PINKHOS CHURGIN, Targum Jonathan To The Prophets (Khazarzar)

YALE ORIENTAL SERIES
RESEARCHES
VOLUME XIV
YALE ORIENTAL SERIES - RESEARCHES XIV
TARGUM JONATHAN
TO THE PROPHETS
BY
PINKHOS CHURGIN
NEW HJ\VEN
YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS
MDCCCCVII
TO MY HONORED TEACHER
PROFESSOR CHARLES CUTLER TORREY

AS A TOKEN OF DEVOTION AND RESPECT
THIS BOOK IS CONSECRATED
Diait1,wd bv Microsoft Ci-

Digitized by Microsoft
CONTENTS
Page
I. The Historical Background............................................................... 9
II. Textual Variations....................................................................................... 52
III. The Exegesis in Jonathan.................................................................. 78
IV. General Peculiarities, 111
V. Interpolated Targum................................................................................. 126
VI. Additions 146
D1qitued by Microsoft q.
THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF
TARGUM JONATHAN
The Aramaic rendering of the Prophets belongs to the earliest

translations of the Bible which have come down to us. Its
importance for the textual investigation and early Biblical in-
terpretation cannot be overestimated. While the targumist makes
little display of critical study in rendering intricate passages,
and while he does not pretend to present a minutely literal
translation of the Hebrew text, his reverence for the letter and
transmitted reading of the text must b1 far have exceeded that
of the Greek and Syriac translators. At the same time his trans-
lation is doubtlessly based on a sounder and exacter understand-
ing of both the etymology and usages of the Hebrew language.
Again, its value may be said to rest in the fact that, forming
a distinct and independent rendering of the text, it presents a
helpful source in establishing the principles pursued in the
early translations. A good many emendations and assumed
violations of the Hebrew text on the sole basis of the transla-
tions, so eagerly sought by the modern Biblical scholar, would
thus be completely done away with. It is also a mine of Agadic
exegesis, to which, in most instances, parallels are preserved in
the extant sources. It cannot fail to be of considerable importance
for the history of that vast literature, giving in this connection
new and vivid emphasis to the religious, national and political
state of mind of that age in Palestine.
The authorship of the Targum to the Prophets has been
the object of protracted and diverse discussion. Tradition ascribes
it to Jonathan b. Uziel, the most prominent disciple of Hillel,
of the first century. This single mention in the Talmud
of the authorship of Jonathan and the mystic manner in which
it is related, can hardly help solve the problem. There is, further-
more, the astounding fact that in the parallel passage in the
9
D,att12C'd by Microsoft<~'
10 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS
Y erushalm i 1> there is complete silence of this tradition of the

Babli.2> Had this tradition been common, there could have been
no possible reason for the Y erushalmi to ignore the work of
the distinguished and holy Jonathan, who "when he discussed
the law, a bird flying near him would be burned".3>
The Talmudic tradition mentions Aquila's translation. Both
Talmudim have set monuments to the Seventy. Is it because
the Targurn was originated on Palestinian soil, extensively
used and known in Palestine, forming even a necessary part
in the worship, that they failed to be impressed by it?
So the inference was drawn that the Aramaic version of the

Bible fell in disfavor with the authorities in Palestine who, how,
ever, were distinctly pleased with the Greek translation, particu-
larly the Greek version of Aquila. 4 > The alleged reasons for
1) Y. Megilla 1, 9.
2) Babli Meg. 3b. Blau's contention (J. Q. R., v. 9, p. 738) has
no foundation. Cases of disagreement in assigning the author of a say-
ing are numerous. It needs no explanation and consequently cannot be
made a basis for a new theory.
3) Suk. 28a; Baba Barbra 134a; Y. Nedarim 5, 6.
4) Berliner (Onkelos 108110) has even the idea of a complete

suppression of the official Targumim in Palestine. Weiss (Dor Dor etc.,
v. 1, 200) even knows exactly the time when this suppression took place
and its author. It was Rabban Gamliel, of whom it is said (Shah. 11 fa;
Tosef. 13 (14) and with some changes in Sof. 5, 15; Y. Shah. 16, 1)
that he hid the Targum to Job. So then it was he who put the ban also
on the official Targumim. And it was not until the time of R. Akiba
that the ban was lifted. This conjecture is read by Weiss into the phrase
C1N , ~:i', , ilic ;,',J , o It is evident that the whole supposition hinges
on the mere finding that Rabban Gamliel forbade the use of a certain
particular Targum. That the express mention of the Targum should be
taken to indicate that the other Targumim were spared this interdiction
seems to have escaped their observation. Furthermore, their theory is
exposed to a dangerous contradiction. If the Targum was restored in the
time of R. Akiba, what sense could there have been to the contention
of R. Chalafta with Gamliel the younger, a contemporary of R. Akiba,
with regard to his license with the Targum, and his reminder of R.
Gamliel the Elder? They should not have overlooked the remarkable
coincidence presented in the story of Gamliel the Elder and his grand,
child. In both instances 1t was the Targum to Job that evoked disfavor.
THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 11
such a departure will hardly stand their ground. But aside from
other considerations, this assertion is flatly contradicted by the
very fact that the Aramaic version was not ignored by the
Palestinian authorities. Both Onkelos and Jonathan are quoted
in the Yerushalmi and Midrashirn.P! while, on the contrary,
the genuineness of the quotations from Aquila is doubtful.v!
It was, then, clearly this Targum which was hit by Rabban Gamliel the
Elder, and which was still regarded as forbidden.
There is little to be said of Finn's conjecture (v. 1, 56, COll'l ,,:ii)
that the suppression of the Targurn to the Pent. was due to the intro
duction of the Samaritan Targurn with its dangerous divergencies from
the Hebrew text. This he attempts to discover in the obscure saying
of Mar Zutra (San. 21b).
It needs only to be mentioned that there is not the faintest hint in
\he Talmud of a suspension of the Targurn-reading in the worship, as he
would have us believe. Rosenthal (Beth Ha-Midrash 2, 276) takes the
view that the reverence in which Aquila's translation was held in Pales
tine was due to the tact that Greek was spoken more than Aramaic in
Palestine. It is pure imagination.
5) The reader is referred to Zunz G. V., p. 67, Notes b, c.
It should be remarked that the list of citations given by Zunz represents
by no means an exhaustive research. It is not my present task to cite
the numerous cases which, for some reason or other, he does not cite.
Suffice it to state that citations from Onkelos alone in Genesis r.
exceed considerably the number of citations from Aquila taken together.
Com. Lerner, An. u. Quellen d. Breishit Raba 6365. His view that
the respective citations may not represent actual quotations from the
Targum, is open to question. One would be at a loss to explain the
identity of these citations with the rendering in the Targum .
For one of the mind of Geiger, who makes the general assertion that
citations from the Targumim are not to be found except in the latter
Midrashim, it will be of interest the following remark in OJJto in:i:
to Gen. r. 4S',7: Cll'J 1:1,!l:i 01Jir,n MN r,1.0,po no~:i N:in', l:'i'Ton ,,,,
. ,m, c'nv:i v,,,, cc,11:0 nn N1nn cu,nn Cl!fl!f cr1:10 c,po
This is just as true of other cases.
6) Com. Field Hex. XVII. Of all the 12 respective citations, one,
on Is. 5, 6 (Eccl. r. 11, 7) belongs to Jonathan, and yet carries the name
of Aquila. Luria I. c. would emend Jonathan but admits Jonathan is
never mentioned in the Midrash. Einhorn (ad loc.] would have here
Aquila agree with Jonathan, so Herzfeld (Geschichte II; 63). Equally,
Weiss' assertion (Dor, 'v. 2, 123) that this implies Aquila must have
made use of Jonathan needs no refutation. Another Aramaic quotation
referring to Prov. 25, 11 (Gen. r. 93, 3) is partly taken from the
Targum to Prov.
D1mt1zed by Microsoft (i
Y et they are not traced to their respective translators. Such

is also the case in B ab li, w h ere th is tradition of Jonathan's
authorship is told . In all th e m any quotations from T argum
Jonathan there is no single reference to Jonathan. T hese
facts com bine to sh ow that both in B abylonia and P alestine
this tradition w as otherw ise und erstood, and not until a com ,
paratively late period did it succeed in gaining currency.
Aquila's authority, then, in these cases is a mistake. One other

case, namely that referring to Lev. 19, 20 (Y. Kid. l, l end) deals with
a Halakic exposition. In the first place, it implies in no way a trans-
latory interpretation. Further, the authority of Aquila given in the name
of Jochanan is contested by Chiya who refers it to R. Laser, changing
only the reference for evidence. On the other hand, in the Babli
(Krithoth l lb) no authority is cited for the same interpretation. If
the authority of Aquila was correctly quoted, then cJin should be in-
terpreted in its general sense as 10~;,n is used in the Babli. His trans-
lation was not meant, and all assumptions by De Rossi (Meor Einaim,
Ch. 45) and Krauss ( Steinschneider Fest. 153) in this case deserve
little consideration. The case of Dan. 8, 13, where Aquila is cited
(Gen. r. 21, l; Jalqut Dan. I. c.) in Hebrew, is instructive. There
can be no question that the words c',j.))N ClJ1n are an interpolation.
It is Rab Huna's interpretation played on a particular form of the word
and the contracted 1)1',e : it should read: Mt 101)1)', ,i,11)!) N)l11 :ii
i"nitt. It admits of no other explanation.
It is not necessary to enlarge upon these four non-Greek citations.
It is scarcely necessary to state that none of these citations is to be
found in the Hexapla. But of no more valid authenticity are the re-
maining eight Greek citations. The citation of Lev. 23, 40 (Y. Sukka
3, 5 Gem.) is a misquotation. As Field and others remarked, such a
rendering is fundamentally foreign to Aquila. Besides, in Babli ( Sukka
35a) this is recorded as said by Ben Azai, and deducted by the 1ipn ',tt
method. In Y erushalmi, again, R. Tanchuma is citing Aquila 'i 10N
,,,,n ,,n l'i'N c;,n c1',p)t1 ';in tto,mn . This is striking. Aquila is
always cited plainly. In the Midrash, however (Lev. r. 30, 8; Jalqut
I. c.), the name of R. Tanchuma is omitted. At the same time Ben
Azai is cited in the Midrash as the authority of the saying ,,n m ,,n
mil'', MJ!!'O l)',1 tt::i while in Babli I. c. R. Abbahu is mentioned as the
author, and in Yerushalmi (I. c.) R. Levi is the one who said it. It
appears that Ben Azai's authority was particularly intended for the last
part of the saying, namely the citation from Aquila, as if Ben Azai
were citing Aquila. A reconciliation of the Babli and Y erushalmi on
this point would appear to have been in the view of the compiler. That
might have been the case in the Y erushalmi, According to one report,
R. Tanchuma was the author of this exegetic note, just as Ben Azai is
Furthermore, Targum Jonathan is quoted in Babli, in many

instances, in the name of Rab Joseph, the president of the
Pumbeditha Academy, who flourished in the fourth century.
Even as late as the author of a commentary on Taharoth, for a
long time ascribed to Hai Gaon (flourished in the 11th Century),
quotations from Targum Jonathan are given in the name of
Rab Joseph, which led Zekaria Frankel, Schurer, Buhl, Winter
u. Wiinsche, Graetz and many others to take Rab Joseph as the
named as its author in the Babli; according to the other, it was Aquila's
(interpretation, not translation). And both reports were united in the
form it reads in the Yerushalmi. Either B. A. or R. T. made use of
the semblance of the respective Hebrew word to the Greek word, a
method pursued extensively by the Agadists (Com. Shab. 63b; Gen. r.
99, 7; com. Shorr 11',nn 12, 6.). It is not Aquila's translation which is
quoted. Zipper's Theory (Krauss I. c.) as well as Rappaporr's fine sug-
gestion (.1,nic ,11',r., 11.V) employed by Krauss (I. c. 153) in this case, are
superfluous. Of a similar nature is the interpretation attributed to Aquila
in Lev. r. 33, 6 on Ez. 23:43. This curious explanation could hardly
have found a place in the literal translation of Aquila. It does not
belong to Aquila.
With reference to the allegorical interpretation of Prov. 18:21,
attributed in Lev. r. 33, 1 to Aquila, it was justly characterized by
Field (I. c.) along with Lev. 23:40 as "Ornnino absurdae et ridiculae
sunt", Com. Tanchuma Lev. )111:ir.l 4, where practically the same idea is
expressed without resorting to this Greek expression.
Questionable is the quotation from Aquila on Ps. 48, 21, cited
in Y. Meg. 2, 4; Y. M. K. 3, 7. In the first place, Aquila renders
n,r.i',_v ',_v Ps. 46, 1 by liti.vmvto"tfJTOOV So a 1 s o i n 9:1
VEL6Tl}TO; . It stands to reason that 48, 21 was similarly rendered
by him and not by the alleged di>avaow. . This would agree with the
T. rendering ic)n,t',t.:1 ,r.,p:i, which is also indicated in the Y. (I. c.),
namely n,r.i,',;,:i, . It should also be noticed in passing that one other
interpretation given there nm c',1)1:i l).11'1)' MlM agrees with the Lxx,
which renders it El; Tou; Elrova; , which is also i m p 1 i e d in
Cant. r. 1, 22. The Syriac Hex., as well as Jerome (Field XXVI),
would lend support to such a rendering by Aquila. The rendering
di>avao(a cited in Field (I. c.) under column Ed. Prima, ought not
to be take in serious consideration for obvious reasons. To all intents,
this rendering of nir.i',v is so Midrashic that it would not find its way
even into a less rigorous translation than Aq.
The quotation in Y. Shab. 6, 4 from Aq. on ls. 3:20 is not found-
in the Hex. The case of Ez. 16, 10 (Lam. r. 1, 1 ), containing a double
rendering, may even be a quotation from Jon. The Lxx might as well
D1qtt1zcd by M1:...rosoftCi-1
14 Tli.RGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS
real author of the T . jonathan.r ' But R ashi and T osaphoth arc
unqualifiedly right in their com m on explanation of this curious
occurrence. 1-1 > It should be borne in mind that Rab Joseph him-
self often cites the Targurn Jonathan with the introductory phrase
NiP 'Nil1 Nti,Jin N5ti:,N, which clearly signifies he had the Tar-
gum before him." ' Furthermore, Rab Joseph also cites Onke-
los.!" > On the other hand, we have a citation from the Targum
to Esth. 3, l, ascribed to Rab Joseph, where it is clear from the
Greek names it contains that we have a Palestinian Targum
before us.11. > Again, some of Rab Joseph's interpretations fail to
coincide with those in the Targum Jonathan.12 > In addition,
be meant, which here, as also in Ex. 27:16, agrees with Aq. as recorded
in the Hex., and also disagrees, just as Aq., with its version in the
Midrash. Similarly, the citation from Aq. on Gen. 17:1 in Gen. r. 46, 2;
in this case also there io no telling which Greek translation was meant,
for the Lxx contains also such a rendering ( com. field Hex., I. c.). The
ascription, again, to Aq. of citations from other sources was demonstrated
above. This might have been the case with the quotations from Aq. on
Dan. 5, 5 (Y. Joma 3, 8 Gem.) and Esth. r. 6. In the former, Aq.
is preserved in the Lxx only.
7) Keilim 29, 30 on Judges 3:16; IS. 3:23, 13:21; Ez. 17:7;
Oholoth 18 on Is. 49:22. It is interesting that the Aruch (2 10J ,2 1'.lJ)
cites the Targum from Hai, refraining from mentioning the source, by
the same direct reference to R. Joseph =,c,, :ii cJino,
Com. Schurer, Geschichte, VI, 149 (4th German ed); Z.
Frankel, Zu d. T., 10-12; Buhl, Kanon, 173; Winter u. Wiinsche, Jud.
Lit. 1, 65.
Winter u. Wimsche, ib., would interpret the tradition as pointing
to the authorship of Jonathan of the fragmentary Targum to the
Prophets in Codex Reuch. Com. also Weiss, Dor, 1, 200; 2, 123.
8) Rashi, Kidushin 13a; Tos. Baba Kama 3a CJinoi:.
9) San. 94b: Moed Katan 28b; Meg. 3a.
10) Shah. 28a; Exod. 25:5, 64; Num. 31, 50; Nazir 39a; Num.
6:9; Sota 48b: Deut. 1 :49, the latter ascribed to Rab Shesheth in
another recension.
11) As to the existence of a Targum to Esther at a cornpara-
tively early date, com. Megilla 17a, Mishna and Gemara .18a; Y. Meg.
2, I. As to the assumption of Rab Joseph being the author of the
Targum to Hagiog., com. Tosafoth Shah. 115a ,,,:. l and Megilla 21b
i,',,m::i, pointing out that the Targum to Hag. dates back to the
Tanaitic age, while Rashi Megilla (I. c.) nitt'J; asserts ::iiJin )'kl:'
c,::i,n:i::i.
12) Here are some illustrations: Ahoda Zara 4a, R. Joseph's in-
in the instance of the Targumic citation on Is. 33 :21 put in the

mouth of R. Joseph in Jomma 77b, it is given in the name of Rab
in Rosh Hashana 23a, and on no authority in Shek. 6, 2, Gem.
It may be further stated that in some instances the authority
of R. Joseph is 9mitted; these are introduced by the impersonal
p,r.iJir,r.ii Again, it should be noticed that Onkelos to Genesis
49:27 and Gen. 30:14 is said in the name of Rab and Levi (Ze-
bachim 54a) bJ1f1r.l ,,, ,bJ1f1r.l :ii and San. 99b on Gen. 30: 14
without 'Jir,r.i , and still this would not constitute sufficient
evidence to place the name of Rab on Targum Onkelos. The
evidence in question presses in the direction of an entirely dif-
ferent conclusion, and that is, that so general was the ignorance
of the authorship of the official Targumim that quotations from
them were permitted or had to be recalled on the authority of
the one citing them.
There is no need to dwell at length on the fanciful hypo,

thesis first formulated by Drusius and later set forth in his
peculiar way by Geiger and supported by Karpeles, connecting
Jonathan with Theodotion .13 > According to this theory, the
Targum Jonathan is founded on the Greek translation of Theo,
dotion, while Targum Onkelos is based on Aquila.vs > But the
Theodotion version, which is rather a revised version of the Lxx
than an independent rendering, and whose Pharasaic origin is
open to question, and whose author shows a scant knowledge
of Hebrew, could hardly become the groundwork for the Rab,
binic Targum Jonathan. There is not the remotest agreement
between them, either as to the principles employed or as to the
rendering, except in the names of the translators, and only a
terpretation of Ez. 9:6; Shab. 26a on Jercm. 52:16; Shab. 54b;

Kethuboth 6b on IS. 17 :8, which involves an Halakic exposition cited
also in Shab. 56a. This is contained in the Toseftoic addition on the
margin of Codex Reuch. That Rab Joseph, however, was also an in-
dependent interpreter appears from his interpretation of Gen. 10, 2
(Joma 10a), in which he disagrees with the extant Targumim, while
Ps. Jonathan agrees with R. Simoi (R. Simon in Gen. r. 37, 1).
13) Geiger, Ursch. 163; Carpeles, History (Heb.) 159.

14) Com. Rapaport c,,1,nN', pi::t 3; Luzzatto n1,JN 214; Adler
il', m,n, Introduction.
D1qitizcd bv Mtt:rosoft
h igh ly p ow erful im agin ation w ou ld be taken by its suggestive,

ness.
W ith th e collap se of th ese th eories; w ith the tradition in

com plete silen ce over th e nam e of the author of the official T ar,
111 utter lack of other evidence leading
gum to th e P rop h ets, an d
to the establishment of a tenable hypothesis, there is no use in
further attempts to solve the riddle. There was no single author
to impress tradition, and in so far as the name of the author is
concerned, the discussion should be considered as concluded.
But there is another question closely allied with this problem,
which calls for consideration. Many writers on this subject
speak of a revised redaction of the official Targumim. Some
assert that the revision was stimulated by a missionary desire
to supply the Gentile world, speaking an Aramaic dialect, with
a correct rendering of the Torah, as Luzzato, supported by Rap-
paport, would put it.15> Others would look for its cause in the
careless handling by the early Aramaic translators of the Hebrew
text. rn > Berliner and Geiger adhere to the theory that the
revision was brought about by the necessity of furnishing the
congregations in the Diaspora, particularly in Babylonia, with a
unified and carefully redacted Aramaic version of the Bible.17>
It should be first borne in mind that these theories

start from the viewpoint that these Targumim were, so
to speak, rejected in Palestine and consequently found eleva-
tion to general reverence in Bablyonia. This theory of Palestinian
disregard for the Targum is already shown to be erroneous.
On the whole, however, this theory will, on full examination,
prove to be perplexing. The question arises, how is it, that the
redactors permitted renderings to remain in the Targum which
unmistakably signify a different reading from the Masoretic
text? 18>
1 5) Luzzatto, Oheb, VIII; Rapaport I. c.

16) Meor Enaim, Ch. 45.
17) Ur. 164, Nach. Schriften 4, 103; Berliner, On. 108-110.
Com. Rapoport ':-"'le, nl'1JN p. 214. Weiss, Dor 11, 123; Deutsch in
Smith's Dictionary of the Bible 3411. Com. also Jost, Geschichte d.
Jud., v. 2, 54, Note 1.
18) Com. chapter on textual variations, group A. As to Onk.,
It is further assumed that the revision was made

necessary in order to make the Targumic interpretations conform
to current Halakic exposition. If this were the case, we should
expect to find the Targum in complete harmony with current
Halaka. But this is far from being the case. Onkelos presents
a long list of cases where it differs from the formally accepted
Halakic interpretations and decisions. So are the renderings of
Exod. 21, 24 and Lev. 24, 19, 20 against the accepted Halaka,
"transmitted from Moses and so seen at the court of every genera,
tion from Joshua and on" (Maimonides 1, 6 r,,rr.ii 5:iin m:i5;i)
that a monetary and not a corporal retaliation is meant (Baba
Kama 83b, 84a); Lev. 19:32 disregarding Baraitha Kidushin 32;
Deut. 23:18 against Halaka. Sifri I. c.; San. 5'4b; Abodah
Zara 36b. (com. Maimonides t("?i1 ,:,. ;,I(,:,. ,,,o,t( nemn ,, , and
Magid Mishna I. c.). In all of which the Targum undoubtedly
has preserved an afterwards superseded Halaka.w >
The same may be said, in a certain measure, of the Agada.

Many are the cases both in Jonathan and Onkelos where the
popular interpretations are ignored but which could hardly be
ignored by a later redaction.sv! Pseudo-Jonathan and the Frag-
com. Rosenthal in Weiss' Beth Talmud, 2, 284. The adduced evidence,

however, tends rather to contradict his hypothesis of a late single com,
position of T. Jonathan. Com. also ,~n C"l::l 1, 220.
19) It is instructive to notice the rendering of the respective
cases in Ps. Jonathan, which conform with the Halaka. This betrays the
hand of a later day editor. The Ps. Jonathan, as is generally known, con-
tains some Halakic interpretations conflicting with the current Halaka,
which led some writers, among them Geiger, to regard it as a mine of
early, Sadducean Halaka. Com. Revel, Karaite Halaka, p. 18.
20) Some examples: Is. 17:8; Kethuboth 9b; Ezek. 1:14;

Hagiga 13b; com. also the singular rendering of vv. 5, 6. Com.
Hag. I. c.; Kid 72a, referring to 2K 18:11. Both official Targumim
abound with such cases.
n,,,,n
Yawetz (',M"ll:'' v. 9, 254264) is the author of a novel
theory, namely, that Rab Joseph was the redactor of both Onkelos
and Jonathan, as it is evident from the Targumic citations in the Talmud
which are quoted in his name. These Targumim have originated from
the Greek translation of Aquila, which was translated into Aramaic.
D1mt1zC1d by Microsoft
mentary Targum may serve as instructive illustrations. Finally,

there are many inconsistencies in reference to certain prin-
ciples followed in the Targum (com. groups Band C in the chap-
ter on textual deviations), which would not have occurred had
it proceeded from the hand of a single redactor. Nothing,
again, can account for the silence in the Talmudic sources over
an act of such magnitude and importance. The tradition of the
Babli of the official Targumim can hardly be taken in any
degree to contain the historical kernel of a single authorship. It
might be assumed, on the other hand, that it does not, in sub-
stance, imply that Jonathan was the author of the extant Targum
or of one lost, but points to the fact that this great Rabbi was
preeminently skillful in the interpretation of the Prophets. Tar-
gum would then be used in this case in its acquired and more
general sense. Targum as a quality is counted among the merits
of the fellow student of Jonathan, Rabban Jochanan b. Zakkai.2ll
What has been said of Jonathan is true of Onkelos. There
could not have been a revised redaction of the magnitude the
sponsors of this theory maintained. The corruptionist hypothesis
rests on the doubtful foundation that the unofficial Targumim,
as Pseudo-Jonathan, to which unfavorable references are sup-
posedly made in the Talmud, preceded the official Targum. But
just the reverse may be true, namely, that these extra-Targumim
were built upon the official Targum. Suffice it to say that the
existence of "Our" Targum, stated by Tanaitic authorities, im-
plies the fact that the other Targumim existed along with the
official Targum.
Rab Joseph edited and put them in final shape. Hence the name of
Aquila (Onk.) on the Targum of the Pentateuch and also of the
Prophets (namely, the citation in Eccl. r. 11, 3 from Jonathan ls.
5 :6, which was considered above) and of Rab Joseph on the Targum
of the Prophets and also of the Pent. (the citation in Sota 48b). It
is the queerest of theories propounded on the question of the author-
ship of the Targumim. Ingenuity must fail when one identifies the
literal Aquila with the interpretative Jonathan .
21) Soferim 16, 8: M~'1ll Mt)M N',~ tN.:lT p pn,1 J:!'1 ',l) 11':-;; 1'10N
r,11;N1 n,:',n ~,,o ClJ'1r,1 N'1.;,o::i ,,o', N,~ n,,nno r,nN , which is omit-
ted in the modified version of this saying in Sukka 28a and Baba
Bathra 134a; so also in N'11"1~ :!'11 n'1;N . Com. also Sifri Deut. 179:
ClJ"lr, ,,,, N::io N'1i'O ,N'1i'O ,1,, N::io N'1mn~ 10,0 ,MN'1'' ,o,, nm,
. m~o ,,,; N::io cu,n
But this does not imply that no change was introduced in

the existing official Targumim. Certain traces in the Targum
carry unmistakable evidence of a Babylonian recast, which was,
however, of a very limited scope.
This will be discussed later. The substance was left un-

touched. Consequently, we may rest assured there was no unified
authorship even to the extent of a thoroughgoing redaction.
But before advancing other views with regard to the authorship,
we might well direct our attention to evidence preserved in
the Targum.
It should be noticed at the outset that tradition assigns an

early origin to the official Targumim. The same tradition which
vaguely ascribed the Targurn to late authorities is sponsor of the
statement that they originated far back of the age of these
authorities. Of Jonathan the tradition makes clear that he "said"
the Targum from the mouths of the Prophets Haggai, Zachariah
and Malachi. With regard to Onkelos the tradition explains
that Onkelos only restored the Targum, which originated with
Ezra. The latter was inferred, in the name of Rab, from the
interpretation of Nehemiah 8:8, according to which ~iU:lr.>
carries the meaning of tmin (R. Judan, Nedarim 37a; Gen. r.
}6, end). Making all allowance, the Targum Jonathan contains
evidence pointing to a comparatively early date. Evidence of a
general character consists, first, of the textual deviations which
abound in Jonathan as well as in Onkelos. 22 > The
same may be said with reference to the unacceptable Halaka,
found in Onkelos. This fact points to a date when these matters
were still in the balance. Why, however, they were permitted at
a later age to remain in the Targum can easily be explained.
There was first of all the tradition referring the Targumim to
the last Prophets and Ezra, which cast a halo over them, and
none would venture either to question the propriety of the ren-
22) Rosenfeld's long list of supposed deviations from the M. T.

in Talmud (Mishpachoth Soferim, Vilna, 1883) will be found on closer
examination to present no contradiction to this statement. With minor
exceptions, nearly all the adduced cases are of a Midrashic nature and
should be regarded as such.
Dmtt,zcid by M,c, osoft (I.)

dering or attempt to emend them, just because they appeared

amazingly striking.
There was no cause for general alarm. The Targum was read
verse for verse with the Hebrew Text, which would bring home
to the reflection of the hearer the established reading.23 > Still,
precaution was sought to exclude a possible impression that the
Targum represents the right reading. I am persuaded to interpret
the causes for the limitations placed upon the reading of the
Targum in the light of this supposition.24>
The elimination of anthropomorphisms, so persistently

carried through in the official Targumim, goes back to an early
period. It is a tendency which has its roots in the movement
that gave rise to the 18 Tikune Soferim (Mek. Ex. 17, 7) and
to the substitution of descriptive appelations (Adonai, Heaven,
etc.) for the name of God.2~> In the later part of the Amoraic
age a reaction set in against this tendency, which did not
reappear until the Arabic Era. This principle would not have
been so singularly stressed in the 4th century in Babylonia, not
to speak of the 7th century. Numerous anthropomorphic sub-
stitutes were eliminated in the official Targumim by the latter
redactors, to whom, it would seem, the anthropomorphic ex-
pression was no longer terrifying and repugnant.
It will be of some interest in this connection to note the

relaxing of this principle in the Targum to Hagiog., which is
certainly later than the Targumim to the Pent. and Prophets.
This targumist does not hesitate to render literally such expres-
sions as God laughs (Ps. 2:4; 37:13), God sees (Ps. 33:13; 35:17,
22 etc), God's eyes and eyelids (Ps. 11:4; 33:18), God's hands
23) Com. Meg. 23b; Tos. Meg. 3; Rosh Hashana 27a.

24)
Com. Sota 39b and Y. Meg. 4, 1 Gem. The alleged reason
;,,ir,::i ::i,r,::i
ClJ'lM l'l~N N71l' becomes more sensible if interpreted to
mean that the public should not suppose the Targum version to corres-
pond to the established reading.
25) It was this tendency which influenced both the Aramaic and
the Lxx versions. Com. Z. Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 175; Einfluss, pp.
30, 82, 130; Palaest u. Alex. Shrift., 21 et seq.; Zeller, Philosophie
d. Griechen, v. 3, 11; 3, 253.
(Ps. 119:73).26> This reavels the notions of a later generation,

which would undoubtedly have come to the surface in the
official Targumim, had they been its production.
The term t(it>1t> , employed in the Targumim to cover
anthropomorphic expressions, strikes me also as of early origin.
It should be noticed at the outset, what a good many have missed
to observe, that there is nothing in it to imply Greek influence.
It represents no identity. It disavows the slightest implication
of an agency. It is merely a term of speech adopted to disguise
anthropomorphic presentations, for the awe-inspiring exaltation
of God, hiding the face, like Moses, for fear "to look up to
God". It was intended not so much to interpret or explain as
to remind and evoke a higher reaction. It is fully employed in
the same sense as ,:i,
or it>t(t> is used in the Bible, in which
image t(,t>,t> was certainly cast.27 > In a later age, under the
influence, it would seem, of the Greek Logos, this term acquired
the meaning of a definite essence, an embodied heavenly power
approaching an intermediary agency.28 > The ,,:i,calls to
Moses;20 > it visits, surrounds and kisses.30 > In the Book of
Wisdom, probably of Palestinian origin, the all-powerful word
of God leaps down from heaven, "a stern warrior into the midst
26) L. Ginsburg in the Jewish En. Anthropo. seemingly failed to

take notice of this distinction when he made the unqualified statement
that the earlier Targumim retained in translation such expressions as
the hand, finger, eye etc. of God. This is true of the Targum to the
Hagiog. only. In Jonathan an evasive substitute is always employed in
such cases. As to the hand of God, com. Joshua 22:31; 1S 5 :7; l K
18:46; Is. 5:25, 9:11, 11:11, 15:31, 3; Jer. 1:9 etc. As to finger,
com. Exod. 8:15 with the exceptions of Exod. 31:18 and its parallel
in Deut. 9:10, in which case, it seems, the substitute was eliminated,
as in the creation story, in order to avoid an explanation that the
tablets were given by some inferior power, or to escape the danger of
allegorizing the fact of the tablets. Com. further Exod. 33:12, 13;
1 Kings 8:29; Is. 1:15; 43:4; Jer. 7:30.
27) In Ps. 33:6, 9; 107:20; i47:15, 18; 148:8 i:l'I is a descrip-
tive term for the action of God, while in 119:89 it is descriptive of
the Torah.
28) Com. Gen. r. 4, 2.
29) Lev. r. 1, 4.
10) Cant. r. 1 :13.
D,ntt,wd by Microsoft {i-

of a doom ed lan d ". 31) The term Nir.l'r.l, then, could not have
originated in a period when it might be taken to signify a distinct
God-like power. In its use in translation it would have the effect
of investing the Nir.l'r.l with all activity, God being inactive-
and nothing could be more horrible to the non-Hellenistic Jew
than a transcendentalism of the Alexandrian mould. As was
noticed before, the later Bablyonian redactors have limited in
the Targum the use of the Nir.l'r.l . It is remarkable that in the
creation story all anthropomorphic expressions are, contrary to
principle, literally rendered. In most of the parallel cases in
Ps. Jonathan Nir.l'r.l is inserted. The reason for that might be
found in the new significance which this term had assumed, so
that the application of this term in the creation story would
carry the implication that some other power, separate from
God, was the author of the act of the creation.P s '
The Targum to the Prophets is not wanting in more specific
evidence, although this sort of evidence is admittedly scant. This
T. is far from being Midrashic. It is primarily a translation,
and the chief concern of the translator is to find the right mean-
ing and the interpretation of the word and phrase; it is not
seeking to explain the exigencies of the age, or to propound
the mysteries of the generations. It does, however, in a few
cases make use of allegory. In the allegorical interpretation un-
mistakable allusions were preserved to events which can be
placed. The events extend over many periods, which furnish
us the clue to the historical origination of the Targum.
Direct historical reference is made in the Targum to
Hab. 3 :17: .. T1't i1ttll/r.l tt1n::i ,tl'J:J):J, ,,:i, l'Nl n,::in N? i1JNT1 ,::,
The Targum interprets this to refer to the four Kingdoms l/JiN
n,,::i,r.i 33) But referring to Rome, the version reads 'Nr.ln P~'T1ttl'
31) Wisdom 18:15. Com. also 16:12; 4 Esd. 6:38.

32) Com. On. Gen. 3:9, 22; 5:2; 6:3. In all these cases Ps.
Jonathan has wicc inserted. In Gen. 8:1 there is a complete agreement
in the translation between On. and Ps, Jonathan, except that the latter has
Nicc . No explanation can plausibly account for that, except the
supposition that a later redactor, out of fear for a possible misleading in,
ference, and who would not feel irritated over an anthropomorphic
expression, eliminated Nicc in the respective cases.
33) The reading of the extant editions n,',m1 c:i:i,:i ,,:i,v ,,:i,,
C5t:!-',1'r.l t-tr.i,cp l':Jl' N5, . This emphasis on the tribute by the tar,
gumist is remarkable. None of the barbarities committed by
the Romans inflamed his rage as did the tribute. This reference
then, must have been coined at a time when the chief agitation
of the people gathered around the problem of the tribute. The
targumist meant the census instituted by the second Procurator
Quirinius (6-7 C. E.), which aroused rebellion, being regarded
by the people as bondage. Had the destruction of the Temple
taken place at the time of this reference to Rome, this act would
have certainly been recorded instead of the census.34)
IS. 28:1: .. 0'1!:lN ,,,:it:!-' mNl nitil/ ,,n translating allegorically:
N'll't:!-'15 Nl1!:lJ'lrr.l :l'i1'' 5N1t:!-''1 i1:J1 Nt:!-'!:ltl NJnl'l5 N111:J :l'i1' 1 ''
nr,n:it:!-'m t:!-'1Pr.l r,:ii In the same way also vv. 3, 4. Allusions are
here made to the deplorable state of the High Priesthood. The
reference may go to the Sadducean Hasmonean rulers, particularly
to Alexander Jannaeus, who incurred the deadliest hatred of the
people. This hatred of the "sinners who rose against us"; who
"laid waste the throne of David in tumultous arrogance" (Ps.
of Sol. 17, 4-8); who "utterly polluted the holy things of the
Lord (1, 8) and had profaned with iniquities the offerings of
God" (2, 3).35> Reference to John Hyrcanus is made in Ps.
Jonathan to Deut. 33:11, according to Geiger (Ur. 479), which,
however, may also be equally applicable to the father of Mattath-
ias, John, whom later authorities, mistakenly, took for a High
Priest. The failure, however, of the targumist to allude to the
Kingship of the sinful High Priest, speaks against this supposi-
tion. It is a safer supposition that the Herodian High Priests
or the state of the High Priesthood under the Roman Procurators,
when this most sacred dignity became a salable article, is here
is a later emendation, probably to escape the rigors of the censor. It

should read with Lagarde, JP 11::iJ,
34) Com. Ant. XVII. 21. As to the date of the Census, com.
Schiirer, Geschichte, 4th German ed. VI, erste Anhang. Com. also
Hausrath N. T. Times (Eng. ed.) v. 2, pp. 74-83. It was this state
of mind from which emanated the curious rendering of n',iz,:,~n,
( Is. 3 :6) ttti, ::i.:1~, , taxation, against the Agadic interpretation to mean
the Law (Chag. 14b; Gittin 43b). Com also Is. 55:5.
35) Com. also 8:10, 13, 26. Com. Buchanan, Charles, Apocrypha.
II, 628.
Dmtt12ed by Microsoft~
meant.361 I am persuaded to believe that the targumist had

in mind particularly the appointment by Herod of Annanel to
the High Priesthood, which by right and general expectation
was to belong to Aristobul III. a 7 l
IS. 64:11: v:::Nnn i15N 5Vi1 is so rendered as to give vent to
the general excitement of the time. It runs: n~, tt:innn p5~ 5Vi1
~~5v iv ~J:J. i'1:::in~, ~,v,wi5 ~::i,~ ::l'i1' ; likewise Hab. 3:1.
The wicked are the rulers over the people. They are not the
Gentiles, Romans, whom the T. would call either by name or
by the general appelation t:l'\J ,~,~~l/ ; ~'V'Wiis applied to the
wicked of Israel only. I am inclined to think the allusion 1s
made to the Herodian rulers rather than to the later Hasmo-
nean rulers. The expression ~:ii~ ::l'i1' n~, could hardly have
been intended for Alexander Jannaeus, whose rule was not too
long, being then followed by the just rule of Alexandra. The
targumist would, at the same time, place the beginning of the
Herodian rule in the early days of the Antipater's political as-
cendency. There are other references to the Herodian rulers.
Hos. 4:13 t:l::l'n\J:J. i1J'Jtn p 5v is rendered l'Jt~ p 5v
N'~~v 1~ n::i,;:::i5 pn:::ic:m n::in5::i, ~,~~v m:::i~ p:::i5 ;,~,;,, tDm:::i
l!:l'J.
36) Com. Ant. XX, 8, 8; Pesachim 57a; Tos. Menachoth end.

,CMt!''n,~ ,', ,rn .I'm M1:i~ ,', ,,N .cM',N~ ,, 11N .c,M,:i M1:i~ ,; ,,N
,rn .,,N!l p ',Nl/~t!'' M':i~ ,', 1N : com,,v~ ,', ,,N .01,n!l M':~ ,', 1m
c,io:i,n cil,,:iv, c,,:,~N cil,:Mn1 Cil::i, c,',,iJ c:il:i Cilt!' c!l1i;N~ ,;
.M,,j::~:l C)/il MN
Also Lev. r. 21, 5; Y. Yoma 1, 1:
!Jt!' t!'1j;)~ ,CJil:: n", 1:l lt!'~t!' ilJl~N:l lt!'~t!'tl' ,,, ',)It!' llt!'Ni t!'1j:)~ N',N .
'e lt!'~tl' Cl!:':!,':)::l m MN m 1'~,,il Pill!' N"ll 1m~:i. ilMlN !''.ttolJ 11ilt!' ':'~
c,~,:i. 1M1N 1',,:ii:,~ niil', ,,rnt!' 11:i .ilJt!' '~ p1,~il lll/~t!' Jil~l ,c:il::
l:\o:i ,ti' M1,~ 'Mt!' i::i ,,:i. n',t!'t!' inN:i. ilt!'l/~ .M1,~i'M~ JilM1:::, 1il
.il,i:~il r.N no il!::: ,,~N .. :im ',ti' M1,~ 'Mt!' ,::i ,,:i n',i:,1 inN ,~~,
Com. Y oma 9a.
37) Ant. XV, 2, 4. This reference might also be applicable to
the High Priest Simon the son of Boethus, whose daughter Herod loved
and married, and, in order to augment the dignity of the family, con,
ferred upon him this high honor (Ant. XV, 9, 3). Although a priest
of note, his elevation to office in this manner and the overthrow of
Jesus the son of Phabet, his predecessor, brought upon him the indigna-
tion of the people and the hatred they entertained for the Herodian
dynasty.
Digitized by Microsoft ~D
This is certainly an early T.; v. 14 is interpreted literally.

Had it been the intention of the T. to soften some harsh ex,
pression flung against the morality of the Jewish daughters, it
would have been followed in the other v. But the former deals
a rebuke to the Herodians, who have intermarried with Gentile
rulers. Herod married a Samaritan woman (Ant. 12, 2, 19);
his son Alexander-Glaphira, daughter of Archelaus, King of
Cappadocia (Ant. 16, l, 2); Drusilla, the sister of Agrippa II,
was prevailed upon to transgress the laws of her forebears and
to marry Felix, the procurator (Ant. 20, 7, 2), while her former
husband, the heathen King of Emesa and the second husband
of her sister Berenice, the King of Cilicia, though circumcised,
would hardly be regarded as a proselyte. The latter renounced his
conversion as soon as Berenice left him (Ant. ib.). The cohabi-
tation of Berenice with Titus (Dio Cassius 66, 15) is a further
instance. It was the general reaction towards this open violation
of the Law which the. Rabbi would express in the only safe
way through the exposition of some Prophetic utterance.
Of a more pronounced nature is the reference contained in
the T. to Is. 65 :4 u,5, Cl'"WitJ:l, Cl'"l::li?::l Cl'::ltt''i1 - N'l1::l::l r::in,,
p,,, Ntt'JN 'J::l 'iJ!:l c:iv, N'i::li? i!:lVr;, p::ii. It is a valuable historical
statement of the erection of Tiberias. Herod Antipas built it
on a site strewn with sepulchres. This was resented by the ortho-
dox Jews, who would not, on account of uncleanliness, settle
there, even after the sepulchres had been removed. Herod was on
that account impelled to bring pressure to bear on the first
settlers, a great many of whom were strangers, poor people and
slaves. (Com. Ant. 18, 2, 3; Gen. r. 23, 1). The whole incident
was soon to be forgotten, as the city came to assume great emi-
nence in the Great Rebellion, although the more scrupulous
would still hesitate, until the time of R. Simon Ben Jochai ( com.
Shab. 34a) to settle in certain parts of it. So that this indignation
of the targumist must emanate from the very time of the act
of Herod. This T. belongs to 28 C. E.
I am inclined to think that the T. to Am. 6:1 l1'tt'Ni '::li?J
o,,J;, - ,i;,i;,v 'J::l o,tti::i 1,;,,J::i o,tti pr;,,pr;, refers to the Herodians
and their followers, who would give themselves foreign names,
and were not known, like the Hasmoneans, by the Hebrew
double. As it is well known, Jews during the Hasmonean rule
Dmit,zC'd by Microsoft 0-,

would unhesitatingly give themselves Greek names. But this

practice grew abominable in the sentiment of the people in the
days of the Herodian rulers. There are many references to
this effect in the Agada (Exod. r. 1, 30; Lev. r. 32, 3; Tan.
Balak 25, etc.), all of which, I suppose, emanated from that
period. Com. also Hos. 8:12.
The reference in T. to Ez. 39:16 to the destruction of Rome

is interesting. It suggests that the T. took Rome as m. As Gog
is the Messianic foe of Israel, one feels that in the time of
either the Great or the Bar, Kochba Rebellion, the revolutio-
naries, in their pious and Messianic mood, would take Rome as
the prophetic J'J , so that its overthrow is sure to come. Hence
the source of the targumic interpretation. I am also led to be,
lieve that this was the reason why the T. turns the gloomy and
miserable description of the "Servant" (Is. ch. 5 3) into a most
glorious presentation. The targumist, living in a time when the
Messiah stood at the head of warring armies, could hardly have
conceived those objectionable features in a literal sense. V. 5
points clearly to Bar Kochba.
Mi. 5 :9, 10, 12 ... 1n::i::i,o ni::iNm 1::i,po 11:1,1:1 ,n,:,m

.1::i,po TT1t::i~o, 151:1!:l -rrorn ... 1,~::io 5:, nc,m ,~,N ,,v -rrom
The T. changes the simple meaning of the words and renders
them this way:
N'OOV ,,,p '~'rt'N' .(9) p;,,:,,r,, ,,:nN, lJ':10 N'OOV m1:1,1:1 '~'rt'N\
1,;,r,op, N'OOV 105~ '~'rt'N' .(10) N'!:l'DT1 p;,,:,,:, 5:, i'J!:lN' 11/iNO
(12) 1J':l0.
This is a curious rendering. The second half of v. 12 is ren-
dered literally. All other references in the Prophets to the
idolatry of Israel are rendered literally by the T. But the T. in
these verses is construed to give expression to the popular re,
sentment of the act of Herod to construct heathen cities in
Palestine, and the erection in them of temples and statues.
Another allusion to a contemporary situation is found in

the Targum to Judges 5: 11. The interpretation reads: Pi11 iT1NO
i'tl:m, n::imo, l'tit:15 nJ,::io r,1::i i,;,,,,::i, p::icJ, p;,5 pt:1JN . There
is here the twofold reference to the robber and to the publican.
In both aspects the hint is to the last days of Jerusalem. The ab,
horrcnce for th e p u b lican , w h o w as con sidered an outlaw , 38 >

was general among the people in those troublesome days. Re,
garding the former, the implication seems to be of the activities
of the Sicarii under the Procuratorship of Felix or Festus, par,
ticularly the latter, of whom Josephus says that upon his coming
Judea was afflicted by robbers while all the villas were set on
fire and plundered by them.39> The targumist is setting the
mark on the facts against which his generation most vehemently
reacted.
The interpretation of the T. of Cl'N?~:i Cl1i'El'i (Is. 15 :4)
t<noe ir-iN:i J'J'JOi is also suggestive of an event preceding the
destruction of the Temple which is told in the Talmud of
Agrippa I, that wishing to know the number of the people
while avoiding its prohibition, he asked the High Priest to count
the Paschal sacrifices.40> I would not, however, stress this
evidence. A later targumist might as well have used for exe-
getical purpose a current Agada.
Of more historical suggestiveness is the Targum to Ze. 11, 1
,,n;,, JiJ:i?
nne interpreted to refer to the heathen peoples and
the destruction of their cities. This verse was interpreted by
Rabban Jochanan b. Zakkai to imply the pending destruction
of the Temple, which was generally accepted. 41> Why a tar,
gumist living in a generation impressed by the destruction of
the Temple should select so strange an allegorical interpretation
is hardly conceivable. It would seem that he did not know of
the destruction of the Temple and was imbued with the political
Messianism, which was an important factor in the Rebellions.
The Targum, however, also contains evidence pointing to
a period subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem. Is. 54:1
38) Corn. B. Kama 113a, Mish.; Shah. 39a; San. 25b.

39) Ant. XX, 9, 10. The distinction should be drawn between
the patriots and the sicarii who, to all intents, were robbers of the
vilest sort and employed by Felix for the purpose of inflaming unrest
to screen his outrages.
40) Pesachim 64b; Tosefta 4. Com. Wars 6, 9, 3. There are
strong reasons for assuming that it was a historical reality .
41) rtol!)O ',:,,n ',:,,n : ,, '10N IN:lT p pn,, P,'1 .,: '1,1JI%' 'TV
1:::1 n,,:i,,,,v N::i,m ,::i:i, : i,n,, 'Triv ,!l,ct:> lN .11'T11 ,10'!IV riv:i~ nriN
,":ii l'l:J? nr,e Nl'Tl/ Yorna 39b, and in Yerushalmi in a somewhat
modified version, 6, 3 end.
D,nitucd by M,crot>oft
i1?Hl:J 'J:JO i100\t:1 'J:J t:l'::11 ,::, the Targum interprets J\i1' 'JD ,,N
Nn::in, ;,o,, 'J:Jo Nn,,i. t:l'?t:i\1' 'J:J
In the same sense Is. 2:5 i1??0N t:l'J:J n::i,, i1ll:Jt:I i11?' i11i?ll 1ll
is rendered in the Targum i11'1ill N1i?ll NliliN::i 1i\i11 t:l'?t:in, p
j\!:llD' N'OOll 'JD N'?01 ,r.,n\ Ni11i\?J t:ll/0 N'?01i1i1 . Jerusalem is
here seen to be desolate. Rome is in its bloom. There is still
the thirst for revenge from Rome, which also found expression
in the Targum to Is. 25:12 meaning by 11::i Rome, and Ez .
39:16. Com. also Targum Is. 32:14. The targumist lived in
a period following the destruction but not too far away. Mi. 7:11
is interpreted in the T. to refer to the cessation of the persecu-
tions of the nations: N'OOll 1i1'!J l?~:lli' N'i1i1 NJ1l/:J . The refer-
ence is to the situation which arose in Palestine after the rebellion
of Bar Kochba. The targumist had in mind the persecutions of
Hadrian. It is hardly appropriate to the political repressions of
the Roman Procurators. It might be well applied to the per-
secutions of the Byzantine rulers which, however, could hardly
have found room in the Palestinian Targum, known and used
in Babylonia in the third century.
A less pronounced indication of a post- Destruction age is
suggested in the T to Malachi 1: 11 'Ot:I? t:IJO ,~po t:l\PO 5::i:i,
rendering: 1,::in,,i., .. p::im,i. ?:JPN NJN 'li'l/1 1'1:Jll j\1iN1 11'!.I 5::i:i,
,'01P '::l1 l::11\P::i
The conception implied here that the prayer replaced the
sacrifice is an outgrowth of the age following the destruction
of the Temple, after the cessation of sacrifice. The sacrifice was
regarded with so much holy reverence by the Rabbis, that such
a conception would be considered an attempt at the divinity of
the sacrifice. 4 2 >
Finally, the Targum to Is. 21 :9 may also be of historical
contents. Here the Targum reads S:i:i ?!lO? N1'1il.l l:JN li?!lJ . The
wish is here expressed for the downfall of Babylonia. This sug-
gests an age of persecution in Babylonia against the Jews.
42) This conception has its ongm in the saying of R. Jochanan

B. Zakkai: nrm~::i Ni1tz' nnN i1'1!:l:l )!', iz,, (Aboth of R. N. 4, 5). Com.
saying of R. Shmuel b. Nachmani on this verse nmon z,',~:, 'i1lT (Jal-
qut I. c.). So saying of R. Eliezer M1!:l'1j?i10 '1l"il' n',~:, n,,,~(Berak.
32b). Com. Jalqut Eliezer :i-,p: c,1;1 po"n:iiz, JOT:J v"iz,:i-, ',N'1tz'' l'10N
.n,i:n N~N D11:i l'N ,,iz,::i;i '1!!:::no, 1:-,;, N:io
Babylonia in an earlier period was looked upon with admiration

by the Jews. It was only after the fanatical Sassanides had estab-
lished themselves on the throne of Persia that the large Jewish
population of Babylonia began to experience the same tribulation
which their brethren in Palestine were undergoing under the
Roman rule.431 After the new departure in the ruling dynasty,
Babylonia, like Rome, incurred the bitter resentment of the
Jews. Before the Chebarin (Magii) came to Babylonia, we
are told in Gittin 17a, the saying of R. Chiya: "God knew that
Israel could not bear the persecution of the Edomites,
so he led them to Babylonia" was true, but after their
arrival Rabbi Bar Bar Chana was right in his utterance: u.: t.:mn,
,~v ,::i, t.:5m::i pt.: ,,,, t.:5m::i. This period is implied in the
Targum to Is. 28:20 CJ:ll"li1:J n,~ rocern - v'l/~ t.:5::i::i tm,~,
. t.:ii~ 'JC'
On the other hand, the fall of Babylonia is with the author
still a desire, a fervent expectation. The overthrow of Babylonia
by the Arabians is not yet in sight. There is no other allusion
in the Targum to the Arabs. So that this allusion to Babylonia
affords us a terminus ad quern .
To check up the findings, the scant evidence preserved in
the Targum to the Prophets falls apart in different groups. Some
43) Com. Saying of Rab. ,,,,., ,,:i ?!ll'lll' O'l!l ni1riv Yoma 17a;
also Pesachim 54a: C'lB ri,::i,o, oil( 1):10 0101:0 c,,:i, MJ):lll' p:i, i:r,
?l!ll'I 1r,r,. There is a striking parallel interpretation in Ps. Jonathan
Gen. 15:12 referring n',t>) to Persia: 1orio, N!l'i'T :,', r,,',, ',i,10', Niriv,
or in the version of the Frag. N?l ',er,', Ni1rii:i N10'lB1 Nm::i;r, N'M NM"!
110',11 10',11', no,pr, :,', 111:,r, . It should be remarked that Ps. Jonathan
introduces here the Messianic conception of the Four Kingdoms of the
Exile, the Fourth being Edom or Rome. The targumist in this instance
dismisses Rome, placing in its stead Persia-Babylonia. In the Midrash
(Gen. r. 44, 2), on which this interpretation is based, n'?!l) is referred
to Edom with the parenthetic note: ',:i,:i, H 11 ?J) l'l?!ll) I' !);MOil' !%'' 1
;:i,:i, M?!l) :,;!)) n:i n:i I ri::i, . It is clear that both in the Midrash and
the Ps. Jon. Babylonia (or Persia) had come to be regarded as worse
than Rome, as fully expressed in the saying of Rab. At the same time,
it is made clear in the Midrash that the interpretation of l'l?!l) as refer,
ring to Bablyonia is based upon Is. 21 :9, consequently the Targum
to Is. 21:9 was either known to them and used by the Ps. targumist
or that the interpretation in the respective cases was simultanously origin,
ated. The former assumption, however, is the more plausible one.
'IQ1tized by Microsoft
are pointing to a pre, D estruction date, som e to a period im -

m ediately follow ing th e D estruction , som e, again, to a still later
period. B ut th ey do not lead to contradicting results. T he evi-
dence dem onstrates in a m ost excellent m anner the progressive
com position of th e T argu m un til it assum ed its present form .
D uring this lon g tim e, th e T argu m w as subm itted to changes
of different natu res, w h en finally, before the A rabic invasion
of B abylonia, it w as indorsed in th e shape in w hich it has com e
dow n to us.
We shall now devote our attention to a study of
th e relation betw een the official T argum im . T here is a con,
spicuous affinity betw een O n kelos and Jonathan. M ost of the
early w riters on th is subject w ere struck by it but failed to
realize its extent, w h ich consequ ently lead them to different con ,
clu sions. So, w h ile D e R ossi and H erzfeld w ere certain that
O nkelos knew th e T argu m to the P roph ets, Z unz took the view
that Jonathan had O nkelos before him , w hom he quoted in
Judges 5:26; 2 K ings 14:6; Jerem . 48:46.44> Herzfeld would
consider all these citations as later interpolations. 4;; > But on
closer study of the official Targumim the cases of agreements
between them will be found to be so numerous and of such a
nature that they can be explained neither on the hypothesis of in,
terpolation nor on the assumption of one having made use of
the other. The reader will first be referred to the chapter on gen-
eral peculiarities of Jonathan. The peculiar treatment by this T.
of certain expressions, to distinguish between the holy and pro,
fane; Israel and other peoples; the belief in a second death for the
wicked, all are found in Onk. Besides, there are numerous other
cases in which both Targumim agree. I will cite here the Ps.
Jonathan only to show that there could be a different render,
ing in the respective cases.
Josh. 1 :6 )'~~, Pin Targum Cl'~~, ~j.)Ii. So Onkelos Deut.
3 i :7. Ps. Jon. 5nnn~, 5vm'~.
ib. 1 :9 nnn ~~ Targum ,Jnn . So Onk. Deut. 31 :8.
Ps. Jon. y,nn .
44) De Rossi Meor Enaim I. c.; Herzfeld, Geschichte I. c.; Zunz,

G. V. I. C.
45) L C.
ib. 3:13 .. 1J 11011,, Targum N::li,11. So Onk. of Cl't:l nen

(Gen. 21:14, 15, 19). Ps. Jon N't:l1 l'i''f. In Exod. 15:8
1J ir.i::, tlYJ Onk. ,,~::, 1t:li' . Ps. Jon. Ni''f . The Targum to
Psalms 33:7; 78:13 is Ni''f
ib. 7:21 11/J~ ni1N Targum ,5::,::,1 ,,~YN. So Onk. Gen.
14: 1. Ps. Jon. ci~JH:> .
ib. 10:26 Cl'llll ;,~r.in 511 c,n,, Targum Nn::,,5y. So Onk.
Lev. 40:19; Deut. 21 :22, 23. Ps. Jon. NC'i' .
ib. 12:5; 13:13 ,n::,vr.im Targum c,,,p,!:lN1. So Onk. Deut.
3:14. Ps. Jon. 01,,p,~JN 46>.
ib. 13:3 N1i1 5Ni~, 'i1?N m;,, ,i15nJ i1~t:l tru N5 ,,, ~:i~,,
on5MJ Targum j1i1nJCnN 5Ni~, 'i1?N ,, j1i15 ::,;,, ,, pnr.i . Also
Ezek. 44:28 cmnN 'JN 5N1tu':i Ci15 unn N5 i1tnN1 Targum
p;,nJtmN liJ'N p;,5 n':li1'1 pnr.i . This is the rendering by Onk.
of Deut. 18:2 in5nJ N1i1 'i1. But Ps. Jon. Nm:li11t:l l/:!1N1 c,,~ll
.NnJ1i1:J1
ib. 14:4 tli1'~1)t:l1 Targum l1i1'M111. Also Ezek. 45 :2; 48:17.
So Onk. Lev. 25:34; Num. 35:2, 3, 4. Ps. Jon. J'?11D.
ib. 20:1 ~5pr.i '1ll Targum Nn1:lf'~ ,,,p. So Onk. Num.
35:6, 11, 13. Ps. Jon. t5~pi ,,,p.
ib. 20:5, 9 tl1i1 ?NJ Targum Nr.ii ?N). So Onk. Num.
35:19, 21, 24, 25; Deut. 19:6. But Ps. Jon. Nt:l1 11:in.
ib. 20:5 nvi ,5::,::, ,::, Targum i1'l/1t:l N5:i ,,N. So Onk.
Deut. 19:4. Ps. Jon. 1,1::,nr.i N5:i.
ib. 23:16 . n,nr.i cn,:iN1 Targum Nl/1N ?l/t:l l/'1D:i i,,:i,m
Nn:i~. So Onk .. Deut. 11:17. Ps. Jon. ,,,,vr.i N':!1i11C:i 111:im
. Nn::,~r., Nl/1N
Judges 5 :8 c,~,n cn5N 15 in::,, Targum 'J:l 111,,nN ,:i
i,nnn:iN tin::, 1pc11n'N N5i Ni,::,11 :iipr.ii trnn Nn1l/~5 n5tir.i5 5N,~'
Onk. to Deut. 32:17 ... 1N::i :iiiDr.i c,~,n c,v,, N5 Cl'i1?N Render-
ing: pJn,n 11::,nn::iN p;,::, 1DClln'N N5 ,,,:ivnN ::,,,pr.ii trrm 15n,
Fragmentary p::,nn:iN p;,::, 11::,1,N N?1 111:inN 111::, Jr.i. Com.
Sifri I. c. and Friedmann On. and Ak., p. 65.
18. 13:12 DDNnN1 Targum n,;onnNi. So Onk. Gen. 45,1. "-:J.
Ps. Jon. Ni:iicr.i5 .
46) Kohut's suggestion on these renderings (Aruch 01,,j:)!lll)

will only serve the point in question.
Digltlwd by Mici'O soft

ib . 15 :7 ,,~ T argu m KiJn So O n k. G en . 2 5: 18 . P s. Jon .

;,~i;,n n
4
ib. 23 :22 iJ,::,m Targum iJ'imKi. So Onk. Exod. 16:4.

Ps. Jon. 1m,1,, .K"'.:>-iii::ll11'\i. 47l
l K. 18:28; 5:16 ,,,m,, Targum lr.ir.innKi. Also Jerem.

47:15. So Onk. Deut. 14:1. Ps. Jon. J'::l'it!'::l piim K?.
2K. 5:16 i::i i~!:l,, Targum il'::l ;i'Pl1Ki. So Onk. Gen. 19:3.
Ps. Jon. D"!:l .
ib. 5: 19 riK m::i.::i Targum 'KViK ::i.11::i So Onk. Gen.
35:16; 48:7. Ps. Jon in former: V::liK::l Kl1??V Jlit!'K 'VJ'D
in latter: KViK 'VJ'C.
ib. 6: 18 tl'iiJD::l o::ii Targum Ki'i::l~::l - So Onk. Gen.
19:11. Ps. Jon. K'ili1nn::i.. Frag. i1'i::l1i1::l.
ib. 16:6 ;,~J'l Targum 1'il1l. So Onk. Deut. 7:22. Ps. Jon.
,;,;,, .
ib. 18:32 ~::i.,, l1'T l'iK Targum Knt!'r.i 1'1::lV Ki1l1'!1 KViK
t!'::l1 K1::lV K'ill . So Onk. Deut. 8:8. Ps. Jon !'1::lV Kl1"ir.lil1 tr.ii
t!':11
ib. 21:6 tl'Jl/1', ::llK ilt!'lli ~m, JJU/l Targum ,:iv, t!"nJi l'JVl
li'::lli 1'1'::l . So Onk. Lev. 19:26; 20:6; Deut. 18:10, 14.
Ps. Jon. i'J'V ,,,nK.
ib. 23:25 l1Kr.l ;,::i::i.i Targum 'i11D:JJ ;,::i::i.,. So Onk. Deut.
6:5. Ps. Jon. ti::iJlr.lr.l ;,::i::i..
IS. 3 :20 m,v~;, Targum K'?Ji 'i't!'i. So Onk. Num. 31 :50
l'i'C' . Ps. Jon. Jli1'J1U( fr., K't!''1P.
Jerem. 7 :24 etc. o::i.;, miit::'::l Targum Jlil::l? iiiliil::l. So Onk.
Deut. 29:18. Ps. Jon. t!'':l Ki~' mnrc.
Ezek. 12:7, 8, 12 iltl?V Targum K?::lP. So Onk. Gen. 15:17.
Ps. Jon. Kt:lr.im. Gen. r. 45, 9 Kl1tl't.:lK.
47) Ps. Jun. agrees with On. and Jon. 111 Gen. 16:7; 20:1.
Onkelos renders ,,,. J':l !!tip y,::,. (ibid 16:14) NiJn l'Jl Cj:)1 1:
presumably influenced by 20:1 111!' 1 :::.1 !!'1i' 1 ::,.. Cases of this sort
are numerous in Onkelos, Similar cases in Jonathan are cited
in the chapter on textual deviations. But as to Ps. Jon., the render-
ing also of 111!' in 16:7; 20:1 was i1:i1'?n as in 28:18, in which the
Fragmentary concurs. Evidence for this is presented in Gen. r. 45, 9:
i1:il'm, n11N::,. ,c,r.m l'l,' ',l). Also Ps. Jon. to Exod. 15:22. Grone-
manri's (Pent. Uber., p. 20) argument on this is thus a miscalculation.
ib. 20:39 ,,v ,55nn II(? t:ip ow nl:(, Targum p5nn 11(5.
So Onk. Exod. 20:22; Lev. 21:6, 12! 15; 22:32. Ps. Jon. 1,0:in
But ,55m or.i,:i ll/t:>J (Jer. 31 :4) ,5nl:(, So Onk. Deut. 20:6.
Ps. Jon. i1'P1l:l.
ib. 28:13 i1:l~'' Cli1W t:~,n Cl?i1'' i11t:>!:l 0111( Targum
!'1J1r.lTI:( rr::it: pimn, 11(5,,:i, l:(r., o,,:i o5;,::io, JP1' JPr.io . So Onk.
Exod. 28:17, 18, 19, 20. But not so Ps. Jon. and F.
Joel 2:i3 ,on :ii, Cl'!:ll:( 1111( Targum ,::ivr.i5 'Jor.i, Di pn,')
nae So Onk. Exod. 34:6. Ps. Jon. ,on ... nn 1111(.
These cases are of special interest also for determining the
nature of the relation between Onkelos and the non-official Tar-
gumim. But of equal importance are the cases of agreement
between the official Targumim in which the non-official Targumim
concur. They also belong to Onkelos. I do not intend to raise
the question of the origin and history of the non-official Tar,
gumim to the Pentateuch. I have my own view of them, differ-
ing appreciably from those offered. But whether we assume
with Bacher that in the Fragmentary is preserved a relic of the
ancient and original Palestinian Targum on which were based
both Onkelos and Ps. Jonathan which form stages of the same
Targum,-10> or whether we choose the simpler view enunciated
by Traub u. Seligson, that Ps. Jon. and the Fragmentary are
to some extent a critical revision of Onkelos/iOJ there is the
general recognition of the common ground of these Targumim
and Onkelos. The fact, therefore, that they agree with Onkelos
cannot be construed to impart to the cases in question a different
character.
Josh. 10:11; 14:6, 7 VJ1::l ~'1Pt-'Targum ill:('J ClP1 So Onk.
and Ps. Jon. Num. 32:8 etc.
ib. 12:2 P::l'i1 ,v,
Targum l:(j:l::l''. So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Gen.
32:23; Num. 21:24 etc.
48) This is true only when it is spoken of profanation of God

(Is. 48:11; Ez. 20:9, 14; 22:36; 27:33); profanation of the Sabbath
(Is. 56:2, 6; Ez, 20:16, 21, 24, 38). But when it is spoken of pro-
fanation of the land and temple Nt:l~N is employed.
49) Z. D. M. G., v. 28, 60-63.
50) Frankel's Monatschrift, 1857, 101 et seq. Gronemann (Pent.
Uberseta., p. 8, note) also thinks that the Fragmentary and Ps. Jon.,
especially the latter, have expanded ~nkelos.
Diqitized by Microsoft
ib . 11:2 ; 12 :3 nnI::, Targurn ntmu . So Onk. and Ps. Jon.

Num. 34:11 etc.
ib. 12:8; 10:13, 20 n1it!IN Targum Nnt.:m:i 1nt!lr.:i. So Onk.
and Ps. Jon. Deut. 4:49.
Judges 1 :6 'J'P ,J:1' Targum i1Nr.l?t!I 'J:i.1. So Onk. and
Ps. Jon. Gen. 15:19 and Frag. Num. 24:21, 22.
ib. 3 :8 c,,,;,., :::1N Targum me ~V ,, CiN . So Onk. a11.J
l's Jon. Gen. 24:10.
ib 17:5, 12 ,, n~ N,~,, Targum 1:i.;p n, :,.,;pi. So Ouk.
. 11,c l's. Jon. Exod, 28:41.
1S 19:13, 16 cn,n Turgum N'Jt::15~ Su Onk. and Ps J,111.
Gen. 31: 19, 34, 35.
2S 1:19 5Nirt'' ,:,.~;, Targum i1inl/nN. So On. Exod. 33:21
n:i.1rn - ;nvnm. Ps. Jon. ;nvr.:i ,;,n, . Also Deut. 29:9.
lK 11 :36; 15 :4 i'J n,,;, lllr.l? Targum i::i5r.:i. So Onk. and
Ps. Jon. Num. 21 :30 Ci'J1
2K 3:13 .. .?N ?Nit!!' 15r.:i5 ir.lN'1 Targum ,v:,.:,.. So Onk. and
Ps. Jon. Gen. 19:7, 18.
,n,,
ib. 5 :21 ;,:i.::iir.:ii1 511r.:i Targum J'::iinNi So Onk. and
Ps. Jon. Gen. 24:64.
ib. 19:37 ~iiN l'iN Targum 1iiD Nl/iN5. So Onk. and Ps.
Jon. Gen. 8:4. (Ps. Jon. 11iiPi) :II) .
There is also agreement between them with regard to the
belief in a second death for the wicked in the Messianic Age.
So Jon. Is. 65 :6; Jerem. 51 :39. Both Onk. and Frag. render
Deut. 33:6 nr.:,, ?N1 1:i.,Ni ,n, - NJ'Jn Nmr.:i, Nr.:i5ll "M:i. t:i.1Ni 'M'
n,r.:,, N? ; Frag.: i1:i.i NJ'Jn NJmr.:i:i. n,r.:,, N?1 Nr.:i511:i. 1:i.1Ni ,n,
N'll'rt'i ,n,r.:,. ?Nr.lt!-'1 pr.:,, indicating direction (Is. 9:19; Ezek.
21 :21; Zech. 12 :6) are rendered by NJ1nli Nr.l1ii So Onk. and
Ps. Jon. Gen. 13:9. Is. 14:9 C'Nni Targum l'i:i.l. So Onk.
and Ps. Jon. Gen. 15 :20. Chayjoth in n,p:,. nilN :12> has brought
to notice the remarkable change in the rendering of c,;:,.y
by Onk. Everywhere in Gen. it is rendered 'Ni:i.l/ but beginning
with Exod. 'Ni1i1' is the rendering. The motive for that might
be the exegetical saying of R. Simeon b. Jochai on Gen. 49:8:
51) Cited also in Gen. r. 33, 2.

fl.) Page 8.
Digitized by Microsoft <Pl

it.:ilK CiK l'K ,1t.:IW 511 l'KivJ 1'MK 5::, l'i1' 'KMl' j:J Jll/t.:lW ,, it.:iK
,KJK '1lil' K5K KJK 'Jlllt.:lW ,KJK 'J:JlK1
In that Ps. Jon., with a single exception, agrees. (Gen. -f,
43:32). But Exod. 21:2,i::,111::,11 ilJPI'l ,::, and Deut. 15:20; 13:12
il'i:Jl/il lK '1:Jllil 1'MK 15 i::,r.,, ,::, both Onk. and Ps. Jon. have
5Kiw, i:i in order, it would appear, to avoid the rnisinterpreta-
tion: the slave of an Israelite (com. Mechilta I. c.). Jonathan as
a rule renders c,i::,11 - 'K1lil' 1S 13:3, 17; 14:11, 21; Jonah
1, 9. But Jerem. 34:9 (also 14) mnow I'lK W'Kl n:i11 I'lK W'K n5:!15
i1'1:Jl/ill '1:Jl/il The T. follows Onk. and Ps. Jon. rendering
5K1W' J"l:Jl 5Kiw, ,:i Kn5w5
Zech. 12:8 C'i15K::i ,,,, I'l':Jl Targum p:ii:ii::,. So Onk. and
Ps. Jon. Gen. 6:4 C'i15Ki1 'J:J - K':J1:J1.
This comparative list could be extended appreciably. But

the number of cases presented are sufficient to show the real
nature of the problem. There could be found sound ex,
planation for the similarity between Onk. and the Frag. and
Ps. Jon. even were we not to proceed along the lines of the
theories offered, for they are exploiting the same field, the Penta,
teuch. Why, however, should an author of a Targum to the
Prophets seek harmony with Onkelos in many comparatively un-
important details of rendering, will hardly be possible to explain.
Could not the Targum to the Prophets have its own way of
rendering in the respective cases? Neither could it be the way of
a redactor. But this Targum, like the Mishna, Tosefta, Talmudim
and Midrashim, had no single author: there was no single re-
vision. The inference will yield the only possible conclusion
that there was a common source for the official Targurnim. They \
were originated in one and the same time; in one and the same
way, under one and the same circumstances and share a com
mon history.
They were the product of the Aramaic rendering of the
portion from the Law and the Prophets read in public worship.
The Lxx had a similar origination, although later genera,
tions, actuated by propaganda motives, formed a different notion
of the act.:13) The official Targumim are the work of genera,
53) This view is held by most scholars. "Sie verdanken nicht

der Wissenschaft sondern dem Relig. Bediirfnisse" (Frankel, Vorstudien,
D,attizcd byM1crosoff(1,)
tions. T hey w ere form ed and reform ed through m any centuries,

gradually, invisibly . T hey w ere not a new attem pt, supplanted
none, but are the contin uation of th e T argum im used in the
service.
H ence also th e rem arkable balan ce betw een the paraphrastie
and literal so skillfully m aintain ed in th e official T argum im .
T h at form ed a necessary con dition w ith th e regulations of the
reading in early as in later ages.
T he Lxx assum ed th e sam e course. T h ere w as sought an
exact rendering, a sim ple and groun d understanding, as close
to the original as possible. L iteraln ess w as insisted upon and
expository ren derin g w ould on ly be tolerated in difficult or
poetical passages, or w h ere th e dan ger of a m isinterpretation
had to be averted. I com p letely disagree w ith Z unz, G eiger,
B acher 54 > and others, who insist on the priority of the Mid,
rashic Targum to the literal. Their theory is wrong. It is built
upon, it would seem, the doubtful foundation that the poetical
and difficult passages were first to be rendered.Pv? But as they
can furnish no evidence it is just as safe to assert that the simpler
passages involving a literal rendering were rendered either first
or at one time with the poetical ones. Invoking again the Lxx,
the literalness is the conspicuous feature in them and not the
paraphrastic. The exposition of the Law and the Prophets held
on the Sabbaths in the synagogue in Alexandria left little trace
in the Lxx. Nothing approaching the Philonian exposition has
20). Com. Tischendorf, V. T. G. XIII; Geiger, Urschrift, 160; Konig,

Einleitung, 103.
54) Zunz, G. V., 344; Geiger, Ur., 425. Com. Frankel, Ober
d. Zeit ctc., Ver. Deut. Orient, 1845, 13. Bacher ib. 64, after assert-
ing that the literalness of Onkelos was a later and Babylonian tendency,
is not in the least disturbed when, following this assertion, he
draws a list of cases in which Onkelos is expository while the Frag.,
the original and oldest, according to his view, is literal. Com. also Ps.
Jon. Deur. 33:26 rendering the v. literally, while Onk. and Frag. are
exegetical.
55) Com. Steinschneider, Jewish Lit. (Heb.) 20. He also takes
the view that the Targum in essence was not different from the Midrash,
assuming that the Targum originated from single translation of difficult
words. Like Geiger and Bacher, he asserts (ib. 190) that from these
(Midrashic) Targumim resulted the simpler and exacter understanding
of the Bible. It is certainly a curious and queer process.
found room in the translation. It was the knowledge and not the
exposition of the Bible which formed the prime necessity for
instituting the reading of the translation. These writers have
exaggerated innocent sayings in the Mishna reproaching ren-
derings of certain targumists, which are found in Ps. Jonathan.
Because they are cited in the Mishna and because they were re,
jected, they came at once to be regarded not only as belonging
to an early Targum but to the earliest. Consequently, the ex,
position preceded in point of time the literal which marked a
new departure and had been accomplished in Babylonia. But
these citations could as well belong to a later Targum. On the
contrary, the way they are quoted pr.iJirir.i, p5N, 56> clearly
signifies the existence of another Targum upon which these new
Targumim had attempted to encroach. 57>
Again, it should be borne in mind that the Agada had been
the product of a generation subsequent to the simple exposition
of the Soferim and the Zugoth. The exegetical element in the
Targumim was influenced, and on occasion determined, by the
Halaka, which also had a progressive history. But the Targum
existed before the new tendencies made their appearance.
The official Targumim thus represent the early as well
as the later recognized Targumim used in public worship.
Through common use there had been a continuous interchange
of influence between them. It is customary to consider the T.
to the Pentateuch as older than the T. to the Prophets.58 > This
opinion rests on a questionable argument. There can be no
doubt that the introduction of the Targum in public service
dates back to a comparatively early period. But in my judgment
it had not originated before the Maccabean age.59> There is suf-
ficient evidence in support of the view that Hebrew had not
56) Y. Berakoth 'i, 3: 1,11, no:, ?N1='' ,,:ii NOV poJi.rio, 11,1111
1110=-::i Jon,. The other citation in Megilla 25a reads: triri 11', 1vim1 ,0111n
1',o', which carries the same implication.
57) Com. Z. Chajoth on Megilla 2'ia.
58) It is interesting to note that later tradition also assigns to the
Targum to Pent. an earlier date. Com. Sifri beginning n:ii::in MNll
Com. Maimonidas :ii ,il?!lM '',n : CV? J0Ji1r, c=- NM'=' 1Ji'M il1TV r,,010
n,1.r,::i N11i' N11i'M=' no ; of the T. to the Prophets he proceeds only to
repeat the regulations appearing in the Mishna.
'i9) Com. Kautzsch Gram. d. Biblisch-Ararn., p. 4.
D,attized by Microsoft
on ly been w ell un d erstood in P alestin e in the tim e of E zra and

N eh em aia, bu t th at it had been th e vern acular ton gue. 60> There
is, on the contrary, no positive evidence either that Aramaic had
been in those early days the vernacular among the Jews in
Palestine or even that the general ignorance of the Jews of the
Aramaic tongue of the period of the Kings had entirely passed.
What use would that generation have for an Aramaic version
of the Law?
But whether it had been introduced in the period immediately
preceding the Maccabean uprising or in the early days of Mac-
cabean rule, it is certain that when the need of the Targum
arose there had already been established the custom of reading in
public service from the Prophets as a supplement to the reading
from the Law. As the reading from the Law goes back to
Ezra, en> and because of the greater interest in the knowledge
60) Frankel, Palast. Ex., 208, 280, consistent with his literal
interpretation of the tradition that the Targum originated with Ezra, ac-
cepts the genial but useless theory put forward by De Rossi (I. c.) that
Onkelos was consulted by the Greek translators. But unlike De Rossi,
Frankel would not consider the Aramaic version-a corrupted rendering
of the original. Rapaport, c~1'1MN? 11'1~1 Let. 3, takes the same view,
and it should be followed by all others of the same mind as regards the
date of the origin of the Targum. To ov erlook the difficulty arising
from an assumption that either the Targum had not been carried to
Egypt, or, being in use, that it exercised no influence on the Lxx, would
certainly be unforgiveable.
61) The Karaites ascribe the reading of the Haftora to Ezra (com.
Neubauer, Aus Petersburger Bibliothek, 7. 14); Abudraham placed its
origin in the persecutions of Antiochus. But whatever cause one may
unearth (com. Buchler J. Q. R. v., p. 6 et seq.), one outstanding
cause was the institution of the reading of the Law in public service.
The reading from the Prophets served the purpose of administering an
admonition as to the holiness and observance of the Law. I completely
agree with Buchler that the introduction of the reading of the Penta-
teuch had its origin in the festivals (J. Q. R., v. 5, p. 442). Thus the
Sifra to Lev. 23:43; Sifri to Deut. 16:1; Meg. 4a, 32a. The Law was
read by Ezra on the festivals of the New Year and Tabernacles (Neh.
8:2, 8, 18; 9:3). The reading on Saturday appears to have arisen later,
when synagogues arose outside Jerusalem. Hence the supposition that
the selection of definite portions for each festival preceded the definite
apportioning of the Sabbatical reading. I disagree, however, with the
motive to which Buchler attributes the origin of both the Pentateuchal
of the Law, the necessity of an Aramaic translation of the Law

might have been earlier appreciated than that of the Prophets.
But no sooner was the reading from the Prophets instituted than
the necessity of an Aramaic rendering became apparent. Although
the Greek translation of the Pentateuch leads all other books
of the Bible in point of time, not even a century passed before
the Prophets "and the other writings" were to be found in the
Greek tongue.
As far as the general ordinance is concerned, no distinction
is made between the Targum to the Law and the Targum to
the Prophets. Accordingly, it is said in Soferim 18:4 pi;, 1~,
i1iU1i1 I"IN'ii' inN5 1"1.JW ,w N'JJ, ,,c 5:i 1"1\i'1J'm tl'WJ51 r..11, tlJi1"15
In the Mishna Meg. 21a, 23b; Yerushalmi 4, 1, 5, the Tar,
gum to the Prophets is discussed alongside with the Targum
to the Law, the limitations on the reading of the former being
less rigid than the latter for other reasons i1Ni1i1 i1'J'~ Ni'DJ N5i
Again in Mishna 25a; Tosefta 4 (3); Y. Meg. 4, 11 a list of
passages both from the Law and the Prophets is given which
were not to be translated. Both were not considered obligatory, so
that their omission in the service would not call for repetition,
as it is made clear in Y. Meg. 4, 6 .Ji i~1N ~J:Jll~ ti,Ji1"1i11
and Prophetical readings, which would place their institution at nearly

the same date. One should not resort to the magical Samaritan influence
in order to find the cause for such an ordinance when it is readily
presented in Nehemia: "And on the second day there gathered themselves
together unto Ezra, the expounder, to obtain again intelligence of the
words of the Law. And they found written in the Law that the children
of Israel should dwell in booths during the feast in the seventh month.
And (they ordered) that they should publish ... throughout all their cities
and through Jerusalem saying, go forth unto the mountain and fetch
leaves to make booths, as it is written (1315)." It was the ignorance
of the people of the ordinances of the festivals which formed the cause
of the reading from the book of the Law. These passages present suf-
ficient ground for ascribing the ordinance of the reading from the Law to
Ezra. This might also be implied in the tradition ascribing it to Moses.
Com. B. Kama 82a. The Haftora is much later, and dates to the
end of the third century or the beginning of the second century B. C.
Direct and positive evidence cannot be furnished. Early tradition is
silent over it. But what has been said above and the fact that a Greek
translation of the Prophets had already been made at that time, and also
the mention of the Prophets in Ben Sira in a manner suggesting general
acquaintance with them by the people, lend support to this view.
D,ntt,zcd by M,crosoft<J
.rnn pr.i.i,nr.i t{;,1 l't{iP1 t{n')lm;, l'P:J) p::i, l''r.in pt{, nr.i i~ ii.:1
::i:ivr.i cmnn i'~~ i1ir.lt{ . This is in substance implied in the
saying of R. Chalafta b. Saul, Meg. 24a, as interpreted in To-
safoth 1. c.
But the reading from the Law and from the Prophets in
the Sabbath service had not been definitely set as late as in the
time of the composition of the Mishna. The selection was left
to the discretion of the individual community. Any portion
from the Prophets, as from the Law, would be read.62> The
readings were translated. Hence the rise of a Targum to all the
Prophetical books. The author of the official Targumim was
the congregation. The Targum in its first stages had no definite
shape. The reader framed the translation at the reading of the
original. Every reader had his own choice of words and his
own way of rendering. He was only conditioned to present a
close and exact rendering.
But with the persistence of the Targum and its growing
significance the free translation progressed by various degrees
to a definite and -unchangeable form. Anything which endures
62) Com. Maimonides::,,,,::,,, ,n'n,r, "m ,n:tz'o c,o::i :n,n N',:z> Mki:,
l'JV it:ito :,,:, ink ',::i N?N c,n ,:m::i niv1:i;, rrrueen 101 1niN::: en,
Mtz'i!l', cn,lio Nlo1t2' 1', nN,:?2'. The same may be applied to the reading
of the Law. Only the reading on the festivals, including the New
Moon, Purim and Chanuka, the Four Shabbaths, Maamodoth and days
of fasting, are indicated (Babli, Meg. Mish. 30b; Y. Mish. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).
There is no hint of a definite Sabbatical reading. The words tiic::i', l '"1llM
(Y. Meg. 3, 5, 7; Babli 29a, 31a) should not be taken literally. The
interpretation of R. Ami and Jeremia Meg. 30b refers to a time when
there was a definite reading both from the Law and P. Had there been
definite portions for the Sabbatical readings from the Law, there would
certainly be also a definite selection of parallel Prophetical readings.
There could be no reason why there should be a discrimination against
the Prophetical reading. I am fully convinced that there existed a definite
Prophetical reading for each festival enumerated in the Mishna. It is
true, that in both Y. and B. the reading from the Law is given while no
mention is made of the Prophetical readings. But the Tosefto, while
registering for the festival only the readings from the Law, is, however,
indicating for the Four Sabbaths the Prophetical readings side by side
with the reading from the Law. If there had existed definite Prophetical
readings for the Four Sabbaths, there had certainly been definite Pro-
phetical readings for the more important festivals, and yet no mention
of them is made in the Tosefto. The reason may be simple: it mentions
in humanity, as in the universe, tends to shape. It had become

necessary to lay down certain rules to regulate the translation.
How is the verb or adjective of a collective noun to be rendered:
in singular, as in original, or in the plural? Is the literal sense to
be considered or the implied meaning? How about the anthropo-
morphic expressions, shall they be rendered literally to the an-
noyance of the worshippers or explained away, and how? There
are passages involving a Halakic interpretation of great import-
ance, or a controversial point between the parties; shall such
passages be left over to the intelligence of the reader, who
might not be trained in the Halaka? A way of rendering had
to be early devised, which the reader was to follow. The first
attempts at uniformity were directed towards single phrases or
words. Gradually they spread to include the less dangerous
regions. The Rabbis, by concerted authority at each time, were
responsible for the change. An excellent illustration is furnished
us in Y. Meg. 4, 1 and Bik. 3, 4. In one case it is the rendering of
~J~ (Deut. 26:2). The targumist rendered ~J~, but R. Jona,
holding it to be improper to present the first {ruits in any other
receptacle than a basket, objected to this rendering and insisted
upon the rendering of ~5c, , as the Targumim to the Pent. have
it. Another case was c,,,,~,rm,~ (Exod. 12:8), which the
targumist rendered !JH'i' Cl/ )'i'~.!:l ; the rendering tm,,, being
the more important, the Pentateuchal reading. The same may be said
of the Mishna also.
But we know that there were no definite Prophetical readings
for the Sabbath. The Mishna points out certain portions from the
Prophets which are not to be read. Y. Meg. 4, 11 1rn~1u ,,, : n::i::i,c
Y. Meg. 4, 12; Babli 25a, while according to R. Eliezerc1',eo1,, MK 31i1i"l::i
(Ez. 16) should not be read.
Had the passages represented a definite Sabbatical reading, a sub-
stitute reading would be indicated which should be read instead of the
interdicted ones.
It should be borne in mind that all these portions from the Prophets
cited in the Tosefta (ibid), with the exception of Ezek. 1, have not
found a place on the calendar of the Haftora. The attempt of Buchler
to discover the early divisions of the readings from the Law and the
accompanied readings from the Prophets is highly hypothetical. Again,
the definite mention of the Targum in the Mishna and Tosefta shows
that the Targum was introduced before a definite order of the Sab-
batical readings had been introduced.
Dimtized by Microsoft
misleading as to the proper kind, Jeremiah would force the tar,

gumist to retranslate it in a different way. The third case con,
cerned the rendering of ;m, 'J:1' tl'iH1 (Lev. 5 :7), and R. Pineas
would not allow to render tl'i"1 by l'~'t:l!3. These cases demon,
strate the peculiar manner in which the composition of the T.
was accomplished.
Although the official Targumim were in a definite shape in
the time of R. Akiba, 133 > the process of transformation had been
still going on to a comparatively late date. It affected both the
literal and exegetical rendering. Some older exegetical render-
ings were rejected and replaced by others. Of the rejected, some
have been preserved in the Ps. Jonathan, which in itself is an
Aramaic Jalqut comprising also later Agadic material. Rejected
paraphrases of the Targum to the Prophets might be those which
appear on the margin in the Codex Reuch. and in some early
editions. Although the notes prefaced ,~ c,Jir, contain Agadic
material of a later date, they contain elements which might have
been first incorporated in the Targum but rejected later as not to
be read in the service. The same may be said of those ascribed to
'~ ,~o although being on the whole an attempt to simplify and
to supplement the extant T. Again, the duplicate renderings
which are found both in Jonathan and Onk. can be explained by
the fact that one formed the older explanation while the other
represents a more recent one but which for some reason had
not succeeded in dispossessing the older one. This explains also
the curious renderings of certain verses, one half retaining one
rendering while the other half contains a remnant of a dif-
ferent rendering. As rejected paraphrases may be considered the
Targum to Micah 7:3, quoted in Rashi, and another quoted in
the name of Jehuda of Paris on 2S 6: 11. 64 >
63) Com. R. Akiba's homily on Zek. 12:l (Moed Katan 28a),

whcih shows that R. Akiba knew the Targurn to this verse. Com. R.
Jehuda 's saying referred to above; also Beraitha Baba Kama 17a
l:)'JN tlll'II', Cll!''JII' , IJ!l'J lN:illl' r,1,:,1 ,,o tllj.)ltl tit ,rim:i ,, ltl?l/ ,,:i:n
.p lll'l/ :lNMN IJ!)', N,n, ,MIOMJ ',"N .rrnn: ,, 1,:i, .i:iri:i l:ii',n
64) Com. Zunz, G. V. 80: U!lO l!'li!lo i,1in1 Cll':i i,',',t :i,n Nm
,,~11!li ,,,,~ 'll'ii1 'iri ,:i,:io,. Com. also Rashi, Ezek. 27:17: c:1,ri 1m,,
1
c,:1,ri w,po:i Nmll' 1riNm Pl/OIi' , 1!lo ll'lM ,, ,~n:i JJ!ll ri1Jo ,~n
.1m',j.)1 N',1!'1M1 10',11'1i1
The same can be said of the selection of words in the ren-

dering. It should be noticed at the outset that the remarkable
unity exhibited in the official Targumim is strongly emphasised
also in the wording of the translation. Once the Aramaic word
was set for a Hebrew word, you are certain to find it in each
case where this Hebrew word occurs. An illustration of this
amazing fact is presented in the rendering of the names of
peoples, countries and cities. Other instances can be picked up
at random. It demonstrates in a most emphatic way the scrupu-
lous rigor with which the work of the Aramaic rendering had
been accomplished. If, therefore, a word is rendered in one place
one way and another way somewhere else, we are certain to
have two different Targumim of the word in question. But
apart from cases of this sort which are contained in the official
Targumim, variations have come down to us from different
sources. Concerning Onkelos variations are contained in Ps.
Jonathan. In some cases in which Ps. Jonathan has a different
Aramaic word for the Hebrew from that contained in Onk., the
Fragmentary will be found to correct it, replacing it by the one
used in Onkelos. There is, however, no means enabling us to dis,
cover which of the two represents the earlier form. They might
have had their origin in the same time. Two communities might
have coined them at the same time. Instructive instances are pres,
ented in the different renderings given by Rav and Levi of
Gen. 49:27 (Zebachim 54a); ib. 30:14 (San. 99a), Onkelos
agreeing with that of the former; R. Jehuda and Nehemia--of
Gen. 18:1 (Gen. r. 42, 6). Variations of this kind are not wanting
also in the Targum to the Prophets. Some have been preserved
in Jonathan. A good many others are contained in Talmud and
Midrashim and in the marginal notes in the Codex Reuch., under
the names of ,r.ilinr.i, n,t(, ,l,5!:l ,t("' ,t("t:l ,t("n. In a few cases
of the latter the variant will be seen to agree with Ps. Jonathan
and Fragmentary. This fact lends new support to the view of
the common source of all Targumim. The former cases shall
be considered first.
Joshua 19:8 it(:l n,11::i Targum ... n,v:i ; ~"5-itii,r.i. So is

the T. of 1l ,v:i(ib. 11:17; 12:7) 'r.iin ,v:i (Jud. 3:3) ,r.in n,v:i
(Jud. 20:33) etc.
Judges 6:38 5!:lt:lil Targum ~JD5
(ib. 5 :25) T argu m K'i:lJ ,5,n ::i. T h e latter is th e rendering of

nv::iv (Is. 51:17, 22). So is rendered r.,c:,:i mJJv (Num. 7:13)
in Ps. Jon.; Onk. Knt:1Jt.:1.
Judges 8:21 Cl'Jiiltt'il Targum N'i'JJJ ; in Is. 3:18 it is ren-
dered by N':l:lO. The latter is given to Judges by N"5 in Cod.
Reuch.
is. 19:13, 16; Ez. 21:26; Za. 10:2 Cl'!:lin Targum N'Jt.:I?~.
Judges 18:17, 18, 20 J'Nt.:11 while N"? has N~':llJ.
ib. 16 Cl'llJil i':l:l1 Targum N'l'l/1 K1Dl . But N"5 has
K:lJlJl. This is the rendering of 1::i:it.:1::i (2K 8:15) connected with
i':l:l Com. Kimchi 1. c.
lK 22 :49 tt''tt>in Targum Ki''i!lK. So Jer. 10:9; Jonah 1 :3.
But Is. 2:16; 23:1, 14; Ezek. 27:12 KO'.
2K 5 :2 3 Cl'~in Targum Cl't:11?!:I. Is. 3 :22 K,:int.:1 .
Jerem. 31 :28 Cli1'5JJ 'n1i'tt' itt>K:i Targum n::itt1n1 i1t.:1:i ;
in the second half 1i'tt>K 1:i Targum 'it.:l't.:1 ,,n, 1:i . The same
was certainly the rendering of ,n,vtt> itt>K:l which is found in N"t:I
Here is a case of a rejected Anthropomorphism of a latter time.
Ezek. 27:6 c-rc Targum N'?1::iN or N'?~'N. Everywhere
else it is rendered 'Nn:i (Is. 23:1 etc.).
Ezek, 27: 21 i1i' Targum ~:iJ. Otherwise 'NJiJJ(ls. 21:16, 17;
42:11; 60:7. So T. to Ps. 120:5.).
Ezek. 27:23 l1lJ Targum :i,,n . This is the rendering of
IJ:ltt'N (Jerem. 51 :27).
Ezek, 40:19 nnnnnn Targum ilNlJ'~t.:I ; 't.:i1n'N - ilNJJiN
So is the rendering of ilJmnn;, in v. 18.
Ezek. 45:2; 48:17 Clil'tt'iJt.:11-l1iPmi1 .lb. 27:28 T. N'1i!3
As Ps. Jon. and F. Lev. 25:34. On. mi 5vm.
Am. 2:7; Is. 47:6 55n5 Targum Nt:l!:IN?. So Ps. Jon. Exod.
20:25. Is. 48:41; Ezek. 20:39 Targum ti5nr,. But 't.:IJint.:11 n'N
Am. 1. C. N5nN5 .
Com. further Kimchi Ezek. 40:16.
To these cases may be added the following cases, which
Cod. Reuch. is at variance with the extant Targum, the latter
being supported by N"5 .
Jerem. 17:7 m~::it.:1 Targum il'1lJt:1::i ; N"5 - il'J~m,. So in
extant T.
Ez. 9:10 ci:i,, Targum i'il':nn ; N"5 - l'il'ni1N; in the
extant T. j1il'ni1N nm1,1!:J .
Micah 3: 11 iJVt.:1' Targum PY'ni ; N"5 - j'.::iono~. So in

the extant T.
Cases in which the marginal variations follow the Ps. Jon.:
Jud. 8:11 iwJ5o Targum i1'I1Jin5, ; N"5 - ;,,m,,,n,. So Ps.
Jon. Gen. 22 :24, Onk. agreeing with Jon.
IK 4:6 I1':li1 Targum NI1':l ; N"5 - imili'. So Ps. Jon.
Num. 22:18; 24:13. On. follows Jon.
Other cases of variants:
Joshua 9:5 o,,ipJ Targum !'JO':, ; N"5' - l'WH:l'l/.
Jud. 3:19 o,,,c:,e Targum N':JYno ; N"5 - N'ilt'J.
lS 24:8 l/ow,, Targum t:l"!:ll ; N"5 - 5it!''.
lS 30:16 b'W~J Targum l'W'~i; N"5 - l't:li9.
2S 18:14 0'~:lW Targum j't:lt:l'J ymaovt ; N"5- l'':,Ji5
IS. 3:23 0'Jl'?Ji1 Targum Nn'tnO ; N"5 - N'i?i'90N.
the Greek 0'31:fXA<XQLOV Lat. specularia. Here is presented a case,
where seemingly a Greek word was replaced by its Aramaic
equivalent. The same was the case with Onkelos. Bacher (ib.)
has made this point ~lear by a comparison between Onk. and
Ps. Jon. and the Frag. That 1s true to some extent also of Jon.,
which is demonstrated in the Greek and its Aramaic substitute of
Oi1'WiJoi cited above. Still, Jonathan appears to have been more
immune to such an attempt than even Ps. Jonathan. Here is
an instructive case: 5pw (Ez, 4:10) is rendered by the Greek
t:l?'!:l cp6U~ while all-Onk., Ps. Jon. and Frag.-render it by
.v5o (Num. 7:13 etc.).
IS. 51:17 r,,yo Targum I1'il/N; N"t:1 - r,,yo.
Ez, 44:20 tioc:,:,, oic:,:, Targum Jli!:lt:I' Ni!:lt:I ; N"t:I - Noc:,:,
1100::,,.
Two cases, one in N"t:1 , the other in N"5 , vary with Jon.
in anthropomorphisms: '?N (Jerem. 31 :38) T. ,n,5 ; N"t:1-'iO'O?
'I11N (ib. 16:11) T. ,r,,; N"5 - 'Jn5i!:l5. These cases and the
case of Jerem. 31:27 cited above reinforce the view set forth
above that later usage eliminated some anthropomorphic sub-
stitutes from the T.
The following are cases of variations found in the Talmud
and Midrash.
Joshua 16:8 i15lt' I1JNI1 Targum i15W I1JNI1 . Y. Meg. 1, 12
i1?'ttti i1'!:ll:>t:l'N
Dmittzed by Microsoft
IS . 25:6 ,n5 i1 .:J Dnir.iKl T argu m 1"n5 1'1.:J. Y . San . 2, 4

Nr.l"i'). So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Deut. 4:4.
IS. 21: 13 .'.liV.'.l ~~~ Targum tl\51 tl.:J 5m"J. Y. Taanith 4, 5
.'.liV.'.l .'.li 5mr.i
IS. 21 :5 n,!:l~i1 i1:::!':. 1n5t:1i1 1iV Targum lr.l'i'~ l'ilnl:l rnc
~n.:i,o Gen. r. 63, 9 ~ni.Jr.i i1D ~ilnl:l i1D and in Cant. r.
,ni.'.lV~ tlvr.i.:i ,lne!'r.i .~:i,-:.,.:i np5,~ .~ni:ir.i nr.,,p~ ,Kilnl:l rrno
~n,.:i5r.i 15.'.li' - pr.,. They agree with Jon. only in the rendering of
tn5~i1 1iV . The citation from Cant. r. contains two recensions .
The rendering ~.;,-:.1.:i np'.ii~ agrees with Cod. Reuch. and is
identical with the marginal note headed ~li' 'Jin.
Psichta Lamentation r. on Is. 22:1, 2 nm5 15.:i n'5V ,.:, -
- i1l')V i1'ii' ; ~n.'.l.'.lil/r.l ~mp - i1'r.lli1 i'V ; pi15 i'i')D ~iJ'K)1
,m,.:i, DP ,.'.l.'.li\Vr.i ti,, - i1.:Jl.:ir.i, i1Dl:::!r.ll i1r.imr.i ; srnn i1'ii'
K':J.'.l1 Dl'
But T. .?ltlPl ~t:,nKl C!l'Ji tl1' 'iK ,;,~,n ~:li.:J ,Knn.'.le!I~ KniP
ib. IS. 22 :8 rrnn- 1or.i 5J'l - ~o:i, ~,;,; Targum 1'1"5Jl
rrncco .
ib. on Ez. 24:6 i1.'.l i1nK'.in it:':-: i'D t:l'r.l1i1 i'V 'lt{ -
; i1\1J fr.l nPl:lJ ~5 i1n't:'lt:':::!nl ,i1llJ.'.l t:l'r.l1 D::::t:-'1 ~nii'1 ~r.li' fr.l 'l~
~nii' 5v ,, Targum mr.ir.i nK':.' :-:5 ;,n~5m - i1llJ.'.l i1n'C!l't:'l:ln1
.i1'.Jr.i nvl:lJ t{5 i1'nr.lli1'Tl i1'.'.l i1'nr.im'n ~i11.:i t{'i11 , ,~:ir o, ,,::.Ki
Cant. r. 1: 1 on Am. 8:3 5:J'i1 mi::' ,5,5m - K5:J'i11 mn.:i:: ;
Targum Kir.ll ~5n .
Y. Shabbath 6, 4 on IS. 29:1 5~,i~ )K'i~ '1i1-~i.'.lJ K'iK ~'i~
Targum ~n.:i,r.i .~n.:i,r.i .
Cant. r. 'ni.'.lVt!' tlVr.i.:i on IS. 47:2 5.'.llt:' '::::t:n - ~n5.:iio ,;::,5p
Kii1J1 ; Targum 1'Jltl5t:' 'i.'.lnK.
Koheleth r. i1r.i:in i1.'.lltl on 2K 18:16 mmlKi1 n:-:, - ~'i1 ;,r.,
. K'iJ'~ l'ir.l~ fj.'.lil ~'i!:l'':. ir.l~ 'l) '.'.l
~ n1Jr.l\Ki1 Targum .K':lli'D
Lev. r. 4: 1 on Is. 1 :21 o,n-:.ir.i ;,nv, - ~')ltli' l'1'JV . Jon.
t~.i:i ')ltli'. Shochar Tob 32, 2 (com. Y. San. 10, 1) on Mi. 7:8
l/~.!:l 5v - p.:im ,:::i,~, . Jon. i'.'.lln 5v i.'.ll/r.ll.
Similar cases are: Lev. r. 5, 2; Num. r. 10, 5 on Am. 6:4
and Lev. r. 6, 2 on Zech. 5:1, all of which represent, undoubtedly,
a different and rejected Targumic rendering. The following case
is to my mind an interesting relic of a rejected rendering. This
is in Frag. Deut. 32:1: J1:l'J'll N'OW? 1?1t:l 10N1 tt'1DO N1i1 pi

,,:in Nwi::i,:i Nl11N1 1'00' NJJn:i N'OW ,,N v,,o Nl11N? ,,:inoN,
The rendering in Jon. is as follows: i5:inoN1 1,:i,J,31 N'OW? 1D'Pf
N'?.J1 Nnio:i:i Nl11N1 ,,v, ,,v,
p NJJnJ Now '1N v,,oNl11N.J
,,:in p The rendering in the F. is literal. We cannot determine
which is the earlier rendering .
The process of alteration had been going on until a com,
paratively late date but not so late as the final redaction of the
Babylonian Talmud. That was made especially possible by the
fact that the T. was recited in the worship by heart. Reading
the Targum from a written copy was prohibited. This inter,
diction is indicated in Tanchuma Gen. 18: 17:
~ ::in:i::i 5:inow N'i1 no rrnru N11P? Cline N1i1W ,o 1J1::i, u,o,,
,re 1::i rrnn- ', ,oN .::in:i::i ,:inon, ,ioN clinon 1J1ni::i, 1Jw 1::i
?ll ,:, ; N1i'Oi1 ,,n - i1?Ni1 c,,::i,n nN ,, :in:, : N1i1 N?O N1PO
.ne 5v::i 1nJw cu,nn ,,n - i1?Ni1 c,,::i,n ,s
This passage is quoted in the Pesiqta (ed. Friedmann), p.
28. Does it imply an interdiction to put the Targum into writing?
This question was the cause of much contention. Rashi
inclined to an extreme interpretation of the prohibition to wnte
down all belonging to traditional exposition. So with regard
to the Mishna which, he insists, was not written down
by Rabi (Ketuboth 19b). Com. Rashi Erubin 62a, beginning
m:i : cn,o,::i n::i,n:i n:i,n ,::i, nn,n N5w n,wn n~lo ~PJ ,:m,
; nwn n?lOO rin nnN n,N ,,,DN also Taanith 12a. He takes
the view that the Targum had not been allowed to be written
down. Commenting on the Mishna Shabbath 11 5a he says:
,"ev, ,l'N'JJN N?1 'NP 1::iin::iN 10ND1 1,w, ,:i::i 'Ni11 ,w,D ,n,::i,,
1::i 1m,,::i iJ,~ow 'JDC 'JN no,,o, .m- i'J1ll~ i,w, 5:i::i 1,::i,n:iw
10N CN ,C'N'.JJJ ~N ,o,N 'JN1 ,1.J l'W1DO rn cu,n ,,oNW ?N'f1ll
10N1 lN01 i1?)0 'oo::i W1DO ,:,n, ,::in::in, 1JnJ N?1 ,:in:, N? 1m,,
10N 1i1?1.JJ
According to Rashi's teachers, with whom he disagrees, not
only was the T. to the Prophets written down, but also allowed
to be read in the service in written form; for, as Rashi him-
self remarks, one is dependent upon the other. For this reason
it was seemingly his teachers who would interpret the contention
between Rab Huna and Rab Chisda as referring only to the
D1a,tuod by Microsoft Ci
H agiograph a, as accord in g to th e interp retation of the G em arah

they on ly differ on th e view of th ose who proh ibit th e
reading from a w ritten T argu m . R ash i, how ever, m akes cap ital
of th e expression in th e B ab li M eg . 3a lir.l~ iJi1 "i'JlK as does
Luzzatto (0. G. IX). But as the saying of R. Jcremia is also
quoted in the Y crushalmi, it is just as well to take lir.lK as an
innocent substitute for ClJin of the Y erushalmi version, which
does not carry this implication. The main source of Rashi's con,
tention is the prohibition contained in the saying of Rabban
Simon b. Gamliel, Y. M. 1, 9; Babli Sb rnnn ~5 Cl'il::DJ ;i~
n'Jl' K;,~ 1Jn.:J't!'. Dut there arc the r:i,r.,:,n (ib. and Shab.
11 5b) who differ with him, and as it is said in Sofcrim 1 5 ,2
Jn::i5 ri-nn ~:=, t:l'i:lDJ ;iKt!' ?~'?r.l) iJ llJJr.lt!' !Ji ir.lKto 'S ?)) ;iK
i1'i1t!' (?~'?r.lJ !Ji) J"Jt;,i::J m.:vr., rn:Kt.:' c::r.,:,n 15 rnn K:i ,n'Jl' ~5K
,s ?JJ ;i~, t:-'ili'i1 ,:in:, 5:, nr.i~t.: Cli1'iJiJ lir.lJJ c:i,r.,:,n ;iK1 ... ,~lJJ
.i1l'JJ O'Jl))t:l jlt:'? ?:JJ j'Jln.:Jt.!'
Furthermore, there is no implication in R. Simon b. Garnliel's
saying of a prohibtion to write down the T. He only meant
to say that the reading from a written T. in service does not
fulfil the required Aramaic rendering. Consequently, as Rab
Porath, quoted in Tosafoth (Shab. ib. ~?1) rightly put it, be,
cause it is not allowed to read it, is equivalent to reading the
Torah by heart and ;,s;,v:::i t:lir.lK? '~t.:'i i1n~ 'K :::in.:JJt:' t:l'"l::Ji
The question raised there against it is thus well answereJ. Com.
also Tos. Sota 33a '.",:,. There is certainly not the slightest ground
for an inference that no written T. to the Prophets existed.
Witness the interpretation (in Babli ib.) of R. Jehuda lJ'nlJil
i::io:::i K5~ li'ni1 K5 lJ'nlJ~ ,,,nm.::i ;iK i111i1' ,, ir.i~ n'Jl' 1i'ni1
i1iln But we well know that at that time all the books of the
Bible existed in the Greek translation. There is the same base,
lesness for the reason ascribed by Luzzatto (I. c.), Zunz (G. V.
65) and others to the prohibition, namely, that the T. contain-
ing some Halaka, was regarded on one plane with E:i"))Jto i1iU1
which was not to be written down (Temura 14b, Gittin 60b).
Had this been the reason, how was the Lxx sanctioned by all
the Rabbis, containing as it does so many Halakic interpretations?
(Com. Z. Frankel i1Jt:'r.li1 '.:Ji1 10 and Ober cl. Einfluss l. c.).
It should also be noticed that the reason given for R. Simon b.
Gamliel's interdiction of other than the Greek translation is
i1::liY 5::i t:l)in5 i15i::i, i1ilni1 Pt(ftl and not because it belongs to the
e"v:iw c,,:::n .
On the other hand, it is well known that in spite of the
interdiction on the written Halaka, the Rabbis did not hesitate
to write down for private use Halakic decisions and intercourses.
It will also be remembered that in the time of Rabban Gamliel
the Elder there was already in existence a Targum to Job. That
the interdiction passed by him on this Targum was not
due to the fact of its being written was shown above. Again,
Esther had also been translated, as it appears from the Mishna
Meg. 17a: ;,::i,,y t(' ... t(Y, t(' pw, 5::i:i cmn t(ii' i15)r.ii1 nt( t(ili'il
ClDin ,,pi ClDin :i,n::i, . The reason is pointed out, for it
is written ClJlrt15::ii c:in::i::i . But there could be no more reason
for considering the T. to the Prophets e"v:i~ c,,:i, than the T.
to Esther.
It is clear then that the prohibition against the written T.

had only been instituted against the public reading in the service.
The reason for that was mainly to avert sharing by the T. the
same sanctity with the original. This is in essence the very
reason given for R. Simon b. Gamliel's view. And this pro,
hibition, it would seem, was enforced even at a date when the
Mishna was already written down and allowances were made
for the written Agada (com. Gittin 60b). Rapoport (pi::lf
letter 3) well expounded the case of the written Halaka when he
said that the prohibition was directed mainly against the public
discussion and was not intended to exclude it from private use.
Berliner (On. 89) rightly applied this view to the T. This view
might be substantiated by Tanchuma (ib.) c,:i,:i Cl)inr.i, ilOt(i
rruna 5::ino;,5, which Friedmann (Pesiqta ib.) is inclined to emend
:in:i:i 5::ino;,5 . The implied indication is that a written T.
may be permitted for private use.
There certainly were in existence written copies of the

Targum, which were restricted to personal use. One such copy
a targumist would employ in public worship and was hindered
by R. Samuel b. Isaac telling him ,i1~:l - i1!:l:l iir.itrn: i:l'1:11
::in:i:i - ::in::i:i ,,r.it(Jftl ci::i,, (Y. Meg. 4, 5). What he meant
amounted to saying that the T. should be read by heart, just
as the original is to be read from the written only.
D1mt1ZC'd by MICf osoft (f

50 TARGUM JONATHAN TO TH E PROPH ETS
Targum Jonathan was used by later targumists. It was

pointed out above that Targum Ps. 18 is a copy with minor
modifications, notice of which will be taken in the chapter on
Other Targumim, of the Targum to Samuel 22. T. Jonathan
was used by the targumist of Chronicles.
The T. to Chronicles exhibits pronounced and independent
characteristics. It pursues, on the whole, its own way of ex-
position and translation. It is more Midrashic than the official
Targumim. He will not, in most cases, let himself be influenced
by the official Targumim. In some instances he will neither fol,
low Onkelos nor Ps. Jonathan. Yet, even this targumist made
definite and considerable use of the Targum Jonathan. The cases
in question are of a typical nature, which do not admit of an
incidental agreement. I will quote them in order of Chronicles.
1 Chronicles 11: 11 1i~::ll 1r.m1 Targum 1it:l::ll 1::l'ii' . Jon.

2S 5:1.
1 Ch. 13 :7 lli~ n~ l::l':li'l Targum in,n~l. Jon. 2S 6:3.
1 Ch. 13:9 )li':l JiJ Targum )imr.:i in~ . Jon. 2S 6:6.
ib. limir.:i Targum t~r.:i~. Jon. ib.
1 Ch. 14:1 i'i' 't!linl Targum ~5m:i l';J5 p;r.:ii~, p5:i'i1~l.
Jon. 2S 5:11.
1 Ch. 14:9 t:l'~!'.li i?r.lV::l mt!-'!'.l'l Targum ~'il::l'J it!l'r.l::l lt!l'~in'l
Jon. 2S 5: 18 reading l~~J'l .
1 Ch. 14:11 t:l'~i!:I 511::l Targum t:l'~i!:1 ,~,r.:, . Jon. 2S 5 :20.
ib. c,r.:, 11::i:i Targum l"r.l ,5r.:,, iM!'.l1 j~r.:, i1:::in:i .Jon. ib. 2S.
1 Ch. 14:15 m:i;,5 1'J!'.l5 t:l'i15~i1 ~~, ,:, Targum P!'.lJ Cllil:'(
5~i?r.:i? 1r.:i1P ~n5~~5 ,, tl1i? ir.l ;,:i~5r.:i. Jon.2S 5 :24.
1 Ch. 16:3 i!'.lt!I~ Targum J15!'.l. Jon. 2S 6:19.
1 Ch. 17:1 Cl'ti~ n'::l::l Targum ~'ti~ 'il':l::l 55~r.:i,. Jon.
2S 7:2, 7.
ib. mv,,, nnn ... )li~l Targum 'D::l ~J:it!lr.:i::l 'it!' ~Jli~l
~nv,,,. Jon. 2S 7:2.
1 Ch. 17:7 1'JJ n,,;,5 l~~i1 'in~ Jr.:i 1'T1Mi?5 'J~ Targum
~:i5r.:i 'li1r.:i5 ~JV in:Jr.:i ~,,, Jr.:i 1'ni::l1 ~J~. Jon. 2S 7:8. The
usual rendering of 1'JJ m the T. to Chronicles is )Di~
(1 Ch. 11:2) p:i1c (1 Ch. 13:1).
1 Ch. 17:9 tllPr.l ,nr.,ri,1 Targum tvnr.i inN. Jon. 2S 7:10.

1 Ch. 17:16 c,i1?N ,, ,JN ,r., Targum nor.,:i NJN n,,. Jon.
2S 7:18 .
1 Ch. 17:17 Plnir.i5 ,:i,m Targum ,nNi Nr.l?l/5. Jon. 2S 7:19.
1 Ch. 17:20 u,JtN:l lJl/r.lti' iti'N 5:i:i Targum NJl/r.lti' ,, 5:i:i
NJr.liP lir.lNl. Jon. 2S 7:22.
1 Ch. 17:21 YiN:l inN ,,) Targum Nl/iN:l ,,n:i, ,N,n Nr.ll/
Jon. 2S 7:23 ... ,,n:i in Nr.ll/.
1 Ch. 17:25' n,:i ,, mJ:i5 Targum ,, c,pN 1:i,r.i. Jon. 2S
7:27.
1 Ch. 18:2 i1nJr., 'Nti'J Targum Oi!3 '?~J. Jon. 2S 8:2, 6.
1 Ch. 18:3 ,,, :i~i15 Targum i1r.imn i1NJti'N?. Jon. 2S 8:3
,,, :l'ti'i1?.
1 Ch. 20:3 i1i)r.l:l iti''l Targum tli1n, ii:lr.ll. Jon. 2S 12:13
Clri''l
2 Ch. 1:14 1?r.li1 tll/l :l:Jii1 'ill:l cnJ'l Targum 'liP:l tlJ'iti'Nl
Cl/nm i1r.l lr.l i:l N:in,. So Jon. lK 10:26.
2 Ch. 2:9 m:ir., c-en Targum OlJi!:l l'~n. Jon. lK 5':25'
n,:ir.i c~n
Diait,zed by Microsoft <f

TEXTUAL VARIATIONS IN JONATHAN
Jonathan, like Onkelos, deviates in many cases from the

Masoretic reading to which allusion was already made in the
previous chapter. There is a way to differentiate the paraphrastic
from the literal sense. Out of the obscurity of the exegetical ex-
pansion there comes forth the simple, written phrase on which
it rests. The Targum Jonathan, although, on the whole, far
from literal adhesion to the text, is unmistakably careful to
transmit both the sense and version of the text. The literal pre-
dominates in the historical portions of the Prophets. Any render-
ing ,then, not in accord with the Masoretic reading constitutes
a deviation from the reading.
This fact was noticed by the rabbinical authorities. Rashi,
while for the most part overlooking them and even following
them in evident belief that they were merely of an
exegetical nature, could not escape the impression that Jonathan
had a different reading. Kimchi and Minchat Shai did
not hesitate to point out in the plainest language some of these
deviations. They have engaged the attention of later rabbinical
writers as well as the modern biblical student.U
On close examination the deviations will be found to con,
1) However, Abrahm lbn Ezra, cntic as he was, would not ac-

cept such a possibility. Thus he remarks in Safa Berura (9, 11, ed.
Lippmann): c::,n r11n M? 1::, ,c1vi11 D':>::i, ,?Mnv p 1ri~11', rnn ,,,,
Min, .1m11 ,,,:in:, 1ri11n', m,vo V'Jn M?l .,mo:, ,M::it p pn11 ', inN
10::, ,cvt:i i:pc,n', e,,, ,,, tl'!l.t"ltl' c,:i, mo1j:)o:i ,~Mi1 .c,1:::, ,1,; nn
j:)i . JO.t"I n,',M ,o::, M1i"ltl' i'~C JIM 1::, .(J ,J j:)lj:):lM) M1:J.I ;::,,:,::, M1?M
:i,v:i ,v,:i n::i::i, . i:icD ,,rin ,::, po, m1tJo 101.r, e,,~, .:;!!I :l'o1n
11))1 .:i,vn 10::, Mli"ltl' 1:l e,,, Ctl'MOl ,,i' M':>l :i,v :i,ri:n ,~Mtl' ,1:p p,
1n10::,1 c,:i,vn cv ,~,,ri :i,v:i 1ovt:1 mn, .D':>ri n';,::,:i ,iv M:mrr
,(lt:1 ,'M c1::,',o) :i,vn 1::,',o ',::, ,o::, K1M 1::,v,, M1M CJ ,(;, ,K::i i"ll))tlll)
,M,,i) c,,,.,n MM c,ric e,it110 1:i e,,, (n .,, n,,:n) ,,n K; enc~,
cnn,:11 M,:i,n ioM M':>tll ,1:iv:i n::,::, t11ii1 (, ,: , ). It is an unsuccessful
attempt on his part to explain away renderings that represent a differ-
ent reading.
52
TEXTUAL VARIATIONS 53
sist of three distinct categories. Some of them represent an un-

questionably different reading. With minor exceptions, they do
not admit of being explained away. The preponderate number
of these deviations consists of a difference in the pointing. Dif-
ferences of this kind are found in great numbers in MSS. claim-
ing the Masoretic sanction. They emanate from a period when
doubts still existed, as to the reading of certain words. Even
the scrupulously literal Aquila version contains variations from
the text. The Talmud presents abundant testimony to them. 2 >
On the other hand, many of these deviations are either followed
by the Lxx and P. or they appear in them in a different form. De-
viations of this description are here classed under heading "A".
There is another class of deviations of a mere grammatical char-
acter. There is a noticeable tendency on the part of the translator
to eliminate the more striking discrepancies either in the number
or in the person of the substantive in the sentence. So the tran-
lator renders them in either one or the other way. Sometimes he
subordinates all the forms of the sentences to the last in order. 4 >
In some cases the reverse is true 5 > and in some instances all
follow the one in the middle. 6 > This principle is observed by
the Lxx and P. to some extent. But it does not appear to have
been consistently followed by the targumist. The number of ex-
ceptions by far exceeds the number of the cases where this
principle is enforced. Thus it is impossible to determine the
basic rule of this principle. It takes the appearance
of an arbitrary and haphazard device. At any rate, this group
of variations does not involve a dfferent reading. They appear
under heading "B".
There is another body of deviations which are very instruct
ive for the biblical student. The targumist made it a rule to
render sentences which resemble one another, but differ in some
2) ,,,1-r QIJll:I 1::, M1li' i,r,M 1'Ml'1 IMM ',M)lt.:lt'I ,):'lt'll'11 11 ,; 101<
n,,, ,,,;v itl,tl ,,:in ,,n1t1 p ,:i,n pie ',"ic : ,,,,, ',"ic ~ ,,,,, ,ic
1'Jtllt' Mish. Aboda Zara 29b. Com. also Gen. r. 94, 4: ;II' 1m1r,:i
.C1lZ'lM ti l:ll :i1r,::, lM~t) 11Mt) 11
3) Com. More Nebuchim 3, 43.
4) Jerem. 9:5; 11 :12.
S') Ezek. 11:19
6) Is. 26:8.
D,nic,zed by Mic.-osoft <P

particulars occu rin g in differen t p arts, in one and th e sam e w ay.

A sim ilar p rocess had been p u rsued by the R abbis.
It is th e ~p,;, an d th e m~ i1i,t) of Hillel
and R. Ishmael b.Jose, 7 >
which forms the seventh Mida 8> of the 32 Midoth enunci-
ated by R. Eliezer. But while in the Halaka and Agada the con-
formation is sought mainly in the circumstances or in the legal
conditions of the cases involved, the targumist is interested in
the wording. The Samaritan text, as it is well known, will often
change a phrase to agree with a similar phrase somewhere else.o>
The Lxx in some instances and the P. to a larger extent follow
the same rule. (Com. Frankel, Pal. Ex., p. 166.). There can
be little doubt that the author had been actuated by re-
flection. Rendering a phrase, the recollection of the other similar
phrase flashed through the mind of the translator to leave its
stamp upon his rendering. Mental activity of this sort accounts
for many misquotations from the Bible found in the Talmud.w!
But this practice could not have originated from a mere un-
conscious play of recollection. The translator must have been
moved by something which he considered an imperative neces-
sity. It will be observed that in most instances treated this
way the author was concerned in eliminating an outstanding di,
vergence in the version of the narrative of one and the same
fact.Ill Whether or not the translator pursued a definite rule
in applying this principle is difficult to determine. For the most
part the author is seen to make the passage second in order to
conform the one preceding it.
This kind of variation is placed under heading C. They
are of an interpretative nature. They do not point to a different
reading, as they were taken by many biblical students. I have
7) Tos. San. 7, Pirkei Aboth of R. Nathan 35, and introduction

of Sifra.
8) Com. Rzifm- ,, Meshib Dabor (Wien, 1866).
9) Com. Kircheim 11ir.it!' ,r.,,::i p. 37 et seq.
10) Com. Aboda Zara 24b, citing IS 15 :15 cim ',r.,r, ie-x
i:l)l,T ',r.,r, it:'N ,;:::in, !Nl/,T ::i::i,r., : o,,::in, tll)t!'r.lm ,p::in, !Nl/,T ::i::i,r., ':,:,
1x::1:, ',::i ?)11 according to v. 9, and San. 49a, citing 2S 3:27 Ct!:' ,n;:, 1
t!'r.lMn - e,r.,r,:, ?N according to 20:10.
11) Com. Judges 7:7 and 20; is 4:21 and 19; 2S 12:21 and 22;
lK 13:9 and 17; 2K 9:19 and 18.
Digitized by Microsoft@
omitted all deviations of a doubtful character or consisting of

an unrendered or added Waw or change of the preposition,
which might be due to the distraction of a copyist or the
Aramaic idiom.
GROUP A
M.T. Targ. R.
Joshua 2:7 m,:i:i:r.i;: ,v ,v u,v
7:5 c:i1,:i2:-: ,v 1m,:ini ,v \2 Cli:lt'-'il ,v
Vac. ,:i,,,
9:4
,,,~~,, ,:i,,,
i10il1:l en Cl) ,t'-'111, l'J1N ~N ,,:iv,
,,,,rN, t(r.i:im:i
11:17; 12:7 p5nn ii1i1 10 N:1?!:i Ni,~ lr.l
13:16 t(:i,,r.i ,v N:ii1r.i ill
Judges 3:2 c:iw,, t(? i,v,,

nn t(?
9:9 ,Jt'-'i nN ,r,,,nn .. p,p,r.i n Jr.ii 1
,:i jt','t( ,,PJ!:inr.i n,:i,

11:34 ~Jr.ir.i ,, PN j1Jlr.)
14:15 "' Cll1t(ii' "t'-'i1?il 1m,,p Nmrn::ir.i,n
1) So in many MSS. of Kenn. and De Rossi. Com. Kimchi. But
Onk. Gen. 49:13 has it literally.
2) So P. and in marg. Syro-Hex, Com. Field Hex. and also
Arab. Kimchi's explanation lacks force. Dillmann's contention (Hand,
buch), "dass blosse Vervolgen passt zu dieser Wirkung nicht", missed
the order of the narrative-as did Herrheimer's objection that "der
Verlust von 36 Mann ist keine Zertriimerung". The same could be
said with much greater force of Joshua's overpowering fright (vv. 6-9).
But the current interpretation that the defeat at the descent is identical
with the loss of the 36 in killed told in the beginning of the v., is
not at all impressive. It is rather to be assumed, which the reading
of the T. unquestionably implies, that the loss of the 36 gave cause
to the ensuing defeat at the descent, where the loss, it would appear,
was sufficient to cause anxiety. I am inclined to believe that the reading
of the T. was c1,::1c,n . Com. iv' ,;:,. The form in itself wouldn't
appear strange to the targurnist, as cases of this nature are numerous.
3) So P. A. Com. Field Hex., I. c.
4) So Sebirin. Many MSS. of Kenn. and De Rossi and extant
editions follow the reading of the T.
5) So P. Lxx read n11i1 .
6) Probably influenced by v. 13.
7) Felt by Kimchi. So Sebirin.
Dmltiwd by Microsoft Cf
56 TARGUM JONATHAN TO TH E PROPH ETS
M.T. Targ. R.
N?il N:l?il NJn, (1tl?il
19:9 run NJ 1J,:, N:lil ll/:l m,:::i < ilJil
2
tlPil nun pi Nr.lP i,n:,

20:34 ill/:::iJ5 ,m:i Nnl/:::iJ5 ornc <s : :irn~
21:10 ,r.~ t,Jt!I !:l1'i1 :.'1JJ l/Jr.in,N ( 4 l/iJJ
1S 2:31 111m nN n11,J1 111,r ~um ( 51llif

3:2 N'i1il .:ir:::i ,:,,, N,r.:,p:::i Nm1 c,r.i,:::i ,n,,
ID'Nil (O tlili1
6:3 ;n~ n~ c,n,t:!lr.i c~ c,n,t:!lr.i 11nN tlN tl,n,t:!lr.i c~

<7tlnN
12:21 ,,nN :i ,,,on N5i ,n:::ir.i r,~on N51 <8 Vac. ,:i
innn rin5!:ln N51 n,Jn5u3
~r.l? 1J'Ni Nml/~?
15:32 mr.in ,r.i ,o t:iN ,,,r.i NJ1::li 1l/::l::l (9 it:!/
Nn1r.l
22:14 1nl/r.lt!lr.l ?N i01 1n11r.it:!lr.i :ii, ,v (10 it:!/
2S. 1 :21 jr.ic.:i:::i n::,r.i ,,:::i Nnt:!lr.i:::i,:i nt:!lr.i, <1 Vac. ,,:::i
1) Com. Kirnchi. Lxx N?M vacant. In one of the MSS. of De

Rossi the Keri ts c',n and Ketib N?M and in two others c',n is the Ketib.
Ginsburg: iii,) c',n :lM:l N?M ')11im', ,iv N?M :JM:i c',n Ni10',.
2) So Lxx Lag., otherwise Mll p', Cl 1;, nun are vacant. P.
c1n MDn mn :iii))', vacant. The T. does not render MDM.
3) Minchat Shai: ::i;)~ :llM:l Ml)!:'' MlNip~ 'M!:':l. So in many
MSS. of Kenn. and De Rossi.
4) Com. Onk. Exod. 21:10. Com. Minchat Shai. This reading
is found in many MSS. of Kenn. and De Rossi.
5") The second 1':lN M::i )ll'H MN is rendered vii tppn. If the
targumist followed here the Masoretic reading there is hardly any reason
why it occured to him a different reading in .))it MN . Lxx read in both
)111 while P. follows in both the Mesoretic reading.
6) So P. Probably influenced by v. 1.
7) So Lxx, P. and many MSS. of Kenn. and De Rossi.
8) So Lxx and P. Com. end of verse n~:, 1n:, : Targum
p)1N N~? 1iN
9) So P. Lxx i.:i vacant.
10) So Lxx. Com. P .
1) So P. and Arab. The suggestion that T. read 1',: , as in
Kenn. MSS. 30, is hardly tenable. It would seem that the T. con-
sidcred this phrase to refer to c,',',n i:m~ . Com. Ehrlich Randglossen
M.T. Targ. R.
5:12 ,M:i5r.ir.i NtUJ ':l1 i1'm:,5r.i N7~Jt.:) 'iN (2 i1NtUJN~J
" 14:14 JUlCIN' N7 itUN tm5 itU!:lN N71
l'!:ICl,M'i cs 1'!:li:lN'
" 15:23 MN 1i1 'J!:l 711 ni1N '!:IN 711
iJir.li1 Ni:lir.l 14 Vac. MN
. 22:44 C'1J tUNi5 'Jir.itUM 'J'Jr.lM <~ 'Jr.l'tUM
" 23:13 C'tU71Ui1r.l i1~!7W NM 'i!Ur.l IU'i 'i:lJr.: (6 i:l'tU7tU
lK. 1 :18 ;7r.li1 'JiN i1Ml11 MN1 <7 i1MNl
1:20 17r.li1 'JiN i1MN1 111:i, i1Ml1l
6:31 M'rur.in mme 7'Ni1 l'CID~r.l cs mru,r.in
lK. 7:3 liN:l !!:101 l'i:JJ N!:lnl <9 i!:lCll

8:26 1
1i:li NJ lr.lN N'r.lJM!:l 111:J !1r.l"DM' i:lii1
8:30 C1Dr.l 7N l1r.ltUM i1MNl 1m.:,ru M':l iMNr.l it.:> c,i,r.ir.i
.. 8:31
c,r.irun 5N 1M:iru
i17N N:11
N'r.l!U tr.i
i1'J'r.l1'1 'M"1
(10 i:l'r.ltUi1
en i17N1 N:11
13:6 ,,11:i 55!:iMi11 'i11t.:>1D tr.i '11:11 <12 1'7N
and Thenius Sarn., to which the expression NM!t'C::ii, points. On the

other hand, it is possible that the T. took 17::,. to mean annointing,
from root ;;::,. PS. 92:11. Ehrlich's assumption (ibid) that the T. read
instead of n,c,,n 1i1t1 - ,, N? is founded on a misunderstanding
of the T.
2) So P. Probably influenced by 1 CH. 14:2.
3) Exod. 5:7. But Com. T. to PS. 104:22.
4) So Lxx. P.
MN is omitted in many MSS.
5) This is the reading in PS. 18:44. As the T. to PS. renders
this word in accordance with the reading here, it is obvious that he
intended to correct the rendering of Jonathan. The rendering of the
T. is supported by P. and Lxx Lag .
6) Com. T. to vv. 23, 24 and Rashi and Kimchi. Onk. Exod.
14:7 felt by Kimchi. Com. Field Hex. Note 26. So Lag. Lxx.
7) So Lxx, P. and 250 MSS. Kimchi: MNt:l ll,11!1 c,,i:,onc 0 1:,
1::, 1)?:iN NH'! iii:,. ?::IN ,! '))I; :llij:) NH'!lt' !!)? ')?N:l i!Ml,'l 1:r::1 it:'Cit
C)lll!ll ')?N:l itMNl ,m n,,ccn !!)Cl Clj:)11\,CM ci!:C l!:C 111;: nn;, Nlil
::i,,i' ,n,,
11,:,n1t1 !l? 11111::i ,::i
8) But com. T. to v. 33; 7:5. Felt by Kimchi:
Clt'lCM lC:l J'Cj:)~C M"ll
9) So Lxx P.
10) So P., in accordance with 2 Chronicles 6:21.
11) So Lxx P.
12) Lxx omit the whole phrase.
D1git1zcd by Microsoft([
M.T. Targ. R.
" 13:12 1iiil 11N ,,.:i:::i 'Ni'' ,NtnN, (1 l~i't
" 16:9 ?l/ it'.'N N~iN 11'::l N11'JJ ,, (2 11:::i:::i
rron
" 16:24 1,,r.i,t'.' iilil Z,N ID'' N:li:l 11' t:m (3 i'l/il
i1~~5n,
" 20:33 1.:ir.ir.iil m5n, il'Jr.l Ni11!::i~m (4 ,.:ir.ir.i
" 21 :8 'i'l/::l it'.'N N11iDJi (5 i'l/::l

" 21 :13 ,il,ll'' ,,,noN, (6 ,,11,,
" 22:30 N:ll t'.'!:ln11il ?'ll'N' 'J11t'.'N NJN t'.'!:ln11N
< 7 NJNl
2K. 2:14 'il'?N 'il?N ,, il'N '11ll/J 5::ip <8 ililN
3:25 il'J:lN iNt>,1:, il/ 11iN11t'.'N N5i il/ i'Nt'.'il ill
111'.'in i'i'J N11ii'J NJ:JN < 911Dii1 i'i'J
iliiJ!:l N5i
" 17:11 tl'l/i tl'i:Ji ,~11, ,n,r.,ip ,,:::i11, ( 10 l 'J 'l/:l
" 17:13 run <,:, 'N'JJ 5:::i ,,,::i j)i:) 5:i ,,:::i cu N'JJ
1) So Lxx P. Kimchi: t):JO 11'1'1 MM!l:i 1N'1'1 10:J 1NITMN1 1".n

',l)!lM
2) Com. Lxx. P.
3) So he renders in;, MN p, 1 ( ib), but t ioiz, "lilil , )1N is ren-
dered literally. It might, however, be interpretative suggested by the
text, for the city-not the mountain-was called by this name. Why should
the T. to Am. 3 :9 render J"lOlt' ,,n literally while J1"1011t' in - N:J"l:J
(Am. 4:1; 6:1), although we find p"1011t' iv (lK 13:32) as well,
would admit of no such explanation. Cases, however, of this sort are
found in the T. Kimchi (followed by Gersonide) infers from the T.
that there really was a city there and Omri just strengthened it.
4) So P.; according to the Maarabai this reading is the Keri
while the Masoretic reading is the Ketib.
5) Com. P. Lxx omit ,,,v:i '11t'N.
6) So P.
7) So Lxx P. Felt by Kimchi. Probably interpretative suggested
by what follows in the verse.
8) Or mN (Com. 2K 20:3). Probably for anthropomorphic
reasons .
9) So Lxx P. Having read i,C'1il and taking it to refer to ;,1):.N
the targumist changed the number.
10) Probably interpretative.
11) P. has both in plural, so that the T. might have been in-
tTuenced by illM ',::i .
M.T. Targ. R.
" 21:8 ,,J;,5 l:}'C:,1t{ t{51 5~5~5 l:l'C:,1t{ t{51 Vac. 5Ji
':>t{irt'' 5Ji 5t{itu' n,
" 23:13 n,nwr.iil ii15 t{'n't im5 ii15
u ilMWr.lil
IS. 3:12 t:l 15tur.i tl'WJ1 t{:,,n ,,r.i:n <2t:1'WJ
5 :13 :iv, ,nr., n:1::,1 t{J!:l:,:, m'r.i pi1i'i''1 <a ,no
8:14 !Jt{51 tuii'r.i5 il'i11 p:,:, il'ir.l'~ 'i1'1
l:)JJ !lli1!:l5 ,ruii'r.i5
8:21 1'i15t{:l1 1:,5r.,:, ,,.,, il'i:in!:l tl1W 'f:1'1
i1'mv~, (4 ,:i5r.i
" 10:15 ~,~,,r.i nt{ ~:iru 1:!'Jil::J t{j~,n t{t.:)jt{:,
l'l/ t{5 il~r.l tl'iil:i t{i~,n t{5 'Mr.l'r.l5 ~:iru l:!'Jil:i
,nr.i, rr.i i'i15t{ ,nr.i rs ,,r.i,,r.i nt{
il':, Vac.
" 10:34 5?i'.:::l ill'il ,:,:,c:, l:!i'J1 'i::lJ 5,~p,,
pi:,mr.i, ;,,n,,rur.,
t{5fi:l::J 5ti:i:i
" 11:16 . .'il tl'inm W:1'1 :,,,n;,
" 17:2 '-:Vil/ ,,v m::iw ,::i,n p;,,,,., pi,,:,ru il/il/ 'ill
" 21:13 1J'5n :i,11::i ,v,:i t{t!/r.li:l t{rt'j,MJ (6 :lil/:l
" 23:3 ,n~ 11,r tl':li tl'r.i::i, t{,,r.c t{i'!:lcr.i m;,, <7inc
1) Com. Rashi and Kimchi. It is so quoted by t!1e R. Josi,

Shah. 56b. This reading is found in one MS. Kenn.
2)
Felt by Rashi, Kimchi. So Lxx. A. Com. Esther r. 2, 2:
::11n ',v::i:i tn',v
p::i!lli' NJin '1"N ,::i ,;iz,~ ctz1J1
3) So Lxx P. Rashi and Karo follow the T. without taking
notice of the deviation. Kimchi noticed it in the T. Hitzig, Ehrlich
and Krauss would read here ll~ , (Com. Onk. Deut. 32, 34), which
would, however, not agree with this rendering.
4) Kimchi seems to have noticed it. Though the absolute ,;~
is always rendered literally by the T. Com. Gray Is. In. Com. As to
, , n',N::n see Dill P. Ehrlich IS.
5) Lxx P. omit ne~ c,,n:, and have part of J:\'Jn:, .
6) So Lxx P. In general the T. is apt to such an interchange, as
will appear in the sequel.
7) So Lxx P. V. Kimchi also noticed it in the T. This reading
of the T. was adopted by Hitz., Cheyne, Guthe and Kn.
D1ait1zc,d by Microsoft
M.T. Targ. R.
IS. 29:13 WJJ ,:, Ill' ::i,::i,nNi ~,n WJJ
(1
30:6 Cli1r.l W'5l N'::15 )>iN::l i::l N'iNi il1N <2Vac. Clilr.l
~!:lWr.l ~iWl i1l/!:lN Jl'iN
30:8 o5w ill iv5 lii1C5 (3 ,v5
30:27 i1NWr.l i::i::il Ni::llC5r.i 'Wi'l i1NWr.l i::i:,1
38:13 ,r,,,w l1'r.li1J NJnJN 'l1l/lW
40:6 ricn 5:,1 tW!:lvin 5:i, lJCn
40:17 n pN:, Cl'lJi1 5:, Nr.,5:, N'r.lr.ll/ 5:,
15 1::iwm li1nl c::Nr.i Ni'r.lJ llil'i::lUI
llJ'N i1N~'Wl ... Cl!:lN
'illr.>iP p::i,wn < Vac. liJJ
43:4 ,,nnn oiN JnNl N'r.lr.ll/ l1'iClr.ll ll1Nl
it:!~J nnn Cl'r.>lN51 Nm:i5r.i, inmn (:; Cl'r.ll/
1W!:lJ ~?n
48:7 onvr.iw N51 o,, 'J::51 jlJ 'niCl::l N5l < 6 Cl' nvr.iw
49:17 1'J::l lii1r.l ,,n::i,n pJ::i' nm- (71'J::l
53:7 i1Jl/J Nlill t!'JJ 'll::l (8 WJJ
54:9 ,5 nNt nJ ,r., ,:, m, ,r.,r:, ,r.,,:,
56:11 w,, N5 Cl'lli i1r.li1l
I '::li1 j't!'N::lr.l jlJ'N <9Cl'l/i
1) So in many MSS. Com. Kimchi and Seder Eliahu r. 2, 24

2) Cort would have C:!:'O so Krauss, which would have the 6Up
port of the T.; still, it is not improbable that the rendering is ex-
planatory .
3) So P. V.
4) Lxx also omit 11;! ; Lxx and P. read C!:H?. There is no
reason to suppose that 11;) was omitted for anthropomorphical reasons.
5) This is suggester by the parallel; but it may also be ex-
planatory. Graetz and Klost. amend Cl"H which would have the sup-
port of the T.
6) Com. Lxx P. V.
7) So Lxx. (Com. San. 64b: 1')1:1 N?H 1'):I H"lj:)tl ?H 1'):I 'J:n).
8) So P. Sym. V. (See Dil. P. T. 2) and in many olJ Hebrew
MSS. Com. Chayoth, Mebo Hatalmud, 25. Com. Berachoth 7b, 14a.
9) So Lxx P. and S. Kimchi remarks: 1m1, '.l"ltlt!' Hor,;, 101
l'IZ'H~ Cl1V")
M.T. Targ. R.
58:3 i,rumn c:i,::iYll ,:i, p::iipo tint( <1 t,tuJJn
59:18 c,ru, ,v:i m,oJ ,v:i t('?OJ ,,o < 2 m,,oJ ,v:i
61:3 nnn n,nn ;,~vr.:
;,;,:i m, ~,n t(n::iruo m, <3 n,;,n m,
65:1 'Ott':! t(ip t(? ''J ?t( 'Ott':! '?YO N?1 (4 t(,p
Jer. 6:14 'Oll ,::iru nN ,N::i,,, ,:in n, 'N'CN, ,::iru nt(

.. 10:24 ~eruo:i 1N ,.:,,c:,,
't.:ll/1 Nnt!'J:l
1rm ~pn, N?
c:"Oll n::i
... c,c:,,
. 11:12
'J~'llr.>n re
n,,::i;, ,,::i, nN ,vow-
i,,v,, No,, tm::i
NOJn!:l n, ,,::ip
(6 ,~lit.:>'
n,m, ~'N ?N cm::i,, <7m,,,om <8 erro-n

11:14 1ll:J ''N tlNiP nv::i '?YO nN1 !1'll:J '?t( 1NiP
.. 15:14
cnv,
1':J't( nN ,n,::ivm
t,Mtu':J l1'll:l Pil'?l/ <0cnv, nv::i
',:i, 1,1::ivnrum <10 ,n,::ivm
" 23 :26 :i,::i ru,;, ,no nv Ji't( 'nt.:l'N 1ll
tl 'N':JJi1 1,n::i,::i <11 ru, ,no ,v
" 27:8 ,,,::i tlJit( 'Oli 1ll 1,;,n, ,coNi 111 u2 ,nn ,v
1) So Lxx. Kimchi: p::,r,',j,n ',::,1 1m11 lMlN o;ir,t11 no1r,;, 101

,J'tl':1 10::l OJir, p:iipo
2) But Is. 63:7 it.l'N ',;: ?l,'::l literally.
3) It is possible to explain the rendering of the T. as suggested
by the parallel nn::, t11i, and would smoothen the difficulties felt by the
commentators on this point.
4) So Lxx P.
5) They might, however, have been infiuenced by 8:11.
6) So Lxx. Com., however, chapter General Peculiarities.
7) So Lagarde. The same MS. was also before Kimchi, but in
the copy of the Minchath Shai and many others the reading is"p',',QMl
8) So Lxx. Com. P.
9) Lxx P. A. and many Hebrew MSS. Otherwise the T.
might have been influenced by v. 12: .onv, nv:i on', 1v1t1111 N? Vtl'lnl
10) So Lxx P. Kimchi noticed it in the T. and remarks that he
found this reading in many MSS. See also Kittel: Guesebrecht. Still,
it is not impossible that the T. was influenced here by 17:4 ,,ri,:ivn,
i1:i111 MN and hence the reading of the Lxx P.
11) So Lxx P.
12) So P.; also noticed by Giesbrecht and Cor., but it may
also be interpretative.
Dmit120d by Microsoft
M. T. Targ. R.
" 29:12 c:in:::,5n, 'T1N tlT1Niv, 5::ivN, 'r.>1P r,5~n, 'T1N tlT1Nii''
5N c:ir,55!:inni Ir.> 1w::in, r,:::im5~ n c:i:::,,5N 'T1llr.>t:!'1
c:i:::,,5N 'T1llr.>t:!', p:::,nill::i 5::ivNi 'r.>i~
" 31 :39 n,r.>it:!'i1 5:::i, NT1"1N 5:::i, <2 mr.>,m 5:::i,
" 49:3 nn,J::i i1J~~,r,:mn, lll'D::i Nr.>nnNi <3 miiJ::i
51 :3 ?llT1' 5N, ... ,,,, 5N N51 ... nnr.> N5 ( 4 ,,,, ,~
Ez. 1:7 ~:::,:::, tli1'?Ji ~:::,\ !?J?JD !'?Ji T1Di!:i:::i <s 5,ll
?Jll ?Ji
5:11 ~pr, ~~i'~ ~J~ ~N, (6 l/1Jt{
,,:::,,
7 :5 i1lli nn~ i1ll1 ~nt!l::i ,n::i ~n~::i < 7 int{
10:6 c:i:::,5 mn it!'~ p:::,5 T1'::li1'1 <Sc:i:::,5 'T1T1J
10:29 tlt!' tl'N::li1 tlT1N it.:'~ jT1~ PT1t{1 tlT1~ 1t!'N
<0 tl'N::l
" 12:12 ~, ,eN Ill' i1D:::i ,,J~ t{?\ ~m :in, ~5n ~, 11:!'N Ill'
r,~ ~'i1 I'll? i1Ni' t{llit{ r,, 'tn' iHI? i1~1'
1'1Ni1 (10 i'1t{i1 r,~
1) Probably cir,::i',;, was omitted in the text of the T. P. also

omits it. Lxx omits the entire portion and begins with cn:i'ml'lm
Giesb. conjecture ,r,;t,l)Jl by the T. is not justified.
2) Lxx has here the Ketib. P. omits it entirely. The reading
Ml~iT by the T. is the only plausible explanation of the peculiar ren-
dering of this word. nm,c- is usually rendered by the T. by tc'?nJ Nie''~
(!K 23:4; IS. 16:1). Com. Aruch Nl1"1N and NMilN.
3) Felt by Kimchi. Com. P.
4) So Lxx codd 88, 106, P. In some MSS. N'? is the Keri.
Felt by Minchat Shai and Kimchi.
5) So A. Rashi follows it.
6) So P. Sym. Vulg. This is the Ketib to Madnechai, but this
reading is to be found in many MSS. So in M'turgom of Eliahu
Halevy under root =J~i' . He cites this verse reading ;;i;N .
7) Noticed by Kimchi.
8) So P., so Toy. was probably influenced by V. 15.
9) So Lxx P.
10) So P. Probabiy both of them read 1':.'' (Com. Is. 18:9 etc.).
On the other hand, we find this case i ~ Ketib and p;.- Keri (Com.
2S 16:12).
Digitized by Microsoft q.D

M.T. Targ. R.
13:11 W':IJ5N 'J:IN ilJJ"lN, W':!J5N 'J:IN n '' 'J:IN l"lN,
<1w,::,5JN
13 :21 tl'W:IJ l"lN Pil'W:IJ l"l' tlW:IJ
.. 14:8 ill/iii 511 cim:in.:i, Nl"lW':1 5:i 5ll <2 5:i 5ll
.. 14:22
16:15
,,n,:ir::i
m,mr::iwm
,m,,:iJ <a ,,,n::,r::i
il'J',wN, <4m,mr::i,wm
. 16:36
,,nm l"lN ,::,nwm
'il' ,, ,:nv 5::, 511
,:ivr::i, ,, iw::, N5,
1::, (li 'il' N5
17:21 iWN 1'J:I 't.:ii::J' 1.:i::, ci, m,n:i, (6 1'J:I ,r::i,:i,
tli15 'l"ll"lJ
18:17 ,,, :l'Wil 'Jl/t.:i :l'l"lN N5 N,:iot.:it.:i N5 'Jl/t.:i
19:7 ,,mJt.:i5N lli''

il'i'
il'l"l'Ji':I 'iYN, v,,,
<7 :l'Wil
.. <8Pl"lUt.:iiN
. 21:19 tli15 l"liiMil :liM t,i15 Nl/'lt.:ii

',::,, ,n,,nwN
<9 l"liiMil
.. 21:21
21:21
'J't.:i'il 'iMNl"lil
't.:i'Wil ,y,w,
<10 ,,nnil
pw:i
1) Minchat Shai: ll''J..l',N ,,::N MNl N'lli' l"l'l"lt!' l"IN'l) tm,,,;

Kirnchi remarks that he found this reading in a MS.
2) So in some MSS. Caro I. c .
3) So Lxx, Syro Hex. and in five MSS. of Kenn. and De RoS11i.
4) Noticed by Rashi and Kimchi; so also in Aid. Codd. 42, 68.
5) So P. and in some De Rossi MSS.
6) So P. and Vulg. and a great number of MSS.; the Afudi,
ch. 14, remarks: (':i n,:11) cr.,t!'n nin,, VJ'lN::i n::n rrnen =i::in l"IN:l
.,,,:i m,::i (:i" ,'T Vll'll"I) ,::i,, ,rrN::i (1" ,n", n,r.,.,,) civ m,::i
7) Probably interpretative, making the following N',
referring to
,,31~; also Lxx; so 28th middah of R. Eliezer. See Eliezer of Beau-
gency, who puts as an explanation of ',131 J31r.,. Com. Heller
ll'l'l'l"I ',rm ',31
8) So A. aliter et dimit palatium eorum. So EW. Toy 31,,,
Com. Kimchi. His point, however, is not clear. The T. rendering of
Jud. 8:16 31,,,,is :i:in, or 'l:l..ll as Kimchi had it or 'l'l..l as in Lag. or
'i''Nl as cited in tn:: tJN by Menachem b. Solomon.
9) So Lxx P. A. Vulg. was noticed also by Kimchi.
10) So is rendered nin,n (v. 15). John d. Buch Ez. assumes it
represents a Syr. Ith. form.
D,att,zed by Microsoft
64 TA R G U M JO N A T H A N TO TH E PR O PH E T S
M.T. Targ. R.
.. 24:26 1'?~ D'?!:lil ~:i ~,10:i 1'nll/Ot:'t'~5 <1. 1nun:it:'t'il5
.. 26:2
C:l'Jt~ nll/r.it:'t'il5
;,:iinil ;,~,o~ ;,:11,n ~,,o mm il~?t::lil
il~,r.,~
.. 26:20 m:i,n:, ~n:i,n:i
(2
ca m:i,n:i
t:l'1t!'~ n:i <4 1t:'t'~n:i
..
" 27:6
27:23 ;,:i,n o,,~, ,nm,
l'll1:it:'t'~, l'l1
llil'iilJ rn~, c;,,,~,
30:12 105:, ,,~~ ,,r.i, ,,n~ ,,r., 5:,
34:26 m:i,:101 on~ ,nnJl ,mo rmn, ,,C1~1
,nv:i; ,,no nl:1'::20
39:16 ;,;1r.,;, ,,v t:)~ t:)Jl tr.in, ~~, t:l:!1
o~:io ,o l~'Jt:l~ r,;,,;105t:1 (:; it!'

..
Hos. 4:18
6:5 ~~, 11~ 1'D::l:!lr.ll l''lJ 1lilJ:i 'J'1l 'D!:l:.:'~l
.. 7:12 oniv5 vr.i:::, rmmv5 1vo~, 5v
(G ~~, 11~:,
17 cm,v
jlir.it: 15JV nn (8,n;t

.. 8:5
9:1 ,~it:,, nr.it:n ,~
~?Jl,' in::l ll/t)
~,, pinn ~5
t:l'r.ll.1::2 ,, J ,~ pv,:in (9 ,,; ,~,
" 11 :7 lil~ii'' ?l.l ,~, llillil,'r1 (10 l~1i''

" 12:1 Cl.I 11 1ll.l il1lil'l W:ll,' ~?J1 1l.l
o:.:11v ov, 5~ r,;~, ,~il,~1
rr.i~J ,r.i,v i'n5::i 11;,, ... 5~ Cl.I
~:.:,,v ~~l.l iivnr.i (ll t:l't:'lii' Cil.ll
" 13:10 1:i5,:i 'il~ j~ (12 il'~
1) So Lxx P.
2) So Lxx; accepted by Co. Seeg. Gratz.
3) So Lxx P.
4) Com. Is. 41:19. Felt by Kimchi.
5) Felt by Kimchi.
6) So Lxx P. (Com. Nowack Die Kl. P.).
7) So Lxx P. ::i:i;,,, (See Vollers Z. A. T. W., 1883, 250).
8) So P.
9) So Lxx P.
10) So P.
12.) So Lx x P.
Digitized by Microsoft~)
M.T. Targ. R.
Am. 5:10 Ni:J iY:Jt., ,11 ic,i r.,,,c,t., ... pm:::i, U N'::l'
6:10 i!:liCt.,i N1'i''t., '!:liCt.,
Mi. 4:9 lli 'll'in ;,to,, nm, m~ ;,to,, 1:11:i,
Ni:::innt., llin <2 Vi
. C>:11 l/Wi 'JfNt.,:J i1:ltNi1 <3 n:::irn
ii.:irn
Nahum 2:3 ,Nil!'' PNl:I ,Nil!''' i1'ni:Ji PNl
3:6 'Ni:1 <4 'Ni,
irn ,:i 'J'll'
Zef. 3:18 ,,;, 1t.,t., n!:lCN ... ,,n,,11 ,, ... ,,;,
Ze. 9:13 ,11 ti'Y 1'J:J m,w, l"Y 1J::l i:JJNi <5 n,,w,
,,, 1'J::l
12:5 c,wii :JI!'' '' i1Yt.,N :in,, IDi!:l n:inwN '::lWi, NYt.,l\t
c,w,,, <6 c,w,,,
" 14:5 ,,n N'J enen cnnc,, <7 encl,
14:6 rm iiN i1'i1' N, l'i1'N Niii1J 'i1' N, <8 n,ip,
l'N!:lDi ,,,), ,,v
Mal. 2:5 ~iit., i, CJnNi n:::in,, (9 tnNi
1) So in some MSS. and Lxx P.

2) So Lxx, though in a different sense.
3) So Lxx P.
4) So Lxx P.
5) ,,,v ,,,.v,(Is. 10:26) ,n,,v ,r,,,, :
CIIM!li ,, ,,,.v (Is. 14:9)
.n,1v11
6) The reading of the T. was probably M'llCM found in many
MSS. See Min. Shai.
7) So Sym. Aid. Codd. III, XII, 22, 23, 26. De Rossi found
this reading in the Lxx.
Kimchi oi!lo l"l'lli'C'.:l M'llCl pi. So Kimchi 1:11tlfillfl"I ,~o; also R. Eliah
Halevy l:ltlfitlfM l"lM~M and lbn Ezra pointing out this being the reading of
nitCl'I ltlflM . Com. Eich. Ein. V. 1, p. 419 (German Ed. 1787).
8) But com. Gen. 42:9 etc. See Rikmah on the change of Waw
to Jod. Com. Sup. Am. 5:10.
9) So Lxx P .
Diait1zed by Microsoft q,
66 'fARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS
GROUP B
M.T. Targ. Following

Joshua 7:8 ~ill ?Nit:!!' 1:lil tm5ir, (1 ,,:i,,N
8:14 '::J lli' N? Nlm Jllli' N5 JlJ'N' lr.1'::Jt:!I'' liilr.i,,

,5 :lilN Jlil? NJr.l::J 'iN 2 > 1'11,i''
.. 9:20
20:5
tlnlN n-nrn
nv, ,,:i:i '::J
tl'DJl
il'l/ir.i N?:l
<3 ilt!'l/J nNt
'illli nN rcn
Judges 2:14 tl'tlt:!1 ,,:i Pil'm:i tlil':l''N ,,:i
tlil':l'lN 'J:l?
.. 2:22 1ii 11N j;pn, JnilN < 4 o:i n::i55

20:37 lt:!l'nil :lilNill
,~t:!l:l'l
iJJnN, ,n,N ::JilNil 1Wr.i,,
(~ ,,,
.
IS. 2:29
6:4
tl::JN'"'l:lil?
tl5::J5 nnN ilnJr.i ,::J
Jlilnl?::JlN?
p::J5i::J5
Implied
<7 c::JiC5,
6)
" 17:40 tl'lliil 5::J:i il'?'r.li!1:l, <8 ll/?Dl 15 it!'N

2S. 3:15 t:!l'N tll/r.1 i15v:i m5r.i < 9 ililD''
" 23:5 rcn 5::Ji ,r,,v:i 5::Jl (lO,llt:J' 5::J ,::J
IK. 8:46 :i,,N 'J:l; Jlil':i:i, ,,v:i tlnm,
" 18:18 15m pn5tN, tl::J:ltl/:l
" 21 :11 :1111::J it:!IN::J n:in::Ji Nr.i::i ilil?t:J it:!IN
..
2K. 19:4
23:5
lilttin,,
j~p,,
JlJ'Ci:ll
lD'CNl
tl'i!:lCil 11N
uru it!!N
..
IS 10:8
13:2
iC!':l ,v,
t:!l:lJr.i Jlil'i):l tll/ Jlil't:!l:lJ (ll ,5r.i"1::Jl lill'
c,:i,,J ,nnn N:i,, Nill/in:i Jl?ll'l implied by
.. 19:20 tl''lli15 'J:lr.i Pil'Dni

context 12>
.. tli15 n5t!!i
oa c5'11m
1) Also v. 12; so P.
2) Lxx put the whole in singular. So P.
3) So P.
4) Sbirin, followed by Lxx Lag. So P.
5) So Lxx P.
6) So P.
7) So P.
8) So P.
9) So Lxx P.
10) So P.
11) P. has it in the 2nd person. Com. Lxx.
12) P. in 2 p. f. 13) So Lxx.
M.T. Targ . Following

21:14 ,on,:i IU'1N1 Non, W'lil
1'5:JN
" 23:13 ''JM:J NilT'lHM il'T'lJOiN
" 26:8 1'Cl!a~O MiN qN NJi:io 1J'1 n,N, (1 ,,J,,t,
10~, ,,J,,t:i 1Ji:i,,,, 10~,

~!:lJ mNn 1,:ir,, NJ~!:lJ man
" 26:9 ...,n,,N '~!:lJ N10MO '~!:lJ <2 ,m, ,~!:lJ
':tit,:t 'mi qN ,mi qN
1in~N 15 N:ti:io
" 26:19 ,r,,:iJ ,,no ,,n, i,iln5:iJ ,o,) <3 uJ,, 'Y't:'il
1,0,i,,
" 30:11 ,,, 'JO mo . NJPCICN m':t~il
ni,N 'JO ,ciil NJ,5Cl:JN < 4 'J'J!:lO
" 30:13 il:t)~J ilo,n:i qi,r,o ,,~:i 5!:lJ ri!:l:i
" 33:2 c,,i,:i, cv,r n-n . NJ!:lt,,r, ''ii .. JJ''t:i ... mn
,mv,~, qN NJJt:ii,!:l qN <~ unv,~,
iliY T'lll:J
" 33:3 c,,) ,Y!:lJ 1noo,,o ,,1:ir,,N ti,:i) ')00 < 61,oil ,,i,o
010 CYiN ilT'lm Nm:i,o
" 34:7 1~,, :i,no ci!:lv, 1,i1010 1,ilviN ,,,m CYiN ilmi,
1,il:iirio 1,ili!:lv, <7 ci!:ll1'
li11'
.
" 40:26
44:7
Nii,, c~:i c,:i,
,:i,, n,5ym PMN:til
lilO~:J
T'1M'5YN, < 9
<8 CN:JY
,,r,N:Jil
" 46:1 C:l'T'lN~J t,iln,vci ,,mo Cil':JYV ''ii
1) So P. Lxx. Rashi, Kimchi, Karo fellow this explanation.

2) So P.
3) So P.
4) So Lxx ( see the difficult explanations of Kimchi).
5) So P.
6) P. puts for the same purpose p~n in the 2nd p.
7) So Lxx. P. in :i,n~ only.
8) Lxx P. render in pl., influenced by Ps. 147:5.
9) So Lxx P.
D1mtized by Microsoft

" 42:6 KWt.:l ~?t.:l l?:l' K?l lli1'?~J tlW!:lJl
" 48:15 KiP' 'Jlt.:l:l 't.:ll i1J 'Vil/ pi 'm:i Jt.:ll n,.:i,,
<1 i1:JiV'l
.. 51:8 WV tl?:lK' i.:i::i::i :i 5:iKi KWl::l?:l 'iK ,.:i::i:i
ec tl?::JK' it.:lY::Jl Kit.:lV:ll KWV i1'? <2 it.:lY::J
.. 57:15 PWK w,,p, cmr.i

K::lPli i1'::l inKi
KWiPl 'iW Kt.:lli::l <3 lt.:lW WliPl
. 58:14 . ,ri::i:i,m
i1!1J'::JW
1J'?:ll'l ,J'i~'' implied by
1'11?:lKill context
Jer. 2:27 ::iK rv, c,r.i,K 11K KJl::IK ,;ri,,
.. i11'l.K
.. 7:24
9:6
mYVt.:l::l
nr.i,r.i im::i 111::iw
)li1'1'1YV::l
1,nriwJ:i ri::i::i p::iri
tl::l? llli'i:!l::l
lJKt.:l i1t.:lit.:l::l
10:4 m::ipr.i::i, m,r.ior.i::i i1'? ~pr,r., li1!:l"
ClPfn'
11:14 tlKiP 1111::l ?Yt.:l 1'1Ki ti'V::l ??!:1111'1 ?K
11:22 ::i,n::i ,mr.i c,m::i;, 1,,~pr,, ili1't.:l?ll/ tli1'J::l
c:nmJ::i, cnJ::i ( tli1'1'llJ::ll
::iv,::i mr.i
Ez. 11 :19 inK ::i, en, rim,

11:22 . nw,n nm 11'1K K5n, nm < 5 en, , rim,
.. 22:10 n,.:i
tl::J::liP::l lli1'l/t.:l::l
<61::i m,
.. 22:30 n,v c,,,,.:i
::iK rinv
nriwv,
lK'?.l
i1\J::l ci 11:l!:IW
i1::Jl1'1::l
1) Lxx P. render them all in absolute.

2) So P.
3) So P. Lxx seem to have had an entirely different reading.
4) So Lxx.
5) So Lxx P. Sym. Vu!.
6) So Lxx Sym.
.. 23:40"
M.T.
mn5ri,n ,:, '!N1
Targ
nn5ri, ,,N n5n:, mrn,
n,111
26:11 ,,n riN5 iJr.i Jii1' Cir.ii
35:8 1mNJ1 1nw:iJ nn5m mnr.i, n 1'ii1
1'P'!:lN 5:,1 'ini''lt!:l 5:,1
35:10 ,5 mY,Nil nri, mn,N1 < 1 mit,Nil nri,
mJri,,,, mnn
36:20 iri,N C1Ji1 5N N1:J'1 N't::lt::ll/ J,:J5 15111 <2 1N:J ifl'K
Cti' 1N:J
1'511 1t::lt::lti' iti'N:J il,5 1i:JCli ilt::l:J 1iNn1 1i1NiD
Hos. 10:1 il:Jiil ,,,c5 :Ji:J JM51!:l 1N'JCIN ,i!:l5
:1m:, ,,n,n:1tr.i5 t1ili1JN5, <3 WiN5
n1:J'ltt::l 1:l't:lil 1YiN5 tmnr.ip
14:9 1,c tiiln:Jin5 1Ji1~N1
Am. 2:3 t:i!:l1ti' -rrom Nilli iliri, 5:,1
Mi. 5:4 1511 NJ5ll . 1JYiN:J
1J' n1Jt::liN:J
1Jt::lPm
7:15 1TIN'lt r.i:, 11ilP!:lt::l 1JNiN
..
Na. 2:14
3:7
il:J:Ji
i15 i1J r.i
1:in,
1511 ,,,, jt::l <415
1,!:l.:n
cr.inJ0
Za. 14:5 5:, i15N i11i1' N:J1 il't::lll (:;N:J1
1011 c:,,ri,,,p
1) It is not necessary with Cor. (D. B. Ez.) to suppose a differ-

ent reading by the T. Suggested by the text, the T. would not hesitate
to render it as if it were in Hiph.
2) So P.; so also in Ez. 20:38; 23:44; Jerem. 51:36; Mi. 7:12,
noticed by Min. Shai. In Masoreth Seder Sh 'Jach this is considered
among those that are written in sing. and the Sebirin in pl. That
the T. follows in a good many cases the Sebirin as well as the Mad-
nechai was noticed by the Min Shai. (Com. Ez. 5:11; B:17; 14:19;
Min. Shai Jerem. 49:36; Mi. 7:12). In P'sichta Lam r. ttij.) ,,,::r n1n I!?
,,::i,::i::i l!?I! 11t1::i11 l!?I! ,r.i,r.,', So in many Kenn. MSS.
3) Lxx make nin::ito', conform to ni::i::11:1. P. follows it closely.
4) So P. Lxx put all in the 3rd person. The reading of 1?
is found in many MSS.
5) So Lxx P. noticed also by Kimchi.
D,aituC'd by Microsoft

Mal. 2:15 5N 1'ilVJ l1tuN:1' ivtul1 N5 ... <1 t:ll1ir.ltuJi
.. 2:16
iJ:::,.,
;,o:i, ... n,ru NJtu ,:, ilN~n ,o.:,n N5i ... c.:,n,;:::,.
,rui.:i.5 511 eon irui::i.5::i. <2 ,,J::i.11
GROUP C
Joshua 1 :9 nnn 5Ni l'il/11 5N Targum ;:::,.1111 N5i 5nin N5

According to Deut, 31 :8 nnn N5i Ni'l1 N5 On. ;:::,.1111 N5i 5n,n N5.
Joshua 2:4 ucsm Targum <3r,Jl1ir.l~Ni. According to v. 6
t:lJr.i~m.
Joshua 6:6 z,,;:::,.;, fiiN l1N iN:!' Targum <4,,, Nr.l'i' tiiN z,,.
According to V. 8 ;,,;,, z,,;:::,. ri,N, .
Joshua 6:8 ;,,;,, 'J~5 Targum <5,,, NJiiN t:ii'. According
to V. 7 inil' fiiN 'J~5 .
Joshua 9:4 ,,,~'!l,,
Targum <6 ,,,,rNi .
According to v. 12
iJi~~il.
Joshua 12 :8 mituN::i.i Targum Nl1r.lir.l 1erur.i::i., . According
to 12: 13 moe;, m,cN.
Joshua 18:7 in5nJ iliil' l1Jil.'.:l Targum f1J'N fiil5 :::,.;,, 'i !Jl1r.l
tiill1JOMN . According to 13 :33 cn5nJ Niil 5NiC'' i15N iliil' -
.. ri;,5 :::,.;,, ,, rmr.i .
Joshua 22:24 ,~iC'' 'i15N ,,,, c:,5 ilr.l Targum p5in r,:,5 z,,5
Nir.>r.i:::,.. According to vv. 25, 27 .. P5n c.:,5 l'N.
Judges 5 :8 cru,n c;i5N in:,., Targum 5Nitt'' ,J:::,. iN'llil1N ,:i
.r,.:,11;,::i.N r,;,:::,. ivOl/l1'N N5i N1::i.1111N :,.;pr.ii rmn Nml/~, n,~r.i,
According to Deut. 32:17 ci,11ru N5i iN::i. :::,.i;pr.i cc::,n t:l'i15N
c:in::i.N.
1) So Lxx.
2) So Lxx.
3) Lxx in both places have E:KQU,j)Ev Com. Jalqut I. c.
4) So P.
5) So P. V. and 4 MSS. and in 3 Kenn.
6) Many Kenn. and De Rossi MSS. read n~:i' 1 So Lxx P.
Felt by Kimchi
Judges 7:7 c,pp~;, W'Ni1 niNr., nw5w:l Targum op;,,1,:1 11w1

1mr.,Ul5. According to v. 6 Ci1'!:l 5N r::,pp;r.,;, iec.,r., ,;,,,.
Judges 7:18 lU11J5i m;,,; on,r.,Ni Targum <2N5~pr.,1 N:iin
C1P 1r.,. According to v. 20 P311J5i ,,; :1,n iNip,,
Judges 20:38 !W31i1 nNtut.:, Targum <3 pr,, ,,~,. According
to v. 40 ,,,!W31i1 1ir.,31 - ,,~,. , LI ! t !. rl : i I
Judges 20:40 ;,r.,,r.,w;, ,,31;, ;,;:i ;,;31 rum Targum p,;c., Nm
N't.:,W r,,y; Nnivi NJJr,. According to Joshua 8:20 tW31 ;,;31 mm
ilt.:,'r.lWi1 ,,31;, - NJJr, p,;c., Nm
1S 4:13 ii!:lYr.l 1,1 1' NC:Ji1 ;31 :lW' ,;31 i1Jm Targum 531 .
HN31i.n niiN w:i:i. According to v. 18 i31tui1131:J - niiN W:l:J ;31
N31ir,.
1S 4:21 i1W'Ni n-en 5Ni Targum <:s;~pr,N1i Nmr.in r,,r.,11
;,531:1. Ac.cording to v. 19 i1W'Ni ;,,r.,n r,r.,i - Nmr.in r,,r.,1,
i1531:J 5~pt,N1i ,
1S 6:18 ;,5i1Ji1 5:lN 131, Targum <6Nn:li NJ:JN 131, Accord,
ing to vv. 14, 15 i15mi1 i:JNi1
1S 14:16 Jir.iJ nenn rum Targum <7 ,Nnw5e r,,it!'r.i pr.,;,.
According to v. 19 o,r,w5e mnr.i:i iwN tir.i;,m.
1S 18:6 m5nr.,m ,,w; Targum N'JJn:J Nn:iw;. According to
21:12 m5,nr.i:i u31, - N'JJn:1 pn:iwr.i. s>
2S 9:3 5iNW r,,:i; W'N 1ill C!:lNi1 Targum <9 Ni:JJ 1W t,'Ni1.
According to v. 1 1i31 W' ':li1 - n'Ni1
2S 9:3 c,5Ji i1:JJ Targum 'i115Ji pn,r,:i ,p;. According to
v. 13 ,,;J, ,r,w nee Nim - ,;,,;J, pr,ir,:i ,p;
1) So P. In some MSS. of the T. the words llilCl!:? llil'i,::i

are omitted
2) So P. In Lag. 11,io~c, is omitted.
3) P. omits t'IN!:'C ,
4) So Lxx. Kimchi: ri,111 r:,:::i ?V CJinr:, i;:r:, 1::i 1pcli1 1m111
iv=-il ,, iv::i ,n11il p1c!l::i ,011=- ,c:i ,:cc 11i:,n .
5') Com. Lxx.
6) So Lxx and many MSS.
7) So Lxx P.
8) In Lag. 1')101:'C.
9) So Lxx P. Kimchi: r,,11il 1m,, ,c~,n ilC? ,nilcn,
D1qit1zC'd by Mu:rosoft
72 TARGUM JONATHAN TO TH E PROPHETS
2S 11 :6 ,,, 5N ;,,iN nN ::i Ni n,~ ,, T argum <1;,Nnn i1'i1N n.

According to the preceding nni1 i1'iiN nN.
2S 12:21 n ,,,;, ,,::i11::i Targum <2c:i,p N::i,, ,11. According
to v. 22 n ,,,;, ,w::i .
2S 12:27 tl'r.li1 i'l/ Targum <3Nm:i,r.i nrie . According to
v. 26 ;,:i,,r.i;, i'll.
2S 15:17 tll/i1 5:ii 17r.li1 N~,, Targum '~.lN 5:i, N:i5r., Dt!Ji
n-rro . o. Accordnig to v. 16 in::i ,:i, 15r.ii1 N~,, -i1n::i ~.lN ,:i,.
2S 18:12 il/J::l r., ,,r.i~ Targum Nt.:15111::i ,, ,,r.inoN.
According to v. 5 il/.l7 ,, ~N, - Nt.:15111::i ,, ,,r.inoN .
2S 22:13 ~N 5nJ 1il/::l 11J.l i1J.lt.:I Targum i1.l1 i'it.:IU:J
;,,,r.,,r., NP5i. According to v. 9 <51.ir.,r.i ,111::i c:i,m -i1.l1 f'it.:11J:J
i1'it.:l't.:I NP51
lK 1 :48 'NO:J ,11 ::i~ tl1'i1 rn.i it!IN Targum <6p, Nt.:11' ::i;,,,
,o,,:i 511 ::in 1::i. According to 3:6 ... ::i~, p ,, tnrn .
lK 1 :52 '11il/~t.:I ,~, N5 Targum <7;,,~,, il/:!'t.:I. According
to 1S 14:45 ,~Ni nil/~t.:I '.;,,i;i, tlN.
lK 9:8 1,,,11 ;,,;,, i1fi1 n::i;,, Targum <8N7'll ;,,;,i l'1i1 Nn::i,
::ii,n ,;,, According to 2 Ch. 7:21 5:,5 r,511 i1'i1 i~N i1fi1 n::i;,,
.. tl~' ,,511 i::1111
l K 12:16 ,,,::i ,.i,
p'.;,n ;,r., Targum at.l5 n59>. According to
2S 20:1 ,,,::i p5n ,.i, t'N.
1 K 13 :9 tl't.:I ;,n~n N71 Targum (lON,r., rr.in n~n N71 . Accord-
ing to v. 17 c:ir., tl~ ;,n~n N5i
1 K 13 :34 nN~n, ;,r;, ,::i,::i ,;,,, Targum l'1i1 Nt.:IJn~ i11i11
According to 12:13 nN~n5 nm i::l1i1 ,;,,,.
lK 22:31 tl'.l~1 tl'~'~ ::l:Jii1 ,,~ nN ;,,~ tliN 1,r.i, Targum
11:i,r.i pim rn5n .111. According to 20:16 15r.i c:i.ie::,i c:i~5t!!.
1) So P. and in 2 MSS. Kenn.

2) So Lxx P. Com. Ehrlich, Randglossen.
3) So P. and in 2 MSS. Kenn.
4) In Lag. NOi/ ',::1 ,
5) So Lxx P.
6) So P. Lag. El'>wx.E OflEQov EX ,:ou <11tEQVcno; oii
7) So is the T. to 2S 14:11 j):l Mi),'t!'O. So P. here and in
2S 14:11. Lxx here only.
8) Com. P.
9) In Lag. N)',N~ .
10) In Lag. Jon is omitted.
11) Literally in Lag.
2K 4:19 ,r.iN 5N ,nt-tw Targum <1 ;,,5,:i,tot 'i1JO. According

to v. 20 ,nN:i,, mNw,,
2K 4:42 nw5w 511:ir.i Targum Nr.i,,, l/iNt.:l According to
1s 9:4 nw5w riNJ - t-tr.i,,, l/iNJ.
2K 9:19 ti,5w 15r.in it.:lN ;,:, Targum <2 ti5wn. According
to v. 18 ti,5wn 15r.in ir.iN ;,:,
2K 20:14 5:i:ir.i ,NJ ni',ni fiNr.i Targum <3 ,m5 ,nN.
According to 1'5N ,N,J' )'Nr.i,.
2K 21:18 NTl/ p:i ,n,:i p:i iJi''' Targum <4NTl/ jJJ iJi'nN,.
According to V. 26 NTl/ llJ
2K 23:2 ti5w,,, ,:iw, 5" rrnn- W'N 5" Targum WJN 5"
ti5w,,, ,:in,, n,,n,. According to 2 Ch. 34:3 ,:iw-,, n,m, W'N 5"
ti5w,,,.
2K 24:3 ,, ,) 511 1N Targum <:i ,, tl1i' 'TJiN1 511 tliJ
According to v. 20 ~N 511 ,:,
IS. 10:7 tll/t.:l N5 tl'U n,,:,;,5, Targum O'MJ N5. According

to Hab. 1: 17 5,r.in, N5 tl'U )ii15 - c,,n:i N5 )'t.:lt.:ll/ N!:lON5
IS. 17:6 n,T ~i'J:, m5511 ,:i iNWJ' Targum i1'J 1,1Nnw,,
Nm:i,r.i i'J Nt.:l5l/ UJ N'i''1Y ptot,,n, ,,Nnw, t:J Nn'T ,w,:i:i p55w.
According to 24:13n,T ~i'J:i tl't.:llli1 ,,n:i fiNi1 Jii'J ;,,;,, ;,:, ,:,
- ... N'i''1Y l'N1'M' 1,,Nnw, j,,:, 'iN.
IS. 22:3 ,,n, ,,oN 1'NYr.iJ 5:, Targum <65tii'n' 1'J n:inwNi ,::i.
According to 13: 15 ii'1' NYt.:lJi1 5::i - 5tii'n' i1J n::inw, ,, 5::i
IS. 26:1 nm ,,w;, ,wP N,nn ti,,:i Targum 1,n:iw, N'i1i1 NJ1l/J
amn Nnn:iw,n 7>. According to 42:10 win ,,w ,,, ,,,w.
IS. 29:16 ,nw115 ;,~11r.i it.:lN' ,::i Targum NJ'tl ,r.i,,, it!'!:lNil
i1'1Jl/5 . According to 45 :9 ,,y,5 ,r.in it.:lN'i1.
1) So P. Com Lxx.
2) Com. P. Lxx Et ELQlJVf}
3) So Lxx P. 1r,1', is omitted in Lag.

4) Com. Lxx. Both are rendered in Lag.
5) So Lxx. Com. P.
6) The whole phrase is omitted in Lxx and P.
7) In Lag. 11,:i
D1Qitized by Microsoft
IS. 33:11 c:i5:iNn ~N corm Targum N,~,:::i 1,.:i,,:::iu, 5,,:::i

N~v5 N5U15ll:i ,,r.,,r.,. According to 40:24 CN~n ~p.:, n,110, -
<1N~v5 N5iv5v:i n,,o,o, .
IS. 41 :4 nN, i,~N, n,n, ,JN ~N,o rrrrm N1i' n~v, 5ll!:l 'O
Nin ,JN c,J,inNTargum <2 n,,:::i NJN ... ,,:iv, ir.>N c,i' p5,N ioN jr.>
Nn5N n,5 ,Jr., ,:::i JiJ1N ,5,, N105ll 10511 ~N, n1~N,:::ir.> Nr.>511.
According to 44:6 c1n5N l'N 1,115:::io, 11,nN 1JNi J1~N, 1JN -
< N1r.>5ll 0511 ~N 1,o,i'5r.>i Nin NJN .
3 1
IS. 42:18 ,110~ c,~,n;, Targum N5i1 p~in:i JiJ'N1 N'l/'~,

ivo~ p:i5 J'Ji1N. According to 43:8 ir.,5 C1JTNi c,~,m.
IS. 44:12 i;,iy, m:::ii'o:::i, Targum n,5 ~,i'nr.> p:::i,i'r.>:11.
According to Jer. 10:4 <4cii'Tn1 m:::ii'o:::i, - ;,,5 ~,pnr., J':li'r.>:::ii.
IS. 45 :9 n~vn no ,,y,5 ion ioN1n Targum ,Jni:::iv N5
According to 29: 16 1J~ll N5 1i1~ll5 n~l/r.> ir.>N1 ,:,
IS. 47:7 ni:::iJ i11i1N c5,v5 Targum p5r., n!:l1i'n 1nN c5v5.
According to v. 5 n,:i5r.,r., n,:::iJ 15 iN1i'1 1!:loin N5 - Ji:i5r., n!:l'i'n.
IS. 50:8 'i''1~r.> : :iiii' Targum ,n,.:,1 N:l11i'. According to
51 :5 'i'1~ : :i,,i' - ,n,:ir N:l'1i' .
IS. 63:5 1l/1T ,5 11~,n, 10,0 l'N1 co,n~N, 1Tll j'N1 ~:::iN,
1Jn:ioo N'i1 ,nr.,n, Targum J1i1'5ll 11:::i,, c,i',, ~'N n15, 'r .l1i' 11,,,,
i1J'nipo ,n,11, ioo:::i, ,!:li'in 11,,:::i tiJni'i!:li . According to
59:16 ll'J!:lr.> J'N ,:, co,n~,, - C1i''1 ~JN n,5, ,n,r.,ii' v,,,,
l1J'1l1D nmv, 1010:::i, n!:li'in 11,,:::i 11J,i'1!:l1 1,n,511 111:::i,, .
Jer. 6:11 5:in 1nN5J n,;,, non nNi Targum Ni:::i,o5 nN5
19~r.>5 n,5,:,, N51 . According to 20:9 5:iiN N5 5:i5:i ,n,N5Ji -
n,5,:,, N51 Ni:::i,o5 1nN51 .
Jer. 8:15 c,5~5 il1i' Targum c5~5 NJ1::lD . According to
14:19 ... .1Jn':li1 l/iir., - c5~5 ~J1:JD.
1) It renders this way Is. 41:16: crmc y1t,r, n,.i;c, - ;,1,0101

Nt:'j:)? N?,)I?)/;; In Lag. Nt:,p; is omitted.
2) So the T. renders Is. 40:12, seemingly for their similar be
ginning and contents.
3) So, for the same reason, it renders 43:10: 1,!)', Nli1 IJN 1;;
~N i:m N? - .. J 1.01p',o1 Nli1 N'N
4) See [erern, 10:4. The rendering there was influenced by the
sequel, but the influence in this case might have been reciprocal, so
that the v. was put in the same p. in accordance with the verse here.
Jer. 10:4 1iHl" Jilf::11 ~o:,:::i Targum ii'' '!:In NJili:::i, N!:10:l:J.
According to Is. 40:19 (llJlli,i' Jilf:J ~1Y1 - ;,,, '!:lnr.i.
Jer. 10:4 i''!:i' N5\ Targum ''t::lY' N5i. According to Is.
40:20, 41:7 <2~r.,, N5 - ,5t::)y, N5i.
Jer. 30:15 1:JN.:lr.i WUN Targum ,,nnr., ~11,or.,. According
to v. 12 in:,r., n,m - ,,nnr., Nl/ir.,r.,.
Jer. 31 :9 tl5'J1N tl'JUnn:i, 1NJ' ,:,:::i:::i Targum l'N'JO pr.,ni:::i
l1J'J1i'N. According to Is. 54:7 1YJi'N tl'51iJ tl'r.>ni:::i, - pr.,ni:i,
: :i,i'N !'N'JO.
Jer. 32:35 ,:i, 511 iln511 N51 tl'n'W N5 1rt'N Targum n'ii'!:l N5i
,n,,iN:::i. According to 7:31 <3,:i, 511 nn,11 N5i ,n,,Y N5 iwN
- ,n,,,N:::i n,,i'!:l N5i.
Jer. 33:3 n11YJ1 n,5iiJ ,, i1i'JN1 Targum l1't::lJ1 t:::ii:i,.
According to Is. 48:6 <4t:inv,, N51 n11YJ1 - ti't::lJi .
Jer. 41 :15 r,r.,11 'JJ 5N ,,,, Targum r>i5 i:::iv,r.,5 5tN1
i,r.,11 'JJ. According to v. 10 !1r.>l/ 'JJ 5N i:::i115 ,,,,.
Jer. 46:8 riN no.:iN i15l/N Targum i1N5r.>i Nl/1N '!:inN.
According to 47:2 i1Ni5r.,i riN 1!:lt::lrt''1 - i1N5r.ii Nl/1N tn:::i,,.
Jer. 48:4 JN1r.> i11Jrt'J Targum JN1r.> ni:,5r., n,:::in,N. Accord,
ing to 48:25 JN1r.> l1i' ill/iJJ - JN1r.> n,:,5r.,.
Ez. 11 :19 c:iii':::i tnN ilrt1in nm inN : :i, tli15 ,nm, Targum
,,n, : :i, i,n, tnNi 5>. According to 36:26 ~,n : :i, - p:,5 tnN1
,,n, :::i,.
1) So P. Rashi; Kimchi etc. curiously combine both readings.

F. Perles in J. Q. R., v. 18, p. 388, would read here 1:,1,::,1 and refers
to Is. 30:22; so Kittel, both of whom refer to the T. not appreciating
the principle followed in this case. So also in Jerem. 10:19, and
curiously enough, P. there renders Dlli'1' in the same way as 1Mll11\
2) So Lxx, except in Is. 40:20.
3) Lxx read there c,r,11::, as here.
4) Minchat Shai sees another reading by the T. and goes so far
as to think that Rashi, who follows the T., has also had the same
reading. But Rashi does it in numerous instances where such an as,
sumption is out of question. Kirnchi remarks: nn ,tit:)\ i:,.,:i, M"l
I "D:i M\11!11'1 1(1\i'.
5) Also 18:31. So P., felt by Minchat Shai. Curiously, this read,
ing appears also in the com. of Eliezer of Beaugency (published by
Posnansky, 213). So is the reading in 3 Kenn. MSS. and 1 De Rossi.
D,a,t,zC'd by Microsoft~
Ez. 17:5 11,r ilirt'::i ,nm,, Targum ::i,~ 5pn::,. ;,,::,.;,,,. Accord,
ing to v. 8 u ::i,~ nirt' 5N - ::i,~ 5pn::,..
Ez. 29:3 '-'M'rt'll ,.,N, 'iN' ,, Targum N.)N, Nm::i,o ,,,i
n,rt'::i::i. According to v. 9 <2 'M'rt'll '-'N' ,, iN, - Nm::i5o
n,rt'::,.::, N.)N, ,,,, .
Bz. 29:6 il-'i' mllrt'O crn-n Ill' Targum Nll'll, N'Ji' 100.
According to Is. 36:6 rw,n ruen - Nll'lli N'Ji' 100.
Bz, 30:18 i1Jo::,, Pll N'il Targum n, '!:lm p,5oi N.)Jll::i
NlliN. According to 38:16 <3 riNil mo::,5 py::, - NJJll::i
NlliN n, '!:lm p,5oi .
Ez. 31:14 ,,:i ,,,,,
5N Targum NJi::iN n,:::,. ::i,J ,nm Clll.
According to 32: 18, 24 ,,::,. 'i,,, MN.
Ez. 31:15 n5,Nrt' mii c,,::,. Targum ,n,nnN c,,::,.. Accord-
ing to v. 16 n5Nrt' ,nN 'i'i,n::,. - ;,,n, ,mnnN::i.
Ez. 32:5 n,,N'Jil 'MN5o, Targum N,5,n r,5on,,. According
to V. 6 <4 f'N50' Cl'i'!:lN, - !,5on,,
Ez. 32:18 m,nnn fiN 5N Targum NM'lliN NlliN5 . Accord,
ing to 31:14 <:5 n,nnn fiN 5N - Nn,11,N NlliN5.
Ez, 32:24 cn-nn ,.,m irt'N Targum ,::in, ,,,oon'Ni . Accord,
ing to v. 23 n,nn uru irt'N.
Ez. 34:24 c::i,n::,. N'rt'J -m 'i::ill, Targum <6N::i5o i'i 'i::i11,.
According to 37:24 Cli1'5ll 150 -m 'i::i11,.
Ez. 36:12 CiN c::i,,11 ,n::i,m, Targum <7 p::,,,11 'JON'.
According to vv. 10, 11 CiN c::,,,11 ,n,::i,m - 1,::i,,11 'JON, .
Ez. 41: 17 nnen 5110 511 Targum N5,y5 ill. According
to v. 20 nnsn 5110 ill riNno
1) As to the change in person, com. De Rossi V. L. V. T., ]. c.

2) P. reads "ll!P : Lxx have v. 9 as in v. 3.
3) It also influenced Jer. 46:8.
4) Lxx have in v. 6 as in v. 5. Kittel wonders if the reading
was not Ht'?~~,
5) So 26:20 mnnn f'11t:l.
6) Lxx have in 37:24 as in 34:24. Lag has here lt:l'1,
However, in 37:25 the T. stands alone.
7) Ehrlich Ez. finds support in this rendering of the T. that it
is used here in the sense of increase, as in Jerem. 12:2. Equally wrong
is Jahn, ascribing a different reading to the T.
Ez. 43 :10 .r,J:i.r, I"IN ,,,r.i, Targum il'Civ~ .r,, 1,nwr.i,

According to v. 11 n,m,:im ri:Ji1 miY.
Mi. 2:8 ti~'W!:lI"l .,,N nr.i,w ,,r.ir.i Targum Jii1Jr.i tinip tir.ir.i
J':lCJ. According to 3:3 ,~'W!:lil cn,vr.i c,iv, - 1,n,p i,r.ir.i
l':JCJ tii1Jr.l . 2 >
Ze. 3:10 i1JN1"l .r,n.r, 5Ni J!:l) nnn 5N Targum ,,e mnri,
mJ.r, ,,e mnn,, mJ!:liJ. According to tK 5:5 iJ!:lJ nnn wN
imNn rinm
Ze. 9:8 il:JYr.i n:1, nJm Targum ... w,pr.i n:J:J iwNi
,,no ,,nc n, ~pir.i NWNi ,,w:i. According to 2 :9 il'i1N 'JNi
wt< rir.i,n n, - ,me -nne n, ~Pr.i NwNi ,,w:i
Ze. 11; 17 55Ni1 'Vi ,,;, Targum NWB~ NCJie 5JJ ,,
According to v. 15 ,,,,N nv, - NW!.~ NCJie.
1) So P.
2) Lxx read in 2:8 iiv as in 33. So P.
D1git1zC1d by Microsoft~
THE EXEGESIS IN JONATHAN
The exegetical nature of T. Jonathan is in a conspicuous

manner emphasized in the report of the Talmud : 'Said R.
Jeremia, others say R. Hiyya b. Abba, Targum to the Prophets
Jonathan b. Uziel said it. And Eretz Israel trembled 400 para,
sangs. A Bath Kol said: Who is the one who revealeth
my mysteries to the children of men? Rose Jonathan
b. Uziel and said: I am the one who revealeth Thy mysteries
to the children of men. It is reavealed and known unto you
that ... I did it for Thy sake in order that strife may not
abound in Israel." To the question why no such occurrence
accompanied the act of the Targum to the Pentateuch, the ans,
wer is given: "The Pentateuch is clear while the Prophets con
tain things some of which are clear, while others are ob,
scure." 1>
Framed as this report is in the characteristic phraseology
of the Agada it serves not only to demonstrate the prevalent
view of the age as to the principal characteristic of the T. to
the Prophets, its main value resting in the exegesis, but is
instructive also in that it manifests the worshipful rever-
ence in which the exegesis was held. It was regarded as
mysteries which should not, except for a weighty reason as
alleged by Jonathan, he disclosed to the uninitiated in holi-
ness. It does, however, in no way indicate the nature of the
exegesis. There is nothing of the mystical in it. It is governed
by rules and based on principles of a kind placing it in the
domain of logical hermeneutics.
The general underlying principle in the exegesis of T.
Jonathan consists in an attempt to render intelligible to the
fullest possible degree that which is obscure. To accomplish
this the targumist does not resort to the undersense. It is the
sense, the explicit and simple, which is fundamental in the exegc-
1) Meg. 3a; Y erushalmi 1, 10.

78
THE EXEGESIS 79
sis. The object of the targumist was to translate the poetical mind
of the Prophet into the lay-mind behind it. In other words, to
the targumist the implication rather than the surface literalness
of the passage or word involved is of chief consideration. It
is, on the one hand, a desire to correctly understand the
propher.O and on the other hand, to make the author intel-
ligible to others. 3 > Passages which are untouched by the exegesis
of the targumist, the reason is to be sought in the assumption
that the passage in question was not obscure to the generation
of the targumist. In determining the general nature of the
exegesis of this Targum a few salient points call for recording
at the outset. In the first place, the targumist in no way dis,
misses any passage or word unrendered due to its embarrassing
nature as is frequently the case in the Lxx and P. Whether
or not the targumist is assured of having found a plausible
escape or is resorting to some hopelessly obscure paraphrase,
he is not evading it. On the other hand, it should be noticed
that the T. appears entirely unaffected in his translation. He
is not preoccupied with any particular thought, or hypothetical
idea, "which assumes a connection in the train of thought
which does not appear_ on the surface", as was the case with
the Agada, Philo and the Church Fathers. 4 > The aim he set
for himself was translation; nothing beyond it. The targumist
is inclined, however, in certain cases to parallelism of circum-
stances, as is the case with the Agada.
One thing, however, stands forth as peculiarly remarkable.
It would appear the targurnist had little regard for the his,
torical reality of the prediction. With few exceptions he
manifests no interest in the particular historical period or
event of the prophecy. There is a strong inclination on
the part of the targumist to shift the predicted reality to the
Messianic age whenever the contents admit of such a presenta-
tion. He is this way interpreting the prophecies of "consola-
2) Com. Scheleiermacher, Hermenutik, etc. (ed. 1838), p. 3.

3) lmmer, Hermenentik (ed. 1877), p. 10.
4) The case with the Agada needs no illustration. It constitutes
one of its fundamental bases ( com. particularly Maimonides preface to
Seder Zerai'm end 2nd part). As to the Apostles, com. Epistle of James
2:21; Rom. 10:17.
Dic,itizcd by Microsoft f1
tion" which his age of national depression and political de-

jection would hardly regard as already accomplished.a)
1n addition, there is the poetical side of the prophecy, its
overflowing richness of expression and exuberance of color in
portrayal which are not susceptible of realization, but which
were, in the belief of the people, unaware of this fact, to be
inevitably translated into reality. Hence the tendency to
interpret the giowing description of the "consolation" in
Messianic terms. 6 > The Messianic tone is made audible
also in the prominence given in his exegesis to the
"righteous ones". In a good many instances no other reason
except to give Messianic sense to a phrase, is evident.t ' But
of significance is also the introduction of the wicked side by
side with the righteous. In this way the M e s s i a n i c
description is complete. The Messianic epoch, as is generally
known, is in its final form rather religious and individual than
political, national. The righteous and the wicked, not the na-
tion and nations, are the object of its justice. Finally, the
Messianic tendency has found its expression in the targumist
references to Gehenna. In the chapter on "General Peculiarities"
it will be pointed out that the Gehenna referred to by this Tar,
gum is the Messianic doom.
The major principles of the exegesis of the Targum can
be placed under four headings; namely, the allegorical, the
metaphorical, the complement and the lexical. The allegorical
shall be considered first.
The allegorical method was employed in the Agada and
by Philo, and to a larger extent by the Apostles and latter
Church Farhers.s! But it is to be noticed that the targumist
5') Com. Am. 9:1; Ze. 11:7-11, particularly v. 10. On the other
hand, com. Ze. 6:5-the "four kingdoms" are not called by name.
6) Com. ls. Ch. 9, 11, 12, 65; Jer. 23:39; Hos. 6:14; 14:15,
etc.
7) Com. ls. 24:19-18; 25:45; Ch. 32; 33:13; Jer. 23:28; Hab.
2:4; 3:2, etc.
8) The two former need no illustration. With regard to the N. T.,
Jesus himself was addicted to it (Com. Mat. 21:42, Luk. 4:1622). With
regard to Heb. Ch. 8, Riehm [Lehrb. p. 204, ed 1867) remarks: "The
author leaves out of consideration the historical meaning of Old Testa,
ment passages."
THE EXEGESIS 81
confines the application of this method to passages which garb

an implication. Whether or not he strikes the right point
he is distinctly approaching it. He is making no strange and
artificial combinations. In most cases his exposition falls in
line with the Agadic interpretation.
The larger portions treated allegorically by the T. are
Ez. 16, Hos. 1 :2, 5', 6, 8; 3, 1-4. Ch. 16 in Ez. is turned by
the T. into a reahearsal of the History of Israel: " ... your
habitation and your birth was in the land of the Canaanites,
there I was revealed to your father Abraham between the
pieces (Gen. 15' :9-18) and I announced to him that you shall
descend into Egypt, (and that) I (shall) deliver you with an
uplifted arm, and on account of your ansectors I (will) expell
from before you the Amorites and destroy the Hitites. And
then your ancestors descended into Egypt, inhabitants in a
land which is not theirs, enslaved and oppressed. . . . The eye
of Pharaoh did not pity you, to render unto you one generous
act, to give you respite from your bondage, to have mercy on
you, and he decreed concerning you ruinous decrees to throw
your male children in the river to destroy you, while you were
in Egypt. And the rememberance of the covenant of your
ancestors came before me and I was revealed to deliver you,
for it was divulged before me that you were oppressed in your
bondage, and I said unto you by the blood of circumcision I
will pity you, and I said unto you on account of the blood of
the Passover (sacrifice) I will redeem you. And I was re-
vealed unto Moses in the bush, for you, and I put off your
sins and swore to deliver you as I swore to your ancestors,
in order that you shall be a people serving before me. And
I delivered you from the bondage of the Egyptians. And I
lead you (forth) in freedom. And I clothed you with painted
garments from the riches of your enemies (Exod. 14:21)
and I sanctified priests from your midst to serve before me. . .
And I reformed you in the reform of the words of the Law
written on two tablets of stone and (which) I gave them
through Moses. And I gave in your midst the Ark of My
covenant and the cloud of My Glory on you and an Angel
sent from before Me leads at your head. And I gave My
Tabernacle in your midst fitted out with gold . . . and you be-
Dmitized bv M,uosoft
came very rich and very powerful and you prospered and ruled
over all kingdoms."
Whether this exposition is right is open to question. The
portion beginning with v. 7 may refer to the Kingdom of
Solomon as well. But that it was allegorically framed is evi-
dent, and the T. only follows the current interpretation trace,
able in the Agada.O > On the other hand, it should be noticed,
the targumist asserts the dependence of his exposition on
the text. On the whole, however, it runs like a Midrashic
treatise. The phraseology is free in the use of parenthetical
phrases and synonyms.tv! The textual form is paid little
heed.11>
Hosea, 1 :2-5, 8; 3:1-4, comprising the command of God
and the action on the part of Hosea to take to himself "a
wife of whoredom ", are interpreted in the T. allegorically.
Accordingly, the rendering is put in this way: "Go and prophesy
on the inhabitants of the city of the idols who increase in
sin (v. 2). And he went and prophesied to them that if they
repent they will be pardoned, and if not they will fall like
the falling of the leaves of a fig tree (c,::ii n::i ,~,) and they
increased and committed evil deeds (vv. 3, 6, 8) and their
generation, exiled among the peoples, were not acceptable
(l'~ni) in their deeds. And God spoke to me again: Go
and prophesy on Israel who resmble a woman who is beloved
of her husband and betrays him (3 :1). And I redeemed them
on the fifteenth of Nisan, and I put the Shekel as atonement
9) The interpretation of the T. as a whole is in full agreement

with the Agada. It is generally accepted that this passage refers to the
deliverance from Egypt (com. Sota l lb). V. 6, which the targumist
refers the repeated nn ,,~,:i to the blood of circumcision and Passover,
is so interpreted in Seder Eliahu r. 25 (p. 138 F.); Mechilta 21,5;
Pesiqta r, 15 F. (Com. Note 46). On the other hand, the interpretation
of v. 10 as referring to the booty of the drowned Pharaoh is applied
by the Agada to v. 7 (Mechilta), while v. 10 is interpreted as referring
to the priestly garments and to the Mishkan (com. Jalqut I. c.). To the
latter the T. refers v. 13, while it agrees with the former. In the in,
terpretation of v. 11 the T. is in accord with the Agadaist (ibid).
10) Com. particularly vv. 4, 7.
11) Com. vv. 4, 5, 6, 10.
THE EXEGESIS 83
for themselves and I said that they shall bring before Me the
Omer of the offering from the produce of barley." (v. 3).12>
The allegorization in this case is somewhat peculiar.
The text requires the literal conception of the act which, in
its fulfilment, carries both the situation and reality of the
prediction. It was taken in the literal sense by the Agada.Ia>
That some agadist, however, would have it allegorically in-
terpreted and that the T. is following his interpretation is fairly
certain.tv! The reason, however, for the exposition can only
be the horror the targumist must have felt at the supposition
that the prophet would be told by God to take a harlot to
wife. The absence of such a cause is probably the reason why
Zech. 6:1-9 is rendered literally.
The Servant of God is by the T. identified with the Mes-
siah, whose approaching appearance has been expected by
his contemporaries. That being the case, the allegorization
on the same lines of Is. 5 3 must follow as a self evident result.
This had been the case with all those adhering to the allegoriza-
, tion of the Servant of God. But the targumist is strikingly
12) Com. Chull 92b: "And I bought her for me for fifteen pieces
of silver", R. Jonathan said: ... for fifteen (means} this is the fifteen
Nissan, when Israel- was redeemed from Egypt." So Pesiqta 15. On the
other hand, the latter part of the verse is interpreted differently (ibid).
13) Com. note 18. Com. Pesiqta on 3:3: k', : ,~1k kllM 'i k!n
.c,,nk cn':ok ,., ,,n, M', i:,,k', 11nn M',1 : ',ce ni:,1111 k? ,,rn
Com. P'sachim 87a end. "The Holy One Blessed Be He said to Hosea:
'Thy children sinned', and he should have said: 'They are Thy chiuldren,
the children of Thy favored ones, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, show Thy
mercy to them'. Not only did he not say so, but said, 'exchange them
for another people'. Said the Holy One, Blessed Be He: 'What shall
I do to this aged one? I'll say to him: Go and take for yourself a
harlot and have for you harlot children, and then I'll say to him, send
her away from your presence; if he can send (her away}, I also will send
away Israel. For it is said: and the Lord said to Hosea, etc." The Agada
goes on to tell that after two sons were born to him God intimated to
him that it would be proper for him to divorce her. Upon which Hosea
refused to comply and God then said to him: "If this be the case with
your wife, being a harlot, and thy children being children of whoredom,
and you know not whether they are yours or belong to others, how
should it be with Israel," etc.
14) Com. Jalqut I. c.
D1qtt1zC1d by Microsoft
singular. Assured that this prediction is about the Messiah,

the targumist reverses the simple meaning of the words, trans,
forming the gloomy portraiture of the Messiah into an image
of magnificence and splendor, unlike the Agadist contemporaries,
who would rather play thoughtfully on the humbleness and
sulferings of the Messiah.1;,> He was influenced by the great
national movements of his time, which assumed a Messianic
character. So, while he would, seemingly with this end in view,
change in 52: 14 the p. only as if Israel and not the Messiah
is the object, he actualiy rewrites ch. 5 3, replacing it by one
bearing no resemblance to the original.
Instead of the Messiah being regarded as of no form, no

comeliness, of no beauty (v. 2), he becomes one of extra,
ordinary appearance, differing from the appearance of the
former Davidic Kings, his terror unlike that of the profane
king; for his countenance will be a holy countenance. Who,
ever will see him will gaze at him ( v. 3) . Describing how
he was despised, rejected and a man of sorrow, he makes it
refer to the kingdoms whose glories will be destroyed by the
Messiah. So, the rendering of the T. runs: "For our sins he
will supplicate and our transgressions will be pardoned on
account of him. We are considered stricken and oppressed
from before the Lord." Note the rendering of v. 5: "And
he will build the Temple, which was desecrated through our
sins, delivered to the enemies for our transgressions, and
through his teaching peace will abound for us, and by our
gathering of his words our sins will be forgiven to us." In
this spirit the rendering is carried on to the end of the chapter.
THE METAPHOR
Prophecy is clothed in the magnificent form of poetry.

It directs its thoughts in a superfluity of imagery. The over-
coming force with which the prophet perceived his vision and
the vehemence with which, "like a fire," it is impelled to come
forth, make the metaphor the instrumentality of prophetical
15) Com. San. 98a, Pesiqta Rabati 36.
Digitized by Microsoft q.
THE EXEGESIS 85
speech. It is addressed in terms of nature and natural phenomena,

leaving the emphatic to the layman to unveil and distinguish.
The targumist made it a principle to render not the metaphor
but what it represents, the event described and not the descrip-
tion. It is the purpose which is of chief import to him. In
a way this is with him rather a principle of translation, as in
most cases there can be no claim to exegetical examination.
The parabolic metaphor is the prophetic parable which

resolves itself less in event than in metaphorical presentation.
The T. instead of giving the literal rendering of such a parable
renders its underpoetical parallel, thus stripping it of its para-
bolic nature.
Except for the substitution of the simple for the meta-
phorical, the T., as a rule, in these cases keeps closely to the
text stylistically as well as grammatically and synthetically.
Exceptions to this rule are Is. 5:1-3; 5-7. The substitute is
the one made obvious by the text, with the exception, again,
of the parable in Is. 5, where somewhat far-fetched substitutes
are used. Otherwise the T. will introduce its equivalent by
the short phrase N01 nm, "which is equal", and insert, where
such is required for better understanding, a complementary
word or phrase.
A few verses of each case of the parabolic metaphor will
sufficiently illustrate the application of this principle. This
will best be accomplished by placing the rendering of the T.
side by side with the original.
Ez. 19:3, 6
V. 3
T. H.
And she brought up one of And she brought up one of
her children, he became a her whelps, he became a
king, and he learned to kill, young lion, and he learned
killing, men he killed. to catch the prey, he de-
voured men.
Dmtt,wd by Microsoft
V. 6
T. H.
And he went up and down And he went up and down
among the kings, he became among the lions, he became
a king and he learned to a young lion; and he learned
kill, killing, men he killed. to catch the prey; he de,
voured men.
Ez. 23:2, 5
v. 2
Son of man prophesy on two Son of man, there were two

cities which are like two women, the daughters of one
w o m e n who were the mother.
<laughers of one mother.
V. 5
And Ohlah erred from my And Ohlah played the har-
worship and she was wil- lot when she was mine, and
ful to err after her lovers, she doted on her .lovers, on
the Assyrians, her near ones. the Assyrian warriors.
Ez. 31: 3-15', however, is rendered by the T. in a more

detached manner. This is due to the fact that while it con,
stitutes a similitude it is framed as a comparative metaphor.
Assyria is here likened to a cedar in Lebanon, around which
turns the entire description. The T., translating it as a descrip-
tion of the greatness and strength of Assyria according to
the implication, had to change the p. as well as the number.
Otherwise it keeps the rendering in line with the original.
The poetical metaphor, forms of expression given in ob,
jects of nature, is treated in the same manner by the T., name,
ly, the object represented by the description is rendered. In
this case also closeness to the original is observed, while a
circumscription of phraseology is predominantly maintained.
But, as if it were a concession on the targumist's part to the
poetical element in prophecy, the insertion, "it is equal",
"like", is, with few exceptions, not employed in such cases. Ex,
THE EXEGESIS 87
amples of this sort are: Is. 2:13: "And upon all the cedars of
Lebanon that are high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks
of Bashan." The T. renders it: "And upon all the princes
(N,:::ii:::ii) of the strong and powerful and upon all the tyrants
(,Jim) of the lands (Nm,ir.i); or Is. 9:9: "The bricks are fallen,
but we will build with hewn stones; the sycamores are cut
down, but cedars will be put in their place." T.: "The chiefs
were exiled but better ones we will appoint, property (N,C:lJ)
was spoiled, and more excellent we will buy." Other examples
of this sort are: Is. 10:18, 19; Ez. 9:4, 5; Hos. 7:9; Joel 2:25
etc. Finally, the targumist is not consistent in the selection
of the substitute figures. (Com. c,v, Jer. 2:8; Ze. 11:3 ren-
dered by N,:i,r.i , while in Ez. 34:2, 5, 7 etc., it is rendered by
N,c:,Jie (c,~v Ez. 24:5 and 24:10). The rendering of the T
of the comparative metaphor, i. e., the metaphor employed
expressly for comparison, rests on the same basis, but it is
effected in a different way, namely, both the literal and the
implied rendering of the metaphor in question is given. An
illustration of this sort of rendering is Is. 28:2: "Behold, the
Lord hath a mighty and strong one. As a storm of hail, a tern-
pest of destruction. As a storm of mighty waters overflowing, that
casteth down to the earth with violence," which the T. ren-
ders: "There is a mighty and powerful stroke coming from
the Lord as a storm of hail, as a tempest, as a storm of mighty
waters overflowing so will peoples come upon them and will
exile them in another land for their sins." Other examples are
Is. 8:6, 7; 17:6; Jer. 2:24. In this particular instance the T.
instroduces the necessary complement which the poetical Ian,
guage implies.
In other cases the T. assumes a comparative metaphor and
renders it accordingly, the literal is then put after the implied
one and the comparative 1:ii or :, is inserted. Instances of
this sort are numerous. Com. Ez. 2:6; Hos. 8:7; 10:71, 16;
12:2 etc.16>
16) As to the scope of the application of the metaphorical prin-

cile it should be noticed that although applied in full measure of per-
sistency, it still has a multitude of exceptions. These excetions occur
particularly in those parts of the Prophets where the T. is predominantly
Dmitucd by Microsoft
T h e sym b olic exp ression is ren d ered in th e T . in its sim p le

sense, as th e text w ou ld in d icate. N o com parative is em ployed .
Instances of th is sort are ls. 6:6 ; E z. 2:8 ; 3:1, 2, 3. Som e m eta-
ph orical exp ression s are ren d ered allegorically by th e T ., in
w h ich th e T . is follow in g a M idrash ic course. T h e ren dering
is free in ev ery resp ect. A n in structiv e exam ple of this sort
is A m . 4:14 : "T h at m aketh th e m ornin g darkn ess an d treadeth
upon the high places of th e earth ." T argum : "T o set ligh t
to the pious lik e th e lig h t of th e m ornin g, w hich is setting,
to bring darkn ess to th e w icked , to break the w icked of th e
lan d." O ther exam p les are Is. 42:11, 57 :16 ; A m . 8:13.
A princip le exten siv ely ap p lied in th e T . is on e that m ay be

described as th e exegetical com p lem en t. T h is, in the first place, w as
in tend ed to fill th e gap s created by th e poetical contraction of
th e prop h etical sty le. In som e cases a com plem en t is dictated
by th e sense of th e passage. T h is w ill be fairly w ell dem on -
strated by th e follow in g passages:
M al. l :4 : "W h ereas E d om saith w e are im poverished but

w e w ill return an d bu ild ." T h e sen se of this passage requires
som e lin kin g w ord betw een "im p ov erished " and the rest, as
bein g im p ov erish ed , it is im p ossib le to build . In order to fill
th is gap, th e T. renders it this way:"We are impoverished
now we are enriched we will return," etc.
Jer. 17:4 1n5nJr.i 1:n ;,r,c,r.,~, the shortcomings of this pas-

sage need not be pointed out. (Com. Lxx and particularly P.
on this v.). The T. supplies both 1:n and 1T1?nJr.l with com-
plements to fill the gap, rendering: "And to you I shall render
a punishment of judgment until I shall exile you from your in-
heritance." Com. also Is. 10:15; Hos. 2:15; Ez. 7:13; 16:29;
38:14 etc. In other cases the passage is supplemented by the
T. with a view to simplify it where such a step is considered
necessary. Here are some examples: Ez. 20:29: "What is the
high place whereunto ye go," which is supplemented in the
T.: "whereunto ye go to make yourself foolish" (worshipping
the idol) . Hos. 2: 1 : "The number of the children of Israel
literal. Com. Jer. 51:13; Ez, 34:4; Joel 2:2, 3; 3-6; Am. 3:12, 15;
5:19; Mi. 4:7, and a few othere,
Digitized by Microsoft(!-'
THE EXEGESIS 89
shall be as the sand of the sea." The T. inserting a complement

renders it: "Shall be numerous as the sand," etc. Other cases of
this category are: Ez. 20:9; 33:24; 44:19; Hos. 2:11, 16; 8:1
etc. The T. again is inclined to provide the substantive for
the pronoun in cases where it is not sufficiently obvious. Three
passages from Ez. will serve the purpose of illustration. Ez.
1:4: "And out of the midst thereof." This pronoun the
T. substitutes by the noun rendering: "And out of the midst
of the cloud and out of the midst of the whirlwind" (both of
which are mentioned in the v.). Ibid v. 13: "It went up and
down" etc. The T. replaces the "it" by the fire. Ibid. 29:5:
"Upon the field shall it (taking the 3rd p.) fall." Targum: "Thy
corpse shall be thrown." (Com. also Ez. 45:8; Jer. 6:1.)17>
Repetition of the same word or of identical words, con,

sidered as one of the principles governing the exegesis of Philo,18>
affords the targumist a cause for introducing an exegetical
complement, thus transforming the single word into a clause.
The obvious reason for this, it would appear, is the disregard
of the targumist of the poetical chord of prophecy so persistently
insisted upon by the T. in each exegetical turn. He was un-
able to resist the conviction, so effective with the Halaka and
Agada, that each of the repeated words must possess independent
significance and carry independent implication. However, he is
not explaining it but complementing the repeated word, heading,
as a rule, the clause. Here are a few illustrations: Is. 6:3: "Holy,
holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts." Targum: "Holy (is He) in
the high lofty heavens, the house of His Shekina; holy on the
earth the work of His strength; holy in the world of worlds."
Jer. 7:4: "The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord,
the temple of the Lord are these." Targum: "Before the temple
17) An interesting case presents Is. 28:10. The complement is

supplied in an ingenious way to obviate the difficulty in this verse. The
rendering runs: "For they were commanded to observe the Law and
they were commanded (to do) they wanted not to do, and prophets
prophesied to them . . . and the words of the prophets they did not
accept." Observe: 11':i 1s treated thus lY 16 and so with li';.
18) Com. Siegfried, Philo, etc., p. 168, put by Briggs (Biblical
Study, p. 306) in group II.
Dmitizcd by Microsoft Q-
of the Lord ye worship, before the temple of the Lord ye sacn-

fice, before the temple of the Lord you bow three times through
the year." Com. Is. 2:19; Jer. 22:29; Ez. 16:23; 21:14;
36:3. As to identical words, com. Is. 1:2; 33:22; 43:12.
Finally it should be noticed, that though the principle pointed
out in the foregoing instances is Midrashic in nature, the com,
plement is simple, concise, and in considerable measure keeping
within the boundaries of the text.
On one plane with the metaphorical principle rests the
lexical. This pnnciple affects singular words or expressions
which, though not metaphorical, bear a poetical stamp, and in
reality convey more or less the idea of the meaning than the
meaning itself. Such words or expressions, instead of rendering
them according to their surface meaning, the targumist takes
them by their underlying value as suggested by the text. In,
stances of single verbal words: Ez. 12:13: "And I shall bring
him in Babel." Targum: "I shall exile him" etc. So also v. 16;
36:20 etc. ibid. 23:10: "they took", Targum: "they captured";
Hos. 4:3: "Therefore doth the land mourn." Targum: "There,
fore shall the land be laid waste". Ibid. 13:5: "I did know thee
in the wilderness" - "I supplied your needs in the wilderness."
Instances of nouns: "And I will appoint over them four families"
- "four calamitious afflictions." In Mi. 2:3: "On this family"
- "generation; Ez. 24:8: "I gave her blood" - "I revealeth
their transgressions"; ibid. 21:37: "they blood" etc. - "the
sin of your murder." Ez. 34:2: "Prophesy on the shepherds of
Israel" - "on the leaders (~'tlJi!:l) of Israel." Instances of ex,
pressions: "And they shall do with thee in hatred" - "and
shall revenge from thee" etc. Ez. 16:16: "not coming and not
being (so)" - "not as required nor proper; Ez. 13:17 etc.:
"put thy face" - "accept prophecy". Examples of all categories
are numerous.
In drawing a comparison between this Targum and
Onk., as well as other translations with respect to the exeget-
ical principles, it will appear that Onk. pursues the same prin-
ciples. This point was well elucidated by Luzzato in Oheb.
Ger. 31. As regards the other translations, some exceptions must
be made. The allegorical principle as well as the metaphirocal,
THE EXEGESIS 91
as applied by the Targum, are to be found neither in the Lxx

nor in P. On the other hand, the principle of the exegetical
complement is followed by the Lxx in Pentateuch 10 > and in a
lesser degree also by the P. Illustrations are: Gen. 25:22: "And
she said: 'If it be so, wherefore am r, .. which the Lxx render:
Et ou-rwi; oL EAi.EL ytvE<1{}m etc. Gen. 40:16: "in my dream"
xayro U()Ev EVUJtvlOV
In the Prophets this is evident to a lesser degree. It found,
however, application in this part also. Com. Zech. 14:7: "And
there shall be one day which shall be known" etc. Lxx fo{}m
[av iJ iJEQaV xal iJEQa EXELV'l'J yEVE<1l"ll etc. So. P. Com. also
P. Hos. 2:11 (8).
The lexical principle also was pursued to some extent by
the Lxx, and in a lesser degree by P. Com. Gen. 13:2: "And
Abram was very heavy." 'A~Qa <1E Ev n:A01J<1L0i; So P. 15:2
,,,,v a.-rfavoi; . So. P. (Onk. agreenig in both instances).
But com. Lxx T. Jer. 22:30, 49:3: ,)N r,,~N, - O.QX,ll -rfavwv
(P. lit. Onk. Alleg.) v. 10: - ti:i~ O.QX,Wv (P. lit. Onk.
Alleg.) etc. Is. 8:4 ,J:ir.:i:i Lxx EV l"'l'J trj TCOAEL
Apart from these major principles there is an element of
commentary in the exegesis of Jonathan. At the first glance it be,
comes clear, that the tendency of this commentary is merely to
explain away the harassing difficulty. No heed is exhibited to
the text, no effort to fit it into the phraseology of the respective
passages. So Mi. 2:8: .. :i,,N5 ,r.:,lJ 5,r.:inN, - "My people is
delivered because of their sins; because of them existing peoples
will inherit them." Compare also Is. 10:32, 32:19, 33:6; Jer.
4:9; Hos. 10:11; Mi. 2:11; Hab. 3:2; Mal. 1:11. But while this
sort of commentary is somewhat of the nature of a homily, there
is another phase of the exegesis resting on definite principles.
The T. usually changes the interrogative into the categorical.
This happens particularly with such interrogative phrases which,
in the first place, imply a definite answer, and, in the second
place, the implied answer is not given in any form. It should
be observed that the Lxx in Pentateuch also employs such a
19) A most elucidative treatment on these points in the Lxx i&

found in Z. Frankel's "Ober den Einfluss" etc. See particularly pp.
4, 9, 73.
D1qttucd by Mic; osoft <f

92 TARGUM .JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS
device. 20> The following are examples: Is. 66:9: "Shall I

bring to birth and cause to bring forth? Shall I that cause to
bring shut the whomb?" Targum: "I (am) the God who created
the world from the beginning. I created all men and I spread
among the people .. I shall gather thy exile." Jer. 18:14: "Doth
the snow of the Lebanon fail from the rock of the field? Or
are the strange cold flowing waters plucked up?" Targum: "Be,
hold, as it is impossible that the water snow running down
the fields of Lebanon shall cease, so will not cease rain coming
down and welling water from the source." Compare also Ob.
1: 12, 1 5. Another interesting characteristic device of the com-
mentary is the turning of one part of the verse into a cornple-
ment of the other part. Some examples will well illustrate this
point. Is. 5:20: "Woe unto them that call evil good and good
evil, that change darkness into light and light into darkness,
that change bitter into sweet and sweet into bitter." Targum:
"Woe who say to the wicked ye are good, and unto the humble
be said you are wicked, behold when light will come to the
just will be dark for the wicked, and sweet will be the words
of my Torah to those observing them, and bitterness will come
to the wicked." Am. 5: 12: "Ye that afflict the just, that take
a ransom." Targum: "Ye that afflict that just in order to take
mamon of falsehood." Compare also Ze. 11:8.21>
20) Com. Gen. 18:7; 27:36. Com. Z. Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 171.

Ober den Einfluss, 76.
21) The T. turns a comparative phrase into a resultant, treating
CN as i::, . So Jerem. 22:28. Here the T. follows another principle,
namely, turning one phrase of the v. into a comparative to the pre-
ceding one. Com. Is. 8:2, in which case an Agadic interpretation is in,
volved (Mak. 24a); 42:2.
THE EXEGESIS 93
II.
The interpretative rendering of single words or phrases

is of a positive value. The interpretation is characteristic of
the early Palestinian exegesis. With little exception, they are
found in the Agada .
Joshua 7:1 5vr.:, 5Niw, ,.:,.:, ,,11r.i,, Targum 5Niw, ,.:,.:, ,,pw,
1PW So Sifri Num. 7: i15,31r., PN (.:,, ,i1 i.:,ir.,.:,) 511r.i ,.:, i15vr.:,,
.o,n.:, ,11r.i 5Niw, ,.:,.:, ,511r.i,, ,r.i,N, .. ,,p,w N5N o,pr.i ,.:,.:,
Onkelos 1. c. and v. 6 has a similar rendering.
Joshua 10:13 (also 2S 1:18) ,w,i1 1DD Targum N1DD
Nn,,,,Ni. Com. Aboda Zara 25b. Also Y. Sota 1, 18.
. .:,p31,, pny, t:li11:lN 1ElC m N:lN ,.:, N11n 1"N ,w,i1 1ElC 1Nr.l
.:,u~m ,w,i1 n1w11, <, o,,.:,,) i11:l .:,,n.:,, rrnn i1.:iwr.i i!lc m ir.iN "1
Judges 5:10 minY nun .:,:ii Targum tmPCl/ t5t:).:,r., nm
.:,nr.,5 ,,,.:,nnr.i, 5Niw,, Nl/1N mnn 5.:,.:, 1.:,5i1r.i, 1.:inN 511 ,,.:,,.:,,
.. NJ11 51.'
So Erubin 54b 11115 ,,vr.:, p.:,5i1r.iw o,r.,.:,n ,,,r.i5n ,5N m.:inN ,.:,.:,,,
. :i,m ,r.i;, i1.:i,,r.i5 :,.:,,,r.ir.i,
ib. 5 :31 mi,.:,,.:, wr.iwi1 mt~:, ,,::i:iN, Targum 1m, 1mr.in,,
i1'1P 1,i11:::, N1i11N5 pinl/. Com. Sifri Deut. 145 t:i'r.1Wi1 ,r.,,:,
1
mtY:l ,,.:,mtt, ,r.i,N N,i1 p, ,or:, l:i'P'1Y 5w Cli1'J) ''i1'W )'1Ni1 511
Wr.lWi1.
1 Sam. 1 :1 l:i'DW c1nr.ii:, tr.i Targum N'N:lJ ,,,r.i5nr.,. So
Meg. 14a 5Niw,5 t:1i15 ,N:i.:in.:,w t:11!l,Y omNr.ir.i inN t:11tiw t:11r.c,:i tr.i
The Targum assumed cnr.iii1 to be in const. u:ate while Cl'DW
as a descriptive noun as did P. Com. Lxx.
So is the Targum to l S 9:15 ~,~ l'1N:l - ,,, N':lJ i1:l1 Nl/1N:l
ib. 1m!lN Targum Cl'iDN n.:,i tti,t:):l Nwi,p.:, p5,n .
siders Eli to have belonged to the Levites (1 Chronicles 6:18).
(So R. Jochanan Jalqut 1. c.). The ni1P ,.:,.:, were given a por-
tion on the Mountain of Ephraim (Josh. 21 :21). The Targum
in other cases (Judg. 12:5, lK 11:26) merely transcribes it .
Com., however, Berachoth 31b .
IS 6:19 W'N ~5N cwr.in wN Cl'l/:lW t:ll/:l ,,, Targum 51:)p,
N1:l) P!l5N pwr.in N5i1P:l' N1:l) l'l/:lW Nr.ll/ .:,c.:, . Thus the dis-
crepancy in the number is eliminated. This interpretation agrees
with Y. San. 2, 4 tu'N Cl'l/:lt!' Cll/:l ,,, ir.iN ,m ,NJr.l ,,, i1JJn 'i
D1gitiwd by Micrnsoft
r'iNil tll/r.l l:]?N Cl'ttlr.lnl ,l'i1i1JO H and .i lil'?N 110 (pp. 58, 59,
Friedmann), tlilr.ll/ i1?11) ,,,mo, l:J?N tl'ttlr.ln ?Nittl'r.l ?!:lJ 1:l'!:l?.
ib. 12:11 r,:i T1N1 511::n,, nN 'ii n?ttl'l Targum tiwr.iw r,,,.
So Y. Rosh Hashana 2, 8; Babli 25a. Com. P.
ib. 13:11:,:,r.,::i ?1Nttl i1Jttl iJ Targum p::i,n il'::l r,,:,, i1Jttl 1::i:i
1:ir.i 1:i ?1Nttl p Y. Bikkurim 3, 3. N?ttl i1Jttl p:, NJlil Ji ir.lN
Nt:)n tll/t:) cve . Joma 22b i1Jt!' 1::i PlJ'r,:, ,,r,mw :,:, 1:,nr.iJtt1 N?N.
ib. 1 5: 17 i1T1N ?N'iW' 't:)JW WNi Targurn tm::iw n,:,, tli::l
Nr.l'::l i::ll/r.l? ll/J '1 15 Nr.liJ 11::lN l'r.l'J::11 . Com. Sota 36b on
Ps. 68 :28 Cl't:)Jttlil Pil tl'il ?l/ ?Nitti' ,,r.i11w ill/ttl::l ir.llN i'Nr.l ,., n-n
n:,nr, 1iN 'JN ir.llN nn i15nr, 1iN 'JN ir.llN i1t rn T1N i1t T'MYU
.tl'' ,.,,, pr.in ,w
m::iw r'!:lP
Also Tanchuma WJ'l 8 on the same verse.
ib 19:13, 16 tl'll/il i'!:l:l nNl Targum .Niu Com. r,,,
Schochar Toh as cited in the Jalqut 1. c. Cl'!:liT1i1 T1N NYlr.l Nim
.Cl'lll ?ttl t:)'Jllil T1N1 il:im::i Com. Kimchi I. c.
ib 19:18, 19 T11'JJ 1::lt!''l Targum NJ!:l?lN r,::i::i So Ze-
bachim 5 4b j'Jttll' 1'i1W N?N ~ ilr.li ?YN l'Jll ilr.l ,:,, il::li ir.lN
.c,111 ?ttl 1'1J::l l'i'Oll/ ilr.li::l
ib. 23:18 1::l 11!:)N Nt!'J t!''N ilt!'r.lnl Cl'Jr.lW N1i1i1 Cll'::l T1r.l'1
Targum 11!:lN rt::i:,r.,:, l'it!':l1 l'i::l) Ntt1r.in1 !Jr.in N1i1i1 NQ1'::l ?t:)i'l
;,:ii . This interpretation of the expression implying that all
of them were high priests is followed in Y. San. 10, 2, Gem.
Cl'?11) Cl'Jil:l 'J~' l'Jr.lr.l l'N il"M 'i 'JT1 p N? ... 'r.l11Ni1 )N11 ::10'1
c5,,) tl'Jil:l nii15 tl"1Ni c,,:i l'ilttl ir.,:,r., N?N nruo .
2S 1:19 ?Nitti' '::lYil Targum ?Nitti' 11nin11nN The T.
identified it with the root, ::iy, . Com. Is. 21 :5 Ps. Jon. Deut .
29:9. Com. Schochar Toh 22, 19:
tl'il?N i'MY' ,., Clt!'J ')M ,., (N ,J"!:l c:,nr,) ?N n,11::i JYJ tl'il?N
T11r.lW) ir.lN T1N1 10:l Olr.l't:)'N JYJ Cl'il?N N?N !N:l Jr,:, l'N 10111
i1Yi1 ?l/ T1JY Jl ( N":l ,J"?
Both Onkelos and Ps. Jonathan render r,JYJ1 by ir,11
ib. 5 :6 cnO!:li11 tl'ill/il Targum N::in, N'Nt:)n Com.
36 ill/?N 111 'i'i!:l : t"l/ '1::lll/ NJ1W 111 i1'i1W 111 W!:lJ 'NlJW
ib. 5 :24 Cl'N:l::lil 'WNiJ i11l/Y ?li' T1N 11/r.lttl::l 'i1'1 Targum
NJ?'N 'W'i::l NnniY :,p r,,
111r.iwr.i::i 'i1'1 Coin. Shochar tob 27, 2
THE EXEGESIS 96
i1N1J'IW ,11 15YN p::i,i, ,,;, tlN ,;,.cN !i1::l ,, tnw.c5 mw, ,; PK
't'N1::l i1il/Y ;,i, J'IN 1l/OW::l ,;,,, 10NJW l'l/Jl/JO mJ5'Ni1 ,wN,
c,N:J::li1 and with minor alterations in Pesiqta Rabati 8.
ib. 6:20 c,i,,;, inN m5JJ m5Jn:i Targum ,;mo, r,5ni
The Targum interprets c,i,, empty, naked. Com. Jalqut 1. c.
i1N1JW tli15 n;,;n ,100 nNJ nn-n N:::iN z,,::i 5w nnewr.i ,; nir.iN
.i15UO ::li'll' 5J1 J'IC.C' ,, J'IC.C !il'O'O
Com. Y. Sukka 5, 14; San. 2, 4 P5ll ,ir.iN ,tl'i'\1n inN ,no
tln'O'r.l ;,m( N5, : li'l/ N5 cm:, nN1J N5W 5,Nw z,,::i 511 .
ib. 21:19 ,mn z,,;J J'IN ,,31, p JJn5N ,,, Targum
,w, 1::i ,,, ;~i,, So Jalqut 1. c. ,,, rn tl'J,,N ,,31, t::i !Jn5N ,,,
.,11,:i ;,,J ;,,nw ,,31, 1::i ; 5N mnw ,w, 1::i
ib. 23:1 c,J,inNi1 ,,, ,,::i, n5N, Targum ~,c; '::lJl'INi
Nl'lr.inJi ,r.i,; N05ll. Com. Shochar Tob 18, 5 N::l'W:J 5Ni~, i:i
n,,w o,,r.i,N ,J,r.i'::i ninr.i::i n,wr.i
ib. 23:4 wow n,,, ,i,,::i i,N:i, Targum ,,nv, Nwow:i,
l'll/::lW ,,n,J:J Nn5m !'ll::l1N i1NO z,;z, ,n 5JJ ;,,,i,, ,,nr:i N1nJN5
.N'O' NJ'll/::lW N,::i:i,:i The T. was apparently influenced in
that by Is. 30:26 with minor changes. The Midrash also in,
terprets it in a Messianic sense. Com. Midrash Shmuel 29, end:
n,wr.i 5w ,i,::i n"::ii,n ,,N,W:J N5N ii'::l ,,N:i, ,nr.i tl'lli,, ,JN l'N
wr.iwn n,,m ; and in Pesachim 2a: l'll:J nm o5,v::i ii,::i ,,N:i,
N:::in tl5'315 o,i,,,y; wow nnit Com. R. Channel 1. c.
ib. 23:7 u::i,w, ~,w wN::i, nun rv, 5ti::i N5r.i, on::i VJ' ~,N,
n::iw::i Targum p.ci,m l'5tN p:nn::i ::i,i,,r.:,5 ,,wr.i, WJN 511 ~N,
pnr.i,,, pJim 110::i 1,;:i, N5i N5tie w,:i5::i ;,,; p.cn, ,11 ,n,;JJ
1,,i,,z,, NiP,nN5 p,,z,11 NJ'IWN::l pn5N WJN ,,::i 1,n,mJl/i,e z,,; 1:i:i
.Nr.l5l/ z,, tir.i5 pi N,c,,:i 511 ::ll'lr.l? N::11 NJ,i l'l'::l i1N5Jl'IN::l
In a like manner runs the interpretation in n::i, m5N ,,c ,3 :
'tl'WP tlmJi,t::i, c,:i, tlm)~j:)::l N5N 1:i tl)'N 5Niw, 5w tl'l/W,e 5::iN
ir.iNJW ,;w ,,,Jn wii,r.in z,,::i::i tlmN p.c,,w, l'?l/r.iw ~ 11:iw no,
. l'l::lW::l 1,.0,w, WN::l ,r.i,N, ri,:i 531,;::i,
ib. 23:8 o,,,::iJn mr.iw n5N Targum ,,n, N'1::lJ z,;,r.:,w t'5K
.NJi ,o,,:i 511 Nl'l'1WO w,, N1::lJ ,,, tll/ The interpretation of
c,,,::iJ as representing rather the learned who pronounce judg-
ment, and not the warriors, is the favorite one in the Agada.
Com. Moed Katan 16b, Y. Mak. 6, 7 and Pesiqta r. 11.
D1mt1.w d by Microsoft
ib. 24:15' ,vu~ nv 1111 i;,Jilr.i Targum c.::,Jnr.i, tivr.i

.Nir.in So Berakoth 62b Tit.:i'ilt:' Til/t:'r.l 5N1r.iw ir.iN 11nr.i nl/ 'N~
.1n;,,,r nvw 1l/ ir.inil and in the name of R. Chiyya in
Pesiqta r. 11.
IK 7:26 5,.::,, nJ c:i5N Targum .NJ't.:i1J )'nJ t:i:>5N tin
So Erubin 14b, Sifri Num. 42.
Jm::n (n ,, J"n,) 5,:,, oo5N nw5w onJ ;,rnr.i ,r.i1N inN Jin:,
t:l:>5N - 155i1 t:l'J1n::J 'JW ,r.i,,;,n, ,~,.::, 5,.::,, nJ t:l'l5N ,r.i,N inN
. WJJ o:>5N nw5w onw n5J
ib. 37 ,,r niJ Targum NJ~J ,,r Com. Rosh Hashana
lla, Y. Rosh Hashana 2, 8 t:lH!'r.l N1ilil -~ ,,r c:,inJ 'r.lJ a-ron
NJ5N1 N1'f il'J nN1 .
ib. 8:2 t:iJn'Nil niJ Targum il'5 11;,, N;,nv, NniJ
ilNl/'Jt!' ~n,, ~,n ll/J1 i1Noi;, ~n,, . In the Talmud (Rosh
Hashana l la) R. Eliezer would interpret it to refer to the
"Aboth". The T. is based on this interpretation. At the
same time it intends to account for the change of the order
of the months following Josephus (Ant. 1, 3, 3) that it was
Moses who appointed that Nisan should be the first month
for their festivals. Com. PS Jonathan Excd. 12 :2.
ib. 16:34 5Ni1 nJ Targum 'r.l'O nJ So P. Com. San.
113a.
2K 2:3 t:l'NJJi1 'JJ 1N~'1 Targum N"JJ ,,,r.i5n. (So ib.
5', 7, 15'; 4:1, 38; 6:1). Com. Sifri Deut. 131: 'JJ 1N~'1 101N1
o,,,r.,5n5 po N;-N ,,;, o;,io:ln 1;;,;,, ,,;, t:l'N'JJ;, 'JJ ,:,, t:l'N'JJil
t:lJJ t:l'11i' t:lilt!' .
ib. 12 'JN 'J~ Targum Ji 'J1. Com. Sifri I. c. t:lW::J1
N1i11 i1N1 l/t:'5N1 ioNJt:' ,J~ ,,,;, :J1il 1::i t:iJ:J 011;, o,,,r.,5n;,w
':J~ ':J~ ;,11~0 ; Moed Katan 26a, where this Targum is quoted .
IS 1:23 t:lJ105w t:iii Targum ,5 1'Jl/ ;,,,:m5 1:J) l'101N
.1J'1J 15 t:i5WN1 'J'1:l N:Jt, Com. Pesiqta ;,:,,~ : t:l'J1r.i5w 1:)1111
.15 t:l5t:'~1 t:l5W
ib. 3 :4 o515vm Targum .Nnw5n1 Probably according
to Chaggiga 14a 5vn 'JJ 5vn 15N :Ji'l/' 1:J NMN :J1 ioN.
IS 4:3 t:i5W11':l t:l"n5 :J\n::Ji1 5.::, Targum "i15 Jn:,, 5:,
. t:l5w11' nr.inn 'fil' N05l/ This interpretation in a Messianic
sense agrees with San. 92b .
THE EXEGESIS 97
ib. 5:1 ,,,,,, n-n c,:, i,~;:,5 ,,,, n,w ,,,,,, ~J niwN
IOW 1:i 11P:J Targum No,::i, ,,no, ?Niw,, IV:J nn::iwK K':JJ 10K
,on, cn,:iNi nvit Com. Lamentation r. 2, 3 nuip ,wv
,,,,,, n-n ci:, 10NJW c;,i:iK ?W uip tn and Menachoth 53a
ib. 2 i:i :JYn ;ip, CJi Targum n:iio ~Nl. So Y. Sukka 4, 16
.pnw l?N ,:i :JYn :ip, CJ1 n:iton m :ip, ,:,,;,n m 5iJo Com.
Sukka 49a :iyn :ip, CJ1 n:ito m 1:,,n:i 5iJo 1:i,, ruipo;, m piiw
pnw ,,N ,:i
ib. 10 ci:, ioY n,wv ,:, Targum ,:in N?1 N:i1n:i '1N
.N'1Wl,'O Com. Pesiqta D'rav Kahana, - l'K'Y10 !'NW Jll,':J
.,wv c,::i ,w rm-e ,wv n:i 1nn,,wvo
ib. 17 c,::i,::i cw::i:, u,,, Targum 1,n,,v 1'0N1 NO:>
(from root i:ii). Com. Pesachim 68a i"N ,c,::i,:, cw::i:, u,11
.c::i ,::i,,o::i ::i, ioN ;,,o,, ,:i KruJo
ib. 18 l1Vi1 ::iw,o ,,;, Targum l'1JJ in::iY 't:lMO? pwoi ,,
.J!:ipn, iv poi J?tN NO? 5::in:i p::iin Com. Suk. 52b, San. 99a
no,, ~,o::i,, N:i,:i ,w t:iin, ;,o,i n,nn::i v,n iy, oK ,:,, 'K
'1i1 'NJW n?Jl,'i1 n,:,1,1::,
Also R. Akiba, Gen r. 22, 2; Sifri Num. 112 .
ib. 6:1 mo mw::i Targum 1mnN1 Nnw::i (2 Chronicles
26:20). So Exod. r. 1, end. Jalqut l. c. vit:iYJW N?K '? n-n no ,:,,
.no:, :iiwn vi1Yr.i1 Com. Ps. Jonathan, Exod. 2:23.
ib. 2 ,,,J, no:,, c,nw::i, l'J!J ;,o:,, c,nw:i Targum pin:i
,,r:no N5i nnu ,o:,o tin:i, -m N5i m!JK r,o:,o.
Com. Pirke d. Eliezer, 4:
- l'J!J m,:,, cnw::i, ,nJ:iwn 'J!J m:i -e,w - ,,,Ji no:,, cnw:i,
nJ:JWn 'J!:l:J b:i N?W .
ib. 8:2 Ji1:li1 ;,,i,K nN tlJONJ tiiv i11'VN1 Targum
;,,,,~ nN,::iJ:i n~nN5 n,r.iNi Nt:ii, n l'Jo;,o pino oip inoN1
1::i n,:n nNl:JJ:J i1Nn'N? n,oN, NnOnJ ,::i t::i ~K ,nK Km NJn:,
.i1Nn'N? ,,nv KJK ,;,,:,,:,,
This is exactly the interpretation of R. Akiba Makkoth 24b:
,v,w iN, n-an ,n, ,vJnru 1,,::, c,w,,,, r,w ,,n nnN tiV!J ::i,w
1:i, rn, ioN pnyo v",, p:,1::i tn ,,,nn;, c,w,p;, ,w,p n::io NY'tu
n,n N?N n,,:,r ?YN i1'11N l'Jl,' i10 ,:,, ,, nil,'Nl ::in:i, PMYO 'JN
c::,55,:i p, :i,n:i n,,,N::i ,n,1N ,w ,w
1nN1:in ;,,i:,t inN,::iJ aircn
.ti,,w,,, ni::i,n,::i nuen cJPt ,::iw ,u, ::i,n::i n,:it:i ,w,nn tl'Y
.no,,pno n,:it ,w 1nN1::iJtu v,,,:, ;,,,,N,w 1nN1:iJ ;,o,pnJru ,w:iv
D1qtt,zcd by Microsoft
ib . 9 :4 Wl/iJ INC PNC 5:i ,::, Targum .l/WiJ l1i1Jt:'r.l 5:i 'it(
The interpretation is based on the transposition of the two
last letters of t!'l/iJ. On the reading of the T. rests also the say,
ing of R. Meir, Tos. Sota 3: t:l1Nt!1 ilir.l::lt:1 j')!;) ir.l1~ i'~ ':::li i!'il
.tt'lliJ lN1C i1NC 5:i ,::, ir.l15 ,,r.i,n ,, J'111r.l ,,,r.i Otherwise
the inference is hardly explicable. Apparently, the T. identified
tiNC with J1NW formed from the root .NWJ This was apparently
the underlying reading of the rendering of the Lxx, while P. and
I presume, also, Sym. read the same way and rendered it
accordingly.
ib. 10:16 WN ,,p,::, iv' iv' ,,:::i::i nnrn Targurn ;r., rnnr
.t,iD" iD'r.l PiliD' The Targum interprets the phrase in the
terms of the current Agada that, for the purpose of rendering
the mircale of the destruction of the army of Senacherib more
pronounced, Go<l caused the bodies of his host to be burned
within the raiments which were left intact. Com. the Syriac
Apocalypse of Baruch 63, 8: "And at that time I burned their
bodies within but their raiment and arms I preserved outwardly,
in order that still more wonderful deeds of the Mighty one
might appear, and thereby His name might be spoken of through,
out the whole earth." It was, it woul<l seem, a current Agada.
Com. Tanchumaru 21: t:l'?t!'1i'? ::l'in;o il?llt!' illl::':::i t:l'll::;: j,;,;ii
.t:lil'i)J 1::ii::'J N51 t:lil'tl1) 1::lit!'J 1r.lll ,,m,,,n 5:n Also Lekach
Tob, Noach 9, 23. Com. Shab. 113b (and Rashi I. c.), San. 94a
i1'JNr.i5 il'' 'ii' tJm' 'ii Nil ,::, wr.ir.i ,,,:::i:i N5i ,,,:::i:i nnn pn,, i"N
m,:::i:ir., Com. Tos. San. 52a. cn,t(
ib. 13:12 i'!:l1N t:ll'i::lr.l t:liN1 f5lr.l t!'1JN i'D1N Targum JJnN
.Nl'i'i1~ '1::ll/1 NJilif? ,,n, Com. also 32 :2. In all other cases
the rendering of these two words is literal. Here the translation
was influenced by the Messianic nature which the targumist
assumes for this prophecy. The T. takes t:liN to imply the
observer of the law following R. Jeremiah (Sifra Lev. 18, 5):
rrnnn J'iN ilt!'1ll1 'i::lJ 1?'!:lN ir.l1N ill'iN l"Jr.l ir.l1N il'r.li' 'i n-n
.OilJ n, t:liNil CJ'i1N ilWll' iWN ir.i,, ,,r.i,n ,,,) lil::l::l N1i1 'iil
ib. 13 :21 OW 11Di' t:l'i'llW1 Targum l'1'W1 . Com. Sifri,
Deut. 218: CW 11Di' O'i'l/1!'1 ir.lNJt!' it:' N?N i'l/t!' l'N1; Lev. r. 5, 1
.OW 11Di' t:l'i'llW1 Nr.l'J'ii ilr.l::l N'i!t' l'?'N::l l11Di' 0'1?'1
ib. 17: 11 ')t!')Wn 1ll~J o,,:::i Targum Pl'it!'iDJ'iNi il'iNJ
THE EXEGESIS 99
.Ji:,,i:1111 pn5p5p tr.in Cl/ ,,;,r.i5 The targumist evidently took

'JWJ~'n as based on the noun J'O, dross (Isaiah 1 :25). Com.
Lev. r. 18, 3. N"ir.i:, n,,ce cn'Wll 011, ,, c:inN 'nllt:iJW c,,:::i
.,,;, ~o:, C'J'CI
ib. 19:25 ?NiW' ,n,m, ,,wN ,,, ilWl/r.l1 C'iYr.l 'r.ll/ ,,i:::i
Targum 11;,n, 'n'?JN ,r.,ip ,:in, ,11, C'iYr.ir.i n'i'!:lNi 'r.lll 1'i:J
?Ni~'' ,n.::onNi 'r.ll/ jii'Iir.l ,:in, ,,:ii i1nN, . The targumist
would not accept the literal and obvious meaning of this
verse placing the Egyptians and Assyrians on one footing with
Israel. In his view, therefore, the whole verse refers to Israel.
So was the view, apparently for the same rason, of the Greek
and the Syriac rendering of the verse.
Eliminating the insertions, this interpretation is found
in Hebrew Nt:>H 1il'?N ,,o (p. 194 Friedmann) c,iyr., 'r.ll/ 11i:J
Ci11 iiWN? 1?JW 1?N - i1WN ,,, i1Wl/r.l1 ,C'iYr.lr.l iNY'W Cl/ -
5NiC'' n5nJ
ib. 21:1 c:,, i:::iir.i NWr.l Targum Ni:::iir.ir.i l'nNi pi~r.i 5t:ir.i
Similarly Cant. r. t:il/r.l:J - N?N i:::iir.i ;,r.,5 C' ON C' i:::i,r.i NC'r.l
.. n,,:,5r., 11:JiN 1?N
ib. 21: 11, 12 NnN ir.)W ir.iN ,,,r.i i1r.) ,r.iw ;,,,r.i i1r.) ,r.iw
;,,,, CJ1 ip:::i Ta_rgum n,N N'JJ ir.)N NnN'JJ n, l1i1? C''i!:l N'JJ
.N'll'Wi? n,Jlli1!:l n'N1 N'v'iY5 iJN . Com. Y. Taanith 1, I iir.iN
N? Ci1? ir.iN .nrn i1?'?il ,,nr.i 1J? NY,, i1r.l ,:,, i1'llW' u,:::i, i1'llW'?
.C'l/Wi5 ;,,,,, c,p,,y5 iPJ N?N l'i'JO cnNW:J Com. also Pesachim
2a on 2S 23:4.
ib. 22:1 n-m N'J NC'r.l Targum N:::in,, Nn1i' ,11 NnK1:JJ ,t:i~
N"JJ il?l/ ,~,:::iJn~, Nn,,n:::i . This agrees with R. Jochanan (Pe-
sichta Lam. r. 24) C'NJJnr.i c-nnn 5:,w N'J nm N'J Nwr.i nns pn,, 'i
,i1'?ll While Beraitha Taanith 28b would interpret it to refer
to the Tepmle. Rashi, however, would place the Beraitha in har-
mony with the interpretation of R. Jochanan.
ib. 8 ,v,n n,:::i i'WJ ,11 Targum .Nt:1ivr.i 'tJJ n,:::i l't ,11
The T. was evidently prompted to this interpretation by IK
10:17, where it is called l1JJ?i1 ill' n,:, interpreting 11JJ? to mean
the Temple, as he rendered 37:24 (2K 19:23), which coincides
with the explanation in Joma 39b .
,r.i,, 1,n,n ill' n,:::i :::i,n:,, ill' ,r.iw Nii'J nr.i, ;,,:::i,t:i i:::i Nit:iit i"N
:i,:::i,r.i t!'ivr.iil n,:::i qN :::i,:::i,r.i ill' nr.i ,, Similarly Num. r. 11, 5.
Dia,t,zC'd by Microsoft
b. 17 i:iJ n5c,5c, Targum Ni:iJi N5c,5c, Com. San. 2 5b

.. nwp Ni:lJ1 N5,c,5c, :i, ioN i:iJ n5c,5c,
ib. 18 1'J,1N r,,:i p5p Targum N51 511 J5v:i 1,:i,n, ton,,
.,,J,:ii r,,;:i ip, Nn,c,J Com. San. I. c. r,,:i, p5p WP:l N,n NJ11
. t,5P5 m:i:, 1DnJ 1.:i,D5, l'J,1N
ib. 23 ,,,, ,,nvpm Targum .Jo,no ,.:i,oN n'JJON The tar,
gumist is of the opinion that NJ:lrt' was only 5.:iioN which dig,
nity was to be transferred to Eliakim. Accordingly, he renders
1.:i,o (v. 15) .N11':l 511 NJOO ,, NOJi!3 This is the view of R.
Jehuda (Lev. r. 5, 3) .n-n 5m rn:, 1TV5N i"N 1.:i,cn 5N N:l ,,
.n-n 5:,ioN io,N i":i rrnn- ,, The T., however, to 1DJ'll' ~J'll
(v. 18) N11DJ'l10 r,, 1JO ,,v,
would point to the opposite view,
that Shebna was a High Priest. (Com. T. 28:1). The T.
to v. 18 has all the appearance of a Midrashic T., a portion of
which was incorporated here.
ib. 27:5 'lll10:l Ptn' ,N Targum ,r,,i,N '0J11D:l PDP11' ON
Com. San. 99b o,,w o,wo now, rrnrc pc,vn ,.:i ,,,Jc:>5N i"N
. t,vo:i Ptn' ,N ioNJW nc,o ,w n,oD:i, n,vo ,w n,oD:i
ib. 2 7 :8 nJ:iin nn,w:i nNcNc:i Targum Nn,n, nnNC:l
15 p,,:,, n:i 5N:> . So Sota Sb, San. 100a ,o,N ,,No :ii n-n N'Jn
.nNCNt:l:l ioNJW '' p,,,o n:i ,,,o Cl1NW n,o:iw i'Jr.l
ib. 28 :7 n,,,D ,pe Targum .NnJ'1 ,vc, So Meg. 15b,
San. 111 b .o,,,,D:i 1m, ioNJW Cl'J"1 N5N n,,,e l'N'
ib. 10 ,v5 ,v ,'l/5 ,'ll :i Targum Nn,,N 1:a105 ,1PD11N ,,N
N5, Nn,vc, in,,D 1,n, Cl"vn, ,,:ic ,:ivo, ,N:iy N5 ,,vDnN, no,
(,p, ,v) ,t!liPo n:i rn5,D5 ,,:ic . Com. n:i, ,n,,N ,,c (p. 19,
Friedman) Cl11N J':l'l150 5Dn nc, Cl11N J'OWW N5N p Cl11N 'N ,Cl11N
,v
nN,v nN,~ nJNt.:1 nN,~ tmN Cl11N t:l't.:''31' t!lr.lr.l tlil:l l'N '''NJ ,,:i,
n,n:,,n iDc:i o:inN ,r,,,y ,o,Yoo o:inN'll:i o:inN ,r,,,y nN,v nJNw
n,,v, -rnm .rren nJ:iJ N5w ,v oJ,ow, mNo v:i,N o:inN ,r,,,p
. ,v, ,v ,y, ,Y ,:, ioNJW n:in m:iJwo t:l'JW ,wv, n,No v:iiN o:inN
ib. 29:1 5N,,N 5NiN ,,;, Targum Nn:i,o Nn:i,o According
to Midoth 4, 7 it is the 5:in Pesichta Lam. r. 26. But com.
Sebachim 5 3a, 59b, according to Rab .
ib. 17; 32:15 :iwn
Com. Gen. r. 24, 1 WJ'N :ii
,v,,w,m,,o,:in, :in l'N'Jt:l l''ip
:iwn ,v,, ,o,:in,
Targum
Com. Caro
I. c. and Rashi.
THE EXEGESIS 101
ib. 30:15 m,w,n nm, n::i,w::i Targum 1m,,u,5 tmnn ,,

.1,PiElnm 1,mJn The Targum interprets n::i,w::i to mean repent
ance and rendering the following as a resultant phrase. It agrees
with R. Eliezer, Y. Taanith 2, 8; San. 37b.
5"N .i,5N)J n::i,wn j,wu, 5Niw, CN ,o,N ,u,,,N ,::i, ,,,N N,Jn
. nm, n::i,w::i ioNJ i::i:, ,u,,5N ,::i,
ib. 20 ,,,,o nN mN,i ,,J,ll Pm ,,,,o iu, qJ:,, N5, Targum
;,,m,:,w n, t'tn ,,J'll 1,,n,, NwiPo n,::io ;,,nJ,.:,w ,,11 p5c,, N5,
.Nwipo n,::i::i Com. Sota 49a ,u,en J,N qN ,o,N NJ'Jn ,::i NnN :ii
,mN 1,11,::iwo ,o,N ,n::iN ,, ,,,,o ,,11 qJ:,, N5, iONJW ''J!:l5 5llJJ
,,,,o nN mN,, 1'J'll ,,m ioNJW n~:i:t-"i1 ''fO. Both, it would
appear, depend upon the interpretation of the Targum which
interprets ,,,,oto mean the Shekina, introducing the Temple
as a necessary complement .
ib. 31:9 nn!:ln Targum CJ'i1J So Erubin 19a; Pesachim
54a; Seder Eliahu r. 29 (p. 150 Friedman) .
ib. c,,w,,,::i ,, ,,Jn, Targum NWNi ;,,5 ,,11::i ,um
.n,,o,o 511 ,,:iv,, Com. Erubin l. c.; Gen. r. 6, 4 w"i, 'NJ' ,,
i1Ji1 Cll~ i10 C'l1Wii1 nN ~,now c,, N5N CJ;,,) J'N 1,,oN ,n,,,n
('~ ,'J ,:,N,o) ,un:, ,11,::i N:l c,,. Mek. ,,n,, 9 : m ,,Jn mm
c5ww::i ,5 :mm ioNJW ,CJi1'J.
ib. 2 'nv::iwn nnmN 5:, Targum cip Jo 1,mNno nn, 5:,
.5::i::i, N:i5o So Cant. r. I. c . .5::i::i 5w nnmN 5:, ,n::iwn nnnJN 5:,
ib. 33:20 IVY' 5::i 5i1N Targum Pi!:lnO N5i NJ:,~:,
So Cant. r.
'5i1N:J - ll'J' 5:i, NY' 5::i JllY' 5::i 5i1N :lPll, p itll'5N 'i 'Jn,
ib. 32:5 :l'iJ 5:JJ5 iu, n~ir,, N5 Targum i,11 ioNn' N5
.N,v'iY N'll'Wi5 Com. Sota 41b NO'n'N' N::i,110 ,::i rmn: ,:i, ~,,
ioN' N5 ioNJW nm c5u,::i C'l1Wi5 q,Jn;,5 ,n,o ,u:i t::i 1,110w ,::i,
. ::i,,J 5::iJ5 ,u, .
ib. 14 c,,,11 i1lli0 C'Nie w~ t1/~J JoiN ,:, Targum
t::io mn ,,,n n,::i N,;,, inN ::ir,n l (t,:ir,o n,::i 'iN. Com. Lam. r.
2, 5.
ib. 20 C'O 5:, 511 'llif c:i,it11N Targum pn,::iv Nv'iY 1::i,::i,~
,N'i'W 5ll l'lliti5 Joi 1,nNi J:l~ 1,,::iu, 1,:,5 Com. Baba Kama
17b, Aboda Zara 5b ,c:,,iwN ::i,n:,i ,No ,"::i~, c,~ pm, ,, ioN
c,,cn m5,oJ, rmrc PC'lli1 5:, Seder Eliahu Zuta 15 (ed. F.)
D,atttzC'd by Microsoft (I.

i11~J ne-nn i1iEl:::l1 N1~r.l? ,,r.in:::i, ?U/? ,,~:::i 1r.>Yll I1N Cl~~ 'r.l i~N
cr.i 5:::i 5:u vit c:::ii~N ir.iNJ~
ib. 33:17 1'J'll i1J'tnI1 1'El'J 1?r.l Targum I1J':::l~ 1P' I1'
.N'r.l?l/ 1?r.l Com. Seder Eliahu r. 14 (p. 168 F.) i1"JPi1 inv
1?r.l 1r.>NJ~ PJEl? C':::lt!-'1' C?1l/ 'v'1Y1 1?W ?1iJi1 ~11r.li1 I1'JJ JW'?
.1'El'J Eliahu Zuta l (p. 171 F.) I1N i1:l'~1r.>1 i1?l/r.l N'i1~ l'Jr.l1
. 1?r.l 1r.l1N1 ii:,:,;, Nt:l:::l 1JJ i1JI11J
ib. 40:8 iYn WJ' Targum .N'l/Wi nr.i Com. Schochar

Tob l, 20 (ed. Buber) and citation in Jalqut: cinm N:::lN
n,:m~ ljJJNJ I1l/J1Pr.li1 N?J~? nm C?1l/J cr.i,, C'P'1Yi1 ilr.l? ,r.i,N
ilr.l i1NiJ i1:::l1I1J~ ilr.l 1El~J1 N?J~i1 i1?~J i1:::l1I1J vi I11l/P1 I11'?Jir.>1
.,,yn ~:i ir.iNJ~ cpiy;, iNiJ c5u,n ir.> cvwin u,5:iJ 1:::i N?J~:iw
ib. 40:10 1'JEl? 1I1?l/El1 lI1N ,i:::iw i1Ji1 Targum ,,:iv iJN Nil
Com. Tanchuma Gen.
. mr.iip J?J pn,:iu, 5:::i, il'r.lll nir.ir.i
(Noach) 12 .1I1N ,i:::i~ i1Ji1 cpiY? ?JN i1'llW' ir.>N ,:::i,
ib. 29 ro ~ll'? JnJ Targum 'r.lJI1El? Jil5er.i, NP'iY? :in,
.Nr.i:::i,n NniiN The T. was influenced by 50:4, of which this
is the rendering. So Seder Eliahu r. 17 (p. 84 F.) 1?r.l ?JN
ilr.i:::in:i cpiYil I1N DJiElr.>1 l?~ ND::JJ :iw,, N?N J::J 1J'N C'::J?r.lil ':l?r.l
~115 tmJ ir.>NJ~ nv,::i
ib. 40:31 cit:1J:::i i:iN 1?ll' n::J 1El5n 'i1 ,,pi Targum n:io,,
.J1ilI1r.l'?U/? tininni J1i1nl?J 'J'::Jr.> J1~J::JI1' ,,, NJPi1El? The ref
erence here is to the Messianic era. Sifri (Num. 40) explains
it to refer to the future world which, however, might be taken
in an identical sense. Com. San. 92b, Jalqut Machiri I. c.
ib. 41 :2 '~Ji? 1ilNiP piy nitr.ir.i i'llil 'r.l Targum 'I1'N
NviY in:::i i:li1i::Jt( NnJir.i~ 't(?J:::i . This and the following verses
appear to have been generally explained to refer to the story
of Abraham's struggle with the four Kings (Gen. 14). So
Shabath l 5a, San. l 08b, Tanchuma I. c. 19:
.1PiYJ 'r.l?U/ I1N iy;, Ci1iJN i1"JPi1 ,r.iN 1'llil 'r.l
Com. Gen. r. 42, 1; Exod. r. 15, 50; Seder Eliahu r. 6 (p. 28
Friedman).
ib. 42:11 l/?D 1::JC'' Di' Targum l'P'tJ i:::i N'i1'r.l tir.Je"
Com. Gen. r. l \ 2, Jalqut I. c. I11i1r.>N1 m::J~ ~N
J1i1'r.l?l/ Nn:lr.l .
1150 :::" i;i ir.>t(Jt!'. Deut. r. 7, 3 iJi ::Jn:::i c-nen n-nru
l/?t:l , Jt:'' .
Digitized by Microsoft q.D

THE EXEGESIS 103
ib. 21 iP1Y ll/t.:l? Targum ?NiW' i1niN::it5 5i::i

The T is followed by the Pesiqta 40: nr.:iNi .'ll':l~'i1 win::i
. ,,m,i:::i m:n5 r::in Nii1w ,i1"i:::i ~ c:imN ;,::itr.i, c:i5,v;, nN i1 ;,":::ip;,
,,n,,i:::i P'1Yi15 nm Nii1W ,,piy jl/t.:l? r~n ,, ir.:iiN Nli1 p,
Mak. 23b, Mish.: nN m::n5 i1":lPi1 i1~i ir.:iiN N'WPll lJ N'JJn ,,
,PiY 111r.:i5 r::in ,, ir.:iNJW m~r.:i, rrnn c:i;,5 i1Jii1 1::i~, 5NiW'
ib. 43 :4 1nnn c:iiN 1nNl Targum Nr.:ir.:iv. nior.:i, So Me-
chilta 10 l'PfJ1 Nn::ic:ir.:i and Exod. r. 15, 3: i1nt.:lt!! tli15 l/JP 1::15
, tl1N jnNl it.:lNJW tli1':::l'lNt.:l lliE:lJ Nli1W
ib. 12 nvr.:iwm nvw,m -rrun ::iJN Targum n,n NJN
nr.:ipi Nr.:i::i tl'i~r.:ir.:i i,::in nPiE:l NJN Nnr.:i5 ,nv, i,::i:::iN tii1iJN5
'J'i:r.) niiN 1~5,N 1,::in_ nvr.:iwN NJNl N'in:::i 1::i ;,,5 Similarly.
Jalqut I. c .. 'J'tlJ nvr.:iwm .. tl'iYr.:i:::i -rrun '::IJN
ib. 44:5 ,,, :in:,, m, JPll' tlWJ NiP' m, 'JN ,,5 it.:lN' i1t
Targum J'iP' r-n JPll' c:i,w:::i ,5y, l'1l NJN ,,, N5nir., it.:l" l'1
,i1'J:::lilP The interpretation approaches the Midrashic explana-
tion of the verse to refer to four estates of the righteous ones.
Aboth of R. Nathan 36 ;,n tl'ilt.:lJ tl'P'1Y l5N 'JN ,5 it.:lN' m
tl'l/Wi l5N ,,5 ,,, :in:,, m, ,l/Wi 'JJ tl'J~P i5N JPll' tlWJ NiP'
iJ i5N ilJ::i' 5NiW' c:iw:::i, ,;,:::iiwn ,wv, c:in:::i ,,m, c:i;,::i,,r.:i iwi::iw
,tl5llli1 mr.:iiN And m a different way in Mechilta l'PfJi Nn::ic:ir.:i)
'5 ir.:iN m mir.:ilNl nmv mw nm:i l/JiN:::i NYir.:i nnN 1::i, : (2s
,:::i JillnJ N5l c:iipr.:i5 ,,,::iw m - c:iiJcr.:i sen :::i Jilin' 5Ni JN
511:::i l5N - , , , :in:,, m, ,P1Y 'i) l5N - JPll' tlW:l NiP' i1tl ,N~n
c:ir.:iw 'Ni' l?N - i1J::I' ?NiW' tlWJl ,i1JlWn
Seder Eliahu r. 18 (p. 105 F.) is following Aboth of R. Nathan
i5N - it.:lN' m ,i1l/W nmN:::i 5NiW' ip5nJ c:in::: , l/:liN5 nr.iN i::l'C
- :in:,, m, ,tl'l/Wiil 'J:::I tl'J~P i5N - NiP' m, ,tl'1lt.:lJ tl'P'1Y
.tl'l/Wi l?N The T. seems to follow this interpretation, although
it is less outspoken with regard to the last three which, how,
ever, allow themselves to be implied. Com. Sifri Deut., 119.
ib. 27 i15W5 ,r.:iNi1 Targum 5:::i:::i 511 ir.:iNi. Com. Y. Berakoth
4, 1; Zebachim 113a; Shah. 113a; Lam. r. Pesichta 23 (Buber)
5:::i:::i it 'Jin i15lY5 it.:llNil JJn,, ,, it.:lN
ib. 45:18 iliY' n::iw5 Targum Nt!!JN J:::i n5v i1NJCN5 It is
so interpreted in the Talmud as implying the obligation of
human reproduction. Com. Jebamoth 62a; Gittin 41a, etc .
ib. 46:11 nYl/ W'N Pnir.:i YiNt.:l Targum NPlni Nl/iNt.:l
D1attuC'd by Microsoft Ci-

Cli1iJN 'JJ. So Gen. r. 54, 1 Cli1iJN i1t ,W'N :ii, " n1YiJ t<"i
. ,nyv W'N PMiO l'iNO i1'J :in:,, ,W'N NiPJW
ib. 50:5 ttN ,, nns Targum NJN, i1NJJT'li1? Jn5w Cli1?N
.n:i,o N? So Pesiqta 33 ,1m< ,, nne ci15N 'i1 ~ ~no:i iOU< ,;,o
n,wN o nN ioNw::> ,,,p vow, tntc ,, nmi Nm
ib.57: 1 PiYi1 ~ONJ i1l/ii1 'J!:lO ,:, Targum NnwJ CliP IO ,iN
'li'tl' Ni':-li."i I'he belief is here expressed that the death of
the righteous one is a signal of an approaching calamity to
escape which he is taken away from life. This was a prevalent
belief derived from the interpretation of this verse. Com .
Baba Kama 60a: 5nnow N?N ,,v
t<5, ... nnwo, n,w,
1nJtet 1,:,
.. i1l/ii1 'J!:lO ,:, iONJW 'i1":D5 'i1 Nm:i~ "JN ?"N .i15nn Cl'P'iYi1 10
San. 113a ... P'1Yi1 iO::<Jw c5w5 i1NJ i1l/i c5,v;,o i~!:lJ piY
But com. Enoch 81, 9.
ib. 19 :i,ip5, p,n,5 c,5w c,5w Targum N'P'i'lr? i:ivn NO?W
.Nn,,t<, ,::in, N:in, ,:ivn No5w, 101p5o n,,t< ,i~J, Com .
Sifri Num. 42: . c,,w c,,w iONJW ;,:i,wn ww, 1mw c,,w;, ,,,l
ib. 59:16 w,N l'N ,:, Nil Targum iJ) n,,,
,mo,p 5l,
1:i~ 1,:iw ;,,,, Com. San. 98b N?N NJ ,,, IJ l'N tJnP i"N,
Ni'' :in:,, J"M ,,,:,w ,,,:i ,J"n ,,,:,w i,,:i ,t< 'N::>t ,,t:iw i,,:i
.. W'N l'N ,:,
ib. 64:3 ,Jtt<i1 ~,, wow N? c5,vo, Targum 1J'O iJ n5 'it<
N'P'iY ,,:iv, ,:ivo, ,,nv nN,. Com. Eliahu r. 20 cvw, ,w c;i,,wo
c,,vo, io,N, ,t<Ji1 c,w, cpiy ,w 1,:,w tno ,o, i1nN ;,r;, c,w:i
.. ,JtNi1 t<5, wow N~ Com. also Shab. 63a; Exod. r. 45 end;
Esther r. 1.
ib. 65 :8 ,,:iwt<:i w,,n;, NYO' iWN:l Targum n:inwt<i NO:>
.NJ!:l,~i NiiJ t<::>t nJ So R. Simon, Gen. r. 29, l.
ib. 20 mo i1JW i1NO iJ il/Ji1 ,:, Targum c5w :i,,n, 'it<
.nNo ,;,, l'JW i1NO iJ Com. San. 91a and Pesachim 68a. The
interpretation of the T., however, agrees with Gen. r. 26, 3 .
ib. 22 ,ov o l'lli1 o:, ,:, Targum N"n l?N o,,:, it<
.ov ~,, Com. Tan. Gen. 2 (18) .l'l/i1 ,o,:, iONJW !'JO '""'
Similarly Gen. r. 12, 5; Num. r. 13, 4. Lxx has a similar in-
terpretation. Com. T. PS. l :3 ,,nw
l'll::l - "n l?'NJ .
Jerem. 2 :2 1n5,5:, nJi1N 1'i,l/J ion 15 ,n,:,r Targum
,,rt<, ioo:i Jo;,, p:,n:i;,t< non, ,c,p o,, rnce tt:i5 NJi:i,
THE EXEGESIS 105
pin N5:::i !'JW p:s,:::i,N Ni:::iir.l:::i 1i;,Ni ilWr.l ,n:::i n5w p,n ,n:::i
Com. Mechilta n5w:::i 3 : ilJr.lNil N'il Ni::i . tir.liN cinN
tl'N'!l,, UN 1N'il i1Wr.l7 ,,t.:)N N7W ,tl'il nN tli17 viPNW ':J U'r.lNilW
tlil'7l1 ,ilWr.l ,,nN ,::i5m U'r.lNil N7N ,,,5 il'nr.l u,:::i !'Ni ,:::i,r.l5
nNivi 1i5;, ;,5:::ip:::i wiii::ir.l And in a modified form in Seder
Eliahu r. 17 (p. 85).
Jerem. 2:311'7N ,w Ni:JJ Ni5 iJii 'r.lll iir.lN :s,iir.l Targum
.1Jn5u:i5 ,w :::i,m N7 NJ5t:,5t:,N Com. Tanchuma Num. 2 viir.l N"i
tti:::iJ N5 ,w iJr.lr.l 1nJ::iw r,p5c, wivr.l r,,:::i u5 r,r,J ,5 iir.lN ,,ir.lN
1'7N ii:s, I ."I
ib. 22:6 tu:::i5;, WNi ,5 ilnN i:s,5J Targum :::i:::in nN i5N
N,,t:, w,:::i c,, NWivr.l T1':Jr.l 'r.liv Com. Mechilta ,P5r.l:S,, 2 :
N5N 1:S,7J tNi i:s,5Jil nN ir.lNJl!I ,,N,m wiPr.lil n:::i nN niN,5 t:IP:J
,5 ;,nN i:s,5J ir.lNJW wivr.lil n:::i
ib. 28:17 'll':JWil w,n:::i N'ilil ilJW:J N':JJil il'JJM nr.li Targum
.N:S,':JW Nni:::i i:::ipnN, N'ilil NT1W:J NiPW N':JJ il'JJn r,,t.:), Com. Y.
San. 11, 5 p n,t.:)N nN, .nn-n mnN ilJW ... N':JJil il'.JJM r,t.:),
,n,:::i J:J nN, iJ:J nN my, ilJWil WNi :::i,:s,:::i T1r.lt!' 1r.l5r.l N5N
inN,:::iJ mw:s,5 5:::iw:::i ;,"i inN i;,iNYit:i ,,:ii;, nN ,,r,c:,;,5
ipw il'r.li' 5w. Com. also v. 16.
ib. 32:18 tlil'J:J e-n 5N m:::iN 1,v c5wr.li Targum ,:::i,n c5wr.li
ti;iin:::i t:,nr.l5 l'r.l7Wr.l ,::i N'J:::17 NT1il:JN . Likewise all Targumim
to Exod. 34:7 making it clear that the suffering sons are subject
to punishment also on their own account. This explanation is
that assumed in Berakoth 7a tl'J:J 5:s, m:::iN IW ipii::i :::in:m, 'J'N
,N'WP N5 iJ'JWr.li ,,,;,N 'NiP P'r.l,, m:::iN 5:s, ,mt.:) N7 tl'.J:Ji :::in::i,
.ctmN l'NW::l Nil ,tli1'1':J c;,m:::iN ilWVr.l ttmNw::i Nil The refer-
ence is to San. 27b.
ib. 38:7 ,w,::iil 17r.l ,:iv Vr.lW'i Targum N::l5r.li Ni:i:s, Vr.lW'i
.;,,piy Com. Moed Katan 16bi:::i:s, Vr.lW'i ir.lit( ilr1N i:::ii:::i NYi::i
.ir.lw ;,piy N5m ,r.lw w,::i :ii w,:lil 17r.l But Sifri Num. 99
(mentioned anonymously by Rashi) would interpret it to refer
to Baruch b. Neriah.
Ez. 1 :1 ilJW cw5w:::i ,;,,, Targum lr.lt5 l'Jt!I !'n5n:::i ;,,m
.NniiNi Ni!:ic N:::ii ilJil::l ;,p5n n::iwNi This numerical interpreta-
tion is given in Seder Olam. Com. Jalqut l. c.
ib. 3 il'il il'il Targum cip Jr.l ilNi:JJ CJT1!:i ;,i;, iilr.l
.Nic::i :s,iN mir.l:::i il'r.lll 55r.lnNi nuJn :in 5Niw, NViN:::i So Mech .
D1a,tucd b't' Microsoft

(~nn,n::i N:::i Nno::i) : l'iN? ;win:::i u~v ,:::i,Jl l'iN:::i ir.iv ,:::i,J N"''
.)'iN? ilYln:::i ,r.iv i::liJW n-n ,)'iN::l ,r.iv i:liJW n-n .n-n n-n ir.lNJW
Also Rab Chisda Moed Katan 25'a.
ib. 24 tlir.ll/::l ilJnr.i ?lP::l il?lr.lil ,u, Targum lil'?l?r.l ?lP
N'r.l?l/ 1,r.i Nr.l'P llim:li l"l' J'::li:l'::ll !'ilr.l i::i . It seems to follow
the homily in Gen. r. 65, 5: ill/W:l ,Cli Cll/ N:l Clir.ll/:l Nlil ilr.ll
.Clil'tlJ::i ilJtlil"l ::i"nNl l'Pl"llW Cl'::lN?r.lil ?NiW' l/r.lW f'ir.llN ?NiW'W
Its repetition in the v. 2 5 is interpreted by the T. in the same
way, the silence preceding the word of prophecy descending
upon the prophet .
ib. 2:10 m rum tl'J'P il'?N :Jm::i, Targum il':l :Jn:n
1n:::i11 c~, ~''::lr.ll/ jlil:l 1m'.ic" Nl"l'ilN ,v
'.iNit:1' l"l'::l lli::ll/' CNi
NJlil N'?N jlilJr.l ~10' Nl"l'ilN r,,.
Com. chapter General Peculi-
arities. However a similar evasive interpretation is found in
Sifri Num. 103 ,Cl'P'i'l: ?W rum ,Cl'l/Wi ?W Cl'J'P Cl'J'P il'?l/ :lll"l::ll
. Cl'l/Wi ?W m
ib. 7:11 ilJ N?l Clilr.lilr.l N?' Targum 'J:lr.l N?l )lil'J:lr.l N?l
)lil'J::l Com. Gen. r. 31, 1, as interpreted rightly in Cl'J'J!:lr.l in:JJ
ib. 13 :5 Cll"l'?l/ N? Targum j':l~ )'i:lll/ )l::1? )ll"li:ll/ N?l
5NiW' r,,:3 ?l/ 11:::ir.i, Com. Jalqut I. c.; Esther r. 6.
ib. 16:10 cc:::i ic:::in~, Targum N'Jil:l p::,m ncipi .
Com. Pesiqta :,,,, til::i '.ii
1 mm:, ,,,:::i m~r.:c ,,,~ cc:::i 1:!':lnNl
ct:1 t:il::l il'ilC'. The targumist, however, would interpret

,_:,;:, 10::INl as referring to the High Priest.
ib. 11 tl'i'r.l'l: Targum Cl'J::JN m, 'il"l '.iv
t:::in::,.
So Pesiqta 33 l"l'i::lil n,n,:, 'JC' l?'N l:i'i'r.l'l: ilJJ"lNl.
ib. 12 1C'Ni::l msen m~v, Targum 'r.liP Jr.l n,,w 1N?r.ll
)l::l'W'i:l i:lir.l Com. Cant. r. ?ll/J p : n 1t!'Ni:l l"liN::in n,~11,
.ilJ'::lltm; Pesigta 33.
ib. 26:21 1JT1N l"llil?:l Targum l"l'lil N?i:l Kimchi l"llil?:l r,",,
.rnn ?:l - Cl'?r.l 'l"lW It is, it would seem, an old Midrashic in-
terpretation. So Tanchuma Gen. 19 (Buber) 1Jl"lN l"llil?:l lilr.l
, J"llil?:l ir.lNJt!' l"ll'il? J'i'l"lll N?l l'il N? Cl?ll/i1 J"llr.llN ,1J'Nl
.m,;, ?:l m;,, :l
ib. 28: 13 1:::i 1'::lPJl 1::in n:iN>r.i Targum n,::inoN N? tli::J.
J':lPJl p55n i'::ll/T1'Ni 1iJti:::i So Baba Bathra 77a ... 1::in n::iN?r.l
n,:inc:,J 1:l iW 1,r.i tiin, n":::ipn ,, ir.iN :Ji ir.iN rrnn- :Ji ir.lN
.CliN::l Cl':lPJ Cl':lPJ 'l"lNi:::i,
Digitized by Microsoft q.,

THE EXEGESIS 107
Com. Ps. Jon. and Frag. Deut. 32:18, which is the interpreta-
tion of R. Meir, Sifri Deut. 227.
ib. 45:11 nan ion;, iWl/O 11NW5 Targum i'N~ r,5n c,.:io
.Nri:i N::l'~i N115.:io:i Nil::l :ioo5 Com. Menachoth 77a 'Jil NJO
ru5w nan ilO .n-n inN p,n rem il!:llNil Nii' NiOn ::Ii iON ,5,0
.nan IOWil pm N::lilO N5N ,t5Jo N!m n:i, ,l'NO The T. to V. 14 is
literal. The specification here of the number of kors is because
it forms the source for the inferente of the measure of the epha .
Hos. 2:1 .. Ci15 iON' C11N 'Oll N5 Ci15 iON' iWN ClPO::l il'ill
Targum NniiN 5.v li::ll/ ,.:i Nool/ J:i lN5mNi Ni11N::l 'il'l
Ni15Ni il'Ol/ !li15 iON11'l ll::lin,, 1mr,, ll11N 'Ol/ N5 !li15 iONnN,
.NO'P This interpretation agrees with Sifri Num. 131 m:i Nll,,::l
5wo ilt5 m l'Jl/ ilO :n 5NiW' J:i ieOo iOlNl 'Oll N5 iOlN ilnN
N:i N5w ill ~l i15 :i,n.:i5, Nl:::15 i!:)lO inN n5w lnWN 5JJ Ol/::lrt' 1505
N5N Pl5n JN::lO ilt i!:llO Nll'rt' iW!:lN 150;, iON lnWN5 illli11J i!:llOil
'Oll N5 cnN .:i ioNJ 1.:i5 ,nn:i,n.:i n5 5!:ll::l 'JNW :im.:i Nl:i ,5 ,o,N
e-n 5,n.:i 5NiC'' n ieoo iOlNl. And Pesiqta 11. R. Meir,
however (Kidushin 36a), would not draw such a distinction.
ib. 2 5Nllit' Cl' 5lil .:i Targum !li111W'J::l c,, ::Ii 'iN
So Pesachim 88a ,:i lNi::lJtU c,,.:i n,,5l r,:ip c,, 5lil pm, 'i iON
.5Nllit' c,, 5lil ,.:i iONJW l'iNl cow
ib, 7 tJniiil nw:iin Targum .i,il!:l5o ,r,,;,:i The T. explains
Cnilil as of the root i1i' to teach. It was so taken by others .
Com. Deut. r. 2, 2: .orrnn nw:iin CON nnJt .:i :in.:i N5~t: i"N
}'iNil CV 'J!:l::l cn,,:i, c,w,,:io (C'J"iil) CilW And the version
in Jalqut l. C. ,,:i, C'rt'":::10 C'J"iil il"::lPil iON N5o~ ,, iOK
. CON il11Jt '::l iONJ 1::l5 l'iNil Cl/ 'J!:)::l
ib. "li'Wi Targum OlJi!:1 . Com. Ketuboth 65a ,,,i'e.>l
r~w.:in inJJ NOi lil'5ll r,pp,nwo nwN;iru ci:ii
ib. 4:7 ,5 lN~n p C::li::l Targum N55lJ i,;,5 nJONi N~::l
Deut. r. 2, 2 . ,5 iNt:ln t.:i iWll/ 1i15 ,r,,:iinw 5.:i N"i In a similar
way Lxx.
ib. 6:2 coio ll,,n, Targum l'i'nlli NnonJ ~l'5 NJJ"n'
. Nno mnN c,,:i ,r,,r.,5 The Messianic interpretation of this
v. was a current one. Com. San. 97a; Rosh Hashana 3 la. Com
also Seder Eliahu r. 6: nrur.in mo, rnn c5w;, m cr.i,o lJ"n'
.N::lil c5iJJil m lJO'i'' 'W'5Wil c,,:i,
D1a,t1zcid by Microsoft
ib. 6:7 n,,:::i 11:::lll t:l1N:l m~m Targum .,N01P N,i,:i 1'J,N1
Com. R. Abahu, Psichta Lam. r., 4: ,IH!'N1i1 t:l1N m ... t:l1N:l m~m
,"N5 t:imN ,nc,J:iil ,,J:::i ~N , ,m, 5v ,:iv, ,,n,,Y, 1,v IJ5 ,,nc,J:iil
,,:iv, t:l,n,iYiCom. also Gen. r. 19, 7.
ib. 7:4 ,mo,n iv i'Y:::I wi5o Targum pc,J ,,:::iiN N5i 5v,
,i:;,~oo 11i1PCO t:i,,:::i ti15 ,,,:::ivn,Ni 111:::iJi Com. Mechika .snee)
,15Nml-' ,v i1Yon5 1i',Eltlil N51 iltl,llil nN 1tv5tv ,,Jt.:) : 13 ,N:::1
.ti/170 t:l,!:lNJt.:) t:i5i:i :::i,n::,, 5"ll5 NY10 ilnN 1:i,
ib. 8 :4 eann t:ioc:i Targum Pi15 1i',cNi nnarrn tmoc:i
t:i,iyoo Com. Gen. r. 28, 7 ~C:::lil 5ll iJn 1N1i' 5:::ii1 il:::1,i'll i"N
.t:l,:::IYll t:lil? 1Wl/ carm t:lE:ltl:l 10NJW t:i,iyoo t:li1Cll NY'tt' :::imm
Com. also Lam. r., Pesichta 23 (Buber), interpreting in the
same way Ez. 7:19.
ib. 11 :9 ,,v:::i N1:::IN N5 ,t!l,ii' 1:::11i':::I ,E:)N ,,,n iltvl/N N?
Targum .t:l5tvi,, ,,v ,,niN Niir,:::i ~,5nN N51 ,m, ~,i'n ,,:::illN N5
Com. Eliahu Zuta 10 t:lJtll, N5w 1Cll5 il":::li'il ll:::ltl'J ill/ti' ilmNo
... ,oN mn ili::-'l/N N5 10KJtv ninN ,,v:::i t:lJ,.::itv, N51 inK tll,1:::1
So Eliahu r. 22.
Am. 4:12 1'i17N nN1i'5 !1:lil Targum .~,tvi'nN So Shah.
10a (Com. Rashi). Also Berakoth 23a.
ib. 7:7 1JN Targum .pi Com. Lev. r. 33, 2 1JN ,,,:ii
.5Nitv, 5tv i151iJ ,,,i1JC m 1JN ,oiN, ... ,,,:::i ,,~w, :::i,n ,v:::i:i
ib. 9:1 ino:iil 1i1 Targum Jil'tl'N, N:i5o ,,~i'nN NniJo ,o~
Com. Lev. r. 33, 2 1i1,tl'N, ilt ino:iil 1i1 .
ib. 7 c,,w.:, ,J:::I::, N5i1 Targum !'ti,ni r,J:::i:i N?il. Com. On.
Num. 12:1, Sifri 99, Moed Katan 16b n,J,,,o N5m iln,il n,w,.:, ,.:,,
1:::1 NY1'.:, ... il'1.:i:::! i1J1tlltl i111E:lY 1.:, 1111/:::! ilJ1tilt.:) 'tl/1.:, iltl N?N ,iln'il
i1J1ti'O ,ti/1:l ilO N?N ~ ,,;, t:l'Wl:l ,::,1 ,t:l,,tll::, ,J:::i::, N17i1 1t11N ilnN
c5,v;, mtiiN 5.:,t.:) ,m, miYti:::i tl'J1tllti 5Nitv, ~N ,,111:::i. So Shochar
Tob 7, 18. But ib. 14: t:imN K11i' K1il il":::li'i15 tl'N~,n 5Nitv,.:,
Cl' 't!'1:l .
Jona 1 :3 , 'J.i5ti m:,,t!'in ni:::i5 ;,;,, tli''1 Targum i1J1' tlP1
,,,, Ntit!':::I ':::!Jn'Ni cip !ti Nti'7 P1l/r~5. The targumist desired to
thus eliminate the difficulty to explain the flight of the Prophet.
Com. Mechilta Nnn,ne ,Nnce : ,:::i:i K5m rrna N1i1 'ii 'JE:l5o ,.:,,
ilJ':l:t'il !'Ntil 5"in5 1?K i1J1' it.:)K N?N ... 1n11tl 17N KJN 1t!NJ
.t:ltv n,5JJ The targumist, however, has struck a plain and genial
interpretation by putting a complement to .,JE:l?tl
Digitized by Microsoft <D

THE EXEGESIS 109
Mi. 2:13 cn,Jn5 r,,nn n,11 Targum i:, 1,:,r,tllr.i 1uc,

.,:i,r.i 15r.i pc,, Nn,,:,ip:, This interpretation seems to have been
held by r. Simon b. Aba (Gen. r. 73, 3) Pllr.ltll ,, lt',Nil r,n,,
,,n N:iil c,w 5tll Nr.lJ1i !'llr.l mr,n ,, ilYinJlt' ,r.i,r.i ir.iN N:iN ,:,
.r,,nn n,11 N"ir.i
Mica 4:5 Pi15N Clt':i tll,N 1:,,, c,r.il/il 5:, ,:, Targum 5:, ,,N
.Nnw~, m,n ,, 511 pi:i.N5 11:,n, N,r.iol/ Com. Shochar Tob 1, 20
!')i~pr.i1 c,wn mr.i1N ,,lt' 5:, J'N:l N:i.5 ,,n11, , ,11,,r.in ,r115N ',
,,,n ... T"ll ,,:,w 15N ll"tll:ii ,,Jn5 c,,01N1 n":,pn ,Jn5 5Nilt', ,J:, ,11
ilr.l1N1 ilr.l1N ,:, ,,n 1:i CN en, ir.iN ~ r,w !'N ,,,m CJi1,J5 ,,,,,
.,,n,N Ctll:l lt',N ,:i,, c,r.il/il ,:, ,.:, ir.iNJ!t' .. CJi1,J5 ilr.ll/ n,n,N,
Cod. Reuch has 11:i.,n, instead of 11,:i.N5 p:,n, .
ib. 7:1 5:iN5 51:ilt'N l,N Targum ,p:,~ pi:i.111 il':li i:,J n,,
This interpretation is implied in Mishna Sota 47a (Y. 9,10).
Hab. 3 :9 nmr.i n,11:i.w Targum .N'~:llt' c11, Nr.i,p ,,,:,
Com. Gen. r. 47, 7 15N :,", 5Niw, ,~:,Ill i15N 5:, :,,n.:, pny, i"N
nmr.i 15N 5:i.N l,N,tl/J ln1N N5N :,", ,,,:,yr.,
1J,N 5Nl/r.llt',, n,1:i.J ,J:,
... rnee nw:i.w N"ir.i:, Also Exod. r. 44 end. ll:ltl'J il":lPiltll i,,Jr.i,
... nmr.i n1l/:llt' ir.iNJlt' c,~:i.lt'5 . Com. also Sifri Deut. 117.
ib. 14,,~r.i:, n:i.pJ Targum .iltllr.ii n,,~,n:i. Nr.i, nl/T:l Com.
Mechilta n5tll:l ,2 : c-n l/P:lJ ,C'il 511 5Nilt',5 1t!'l/J Cl'CJ ili:.!ll/
... ,,~r.i:i. n:i.PJ ir.iNJlt' nn,.:, i,r.i:, illt'l/J1
Zef. 2:5 c,n,:, ,u Targum i1NY,ntl'N5 1,:i.,n, Nr.ll/
Com. Cant. r. ,J1:ltllr.l ,ni:, :J,,ne, ,u .
Zef. 3:8 ,11, 1r.l1P c,,, Targum .1,,r.i, ,n,,5mN c,,, So in
Pesiqta r. 34 ,,yr., ,,:,yy:, ,JN ,n,:,5,:,5 n:,,nlt' 5:,w , ,Jn5 N'il ill/1::llt'
.,11, 1r.l1P c,,, ir.iNJlt' n:i.m, 1:l The Agadist also took ,11, to mean
to witness, from the root ,111 . Com. also Exod. r. 17 end
,, ,:in 1:i, :,,n:,, ... n,,r.i11:i. ,r.i,w nN 1,1 ,r.i,11 N1i1 N:i.5 ,,n11, 5:JN
,11, ,,:,,p c,,:,
Zech. 3 :3 c,N,Y c,,J:, tll:J5 n-n lltll1i1,, Targum ,,n 11em,,
.Nnun:i, iill':i N5i !'ll'J tm5 r:i.cJi l'J:l n,, So San. 93a :i., ir.iN
'NJlt' lil:l ilM'r.l N51 NJ1n:i, rnmn !J'Nt!' C'tl'J l'Nt!'1J ,,J:, 1'i1t:' Ntin
c,N,Y c,,J:, lt'1:J'5 lltll1i1, 5tll ,:i,, ,:,, c,N1Y c,,J:, tll1:J5 n-n l/lt'm,,
,lil:J nn,r.i N51 NJ1i1:,5 n,mn !J'Nt:' t:l't:'J l'NC'1J 1'J:l ,,nc ,o,r.i N5N
ib. 8 ilr.lil nnir.i ,lt'JN ':l Targum i:i.11r.i5 i,,t!':, i,i:JJ ,,N
,!'CJ 1m, Exod. r. 9, 1 illt'l/Jlt' C'C'JN Cil n,N .nen nn,o ,lt'JN ,.:,
D1q1t1zcid by Microsoft (i-

t1N NP'1~1 NJV1' 5"N i1'1tVi 5NC''r-l i1'JJn iH ,r-i,N ,,;, r,i:nr-i Cli15
i;,:,, N'Ji1N N5 i1'itVi 5N~''r-l i1'JJn1 NiiJ Nt1iHl 1:::, N'Ji1N t)"r-, N5N
. 5'.i::i
ib. 9: l ,nmr-i P~r-iii Targum T1'J ViNr-1 '1ilr-15 :,,ir,r, Pt!'r-11'
.i1't1J::lC' Com. Cant. r. ,,N,~ : i11'T1V mn;rJ PC'rJ1i tl"i'~ ':iN ;,~,
... P~'rJ1 ,v nv,r-i r,p;,5 ti'5t!lii'; Sifri Dcut. 116.
ib. 11: 12 ~o::i tl't!l5t!I 'i::JC' nN i5i?C''i Targum r,, ,,:iv,
.r,~pr-, J'i::lJ ,mv, Saying of R. Jochanan JN::J '5 ON v,,,
'J'N1
.Cl'i''1'1: i"5 ,r-i,N ,,;, ~o::i Cl'C'5C' i1ni'Ni ,r-i,N N1i1C'::l ... ,"N::i i"t),
This rendering is at the foundation of this Agada as well as
that of R. Jchuda, who finds in it the implication of the thirty
righteous ones among the Gentiles who exist by their virtue.
ib. 12:12 i:,,5 Cli1'C'Ji i:,,5 jriJ r,,:i, nni.;iei~ Targum t1'Vit
,,n5 Jii1'C'Ji iin'.i jii1'iJJ JnJ n-a . Com. Suk. 22a tl'i:J.1 N?i11
Cl'C'J i1i111 i1i~N Cl:J. t)?i~ Vii1 i~' l'Ni i!:lDi1:J. l'i?D,Vt!I ?"V? i"p
. ''C'::lV i:i.5 Cl'C'JNi 1:J.?
Malachi l :1 '::lN?r-1 ,,:,. Targum i1'r-lt!I 'ii'I1'1 '::lN?r-1 ,,:i
.Ni!:lD NitV So R. Jehoshua b. Korcha, Meg. 1 fa: p ,", N'Jn
.NitV nr '::lN?r-1 ir-liN NniP
ib. 11 rrnnc ;inJr-ii 'r-lt!I? w,r-i it)i?r-1 ciipr-i 5::i::i, Targum
'r-lii? '::li 1:i,ip::i ii::im5~, . . Com. Num. r. 13, 2 ciipr-, :,::i:i ,::i,
Cl'ir-1,V ?NiC''C' o,pr-i 5::i:i N?N ;,":i,p;, OW? ;imr-i, r,,mp :J.'ii'r-1
it)i?r-1 .. r,,,nC" ri5!:lri it C'Jr-1 ;,nm ir-lNJ ;,,:,y ;,nJr-i ri5!:ln ti'??!:lnr-i,
.11':J.iV n5!:lt1 H
ib. 2:12 ;,mr-i w,,r-i, :i,py, '?i1Nr-l mv, ,v m~y, it!'N Targum
.NJ:J.iiv ::l'ii' i1'? 'i1' N? Nii1 l'i1::l tlNi Com. San. 82a; Shah. 55b
ciN ,tl'1'rJ'.in:i ;iJ,vi ci~:in::i ,v ,5 i1'i1' N5 ~m ;,"n c~ ... '' n,::i,
.nrue w,,r-, 1:i ,5 ;,,;,, N5 Nii1 ji1:J
GENERAL PECULIARITIES
The Targum Jonathan reflects many interesting peculiarities

which arose primarily from the state of mind of the age whicr,
produced the Agada and the Apocryphal literature. The Targurn
was read in public worship, and the translator would have to take
full account of the susceptibilities of the worshipper. On the
other hand, in the homilytic portions ample expression is to be
found of the believes, expectations and views of that generation.
The targumist made 1t a principle to d i f f e r e n t i a t e
between the holy and the profane. Words which are equally
applied to the holy and unholy are rendered by the targumist
by distinct words to maintain the difference. The Masorites
follow a similar way. So that when ,n is followed by the name
of God it is vocalized with a patach (1S 20:3, 2S 12:15 etc.).
While followed by a profane it is vocalized with a zeire.
Genesis 42:15. (Com. 1S 28:26 1~'!:lJ ,n, ,, ,n). The same
tendency was made evident in the vocalization of 'J1N and in
such forms as in the compound P1'lt 'J1N (Joshua 10:13) and
Pf:! 'J1N (Judges 1 :5, 6, 7). The targumist carried the principle
to an extreme application.O
tl'i15N is applied both to God and the idol; the T. draws
the distinction between them rendering the profane tl'i15N -
1) Com. Geiger ,om '1'.lllN p. 3. Such a distinction has its

parallel in the Talmud. So it is said (Shabbath 32a): "For three
transgressions are women dying. Others say because they call the
lnlj:m ll'1N- NJ'1N (box); R. Ishmael b. Elozor says: 'For the trans-
gression of two things are the amei ha'arazoth dying: for calling the
lnlj:l1'1 p'1N Arna and because the Beth Ha-K'neseth is called Beth
Am." No doubt, despite the unanimity of the commentaries that
Arna and Beth Am are derisive, and for this reason their application
to holy subjects was condemned, they desired to separate the holy
from the profane. It would appear that this was urged only as a sort
of mannerism. For the Talmud does not follow this distinction; in
many passages Arna is employed in the sense of 11',li'l'I p'1N (Com.
Berakoth 47b).
111
D1ait1zcd by Microsoft
fUIU Joshua 24: 14 C'i1?Ni1 11N ,,,c;,i - IU/U . So v. 15

Judges 5:8 c,w,n C'il?N - fUIU . 2K 19:18; ls. 33:37, 37:19
wN::i Ci1'i1?N 11N tmi - tmmvu. So also Jer. 2:10, 11; 11:12;
Hab. 1: 11 etc. In order to avoid any semblance of imputation
of divinity to idols, the T. treats the adjective c,inN following
the profane C'il?N as a noun, and Cl'il?N as a noun in const.
state, thus rendering c,,nN C'il?N - N'DDV mvu . So Josh.
20:16, 24; Judg. 2:12, 17, 19; Is. 26:19; Jer. 13:10,
16:11; 19:4, 13; 22:9 etc. In the same way is rendered
1:JJi1 'il?N Josh. 20:23, 24; Jer. 5:19 etc. Probably this expression
has influenced the rendering by the T. of c,,nN C'il?N. Compare
Mech. ,,,,, ,5 : C'1nNW N?N ,c,,nN C'i1 ?N ,o,, ,m,r, ;,o,
mm5N cmN Cl'Niip. Equally is Cl'?V:::l rendered. So Jer. 2:23
C'?V::J.il ,,nN - N'DDV mv~. In some cases it is rendered like
the detached profane C'il?N . So Jer. 2 :8 5v::i.::i. iN::i.J C'N'::J.Jili -
Nmvu tm!'::J.. Hos. 11 :2 ,n::it, c,,v::i.5 - Nnu,u, ; 13:1
,v::i.::i. Ctt'N'' - Nmvu, . Otherwise ,v::i. is rendered by N?V:::l
(Jer. 7:9; 9:13 etc.).
This scrupulosity of the T. is strikingly illustrated by his

treatment of this term applied to idolatrous divinity, which is
made by the context to inevitably express godly divinity. So
Judges 6:31 Niil C'il?N CN - N?V:::l ;,,, V1!:l11' il'::J. 11'N ,,Y CN
This rendering which, it would appear, was suggested by such
passages as Is. 44:10; Jer. 2:8 etc., he applies also to 2K 19:18;
Is. 3 7: 19 C'il?N N5 ;,o;,i as well as to the passage in Hos. 8: 10
Niil tl'il?N N5i - 11Y ;,,::i, r,,,, , "the unuseful one"; also Ez.
28:2, 9, in all of which the divine sense of C'il?N is obvious.
But the targumist is anxious to a void even an innocent pro,
fanation of this sort. On the other hand, when this profane
C'il?N is not employed in the sense of incrimination but as a
fact the rendering is Nn5ni "fear" 2>. So for instance 2K 18:33;
34:35; Is. 36:18; 37:12: non 'il?N il'N .:c,,J;, 'il?N
,e,Ni - Nn5n, or Jerem. 2:28; 11:13 1'i1?N ,,;, ,,,v ,,,y;,;,
i!:lco::i
2) The Talmud also employs its Hebrew equivalent ;,1ti1

So San. 64a, 106a. Also Y. Kidushin 1; P'siqta of Rab Kohna p. 65.
On the other hand, N'mi is employed in the divine sense also. See
Proverbs 1, 7: Nn',ni Nno::,n t:'i; F. Deut. 32:13 1t!)1:,r, N'mi::i 1i!l::1
pnr,, pi!l ,, and Is. 2:6 10v i"ll'11:'t:I) ,:, - N!l'i'M N',ni pnp::ii:, ,,N
GENERAL PECULIARITIES 113
So also Jona 1 :5' ,,n5N 5N ~,N ,vvr,, - n,z,;n, . Here it was

only meant to state the plain reality. Com. also Ez, 28:2, 9.
In the case of the first two instances the targumist has
merely identified the profane c,n5N with the special name given
to idols in the Bible, namely c,;,;N and c,5,5l, both of which
he renders by !UI~ with the exception of the latter, which tn5n:i
is in the most cases added to TUI~ . Com. Is. 8:8, 18, 20;
19:1, 3; Ez. 14:3; 18:6 etc. In this tendency the T. Jonathan
is followed by Onkelos and the other Targumim only. With
one exception, namely c,inN c,n5N in the Ten Commandments
(Exod. 20:3; Deut. 5:7), in which case Onkelos would not side,
track the meaning, rendering them by tinN ti15N (Ps. Jon. fol,
lowing On.). In all other cases On. also renders the profane
c,n5N - I'll~ (Exod. 23:24; 34:15'; Deut. 12:2) and goes
even with Jon. to render inN 5N - N't:lOll 11UI~ . Of the other
early translations no such distinction is noticeable, neither in
the Pentateuch nor in any other part of the Bible, except in
two cases in Lxx. These are: Num. 25':2. Com. Frankel,
Ober d. Ein., 175'.
Usually n:itr.i is rendered by the targumist by the Aramic
parallel Nn:iio . But this rendering is applied only to the holy,
to God's altar. Whenever it refers to the profane, referring to
the idol either in stative or implied sense, it is rendered by
Ni,lN, the pile. Ez. 6:4 cn,mn:irr.i ,o~J, - 1,:i,,,lN . Hos. 8:9
N~n5 mn:iro - i,iuN; Is. 17:8; 27:9; Jer. 11 :13; 17:12; Ez.
6:4, 6 etc. Accordingly ... ,,11,n:iro 11N, nm n:itoil 'J!:l5 ioN,,
(Is. 36:7) the former is rendered by Ni,lN the latter by Nn:i,o
In this case also, the Lxx and P. are making no such dis-
tinction. The only exception is the Targum Onk. and the other
Targumim. They draw the same distinction and employ the
same terms. Com. T. Exod. 34:13; Deut. 12:3; 7:5' etc.3>
3) So the rendering by Onkelos 'J;n 'Jv ,;:11 (Genesis 31:46)

1111JII . A striking analogy to this is found in Mandaic, where 1111:::
is usually used to denote the worship of a false cult (Noeldke, Zeit.
fiir Assuriologie, v. 20, p. 131). This distinction, it would appear,
was not known to the Jews in EgyPt in the fifth century B. C. The
temple or shrine or altar of the Jews in Yeh is called 1111JII (Sayce
Aram. Pap. E. 14 n';,11 n,n, If 1111;11 ; J. 6 t1n'J11 in If 1111Jtt:Sachau
(Aram. Pap. 1, 2). However, in Pap. 3 instead of11i1;11 the term em,
D1ait1zed by Microsoft
A distinction of this kind is traceable also in the Talmud.

There is no particular name in the Talmud for the profane altar.
But it has, however, special appelations for objects connected
with the altar, one of which has a derisive air. So a sacrifice
to an idol is called n:n,1,n a prcsent.O Com. Aboda Zara 32b,
48b; Chullin 13b, 24a. But while the Targum to the Pentateuch
reserves Nn:nivn for the profane offering, the holy offering
being rendered by NJ:i1i', Nn:iivn is the judicial term, applied
to idolatrous sacrifice in the Talmud using however t:ii,v
to denote present. Com. Nedarim 20a ci:i:>r.:i mJ:l1D:l ; Ab. Zara
64b. So does also T. jonathan.P? Com. Hos. 12:2 cii'l/r.:i:> jr.l~l
T a r g u m NJ:i1i',, although Korban is joined by the Tetra
gramm (Menachoth 110a, Sifra Lev. 2). Sometimes the idolat-
rous sacrifice is called cinr.:i n:it (according to PS 106:28) Aboth
3, 3; Aboda Zara 29b; 32b.
Instead of n:it the usual verb for sacrificing, the Talmud
in several places uses the verb :>:it to manure.O Aboda Zara
18b; Y. Berakoth 9, 1; Pesiqta r. 6.
ployed is Nn:m:i n:i . I am tempted to assume that this was prompted

by this very desire of differentiating the holy from the profane temple.
Here. the writer is a Jew and the writing was intended for Jews, and
therefore he would not use the profane name N'11JN for the holy temple.
The others are documents of an official nature intended for the con-
sideration of a Persian official or court. The current name of a temple
would he used in such a case. Sachau's assumption (ib. p. 29) that
N'11JN was somewhat the intimate appelation among the Jews of the
synagogue (p. 12) is not impressive. On the other hand, it is interest,
ing to note that the priest of the temple is called Kohan tt N:il::
Nil';,N 1i1' (Pap. 11), while the idolatrous priest is called Komer N'10.:l
:iun 'f (Pap. 1 and Sayce E. 15 :i,:n~ ,o:: 110':-!l '1:l 111,0). However,
there is not sufficient ground in this to justify the assumption that even
then the Jews would observe a distinction to which later generations
adhered. The writer might simply have used the appelation by which
the Jewish priest was commonly known.
4) M:l'1i'M is the abbreviated form of NM:l1'1j:,1'1 The Targum
renders by it ilmO (Genesis 32:13; 20:21; Is. 18:7; Jer. 51:59 etc.).
5) It would seem that T. Jonathan did not follow at all such a
distinction. So c::i,p cv:: (Ez. 20:28) is rendered by T. Jon. 1Ml!:l'11i'
unless the translator understood it in a holy sense.
6) In Tosefta Ab. Zara 2 there is pn:ito instead of 1',:i10
though in Pesiqta r. 6 1:11',: ';,1:n OP N",. The version in Sota 36b is
Moved with this spmt, the Targum is also differently

rendering Kohan according as the reference is to an Aaronite
or a priest of an idol. The latter is rendered by NM5!J. (So Jer.
48:7; 49:3) or, which is the usual rendering, by Nio,:i (2K 10:19;
17:32 etc.) which is considered by some scholars to be a trans-
lation of the Persian Atharnan, the priest of the fire-worshippers.
(See Aruch, Kohut iO:J) . Both of them are found in the Talmud
and the Agada. The priest of the idol is called mruo (San. 63b,
64a). In one passage both of them are used side by side, namely
Erub. 79b. NiOt::J however is the usual connotation for the Kohan
of the idol. But 2S 8:18 C'Jil:, ,,, 'J::n the rendering is i':li:li
(Com. Mech. ,,r,,
,2 : . ,,, 'J:i, iONJC' ,l'JV:l c5t):,i::, c;;,:, 5:,)
Com. Mek. I. c. ,,r,,
voru,, : .n-n io,:, io,N vru,;,, 'i ,pio lil:,
'J"Jil ~:iru, C'Jil:J ,,;, ,,J:,, ilrl'JO r:i Crl/iJ t:i tmm, iONJC' l'JV:J
n1n CJM Cl!. Com. also Cant. r. beginning and Gen. r. 87,3. The T.
Jon. in general does not favor any distinction in this case. Thus lK 11:8
1n,n,tc';, MlMJTOl Targum r,,n:i,01 . So also in 12:32; Am. 4:4 and
in some other places. So Onk. Num. 24:2 tnn':ttc n::.,; - n:,; :
Deut. 32:17 0111:1', 1MJT' - ,n:i,. This principle found application
in the Bible. n1:1:i is placed for '.tv:i : )lN n:: for '.ttc n,:i. This might
have been the reason for the peculiar vocalization of en 1:1ipo (Ezek.
7:24), which is otherwise hardly explicable. (Com. Kimchi I. c.; Ew.
Gramm. 215 Jahn, Das Buch Ez. I. c.). The reference here is to the
idolatrous shrines (so Rashi, Kratezschrnar and many others) and was
so understood by the Masorites, They therefore changed the pointing
as a mark of distinction. Similarly 1:i1:1n (Ezra 10:2; Nehemia 13:23)
instead of 1N!:IJ . As in the judgment of the writer intermarriage is
an enormous violation of the Law, he would hesitate to use the word
commonly used for the act of taking to a wife.
The names of Gods should be changed into derogatory names

(R. Akiba in Sifri Deut. 61). Mockery of the idol was the rule with
the Hellenistic Jews also. It was for this reason that they applied the
el6roMihrtoi; to what the G e n t i I e s called 1.EQ6ihrto;
(Diessman, Die Hellen., p. 5'). Likewise the idolatrous festival
is called ,,tc (Abod. Zara 2a), and Maimonides (in his com
mentary on Mishnayoth) says: "and it is not allowed to call them
(the festivals of the idolators) 011:,10 because they are ':t::n ". Com.
Rab, Aboda Zara 20a. A temple of an idol is called mtin (Mishna
Ab. Zara 29b, 32b). Its underlying meaning is not from ;u,,,r.
;Aruch ~in), but synonymous with n1tin as Tos, (Ibid 32b beginnmg
,,,nn).
Dmitizcid by Microsoft
iONJW !'Jll.:l .n-n iW ir.l1N 'l/i1r.li1 itl/5N 'i j l'iNi1 m5J C::1' ill
.1'i1 t:l'Ji1.:l ,,, 'J::l1
Also 2S 20:26 1115 !i1::J n-n Ni'l/ t:lJ1-1115 Ji . The targumist does
not consider them priests of any kind, although with regard to
Ni'll the T. is in opposition to the view expressed in the Talmud
(Erubin 6Jb) that he was a rightful priest. On the other
hand, l S 1 :3 t:l'Ji1.:i omn, cn Targum !'WOWO obviously be-
cause they were sinful priests, as against Samuel b. Nachmani,
who would clear them of crime (Shab. 5 5b). Impelled by the
same consideration, the T. renders ;,r.,::i;, (lS 9, 12, 13, 14, 25) by
NnnnoN by which he renders 1::iw10 (lS 20:18) and ;,n:::iw5
(lS 9:22) to distinguish it from the bama denoting high places
of idolatrous worship which he renders by Nmr.,::i [LK 13:32;
14:23 etc.), having also the meaning of heaps of ruins. (Ez.
36:2). The targumist appears to decline the talmudic view
(Zebachim 112b, 118a) that the ban of bama had been lifted
at that time. In order to exonerate Samuel of the sin of bama-
worship, the T. rendered ;,r.,::in as denoting the place where
gatherings were held with the Prophet. Hence the rendering for
natn 1i::l' (lS 9:13) in the essenic sense 7> NJ,tr., Oitl N1i1 'iN
(Ant. 1, 18, 5; Berakoth 55a), while lS 16:3, 5 is equally
rendered by Nmiw::i . For the same reason the T. renders
t:l'tlin (Jud. 17:5) by !'Nr.l1 instead of NJr.,5~ which is other-
wise the rendering of t:l'tlin (So On. Ps. Jon. Gen. 31: 19).
As well said Levy (Chai. Woer.): "Um nicht einem judischen
Priest die Anbetung eines hornlichen gotzen Bildes zuzu-
schreiben." So he differentiates in the rendering of 11tN . When
it is used in a holy sense (lS 2:28) it is rendered 1\tlN but in
a profane sense [l S 2:18! 2S 5:14) it is translated r,::i, erre.
This is the rendering of t:i5vr., (2S 13: 18). As regards other
translations, the Nir.l1.:l connotation for the priest of the idol is
adopted by Onk. and P., while the Lxx makes no dinstinction.
Of the same character is the separation drawn by the
targumist between oewo referring to that of God or Israel and
that of the Gentiles. In the former case it is rendered by NJ'i.
7) Abudraham (n:inu,,, ninu,,) cites a Targum Yerushalmi which

would seem to be a later recenssion, this principle being disregarded.
;rhc rendering there is: NC::l~ ',)) ci!l N1i'l iN.
Referred to the oewo of the Gentiles or denoting custom it is

rendered by the Greek vooi; cir.iJ . So Ez, 5:7 c::m, oe~~:i,
Targum N'O~V c:m.:,J:,1; Ez. 20:18 ,,own 5N cnoewo nN, -
Ji1'010'J n,. Also Ez. 7:27; 21:25 and in one verse Ez. 11:12
oewr.i:i, cntuv N5 oel!I01 cn:i5n N5 pm::i iwN ,, JN ,:, cnv,,,
c,Ji1 Targum ,c,r.iJ:>i nn,::iv N5 J,, iln:>5n N5 op::i ,,
Nor.iv. When oewr.i denotes custom: lS 2:13 c,J;,:,;, oewo
(IS 8:9) '1:i, 15on oewo Targum cir.iJ ; (2K 1 :7) tu'Ni1 oe1::r., ;,r.,
Targum N01~J. Also Am. 8:14 v::itu-1N::i ,,, ,n, Targum cir.iJ
Applying to the holy laws, commandments or judgment it is
rendered NJ,, . Of this sort are Is. 1:27; 3:14; 5:7; Jer.
2:12; 22:3; Ez. 20:16; 12:21, 24. Sometimes suggested by
Instances of both cases are numerous. On the other hand, oewr.:
the contents owpi truthful, is added. Instances of this kind
are Jer. 5:1 ~ewo nwv w, CN Targum owpi ti ,,:iv nN CN
So vv. 4, 5; 7:5 ~ewo ,wvn nwv CN Targum 11,::ivn i::ivr.i C::N
~,wv, pi Bz. 18:19 nwv nviY, ~ewo tam Targum
,:iv otuvi pi. Ez. 18:19 ,wv i1i'iYi oewr.i 1::ini Targum ~,wv, pi
and v. 21 oel!IO nwvi Targum ~Wi'i pi ,,:iv,,. It appears from
the citations that the targumist adds OWi'i when ~ewr.i is the
object of nwv, did, or when this is understood by the targumist
to be implied. (Jerem. 5 :45). It might have appeared to him
that to render oewo in these cases by NJi alone would be
obscure, as it might be taken in a profane sense. In this con,
nection it will be notcied that m a single case is ~Ell!IO rendered by
NO'i', otherwise the rendering of 1,n as it will appear
presently. This is Jer. 8:7. However, ~ewr.i there is also the
object of i1WV . The Lxx and P. in the Prophets are not fol,
lowing such a distinction. Onk. renders pn by C11.:i'J if it refers
to Gentiles. So Lev. 20:23 etc., while otherwise i'n, as is the
case with Jonathan, is rendered by Nr.i,p . So Lev. 20:22; 26:3
etc.; the Lxx have for tm in holy sense xeoi;'tciym:oi;
So ibid: 20:22; 26:3 etc.
While the profane pn ibid 2:23 is rendered by Lxx votoi;
In the Talmud this term is applied to custom, manner, judicial
formatlity. (Com. Gittin 43b; 65b).
The same principle the targumist applies to 1,n . It is ren-
dered by Ni,u when it refers either to Gentiles or idolatrous
Du11t,zcd by Microsoft
law or order. W hen , how ev er, it refers to the holy law s, it

1s rendered by Nt:l'i' covenant (the usual rendering of r,i::i.).
Instances of the latter are: Jer. 31:35; Ez. 5:6; 18:9, 10,
19, 21; Am. 2:4; Ze. 1:6; Mal. 3:22 etc. Instances of the
former are: Jer. 10:3 Cl't:lllil mi.,n Targum r,itJ ; 33:25
!'1N, Cl't:IW rnen Targum l11'fJ (the same 33:34 o::i.:n::n n,, ri,vn);
Ez. 20:18 r::i5r, 5N o::im:::iN pn:::, Targum r,iTJ::i. ; 43:18
rnen i15NTargum rn-u. So 44:5 men 5::>5- niTJ. In Ez. 33:9
mpn:::, - N"n m-ua . In this way the T. renders Ez. 20:25
Cl:::i,~ N5 Cl'v,n Cli15 r,r,J JN OJ, - i1'1J , thus eliminating the
disturbing nature of this passage. According to this rendering
of the T., the assumption is that also their customs (laws)
were decreed by God. Concerning the use of N1'fJ it will be
noticed that in the Talmud it has the effect of arbitrariness.
So there are hard ri,itJ (Makkoth 24a; Ketuboth 3b; Shab.
145b). A N1'1J can be recalled, Gittin 55b; Taanith 2 NitJ
N5~:::i, N1':ll1 ; to the targumist it appeared to express profanity.
Apart from Jonathan, no other translation adhers in this case
to such a distinction.e '
The same principle is applied by Jonathan to the rendering of
N':lJ . In the case of the true prophet, the one sent by God,
it is rendered by t(':lJ, its Aramic equivalent. On the other hand,
whenever it carries the implication of either false prophetism
or, so to say, professional prophetism, N:::iJ is rendered by ,no
scribe, a term of general currency in the age of the Targum.
So it renders Is. 9:14 ipw ;,i,r.i N::i.J, - ,no . Jer. 6:13 iv, N':lJl:I\
Jil::J - i::ior.i, . Other examples of this sort are: Jer. 14:18;
18:18. In plural: Ez. 32:25 il'N':lJ 1Wi' - ilNino r,Jl'O. Ze. 7:3
Cl'N':lJil 5N, - t(,no,,. Note lS 10:5 ClN:::iJ:::i 5,Nw ~Nil-Nino:::i
When reference is made to a prophet of another deity,
the targumist renders it literally, adding N1i'W false. So Jer. 2 :8
?ll:l:l ,N:lJ ClN:lJil, - N1i'W ":lJ ; 5 :31 1i'W ,N:::iJ Cl'N':lJil, -
N1i'W ":lJ; l K 22:10 :.Cl'N':lJil - N1i'W ":lJ 5::i, . To this cate-
gory belongs also Mi. 2 :5. There is annother case which is
intimately connected with these cases. In the first place the T.
8) Kohut's identifying Nil.l with pn as suggested by the render-

ing of the T. {see Aruch iu) is based on his overlooking the principle
of distinction of the T.
applies the same distinction to the verb as well as to the noun.

tC1Jno referring to the true prophet is rendered by the T.
,:iJn,N, referring to the false prophet it has a substitute ex,
pressing ridicule. So Jer. 29:26 N:!Jno, ~,N ;:::,; - ~D~o,
(but v. 27 N:iJnon mmvn ;,,r.,,,:i n,v) ;,r.,; - N:iJnr.,). lK 18:29
nJnr.>n m5v5 ,v ,t(:iJn, - ,Nn~~t(,
In all these cases the Targum stands alone among other
translations in observing such a differentiation.
Special regard has been paid in rendering by the targumist
to Israel. 9 > In the first place some harsh expressions flung
towards Israel is rendered in such a way as to evaporate their
sharpness. It should be remarked that in this the Targum is
to some extent followed by all the Greek translations as well as
the Peshitta. A few cases will be sufficient to illustrate the point.
The Piel from :i,~ in the sense of transgression is given
a favorable turn when applied to Israel. 10 > So 51(1~, n:i~r.,
(Jer. 3:6) is rendered by the T. ,Jn5,D5 :ino5 tJr.,nnr.i,
Lxx: xa,mxtcc . So also P. In the same way T. Lxx P. in v.
8 A. Sym. ri wt~'tQ<>q?l} L<JQU'f}A. In v. 11 the T. and P. are fol,
lowing the same rendering while Lxx omit il:i~r.,. Again c:i:i,t::
(v. 14) T. and P. render as in former cases, Lxx
9) It is generally known that Jewish-Hellenistic writers, led, it

would appear, by this principle, applied lil-vos to the Gentiles, while
retammg :kaos for the Jewish people. (So Wisd. 15:14. Com.
Cheyne, Encyc. Biblica, Hellen.). The Lxx followed the same division
in an opposite way, applying the latter to the Gentiles. Com. Gen.
23:12, 13; 42:10 etc yitcM Cl) - :kaos 'tijS 'YTiS- But Lev. 20, 2, 4
the rendering is 'tOV iil-vos , the reference being to Israel. Com. also
2 Mak. 6:3. In this connection it is of interest to note that Rashi
somehow felt this peculiarity in the Targum. However, he is wrong
in the illustration. Thus he remarks in Ze. 13:7: "the Targum
never renders citz.'l ,,~ when they are those of Israel except by :,.i:,.i
and not by 1' ,ri~',!Z,'. It is first of all to be remarked that the ren-
dering of cic> by 1 :i.i:i., is not peculiar to those of Israel. The same
is applied to those of other nations also. Com. ls. 16:6; 34:6 (having
both renderings used synonymously); Jer. 25:19; 39:3; 46:21, 23,
and in many other instances. On the other hand we find f'll~':-tz.'
applied to those of Israel. So ls. 37:24 etc.
10) This is also the case in Onk. (Com. Deut. 32:6 the ren-
dering of c::M tc',i ',:,.) Cl). See A. Berliner; Onk. p. 120.)
D1,qit1zc,d by Microsoft
h aving acpEO'l'lJXOl'E; ; Sym. (lE66EVOL. V. 22 t:l'J:J ,:::i,w

c:in:::i,wo ;,niN c,:,.:,.iw is rendered by T. pJonno, N'J:J i:::i,n
ti:::i,nn ,:i p:i5 p::iwN ::in,o5
c:i,n,:::iwo, however, is rendered by the Lxx affliction (so that
there is no reason to ascribe to the Lxx a different read-
ing; com. Schlesner Lexicon O"IJVt()La ). Also ib. 5:6, 31:32.
Exceptions are: Jer. 2:19; 14:17, where Lxx render in the
unfavorable sense. T a r g u m and P. hold to the above
rendenng.
The same word is rendered in its intended sense when
it refers to other nations than Israel. Note Jer. 49:4 ;,:,.:,.iw;, r,:,.;,
(referring to Amon) T. t(r,wnti Nm:i5o, Lxx {}-uyal'E() ha(a;
audacious. Also Is. 47:10 1n:::i::i,w N'i1 ,m,,,
1no:in - 1n5P5P
fa. 57:17 forms an exception, although the reference is made
to refer to Israel, the rendering by the T. and Lxx is plain. So
strong, it appears, was the force of suggestion of the contents
of this particular case that it was felt impossible to make other
account of it. 11>
In the following case the T. is followed by Aquila in some
measure. Ez. 2:10 ,;,, rum tl'J'P i1'?N ::iin:i, 'Jn5 nrn w,,n,,
the T., apparently disturbed by the vehemency of the prophecy,
renders : p;,:,. pti5~, Nn,,iN 511 5Niw, n::i pi::iv, t:lN1 i1::l ::in:i,
.NnnJm NJ,, N5N Jii1JO ~,c, Nn,,N r,, t,1::lll' ,:i, N'00l/
In this way the gloomy predcition is turned into one of con-
solation. A., it seems, was also actuated by the same motive,
rendering Cl'J'i' - c r e a t i o n (probably from the root
tDv); com. also Is. 28:9; 56:3; Hos. 13:14.
In his regard for Israel the T. goes farther to differentiate
them from other peoples. Here are some interesting examples:
Jer. 1:10 rm,, wm5 m:i5oo;, 511, c,,,;, 511 m;, tll'i1 1nivni1 i1N1
ci;,5i 1':JNi15i - the T. divides the phrase, assigning its favorble
part to Israel .Nvin5 Nm:i5o 5111 N'OOll 511 l'1i1 NOl' 1'T1'J01 -rn
11) Kimchi's Sefer Ha-Sharashirn, after enumerating all the cases

which the targumist as well as the Greek translations and the P. render
them by its favorable meaning, remarks: "all these mean rebellion."
In this point he follows Menachem lbn Saruck. (Com. Machbereth :nci).
In Machbereth Rabeinu Tam (Ed. Pilpowsky) p. 36, it is said: Hos. 8:6
iPil' c:i:nci ,;:i the sinful man is called :i:iiiz, , being removed from
the good direction.
N1)~5l N1JN?l Nr.,p51 J:ir.,5 ?N1rt'' 'JJ ?Vl . Nothing but a passion,
ate regard for Israel could have produced such a rendering.
Com. Is. 10:25; Jer. 18:7.12 > This scrupulous passion for Israel
is accompanied by a kind of active disregard for the gentiles.
It was the product of the catastrophies of the age. Thus the
targumist is aghast at the idea that the prophet should be over,
come by the c a l a m i t i e s of other peoples. For
this reason he changes the person, and instead of the prophet
agonizing for sympathy, as the text requires, the peoples involved
are describing their sufferings. So, for instance, Is. 15 :5 :
DVt JNlo:> :i5 Targum i,,r.,,, !lilJ?J ; Is. 16:11; Jer. 48:36
ir.,n iD:i:i JNlr.,5 ,yr., p 5v Targum .. 1,n:i,, :iN1r.,1 i,nvr., p 5v ; .
Is. 21 :3 : n,vJ n,51 ,,,1':i mnN cill n5n5n Jnr., lN5r., 1:i 5v
mNir., n5n:iJ vr.,rt>r., Targum N,rii N'V't llil'1'1n lN5r.,nN t:i 5v
,rn,r.,5r., Wt> vr.,rt>5r., lrt>!:lt>N llJn,nN and v. 4 : n,Y5e :i:i5 nvri
il11n5 5 tlrt' 'Drt'n rt'~J nN Jnnv:i Targum l'nlV'Jl Ni'll llilJ? NVtl
i:in5 ilil? n-n llil'Jllnl1 inN 1m,nN . In some instances he 1e-
tains the p. but alters the sense. Examples of this sort are :
Is. 16:9; Jer. 48:32 nvo, ,,,,N nr.,:irt> I~) ,rv :i:i:i il:JJt( 1:i 5v
Targum no:irt> 5v p5ltiD nN i:J ,rv 5v pirt>r., nnNi Nr.,:i 1:i 5v
Nnvr.,i 1J'l1N . But otherwise is such a case treated by the
targumist when Israel is meant. The prophet's description of
his feelings towards the affliction of Israel is rendered literally.
So Is. 22:4 5v Jr.,nJ5 lYNn ?t( :i:i:i ,,r.iN Jr., lVrt' ,n,r.,t( 1:i 5v
r.,v n:i 1lrt' Targum mv:inn N5 ,,r.i:i :i:iN Jr., lDlJrt' nir.,N t:i 5v
.r.iv, Nnrt>J:i ,:in 5v ,n,r.,m~
The Lxx are in agreement with the Targum in the render.
ing of Is. 15:5 and )er. 48:31 and v. 36. The Syriac in all
these cases follows the literal meaning. The fact that Aq. and
Sym. have instead of the rendering of the Lxx of vv. 31, 36
one which is literal strengthens the supposition that the render,
ings of the Lxx in these cases were caused by the same motives
as lead the targumist to his. However, there is less consistence
in the Lxx with regard to this point. Com. Lxx Is. 16:9, 11.
12) Kimchi remarks: "And Jonathan divided this verse-the un-

favorable for the Gentiles and the favorable for Israel." In the present
Rabbinic text the 1,itiu, J:i.', is omitted, evidently by the censor. Com.
Exod. r. 45, 1 ,11iu,1 l?M ;,::,',QQ ?)11 ?Mill' l?M ll ?)I i:i.iM l)li
.t:1,1QU,1'1? ll'i':l.l 1'111'l)Q lMlM 111')111' I!)? !!'Ml?
D1ait1z0d by Microsoft <i

O n the other hand , this pecu liar agreem ent betw een the L xx
and the T argu m is anoth er case of w eight for an hypothesis
of a com m on backgrou nd of these translations.
H ow ever, G eiger (U r. 245' et seq.), w ho carried this

principle too far, failed to notice th ese renderings. H e w as
m ost unfortun ate in th e ch oice of exam ples. T hus his assertion
(p . 93) that Jer. 48:47 ; 49 :6, w h ere the restoration of M oab
and A m m on is foretold, are not ren dered in the Lxx, is errone-
ous, for the lost renderings are found in Gmg.
Other examples are: Jer. 8:23; 13:17; 14:17; Mi. 4:5' etc.
Com. particularly Ze. 8:2. Other agadists would not follow this
interpretation. Com. Num. r. 20, 1. The targumist would not
have been actuated by a hatred towards the respective peoples;
Edom and Moab have ceased to exist at his time. It is more
correct to take 1t as the reaction of the age against the Roman
world. It is the deep-seated hatred of the time immediately
preceding and following the destruction of the second Temple.
It was the Prophetical writings where that generation looked
for the signs of the times. The prophecies were interpreted in
the terms of that period. The old oppressors of Israel, long
dead, were revived in the new oppressors. Edom and Aram be-
come Rome or Persia. Compassion by the prophet towards the
biblical enemies would strike them as if their present oppressors
were meant. Such would be horrible to them.
The targumist shares in full measure the worshipful venera-

tion of the Torah manifested in the Talmud and Agada. The
Torah is given by him prominence in the Prophetical books.
The Torah is identified with words descriptive, in the sense
they are employed, of qualities representing the will of God.
The targumist is again reflecting current views which are to be
found in the Agada. riv, is identified by the T. with the
Torah. Is. 40: 14 m,, m,o:,, Targum Nn,11N 1.3 > ; ib. 28:9
nv, ;,,,, '0 nN Targum ~n,11N ,,:iv (Hos. 6:6). Connected
with it is Am. 3: 1 O ;,m:iJ mrvv w,,
N:i ; Is. 30: 10 1J:, nnn N7
13) Com. Alef Beitha of R. Akiba A'in: "and she ,the Torah,
is called :-::,, , as it is written" etc.
mn::,J Targum N11'iiN t!:l5lN . So also MiiN IS. 2:3; Mi. 4:2
lmnilNJ n.:,5J Targum li1'11'ilN t!:l5lNJ Nilr.:i 14 >; Mal. 2 :5
Nilr.:i '' tlJ11Nl Targum '11'iiN !!:l5lN; Is. 2:5 " ilNJ Targum
'11'ilNl~5,NJ15>; ib. 5:12 lt!'J' N5" ,ve 11Nl TargumNn'ilNJl
1,.:,110N N5 ; ib. 9:5 ir.:i.:,iv ,v i1i!Vr.:ii1 nm Targum 1> N11'ilN ;
Hos. 10:12 i'J o.:,, li'J Targum N11'ilN t!:l5lN ; Jerem. 4:5
,iv liJIV Targum N11'iit( ; Is. 26:2 tl'Jlr.:iN ir.l!V Targum N11'iiN
(So i1Jr.:,NJ Hos. 5:9); ib. 27:5 'fl:llr.lJ P'fn' Targum 17hr,ilN;
Jer. 32 :6 ,,on Nr.:ili i1P!Vr.:il Targum 1s "n'ilN r.:im!:l5 (Com. Is.
55:1); Ze. 13:1 M11!:lJ ili'r.:i Targum N11'ilN j!:l5lN 'i1'. In their
related positions, whether those cases occur in metaphor or are
simply conceived, they carry the significance of the all-conceived
good which Israel is urged by the Prophet to follow. It was
natural for the T., as it was the case with his contemporary
agadists, to identify them with the Torah.
The Torah thus gains centrifugal force in the prophecy.
On the observances or disregard of its precepts hinges the fate
of the nation; they are punished because they transgressed the
Torah (Am. 9:1; Jer. 11:16; 5:22 etc.). Other peoples suffer
for their failure to accept the Torah (Mi. 5:14). On the other
hand, Israel forsaking the Torah ceases to be God's people
(Hos. 1:9; 2:1; Zef. 2:1). Repentance forstalls calamity, but
this repentance is the return to the Torah (Is. 12: 1; 31 :7;
Jer. 31:18; Ez, 34:1).
In this connection it is worth while noticing the Halakic
element in the T. Jonathan. Of course, compared with the Pent.,
there is not much of Halaka in the Prophetical writings. But
in a few cases, which are especially accessible to Halakic inter-
pretation, the targumist follows the interpretation of the Halaka.
All these cases occur in Ez.: the first is Ez. 24: 17 11VNi5 !V lJn 1iNEI
14) Com. Jalqut I. c.: "Who accepted the words of the Torah
with fear."
15) Com. Mid rash Shochar Toh ( 49): "R. Aha says, sweet
are the words of the Torah likened to iitt de."
16) Com. Jalqut (prov. 8): "By me princes will 1,r:,,
(prov. 8:16), both the crown of priesthod an kingship come from
the power of the Torah."
17) Com. Zeb. 116a.
18) Com. B. Kama 17a; Canticles r. 1.
Dia,tucd by Microsoft
The Targum renders iNE:l-T11.!ltlm (Tephilin). This is in ac-

cordance with Sukka 25b: "Said R. Aba b. Zabada: A mourner
has to observe all the commands of the Torah except Te-
,,,v
philin; for (this is to be inferred) because God said to Ez.
wi::in 1iNE:l , you are obliged to observe it while a mourner,
but no other mourner is to observe it."
Ez. 44: 17 Vf':J run- N, Targum ,v
l'i1'N l1i1'~in ,v nm- N,1
p,c,, pn:::i:::i,. This agrees with the Beraith Zebachim 18b (end):
"They (the priests) do not girt below their loins but against
the knuckles."
Finally there is Ez. 44:22 ,np, Jn:::ir.i i1Jr.l'N i1'i1T1 iWN i1Jr.i,Nm
Targum p:::ic, N'Ji1:::) iNW Nn,r.iiN -nn ,, NT1,0iN1. This interpreta-
tion removes the flagrant contradiction which this in,
terdiction presents to Lev. 3:17. It is so interpreted in Kid. 78b
.mp, Ji1:::)r.l - ,np, N'Ji1:::) iNWr.l
The Messianic hope occupies a prominent place in the
exegesis of this Targum. In addition to the Messianic sense
which the targumist is giving to passages admittedly accessible
to such a conception, he introduces the Messianic note in many
a passage that is scarcely allowing itself of such an impliation.
The targumist is following the current interpretation of that age
of intense expectation.
In his Messianic interpretation the targumist had pre,
served many of the current ideas about the last days. On the
whole, they are identical with the Messianic description con,
tained in the Apocryphal books, Enoch and 4 Ezra
and the Agada. The rectification of the evils of the world will
be completed on the Day of Judgment. The evil doers are given
respite in this world so that they may repent and turn to the
Torah (Hab.3:1, 2; Zef. 2:1, 2). But on the Day of Judgment
stern judgment will be meted out to the evil doers. There will be
no intercession and no escape (Is. 5 :30. Com. 4 Ezra 7, 105; On.
Deut. 32:12). After the closing of the decree (the Day of judg-
ment) there will be no acceptance of repentance (Is. 8:22). The
world will be renewed (Jer. 23:23; Hab. 3:2. Com. Ps. Jon.
Deut .. 32:1). Great wonders and miracles will appear, as in the
time of the Exodus from Egypt (Hos. 21:66; Ze. 10:11). The
Messiah, who was created from the beginning of the world and
who was hidden from the world on account of the sins of the
poeple (Mi. 4:8; 5:1; Zech. 4:7; 6:12. Com. Enoch 48, 3, 6; 62, 7)
will appear. There will be a resurrection of the death. It seems
the targumist expects both the righteous and the wicked to re
surrect, the former to receive final judgment. (Com. Is. 38:16;
42:11; 45:8, and particularly 57:16. Com. Enoch 51, 2, 3). The
Great Court will sit to judgement (2S 23:7), the wicked will die a
second death (IS. 22:14; 65:6; Jer. 51:39, 57; com. Enoch 22, 6
12; the Syr. Baruch 76, 4), they will be thrown in Gehenna (Is.
33:17; 53:9; Jer. 17:13; Hos. 14:10), whose fire is burning always
(Is. 65 :5). In Jerusalem will the wicked be condemned to
Gehenna (Is. 33:14; com. Enoch 90:20). The righteousoneswill
live the life of eternity t(O?l/ "" (Is. 58:11; Hos. 14:10); they will
shine 343 times (7x7x7), as the light of the seven stars in the
seven days of creation (Judges 5:31; 2S 23:4; Is. 30:26; the
extant edition of the Tanchuma Gen. 6 cites the Targum to
Judges 5:31). Com. Tanchuma ed. Buber, Gen. note 143.
Diqit,zed by Microsoft (i.

INTERPOLATED T ARGUM
The composite nature of T. Jonathan has been definitely

demonstrated above. The T. did not escape the peculiar fate of
the Greek and Syriac versions, which were preyed upon by later
editors, forcing into them other material. It was all the more so
an inevitable procedure with the T. Its original purpose to
be merely an instrument for the instruction of the ignorant;
its place in the public worship; its varied history of wandering
were strong factors in rendering it susceptible to changes. It was
exposed to the irresistible influences of the Midrash, which
thrived in the immediate centuries following the destruction of
the Second Temple. Later Midrashim crowded into the original,
simple exegesis of Jonathan. The new material caused in many
cases a mutilation of the original rendering, thus becoming either
obscure or an overflowing rhetoric. Such portions contrast sharp,
ly with the close, smooth, natural rendering of Jon. The Mid,
rashic incursion is especially remarkable in the first 3 5 chapters
of Isaiah. One need only read the T. to Jerem. or Ezekiel to be
impressed by the curious difference. But in most all these cases
it is impossible to release the original from the new form. In
some instances the translation may represent a completely new
rendering which replaced the older one. Few additions can
be safely pointed out. Some of them will be found to be two
different renderings put side by side. As it is generally known,
duplicates of this kind an: found in the ancient versions, On-
kelos inclu<lc<l. We will begin with the major portions, present,
ing Mi<lrashic portions which have made inroads into the T.
Jonathan.
Judges 5 :2 Cl.I :iim;,:i ?t(it!-":l ml.Ii!:! l.li!:i:l - n:i ,,,r.i 1::,
,:ivr.i5 ,:in 1::,1 - 1m,1ti1 t('tiol.l p;,5v ,nt( t(n,,t(:i ?t(it!I'
t(lJiN ennn (5vr.i) 5::,r.i pJ::,im p;,:i:i, 5v:i 5l.l PJ't( pi:imt( t(n,,t(
NJPi1!:11 t(OJ 5111 ;,nit.:'O 5::,1 t(i0'0 ,:in m;).liHl ?l.l j::,:i - ?t(it!"1
126
INTERPOLATED TARGUM ,127
t>.''i:l Nnt>.1J:i n:i:i :ino5 No:in ,:in 1:i:i - ,5Nit>.15 ri;i5 1:i1mN1
,,,N, ,:i,i:i p:i ; NniiN om!:l NOll n N!:l5N5, '?)
The T. to this verse contains three different renderings
to the second half of the v. One interpreting it as implying that
when the people return to the Torah they overcome their enemies
and expel them from the land of Israel; the other taking 1t to
refer to the overthrow of Sisra; the third to the deliverance
from the prohibition on the study of the Law, the targumist
having in mind the Hadrian persecutions. It is hardly possible
to determine which is the older one. But the latter persisted
in v. 9 .cv:i c:iiJnoi1
Com. Seder Eliahu r. 11 (p. 52): n:i:i p:in, !ii15 'N' ,,:ii
rnoiNo lli!:lJ i1":li'i1 o:i .NniiN om!:l Noll n l'!:l?Noi Nnt>.1J:i
iONJI>.' noJ:li1 n:i5 !':lil!Oi 10:,t>,IO lilt>.' C1N J:i:i ~ C?Wi1
.il":li'il nN c:ii:io, cv:i c:iiJnon
ib. 3 c:i5o ,vorl!I-; N:lii'? Nioo cv mNi-N:i5o ,vot>.1
N?i p:in5n:i N? - jl/J:l1 N:l?O l':l' tlll nn, - N'J'tl?t>.' Nn'YN
5Nit>.'' n:i 511 pnp5o, 1,m:imN p:im,:iJ::i
The two portions following the horizontal line are missing in
Cod. Reuch. and in Ant. Polyg. and preceded by o,n in ed.
Leira, and appear in brackets in the London Polyg. and in the
Basel ed.
ib. 4 .. i'llt>.10 1nNY:l " - il?ll ?Nit>.''? Nn:in, NniiN -
,p;i:i:i, '?ll:l ?ll 1,J'N l'i:lJnO il? p:in ,:i, N'OOll 1m:i !'tl?t>.' rnn
rin5 ;,Jno5 1m5mN c,:i
The intrusive character of the portion is obvious. It belongs
to v. 2 and is a recenssion of the first rendering. It is missing
in the Ant. Polyg.
ib. 5 iJ!:)O ,,rJ C'iil -,ii::in, Niiti _,, c,p !O ,vr N'iil-'
'it>.'n '?ll iON 1'1 ,1,,, !'1 i'iONi N?Oi:l1 Niiti, poin, Niit)
- Nrn ,,, nnJ:it>.1 it>.1n 511 iON p,5 1,, s-m ,,, nm:irv
Jo, N'iiti ?ll il'nJ:lt>.' 'it>.'N ,(,"!:ln ,tl1itlt>.'ON ,m,,,) mNiPO)
. t>.'')inO 'J'O !'1 - N'iiti ,:io i'llfi t>.'?n Nli11
It is a shortened form of the Targum on the margin of Cod.
Reuch containing a current Agada (Com. Gen. r. 99, 1) cited
in Jalqut from Jelamdenu. Refrence to this Agada is made in
T. to PS 68:16, 17. That it is an interpolation is shown in the
D1aitized by M,crosoff(J.)
128 TARGUM JONATHAN TO TH E PROPHETS
L ondon P oly g ., w h ere th e w h o le portion is placed in brackets,

w hile in C od . R eu ch th e ad d ition is foun d ,, tl1v rr.i K,U/i mm
.iW1J'::ltt' 'itt'K, It is completely omitted in Ed. Leira and in the
Ant. Polyg .
ib. 8 tl'i17K in:,, - K.l'ln,t~;, n;,i:ir.,;, ?Kitti' 'J:J U/il'l'K 1:i

p,:im,K1 111 rm;, ,;,,:,, K:> K.n,,,K 1:i11r.i:i ,:i.n 1:i, - p.n1n
l'tt'r.lM:J l'i'tt'r.l 'tt''i p!:l:>K i'l/::liK:J .KP'llr.l' i1KJC KiC'C Pi1'?ll p,;,c,
K'i'J ,yynr., l'!:l?K pr.i.n:i l'tl'il'l '1MN l'!:l?K p.nw:i N!:l'C '1MN l'El?K
;,:,, K'!:l?N l'?K ;,:, i1'r.ll/ nm N?ti:J1 p:i.n, i1N~ vc,.nr., i:l
. i1'r.l'll1 Ki:JJ i'!:l?K i1itt'l/ tl1j.), j.)i:J tl1v tlj.)r.);, p;,:i, N? Kl'l'itt't:I !'?N
There cannot be the slightest doubt that this Agada was on
the margin to v. 2, the end of which formed Nitl'C .n,Jl/iH3 ?l/
i1'1'l'itt'r.l ;,:,, of v. 2, which is strikingly out of all connection.
Witness the beginning ,:i.n 1:i, of v. 2. It was by a marginal
mistake that it was introduced here, where it has no room. As
to its source, com. Jalqut 1. c. It appears in a shortened form
in Cod. Reuch., where the version is as follows:
'1MN ;,,r.,,11, i1N~tt' p;,,;,11 N.l'lN 1:i1 rm;, ,;,,:i, K? Kl'l'i,N? ,:i.n 1:i,
K:Jij.) NnJK? ,;,,:,, N? r"i't!'r.l 'C''i j'!:l?K l'll:JiK:J pnr.i,,, pc,,.n
.7Kitt'':J
In Ed. Leira it is headed by: Kl'l!:lCm
ib. 11 tl':JNtt'r.l .r,,:, tl'YYMr.l :i,vr.i - p;,;, r'CJN "i11 i.l'lKt:I

p:i,J ;,11 pc::i,r.i .n:imr.i, p~c;, (.nm:i) m,:ir.i .r,,:, p;,,1,:i nr.i p:icJ,
nN,n N:>i N'r.l ,;,r.,r.,;, ?Nitt''-l'lJ:J l'P!:lJ p,n1 il'lK? - K't:11 N'vtt' .r,,:,
mm, (rucc) r::::1v rr.i 'N:>Ji .nci!. (rime) ;,p N11r.itt1K:i (p;,n1) p;,:,,
Is is a second rendering. It is omitted in Cod. Reuch. In Leira
ed. it is preceded by the following addition:
, . ii1N j't:11v?r.l ?Nie'' l'l':117 ri,:iJ, r'CJ r,n;, N1'::llll'l'K1 Ki.l'lK
ib. 16 tl'l'l!:ltt'r.li1 l':J .l'l:Jtt'' ;,r.,;, - N:Jij.) l'l'itt'r.lr.l i,.n:i.r, ;,r.,;,

vi:J? K1 rr.i N1 Kl'li,tt':J l/r.ltt'r.l? Nn,,N .l'le'i!:l:J - pr.i,n.n r,:i :,.r,r.,;,
l/r.ltt'r.l? ,:, KJMJN 17'1 !'ir.lN p.nK Kitl'C? KJnJN 17'1 l'ir.lK p.nN
Ki,tt':J .
This interpretation might have been intended to deal a rebuke
to the half-hearted revolutionises of the Saducean party in the
Great Rebellion. It is omitted in Cod. Reuch. and in ed. Leira it
is headed '!:lc,.n ; the rendering pr.i,n.n !':J - tl'l'l!att'r.li1 p:i
agrees with Onk. and Ps. Jon., Gen. 49:14.
INTERPOLATED TARGUM 129
ib. 26 nJM5tt1!1 111'5 n1-!1r.>'P1 nNr.>5tti 1::lM !1tt'N 531, N!1::l~

1r,11, N5i N!1!1N 5v 1:::iJ1 r,r,,r, ,,n, N5 n~, N1111N ,no:::i : :iri:i, no
N!1:J05 l;t1' jn5N N!1!1N 'J\j:)'11::l 1:::1.l
It is a current interpretation in a shortened form. Com. Jalqut
l. c. (cited from Midrash Achbar):
n,, : :iri:i, 111::i N5N i"t 5::i::i ,m,n N5tti 5v H iitti::i:::i nn5tti n,,,
nn N5 ir.>NJtti no tl"i'' ~ l"t 5:i::i ,m,n N5 no Jno, ... ,11,,
.ntt'N 531 1:JJ ,5::,
This addition is missing in Cod. Reuch., and in the Ant. Polyg.;
in ed. Leira it is headed by '0111
ib. 11: 1 NiM!10r.) N51 po,r,5o 5Nitt'' ::i rnn NO\r.l' J Nn N1
:JOr.>5 i::lJ 51::,, nn N5 l:J:J\ N~:Jtt'5 N~::ltt'r.> N!1JOMN
Ntt'J :Jr.> Nj:)!;)J rnn Ni:JJ r,o,n,, N!1!1N r,,ni:i, n~:Jt!lr.> 11,n N51 N!1!1N
N~:Jtt'r.) N51 N1::lJ 11'r.>Mi1 NI1'i'1J1!:: n5 !'ii' l'tt'JN nm N!1JOMN N5:::i
. nr,n,, nr.>N5 n5 rnn pi
This Targum is cited by Kimchi I. c. and is found in ed. Leira
under heading "Tosefta", No other edition has it.
ib. 39 5Nitt'':J r,n5 nm - N51 ,,,::i - 5N1tt'':J nit.:i5 nN,m
N51 nN1l15J nr,n,, ,:iv, no::, N!15V5 i1'11i:J r,,, n,:::i r,, i:JJ nPON5
.po,::i nr,, r,,,n rnn NJn:i omn5 5Ntti ,,,Ni ,NJn::, omn5 5Ntti
It appears in a different version on the margin of Cod. Reuch.
to 12:7. The essence of this Agada is found in Gen. r. 60, 1,
holding to the view of R. Jochanan that a vow of this sort
should be redeemed by money. This author also condemns jef-
tah for not going to Pinehas to ask the disavowal. Others think
the reverse is true. Com. Seder Eliahu r. 12 (p. 55). This portion
beginning 5,,:::i is found in the Leira ed. headed by "Tosefta"
and is missing in the Ant. Polyg.
IS 2:1 ":J :::i5 )'531 ir.>Nm MJM 55tir,m - m,:::i run I1'N5Y1
~ll N':JJ ,,no5 1'1131 'i:J 5N1r.>tt' ,::i:i - ":J 'Jij:) 'r.li 11'ir.lN\ nN:JJ
!'OJ r,n5 r,,::ivr,, ,n,,, ,v, 'N!1tti5:i, N1'r.) l1Piti!1' 'i11r.>1':J 5N1tt''
~N\r.>tt' 'i:J i:l ron ~NI ; ,5 :in,, Nv5in::i ::i5 ~,pr, ; p:::i )11::JJl
nitti::i l'ir.>N ,,no5 nu::i ittiv v:::i,Ni Nin c,r,,, ,,r,v (n : , N"n,)
; 1:i::i Ntt'il'~ r,,::i:::i Nn:::itti5 'N''' 1,n,nN Clll pm,::,, p5:::iJ ,,, 5.v
,,n5 ,,riv, NO'J 11\Jll'l\tl 5v ~NI - ,, ,5 'Jr.>1 NI1J!1r.):l 'J1j:) no,
j:11\j:) nov, N!11M N!15Jll:l ,,,, NJ\iN r,, 1111"1 r,,,r,v, 'N!1~5n:::i
'r.>\tl M!1tlN : 5Nitt''1 N!1tt'J:J ir.>'11 p::,:::i Nr.>tt'N
The whole portion is missing in the Ant. Polyg .
Diatttzed by Microsoft
T h e add ition s ap p ear w ith m in o r m odifications in all editions .

In the B asel ed . an d th e L o nd on P olyg., how ever, th ey are
placed in brackets. A s to th e in terp retation th at H anna w as
proph esyin g , co m . M eg. 14 a.
ib . 2 t:!!11P l'N - mr.iN, !iN':lJ!i'N 1lnN1 N:i5r.i :i,,nJo 511

p5El' tr.in iP:t 1':tlln' 'JD DJl o5t:!!i,, 511 iPn15,n 5:i, Nlil Cli''1 1'!ill
... t:!!11P r,,5 !l1r.l"1 N'Jt:!!'51 N'r.llN N'r.lr.ll/ 5:i P11' p:i i1'!i'1t:!!r.l '1J!:)
T h e w ho le add ition is m issin g in th e A n t. P olyg. an d appears
in th e B asel ed . an d th e L on d o n P o ly g. in brackets.
ib . 3 ,:i,n 5N1 - mr.iNl riN':tJ!i'N 5:i:i1 N:i5r.i ,~J1:l1:tJ 511
. tucn N5 ; 5N1t:!!':l ti5C:!!!.:i5 l'1'ril/1 N'r.lr.ll/ 5:i, 'N"ID:l pnN
It is m issin g in th e A n t. P o ly g . an d appears in brackets in th e
B asel ed . an d th e L o n d on P oly g.
ib . 4 0'1:lJ !it:!!P-!11::lri' - mr.iNl !iN':lJ!i'N 11' n,:i5r., 511
l't:!!5n m,1 : 'NJlr.it:!!n r,,:i1, ; 'NJl' ,,:iJ1 nnt:!!P
In th e B asel ed . an d in th e L on d o n P olyg. th ese portions are
in brackets, an d are om itted in th e A nt. P olyg .
ib . 5 cn"::i C'l/Jt!' - m11 : nir.iNi !i'NJJ!i'N jr.>i11 'i11J:t 511
N1Dl/ NnnN:i rnrn 0'5t:!!11' p : ,noNl ,:i1,r.i - Nr.in5::i l'll:tt:!!
.,:i,nm ,1~n - i1'1t!-'r.> trnio, ... ,r.i,,,
In the Basel ed. and in the London Polyg. these portions are
in brackets. Instead of ,r.,,i it has c,~, an intentional change,
for obvious reasons, and are missing in the Ant. Polyg.
2S 22 :2 - '01Jr.l1 ':lJC'r.l 'lit:!'' l1P1 'JJr.i 1:t i1DMN '11Y 'i1~N
~,vn ,5 n':ti1'nr.i 'i11r.i"1P 10, 'l1'1n i1'n5ni5 'J:t1D ,:i ,11,nN1 'i15N
10M1 l''M1 NJN i1'1r.l'r.l 5111 - 'J~n,, '::1::11 ,511:i 511 N1JJnN5 !D11:ll
.. P'1l/ '!i'li11:l - ,5 ,,r.io ,,r.,,r., i11i11 'Dr.>10 i1'Ji'11El:t 'J1D N01N5
This portion is missing in the Targum to Ps. That the
portion is a second and different rendering to the second half
of the verse, is evident. Its other part to the first half seems to
have been included in the first rendering. In the Ant. Polyg.
the portion i1'!i5n15 'J::11D ':l 'l/1!iN1 is omitted.
As to the rendering of,,,~ Com. IS 2:2; 2S 22:47, On. Deut.
32:4. And nv, Com. IS 2:1. All of which would lend strength
to this supposition.
ib. 23 :4 1D:t 11N:l1 - !'1::111/ ti:i5 jln1:tl/ N'i''1~ !1:l':lltl
,,n, N'Ol' nv:it:!! 11i1'J:t Nn5m pv:iiN i1Nr.i n5n 1n 5v - ... p:iti
... Nil - t"nN1 Nnr.inJ 'Jt:!!5 l'"lr.inr.i t1n'li11 p:i5 Jtl'l p::i,nn !'1'.l'.:l

This part is missing in the Ant. Polyg. This is another indica-

tion that the Targum to this verse belongs to a Midrashic T.
which was by a later editor incorporated in the T. and which
displaced the original T. In the text used by Montanua it ap-
peared in a shortened form. Com. Cod. Reuch., Judges 5 :8.
ib. 32 ,N r., ,::, -

1ntt10, ,:ivn, NJviu:i, NO'J r:,:i ,v
... Nil'N n,, : 1,,0,,, N'W'1 N'OOl/ ~::, i,,,,
f11Nnt'.'N1 1011, N1Nw,,
It is an addition. The same appears in a shortened form in the
T. to 1S 2:2, which in the London Polyg. is found in brackets.
It is missing in the Ant. Polyg .
ib. 47 ,, n - 'N1t'.'' n:i 1011, Nni:iv, KJv11!:l1 NO'J 511 Pl
. tl'v l10N1 1N'11N
It is another form of v. 32. Is is missing in the Ant. Polyg.
and in the T. to Ps .
lK 4:33 lHNil 1111 !1Jl5l 1t'.'N T1Nil fr., i:l'Yllil 511 1l1'1 -
nN, NO,l/l1 pi Nr.,511::i ~,~r.,, p,,nv, ,,, n'l ,::,~ ,v ':lJn'N1
t(ntllr.,i
It is a Midrashic interpretation which can in no way be read
into the verse. Had it represented the original of the T., the
same interpretation would have been applied to the second part
of the v. But the latter is rendered literally. However, the original
was displaced by the toseftoic rendering. The displaced original
is found in the Ant. Polyg.; the rendering there is as follows:
,11 5,r.,i tc,n,::i:i. v!:lJ1 NlHN
. Nm ,v, Nwn, ,v, ,v,,v,
N!:lll/
Pl5l. ,, NT1NO N'l/N
N1'lll
,v ,,,r.,,
2K 4:1 Cl'N'JJil 'Jl 't'.'JO nnK ilt'.'Nl - 't'.'Jr., Nin l(nntc,
nr., ,,v::i. il'1l1ll 11:iv ir.,r.,5 vw5N tiiv Nniyr., il"N'JJ ,,,o,n
N'lJ n, 5:ir,N n,~v ,:i, ,,, tiiv 10 ,,n, rnn 11:iv 'iN nv,, nN,
t(n,110:i NiJl f'IZ'OJ't pwr.,n f1J'10~Nl p,:ii.:i ilNO !1i1JO ,:i, ,,,,
C1v !O lNnN1 il'O::lJr., !1iln15::lN5 N51 5,,:i !1i15 5,::,,01 ;l'T' illi11
1ntt1, 1nr., j11:i11, ii'' 'Jl pin n lOr.,5 NnN N't!!J 111::i, NCJ1N IU'N1
m,,, N51 n,wr., i11il N5l NJm 'Nill il'1lll/ nN nn,w l'JOT Nt:'t.:lnl
N5v i15 vont'.'Nl ,,,, N5n, NnlYl '1lv 'l' N5TN1 ,v i15 1ll/05 ilO
,, N5n, 1iv'N ill/liN nvl Nv1 ,, N5n, l'1il !NO Nnr., 'J'JO
l1nl, 1'il N5N NJ'l/l N5 i110Nl Nl'M il'1lll/1 l1'Nl rio,, tlililN
ili!ll/l NW5!:lnr., Ni' rnn il'ilv il'll11N ,::i, Nin, ,,, N5n, il'l
J'l'10N ,:, Nmo, Nnl/t'.'l ,, ,,,y n,, N::l'il ,,o ,,o i110Nl ~n,Y Nv,
Du11t1zed by Microsoft
132 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPH ETS
1r.in, p,:iw ,5 ir.iN, ,5 r-m Nr.i5v 1,:i,, 'Jn:i,nN ,5 p,:iw nN !Nr.>5 15

't:ln,, :i,r,wr.i nn:iwnJ N5 ,,:i, rrrinn ,5v 1n5r.iiN, l'J'r.l"P'N NJN,
1'7 ,5,r i15 ir.iN, i1'1:l'1/ :i,nN ,N:iN 15:ip N:IN n5:ip 'ir.>N, ,my 'r.lJ
,:i NJN1 il':l 1,:i,:i5, 1':IJ iNnw,N, Nnwr.i, NniU):l vw,5N ':IJ5
,:i l"!:ltl'N N5 N'r.i:i, Nr.in5:i Nnil/r.l:l n-run N':IJ i1Nr.i5 'ilJ'nir.lt!N
,,,:i ,5,r., N':IJ i1'5 ,:i, ,5 N5,5:,. N5, Nr.lr.l':l N5 'il'J'r.l ,nwr.i, 'J'Y
~pnr.i Nii' ir.>N ,:,n, il'n'!:l"N, ;,r., r,:i5 c,5w,, N,n 1,,:,. Nw1,p5
vw,5N5 ,,nv,,N, n5tN 1:i:i, NJ,:,or.i 5v c,n,, rr.i 5:i Nr.i5v ,,r.i5
. 'Nil ,7,:,
This Tosefta is found in the edition Leira, which is also cited
by Kimchi (l. c.). All editions contain only the beginning of
this Tosefta without any indication of any sort to show its
toseftoic character. Here again an instructive example is pres,
ented to show how the toseftoic material was handled by later
editors. Such can be surmised was the case with other material
incorporated in the Targum but whose source we are unable
to trace. Com. Otzar Tov, v. 1, p. 10, Berlin, 1878.
Is. 10:32 ,r.iv5 :,.J:,. m-n ,w -1,v 'Jo, :i., Nr.iP tN:i ,v
;,,r.,v ,:i,, c,J,N n5n ,:iv, 5tiJ imN1 N::i5r.i :i.,nJo Nil 5v,r.i5 n,5
,::i,, pn:i p:in, Nm 'i'tii' p::i5r.i ,J:ii :in,, !'J!:lo,J !'D5N pv::i,N
l'!:l5N r,n,w, tnNr.i il'r.ll/ ,:i, 1,nr.i,,, l'!:l'O ,,nN l'!:l5N tnNr.i il'r.ll/
v:iiN n,n,,wr.i, N:i,,N !'!:l5N ilNr.i ,mr.,ip l'tiili1 r,,:i,J l'i'J ,yynr.,
pnw, tnNr.i ;,,n,,wr.i t'Jr.l ,l'Oi!:l pv:i.,N n,mo,o iN,Y ,l'Oi!:l ilNc
Nn1P' Ni,J u5 n,n, u::i, ,::i Ciii:JN 5v ,nN 1:i, ,n ion N,:i,, p!:l5N
Nn,,wc NiP!:lnr.i5 ,yr, Nr.i5v ;,5w, ,:i mr.i, m cv ,n,t:l5 p,,nv 1:i,
,::i Nn,Jn Nn,,wr.i NJ1i':J ";,, N'r.i mw NJ1,,:,. ,,:iv ,:i Nn,r.,ip
5,:ip5 NJil:i n,,p ::iD::i cp, NnN N'r.l mw, p,,:,. ,,Dn NJi,,::i ,,:iv
n'W'JiN n5v, c5w,,, NniP Ni N5i1 n,m5,n5 ,r.iN, 'Jlf' c5w,,,, ,,w
5:ir.i Nw5m Ni'llt N'il Nil ,nJ,,r.i 5::i n,w,::i:, n5v, ,n,,wr., 5::i
,n,o, 5,:,.,r.i n,w,,:i. ,,Jo cp n5v ,,, ~npn:,. n,w,:i.::i, N'r.iov ,:,,:,
... Nt!'1Pr.l n,:,. i,ti 5V i1'1':l
All older Rabbinic editions contain this Midrashic Targum.
In the recent editions the part beginning N::i5r.i and ending with
N'r.l is placed in brackets. It is omitted in Cod. Reuch. and
in the Ant. Polyg. It appears on the margin of Cod. Reuch.
in an enlarged form .
In a somewhat modified form it is told in San. 95b :
W'N ~5N nwr.im C'l/::liN:l :i,,nJO Ci1'5ll N:l :Ji ir.lN n,,n, :ii it:lN
C'JlOW:Jl num nm,JW Ci10l/l am ,w

nlJiD:J 0':JWl'l 0'?0 'J:l
l'J!:l? c,y, :i,n nnN q5N C'WW:Jl i1!:l'?D ll'iW 'Wl:J? C'il:JJ q5N
.mo, m Cl/ N:J? pin11 Pl Cili:JN ?l/ lN:J J:Jl C'Wi:'.l iNWill
i1Ci!:l C'll:JiN ,,c,c iNlY arm NCi!:l 'n li1Jno 1ilN NJn Nn'Jn:J
i1JlWNi NJn in ,en J'!:l?N Nl:Ji cww, C'nNo mJno 10
Ci1'?Ji ?l/ i!:ll/ l?l/i1 CJlinN i10lD:J li:ll/ C'l/YON ,nw:i li:Jl/
.inN ClDOO 0'0 lN':li1W ,11 mnw, ii1J:J 0'0 lNYO N?l
Com. also Seder Eliahu r. 8 (p. 45). They represent two versions
of a current Agada. But the following portion containing Sena-
cherib 's address is also toseftoic. It is cited in the Aramaic in
San. 95a. Furthermore, it even has the complementary portion
which was dropped at its introduction in the T.
ib. 49:15 i1Jn:Jwn n,N CJ ,i1J~:i 1::i cn,o n,w nwN n:Jwnn
NnWJ:J N::i,no - Nill/0 ,:i ,11 Non,,o ili::l NnnN 'WJnn, iW!:lNi1 -
n,::111, n ,, 'WJnO N? No,, i1NWJnN li1l01D n,, ON nitlNl ?NiW'i
(niONl) NiONl N:ino : N'WJnN J'?N qN N::!J n, iON .arrn ?Jl/
i':ll/J 'J'C:l n'iONi n, ,, 'WJno No,, i1N~'JnN 'illOiD nN ON il'?
.,Jvn,, N? 'iO'O il? iONl ?:Ji'Jl
So in Berakoth 34b :
'J!:l? n:JiDi1W ,con, 'i~!:ll C'?'N nl?ll/ n:JWN Cl5:J il":JDil iON
NOW ,,,:i:J NC:J 'J!:l5 iln:Jw l'Nl ?'Nlil ll"W:Ji l'J!:l? iliON ~ ,:i,o::i
l'J!:l? iliON .i1Jn:Jwn il?N CJ il? iON ~ ?Jl/ ilWl/0 ,, n:Jwn N?
~ 'J'C ilWl/0 ,, n:Jwn NOW ,,,:i:J NC:J 'J!:l? nn:iw W'l ?'Nlil ll"W:li
.1n:JWN N? ':JJNl il? iON
It appears from this that a part of this Midrash was dropped
by the interpolator. The first and last are remnants of the original
Targum. It is omitted in Cod. Reuch. and First Bomberger
ed. (Com. Bacher Z. D. M. G., p. 48.)
ib. 24, 25 Nl/'Wi lWl/0 :l'CJn'i iW!:lNil tl'?Wli' niON
~Nl/OW' N:JWi N:iw tlNl 'JO ,,11, ilNil/ ,nn 1:i,n ,11 il'?ll i'ONi
Nil/1 ilNil/ qN 'n iON IJi:J 'iN ~ :l't'nW' N'il ND'iYi il'?ll i'ONi
i'ONi NJnl'J ?Nl/OW' 1'JO N:JWi N':JWl il'JO :icJn' Ni::!J ltt'l/ 1'JO
,,m11,,!:l n,, - :ir,nw, NWJN:J ,,,11 il'?ll
The latter presents an excellent example of how a combination
of this sort was accomplished. The last portion is the original
Targum, upon which was built the Midrashic interpolation.
Both portions, which unquestionably belong somewhere in the
Geonic age, appear in the current editions after the orginal and
D1qit1zed by Microsoft
literal renderin g u n d er th e h ead ingN/1 . They appear on the

margin of the Cod. Reuch. under the same name, being omitted
in the text; while in the first Born. ed. they appear in a shortened
form in the T. to Is. 66:5 (Bacher, p. 20) .
ib. 50:10, 11 .. N1' c:,::i '0 -1'1:J Nrt'11P 1'11ll N':JJ 10N
1i1101P !'10Nl N'OOl/ l':J'/10 .. ll:lJ jt.:, ,N'OOl/5 10N 'li105 toeli1
Cl/ !'1 NJ1)11toe NJO' 5:, '1N ~11'11NJ i'Cl/05 NJ5 1rt'!l~ toe5 NJJlJ1
(Jli1'rt'J) NJ'Jrt'l lli1'11J NJ1'i'lN !'15 j'1 NJnYJ 1:ll NJ1PJ 1'1 (5ll)
PCl/05 NJ5 1rt'!lN toe,, NJOl' ,o,,rt" Nm N1n:i, lli1'0:lJl 1,i15!lt:l
. ll:l51:, Ni1 ':, lli15 10Nl Nli1 1'1J Nrt'1li' J'/10 ,N11'11NJ
It is a satire particularly on Rome and Persia. Com. Aboda
Zara 2b. In most all editions these portions are placed in brack-
ets. They are missing in Cod. Reuch. and First Born. ed.
Jer. 8:18 llJ' ''ll '11'J'5Jo - t("JJ 5:ip5 l':i'll'r., Nli11 511
it.:)N lli1'5l/ lli1'Jln C1i' IO lli1'5ll '11'N N11nJ'11l NJ'1 !li15 IJJ1101
'11 J5 NJJ
It is a toseftoic addition which was probably intended for
explanation. It can by itself in no way be read into the verse.
It had replaced the original rendering, from which the last
words remained. Com. T. to Am. 5 :9
ib, 9:22 1110:in:i c:in '5i111 5N -111 ,:i ;,o5rt" - n:inrt"' N5
,i1ni,:iJ:i N1JJ nrn~ ,:i llrt"ort" - n:inrt"' N5i i1'no:i,n:i No:,n
i1'i11ll/J i11nv ,,r.,11 ,:i :iNnN n:inrt"' N5i
As regards the reference to Samson, the T. seemingly was in-
flluenccd by Eccl. r. on 9: 1 I. It appears on the margin of Cod.
Reuch. under heading NO Nn and is missing in the text .
ib. 10:1 I cm, 1110Nn ;,Ji:, - n5rt'1 N111JN pnrt"!l NJi
'N10:l r,:,5 1110" CNl 5JJJ ,, Nl115J 'JO 1Nrt' m, N'J) i1'01'
111:i, ,:inn 111:, 5Nirt'' l1'J N11lllt.,5 m,!:l jli1'J'J lll1N1 (NOOl/)
ro llJ'N 1nY ili1J n,1 mvt:i lli15 !'n5!l r,nN1 rwt:i 1m, 1110Nn
ll)'N J'1!:l NnoY, l'':l' N5 Nl/1N ro N1t:l0 NnnN5 )'5:i N5 N'Ort'
J'5N N'Ort' n,nn ro llY'11rt''l Nl/1NO r,,:i,, !li1'n,!:ll
This rhetorical exposition appears in all editions. In the Cod.
Reuch. it appears after the literal Aramaic of the verse. In all
other editions the Aramaic is omitted. Its position in the former
testifies to its being an incursion, while is position in the latter
demonstrates, as another instance, how the original was forced

out by the interpolation.
ib. 12:5' nm, c5Ji nN .:i- : :i~,r.i NJNi p:::i~ 5:u CNl
1J'TnNi p;:i lt:ll nr.inr.i, m nN ,N'::lJ nN5J1 5::i:::ii N.:i5r.i i~Ji:i,:::iJ5
Nmo,o.:i ,~n,i N1~,v Jr.ii Np,,~ 1n:::inN5 i:::ivr.i~ inv N;Ni nr.i
Jr.inJ pi:::i pn;:::i 5:u nNi ili15 n,r.iN ;oiNi r.iip 1:::i~ j'i:::iw i:::ivr.i,
.NJi;5 ;imw i'nmi Nr.i:i Nn
This part appears in all editions after the complete rendering
of the v. Hence it is toseftoic. It is found fully in San. 96a:
1nr.i5ww n,v,o;:i v:::iiN ,:iw:::i nr.i, nnN ;iN .. nn~, 0 15li nN ,.:,
cn,:::iN5 ,:it!' c5wr.i ;Nc:i ,n'r.in nnN ,i,:::i:i ,,nN r,w v~, ,n,N5
.nr.i:i, nr.i:i nnN 5:u C'Dlo.:i ,;!:)5 w,w : lPV~l PTW'
Com. also San. 26a, Cant. r. ni:::ivw t:ll.'t:l::l with minor changes.
ib. 31: 14 Vt:lrt'J nr.i,:::i 5li' - Nt:l5:U c,,:::i 5ip ,,, ,ON pi:i
JiNin:::iJ nn n5w ,:i n't:li' ,n:::i jnJNnr.i, p:::i, 5Nitt'' n,:::i vr.ine>N
. Nnr.iit.:> N5mp :ii
It contains a shortened Agada found in Lam. r. Pesichta, end.
That it does not belong here is evident from the two render,
ings of nr.i; one being literal, the other expository. Which of
them belongs to the original is difficult to determine; probably
the former.
Ezek. I: I ... ,;,,, - NJn:i np5n n:iwNi jr.it, p;w J'n5n:i mm

nu5!:l:i - Nr.i5w rnnn Nn1tl,l::l Nwipr.i n:i:::i NnilNi N1!:lD N:i,
.. 't:ll':I - Nino J5:Ut:l in:i N55 The portion after the horizontal
line is missing in the Targum of the Haftora of the first day
of the Feast of Weeks in the Machzor Witri. As the Targum
to this verse beginning jt.:>15 and ending Nino 1s Midrashic in
construction and matter, its partial omission in Machzor Witri
lends support to the hypothesis that the whole portion is an
interpolation .
ib. 6 cn5 nnN5 C'!:l;:i v:::iiNl nnN5 c;!: nv:iiN, - NV:liN1
i'Jr.i Nin Nni:i5 i'ElN ,ov nnw im in 5:i5 l'!:N NV:11Nl Nin5 l'ElN
Nl,l::liNl Nin, !'ElN Nl,l::liN1 - /'!:N Nl,l::liNl j'nt!' l'i::l l,l:liN1 N'!:lN
l'tll NV::l1Nl pnw N!:lNl N!:lN 5:i5 !'Ell ,ov nnc im in 5:i5 !'Ell
.!'Ell Nnw, p~r.im rnNt.:> 1,:::i v:::iiNi N'!:ll i';t.:> nm Nin Nn,:::i5
The whole portion preceded by the horizontal line is missing
in the Ant. Polyg. having instead of the second J'!:N Nl,l:liNl -
!'ElJ Nl,l::liNl . It also is a case of shortened toseftoic Targum.
D1mtt2C'd by Microsoft
ib. 8 . 01t( '1'1 - t('J'M 1::Jt(? t('l/'tt'1 111t( ?l/ i'1105 ..

t(11J1'11 ,5y:::i 5:11 t(11:n11 n;,::i t(?Jv51 - il'10'0 ,-,::iy . This ad-
dition is found in the Ant. Polyg. only. Com. Pesachim 119a:
... 01t( '1'1 :1'11:11 't(O t('tt'J t(11il' '1 01tt'O tt''i'? p ttl"1 10t(
5:::iv5 ,1::i 111,n;, '!:lJ:i 11n11 ;,c11t1t!' ;,"::ip;, 5tt1 11, ;,1 ::i,11:::i 11,
il::J1tt'11 ,5y::i, In Machzor Witri (ib.) there is the following
addition prefacing the literal rendering of the Targum to v. 12:
'1Mt(1 .t(r.l:1 'il t(11J':ltt' il'? 'lnt(1 t(Jnfn 11' t("JJ ?t(i'ln' t(ln 1:11
5::ip5 1n pm:11 !"1::l 11:::iit( t(!n1 t(?:l'il::J t("JJ r1r.it( 1:::i il'lltt'''
- t.,1tt1v::i t(!:lt( 111;,r.i !1il'J1P'11 m;, p1 ;,mmm,y ilt(Tnt(5 ;,,1::in
.. t('1J' It is found nowhere else.
ib. 28: 13 111:lDr.l me- pt( 5::i - t(1i''1 t(J11'l t(111l/ 5::i
15 J'il'11r.l The literal translation was preserved in the toseftoic
version of this verse found on the margin of Cod. Reuch.,
entitled Mt( '!:lD, namely, )Jt., p::itt 5::i
ib. 34:9 0'111 l:15 - t(11'11t(? 1:::1111 - t('l,''tt/1 t('DJ1!:l j:1::l
.Kr.l)11!:l 1?::li' t('DJ1!3 l:1::J - i'!:l?1t(? !111''!rn jt::l'~ll t(l':: IM15 1'11l/ t(Jt(1
It is missing in Cod. Reuch.
A Midrashic Targum to 37:1 is found in Machzor Witri
in the Targum to the Haftora of the Sabbath of Passover:
'"1 1'!.'i' tr.ii 111 1:::1:::iy,t( t(?1 tmi:i::i ''1'!.r.ir.i 1i'!:lJ1 t("r.l1J p1 t(il1
t(t.)J'tt' :::11 il1il t(1il1 1't(' il'r.ltt'1 t(1ilil t(r.)15 1'1'!.r.l::l t(1JJ il1il1
l'r.l"i' nn '1tt'' 11'::I p;,51:::i t(1ilil t(J1'l/J !1il5 1r.lt( 0'1!:lt( 11'::11
l'!:l?t(1 )11t(r.l )1il11' !'1::ll/ t(J'1il ':lil jJt(1 t('tt'i' t(JM?1!:l::J1 t(11J'll::l
l1J'1Dr.l P:::11 "'1 t(Jj:)11!:l t(?J 1t(J11t(1 0'1'!.r.lO 1i'!:lJ1 t(?n 'J::I !'1::IJ
K11l/i'::I t('ilil 11J::l 'J"1tt't(1 'il11::ll11 )1JJ l1il11' ?t.,i'1 11J1 t(:l?r.l 1'::J ,,,
.)1l/ll/1' t(r.l?1 t(11l/i'J t('ilil::I '1tt'' 11' ,,, 1J1 t(? KJi'11!:l !r.ll:::11
This is told in San. 92a; Pirke d. E. 58,. It is so interpreted
in Ps. Jon., Exod. 13:17.
Joel 2 :2 5 P?'il i1::l1t(il 5:lt(il 1tt1K oJttlil 11t( o::i5 , 11r.i5tt1,

01Jm 510nm - ,n5!:l 11:111 11:11 t('Jtt' i:i5n t(11Jt., t('Jtt' 11:15 o5tt1t(1
.t(J1 ,5,n 111Jl/11!:l K'J1U?tt'1 t('Jtt''?1 t('r.l1t( t(':::1:11:1
It is a latter Midrash. Com. Seder Eliahu r. 20 (p. 113) :
0't('Jr.l1 ?t(1tt''-l'1t(? l':1?1il M'tt'r.lil 111r.l'? r'1t(::l 0'1t(tt'Jil 0'1l 5::i
.. il::l1t(il 5::it( 1tt1t( 1r.i1t(1 ... ?t(1t!I' 5t!I o;,,11:::i 11115 mr.i, on5 1::i
.?t(1tt'' !il::J 11::ll/11tt'JC:.' 111':l?r.l l/::lit( 1?'t(
But I :4 is rendered literally, and such was the case here, which
was displaced by the interpolation from which was left only the
last part .p:::,::i nn5wi N::11 ,,,n nm11ie This part has scarcely
any connection with the interpolated exposition.
Nahum l :1 inJ'J Nfl/0 - inJ'J r,, i1NDWN5 ~,,, c,:::, 5~r.i -
,,:::i, Ni1::iinr.i naru i!:ln nm, N::iJ nr.iN ,::i ;u,, ;,511 ::iJnN tr.iip5r.i
Ni::io::i ::in:::i, ;,r.,:::, wip n::ir.i oinJ ;,511 ::iJnNi :in ~nr.i, n!:loiNi
.)'1i1
This is toseftoic. It has displaced the original Targum to the
second half of the v. It is a late one. Witness the rendering
'Wi'5Ni1 by ,w,p n::ir., being evidently influenced by the Arabic,
the vernacular of the age. In the edition used by Rashi the
reading was wiD:'>N n,::ir.,i. Com. the rendering of ,n1t1ir.,;,
Mi. l :1.
Hab. 3:1 N:: l1N ,11 ;,,, ,,m,N ,:::i N'::IJ pip::in ,,s, Nm5Y
,n ir.iN t:::i 'Jll mJ::i op, Nniis ,s, N'::IJ pip::in Nin 11w,, : :,;,,,
n::i;,,, N:::l1N 511 ,, pin, 111 N1i1 Nn1W ir.l ,,11 NJN n,, ;,r.,w o,,p,
DO'l/ 511 N'::IJ DlD::ln5 ;,,, 1r.lN Pl NW1lD1 Nnl1 N::inr.i N'l/'W15
fli15 D::inw tl:'>W ::l::15::l Nn'1lN5 )l::lln ONi N'll'W15 n::li1'1 N:::l1N
.Nm,~:, Ni1 5N1W' n::i 'i1lr.l1i' 1::in, )li1'::lln ,:::i p;,,,
Com. Shochar Tob 7, 17, ed. Buber .
1lYO li10 ,wr.i ,11 i1::lYnNl i11l0l/N ,n,r.,tt'f.) ,11 10N Dli'::ln N::IW::ll
... m ,::i, 'Jll'1lnw ,11 JN:: lt::) n 'J'N 1r.lNl ;,:::,1n::1 1r.ll/l i11lY 1YW ,r.i,o
This .Agadic interpolation is found in the Cod. Reuch., of
which Buber had no knowledge. It is missing in all other edi-
tions. Rashi (Taanith 23a), refers to it: ,w
ClJ1n::i W1!:lr.l1:::l
Dli'::ln n5!:ln The manner in which this reference is expressed
would suggest that Rashi r~fers to the Targum of the Haftora
of the second day of the Feast of Weeks, which was customary
to read in the communities of Northern France. It is found in
the Machzor Witri. On the other hand, it appears that Kimchi
had no knowledge of this Targum. Probably the portion
beginning N:::l1N 5J.' to the end, which is found in all editions,
is a part of this T. J., the original being replaced by it.
ib. 2 ,nN,, 111r.iw n11r.iw ,, - 1n,1::1J 110w n,11r.,w ,, -
NnlJl/11!:l nno 511 qNi - ; n:'>n,1 - nwNi::i Jr.i NJ!:ll~::i Nni::111, ;,r.,
;,r.,:::, - ,, n11n n11r.iw 1r.i1D H'J1N ,:::i 0110 'WJ'N 511 Nnn,,Ni
. ,m, lJ::l - ... N'D'1Yi N'l/'W1 ,11 Nnf'J1N1 ,m, lJ::l -:-- ... )'::11::11
11;,,,11 on,m
D1a,t1,w d by Microsoft (I.'

T hese exegetical interpolations are fou nd in the T argum of the

H aftora of th e secon d day of th e Feast of W eeks in the M ach ,
zor Witri. They are not found in any other accessible edition
of the Targurn. In verse 8 the words 1mi ;m, N.:i5o ,11 which
is evidently the rendering of 1!:lN Cl'iiUJ ON, and which are
found in all editions, are missing there .
ib. 3: 11 i1'.:i:::it ,ov n,, wow - vw,i1'.:i i'OJ 11:::ivo:::i ;iN
o,w,,,, N:J?O i':J)O i1WOn ,m,v ,p,,o, ,,:::i:nN 1:J - lt!J:JJ itV'O:J
Nii1'0' NWOW ; p'.:iJV1 N:J'.:io t!'':J?1 N:J'.:io mo,,, N:J?O jn:::in, N:J?O
. JPW nw, pn5n - 1,;,,,,,o:::i 1op
The portions following the horizonal lines are found in Cod.
Reuch. and in Machzor Witri only. The same Targum was
used, it would appear, by the editor of the text of the other
editions, who shortened it. That the original rendering was
a literal one is evident from the comparison of these two texts.
Zech. 12:10 nN:::iJ m, o5w,,, :in '.:ip, ,,, n:::i '.:iP 1!:lWN1
OP N:JiP NnJN'.:i O'i!:lN ,:::i Ti't:"J p,::i, j1:J ,n:::i 10, ~,wp, Nm'.:il"
i1;0 1w:::i, i1m;, p'.:i.:,m,,, o;,t,,,,, NPin oip m i1'n' ,,i,p,, ~u
l'1!:lC1 NO:J ,m,v pi::ic, 0'i!:lt( ,:::i ntto, N'OOP ,,p, NO ,,~o
.Ni:n:::i 5p r,,ono, i10:J m'.:iP ,,,on, 'N1'Ti' ,:::i '.:,p NON1 N:JN
This Midrashic Targum is found in Kenn., Cod. 1 5' 4, and on
the margin of Cod. Reuch., giving the source as 'Jin w,,,
and in Machzor Witn. It is omitted in all other editions. It
will be seen that the Midrashic interpretation is based mainly
on the portion in'i1 511 1:lCO:J ,,,v
,,oc, which, according to
this interpretation, refers to the violent death of the first
Messiah, namely the son of Ephraim or Joseph. On the other
hand, the rendering preceding and following it is close to the
text but differs slightly from the rendering of the Targum. As
to the Midrashic interpretation in general, com. Suk. 5'2a,
Yer. 5, 8.
Two more cases of later interpolation may be added. The

first is in Judges 10:16 '.:iNiW' 5op:::i ,w;:iJ ;~pm . It is rendered
literally. In the Ant. Polyg. the Targum here has the Hebrew
text. Maimonidas (Moreh Nebuchim 2, 29) makes it plain
that this portion was not rendered by Jonathan for anthropo-
rnorphic considerations. The other case is Ezek. 1 :26, which
Kimehi (I. c.) says that it is not rendered by the T., but all
accessible editions do have a literal rendering. It was in-

serted by a later hand. The same may have also been the case
with Ezek. 1 :27; 2:8, containing a peculiarly cirmumscribed
rendering.
II.
There is a considerable number of other interpolations

which are of an exegetical character. Some are recensions of the
rendering of the T. Others aim at a clarification not so much
of the text as of the rendering. They have a disturbing effect
upon the rendering. Evident interpolations of this category are
numerous. I have selected some of the most characteristic in,
stances for the purpose of illustration. Finally I wish to call
attention that some of these duplicates were brought to notice
by Frankel (Zu Dem Targum d. Propheten, pp. 39, 40).
Duplications
IS. 18:4 ,,~u,t.','K - (rm, ~'i't.';'Nl) ,i:c,~, 'Cl15 n'..lN
ib. 19:18 c,nn ,,v - :i,nr.i, .,,,r,:rr, r.mw n,:i, Nnii,
One takes o,n ,nc,n while the other would have it as it stands.
This passage of the T. is cited in Menahoth 110a; this duplicate
then is of a comparatively early date. It was noticed by Frankel
Zu Dem T., 40).
ib. 21 :5' pr., ,nr.m - KJ'l (,m1mn) ,i,,,r.i
ib. 33:24 ,r,,,n 1::,t.',' ir.iN' ,:i, - i,::im,c i:cm:iiv, :l'l'IN

.l/it.:) nne NJ?JI l'lliN
According to one the refernce is to the absence of the Shekina;
the other is a simpler rendering.
ib. 38:17 Cl?W) i1Ji1-liNl 1r.,iv 1~:,:: 'JC Nli'ilN '1:!ll? NM
,5Y:i 'lillr.li 1'1:l'ElW 'nlr.l Cl' l'l'lli' i:, l::J:l N'll'Wi5 Ni'ir.l 'l'l"r.l
.,Jc, ,, ir.l 10,r,
The latter is an interpolation. It disagrees with the interpreta-
tion of the T. of c,,w,
mn referring to the pious ones. That
the entire phrase: ir.l ,, ir.l is rendered by the latter is evident
from the rendering - .'lC ,, 1t)
D1Qit1zod by Microsoft
ib. 66:20 m,::i,::i::n - tn:irt"m:i, - 1,::i,::i::i,

However li:Ji:J:i, is missing in Cod. Reuch.
Jerem. 2:3 ,,~n ,,,rt'::i,-N55l1 mr.iiN ;,vr.ii::i-Nmr.iiN ir.llll
In the former Israel is likened to the priestly tithe, in the latter
to the first ripened of the produce before the offering of the
Omer (Com. Rashi and Kimchi I. c.).
ib. 2:16 jj:)jj:) 1,v,, - 10::iJ in:i,, - ,,,:i, i,5~p, .
ib. 13: 19 o,r.i,5t!I n5,n - i,::i,,:i,v nr.i5rt'm N5:JMN
Nr.l?rt' 1?J .
In the former tl,r.i,5rt' is taken in the sense of tl?rt' ; in the latter
tl?rt'-pay.
ib. 20:8 i'lltN i:JiN ,,r., ,::i - n1~r.l1 ,::i:i - NJNi fr.lt:l ,iN
. N?i' tl,ir.l NJN ,::imr.i
Ezek. 16:6 1NiN11,?l1 i:ll1N1 - ,r.,ip l1:Jl1i1:!N tl'i' fi:Ji ?l/1
. . IH1N ,iN 'r.lii' ,5J ,iN ,1'::Ji'i!:lr.l? ,i,,5mN -
ib. 34:9 tl,l1ii1 tl:J5 - N,ll,rt'i - N,DJi!:l f::J:11.
The former read tl,lli ; the latter t:1,11, . This was noticed by
Kimchi. The T. renders n-jri throughout this chapter by N'DJi!:l
In Lag. N,ll,rt'i is omitted .
Am. 6:8 :li'll, pNJ - :!i'll,, Nl11::li - Nrt'ii'r.l i,,:i
The last is the rendering in 8:7; the former is a duplicate.
Mica 1 :10 'l1rt'5.E:>l1i1 i.E:>l1 - !1il'rt''i 1.E:>n - Nr.it,p:i f1rt'5!:ll1'

In Cod. Reuch. l1rt'?!:ll1' is omitted.
ib. 11 Jirt':i ;,,,v - pnn:i pN5,t,il1 - N,,v t5J .
The latter is more literal.
ibid. 5~Ni1 r,,:i i.E:>tlr.l - 'N5W r,,:i i.E:>tlr.l f1:J5 1i':ll/
.. 1,::i:i ,i,, ,~o5 i,, 1,:i,pr.i, poJN r,n,,n, r,::inir.in ,i,:i -
The former renders 5~Ni1 as a p. n., while the latter as 5~N,
near. Com. Rashi and Karo 1. c.
ib. 12 :i,~5 n5n ,::i - Nl'1,i1N5 :in,r.i, Ni:1Dr.l1 - Ni:!Dr.i,
ib. 2:13 tli1'Jb5 l'iEli1 i15l1 - Nl'1'r.lii':l i:J p:it,rt'r.l )1i'D' -

.)1i1'rt',i:l ,:i,r.i 15r.i po,,
The former renders l'i!:l-,,:i,trt'r.l deliverers and cn,Jti5-i1J1rt'Ni:l,
the former, as in the former days, while the latter understood

Y1El as king and CiPJEl5, in their front .
ib. 3 :6 ... ,,r.i:u - i,J,5::i5::i j::l PiP::im::i Nl/1N :u,lN' ,5mN
,;nr.,ip ,:in 1:l NTl,JTl::l ~N' N11 Cl/ 5:U N5,:ir., ,r,,N, - N,Ot.:ll/5
The recenssion, it is obvious, would render this v. in a symbolic
sense. The T. would render it literally. This is evident from
the literal rendering of what follows. On the other hand, the
inserted recenssion may constitute only a portion of a Toseftoic
rendering.
ib. 12 ... c:ut::i - 10:u ,NJD 5:u ~,5 1mnN::i - 1m,5JnN::i
,l/~1 i::ir,r.,5
.Nl/1N
Com. Rashi and Karo; as to the rendering of Cl/l::l Com. Ze.
1:12; Mal. 1:4.
Zech. 3 :7 c,:,5;,r., 15 ,r,m, - i,:i,nr.i 1,5J1 15 tnN, -

. 1J,,nN N,r,r., m,nN::i,
The inserted recenssion would render it symbolically.
ib. 3:8 nr.iY ,,::iJt 11N N,::ir., ,JJi1 - ,5~r,,, - ,r,,~ NJN Nil
Diait1zed by Microsoft (I
Insertions
IS. 1 :24 ,,yr-, tlnJN '\i1 - ('?Jl"lN ,:::i N'V'W1? ,, tl1:J)

ib. 2:22 \!:)N:J i11:lWJ 1WN tl1Ni1 tr-i ,5,n - )\:::l? Wlr-lnN
Nr-l\' 'iN) \i1\!:lN:J t"n rm nr:iW.l1 N?n, i11:JVl:l? Ntt'.lN? N1:JVnWN?O
.N\i1 ::l'Wn Nl:l?:::l\ ('i1ln'? inr-l\ tl'i' Nli1 !'1
ib. 3:15 une tl"JV 'J!:ll - tn'r-i\) tinN )\?:Jl:l N':::l'Wn '!:lN\
. (l\i1' J'1:J
ib. 5:3 l':J\ 'J':J NJ mtw i11\i1' W'Nl tl'?Wli' :JW\' ;,nv,
l:JY N?\ Nn'11N fl:l 1111:l ?N1W' n,:J Ni1 lli1? 11:lN N':JJ) - '~1:::l
. ':Jn, 111:::i (:Jn'o?
The preceding passages of the T. make this rhetoric portion
entirely excessive .
ib. 24:1 i1'.l~ i1Wl - (Nn'11N ?V \1:Jl/1 ?V) Nnii:J ,~nm

There is no more necessity for a reason here than there is for
the preceding tiNi1 nN 1'i'l:J and the following l"l':!tt'' l"!:li11
ib. 30:25 tl'r-l '?::l' tl')?O - :Ji 5mp tll':l - l':::l?l:l' N?Pn)
.t"r-i piJJ l'1'Y::i (p;,,n,cr-i5,
ib. 41 :7 C'1i1 i'tn'l - ~'i'nr-i, (ili1'1:JW:J pni1:J' N?i1)

There is only one other such case, also evidently an interpolation,
this is Ez. 16:20. The T. as a rule knows of no such rhetorical
prefacing.
ib. 57:20 t!11JJ tl':J tl'Vt:!'ii1\ - (tl.li1'J::l ,,,~,)

It is found in Cod. Reuch. only .
Jerem. 1 :6 ':JJN il/J ':::l - NJN N:Ji '1N - Ni'V 'nl1':t':Jl)

.(j'1i1 Nl:ll/ ?V ':JJnr:i N.lN \?Jl
ib. 2: 1 o 1ITT1 tl" n:, "N 11:Jv ,:, - um Nin, 15:::inc:i;,\ ..
p5:11r-i, p;,n,v~ n, l'?~J i1J'ir-l? i1J'1r-ir-i, ,,,5 11:::ir-i t?Ji N'r-ir-iv)
p;,mv~ n, l'r-l'i'Ol Pi1'.l:::i~r-i n, po,::i i,t.:1 P.l'N1 inN:Jl p;,r-iv p;,5
, Nl:llN N'i1 N1'N (tli1? j'1Jtll
ib. 2:27 c:inv, nV:Jl - lli1'?V N'nN Nnt:!':J1 l1'V:Jl - 1'1!:l:J)
.l.l?V c-rn pir:iN ,r-i,i' 1,,r-i (1 ili1'nlV~:J
ib. 4:I :Jlt:!'n '?N - (1n,,tJ cnnnn N? iv) 1n:Jl'n ?:Ji'nn
Com. 31; 17, 20 .
INTERPOLATED TARGUM
ib 51: 1 or, :{, - Kio:, 11,K :m ,v, :,:,.:,.

11;,n,, ,Koir,:i 1,tiw, 1m:i5 o,, (i5itir, poov
511 no KJ l"'i1)
The insertion is in fact a duplicate interpretation of the former,

interpreting or, :,.'.:, to refer to the Chaldeans by the method of
w:inK Com. Karo, the latter takes it in a more literal sense.
Ezek. 13:19 ... rnwtJ no;,5i - ilmo, 11;,5 'In N5i Kn,;,~;
. KO'i'? lli1? 'In 11t5i !WtlJ KO'P?l (lnoo tinN N?)
Two different interpretations are here obviously incorporated.
In the London Poiyg. the reading is: 101r,nn, ,1noo jlnK 11mr.i,
.10,r,o 11nK
Whether this was a correction by the editor due to misunder-
standing or it represents a different reading, it adds emphasis
to the fact that the passages in question are insertions.
ib. 16:5 Kr.in,, - (Kin K::m p:,~ ,:ivr.i5) p:,5 Ni1;K5

. p;,~,, Kon,~ 11:i,,:iv:o
ib. 16:20 nr,m - (5~1C'' nC'D '01i' KIJ1K? n'JO'~ K:l'K)
... ,J:i n ni:i,,
ib. 17:4 ,ow C'Jl/J:l ,,v:,. - NJn5itio N5ti:i, Nl/1N5 ;,,:,::,.Ni
.;,,,e p,m n,r,:i (5N1C'' n:i ;,:,. 11511 N5 ,v,) IVJ:i1 Nl/1K:i
Hos. 10: 11 i11NlY :i.iti 511 m:iv 'JNl - ili1n' nr,iti NJNl
,p;,,,iyo ~r,n ,,J n,vN - oiYr.i ,,:ivwo
Hos. 3 :3 o:i, tl'O' ,:, - ?N1t,'1 NnWJ~ i1?) 10K N'JJ

.Jn5iti5 nrunn i'N'JO po,, (p5m, 11:i, ,r.i,J 11:i:i,n
ib. 7:4 ... tl?:l - NO'i'? 1n,r.i, KO:l ili1'11PO v,ti:i ll?J' p:,.)
p;,r,oo o,,:,. 11;,5 ,,,:ivnNi 11,::iJi i'OJ ,,:i,N K5i 511, (vw, n:icino
.Non N5 ,v NC''? C'?'O i,vo tl'1YOO
The inserted passage has no connection with the rest and renders
irritating the whole passage. Com. Rashi on this v .
ib. 12: 1 5N 011 ,, ,v

rrnn - ptir,nr.i iiil i1ili1' n:i,,
.(!li1V,NO Kil?Ni KOll N?Ji ill) NJn?lti:i
Joel 2:'.\ ,, nn-n N5 ilti5e tlJl - il':i n5 K:itw ~Nl

.(N'll'tl/1?)
Dm1ttzC1d by Microsoft
ib. 4:2 01J:::i ,,1!:l ittiN - -nnc) ... Ni1r.i n?!:l J:::i ,,,:::i,
.(?Ni~ NlliN, ,,no
The inserted portion is found in extant editions, but is omitted

in all other editions, including the princeps edition of Mikraoth
Gedoloth.
Am. 7:14 :,JN ii,l:J ,:, - '~ l'l'N f'Cl'~l NJN '1'1'.l ic
.(~!:)J ~'JOO NJN ?Ni~, NCl/1 ':Jln C11' Jr.l) NJ'15l~:J
ib. 9: 11 .. J'l'J'l'JJl - ,,, .r,,::i, Nm:,5r., J'1N Oli'N N'i1i1 NJ1l/:J

'JD ,y,~m ir.iJm Nm:i,r.i ,:,:::i ~,~m) l'i'nN 1mn~'J:Jl ... n,.oJi
... '5:::i~m J:::inn H'm (Nn,~r.i
This portion, intended for the last three words of the verse, is
to all intent a different version of a sort of a homily, examples of
which are readily presented in the portions of the interpolated
Targumim cited above. The original version seems to have been
replaced by the interpolation .
Mica 7:1 y,p 'l0N:, 'l'1"i1 ,:, - N':J~ ~or.,:, 'l'1'li1 iN

.(Nl/iN IC Nion l1:JN1 1,v:::i)
The inserted passage is merely putting N'J~ ~o,r.i:, of the T.
in other words.
ib. 12 'Jr.l?l il:itr.l il/l il~N 'Jr.l? NlJ' 1'1lll ;:.;1;, Ol'
N!:li''n ,,,p ,,nN tr.ii Nm?.l llt!'J:,.r,, N'i1i1 NJ1l/J - ,11, ,,:i:r.i
. Ni:i: ,,,v, Nn::i, 'Jr.i:nn rr.i,,
The latter part seems to me to belong to the first half of the v.
forming a different rendering, which was incorporated in the
T. to the second part of the v. and displaced the original. The
former renders 'Jr.l as tr.i and ilt!'N - imNwhile the latter, im-
pressed by the sound of the word, would render .'Jr.l?-'Jr.ii,n
Armenia. It was the same case with il:ir.l . Aq. and Theod.
follow the first rendering of the T. The Lxx and P. are some,
what following the interpolated rendering.
ib. 7:14 ,n,m !NY - 1nJonN, Nr.ll/ - (in11 Nli11 Nr.l?l/J

.rm,m,::i p,~, (NninnN?
The inserted portion is entirely disconnected with the rest, has
no reference to any part of the v. It is explaining or com,
plemenung the T. It was inserted with the mtcntion ot import-

mg into this v. a Messianic air, while the T. might not have
taken the v. in this sense.
ib, 7:20 cn,::iN ,en ::ii,11,, ncN inn - n,,i,v u, ,:i,n)

.(10,p ~n::i,o ,::i, ,v ipvnNi pny,
No reference is made in this v. to r,ny, . The interpolator, it
would appear, was anxious to supply this mossion.
Nahum l :6 ,c111 'Jl5 - Nn,,,N inc, Nncn,:i ,,;in,N ,:i)

... 1:i::i ('mr.i,i, 1c ttc5v llT p nr.i115
It has no connection and makes no sense with what follows
It can be, however, connected with the preceding v. ,rt111i tl'"li1
It is probably a recenssion of the rendering of the T. of that
v. and inserted at its end and then misplaced at the beginning
of this v.
D1qttued by Microsoft Ci
ADDITIONS
Quotations from Targurn Jonathan in Talmud and Midrash,

lik~ those from Onkelos, do not carry the name of the author
I<> whom tradition ascribes the composition of the Targum.
In most of the instances in Talmud Babli Targum jonathan is
quoted in the name of Rab Joseph. In two cases Rab Joseph
himself quotes it, while in other cases the quotations arc
mtroduccd by r;~,,n~ . In one case in the Midrash the quota-
non from jonath.m carries the name of Aquila. In the rest
of -t hc cases there is no indication of the source. They are
1usi.' the same quotations from Jonathan. Incidental similarity
c .. nnot serve as a basis for a contrary view, particularly when
.i;,\ml' of the quotations arc of an exegetical nature.
Several quotations in Y erushalmi and Midrash, which l
assumed to be .1 different version of the targumic rendering in
the respective cases, were cited above, However, there are at
least two cases in which the rendering of the Targum is clearly
implied. One is Y. Shckalirn '.2, 6, with reference to Is. 33:21:
;;~11;; i'J11::~ ,~!::~ ,,::v~ ~:,,I'{ I'{~ ;:;I'{ >m ;-,~I'{ 1';)'1 1~1'{1 i~::~
. 1;;::il,'' ~~ ';'11'{ ''.> 1 t:i''';) ,::i i1:JJJ~ ;,:,i.: ;,;I'{
This implies the rendering nf the Targum of ,~, . In Joma
77h the same exposition is accompanied by ;1 quotation from
the Targurn.
The other case is Mech. nn, 9 with reference to ls. 21 :9.
which was quoted above (p. 29, note 43) from Gen. r., namely,
. ,::i::i ;,:,::,; ;i::i ::in:i, ~::i::i m:i~~ 11 n5!::1J 1::1::i i::'!::'~nr.i :!''1
It 1s based on the rendering of the Targum ~1'nJJ ;ii'{ n>::i;
.,::i:::: ~:::i:i~ . Had it not been based on the rendering of the
Targurn (which was well known to the scholar), there would
certainly have followed a note giving the interpretation of the
quotation from Is.
As regards the quotations from the Targum in Babli, it
is well to notice that most of them represent interpretations
of an expository nature. At least in two cases the quotations
represent a different version of the targumic rendering .
146
ADDITIONS 147
Most of the quotations were referred to by De Rossi.

Zunz and Frankel.
Quotations given in the name of Rab Joseph: ,
Moed Katan 26a on 2K 2:12 :
i'l/'1'0 Ni;,, ilNi, 11::5N, ::in::i, t5Jo i111n 11'.:l;:: 1:::l'i1 ,~K) ,:~
5N1W' ::l::l1 ,1r.lN1 1':::l~ i1T ':::lN :~ ,1'~'1:l1 5~1:!I' :::l::11 :~ :~
J1i15 ::i~, '101' ::11 CJ1l"'lr.:ii::, llr.lWr.l 'Nr.l i111Ji 1i':!5:." i::ii i1t 1':!''i!:1
.J'W1tl1 J'::l'Ji1r.l il'l"'l15>:l 5N'i::5
Pesachim 68a on ls. 5: 17 :
1mo::,J, r:io,, :ii CJil"'lr.:ii::i ,vowr.: Nr.:i ,,;:~ ::,J on~ m.: :i-;ri
.J1JCIM' N'P'i> N'll'tVi1 j_
Menachoth 110a on ls. 19:18 :

wow J"'l'::11, Nli'1P r:ioi ::i, tlJil"'loi::i
.i,nJr.:i Nin Nn, iONJ"'IN ::i,nr.:i5 ,,nv,
joma 77b on Is. 33:21 :
,vr.:iwr.:i No ,iJi:Jll' N5 ,,,N ,>, 5"n ;,5,,J .::,,:::i 1;1:v ~,:,
.iDmli N:> Nl"'l::ii Jii::i, 1'1"> mto::i il'::l 5tn .i-:5 ;-,c:,, :, o.::,n,~:,
Aboda Zara 44a on Is. 41 : 16 :
:ioi, CJil"'lr.ii::i ,Nm ,,,,r, ~J::5 ,,,, oN~.,, i-:;i, v~::~ ~~l
.J1J':>~5~Ji n,,, J1Jirn JJ'r.lJiJ"'lr.:ii c:i-:::,n m,, mrn
The interpretation of 2S "i :21 is against the rendering
there of the Taruum. It seems that the Azadist would render
,,, CNW'1 in the same sense as CNC'Ji i11'i1 is rendered in the
Targum, namely, and Davit! scattered them. Other Agadists
would adhere to the extant rendering of the Targurn. Hence
the quotation in Rosh Hashana 22b. In the instance here,
however, the quotation is introduced by '101' ::i, OJ1r.o;,::i
and also by pr.:iJil"'IOi:, , one of them is seemingly an inter-
polation .
Joma 32b on Jer. 46:20 :
'Nr.:i vm: ,::i 1r.:im ::i, 1':!t-: ,K1i1 i-:5t)pi
CJil"'lr.:ii::i ,vr.:iwo 'I':'.:) ,N: N: JH:>r.l l'1i' tl'i>'J jj'!j ii!:' il:>Jll t-:1i>
n,11 11li" Nml>O p;,c,p j'Or.ll,' O'i>'.:l rnn 'K' Nm::i,o :ic, ::i,
. nt::ir.:i5
Kiddushin 13a on Hos. 4:2 :
CJ1Ji01:J ,vr.:iwo 'NO ,1l/J.:: or.:i,::i 1>1!: =iKJ1 :;Ji M>11 ::n::i, i1"'N
l'El'01r.:i p::i,n 5v J'.::i,n J1ili::in wJ~ J'J:::i p,,,,t.:1 ;ior :::,
Dtqitued by Microsoft
Nedarim 38a on Am. 7:14:

l<':J.: 1:i i<5, :,JI:( N':JJ N:> il'YON 5N iONi o,r.iv rv, ::1'11:i, 0101,'
'11'J 'iO 'ii:( ;'j01' Ji t:lJi1101:J ,t:l'OPC!' D51J1 '::lJN iP1J :, :,;N
.a<115t>r.l':J '' l'OPWi N;I:(
Baba Kama 3b on Ob. 1 :6:
!'1:J'N ~c,, Ji t:lY'l1101:J ,VOrt'O l:(r., ,1'J1~YO 11/::lJ ,eiv 1C!'!:ln; 1'N
. 'inir.i~o t"5JJ1'1:( ,~v ~"5JnN
Berakoth 28a on Zef. 3:18 :
n,,;,, ,,, nw~ V:Jil:( inN5 l'Dcir.i ,~ i15!l11 5'e11r.lil ,:1 5"J'i ioN
m i<ni vor.110 No .,,n 100 '11lt:lN ,v,or., m i011:( ::im:in ,,,v
n,:i, l1il'tUC, ,v '1'lN Ni:J.1'1 ~c,, :Ji Cl)i1101:J ,l:(,n NiJ111 NJr.11''
.c,r.11,,:i,,,v,~ Jot ,,nN, ,v 5Ni~"
The saying of R. Jehoshua b. Levi is based on the rcn-
dcring of the Targum of this verse, which is: 1:i r,:i:wo ,,n,
11vir~ Jot. The quotation here in the name of Rah Joseph
agrees in sense with the Targum but not in the wording. This
might be explained as being a misquotation. However, the
rhetorical prefacing phrase ... ,i,t,: l:(i::11 , which is missing in
our text, seems to have been in the text of the Agadist. It
was this beginning of the rendering which, it would appear,
caused the complication with regard to the reference. For what
was wanted here was to show that J1J means delay, and the
reference here is to the rendering of this particular word in
the Targum, namely, p::i:,110 11il1 . But because the Targum
of this verse had as the beginning the words nt,: Ni:J.11 the ref-
erence was made to t-:iJ11 although it was dropped from the
Targum.
Kiddushin 72b on Zech. 9:6 :
11':J p:i,i,,~c,,, ::li t:lJi1101:J ,111r.l'N::l i?OO J~'1 'N~ 'ell' i5 N5~
.f'Ni:JU5 n:i i~, m1, !1i1Vil-:J iYi11i5 ,~,::
This is also a different version of the Targum to this verse
Our Targum renders it: i'.:: J1il1 11,::~:: :-~-:::" 11:: p::n"1
.J'l:(i:JU:J
Two quotations are said b)' Rab Joseph:
Sanhedrin 94b on Is. 8 :6 :
~5n iOt,:P 'NO NJl/1' illil t,:5 1-:ii' 'Nil1 N01Ji11 ;,,;,;,N ;'ji:'1' i"~
i'1JJ1 Nin5r.11 o:i n;::i 1,n, ,::i,o, ,,, n::, m:i,r.i:: 11n Noll ;p,
.in5o, iJi f'Yi:. 1N'llin~, n"J::i

ADDITIONS 149
Moed Katan 28h on Zech. 12:11 :

.tu.:i,,n ,eoo::, 05::,,,,::i ,eooil 51l' N1ilil 01::i ,-:r.:N1 K:'i'll ,, ilJlll
NJ1l/J iotci' tco tcwi mil N5 1<1i' ten, nr.it::,n tc5o;tc ~o~ i"tc1
;,,n, 5tii'1 '1r.lll ,:::i JNntc1 N1!:lt:lt:l::l c5::1i: N1:it:l'.:l ;c:, Wi1il
Ni'JM ill/,!) nn )tli'1 )1t:ltc jJ i1't!'N'1 1!lt:l'.:l::i1 111.:l'i::!tl i::l J1'.:l'11il
.11,Jc mm:::i:::i
Quotations preceded by 1Jt:l'lil"1t:l1 :
Nazir, last Mishna, according to the version in Ein- Jakob,
on 1S l :11 :
. m5v snn tc5 e1mc m,o, 1;r.,;1no1 1ctc, ,v n~v :"i< ;,11':1
Rosh Hashana 22b on 2S 5 :21 :
, 1'tt'JN' 111 CNt:''1 J' n::,1 N1il i1i''1 u.,, ...
,,.., .;,
.111 1'J'1i'11<1 !J't:llim,i
Moc<l Katan 2a on ls. 62:5 :
511:::i ,::, :n::i, tc1i1 Nm:::in,;,1 1<Jc,; 511::in n: tc;:1 v,;:ci.:i tc1=1
1,:::ini,n i-tn51n::i 011 c:,,v ::imn-:,1 tci.:i:i 'itc tJ''.:lliil~, ,;,:,i.n: ,,n::
,1"JJ 1'1l::l
Quotations without reference to the Targum:
Sanhedrin 9fa on ls. 10:32 :
n5rN 'N tc15:::i n5 ir.it-l .J1J 5:: ;,;,v,:, i"n::J crn 1m1< N'::liil i"K
ili~l/J "Ut:15 tcl/.:::11 Nn,,tc .i15 n,::i 1<5 tc~ 1-t1 ;,:, n5::i NJ1'Nil
p501 111 ,'i'ino::i ;,,; ,:: c,::~,,; 1U'-' : .1<'::l1' 1n: t-e;o ''::lr
.il'J'll.J itinN il"tn :; .c,::1-: ;,;,::i, mrn, 1v ,n,1;; ~~ll~ ::in,
i15ll1 n,~o 5::i r,~;iiN i15ll1 05::1,1 Ni1ii' s-n N1 1<5il ir.)tc
n::::i::i1 N'r.lt:lll :ii:, 5:o tc::,n, tci'l/1 tc'i1 1<:'ii1 ,l<nJ'1'::l 5::: n::::i:,
n::i ,,ti 511 n1:::i ,n,,t.::i 5:n.:i n::i::i 1;'::l1 cp1 .n,v 1 :iipn:i.
... iotc c5::11::i1 Nn,rv 511 1r~::i1 tc::1po
The portion beginning tci N5il is found in all editions of the
Targum, and has been considered above (p. 132). At any
rate, the portion beginning 1'Jr.l1 t:li'1 is the targumic rendering
of the verse.
Shabbath 128a on Josh. 7:21:
.N5r.:1 1<5tlOl:ol iCtc 'Otoe 'i ,ill;:: l"1i1tc ;;::::i t-eitc1
The rendering of rrn in Targum is tc5tl~'tc .
A quotation of the Targum to Nahum 3, 8, preceded by
JJoJino in Gen. r. I :
N:Jt) ntci1 IJ't:llil"1C1 ,r,,;:i< NJ': :c.,r,;, l(~'in ;,,;:::, l<i1:i p,:,t-e
.NniilJ l'J N::ll"1'1 tci1Ji tc'i1JO::i5tcr.i
D1mtucd by Microsoft <i-

150 TARGUM JONATHAN TO T HE PROPHETS
Ecc. r. 11, 3 quotes the Targurn to ls. 5:6 in the name

oi Aquila:
N'N'::lJ 5v, ,,t,~ ,,,v 1t)r.:iir.: i11~K c:::ivi1;v,
1;i1 c::,:ivv cr:n
. KT1KlJ; jli15 JlKJ;r,, K:>1 1P.ElK
Y. Shabbath 6, 4 contains a translation of Is. 5:18-23.
Some of the rendering coincide with those in the Targum,
namely: rmc-n - l'N1't!I (Targum N'1' '1'~). m1N.Eli1-N5,5::, ;
mv.:: it)i1-N"Pl'V (Targum xnPIV). The rendering of C'Jl1i1Ci1
:.___ il'PJW follows the T. Jud. 8:21, to which reference is made
(The T. here having K':J::lO agrees with K"5 on the margin
of Cod. Reuch. to Juel. I. c. having for NPJ'll-N'::l::l't:1). N't!l1P
as the rendering of C't!lii:iiil is the translation in the T. of
:niJil ,r,::i . Then: arc good reasons for the supposition that
this is a version of the Targum to these verses. Com. ilt!I!: 'Jtl
I. C.
Y. Taanith 2, 'i: .l'J1 c,,n, C'ElN lN mr., ,5 i"t<
The renrering of C'ElN 111< in the Targum to Joel 2: 13 1s
m p,n,c . (Also On. Exod. 34:6; Ps. Jon. having M'1 11N).
Psichta Lam. r. 16 on Jer. 4:18: 1;,,110, 1:ii, ,, ilt!ll/ 'Ol
KT1K1'10 1'1::lUll KT1K:!,''::l l'T1n1lK . This agrees with the Tar-
gum except that the latter has instead of NT1N1'10 - N'5P5vo ;
It is to be noticed that both this and the preceding citation
contain exegetical renderings .
Lev, r. 6, 4: l'tlilJt:l1 l:>K l';"~tli1 p5to: l';i1>:i11 .::;:~EJ~r.:i1 .
Targum l'OilJtl"ll l'.El~Jr.,"I .
Lev. r .. 5, 2; Exod. r. 10:5 on Am. 6:4 J't:liV 511 j~ rnec
;,,;:i, . Targum 5!:l"I Jt!l::l )t!'::l::lr.:1 JD,V 511 l::l::lt:'1 .
Can. r ;,1,n:: on Ez. 16:61 n,J:::i5 mr.: ... j;r., ,.,, ii'i1V1 Nii:
. f'Jill:i5
This is the usual rendering of nu:::i5 in the Targum (com.
vv. 46, 48, 49, 57), although in this verse the rendering is
KVr.:T1t!IK~. R. jochanan would have here also the usual ren-
dcring .
Finally, there is the use of t<illWt) for idols in Yerushalmi
-md Mi<lrashim. Com. Y. Berakoth 9, 1 5:::i:::i::i i,nnmlt)l K:Jil JlJ't<
Jlilt:,ll p;,nnl/t)l K::lil JlJ'Kl ,r.,,i:::i jlii:im:::i, ~:iii ii.J'Nl ; Y. San
I 0, 2: i:1::lnll/t.)5, i:1::l~ 'lK . As ~nm;t) is the peculiar render
ing in the Targumim of idols, it is reasonable to assume that
ADDITIONS 151
this descriptive term came into use in the Yerushalmi from

the Targum.
2.
The toseftoic portions which were examined in the chap-

ta on Interpolated Targumim <lo not represent all the Mid-
rashic additions to Targum Jonathan. Many more are to be
found in the commentaries of Kimchi, Rashi and other Rab
binical sources. A great number of fragmentary Targumim are
found on the margin of Cod. Reuch. All of which were col-
leered and elaborated by Bacher (Z. D. M. G., v. 28, p. l
et seq.).
' On close examination it will be found that those frag-
rnents on the margin of Cod. Reuch: which are headed by
_t:i,, ,,,n ,'nt~ hn an<l 'nN '!:lO. have many .characteristic points
11;. common. Hence there is no ground for an insistence on
a. _line of division between them as is held, by Bacher. They
1:1aY. have ,1 common source. Or, certain fragments in each
~roup may be assigned to an earlier date and a different source
than the rest. It will be noticed. that the additions to the
Targum of Is. 49:24, 25, which in Cod. Reuch. is referred to
,,,n
t:'1i' is designated in the extant editions N"11.
In the main, the fragments described as ,w,,, ,,,n, 1n~ ,,,n
and n~ ~c contain current Agadic expositions. But while
to the, group of 'W1i' ,,,n. belong the larger portions,
there is hardly any peculiar characteristic either with regard
to material or language to justify its placing in a separate
category. Furthermore, all of them _exhibit a dependence on
Targum Jonathan. So 'C'11' on Judges 12:6 following Jon.
... ,5t:>i,n~, NJ1i' nt')t.:lJ ;,,5 J'C:m n5 11,nNi. Com. also 5:4, 5'
and on Josh. 14:15. It is quoting Jon. to lK 8:27 and 2K 21:16
(Yerush. on .Js. 66:6). As t_o N"n an<l ~"c com. N"ci N"n
on Jcrcm. 9:22 .. nnr.i:nnJ Nr->:in ,,, iJ nr.i5t:J nJnt:- N5 . ~"n
on Zech. 11 :8 511 tinn ir->r.i vn,, ... ~'CJi:l ~n5n n n~::i
Jn51!:lJ N:iv pnnti1!:lJ1. Also on Is. 45:7, which are so rendered
m Targum Jonathan.
All these groups contain fragments which either explain
or are complementing the rendering of Jonathan.
Dm1t1zc,d by Microsoft <f

152 TA R G U M ,JO N A TH A N TO TH E PRO PH E TS
ci1 on Josh. 22 :20 ;,:1,n:1 11'1.:l ~5 in ~;::; ~~;,, . Yerush.

,r. ~,:u j:n11:, tt:ii ~J:ii<::i c::ir. Nm,. Com. also on Judges 1:3.
N"ll on Josh 6:1 N!::i'llt:ii N5tit, l't.\'1:J N1'Ti~ 1n11
t-:,r.Nnt:li . N"n adds N:!'TiJ1 j',Jl/J. N"c on 1 S 26:20 q,i,11t:ii ilt:i:l
i1N1H> complementing N1,~:i i1N1ii' N'lii'l.; ;::: ;i,,,
i1r.)J .
Also explaining the Targum Josh 4:19 i1~t')1i' Nn15 - ~n,5
. 1cJi
So that there 1s scarcely any foundation for a supposition
that they represent three distinct sources. There is equally no
basis for ,1 theory of an earlier Targum to the Prophets of
which the 'TiN 'tC or even ;;,i; and N"ll arc remnants.
Certain portions arc admittedly late. Such, for instance as
ls. 49:24, 2 5 and its parallel on Is. 66:5 which have made their
way into the text of the Targum (the latter is found in the
6rst Bomberger edition). They bear the traces of the Arabic
era. The fact also that the ,w,1 on l S 17 :8 interpreting
011:1,i,, 11Ni - ,me ~, n, is not quoted by Rab Joseph, the
author of this interpretation in Babli (Keth. 9h) shows that
this Targum was not known yet at that time. Then, their
dependence on Jon. and also on Onkclos (corn. 'te''1'
on Judges 18,3 following Onk. Exod. 3:5; 32:1; Deut. 5:28;
2 3 :4; Also ':!''1' on IS 17 :8 ,,o ,,, N1r.l't:l ,11 !'1t:lN l111N ON~
.. N:l"1i' tr.'li; which is the rendering in Onk. of ilt:ln5t:l ~"N 'i1 ,
Exod. 1 5 :3) would tend to place their origination at a date
subsequent to that of the official Targumim .
However, although of a comparatively later date, they
have preserved some earlier and later displaced renderings of
the Targum. Herc are the instances in the Yerushalmi:
1t:1i1 on Josh. 5:3 1'11'1:l ; Jon. J'E,in. Jud. 3:31 NCNCt,J
,m, ; Jon. ,,,11, :i,~:i ; 4:21 rc-e 11 ; Jon. 1t:r'l 11' ; 5 :4
u:,1nN Nt:lt,:, ; Jon. i:,'::> ; 2K 11 :12 N::i5r.i ri' ; Jon. n,~, ;
1 3 :21 j1'::>M ; Jon. m ; Noo5,e Jon. n,~o ; i,p:;o, ; Jon.
1-:,1,; 16:3 vin,::i ; Jon. n:ll/in:, ; 19:35 pi5w ; Jon. ,,.,,e ;
ib. 37 ~:l!:lN ; Jon. i:ir,nl!''N; Is. 21 :5 NJ''liiJ ip,;,~ ; Jon
p~,::ic i-:,t,~ . As for those in 'TiN '!:C /TiN '"111 com. Bacher I. c.

PINKHOS CHURGIN, Targum Jonathan To The Prophets (Khazarzar)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PINKHOS CHURGIN, Targum Jonathan To The Prophets (Khazarzar)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PINKHOS CHURGIN, Targum Jonathan To The Prophets (Khazarzar)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

YALE ORIENTAL SERIES

PROFESSOR CHARLES CUTLER TORREY

Diait1,wd bv Microsoft Ci-

The Aramaic rendering of the Prophets belongs to the earliest

Y erushalm i 1> there is complete silence of this tradition of the

So the inference was drawn that the Aramaic version of the

4) Berliner (Onkelos 108110) has even the idea of a complete

Y et they are not traced to their respective translators. Such

Aquila's authority, then, in these cases is a mistake. One other

Furthermore, Targum Jonathan is quoted in Babli, in many

in the instance of the Targumic citation on Is. 33 :21 put in the

There is no need to dwell at length on the fanciful hypo,

terpretation of Ez. 9:6; Shab. 26a on Jercm. 52:16; Shab. 54b;

13) Geiger, Ursch. 163; Carpeles, History (Heb.) 159.

h igh ly p ow erful im agin ation w ou ld be taken by its suggestive,

W ith th e collap se of th ese th eories; w ith the tradition in

It should be first borne in mind that these theories

1 5) Luzzatto, Oheb, VIII; Rapaport I. c.

It is further assumed that the revision was made

The same may be said, in a certain measure, of the Agada.

com. Rosenthal in Weiss' Beth Talmud, 2, 284. The adduced evidence,

20) Some examples: Is. 17:8; Kethuboth 9b; Ezek. 1:14;

mentary Targum may serve as instructive illustrations. Finally,

But this does not imply that no change was introduced in

This will be discussed later. The substance was left un-

It should be noticed at the outset that tradition assigns an

22) Rosenfeld's long list of supposed deviations from the M. T.

Dmtt,zcid by M,c, osoft (I.)

dering or attempt to emend them, just because they appeared

The elimination of anthropomorphisms, so persistently

It will be of some interest in this connection to note the

23) Com. Meg. 23b; Tos. Meg. 3; Rosh Hashana 27a.

(Ps. 119:73).26> This reavels the notions of a later generation,

26) L. Ginsburg in the Jewish En. Anthropo. seemingly failed to

D,ntt,wd by Microsoft {i-

31) Wisdom 18:15. Com. also 16:12; 4 Esd. 6:38.

is a later emendation, probably to escape the rigors of the censor. It

meant.361 I am persuaded to believe that the targumist had

36) Com. Ant. XX, 8, 8; Pesachim 57a; Tos. Menachoth end.

This is certainly an early T.; v. 14 is interpreted literally.

Dmit,zC'd by Microsoft 0-,

would unhesitatingly give themselves Greek names. But this

The reference in T. to Ez. 39:16 to the destruction of Rome

Mi. 5 :9, 10, 12 ... 1n::i::i,o ni::iNm 1::i,po 11:1,1:1 ,n,:,m

Another allusion to a contemporary situation is found in

horrcnce for th e p u b lican , w h o w as con sidered an outlaw , 38 >

38) Corn. B. Kama 113a, Mish.; Shah. 39a; San. 25b.

42) This conception has its ongm in the saying of R. Jochanan

Babylonia in an earlier period was looked upon with admiration

are pointing to a pre, D estruction date, som e to a period im -

44) De Rossi Meor Enaim I. c.; Herzfeld, Geschichte I. c.; Zunz,

ib. 3:13 .. 1J 11011,, Targum N::li,11. So Onk. of Cl't:l nen

46) Kohut's suggestion on these renderings (Aruch 01,,j:)!lll)

Digltlwd by Mici'O soft

ib . 15 :7 ,,~ T argu m KiJn So O n k. G en . 2 5: 18 . P s. Jon .

ib. 23 :22 iJ,::,m Targum iJ'imKi. So Onk. Exod. 16:4.

l K. 18:28; 5:16 ,,,m,, Targum lr.ir.innKi. Also Jerem.

48) This is true only when it is spoken of profanation of God

ib . 11:2 ; 12 :3 nnI::, Targurn ntmu . So Onk. and Ps. Jon.