusual
(corrupted?) form of .
19. Exod 28:19 N:
Ed:
There is no indication in the apparatus that the additional fourth name
and Asher has been deleted. Clearly, the name Asher belongs to
the last row of inscribed stones listed in verse 20. There is, however,
significance to the scribal error that must not be lost. In the preceding
verses 17, 18, the three names are listed without conjunctive waws:
, and in verse 20 we find
. Appropriately, the last of the series receives the waw. The
emended form of verse 19 is most unusual: . The addition
of the fourth (mistaken) name, however, reproduces, letter for letter,
waws included, Exod 1:4. It is this verse that resounded in the mind of
the scribe while he was writing the targum to Exod 28:19.39
37
Gen 2:5, 19:4; Lev 14:36; Num 11:33; Deut 31:21.
38
Gen 2:5; Exod 1:19, 12:34.
39
In Exod 39:1013, the same situation prevailed, except that there, after the extra
was removed by some scribe, an additional waw was added to , in order to
offset the waw of , in the middle of the sentence.
20. Exod 29:36 MT: ...

N (?), Ed: ...
Corr: ...
N clearly and consistently distinguishes between = and =
.40 The similarity of the two Aramaic words has in several instances
induced the scribal interchanging of daleth/re and kaph/beth. In fact,
in Lev 16:32 the reverse error is corrected by Dez-Macho, but in
Lev 8:15, where N clearly has , he produces in the edition
without any notation. Also, the same error as in our text goes unno-
ticed in Lev 6:19.
21. Exod 30:1 MT:
N:
Ed: ][
Notwithstanding the readings in TJ1 and in O, which add the preposi-
tional lamedh,41 it seems wrong to improve upon the text in our MS,
which is in literal agreement with MT.
22. Exod 31:6 MT:
N:
Ed: ][
Corr: ][
Two letters which closely resemble one another, and are often mis-
takenly interchanged in N, are gimel and nun. What the editor
takes for a re is but a waw with a slightly wider than usual top. The
word meaning tribe is always translated . . . ,42 and
never . . . , when followed by the name of the tribe. What
is missing is the genitival daleth for the word , and this is supplied
by I.
40
The same holds for 27031. Ginsburger (Pseudo-Jonathan) has miscopied the MS
in Exod 29:36 (p. 152) and in Lev 8:15 (p. 184), and his note to Exod 19:29 (p. 152,
n. 2) is based on the Forins edition (Venice, 1590) and not on 27031! On the inac-
curacy of Ginsburgers editions see D. Rieder, Leonnu XXXII (1968), pp. 298303
(Hebrew), and M. C. Doubles, V.T. xv (1965), p. 16. Onqelos is also consistent in its
use of /, except for several MSS in Lev 8:15.
41
TJ1: ; O: . Both of these targumim follow a different
translational tradition than ours, as is evident in their addition of the inflected ,
which is missing in N.
42
E.g., Exod 31:2, 35:30, 34; 38:22f.
23. Lev. 24:14 MT:

N, Ed:
Corr:
Of more than 110 occurrences of in the Pentateuch, only this
and one other (Exod 3:11) are mistakenly translated . The correct
translation supplied everywhere else is .43 In the case of Exod 3:11,
one might argue for a Vorlage of , instead
of . . . ( MT). But this is unlikely, since the flanking verses 10
and 12 have and , respectively. Furthermore, in verse 11
M offers [ sic].
Two examples of this error in the reverse are Gen 45:9,
(MT): ( N), clearly an error for , and Deut 20:1,
( MT): . . . ( N).44
The scribal confusion of pe and samekh occurs in N in other con-
texts as well.45 Similar words, such as and , would be particu-
larly inducive to such a scribal error.
24. Lev 24:20 MT:
N:
Ed: ][
Corr:
The two strokes of the taw have been separated, to form what looks
like a daleth plus nun. The construction is unheard-of in
N. The word , meaning in place of, instead of, is translated in all
thirty occurrences by , , or , and is never followed by
the genitival daleth.46 For the use of in the very same context,
see Neofiti to Exod 21:23ff. and Lev 24:18, 20.
43
Two additional exceptions are the paraphrastic translations in Lev 26:10,
(to clear out the old grain), and in Num 20:16, ( to save). In Lev 26:13,
is half of the frequent targumic hendiadys . It is worth noting that in all
three of these instances M supplies the standard .
44
Cf. M, TJ1, and O to our verse, and N to Gen 44:17 and 46:4, 31.
45
E.g., /( Gen 36:4, not noted in the edition); /( Num 12:16);
/( Num 15:40).
46
The only possible exception in Gen 30:15, which contains a scribal error and a
super-linear correction . Dez-Macho has correctly replaced the daleth
with the yod, to produce ][.
IV. Corrected Errors
A common practice among the scribes of N is to correct errors, espe-

cially misspellings, that were noticed during the writing of the text. In
most cases the scribes left the errors intact, and merely added the cor-
rection immediately following. Most of these errors have been excised
from the text by the editor, without any notation at all.47
In the following instances, however, Dez-Macho has failed to rec-
ognize the corrected error phenomenon:
25. Gen 34:10 N:
Ed:
Firstly, the MS clearly contains a re and not a daleth. Secondly, the
word does not fit our context, as is noted by the exclamation mark
in the Spanish translation.
26. Exod 5:16 N, Ed:
Corr:
This error is due to the influence of the same word in the two
preceding verses, and in the second half of this verse.
27. Lev 13:21 N, Ed: '
Corr: '
The scribe mistakenly wrote , and then corrected his error by
adding . The combination is unheard-of.
28. Lev 5:18 MT:
N, Ed:
Corr:
N and the other targumim always distinguish between the transla-
tions = and = . The combination is self-
contradictory.
29. Lev 11:45 N, Ed:
App: ]bis in text
Corr:
47
E.g., Gen 2:21 N: , Ed: ;12:3 N: , Ed:
(metathesis is corrected in MS by dots above the letters); 18:11 N: , Ed:
;25:20 N: , Ed: ;47:22 N: , Ed: ;Exod 17:7 N:
, Ed: ;19:2 N: , Ed: , and many more. On the propriety of this
editorial method see Fitzmyer, C.B.Q. XXXII (1970), p. 109.
The scribe has simply corrected his own misspelling, by repeating the
word with an additional waw; cf. in the same verse.48
V. Conclusions
The difficulties of reading and interpreting MS Neofiti I have been

illustrated by the examples cited. They are merely examples of the
inevitable, and are not meant to detract from the importance of the
current edition. They do, however, serve to remind us of several long-
recognized basic principles:
(a) The targumim are part of an extensive midrashic literature, and

must be read in that context (examples 6, 15).
(b) In spite of minor inconsistencies, Neofiti I is a unified composition.
We must not underestimate the authors power of association, nor
his tendency to harmonize and equalize (2, 10, 12, 14, 19).
(c) Although closely related to the midrashim and other targumim,
Neofiti has its own particular method and language. We must,
therefore, first seek answers to internal problems within Neofiti
itself (4, 18).
(d) The scribes, who willingly preserved the text for us, unwillingly
introduced into it many errors. Some they found and corrected;
we need only to understand their notation (5, 12, 2529). Others
defied their authors and remain for us to discover (8, 9, 11, 13, 14,
17, 20, 22, 23, 24).
(e) Most obvious, yet most important, we must not impose our pre-
conceived emendations upon a text that is already correct (1, 2, 6,
7, 15, 16, 21).
48
This is certainly not to claim orthographic uniformity for N (cf. in verse
44, and p. 218 n. 6 above). Nevertheless, the scribes seem occasionally to have made
some efforts in that direction.
Postscript. Two new volumes of targumic editions have appeared since this article
went to press:
1. A. Dez-Macho, Neophyti I . . . (Madrid, 1974), vol. IV (Numbers). See p. 218 n. 2
above.
2. D. Rieder, Pseudo-Jonathan, Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch,
copied from the London MS. (British Museum add. 27031) (Jerusalem, 1974). This
edition will replace the inaccurate editio princeps by M. Ginsburger. See p. 216 n. 6
and pp. 226 f. n. 2, above.
CHAPTER TWENTY
ELIAS LEVITA AND MS NEOFITI 1
In recent years, the name Elias Levita (14691549)1 has frequently

been mentioned in connection with MS Neofiti 1 in two regards:
1) the copying of the MS; 2) the use of its text in the composition of
his Aramaic lexicon, the Meturgeman. It now seems that both of these
associations are ill-founded.
Elias Levita lived in Rome for some 12 or 13 years (1514/151527)
at the home of Aegidius of Viterbo,2 the man who had commissioned
this copy of the Palestinian Targum. Levita was himself a master scribe
and is known to have employed several other scribes. A comparison of
scripts and a complicated interpretation of the date-cipher contained
in the colophon of MS Neofiti 1 led M. Fitzmaurice Martin to the
mistaken conclusion that . . . N(eofiti 1) was transcribed on Levitas
orders by his scribes for Aegidius of Viterbo. Furthermore, Levita
intervened in one place to annotate the manuscript . . .; and N(eofiti
1) was written for Aegidius by three people employed by Elias Levita,
and it can therefore be justly described as a MS prepared by Levita for
Aegidius.3
The date-cipher in the colophon of MS Neofiti 1 has since been
reinterpreted by G. E. Weil,4 A. Dez-Macho,5 and . Levine.6 It has
been established beyond doubt that the cipher is the year 5264
Anno Mundi or 1504 of the Common Era. This means that the copying
of MS Neofiti 1 was completed in Rome in 1504, a full decade before
1
For a brief biographical sketch and bibliography see M. Medan, Levita, Elijah,
Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem 1971) XI, cols. 132135.
2
Ibid., cols. 132 f.; and M. Fitzmaurice Martin, The Palaeographical Character of
Codex Neofiti 1, Textus 3 (1963) p. 15.
3
Ibid., p. 32.
4
G. E. Weil, Le Codex Neofiti I propos de larticle de M. Fitzmaurice Martin,
Textus 4 (1964) p. 227.
5
A. Dez-Macho, Neophyti 1, Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana,
Tomo I, Genesis (Madrid-Barcelona 1968) p. 49*.
6
. Levine, A Paleographic Note on the Colophon of MS Neofiti 1, VT 21 (1971)
pp. 494497.
230 chapter twenty
the arrival of Levita in that city. All connection between Levita and the
copying of our MS was thus precluded.
The second question, however, remained unanswered; viz., did
Levita later come into direct contact with MS Neofiti 1? And more
importantly, did he have access to this copy of the Palestinian Targum
when he composed his famous Lexicon Chaldaicum otherwise known
as the Meturgeman? Levita completed the Meturgeman in 1531, in
Venice, three years after his leaving Rome, and he published it at Isny,
in 1541.7 The Meturgeman often gives citations from the Targum
Yerualmi, but nowhere indicates which Jerusalem (i.e., Palestinian)
Targum is intended. It seems logical that having spent a dozen years
in the home of the owner of MS Neofiti 1, Levita would have known
this targumic text, made use of it in the preparation of his lexicon, and
referred to it in that work under the name Targum Yerualmi. In
fact, R. Grio has preliminarily studied 89 examples of such citations
from the Book of Genesis. One of the four hypotheses formed on this
admittedly limited basis is that Levita actually knew MS Neofiti 1.8 On
the other hand, in view of the variants between Levitas citations and
Neofiti 1 that were collected by Grio, Dez-Macho expresses a prefer-
ence for an alternate hypothesis, namely that Levita knew a text that
was very similar to Neofiti 1, but not Neofiti 1 itself.9
There is, however, explicit evidence in the Meturgeman that Levita
did not have MS Neofiti before him when he composed the lexicon.
Under the entry TP ( )Levita writes:
. . . . .
10
.
. . .your seal and your cord and your staff (Gen 38:18). The Arukh writes
Targum Yerualmi [translates] tpk whwtrk.11 and I sought this [trans-
lation] in the Targum Yerualmi, but did not find [it].
7
Cf. A. Dez-Macho, Neophyti 1, Genesis, p. 53*.
8
Ibid. Vol. II, p. 29*, Elias Levita conoci directamente el actual N. See also
M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch
(Rome 1966) p. 47 n. 26.
9
A. Dez-Macho, loc. cit.
10
. Levita, Meturgeman (Isny 1541; reprint Israel 1967?) p. 157b.
11
This indeed is what we find in printed editions of the arukh today, e.g., Aruch
Completum (ed. A. Kohut, New York 18781892; reprint: New York Pardes 1955)
VIII, 186b. Interestingly enough, Benjamin Mussafia (16061675) writes in his
annotations to the Arukh (Musaf he-Arukh, Amsterdam, 1655; and incorporated in
Kohuts edition), that the editions (of the Palestinian Targum) read wypk (and not
tpk). On the relationship between the Arukh and the Palestinian Targum according
elias levita and ms neofiti 1 231
Now the citation of the Arukh from the Targum Yerualmi, which
Levita says he was unable to find in his copies of this targum, happens
to appear twice in Neofiti 1 to Genesis:
Gen 38:18 MT:
MS Neofiti 1:
and again in that very same chapter:
Gen 38:25 MT:
MS Neofiti 1:
It is, therefore, clearLevita himself tells us sothat he did not have
MS Neofiti 1 before him when he wrote the Meturgeman.
A similar example is found under the root SM ():
. . .
. .
and she shall pare her nails (Deut 21:12). Targum Yerualmi: wtsmy yt
twfrnh. The author of the Arukh cites it without explaining, and I have
not found it in the printed Targum Yerualmi.12
The expression printed Targum Yerualmi must refer to the
Fragmentary Targum (TJ2) as published in one of the first two editions
of the Biblia Rabbinica (Venice, 15171518 and 15241525), since this
was the only printed Palestinian targum in Levitas day. And indeed,
a check shows that the entire verse of Deut 21:12 is missing from the
Fragmentary Targum.
On the other hand, if Levita had had access to MS Neofiti 1, he
would have found the phrase and confirmed the
entry of the Arukh. Again, it is clear that Levita did not use MS Neofiti
1 as a lexicographical source for the Meturgeman.
This conclusion may perhaps be modified somewhat. We know,
that Levita began writing the Meturgeman in Rome in 1526, while still
under the patronage of Aegidius. He was forced to leave that city when
it was sacked in May of the following year. It might, therefore, very
well be that during this initial period Levita had access to MS Neofiti 1.
This would account for the many citations that are identical with this
to MS Neofiti 1, see S. Speier, Lonnu 31 (19661967) pp. 2332, 189198; and 34

(19691970) pp. 172179. Speiers conclusions are to appear in a final installment of
this study.
12
Meturgeman, p. 129a.
232 chapter twenty
targum text. On the other hand, even if he had had such access during
this initial period of composition (and there is no definite evidence of
such), it is clear that for the remainder and greater part of the period
(15271531), Levita had no such contact.
In conclusion, not only did Levita not have a hand in the writing of
Codex Neofiti, 1, but he seems to have had little access, or none at all,
to MS Neofiti 1 during the composition of the Meturgeman.
Appendix: Some Citations of Targum Yerualmi in the Meturgeman

Which Do Not Agree with the Palestinian Targum According to
Vatican MS Neofiti 1.13
Meturgeman MS Neofiti 1
p. 20b () Gen 50:26

()
27a () Exod 2:10

36b () Exod 24:11
51a () 'Gen 30:27 '
()
Gen 44:5

)
(
69a () Exod 16:14
14

()
13
This comparative list is based on the photo-reprint edition of the editio princeps
of the Meturgeman by an anonymous publisher (see n. 4 above), and on the limited
facsimile edition of MS Neofiti 1, The Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Codex
Vatican (Neofiti 1) (Jerusalem 1970). Brackets in the Meturgeman readings contain
the root under which Levita listed the citation; those in the Neofiti readings contain
variants from the marginal glosses of that MS.
14
Here Levita adds . However, MS Neofiti 1 also reads
and Levita does not mention it as an alternate Yerualmi reading, but only as
Onqelos. This is further proof of Levitas ignorance of MS Neofiti 1.
elias levita and ms neofiti 1 233
(cont.)
79a () Num 32:3

(= 83a
())
97b () Gen 19:2

15

98b () 16 Gen 15:11
( ,)
107a () Gen 6:6

119a () Gen 11:2

()
() Gen 10:14
()
() Gen 10:13
(? )
121a () Gen 31:7
15
Both of these readings are apparently corruptions based upon targumic variants
to the previous phrase which is translated )( . This error
is found in most of the extant MSS of the Fragmentary Targum (TJ2).
16
M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim . . . (New York 1950), p. 978b, cites
Levita, and adds, read: , i.e., error due to metathesis. Actually, Levita refers to
the beginning of our verse on p. 51a under the root , as follows: .
. If we connect these two entries and compare them with the text
of Neofiti 1, it becomes quite evident that Levita was not quoting this targum:
Meturgeman: ... .
Neofiti 1: ... :
234 chapter twenty
(cont.)
()
Gen 48:14 17

130b ( )Gen 40:16

()
136b () Gen 25:16

()
164b () Gen 10:2 ][
()
17
There is no marginal gloss for this phrase, nor for several others listed above,
and yet there is a preponderance of agreement between Levitas Yerualmi citations
and the Neofiti marginal glosses, where these do exist. It would seem that one of the
textual sources of these glosses is very closely related to one of Levitas Yerualmi
sources.
CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE
THE MESSIAH THAT LEADETH UPON A CLOUD, IN THE

FRAGMENT-TARGUM TO THE PENTATEUCH?
The image of the Messiah arriving with the clouds of heaven is not
uncommon in rabbinic literature, and can be traced directly to Dan
7:1314. For example, in the Midrash Tanhuma1 we find: Who is
Anani [1 Chron 3:24]? He is the king the Messiah, as it is said: with
the clouds of heaven [Dan 7:13].2 Likewise, the Babylonian Talmud
(b. Sanhedrin 98a) discusses the coming of the Messiah as follows:
R. Joshua b. Levi [3rd cent] pointed out the apparent contradiction:
It is written with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of
man [Dan 7:13], and it is written [elsewhere] humble and riding on
an ass [Zech 9:9]? [Answer:] If they are meritorious, with the clouds of
heaven; if they are not meritorious, humble and riding on an ass.
It was, therefore, not considered at all unusual to find an apparent ref-
erence to this well-attested messianic image in one of the Palestinian
Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch. In fact, that source was consid-
ered so well founded in the tradition that other differing Palestinian
Targums were often corrected on its authority. The following is the
text as it appears in the first Biblia Rabbinica3 which contains the first
printed edition of any Fragment-Targum. All subsequent editions of
this targum in the various rabbinic Bibles are based upon this editio
princeps.

.
Recently translated:
Moses shall go forth from the wilderness and the King Messiah from
Rome. The one shall lead the way on top of a cloud and the other shall
1
Ed. S. Buber (reprinted Jerusalem, 1964), Vol 1, p. 140 [Toledot, par. 20].
2
A play of the Hebrew ( cloud). For additional references, see L. Ginzberg,
Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1959), Vol. 4, p. 381, n. 136.
3
Venice, 151718 [Exod 12:42].
236 chapter twenty-one
lead the way on top of a cloud, and the memra of the Lord shall lead the
way between the two of them, and they shall proceed together.4
When M. Ginsburger published another recension of the Fragment-
Targum, according to MS Paris-Bibliothque nationale Hbr. 110, he
added the preferred variant reading in square brackets:
5
. ][
One shall lead at the head of the flock [cloud] and the other shall lead
at the head of the flock.
The Palestinian Targum according to MS. Neofiti I reads:
6
.
This is accurately transmitted in the recent edition by A. Dez Macho,
and is literally translated in all three languages (Spanish: a la cabeza
del ganado; French: la tte du troupeau; and English: at the head
of the flock).7 However, on the basis of the printed editions of the
Fragment-Targum, the following notes are appended to these transla-
tions: Sp.: O: encima de la nube ; Fr.: Ou bein [sic] au sommet
dune nue ; Eng.: Or: on top of the cloud. But again, aside from
4
S. H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation (Monographs of the Hebrew
Union College, 2: Cincinnati, 1974), pp. 1213. This translation is to be preferred
over that of J. W. Etheridge, The Targum of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the
Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum (London, 1862; reprinted New
York, 1968), Vol. 1, p. 481: Mosheh came forth from the midst of the desert; but the
King Meshiha (comes) from the midst of Roma. The cloud preceded that, and the
cloud will go before this one; and the Word of the Lord will lead between both, and
they shall proceed together. This older translation is inaccurate both grammatically
and stylistically.
Still another translation has been offered by G. Vermes in Scripture and Tradition
(Studia Post-Biblica 4; Leiden, 1961), p. 217: The one shall be led upon a cloud and
the other shall be led upon a cloud. Vermes denies the authenticity of this text on
syntactical grounds. He believes that MS Neofiti 1 preserves the original version of
this targumic passage [see below for that text]. The syntactical difficulty pointed out by
Vermes exists, however, only if the word is vocalized in this manner (passive will
be led). Needless to say, other vocalizations are possibleor even to be preferred.
5
M. Ginsburger, Das Fragmententhargum (Berlin, 1899; reprinted Jerusalem, 1969),
p. 37 [Exod 15:18]. The midrashic expansion (tosefta) on the four Nights of Vigil,
which originated at Exod 12:42, was inserted by the redactor of this Fragment-Targum
in Exod 15 (the Song of the Sea), which is part of the synagogal Torah reading for the
Seventh Day of Passover.
6
Folio 135a [Exod 12:42].
7
A. Dez Macho, Neophyti I, Tomo II [Exodus]: Traducciones, Francesa: R. Le
Daut; Inglesa: M. McNamara y M. Maher (Madrid-Barcelona, 1970), pp. 78, 313,
442, respectively.
that leadeth upon a cloud 237
the inconsistent orthography displayed in the word / there is

nothing in the text of Neofiti I that is suggestive of a cloud.8 Moreover,
the remaining primary sources of the Fragment-Targums are in literal
agreement with MSS Neofiti 1 and Paris 110. Thus:
Ms. Vatican Ebr. 440:
Ms. Nrnberg-Stadtbibliothek Solger 2.2o:

To sum up the manuscriptal evidenceall the extant primary sources
of the targumic tosefta on the Four Nights of Vigilcontain
(flock), and not ( cloud).9
The origin of the reading in the printed editions becomes clear,
when we consider that MS Nrnberg served as the Vorlage for the first
printed edition.10 The reading , as it turns out, is not a true varia
lectio, but merely the misinterpretation and erroneous expansion of
the abbreviation in MS Nrnberg (an error on the part of Felix
Pratensis, the editor of the first Biblia Rabbinica, or of one of his type-
setters). This is corroborated by the fact that MS Moscow-Gnzburg 3,
which is also a copy of MS Nrnberg, properly understood the abbre-
viation to represent the word . On the other hand, MS Sassoon
264, which is a copy of the second Biblia Rabbinica (Venice, 15245),
perpetuates the mistaken variant .11
In conclusion, although the image of the Messiah arriving with/on
a cloud is widely attested in rabbinic literature, there is absolutely no
such imagery to be found in any of the presently known Pentateuchal
targums.
8
The printed Fragment-Targum has been so influential that it has actually replaced
the literal translation of Neofiti 1. Thus, e.g., R. Le Daut, La Nuit Pascale (Analecta
Biblica, 22; Rome, 1963rimpression photomcanique 1975), p. 65: sur le sommet
dune nue (ou mieux: en tte du troupeau); but the reverse on p. 266: en tte du
troupeau (Ou: sur le sommet dune nue).
9
In his unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The Fragment Targum (St. Andrews University,
1962), p. 48, M. C. Doubles notes in the critical apparatus to MS Vatican 440 that the
first edition [B] and MS Nrnberg [N] also have the reading twice, instead of
. This is incorrect, as N has the abbreviation in both instances.
10
See M. L. Klein, The Extant Sources of the Fragmentary Targum to the
Pentateuch, Hebrew Union College Annual, Centennial Volume 46 (1975), pp. 115
37. Cf. A. Dez Macho, The Palestinian Targum, Christian News from Israel, 13
(1962), p. 23; and idem., Le Targum Palestinien, in J. E. Menard ed., Exgse Biblique
et Judasme (Strasbourg, 1973), p. 23.
11
See again, M. L. Klein, Extant Sources, Hebrew Union College Annual 46 (1975),
pp. 11537, for a complete genealogy of these sources of the Fragment-Targums.
CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
AN UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MANUSCRIPTS

AND EDITIONS OF PALESTINIAN TARGUM TO THE
PENTATEUCH FROM THE CAIRO GENIZAH
Since publication of Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to

the Pentateuch in 1986, over thirty new fragments have come to light,
especially at the Cambridge University Library. Some of the newly dis-
covered pieces have been published in journals and Festschriften, con-
tributing significant insights to Targum studies. Other valuable items
remain unpublished and generally unknown. The present updated lists
bring the new bibliographical information to the attention of scholars
and researchers of the targumim.
In the introduction to the Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum
to the Pentateuch,1 I stated that in spite of the many efforts exerted to
make that collection as complete as possible, new manuscripts would
inevitably be discovered, as the Genizah collections throughout the
world continued to be sifted by scholars. That prediction was indeed
fulfilled within three years, with the discovery and publication of eight
new fragments in Cambridge, containing significant additions to MSS
D, E and H.2 Additional findings followed during the ensuing years, as
indicated in the List of Editions and in the manuscript entries noted
as unpublished or no siglum, below. To date over thirty new frag-
ments have come to lightalthough some of those from the Taylor-
Schechter Additional Series are small and in poor condition.
The significance of this growth lies not merely in the increase in
size of the corpus, and the increment of literary and linguistic data
that became available. The new material also sheds important light on
the nature of the previously known manuscripts. For example, the new
fragments of MS E from the book of Exodus refuted the hypothesis
that the manuscript might have originally been confined to the book
of Genesis, as were all of the fragments previously published by Paul
Kahle and Alejandro Dez Macho. This theory was bolstered by the
1
Klein (6), vol. 1, p. xx.
2
Klein (8).
240 chapter twenty-two
fact that these known fragments, though collected in Cairo at different

times, and presently divided among the libraries of Oxford, Cambridge,
St. Petersburg and New York, all belonged only to one book of the
Pentateuch. Whereas the addition of some thirty verses to MS E was
quantitatively insignificant, the fact that these were of Palestinian tar-
gum to the end of the book of Exodus, indicates that MS E may have
originally encompassed the entire Pentateuch. Incidentally, the new
fragments also confirmed a previously posited but unattested gram-
matical form for the determined feminine cardinal number one.
Another example is the discovery in Cambridge of a second imme-
diately following page of MS H, previously known from Cincinnati.
However, it was only through the new fragment that the manuscript
could be identified as a fragment-targum rather than a full continu-
ous targum. Moreover, there were only two or three previously known
Palestinian fragment-targum manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah
(Br, DDand perhaps J), both of which, though textually unrelated,
were from the book of Deuteronomy (and J, from Exodus). The
Genizah had now produced a targum of the same genre for Genesis.
A unique manuscript that is presently under preparation for pub-
lication will serve as our last case in point. Bilingual targumic man-
uscripts of the Aramaic Onqelos intertwined with the Judeo-Arabic
translation of Saadia Gaon are very common. Most of these are of
Yemenite origin, among whom both versions were read in the Sabbath
synagogue, over many centuries. Now, for the first time, the combi-
nation of an expansive Palestinian Targum and a Judeo-Arabic ver-
sion that is similar to, but not identical with, the known translation of
Saadia has been identified. The passage covers Exodus 1920, includ-
ing most of the Ten Commandments. The Palestinian Targum is dif-
ferent in many of its renditions from the many well-known parallel
texts, though with many affinities to one of the fragment-targums (P).
The Judeo-Arabic, in addition to translating expansively, contains
many interspersed poemssome of a liturgical nature. This newly
discovered manuscript is mostly in New York (20 leaves), with one
additional leaf in Cambridge.
Although only fifteen years have transpired since publication of
the last lists of editions and manuscripts,3 the mass of recent dis-
3
The first version of these lists was published as A Bibliography of Manuscripts
and Editions of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, in Studies in Bibliography and
Booklore 13 (1980): 2025.
updated bibliography of manuscripts and editions 241
coveries, many made during preparation of the catalogue, Targumic

Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections,4 makes it timely to
produce updated versions for researchers in targumic studies. I hope,
in due time, to produce a new edition of the texts as well.5
Lastly, the following are the criteria for the inclusion of targumic
poems from among the newly published collection by Sokoloff and
Yahalom. From among their four relevant categories, Passover,
Shavuot, The new moon of Nisan, and Conclusions of the reading
of biblical books, only those that either are clearly related to the syna-
gogal Torah reading, quote Pentateuchal verses in Aramaic, or which
seem to have been integrated into targumic texts or served as intro-
ductory passages leading into Pentateuchal passages, were included in
the present lists.
List of Editions
Baars, W. A Targum on Exod. XV 721 from the Cairo Geniza, Vetus Testamentum
11 (1961) 34042.
Dez Macho, A. (1), Nuevos fragmentos del Targum Palestinense, Sefarad 15 (1955)
3139.
Idem (2), Nuevos fragmentos de Tosefta Targumica, Sefarad 16 (1956) 31324.
Idem (3), Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia. Series IV Targum palestinense in Pentateu-
chum. L.5, Deuteronomium I (sample fascicle). Madrid: Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Cientificas, 1965.
Idem (4), Deux nouveaux fragments du Targum palestinien New York, in Studi
sull Oriente e la Bibbia offerti a P. Giovanni Rinaldi. Genova: Studio e Vita, 1967,
pt. 2, 17889.
Idem (5), Un nuevo fragmento del Targum palestinense a Gnesis, Aug 9 (1969)
12023. (= Idem, Manuscritos hebreos y arameos de la Biblia. Rome: Augustinianum,
1971, 21720.)
Idem (6), Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia [see Idem (3), above]. L.15, Madrid, 1977
88.
Fleischer, E. The Great New Moon, [ ] Tarbiz 37 (196768)
26578.
Gaster, M. Geniza Fragmente, in Gedenkbuch zur Erinnerung an David Kaufmann.
M. Brann and E. Rosenthal, eds., Breslau, 1900, 22627. (= Idem, Studies and Texts.
London, 1928; reprinted 3 vols.; Jerusalem: Makor, 1970; New York: Ktav, 1971.
2:68384 and 3:2078.)
Ginsburger, M. (1) Das Fragmententhargum. Berlin: Calvary, 1899; reprinted Jerusalem:
Makor, 1969, 7172.
Idem (2), Neue Fragmente des Thargum Jeruschalmi, Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 58 (1904) 37478.
4
Klein (9).
5
My thanks to Paul V. M. Flesher for initiating and encouraging this and other
targumic projects.
Greenfield, J. C. and Sokoloff, M. [= G-S ] Astrological and Related Omen Texts in

Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 48 (1989) 20114.
Grelot, P. Une Tosephta targoumique sur Gense XXII dans un manuscrit liturgique
de la Geniza du Caire, Revue des tudes Juives N.S.16 (1957) 527.
Heinemann, J. Remnants of Ancient Piyyutim in the Palestinian Targum Tradition,
[ ] Hasifrut | [Tel-Aviv
University] 4 (1973) 36275.
Kahle, P. Masoreten des Westens II. Stuttgart, 1930; reprinted Hildesheim: Georg
Olms, 1967, 165.
Kasher, R. A New Targum to the Ten Commandments According to a Genizah
Manuscript, [
] Hebrew Union College Annual 60 (1989)
[Hebrew].
Klein, M. L. (1), A Genizah Fragment of Palestinian Targum to Genesis 15:14,
Hebrew Union College Annual 49 (1978) 7387.
Idem (2), The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch. 2 vols.; Analecta biblica 76, Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1980, 1:23741.
Idem (3), Nine Fragments of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch from the Cairo
Genizah, Hebrew Union College Annual 50 (1979) 14964.
Idem (4), A Neglected Manuscript of a Palestinian Fragment-Targum from the Cairo
Genizah, Textus 10 (1982) 2636.
Idem (5), Targumic Poems from the Cairo Genizah, Hebrew Annual Review 8, Bib-
lical and Other Studies in Honor of Sheldon H. Blank (1984) 8999.
Idem (6), Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. 2 vols.;
Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986.
Idem (7), Targumic Toseftot from the Cairo Genizah, in Salvacion en la Palabra:
Targum * Derash * Berith. En memoria Alejandro Dez Macho. Madrid: Ediciones
Cristiandad, 1986, 40918.
Idem (8), New Fragments of Palestinian Targum from the Cairo Genizah, Sefarad
49 (1989) 12333.
Idem (9), Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections. Cambridge
University Library Genizah Series 8, S. C. Reif, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1992, [passim].
Idem (10), Complementary Fragments from the Cairo Genizah, [
] in Texts, Temples and Traditions. A Tribute to Menahem Haran.
M. V. Fox, et al., eds. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996, 95*117*.
Komlosh, Y. Targumic Manuscripts, [ ] SinaiSefer Yovel.
Y. L. Hakohen Maimon, ed. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1958, 46681.
Landauer, S. Ein interessantes Fragment des Pseudo-Jonathan, in Festschrift zu Ehren
des Dr. A. Harkavy. Baron D. v. Gnzberg and I. Markon, eds., St. Petersburg, 1908,
1926.
Marmorstein, A. The Sanctification of the New Moons of Rabbi Pinchas, [
] Hazofeh Le-Hokhmath Yisrael 5 (1921) 22555.
Sokoloff, M. and Yahalom, J. [= S-Y] Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry from Late
Antiquity [ :
]. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1999, [passim].
Abbreviations
AS Additional Series
BNU Bibliothque Nationale et Universitaire, Strasbourg
CUL Cambridge University Library

ENA Elkan Nathan Adler Collection
frag. fragment (opening line of poem missing)
Heb. Hebrew
HUC Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati
JNUL Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem
JTS Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York
NS New Series
PT Palestinian Targum
Onq Onqelos
Or. Oriental
tg targum
T-S Taylor-Schechter Genizah Research Unit, Cambridge
The Genizah Manuscripts (in Biblical Order)
Gen 2:173:6
JTS 501 (ENA 2107), fol. 1
Dez Macho (4), Klein (6); MS B
Gen 4:416
St. Petersburg Antonin 739
Kahle, Klein (6); MS B
Gen 4:7, 8, 23 (toseftot)

Oxford Bodleian Heb.c74
Ginsburger (1), Klein (6,7); MS X
Gen 4:8 (tosefta)

JTS 605 (ENA 2587), fol. 26b
Klein (6); MS I
Gen 4:8 (tosefta)

CUL T-S NS 184.81r
Klein (6); MS FF
Gen 5:910, 2425

CUL T-S AS 71.240
unpublished; MS B(?)
Gen 5:28 (?); 6:5 (lemma)

St. Petersburg Antonin 739
Klein (6); MS B
Gen 6:187:15
Oxford Bodleian Heb.d49, fol. 47
Kahle, Klein (6); MS E
Gen 7:178:9
CUL T-S B8.11
Kahle (D), Klein (6); MS B
Gen 9:523
Kahle, Klein(6); MS E
Gen 15:14 (frag-tg)

HUC Genizah 1134r
Klein (1,6); MS H
Gen 15:1114 (frag-tg)

CUL T-S B9.11
Klein (8); MS H
Gen 17:11 (?) (tosefta)

CUL T-S AS 69.11
Klein (6); MS EE
Gen 21:49
CUL T-S AS 70.206, fol. 2v
Klein (6); MS Y
Gen 21:616
CUL T-S NS 161.104
Klein (6); MS LL
Gen 21:10 (tosefta)

CUL T-S AS 69.11
Klein (6,7); MS EE
Gen 22:25 (liturgical tosefta)

JTS NS ENA 42.27
Klein (10); MS K

CUL T-S B8.9, fol. 1
Grelot, Klein (6,7,10); MS K

CUL T-S NS 138.79
Klein (10); MS K

CUL T-S NS 271.183
Klein (10); MS K
Gen 24:34
Oxford Bodleian Heb. e73, fol. 29r
Klein (6); MS KK
Gen 28:1729:17
Gen 29:1730:2
St. Petersburg Antonin 111, fol. 1
Gen 30:240
St. Petersburg Antonin 120, ff. 12
Gen 30:4031:15
Gen 31:1534
Gen 31:3854
Kahle, Klein (6); MS C
Gen 32:1329; 34:925

Oxford Bodleian Heb.b4, fol. 1819
Gen 35:615
Gen 36:89, 24
Klein (6); MS D
Gen 37:67, 1935

CUL T-S B8.10, fol. 1, 2
Kahle (fol. 2), Klein (6); MS D
Gen 37:811, 1314, 1617

CUL T-S AS 68.83
Klein (8); MS D
Gen 37:1533
JTS ENA 2755, fol. 2
Dez Macho (1), Klein (6); MS E
Gen 38:1626
Kahle, Klein (6); MS D
Gen 38:25, 26 (tosefta)

Oxford Bodleian Heb. C75
Klein (6,7); MS X
Gen 38:25, 26 (tosefta)

CUL T-S NS 184.81; 182.2, fol. 1
Klein (6,7); MS FF
Gen 38:1639:10
Oxford Bodleian Heb. e43, fol. 6667
Gen 40:518
JTS ENA 2755, fbl. 1
Gen 41:626
Gen 41:3241
CUL T-S NS 76.1
Dez Macho (5), Klein (6); MS C
Gen 41:4357; 42:3443:10

JTS ENA 2578, fol. 2021
Gen 42:36 (tosefta)

Oxford Bodleian Heb. c75r
Klein (6); MS X
Gen 43:744:23
CUL T-S Heb.B8.6, fol. 14
Gen 43:2344:4
Oxford Bodleian d26, fol. 16
Gen 44:1620, (+ 47:26, below)

CUL T-S AS 70.176, 209, 210 + AS 71.1, 2
Klein (6); MS Z
Gen 44:18 (tosefta)

Oxford Bodleian Heb.c74v
Klein (6); MS X
Gen 44:18 (tosefta)

CUL T-S AS 70.229r
Klein (6); MS RR
Gen 44:18 (tosefta)

CUL T-S NS 182.2, fol. 1, + NS 182.69, fol. 2
Klein (6,7); MS FF
Gen 44:18 (tosefta)

CUL T-S B12.2
Dez Macho (2), Klein (6); MS R
Gen 44:18 (tosefta)

CUL T-S AS 64.13V
Klein (6); MS M
Gen 44:18 (tosefta)

CUL T-S NS 157.83
unpublished
Gen 46:2647:5; 47:2948:10

CUL T-S Misc. 27.1.4, fol. 12
Klein (6); MS D
Gen 47:26 (inserted after 44:17)

CUL T-S AS 71.1r
Klein (6); MS Z
Gen 47:2849:18
CUL T-S AS 70.211214 + AS 71.35,214217,281
Klein (6) [except 70.214]; MS Z
Gen 48:1021
CUL T-S B8.7 + AS 64.27
Kahle, Klein (6) [except AS]; MS D
Gen 49:1 (tosefta)

CUL T-S NS 182.69 fol. 2
Klein (6); MS FF
Gen 49:1 (tosefta)

CUL T-S AS 71.248
unpublished
Gen 49:18 (tosefta)

Oxford Bodleian C74
Klein (6); MS X
Gen 49:18; 50:1, 16 (toseftot)

CUL T-S NS 182.69 fol. 2, 3
Klein (6); MS, FF
Exod 4:711
CUL T-S AS 63.72,85,95
Klein (3,6); MS A
Exod 4:25, 26 (tosefta)

CUL T-S NS 182.69 fol. 3V
Klein (6); MS FF
Exod 5:67, 1819

CUL T-S AS 64.239
Klein (8); MS D
Exod 5:206:10
CUL T-S B8.12
Exod 7:1022; 9:2133

CUL T-S B8.5, fol. 12 + AS 66.187
Kahle (B8.5), Klein (6,8); MS D
2 Acrostic Poems to Exod 12:2

( and )
CUL T-S NS 186.21
Klein (5,6); MS GG
Acrostic Poem to Exod 12:2 (frag.)

CUL T-S H10.78, fol. 1
Klein (6), S-Y; MS MM
Acrostic Poem to Exod 12:2

()
CUL T-S H12.11, fol. 6v
Fleischer, Heinemann, Klein (5,6,10), S-Y; MS JJ

()
CUL T-S AS 116.453
Klein (10), S-Y; no siglum
4 Poems to Exod 12:2

(
+
+
+ )
Marmorstein, Fleischer, Klein (5,6), S-Y; MS KK
Acrostic Poems to Exod 12:12

(frag. of )
CUL T-S H10.78, fol. 2v
unpublished
Omen Poems to Exod 12:2 (frag.+

+
+ ) ] [
CUL T-S H11.51, fol. 17r
Klein (5,6), G-S, S-Y; MS HH
Exod 12:13
CUL T-S H11.51, fol. 7V
Klein (6); MS HH
Exod 12:142
CUL Or. 1080 B18.1, fol. 4V6
Klein (6); MS AA
Exod 12:42; 12:2134

CUL T-S B13.4, fol. 1; + NS 218.61
Klein (6); MS AA
Exod 12:42 (tosefta)

CUL T-S NS 182.69 fol. 1, 3
Klein (6); MS FF
Exod 12:42 (inserted in Onq)

JTS ENA 658 fol. 79
unpublished
Exod 13:17 (tosefta)

Oxford Bodleian Heb. C74V
Klein (6); MS X
Exod 14:1, 1314, 2931; 15:1 (frag-tg?)

JTS 605 (ENA 2587), fol. 6
Dez Macho (4), Klein (2, 6); MS J
Exod 14:1314
CUL T-S NS 182.69, fol. 1, 6
Klein (6); MS FF
Acrostic Poems to Exod 14:2931

(
+ )
Jerusalem JNUL 40 577.49, fol. 3[2r]7[4r]
Komlosh, Klein (6); MS PP

()
CUL T-S B12.24
Klein (6); MS MM

()
Oxford Bodleian Heb. C74V, 75r
Klein (6), cf. S-Y; MS X

()
Oxford Bodleian Heb.e25, fol. 63V, 64r
Klein (6), cf. S-Y; MS T

()
JTS ENA 2752, fol. 18v19
Klein (10), cf. S-Y; no siglum
Exod 15:1, see Exod 14:1 . . .; MS J
Exod 15:1, 3, 12, 18 (toseftot)

CUL T-S NS 182.69, fol. 6
Klein (6); MS FF
Exod 15 (PT + toseftot)

JTS ENA 3565 fol. 12
unpublished
Exod 15:38
JTS 608 (ENA 656), fol. 2
Klein (6); MS U
Exod 15:721
Oxford Bodleian Heb. f102, fol. 5
Baars, Klein (6); MS W
Exod 15:1018
CUL T-S NS 253.2
unpublished
Exod 15:1819
CUL T-S NS 289.120, 178, 187
unpublished
Poem to Exod 15:11 ()

+ Tosefta to 15:12 ()
+ Exod 15:1315 (PT)
JTS ENA 2752, fol. 18r19r
Klein (10); no siglum
Acrostic Poem to Exod 15:616 (frag.)

Oxford Bodleian Heb.f33, fol. 25 + St. Petersburg Antonin Ebr. III B
67, fol. 1
Kahle (Antonin), Klein (6); MS G

()
JTS ENA 2132, fol. 1
S-Y, p. 94; no siglum

()
S-Y, p. 96; no siglum
Exod 17:816
CUL Or.1080 B18.1, fol. 3v4
Klein (6); MS AA
Exod 17:12, 16 (tosefta)

CUL T-S NS 182.69, fol. 6v, 4r
Klein (6); MS FF
Exod 17:1516; 19:18

JTS 605 (ENA 2587), fol. 7
Dez Macho (4), Klein (2,6); MS J
Exod 19:17
CUL T-S AS71.59r
Klein (6); MS NN
Exod 19:714
JTS 608 (ENA 656), fol. 1
Klein (6); MS U
Exod 19:120:23/26
Kahle, Klein (6); MS F
Exod 19:110
CUL T-S AS 70.206
Klein (6); MS Y
Exod 19:13, 812 (+ )

CUL T-S H3.111
unpublished
Exod 19:220:12/13 (+ J. Arab)

JTS ENA 1886, fol. 120 + CUL T-S Ar.50.118
Klein (in preparation; no siglum)*
Exod 19:2520:15/18 (+ Onq)

CUL T-S NS 136.2
unpublished
Acrostic Poem to Exod 19

()
Oxford Bodleian 2501, fol. 50 + Oxford Bodleian 2895/4, fol. 14950
S-Y, pp. 11016 (no siglum)

()
JTS ENA 2752, fol. 19 + Oxford Bodleian 2501, fol. 50 + JTS ENA
2132, fol. 2 + Oxford Bodleian 2895/4, fol. 1512
Klein (10), S-Y (no siglum)
Exod 19:2520:13
BNU Strasbourg 4017, fol. 1v2v
Landauer, Klein (6); MS S
Exod 19:2520:2
Paris, Mosseri VI, 59
Klein (6); MS BB
Exod 20:23, 78
JTS 605 (ENA 2587), fol. 30
Dez Macho (2), Klein (6); MS Q
Exod 20:27
CUL T-S NS 206.19
unpublished
4 Acrostic Poems to Exod 20:23, 12/1314

(
+
* [Editor: This was never published.]

+
+ frag + )
CUL T-S NS 116.90 + 117.21 + 118.5152 + T-S H10.223 (frag.) +
T-S 8H22.4
S-Y, pp. 12041; no siglum
Exod 20:78
CUL T-S Misc. 9.44
unpublished
Exod 20:1113/16 (Onq + PT infl.)

CUL T-S NS 276.190
Kasher; no siglum
Exod 20:13/1614/17
Oxford Bodleian Heb. d73, fol. 12
Klein (6); MS CC
Exod 20:16/1922/26
CUL T-S B11.102
unpublished
Exod 20:22/26
Klein (6); MS FF
3 Acrostic Poems to Exod 20:13

(frag. +
+ )
St. Petersburg Antonin Ebr.B67, fol. 2 + Oxford Bodleian Heb. f33,
fol. 26
Kahle (Antonin), Klein (6); MS G
Exod 20:14/1716/19
CUL T-S AS 72.34
unpublished
Exod 20:24/2523:14
CUL T-S 20.155 + T-S AS 63.24, 51, 96, 117, 129, 153 + AS 69.241 +
NS 286.1
Kahle (20.155), Klein (3,6); MS A
Exod 34:31, 3435

CUL T-S AS 11.176
unpublished; MS D
Exod 36:813, 2228

CUL T-S AS 68.224
Klein (8); MS E
Exod 39:2337
CUL T-S B6.6
Klein (6); MS D
Exod 39:3240; 40:212

CUL T-S AS 68.144
Klein (8); MS E
Lev 1:1 (tosefta)

CUL T-S NS 182.69, fol. 4V
Klein (6); MS FF
Lev 10:1920 (tosefta)

CUL T-S NS 182.69, fol. 5r
Klein (6); MS FF
Lev 22:2623:44 (+ colophon)

Oxford Bodleian Heb.e43, fol. 5760, 6465
Kahle, Klein (6); MS F
Lev 22:27 (tosefta)

Klein (6); MS FF
Num 19:120:13
CUL Or.1080 B18.1, fol. 6V, 2, 3
Klein (6); MS AA
Num 28:1631
Oxford Bodleian Heb.e43,
fol. 6ov61r; 64v65r
Kahle, Dez Macho(6), Klein (6); MS F
Num 28:2231
CUL T-S AS 70.206, fol. 1r, 2
Klein (6); MS Y
Deut 1:15:9 (frag-tg)

British Library Or. 10794, fol. 8
Gaster, Ginsburger, Dez Macho (3,6), Klein (2,4,6); MS Br
Deut 5:19/2226/29
CUL T-S B8.1
Deut 23:1525:4; 26:1428:7 (frag-tg)

CUL T-S AS 72.75, 76, 77, fol. 1
Klein (6); MS DD
Deut 26:214
Klein (6); MS AA
Deut 26:1527:8
CUL Or.1080 B18.1, fol. 1
Klein (6); MS AA
Deut 26:1827:11; 28:1518, 2629

CUL T-S B8.8 + T-S NS 161.262
Kahle (B8.8), Klein (6); MS D
Deut 29:2, 5, 6, 13, 15

CUL T-S AS 68.234
Klein (8); MS D
Deut 32:3433:9 (frag-tg)

CUL T-S AS 72.75,76,77, fol. 2
Klein (6); MS DD
Deut 34:512
Oxford Bodleian Heb.e43, fol. 65r
Kahle (MS F), Klein (6); MS F2
Acrostic Poem to Deut 34

()
Oxford Bodleian Heb.e25, fol. 64r
Klein (5,6); MS T
Poem to Deut 34
()
CUL T-S NS 209.6
S-Y, pp. 2456; no siglum
Library Collections
Cambridge, Cambridge University Library
T-S B6.6; MS D; Exod 39

T-S B8.1; MS D; Deut 5
T-S B8.3, fol. 1, 2; MS D; Gen 36, 38
T-S B8.4, fol. 1, 2; MS E; Gen 28, 29, 31
T-S B8.5, fol. 1, 2; MS D; Exod 7, 9
T-S B8.6, fol. 14; MS D; Gen 43, 44
T-S B8.7; MS D; Gen 48
T-S B8.8, fol. 1, 2; MS D; Deut 2628
T-S B8.9, fol. 2; MS K; Liturgical tosefta: Gen 22
T-S B8.10, fol. 1, 2; MS D; Gen 37
T-S B8.11; MS B; Gen 7, 8
T-S B8.12; MS D; Exod 5, 6
T-S B9.11; MS H; Fragment-Targum: Gen 15
T-S B11.102; no siglum; Exod 20
T-S B12.2; MS R; Tosefta: Gen 44
T-S B12.24; no siglum; Poems: Exod 12
T-S B13.4, fol. 1, 2; MS AA; Festival collection: Exod 12; Deut 26
T-S H3.111, fol. 1, 2; no siglum; Exod 19
T-S H10.78, fol. 1, 2; MS MM; Poems: Exod 12, 14
T-S H10.223; no siglum; Poem: Exod 20
T-S H11.51, fol. 17; MS HH; Targum and poems: Exod 12
T-S H12.11, fol. 6v; MS JJ; Poem: Exod 12
T-S 8H22.4; no siglum; Poem: Exod 20
T-S Ar.50.118; no siglum; Targum and Judeo-Arabic: Exod 20
T-S Misc.9.44; no siglum; Targum and poems: Exod 20

T-S Misc.27.1.4, fol. 1, 2; MS D; Gen 4648
T-S 20.155r; MS A; Exod 2023
T-S NS 76.1; MS C; Gen 41
T-S NS 116.90; no siglum; Exod 20
T-S NS 117.21; no siglum; Poem: Exod 20
T-S NS 118.5053, fol. 16; no siglum; Exod 20
T-S NS 136.2, fol. 2; no siglum; Exod 1920
T-S NS 138.79; MS K; Liturgical tosefta: Gen 22
T-S NS 157.83; no siglum; Tosefta: Gen 44
T-S NS 161.104; MS LL; Gen 21
T-S NS 161.262; MS D; Deut 28
T-S NS 179.2, 31; MS FF; Toseftot: Exod 17, 20, 32; Lev 1
T-S NS 182.2; MS FF; Toseftot: Gen 38, 44
T-S NS 182.69, fol. 16; MS FF; Toseftot: Gen 44, 4950; Exod 4, 12,
14, 15, 17; Lev 1, 10, 22
T-S NS 184.81r; MS FF; Toseftot: Gen 4, 38
T-S NS 186.21; MS GG; Poem: Exod 12
T-S NS 209.6; no siglum; Poem: Deut 34
T-S NS 218.61; MS AA; Festival collection: Exod 12; Lev 22
T-S NS 235.158, fol. 1, 2; no siglum; Targum and poem: Exod 20
T-S NS 271.183; MS K; Liturgical tosefta: Gen 22
T-S NS 276.190; no siglum; Onqelos with PT influence: Exod 20
T-S NS 286.1r; MS A; Exod 23
T-S NS 289.120, 178, 187; no siglum; Exod 15
T-S AS 11.176; MS D; Exod 34, 35
T-S AS 63.24, 51, 72, 85, 95, 96, 117, 129, 153; MS A; Exod 4, 2123
T-S AS 64.13; MS M; Tosefta: Gen 44
T-S AS 64.27; MS D; Gen 48
T-S AS 64.239; MS D; Exod 5
T-S AS 66.187; MS D; Exod 7
T-S AS 68.83; MS D; Gen 37
T-S AS 68.144, 224; MS E; Exod 36, 3940
T-S AS 68.234; MS D; Deut 29
T-S AS 69.11; MS EE; Toseftot: Gen 17, 21
T-S AS 69.241; MS A; Exod 22
T-S AS 70.176, 209214; MS Z; Gen 44, 4749
T-S AS 70.206, fol. 1, 2; MS Y; Festival collection: Gen 21; Exod 19;

Num 28
T-S AS 70.229; MS RR; Tosefta: Gen 44
T-S AS 71.15, 214217, 281; MS Z; Gen 44, 4749
T-S AS 71.59; MS NN; Exod 19
T-S AS 71.240; MS B; Gen 5
T-S AS 71.248; no siglum; Tosefta: Gen 49
T-S AS 72.34; no siglum; Exod 20
T-S AS 72.7577; MS DD; Fragment-Targum: Deut 2328; 3233
T-S AS 85.39; MS Z; Gen 44
T-S AS 116.453; no siglum; Poem: Exod 12
Or.1080 B18.1, fol. 16; MS AA; Festival collection: Exod 12, 17;
Num 1920; Deut 2627
Cincinnati, Hebrew Union College, Klau Library
Genizah 1134r; MS H; Fragment-Targum: Gen 15
Jerusalem, Jewish National and University Library
MS JNUL 40 57749, fol. 37; MS PP; Poems: Exod 14
London, British Library
Or.10794, fol. 8; MS Br; Fragment-Targum: Deut 15
New York, Jewish Theological Seminary
501 (ENA 2107), fol. 1; MS B; Gen 23

605 (ENA 2587), fol. 6, 7, 26b; MS I; Toseftot: Gen 4; Exod 14, 17, 19
605 (ENA 2587), fol. 30; MS Q; Exod 20
608 (ENA 656), fol. 1, 2; MS U; Exod 15, 19
ENA 42.27; MS K; Liturgical tosefta: Gen 22
ENA 658, fol. 79; no siglum; Tosefta: Exod 12:42
ENA 1886, fol. 120; no siglum; Targum and Judeo-Arabic: Exod 20
ENA 2132, fol. 2; no siglum; Poem: Exod 19
ENA 2578, fol. 20, 21; MS E; Gen 4143
ENA 2752, fol. 18, 19; no siglum; Targum and poems: Exod 15, 19
ENA 2755, 1, 2; MS E; Gen 37, 40

ENA 3565, fol. 12; no siglum; Targum and toseftot: Exod 15
Oxford, Bodleian Library
Heb. b4, fol. 18, 19; MS C; Gen 32, 34

Heb. C74; MS X; Toseftot: Gen 4, 44, 49; Exod 13; Poem: Exod 14
Heb. C75; MS X; Toseftot: Gen 38, 42; Poem: Exod 14
Heb. d26, fol. 15, 16; MS E; Gen 41, 4344
Heb. d49, fol. 47, 48; MS E; Gen 67, 9
Heb. d73, fol. 12; MS CC; Exod 20
Heb. e25, fol. 6364; MS T; Poems: Exod 14; Deut 34
Heb. e43, fol. 5765; MSS F, F2; Festival collection: Exod 1920; Lev
2223; Num 28; Deut 34
Heb. e43, fol. 6667; MS E; Gen 3839
Heb. e73, fol. 29; MS KK; Gen 24 and Poems: Exod 12
Heb. f33, fol. 25, 26; MS G; Poems: Exod 15, 20
Heb. f102, fol. 5; MS W; Exod 15
MS 2501, fol. 50; no siglum; Poem: Exod 19
MS 2895/4, fol. 1512; no siglum; Poem: Exod 19
Paris, Mosseri Collection
MS VI, 59; MS BB; Exod 19, 20
St. Petersburg, Saltykov-Shchedrin Public Library, Antonin Collection
Ebr. III B 67, fol. 1, 2; MS G; Poems: Exod 15, 20

Ebr. III B 111, fol. 1, 2: MS E; Gen 2931
Ebr. III B 120, fol. 1, 2; MS E; Gen 30
Ebr. III B 542, fol 1, 2; MS C; Gen 31, 35
Ebr. III B 739; MS B; Gen 4
Strasbourg, Bibliotheque Nationale et Universtaire
MS 4017, fol. 1, 2; MS S; Exod 1920

AFTERWORD
It hardly seems credible that twenty years have passed since Shulie,
Michael and I were busy preparing his volume on the Targumic mate-
rial in the Cambridge Genizah Collections. Equally difficult to believe
is that both Shulie and Michael, individuals with so much still to offer
who were needed in so many different ways, have been taken from
us in their prime. Their loss has not only left Shoshi and me bereft of
our life partners but has also deprived the world of the scholarship of
two dedicated and enthusiastic workers who set impeccable standards
in all that they tackled. I am deeply grateful to the editors of this vol-
ume for inviting me to recall Michael as Shulie and I knew him, pro-
fessionally and personally, in Cambridge and Jerusalem in what were
for the four of us, and our respective families, happy, memorable and
productive times.
The Kleins spent a sabbatical year in Cambridge in 198788 when
Michael was a Visiting Scholar at Clare Hall, and a Visiting Research
Associate at the Genizah Research Unit in the University Library. He
chose to devote that year to the description of the Targum texts in
the Librarys Genizah holdings and we worked with him then, and
for the subsequent three years, in preparing his volume for publica-
tion by Cambridge University Press in the Librarys Genizah Series.
Cooperation of this sort, between a specialist, an editor and a sub-editor
preparing a copy for publication, is fraught with serious challenges.
Some scholars are contemptuous of anyone suggesting that possible
improvements might be made in any aspect of what they regard as
their perfect labors while there are editors and sub-editors who fail to
appreciate precisely what the author has in mind. Scholars come in
many varieties and the constitutions of some of them simply rule out
meaningful cooperative ventures.
Unlike such, Michael was the kind of character with whom it was
always a pleasurable and fruitful experience to work, and I cannot
recall a single instance of any tension between us in what was a fairly
complicated process of preparation. He was always among the first to
start work in the morning and among the last to leave in the evening
and he dealt with inquiries and suggestions in a swift, polite and effi-
cient manner, not only in Cambridge and in Jerusalem but wherever
264 stefan reif
he happened to be when his response was sought. He took great care

to ensure that what he produced was of the highest standard and wel-
comed any contribution made by colleagues to assist him in this aim.
But the true essence of an individual is often most genuinely identi-
fied not by those who operate in the same intellectual or social milieu
but those who come into contact with them while providing some sort
of service. I recall how one of my college teachers resolutely refused to
respond to the cheerful Gmornin with which he was daily greeted
by the Cockney woman who was cleaning the corridor as he marched
imperiously to his lecture room. Finally tiring of his arrogance and
impoliteness, she one day barked after him as he silently passed her by,
Sour ol goat, aint ye! All those who knew Michael in the Cambridge
colleges (especially at Clare Hall and St Johns), and in its faculties
and libraries, remembered him for years afterwards as the epitome
of kindness and cheerfulness, always sparing a word for those who
simply met him in passing and never failing to offer warm and enthu-
siastic thanks, orally and in print, to those who helped him in some
aspect of his research. When the Superintendent of the Manuscripts
Reading Room at the University Library, Godfrey Waller, was in 2008
looking back on decades of service and contact with hundreds of visit-
ing scholars, he specifically mentioned Michael as one of those who
had lavished kindness and encouragement in so many ways and as
a man whom he had counted as a friend, and not merely a reader in
the Library.
Michael saw the role of the scholar not merely in terms of the pur-
suit of more and more detail about less and less material for fewer
and fewer beneficiaries but also as demanding a broader educational
aspect. He relished opportunities of presenting the results of his studies
to more popular audiences and readerships and often made arrange-
ments for others to do likewise. Whenever I asked him to contrib-
ute to a lecture series or a volume of essays, he responded positively
and with alacrity, and when I lectured at his invitation at the Hebrew
Union College in Jerusalem, he personally ensured that everything was
organized satisfactorily. Not for him the view that busy people have
to delegate; Michael firmly believed in always keeping a close eye on
what was being done in his name. And when his endorsement was
sought for a project in need of funding or for a scholar being con-
sidered for recognition, he could be relied upon to give an account
that was always academically sound and scrupulously honest but at the
afterword 265
same time usually proved to be sufficiently supportive and generous to

ensure a favorable outcome.
Michael provided most affable company at college, at home and at
synagogue. It was always a pleasure to entertain him and the Klein
family since they, with their broad outlook and manifold areas of activ-
ity, could always be relied upon to be charming, cheerful and inter-
esting. Whatever his personal religious preferences, Michael made a
point of appearing from time to time in the local student synagogue in
Cambridge, which was run like a Hillel but on Orthodox lines, and it
hardly needs to be said that he could actively participate with knowl-
edge and with understanding when called upon to do so. He rarely
saw anything Jewish in negative terms and was an outstanding ambas-
sador of his religion, his people and his nation. His achievements as a
scholar are clearly evident from his list of publications and have been
assessed elsewhere with admiration by many of those who were his
colleagues and friends. I myself remember Michael as much more than
a successful scholar; his blessed memory is for me personally one of
industry, integrity, warmth, kindness and, above all, menshlekhkeit.
Stefan Reif
THE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MICHAEL L. KLEIN
Books
The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources,

2 vols. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980.
Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim of the Pentateuch.
Jerusalem: Makor, 1982 (in Hebrew).
Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 vols. Cincinnati,
OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986.
Texts, temples, and traditions: a tribute to Menahem Haran. Eds. M. V. Fox,
V. Hurowitz, A. Hurvitz, M. L. Klein, N. Shupak, and B. J. Schwartz. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996.
The Masorah to Targum Onqelos: as preserved in the MSS Vatican Ebreo 448,
Rome Anglica Or. 7, Fragments from the Cairo Geniza and in Earlier Editions by
A. Berliner and S. Landauer: Critical Edition with Comments and Introduction.
Targum Studies, Academic Studies in the History of Judaism. Binghamton, NY:
Global Publications, 2000.
Articles
Text and Vorlage in Neofiti 1. Vetus Testamentum 22 (1972): pp. 49091.

Deut 31:7: or ?Journal of Biblical Literature, 92:4 (1973): pp. 58485.
The Notation of Paraot in MS Neofiti 1. Textus Annual 8 (1973): pp. 17577.
Notes on the Printed Edition of MS Neofiti I. Journal of Semitic Studies 19:2
(1974): pp. 21630.
Elias Levita and MS Neofiti I. Biblica 56:2 (1975): pp. 24246.
The Extant Sources of the Fragmentary Targum to the Pentateuch. Hebrew
Union College Annual 46 (1975): pp. 115137.
The Targumic Tosefta to Exodus 15:2. Journal of Jewish Studies 26:12 (1975):
pp. 6167.
Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique. Biblica 57:4 (1976): pp. 51537.
Meturgeman and Neofiti 1, A Rejoinder. Biblica 59 (1978): p. 269.
The Messiah That Leadeth Upon a Cloud, in the Fragment-Targum to the
Pentateuch? Journal of Theological Studies (New Series) 29:1 (1978): pp. 13739.
A Genizah Fragment of Palestinian Targum to Genesis 15:14. Hebrew Union
College Annual 49 (1978): pp. 7387.
The Preposition ( Before): A Pseudo-Anti-Anthropomorphism in the
Targums. The Journal of Theological Studies (New Series) 30:2 (1979): pp. 5027.
Nine fragments of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch from the Cairo Geniza
(additions of MS A). Hebrew Union College Annual 50 (1979): pp. 149164.
Palestinian Targum and Synagogue Mosaics. Immanuel 11 (1980): pp. 3345.
The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the
Targumim. In Congress VolumeVienna 1980, ed. J. A. Emerton, pp. 16277.
Leiden: Brill, 1981.
Associative and Complementary Translation in the Targumim. In Eretz-
Israel: Archaeological, Historical, and Geographical Studies: H. M. Orlinsky Volume,
Vol. 16, ed. Baruch A. Levine, and Abraham Malamat, pp. 13440. Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society, 1982.
268 bibliography of michael l. klein
New Editions of the Palestinian Targumim to the Pentateuch. In Arameans,

Aramaic and the Aramaic Literary Tradition. Ed. M. Sokoloff, pp. 8995. Ramat
Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1983.
Targumic Poems from the Cairo Genizah. Hebrew Annual Review 8 (1984):
pp. 8999.
Four Notes on the Triennial Lecture Cycle. Journal of Jewish Studies 32:1
(1987): pp. 6573.
Cairo Genizah Targum Texts: Old and New, In The Aramaic Bible: Targums
in their Historical Context. Eds. D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara, pp. 317
332. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 166. Sheffield
Academic Press, 1988.
Michael L. Klein, Not to be Translated in Public . Journal
of Jewish Studies 39:1 (1988): pp. 8091.
Meturgeman and Targum. In The Encyclopedia of Judaism. Ed. G. Wigoder,
pp. 485, 689690. Jerusalem, 1989.
Months Compete for Passover Honor Moment 14 (April, 1989): pp. 1419.
New Fragments of Palestinian Targum From the Cairo Genizah. Sefarad 49:1
(1989), pp. 12333.
Targum Manuscripts in Leningrad. Studies in Bibliography and Booklore 17
(1989): pp. 118.
With Rimon Kasher, New Fragments of Targum to Esther from the Cairo
Genizah. Hebrew Union College Annual 61 (1990): pp. 89124.
Notes on the Library of the Annenberg Research Institute: Additional Targum
Manuscripts. Jewish Quarterly Review 83 (1992): pp. 173177.
Serugin (Shorthand) of Onqelos from the Cairo Genizah. Maarav, Vol. 8
(1992): pp. 27587.
Additional Targum Manuscripts. Jewish Quarterly Review 83 (1992): pp. 173
177.
Introductory Poems (Rshyuot) to the Targum of the Haftarah in Praise of
Jonathan Ben Uzziel. In Bits of Honey: Essays for Samson H. Levey, ed. S. F. Chyet
and D. H. Ellenson, pp. 4356. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 74.
Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993.
Manuscripts of Proto-Massorah to Onqelos. In Estudios Masoreticos (X con-
gresso de la IOMS: En memoria de Harry M. Orlinsky). Eds. E. Fernandez Tejero
and M. T. Ortega Monasterio, pp. 7388. Madrid: Instituto de Filologia del CSIC,
1993.
A Fragment-Targum of Onqelos from the Cairo Genizah. In Solving Riddles
and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas
C. Greenfield, ed. Ziony Zevit, Seymour Gitin, and Michael Sokoloff, pp. 1015.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995.
The Masorah to Onqelos: A Neglected Targumic Work. Dutch Studies on Near
Eastern Languages and Literatures (NELL) 2 (1996): pp. 81100.
Complementary Fragments from the Cairo
Genizah. In Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menachem Haran, ed.
Michael V. Fox, Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Michael L. Klein, Baruch J.
Schwartz, and Nili Shupak, pp. 95*105* (Hebrew). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1996.
The Masorah to Onqelos: A Reflection of Targumic Consciousness. Hebrew
Union College Annual 68 (1997): pp. 6375.
The Aramaic Targumim: Translation and Interpretation. In The Interpretation
of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia, ed. Joe Kraovec, pp. 317
31. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 289. Ljubljana &
Sheffield: SAZU & Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
bibliography of michael l. klein 269
An Updated Bibliography of Manuscripts and Editions of Palestinian Targum to

the Pentateuch. Hebrew Union College Annual 7071 (19992000): pp. 167181.
Targumic Studies and the Cairo Genizah. In The Cambridge Genizah Collections:
Their Contexts and Significance. Eds. Stefan C. Reif with Shulamit Reif, pp. 4758.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Reviews
Review of B. Grossfeld, A Bibliography of Targum Literature, vol. 1 (1972). In

Biblica 55 (1974): pp. 281285.
A New Edition of Pseudo-Jonathan. In Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975):
pp. 277279.
Review of B. Grossfeld, A Bibliography of Targum Literature, vol. II (1975). In
Biblica 59 (1978): pp. 419420.
Review of R. Le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque. 4 vols. (Paris, 19781980). In
Biblica 62 (1981): pp. 590594.
Review of M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, Fragments of Lost Targum, Part one. Ramat
Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1983. In Journal of Biblical Literature 104:4 (1985):
pp. 709711.
Review of B. Grossfeld, Concordance to the First Targum to the Book of Esther.
Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984. In Hebrew Studies 26:1 (1985): pp. 176177.
Review of E. Martinez-Borobio, ed., Targum Jonatn de los Profetas Primeros
en tradicion babilnica: V 2: 12 Samuel. Madrid: Institut de Filologia, 1987. In
Bibliotheca Orientalis 46 (1989): pp. 145146.
Review of Alexander Samely, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch
Targums: A Study of the Method and Presentation in Targumic Exegesis. Tbingen:
J. C. B. Mohr, 1992. In Journal of Semitic Studies 39 (1994): pp. 326327.
Review of E. G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy. Collegeville,
MN: Liturgical Press, 1998. In Journal of Biblical Literature 118:4 (1999): pp. 739
740.
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS
Note: References to footnotes are indicated with a letter n, for example 16n28 (page
16, note 28).
Page numbers in italics refer to the bibliographies.
Alexander, P. S. 189n1, 190, 198n12, Fitzmyer, J. A. 51n13, 215n14, 217n23,

199n14 226n47
Avi-Yonah, M. 54n22, 55 Fleischer, E. 120, 128, 180n5, 181n7,
241
Baars, W. 204n7, 214n10, 215n15, Flesher, Paul V. M. 92n2, 241n5
241 Foerster, G. 54n23
Bacher, W. 41n2, 63, 168, 169, 174n14 Foster, J. A. 73
Barr, J. 59n2 Fried, N. 113n13, 185n13
Bauer, H. 217n21 Friedlander, M. 97
Beit-Ari, M. 116n16 Fritsch, C. T. 65n27
Berliner, A. 10n17, 11n19, 14n24,
16n28, 19n2, 189n1, 190, 192, 198, Gaster, M. 241
213 Geiger, A. 23, 189n1
Birnbaum, S. A. 181n10 Ginsburger, M. 36n37, 63, 128, 129,
Bowker, J. W. 19n2, 24n13 133134, 136n9, 189n1, 213214, 217,
Buber, S. 164, 235n1 222n36, 224n40, 236, 241
Bchler, A. 180n4 Ginzberg, L. 25n15, 26n17, 141n1,
235n2
Campbell, Ronald M. 92n2 Goldschmidt, L. 139n16
Charlesworth, J. H. 55n24 Golomb, D. M. 7n11
Clarke, E. G. 73, 108n8 Goodenough, E. R. 55
Corbo, V. 54n23 Goshen-Gottstein, M. 142n6
Cowley, A. E. 74n46 Greenfield, J. C. 23n11, 51n13, 242
Grelot, P. 122123, 141n3, 242
Dalman, G. 217n21 Grio, R. 230
Davidson, J. 129 Grossfeld, B. 41n2, 63, 141n2, 141n3,
de Lagarde, P. 165, 169, 174n14 165, 207
Delcor, M. 215n14 Gruenwald, I. 23n11
Dietrich, Manfred 98n6
Dez Macho, A. 27n20, 35n36, 45n22, Hai Gaon, Rav 141
107, 119, 192n7, 199, 203204, Hamp, V. 215n14
209210, 214216, 217, 220n27, Hayward, R. 65, 69, 70, 7273
221n32, 221n33, 222, 223, 224, Heinemann, Isaac 84n6
225n46, 226, 227n48, 229, 230, 236, Heinemann, Joseph 20n6, 29n22,
237n10, 241 29n26, 51n10, 120, 128, 129, 180n5,
Dez Merino, L. 141n3, 193n7 189190, 242
Doubles, M. C. 224n40, 237n9 Hurwitz, M. S. 65n27
Hurwitz, S. 133, 169, 213n5
Epstein, A. 133, 221n31, 221n32
Epstein, J. N. 15n26, 56n26 Ish-Shalom, M. 138n13, 139n15, 139n16
Etheridge, J. W. 236n4
Jastrow, M. 57n29, 217n21, 233n16
Fassberg, S. E. 109 Jellinek, A. 139n16
Fitzmaurice Martin, M. 215n13, Joel, I. 180181
215n16, 229 Joon, P. 74n46
272 index of modern authors
Kadushin, M. 64 Orlinsky, H. M. 65n27

Kahle, P. 36, 45n22, 98, 107, 116n16,
119, 133n5, 179, 181, 204, 214, Revell, E. J. 98
220n27, 242 Rieder, D. 224n40, 227n48
Kasher, Rimon 141165, 242 Rosenthal (Tal), A. 42n6, 45n20,
Klein, M. L. 6n7, 7n11, 9n15, 11n18, 129n14
12n21, 15n26, 16n27, 17n29, 49n2, Ruger, H. P. 214n10
60n6, 61n8, 77n1, 82n4, 86n8, 92n2,
92n4, 99n8, 108n7, 112n11, 120n6, Sabourin, L. 69n37
120n7, 143n8, 179n2, 190n5, 193n7, Saller, S. J. 53n21
204n7, 208n4, 215n18, 237n10, Schechter, S. 165
237n11, 242, 267269 Schrer, E. 41n2, 63
Kohut, A. 230n11 Seligsohn, H. 63
Komlosh, Y. 37n39, 41n2, 63, 133n5, Shanks, H. 54n21
215n14, 242 Shinan, A. 13n23
Kutscher, E. Y. 51n12 Shunary, J. 46n26, 61n8, 65n25
Soffer, A. 65n27
Landauer, S. 190n5, 242 Sokoloff, M. 50n9, 241, 242
Lauterbach, J. Z. 14n24 Sonne, I. 180n4
Le Daut, R. 13n22, 33n33, 72, 109n8, Speier, S. 231n11
198n12, 216, 236n7, 237n8 Sperber, A. 23n11, 41n2, 63, 142, 165,
Leander, P. 217n21 174n14, 201, 214, 217n23, 221n31,
Levey, S. H. 12n20, 50n7, 236n4 221n32
Levine, E. 43n8, 215n19, 216, 221n33,
229 Tal (Rosenthal), A. 42n6, 45n20,
Levita, Elias 9, 20n5, 222n36, 229234 129n14
Lewinsky, Y-T. 152 Teicher, J. L. 182n10
Lieberman, S. 4n2, 56n28 Traub, J. 63
Lund, S. 73, 182n11
Luzzatto, S. D. 4, 23n11, 37, 44n15 Urbach, E. E. 55n24
Maher, M. 216, 236n7 Vermes, G. 19, 236n4

Mann, J. 180n4, 182, 211n15
Margaliot, M. 138n13 Wacholder, B. Z. 182, 211n15
Marmorstein, A. 60n3, 242 Walker, T. 41n1, 63
Martin, M. F. 209210 Weil, G. E. 8n12, 10n17, 195n9, 198, 229
Maybaum, S. 20n5, 63, 64 Weiss, R. 32n31, 65n26
McNamara, M. 19, 30n27, 35n36, Wernberg-Mller, P. 203204
41n2, 49n1, 63, 69n37, 189n1, 213n1, Wittstruck, T. 65n27
214n8, 216, 230n8, 236n7 Wolfson, H. A. 60n4
Medan, M. 229n1 Worman, E. J. 179n3
Menard, J. E. 237n10
Milik, J. T. 214n8 Yadin, Y. 113n14
Moore, G. F. 69n38 Yahalom, J. 128, 241, 242
Munk, L. 141n2, 141n3, 142n5, 165 Yeivin, I. 98n5
Muoz Len, D. 63, 64, 69, 70, 72, 73
Mussafia, Benjamin 230n11 Zevin, S. J. 185n13
Zunz, L. 133, 168
Nathan b. Yehiel (Arukh) 213n5,
222n36, 230231
Naveh, J. 54n21
Neubauer, A. 97, 98
INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES, RABBINIC SOURCES
AND MANUSCRIPTS
The indexes are in the following order:
Scriptural references
Septuagint
Targums (Onkelos, Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan, Fragment-targums, Cairo Geniza frag-
ments, Targum to the prophets, Targum to the writings, Targumic poems, Targumic
tosefta)
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
Rabbinic sources
Commentators (Maimonides, Rashi, Saadiah Gaon)
Manuscripts
Miscellaneous (Bible codex of 1260, Bomberg Rabbinic Bible, Codex Reuchlinianus,
Mahzor Vitry)
Note: All references to scripture, whether Masoretic Text, Targums, or other sources
are listed in the scriptural references index. In addition, references are indexed under
the individual Targums (or other source) where this is given. References to footnotes
are indicated with a letter n, for example 73n45 (page 73, note 45). Page numbers in
italics refer to the bibliographies.
Scriptural references
Genesis 4:15 22
1:1 186 4:23 2122, 243
1:2 13 5:910 243
1:3 73n45 5:24 10, 2225
1:4 74 5:2425 243
1:6 73n45 5:28 244
1:9 73n45 6:5 62, 244
1:11 73n45 6:6 233
1:20 73n45 6:8 68n32
1:24 73n45 6:9 186
1:26 60 6:12 62
1:27 60 6:13 208n5
1:29 73n45 6:187:15 244
2:5 223n37, 223n38 6:19 207208
2:173:6 243 7:7 44n19, 207n2
2:21 226n47 7:13 207n2
2:23 28n21 7:178:9 244
3:1 144, 153 8:21 59
3:8 59 9:523 244
4:2 81 9:20 81
4:416 243 10:2 234
4:7 243 10:13 233
4:8 243 10:14 233
4:14 10, 2021 11:2 233
274 index of scriptural references
11:3 80, 216217 20:13 82, 217

11:7 6 21:49 244
12:1 184, 186 21:616 244
12:3 226n47 21:10 244
12:5 16 22 13, 122128
12:12 185 22:25 245
12:13 82, 217 22:5 9, 124
14:4 45 22:59 245
14:9 208n5 22:915 245
15:1 112, 113114 22:1516 245
15:14 244 23:1 184, 185, 186
15:2 112, 113114 23:7 8
15:4 112, 113114 23:10 46n24, 68n31
15:7 112 23:13 46n24, 68n31
15:9 112 23:16 46n24, 61,
15:10 112 68n31
15:11 111112, 233 24:34 245
15:1114 244 24:20 222n35
15:1116:16 114115 24:26 86
15:12 13, 111112, 217 25:10 219
15:13 85 25:16 234
15:17 111112 25:18 186
15:18 17 25:19 184, 186
15:19 112 25:20 226n47
16:2 16n28 26:3 71
16:5 82, 112 26:11 1516
16:13 111112 27:14 219
16:14 111112 27:28 183, 184
16:16 111112 27:29 45, 86
17: 11 217 27:29a 89
17: 14 217 27:32 45n21
17: 23 217 27:35 11
17: 24 217 27:38 219
17: 25 217 27:40 29n23, 45n20,
17: 26 217 183, 184
17:5 80 28:9 183, 184
17:8 149 28:10 183, 184
17:11 244 28:13 6
17:18 42 28:1729:17 245
18:1 8, 185, 186 28:20 71, 71n41, 72
18:3 68n33, 86 28:21 72, 149
18:11 219, 226n47 29:6 207n2
18:21 62 29:9 207n2
18:22 44n17 29:15 3536, 45n20
18:25 35 29:1730:2 245
19:1 8 29:18 45n20
19:2 233 29:21 208n3
19:4 223n37 29:31 62, 184
19:21 219 30:240 245
19:30 218 30:15 225n46
19:33 155, 218 30:16 218
20:1 113 30:22 181n8, 183,
20:2 155 184
20:8 46n24, 68n31 30:27 232
index of scriptural references 275
30:38 222n35 38:26 221, 246

30:40 222n35 39:2 71, 71n41, 208
30:4031:15 245 39:3 71, 71n41
30:41 222n36 39:21 71n40, 71n41
31:3 71, 71n41, 72 40:518 247
31:7 233 40:16 144, 153, 234
31:15 219 40:20 74
31:1534 245 40:23 84
31:23 219n26 41:626 247
31:24 155 41:16 74
31:3854 246 41:3241 247
31:41 45n20 41:40 68
31:42 219n26 41:4357 247
31:49 82 41:55 45
32:7 223 42:6 9
32:1329 246 42:7 219n26
32:20/21 219 42:9 219n26
32:29 80 42:13 2425
32:35 219220 42:21 45n23
33:3 8 42:23 16
33:13 219n25 42:24 44n18
34:925 246 42:3443:10 247
34:10 226 42:36 2425, 247
34:13 11n19 43:744:23 247
34:30 29n24 43:14 2627, 221222
35:4 46n25, 68 43:15 44n17
35:615 246 43:2344:4 247
35:9 181n8, 219n26 43:26 9
35:22 53n19, 189, 43:28 9
191192 44:5 232
36:4 225n45 44:14 9n13
36:89 246 44:15 86
36:24 246 44:1620 247
37:67 246 44:17 225n44
37:7 8 44:18 46n24, 221,
37:811 116117, 246 247, 248
37:9 8 45:9 225
37:10 8 45:21 61, 69
37:1314 116117, 246 46:4 6, 62, 225n44
37:1533 246 46:2647:5 248
37:1617 116117, 246 46:28 182
37:1935 246 46:30 2728
37:22 220 46:31 225n44
37:27 220 47:11 16
37:30 220, 220n30 47:20 219n25
37:32 221 47:22 11, 219n25,
37:33 20, 2526, 222 226n47
37:35 26 47:26 11, 247, 248
38:15 219 47:2849:18 248
38:1626 246 47:29 68
38:1639:10 247 47:2948:10 248
38:18 230, 231 48:1 182
38:24 220221 48:10 117
38:25 221, 231, 246 48:1021 248
48:14 234 9:30 222223

48:22 20, 2829 10:2 46n24, 68n31
49:1 248, 249 10:7 223
49:4 192193 10:8 42
49:57 29n24 11:2 46n24, 68n31
49:9 222 11:4 7
49:10 12 11:8 8
49:18 12, 249 12:12 250
49:30 219 12:13 250
50:1 249 12:142 250
50:4 46n24, 68n31 12:2 120, 249, 250
50:13 219 12:12 7
50:16 249 12:13 87
50:18 9n13 12:2131 172
50:26 232 12:2134 250
181 184 12:23 87
12:27 87, 87n10
Exodus 12:33 194
1:1 207 12:34 223n38
1:4 223 12:42 1213, 235237,
1:11 1617 250, 251
1:1522 139 13:17 251
1:19 223n38 13:1715:26 136n9
2:6 222 13:21 33n32
2:10 232 14:1 251
2:12 220 14:5 45n20
2:22 86 14:12 45n20
2:24 74 14:1314 251
3:10 225 14:2931 251
3:11 225 14:30 251, 252
3:12 70, 225 14:31 140
3:1314 7071 15 133, 252
3:18 7 15:11 252
4:711 249 15:12 252
4:12 7273 15:1 86, 251, 252
4:15 71 15:2 124, 133140,
4:25 249 149
4:26 249 15:3 124, 136n9, 252
5:6 152 15:38 252
5:67 118, 249 15:4 133n5
5:15 45n23 15:616 252
5:16 226 15:721 252
5:1819 118, 249 15:8 137
5:206:10 249 15:9 66, 253
5:21 8283 15:1018 252
6:2 181n8 15:11 12, 3637,
6:6 78 37n38, 124, 253
6:7 149 15:12 128, 252
7:1022 249 15:1315 128, 252
7:1516 118 15:1422 137
7:20 118 15:17 6, 42n4, 65
9:3 61 15:18 13n23, 125, 252
9:11 44n19 15:1819 252
9:2133 249 16:435 30n27
16:7 42n3 21:1 181

16:8 43 21:2 45n20
16:10 42n3 21:23ff 225
16:14 232 22:10 220n28
16:31 79 22:19 45n21
17:1 61 22:22 83
17:6 6 22:23 38
17:7 226n47 22:24 181
17:816 253 22:26 83
17:11 10, 194195 23:3 219
17:12 253 23:5 8081
17:14 46n24, 68n31 23:19 1314
17:1516 253 23:33 45n20
17:16 253 24:7 46n24
18:119:4 100101 24:10 6, 59, 61, 66
18:3 85 24:11 220n28, 232
18:13 46 24:16 42n3
18:24 16 25:8 33n32
19 254 28:17 223
19:13 253 28:18 223
19:17 253 28:19 223
19:18 253 28:20 223
19:110 253 29:36 224, 224n40
19:120:14 136n9 29:45 149
19:120:23/26 253 30:1 224
19:2 226n47 31:2 224n42
19:220:12/13 254 31:6 224
19:714 253 31:18 56, 62
19:812 253 32 53n19,
19:11 62 196200
19:20 7 32:1 24
19:2120:18/21 101103 32:11 78
19:25 129, 254 32:2135 189
19:2520:2 254 33:3 20n5, 3233
19:2520:13 254 33:5 20n5, 3233
19:2520:15/18 254 33:12 68n32, 87
19:29 224n40 33:13 68n32, 68n33
20:1 67 33:1516 33n32
20:13 255 33:16 68n32
20:23 254 33:17 68n33
20:27 254 33:18 42n3
20:4 5657 33:20 31, 59
20:5 9, 45 33:2023 59
20:78 254, 255 33:22 6, 42n3, 66
20:1113/16 255 34:9 68n32
20:12/1314 254 34:26 1314
20:13/1614/17 255 34:28 174
20:14/1716/19 255 34:31 256
20:15/1823/26 104 34:3435 256
20:16/1922/26 255 35:30 224n42
20:20/17 7 35:34 224n42
20:22/26 255 36:813 108109, 256
20:23/26 195196 36:2228 256
20:24/2523:14 255 36:2229 108110
38:22f 224n42 22:2 203

39:1013 223n39 22:2623:44 256
39:2337 256 22:27 52n14, 256
39:3240 108, 110, 256 23:9 181n8
40:212 108, 110111, 23:11 14
256 23:15 14
23:40 149, 152, 164
Leviticus 24:14 225
1:1 256 24:18 225
1:6 205n13 24:20 225
1:11 204n10 26:1 9, 1415, 57
1:12 204n10 26:10 225n43
1:14 204n10 26:12 149
1:15 204n10 26:13 225n43
2:1 205n13 26:14 ff 194
2:6 205n13 26:31 75
2:15 205n13 26:37 217
3:9 204n10 26:45 149
3:14 204n10
3:19 204n9, 204n10 Numbers
3:21 204n10 6:2 203n5
4:34 205n13 6:3 203n5
5:2 204n9 6:5 203n5
5:3 204n9 6:6 203n5
5:8 204n10 6:12 203n5
5:12 204, 205n13 6:2426 189190,
5:16 204n10 200201
5:18 226 10:35 7
5:24 204n10 11:1 46, 67n30
5:25 204n10 11:2 45
6:8 204 11:8 79
6:9 204 11:11 68n33
6:19 224 11:13 45n23, 61
6:21 204n10 11:15 68n33
7:3 204n9, 204n10 11:18 46, 67n30
7:9 204n10 11:33 223n37
7:14 204n9 12:16 225n45
7:15 204n9 14:4 80
7:16 204n9 14:10 42n3
7:18 204n9, 204n10 14:28 46, 67n30
7:21 205n13 15:40 225n45
7:24 204n10 15:41 149
7:27 205n13 16:1 85, 93, 94, 95
8:15 224, 224n40 16:118:27 9295
9:6 42n3 16:4 9n14
9:24 9n14 16:10 93, 94, 95
10:1920 256 16:13 93, 94, 95
11:45 149, 226227 16:14 144, 153
12:3 217 16:15 95
13:21 226 16:16 93, 94, 95
14:36 223n37 16:22 95
15:31 203204 16:28 93, 94, 95
16:32 224 16:29 93, 94, 95
19:15 219 16:31 93, 94, 95
16:32 140 10:12 45

17:3 93, 94, 95 11:2 78n2
17:6 93, 94, 95 11:12 5, 67
17:10 93, 94, 95 11:15 218
17:19 74 12:8 87
17:23 93, 94, 95 12:28 87
17:24 93, 94, 95 14:2 171
17:27 93, 94, 95 14:21 1314
18:12 95 15:4 34, 34n34
18:20 93, 94, 95 15:9 8384
18:27 93, 94, 95 15:11 3334, 34n34
19:120:13 256 16:18 88
20:6 9n14 17:7 220n29
20:16 225n43 17:3 45n20
20:20 78 17:6 69
21:1619 30n28 17:11 69n36
23:4 7n10 17:14 80
24:1 20n5 17:16 151, 163
24:4 9n14 17:17 151, 163
24:16 9n14 18:16 31n30
24:24 17 18:17 87
25:2 9 19:5 207
26:55 74 20:1 225
26:56 69n36 20:11 45n20
27:12 ff 194 20:19 37
28:1631 256 21:12 231
28:2231 257 21:14b 208n5
28:2631 104 22:4 81
32:3 233 23:1525:4 257
24:1 68
Deuteronomy 24:15 8384
1:15:9 257 25:1 46
1:11 171 25:11 220n28
1:41 43 26:214 257
2:6 2930 26:1428:7 257
2:28 30 26:1527:8 257
4:10 174 26:17 149
4:13 174 26:1827:11 257
4:17 172 28:1518 257
4:34 171 28:2629 257
5:1 46n24 29:2 118, 257
5:8 5657 29:5 118, 257
5:9 9, 45n20 29:6 257
5:19/2226/29 257 29:12 149
5:21/24 31 29:13 257
5:22/25 31n30 29:1315 118
5:25/28 87n9 29:15 257
7:4 3839 29:25 9n14
7:6 171 30:17 9, 45n21
7:16 45n20 31:7 207208
7:19 78n2 31:20 208n3
9:10 56, 62 31:21 223n37
9:29 78 31:23 71, 207208
10:4 174 31:28 46n24, 88
31:29 6 Ezra
31:30 46n24 6:11 145, 154
32:13 137, 139,
140n18 Nehemiah
32:16 6 8:8 172
32:17 45n21
32:19 6 Esther
32:1943 105106 1:2 143, 150151,
32:21 6 162163
32:3433:9 257 2:7 152, 164
32:41 66 2:17 87
32:44 46n24 3:16 8
33:9 66 3:14 156
33:10 59 5:107:5 143, 144150,
34 258 153161
34:512 257 6:137:4 143, 151152,
163164
Judges 7:9 143, 145, 152,
5:20 146, 155 164
5:28 160
13:2 80 Job
13:22 31n30, 59 42:5 32n31
14:18 144, 145, 153
Psalms
1 Samuel 8:3 138
2:8 149, 160 30:2 149, 160
15:14 148, 159 30:6 148, 159
24:15/16 83n5 30:12 149, 160
33:6 70
2 Samuel 40:5 85
12:3 144, 153 44:7/6 29
44:24 145, 155
1 Kings 68:27/26 138n12
1:1 185, 186, 187 70:10 148
1:31 186, 187 74:10 158
8:42 78n2 78:65 145, 155
21:19 85 89:50 148, 159
21:23 85 92:13 152, 164
129:3 140
2 Kings
4:1 185, 186, 187 Proverbs
4:8 185, 186, 187 13:25 144, 145, 154
4:37 186, 187
9:10 85 Song of Songs
9:36 85 6:11 152, 164
13:14 182
Isaiah
1 Chronicles 5:306:1 169
3:24 235 5:306:5 170
5:1 193 6:1 59
28:2 66n29 31:5 87
33:7 125
2 Chronicles 40:25 187
6:32 78n2 40:27 185, 186, 187
41:1 185, 186, 187 2:47 43n9

41:8 185, 186, 187 3:13 44n13
41:14 185, 186, 187 3:14 43n9
41:17 185, 186, 187 3:19 217
42:1 186 3:22 217
42:5 186 3:24 43n9
42:14 185, 186 4:3 44n13
42:21 186187 4:5 44n13
42:25 185 5:6 147, 158
43:1 181n8 5:7 43n9
45:15 185 5:13 43n9, 44n13
49:3 148, 159 5:15 44n13
54:1 185, 186, 187 5:17 43n11
54:9 186, 187 5:19 44n14, 44n16
54:9 185 5:23 44n13
54:11 185, 186, 187 6:11 43n12
54:15 186, 187 6:13 43n11
61:962:9 112 6:14 43n11
6:17 43n9
Jeremiah 6:19 44n13
17:5 8485 6:21 43n9
17:7 8485 6:23 44n16
23:29 168n4 6:27 44n16
7:9 5, 59
Ezekiel 7:1314 235
1:116 104105
1:26 59 Hosea
1:2 221n31
Daniel
2:5 43n9 Micah
2:7 43n9 7:78 160
2:9 43n11
2:10 43n11, 86 Zechariah
2:11 43n11 1:8 152, 164
2:15 43n10 9:9 235
2:20 174 10:6 182
2:2021 174 11:2 155
2:23 86 11:3 155
2:24 43n12, 44n13 11:12 146
2:25 44n13 11:13 146
2:26 43n9
2:27 43n11 Malachi
2:30 172 1:1 186, 187
2:36 43n11
Septuagint (LXX)
Deuteronomy
31:28 88
Targums
Targum Onqelos (O)

References in parentheses indicate the text refers to all targums
Genesis Exodus
4:2 81 2:24 74
4:14 (10), 2021 9:3 61
4:23 2122 9:11 44n19
5:24 10, 2225 10:2 46n24, (68n31)
6:5 62 10:8 42
6:12 62 11:2 46n24, (68n31)
6:13 208n5 11:8 8
7:7 44n19 12:2131 172
11:3 80 12:33 194
12:5 16 (15:2) 136
12:13 217n23 15:11 12, 3637
16:2 16n28 16:8 43n7
16:5 82 17:1 61
17:18 42 17:6 6
18:21 62 17:11 10, 194195
18:25 35 17:14 46n24, (68n31)
19:33 218n24 18:119:4 100101
20:8 46n24, (68n31) 18:24 16
23:10 46n24, (68n31) 19:11 62
23:13 46n24, (68n31) (19:20) 7
23:16 46n24, 61, 19:2120:18/21 101103
(68n31) 20:15/1823/26 104
26:11 1516 20:23/26 195196
(27:35) 11 22:23 38
29:15 3536 23:19 1314
29:31 62 24:7 46n24
30:16 218n24 24:10 61
31:49 82 31:18 62
32:29 80 32 197198
32:35 219220 33:3 20n5, 3233
34:13 11n19 33:5 20n5, 3233
(35:4) 46n25 33:22 6
35:22 191192 34:26 1314
37:33 2526 34:28 174
41:40 68
41:55 45 Leviticus
42:36 2425 8:15 224n40
43:14 2627 23:11 14
(43:15) 44n17 23:15 14
44:18 46n24 23:40 149, 152
45:21 61, 69 24:14 225n44
46:4 6, 62
46:30 2728 Numbers
48:22 2829 6:2426 200201
49:4 192193 10:35 7
50:4 46n24, (68n31) 11:1 46, 67n30
Targum Onqelos (continued)
11:13 61 7:4 3839

11:18 46, 67n30 (7:6) 171
14:4 80 (7:19) 78n2
14:28 67n30 9:10 62
16:118:27 9295 10:4 174
24:1 20n5 10:12 45
28:2631 104 (11:2) 78n2
(14:2) 171
1:11 171 15:11 3334
1:41 43 17:6 69
2:6 2930 20:19 37
4:10 174 31:28 46n24
4:13 174 31:30 46n24
4:17 172 32:1943 105106
5:1 46n24 32:44 46n24
5:21/24 31
Targum Neofiti (Neof, N)

References in parentheses indicate the text refers to all targums or all Palestinian
targums
Genesis 12:3 226n47

1 87 12:13 82, 217
1:3 73n45 14:4 45
1:4 74 14:9 208n5
1:6 73n45 15:11 233
1:9 73n45 15:12 217
1:11 73n45 15:13 85
1:20 73n45 15:18 17
1:24 73n45 16:5 82
1:29 73n45 17:11 217
2:5 223n37, 17:14 217
223n38 17:23 217
2:21 226n47 17:24 217
2:23 28n21 17:25 217
4:2 81 17:26 217
4:7 50n4 17:5 80
4:8 50n5 (17:8) 149
4:14 (10), 2021 17:18 42
4:23 2122 18:1 8
5:24 2225 18:3 68n33, 86
6:6 233 18:11 219, 226n47
6:8 68n32 18:25 35
6:13 208n5 19:1 8
6:19 207208 19:2 233
7:7 44n19 19:4 223n37
10:2 234 19:21 219
10:13 233 19:30 218
10:14 233 19:33 218
11:2 233 (20:8) 68n31
11:3 216217 20:13 82, 217
Targum Neofiti (continued)
22:5 9 38:18 231

23:7 8 38:24 220221
(23:10) 68n31 38:25 221, 231
(23:13) 68n31 39:2 71, 208
(23:16) 68n31 39:3 71
24:20 222n35 39:21 71n40, 71n41
24:26 86 40:16 234
25:10 219 40:20 74
25:16 234 41:16 74
25:20 226n47 41:40 68
26:3 71 41:55 45
26:11 15 42:6 9
27:14 219 42:7 219n26
27:29 45, 86 42:9 219n26
27:29a 89 42:13 2425
(27:35) 11 42:24 44n18
27:38 219 42:36 2425
28:13 6 43:14 2627, 221222
28:20 71, 72 (43:15) 44n17
28:21 72, (149) 43:26 9
29:15 3536 43:28 9
29:21 208n3 44:5 232
30:15 225n46 44:14 9n13
30:16 218 44:15 86
30:22 49n3 44:17 225n44
30:27 232 44:18 221
30:38 222n35 45:9 225
30:40 222n35 45:21 69
31:3 71, 71n41 46:4 6, 225n44
31:7 233 46:30 2728
31:15 219 46:31 225n44
31:23 219n26 (47:11) 16
31:42 219n26 47:20 219n25
31:49 82 47:22 219n25, 226n47
32:7 223 48:14 234
32:20/21 219 48:22 2829
32:29 80 49:4 192193
32:35 219220 49:9 222
33:3 8 49:10 12
33:13 219n25 49:30 219
34:10 226 (50:4) 68n31
35:4 (46n25), 68 50:13 219
35:9 219n26 50:18 9n13
35:22 191192 50:26 232
36:4 225n45
37:7 8 Exodus
37:9 8 (1:11) 1617
37:10 8 1:19 223n38
37:22 220 2:6 222
37:27 220 2:10 232
37:30 220 2:12 220
37:33 2526 2:22 86
38:15 219 2:24 74
3:11 225 31:2 224n42

3:12 70 31:18 6n6
4:12 7273 32 199200
4:15 71 32:1 24
5:16 226 32:11 78
5:21 8283 33:3 3233
6:6 78 33:5 3233
(6:7) 149 33:12 68n32, 87
9:11 44n19 33:13 68n32, 68n33
9:30 222223 33:16 68n32
(10:2) 68n31 33:17 68n33
10:7 223 33:20 31
10:8 42 33:22 66
(11:2) 68n31 34:9 68n32
11:8 8 34:26 14n25
12:13 87 (34:28) 174
12:23 87 35:30 224n42
12:27 87 35:34 224n42
12:33 194 38:22f 224n42
12:34 223n38 39:1013 223n39
12:42 (1213),
50n7, 236237 Leviticus
15:1 86 1:11 204n10
(15:2) 136 1:12 204n10
15:11 3637 1:14 204n10
15:17 42n4, 65 1:15 204n10
16:8 43 3:9 204n10
16:14 232 3:14 204n10
16:31 79 3:19 204n9,
17:7 226n47 204n10
17:11 194195 3:21 204n10
(17:14) 68n31 5:2 204n9
18:3 85 5:3 204n9
18:13 46 5:8 204n10
19:2 226n47 5:12 204
(19:20) 7 5:16 204n10
20:1 67 5:18 226
20:5 9, 45 5:24 204n10
20:23/26 195196 5:25 204n10
21:23ff 225 6:8 204
22:10 220n28 6:9 204
22:22 83 6:21 204n10
22:23 38 7:3 204n9,
22:26 83 204n10
23:3 219 7:9 204n10
23:5 8081 7:14 204n9
23:19 14n25 7:15 204n9
24:10 66 7:16 204n9
24:11 220n28, 232 7:18 204n9,
28:19 223 204n10
29:36 224 7:24 204n10
(29:45) 149 8:15 224
30:1 224 9:24 9n14
11:45 (149), 226 (24:24) 17

227 25:2 9
12:3 217 26:55 74
13:21 226 32:3 233
14:36 223n37
15:31 203204 Deuteronomy
16:32 224 1:41 43
19:15 219 2:6 2930
22:2 203 2:28 30
22:27 52n14 4:10 174
(23:11) 14 (4:13) 174
(23:15) 14 5:9 9
24:14 225 5:21/24 31
24:18 225 7:4 3839
24:20 225 (7:6) 171
26:1 9 (7:19) 78n2
26:10 225n43 9:10 6n6
(26:12) 149 (10:4) 174
26:13 225n43 10:12 45
26:31 75 (11:2) 78n2
26:37 217 11:12 67
(26:45) 149 12:8 87
(14:2) 171
Numbers 14:21 14n25
6:2 203n5 15:9 8384
6:3 203n5 15:11 3334
6:5 203n5 17: 7 220n29
6:6 203n5 17:6 69
6:12 203n5 17:14 80
6:2426 200201 18:17 87
11:1 67n30 20:1 225
11:2 45 20:19 37
11:8 79 21:12 231
11:11 68n33 21:14b 208n5
11:15 68n33 22:4 81
11:18 67n30 24:1 68
11:33 223n37 24:15 8384
12:16 225n45 25:1 46
14:4 80 25:11 220n28
14:28 67n30 (26:17) 149
15:40 225n45 (29:12) 149
(15:41) 149 29:25 9n14
16:4 9n14 30:17 9
17:19 74 31:7 207208
20:6 9n14 31:20 208n3
20:16 225n43 31:21 223n37
20:20 78 31:23 71, 207208
21:1619 30n28 31:28 88
24:4 9n14 32:4 50n6
24:16 9n14 32:41 66
24:19 52n15 33:9 66
Fragment-Targums (TJ2)
See below for specific references to manuscripts L, N, P, V
targums
Genesis (19:20) 7
(4:14) 10 (23:19) 1314
15:12 52n15 (29:45) 149
(17:8) 149 (34:28) 174
19:2 233n15
(20:8) 68n31 Leviticus
(23:10) 68n31 (11:45) 149
(23:13) 68n31 22:27 52n14
(23:16) 68n31 (23:11) 14
27:29 45 (23:15) 14
(27:35) 11 (26:12) 149
(28:21) 149 (26:45) 149
(35:4) 46n25
43:14 221222 Numbers
(43:15) 44n17 (15:41) 149
(47:11) 16 24:19 52n15
49:9 222 (24:24) 17
(50:4) 68n31
Deuteronomy
Exodus (4:13) 174
(1: 11) 1617 (7:6) 171
(6:7) 149 (7:19) 78n2
(10:2) 68n31 (10:4) 174
(11:2) 68n31 (11:2) 78n2
12:42 (1213), (14:2) 171
235237 21:12 231
15:2 136138 (26:17) 149
15:17 42n4 (29:12) 149
(17:14) 68n31
Fragment-Targum (L)
Genesis 15:12 111112
5:24 2225 15:17 111112
15:1 112 15:19 112
15:2 112 16:5 112
15:7 112 16:13 111112
15:9 112 35:22 191192
15:10 112 37:33 2526
15:11 111112 43:14 2627
Fragment-Targum (N)
Genesis 15:10 112
5:24 2225 15:11 111112
15:1 112 15:12 111112
15:2 112 15:17 111112
15:7 112 15:19 112
15:9 112 16:5 112
16:13 111112 Exodus

37:33 2526 12:42 237
43:14 2627 15:2 137, 140n18
48:22 2829
Deuteronomy
15:11 3334
Fragment-Targum (P)
Genesis 15:2 136
5:24 2225 15:9 66
15:1 112 15:11 3637
15:2 112 15:17 65
15:11 111112 17:11 194195
15:12 111112 20:1 67
15:17 111112 23:19 14n25
16:5 112 32 200
16:13 111112 34:26 14n25
29:15 3536
37:33 2526 Numbers
38:25 221 16:1 85, 95
40:23 84 16:13 95
42:13 2425 16:15 95
42:23 16 16:28 95
42:36 2425 17:3 95
43:14 2627, 221222 17:23 95
46:30 2728
14:21 14n25
Exodus
12:33 194 Esther
12:42 13n23, 236237 6:11 149
Fragment-Targum (V)
Genesis Exodus
5:24 2225 12:33 194
15:1 112 12:42 237
15:2 112 15:2 137n11,
15:7 112 140n18
15:9 112 15:9 66
15:10 112 15:17 65
15:11 111112 16:31 79
15:12 111112 17:11 194195
15:17 111112 20:23/26 195196
15:19 112 33:22 66
16:5 112 34:26 14n25
16:13 111112
35:22 191192 Numbers
37:33 2526 11:8 79
38:25 221 14:4 80
43:14 2627, 221222 16:1 95
48:22 2829 16:15 95
49:4 192193 16:22 95
49:9 222 16:28 95
49:10 12 16:29 95
17:3 95 Deuteronomy
17:10 95 11:12 67
17:23 95 15:11 3334
17:27 95 32:41 66
18:12 95 33:9 66
24:24 17
Cairo Geniza fragments (CG)

targums
Genesis Exodus
4:14 (10), 2021 (1:11) 1617
7:7 44n19 5:67 118
15:1 112, 113114 5:1819 118
15:2 112, 113114 5:21 8283
15:4 112, 113114 (6:7) 149
15:11 111112 7:1516 118
15:1116:16 114115 7:20 118
15:12 111112 (10:2) 68n31
15:17 111112 (11:2) 68n31
16:13 111112 12:33 194
16:14 111112 (12:42) 1213
16:16 111112 (15:2) 136
(17:8) 149 15:9 66
(20:8) 68n31 15:11 3637
(23:10) 68n31 15:17 65
(23:13) 68n31 17:11 194195
(23:16) 68n31 (17:14) 68n31
(27:35) 11 (19:20) 7
28:20 71n41, 72 20:23/26 195196
28:21 72, (149) 22:22 83
29:15 3536 22:23 38
31:3 72 22:26 83
31:49 82 (29:45) 149
32:29 80 32:22 198
(35:4) 46n25 (34:28) 174
37:811 116117 36:813 108109
37:1314 116117 36:2229 108110
37:1617 116117 39:3240 108, 110
37:22 220 40:212 108, 110111
37:30 220n30
37:33 2526, 222 Leviticus
39:2 71n41 (11:45) 149
39:3 71n41 22:27 52n14
41:40 68 (23:11) 14
41:55 45 (23:15) 14
43:14 2627, 221222 (26:12) 149
(43:15) 44n17 (26:45) 149
(47:11) 16
47:29 68 Numbers
48:10 117 (15:41) 149
49:4 192193 (24:24) 17
(50:4) 68n31
Deuteronomy (11:2) 78n2

(4:13) 174 (14:2) 171
5:21/24 31 (26:17) 149
(7:6) 171 29:2 118
(7:19) 78n2 29:5 118
(10:4) 174 (29:12) 149
29:1315 118
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (TJ1)

targums
Genesis Exodus
4:2 81 (1:11) 1617
4:14 (10), 2021 5:6 152
4:23 2122 9:11 44n19
5:24 10, 2225 (10:2) 68n31
6:13 208n5 10:8 42
7:7 44n19 (11:2) 68n31
9:20 81 11:8 8
11:3 80, 216217 12:33 194
11:7 6 (12:42) 1213
12:13 82, 217n23 15:2 136138, 149
15:18 17 15:9 66
17:18 42 15:11 3637
18:25 35 15:17 42n4
20:8 46n24, (68n31) 16:8 43n7
20:13 82 17:6 6n8
21:21 52n17 17:11 194195
(23:10) 68n31 (17:14) 68n31
(23:13) 68n31 18:13 46
(23:16) 68n31 (19:20) 7
26:11 1516 20:1 67
(27:35) 11 20:5 45
28:20 72 20:23/26 195196
28:21 72 22:23 38
29:15 3536 23:19 14n25
32:29 80 24:7 46n24
32:35 219220 24:10 66
(35:4) 46n25 29:36 224n40
35:22 191192 32 198199
37:33 2526 33:3 3233
38:25 221 33:5 3233
41:40 68 33:22 6
41:55 45 34:26 14n25
42:24 44n18 (34:28) 174
43:14 2627, 221222
(43:15) 44n17 Leviticus
45:21 69 8:15 224n40
46:30 2728 (23:11) 14
(47:11) 16 (23:15) 14
48:22 2829 24:14 225n44
49:4 192193 26:1 1415, 57
49:9 222
(50:4) 68n31
Numbers 5:21/24 31
10:35 7 7:4 3839
11:1 46, 67n30 (7:6) 171
11:18 46, 67n30 (7:19) 78n2
14:4 80 (10:4) 174
14:28 67n30 10:12 45
24:19 52n16 (11:2) 78n2
24:24 17 (14:2) 171
14:21 14n25
1:41 43 17:6 69
2:6 2930 20:19 37
(4:13) 174 32:13 139
5:1 46n24
Targum to the Prophets (Targum Jonathan)

Judges Jeremiah
13:2 80 17:5 8485
14:18 145 17:7 8485
1 Samuel Ezekiel
2:8 149 1:116 104105
1 Kings Hosea
8:42 78n2 1:2 221n31
21:19 85
Isaiah
54:1 80
61:962:9 112
66:1 66n29
Targum Psalms
30:2 149
30:12 149
Targum Proverbs
13:25 145
Targum Esther I (Rishon)

2:7 152
5:107:5 146, 147
6:11 149
Targum Esther II (Sheni)

1:2 150151 6:137:4 151152
2:7 152 7:9 152
5:107:5 148, 150
Targum Esther (other)

1:2 143, 150151, 6:137:4 143, 151152,
162163 163164
5:107:5 143, 144150, 7:9 143, 145, 152, 164
153161
Targum 1 Chronicles
28:2 66n29
5:1 193
Targum 2 Chronicles
6:32 78n2
Targumic poems
Exodus 19 254
12:12 250 19:25 254
12:2 249, 250 20:13 255
14:2931 251 20:23 254
14:30 251, 252 20:12/1314 254
15: 11 252
15:9 253 34 258
15:11 253
Targumic tosefta
Genesis Exodus
38:25 221 15:2 133140
38:26 221 15:4 133n5
49:18 12
Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha
2 Enoch
16:6 10
18:13 10
Rabbinic sources
Avoth dRabbi Nathan 146 Midrash ha-Gadol

Exod 15:1 138n13
Chronicle of Moses 139n16
Midrash Panim 144, 145, 146,
Mekilta Aherim (MPA) 147, 148,
Shireta 1 138n13 149, 165
Midrash Abba 145, 146, Midrash Rabbah

Gurion (MAG) 151, 152, 165 Genesis Rabbah
19:2 145
Midrash Agadat Esther 145 25:1 25n15
84:19 26n17
84:21 26n16
88:5 145
Exodus Rabbah Bava Mestzia 32a 81

1:12 139n14 Ketubot 17a 152
1:16 139n16, Kiddushin 49a 4n3
139n17 Megillah 3a 167n1, 172
23:9 138, 139n15, Megillah 9ab 3n1
139n17 Megillah 25b 189, 189n2,
193, 197
Esther Rabbah 142n6, 144 Megillah 32a 99n7
1:12 151 Niddah 31a 218
9:2 152 Sanhedrin 42a 70
10:5 149 Sanhedrin 98a 235
Shabbat 115a 50n8, 168n3
Midrash Tanhuma Sotah 11a 139n14
Toledot 20 235 Sotah 11b 138, 139,
139n16,
Mishnah 139n17
Avot 5:1 70 Sotah 30b 138n13
Megillah 4 53n20 Sotah 49a 152
Megillah 4:10 189 Sukkah 28a 168n4
Pesikta Rabbati 139n15 Jerusalem Talmud

Megillah 74d 99n7
Pirke dRabbi Eliezer 42 139n15, Megillah 75c 189, 189n2,
139n17 196197
Shabbat 15c 180n5
Sepher hajaschar 139, 139n16 Shabbat 16 180n5
Sotah 3d 218
Shulhan Arukh Sotah 20c 138n13
Yoreh Deah 265:1 152
Tana dbe Eliyahu 139n16
Sifre Deuteronomy
43 218 Tosefta
118 34n34 Megillah 4 53n20
Megillah 4:35 193
Soferim 142n6 Megillah 4:35 ff 189
5:15 168n3 Megillah 4:36 196
9:9 189n2 Megillah 4:38 198
9:10 189n2 Megillah 4:41 4n3, 19n1
16:10 180n5 Sotah 6:4 (2) 138n13
21:9 26n16
Yalkut Shimoni
Babylonian Talmud 165 139n15,
Bava Batra 123a 29n22 140n19
Bava Batra 134a 168n4 1056 145
Bava Kamma 3b 53n18 1057 146
Commentators
Maimonides 6163, 186,

187
Rashi 167, 168
Saadiah Gaon 6061, 92, 95
Manuscripts
Cambridge, University Library (CUL) T-S AS 70.206 244, 253,

Or.1080 B18.1 250, 253, 256, 257, 260
257, 260 T-S AS 70.209214 247, 248, 259
T-S 8H22.4 255, 258 T-S AS 70.229 248, 260
T-S 20.155 83, 179, 181, T-S AS 71.15 247, 248, 260
183, 184187, T-S AS 71.59 253, 260
255, 259 T-S AS 71.64 169172, 174
T-S Ar.50.118 254, 258 T-S AS 71.214217 248, 260
T-S AS 11.176 256, 259 T-S AS 71.240 243, 260
T-S AS 63.24 179, 185187, T-S AS 71.248 249, 260
255, 259 T-S AS 71.281 248, 260
T-S AS 63.51 179, 185187, T-S AS 72.34 255, 260
255, 259 T-S AS 72.7577 257, 260
T-S AS 63.72 179, 183, 249, T-S AS 85.39 260
259 T-S AS 116.453 120121,
T-S AS 63.85 179, 183, 249, 122, 250, 260
259 T-S B 6.6 256, 258
T-S AS 63.95 179, 183, 249, T-S B 8.1 257, 258
259 T-S B 8.3 246, 258
T-S AS 63.96 179, 185187, T-S B 8.4 245, 258
255, 259 T-S B 8.5 249, 258
T-S AS 63.117 179, 185187, T-S B 8.6 247, 258
255, 259 T-S B 8.7 117, 248, 258
T-S AS 63.129 179, 185187, T-S B 8.8 257, 258
255, 259 T-S B 8.9 122124,
T-S AS 63.153 179, 185187, 126, 127128,
255, 259 245, 258
T-S AS 64.13 248, 259 T-S B 8.10 246, 258
T-S AS 64.27 115n15, 117, T-S B 8.11 244, 258
248, 259 T-S B 8.12 83, 181n8,
T-S AS 64.239 115n15, 118, 249, 258
249, 259 T-S B 9.9 98, 100101
T-S AS 66.14 98, 99, 101, T-S B 9.11 111113,
103 114115,
T-S AS 66.187 115n15, 118, 244, 258
249, 259 T-S B 11.17 170
T-S AS 67.26 98, 101103 T-S B 11.52 143150,
T-S AS 68.83 115n15, 152, 153155,
116117, 246, 159161
259 T-S B 11.102 255, 258
T-S AS 68.144 108, 110111, T-S B 12.2 248, 258
256, 259 T-S B 12.20 9295
T-S AS 68.224 108110, 256, T-S B 12.21 143150,
259 155159
T-S AS 68.234 118, 257, 259 T-S B 12.24 251, 258
T-S AS 69.11 244, 259 T-S B 12.32 143, 145,
T-S AS 69.115 99, 104105 150151,
T-S AS 69.241 255, 259 162163
T-S AS 70.72 143144, 149, T-S B 13.4 250, 257, 258
150, 151152, T-S H 3.111 253, 258
163164 T-S H 10.78 249, 250, 258
T-S AS 70.176 247, 259 T-S H 10.223 255, 258
T-S H 11.51 250, 258 Leipzig, University

T-S H 12.11 120, 121122, MS BH fol. 1 see Fragment-Targum
250, 258 (L)
T-S H 15.27 170, 171,
172174 Leningrad see St Petersburg
T-S Misc. 9.44 255, 259
T-S Misc. 27.1.4 68, 115, 248, London, British Library
259 Or.10794 257, 260
T-S Misc. 27.4 182
T-S NS 76.1 247, 259 New York, Jewish Theological Seminary
T-S NS 116.90 255, 259 E. N. Adler Collection
T-S NS 117.21 255, 259 JTS 501 (ENA 2107) 243, 260
T-S NS 118.5053 255, 259 JTS 605 (ENA 2587) 243, 251,
T-S NS 136.2 254, 259 253, 254, 260
T-S NS 138.79 122, 124125, JTS 608 (ENA 656) 252, 253, 260
126127, 245, JTS ENA 658 251, 260
259 JTS ENA 1886 254, 260
T-S NS 157.83 248, 259 JTS ENA 2132 253, 254, 260
T-S NS 161.104 244, 259 JTS ENA 2578 247, 260
T-S NS 161.262 257, 259 JTS ENA 2752 252, 254, 260
T-S NS 179.2 259 JTS ENA 2752.18 129130
T-S NS 179.31 259 JTS ENA 2752.19 130131
T-S NS 182.2 246, 248, 259 JTS ENA 2755 2526,
T-S NS 182.69 248, 249, 251, 220n27, 246,
252, 253, 255, 247, 261
256, 259 JTS ENA 105106
T-S NS 184.81 243, 246, 259 2856.29 (+28)
T-S NS 186.21 249, 259 JTS ENA 3565 252, 261
T-S NS 206.19 254, 259 JTS NS ENA 42.27 122123,
T-S NS 209.6 258, 259 126, 245, 260
T-S NS 218.61 250, 259
T-S NS 235.158 259 Oxford, Bodleian Library
T-S NS 253.2 252, 259 Heb. b4 80, 246, 261
T-S NS 271.183 122, 125126, Heb. c74 243, 247,
127, 245, 259 249, 251, 261
T-S NS 276.190 255, 259 Heb. c75 246, 247,
T-S NS 286.1 255, 259 251, 261
T-S NS 289.120 252, 259 Heb. d26 247, 261
T-S NS 289.178 252, 259 Heb. d49 244, 261
T-S NS 289.187 252, 259 Heb. d73 255, 261
Heb. e25 251, 258, 261
Cincinnati, Hebrew Union College Heb. e43 181n8, 247,
(HUC), Klau Library 253, 256,
Genizah 1134 111114, 244, 257, 261
260 Heb. e73 245, 250, 261
Heb. f33 252, 255, 261
Jerusalem, National Library of Heb. f102 252, 261
Israel (formerly Jewish National and MS 2373 137n10a
University Library) MS 2501 254, 261
JNUL 40 57749 251, 260 MS 2895/4 254, 261
JNUL 40790 (Bible 180181, 183
codex of 1260)
296 index of modern authors
Paris, Bibliothque National St. Petersburg, National Library of

MS Hebrew 110 see Fragment- Russia (formerly Saltykov-Shchedrin
Targum (P) Library)
Antonin Ebr. III B 67 252, 255, 261
Paris, Mosseri Collection Antonin Ebr. III B 111 245, 261
MS VI, 59 254, 261 Antonin Ebr. III B 120 181n8, 245,
261
Parma, Biblioteca Palatina Antonin Ebr. III B 542 82, 181n8,
de-Rossi 2411 (1107) 136n10 246, 261
de-Rossi 2574 (159) 136n10 Antonin Ebr. III B 739 243, 244, 261
de-Rossi 2736 (804) 136n8, 139, MS Leningrad B19A 180, 181,
140n19 181n8, 182,
de Rossi 2887 (736) 133140 183184
de-Rossi 3000 (378) 136n10,
138n12 Strasbourg, Bibliothque Nationale et
de-Rossi 3003 (420) 136n8 Universitaire (BNU)
de-Rossi 3132 (61) 133134, MS 4017 254, 261
136n8, 139,
140n19 Vatican Library
MS Vatican Ebr. 440 see Fragment-
Sassoon Collection Targum (V)
MS Sassoon 264 136n9, MS Vatican Ebr. 448 11, 192, 194,
137n11, 197, 201, 267
140n18, 237
MS Sassoon 368 142n6
Miscellaneous
Bible codex of 1260 180181, 183 Codex Reuchlinianus

poems 18 169, 171172,
Bomberg Rabbinic Bible (Biblia 174175
Rabbinica) 1517 and/or 1524 edns.
Genesis 12:13 217n23 Mahzor Vitry
Exodus 12:42 235237 Exodus 15:2 136
Exodus 15:2 137n11, par. 166 169n10
140n18 par. 167179 167n2, 169,
Deuteronomy 21:12 231 171172,
174176
par. 180 172
ILLUSTRATIONS
[Chapter 9]
illustrations 1
9.1 C.U.L. T-S AS 68.224r (MS E)

Exodus 36:8-13
9.2 C.U.L. T-S AS 68.224v (MS E)

Exodus 36:22-29
[Chapter 9]
2 illustrations
9.3 C.U.L. T-S AS 68.144r (MS E)

Exodus 39:32-40
9.4 C.U.L. T-S AS 68.144v (MS E)

Exodus 40:2-12
[Chapter 9]
illustrations 3
9.5 C.U.L. T-S B 9.11r (MS H)

Genesis 15:11 - 16:16
(fragment-targum)
[Chapter 9]
4 illustrations
9.6 C.U.L. T-S AS 68.83r (MS D)

Genesis 37:8-11
9.7 C.U.L. T-S AS 68.83v (MS D)

Genesis 37:13-14, 16-17
[Chapter 12]
illustrations 5
12.1 T-S B11.52*
(*) The Plates 12.1-12.12 are published by courtesy of the Syndics of Cambridge Uni-
versity Libary
[Chapter 12]
6 illustrations
12.2 T-S B11.52

[Chapter 12]
illustrations 7
12.3 T-S B12.21

[Chapter 12]
8 illustrations
12.4 T-S B12.21

[Chapter 12]
illustrations 9
12.5 T-S B12.21

[Chapter 12]
10 illustrations
12.6 T-S B12.21

[Chapter 12]
illustrations 11
12.7 T-S B11.52

[Chapter 12]
12 illustrations
12.8 T-S B11.52

[Chapter 12]
illustrations 13
12.9 T-S B12.32

[Chapter 12]
14 illustrations
12.10 T-S B12.32

[Chapter 12]
illustrations 15
12.11 T-S AS 70.72

[Chapter 12]
16 illustrations
12.12 T-S AS 70.72

SAIS 011 Shinan, Kasher, Marmur, Flesher (Eds.) - Michael Klein On The Targums - Collected Essays 1972-2002 - 2011 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SAIS 011 Shinan, Kasher, Marmur, Flesher (Eds.) - Michael Klein On The Targums - Collected Essays 1972-2002 - 2011 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Michael Klein on the Targums:

Collected Essays 19722002

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

List of Illustrations ............................................................................ vii

1. The Aramaic Targumim: Translation and Interpretation ... 3

7. A Fragment-Targum of Onqelos from the Cairo Genizah 91

14. Four Notes on the Triennial Lectionary Cycle ..................... 179

16. Text and Vorlage in Neofiti 1 ................................................... 203

Afterword, Stefan Reif ....................................................................... 263

It appears that Michaels love of Aramaic translations of the Bible

1. Critical Scientific Editions with Commentary

In this category lie Michaels exemplary editions of the Fragmentary

2. Analysis of the Varieties of the Targumic Method

Michael Kleins Ph.D. dissertation, written for the Hebrew University

Kleins diligent work with manuscripts led him to publish a number of

and later Ms. Sara Meirowitz worked diligently on these manuscripts,

Avigdor Shinan, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

All chapters have been previously published, in the following pub-

1. Michael L. Klein, The Aramaic Targumim: Translation and

Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Michael L. Klein, Baruch J.

THE ARAMAIC TARGUMIM:

It is well known, and no doubt in the course of the present Symposium,

Inasmuch as the Pentateuch was considered a sacred text of divine

Early studies after Luzzatto tended towards generalization, stat-

the second major category of translational paraphrasis as described by

Golomb places inordinate emphasis on the presence or absence of the adverbial

in Neofiti by yet another interpretative phrase

In Gen 4:14, Cain exclaims:

We might note here the distinction made in the Masorah between

interpretation of the biblical triplicate of this prohibition (Exod 23:19;

seems to have become distressing during the late Roman or Byzantine

evil [purpose]; and Onqelos replaces the verb with , achieving

Raamses are translated Tanis and Pelusium. The river of Egypt

The text is brought up to date with regard to ritual practice. In this

CONVERSE TRANSLATION: A TARGUMIC TECHNIQUE

He who translates a biblical verse literally is a liar; but he who elabo-

descriptions is that the targumic aggadah is additive and interpretative

I. Addition or Deletion of the Negative Particle

The most patent examples of converse translation in the targumim

Neof gl = Marginal and interlinear glosses in Neof

to heaven. This early exegesis is preserved in the Westminster Genizah

In both of these cases, as in that of Enoch, the Hebrew word

P, V, N, L: As for me, just as I have not been bereaved of my son

Neof: [If] I were now to die, I would not be dying, after

TJ1: which I took from the hands of the Amorites,

9. Deut 5:21 (24) MT:

In all of the above examples, the various targumim present a mean-

II. Replacement of the Verb

Another method employed by the targumim in order to produce a

III. Resolution of the Rhetorical Question

deletion of a negative particle, as in examples 19, above. The differ-

O, Tji, MdW E: literal.

Who is like thee among the gods/mighty on height, O God . . .

IV. Addition of the Negative Particle

The targumim sometimes make use of the converse translation in

substitution of the negative particle for the original Hebrew con-

and Gods wrath will be intense against you,

The foregoing examples illustrate the various forms of converse trans-

1. It broadens our understanding of targumic method and technique.

THE PREPOSITION ( BEFORE):

To what measure these and other similar generalizations are indeed

1. Gen 17:18 And Abraham said to the Lord