CHAPTER FIFTEEN

לא מתרגם בציבורא—NOT TO BE TRANSLATED IN PUBLIC

Introduction

The subject of “forbidden targumim” has been discussed periodically in papers devoted to the specific topic, as well as in more general studies of the relationship between the targumim and other rabbinic literature.1 The point of departure of these studies has understandably been the lists contained in the Tannaitic sources and the discussion of those lists in the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds. Much effort has been expended in trying to establish a “correct version” of the lists, in identifying the passages in question, and in search of a rationale for each of the particular forbidden items. As readily observed, there is almost complete unanimity among the rabbinic lists regarding the passages in the Pentateuch that “may The Mishnah .נקראין ואינן מתרגמין ”,be read, but not translated (m. Megillah 4:10), Tosefta (t. Megillah 4:35 ff ), and the later Talmudic sources2 all agree that the “Story of Reuben” (Gen 35:22) and the “sec- ond account of the [golden] calf” (Exod 32:21–35) fall into this cat- egory. The only other Pentateuchal passage assigned to this group is “the priestly blessing” (Num 6:24–26), according to the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds (b. Megillah 25b; y. Megillah 75c). But this seems to be based upon a compounded error. J. Heinemann has argued rather convincingly that the statement regarding the “priestly blessing” was not originally related to the weekly Torah reading or its rendition

1 E.g., A. Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel (Breslau, 1857), pp. 367–70 ,Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1949, 1972, pp. 237–38); A. Berliner המקרא ותרגמיו =) Targum Onkelos, Zweiter Theil (Berlin, 1884), pp. 217–18; M. Ginsburger, “Verbotene Thargumim,” Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 44 (1900), 1–7; M. McNamara, “Some Early Rabbinic Citations and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch,” Rivista degli Studi Orientali 41 (1966), 1–15; and The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch [Analecta Biblica 27, 27a], Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1966, 1978, pp. 46–49, 292; J. Heinemann, “ ‘The Priestly Blessing . . . is Not Read,’” Bar-Ilan 6 (1968), 33–41 (in Hebrew; English synopsis on p. xiii); P. S. Alexander, “The Rabbinic Lists of Forbidden Targumim,” JJS 27 (1976), 177–91. 2 b. Megillah 25b; y. Megillah 75c; and m. Soferim 9:9, 10. 190 chapter fifteen into an Aramaic Targum. Rather, its context was the priestly “rais- ing of the hands” to bless the people in the synagogue, during which the priests were to recite the blessing by heart, and not read it from -It was only due to the formulary similar 3.לא נקראת ,a written text לא נקרא ,ity with rulings related to the public reading of the Torah that the law regarding ,ולא מתרגם, נקרא ולא מתרגם, נקרא ומתרגם the priestly blessing was at a very early period compiled in the same The logic seems .ולא מתרגם Mishnah, and received the added phrase to have been that if it may not be read in the original Hebrew, then surely it is not to be translated into Aramaic. The later Amoraic state- ments are, then, an attempt at “correction”: it was unreasonable for an innocuous, or even benedictory passage to be omitted from the public reading. The statement was therefore altered to “may be read, but not Thus evolved the various contradictory .נקרא ולא מתרגם ”,translated and inexplicable rulings regarding the reading and translating of the priestly blessing. This being the case, there remain only the two above- mentioned Pentateuchal passages, the story of Reuben and the second account of the golden calf, that according to the Tannaitic sources were to be “read but not translated” in the synagogue. In contrast to the general agreement found among the rabbinic lists, we are confronted with quite a lot of variance in the extant manu- scripts of the targumim of the Pentateuch. As noted by P. S. Alexander for the Palestinian Targum according to MS Neofiti 1, this goes far beyond the two or three passages in the rabbinic lists.4 Likewise, as already pointed out by A. Berliner over a century ago,5 there are Masoretic notes to Onqelos which indicate that certain verses of tar- gum are not to be recited in the public synagogal services. These, too, are not limited to the passages indicated in the rabbinic lists. In fact, the avoidance of written translation in targumic manuscripts and the instructional notes against reciting certain passages in public worship are much more widespread than has been previously recorded. It is these two phenomena that I should like to describe and explain in the remainder of the present article.

3 See. n. 1, Heinemann. 4 See n. 1, Alexander. 5 A. Berliner, Die Massorah zum Onkelos (Berlin, 1875), p. 20 (= Leipzig, 1877, pp. 59, 84). See also S. Landauer, Die Masorah zum Onkelos (Amsterdam, 1896; reprinted Jerusalem, Makor, 1971), individual notes on pp. 25, 156. [See, now, M. L. Klein, MTO (Binghamton: Global-SUNY, 2000), pp. 4–5 and passim.]