Alternative Targum Traditions Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture

Managing Editor Paul V.M. Flesher University of Wyoming

Editorial Board Bruce Chilton Bard College Willem Smelik University College, London Moshe Bernstein Yeshiva University Edward M. Cook Catholic University of America Luis Díez Merino University of Barcelona

VOLUME 9 Alternative Targum Traditions

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

By Alberdina Houtman Harry Sysling

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2009 This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Houtman, Alberdina. Alternative targum traditions : the use of variant readings for the study in origin and history of targum Jonathan / by Alberdina Houtman and Harry Sysling. p. cm. — (Studies in the Aramaic interpretation of scripture ; v. 9) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-17842-7 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Prophets (Nevi’im). Aramaic—Versions—Targum Jonathan—History. 2. Bible. O.T. Prophets (Nevi’im—Quotations in rabbinical literature. I. Sysling, Harry. II. Title. III. Series.

BS1286.A4A734 2009 224.04’2—dc22 2009022045

ISSN 1570-1336 ISBN 978 90 04 17842 7

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Brill has made all reasonable efforts to trace all right holders to any copyrighted material used in this work. In cases where these efforts have not been successful the publisher welcomes com- munications from copyright holders, so that the appropriate acknowledgements can be made in future editions, and to settle other permission matters.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands Contents

Acknowledgements ...... ix

Abbreviations and Signs ...... xi 1. Bible and Targum ...... xi 2. Rabbinic Literature ...... xi 3. Journals, Books & Series ...... xii 4. Signs Used in the Reproduction of the Texts ...... xiii

Introduction ...... 1 Why this book? ...... 1 What to expect? ...... 2

Chapter One – Preliminary Issues ...... 7 A. Definition: What is a Targum? ...... 7 1. The semantic field of ‘targum’ in rabbinic literature ...... 7 2. The character of Targum as a Bible translation according to rabbinic literature ...... 14 3. Characteristics of Jewish Bible translations according to early Christian sources ...... 15 4. Modern definitions ...... 16 5. Different targum types ...... 21 6. Targum characteristics ...... 25 7. Qumran Aramaic versions ...... 27 B. Background to the Targums ...... 32 1. The raison d’être ...... 32 2. Sitz im Leben ...... 35 C. Survey and Conclusions ...... 39 vi contents

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

Chapter Three – Quotations of Targumic Passages from the Prophets in Rabbinic and Medieval Sources ...... 137 A. Survey of Previous Research on Targumic Quotations ...... 137 B. How to Define a Quotation ...... 142 1. Explicit quotations ...... 144 2. Implicit quotations ...... 147 3. Philological interpretation of biblical words ...... 152 contents vii

C. Exchangeability of Aramaic and Hebrew Quotations ...... 153 D. Sources: Characterisation of the Material in the Different Sources ...... 155 1. Quotations from the Prophets in the Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch ...... 155 2. Quotations from the Prophets in Targum Esther Sheni and Targum Canticles ...... 172 3. Quotations from the Prophets in the Tosefta Targums ...... 181 4. Quotations from the Prophets in magical texts ...... 192 5. Quotations from the Prophets in the Babylonian Talmud ...... 194 6. Quotations from the Prophets in the Palestinian Talmud ...... 208 7. Quotations in the Midrashim ...... 214 E. Survey and Conclusions ...... 231

Chapter Four – Summary and Conclusions ...... 235 A. Evaluation of the Terminology ...... 235 B. Assessment of the Variants ...... 237 C. The Origin and Early Development of the Targum of the Prophets ...... 238 1. The common opinion ...... 239 2. Evaluation of the evidence ...... 240 3. Sitz im Leben ...... 247 4. Epilogue ...... 249

Appendix One – Targumic Quotations from the Prophets in the Order of the Works in which they Appear ...... 251 A. Targum, Magical Texts and Rabbinic Literature ...... 251 1. Targum ...... 251 2. Magical texts ...... 253 3. Talmud ...... 254 4. Midrash ...... 255 viii contents

B. Medieval Works ...... 257 1. Late Midrash and Kabbalah ...... 257 2. Dictionaries and lexical works ...... 258 3. Bible and Bible commentaries ...... 261 4. Tosafot and other commentaries on rabbinic literature ...... 263 5. Piyyut and prayer books ...... 264

Appendix Two – Targumic Quotations from the Prophets in the Biblical Order ...... 266

Bibliography ...... 270 Primary Literature ...... 270 Secondary Literature ...... 276

Index of Primary Sources ...... 290 Biblical References ...... 290 Early Christian Literature ...... 299 Early Jewish Literature ...... 299 Rabbinic Literature ...... 299 Medieval Literature ...... 304 Acknowledgements

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

Amersfoort, March 2009 x Abbreviations and Signs

1. Bible and Targum CGF Cairo Genizah Fragments FT(s) Fragment Targum(s) FTN Fragment Targum, ms Nürnberg — Stadtsbibliothek Solger 2.2 FTP Fragment Targum, ms Paris — Bibliothèque Nationale Hébr. 110 FTV Fragment Targum, ms Vatican Ebr. 440 HT Hebrew text of the Bible, not necessarily the MT mt masoretic text Neof targum Neofiti Neof [M] targum Neofiti, marginal glosses nt new Testament PsJon Pseudo-Jonathan PT(s) Palestinian Targum(s) Tg targum TJ targum Jonathan to targum Onkelos TT(s) tosefta Targum(s)

2. Rabbinic Literature AgBer Aggadat Bereshit ARN Avot de Rabbi Nathan b. babylonian Talmud BerRabbati bereshit Rabbati DeutR deuteronomy Rabbah EcclR ecclesiastes Rabbah EcclZ Ecclesiastes Zutta ExodR Exodus Rabbah CantR song of Songs Rabbah GenR genesis Rabbah LamR lamentations Rabbah LevR leviticus Rabbah m. mishnah MasSof massekhet Soferim xii abbreviations

Mek mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael MidrPss midrash Psalms MidrSam midrash Samuel MRS mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yo hai. NumR numbers Rabbah PesR Pesikta Rabbati PRE Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer PRK Pesikta de-Rav Kahana RuthR ruth Rabbah SER seder Eliahu Rabbah SifrDeut sifre Deuteronomy SifrNum sifre Numbers t. tosefta Tan tan huma. TanB tan huma. Buber y. Palestinian Talmud YalkSh Yalkut Shimoni

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

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

4. Signs Used in the Reproduction of the Texts textual emendation [א ] [ ] missing text [?] difficult to read < > completion by the editor ( ) text to be erased completion by the copyist {א }

Introduction

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

1 J.C. de Moor et al. (eds), A Bilingual Concordance to the Targum of the Prophets, 21 Vols, Leiden [etc.], 1995–2005. 2 The committee existed of Moshe Bernstein, Luis Díez Merino, Paul Flesher, Al- berdina Houtman (chair), Rimon Kasher, Stephen Kaufman and Willem Smelik. 2 introduction was feasible, and if so, to set out specific goals and to devise a process and an administrative structure to accomplish it. The committee determined that a text edition project was both desirable and possible, provided that sufficient funds could be raised and human resources re- cruited, and wrote a proposal for its realisation by the name of ITTEP (International Targum Text Edition Project).3 At the 2004 congress of the iots this proposal was accepted. It was clear, however, that more preliminary work was needed before this enterprise could really start. Amongst other things a design had to be made for the classification of variant readings. Any new project should not only employ the techno- logical advances of the past twenty-five years, but also represent a gen- uine advance in textual criticism. An active assessment of the different readings, aimed at inferring the base from which variants were gener- ated and the genealogical relationship among the variants, was set out to be the principal goal of the project. For that reason, documentary assessment, Targum by Targum, would need to be coordinated with an evaluation of the criteria of adjudication. In that way, the project would offer a basis for the study of the history of interpretation as well as textual and linguistic study. Only on the basis of the assessment of the variants could it be decided whether they should be incorporated in the apparatus and what place and value they should be given. With the present work, which endeavours to study and classify variant traditions in the Targum of the Prophets, we hope to contribute to a better assessment of part of the variant readings of the Prophets in the build-up to a new critical edition of Targum Jonathan. In the course of our investigations, we also felt the need to think through the terminology used in this field of study, especially the terms ‘t/Targum’, ‘Tosefta Targum’ and ‘quotation’ since it is not always clear what is meant by these terms. Therefore part of our work is devoted to matters of definition.

What to expect?

As mentioned above, we believe that there are two lines of research that can possibly shed light on the formative period, namely (1) investigation into the Tosefta Targums and (2) study of the quotations from alternative Targum traditions that occur in rabbinic and medieval

3 http://targum.info/IOTS/TEECprop36.pdf (accessed Oct. 31, 2008). introduction 3

Jewish literature. Let us briefly explain what we mean, starting with the Tosefta Targums. The origin of the Tosefta Targums and their relation to Targum Jonathan is still largely unexplained. As regards their contents they seem to be rooted in Palestine, while some of them also reflect some knowledge of the Babylonian Talmud and late Midrashim, though the evidence is not entirely conclusive.4 Their language also exhibits at times a Babylonian influence.5 These seemingly contradictory characteristics are hard to reconcile. In rough outline there are three possibilities: (1) the Tosefta Tar- gums may contain ancient traditions that have been adapted to a more formal style at a later date; (2) they may be later extensions of an originally formal translation; or (3) they may be alternative translations that existed alongside the formal translations and probably had another function. If the first case holds true, then part of the pre-history of Targum Jonathan could well be recoverable through an analysis of these Tosef- tas as possible remnants of the older Palestinian Targum tradition. We must though also consider the possibility that the Toseftas are not a corpus at all, but that they are rather a stray collection of all kinds of targumic traditions, varying from old traditions that for one reason or another did not become part of Targum Jonathan to younger traditions that are the result of later developments.

The second line of research concerns the targumic quotations in other Jewish sources. In view of the numerous quotes in rabbinic and medieval exegetical works, it is clear that the ancient Aramaic interpretations played an important role in the work of later exegetes. The interesting point now is that besides numerous more or less literal quotations from Targum Jonathan, there are also quotations that have no parallel in this corpus. These quotations may turn out to be of con- siderable importance for the reconstruction of possible precursors of Targum Jonathan. In any case they show that the material surviving in Targum Jonathan is only a portion of an originally larger body of targumic traditions.

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

Although it is because of the briefness of some of the quotations not always possible to classify the material dialectically, part of it is decidedly Palestinian. Therefore, with these fragments of what Goshen- Gottstein coined ‘lost targums’ we now have Palestinian-type renderings of the Targum to the Prophets where hitherto we only had Tar- gum Jonathan and the Tosefta Targums.6 In our view, the Tosefta Targums and the ‘lost targums’ must be analysed in relation to the text of Targum Jonathan. The material must be studied as concerns its linguistic usage as well as its cultural and theological content. Though of course we are not the first to try this approach, we are the first to combine the two lines of research in one study. In the following chapters we will give amongst other things an overview of the work that has already been done. The major studies on the subject are the book of Rimon Kasher on the Tosefta Targums and of the late Moshe Goshen-Gottstein on the fragments of lost targums.7 Both studies are in Hebrew, and therefore regrettably not as easily accessible as desirable. Moreover the books are currently unavailable. Also some of the other — especially the older — scholarly publications are not always easy to get to. In the present study therefore we bring together older knowledge and insights and in the process try to advance knowledge of the subject. The combination of the two lines of research, the Tosefta Targums and the targumic quotations, will hopefully shed new light on the long-standing question of whether the different traditions should be interpreted as converging or diverging tendencies within the evolution of the text, or as representing two different traditions each with its own typologically different variants. Moreover, we hope that our investigations will bring us nearer to an answer to the question of whether there ever existed a complete Palestinian Targum of the Prophets.

For reasons of efficiency we decided to concentrate our research on the Tosefta Targums to Targum Samuel, because our colleague Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman is working on a pilot project for a new scholarly

6 M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, ‘Aspects of Targum Studies’, 9th WCJS, Panel Sessions Bible Studies and Ancient Near East, Jerusalem 1988, 35–44, at 39. His collection of שקיעים מתרגומי המקרא ,lost Targums’ was published in: M.H. Goshen-Gottstein‘ .Vols, Ramat-Gan 1983–1989 2 ,הארמיים Jerusalem 1996; M. Goshen-Gottstein (with ,תוספתות תרגום לנביאים ,R. Kasher 7 -Vols, Ramat 2 ,שקיעים מתרגומי המקרא הארמיים ,(the assistance of Rimon Kasher Gan, 1983–1989. introduction 5 edition of that Targum. By focussing on evidence for Targum Samuel our finds can be helpful to her work. In turn her experience on the manuscript material of this Targum may shed light on our subject of research. The chapter on the targumic quotations on the other hand includes targumic quotations from all the Books of the Prophets in targumic and rabbinic literature and in magical texts.

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

Chapter One

Preliminary Issues

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

A. Definition: What is a Targum?

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

1. The semantic field of ‘targum’ in rabbinic literature can have two different meanings: (1) ‘to speak תרגם√ ,In rough outline aloud, deliver, proclaim’ and (2) ‘to translate, interpret’.2 This broad

1 We write ‘Targum’ with a capital letter when it refers to extant written targumic works and ‘targum’ in lower case when it concerns the genre, the act, or particular instances of rendering into Aramaic. 2 See also Z. Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, in: S. Safraiet al. 8 chapter one semantic field allows the verb and its related nouns to be used in quite a few different ways. We recount the different possibilities with some examples.

1.1. Aramaic language In some cases the word ‘targum’ is used for words or passages in the Bible that are originally in Aramaic. It becomes then synonymous with ‘Aramaic’ and has nothing to do with translation. We give two examples. The first example comes from a tannaitic source,m.Yad 4:5,3 where it says: תרגום שבעזרא ושבדניאל מטמא את הידים תרגום שכתבו עברית ועברית שכתבו תרגום וכתב עברי אינו מטמא את הידים לעולם אינו מטמא עד שיכתבנו אשורית על העור ובדיו: ‘Targum’ that is in Ezra and in Daniel renders the hands unclean. ‘Targum’ that has been written in Hebrew script,4 or Hebrew that has been written in ‘targum’5 or in Hebrew script, does not render the hands unclean. It never renders the hands unclean unless it is written in Assyrian script, on leather, and in ink. The second example is taken from a much later source, namely the post-talmudic Massekhet Soferim 1:9–10. This text prescribes how to treat foreign words in the Bible text. כל התורה כולה עברית היא, אלא שיש בה ששה דברים של תרגום, והכי קאמר, כל הדברים של עברית אל יכתוב תרגום, ושל תרגום אל יהפכם, כגון יגר, גל, שהדותא, עדות, ויש אומרים לא דברו אלא על יגר שהדותא ועל גלעד, שהן שני לשונות, עיברית ותרגום The whole Torah is completely in Hebrew, but it contains six words of ‘targum’. And thus it says: all the words in Hebrew one should not write in ‘targum’, and in ‘targum’ one should not reverse them, such ,And there are some who say .עדות versus שהדותא and גל versus יגר as because there it גלעד and יגר שהדותא that they did only say this about concerns two languages, Hebrew and ‘targum’.

(eds), The Literature of the Sages. Second Part: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science, and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature, Assen 2006, 243–78, at 244–45. For the origin of the word targum, see e.g. F. Starke, ‘Zur Herkunft von akkad. ta / urgumannu(m) “Dolmetscher”’, WO 24 (1993), 20–39. 3 Slightly different versions of this tradition occur in b.Meg 8b–9a and in b.Shab 115b. For a discussion of the differences, see W. Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, two parts, Hildesheim 1965, I.205. 4 I.e. the ancient Hebrew characters as opposed to the so-called Assyrian script. 5 Here the word must mean ‘Aramaic translation’. preliminary issues 9

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

1.2. Translation in general can apply תרגם√ Technically speaking words deriving from the field to the act of translating from and into any language. For instance, in the story of Joseph and his brothers in Egypt in the Targums to interpreter’ is translated as‘ מליץ Genesis 42:23, the Hebrew word In rabbinic literature, however, the words are used 7.מתורגמן / תורגמן almost exclusively for the translation of the Bible, and even more spe- cifically, for the translation of the Bible into Aramaic. In some cases, however, the words are also employed for translations into Greek. In Palestinian rabbinic literature there are, for example, quite a few refer- -This ‘tar 8.(תירגם עקילס) ences to the translation practice of Aquila gum’ was a Greek translation of the Bible that was prepared by Aquila the Proselyte around 125 ce, probably under rabbinic supervision. This revision was well appreciated among the Greek-speaking Jews for whom it was a welcome replacement for the Septuagint that had been adopted for use by the young Christian church as the authoritative translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Accordingly, in the Palestinian Talmud and Midrash-collections the translation of Aquila is often mentioned in a positive way. For example, within a discussion on Greek Bible translations, R. Jeremiah in the name of R. iyya bar Ba said:9 תירגם עקילס הגר התורה לפני ר' אליעזר ולפני ר' יהושע וקילסו אותו Aquilas the Proselyte translated the Torah before R. Eliezer and before R. Joshua, and they praised him.

6 See e.g. E. Brauer, The Jews of Kurdistan (completed and edited by Raphael Patai), Detroit 1993, 20–21, 49. 7 See Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 245. 8 G. Veltri, ‘Der griechische Targum Aquilas: Ein Beitrag zum rabbinischen Übersetzungsverständnis’, in: M. Hengel & A.M. Schwemer (eds), Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum, Tübingen 1994, 92–115. 9 y.Meg 1:8, 71c. In b.Meg 3a there is a parallel tradition that attributes the translation to Onkelos. This is probably just a corruption of Aquilas. See P.S. Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures’, in: M.J. Mulder & H. Sysling (eds), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen [etc.] 1988, 217–53, at 217–18. 10 chapter one

1.3. Oral translation in the synagogue At a certain point in time, probably the period following the second Jewish Revolt,10 a habit was established to translate the weekly Torah reading and its prophetic complement orally into Aramaic.11 This translation, which went by the name targum, was to be recited after every verse of the weekly portion of the Torah, and after every third verse of the haftarah reading.12 Particular portions of the Bible, although read, were not translated while others were neither read nor translated. The oral character was stressed in later sources by forbid- ding the reader to prompt the meturgeman, lest anyone should say that the targum was included in the text of the Bible and thus belonged to the Written Torah.13

1.4. Written Targum Targum also served a purpose in private devotional study and in the school system.14 For this purpose written copies were in circulation. From the Qumran finds it is known that written Aramaic translations were already in use during the Second Temple Period. Moreo- ver, there is a well-known story in the Talmud about Rabban Gamaliel Berabbi who was found sitting at the table of Yoanan ben Nizuf with the Targum of the Book of Job in his hand. When he was told by R. alafta that his grandfather once instructed builders to suppress a

10 It is not definitely certain when this started. Zeev Safrai has suggested on good grounds that the origin of the custom probably lies in the Ushan period. See Z. Safrai, ‘The Origins of Reading the Aramaic Targum in Synagogue’, Immanuel 24 / 25 (1990), 187–93; Idem, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 246. 11 See e.g. L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, Hildesheim 1966 (repr. of Frankfurt am Main 1892), 344; P.S. Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rab- binic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Salamanca 1983, Leiden 1985, 14–28, esp. 23–26; S.D. Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee of the Third-Sixth Centuries’, in: L.I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, New York & Jerusalem 1992, 253–86. The rules for reading the Targum are formulated in the early tannaitic sources like the Mishnah and the Tosefta. See esp. m.Meg 4:4, 6, 10 and t.Meg 3:20, 21, 28, 31–41. They are worked out in more detail in the Talmuds ad locum. 12 For some background and exceptions to this rule, see e.g. W.F. Smelik, ‘Orality, Manuscript Reproduction and the Targums’, in: A. den Hollander et al. (eds), Para- text and Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions, Leiden [etc.] 2003, 49–81, esp. 52–60. 13 See the remark of Ulla in b.Meg 32a. 14 See e.g. Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, 22–23. preliminary issues 11

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

1.5. Interpretation -frequently involves interpre תרגם√ In the Babylonian Talmud the verb tation of halakhic traditions.16 It occurs in this sense about 140 times concerning mishnayot, beraitot and amoraic statements, whereas in the Palestinian Talmud it occurs only 7 times in this sense.17 Let us look at one example from the Babylonian Talmud. In b.RhS 18a the gemara gives an explanation of the difficult expression of m.RhS 1:2 ‘On New Year all that come into the world pass before Him like the children of Maron’: מאי כבני מרון? הכא תרגימו כבני אמרנא What is meant by ‘like the children of Maron’? In Babylonia it is interpreted as ‘like sheep’. Apparently the word Maron is here connected with Aramaic ‘sheep’.18 Like sheep that pass through a wicket to be counted one by one, so all creatures will pass in a single file, one by one, before their Creator to be judged.

1.6. Preaching 19 In the Palestinian Talmud and Genesis Rabbah we find a story about in the synagogue of Tiberias.20 (תירגם) ’Yose Meoni who ‘interpreted From the context one gets the undeniable impression that it means here that he preached. The text from the Palestinian Talmud reads: תירגם יוסי מעוני בכנישתא בטיבריה. "שמעו זאת הכהנים". למה לית אתון לעין באוריית'

15 b.Shab 115a. See also t.Shab 13:2 (edn Lieberman); y.Shab 16:1, 15c; MasSof 15:2. The story is used there as an argument in the discussion whether translated Scripture has the same degree of holiness as Hebrew Scripture. For an illuminating discussion on this issue, see W.F. Smelik, ‘The Rabbinic Reception of Early Bible Translations as Holy Writings and Oral Torah’, JAB 1 (1999), 249–72. 16 See Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, II.42–44; Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 244 sub 1; W.F. Smelik, ‘Language, Locus, and Translation’, JAB 3 (2001), 199–224, at 201. 17 See Smelik, ‘Language, Locus, and Translation’, 201. 18 See Sokoloff, JBA, 234. 19 See H. Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, Tübingen 1996, 13–14; Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 245 sub 2. 20 y.Sanh 2:5, 20c; GenR 80:1 (Th- A 950). 12 chapter one

in the synagogue of Tiberias: ‘Hear this, O (תירגם) Yose Meoni preached priests’.21 Why do you not labour in the Torah? What follows is an attack on the Jewish rulers who deny the priests their rights on the basis of an interpretation of the same Bible text. It is not entirely clear whether the noun ‘targum’ in Sifra Shemini 1:9 also has this shade of meaning.22 The Sifra-text in question deals with Lev 10:10–11 that prohibits the use of alcoholic beverages by the priests because they ‘must teach the Israelites all the laws which the Lord has imparted to them through Moses’. The text discusses whether ‘targum’ should be considered teaching in the sense meant in Leviticus. The text according to the printed edition excludes ‘targum’ from this category, but there are several textual witnesses that include it. Ap- parently there were shifting attitudes towards t/Targum as source of public teaching.23

1.7. Mouth-piece The noun ‘meturgeman’, or ‘turgeman’, may — apart from its meaning as translator — also refer to someone who transmits the lesson of his rabbi to a larger audience.24 In this sense it is a synonym for Amora.25 When a sage lectured to his students, it was customary for him not to address them directly but through a meturgeman /Amora. He whispered his words to his assistant, who then articulated them aloud to the public. This usage combines the two basic meanings ‘to speak aloud, deliver, proclaim’ and ‘to translate, interpret’, because the meturgeman /Amora not only made the words of the sage audible to the public, he also explained and rephrased them in language that was understandable to the audience. It seems probable that this relationship between a rabbi and his spokesman is inspired by the relationship between Moses and Aaron.26 In Exod 4:15–16 it says:

21 Hos 5:1. Unless stated differently, the English translations of the Bible in this book are according to the New JPS Translation, Philadephia 1985. 22 For the text, see J.H. Weiss, Sifra: Commentar zu Leviticus, Wien 1862, 46d. 23 See for a full discussion of this text S.D. Fraade, ‘Scripture, Targum, and Talmud as Instruction: A Complex Textual Story from the Sifra’, in: J. Magness & S. Gitin, Hesed ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs, Atlanta 1998, 109–21. 24 See e.g. b.Sot 37b, b.Taan 4b. 25 See Zunz, Vorträge, 350–51; Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, 24; Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 13–14. 26 See Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, 24–25; Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 13–14. preliminary issues 13

(15) You shall speak to him and put the words into his mouth — I will be with you and with him as you speak, and tell both of you what to do — (16) and he shall speak for you to the people. Thus he shall serve as your spokesman,27 with you playing the role of God to him. In Targum Onkelos the last verse half is interpreted as ‘thus he shall be ’.to him (רב) a meturgeman for you, with you playing the role of master The same interpretation also occurs in Targum Onkelos to Exod 7:1.28

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

שגיון .1.9 In Targum Psalms 7:1 we encounter an extraordinary and unique use .שגיון of the word ‘targum’, namely as a substitute word for the Hebrew It is not entirely clear what the Hebrew word means. Some modern translations leave it as it is by rendering ‘Shiggaion of David’.31 Others choose a neutral term like ‘meditation’.32 Most modern Dutch translations interpret it as ‘dirge’ (klaaglied).33 The targumic reading is probably based upon an interpretation of the word as an abstract noun of תרגם√ ,meaning ‘to roar, shout’. As we have seen above שאג√ the verb also has a connotation of loud speech. In this sense it can be used as an ,The meturgeman of this Psalm, however .שגיון equivalent for the word did not leave it at that, but specified more particularly. In his view it

.( לְ פֶ ה) ’Literally ‘as mouth 27 28 See for the meaning of this passage for the understanding of the targumic genre from the perspective of descriptive translation studies, S.D. Fraade, ‘Locating Tar- gum in the Textual Polysystem of Rabbinic Pedagogy’, Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39 (2006), 69–91, esp. 85–91. 29 LevR 9:5 (edn Margulies, I.180–81). 30 Prov 14:9a. 31 King James Version, Jewish Publication Society. 32 World English Bible. 33 NBG51, WV95, GNB96, NBV. 14 chapter one was not just ‘a shout’ or ‘an exclamation’, but rather ‘an exclamation of 34.תירגמא דאודיתא ,’thanksgiving

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

This shows that in actual practice, at least in the Middle Ages, the more elaborate Palestinian targum traditions were tolerated, because they were presented as an explanation of the liturgical reading rather than

34 See D.M. Stec, The Targum of Psalms, Collegeville 2004, 35. Ed Cook in his In- ternet translation opted for the more traditional meaning of ‘targum’ by translating ‘A rendition of the thanksgiving of David’ (http: / / targum.info / pss / ps1.htm (accessed Aug. 1, 2008)). Although this certainly is a possible translation, it does not explain the relation to the Hebrew text. 35 This baraita is preserved in a slightly different form in b.Qid 49a. 36 b.Qid 49a. 37 And probably also Targum Jonathan. -ms Halberstamm as cited in G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch ,ספר העתים 38 palästinischen Aramäisch, Darmstadt 1960, 30. This text dates from ± 1100 ce. preliminary issues 15 as a translation. The targum that served as a translation of the liturgical reading, however, had to conform to the rule of R. Yehudah bar Ilai. So, a distinction was drawn between targum that served as a translation of Scripture and targum that served as an explanation of the same. From the words of R. Yehudah bar Ilai it seems that the meturgemanim’s guideline was the doctrine of the universal truth of Scrip- ture.39 This doctrine implies that all elements of the Written Torah, be they words, or other graphic signs, are significant, consistent, and relevant for all generations.40 It is this tenet that not only allowed, but also incited the meturgemanim to proceed as they did. What we now consider additions may have been considered necessary circumlocu- tions by the meturgemanim. The accepted characteristics of the official Targums, as described below in section 6, can easily be explained from this supposition. 3. Characteristics of Jewish Bible translations according to early Christian sources Early Christian sources speak about Jewish Bible translations, though not about the Aramaic Targums. This is not surprising, since the Greek translations were obviously more easily accessible to them than the Aramaic ones because of the language barrier. Above, we mentioned the Greek translation of Aquila that was popular among the Greek- speaking Jewish society. The church father Origen criticised this translation because of its hyper-literalness. He called Aquila depreciatively a ‘slave of the Hebrew word’.41 This hyper-literalness was certainly not due to a lack of knowledge of Greek grammar and syntax, since Aquila is known to have had an excellent command of that language. There- fore, there must have been more compelling reasons to stay as close as this to the Hebrew. One reason may have been the sacred character of the text in which every element was considered meaningful: not only the words themselves, but also their order within the verse.42 The

39 See A. Goldberg, ‘The Rabbinic View of Scripture’, in: P.R. Davies & R.T. White (eds), A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and Histo- ry, Sheffield 1990, 153–66. This essay was originally published in German: ‘Die Schrift der rabbinische Schriftausleger’, FJB 15 (1987), 1–15; A. Samely, ‘Scripture’s Implica- ture: The Midrashic Assumptions of Relevance and Consistency’, JSS 37 (1992), 167– 205, esp. 191–94; D.I. Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE, Tübingen 1992, esp. 212–25. 40 This is also reflected in the NT, e.g. Mat 5:17–18 and Luke 16:17. 41 Origen, Ad Afric., 4 (SC 302, 526). 42 Another reason was suggested by Alexander, by positing that the translation 16 chapter one significance of the word order was also recognised by Jerome, who was a Bible translator himself. In his letter to Pammachius, on the best method of translating, he defended the preference of a sense for sense paraphrase over a word for word translation. He made, however, one exception, namely ‘the case of the holy Scriptures where even the order of the words is a mystery’.43 Apparently he considered the word order to be inspired. In the same letter, Jerome criticised Aquila for his attempt ‘to translate not words only but their etymologies as well’.44 The example he gave is Deut 7:13, where Aquila conveyed the etymology of the Hebrew words rather than their plain meaning. He went on then to criticise Aquila because he translated even particles in the Hebrew that are generally not translated, such as the object marker. As an example he gave Aquila’s rendering of Gen 1:1, where the Hebrew particle here clearly an object marker, had been translated by the Greek ,את preposition σύν, ‘with’.45 Thus, cloaked in their criticism, these two church fathers gave us three characteristics of the translation of Aquila that are also known from the Aramaic Targums: (1) The translation is a word for word translation that preserves the original word order; (2) Aquila tried not only to give the plain meaning of the words, but also their supposed original or associated meanings; (3) Aquila translated every single element of the Hebrew text, in accordance with the rule that nothing in the Bible is meaningless.

4. Modern definitions In modern times, several attempts have been made to give a definition of Targum. Not surprisingly the definitions concentrate on the con- cepts ‘Bible translation’ and ‘Aramaic’. Within these boundaries, however, there are still several possibilities. The most important difference is whether or not to restrict the term Targum to Jewish translations or to include Christian translations as well. Roger le Déaut, for instance, chose to reserve the term for Jewish translations. He wrote:

probably served as a crib for the Greek speaking Jews to learn Hebrew. See P.S. Alex- ander, ‘How did the Rabbis Learn Hebrew?’, in: W. Horbury (ed.), Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, Edinburgh 1999, 71–89, at 83. 43 Jerome, Ep. 57 ad Pammach., 5 (CSEL 54, 508). 44 Jerome, Ep. 57 ad Pammach., 11 (CSEL 54, 523). -see L.L. Grabbe, ‘Aquila’s Trans ,את For a discussion of Aquila’s translation of 45 lation and Rabbinic Exegesis’, JJS 33 / 1–2 (1982), 527–36, at 532–33. preliminary issues 17

… il désigne la traduction d’un texte biblique en araméen (ce qui exclut la Septante), fait par des Juifs pour des Juifs (ce qui élimine la Peshitta, dans son ensemble) pour l’usage dans le culte synagogal ou l’enseignement.46 Klaus Beyer, on the other hand, kept the way open for Christian translations: Unter Targumen versteht man die jüdisch-aramäischen Übersetzun- gen des Alten Testaments, im weiterem Sinne auch die christlich- aramäischen.47 The specific translational character of the Targums is generally not touched upon in the definition. Lately Alexander Samely filled this lacuna by proposing a definition that does justice to the interpretative aspect of the targumic translations: Targum is an Aramaic narrative paraphrase of the biblical text in exegetical dependence on its wording.48 Samely’s approach is in a way a breakthrough, because it concentrates on the character of Targum rather than on its origin and function. This is an advantage over the earlier definitions. It lacks, however, information on the cultural background. In our view, a definition should contain at least the aspects of cultural background and character. The third aspect of function is interesting, but at this stage not necessary for our purposes. As regards the background, it seems pru- dent to reserve the term, as Le Déaut does, for Jewish Aramaic Bible translations in order not to make the field too wide. Moreover, it is clear that in the works that are generally accorded the name ‘Targum’, the Jewish cultural background plays a dominant role without which they cannot be understood. Let us add, therefore, the word ‘Jewish’ to the proposed definition: Targum is a Jewish Aramaic narrative paraphrase of the biblical text in exegetical dependence on its wording. This definition is, however, still rather broad and does not help to solve the question of whether or not, for example, the Genesis Apocryphon may be called a Targum or not. Since nowadays there is a consensus

46 R. le Déaut, ‘La Septante, un Targum?’, in: R. Kuntzmann & J. Schlosser (eds), Études sur le judaïsme hellénistique, Paris 1984, 147–95, at 153. 47 K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, Göttingen 1983, 273. 48 A. Samely, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums, Tübingen 1992, 180. 18 chapter one that the Genesis Apocryphon is not a Targum, we must try to define where the difference lies. It seems to rest on the fact that the undis- puted Targums follow the Hebrew text slavishly in its exact wording. Although they sometimes give an interpretative rather than a verbatim translation, nevertheless they always contain some rendering of each Hebrew word in the order in which they appear in the biblical text. So maybe we should sharpen the definition a little more by stressing that it is an interpretative translation of the exact wording, including the word order. This means that the text is translated according to the verbum e verbo method rather than according the sensus de sensu approach. Therefore we prefer to change the term ‘paraphrase’ to ‘interpretative word-by-word translation’, whereby the expression word-by- word is used as a means of expressing the fact that each Hebrew word is rendered in its original order. This would lead to the following: Targum is a Jewish Aramaic interpretative word-by-word translation of the biblical text in exegetical dependence on its wording. This may well serve as an umbrella for all the texts we generally call Targum, but it is still rather wide. We could nuance it still more by defining sub-categories. These sub-categories may be geographical, such as ‘Babylonian Targum’ or ‘Palestinian Targum’, or they may relate to their function, such as ‘liturgical Targum’ or ‘school-Targum’. One could also differentiate between Targums with an official status, such as Onkelos and Jonathan, and Targums that do not have that status, such as the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch. Another subdivision may be made concerning their completeness. There are comprehensive Targums on one or more complete biblical books, and there are Targums that have only selected texts.49 The last category can be further subdivided into haftarah collections on the one hand and fragmentary Targums and Tosefta Targums on the other. One could also classify according to literary character, selecting relatively literal translations, such as Targum Onkelos, and expansive exegetical translations, such as Targum Writings.50

49 See W.F. Smelik, The Targum of Judges, Leiden 1995, 92. 50 Lehman, in his useful article on the Genesis Apocryphon, remarked the following about the character of the different Targums: ‘It may be said that the various Targumim are mainly characterised by the ratio existing between interpretative- narrative portions and strictly translative portions. We have only to compare, e.g. the Targum Sheni to Esther — which deviates into midrashic material throughout its text — and Targum Onqelos which on the whole adheres as literally as possible to the Masoretic text except for occasional use of the interpretative method. Somewhere in preliminary issues 19

All these possible subdivisions have advantages and disadvantages, dependent on the goal for which they are used. For our goal, i.e. the mutual comparison of different targum traditions, the division according to literary character seems to be the most fruitful, though also a functional subdivision might prove to be useful. Finally, one must be aware that there is an extra complication in the matter of subdivision and classification of t /Targums because the term is used indiscriminately for a literary work and for individual traditions.51 One can talk, for instance, about ‘the Targum of the Prophets’, but also about ‘the different targums of Gen 1:1’. Philip Alexander proposed a division according to external features of targumic extensions, a division that is more suitable for characterising individual traditions than complete literary works. He distinguished two basically different types, which he called type a and type b.52 In his division, type a displays a one-to-one base translation with explanatory additions that can easily be detached. In type b the biblical text is dissolved in paraphrase so that the original wording of the biblical text can hardly be recognised.53 Although this distinction meant a step forward in classing the different types of targum, something essential is missing. His categorisation, as we understand it, encompasses only extended targums. A great part, however, of the Targums Onkelos and Jonathan does not contain any additions, either detachable, or inextricable. In those parts, either a literal translation is given, supplying semantically related Aramaic equivalents for each Hebrew word, or an interpreta- between these two extremes we find Targum Jonathan, leaning mainly to the task of translating the text, yet also taking vast midrashic liberties. Targum Yerushalmi belongs even further in the “midrashic” column.’ M.R. Lehman, ‘1 Q Gen. Ap. in the Light of the Targumim and Midrashim’, RQ 1 (1958–59), 249–63, at 251. 51 See n. 1. 52 Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, 17–21; Idem, ‘Jewish Aramaic Bible Translations’, 228–37. Another, more detailed division is given by Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 257–58. 53 Willem Smelik drew attention to the problems involved in type a. He rightly remarked that although Targum Jonathan as a whole should probably be classified under type a, it turns out that it is not at all easy to identify the pluses indisputably and detach them (W.F. Smelik, ‘Translation and Commentary in One: The Interplay of Pluses and Substitutions in the Targum of the Prophets’, JSJ 19 /3 (1998), 245–60, esp. 246–52, 59–60). The same point was raised by David Shepherd, who however focussed less on the division as such, but rather on the assumption that the additions in the type a Targum could be detached at the wish of the meturgeman (D. Shepherd, ‘Translating and Supplementing: A(nother) Look at the Targumic Versions of Gen- esis 4.3–16’, JAB 1 (1999), 125–46). 20 chapter one tive word-by-word translation is given, in which one or more words are substituted by Aramaic words that are not semantically related. In an illuminating article, Willem Smelik pointed out that Targum Jonathan is characterised by a subtle interplay between pluses and substitutions.54 Basically this holds true for all rabbinic Targums. What distinguishes them is only the ratio between literal translations, pluses and substitutions. If we assume that these two elements, substitutions and additions, are the main building blocks by which an interpretative translation of the Hebrew Bible text can be made, then there are four possible combinations: » neither of the two means is used » addition is used, but not substitution » substitution is used, but not addition » both substitution and addition are used The detachability of an addition is connected with the use of substitution. If additions are used without substitutions, then the odds are that the additions are easily detachable without disturbing the flow of thought or the syntax of the base translation. These cases would thereby fall under Alexander’s type a. If, on the other hand, a certain targumic interpretation of a verse contains both substitutions and additions, then the odds are that the additions cannot be easily detached, since the whole meaning and structure of the verse will be changed. It would thereby fall under Alexander’s type b. A complicating factor in the classification of targumic types is the occurrence of so-called doublets or multiple renderings. Sometimes a word or expression in the Hebrew text is translated twice or even more times.55 There may be different reasons for this. In some cases, a verb is taken as a double-duty verb if it serves different parts of the verse, so- called gapping.56 In other cases, it seems that the meturgeman wanted

54 See above, n. 53. 55 Z. Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Profeten, Breslau 1872, 39–40; P. Churgin, Tar- gum Jonathan to the Prophets, New Haven 1907 [= 1927], 139–41; E.Z. Melammed, ,Vols, Jerusalem 19782, I.331–32; B.B. Levy, Targum Neophyti, 2 Vols 2 ,מפרשי המקרא Lanham [etc.] 1986, I.52–53; L. Díez Merino, ‘Procedimientos targúmicos’, in: V. Col- lado-Bertomeu & V. Vilar-Hueso (eds), II. Simposio Bíblico Español (Córdoba 1985), Valencia & Cordoba 1987, 461–86, esp. 482–83; Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Transla- tions’, 227; J.C. de Moor, ‘Multiple Renderings in the Targum of Isaiah’, JAB 3 (2001), 161–80. 56 M. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, Winona Lake 1980, 122–27, 401–4; Smelik, ‘Translation and Commentary in One’, 256. preliminary issues 21 to preserve two different readings of the source text. In still other cases, it seems that the multiple renderings reflect uncertainty on the part of the meturgeman as to the correct interpretation of the Hebrew,57 or that the meturgeman aimed at maximising the sense of Scripture if the Hebrew allowed different interpretations.58 It depends therefore on the situation, whether one or all of the renderings must be seen as a ‘straight translation’, or as a substitution, or whether some of them must be considered an addition. In our view, the main division in these cases should be whether the Aramaic lemmas can be directly linked to a Hebrew lemma or not. If there is no straight link, then the word or phrase concerned must be considered an addition, whereby it depends on the interpretation of the verse as a whole as to whether it must be considered a detachable or an undetachable addition. This complication does, however, not influence the division into four types in a fundamental way. In conclusion we can say that Alexander’s distinction does not suffice to characterise all sorts of targumic interpretation. On the basis of what was stated above, at least two types need to be added, for which we will present a proposal in the following section.

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

5.1. Literal word-by-word translation This type includes targums that offer a literal translation of the Hebrew text, supplying semantically related Aramaic equivalents for each He- brew word. An example of the type is found in 1 Sam 8:1: mt וַ יְ הִ י אֲּכַ ׁשֶ ר זָ קֵ ן ׁשְמּואֵ ל ּיָוַ ׂשֶ ם אֶ ת ּבָנָיו ׁשֹפְטִ ים לְיִׂשְרָאֵ ל: tj והוה כד סיב שמואל ומני ית בנוהי דיינין על ישראל: When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons judges over Israel.

57 Smelik, Targum of Judges, 97. 58 Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations’, 227. 59 For another possible subdivision, see Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 257–58. 22 chapter one

5.2. Extended translation with detachable glosses This type includes targums that offer a literal translation of the He- brew text, combined with smaller or larger additions. The additions can be bracketed out without disturbing the flow of thought or the syntax of the base translation. Two subtypes can be discerned. In the first subtype the additional material is inserted into the text. To illustrate this we take as an example Targum Jonathan 1 Sam 1:18b. After Hannah had poured out her grief in the Temple and asked God for a son, God promised her through Eli that her request would be granted. Thereupon we read the following: mt ּתֵ וַ לֶ ְך אִהָ ּׁשָ ה רְלְדַ ּכָ ּה וַּתֹאכַ ל –ּופָנֶיהָ ֹלא הָ יּו לָ ּה עֹוד: tj ואזלת אתתא לאורחה ואכלת ואפין בישין לא הוו לה עוד: The Hebrew may be translated as: So the woman went her way, and ate, and she had no longer her countenance. This is a rather strange sentence, and therefore the Targum chose to add an adjective to the word ‘countenance’, indicating in what way her facial expression had changed after the good news. This led to the following translation: So the woman went her way, and ate, and she had no longer a sad countenance. In the second subtype longer additions precede or follow the actual translation. An example of this approach can be found in 1 Sam 2 in the interpretative translation of the song of Hannah. The verses 2–5 are interpreted as prophecies concerning specific persons or groups. Let us look at 1 Sam 2:2a:

––––––––––– mt tj על סנחריב מלכא דאתור אתנביאת ואמרת דעתיד דיסק הוא וכל חילותיה

––––––––––––– mt tj על ירושלם ונס סגי יתעביד ביה תמן יפלון פגרי משריתיה בכין יודון כל mt – אֵ ין קָ דֹוׁש ּכַ יהֹוָה ּכִ י אֵ ין ּבִלְ ּתֶ ָך tj עממיא אומיא ולשניא ויימרון לית דקדיש אלא יוי ארי לית בר מנך

The biblical ‘There is no holy one like the Lord; truly, there is none beside You’ is translated as follows: preliminary issues 23

Concerning Sennacherib, the king of Assyria she prophesied and said that he was to come up against Jerusalem, he and all his armies. And a great miracle would be done through him. There the corpses of his army would fall. Thereupon all peoples and nations of every language would confess saying ‘There is no holy one like the Lord; truly, there is none beside You.’ The biblical text itself is translated fairly literally, but there is a long addition preceding the translation that pictures the context in which this confession will be made according to the meturgeman.

5.3. Interpretative word-by-word translation This type includes targums that offer a word-by-word translation of the Hebrew text, with substitutions that recast the passage into terms of the current world in which they live or interpret the meaning of the text.

The first example is taken from 1 Sam 15:6a.60 mt וַּיֹאמֶרׁשָ אּול אֶל הַּקֵינִי לְ כּו ּסֻ רּו רְ דּו מִ ּתֹוְך עֲ מָ לֵ קִ י ּפֶ ן אֹסִ פְ ָך עִ ּמֹו tj ואמר שאול לשלמאה איזיל זור אתפרש מגו עמלקאה דלמא אשיצינך עימיה And Saul said unto the Shalmaites, “Go, depart, part from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them.” The Hebrew text reads ‘Kenites’ instead of ‘Shalmaites’. Throughout the Targums, the Kenites are identified with the Arab tribe of the Shal- maites, which is in line with the views expressed in rabbinic literature.61 In this way this substitution actualises the text to the world of the audience.

The second example, which is taken from 1 Sam 1:1a, gives an interpretation of an ambiguous word. mt וַ יְ הִ י אִ יׁש אֶ חָ ד מִן הָרָמָתַיִם צֹופִ ים מֵ הַ ר אֶ ְ פ רָ ִ י ם tj והוה גברא חד מרמתא מתלמידי נבייא מטורא דבית אפרים

is generally interpreted as a gentilitial name צופים The Hebrew word or as a toponym and is translated accordingly as Zuphites or Zophim. to‘ צפה√ The meturgeman, however, read it as a participle qal from

60 See E. van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, Leiden 2002, 118. 61 See L. Smolar & M. Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, New York & Baltimore 1983, 48, 117. 24 chapter one keep watch, look out’ and interpreted it as a cipher for prophet, which leads to the following translation:62 There was a man from Ramah, from the pupils of the prophets, from the hill country of the House of Ephraim

5.4. Extended interpretative translation This type includes targums that offer a strongly interpretative translation of the Hebrew text. The smaller or larger additions cannot be removed since they cohere with substitutions of (parts of) the original text.

For this type we take a look at 1 Sam 15:17 and its targumic interpretation. mt וַּיֹאמֶ ר ׁשְמּואֵ להֲלֹוא – אִ ם –– קָ טֹן ַאּתָ ה ּבְעֵינֶיָך – tj ואמר שמואל הלא מן שריותך הויתא שיט וחלש – בעיני נפשך mt – – – – – – – – – – – רֹאׁש tj ברם זכות שבטא דבנימין אבוך היא גרמת לך דבעא למעבד בימא קדם mt בְׁשִ טֵ י י ִ ׂשְ רָ אֵ ל ָאּתָ ה – – ּי וַ ִ מְ ׁשָ חֲ ָך יהוה ְ ל מֶ לֶ ְך עַ ל יִׂשְרָאֵ ל: tj בני ישראל – בדיל כין רביך יוי למהוי מלכא על ישראל: The Hebrew text may be translated in English as: And Samuel said, “You may look small to yourself, but you are the head of the tribes of Israel. The Lord anointed you king over Israel.” In the version of Targum Jonathan this verse may be translated as: And Samuel said, “Were you not from your beginning despised and weak in your own eyes? But the merit of the tribe of Benjamin your father brought it about for you, because he tried to cross the sea before the [other] sons of Israel. On account of this the Lord anointed you to be king over Israel.” The Hebrew text contrasts Saul’s own initial perception of his status (cf. 1 Sam 9:21) with the status God awarded to him as head of the tribes of Israel. The Targum tries to find a reason for this apparent contradiction in an aggadic tradition about Benjamin who was the first to enter the sea. Benjamin’s act of trust was judged as a merit by God, which subsequently led to the honour bestowed on Saul. Although,

62 Cf. 1 Sam 9:5. See Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 93; Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 187–88, 265. preliminary issues 25

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

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

63 Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations’, 236. See also Alexander, ‘Textual Criticism and Rabbinic Literature: The Case of the Targum of the Song of Songs’, BJRL 75 (1993), 159–73, at 172. A similar view is expressed in the Dutch study of M.J. Mulder, De targum op het Hooglied, Amsterdam 1975, 23–24. 26 chapter one

» The Targums are interpretative translations; they strive to open the source text to the audience.64 » The original word order is maintained. As stated above,65 the doctrine of the universal truth of Scripture implies that all elements of the Written Torah, be they words, or other graphic signs, or even blank spaces, are significant, consistent, and relevant for all generations. Within this framework, the specific order of the words is also a matter of concern.66 Since Aramaic and Hebrew are cognate languages, it was relatively easy to hold on to the original word order, much easier than it was, for instance, for Aquila in his Greek translation of the Bible. It is therefore the more remarkable that in some cases the word order in the Aramaic Targum deviates from the He- brew order.67 On the other hand, Shepherd, in his comparative study of Aramaic translations of Job, showed that although the rabbinic Targum of Job contains a few transpositions, these are negligible in comparison to the number of transpositions in the other Aramaic versions. He concludes therefore that in the case of the rabbinic Tar- gum, divergence of the word order is so rarely found that transposi- tion may be considered a practically unused tool in the hands of the meturgeman responsible for this rendering of the Hebrew text of Job.68 We cannot speak with certainty about all rabbinic Targums, but from our team’s experience with the work on a bilingual concordance to the Targum of the Prophets we can claim with confidence that the same holds true for Targum Jonathan.69 » Obscurities are resolved without deleting elements present in the Hebrew. The same applies here as in the preceding category, namely

64 In contrast to a literalist translation that strives to bring the reader to the source text. See S.P. Brock, ‘Translating the Old Testament’, in: D.A. Carson & H.G.M. Wil- liamson (eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, Cambridge 1988, 87–98, at 91. 65 See above, p. 15. 66 See for example the remark of Aquila (above, p. 16), that in the case of the Holy Scriptures even the order of the words is a mystery. 67 For some examples from Targum Jonathan, see Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Propheten, 16–17. 68 D. Shepherd, Targum and Translation. A Reconsideration of the Qumran Ara- maic Version of Job, Assen 2004, 223. 69 From 1987–2005 a team of the Dutch Protestant Theological University in Kam- pen worked on a bilingual concordance of Targum Jonathan under the directorship of Johannes de Moor. This resulted in a series of 21 volumes that were published between 1995–2005 with Brill in Leiden, entitled A Bilingual Concordance to the Tar- gum of the Prophets. preliminary issues 27

that the rule is not applied consistently. There are cases where some minor elements in the Hebrew text have been skipped over, but they are exceptions.70 » Ambiguities in the text that are due to the meaning of a particular Hebrew word are resolved by differentiation. Hebrew words with a general meaning may be translated by different Aramaic equivalents depending on the context, i.e. functionally equivalent rather than formally equivalent. To give an often-used example, the Hebrew when it refers to כהנא priest’ is translated by the Aramaic‘ כהן word when כומרא a priest of the God of Israel, whereas it is translated by it refers to an idolatrous priest.71 » On the level of interpretation the Targum is exclusive because usually only one interpretation of a verse is offered. The targumic interpretations are often based on word substitutions of rare and difficult terms by their supposed meanings.72 » By means of stock phrases, standard translations and simplifica- tions, the coherence of the Bible is strengthened. » Expressions that might seem disrespectful with regard to God or His people are avoided. Anthropomorphic and anthropopathic references to God are often, though not always, reworded in more neutral wording.73 7. Qumran Aramaic versions Let us now look, with the above in mind, to some works about which there is as yet no scolarly agreement concerning whether they should be called Targum or not. We start with the so-called Genesis Apocryphon. The scroll containing an Aramaic version of Genesis stories, which was found in 1947 with six other scrolls in Qumran, was named ‘A

70 For the case of Tg Job, see Shepherd, Targum and Translation, 111–22. 71 E.g. Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, 115–16; Smolar & Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, 36–38; Smelik, ‘Translation and Commentary in One’, 258; Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 146. 72 This is a hermeneutic principle that occurs abundantly in tannaitic literature. In the tannaitic Midrashim such simple renderings are generally introduced with the ,See e.g. S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, New York 1962 . א י ן … א ל א term 48–52; W. Reiss, ‘Wortsubstition als Mittel der Deutung. Bemerkungen zur Formel .FJB 6 (1978), 27–69 ,’אין … אלא 73 For a balanced view on this question, see e.g. M.L. Klein, ‘The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume, Vienna 1980, Leiden 1981, 162–77. 28 chapter one

Genesis Apocryphon’ by its first editors, Nahman Avigad and Yi- gael Yadin.74 In their view, the text is the earliest Aramaic example of pseudo-epigraphic literature that has come down to us.75 Soon af- terwards, Manfred Lehmann characterised it differently, by writing: ‘1 Q Gen. Ap., too, oscillates between midrashic deviations from the Masoretic text and literal translations. However, the former outweigh the latter. We can thus place 1 Q Gen. Ap. in the midrashic column of the Targumim.’76 Paul Kahle and Matthew Black thought in the same direction, wondering whether the text should not rather be considered an early specimen of a written Aramaic Pentateuch Targum from Pal- estine than an example of pseudepigraphic literature.77 Black elaborated this suggestion in an appendix to his book The Scrolls and Christian Origins.78 He pointed to the fact that the order of the Aramaic text in the scroll follows chapter and verse of the Hebrew original, and that it contains ancient exegetical traditions and explanatory additions in the manner of the Targums. Fitzmyer, in his commentary on the Gen- esis Apocryphon, acknowledged Black’s analysis for part of the text, especially for the part that corresponds to Genesis 14, but rejected the idea of labelling the whole composition a Targum. Though there certainly are passages where the word-by-word translation of the Hebrew text of Genesis suggests ‘targum’, so too there are passages where the embellishment of the text is strongly reminiscent of aggadic midrash.79 By a comparison of the Genesis Apocryphon with the Pentateuchal Targums Onkelos, Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan, for the parts where the text really seems to be a translation of the Hebrew text, Fitzmyer concluded that the Genesis Apocryphon is older than any of the Tar- gums mentioned.80 As it happens, some of the features that are char-

74 N. Avigad & Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea. Description and Contents of the Scroll, Facsimiles, Transcription and Transla- tion of Columns II, XIX–XXII, Jerusalem 1956, 8. 75 Avigad & Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon, 39. 76 Lehmann, ‘1 Q Genesis Apocryphon’, 251. 77 M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of the New Testament, London 1961, Appendix C: Aramaic Texts from Qumran, 192–98, at 193. 78 See n. 77. 79 J.A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary, Rome 20043, 18. Paul Kahle, in his book The Cairo Geniza (Oxford 1959) retracted his earlier suggestion that the work was probably a Targum and instead characterised it as a Midrash book (198). 80 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 28–34. preliminary issues 29 acteristic of the Targums are absent from the Genesis Apocryphon. There is, for instance, in the Genesis Apocryphon none of the tendency to substitute for the Tetragrammaton any phrase like ‘the Memra of the Lord’ or the like, in order to avoid disrespectful associations.81 Another feature that is regularly encountered in the Targums, namely the disambiguation of multi-interpretable words, especially in connection with the holy and the profane, is also absent in the Genesis Apoc- ryphon.82 Whereas the Hebrew Bible for example uses the same word ,for both Israelite priests and idolatrous priests, the meturgemanim כהן as we have seen above, generally chose to differentiate between them, for a priest of the God of Israel. In the Genesis כהן reserving the word Apocryphon, however, it was apparently not considered inappropriate 83.כהן to call Melchizedek a On the basis of both the handwriting84 and the language85, the scroll can be dated between the first century bce and the first century ce. This fits in with Fitzmyer’s observation that as regards translation policy the Genesis Apocryphon seems to be older than the rabbinic Targums. If we now evaluate the Genesis Apocryphon on the basis of our definition of Targum and on the list of generally accepted characteristics of the genre, we must conclude that according to those criteria the Genesis Apocryphon should not be considered a Targum: » the exact wording of the biblical text is not respected consistently; » there is no circumlocutory rendition of the divine name; » it contains no disambiguation of multi-interpretable words. Let us now turn to the Aramaic version of Job. From Qumran Cave XI an Aramaic version of Job has surfaced in a fragmentary state, which

81 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 33. 82 Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 111–19; Smolar & Aberbach, Studies, 154. 83 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 34; P. Grelot, ‘De l’apocryphe de la Genèse aux Targoums: sur Genèse 14, 18–20’, in: Z.J. Kapera (ed.), Intertestamental Essays: In Honour of Józef Tadeusz Milik, Kraków 1992, 77–90, at 81. 84 The handwriting of the scroll is ‘Herodian’ and should be dated somewhere between the middle of the first century bce and the end of the Qumran settlement at 70 ce. See e.g. N. Avigad, ‘The Palaeography of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Documents’, Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jerusalem 19652, 56–87, esp. 71–72; Fitz- myer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 13. 85 The language can be dated somewhere in the first century bce or ce. See E.Y. Kutscher, ‘Dating the Language of the Genesis Apocryphon’, JBL 76 (1957), 288–92; Idem, ‘The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon: A Preliminary Study’, Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1–35, at 22; Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 17–25. 30 chapter one became known as 11Q10 or 11QTgJob.86 The manuscript can probably be dated to the first century ce.87 The text is, however, possibly based on an older Vorlage, since the language can approximately be dated to the second century bce.88 This version has a decidedly different character from the later rabbinic Targum of Job. The number of expansions in the Aramaic version from Qumran is small in comparison to the large number in the later rabbinic Targum.89 The version from Qum- ran lacks homiletic expansions and allusions to midrashim.90 While the term ‘targum’ has been applied to the Aramaic translation of Job from the very beginning,91 it still remains to be seen whether this is an appropriate designation. In order to avoid unwished-for association with the community of Qumran, other designations have been proposed, such as ‘old Targum’,92 ‘first century targum’,93 or ‘Hasmon-

86 M. Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave 11, Ramat-Gan 1974. An- other tiny fragment of the same text was found in Cave 4. See J.T. Milik & R. de Vaux, Qumrân Grotte 4. II Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128 – 4Q157), Oxford 1977, 90. 87 The script is of the type labelled by Albright as ‘Herodian’ (W.F. Albright, ‘A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age: The Nash Papyrus’, JBL 56 (1937), 145– 76, at 151). 88 J.P.M. van der Ploeg & A. van der Woude (Le Targum de Job de la Grotte XI de Qumrân, Leiden 1971, 4) and Sokoloff (The Targum to Job, 25) date it to the second half of the second century bce; B. Jongeling et al. (eds), Aramaic Texts from Qumran, Leiden 1976, 5–6 date it to the first half of the second century bce; T. Muraoka, ‘The Aramaic of the Old Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI’, JJS 25 / 3 (1974), 425–43 at 442 dates it to the second half of the third century bce or the first half of the second century bce. Against these early datings, Stephen Kaufman opts for a dating in the first century bce on grammatical grounds (S.A. Kaufman, ‘The Job Targum from Qumran’, JAOS 93 (1973), 317–27, at 327), while Bruce Zuckerman comes to the same probable date on the basis of palaeographical considerations concerning the Vorlage of the Qumran Targum (B. Zuckerman, ‘The Date of 11Q Targum Job: A Paleograph- ic Consideration of its Vorlage’, JSP 1 (1987), 57–78, esp. 74–75). התרגום הארמי לספר ,Jongeling et al., Aramaic Texts from Qumran, 4; R. Weiss 89 .Tel Aviv 1979, 20 ,איוב .21–20 ,התרגום הארמי לספר איוב ,Weiss 90 91 The tone was set from the beginning by J.P.M. Van der Ploeg by using the word targum in his preliminary communication about the scroll: ‘Le targum de Job de la grotte 11 de Qumran, Première communication’, Mededelingen der Koninklijke Ned- erlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen afd. Letterkunde, Amsterdam 1962. 92 So Muraoka in his articles ‘The Aramaic of the Old Targum of Job’ and ‘Notes on the Old Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI’, RQ 9 (1977), 117–25. 93 J.A. Fitzmyer, ‘The First-Century Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI’, in: Idem, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, Missoula 1979, 161–82 (first published as ‘Some Observations on the Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI’, CBQ 36 (1974), 503–24). preliminary issues 31 ean targum’.94 The text as we have it may fittingly be described by our definition of Targum. If, on the other hand, we compare it with the list of generally accepted characteristics of the Targum, some differences can be noted. As regards the word order, the Qumran Aramaic version of Job is less strict in its following of the Hebrew text than the later rabbinic Targum. Stephen Kaufman, in his review article of the editio princeps, noted that the translator of the Qumran Aramaic version ‘… was not bound to the word order of MT as is almost always the case in later targums’.95 Takamitsu Muraoka tried to explain the deviating word order from a possibly Eastern provenance, by pointing out that particular transpositions in the word order seem to reflect a Sumero- Akadian word order in which the verb generally follows the subject or the object, or both.96 Whatever the reason, from the synoptic study of David Shepherd, who compared the three ancient Aramaic versions of Job, it becomes clear that among these versions the rabbinic Targum is the most true to the Hebrew word order.97 The same study shows that for the book of Job the Qumran and Peshitta version omission is employed on a frequent basis for a variety of reasons in the attempt to produce a linguistically intelligible and stylistically acceptable translation. The rabbinic Targum, by contrast, presents virtually no evidence for such practices and omits elements in translation only exceptional- ly.98 As concerns the very literal way of translating, it can be noted that the translator responsible for the Qumran Aramaic version saw himself as interpres rather than expositor.99 That means that according to the criteria set out above, the Qumran Aramaic translation does not fall into the category of ‘Targum’.

The last item to be discussed in this section is the Aramaic version of Leviticus.100 Among the texts of Qumran cave 4 are two small Arama- ic fragments corresponding to parts of Leviticus 16. These fragments

94 Beyer, Die Aramäischen Texte, 274. 95 Kaufman, ‘The Job Targum from Qumran’, 324. 96 Muraoka, ‘The Aramaic of the Old Targum of Job’, 439–41. 97 Shepherd, Targum and Translation, 218. 98 Shepherd, Targum and Translation, 117. 99 Brock, ‘Translating the Old Testament’, 95. 100 Most of the following is based on L.T. Stuckenbruck & D.N. Freedman, ‘The Fragments of a Targum to Leviticus in Qumran Cave 4 (4Q156): A Linguistic Com- parison and Assessment’, in: P.V.M. Flesher (ed.), Targum and Scripture, Leiden 2002, 79–95. 32 chapter one have become known as 4QTgLev or, more neutrally, 4Q156. Despite their small size and their poorly preserved state they have received much scholarly attention,101 especially because of the light they throw on Aramaic translation of Scripture during the Second Temple period.102 Loren Stuckenbruck and David Freedman have compared these Aramaic fragment texts synoptically with the Hebrew text as well as with the other Pentateuchal Targums, the Peshitta and the Samaritan Pentateuch.103 This comparison led to the following conclusions: the text is apparently not related to any of the other known Aramaic versions. As concerns the criteria we introduced above, it can be said that in one case the word order of the Qumran Aramaic version deviates from the order of the Hebrew text, namely in Lev 16:14. Also in Lev has been left unrendered in the Qumran ,פני ,one Hebrew word 16:14 the fragments have את Aramaic version. For the Hebrew object marker and leave it twice unrendered (16:21). This fragment is ,(16:20) על once too small to say anything definite concerning its translational style. The fact, however, that even in this tiny fragment there are cases of changed word order and words that have been left unrendered, seems to place this Aramaic version of Leviticus in the same category as the Qumran Aramaic version of Job.

B. Background to the Targums

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

1. The raison d’être For a long time, the common opinion was that the Targums came into being during the Second Temple Period because of a social necessity to translate the Bible into the vernacular of the people due to the loss of knowledge of Hebrew.104 This view was shaken by the famous dis-

101 See L.T. Stuckenbruck, ‘Bibliography on 4QtgLev (4Q156)’, JSP 10 (1992), 53–55. 102 The script has been assigned by Milik to the late second / early first centurybce . See J.T. Milik, ‘Targum’, in: R.G.M. De Vaux, et al. (eds), Qumran Cave 4: Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128–4Q157), Oxford 1977, 86. 103 See n. 100. 104 E.g. Zunz, Vorträge, 65; P. Schäfer, ‘Bibelübersetzungen II (Targumim)’, in: preliminary issues 33 coveries in the Judean desert that have shown that Hebrew was still very much alive during that time.105 The newly acquired knowledge can mean two different things: either the idea of a language necessity is true, which would restrict the Targums to certain areas or groups of people, or there was another reason for the origin of the Targums. Let us start with the first possibility. The Targum could have originated in a nearly monoglot milieu where the knowledge of Hebrew was sparse, such as probably was the case in the Galilee.106 This explanation is close to the traditional view, but restricts the possible place of origin to an area where Aramaic was the main language. The nearly monoglot situation could also concern certain groups in society, like women and illiterates.107 This was the view of Rashi, who wrote in his commentary to b.Meg 21b ‘that the Targum is meant to teach women and commoners, who do not un- אוהב גר derstand the sacred language’. Samuel Luzzatto in his book followed Rashi, by stating that Targum Onkelos was not conceived for the learned, but for the commoners.108 He continued, however, to state that the main concern of Onkelos in his Targum was to remove any stumbling block from the path of the masses and the proselytes, so that their hearing of the reading of the Scriptures would be benefi- cial to them.109 Thus, Luzzatto introduced here yet another category of people who might have problems with Hebrew, namely the converts. Since Onkelos himself is reported to have been a proselyte,110 this is an interesting thought. Part of the motivation for his targumic activity would then have been love for his fellow proselytes who had problems with Hebrew.

TRE 6, 216–28, at 216; M.L. Klein, ‘Palestinian Targum and Synagogue Mosaics’, Im- manuel 11 (1980), 33–45. 105 For a good overview of the scholarly discussion on the language situation in Palestine in the first centuries ce, see e.g. Smelik, Targum of Judges, 1–23. 106 This is suggested as a possibility by Smelik, Targum of Judges, 9. 107 See e.g. Massekhet Soferim 18:5 where it says: ‘… And he translates in order that the rest of the people may understand, as well as women and children’. אוהב גר. מאמר ,S.D. Luzzatto ,’לא נעשה בעבור החכמים, אבל בעבור ההדיוטות‘ 108 -Vienna 1830 (repr. Jerusalem 1969), 1. In modern schol ,מחקרי על תרגום אנקלוס הגר arship this view is still adhered to for the case of the Palestinian Targums. See e.g. A. Shinan, ‘The Aramaic Targum as a Mirror of Galilean Jewry’, in: L.I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, New York & Jerusalem 1992, 241–51, at 244. ,’In his later article ‘Nachträgliches über die Thargumim .1 ,אוהב גר ,Luzzatto 109 WZJT 5 (1844), 124–37, at 124, he extends this allegation to Targum Jonathan. 110 E.g. b.Meg 3a, b.BB 99a, b.AZ 11a. 34 chapter one

A variant to this view was brought forward by Paul Flesher on the basis of the translational characteristics of Targum Neofiti. In his opinion Neofiti’s character, as being a ‘straight-translation’ combined with additional material, can best be explaned by being composed for an audience with varying knowledge of Hebrew. A straightforward word- by-word translation is suitable for people who have some familiarity with the Hebrew version of the Bible, because the recognition of the Hebrew original in the Aramaic translation would give them confidence in the reliability of the translation. Such a translation is however difficult to understand for people who know little to no Hebrew, since the grammatical structures and choice of vocabulary are often foreign to their daily speech. By means of small additions the composer tried to adapt the literal translation to the more common parlance, in this way making the translation acceptable for a broad audience with different language abilities.111 The second possibility is that there was another reason for the coming into being of the Targums: the adaptation and interpretation of Scripture. As early as in his 1976 article on Hebrew and Aramaic in the first century, ayyim Rabin suggested that being able to speak Mishnaic Hebrew was no guarantee for understanding all the vocabulary or constructions of an archaic and rich literature in the Hebrew language.112 Or in the words of the third century Palestinian Amora R. Yoanan: ‘The language of the Torah is one thing and the language of the Sages is another’.113 Therefore, some sort of explanation was needed even for native speakers. Moreover, the rabbinic authorities aimed at propagating interpretations that they approved of, while suppressing undesirable readings.114 These two needs could be fulfilled by a concise word-by-word commentary on the biblical text. Since most people probably mastered Hebrew as well as Aramaic, both languages could theoretically be used. However, Hebrew was considered inappropriate for this purpose because the uninstructed could easily mis-

111 P.V.M. Flesher, ‘Targum as Scripture’, in: Idem (ed.), Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translation and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke, Leiden & Boston 2002, 61–75, esp. 72–75. 112 . Rabin, ‘Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century’, in: S. Safrai & M. Stern (eds), The Jewish People in the First Century, Assen 1976, 1007–39, at 1030. 113 b.AZ 58b and b.ul 137b, as cited by Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views’, 272. 114 See e.g. A. Shinan, ‘Midrashic, Paytanic, and Targumic Literature’, in: S.T. Katz (ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism IV: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, Cambridge 2006, 678–98, at 692. preliminary issues 35 take the paraphrase as part of the sacred text.115 The choice for a standard literary form of Aramaic seemed therefore advisable. This cognate language made it possible to stay close to the Hebrew text, while at the same time being clearly distinguishable as not being part of Scripture. In a recent article, titled ‘Is There a Raison d’être for an Aramaic Targum in a Hebrew Speaking Society?’, Abraham Tal came up with a hypothesis that relies heavily on the suggestion of Rabin discussed above.116 The novelty of his article is that he worked the issue out in more detail while at the same time adding an extra aspect. In his paper, he first described the developments of the Samaritan Pentateuch, concerning both linguistic innovations and harmonisations with respect to contents. The Qumran variants he attributed to the same phenomenon. Then he discussed the references in rabbinic literature to the devi- ant biblical text of R. Meir. In his view, this proliferation was unaccept- able to normative Judaism. Therefore a search was begun for a means to secure the Bible text while at the same time meeting the apparent need for modernisation. The solution was found, according to Tal, in the presentation of an actualised Aramaic translation. Making use of the Standard Literary Aramaic of the Second Temple Period, instead of a popular dialect, this translation dovetailed nicely with the Hebrew text. The choice of Aramaic over the contemporaneous Hebrew pre- vented the wrong conception that the interpretation could be seen as Holy Scripture. Clear prescriptions for the use of Targum in the liturgy, such as the reading of the Bible from a scroll as opposed to the recitation by heart of the Targum, and the division of tasks between separate persons, were aimed at suppressing any possible misunderstanding still further. According to this view, the raison d’être of the Targums was a campaign to avoid the corruption of the Written Torah.

2. Sitz im Leben There is, of course, a close connection between the reason for existence of a certain work and its sociological setting. However, where the reasons for existence are fixed, though not retrievable with certainty, the sociological settings may differ in the course of time. At this point we pass over the later developments and concentrate on the settings in the rabbinic period.

115 See also Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views’, 284. 116 A. Tal, ‘Is there a Raison d’être for an Aramaic Targum in a Hebrew-speaking Society?’, REJ 160 (2001), 247–64. 36 chapter one

2.1. The synagogue The early rabbinic sources, both halakhic and aggadic, provide us with ample evidence that from a certain point in time the Targums were closely associated with the synagogal services.117 Examination of this evidence shows that the habit of accompanying the scriptural reading in the synagogue with an oral Aramaic translation probably originated in the Ushan period.118 Apart from this external evidence, there is also the internal targumic evidence. It has been noted, for instance, that the Palestinian Targums of the Torah seem to have been composed for an audience in a liturgical setting. This can, among other things, be deduced from the insertion of vocatives and from the midrashic expansions at the beginning and /or the end of the traditional scriptural readings.119 The more literal Targums Onkelos and Jonathan, however, do not have these characteristics. Does this mean that they had a different Sitz im Leben? Or do they probably represent a different stage in the development of the Targum tradition? There is sufficient evidence that these Targums were used in the synagogues, but this evidence does not go back beyond the tenth or eleventh century.120 Were they probably originally used then in another function? And what may that function have been? Let us consider the possibility of the school system as the original setting for these Targums.

2.2. The school Many modern scholars have proposed connecting the more literal Ar- amaic Bible translations with the school system.121 Within this general

Jerusalem 1979, 1–38; A.D. York, ‘The ,אגדתם של המתורגמנים ,See e.g. A. Shinan 117 Targum in the Synagogue and in the School’, JSJ 10 (1979), 74–86; Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, 14–28; R. Kasher, ‘The Aramaic Targumim and Their Sitz im Leben’, 9th WCJS: Panel Sessions Bible Studies and Ancient Near East, Jerusalem 1988, 75–85, esp. 75–77; Z. Safrai, ‘The Ori- gins of Reading the Aramaic Targum in Synagogue’, Immanuel 24 / 25 (1990), 187–93; Idem, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 245–49; Smelik, The Targum of Judges, 31–39. 118 See Safrai, ‘The Origins of Reading’, 189–91; Idem, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, 246; see also Smelik, ‘The Rabbinic Reception of Early Bible Translations’, 272, who arrives at the same dating on different grounds. אגדתם של ,For a thorough listing of these characteristics, see A. Shinan 119 Jerusalem 1979, 30–38, 63–83, 185–202. See also Kasher, ‘The Aramaic ,המתורגמנים Targumim’, 76–77. 120 See Kasher, ‘The Aramaic Targumim’, 75. 121 E.g. A.D. York, ‘The Targum in the Synagogue and in the school’,JSJ 10 (1979), 74–86; Kasher, ‘The Aramaic Targumim’, 77–79; Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the preliminary issues 37 theory, however, two different lines of thought can be distinguished. The first line connects the Targum with the basic education in the primary school, the Beit Sefer. In the Beit Sefer the Targum was studied in conjunction with the Bible, probably for the purpose of understanding the words. The Targum served as an explanation of the Hebrew text. In that context it is not surprising that the notoriously difficult book of Job should be among the first books of the Bible to be translated.122 The second line of thought, according to which the Targum is connected to the school system, was set out by Philip Alexander. Alexan- der has proposed on several occasions that the Targum had a function in the acquisition of the Hebrew language by non-native speakers.123 In his view, Hebrew had steadily declined, perhaps ever since the return from the Babylonian exile, until by 200 ce it had effectively dis- appeared as a vernacular.124 From at least the third century onwards the everyday vernacular of the Rabbis would have been Aramaic.125 So children had to learn Hebrew at school, because they did not learn it anymore in a natural way from their parents. According to Alexan- der, this was done in the first stage by rote learning portions of Scrip- ture. In the second stage a translation of the text in the vernacular was used to help the students understand the meaning. This translation was absolutely crucial to the learning process. It had to be carefully constructed so as to correlate as closely as possible with the original. Therefore each word had to be translated in its original order and obscurities had to be resolved without deleting elements present in the Hebrew.126 The Targum functioned as a crib to aid the student pass over from his native tongue to the Hebrew text.127 On the basis of this

Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, 22–23; Idem, ‘Jewish Aramaic Trans- lations of Hebrew Scriptures’, 240; Idem, ‘How Did the Rabbis Learn Hebrew?’, 71–89; Smelik, The Targum of Judges, 28–31; Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Litera- ture’, 249. For a general overview of the ancient Jewish educational system, see S. Sa- frai, ‘Education and the Study of the Torah’, in: S. Safrai & M. Stern (eds), The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, 2 Vols, Assen & Amsterdam 1974–76, II.945–70. 122 Kasher, ‘The Aramaic Targumim’, 82. 123 See n. 121. 124 Alexander, ‘How Did the Rabbis’, 73. 125 Alexander, ‘How Did the Rabbis’, 76. He allows for the possibility that for some Rabbis Greek would be the first language. 126 See above, pp. 26–27. Only incidentally Hebrew words were left untranslated. has apparently no equivalent in the Aramaic מדד See e.g. Isa 40:12 where the word translation. 127 Alexander, ‘How Did the Rabbis’, 82. 38 chapter one theory, Alexander proposed that the original Sitz im Leben may have been the primary school, and that it was only subsequently taken over from there as part of the reading of the Torah in synagogue.128

2.3. Individual and academic study Apart from the study at school, the Targums also had a function in the study of adults. Two different kinds of study can be distinguished. The first is the study of the male members of the congregation who could be called to read the Torah and had therefore to prepare their weekly portion. In this preparation also the Targums played a role, as may be deduced from the following saying of R. Ammi:129 One should always complete his weekly portions of Scripture with the congregation, the biblical text twice and the Targum once. The meaning of this saying is not entirely clear, but it seems that in preparation of the sabbath service the male members of the congregation prepared together by studying the weekly portion of Scripture together with its Targum. The second kind is the study of scholars in the Beit Midrash who studied Targum as part of the Oral Torah. This may be illustrated by a famous saying of Rav Joseph that was uttered in response to a question about Sennacherib’s claim that he had God’s orders to destroy Jerusalem,130 R. Joseph said: But for the Targum of this verse, I would not know its meaning: Because this people have wearied of the Davidic dynasty, which rules them with gentleness like the waters of Shiloah which flow tranquilly, and have set their desire upon Rezin and the son of Ramaliah. The reference is to TJ Isa 8:6. This dictum shows that the Targum was seen and used as a repository of Oral Torah to which scholars could turn in order to find the correct interpretation of Scripture. The double function of the Targums in the synagogal service and in study becomes clear from the prescription concerning forbidden passages. There are clear prescriptions concerning certain scriptural

128 Alexander, ‘How Did the Rabbis’, 81. 129 Rav Ammi was a third century Palestinian Amora. The dictum can be found in b.Ber 8ab. 130 Rav Joseph was an early fourth century Babylonian Amora, who was famous because of his extensive knowledge of the oral law. He is connected with the redaction of the Targum. The dictum can be found in b.Sanh 94b. preliminary issues 39 passages that they are to be read but not translated in public.131 In the Tosefta it says ‘But the teacher of Scripture teaches [these passages] in his usual way.’132 Here an important distinction is drawn between the translating of scriptural passages in the public context of the synagogal service and the rendering of those same passages in the context of the Beit Midrash.133 Moreover, the idea of an educational function besides the liturgical function explains the existence of Targums of parts of Scripture that are not used in the liturgy.

C. Survey and Conclusions

In the first section of this chapter we dealt with the question of definition. We decided to define Targum as ‘a Jewish Aramaic interpretative word-by-word translation of the biblical text in exegetical dependence on its wording.’ This definition can be used for Targums as literary works as well as for the individual targumic rendering of biblical passages. Depending on which of the two is meant, different subdivisions can be made. For the last category of the individual targumic renderings, we proposed a subdivision into four types. On the basis of our own definition and some generally accepted targumic characteristics we decided to exclude the Aramaic biblical versions from Qumran from the corpus of Targum. Secondly, we have given a short overview of the state of the art on the questions of the raison d’être and function of the Targums. We saw that the old view that the Targums came into being out of necessity because of the supposed dwindling knowledge of Hebrew is not fully satisfactory. The alternative that is proposed by Abraham Tal, namely that the Targums were created in an attempt to avoid the corruption of the Written Torah, is attractive, but not really provable. With regard to function we saw that the Targums functioned in various ways. They were used in the synagogue, in the educational system and in private worship. The theory of Philip Alexander that the

131 m.Meg 4:10; t.Meg 4(3):31–38; y.Meg 4:11, 75c; b.Meg 25b; MasSof 9:9–10. See Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, ,(JJS 39 (1988 ,’לא מתרגם בציבורא — M.L. Klein, ‘Not to be Translated in Public ;28–14 80–91. 132 t.Meg 4(3):38. 133 See Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views’, 260–61. 40 chapter one

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

Tosefta Targums and Other Targumic Traditions to the Books of Samuel

Within Targum research the so-called Tosefta Targums1 (TTs) occupy a special place. They are, generally speaking, additions to the Tar- gums Onkelos and Jonathan, hence the name ‘tosefta’ which is Ara- maic for addition. The designations ‘Tosefta Targum’ and ‘targumic Tosefta’ are somewhat misleading because we do not know whether in all cases they refer to additions, but since these designations are commonly used in scholarly literature on the subject, we decided to adopt the usage for the time being. At the end of this chapter we shall recapitulate and decide whether the name can be maintained for all the traditions it is generally used for, or that we have to look for more appropriate designations for some of them. The TTs preserve alternative targumic readings, which apparently circulated widely. They are often more elaborate than the official targum traditions that have been preserved in the official Targums Onkelos and Jonathan. Their provenance and date vary considerably and there is no apparent system in the sources in which they occur, although there are certain TTs that only occur in some specific geo- graphic areas.2 Moreover, the TTs do not occur in the Babylonian redaction.3 This absence in the Babylonian tradition may well explain the designation Tosefta, since in relation to this authoritative redaction they can be considered additions. In this chapter we will first survey some previous work on the TTs (a). Then we make a short excursus on the genre of piyyut in order to sketch a framework for some of the Aramaic poems that are also

1 Notwithstanding our decision to write ‘Targum’ with a capital letter when it refers to extant written targumic works and ‘targum’ in lower case when it concerns the genre, the act, or particular instances of rendering into Aramaic (see above, p. 7, n. 1), we write here Tosefta Targum(s) with capital letters because it is such a central theme in this book, even though in most of the cases it concerns particular instances. ,Jerusalem 1996 ,תוספתות תרגום לנביאים: ההדיר, ביאר ותרגום לעברית ,R. Kasher 2 60; A. Houtman, ‘Different Kinds of Tradition in Targum Jonathan to Isaiah’, in: P. van Reenen, A. den Hollander & M. van Mulken (eds), Studies in Stemmatology II, Amsterdam & Philadelphia 2004, 269–83, esp. 275, 277–79. .62–60 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 3 42 chapter two sometimes included in the field of TTs (b). After that we will describe the corpus that is used for this study (c), followed by an attempt to characterise the material according to the main sources (d). Finally, we will try to come to some conclusions (e).

A. Survey of Previous Research on the Tosefta Targums The seemingly random occurrences of the TTs and their diverse character caught scholarly attention as early as in the nineteenth century. תוספתא Because the TTs are sometimes designated in the sources as Tosefta of the Land of Israel’, or the like, the study of‘ ,דארעא דישראל the TTs to the Targum of the Prophets has in the history of research often been combined with the question of whether or not there ever existed a complete Palestinian Targum of the Prophets comparable to the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch.4 Leopold Zunz, one of the founders of the critical study of rabbinic literature, the so-called Wissenschaft des Judentums, suggested that the TTs were remnants of a once complete Palestinian Targum of the Prophets. He based this on the above-mentioned designation of the TTs as Palestinian, but also on the reference of several medieval Jewish authors to a ‘Targum jeruschalmi’ on certain parts of the Prophets.5 Samuel David Luzzatto refuted Zunz’ suggestion on linguistic grounds.6 He used for his arguments the additions of David Kimi in his commentary on the Prophets, and furthermore some pieces of a fifteenth century manuscript — known today as ms H. 116.7 Ac- cording to Luzzatto, the language of these toseftan additions, which he considered to be marginal notes, resembles that of the Babylonian Talmud and they can, therefore, hardly be considered remnants of a Palestinian Targum.8

4 See also W.F. Smelik, The Targum of Judges, Leiden [etc.] 1995, 77–85. 5 L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt, Frank- furt am Main 18922, 80–83. 6 S.D. Luzzatto, ‘Nachträgliches über die Thargumim’, WZJT 5 (1844), 124–37, at 132. 7 Presently part of the Montefiore Endowment, Lauderdale Rd synagogue, Lon- don. See on ms H 116 of Jew’s College, A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic: Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts, Leiden 1968, IVB.139; D.M. Stec, The Text of the Targum of Job, Leiden 1994, 54–55. 8 Luzzatto, ‘Nachträgliches’, 132: ‘… die Sprache dieser Zusäße stimmt mit der des babylonischen Thalm. überein, und ich sehe keinen Grund, sie als Stücke eines je- rusalemischen Thargums zu betrachten, wie Zunz thut, vielmehr scheinen sie mir gleichfalls babylonischen Ursprungs, nur um einige Jahrhunderte jünger als das ursprungliche Thargum.’ tosefta targums 43

In his important study on the history of Targum Jonathan, Zacharias Frankel only briefly touched on the subject and, although admitting that apart from Targum Jonathan there may have existed another Tar- gum of the Prophets, he doubted — on the same linguistic grounds as Luzzatto — whether this could have been a Palestinian Targum.9 At about the same time, the Christian orientalist Paul de Lagarde, who was a fierce opponent of the new scientific approach of the Wis- senschaft des Judentums,10 published the text of Targum Jonathan according to Codex Reuchlin, including its marginalia.11 These mar- תרגום ginal readings are indicated by various introductions, such as -The mar .ואית דמתרגמין and ,לישנא אחרינא ,פליג 12 ,ספר אחר ,ירושלמי ginal readings and their introductory formulas were subsequently thoroughly investigated by Wilhelm Bacher.13 Bacher distinguished and תרגום ירושלמי between mainly aggadic readings (with the sigla -that in his view were taken from another source, and non ,(ספר אחר ואית ,פליג ,לישנא אחרינא aggadic readings (with the designations that were variants within the targum text itself.14 On the (דמתרגמין basis of his findings, Bacher postulated a Palestinian Targum of the Prophets by analogy with the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch. Pinkhos Churgin, in his classic study on Targum Jonathan,15 criticised the work of Bacher. In his view all groups of marginalia in Codex Reuchlin contain fragments that either explain or complement the rendering of Targum Jonathan, so that there is scarcely any founda- tion for a supposition that they represent distinct sources.16 Neither

9 Z. Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Propheten, Breslau 1872, 40. 10 This opposition was apparently based on anti-modernist and anti-Semititic sen- timents rather than on scholarly arguments. See e.g. R.B. Lougee, Paul de Lagarde 1827–1891: A Study of Radical Conservatism in Germany, Cambridge (Mass.) 1962, 94–96, 193–215. 11 P. de Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, Göttingen 1872, repr. Osnabrück 1967. -differing in opinion’. Bacher con‘ פלג√ This is probably a passive participle of 12 different opinion’ (work cited in note 13 on‘ פלוגתא nects it to the talmudic expression this page). The word is always written after the variant. 13 ‘Kritische Untersuchungen zum Prophetentargum’, ZDMG 28 (1874), 1–72. 14 Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, at 35: ‘1) Die vorwiegend agadische Gruppe bei welcher schon die Benennungen auf eine ,(ספר אחר ;[תרג' אחר] תרגום ירושלמי) von der gewöhnlichen verschiedene Version schliessen lassen. 2) Die nichtagadische -deren Bezeichnungen ebenfalls darauf hin ,(ואית דמתרגמי ;פליג ;ליש' אח') Gruppe weisen, dass wir es mit Varianten innerhalb eines und desselben Targum zu thun haben’. 15 P. Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, New Haven 1907 [= 1927]. 16 Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 151–52. 44 chapter two is there, according to him, a basis for a theory of an old Palestinian תרגום ירושלמי and the ,ספר אחר Targum of the Prophets of which the might be remnants, as Bacher suggested.17 The Russo-Austrian rabbinical scholar Abraham Epstein also had his doubts about a Palestinian origin for all the TTs.18 On the basis of research into the language and contents of TTs to the Pentateuch in early Bible editions, he concluded that at least some of them seem to have been composed quite late, that is after the Babylonian Talmud gained influence, and outside Palestine. In the twentieth century the research was continued and could be substantially extended thanks to the gradual publication of the material of the Cairo Genizah. The key person in the process of disclosure of this material was the late Michael Klein who carefully described the Targum fragments of the Cairo Genizah, including the TTs, for which Targum research owes him much.19 Abraham Tal, in his book on the language of the Targum of the Former Prophets, discussed the dialect of the TTs in relation to Tar- gum Jonathan.20 He made a distinction between TTs that are additions in the literal sense of the word — that is TTs that are added in the margins of Targum Jonathan, sometimes even in a different handwriting — and TTs that are incorporated within the regular text. For the first type he advocated a late date for the origin of much of the extant material on the basis of both the language and the content. In his view, the composers of these TTs were not native speakers, but scholars who had acquired their knowledge of Aramaic from Babylonian as well as Palestinian sources.21 The latter type is in his view older and may have been inserted at an early stage of the transmission history of Targum Jonathan. Any original grammatical differences have been smoothed out in the process of redaction and transmission. On the lexical level, however, the different origins can often still be detected.22

17 Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 152. 18 A. Epstein, ‘Tosefta du Targum Yerouschalmi’, REJ 30 (1895), 44–51. 19 M.L. Klein, ‘Targumic Poems from the Cairo Genizah’, HAR 8 (1984), 89–99; Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 Vols, Cincinnati 1986; ‘Targumic Toseftot from the Cairo Genizah’, in: D. Muños León (ed.), Salvación en la Palabra. Targum-Derash-Berith: En memoria del professor Alejandro Díez Macho, Madrid 1986, 409–18; Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, Cambridge 1992. ,Tel Aviv 1975 ,לשון התרגום לנביאים ראשונים ומעמדה בכלל ניבי הארמית ,A. Tal 20 191–200. .192 ,לשון התרגום ,Tal 21 .97–196 ,לשון התרגום ,Tal 22 tosefta targums 45

Pierre Grelot studied and compared several TTs to the Books of the Prophets in connection with Targum Jonathan.23 In some cases he argued for the priority of the Palestinian Targum as found in the TTs, where in his view the more paraphrastic Palestinian version constituted the basis for Targum Jonathan. The short translation of Targum Jonath- an seems in those cases to be a reduction of the longer TT.24 In other cases, however, he came to the conclusion that the TTs are Palestinian Amoraic adaptations of Targum Jonathan, stemming from the same milieu as Pesikta Rabbati and Targum Writings.25 In his view it is not certain whether there ever existed a complete Targum of the Prophets contemporaneous with the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch, but Palestinian targums of the haftarah readings at least must have existed. It is not impossible, according to him, that these targums were committed to writing at the same time and in the same milieu as the Palestin- ian Targum of the Pentateuch, on the basis of older oral traditions.26 The German scholar Uwe Gleßmer defended in 1988 a doctoral dissertation on the origin and history of the Targums of the Pentateuch in the light of the TTs.27 A few years later he wrote together with Heinz Fahr a study on a TT to the Book of Joshua.28 Both studies suggest that the TTs concerned preserve early stages of the Palestinian Targum tradition.29 Rimon Kasher made a significant contribution to the study of the TTs of the Prophets by collecting, publishing, translating and discussing

23 P. Grelot, ‘L’exégèse messianique d’Isaïe, LXIII, 1–6’, RB 70 (1963), 371–80; ‘Une Tosephta targoumique sur Zacharie 2:14-15’, RB 73 (1966), 197–211; ‘Deux Tosephtas targoumiques inédites sur Isaïe LXVI’, RB 79 (1972), 511–43 [this article has to be read with the note that appeared a year later: ‘À propos d’une tosephta targoumique’, RB 80 (1973), 363]; ‘Le Targoum d’Isaïe, X, 32-34 dans ses diverses recensions’, RB 90 (1983), 202–28. 24 Grelot, ‘Une tosephta targoumique sur Zacharie, II, 14-15’ (see, however, the critique of R.P. Gordon, ‘Sperber’s “Additional Targum” to Zechariah 2:14-15; Study- ing a Targumic Cento’, in: Idem, Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets: From Nahum to Malachi, Leiden [etc.] 1994, 96–107); ‘Le Targoum d’Isaïe, X, 32-34 dans ses diverses recensions’, 212. 25 ‘Deux Tosephtas targoumiques inédites sur Isaïe LXVI’, 543. 26 Grelot, ‘Le Targoum d’Isaïe, X, 32-34’, 227. 27 U. Gleßmer, Entstehung und Entwicklung der Targume zum Pentateuch als literarkritisches Problem, dargestellt am Beispiel der Zusatztargume, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University of Hamburg 1988. 28 H. Fahr & U. Gleßmer, Jordandurchzug und Beschneidung als Zurechtweisung in einem Targum zu Josua 5 (Edition des MS T.-S. B 13,12), Glückstadt 1991. 29 Gleßmer, Entstehung und Enwicklung, 467, 471, 474; Fahr & Gleßmer, Jordan durchzug, 109–10. 46 chapter two

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

1. Excursus: the case of the Pentateuch For the Pentateuch we have the interesting situation of several targum collections that give only a selection of translated parts. Besides the TTs, there is also the intriguing phenomenon of the Fragment Tar- gums. These collections seem, at least in part, to have been consciously

Tarbiz ,’התוספתות התרגומיות להפטרת שבת-חנוכה‘ ,See n. 2. See further, R. Kasher 30 AJS Review 21 ,’האם יש מקור אחד לתוספתות התרגום לנביאים?‘ ,Idem ;45–27 ,(1975) 45 (1996), 1–21. .21–20 ,’האם יש מקור אחד‘ ,Idem ;20–19 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 31 32 A. Damsma, An Analysis of Targum Ezekiel and its Relationship to the Targumic Toseftot, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University College London, September 2008. tosefta targums 47 selected and assembled.33 In some respects the corpus of TTs may be compared to these Fragment Targums. Klein described the TTs to the Pentateuch as ‘expansive passages of aggadic midrash which have their source in the Palestinian-Targum tradition’.34A certain similarity to the Fragment Targums is obvious and accordingly the two corpora sometimes have been compared.35 This comparison is further encouraged by the heading of the Fragment Targum according to אתחיל תוספות ms Paris Bibliothèque Nationale Hébreu 110 that reads I‘ וחילופין תרגו>ם< ירוש>למי< לתורה … בעזרת האל הנאזר בגבורה … begin [copying] additions and variants, the Jerus Targ to the Pentateuch; with the help of the God, who is girded with might.’ It seems therefore that both corpora consist of additions as well as variant readings. There are, however, also differences to be noted. According to Klein the major differences between the TTs in Onkelos and the Fragment Targums can be summarised as follows.36 Firstly, the TTs are in his view expansive passages of aggadic midrash, while the Fragment Targums also carry brief verses, phrases or even single words. By the way, as we shall see below, this is not true for the TTs to Samuel that we investigated. Secondly, even though Palestinian in origin, the TTs have been used to supplement Onkelos and consequently have undergone a conscious dialectal adaptation to the language of Onkelos. The Fragment Tar- gums on the other hand have retained the language of the Palestinian Targums. In Klein’s view, moreover, a piece of targum is ‘tosefta’ only when it does not occur in a manuscript of one of the other categories, and he further claims that targumic poetry is not to be categorised as ‘tosefta’, simply because it is in verse.37

33 M.L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources, 2 Vols, Rome 1980, I.12. 34 Klein, Genizah Manuscripts, I.xxvi. 35 E.g. Bacher, Kritische Untersuchungen, 55–58. 36 Klein, Genizah Manuscripts, I.xxvi–xxvii. This description is taken up by Philip Alexander, in his survey article ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures’, in: M.J. Mulder & H. Sysling (eds), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpreta- tion of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen [etc.] 1988 (repr. Peabody, Mass. 2004), 217–53, at 221–22. 37 M.J. Bernstein, ‘A New Manuscript of Tosefta Targum’, Proceedings of the 9th WCJS, Div. A, Jerusalem 1986, 151–58, at 151. The rather vague references to Klein’s work in note 1 of this article could, however, not be traced. 48 chapter two

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

B. Piyyut

There is one specific literary genre that has to be described briefly here before we proceed to the description of the corpus, and that is the liturgical poetry. The liturgical poetry, the so-called piyyut,40 originated in all probability in the Galilean synagogues in the fourth to fifth centuries ce, thus in the same time and milieu that the Targums also flourished. These liturgical poems were presumably meant as innovations to counterbalance the perfunctory recitation of fixed texts.41

38 Bernstein, ‘A New Manuscript’, 151. 39 Bernstein, ‘A New Manuscript’, 151. 40 For a short introduction, see e.g. W.J. van Bekkum, ‘Pijjut’, TRE 26, 634–40; E. Fleischer, ‘Piyyut’, in: S. Safrai et al. (eds), The Literature of the Sages. Second Part: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science, and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature, Assen 2006, 363–74. We wish to thank Professor Wout van Bekkum for some useful remarks on an earlier draft of the section. 41 In accordance with the dictum in m.Avot 2:13, where it says ‘When you pray, do not make your prayer a fixed form’. See e.g. Fleischer, ‘Piyyut’, 364, 366. tosefta targums 49

In this process of innovation, the azanim, whose role gradually developed from servant of the congregation to liturgical leader, played an important role. In their reciting of the prayers, they started to vary the fixed prayers withpiyyutim , either of their own invention or using existing material, combining their liturgical duties with poetic skill. In those piyyutim the liturgical motifs of the Shema and the Amidah would be ingeniously meshed with topics from the appropriate Torah and haftarah portions. These productions generally show great scholarly erudition in their frequent allusions to the full range of biblical and rabbinic literature and in the artistic liberties their creators, the paytanim, took with the Hebrew language, by recasting usual roots in unusual morphological forms, and by investing words with new grammatical status.42 Those liberties sometimes went so far that to our ears their language might seem strange and artificial. That may, of course, be partly due to our inadequate understanding. But besides that, recent analysis of their language indicates that their particular usage would probably have been well suited to an audience that understood both Hebrew and Aramaic, since they obviously presume knowledge of contemporary Galilean Aramaic without which part of the wordplay would be lost.43 Moreover, even though they are in He- brew, they seem to be closely related — in their usage and in the traditions they presume — to the extant Targums that, as a matter of course, are in Aramaic.44 One could say with Shinan that prayer, piyyut, Targum and homi- lies are primarily ‘literature of the synagogue’, while Mishnah, Tal- mud and Midrashim are ‘literature of the Beit Midrash’.45 Accord- ing to Laura Lieber, in a groundbreaking article on the subject,46 the

42 Fleischer, ‘Piyyut’, 372. 43 See S.D. Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilin- gualism in the Jewish Galilee of the Third-Sixth Centuries’, in: L.I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, New York & Jerusalem 1992, 253–86, at 280 and the works cited there in n. 62. Yet it must be noted that even with knowledge of both languages many of the intricate allusions and puns probably went over the head of the average synagogue-goer. 44 Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views’, 280. 45 See e.g. A. Shinan, ‘The Aggadah of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Rabbinic Aggadah: Some Methodological Considerations’, in: D.R.G. Beattie & M. McNamara (eds), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context, Shef- field 1994, 203–17, at 203. 46 L. Lieber, ‘“Oh my Dove, Let Me See Your Face!” Targum, Piyyut, and the Lit- erary Life of the Ancient Synagogue’, in: A. den Hollander et al. (eds), Paratext and Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions. The Textual Markers of 50 chapter two

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

1. Aramaic poetry There is ample evidence of an early existence of Aramaic poetry. Ac- cording to Heinemann, the oldest Aramaic poems are ancient oral compositions, the origin of which is even older than that of the classical piyyut.50 Within the texts of Qumran, for example, some speci- mens of early Aramaic poetry have been found, such as the description of Sarai’s beauty in the Genesis Apocryphon.51

Contextualization, Leiden [etc.] 2003, 109–35. 47 See above, p. 14. 48 Fleischer, ‘Piyyut’, 370. 49 Fleischer, ‘Piyyut’, 371. Ha-Sifrut 4 ,’שרידים מיצירתם הפיוטית של המתורגמנים הקדמונים‘ ,J. Heinemann 50 (1973), 362–75, at 373–74. 51 See J.C. Vanderkam, ‘The Poetry of 1 Q Ap Gen xx-2-8’, RdQ 10 (1979), 57–66; A.S. Rodrigues Pereira, Studies in Aramaic Poetry (c. 100 B.C.E. — c. 600 C.E.): Se- lected Jewish, Christian and Samaritan Poems, Assen 1997, 11–26 (commentary), 305 (text), 385 (translation). tosefta targums 51

From talmudic times we know of the funeral songs, which were for a great part written in Aramaic, in accordance with the talmudic saying that Aramaic is the language for dirges.52 A collection of these Aramaic eulogies has been published by Michael Sokoloff and Joseph Yahalom.53 Also the Targums, especially the Palestinian ones, contain some striking poetic passages. In some cases these are composed of translated biblical poetry, such as for instance the lyrical description of the Messiah in Gen 49:11–12 or the rephrasing of the Song of David in 2 Sam 22.54 In other cases we find poetical introductions that were probably recited by the meturgemanim during the morning services on special sabbaths and holidays, and which served as illumination to central verses from the festive readings. This kind of poetry has from the end of the nineteenth century onwards been recognised as a particular targumic genre, the so-called ‘Introductory Poems’.55 They are Aramaic poetic introductions to the liturgical reading of Scripture on special occasions,56 and are in that sense functionally related to the piyyut. Leopold Zunz, Wilhelm Bacher and Moses Ginsburger were among the first to publish and discuss some of these poems.57 In the twentieth century this work was continued by Yehuda Komlosh, Joseph Heinemann, Ezra Fleischer, Michael Klein, Pierre Grelot, Alphons Samuel Rodrigues Pereira, Michael Sokoloff and Joseph Yahalom,58 and

52 y.Meg 1:1, 71b; y.Sot 7:2, 21c. By contrast, funeral songs for great scholars were in Hebrew. See H. Sysling, ‘Laments at the Departure of a Sage: Funeral Songs for Great Scholars as Recorded in Rabbinic Literature’, in: M.F.J. Baasten & R. Munk (eds), Studies in Hebrew Language and Jewish Culture, Dordrecht 2007, 81–102. שירת בני מערבא — שירים ארמיים של יהודי ארץ-ישראל ,Sokoloff & Yahalom 53 .Jerusalem 1999, 282–329 ,בתקופה הביזנטית 54 For a discussion of the Aramaic version of the Song of David, see Rodrigues Pereira, Studies in Aramaic Poetry, 27–57 (commentary), 306–08 (text), 386–90 (translation); Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 634–64. 55 According to the terminology of Klein (Genizah Manuscripts, I.xxviii–xxix), who also called them ‘reshuyot’ by analogy with the Hebrew poems that served as an introduction to certain liturgical prayers. See M.L. Klein, ‘Introductory Poems (R’shuyot) to the Targum of the Hafarah in Praise of Jonathan Ben Uzziel’, in: S.F. Chyet & D.H. Ellenson (eds), Bits of Honey: Essays for Samson H. Levey, Atlanta 1993, 43–56. 56 Especially Passover, Shavuot, Ninth of Av, Purim, and New Moon of Nisan. 57 L. Zunz, Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie, 2 Vols, Berlin 1865–1867, 18– 22, 74–80, 150–51; W. Bacher, ‘Alte aramäische Poesien zum Vortrage des haphtara- Targum’, MGWJ 22 (1873), 220–28; M. Ginsburger, ‘Aramäische Introduktionen zum Thargumvortrag an Festtagen’, ZDMG 54 (1900), 113–24; Idem, ‘Les Introductions Araméenes a la Lecture du Targoum’, REJ 73 (1921), 14–26, 186–94. ,סיני, ספר יובל )תשי'ח( ,(.in: Y.L. Maymon (ed ,’כתבי יד של תרגומים‘ ,Y. Komlosh 58 52 chapter two

more recently by Michael Rand.59 These poems originated in Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine period when Aramaic was the main language in Palestine, and they continued to be used for certain well-defined parts of the liturgy long after any practical reason to use Aramaic had ceased.60 According to Zunz, we find a remnant of this usage until the fourteenth century: on the seventh day of Passover and the first day of Shavuot the Torah-reading and the haftarah were followed by a Tar- gum, partly according to the Palestinian Targum tradition as becomes clear from the Mazorim of this period.61 This custom may, however, at certain places have continued even longer, until early modern times, witness the fact that for example the Roman Rite Festival Prayer Book that was printed in Bologna in 1540 still contains the Aramaic version of the haftarot for Passover and Shavuot.62 In some communities these Aramaic readings were preceded by the named Aramaic introductory poems. In fact, even today most European and America traditional synagogues chant an Aramaic introductory poem on Shavuot, before the Torah lection, the Akdamut Milin.63 A few of these poems are demonstrably old, such as for instance the Go, Moses!’,64 of which a copy has been found in a‘ ,איזל משה famous

-Tar ,’ראש ראשי חדשים‘ ,E. Fleischer ;75–362 ,’שרידים‘ ,Heinemann ;81–466 ,(58–1957) biz 37 (1967–68), 265–78; Klein, ‘Targumic Poems’, 89–99; Idem, Genizah Manuscripts, passim (see the list in the first volume, p. L); Idem, ‘Introductory Poems’; P. Grelot, ‘Un poème acrostiche araméen sur Exode 12’, Semitica 38 (1990), 159–65; Idem, ‘Trois poèmes acrostiches sur Exode 12,2’, RB 106/1 (1999), 41–65; Idem, ‘Deux poèmes ara- méens sur Exode 20:1–2’, REJ 159 (2000), 49–61; Rodrigues Pereira, Studies in Ara- maic Poetry, 58–109 (commentary), 309–17 (texts), 391–402 (translation); M. Sokoloff & J. Yahalom, ‘Aramaic Piyyuim from the Byzantine Period’, JQR 75/3 (1985), 309–21; .Jerusalem 1999 ,שירת בני מערבא ,Idem 59 M. Rand, ‘Observations on the Relationship between JPA Poetry and the He- brew Piyyut Tradition: The case of the Kinot’, in: A. Gerhards & C. Leonhard (eds), Jewish and Christian Liturgy and Worship, Leiden & Boston 2007, 127–44. 60 Many of the poems listed by Zunz occur in the eleventh/twelfth century French Mazor Vitry. 61 See Zunz, Vorträge, 426–27. 62 Bacher, ‘Alte aramäische Poesien’, 220–21. Especially in Italy the custom of translating into Aramaic all the haftarot for Passover and those for the two days of Shavuot, was preserved until recently. See e.g. E. Fleischer, ‘Prayer and Piyyu in the Worms Mazor’, in: M. Beit-Arié (ed.), Worms Mazor: MS. Jewish National and University Library Heb. 40 781/1, Jerusalem 1985, 36–78, at 42 n. 62. 63 M.L. Klein, ‘Targumic Poems’, 89. 64 For a recent discussion of the poem, see H. Sysling, ‘“Go, Moses, and stand by the sea”: An acrostic poem from the Cairo Genizah to Exodus 14:30’, in: R. Roukema et al. (eds), The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman, Leuven 2006, 139–54. tosefta targums 53 fourth or fifth century papyrus in Berlin.65 Others are of a later date. These later poems are mostly not anonymous but give the name of the writer hidden in the text in an acrostic or otherwise. Some of the older poems, that were probably originally composed as introductions to the Palestinian Targum for festive occasions, survived after Targum Onkelos replaced the Palestinian Targum. At that stage they were sometimes adapted to the language of Targum Onke- los / Jonathan in the same manner as happened to the Tosefta Targums,66 and occasionally they also attained the status of a Tosefta Targum. Like the classical Hebrew piyyut, these Aramaic poems often use acrostics as the literary scheme. Furthermore they may be written in the style of dialogues or disputes. The originally oral character becomes visible in the use of returning formulas.67 The Aramaic is often interspersed with Greek words.68 Remarkable is for instance the use of κύριος) as a designation for God, because this name) קיריס the word does not occur in any rabbinic literature apart from the Palestinian Targums.69 It may be that the expression was banned from rabbinic literature after the Christians started to use it as a designation for both God the Father and for Jesus.70 The occurrence of the word in the Pal- estinian targum tradition would then point to either its antiquity or to a disregard of rabbinic authority. The content of the targumic poems is characterised by mythological tendencies that are totally absent from the authoritative Targums On- kelos and Jonathan.71 Also this might point to a certain independence of rabbinic authority, since the rabbis are not known for their fondness of these themes. Whereas mythological themes in rabbinic literature,

–Tarbiz 47 (1978), 173 ,’”אזל משה” בפפרוס‘ ,Papyrus P 8498, edited by J. Yahalom 65 .86–82 ,שירת בני מערבא ,See also Sokoloff & J. Yahalom .82 66 See Klein, ‘Targumic Poems’, 95. ,For the Christian use of the title (ὁ) κύριος for Jesus .371 ,’שרידים‘ ,Heinemann 67 see e.g. J.A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Semitic Background of the New Testament Kyrios-Title’, in: Idem, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, Missoula 1979, 115–42. 68 Sokoloff & Yahalom, ‘Aramaic Piyyuim from the Byzantine Period’, 318–19. 69 E.g. PsJon Num 11:26, Neof Deut 32:1. See JPA 492a. The word also occurs as a על פסיפס ,title in Palestinian synagogue inscriptions, as becomes clear from J. Naveh .Tel Aviv 1978, Index, 151 ,ואבן — הכתובות הארמיות והעבריות .368 ,’שרידים‘ ,Heinemann 70 71 See e.g. the mythological portrayal of Moses as described by Sokoloff & Ya- ,Another view .60–158 ,’שרידים‘ ,See also Heinemann .41–39 ,שירת בני מערבא ,halom denying the mythological tendencies as one of the characteristics of this genre, was -Tar ,’שירת בני מערבא — היבטים בעלמה של שירה עלומה‘ ,recently expressed by M. Kister biz 76/1 (2008), 105–84, esp. 153–62. 54 chapter two if they occur at all, are often justified by biblical proof-texts or softened -as it were’,72 in the liturgi‘ כביכולdown by exegetical qualifiers such as cal poetry they are used overtly, in their own right. In the corpus we have studied we find, for example, a large TT to 1 Sam 17:42 in the form of an acrostic poem, consisting of a dialogue between Goliath and David.73 This kind of poetic insertion increases the dramatic effect of the biblical text and focuses attention on central points in the narrative.74 It is conceivable that this became a rather popular device to enliven the synagogue worship. It may even be that sometimes things got out of hand, witness the following tradition that is based on Eccl 7:5,75 טוב לשמוע גערת חכם, אלו הדרשנים, מאיש שומע שיר כסילים אלו המתורגמנין שמגביהין קולם בשיר להשמיע את העם ‘It is better to listen to a wise man’s reproof’, these are the interpreters, ‘than to listen to the song of fools’, these are the meturgemanim who raise their voices in poetry to instruct the people.

C. Description of the Corpus

The targumic traditions that are generally called Tosefta Targums are found scattered in various manuscripts and printed editions. They can be found in Targum manuscripts, in haftarah collections, in prayer books, and in medieval rabbinic works. They may occur as an inte- gral part of the text or as marginal additions. At times they have been transmitted separately.76 Sometimes they are marked as Tosefta or Je- rusalemite targum or the like, while at other times they go without

72 See M. Fishbane, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, Oxford 2003, 213. 73 See E. van Staalduine-Sulman, ‘The Aramaic Song of the Lamb’, in: J.C. de Moor & W.G.E. Watson (eds), Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose, Neukirchen 1993, 265–92; J.C. de Moor & E. van Staalduine-Sulman, ‘The Aramaic Song of the Lamb’, -E. van Staalduine-Sulman, The Tar ;11–109 ,תוספתות ,JSJ 24 (1993), 266–79; Kasher gum of Samuel, Leiden 2002, 364–83. See below, pp. 114–118. 74 A. Shinan, ‘The Late Midrashic, Paytanic, and Targumic Literature’, in: S.T. Katz (ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. IV. The Late Roman-Rabbinic Pe- riod, Cambridge 2006, 678–98, at 693–94. 75 EcclR 7:5, EcclZ 7:5, YalqSh Eccl §973. A comparable tradition occurs in EcclR 9:17 and YalqSh Eccl §989. See Zunz, Vorträge, 358. 76 Bernstein, ‘A New Manuscript’, 151; Klein, ‘Targumic Toseftot’, 410; U. Gleßmer, Einleitung in die Targume zum Pentateuch, Tübingen 1995, 165; C. Leonhard, The Jewish Pesach and the Origins of the Christian Easter: Open Questions in Current Research, Berlin 2006, 356–57. tosefta targums 55 any special designation. The language of the TTs varies: sometimes it is close to the dialect of Onkelos and Jonathan, sometimes it shows a clear Babylonian influence, and at still other times it is outspoken Pal- estinian. In many cases the TTs are clearly additions to the rather basic translation of Targum Jonathan, while at other times they seem to be totally independent of it. In some cases targumic traditions in Targum Jonathan seem to be abridged versions of longer versions that have been preserved as TTs. This very diverse character of the TTs makes it difficult to categorise them. Depending on the scholarly interest, one could opt for a subdivision based on geography, source, function, form, or relation to Targum Jonathan. Until now, the TTs have in scholarly research mostly been defined in relation to Targum Jonathan. For instance, Pinkhos Churgin, in his monograph on Targum Jonathan, used the term ‘interpolated targum’ for the TTs, a designation which in itself is telling. In his view Targum Jonathan fell prey to later editors who forced into it other material. The Targum was susceptible, according to Churgin, to changes due to its purpose as a didactical instrument and to its place in public worship.77 Later midrashic material was inserted as interpolation into the simple and straightforward translation of Targum Jonathan.78 In addition there are interpolations of an exegetical character, which attempt to clarify either the Hebrew text or the accepted rendering of Targum Jonathan.79 Among these interpolations Churgin also reckons the double translations within Targum Jonathan.80 So his definition of ‘interpolated targum’ encompasses more than what is generally considered Tosefta Targum. Kasher, in his book on the subject, included all kinds of variant traditions that occur in combination with Targum Jonathan in his corpus.81 This is a clear and practical choice, though it may be challenged on different grounds, as we shall argue later. Kasher distinguished three types of extensions: a preceding extension, an interwoven extension, and a concluding extension. A small number of the TTs differ essen- tially from Targum Jonathan. These targums he termed substitute tar-

77 Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 126. 78 Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 126–39. 79 Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 139–45. 80 Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 139–41. 81 Excluding variant traditions that occur as quotations in other rabbinic or medieval literature such as described in Chapter Three of the present work, unless they also occur elsewhere in manuscripts or early editions of Targum Jonathan. 56 chapter two gums.82 Within this last category he made the following subdivision: 1. independent substitute targums,83 2. interwoven substitute targums,84 and 3. literal substitute targums.85 In any case, Kasher’s classification invariably takes Targum Jonathan as its point of departure and describes the variant traditions in relation to that text. For the present study we have concentrated on the TTs on Samuel that were brought together by Rimon Kasher in his book on the Tosefta Targums, completed with a TT on 1 Sam 2:9 that was discovered by the late Michael Klein,86 a Jerushalmi variant on 1 Sam 6:19, and some marginal readings of the sefer aer type of Codex Reuchlin that were not included in Kasher’s study.87 We decided to include these sefer aer additions in order to probe Bacher’s supposition that they might be remnants of an independent tradition.88 Altogether there are forty-six TTs on Samuel, of which three are on the same verse, namely 1 Sam 17:8. In the following subparagraphs we will first describe the main sources of the TTs to Targum Samuel, before proceeding to discuss and characterise the individual traditions.

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

.(28–26 ,20 ,תוספתות ,Kasher) תרגום חילופי 82 .27 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 83 .27 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 84 .28–27 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 85 86 T-S NS 128.14. See Klein, Targumic Manuscripts, 51, nr 615. to 1 Sam 31:4 since that seems ויתלעבון We did not include the sefer aer variant 87 -a case of metath ,ויתעלבון to be a correction of the base text of Reuchlin that reads esis of consonants. Both readings make sense and both are supported by several manuscripts. 88 See above, p. 43. 89 See http://www.targum.nl/ (accessed Oct. 31, 2008). tosefta targums 57

1.1. Codex Reuchlin The most important source for our investigation is Codex Reuchlin, a Bible manuscript of the Prophets with Targum Jonathan alternating. It has been written in Ashkenazi script, by Zera bar Yehudah, and is dated 4866 (1105–1106 ce). The place of provenance is probably Italy. The codex contains a very valuable collection of alternative targum traditions of which some may be designated as TTs.90 1.2. Other continuous Targum manuscripts Besides Codex Reuchlin there are several other continuous Targum manuscripts that contain TTs. This group can be subdivided according to the cultural geographical background of the manuscripts. We start with the Sephardi manuscripts: -Bodleian Library, Oxford. Bilin .(אms Opp Add 40 75–76 (Kasher 1 «« gual Targum of the Prophets. The manuscript can be attributed to the school of Joshua ben Abraham Ibn Gaon of Soria, early 14th century. For our purposes only the first volume is relevant, i.e. ms Opp Add 40 75. Former Prophets and Ruth in Aramaic .(דms Madrid 7542 (Kasher 1 «« and Latin written by Alfonso de Zamora in 1533. ,TJ from 1 Sam 5:11 onwards, Targum to Psalms .(הms H. 116 (Kasher 1 «« Job, and Proverbs. TJ completed in 1486 ce, probably in North Africa.91 Targum of the Prophets and the .(חms M1–M3 Salamanca (Kasher 1 «« Writings with a Latin translation. Written by Alfonso de Zamora, volume 3 completed in Alcalá de Henares, 1532. For our purposes only the first volume is relevant, i.e. ms M1. -Targum Onkelos, Targum Jonathan, Meg .(יms Hébreu 75 (Kasher 1 «« illat Antiochus in Aramaic, and Testament Naphtali. The manuscript was probably produced in Spain, in the fourteenth or fifteenth century. Oxford. Former Prophets with Targum ,(כms Kennicott 5 (Kasher 1 «« Jonathan and the commentaries of Rashi, Kimi and Levi ben Ger- shon. Spain, probably 1487. TTs integrated in the text. The manuscript is replete with errors and abbreviations.

.This codex is available in a facsimile edition: A .15 ,תוספתות ,See also Kasher 90 Sperber, Codex Reuchlinianus no. 3 of the Badische Landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe (formerly Durlach no. 55): with a general introduction: Masoretic Hebrew, Copenha- gen 1956 .15–14 ,תוספתות ,See also Kasher 91 58 chapter two

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

92 We placed it here with the Ashkenazi witness because it contains a TT that tosefta targums 59

Whereas normally the Yemenite manuscripts, being close to the Ba- bylonian tradition, do not contain TTs, the following late Yemenite manuscript has some TTs added in the margin: British Library, London. Former Prophets .(ט ms Or. 1471 (Kasher 2 «« with Targum Jonathan, including an Arabic translation for Judges 4:23–5:31. Targum alternating with the Hebrew verse. Tosefta Tar- gums in the margin. Yemenite script. Dated 1589 ce. 1.3. Collection of haftarot »» ms Gaster 1478 (no siglum in Kasher). According to Kasher this is a typewriter copy of ms 1020 that was lost.93 The Gaster list is a photocopy of handwritten descriptions and it is not always legible. But it seems to say: ‘Hagadah. Midrash Hagadot from Haphtaroth (Persia) copies of Agadic portions in [Happ..?. illegible word]’.94 1.4. Early editions Sephardi First printed edition, Leiria 1494. Former Prophets .(בLeiria (Kasher 1 «« with Targum and the commentaries of Kimi and Levi ben Gershon. Italian Published in 1516/17 by Daniel .(אFirst Rabbinic Bible (Kasher 3 «« Bomberg in Venice, edited by Felix Pratensis. The Prophets are provided with Targum Jonathan and Kimi’s commentary. 1.5. Cairo Genizah manuscripts »» T-S NS 128.14 (not in Kasher).95 University Library, Taylor-Schech- ter Collection, Cambridge. Prophets with Targum Jonathan (fragments): 1 Sam 2:8–2:10, and in the margin 2:11; 3:19–3:20. Tiberian vocalisation. Judaeo-Arabic heading in the middle of verso followed by an Aramaic liturgical composition. Oriental semi-cursive script. Date unknown. »» T-S B11.56 (not in Kasher).96 University Library, Taylor-Schechter Collection, Cambridge. Fragment of a codex, 8 folios, Targum occurs mainly in that group. .306 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 93 94 We owe this information to Ms Anne Young of the Special Collections of the John Rylands Library of the University of Manchester. 95 M.L. Klein, Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, Cam- bridge 1992, 41, nr. 615. 96 Klein, Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, 22, nr. 261. 60 chapter two

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

1.6. Bible commentaries Sephardi ,Kimi’s commentary to the Prophets ,(סms Parma 2883 (Kasher 6 «« תרגום Italy 1328.97 Kimi cites pieces of targum under the heading 98.של תוספתא ,Kimi’s commentary to the Prophets ,(כms Vatican 71 (Kasher 6 «« Italian handwriting, 1346. Kimi cites pieces of targum under the 99.תרגום של תוספתא heading Ashkenazi written in 1233 in Ashkenaz, contains ,(ם ms Munich 5 (Kasher «« among other things a commentary to the Prophets ascribed to Rashi.100 This commentary contains many targum citations. Appar- ently the source was a manuscript where the additions were incor- followed יונתן תרגם המקרא הזה .porated without any sign; it says e.g by what we would call a TT.

1.7. Mazorim Roman rite, fifteenth or ,(הms Add. 27,070 (Kasher ms London 634, 3 «« sixteenth century. »» ms Add. 17,058 (Kasher ms London 636, no siglum), Roman rite, fifteenth century.

2. Distribution among the sources If we now examine how the TTs are distributed among these sources, the following picture emerges. Of the 46 traditions examined, only 8 occur in more than one source, viz. 1 Sam 17:8b; 17:8c; 17:39; 17:42; 18:19; 2 Sam 6:23; 12:12; 22:3–47 passim). The last one of these only occurs in two Mazorim, ms Add. 27,070 and ms Add. 17,058. By far the

97 Although Kimi was born in France, and his commentary appeared in Italy, born of a family of Spanish immigrants he considered himself a Sephardi. For exam- .is ascribed to Rabbi David Kimi ha-Sephardi ספר השרשים ple his book .14 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 98 .14 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 99 .15 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 100 tosefta targums 61 most TTs, 34, are known to us only from Codex Reuchlin. Four traditions are known from other single witnesses, two from ms Kennicott 5 (2 Sam 18:25; 20:22), one from the Leiria edition (2 Sam 19:30), and one from the Genizah fragment T-S NS 128.14 (1 Sam 2:9).

D. Characterisation of the Toseftan Material According to their Designations

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

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

Within the text a small circle indicates the place to which the variant refers. All variants are unique in the sense that they do not appear in other known sources. They are as follows: 1 Sam 2:22; 4:12; 17:18; 21:16; 26:9; 26:20; 28:19; 30:16; 2 Sam 1:6; 1:21; 3:5; 3:27; 6:19; 15:4; 15:11, 21:1; 21:3; 21:5; 21:12. Five of these traditions are aggadic, which is more or less in line with Bacher’s observation that in the whole codex about a quar- ter of the material designated as sefer aer is aggadic.103 We shall first examine these aggadic instances and then proceed to discuss and classify the other variants with the designation sefer aer.

101 No special reference is given to the work of Kasher, since the reference in the headings of the TT will suffice. 102 See above, n. 87. 103 Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 22. 62 chapter two

1.1. Aggadic variants

1 Sam 2:22 (Kasher 42) Codex Reuchlin 57r TJ MT ספ>ר< אח>ר< וְעֵלִי זָקֵן מְ אֹד וְׁשָמַע אֵת ּכָ ל ועלי סיב לחדא ושמע ית אֲׁשֶריַעֲׂשּון ּבָנָיו לְכָל יִׂשְרָאֵ ל כל דעבדין בנוהי לכל ישראל וְאֵת אֲׁשֶר יִׁשְּכְבּון אֶתהַּנָׁשִ ים וית דשכבין ית נשיא וית דמשהן ית קרבני נשיא הַ ּצֹבְ אֹות דאתין לצלאה דמדכיין דאתן לצלאה חּפֶתַ אֹהֶל מֹועֵד׃ בתרע משכן זמנא׃ Translation Another book. [Now Eli was very old when he heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel], and how they delayed the purifying offers of the women who came to pray [at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.] Notes and commentary This is a substitute targum that explains the Hebrew text. The Hebrew of the second part of the verse is unclear and calls for interpretation. According to Koehler-Baumgartner the general meaning of the verb is ‘to serve’ (in the army, or in worship). TJ translates the צבא√ qal as ‘coming to pray’. The variant reading הצבאות definite participle but is more prudish in its ,הצבאות agrees with this interpretation of .by avoiding any sexual connotation שכב√ translation of the verb qal According to this reading the sin of Eli’s sons was not that they had sex, but that they delayed the purifying offers of the women. This is in accordance with b.Yoma 9ab where it says ‘Notwithstanding R. Samuel ben Namani who said in the name of R. Yoanan: Whosoever says, The sons of Eli sinned [sexually] is but mistaken; it is because they delayed offering up their sacrificial birds. Scripture accounts it to them as if they had lain with them.’ The notion of the importance of keeping the correct times for rituals occurs also in TJ Zeph 3:18.104 Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xiv Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 23105 Sperber, The Bible, II.99 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 223

104 See below, pp. 196–197. 105 Bacher refers erroneously to 1 Sam 2:23. tosefta targums 63

1 Sam 4:12 (Kasher 44) Codex Reuchlin 59r TJ ספ>ר< אח>ר< ורהט גברא משבטא דבית בנימן מסדרא ורהט שאול בר קיש גברא דמן שיבט ואתא לשילו ביומא ההוא בנימן מסידרי קרבא ואתא לשילו ביומא ההוא על יד מלאכא דארהטיה ]מ[תמן ולבושוהי מבזעין ועפרא רמי ברישיה׃ Translation Another book. And Saul, son of Kish, a man from the tribe of Ben- jamin, ran from the battle lines and reached Shiloh the same day by means of an angel that made him run [from] there; [his clothes were rent and there was earth thrown on his head.] Notes and commentary The first character of the last word is difficult to decipher. By the look of it one would think of an aleph, but that does not make sense. It might be either a mem, as proposed by all previous editors, or it might be a deleted character. The dialect is close to the language of Targum may מן Jonathan, though the unassimilated form of the preposition point to a Palestinian background.106 This is a substitute targum that attempts to explain the Hebrew ex- on the same day’. The identification of Saul with‘ ביום ההוא pression the anonymous messenger is based upon the story of the death of Saul and Jonathan in 2 Sam 1:2–4. This identification is early and widespread in Jewish literature. See for instance Pseudo-Philo, LAB, 54:4, MidrPss 7:2, and MidrSam 11:1. In these sources it is noted that Saul must have been very swift, because he ran a very long distance (Aphek to Shiloh is about 40 km) in short time. The introduction of an angel that helped him arrive at his destination that fast is as far as we know unique, but it fits in with the tendency noted by Rimon Kasher of a certain predilection for the angelic world in the TTs.107 It may be that the tradition is inspired by 1 Sam 23:27, where it says that a messenger came to Saul and told him to hurry because the Philistines had (מלאך) invaded the land. There is no known connection to a liturgical tradition.

106 See G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, Darmstadt 1960, 227. 107 R. Kasher, ‘Angelology and the Supernal Worlds in the Aramaic Targums to the Prophets’, JSJ 27 (1996) 168–91, esp. 185. 64 chapter two

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

2 Sam 3:5 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 86v TJ ספ>ר< אח>ר< ושתיתאה יתרעם לעגלה אתת דויד למיכל אישת דוד אלין אתילידו לדויד בחברון׃ Translation Another book. [And the sixth was Ithream] by David’s wife Michal. [These were born to David in Hebron.] Notes and commentary De Lagarde (and Bacher who follows him), Sperber and Van Staal- but we cannot make that out in the text. The reading ,איתת duine read is unclear, but the penultimate character seems to be a shin rather than a taw, in which case the gloss would be Hebrew. This is a substitute targum that harmonises the text with other rabbinic interpretations. In a TT to 2 Sam 6:23 it says that Ithream was born to Michal on her dying day.108 In Tg 1 Chron 3:3 it says ‘And the sixth was Ithream by David’s wife Eglah, which is Michal the daughter of Saul,’ in this way combining the two traditions. In b.Sanh 21a and YalqSh 2 Sam §141 the name Eglah ‘calf’ is explained as a pet name, whereas in MidrPss 59:4 and YalqSh Pss §777 it is explained as a nick- name because just as a calf does not accept a yoke, she did not accept the yoke of her father. In y.Sanh 2:3, 20b, YalqSh Torah §136 and YalqSh 1 Sam §103 the name is connected to the way Michal lowed like a cow when her son was born. Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xviii Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 23 Sperber, The Bible, II.162 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 494

108 See below, pp. 110–111. tosefta targums 65

2 Sam 6:19 (Kasher 61) Codex Reuchlin 90r TJ MT ספ>ר< אח>ר< וַיְחַּלֵק לְכָל הָעָם לְכָל הֲמֹון ופליג לכל עמא לכל המונא יִׂשְרָאֵל לְמֵאִ יׁש וְעַדאִּׁשָ ה דישראל למגבר ועד אתא לְאִיׁש חַּלַת לֶחֶם ַאחַ ת לגבר גריצתא דלחים חדא וְאֶׁשְּפָר אֶחָדוַאֲׁשִיׁשָה אֶחָ ת ופלוג חד ומנתא חדא חד מן שיתא בתורא וחד מן שיתא בהינא דחמרא וַּיֵלְֶךּכָל הָעָם אִיׁש לְבֵ יתו׃ֹ ואזל כל עמא גבר לביתיה׃ Translation Another book. [And he distributed among all the people — the entire multitude of Israel, man and woman alike — to each a loaf of bread], one sixth of a bull and one sixth of a hin of wine. [Then all the people left for their homes.] Notes and commentary is אשישה and אשפר The interpretation of the difficult Hebrew words and אחד מששה בפר interpreted according to the rule of notaricon as This interpretation occurs also in the parallel text in .אחד משישה בהין -in אשתא Tg 1 Chron 16:3. There, however, the word ‘six’ is spelled as This phenomenon of a prostetic aleph at the beginning .שיתא stead of of a word occurs often in the Palestinian Targums. In Onkelos and Jonathan the word for ‘six’ is always spelled without the aleph. That is used may point to a later שיתא in the sefer aer variant the spelling adaptation to the language of Targum Jonathan. The first part of the offered solution also occurs NumRin 4:20, b.Pes 36b and YalqSh 2 Sam §143. The second part is interpreted in these texts as ‘one sixth of an efa’, with the dissenting view of R. Samuel that it meant a bottle of wine, on the basis of Hos 3:1, where the word also occurs. So, the translation given here as well as in Tg 1 Chron 16:3 is a dou- (as measure (hin/efa אשישה .ble translation using both possibilities, i.e and as wine.109 Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xix Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 23 Sperber, The Bible, II.169 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 520–21

109 See also Rashi on 1 Chron 16:3. 66 chapter two

2 Sam 21:1 (Kasher 66) Codex Reuchlin 108r TJ ספ>ר< אח>ר< והוה כפנא ביומי דויד תלת שנין שתא בתר שתא ובעא דויד רחמין מן קדם יוי ואמר יוי על שאול ועל בית חייבי קטול על דקטל ית גבעונאי׃ על דקטל ית כהניא דהוו מספקין מזון לגבונאי׃

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

Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xix Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 23 Sperber, The Bible, II.200 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 615–16

110 See also b.Yev 78b; LevR 22:6; NumR 5:3, 8:4. tosefta targums 67

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

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

1 Sam 17:18 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 67v TJ ספ>ר< אח>ר< וית עסר גובנין דחלבא האלין תוביל לרב אלפא לרב דממנא אל אלפא גובריא וית אחך תסער לשלם וית טיבהון תיתי׃

Translation Another book. [Take these ten cheeses of milk] to the commander who is appointed over a thousand men [and inquire after your brothers’ health and bring back a report of them.] Notes and commentary This is a specification of the literal translation Targum Jonathan gives .שר האלף of the Hebrew Bibliographic information Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 27 Sperber, The Bible, II.128 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 357

1 Sam 21:16 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 74r TJ ספ>ר< אח>ר< חסיר שטיא אנא ארי איתיתון ית דין לאשתטאה קדמי הדין ייעול לביתי: הדין כשר למיעל לביתי 68 chapter two

Translation Another book. [Do I lack madmen that you have brought this fellow to rave for me?] Is this one worthy to enter my house? Notes and commentary The text is hardly legible because of a trimmed margin. .הזה יבוא אל-ביתי In this case TJ stays closer to the HT that reads This is in accordance with Bacher’s observation that in general Tar- gum Jonathan stays closer to the HT than the sefer aer variants.111 By -the variant reading explains the Hebrew word ,כשר adding the word ing as a rhetorical question denying the worthiness of David. Bibliographic information Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvii Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 27 Sperber, The Bible, II.141 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 418

1 Sam 26:9 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 79r TJ ספ>ר< אח>ר< ואמר דויד לאבישי לא תחבלניה ארי מן אושיט ידיה במשיחא דיוי וזכא: בדינא Translation Another book. [But David said to Abishai, “Don’t do him violence! For who can stretch out his hand against the Lord’s anointed and go unpunished] in judgment?” Notes and commentary is intended to make clear that בדינא The addition of the wordgroup what is meant here is punishment on the Day of Judgment, since in this world he might probably escape judgment. Given that the word is added very often in the Targums,112 we should not consider it an דינא as a translation זכא בדינא addition, but rather see the whole expression .נקה of the Hebrew Bibliographic information Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xviii

111 Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 27–28. 112 As becomes clear from the index to BCTP 21, 197 and the places it refers to. tosefta targums 69

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

1 Sam 26:20 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 80r TJ MT ספ>ר< אח>ר< וְעַּתָהַאל יִּפֹל ּדָמִי ַארְצָ ה וכען לא יתאשד דמי לארעא מִּנֶגֶד ּפְנֵי יְהֹוָהּכִי יָצָא מֶלְֶך מן קדם מימרא דיוי ארי נפק יִׂשְרָאֵל לְבַּקֵׁש אֶתּפַרְ עֹׁש מלכא דישראל למבעי ית אֶ חָ ד חלש חד ּכַאֲׁשֶר יִרְ ּדֹף הַ ּקֹרֵא ּבֶהָרִ ים: כמא דמתרדיף קוראה כמא דרדיף בר ניצצא בטוריא׃ ית קוראה בטוריא

Translation Another book. [Oh, let my blood not spill itself to the ground, from before the Memra of the Lord! For the king of Israel has come out to seek a single flea — ] as a bird of prey hunts a partridge in the hills. Notes and commentary The missing subject in the last clause of the Hebrew version is solved differently in the two Aramaic translations we have here. TJ keeps to his principle of replacing each word in the given order by an Aramaic equivalent or substitute. The meturgeman of TJ solves the problem of the missing subject by translating the verb as an itpeel of which the partridge is the subject. The translator of the sefer aer instead solves the problem by inserting a bird of prey as subject. Bibliographic information Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xviii Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 25 Sperber, The Bible, II.150 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 454

1 Sam 28:19 (Kasher 60) Codex Reuchlin 81v TJ ספ>ר< אח>ר< וימסר יוי אף ית ישראל עמך בידא דפלשתאי ומחר את ובנך עמי ומחר את ובנך גביי בגניז חיי עלמא ואף ית משריתא דישראל ימסר יוי בידא דפלישתאי׃ 70 chapter two

Translation Another book. [Further, the Lord will deliver the Israelites who are with you into the hands of the Philistines.] Tomorrow you and your sons shall be by my side in the storehouse of eternal life [and the Lord will also deliver the Israelite forces into the hands of the Philistines.] Notes and commentary The cryptic expression ‘tomorrow you and your sons will be with me’ is explained as ‘by my side in the storehouse of eternal life’.113 This text is explained in the same manner in other rabbinic sources, but במחיצתי / בתוך) ’there the explanation is always ‘in my compartment From the rabbinic sources it becomes clear that it means 114.(מחיצתי there that Saul would die in a state of grace, since God had forgiven his sins. The expression is reminiscent of the words that Jesus spoke to the criminals hanging besides him ‘today you will be with me in -does not occur in TO/TJ, but is fre גב / גבי paradise’.115 The preposition quently used in the Palestinian Targums. Bibliographic information Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xviii Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 23 Sperber, The Bible, II.153 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 462–63

1 Sam 30:16 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 83r TJ MT ספ>ר< אח>ר< וַּיֹרִדֵהּו וְהִּנֵהנְטֻׁשִים עַל ּפְנֵי כָ ל ואחתיה והא רטישין על אפי כל ץהָָארֶ אֹכְלִים וְׁשֹתִ ים ארעא אכלין ושתן וְחֹגְגִ ים וחגגין ועבדין שירותא ּבְכֹל הַּׁשָלָלהַּגָדֹול אֲׁשֶר לָקְ חּו בכל עדאה סגיאה דשבו מארע מֵאֶרֶץ ּפְלִׁשְּתִים ּומֵאֶרֶץ יְהּודָ ה׃ פלשתאי ומיארעא דבית יהודה: Translation Another book. [So he led him down, and there they were, scattered all over the ground, eating and drinking] and making use [of all the vast spoil they had taken from the land of the Philistines and from the land of Judah.]

113 Cf. 1 Sam 25:29. See below, p. 148. 114 b.Ber 12b; b.Eruv 53b; TanB Emor 4; Tan Emor 2; MidrSam 10:5, 23:5, 24:5; PRE 32; YalqSh 1 Sam §140; LevR 26:7. 115 Luke 23:43. tosefta targums 71

Notes and commentary It may be .חגגים The variant reading paraphrases the Hebrew word in the Pentateuch and the Prophets חגג that this is because the verb has almost always a religious connotation. Probably the meturgeman wanted to make clear that here it concerned a definitely non-religious use.116 Bibliographic information Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xviii Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 28 Sperber, The Bible, II.155

2 Sam 3:27 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 87v TJ MT ספ>ר< אח>ר< וַּיָׁשָב ַאבְנֵר חֶבְרֹון וַּיַּטֵ הּו יֹוָאב ותב אבנר לחברון ואפנייה אֶל ּתֹוְך הַּׁשַעַרלְדַּבֵר אִ ּתֹו יואב לגו תרעא למללא עמיה ּבַ ּׁשֶ ִ ל י בשליא ברז על מה דאשתלי וַּיַּכֵהּו ׁשָם הַ חֹמֶׁש וַּיָמָ ת ומחהי תמן בסטר ירכיה ומית ּבְדַםעֲׂשָהאֵל ָאחִ יו: בדמא דעשהאל אחוהי׃ וא>ית< דא>מרין< חלף דקטל עשאל אחוהי׃ Translation Another book. [When Abner returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside within the gate to talk to him] in secret concerning what he had done wrong; [there he struck him in the belly and he died.] And there are those who say that is was because he killed Asahel, his brother. Notes and commentary quietness’ receives a double translation in the‘ שלי The Hebrew word ’in secret‘ ברז marginal reading of Codex Reuchlin. It is translated as as ‘what he had done שלי and associatively as an itpeel of the root wrong’. The last part of the verse, which is translated literally in Tar- gum Jonathan, is paraphrased in the variant reading in harmonisation with 2 Sam 3:30. However, strictly speaking this does not belong to the sefer a er variant. It is marked separately in the margin with the des- .(’there are who say‘ ,ואית דאמרין) וא´ דא´ ignation

116 Van Staalduine-Sulman called this phenomenon ‘monotheistic precision’. See her book, The Targum of Samuel, 122–23. 72 chapter two

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

2 Sam 15:11 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 99v TJ ספ>ר< אח>ר< ועם אבשלום אזלו מאתן גברין מירושלם זמינין ואזלין לתומהון מקצתהון זמימין ומקצתהון אזלין מן תומהון ולא ידעין כל מדעם: Translation Another book. [Two hundred men of Jerusalem accompanied Absa- lom;] some of them were invited and some of them went in good faith, [suspecting nothing.] Notes and commentary The text is hardly legible because of a trimmed margin. Apparently the translator responsible for the marginal reading of Codex Reuchlin saw a contradiction in this verse. In his view the people who went with Saul were either invited and therefore part of the conspiracy, or they went in good faith suspecting nothing of the goal of the mission. Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xix Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 27 Sperber, The Bible, II.186 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 574

2 Sam 21:3 (Kasher 67) Codex Reuchlin 108r TJ ספ>ר< אח>ר< ואמר דויד לגבעונאי מא אעביד לכון ובמא אכפר ובריכו ית אחסנת עמא דיוי׃ ובעו רחמין דתעדי כפנא מאחסנת עמא דייי

Translation Another book. [David said to the Gibeonites, “What shall I do for you? How shall I make expiation] so that you will beg for mercy that the famine will cease from the heritage of the people of the Lord?” tosefta targums 73

Notes and commentary Apparently the meturgeman responsible for this tradition resisted the idea that the Gibeonites could bless the heritage of the people of God, as the MT and Targum Jonathan suggest. The plea to stop the famine is in accordance with 2 Sam 21:1 where it says that there was a famine because Saul killed the Gibeonites. Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xix Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 26 Sperber, The Bible, II.200 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 616

2 Sam 21:5 (Kasher 68) Codex Reuchlin 108r TJ ספ>ר< אח>ר< ואמרו למלכא גברא דשיצינא ודחשיב עלנא ודחשב למפסק חייותנא יתחשב ליה כאילו אשתיצינא מלמדר בכל תחום אישתצנא מלמדר וגומ' ארעא דישראל׃ Translation Another book. [They said to the king, “The man who destroyed us] and who planned to cut off our sustenance, it is reckoned to him as if we were exterminated from living [in all the territory of Israel.”] Notes and commentary This TT comes obviously from the same source as 2 Sam 21:1 since the two traditions seem to refer to each other.117 This strengthens the idea that the designation sefer aer points rather to an actual work than to etc.’ indicates that the compiler is writing‘ וגו ´a type. The abbreviation with a frame of reference to some other complete targum, in this case apparently the accepted TJ-text. Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xix Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 26 Sperber, The Bible, II.200 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 617

117 See above, pp. 66–67. 74 chapter two

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

2 Sam 1:6 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 84r TJ ספ>ר< אח>ר< ואמר עולימא דמחוי ליה אתערעא אתערעית איזדמנא איזדמית בטורא דגלבוע והא שאול סמיך על מורניתיה והא רתכיא ומשרית פרשיא אדביקוהי: Translation Another book. [The young man who brought him the news said,] “I called [at Mount Gilboa, and there was Saul leaning on his spear, and the chariots and the cavalry closing in on him.”] Notes and commentary נקרא The variant reading gives another rendering of the Hebrew קרא√ which is apparently a paronomastic construction of nifal ,נקריתי -II), ‘hap קרא according to its second meaning (Koehler-Baumgartner -the variant read ,ערע√ instead of זמן√ pen to be’. In its choice for itpaal קרא√ ing also leaves open the possibility of the first meaning of nifal -I), ‘be summoned’, in this way maximis קרא Koehler-Baumgartner) ing the sense of Scripture. Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xviii Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 28 Sperber, The Bible, II.158

118 Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 28. tosefta targums 75

2 Sam 1:21 (not in Kasher)

Codex Reuchlin 84v TJ MT ספ>ר< אח>ר< הָרֵי בַּגִלְ ּבֹעַַאל טַ ל טורי גלבוע לא ייחות עליכון טלא וְַאל מָטָר עֲלֵיכֶ ם ומטרא לא תהי בכון ּוׂשְדֵי תְ רּומֹת עללא כמסת דיעבדון מנה חלתא וחקל טורייא ּכִי ׁשָם נִגְעַל מָגֵן ּגִּבֹורִים מָגֵן ארי תמן אתברו תריסי גבריא ׁשָאּול ּבְלִימָׁשִיחַ ּבַּׁשָמֶ ן: תריסא דשאול דמשיח כד במשחא: Translation Another book. [O hills of Gilboa — let there not fall dew on you, and let there not be rain on you] O field of the hills. [For there the shields of warriors were broken, the shield of Saul, polished as if with anointing oil.] Notes and commentary -of the He ושדי תרומת TJ gives an explanation of the difficult phrase taking it as a technical term ,תרומת brew text by focussing on the word for the heave offering. It reads ‘a yield that is sufficient to make from it a heave offering’. The variant reading of Codex Reuchlin obviously connects the word .’high place‘ ,רמה to תרומת

Van Staalduine-Sulman chose a different solution, by inserting the words of the variant reading in the existing text of TJ instead of seeing them as a replacement. The advantage of this solution is that it en- hances the poetical structure of the verse. It means moreover that the -is in fact translated twice, using different mean ושדי תרומת expression :This leads to the following reconstruction .תרומת ings of the word

Codex Reuchlin 84v TJ MT ספ>ר< אח>ר< הָרֵי בַּגִלְ ּבֹעַַאל טַ ל טורי גלבוע לא ייחות עליכון טלא וְַאל מָטָר עֲלֵיכֶ ם ומטרא ּוׂשְדֵי תְ רּומֹת וחקל טורייא לא תהי בכון עללא כמסת דיעבדון מנה חלתא ּכִי ׁשָם נִגְעַל מָגֵן ּגִּבֹורִים מָגֵן ארי תמן אתברו תריסי גבריא ׁשָאּול ּבְלִימָׁשִיחַ ּבַּׁשָמֶ ן: תריסא דשאול דמשיח כד במשחא: 76 chapter two

Translation Another book. [O hills of Gilboa — let there not be dew or rain on you.] O field of the hills, [let there be no sufficient yield on you that they make from it a dough offering. For there the shields of warriors were broken, the shield of Saul, polished as if with anointing oil.] If this reconstruction is correct, then it is not a substitute targum but an interwoven expansion (in the phrasing of Kasher). It is also possible to consider it as the original version that was later disturbed by the editors of Targum Jonathan. Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xviii Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 25 Sperber, The Bible, II.159 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 484–85

2 Sam 15:4 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 99v TJ MT ספ>ר< אח>ר< וַּיֹאמֶר ַאבְׁשָלֹום ימִ יְׂשִמֵנִי ואמר אבשלום מן ימנינני ׁשֹפֵט ּבָָארֶץ וְעָלַי יָבֹוא ּכָל אִ יׁש דיין בארעא וקדמי ייתי כל אֲׁשֶר יִהְיֶה ּלֹו רִיבּומִׁשְּפָט גברא דיהי ליה דין ומצו וְהִצְּדַקְּתִ יו: ואדינניה בקשוט: ואיזכיניה בדיניה Translation Another book. [And Absalom said, “If only I were appointed judge in the land and everyone with a legal dispute or a quarrelling came before me,] I would justify him in his case.” Notes and commentary The translation of the marginal reading of Codex Reuchlin stays closer I would give him justice’. It still‘ והצדקתיו to the Hebrew text that reads departs, however, from the Hebrew text by the addition of the word Note that a similar addition also occurs in 1 Sam 26:9 as a sefer .בדיניה aer variant.119

119 See above, pp. 68–69. tosefta targums 77

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

2 Sam 21:12 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 108v TJ ספ>ר< אח>ר< ואזל דויד ונסיב ית גרמי שאול וית גרמי יהונתן בריה מלות יתבי יביש גלעד דגנבו יתהון משורא דבית שן מרחוב בית שאן דצלבונון תמן פלשתאי ביומא דקטלו פלשתאי ית שאול בגלבוע׃ Translation Another book. [And David went and took the bones of Saul and of his son Jonathan from the citizens of Jabesh Gilead, who had made off with them] from the public square of Beth Shean, [where the Philistines had hung them up on the day the Philistines killed Saul at Gilboa.] Notes and commentary .רחב stays closer to the Hebrew that uses the word רחובThe translation A variant like this may be either simply a variant reading, or a conscious Hebraisation, or the result of an unconscious adaptation to the Hebrew text.120 Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xx Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 25 Sperber, The Bible, II.201 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 619

Just as in the other subgroups discussed, all the variant readings cover only part of the text. Probably the remainder of the verses was so close to the base text of Targum Jonathan that the copier who inserted the marginal readings did not consider it neccesary to copy the whole verse. It is remarkable, however, that only one of them, 2 Sam 21:5, uses .etc.’ to indicate that the text has to be supplemented‘ וגו´ the expression

120 For the latter possibility, see W.F. Smelik, ‘Orality, Manuscript Resproduction and the Targums’, in: A.A. den Hollander et al. (eds), Paratext and Megatext as Chan- nels of Jewish and Christian Traditions, Leiden [etc.] 2003, 49–81, at 76–80. 78 chapter two

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

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

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

1 Sam 11:11 (Kasher 47) Codex Reuchlin 65v TJ MT ל>ישנא< א>חרינא< וַיְהִי מִּמָחֳרָת וַּיָׂשֶםׁשָאּול אֶ ת והוה ביומא דבתרוהי ומני הָעָם ׁשְֹלׁשָה רָאׁשִים וַּיָבֹאּו שאול ית עמא תלת משרין בְתֹוְך הַּמַחֲנֶהּבְַאׁשְ מֹרֶת הַ ּבֹקֶ ר ועלו בגו משריתא במטרת וַּיַּכּו אֶתעַּמֹון צפרא ומחו ית בני עמון

.(See De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvii (line 30 .רשיעין instead of גבר הדיוט 121 tosefta targums 79

עַד חֹם הַ ּיֹום עד מיחם יומא עד ארבע שעי יומא ומן אסקות עלת תדירא דצפרא וַיְהִי הַּנִׁשְָארִיםוַּיָפֻצּו וְֹלא והוו דאשתארו ואתבדרו נִׁשְאֲרּו בָם ׁשְנַיִם יָחַ ד: ולא אשתארו בהון תרין דערקין כחדא׃ Translation Another version. [The next day, Saul divided the troops into three columns; at the morning watch they entered the camp and struck down the Ammonites] until the fourth hour of the day, from the daily burnt offering of the morning. [The survivors scattered; no two were left fleeing together.] Notes and commentary This is a substitute targum, the language of which is close to the language of TJ. It is a unique variant. The variants in Reuchlin that are designated as lishna aerina mostly do not contain aggadah, but are rather exegetical or paraphrastic. This one is clearly exegetical.122 Targum Jonathan follows the Hebrew text closely, defining the period of battle as having started at the morning watch — which is actually the last night watch that ends with dawn — and as having lasted until the heat of the day. Within rabbinic literature there is discussion whether ‘the heat of the day’ is the fourth or the sixth hour,123 but the consensus seems to be that it is the sixth hour when it is hot every- where, in the sun as well as in the shade. The expression ‘the heat of the sun’ on the other hand is related to the fourth hour, when in the sun it is hot, but in the shade still cool. The alternative tradition defined the period as starting with the daily burnt offering — which was brought at the first light of day124 — and ending by the fourth hour. The time of the conclusion of the battle is probably an attempt to harmonise verse 11 to verse 9 where the people were promised that they would be saved by the time the sun grew hot, which is the fourth hour. Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 28 Sperber, The Bible, II.114 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 287

122 Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 28–29. 123 GenR 48:8 (Wilna edition); b.Ber 27a; y.Ber 4:1, 7b. 124 m.Tam 3:2. 80 chapter two

1 Sam 12:2 (Kasher 48) Codex Reuchlin 66r TJ MT ל>ישנא< א>חרינא< וְעַּתָה הִּנֵההַּמֶלְֶך וכען הא מלכא מדבר מִתְהַּלְֵך לִפְנֵיכֶ ם ברישכון וַאֲנִיזָקַנְּתִי וָׂשַבְּתִי ּובָנַי ואנא קשית וסבית ובני קשישית וסיבית ובני הא אוטיבו הִּנָם אִּתְכֶ ם הא אנון עמכון אורחתהון והא אינון באולפן עימכון וַאֲנִיהִתְהַּלַכְּתִי לִפְנֵיכֶ ם ואנא הליכית קדמיכון מִ ּנְעֻרַי עַד הַּיֹום הַּזֶה׃ מזעורי עד יומא הדין׃ Translation Another version. [Henceforth the king will lead at your head. As for me,] I have grown old and grey and my sons, behold, they mended their ways. And behold, they are under instruction with you [and I have been your leader from my youth to this day.] Notes and commentary This is a substitute Targum.125 The dialect is close to the language of TJ. It is a unique variant. As noted above, the lishna aerina variants mostly do not contain aggadah, but are rather exegetical or paraphrastic. According to Bacher, this variant is an exception to that rule.126 In our opinion, however, it is justifiable to categorise this as an exegeti- of the הנם אתכם cal variant, since it tries to rationalise the enigmatic Hebrew text. The phrase is interpreted metaphorically as a conversion of the sons of whom it was said in 1 Sam 8:3 that they ‘did not follow in his way’ and about whose sins we read in the sefer aer variant to 1 Sam 2:22.127 The reference to the instruction is very common in Targum is a variant reading without קשישית וסבית Jonathan.128 The wording consequences as regards contents or provenance. Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 29 Sperber, The Bible, II.115 319 ,המקרא באור התרגום ,Komlosh Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 289

.’interwoven targum‘ תרגום משולב According to Kasher 125 126 Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 28–29. 127 See above, p. 62. 128 See BCTP 21, 142–43. tosefta targums 81

1 Sam 12:11 (Kasher 50) Codex Reuchlin 66v TJ MT ל>ישנא< א>חרינא< וַּיִׁשְלַח יהוה אֶת יְרֻּבַעַל ושלח יוי ית גדעון וְאֶת ּבְדָ ן וית שמשון 129 ]ו[ית שמשון ]מ[שיבט דן וְאֶת יִפְּתָח וְאֶת ׁשְמּואֵלוַּיַּצֵ ל וית יפתח וית שמואל ושיזיב אֶתְכֶםמִּיַד אֹיְבֵיכֶם מִּסָבִ יב יתכון מיד בעלי דבביכון וַּתֵׁשְבּו ּבֶטַ ח: מסחור סחור ויתיבתון לרחצן׃ Translation Another version. [And the Lord sent Gideon] and Samson from the tribe of Dan [and Jephtah and Samuel, and delivered you from the enemies around you and you dwelt in security.] Notes and commentary This unique variant is an interwoven extension according to Kasher. The dialect is close to the language of TJ. The text is slightly trimmed at the right margin. There would not have been enough room for the .]ו[ית שמשון ]דאתי מן[ שיבט דן .reading supposed by Kasher, viz -is in most traditions translated as ‘Sam בדן In TJ the Hebrew name son’. Not so, however, in the base text of Codex Reuchlin where it is left untranslated. The variant reading connects the two Targum traditions by stating that Samson was from the tribe of Dan.130 This is in ac- בדן זה שמשון, ולמה נקרא שמו cordance with b.RhS 25a, where it says,131 ?Bedan, that is Simson. And why was he called Bedan‘ ,בדן דאתי מדן Because he came from Dan.’ Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 6–7 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 292–95

2.1. Summary 1. We discussed three lishna aerina variants that all proved to be of exegetic interest. All three try to make sense of an enigmatic He- brew text or of apparent incongruities.

.וית בדן The basetext of Codex Reuchlin reads 129 130 For other examples of such conflations, see Smelik, ‘Orality, Manuscript Re- production and the Targums’, 77. 131 See also YalqSh 1 Sam §114. 82 chapter two

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

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

1 Sam 3:14 (Kasher 43) Codex Reuchlin 58v TJ ירוש>למי< ובכין קיימית לבית עלי אם ישתבקון חובי בית עלי בנכסת קדשין ובקרבנין עד עלמא׃ אלהין במעסק באוריתא ובעובדין טבין

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

132 Kasher classifies it erroneously as a substitute targum. 133 See also b.RhS 18a. tosefta targums 83

Here, only the words of the Torah are mentioned and not the good deeds. In the Palestinian Talmud yet another aspect is stressed, namely the salvatory power of prayer. This becomes clear fromy.RhS 2:6, 58b:134 He (R. Kahana) said to him: Rabbi, I am of the house of Eli, and it is written concerning the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be expiated with sacrifice nor offering forever. ‘With sacrifice nor offering’ atonement is not made for him; but with prayer atonement is made for him. So it seems that this Tosefta stands exegetically closer to the Babylo- nian tradition despite its introductory formula that designates it as Palestinian. The element of the good deeds also occurs in the TT to 1 Sam 2:9.135 The combination of Torah and good deeds occurs for instance in LevR 30:12, where in an explanation of the lulav, the etrog is seen as a symbol of the ideal Israelite: just as the etrog has both a good taste and a good smell, so the ideal Israelite has both knowledge of the Torah and good deeds. There is no known connection to a liturgical tradition. Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xv Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 5–6 Sperber, The Bible, II.101 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 232–33

1 Sam 6:19 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 61r TJ MT ירוש>למי< וַּיְַך ּבְַאנְׁשֵיבֵית ׁשֶמֶ ׁש וקטל בגברי בית שמש ּכִי רָאּו ּבַאֲ רֹון יהוה על דחדיאו דחזו בארונא דיוי על דחדיאו בתבריהון כד גלי דישראל ובזו ית ארונא דיהוה כד גלא וַּיְַך ּבָעָםׁשִבְעִים אִ יׁש וקטל בסבי עמא שבעין גברא חֲמִּׁשִיםאֶלֶף אִיׁש וַּיִתְַאּבְ לּו ובקהלא חמשין אלפין גברא הָעָם ּכִיהִּכָה יהוה ּבָעָם ואתאבלו עמא ארי מחא יוי מַּכָה גְדֹולָה׃ בעמא מחא סגיאה׃

134 See also y.Sanh 1:2, 18c. 135 See below, pp. 109–110. 84 chapter two

Translation Jerushalmi. [And He killed the men of Beth-shemesh] because they rejoiced in the destruction of Israel and spurned the Ark of the Lord when it was exposed. [And He killed among the elders of the people seventy men and among the assembly fifty thousand men. And the people mourned, for the Lord had struck a great blow among the people. Notes and commentary This variant reading seeks a justification for the slaughter in Beth- shemesh, since the punishment seems to be out of proportion for just ראה√ looking at the Ark. The explanation is based on the fact that qal ,’can have a meaning of ‘seeing with emotion ב with the preposition ‘enjoying to see’ (Koehler-Baumgartner 852). The verb can also have a meaning of ‘looking with disdain’, as it is used for example in Cant 1:6. The variant reading combines these two possibilities in its explanation in order to maximise the sense of Scripture, which is a not uncommon phenomenon in targumic practice.136 The Ark is probably seen here as a pars pro toto for the Torah. In Tg Cant 3:10 the Ark is mentioned as one of the pillars of the world.137 According to rabbinic tradition (m.Avot 1:2) the three pillars are the Torah, the Temple service and deeds of loving-kindness. There is no known connection to a liturgical tradition. Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xv Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 22 Sperber, The Bible, II.106 18–317 ,המקרא באור התרגום ,Komlosh Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 252

1 Sam 12:5 (Kasher 49) Codex Reuchlin 66r TJ MT ירוש>למי< וַּיֹאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם עֵד יהוה ּבָכֶ ם ואמר להון סהיד מימרא דיוי וְעֵד מְׁשִיחֹו הַּיֹום הַּזֶה יּכִ ֹלא בכון וסהיד משיחיה יומא הדין מְצָאתֶםּבְיָדִי מְאּומָ ה ארי אשכחתון בידי מידעם

136 Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations’, 227. 137 See P.S. Alexander, The Targum of Canticles, Collegeville 2003, 127. tosefta targums 85

וַּיֹאמֶר עֵד׃ ואמרו סהיד׃ ונפלת ב]רת קלא[ מן שמי]א ואמרת[ סהיד Translation Jerushalmi [He said to them, “The Memra of the Lord is witness towards you, and His anointed is witness today, that you have found nothing in my possession.”] And an angelic voice came down from heaven and said, “witness!” Notes and commentary The text of the manuscript is partly illegible because the margin of the left hand side has been trimmed. The text between square brackets is an emendation. Kasher emended the text apparently from TTs to Jud 5:5 and to 1 Kgs 3:27 in Codex Reuchlin which are also marked as This is .נפלת ברת קלא Jerushalmi.138 In those cases it is clearly written בת קול/ברת with נפל√ remarkable, since the combination of the verb does not occur elsewhere in rabbinic literature. There, it almost קלא in Aramaic. The נפק in Hebrew or יצא always occurs with the verb must be based on the biblical use in Dan 4:28 נפל√ combination with .occurs קל מן שמיא נפל where the expression The goal of this addition is probably to make sense of the singular in the Hebrew text where a plural would be expected. The ויאמר form same explanation is found in b.Mak 23b, where it says: ‘And he said’. Should it not be ‘and they said’? [But] it was a Bat Kol that came forth and said ‘I am witness in this matter.’ A problem that remains with this solution is that Bat Kol is feminine and therefore the inflection of the verb had to be adapted. Most textual witnesses of Targum Jonathan solved the problem of the apparent in- congruity by translating the singular as a plural. The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Kora in most traditions. Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 6 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 290–91

.and is written in the lower margin תרג' ירוש' The TT to Judg 5:5 is marked as 138 86 chapter two

1 Sam 17:8 (Kasher 53a)

Codex Reuchlin 67r TJ MT ירוש>למי< וַּיַעֲמֹד וַּיִקְרָא אֶל מַעַרְ כֹת וקם ואכלי על סדרי יִׂשְרָאֵלוַּיֹאמֶר לָהֶם לָּמָ ה ישראל ואמר להון למא תֵצְאּו לַעֲרְֹך מִלְחָמָה תפקון לסדרא קרבא הֲלֹואָאנֹכִי הַּפְלִׁשְּתִ י הלא אנא פלשתאה הלא אנא גלית פלישתאה דעבדית עימכון קרבא באפק ונצחית יתכון ונסבית מן ידיכון ית ארונא דייי וְַאּתֶםעֲבָדִים לְׁשָ אּול ואתון עבדין לשאול ואתון עבדין לשאול ּבְרּו לָכֶם אִ יׁש בחרו לכון גברא ואם אתון אמרין על מימרא דייי מרי נצחן קרביא אנחנו מתרחצין קרו ליה וְיֵרֵד אֵלָי: וייחות לותי׃ ויחות לותי׃ Translation Jerushalmi. [He stopped and called out to the ranks of Israel and he said to them, “Why do you go out to wage war?] Am I not Goliath, the Philistine who was engaged in war with you at Aphek, and who conquered you and took from you the Ark of the Lord? And you are Saul’s servants. And if you say, ‘On the Memra of the Lord, the Master of victories in war we trust’: call Him and let Him come down against me.” Notes and commentary Goliath introduces himself here in much more detail than in the He- brew text, which is a not uncommon principle in the Targums. In their struggle to prove that the Bible is complete and coherent, the meturgemanim focused strongly on sacred history.139 Locations, dates and characters that were considered to have played a key-role in sacred history receive much attention and are often the subject of elaboration. Where possible, the meturgemanim attempted to point out the particular incidents in the past to which a certain text was thought to refer, and to identify anonymous personages.140 As a means to this goal they used passages from other parts of Scripture and common sense. In this case Goliath is connected to the capture of the Ark as described in

139 D. Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine, Missoula 1975, 67–74. -Tel Aviv 1973, 352; A. Samely, The Interpreta ,המקרא באור התרגום ,Y. Komlosh 140 tion of Speech in the Pentateuchal Targums, Tübingen 1992, 166. tosefta targums 87

1 Sam 4:1–11. This is an old tradition that already occurs in the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo.141 A rather remarkable point in this tradition is that Goliath chal- lenges God to the fight and not, as the simple reading of the biblical text suggests, a man of flesh and blood. This interpretation is probably ,a man of war’. So‘ ,איש מלחמה based on Exod 15:3 where God is called -this was inter ,(איש) if Goliath says that they have to choose a man preted as the man of war from Exod 15:3, which is God. The meturgeman uses as well the expression that occurs in TO to Exod 15:3, namely the Lord, the Master of the victory of wars’. The‘ ,ייי מרי נצחון קרביא in Exod 15:3 is also known from איש מלחמה exegesis of the expression the Talmud where it says in b.Sot 42b concerning our verse, ‘The word ‘man’ signifies none other than the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said: The Lord is a man of war.’142 The addition that the people of Israel might put forward that their trust was in God is probably a reference to 2 Kgs 18:22 where the same hypothetical argument occurs. The tradition as a whole is designated Jerushalmi and as such fits into the characteristics that Bacher gave to this type, namely that it tends to give aggadic explanations for ambiguities in the text.143 The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in the Italian tradition. Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 17–18 Sperber, The Bible, II.127 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 348

141 LAB 54:3. 142 See further TanB Metzora 10. See also A. Marmorstein, The Old Rabbinic Doc- trine of God: 1. The Names and Attributes of God, Oxford & London 1927, 65–67. 143 Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 4. 88 chapter two

1 Sam 17:10 (not in Kasher) Codex Reuchlin 67r TJ ירוש>למי< ואמר פלשתאה אנא חסידית ית סדרי ישראל יומא הדין דבעיתי מנכון קרבא ולא תגיחון קריבן קדמיי איתו לי גברא ונגיח קרבא כחדא: Translation Jerushalmi. [And the Philistine said, “I put to shame the ranks of Israel today] for I asked from you a battle, but you would not fight battles before me. [Get me a man so that we can wage war together.”] Notes and commentary The addition is meant to explain why Goliath’s speech was shaming. It is because the people of Israel refused to put up a fight against him, which was considered an act of cowardice. The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in the Italian tradition. Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Sperber, The Bible, II.127 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 345

1 Sam 17:16 (Kasher 54) Codex Reuchlin 67v TJ ירו>שלמי< וקריב פלשתאה מקדים ומחשיך ואתעתד ארבעין יומין׃ מקדים ומחשיך בעידן קרבן תדירא דצפרא ודרמשא וחסיד ארבעין יומין׃ Translation Jerushalmi. [The Philistine stepped forward] morning and evening at the time of the daily burnt offerings of the morning and the evening and jeered for forty days. Notes and commentary Apparently the meturgeman responsible for this variant wanted to give an explanation for the fact that Goliath stepped forward morning and evening. In his view this was to prevent the Israelites from bringing their daily burnt offerings. The Babylonian Talmud gives a tosefta targums 89 comparable explanation,144 ‘And the Philistine stepped forward near morning and evening.’ R. Yoanan said: To make them omit the re- cital of the Shema morning and evening.’ The fact that the Jerushalmi variant of Codex Reuchlin refers to the Temple service, instead of to prayer, may be an indication of a Palestinian background. he took‘ ויתיצב and he jeered’ for the Hebrew‘ וחסידThe translation his stand’ is probably a case of harmonisation with 1 Sam 17:10, 25, 26. The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in the Italian tradition. Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 18 Sperber, The Bible, II.128 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 356

1 Sam 17:18 (Kasher 55) Codex Reuchlin 67v TJ ירוש>למי< וית עסר גובנין דחלבא האלין תוביל לרב אלפא וית אחך תסער לשלם וית טיבהון תיתי׃ וית גט פיטורי נשיהון תיסב ותיתי׃

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

144 b.Sot 42b. 90 chapter two

The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in the Italian tradition. Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 7 Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 152 Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, II.128 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 357–58

1 Sam 10:22 (Kasher 45) Codex Reuchlin 65r TJ MT תרג>ום< ירוש>למי< וַּיִׁשְאֲלּו עֹוד ּבַ יהוה ושאילו עוד במימרא דיוי ושאילו עוד במימרא דייי הֲבָא עֹוד הֲֹלם אִ יׁש האית עוד הכא גברא האית תוב הכא גברא דחזיא ליה מלכותא

וַּיֹאמֶריהוה הִּנֵה הּוא ואמר יוי הא הוא טמיר ואמר ייי הא הוא נֶחְּבָא אֶל הַּכֵלִ ים׃ במניא׃ בבית אולפנא טמיר ומצלי וקרי במאני ריגוג אוריתא Translation Targum Jerushalmi. They again inquired of the Memra of the Lord, “Is there another man here to whom the kingship is appropriate?” And the Lord replied, “Yes; he is hiding in the study house and he is pray- ing and reading in the desirable instruments of the Torah.” Notes and commentary -is the adverb used in the offi עוד This is a substitute targum. The word cial Targums for the notion ‘furthermore’. In the other Targums both מאנא and מנא occur. Although the forms תוב this form and the form are probably mere orthographic variants, the official Targums always ריגוג The word .מאנא while the PTs and the TTs generally use ,מנא use is Late Jewish Literary Aramaic. In 2 Chron 32:27 the Hebrew expres- whereas the same expression ,מאני רגוג is translated as כלי חמדה sion -The ex 145.מני חמדתא is translated elsewhere in Targum Jonathan as pression ‘desirable instrument’ for the Torah is, according to Kasher, typically Palestinian. In m.Avot 3:14 it says,146

145 Jer 25:34, Hos 13:15, Nah 2:10. 146 See also y.Taan 2:1, 61a. tosefta targums 91

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

By introducing the concept ‘study house’ the meturgeman actualised the text to his time and culture. In conclusion it seems that this Tar- gum has a Palestinian background, as suggested in the introductory formula. There is no known connection to a liturgical tradition. Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xv Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 17 Sperber, The Bible, II.113 319 ,המקרא באור התרגום ,Komlosh Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 281

1 Sam 11:2 (Kasher 46)

Codex Reuchlin 65r TJ MT תרג>ום< ירוש>למי< וַּיֹאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם נָחָׁשהָעַּמֹונִי ואמר להון נחש מלכא ּבְ זֹאת אֶכְ רֹת לָכֶ ם דבני עמון אם תעבדון כהדא אגזר לכון קים ּבִנְקֹור לָכֶם ּכָל עֵין יָמִ ין במירק לכון כל עינא במחקותי מן אוריתא דימניא דילכון תפקדתא דכתיבא בגוה דלא ידכון עמונאי ומואבאי למיעל בקהלא דייי וְׂשַמְּתִיהָ חֶרְּפָה עַל ּכָ ל ואשוינה חסדא על כל ואשוינה חיסודא על כל יִׂשְרָאֵ ל׃ ישראל׃ ישראל׃

Translation Targum Jerushalmi. [But Naash, king of Ammonites, answered them, “If you do like this, I will make a pact with you], by my erasing from that Torah of yours the commandment that is written therein, that the Ammonites and the Moabites are not deserving to enter the congregation of the Lord. I will make this a humiliation for all Israel.” 92 chapter two

Notes and commentary The first part of the TT is an allegoric Midrash, interpreting ‘right eye’ as ‘Torah’.147 A similar interpretation is found in MidrSam 14:7 where it says, ‘The rabbis say that it refers to the book of the Torah. Naash the Ammonite said to them, “Bring me the book of the Torah so that I will eradicate from it ‘no Ammonite shall be admitted’ (Deut 23:4).”’ There is no known connection to a liturgical tradition. Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xv–xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 6 Sperber, The Bible, II.113 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 285

1 Sam 17:4 (Kasher 51) Codex Reuchlin 67r TJ MT תרג>ום< ירוש>למי< וַ ּיֵ צֵ א ונפק אִיׁש הַּבֵנַיִם גברא מביניהון גברא פולומרכא מִּמַחֲנֹות ּפְלִׁשְּתִ ים ממשרית פלשתאי דאיתיליד מביני תרתי גניסן מן שמשון דהוה מן שיבט דן ומן ערפא דהות מן בני מואב ּגָלְיָתׁשְ מֹו גלית שמיה גלית שמיה מִּגַת ּגָבְהֹוׁשֵׁש ַאּמֹות וָזָרֶת: מגת רומיה שית אמין וזרתא׃ Translation Targum Jerushalmi. A man, a general who was born from between two lineages: from Samson, who was from the tribe of Dan and from Orpah who was from the sons of Moab [stepped forward]. His name was Goliath [of Gath, and he was six cubits and a span tall]. Notes and commentary This is a substitute targum. Being a Greek loanword (πολέμαρχος), or variant spellings) occurs mainly in Palestinian) פולומרכא the word .is barely legible תרתי sources. The word deciphered by Kasher as TJ gives a fairly literal translation, although obviously the trans- He .איש הבנים lator had some problems with the Hebrew expression chose to translate it as ‘a man from among them’. The variant translation we find in Codex Reuchlin gives two other alternatives. First, the

.24–23 ,תוספתות ,See for other examples of allegoric interpretation, Kasher 147 tosefta targums 93 expression is translated as ‘general’, the person who stands between his own army and the enemy. Then, the expression is interpreted as ‘between two lineages’. This is done rather smartly, because the sec- ממחנות ond explanation serves as well as translation of the expression .’from the camps (plural!) of the Philistines‘ ,פלשתים The tradition that Goliath stems from Orpah is demonstrably old, since it occurs already in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities.148 Within targumic literature it is found in Tg 1 Chron 20:4, 6, 8.149 The tradition is based on 2 Sam 21:15–22 where Goliath is mentioned as one of the four sons of the Raphah (or: Harafah) who fell by the hand of David and his servants.150 In b.Sot 42b we find a discussion about the identification of the Rafah/Harafah and Orpah. There is no parallel in rabbinic literature for the tradition that Goliath was a descendant of Samson. The link is probably rationally based on the physical strength of both giants. The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in the Italian tradition. Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 7 Sperber, The Bible, II.126 319 ,המקרא באור התרגום ,Komlosh Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 344–46

1 Sam 17:5 (Kasher 52) Before we discuss the variant reading that occurs as a ‘Targum Je- rushalmi’ in Codex Reuchlin, it is useful to compare the Hebrew text and Targum Jonathan. MT וכובע נחשת על ראשו ושריון קשקשים הוא לבוש ומשקל TJ וקולס דנחש על רישיה ושרין גלבין הוא לביש ומתקל

MT השריון חמשת אלפים שקלים נחשת TJ שרינא חמשא אלפין תקלי נחשא The biblical verse deals with the armour of Goliath:

148 Pseudo-Philo, LAB 61:5. 149 See also Ruth Zutta 1:5, YalqSh Ruth §600. 150 See also the TT on 2 Sam 21:15–19, below, pp. 119–127. 94 chapter two

He [Goliath] had a bronze helmet on his head, and wore a breastplate of scale armour, a bronze breastplate weighing five thousand shekels. -lit ,שריון קשקשיםTJ gives a literal translation. The Hebrew expression שרין erally ‘a breastplate of scales’, is rendered in Targum Jonathan as which probably means the same.151 Van Staalduine-Sulman in ,גלבין ,’as ‘a breastplate with notches שריון גלבין her commentary translates because in her view Targum Jonathan considered the biblical word -as metaphorical language.152 ‘Notches’ is also the transla קשקשים tion given in the database of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon,153 in the meaning of ‘razor / knife’.154 גלבא based on the association with Abraham Tal, in his study of the language of the Targum of the Former Prophets, explained that although in Targum Onkelos the ,קליפה word means ‘razor / knife’, in Targum Jonathan it clearly means ‘ s h e l l / s k i n ’. 155 is explained as ‘covering’ by means of קשקשת In b.Nid 51b the word our text in 1 Sam 17:5,156 מגלן דקשקשת לבושא הוא דכתיב ושריון קשקשים הוא לבוש from where do we get that kashkeshet means the covering? Because it is written, ‘and he wore a coat of mail (1 Sam 17:5aβ)’ -Moreover, the com .תרג´ ושרין גלכים it reads ,גלך .In the Arukh 2:296, s.v ment has been made that Kimi has the same reading, and that Levi- but that in some of its editions ,גלכן ta’s Meturgeman gives the reading [is found. Kimi ad locum reads:157 ‘T[argum גלבין also the reading -with a kaf, but in other versions it is writ ושרין גלכין (J[onatan] (reads .’… קלפין ten with a bet and that is the same as Apparently Kimi, Nathan ben Yeiel and Elias Levita had different manuscripts at their disposal.

see , קִ לְ פִ י ן or] קַ לְ פִ י ן See Jastrow, Dictionary, 243, who equates the word with 151 Jastrow, Dictionary, 1381] which is used in TO in Lev 11:9, 10 (‘fins and scales’), and Deut 14:9. Dalman in his Aramäisch-Neuhebräisches Handwörterbuch (78) renders the word as ‘Schuppe’, which also means the same. 152 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 346. 153 http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/ (accessed Oct. 19, 2008). 154 See also J. Levy, Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim, 2 Vols, Leipzig is derived from the Greek γλυφίς and translated גלבא where the word ,139 ,68–1867 is accordingly translated as ‘ein Panzer mit שירין גלבין as ‘Kerbe’. The expression Kerben / Einschitten’. .206 ,לשון התרגום ,Tal 155 156 See also b.ul 66b. 157 Quoted from the Mikraot Gedolot. tosefta targums 95

In the margin of Codex Reuchlin we find the following interesting variant reading:158 Codex Reuchlin 67r TJ תרג>ום< יר>ושלמי< וקולס דנחש על רישיה ושרין גלבין הוא לביש ומתקל שרינא ושיריין דגלד נוני ימא רבא הוא לביש ועלוהי שריין דנחשא ומתקל חמשא אלפין תקלי נחשא׃

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

.nr. 52 ,106 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 158 159 See Sokoloff, JBA, 280; Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum, 117. 160 There are several occurences in PsJon Num 7. 96 chapter two

Kimi in his commentary to 1 Sam 17:5 wrote: ושריון קשקשים — ת´י ושריון גלכין בכ´ף ויש נוסחאות כתוב בבי´ת והוא קלפין שתרגום קשקשת ובדברי רבו´ ז´ל לובשי שריון קליפה ופי´ כי כל טבעת וטבעת של שריון תלויה כמין קשקשת לסתום נקב הטבעות כדי שלא יבא חץ בתוך הטבעת גלכין And a breastplate of scales’ — T[argum] J[onathan]: a breastplate of‘ with a kaph and there are also versions written with beth and that is scales’ which is the [Aramaic] translation of [the‘ קלפין [the same as] And in the words of our teachers of .(קשקשת) Hebrew word] scales blessed memory ‘the wearers of scaled armouring’, its meaning being that every ring of the coat of mail was suspended as a kind of scale to block the hole of the rings to prevent an arrow from entering the ring. Bacher stated in his ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, that the variant readings that are designated Targum Jerushalmi often give an aggadic explanation.161 This is certainly true in the given case. For this specific verse he mentioned the talmudic passages cited above (b.Nid 51b, b.ul 66b) as possible sources.162 To us, however, this identification seems unlikely. In the first place the talmudic traditions occur in an entirely different context, namely in a discussion of kashrut of fishes. The text in Samuel is used there to throw light on the halakhah related to Lev 11:9–10 and Deut 14:9 and not vice versa. In the second place, these traditions say nothing about the double layer of armour that is proposed by the meturgeman. The same holds true for a citation of our verse in Sifra Shemini 3:5, in a halakhic discussion on the question of whether fishes with only two scales are ritually permitted or not. So, if the meturgeman made use of known traditions, these have probably got lost. We must, however, not exclude the possibility that the meturgeman himself created the explanation from a necessity to make sense of the double references in the biblical text. The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in the Italian tradition. Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, xvi Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 7 Sperber, The Bible, II.126 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 346

161 Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 4. 162 Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 7. tosefta targums 97

3.1. Summary 1. We have discussed above eleven cases of Jerushalmi variants, of which 7 are designated simply ‘Jerushalmi’, and 4 ‘Targum Je- rushalmi’. It is hard to say on the basis of the material discussed above, whether there is a difference between the variants that are designated simply ‘Jerushalmi’ and those that are designated ‘Tar- gum Jerushalmi’. One gets the impression that in rough outline the variants designated simply ‘Jerushalmi’ are generally explanatory expansions, while the ‘Targum Jerushalmi’ are substitute Targums. The difference is, however, not always clear. 2. All the traditions discussed are unique to Codex Reuchlin, although there are variant traditions of 1 Sam 17:8 in other witnesses with other designations. 3. Six of the eleven variants are part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze according to the Italian tradition, four with a designation ‘Je- rushalmi’ and two with a designation ‘Targum Jerushalmi’. This may point to an Italian source. 4. Four of the eleven variants have no known connection to a liturgical reading. 5. According to Kasher, one could generally say that all variant readings with the designation ‘Jerushalmi’ or ‘Targum Jerushalmi’ have a relation to Palestinian Aramaic, and so the designation really makes sense. The variants from Samuel we discussed above endorse this thesis. 6. The combination of Palestinian characteristics and a connection to the Italian reading tradition in these ‘Targum Jerushalmi’ variants that are incorporated in the Italian Codex Reuchlin may be explained from the known cultural and religious influence from Palestine on the Jews in Italy. 4. Tosefta The text of 1 Sam 17:8 led in the targumic tradition to several exegetic extensions. Besides the literal translation of Targum Jonathan there are three different extensive targums known today.163 The first one oc-

163 This material has already been treated at length by Kasher and Van Staalduine- Sulman whose results we summarise here and supplement where possible. See R. AJS Review 21 (1996), 1–21, at ,’האם יש מקור אחד לתוספתות התרגום לנביאים?‘ ,Kasher .Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 348–54 ;08–106 ,תוספתות ,Idem ;13–9 See also D.J.D. Kroeze & E. van Staalduine-Sulman, ‘A Giant among Bibles: “Erfurt 98 chapter two

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

1 Sam 17:8 (Kasher 53b) Kimi (ms Parma 2883) TJ ובתרגו>ם< של תוספתא תרגם הפסוק כן וקם ואכלי על סדרי ישראל ואמר וקם ואכרז על סדרי קרבא דישראל ואמר להון להון למא תפקון לסדרא קרבא למה אתון נפקין לסדרא קרבא עם פלשתאי הלא אנא פלשתאה הלא אנא גליית פלישתאה דמן גת דקטלית תרין בני עלי כהנא חפני ופינחס ושיבית ארון קיימא דיי ואבלית יתיה לבית דגון טעותי והוה תמן בקירוי פלישתאי תלתא ירחי ואף כל קרב וקרב דהוה לכון עם פלשתאי נפקנא לפום קלא ורמינא קטילייא כעפרא דארעא ועדיין לא אכשרו ית]י[ פלישתאי למהוי רב אלפא עליהון ואתון עבדין לשאול בחרו לכון ואתון בני ישראל מה עבד לכון שאול בר קיש גברא וייחות לותי׃ דמניתון יתיה מלכא עילויכון אם גבר גיבר הוא יחות ויעביד עימי קרבא׃ Translation And in the Tosefta Targum the verse is translated as follows: And he stood up and shouted to the battle ranks of Israel and said to them: “Why do you go out to wage war with the Philistine? Am I not Goliath from Gath who killed the two sons of Eli the priest, Hofni and Pinehas, and who captured the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord and carried it away to the House of Dagon, my idol and it was there in the midst of the Philistines three months? And also each war that you had with the Philistines, I went out shouting and throwing around the killed ones like dust of the land. And yet the Philistines did not think me fit to be

1” or ms Or. fol. 1210–1211 at the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin’, AS 4/2 (2006), 193–205, at 203–204. 164 See above, pp. 86–87. ,Apart from the manuscripts mentioned by Kasher .231 ,תוספתות ,See Kasher 165 Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman discovered that also Jena El.f.6 and the badly dam- aged ms Berlin Or 1210–1211 contain this Tosefta with only minor variations. .231 ,תוספתות ,See Kasher 166 tosefta targums 99 head of a thousand over them. And you, sons of Israel, what did Saul, the son of Kish do for you that you appointed him king over you? If he is a strong man, let him come down and wage war with me! Notes and commentary This tradition occurs in the Ashkenazi ms Laud Or. 326; ms 11, Gött- weig; ms Add. 26,879; ms Hébreu 18; ms Or. fol. 1210–1211. It is further found in the Sephardi ms Hébreu 75, in the Yemenite ms Or. 1471, in the first Rabbinic Bible and in some undefined manuscripts.167 As in the shorter TT of Codex Reuchlin, Goliath introduces himself extensively,168 mentioning besides the capturing of the Ark, the killing of the sons of Eli as one of his achievements. These two events are closely connected in the Hebrew Bible169 and it is therefore not surprising to find them here together also. A new element here is that Goliath tries to bring home to the people of Israel that Saul is a weak man by asking them to send Saul ‘if he is a strong man’, suggesting that he knows better. The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in the Italian tradition. Bibliographic information 12–9 ,’האם יש מקור‘ ,Kasher 319 ,המקרא באור התרגום ,Komlosh Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 348–54

1 Sam 17:8 (Kasher 53c)

ms M1 Salamanca TJ תוספתא וקם ואכלי על סדרי ישראל וקם ואכלי על סדרי קרבא דישראל ואמר להון למא תפקון לסדרא קרבא ואמר להון למה אתון נפקין לסדרא קרבא עם פלשתאי

.(כKimi ms Vatican 71 (Kasher 6 ,(זMarburg Staatsarchiv 4 (Kasher 6 167 168 See above, pp. 86–87. 169 1 Sam 4:11, 17, 19, 21. 100 chapter two

ms M1 Salamanca TJ הלא אנא הלא אנא גלית דמן גת דקטלית תרין בני עלי כהנא חפני ופינחס פלשתאה ואתון ושביתי ית ארון קימא דייי ואובילית יתיה לבית דגון טעותי והוה עבדין לשאול תמן שבעא ירחין ולא יכיל לי מרי קימכון ועל כל קרב וקרב דהוה לפלשתאי אנא נפקנא לחקלא ונצחנא ורמינא קטילין כעפרא דארעא וכל דא אנא עביד להו]ן[ ולא ממנן יתי עליהון לא מלכא ולא איסטרטיגא והדין שאול דמגבעת בנימין מה עבד לכון ארי מניתון יתיה מלכא עיליכון כען אמרו ליה אם גבר תקיף הוא ייחות ויעביד עמי קרבא ואם גבר חלש הוא בחרו לכון גברא בחרו לכון גברא וייחות לותי׃ וייחות לותי׃ Translation Tosefta. And he stood up and shouted to the battle ranks of Israel and said to them: “Why do you go out to wage war with the Philistine? Am I not Goliath from Gath who killed the two sons of Eli the priest, Hofni and Pinehas and who captured the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord? And carried it away to the House of Dagon, my idol and it was there seven months? And the Master of your covenant could not overpower me. And on each war that the Philistines had, I went out to the field and was victorious, throwing the killed ones about like dust of the land. And all this I did for them, but they did not appoint me king over them, or military commander. And this Saul, from Givat Benjamin, what did he do for you that you appointed him king over you? Behold, tell him that if he is a strong man, let him come down and wage war with me. But if he is a weak man, choose you a man and let him come down against me. Notes and commentary Apart from ms M1 Salamanca, this TT occurs in the Leiria edition and in the Sephardi manuscripts H. 116, Kennicott 5, Madrid 7542 and Opp Add 40 75. The TT in Kennicott 5 is incorporated in the text without any indication. Goliath suggests here that God could not redeem his Ark from the hands of the Philistines. He boasts of all his military victories and seems frustrated that the Philistines did not reward him properly. The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in the Italian tradition. Bibliographic information 34–33 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 12–9 ,’האם יש מקור‘ ,Kasher I.351–52 ,מפרשי המקרא ,Melammed Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 348–54 tosefta targums 101

Comparison of the versions In his description of the shorter version found in Codex Reuchlin, Bacher stated that this version has been changed and enlarged in the editions.170 There seems to be no ground for this allegation, since there are some essential differences. Let us compare the two longer versions in some detail. One branch occurs according to Kasher mainly in Ashkenazi sources, while the other occurs exclusively in Sephardi sources. Van Staalduine-Sulman follows Kasher in his division into the two branches. The division is not very strict, however, as becomes clear from a comparison of the representatives of the supposed branches as given by Kasher.171 Sephardi Ashkenazi ms M1 Salamanca Kimi (ms Parma 2883) 1 בתרגו>ם< של תוספתא תרגם הפסוק תוספתא כן 2 וקם ואכרז על סדרי קרבא דישראל וקם ואכלי על סדרי קרבא דישראל ואמר להון למה אתון נפקין לסדרא ואמר להון למה אתון נפקין לסדרא קרבא עם פלשתאי קרבא עם פלשתאי 3 הלא אנא גליית פלישתאה דמן גת הלא אנא גלית דמן גת דקטלית תרין בני עלי כהנא חפני דקטלית תרין בני עלי כהנא חפני ופינחס ושיבית ארון קיימא דיי ופינחס ושביתי ית ארון קימא דייי ואבלית יתיה לבית דגון טעותי ואובילית יתיה לבית דגון טעותי והוה תמן והוה תמן 4 בקירוי פלישתאי 5 תלתא ירחי שבעא ירחין 6 ולא יכיל לי מרי קימכון 7 ואף כל קרב וקרב דהוה לכון עם ועל כל קרב וקרב דהוה לפלשתאי פלשתאי נפקנא לפום קלא אנא נפקנא לחקלא ונצחנא 8 ורמינא קטילייא כעפרא דארעא ורמינא קטילין כעפרא דארעא 9 ועדיין לא אכשרו ית]י[ פלישתאי למהוי וכל דא אנא עביד להו]ן[ ולא ממנן יתי רב אלפא עליהון עליהון לא מלכא ולא איסטרטיגא 10 ואתון בני ישראל מה עבד לכון שאול והדין שאול דמגבעת בנימין מה עבד בר קיש לכון 11 דמניתון יתיה מלכא עילויכון ארי מניתון יתיה מלכא עיליכון 12 כען אמרו ליה 13 אם גבר גיבר הוא יחות ויעביד עימי אם גבר תקיף הוא ייחות ויעביד עמי קרבא׃ קרבא 14 ואם גבר חלש הוא בחרו לכון גברא וייחות לותי׃

170 Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 17–18, at 18. .13–9 ,’האם יש מקור אחד‘ ,Idem ;53(ג) and 53(ב) .nrs ,108–106 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 171 102 chapter two

Let us compare these differences in the light of the weight Kasher awards them. The main differences are underlined.

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

On the basis of this evidence we must conclude that the division between the two versions is not as clear as Kasher and Van Staalduine- Sulman suggest.

n. 28. Also the Ashkenazi ,11 ,’האם יש מקור אחד‘ ,Idem ;231 ,תוסםתות ,Kasher 172 ms Or. fol. 1210–1211 has the reading ‘seven’ (see Kroeze & Van Staalduine, ‘A Giant among Bibles’, 204. .n. 29 ,11 ,’האם יש מקור אחד‘ ,Idem ;231 ,תוםפתות ,Kasher 173 tosefta targums 103

1 Sam 17:39 (Kasher 56) ms Madrid 7542 TJ תוספתא וזריז דוד ית חרביה מעל ללבושוהי ולא וזריז דוד … לית בהון נסא אבא למיזל ארי לא אילוף ואמר דויד לשאול לית אנא יכיל למיזל באלין ארי לית בהון נסא דלא איזיל לגביה אלא באבנא ותרמילא משום דמגדפא הוא ודיניה בסקילא דהכין כתיב בספר אוריתא דמשה דמן דארגיז קדם ייי אלהא דשמיא ואפיק שמיה קדישא בחיסודין דלירגמוניה באבנא ואעדינון דוד מניה׃ ואעדינון דוד מיניה׃ Translation Tosefta. And David girded [his sword over his garment. Then he tried to walk, but he was not used to it; and David said to Saul, “I cannot walk in these, for there is no experience174 in them.] I shall not go unto him other than with stone and bag, because he is a blasphemer, and his judgment will be by stoning. Because so it is written in the book of the Torah of Moses, that whosoever angers the Lord God of heaven and utters the name of the Holy one in revilement they will stone him to death.” So David put them off. Notes and commentary This is an interwoven expansion. The dialect is presumably Babylonian, -prefix in the prefix-conjugation is an unmistak ל- since the use of the able characteristic of Eastern Aramaic.175 This tradition occurs also in other Sephardi sources such as ms H.116, ms M1 Salamanca, and ms Opp Add 40 75 and in the Leiria edition. Within the Ashkenazi tradition it occurs in ms Parma 3187 where it is integrated into the main text of Targum Jonathan.176 This interpretation refers to Lev 24:11–15, however without a direct citation from Targum Onkelos as one would have expected in a Baby- lonian tradition. The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in the Italian tradition.

.’may also be translated as ‘miracle נסא The word 174 לשון ,See e.g. E.Y. Kutscher, ‘Aramaic’, EJ 3, Jerusalem 1971, 259–87, at 275; Tal 175 .Gleßmer, Einleitung in die Targume zum Pentateuch, 36 ;191 ,התרגום 176 See Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 363 n. 1282. 104 chapter two

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

1 Sam 18:19 (Kasher 58)

Jews’ College H. 116 TJ תוספ>תא< והוה בעדן דמטא אתיהבא דמירב בת שאול לדוד והיא אתיהיבת לעדריאל דממחולת לאתו׃ דהוה קא סבר דקידושהא בטעות נינהו משום דמלוה הוא ואף מיכל מבתר דאינסבה ליה אפקא מיניה בלא גט משום דסבר דקידושהא נמי בטעות נינהו דבפחות משוה פרוטה קידשה ומן דמקדיש בפחות מן שוה פרוטה לא קדיש ולא מידי ודויד לא אפסיד קליה )ית( ]מינה[ דקא סבר דערליא טפי משוה פרוטה נינהו משום דחזו לכלביה דשאול ולשונריה

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

-and a participle denotes a con קא In Babylonian Aramaic, the combination of 177 tinuous and a habitual action in the present. See E.Y. Kutscher, ‘Aramaic’, 281; Tal, .192 ,לשון התרגום tosefta targums 105

The TT occurs exclusively in .טפי and 180 נמי and 179 נינהו the words 178 Sephardi witnesses. Apart from the Jews’ College manuscript it occurs in the Leiria edition, in ms Madrid 7542 and ms M1 Salamanca. The content is very close to b.Sanh 19b, where in a discussion on the legitimacy of David’s marriages Saul contended that the hundred foreskins had no value, while David held that they had value at least as food for dogs and cats. The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in the Italian tradition. Bibliographic information Luzzatto, ‘Nachträgliches über die Thargumim’, 132 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 392–93

2 Sam 12:12 (Kasher 63) Jews’ college H. 116 TJ תוספתא ולמא דאמרת ישלים על חד ארבע הכי תיהוי ארבע נפשן יפקון מבנך)?( בדיל נפשיה דאוריה רביא ואמנון ואבשלום ואדניה ארי את עבדת בסתרא ואנא אעביד ית פתגמא הדין קדם כל ישראל וקדם שמשא׃

Translation Tosefta. And why did you say, ‘he shall restore fourfold’? Because four lives will go from your sons for the life of Uria, the child, Amnon, Ab- salom and Adonia. [You acted in secret, but I will make this happen in the sight of all Israel and in broad daylight.] Notes and commentary This is a preceding expansion. Other witnesses are, according to Kash- er, the Sephardi manuscripts Opp Add 4.76, Madrid 7542, M1 Sala- manca, and Kennicott 5. In ms Kennicott 5 the TT appears after 2 Sam

178 A particle meaning ‘they are’ that is frequently used in Babylonian Aramaic. .192 ,לשון התרגום ,See also Tal 179 An adverb meaning ‘also, likewise’ that is frequently used in Babylonian Ara- .192 ,לשון התרגום ,maic. See also Tal 180 An adverb meaning ‘much, more’ that is frequently used in Babylonian Ara- .192 ,לשון התרגום ,maic. See also Tal 106 chapter two

12:14 without any introduction. This seems in fact to be a more logical place since there the death of the boy is announced. The tradition refers back to 2 Sam 12:6 where David ordains that the rich man who took the poor man’s lamb had to repay fourfold what he had taken. This may be compared tob.Yoma 22b, where it says, ‘But here was also the matter of Bathsheba. For that he was punished, as it is written, “And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, the child, Amnon, Tamar and Absalom.”’ ‘The child’ is according to 2 Sam 12:15 the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David. There is no known connection to a liturgical tradition. Bibliographic information Luzzatto, ‘Nachträgliches über die Thargumim’, 133 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 552, 555

2 Sam 19:30 (Kasher 64)

Leiria TJ תוספתא ואמר ליה מלכא למא תמליל עוד פתגמך אמרית את וציבא תפלגון ית אחסנתא׃ ובההיא שעתא נפקת ]ברת[ קלא ואמר>ת< רחבעם וירבעם יפלגון מלכות>א<

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

181 See also b.Yoma 22b. tosefta targums 107

The heavenly decree that the kingdom of Saul will in the future be divided is explained as retaliation for the fact that David made this ill- considered and unjust decision. In one of the preceding verses, verse 28, David is compared to an angel of God. So, while David, the ‘angel of God’ decreed that the land should be divided between Mephibosheth and Ziba, now a Bat Kol comes and decrees that the kingdom shall be divided between Rehoboam and Jeroboam. There is no known connection to a liturgical tradition. Bibliographic information Sperber, The Bible, II.196 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 604–605

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

.92–191 ,לשון התרגום ,See also Tal .15 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 182 108 chapter two

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

1 Sam 2:6 (Kasher 41) Codex Reuchlin 56v TJ כל אלין גבורתא דיוי דהוא שליט כל אילין גבורתא דיהוה דהוא שליט בעלמא ממית ואמר לאחאה מחית בעלמא ממית ואמר לאחאה מחית לשאול ואף עתיד לאסקא בחיי עלמא׃ לשאול ואף עתיד לאסקא בחיי עלמא ברם קרח בר יצהר בר קהת בר לוי דמיניה נפק שמואל ברי איתחת לשאול על עיסק דקם ואיתפלג על משה ואהרן צדיקיא יסקון מבית בליעתהון ויודון דלית אלה בר מיניה׃

Translation All these are the mighty work of the Lord who is the ruler of the world. He puts to death and promises to make alive. He brings down to Sheol and will also cause to rise in eternal life. Truly,184 Kora the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi,185 from whom went forth my son Samuel, was brought down to Sheol because of the question that he rose up against and disagreed with the righteous Moses and Aaron. They will go out from the place where they were swallowed and confess that there is no god beside Him. Notes and commentary This is a concluding expansion to Targum Jonathan. The dialect is close to the language of TJ. The addition is incorporated in the regular text and is not marked in any way as a Tosefta. It is a unique variant. The verse is part of the haftarah to the first day of New Year. The meturgeman transformed the first part of the song of Hannah into a historical survey of which this verse is the conclusion. After

183 As we noted above during the discussion of 1 Sam 18:19 (pp. 104–105) and 2 Sam 12:12 (pp. 105–106), ms Kennicott 5 sometimes incorporates the TTs in the text where other manuscripts mark it as Tosefta. -here as an interjection (cf. Jastrow, Dic ברם We prefer to translate the word 184 tionary, 196) instead of a conjunction. As a conjunction it would introduce an exception to the rule, while the story of Kora on the contrary seems to confirm it (pace Van Staalduine-Sulman ad locum). 185 Num 16:1. tosefta targums 109 having described the mighty deeds of the Lord in history, praise is given to Him who lays down the rules about life and death. M.Sanh chapter 10 discusses who have a share in the World to Come and who have not. According to R. Aqiba in m.Sanh 10:3, the company of Kora shall not rise to eternal life, because it is written in Num 16:33 ‘They went down alive into Sheol, with all that belonged to them; the earth closed over them and they vanished from the midst of the congregation’. ‘The earth closed over them’ means ‘in this world’, and ‘they vanished from the midst of the congregation’ means ‘in the World to Come’. R. Eliezer, however did not agree with this harsh judgment. He applied the words of 1 Sam 2:6 to Kora and his company, ‘The Lord deals death and gives life, casts down into Sheol and raises up’. It seems that the meturgeman of our TT agreed with R. Eliezer. The version that occurs in Codex Reuchlin uses a concrete case as illustra- tion for the meaning of the verse. One gets the impression that the meturgeman knew the halakhic discussion about who have a portion in the World to Come. The confession at the end probably refers to Deut 32:39 that also contains a reference to God’s power to deal death and give live and is therefore associatively linked to this verse.186 See in this respect also 1 Sam 2:2, 2 Sam 7:22, and 1 Chron 17:20. Bibliographic information De Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, 68 Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 49 Sperber, The Bible, II.97 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 213–14

1 Sam 2:9 (not in Kasher) T-S NS 128.14 TJ MT רַגְלֵי חסידו יִׁשְ מֹר גוית עבדוהי צדיקיא יטר גויית עבדוהי צדיקי}א{ יטר מגיהנם מגיהנם ּורְׁשָעִים ּבַ חֹׁשְֶך יִּדָ ּמּו ורשיעיא בגהנם בחשוכא ו}רשי{עיא בגיהנם בחשוכא ידדנון יתדנון ּכִי ֹלא בְ כֹחַ יִגְּבַר אִ יׁש: להודעא ארי לא מן דאית להודעא ארי לא מין דאית ביה חילא זכי ליום דינא׃ ביה חילא זכי ל}…{ }ד{ינא אילהין דאית ליה עוב}די{ן טבין זכי למלכא דאתי

186 In rabbinic hermeneutic terms Heqqesh or Gezerah Shavah. 110 chapter two

Translation He keeps the bodies of His righteous servants from Gehenna, but the wicked will be punished in Gehenna in darkness — to make known that one who has strength is not found worthy for the day of judgment, but only if he has good deeds will he be found worthy for the coming King. Notes and commentary This is a concluding expansion. The dialect is close to the language actually being a more regular form than the יתדנון of TJ, the form -that occurs in Sperber’s edition. The addition is incorpo ידדנון form rated in the regular text and is not marked in any way as a Tosefta. This text does not occur in the collection of Kasher. The verse is part of the haftarah reading for the first day of New Year in all rites, dealing with the birth of Samuel and Hannah’s song of praise. It is a unique variant. Both Targum Jonathan and the elaborated version that is found in instead of the Ketiv חסידיו this fragment translate the Hebrew Qere The addition may have been prompted by the urge to avoid the .חסידו impression that strong people are by definition judged negatively. It makes clear that they can be judged positively, but only on account of their good deeds and not on account of their strength. This may point to the possible exhortative function of this TT. that serves as a prelude מלכא דאתי Take note also of the expression to the next verse where the messianic King is introduced. Bibliographic information Klein, Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, 51, nr. 615

2 Sam 6:23 (Kasher 62)

ms Salamanca 1 TJ ולמיכל בת שאול לא הוה לה ולד עד יום מותה׃ ברם ביום מותה הוה לה בר ושמיה יתרעם׃

Translation [So to her dying day Michal daughter of Saul had no children.] But on the day of her death she had a son and his name was Ithream. tosefta targums 111

Notes and commentary This tradition also occurs in the Leiria edition and in Genizah fragment T-S B11.56. According to 2 Sam 3:5 Ithream was David’s sixth son, born to his wife Eglah. In the rabbinic tradition Eglah is identified as Michal, as we saw above in the TT to 2 Sam 3:5.187 In the parallel text in This .שתיתאה יתרעם לעגלה אנתתיה היא מיכל ברת שאול Chron 3:3 it says 1 TT harmonises the peshat interpretation of 2 Sam 6:23 that Michal had no children with the tradition that she was the mother of Ithream. The verse is part of the haftarah to parashat Shemini in all traditions. Bibliographic information Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, II.169 Klein, Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, 22 nr. 261

2 Sam 20:22 (Kasher 65)

Kennicott 5 TJ MT וַּתָבֹוא הָאִּׁשָה אֶל ּכָ ל ואתת איתתא לות כל ואתת איתתא לכל עמא בחכמתא הָעָםּבְחָכְמָתָ ּה עמא בחכמתה ואמר}ת{ להון: חמשין גברין בע}א{ מנכון למיקטל ולא תתחבל קרת>א< ואמרו ניתן ותבת ואמרת ארבעין ואמרו ניתן ותבת ואמרת עשרין ואמרו ניתן ותבת ואמרת עשרה ואמרו ניתן ותבת ואמרת גברא דשמיה שבע בר בכרי ולא נפק מפומיה וַּיִכְרְתּואֶ תרֹאׁש ׁשֶבַ ע ופסקו ית ריש שבע בר עד דפסקו ית רישיה ורמיה ליואב ּבֶן ּבִכְרִי וַּיַׁשְלִכּו אֶ ל בכרי ורמו לות יואב ותקע בשופרא ואתבדרו מעל יֹוָאב וַּיִתְקַעּבַּׁשֹופָר ותקע בשופרא קרת>א< וַּיָפֻצּו מֵעַל הָעִ יר ואתבדרו מעל קרתא אִיׁשלְ אֹהָלָיו וְיֹוָאב גבר לקרוהי ויואב תב ׁשָב יְרּוׁשָלִַם אֶלהַּמֶלְֶך: לירושלם לות מלכא׃ Translation The woman came to all the people in her wisdom. And she said to them, “Fifty men he asks from you to kill and the town shall not be ruined.” And they said. “It is given.” She came back and said, “Forty.” And they said, “It is given.” She came back and said, “Twenty.” And

187 See above, pp. 64–65. 112 chapter two

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

188 See e.g. John 11:49–52. 189 t.Ter 7:20; y.Ter 8:10, 46b; GenR 94:9 (Th-A 1184–85). tosefta targums 113

As concerns form, the negotiation tactics ascribed to the wise women resemble the tactics of Abraham in his plea for Sodom and Gomorra. give a strong cadence to the text, almost ותבת ואמרת The repetitive turning it into poetry. Bibliographic information Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 612–13

5.1. Summary 1. We discussed four cases of substantial variant traditions that are incorporated in the text without any designation. 2. The language is, as might be expected, close to the language of TO / TJ. T hey are 3. They are toseftot in the true sense of the word, supplying additions to Targum Jonathan. 4. The stress on good deeds in 1 Sam 2:9 may point to an exhortative function of this TT. 5. Since all the TTs in ms Kennicott 5 are incorporated into the text without any special designation, even though they are marked in other witnesses as ‘tosefta’, we should probably exclude 2 Sam 20:22 from our considerations concerning unmarked additions. Sam 6. In 1 Sam 2:6 and 2 Sam 6:23 the variant reading starts with the word but, however’, whereas the reading in 1 Sam 2:9 starts with‘ ברם except, only’, both words indicating a kind of objection or‘ אלהין argument. Consultation of the textual databases of the Comprehen- sive Aramaic Lexicon show that these words occur regularly in the TTs,190 probably reflecting internal discussions.

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

190 http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/ (accessed Oct. 1, 2008). 114 chapter two

6.1. Poetry

1 Sam 17:42 (Kasher 57)

ms Munich 5 TJ יונתן תרגם המקרא הזה בטוב וסתומות רבות מפורשין בה והא לך תרגמו ואסתכי פלשתאה וחזא ואיסתכי פלשתאה וחזא ית דוד ושטיה ארי הוה יניק ית דויד ושטיה ארי הוה וסימוק ושפיר בריויה יניק וסמוק שפיר בריויה׃ ואמר ליה איזל טליא וחוס על טליותך למה את מתגרי עם בר איוון בחירת טליא ושפירת לחדא אמ>ר< גלית לדוד גיגונא דהילולא לא גנן לך אידכר גננך והדר לאחורך אבוך דמי זיוך לזיוא דמלכי דרחיצנא בך דאת ירתת מלכו חבל עלך טליא דגמדך מצרך חבל על ינקותך דבעית להתקטלא ווי לך אימרא דמתגרת עם ולית אימרא דיכיל למיקם דובא בדובא זעירא את ולבך קשי וי לך דאת מתגרת במאן דקשי מינך חזווך ובישרך אתן לעופא אם לא תיזל ותרעי ענך דשמיא טובך טליא אם תיזל מן דלא ארוק בך ותטבע ברוקי קדמי יומא בישא דנפקת בגויה אבוך צוח ואמך מיללא וי וי כוף רישך והדר לאחורך דלא ישלוט בך סייפי דחריף לבך דרמא ייי משפל יתיה אמר דוד לגלית מימר אלהי דאתא עמי הוא ישיזב אימרא מפום דובא ניחא דילי ורוגזא דילך את בשום טעותך ואנא בשמא דייי צבאות סייפך דחריף אנא אפסוק אמר דוד לגלית בה ית רישך עינוותנותיה דשאול בר קיש היא תגרום לך ותפיל קומתך דחסידתא יתיה פתחנא פומי ובלענא יתך אמר גלית לדוד צורת אפך שפירא וסומקא ושפירת בריוא ויאית בחיזוא קלא אישתמעת בפלשתאי דאימרא מיכתש עם דובא ריגשא רבא הוה בחמשה דדא אמרה לדא אנא איסק אבנין בקדמיתא tosefta targums 115

ms Munich 5 שמיה דאברהם צדיק)י(א כתיבא על קדמיתא דיצחק כתיבא על תיניינא דיעקב בוכרא כתיבא על תליתיתא על רבעיתא וחמשיתא כתיב שומהון דמשה ואהרון נבייא שמיה דאברהם אמרא אנא איסק לקילעא בקדמיתא ואימחי ית פלשתאה עורלאה הדין על עורלתיה ואעדי חיסודין מן דבית ישראל בה שעתה ההיא זקף דוד עינוהי למרומא וחזא מלאכין דמתיעעין על גולית פלשתאה בה שעתה ההיא הוא רעוא מן קדם ייי דעל אבנא דאהרן וסליקת לקלעא על דהוה רדיף שלמא ומחת פלשתאה על בית עינוהי למישרת שלמא על ידיה בתחומא דישראל בה שעתא ההיא זיויה דאפיה אישתני וקיטרי חרציה אישתרו וארכובתיה נקשן וסיפיה נפל ואעא דמרניתיה איתבר ודעבד עם ההוא דרא לעביד עמנו לעלם

Translation Jonathan translated this scripture well, and many undefined things are explained therein and here is for you his translation. The Philistine faced and looked at David, and disdained him, for he was a young boy, and ruddy, and handsome in appearance. And he said to him: Go, young one, and have consideration for your youth. Why would you attack a son of lions? You are chosen, youthful, and very handsome, said Goliath to David Your father did not yet erect a bridal canopy for you Think of your canopy and turn back Your splendour resembles the splendour of kings So I trust that you will inherit the kingdom Alas for you, boy, that your tinyness is your problem Sorry for your youth, that you ask to be killed Woe to you lamb, that you are provoking a bear There is no lamb that can withstand a bear You are young, but your heart is hard Woe to you that you are provoking someone who is stronger than you Your appearance and your flesh I will give to the birds of heaven, if you do not go and shepherd your sheep. It will be good for you, boy, if you go away from me, so that I do not spit on you and you will drown in my spittle. It was a bad day, on which you went out into it. Your father cried out and your mother said ‘woe, woe’ Bow your head and turn back That my sharp sword will not rule over you 116 chapter two

Your heart that is haughty, the Lord will humiliate it Said David to Goliath: The Memra of God that goes with me will save the lamb from the mouth of the bear Rest will be mine and anger yours, you in the name of your idols and I in the name of the Lord of Hosts. Your sharp sword, I will split your own head with it Said David to Goliath: The humility of Saul the son of Kish that you sneered at Will cause your stature to fall I open my mouth and swallow you Said Goliath to David: The form of your face is beautiful and ruddy You are beautiful in looks and handsome in appearance A rumour was heard by the Philistines That the lamb would be fighting with the bear Great excitement was among the five stones one saying to the other: I will go out first. The name of Abraham the righteous was written on the first Of Isaac, the bound one, was written on the second Of Jacob, the first-born was written on the third On the fourth and the fifth were the names of the prophets Moses and Aaron The name of Abraham said: I will go out in the sling first and I shall wipe out that uncircumcised Philistine because of his prepuce And I shall take away the shame from the House of Israel At that very time David lifted up his eyes to heaven and saw the angels deliberating on Goliath the Philistine At that very time, it was the Lord’s wish that the stone of Aaron would go out and it mounted the sling because he was a pursuer of peace. And it hit the Philistine on his forehead to minister peace by it in the territory of Israel At that very time the countenance of his face changed And the knots of his loins loosened And his knees shook and his sword fell and the wood of his spear was broken What He did with that generation, may He do it with us forever. tosefta targums 117

Notes and commentary This popular poem occurs in the Sephardi manuscripts H. 116, Kenni- cott 5, M1 Salamanca, Madrid 7542, Leiria 1494, and in the Ashkenazi manuscripts Munich 5 and Göttweig 11. Ms H. 116 and Leiria 1494 attached it to 17:43, while ms Kennicott 5 divided it over the verses 42 and 43. Ms Munich 5 is a commentary to the Torah and the Prophets, which explains the somewhat unusual Hebrew introduction. The translation of Targum Jonathan that is first cited is a rather literary translation that contains no explanation. So when the introduction says that Tar- gum Jonathan explained many undefined things, this must refer to the poem that follows, rather than to the translation. In the parallel traditions this poem is mostly introduced as ‘tosefta’. The poem is a dialogue between Goliath and David and makes use of an alphabetic acrostic191 and of the popular rabbinic device of enu- meration192 in the list of the five stones. The language has many clear Babylonian characteristics, such as the enclitic pronoun in the partici- 193.שפירת and בחירת ples in forms like strophe David mentions that Goliath sneered at Saul. This-ע In the does not occur in the biblical text, but it is known from targumic interpretations such as the TTs to 1 Sam 17:8. strophe-צ The description of David’s handsome appearance in the corresponds to the description of the anointed in TJ 1 Sam 23:8. The tradition about the stones is based on the combination of 1 Sam 17:40 ‘he picked five smooth stones from the wadi’ and verse 49 of the same chapter ‘David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone’. A similar tradition occurs in MidrSam 21:1, where however the names and the order in which they appear are different. A similar tradition also occurs in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities,194 which means that this is certainly an ancient motif. As Kasher has noted in his commentary, it is strange that in the quarrel between the stones, only the

.strophe-ת and the missing ח and ה Note the confusion between 191 192 For a description of this principle, see the classical study of W.S. Towner, The Rabbinic ‘Enumeration of Scriptural Examples’: A Study of a Rabbinic Pattern of Dis- course with Special Reference to Mekhilta d’ R. Ishmael, Leiden 1973. These number motifs are also popular within the so-called targumic derashot. See Z. Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, in: Safrai et al., The Literature of the Sages. Second Part, 243–78, at 248. .191 ,לשון התרגום ,Tal 193 194 Pseudo-Philo, LAB 61:5. 118 chapter two motivation of the stone with Abraham’s name on it is given, while eventually the stone of Aaron was chosen for the task. This might imply that the composer of this TT used parts of an originally longer tradition in which all the stones motivated why exactly they should be chosen for the task at hand.195

The name of Abraham on the first stone in the sling refers to the fact -who was circumcised in God’s cov (אחד ויחיד) that he was the first one enant. This is stressed by the contrast to the uncircumcised Philistine. The name of Aaron on the last stone refers to the frontlet of pure gold on which was written ‘Holy to the Lord’ that Aaron wore on his forehead, according to Exod 28:36–38. Jewish tradition assigns two labels to Aaron, Ohev Shalom ‘Lover of Peace’ and Rodef Shalom ‘Pur- suer of Peace’. See e.g. m.Avot 1:12b where it says, ‘Hillel said: Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind and bringing them closer to the Torah.’ The attribution of this saying to Hillel is one of the arguments used by Eveline van Staalduine- Sulman in favour of an early date for this poem.196 However, the tradition of Aaron as a lover and pursuer of peace occurs throughout rabbinic and medieval literature and its occurrence here can therefore not be used as an argument for an early date. The motif of the angelic council is unique to this fragment, but ac- cords with the regard of the angelic world than can be found elsewhere in the corpus of TTs.197 The Aramaic word that is used in the present manuscript and in ms Gottweig 11 for the deliberation of the angels is which is categorised by CAL as Late Jewish Literary יעע√ an itpaal of .יעץ√ Aramaic. The Sefardic witnesses use the more common itpaal of According to Kasher this poem is connected to the haftarah to parashat Ki Tetze in one of the texts of Maimonides.

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

.111 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 195 196 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 381. 197 Kasher, ‘Angelology and the Supernal Worlds’, esp. 179. tosefta targums 119

6.2. Targumic derashah

2 Sam 21:15–19 (Kasher 69)

ms Gaster 1478 TJ יומא בתרא דפסח דשמ>ו<אל )15( והוה עוד קרבא לפלשתאי עם )15( והות עוד קרבא לפלשתאי עים ישראל ונחת ישראל ונחת דויד ועבדוהי עמיה דוד ועבדוהי ואגיחו קרבא עם פלשתאי ואשתלהי ואגיחו קרבא עם פלשתאי ואשתלהי דוד דויד׃ )16( וישבי בנב דבבני גברא ומתקל )16( וישבי בנוב דמן בני עורפא גיברתא ומתקאל סופניה מתקל תלת מאה סלעין סופיניה מתקאל תלת מאה סלעין דנחשא והוא דנחשא והוא אסיר אספניקי חדתא אסיר אספניקי חדתא ואמר למקטל ית דוד ואמר למתקל ית דויד׃ ונחתו תרויהון לסדרא קרבא דין עם דין כחדא דוד בר ישי מלכא דישראל וישבי בנב דוד בר ישי מלכא דיש>ראל< נחת מסדרי קרבא דיש>ראל< וישבי בנב רשיעא נחת מסדרי קרבא דיפלשתאי ואשתלהי דוד בר ישי ריש קרבא דישראל הוא דוד בר ישי שפיר בריויה ויאי בחזויה חכים שפיר בריויה ויאי בחזויה חכים בחוכמתא בחכמתא וסכלתן בעיצא גבר וסוכלתן בעיצה ריש גיבריא בגברותא ריש גבריא (2 Sam 23:8) הוה תקע בשופרה מזיע לרשיעיא מסיע לענותניא תמני מאה קטילין דמתחות רגלוהי בזמן חדא ועימיה ישבי בנב ולא יכיל ליה ואשתלהי וכד חזא ישבי בנב ית דוד דאשתלהי נחת מן רתיכוהי וארים יתיה מן ארעא לרום שמיא מהלך יומא חד וכד חזא דוד דחיל מיניה וזקף עינוהי לשמי מרומא )וארים יתיה מן ארעא לרום שמיא מהלך יומא חד( ונחת עננא וחפת ית דוד בר ישי מלכא דיש>ראל< ואסיק יתיה לשמיא )כד חזא דוד דחיל מיניה וזקף עינוהי לשמי מרומא( ואמר בבעו מינך מארי עלמא לא יתחל שמך רבא דאתקרי על אבהתנא ושזבינני מידא דפלשתאה ערלה הדין וקביל מיניה מארי עלמא בדיל זכות אב>רהם< יצ>חק< ויעק>ב< משה ואה>רן< ופרק יתיה מן ידוהי ויתקדש שמיה רבא על ידיה בה בשעתא ההיא תוב זקף דוד עינוהי לשמי מרומא וחזא והא איסרהון דישראל ואיסרהון דפלשתאי דמגיחין קרבא דין עם דין ומשרי ומצלי ובכי ומתחנן וכן אמר בצלותיה יוי אלהי ואלהא דאבהתי אלהיה דאבא ישי לא תמסרינני 120 chapter two

ms Gaster 1478 דידא דפלשתאה ערלא הדין דלמא יקטל יתי ויזיל וישתבח בבית דגן טועתיה ויימר טעותי מסרתיה בידי וקטלתיה ולא יימר חס ושלום לית אלה פריק בישראל וליהודה ולא תתחשב נפשי עם קטולי כהניא ועם תבעיה מיתיא ריבוניה דעלמא כוליה אם אית רעוא קדמך תיעול צלותי ובעותי לקדמך ושלח לי פריק ואעביד קלא על כל בני וקריבי וייתי חד מבני צרויה ויסעדינני בה בשעתא ההיא מתיבא רוחא דקודשא ואמרה ליה דוד בר ישי לא הכדין כתיב בספר אוריתא דמשה אשר לא ישא פנים ולא יקח שוחד זקוף כען עינך וחזי נשמתהון דתמנן וחמשה כהנין בנוהי דאחימלך בר אחיטוב דסעדין לישבי בנב ואמרין על ידי דוד אקטליננא ואף פומך אסהיד בך למימר אנכי סבותי בכל נפש בית אביך והא גזר דינך אתחתם לאיתקטלא יומא דין אלא קביל עלך דלא אשתאר לאחימלך בר אחיטוב אלהין בר חדא ושמיה אביתר וייתי אבישי בר צרויה דלא הות בעיצת כהניא ויקטול יתיה מתיבא ואמר ליה עד אימתי עני וכן אמר ליה עד שבעה דרין וקבל עלוהי וקם על רתיכיא ונחת ועל לגו סדרי קרבא דישר>אל< וכד חזא ישבי בנב עני וכן אמר מן הוא דאנא סברית יתיה אכלוהו עופא דשמיא ונבילתיה לא מטא לארעא עני דוד ואמר ליה שטיא דבעלמא כד נפקית לקדמותך שטיתי ולא צלותי יתך כען סליקית ואתקבלת צלותי קדם מלך עלמיא יהי שמיה רבא מברך לעלמא ולעלמי עלמיא וימסר יתך בידי ויקטלינך בה בשעתא ההיא צוח גבריאל מלא>כא< בצוחתא רבתא ואמר ריבוניה דעלמא כוליה דוד בר ישי משיחא מלכא דישראל הוא דאית בעלמא מתקטיל כען הב לי רשו דאיזיל ואסעיד יתיה בה בשעתא ההיא טוריא נדו ורמתא אזדעזדעו והודעוהי פתגמא ברוחא דקודשא לאבישי בר צרויה והוא שרי במשרית ארמאה והוא עביד קרבין עם ארמאה בארבע מאה פרסין וההוא יומא מעלי דשבתא הוה בתר תשע שעין ותלתא כד יתיב אבישי בר צרויה למיחף ית רישיה ונחת כנישתא דיש>ראל< דהוא דמיא ליונה וקאימא קדם אבישי בר צרויה חכים בחכמתא גיבר בגיברותא למא את קאים ]ב[שלוה ודוד מלכא דיש>ראל< בצערא והוה מתקטל בה בה בשעתא ההיא קם אבישי בר צרויה ולבש מניה זיניה ואתקן במאני קרביה ורכיב על כודנתא דיליה דאיתעבידו ביה ניסין וגבורן וקפצת ליה ארעא ארבע מאה פרסין ורהט ואתא ונחת ועל לגו סידרי קרבא דפלשתאי וסעיד ית מלכא דוד ומחא ית ישבי בנב פלשתאה וקטליה עד לא תיפוק נפשיה דפלשתאה מתיב וכן אמר ליה לך אנא אמר דוד בר ישי ולך ]אנא[ אמר אבישי בר צרויה הלא אתון אינון גיברי ישראל דמתקרן גיברין איכא הוא גיברותכון דביתרין גרוון קטלתן יתי מתיב אבישי בר צרויה וכן אמר ליה בשעתא דאנא קטיל יתך ורמי יתך לשאול תיזיל ותבשר לעורפא אימך חיבתא בקרבא דדירא בגו שאול ותימר ליה תרין גיברי ישראל קטלו יתי אלהין דוד בר ישי דמן שמיא סעידין ליה כען את הוה צבי דנא דיך לך שעתא חד עד דיתקטיל ית דוד מלכא דיש>ראל< דהכדין כתיב קרא ומפרש tosefta targums 121

ms Gaster 1478 TJ )17( וסעד ליה אבישי בר צרויה )17( וסעיד ליה אבישי בר צרויה ומחא ית פלשת>אה< ומחא ית פלשתאה וקטליה וקטליה בכין קיימו גברי דוד ליה למימר לא תיפוק בכין קיימו גברי דויד ליה עוד עימנא לאגחא קרבא ולא תיטפי ית מלכותא למימר לא תפוק עוד עמנא דישראל לקרבא ולא תטפי ית מלכותא דישראל׃ )18( והוה בתר כין והוה עוד )18( והוה בתר כן … קרבא בגוב עם פלשתאי בכין קטל סבכי דמן חושת ית סף דבבני גברא׃ )19( והוה עוד קרבא בגוב עם )19( והוה עוד קרבא בגוב עם פלשתאי … ואעא פלשתאי וקטל דויד בר ישי מחי דמורניתיה כאכסן דגרדיאין פרוכית בית מקדשא ית גלית גתאה ואע דמורניתיה כאכסן דגרדיאין׃ ואעא דמורניתיה כאכסן והות עוד קרבא בגוב עם פלשתאי מתיב ויאב בר דגרדיאין צרויה ואמר ליה לאבישי אחוהי ולישאר גיבריא (Sam 17:7 1) דישראל דוד בר ישי נפק בישנין ועל ביומין וסגי קרבין ערעו והלא הוא חלש למיחת לסידרי קרבא כען חד מיננא לא יעביד מילוהי ולא יקיים גזירתיה ואיתחוה פתגמא ברוחא דקודשא לדוד בר ישי ורכיב על רתיכוהי ונחת לגו קרבא ונחתו בתרוהי יואב ואבעישי גיבריא דיש>ראל< ואסתחר דוד לאחורוהי ואחזינון ורמא ית קשתיה מיניה בנכילו על ארעא עני וכן אמר יואב בר צרויה אבישי )יואב( בר צרויה גיברא דישראל נחת מן רתיכך והב לי קשתי דנפלת מיני ונחת יואב בר צרויה ואיתקף בה בקשתיה דדוד ולא יכיל לארמא יתיה מן ארעא ואושיט דוד ריש אצבעת רגליה דימינא וארים יתיה ואחית על ידיה לשמאלא עני וכן אמר להון גיבריא דיש>ראל< איכא הוא גיברותכון דאתון אמרין גיברין אנחנא דקשתי לא יכילתון למיתון לי מן ארעא והלא קשתי על חד תרין בחרבי על חד ארעא בקשתי ובמורניתי ואינון תלן לי ידא דשמאלא ואתון אמרין דוד גבר חלש הוא ותקיף רוגזא דדוד ונסיב ית קשתתהון מינהון ותברינון ואחדרינון מבתריהון ונחת מבתרוהי יהונדב בר שמעא אחוהי דדוד בכין קטל דוד בר ישי מחי פרוכיא בית מקדשא ית גלית גיתאה ואעא דמורניתיה כאכסן דגרדיאין )20( והוה עוד קרבא בגת והוה )20( והות עוד קרבא … גבר דמשחן ואצבעת ידוהי ואצבעת רגלוהי שית ושית עסרין וארבע מנין ואף הוא אתיליד לגברא׃ 122 chapter two

Translation The last day of Passover from Samuel. (15) Again war broke out between the Philistines and Israel. And David went down with those who served him and they waged war against the Philistines. And David grew weary. (16) And Ishbi-benob — who was from among the sons of Orpah the giantess, and the weight of whose spear was the weight of three hundred Sela bronze, and who was girded with a new armour — said to kill David. And the two went down to the battle-line, the one together with the other. David the son of Jesse, king of Israel, and Ishbi-benob. David, the son of Jesse, king of Israel, went down from the battle-line of Israel and Ishbi-benob, the wicked, went down from the battle-line of the Philistines. And David, the son of Jesse, head of war of Israel was wearied. He was David, the son of Jesse, his appearance was handsome, and nice were his looks, he was wise in wisdom and intelligent in advice. He was the head of the heroes. He sounded the ram’s horn, frightening the wicked, helping the humble. Eight hundred killed were under his feet at once. And with him was Ishbi-benob, but he could not overpower him, and he became weary. And when Ishbi-benob saw that David became weary, he came down from his wagon and lifted him up from the earth to the height of heaven, a day’s walk. And when David saw [this] he became afraid of him and he raised his eyes to the heaven above (and lifted him from the earth to the height of heaven, a day’s walk). And a cloud descended and covered David, the son of Jesse, king of Israel, and lifted him up to heaven (when David saw [this] he became afraid of him and he raised his eyes to the heaven above) and he said: ‘Please, Lord of the world, let Your great name, that was called out on our fathers not be profaned and save me from the hand of that uncircumcised Philistine. And the Lord of the world listened to him because of the merit of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses and Aaron and delivered him from his hand so that His great name would be sanctified by him. At that very time David again raised his eyes to the heaven above and he saw and behold, the guardian angel of Israel and the guardian angel of the Philistines were waging war with each other. And he started to pray and to weep and begged for mercy and he said in his prayer ‘Lord my God and God of my fathers, God of my father Jesse. Do not deliver me into the hand of this uncircumcised Philistine. That he may not tosefta targums 123 kill me and will go and boast in the House of Dagon his idol and say, ‘my idol delivered him in my hand and killed him.’ And that he will not say, God forbid, that there is no God who saves in Israel and for Judah. And let my soul not be counted among the murderers of the priests and the demanders of the dead. Master of the whole world, if you wish, let my prayer and my request go up before you and send me a saviour. And I will produce a call to all my sons and relatives that one of the sons of Zeruiah may come and help me. At the same hour, the Holy Spirit answered and said to him: David, son of Jesse, is it not written in the book of the Torah of Moses ‘who shows no favour and takes no bribe’.198 Lift up your eyes now and see the souls of the eighty-five priests, the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub who are helping Ishbi-benob and who say ‘By the hands of David he killed us.’ And also your mouth witnessed against you, by saying ‘I am to blame for all the deaths in your father’s house.’199 Be- hold, the decree of your sentence is sealed, that you will be killed today. But accept upon you that no son of Ahimelech son of Ahitub will remain except one son and his name is Abiathar. Then Abishai the son of Zeruiah, who was not in the council of priests, will come and kill him. He answered and said to him: until when? And he responded and said to him: until seven generations. And he accepted it and stood on his wagon and went down and came to the battle-line of Israel. And when Ishbi-benob saw [it] he answered and said: who is this about whom I thought that the birds of heaven would eat him and his corpse would not touch the ground again? David answered and said to him: you, greatest fool in the world. When I went out to meet you I was so stupid not to pray concerning you.200 Now I went up and my prayer was accepted before the King of the Worlds, may His great name be blessed forever and ever, and let Him deliver you in my hand and kill you. At the same hour the angel Gabriel cried out with a loud cry and said: Master of the entire world, David, the son of Jesse the anointed king of Israel is in the world being killed. Give me now permission that I will go and help him.

198 Deut 10:17, citation in Hebrew. The habit to cite Scripture in Hebrew is characteristic of Targum Esther as we will see in Chapter Three, p. 172. 199 1 Sam 22:22. 200 The text is probably corrupt and therefore difficult to understand and translate. Within the context the given translation seems the most probable. See the discussion .120 ,תוספתות ,in Kasher 124 chapter two

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

.him’, but this is probably an error‘ ,ליה In the text it reads 201 tosefta targums 125 now, will not one of us act according to his word and fulfil his decree?” And the word was announced by the Holy Spirit to David son of Jesse and he rode upon his wagon and went down in the midst of the battle and after him went down Joab and Abishai the heroes of Is. And David turned around and saw them. And he threw his bow from him in deceit on the earth and responded and said thus, “Joab, son of Zeruiah, Abishai (Joab)202 son of Zeruiah, hero of Israel, get down from your wagon and give me my bow that has fallen from me.” And Joab, son of Zeruiah, got down and made an effort with the bow of David and he could not lift it up from the ground. And David stretched out the tip of the toe of his right foot and lifted it up and brought it to his left hand. He responded and said thus to them, “Heroes of Is, where is your strength? That you say ‘we are heroes’ and my bow you could not give me from the ground? And if not my bow, so twice my sword and four times my bow and my spear that are dangling from my left hand? And you say: David is a weak man?” And David’s anger became strong and he took their bows from them and broke them and made them turn back from him. And Jonadab, son of Shimah the brother of David203 went down after him. Then David, son of Jesse, weaver of the curtains of the sanctuary, killed Goliath the Gittite and the wood of his spear was like a weaver’s pin. (20) Once again there was fighting … Notes and commentary This TT consists of verses that are read at the last day of Passover in the Aleppo tradition. Outside the Land of Israel, the last day of Passover is celebrated on both the seventh and eighth days of the festival. The most common haftarah for the eighth day is Isa 10:32–12:6 that starts with the arrival of Sanherib in Nob.204 We see here that both traditions are connected to the story of Nob. The brackets in the text are probably inserted by the copyist or a later corrector to indicate that the text between brackets has to be omitted. The language is mixed, it is close to the dialect of Targum Jonathan, .for instance, is Jewish Babylonian Aramaic ,איסרא but the word

202 This word is placed within brackets in the manuscript, probably to indicate that it has to be deleted. 203 2 Sam 13:3. 204 According to the prescription in b.Meg 31a. 126 chapter two

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

205 See above, p. 93. .33 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 206 207 See E. van Staalduine-Sulman, ‘Reward and Punishment in the Messianic Age (Targ. 2 S. 23.1–8)’, JAB 1 (1999), 273–96, at 289. 208 Kasher, ‘Angelology and the Supernal Worlds’, 180. 209 b.Sanh 95a; MidrPss 18:30. tosefta targums 127

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

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

210 See above, p. 50. 211 See also RuthR 2:5; YalqSh 2 Sam §156; YalqSh 1 Chron §1075. 212 Z. Safrai, ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, in: S. Safrai et al. (eds), The Literature of the Sages. Second Part: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysti- cism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science, and the Languages of Rabbinic Litera- ture, Assen 2006, 243–78, esp. 248–49. 213 See also b.Meg 23b, where it says ‘This rule (of reading twenty-one verses) was laid down only for a place where there is no translator, but where there is a translator a stop may be made [earlier].’ 128 chapter two

2 Sam 22:3, 8, 11, 13, 17, 28, 47 (Kasher 70) ms Add. 17,058 (Mazor) TJ )3( אלהי דאתרעי בי קרבני לדחילתיה תקפי דמן קדמוהי מתיהיב לי תקוף ופרקן לאתגברא על בעלי דבבי רחצני דעל מימריה אנא רחיץ בעדן עקא מגין עלי מבעלי דבבי ואמר לארעא קרני בפוקניה סמכני דהוה מימריה סמך לי כד הויתי עריק מן קדם רדפי פרקני מבעלי דבבי ואף מיד כל חטופין פריק יתי׃ ואף מיד כל חטופין שזיב יתי ומידא דשאול מלכא הוה פריק לי )8( ואתרגיפת ואתרגושת ארעא שכלולי ואידזעזעו טורייא ואיתהפיכו עימקי שמיא זעו ואתרכינו ימא ארי תקיף רגזיה׃ ארי תקוף רוגזיה דאלהא חייא וקיימא )11( ואתגלי בגבורתיה על כרובין קלילין ואשרי שכינתיה על כרובין קלילין ודבר בתקוף על כנפי רוחא׃ ואיתגלי ביקר על כנפי רוחא ודבר בתקוף )13( מזיו יקריה מבהקין שמי שמיא מזיו יקריה דאלהא חייא וקיימא מזופיתיה כגומרין דנור דלקא ממימריה׃ מבהיקין שמייא ושמי שמייא … )17( שלח נביוהי מלך תקיף דיתיב בתקוף ישלח נביאוהי מלך תקיף דשכינתיה רומא דברני שיזבני מעממין סגיאין׃ בשמי מרומא … )28( וית עמא בית ישראל דמתקרן בעלמא ויהון עמא בית ישראל דמיתקרן הדין עם חשיך את עתיד למפרק ובמימרך בעלמא הדין עם חשיך את עתיד תקיפיא דמתגברין עליהון תמאיך׃ למפרק יתהון ולמיקרי להון עם חביב דבכל עידן עינך במכיכי רוחא מתייתבא ובמימרך תקיפיא דמתגברין עליהון תמאיך )47( בכין על נסא ופרקנא דעבדתא לעמך בכן על ניסא ופורקנא דאיתעביד אודיו ואמרו קיים הוא יוי ובריך תקיפא דמן למשיחך ולשארא דעמך דישתארון קדמוהי מתיהיב לנא תקוף ופרקן ומרמם ישבחון ויודון ויימרון קיים הוא אלהא אלה תקוף פרקננא׃ חייא גיברא ודחילא ובריך תקיף דמן קדמוהי מתייהב לי תקוף ופורקן …

Translation (3) [O God, who chose me and drew me near to His fear. My strong- hold from Whom strength and redemption is given to me to overpower my enemies. My security on Whose Memra I trust in time of distress, shielding me against my enemies, Who promised to raise my horn in his salvation, Who supported me. For His Memra supported me when I was fleeing from my pursuers. He redeemed me from my enemies.] And He saved me even from the hand of all the robbers and from the hand of king Saul He delivered me. tosefta targums 129

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

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

214 Unfortunately we were not able to consult the manuscripts in order to see if the dots that Kasher adds at the end of the lines are part of the text. -but this manuscript does not ap ,עKasher mentions a third textual witness, 6 215 pear in his list. Upon inquiry with Kasher, this problem could not be solved. It probably concerns the fragment from the Taylor Schechter Collection in Cambridge that was used by Sperber in his apparatus, since the variants Kasher gives match the text of Sperber. 130 chapter two

In the 216.אלהים חיים or אלהים חי equivalent of the Hebrew expression -Trans .יוי קיימאofficial Targums this expression is always rendered as further occur in PsJon Num 23:19, 24:4 and in Tg חיי√ lations using Esther Sheni 3:3. All the verses of this collation are from the haftarah for the last day of Passover according to most traditions. It is therefore not surprising that we find this tradition in two Mazorim, namely the present one and ms Add. 27,070. As concerns the style, this tradition consists of parts of 2 Sam 22 that in itself is a poem. By using only parts the poetic structure is lost, although the major theme, which is the redemptive power of God, is preserved and even enhanced, as in verse 28. The way of relating separate verses is reminiscent of the targumic derashah, though this example is less clear than the preceding one. Moreover, where in the preceding example the verses were consecutive, here the compiler skipped large parts. This is not forbidden given the rule in m.Meg 4:4 that one may skip in the prophetic reading. Bibliographic information Sperber, The Bible, II.202–06 Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 642–64, passim

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

in 2 Kgs 19:4, 16 and in Isa 37:14, 17 and as אלהים חי This expression occurs as 216 .in Deut 5:26, 1 Sam 17:26, 36, and in Jer 10:10 and 23:36 אלהים חיים tosefta targums 131

E. Survey and Conclusions

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

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

217 In the case of 2 Sam 21:12 it could even be considered a literal word-by-word translation (type 1). 132 chapter two

All the sefer aer traditions obey the general rules of the official Tar- gums Onkelos and Jonathan and also their language is rather close to these works. The copyist of Codex Reuchlin worked as a critical editor who obviously had several sources at his disposal. The designation sefer aer seems to refer simply to one of the manuscripts of Targum Jonathan that he had at his disposal. In our view, these variants should not be called TTs, but neither do they need any other special designation. The same applies for the lishna aerina variants. Their character and language are close to Targum Jonathan and their name seems not to be meant as the definition of a type but to refer to a specific source that the copyist used in addition to his base text. We would therefore suggest not using the terms ‘Tosefta Targum’ or ‘targumic Tosefta’ for these categories. That is of course not to say that they do not deserve a place in the text-critical study of the Targums or in the search for remnants of a Palestinian Targum of the Prophets. The next category we discussed were the variant traditions with the designation ‘Jerushalmi’ or ‘Targum Jerushalmi’. We know these designations from the Targums to the Pentateuch and it may be no coincidence that they are used here as well. The Fragment Targums that we briefly discussed in the excursus on pp. 46–48 also tradition- ally go by this name.218 In part these Targums merely give variant renderings of single words; where longer passages are given they present paraphrastic translations, bearing the marks of late aggadic compositions. Their fragmentary character arises from the fact that they are simply collections of variant readings and additions to some complete Targum, whether this was Onkelos or another Targum still remains undecided.219 That these Targums were really intended to supplement some complete Targum becomes clear from the fact that they are often unintelligible without the text of a running version. This short description of the Fragment Targums, that are also known as Targum Jerushalmi, also fits the variant traditions found in Codex Reuchlin under the same heading. There is, however, a difference, as has been noted already in the excursus at the beginning of this chapter.

218 The editio princeps of the Fragment Targum was published under the title ‘Targum Jerushalmi’ in the first edition of the Mikraot Gedolot (Venice 1516–17). In the older literature the Fragment Targum was designated as ‘Jerushalmi II’, while Pseudo-Jonathan was known as Jerushalmi I. See e.g. G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, Leipzig 1905, 27–29. 219 See the discussion in M.L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch Ac- cording to their Extant Sources, 2 Vols, Rome 1980, I.12–19. tosefta targums 133

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

220 This might argue in favour of a Palestinian base text for the Fragment Targums. .14–113 ,’שירת בני מערבא‘ ,See Kister 221 222 As we saw above (p. 47), also Klein denied them the designation ‘tosefta’. 134 chapter two the added aggadic material. In this case we would certainly prefer the term targumic derashah, instead of Tosefta Targum.

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

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

223 See above, pp. 98–99. 224 In Kasher’s research of all the TTs to the Prophets, this ratio was even higher, but he included also some traditions ,(18–17 ,תוספתות ,namely 60 out of 130 (Kasher that we would not consider TTs. tosefta targums 135 means that we do not know enough about possible alternative reading cycles.225 In our view there is not enough ground for such an assumption; it is equally possible that the TTs functioned also in other settings, such as the Beit Midrash. So, if the selection of the verses that were supplemented with additions was not determined fully by liturgical reasons, what may then the criteria have been that saved them from oblivion? That is not easy to determine. The most obvious reason would, of course, be that the TTs shed light on certain verses that were at face value hard to understand. That is certainly true for 1 Sam 3:14, 2 Sam 6:19 and 2 Sam 20:22. In the other cases, however, the peshat reading makes perfect sense. So there the meturgemanim must have had other reasons for their liberal interpretations. In 1 Sam 11:2, for instance, a perfectly sound verse is interpreted allegorically. It may be that there the underlying reason is to stress the importance of the Torah. It is considered a greater humiliation for Israel if something of the Torah was erased than if everyone’s right eye were to be gouged out. The targumic interpretations of 2 Sam 12:12 and 19:30 both use the principle of measure-for-measure, probably to stress the principle of divine judgment. The exegesis of 1 Sam 10:22 has a strong didactic approach, stressing the importance of study and prayer. We must therefore conclude that in the sample of TTs that we studied within the framework of this book no common motive can be detected for the cherishing of the traditions preserved. The next question is whether there are thematic tendencies to be noted in the toseftan material. It comes as no surprise that the heroic story of David and Goliath from 1 Sam 17 seemed to be very popular, given the numerous variant traditions we find to parts of that chapter.226 This popularity becomes especially clear in the targumic poem to 1 Sam 17:42. The targumic derashah on the battle against Ishbi-benob in 2 Sam 21:15–19 belongs to the same category. Another trait that can be noted from the examples cited is the relatively great interest in the angelic world. Five variant targums, viz. 1 Sam 4:12, 12:5, 17:42 and 2 Sam 19:30 and 21:16 introduce angels at places where the biblical text does not give direct occasion for such an insertion.227 This is in accordance with Kasher’s observation for all of

.18 ,תוספתות ,Jerusalem 1979, 105; Kasher ,אגדתם של המתורגמנים ,A. Shinan 225 226 Eleven of the forty-six cases discussed come from this chapter. 227 In 2 Sam 22:11 the cherubs already occur in the biblical text. 136 chapter two the Prophets.228 Kasher’s explanation of the phenomenon is that while TJ reflects the ‘official translation’ that was authorised by the rabbis, the TTs reflect more popular beliefs that were used in the weekly instruction in the synagogue. This explanation is not wholly sufficient for the cases in Samuel. Two of the variants, 1 Sam 4:12 and 2 Sam 19:30 do not belong to a known liturgical tradition, while for one of them, 1 Sam 17:42, the relation is rather vague. So these traditions were probably widely accepted and not just adaptations to the popular need of the synagogue audience. It seems that the worldview of the meturgemanim responsible for these traditions was rather close to that of some apocalyptic and esoteric literature.229 With this same worldview may perhaps also be connected the traditions in 1 Sam 2:6 and 1 Sam 28:19 that refer to the hereafter. As might be expected, the Torah also plays an important role in the variant traditions. 1 Sam 6:19 and 1 Sam 11:2 contain hidden warnings against disrespectful behaviour towards the Torah. In 1 Sam 3:14, 12:2 and 10:22 the importance of Torah study is stressed. In 1 Sam 3:14 this is combined with the importance of good deeds, an element that is also found in 1 Sam 2:9. Finally we want to mention some cases that contain a reference to the Temple service without connection to the biblical text.230 In 1 Sam 2:22 the sons of Eli delayed the purifying offers of the women who came to pray; in 1 Sam 11:11 the expression ‘heat of the day’ is explained with reference to the Temple service; and in 1 Sam 17:16 the expression ‘morning and evening’ is connected to the time of the daily burnt offerings in the Temple. To conclude, we find some thematic currents. One current is the fondness for heroic stories of which the battle between David and Go- liath is a good example. We might call this folk literature. The second current has esoteric and apocalyptic overtones that become apparent in allusions to the supernatural. The third current is firmly rooted in rabbinic tradition (m.Avot 1:2) that says that the world is sustained by the Torah, the Temple service and by deeds of loving-kindness.

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

Quotations of Targumic Passages from the Prophets in Rabbinic and Medieval Sources

A. Survey of Previous Research on Targumic Quotations Quotations of targumic passages can be found in various sources: in the Targums themselves, in Talmudim and Midrashim, in medieval dictionaries, biblical and talmudic commentaries, in magical texts, and in liturgical and mystical literature. As has been noted already in the sixteenth century by Azariah de Rossi,1 most of these quotations are not identical to the extant ad locum targums. The first critical investigations of these ‘lost targums’2 were made by several representatives of the Wissenschaft des Judentums. In 1832 Leopold Zunz published in his Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge a list of citations of targumic passages from the Prophets in the Babylonian and Palestin- ian Talmud, in midrashic works, and among medieval authors such as Yehuda of Paris, Abudarham, Ephraim of Bonn, David Kimi, Rashi, and Abraham Farissol, and also in the Codex Reuchlin.3 Zunz seemed to realize that with the study of these targumic fragments one is tread- ing on dangerous ground, for he writes with reference to what he calls ‘Targum jeruschalmi’: Diese Targums haben den Gelehrten schon grosses Herzleid zugefügt, so dass Mancher, wenn vom hierosolymitanischen Targum die Rede ist, seine Leser nur mit einigen Schimpfworten abfertigt.4 His own study of the material led him to the conclusion that there once existed a complete Palestinian Targum to the Torah and the Prophets.5

1 See J. Weinberg, The Light of the Eyes: Azariah de’ Rossi. Translated from the Hebrew with an Introduction and Annotations, New Haven & London 2001, 184–85 (’Imre Bina, section one, ch. IX). 2 An expression coined by Moshe Goshen-Gottstein. See the English introduction & Vols, Ramat-Gan 1983 2 ,שקיעים מתרגומי המקרא הארמיים ,of M. Goshen-Gottstein 1989, I.XII. 3 L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt, Frank- furt am Main 18922 (1832), repr. Hildesheim 1966. 4 Zunz, Vorträge, 69–70. 5 Zunz, Vorträge, 83 ‘die Aussagen der alten Autoren lauten so, als hätten sie Targumim zu vollständigen Büchern der Schrift gesehen’. 138 chapter three

This topic has provoked continuing discussion among scholars and Zunz’ position has had its supporters and its opponents.6 The Italian scholar Samuel David Luzzatto was the first, in 1844, to argue against such a theory.7 His arguments, however, were not based on targumic quotations but on the Tosefta Targums (which he called ‘Zusatzthar- gumim’) discussed in the previous chapter.8 In his important study on the history of Targum Jonathan (1872) Zacharias Frankel only briefly touched on the subject and, although admitting that apart from Jonathan there existed another Targum of the Prophets, he doubted whether this could have been a Palestinian Targum.9 In the same year Paul de Lagarde published the text of Targum Jonathan according to Codex Reuchlin, including its marginalia.10 The marginal readings and their sigla were thoroughly investigated by Wilhelm Bacher (1874).11 Bacher distinguished between aggadic read- that were ,ספר אחר and תרגום אחר ,תרגום ירושלמי ings with the sigla taken from another source, and non-aggadic readings with the sigla that were variants within the targum ,ואית דמתרגמין ,פליג ,לישנא אחרינא text itself.12 In his view, the readings labelled as jeruschalmi are often strongly related to the Babylonian Talmud and to later Midrashim,

6 See the survey of R.P. Gordon, Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets: From Nahum to Malachi, Leiden [etc.] 1994, 34–38; cf. P.S. Alexander, ‘Jewish-Ara- maic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures’, in: M.J. Mulder & H. Sysling (eds), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen [etc.] 1984 (repr. Peabody, Mass. 2004), 223–24; W.F. Smelik, The Targum of Judges, Leiden [etc.] 1995, 75–85. 7 S.D. Luzzatto, ‘Nachträgliches über die Thargumim’, WZJT 5 (1844), 124–37, esp. 132ff. 8 See above, pp. 41–136, esp. 42. 9 Z. Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Propheten, Breslau 1872, cf. 40: ‘Zunz (…) schliesst aus mehrfachen bei Aruch, Raschi, Kimchi u. A. angeführten Stellen, dass es ein jeru- salemisches Targum zu den propheten gegeben habe; die doppelten Uebersetzungen dürften ebenfalls darauf hinweisen, dass es noch ein anderes Targum — wenn auch nicht jerusalemisch; sämtliche Uebersetzungen sind im babyl. Dialekt verfasst — zu den Propheten gegeben habe’. 10 P. de Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, Göttingen 1872, repr. Osnabrück, 1967; on the marginalia, see the introduction, VI–XLII. 11 W. Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen zum Propheten-targum’, ZDMG 28 (1874), 1–72. 12 Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 35: ‘1) Die vorwiegend agadische Gruppe …, bei welcher schon die Benennungen auf eine von der gewöhnlichen verschiedene Version schliessen lassen. 2) Die nichtagadische Gruppe … deren bezeichnungen ebenfalls darauf hinweisen, dass wir es mit Varianten innerhalb eines und desselben Targum zu thun haben’. targumic quotations 139 and although they are linguistically Palestinian, they must have originated in a period when the Babylonian Talmud had been accepted in Palestine.13 Readings of the second group, however, and even some of the readings labelled as sefer aer, may pre-date the Babylonian Tar- gum, and may represent the Old Palestinian Targum.14 The discussion on a possible Palestinian Targum to the Prophets led to the publication of other quotations in various sources. In 1886, quotations of Nathan ben Yeiel’s Arukh were given by Paul de La- garde in his critical review of the Onkelos edition that was published by Abraham Berliner in 1884.15 Further material from the Arukh was provided by Jakob Bassfreund in his study of the Fragment Targum (1896).16 In the same period, Wilhelm Bacher collected the quotes of Ibn Janah’s Sefer Ha-Shorashim,17 and a few years later he studied anew the marginalia of Codex Reuchlin, comparing them with the quotations he found in Menaem ben Solomon’s Even Boan and in the commentaries of Rashi and Kimi on the Prophets (1899).18 A rich collection of quotations was provided in the same year by Moses Ginsburger. In his edition of the Fragment Targum he offered a list of quotations from various medieval sources: Nathan ben Yeiel’s Arukh, David Kimi’s Sefer Ha-Shorashim, the commentary of R. Simeon ben Abraham on the minor tractates of the Talmud, Abraham Yari’s Sefer Ha-Manhig, the commentary on the Pentateuch of Menaem Reca- nate, David Abudarham’s Sefer Abudarham, Menaem ben Aaron Ibn Zera’s Tseda la-Derekh, Elia Levita’s Meturgeman, Abraham ben Meir de Balmes’ Sefer Miqneh Avram, and the Ba‘al Ha-Turim on the Pentateuch.19

13 See Gordon, Studies, 26; Smelik, Targum of Judges, 80. 14 Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen’, 55–58. 15 P. de Lagarde, ‘Targum Onkelos. Herausgegeben und erläutert von dr. A. Ber- liner. Mit Unterstützung der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Ber- lin … Berlin 1884’, (review) GGA 22 (1886), 861–80, esp. 870–71. 16 J. Bassfreund, ‘Das Fragmenten-Targum zum Pentateuch, sein Ursprung und Charakter und sein Verhältnis zu den anderen pentateuchischen Targumim’, MGWJ 40 (1896), 1–14, 49–67, 97–109, 145–63, 241–52, 352–65, 396–405, esp. 53ff., 64ff. 17 W. Bacher, Sepher Haschoraschim: Wurzelwörterbuch der hebr. Sprache von Ab- ulwalîd Merwân Ibn Ganâh (R. Jona), Berlin 1893–96. 18 W. Bacher, ‘Notes on the Critique of the Text of the Targum of the Prophets’, JQR 11 (1899), 651–55. 19 See M. Ginsburger, Das Fragmententhargum (Thargum jeruschalmi zum Penta- teuch), Berlin 1899, 91–122. 140 chapter three

Following in the footsteps of these nineteenth century scholars were anokh Albeck, who published a list of targumic quotations in his edition of Midrash Genesis Rabbah (1965);20 Geoffrey Cowling, who compared the quotations in the Arukh with Targum Neofiti 1968( );21 Stephen Kaufman, who drew attention to targumic quotations on a magic bowl from Nippur;22 Raimundo Griño, who studied the quotations in Elias Levita’s Meturgeman, comparing them with the text of the Neofiti-targum;23 and Alejandro Díez Macho, who made a study of the quotations of Palestinian targums in the Midrash Bereshit Zutta of Samuel ben Nissim Masnuth.24 Of major importance is the relatively recent work of Moshe Goshen- Gottstein (in cooperation with Rimon Kasher) who started to assem- ble systematically all the targumic quotes that are not identical to the extant targums. A first volume appeared in 1983, a second one in 1989, both with extensive comments on the collected quotes.25 Some additions to the first volume were given by Michael Klein in his review of the book (1985).26 Despite the fact that this work offered a rich and at first sight complete number of quotes, new material has come to light in recent years. In cooperation with Joseph Yahalom, Michael Sokoloff edited the corpus of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry in which there are several targumic quotations (1999).27 Quotations in magical texts can be found in the work of Joseph Naveh and Shaul Shaked (1985), in that of Peter Schäfer and Joseph Naveh (1994), and in the work of Dan Levene (2003).28

20 . Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabba, Jerusalem 1965, I.44–54 (included in volume 3 of J. Theodor–. Albeck, Bereschit Rabba mit kritischem Apparat und Kom- mentar, Jerusalem 1965). 21 G.J. Cowling, The Palestinian Targum: Textual and Linguistic Investigations in Codex Neofiti I and Allied Manuscripts (thesis), University of Aberdeen 1968, 285–308. 22 S.A. Kaufman, ‘A Unique Magic Bowl from Nippur’, JNES 32 (1973), 170–74. 23 R. Griño, ‘El Meturgeman y Neofiti I’, Biblica 58 (1977), 153–88. 24 A. Díez Macho, ‘Las citas del Targum Palestinense en el Midrash Bereshit Zua’, in: A. Caquot et al. (eds), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor, Neukirchen-Vluijn 1985, 117–26. 25 See n. 2. 26 See M.L. Klein, JBL 104 (1985), 709–11; see also M.J. Bernstein, JQR 80/3–4 (1990), 376–79. שירת בני מערבא — שירים ארמיים של יהודי ארץ-ישראל ,M. Sokoloff & J. Yahalom 27 .Jerusalem 1999 ,בתקופה הבינזטית 28 See J. Naveh & S. Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of targumic quotations 141

In our view, the fundamental research of Goshen-Gottstein did not receive the response it deserved. In the introduction to his work Goshen- Gottstein stated that ‘in the light of facts to be presented in this and in the following volumes, theories concerning certain basic issues as regards the rise and crystallization of targumic traditions will have to be reviewed: the crystallization of Onkelos and its language features; the Palestinian Targum of the Prophets; the original Jewish Targum of Proverbs, etc.’29 This might have been a too ambitious goal, but certainly the material should have received more attention in recent years. The fact that Goshen-Gottstein’s studies were published in Hebrew may have caused a neglect of its contents. Therefore, one of the aims of our study is to make his stimulating research more accessible to the scholarly world. Goshen-Gottstein’s work presents a rich, annotated collection of material for future research that may lead to new insights into major questions of targumic studies. There are, however, certain shortcom- ings in the as yet unfinished30 work. Firstly, the material collected is far from being complete, despite the remark that ‘this is the first time that an attempt has been made to present an almost exhaustive picture’.31 Secondly, the arrangement of the material raises methodological problems. The quotations are divided into eight groups: a. Palestinian citations with express indication of provenance b. Unmarked [nondescript] quotations (without express indication of provenance) c. Targumic quotes embedded in a midrashic unit d. Targumic renderings from Proverbs e. Lexical alternatives (of the Targums as known to us) f. Unique targums (with unique features, lexically or morphologically) g. Targumic variants h. Quotations from ms Sassoon 368

Late Antiquity, Jerusalem 1985; P. Schäfer & S. Shaked, Magische Texte aus der Kai- roer Geniza, Band 1, Tübingen 1994; D. Levene, A Corpus of Magic Bowls: Incantation Texts in Jewish Aramaic from Late Antiquity, London [etc.] 2003. .I.XII ,שקיעים ,Goshen-Gottstein 29 ,(I.XXII ,שקיעים ,Originally, three volumes were planned (Goshen-Gottstein 30 two of which have been published so far. I.XIII. To give a few examples from the quotations ,שקיעים ,Goshen-Gottstein 31 in the Palestinian Targums: not mentioned are Tg Isa 1:2 and 65:17 (PTs on Deut 32:1); Tg Isa 40:4 (PsJon Exod 12:37, Num 14:14); Tg Isa 63:2–3 (PTs Gen 49:11); Tg Jer 17:8 (PTs Num 21:34); Tg Jer 32:18 (PTs Exod 20:5); Tg Ezek 18:13 (CGF / FTP Exod 13:17); Tg Ezek 37:12 (PTs Gen 30:22); Tg Ezek 39:9–10 (PTs Num 11:26); Tg Ob 18 (PsJon Gen 30:25). 142 chapter three

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

B. How to Define a Quotation

In this study we have examined anew the many Aramaic quotations of the Prophets in various sources that are at variance with the text of Targum Jonathan, trying to clarify the unresolved question of the possible existence of a Palestinian Targum to the Prophets, as formulated by Zunz. We will start with some methodological considerations regarding the question of how to define a quotation, before concen- trating on the characteristics of the quotations themselves and on the peculiarities of the sources in which they are found. From a methodological point of view, we might first ask ourselves how to recognize a quotation. What exactly is a quotation? It is not so easy to define and select ‘quotations’.33 Some of them are clearly visible,

.I.XVII ,שקיעים ,Goshen-Gottstein 32 33 We leave aside here the so-called ‘quoted direct speech’, which is a subcategory of the broader term ‘quotation’. See for its use and function in the Hebrew Bible, G.W. Savran, Telling and Retelling: Quotation in Biblical Narrative, Bloomington & Indianapolis 1988. targumic quotations 143 others are not. There are direct quotations that are indicated by the use of introductory formulas, but also quotations that look like free renderings of biblical texts or allusions to certain biblical passages.34 Or a quotation is well indicated, but not very precise. In this respect targumic citations display the features that are common to all literary quotations: paraphrase of the quoted text, alterations in sense and reference, and combined citations.35 In particular the implicit quotations, lacking introductory formulas or other identifying marks, present a major problem of definition. In older studies on quotations in different sources, this problem was often disregarded, but recently some studies have dealt with it methodologically. Building on the studies of Robert Gordis36 and Michael Fox37 on quotations in wisdom literature, Julie Hughes defines a quotation as ‘a phrase which is marked, explicitly or implicitly, as referring to the words of a speaker who is not the implied speaker of the composition’.38 A phrase may be marked by an introductory formula or by the use of explicit verbs of speaking or thinking.39 Verba dicendi may also be implied, only recognizable for the reader by a change in perspective (grammatical number or person). In this case, we might

34 It is widely recognised that it is very difficult to differentiate between formula quotations and allusions, and to identify the latter; see with regard to the NT, M. Wil- cox, ‘Text form’, in: D.A. Carson & H.G.M. Williamson (eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, Cambridge 1988, 193–204, esp. 193–94. 35 See E.E. Ellis, ‘Biblical Interpretation in the New Testament Church’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 692; cf. M. Fishbane, ‘Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 339–99, esp. 347–55 (‘Use of citations and citation-formula’); D. Dimant, ‘Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 379–419, esp. 385ff., 401ff.; J.A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament’, NTS 7 (1960–61), 297–333; B.M. Metzger, ‘The Formulas Intro- ducing Quotations of Scripture in the NT and the Mishna’, JBL 70 (1951), 297–307; R. Gordis, ‘Quotations as a Literary Usage in Biblical, Oriental and Rabbinic Literature’, HUCA 22 (1949), 157–219; G. Stanton, ‘Matthew’, in: Carson & Williamson, It is Writ- ten, 205–19. 36 See R. Gordis, ‘Quotations in Wisdom Literature’, JQR 30 (1939/40), 23–47; Idem, ‘Quotations as a Literary Usage’, 157–219. 37 M.V. Fox, ‘The Identification of Quotations in Biblical Literature’, ZAW 92 (1980), 416–31. 38 J.A. Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot, Leiden & Boston 2006, 44. 39 Fox, ‘Identification’, 421. 144 chapter three call such phrases with Joseph Fitzmyer ‘virtual quotations’.40 With regard to allusions, Hughes comes to a sort of working definition and describes it as ‘a reference which is recognised by a reader as referring to a textual source, knowledge of which contributes to the meaning for the reader’.41 The reader may recognize an allusion by seeking to identify verbal similarity to a (scriptural) passage, or correspondence of a group of words with a particular scriptural saying or expression. Bearing in mind the above definitions, which were used by Hughes for the study of the Qumran Hodayot, we now turn to the targum quotations that can be found in different sources. We may differentiate basically between the following types.

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

1.1. Quotations that are indicated by an introductory formula and refer to a specific biblical verse or part of a verse Within this type one might distinguish, as Goshen-Gottstein does,43 between (a) introductions with express indication of the provenance of the quotation, such as ‘the Targum says …’, ‘in the Palestinian Tar- gum it is rendered …’ and the like, and (b) formulas that are used to give authority to the reasoning in the discourse: ‘as it is written’, ‘as it is said’, etc. Some of the latter formulas are well known from classical rabbinic and Christian sources, others are unique for targumic

40 Fitzmyer, ‘Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations’, 304. 41 Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 52. 42 See for the development of the ‘exegetical motive’ from biblical times onward (cf. the formula ‘as it is written in the law of Moses’ in Josh 8:31 and elsewhere), D. Weiss Halivni, Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara: The Jewish Predilection for Justified Law, Cambridge (Mass.) & London 1986, 7–17, esp. 14–15. .I.XV–XVI ,שקיעים ,Goshen-Gottstein 43 targumic quotations 145 quotations. We find in the Palestinian Targums, for instance, expressions such as ‘as it is written explicitly’, or ‘as Scripture explains and says’ (sometimes with an addition as ‘in the book of the Torah of the Lord …’) and other variants. Quotations in the Targums on the Writ- ings are introduced by expressions like ‘for thus it is written and explained’. In these sources, as well as in the Tosefta Targums we also encounter the so-called ‘fulfilment-formulas’,44 such as ‘to fulfil the Scripture that says’, and ‘in you is fulfilled the verse that is written in the sacred Prophets’. In addition, we may note that there are other subtypes of these formula quotations that are characteristic of certain sources. As a third subtype (c), mainly occurring in talmudic sources, we may define formulas that indicate that the targum is an authoritative source for the interpretation of a biblical verse, or for the explanation of a mishnah,45 such as ‘and we translate …’, ‘as Rav Joseph translates’, ‘Rav Joseph said: Were it not for the targum of this verse, we should not know what it means …’, etc. A fourth subtype (d), finally, is that of formulas used in oaths or incantations, such as ‘I swear you in the name of He who …’.46 Although the proposed distinction, as suggested by Goshen- Gottstein, is useful, it might blur the fact that both types of formula quotations may comprise full and explicit quotations of scriptural verses on the one hand (in some cases showing smaller grammatical changes or additions) as well as free renderings of biblical texts, allusions, or combinations of scriptural passages on the other. This latter group of marked quotations, which does not refer to one specific biblical verse, is discussed next. 1.2. Quotations indicated by an introductory formula, that are not followed by a specific biblical verse but by an allusion to a certain biblical passage, a free rendering of biblical texts, or a combination of several scriptural passages The following are a few examples. In the Palestinian Targums onNum

44 Pace Ellis, ‘Biblical Interpretation’, 693 n. 11 (‘It apparently does not occur at Qumran or in rabbinic writings …’). See Fitzmyer, ‘Explicit Quotations’, 13–14. 45 See b.RhS 22b (2 Sam 5:21); b.Yoma 32b (Jer 46:20); b.BQ 3b (Obad 6), b.Pes 66a (Isa 19:18). The view of Z. Safrai (‘The Targum as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, in: S. Safrai et al., The Literature of the Sages. Second Part, Assen 2006, 252), that ‘nowhere in targumic literature … targum [is] ever used as a source of authority in halakhic argument or … in an aggadic discussion …’ seems questionable. 46 Cf. the quotation of Isa 40:12 on a Cairo Genizah amulet below, p. 193. 146 chapter three

11:2647 a quotation is found which is regularly introduced, but is then followed, first by an allusion to the coming of Gog and Magog and their armies, as described in Ezek 38:1ff.,48 and secondly, by a free rendering of Ezek 39:9–10. In Targum Neofiti the text runs as follows: The two of them [Eldad and Medad] prophesied together and said: ‘At the very end of days Gog and Magog49 will march on Jerusalem, and they will fall into the hands of King Messiah; and for seven full years the Israelites will light fires from their weapons, and [during all that time] they will not need to go to the forest.’50 Another example is taken from quotations in the Writings. In the Tar- gum to Cant 1:1, referring to the tradition of the Ten Songs,51 Isa 30:29 is quoted: The tenth song will be recited by the children of the exile when they depart from their exile, as is clearly written by Isaiah the prophet: ‘You shall have this song of joy, as on the night when the festival of Passover is sanctified, and [you shall have] gladness of heart, like the people who go to appear before the Lord three times in the year with all kinds of musical instruments and [with] the sound of the pipe, [who go] to ascend into the Mountain of the Lord, and to worship before the Mighty One of Israel.’ The quotation of Isa30 :29 has some elements in common with Targum Jonathan (the Mighty One of Israel as a rendering of ‘the Rock of Is- rael’; the references to the feast of Passover — not mentioned explicitly in Targum Jonathan but presupposed), but unlike the official targum it is much more a paraphrase, a free rendering of the Isaiah text, which is re-interpreted as ‘an eschatological marching song’ (Loewe).52

-Vols, Jerusalem 1979, II.220ff., 227ff.; H. Sys 2 ,אגדתם של מתורגמנים ,A. Shinan 47 ling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim: The Resurrection of the Dead in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Parallel Traditions in Classical Rabbinic Literature, Tübingen .שקיעים The quotation is not included in Goshen-Gottstein’s .42–235 ,1996 48 The biblical text speaks of Gog of the land of Magog (Ezek 38:1), coming from the farthest north with ‘a vast horde, a mighty army’ (38:15). 49 FTP / FTV add: and their armies. , לחורשאFTP / FTV add: nor will they cut down a tree. In Neofiti one should read 50 and the carpenter’, as in FTP and FTV. The translation‘ ,וחרש to the forest’, instead of of Díez Macho (Neophyti 1 4:108, ‘y los carpinteros no tendrán que salir (por leños)’, does not fit Ezek 39:10 (‘They will not need to take wood out of the field or cut down any trees in the woods’). See Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 237 n. 40. 51 See below, p. 179. 52 See R. Loewe, ‘Apologetic Motifs in the Targum to the Song of Songs’, in: A. Altmann (ed.), Biblical Motifs, Cambridge (Mass.) 1966, 159–96, at 169. targumic quotations 147

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

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

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

.I.XVII ,שקיעים ,Goshen-Gottstein 53 54 See M. Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Ramat-Gan 1990, 593. The reading ofJPS here is: ‘And the faltering .(לא יחסין חיליה) Cf. Tg Amos 2:14 55 are girded with strength’. 148 chapter three

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

2.2. Quotations without introductory formula that seem to allude to well-known texts, current sayings, or that are based on stereotype rendering As an example we can take the quotation which is found in Targum PsJon on Deut 31:16. In this verse Moses’ death is announced by God with the words: ‘You are soon to lie with your fathers’. To this statement the meturgeman adds: ‘and your soul shall be stored in the storehouse of eternal life with your fathers’, alluding to 1 Sam 25:29, a key reference to the various conceptions of the soul’s dwelling-place after death in rabbinic sources. PsJon’s interpretation of 1 Sam 25:29 is close to that of Targum Jonathan (which reads ‘may the soul of my lord be stored in the storehouse of eternal life before the Lord your God’), but it might also be explained as a current Aramaic expression denoting the fate of the soul in the future life.57 In addition, Targum Jonathan on Jer 32:18 clarifies the expression ‘but repay the guilt of parents into the laps of their children after them’ by adding ‘when they go on to commit sin after them’. This addition is also found in Onkelos, Neofiti and FTP on Exod 20:5, with the addition of ‘the sons’ and ‘their fathers’: ‘when the sons go on to commit sins after their fathers’.58 The addition of Targum Jonathan may be seen as a stereotype rendering of the phrase ‘repay the guilt of parents’, and

56 See E. van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, Leiden 2002, 210; Goshen- .II.60 ,שקיעים ,Gottstein 57 See on the interpretation of 1 Sam 25:29 and its connection with rabbinic conceptions, Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 209. The formulation chosen in PsJon to denote the place where Moses’ soul resides corresponds most closely with that found in SifreDeut 305 (326–37). 58 These additions also occur inms Or. 1474 of TJ, see the apparatus of the edition of Sperber. targumic quotations 149 not so much as a quotation. Such stereotyped phrases may have been brought about by the current theological views of the meturgeman. The text of Jer 32:18 in itself is a ‘quotation’ and elaboration of Exod 20:5.59

2.3. Quotations without introductory formula that consist of free renderings of biblical texts The free quotation in PsJon Exod12 :37 and Num 14:14 of Isa 40:4 is part of a long midrash on the seven clouds:60 The children of Israel set out from Pelusium to Succoth, a hundred thirty miles. There they were covered by the seven clouds of glory, four on their four sides, and one above them, so that rain or hail would not fall on them, and so that they would not be burned by the burning heat of the sun; and one beneath them so that thorns and serpents and scorpions would not harm them; and one went before them to level the valleys and to lower the mountains, to prepare a dwelling place for them … This targumic midrash seems to be a shortening of the tradition mentioned in Mekhilta de R. Ishmael, Beshala, petita (Horovitz-Rabin, 81) where our verse is fully quoted in Hebrew.61 The PsJon text merely alludes to what is said in Isa 40:4 (‘Let every valley be raised, / Every hill and mountain made low’), adapting the text to its context, the midrash of the seven clouds. 2.4. Quotations without introductory formula that are based on analogy of words or expressions in the Hebrew text TJ Isa 41:25 (‘I will bring a king openly who is strong as the north wind, and he will come as the going forth of the sun in its might from the east …’) seems to quote the expression ‘as the going forth of the sun in its might’ in TJ Judg 5:31, which is in itself a literal Aramaic rendering of the Hebrew phrase. The link between both verses is the expression ‘the going forth / the rising of the sun’:

59 See P. Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, New Haven 1927, 105; L. Smolar & M. Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, New York & Baltimore 1983, 191 n. 403. See also PTs on Exod 34:7, Num 14:18, PsJon Lev 26:39. 60 See W.S. Towner, The Rabbinic ‘Enumeration’ of Scriptural Examples: A Study of a Rabbinic Pattern of Discourse with Special Reference to Mekhilta d’ R. Ishmael, Leiden 1973, 164–68. כל הנמוך One may ask whether PsJon’s quotation is an Aramaic rendering of 61 which precedes the quotation of Isa 40:4 in the Mekhilta מגביהו וכל הגבוה משפילו See also MRS Beshala 13 (edn .(?השפלה הגבה והגבה השפיל influence of Ezek 21:31) SifreNum 83 (edn ,מגביה להם את השפל ומשפיל להם את הגבוה ;(Epstein-Melamed, 47 .Tan Beshala 3 (219), Tg Cant 2:6 ,(הגבוה מנמיכו והנמוך מגביהו ;Horovitz, 79 150 chapter three

כ מ פ ק 62 שמשא בגבורתיה TJ כצאת השמש בגברתו MT Judg 5:31 כמפק שמשא בגבורתיה TJ ממזרח שמש MT Isa 41:25

Although it is open to debate, it is possible here to speak of quotations,63 bearing in mind the definition of Hughes given above. The expression used in TJ Isa 41:25 may be recognised by the reader as referring to a specific textual source and knowing this source contributes to the meaning for the reader. Such a way of ‘quoting’ may be the result of editorial activity, bringing in line two analogous passages.64

A similar case is the quotation of TJ 2 Kgs 19:3 (= Isa 37:3) in the Song of David (2 Sam 22:5) as well as in TJ Hos 13:13. The point of connection :birthstool’, in all of these passages‘ ,משבר is the word

ארי אקיפתני עקא TJ כי אפפני משברי ֿ מות MT 2 Sam 22:5 כאתא דיתבא מתברא וחיל לית לה למילד כען איתי עלוהי עקא TJ כי עת לא יעמד במשבר MT Hos 13:13 כאיתא דיתבא על מתברא בנים וחיל לית לה למילד ארי אקפתני עקא TJ כי באו בנים עד ,MT 2 Kgs 19:3 כאתא דיתבא על מתברא משבר Isa 37:3 וחיל לית לה למילד וכח אין ללדה

The quotations in TJ 2 Sam 22:5 and in TJ Hos 13:13 (‘[Now I shall bring upon him] distress like that of a woman who sits on the birthstool, but she has no strength to give birth’) for the greater part correspond to the text of TJ 2 Kgs 19:3 / Isa 37:3 (‘[… for] distress [has encompassed us] like a woman who sits on the birthstool, but she has no strength to

.See Smelik, Targum of Judges, 481 n. 865 .במיפק In a number of mss 62 63 Cf. Smelik, Targum of Judges, 483 n. 886 ‘Surprisingly, TJon Isa 41:25 appears to quote TJon 5:31 …’. 64 See on the interpretation of Tg Judg 5:31, W.F. Smelik, ‘On Mystical Transfor- mation of the Righteous into Light in Judaism’, JSJ 26 (1995), 122–44, at 133–35; Smelik, Targum of Judges, 480–85; D.J. Harrington and A.J. Saldarini (Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets, Edinburgh 1987, 69) incorrectly translate ‘and may his mercies be ready to give light with the light of his splendor 343 times over, like the rising of the sun in its might’. One should not read ‘mercies’ but ‘friends’, ‘lovers’, see Sokoloff, JPA, 521. On the number 343 (7 x 7 x 7), see Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 125; Smelik, Targum of Judges, 482. Cf. TJ Isa 30:26, 2 Sam 23:4. We have to remark here that in TJ Judg the expression emphasizes the transformation into light of the righteous ‘lovers’, but in Isa 41:25 the strength of the king that will arise. targumic quotations 151 give birth’).65 As in the foregoing example, the quotation is based on the analogy of words in the Hebrew text.66

As a third example we may refer to the ‘quotation’ of Micah 5:4 in the Tosefta Targum of Zech 4:2. It speaks of the vision of a company of scholars or teachers, with king David at its head: And I was looking a second time and behold, a company of scholars (teachers) was coming: King David came at the head of seven good leaders and eight princes, as is written of him … The names of these leaders and princes are mentioned. Obviously, it is a reference to the ‘seven shepherds and eight leaders of men’ mentioned in Micah 5:4. In Targum Jonathan these shepherds and leaders רברבי) ’and ‘[great] officers of men (מלכין) ’are identified with ‘kings The Tosefta Targum seems to presuppose this rendering, but .(אנשא and (פרנסין טבין) ’unlike Targum Jonathan it reads ‘good leaders 67:(נסיכין) ’princes‘ MT Micah 5:4 TJ Micah 5:4 TT Zech 4:2 שבעה פרנסין טבין שבעה מלכין ותמניא שבעה רעים ושמנה ותמניא נסיכין רברבי אנשא נסיכי אדם Connected with this type of citation is the phenomenon found in some of the Targums on the Minor Prophets that a certain targum is made up of lines borrowed from other targumic passages, and therefore ‘represents an interesting pastiche, or cento, of targumic quotations’.68 A fine example is the Tosefta Targum on Zech 142: –15 that comprises a

65 The targums on 2 Kgs 19:3 and Isa 37:3 are in itself an attempt to make sense of the difficult Hebrew text, which can be rendered as follows: ‘for the sons have reached the birthstool, but there is no strength to give birth’. The Aramaic word is used in Onkelos, PsJon (sg.) and Neofiti (pl.) on Exod 1:16 for the rendering of מתבר .stones’ (> ‘birthstool’), see Sokoloff, JPA, 336‘ אבניים Hebrew 66 The expression is also found in Tg Psalms 18:5. See on the composition of TJ 2 Sam 22 as a poem, the studies of Van Staalduine-Sulman, Targum of Samuel, 634– 64 and of A.S. Rodrigues Pereira, Studies in Aramaic Poetry (c. 100 B.C.E. – c. 600 C.E.), Assen 1997, 27–57 and especially 33–35, discussing the possible reasons of the meturgeman to include the quotation from Isa 37:3 / 2 Kgs 19:3. 67 See on the interpretation of this tradition, Smelik, Targum of Judges, 140; Smelik incorrectly translates ‘one for each of them’ (139), instead of ‘as it is writ- ,תוספתות תרגום לנביאים: ההדיר, ביאר ותרגום לעברית ,ten of him’. See also R. Kasher ,’התוספתות התרגומיות להפטרת שבת–חנוכה‘ ,Idem ;[64–62:(א)Jerusalem 1996, 219ff [144 -II.78; Smelik, ‘Mysti ,שקיעים ,Tarbiz 45 (1975/76), 27–54, at 43–44; Goshen-Gottstein cal Transformation’, 139. 68 Gordon, Studies, 96. 152 chapter three miscellany of quotations taken from TJ Ezek 43 and TJ Zeph 3. They have been the subject of a number of studies69 and therefore we do not need to discuss them further here.

3. Philological interpretation of biblical words In his study of targumic units of quotation Goshen-Gottstein includes what he labels ‘alternative renderings, either of lexical or of exegetical interest’.70 In our view, however, these lexical alternatives do not belong to the category of citations, since they do not refer to a specific textual source. In most of the cases, it is impossible to decide whether these Aramaic exegetical interpretations of certain Hebrew words are related to Targum Jonathan or to an unknown Palestinian Targum of the Prophets. In Josh 7:21, for instance, mention is made of ‘a fine Shinar mantle’ among the spoil of the captured city Jericho. In Targum Jonathan this .(אצטלאי בבלאי חד שפיר) ’is rendered as ‘a beautiful Babylonian mantle ,from the Greek στολή,71 also occurs in b.Sanh 44a ,אצטלא The word 72(איצטלא דמילתא) ’but there the interpretation of Rav is ‘a silk mantle to which another explanation is added, that of Rav Samuel who in- Yet another .73(סרבלא דצריפא) ’terprets it as ‘a cloak dyed with alum interpretation is offered by R. anina b. Isaac in GenR 85:14 (Th-A פורפירה) ’who thinks that it concerns ‘a purple Babylonian robe ,(1050 It cannot be proved that the exegesis of Rav is dependent on 74.(בבליא Targum Jonathan or vice versa, and therefore we do not find here a quotation, but different opinions on the meaning of a Hebrew word. In Midrash Lamentations Rabbah, petita 24, Rabbi Eleazar ben ,(’uproar‘) תשואה Yaakov gives a threefold explanation of the word namely ‘troubles, noises, and darkness’. For the second Aramaic

69 P. Grelot, ‘Une tosephta targoumique sur Zacharie, II, 14–15’, RB 73 (1966), 97– .Gordon, Studies, 96ff ;45–27 ,’התוספתות התרגומיות‘ ,Kasher ;211 .I.XX ,שקיעים ,Goshen-Gottstein 70 71 See M. Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods, Ramat-Gan 2002, 125. 72 For this expression, see also b.Yev 66b, b.MQ 28b, b.BM 17a. 73 See Sokoloff, JBA, 829, who translates ‘a clean / bleached sarbela-garment’. II.118–19, the Bavli renderings remain ,שקיעים ,According to Goshen-Gottstein 74 close to the Babylonian idiom, and Genesis Rabba to Palestinian idiom. But the word also occurs in Palestinian sources, see S. Krauss, Griechische und Lateinische אצטלא Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, 2 Vols, Berlin 1898–99, repr. Hild- esheim 1964, II.120. See PsJon Gen 45:22, Deut 34:6, 22:12, 22:3, Gen 3:7; TO Gen 25:2. targumic quotations 153

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

C. Exchangeability of Aramaic and Hebrew Quotations

Although we are studying here the Aramaic scriptural quotations, we have to be aware of the fact that especially in the Palestinian Targums a quotation may appear in Aramaic in one of the targums but in He- brew in another. Often a quotation is in Hebrew, or it starts in Hebrew and ends in Aramaic, and vice versa. So, for example, in the Palestin- ian Targums on Gen 30:22, a text which is known as the Midrash of the Four Keys,78 the quotations of proof texts are in Aramaic in Tar- gum Neofiti,79 but in the Fragment Targums partly in Hebrew partly in Aramaic. In ms Vatican of the Fragment Targum the quotation of Deut 28:12 is in Aramaic,80 in ms Paris in Hebrew. The quotations of Ps 145:16 and Ezek 37:12 that follow are in Hebrew in both recensions of

I.XX, who points to the ,שקיעים ,For similar examples, see Goshen-Gottstein 75 in Ps 31:19 in GenR 1:5 (Th-A תאלמנה threefold Aramaic interpretation of the Hebrew Isa 58:11) in LevR 34:15 (M) יחליץ see also the fourfold interpretation of the word ;(2 811). 76 See for the rabbi’s sensitivity for the philological aspects of Hebrew and Ara- maic language, R. Kasher, ‘Scripture in Rabbinic Literature’, in: Mulder & Sysling, I.XX–XXI and Alexander, ‘Jewish ,שקיעים ,Mikra, 555–56. See also Goshen-Gottstein Aramaic Translations’, 227. 77 See also the quotations of Josh 5:2–3 in GenR 31:8 (Th-A 281), Josh 7:20 iny.Sanh 6:3 (23b), Judg 3:20, 22–23 in GenR 99:3 (Th-A 1275); 2 Kgs 17:30–31 in y.AZ 3:2 (42cd), b.Sanh 63b; Isa 2:4 in y.Shab 6:4 (8b); Isa 3:18–23 in y.Shab 6:1 (8a); Isa 41:19 in GenR 15:1 (Th-A 136), b.RhS 23a, y.Ket 7:9, TanB Terumah 9; Amos 6:2, 4 in NumR 10:3. 78 See the study of this passage in Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 136–63. 79 The quotation of Deut 28:12 in the Midrash of the Four Keys differs from On- kelos; Neofiti’s ad locum targum is closer to the text of Onkelos (but in both cases it -in Onkelos; so also PsJon which however has further embel לך instead of לכון reads lishments of the text; see Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 140, 143–44). The quotation from Ps 145:16 is not identical to the text of P. de Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice, Göttingen 1873, repr. Osnabrück 1967, 83. The quotation from Ezek 37:12 is, apart from some orthographic variants, that of Targum Jonathan. 80 The Aramaic is identical to the text of Onkelos. In ms Nürnberg almost the whole verse is rendered in Hebrew. 154 chapter three the Fragment Targum.81 The ad locum text (Gen 30:22), however, is in Aramaic in all of the sources. Another example is taken from the Palestinian Targums on Gen 35:9.82 There we find Hebrew quotations of Gen 281: , 18:1 and of the source text in ms Paris of the Fragment Targums, but in the marginal readings of Neofiti and in ms Vatican of the Fragment Targums these quotes are in Aramaic.83 In the Cairo Genizah Fragments these citations are first in Hebrew and then in Aramaic.84 These examples are taken from the midrashic expansions that are connected with the beginning of a certain parashah and we might ask whether such quotations in Hebrew are intended to preserve the association with the sources from which they are drawn, to ensure that the reader will not miss the desired connotation. But certainly this phenomenon deserves further study and discussion. Sometimes a Hebrew quotation is followed by an Aramaic explanation of several words in the quoted text. In Tg Esther Sheni 2:7 first a Hebrew quotation is given of Isa 55:13, with the introductory formula: ‘concerning whom the prophet Isaiah prophesied, saying …’. This Hebrew quotation is followed by an Aramaic explanation of the ארבניא Aramaic) סרפד thorn’) and‘ הגתא Aramaic) נעצוץ Hebrew words ‘nettle’), and closed with an Aramaic translation of Isa 55:13a.85 Tg Esther also offers various instances of quotations that are in He- brew in one of the manuscripts, but in Aramaic in another. An interesting example is the quotation of Isa 65:24 in Tg Esther Sheni 1:1. In

81 For the differences with the Masoretic text, see Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 145. 82 See on this midrash the Dutch study of T. Jansma, Twee Haggada’s uit de Pa- lestijnse Targum van de Pentateuch, Leiden 1950. See also M. Black, An Aramaic Ap- proach to the Gospels and Acts, Oxford 1967, who discusses its relation to a Kerova of Yannai on Gen 35:5, and C.H. Perrot, La Lecture de la Bible dans la Synagogue: Les anciennes lectures palestiniennes du Shabbat et des fêtes, Hildesheim 1973, 199–204. 83 In Neofiti the scriptural proof texts are left out. The quotation in FTV of Gen 18:1 is not identical to the ad locum targum. Here (Gen 35:9) we read ‘in the Plain of the Vision’, but in Gen 18:1 it reads ‘in the Plain of azoza’. 84 See M.L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 .II.235 ,אגדתם של מתורגמנים ,Vols, Cincinnati 1986, I.73; cf. Shinan 85 See also the Hebrew quotation of the first three words of Jer 20:7 in Tg Esther Sheni 1:2. Likewise, the first words of Haggai 2:8 are cited in Hebrew, followed by the .I.XVI ,שקיעים ,longer Aramaic rendition. See for these examples, Goshen-Gottstein In y.Sanh 2:3 (20b) and MidrSam 23 (58a) we have an example of a Hebrew quota- being לחי tion (1 Sam 25:6) with an Aramaic explanation of one single word (Hebrew .(לקיומא explained as targumic quotations 155 ms Or. 2375 of the British Museum that is used in Sperber’s edition (IVa.171) the quotation is given in Hebrew, but in ms Sassoon 282 the same citation is in Aramaic.86

D. Sources: Characterisation of the Material in the Different Sources

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

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

.II.72 ,שקיעים ,See Goshen-Gottstein 86 87 At the beginning of Tishri the story of Rachel (Gen 30:22ff.) was read; the reading of Exod 13:17 is connected with the seventh day of Passover; the reading of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:5) with Shavuot. 88 Leaving aside the direct speech quoted, as for instance in PsJon Gen 40:12 quot- ,and as regards what you said …’; see Shinan‘ ודי אמרת ing Gen 40:11 with the formula .II.X ,אגדתם של מתורגמנים 156 chapter three

Direct quotations (with introductory formula) 21–2:19 ,שקיעים ,Tg1 Kgs 18:37 FTP, intr. to parashat GG 89 Kora, Num 16:1 Tg 1 Kgs 21:19, 23 FTP, intr. to parashat (2 Kgs 9:10, 36–37) Kora, Num 16:1 2:21 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Kgs 22:28 FTP, intr. to parashat GG ( = Tg 2 Chron 18:27) Kora, Num 16:1 .2:25f ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 51:6 PTs Deut 32:1 GG Tg Isa 63:2–3 PTs Gen 49:11 .2:27f ,שקיעים ,Tg Jer 17:5,7 PTs Gen 40:23 GG Tg Ezek 18:13 CGF (TT) / FTP Exod 13:17 Tg Ezek 37:12(13) PTs Gen 30:22 Tg Ezek 39:9–10 PTs Num 11:26 Tg Obad 18 PsJon Gen 30:25

Allusions to prophetic passages or to a conflation of texts Tg 1 Sam 25:29 PsJon Deut 31:16 Tg Isa 1:2 PTs Deut 32:1 Tg Isa 40:4 PsJon Exod 12:37, Num 14:14 Tg Isa 65:17 PTs Deut 32:1 Tg Jer 17:8 PTs Num 21:34 Tg Jer 32:18 PTs Exod 20:5

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

1.2. Direct quotations with introductory formulas We have already described above several types of quotation. In the Palestinian Targums most of these types can be found. Our main division was between explicit and implicit quotations, and we have already given several examples taken from the Palestinian Targums to illustrate these two types and the subtypes that can be derived from them. The explicit or direct quotations are characterised by the use of introductory formulas. In the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch there are a great number of such introductory formulas. We may differentiate between:

Vols, Ramat-Gan 2 ,שקיעים מתרגומי המקרא הארמיים ,M. Goshen Gottstein 89 1983–1989. targumic quotations 157

»» formulas that make use of the expression ‘as it is written explicitly,’ or ‘as Scripture explains and says,’ and variants; sometimes with a specification such as ‘in the book of the Torah of the Lord’ »» references to biblical characters, such as Moses, or Isaiah, or Eldad and Medad »» references to a heavenly voice (Bat Kol) or to the Holy Spirit »» rather vague references, often in the middle of a discourse, such as ‘and the Lord said’, ‘then the Lord said …’. List of introductory formulas Aramaic Translation Source as it is written explicitly, PTs Gen 35:9 דכ)י(ן כתבה מפרש ואמר … and it says )וכן … כתבא …( and thus Scripture ex- Neof Gen 30:22 / FTP וכן כתבא ומפרש ואמר plains and says … Exod 12:2 )דכן … מפרש( for this reason … CGF Gen 35:9 בכין כדין for this reason does Scrip- Neof [M] Gen 35:9 בגין כדין כתבא מפרש … ture explain and say ואמר to fulfil what Scripture Neof / FTV Exod למקימה מה דאמר כתבא says … 12:42 )למקיימא מא … כתבה( FTP Exod 15:18 for so it is explicit [in FTP Gen 30:22 דכן הוא מפרש ואמר Scripture] and it says … FTP / FTV Deut 32:1 )דהכן …/ וכן …( FTP / Neof Deut 32:3 therefore it is written Neof Lev 22:28 90 כדן כתיב ומפרש בספר and specified in the אורייתה דייי book of the Torah of the Lord … and he [Joseph] did not FTP / FTV Gen 40:23 ולא אדכר כתבא דכתיב -remember the Scrip ומפרש ture that is explicitly written … and he did not remem- Neof Gen 40:23 ולא אדכר כתבא דכתיב ber the Scripture, for it בספר אוריתא דייי is written in the book of דמתילא בםפר קרביא the Torah of the Lord, which is like the book of Wars

.בגין כדן כתיב ומפרש בספר אורייתה דיי דמתילה בספר קרבייה :Cf. Neof Num 21:14 90 158 chapter three

Aramaic Translation Source behold, Moses, the Neof [M] Lev 22:28 הא בכין פרש משה prophet of the Lord, FTV / FTP (in the נבייה דיי ואמר עמי בני then explained and said: same way, with ישראל … My people, children of variants) Israel … Moses prophesied … FTP Num 16:1 משה איתנבי … ואמר and said … Elijah prophesied … and אליה אתנבי … ואמר said … Michayhu son of Yimlah מיכיהו בר ימלא אתנבי … prophesied … and said ואמר … and thus did Isaiah the Neof Deut 32:1 וכן ישעיהו נבייא פירש prophet explain and ואמר … say … Jacob said in the Holy PsJon Gen 30:25 אמר יעקב ברוח … Spirit קודשא … a Bat Kol came forth, FTP Num 16:1 נפקת ברת קלא … and said ואמרת … and they [Eldad and Neof Num 11:26 ותרויהון מתנביין כחדא / Medad] both prophesied (so also FTP / FTV ואמרון … together, and said … PsJon with variants) and then the Lord said FTP Exod 13:17 ובכין אמר ליה יי … to him … the Lord, then, said to CGF Exod 13:17 בכין אמר יו ליה … him … for [the Lord] said … CGF Exod 13:17 ארי אמר [יו׳[ …

The quotation in Neofiti on Gen40 :23 is rather strange. It seems totally out of place, for it differs from the introductory phrases in the Frag- ment Targums, and uses a formula that is also used in the targums on Numbers 21:14. The first part of it, ‘it is written in the book of the Torah of the Lord’ (see also Neofiti Lev 22:27),91 can only indicate a formula that introduces passages from the Torah. And here it is followed by a citation from the prophet Jeremiah (17:5). Do we have to

91 Cf. Neofiti Deut 1:5; 31:26 ‘The book of this Torah’ (see also y.Taan 3:1 [66d]); 31:24 ‘when Moses completed writing the words of this Torah in a book’; TJ Joshua Sam 1:18 ‘Behold it 2 ;(ספר הישר Is it not written in the book of the Torah?’ (MT‘ 10:13 is written in the book of the Torah’. targumic quotations 159 suppose that the word Torah here has the wider meaning of Scripture as a whole,92 or should we think of a mistake made by the meturgeman who had in mind the formula used elsewhere? 1.3. Allusions and free renderings of biblical texts As we saw in the foregoing, quotations with a formula of introduction do not always refer to a specific biblical text, but in some cases they are followed by an allusion to a certain biblical passage, or they offer a free rendering of a biblical text. As an example we have given the allusion to the coming of Gog and Magog and their armies, as described in Ezek 38:1ff., in the introduction to the Palestinian Targums of Num 11:26, that is followed by a free rendering of Ezek 39:9–10. In Targum Neofiti, as we saw, the text runs as follows: The two of them [Eldad and Medad] prophesied together and said: At the very end of days Gog and Magog [FTP / FTV add: and their armies] will march on Jerusalem, and they will fall into the hands of King Messiah; and for seven full years the Israelites will light fires from their weapons, and [during all that time] they will not need to go to the forest [FTP / FTV add: nor will they cut down a tree]. The text of Pseudo-Jonathan is even more expansive and seems to be a word-by-word commentary on the whole of the Gog–Magog chapters in the book of Ezekiel: The two of them prophesied together and said: Behold, a king will come up from the land of Magog at the end of the days. He will gather kings wearing crowns, and prefects clad in armour, and all the peoples will obey him. They will wage war in the land of Israel with the returned exiles. But the Lord will be prepared for them in the hour of distress, and he will kill all of them by a burning breath and by fiery flames coming from beneath the throne of glory. Their bodies will fall on the mountains of the land of Israel and all the animals of the field and the birds of heaven will come to eat of their corpses.93 There are other examples of such a free rendering of biblical texts. In a targumic midrash, the Palestinian Targums on Num 21:34 relate the story of the wicked Og, king of Butnin.94 Moses is confronted with Og and exclaims according to Targum Neofiti:

מסתבר כי "אורייתא" לאו :II.236, who states ,אגדתם של מתורגמנים ,See Shinan 92 .דווקא והכוונה למקרא כולו II.227–29; Sysling, Teiyyat ,אגדתם של מתורגמנים ,See on this passage Shinan 93 Ha-Metim, 235–42. 94 On the readings Butnin, Butnim, or Botnayyim, see M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers, Edinburgh 1995, 123 n. 37. Cf. Neof Deut 3:1, 3–4, 10–11, 13. 160 chapter three

Is not this Og who jeered at Abraham and Sarah, saying to them: ‘Abraham and Sarah are like beautiful trees standing beside springs of water, but producing no fruit’?95 The midrash here clearly refers to Jer 17:8 ‘He shall be like a tree planted by waters, sending forth its roots by a stream … It does not cease to yield fruit’. The meturgeman freely re-interprets the text, substitut- ing the subject,96 adding a few words (‘beautiful’, ‘springs of water’97), leaving out part of the sentence, and transforming the positive (‘do not cease to yield’) into a negative (‘do not produce’). In this respect and in its Palestinian wording, it differs strongly from the fairly literal rendering of Targum Jonathan.98

1.4. Imprecise quotations We have already given examples of quotations that are not very precise, as is the case in the introduction to Num 16:1 of the Fragment Targum (ms Paris), where one finds as a quotation the sentence ‘Just as the dogs have eaten the blood of Naboth, so shall the dogs eat the blood of Ahab in the plot of ground of Jezreel’.99 As we saw, this looks like a rendering of 1 Kgs 21:19, but in the biblical text the addition ‘in the plot of ground of Jezreel’ is only connected with the predicted death of Ahab’s wife Jezebel, and not of Ahab himself. The writer presumably had in mind the similarly worded Jezebel texts (1 Kgs 21:23, 2 Kgs 9:10, 36–37).

1.5. Use of key words to allude to analogous passages Connected with this type of citation is the use, especially in the Pales- tinian Targums, of certain key words to allude to analogous passages. In the PTs on Deut 32:1, for instance, there is an allusion to the first

,Neof) קיימין There are smaller variations in the different targums, between 95 PsJon), or a combination of both (FTP). For PsJon’s reading) שתילין FTV) and see below. The same tradition is found in FTV and Neof [M] on ,פרקטונין דמיין Deut 3:2. 96 PsJon changes the use of the 3rd person in the direct speech into a 2nd person address: ‘You are like trees planted by the water channels but do not produce fruit …’. So in all of the Palestinian Targums with the exception .מבועין דמין Reading 97 see M. Jastrow, A Dictionary) פרקטוניו דמיין of PsJon, where we do find the reading of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, Philadelphia 1903; repr. New York 1971, 1240; Krauss, Lehnwörter, II.496). See also PsJon on Gen 14:3, Num 24:6. 98 This quotation is not mentioned in Robert Hayward’s fine survey of early citations of Targum Jeremiah (The Targum of Jeremiah, Edinburgh 1987, 8–12). 99 See above, p. 147. targumic quotations 161 words of the poem in Isa 1:2ff. In Deut 32:1 as well as in Isa 1:2 heaven and earth are called to witness, but the verses show a different position of the verbs. Deut 32:1 reads ‘Give ear, heavens, to what I say; / listen, earth, to the words I speak’, and Isa 1:2 ‘Listen, heavens, and give ear, earth, for it is the Lord who speaks’.100 The differences are explained in the midrashic introduction to the last words of Moses in the Pales- tinian Targums of Deut 32:1ff. In Targum Neofiti this runs as follows: For two prophets arose to bear witness against Israel — Moses the prophet and Isaiah the prophet. Moses, since he was near the heavens and far from the earth, said to the heavens: ‘give ear’, and to the earth, ‘listen’; Isaiah, the prophet, however, who arose after him, since he was near the earth and far from the heavens, said to the earth: ‘give ear,’ and to the heavens, ‘listen.’ And both of them, because they feared the Holy Name, arose to bear witness against Israel. For this reason Moses, the prophet of the Lord, arose and took courage and said: ‘Give ear, heavens, to what I say; listen, earth, to the words I speak.’ The midrash of the two prophets is basically the same in all of the Pal- estinian Targums, and in the similar tradition in Sifre Deuteronomy §306, although the sequence of events is not the same in the various sources. As the following survey shows, Neofiti’s sequence of persons (first Moses, then Isaiah) and utterances (heavens earth ‹—› earth heavens) differs from that in the other Palestinian Targums, and is close to Midrash Sifre Deuteronomy: Neof Moses near the heavens far from the earth Isaiah near the earth far from the heavens FTP Isaiah near the earth far from the heavens Moses near the heavens far from the earth FTV Isaiah far from the heavens near the earth Moses far from the earth near the heavens PsJon Isaiah near the earth far from the heavens Moses near the heavens far from the earth SifreDeut Moses near the heavens far from the earth Isaiah far from the heavens near the earth As such, it is a fine example of a text alluding to the wording of analogous passages, quoting only the words that are of central importance for the discussion.

100 As will be clear from the translation, the parallelism is not perfect, although the targum presupposes that there are four imperative forms. This has been over- looked by commentators, see e.g. M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy, Edinburgh 1997, 148 n. 9. 162 chapter three

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

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

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

101 For a detailed treatment of the lengthy introduction to parashat Kora (Num 16:1ff.) in ms Paris, see H. Sysling, ‘Three Harsh Prophets: A Targumic Tosefta to Parashat Korah’, Aramaic Studies 2 (2004), 223–42. One of the conclusions (240–42) is that the prologue on the utterances of three stubborn prophets has to be seen as a later development of the tradition ascribed to rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in y.Sanh 10:1 (28a). targumic quotations 163

Answer me, O Lord, answer me, that all these people may know that You are their God …102 and (that You) have turned their hearts backward. The text of Targum Jonathan is much more paraphrastic: קביל צלותי יוי באישתא קביל צלותי יוי במטר וידעון עמא הדין במעבדך להון נסא ארי את יוי אלהים ואת ברחמתך יתהון משתאיל להון במימרך לאתבותהון לדחלתך ואנון יהבו ית לבהון פליג Receive my prayer, Lord, with the fire, receive my prayer, Lord, with rain; and may this people know that by Your doing for them the sign that You, Lord, are God, and that by Your loving them You are asking for them by Your Memra to bring them back to the fear of You. And they gave their divided heart. Obviously, there are several modifications of the Hebrew text in Tar- in the Hebrew text is translated by the ענניgum Jonathan. The twofold receive my prayer’.103 In contrast to the Hebrew text‘ קביל צלותי words it repeats the divine name. The additions, partly in line with talmudic sources, cannot easily be left out.104 The last part of the Hebrew verse is interpreted in two ways, first by ‘by Your loving them You are asking for them … to bring them back to the fear of You’, and secondly by ‘and they gave their divided heart’. This is very remarkable for it can only mean that God is asking for them to repent. A positive interpretation of the verse close to the wording of the Septuagint, but neither found in rabbinic sources nor in the ‘Palestinian’ quotation in the Fragment Targum.105 The additions in ms Paris of the Fragment Targum are connected rather loosely with the translation as such and could, in contrast with

102 The additions are: ‘… first God and last God; and that all the gods they worship in Your presence are false gods. And if You do not answer me, and display the miracles of Your might in this hour, then it will have been You who stiffened their necks and turned their faces about …’. 103 This expression is not uncommon in the Targum of 1–2 Kings, see 1 Kgs 8:28, is in ענני Kgs 13:4, 22:19. In the Targum of Psalms, Hebrew 2 ;17:22 ,52 ,49 ,45 ,35 ,30 ,29 קב)י(ל צלותי Tg Ps 69:14, 17, 18 etc.), but in a few cases as) עני יתי most cases rendered as .II.20 n. 5–6 ,שקיעים ,Tg Ps 4:2, 13:4, 60:7, cf. Tg Ps 27:7). Cf. Goshen-Gottstein) 104 See Sysling, ‘Three Harsh Prophets’, 236–37. Cf. b.Ber 6b, 9b. See our observations on the ‘extended interpretative translations’, above, pp. 24–25. 105 See M. Greenberg, ‘“You Have Turned Their Hearts Backward” (I Kings 18:37)’, in: J.J. Petuchowski & E. Fleischer (eds), Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Lit- urgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann, Jerusalem 1981, Hebrew section, 52–66, at 57. The Greek translation (Lucianic recension) reads: καί σύ ἔστρεψας τήν καρδίαν τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου ὀπίσω. The rabbinic sources remain close to the Hebrew text, see Green- berg, ‘You Have Turned’, 54–57 on y.Sanh 10:1 (28a) and b.Ber 9b, 31b/32a. See also Smolar & Aberbach, Studies, 146 n. 110. 164 chapter three the additions in Targum Jonathan, easily be left out.106 The fact that the quotation of 1 Kgs 18:37 in ms Paris, which has all the features of a Palestinian targum,107 differs from Targum Jonathan in being an (almost) verbatim rendering of the Hebrew text raises an important question. Does it mean that a Palestinian Targum or selections of Pal- estinian Targums existed which offered a more literal interpretation than the ones we know today?108 But such a difference between a verbatim rendering and a more paraphrastic one is not visible in the case of many of the other quotations. 1.6.1. Quotations that are identical with Targum Jonathan The quotation from Ezek 37:12 in the PTs of Gen 30:22 (see above) is part of a detailed aggadic exegesis which has been entitled the Mid- rash of the Four Keys, connected with Gen 30:22 as the opening verse of the 29th sidra of the triennial Palestinian cycle.109 The quotation in Neofiti, which is preceded by an introductory formula, corresponds with Targum Jonathan of Ezek 37:12, in itself a fairly literal rendering of the Hebrew text. Remarkably, the Fragment Targums (FTP, FTV) do not follow Neofiti, but offer a Hebrew quotation; the fact that FTN does not quote Ezek 37:12 but Ezek 37:13, may have been influenced by b.Taan 2a, which also quotes this last verse.110 1.6.2. Quotations that are partly identical with Targum Jonathan In the lengthy introductory midrash which relates the story of Moses’ impending death in the Palestinian Targums on Deut 32:1, Moses

106 See note 101. The first addition (‘first God and last God’) seems to be based on Isa 44:6 (‘I am the first and I am the last’), or 48:12 (‘I am the first, I am the last also’), and see also Isa 41:4. The second (‘and all the gods they worship in your presence are false gods’) echoes such scriptural passages as Ps 96:5 and 1 Chron 16:26 (‘For all the gods of the nations are idols’). We are not convinced that, as Goshen-Gottstein II.20) states, this phrase is inspired by the commandment ‘You shall have no ,שקיעים) with אחרים beside me’ (Exod 20:3, Deut 5:7), associating (אלהים אחרים) other gods .in 1 Kgs 18:37 אחרנית .II.20 ,שקיעים ,See Goshen-Gottstein 107 ,שקיעים See the remark of M.J. Mulder in his review of Goshen-Gottstein’s 108 in Bibliotheca Orientalis 42 (1985), 386–87: ‘Öfter ergibt sich auch, dass ein ver- lorenes Targum eine verbatim Tradition kannte, weil das ad locum Targum einen midraschischen Charakter hat. Deutet dies darauf hin, das früher „buchstäblich übersetzte” Targume da waren, wo wir jetzt nur noch Targume midraschischen Charakters haben … ?’. 109 See also GenR 73:4 (Th-A 848), b.Taan 2ab (Ezek 37:13), DeutR 7:6, 110, TanB VaYera 35, 1:53b, TanB VaYetzei 16 (1:78a), MidrPss 78:5 (Ezek 37:13). 110 Cf. Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 145. targumic quotations 165 establishes as witnesses heaven and earth. For all things will wear out, but heaven and earth, when they shall melt away and shall be consumed, will be renewed: ‘However, I shall eventually create new heavens and a new earth’ (FTP / FTV).111 The latter part of the quotation is identical with Targum Jonathan on Isa 65:17, which presents a fairly literal translation of the Hebrew text. But in the Palestinian Targums the wording of the first part is adapted to the structure of the However, I shall eventually‘ ,ברם אנא עתיד ברי midrash, opening with ברם עתיד create (new heavens and a new earth)’ (FTP / FTV) or with However, the Lord is to create (new heavens and a new‘ ,הוא ייי למברה ,For behold‘ ,ארי האנא ברי earth)’ (Neof), as against Targum Jonathan’s I create (new heavens and a new earth)’. A second example may be taken from the Palestinian Targums on Gen 49:11 where a picture of a warring Messiah is presented, which consists of a paraphrase of the source text and of Isa 63:2–3. In Neofiti this reads: … (and he kills kings with rulers,) and he makes the mountains red from the blood of their slain (and makes the valleys white from the fat of their warriors.) His garments are rolled in blood; he is like a presser of grapes. With some minor variations this is found in all of the Palestinian Tar- gums.112 The first part of the ‘quotation’ (‘and he makes the mountains red from the blood of their slain’) resembles Targum Jonathan (with the exception of those slain instead of their slain). The second part is an amalgam of Gen 49:11 and Isa 63:2b, and does not fit the interpretation of Targum Jonathan on the latter verse.113

111 Neofiti transforms the first person direct speech into a third person utterance: ‘However, the Lord is to create new heavens and a new earth.’ 112 The PTs are in accord with each other, apart from some minor variations cf. Sokoloff,JPA , 172, 395; CGF reads ,מעגעגין instead of מזגזגין FTP incorrectly reads) .(לרפום instead of לדפ]ום[ 113 M. McNamara (The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pen- tateuch, Rome 1978, 230–33) states that the picture of the warring Messiah in Rev 10:11–16 is influenced by the PTs to Gen 49:11. In Revelation it says of the Messiah that He is clad in a robe dipped in blood (13) and He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty (15). In our view the first part is directly dependent on Gen 49:11 (‘He washes his garment in wine and his vesture in the blood of grapes’), the second part may be a reflection of Isa 63:2ff. That the PTs, likewise, are based on Isa 63:2ff., is no reason to assume that the author of Revelation ‘knew of the PT rendering to Gn 49,11f. and is influenced in his thought and language by it’ (McNamara, New Testament, 233). See also the criticism of R. Syrén, The Blessings in 166 chapter three

1.6.3. Quotations that differ from Targum Jonathan Targum Jonathan on 1 Kgs 22:28 is a literal rendering of the Hebrew ,לא דבר יהוה בי text with the exception of its interpretation of Hebrew ‘the Lord has not spoken through me’, by ‘(then) there was no favour before the Lord in me’: And Micah said: If indeed you return in peace, there was no favour before the Lord in me.114 An additional explanation (‘and he has not spoken to me by the spirit of prophecy’) is found in Tg 2 Chron 18:27. The Fragment Targum (ms Paris) on Num 16:1, quoting our verse, also has a double rendering, but it is expressed differently: ‘then I am not among the Lord’s prophets’, and ‘(then) the Memra of the Lord has not spoken through me’. This rendering seems to be influenced by the preceding Moses scene in the Fragment Targum where similar expressions are used.115

A second example is to be found in the Palestinian Targums on Deut 32:1 where a saying of the prophet Isaiah (Isa 51:6) is quoted. In each of the Targums this quotation is introduced with a different opening formula (see above). In Neofiti it runs as follows: And thus did Isaiah the prophet explain and say: ‘Raise your eyes to the heavens and look upon the earth beneath, for the heavens shall melt away like smoke and the earth shall wear out like a garment’. The official Targum of Isa 51:6 is not very literal, with regular substitutions and changes in words and phrases: Raise your eyes to the heavens, and consider the earth beneath; though the heavens will pass as the smoke which passes, and the earth wear out as a covering wears out, and its inhabitants, even they, will die in like manner, my victory shall stand for ever, my virtue will never be checked. It tends to strengthen the metaphoric language (‘melt away like smoke’ becomes ‘will pass as the smoke which passes’; ‘wear out like

the Targums: A Study on the Targumic Interpretations of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33, Åbo 1986, 105 n. 116. 114 A sefer aer variant in Codex Reuchlin reads: ‘then the prophecy of the Lord is not with me.’ 115 FTP furthermore differs from Targum Jonathan and Targum Chronicles by its See for the details of the Micah scene in the long midrash in .תוב as against חזר use of FTP on Num 16:1, Sysling, ‘Three Harsh Prophets’, 238–40. targumic quotations 167 a garment’ becomes ‘wear out as a covering wears out’). The Palestin- ian Targums on Deut 32:1 differ strongly from Targum Jonathan.116 Le Déaut remarked that here we find a vestige of a Palestinian Targum of the Prophets.117 Without going that far (the existence of a Palestinian Targum of the Prophets has still to be proven), we might perhaps conclude that (a) this is a second example of a more verbatim rendering, and that (b) the variations in the use of opening formulas might show that the Palestinian Targum tradition may have been an unstable and fluctuating one.

In Targum PsJon on Gen 30:25 we find a quotation from Obad18 , which is rather paraphrastic and differs sharply from Targum Jonathan: When Rachel had borne Joseph, Jacob said in the Holy Spirit: Those of the House of Joseph are destined to be like a flame to destroy those of the House of Esau. He said: From now on I will not be afraid of Esau and his legions. Targum Jonathan on our verse of Obadiah remains close to the wording of the Hebrew text, but clarifies the metaphoric statements in the Hebrew text (‘strong as’, ‘mighty as’, ‘weak as’).118 The sentence ‘shall burn them and consume them’ is interpreted as ‘shall have dominion over them and slaughter them’. Hebrew ‘has spoken’ is explained as ‘has been decided’: The people of the House of Jacob shall be strong as fire, and the people of the House of Joseph mighty as flame, but the people of the House of Esau shall be weak as straw; and they shall have dominion over them and slaughter them, and there shall be no survivor left of the House of Esau, for through the Memra of the Lord it has been decided thus.

raise’, in TJ. TJ furthermore differs‘ , זקופיlift up’, as against‘ , טולוThey all read 116 melt away’) as against‘) מלח√ pass’, for Hebrew nifal‘ ,עדי from the PTs by its use of gaze’, is in line with Neof and‘ ,סכל√ melt away’, in the PTs. The use of itpeel‘ ,מסי establish as witness’, which is clearly intended to connect‘ ,ואסהידו FTV (but see FTP it with the preceding remark of Moses ‘Which things … can I establish as witnesses ,see McNamara ,תבלי instead of תתכלי for these people?’). For the (intentional?) use of Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy, 147 n. 5, 8. 117 R. Le Déaut & J. Robert, Targum du Pentateuque, 5 Vols, Paris 1978–81, IV.261 n. 7 ‘Noter que le texte araméen de N est différent du texte traditionnel du Targum des Prophètes … et pourrait constituer un vestige de la version palestinienne’. 118 Cf. the remark of K.J. Cathcart & R.P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Proph- ets, Edinburgh 1989, 2: ‘The dictates of simplicity and intelligibility are also responsible for Tg.’s habitual conversion of metaphors into similes …’. 168 chapter three

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

1.6.4. Quotations that are, with regard to their exegetical interpretation and contents, partly in line with Targum Jonathan In the Palestinian Targums on Gen 40:23 it is said of Joseph: Now Joseph abandoned the grace of above and the grace of below and the grace that had accompanied him from his father’s house; and he trusted in the chief cupbearer, in flesh that passes on and in flesh that tastes the cup of death; and he did not remember the scripture that is explicitly written: ‘Cursed be the man who trusts in flesh, and whose trust is flesh,’ and ‘Blessed shall be the man who trusts in the name of the Memra of the Lord, and who makes the Memra of the Lord his trust’; therefore, the chief cupbearer did not remember Joseph, and he forgot him, until the fixed time arrived [for Joseph] to be redeemed. Such is the reading of the Fragment Targum (ms Paris), which differs from Neofiti, where only the curse is cited and the blessing has been left out. The quotation from Jer 17:5, 7 is introduced by three different formulas, of which the reference in Neofiti to ‘the book of the Torah of the Lord’ seems to be completely out of place.120 With Targum Jonathan the Palestinian Targums have in common the interpretation of ‘strength’ (lit. ‘arm’) in the Hebrew text by ‘trust’ (or ‘confidence’): TJ Jer 17:5 Thus says the Lord: Cursed is the man who puts confidence in man, and makes flesh his confidence, but his heart passes away from the Memra of the Lord. TJ Jer 17:7 Blessed is the man who trusts in the Memra of the Lord, for the Memra of the Lord will be his confidence. In this way, all of the targums give particular importance to the play on words in the Hebrew text, augmenting its force by a fourfold repetition of the word ‘trust’, thereby creating a strong parallel between the curse and the blessing. The Palestinian Targums differ from Targum

119 Cf. b.BB 123b, where the Hebrew text of Obad 18 is quoted. 120 See above, pp. 158–159. targumic quotations 169

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

1.6.5. Quotations that are linguistically in line with Targum Jonathan, but differ from it as regards their exegetical contents The quotations in the Palestinian Targums on Exod 13:17, both in the Fragment Targums and in the Cairo Genizah Fragments, are rather enigmatic. In the middle of a discourse on the dry bones that were revived by God through the prophet Ezekiel, one person is excluded from the resurrection. When the prophet Ezekiel asks God: What were the deeds of this one man, that he does not rise?, the answer has the form of a quotation from Ezek 18:13 ‘He gave [loans] against securities, and collected with interest; so he shall not live’, the latter phrase being explained as ‘He shall not live in the life to come’.122 Fragment Targum (ms Paris) Exodus 13:17 And when Pharaoh let the people go, the Lord did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines because it was nearby. Two hundred thousand [men] who left Egypt thirty years before the Lord’s fixed time — two hundred thousand brave infantrymen; they were all from the tribe of Ephraim, holding shields and weapons and spears. They, they are the dry bones which the Lord revived through the prophet Ezekiel in the valley of Dura. And drinking vessels from which wicked Nebuchadnezzar drank, were [made] from some of these bones. And when the Lord revived them through the prophet Ezekiel, they struck that wicked man on his mouth; and one bone joined to another bone; and they came to life, and arose on their feet, very large camps. They all arose, except one person who did not rise. The prophet said before

121 We are not convinced that Hayward is right when he remarks (Targum of Jeremiah, 10) ‘The very repetition of ‘flesh’ in the quotation of Jer may also have been produced by Tg. Neof.’s introductory paraphrase, ‘in flesh that passes, in flesh which tastes …’, since the repetition is found in all of the PTs, as is the long paraphrase on ‘flesh that passes’’. 122 See for this interpretation of the text, ExodR 31:6 (cf. 31:4, 13, 14). For other explanations, see also b.BM 61b, b.Tem 6b. 170 chapter three

the Lord: ‘What were the deeds of this one man, that he does not rise?’ And then the Lord said to him: ‘He gave [loans] against securities, and collected with interest; so he shall not live.’ And thus the Lord showed the prophet Ezekiel this sign, that He will eventually resurrect the dead. And therefore, the Lord said to him [Moses]: ‘Lest the people tremble when they see their dead brothers, and they will be frightened and return to Egypt’.123 The rendering of the quotation, Ezek18 :13, in Targum Jonathan is fairly literal and in line with the Palestinian Targums, except for the interpretation of ‘shall he live? He shall not live!’ which in Targum Jonath- an is translated as ‘shall he survive? He shall not survive!’, implying, perhaps, ‘that God is involved in the process of human survival’:124 He has given [money] for interest and has taken away usury; shall he survive? He shall not survive. He has committed all these abominations, he shall surely die; the guilt for his violent death shall be on him. The Palestinian Targums correspond with each other in presenting a literal translation, apart from the shortening of the Hebrew text in the Fragment Targum (‘so he shall not live’) as against the Cairo Genizah Fragments (‘Shall he live? He shall not live!’). 1.7. Summary It remains now to sum up the results of our investigation of the quotations from the Prophets in the Palestinian Targums. 1. A number of these quotations are part of lengthy midrashic introductions that are connected with the weekly sabbath readings: the introduction to parashat Kora (Num 16:1, three quotations), parashat Ha’azinu (Deut 32:1, three quotations), parashat Beshala (Exod 13:17), the opening verse of the 29th sidra of the triennial cycle (Gen 30:22), and to other important liturgical chapters (Exod 20:5). These midrashic introductions are of a homiletic nature, — they might be called targumic derashot125 — , and are characterised by

123 See on the tradition of a premature exodus of the Ephraimites, L. Ginzberg, Eine unbekannte jüdische Sekte, New York 1922, repr. Hildesheim 1972, 336–40; J. –Jerusalem 1974, 137–41; M.J. Mulder, ‘1 Chronik 7, 21B ,אגדות ותולדותיהן ,Heinemann 23 und die rabbinische Tradition’, JSJ 6 (1975), 141–66; Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 230–35. 124 See S.H. Levey, The Targum of Ezekiel, Edinburgh 1987, 59 n. 4. 125 See Safrai, ‘Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, in: Safrai, Literature of the Sages, 248–49. M.L. Klein, The Fragment–Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources, 2 Vols, Rome 1980, I.21, calls them toseftot, ‘midrashic expansions’. See above, pp. 127, 130, 133. targumic quotations 171

certain common form-elements, such as number motifs, benedic- tory formulas, and explicit quotations of scriptural passages. 2. The quotations are taken from the following prophetic books: 1 Samuel (1x), 1 Kings (3x), Isaiah (5x), Jeremiah (3x), Ezekiel (3x), Obadiah (1x). 3. Direct quotations do not always refer to a specific biblical text, but in certain cases they are followed by an allusion to a biblical passage, or they offer a free rendering of a biblical text. Some of the quotations are not very precise, and may be seen as memorised citations in which various scriptural passages are combined. 4. Only a few times are the quotations partly or completely identical with Targum Jonathan; more often they deviate linguistically and with regard to their exegetical contents from the official Targum of the Prophets. In a few cases the quotation is far more literal than Targum Jonathan. In other cases there are agreements as well as differences. The differences sometimes are of a linguistic nature, especially in the choice of certain translation equivalents, or the sources diverge exegetically. The fact that quotations may differ from the official Targum not only linguistically and with regard to their form, but also with regard to their contents has not received enough attention in current research. 5. The quotations given in the Palestinian Targums offer insufficient grounds for the assumption that a complete Palestinian Targum of the Prophets once existed. The number of direct quotations is very small and generally they belong to the lengthy midrashic introductions of the weekly sabbath reading. They show that the midrashic genre, in which scriptural quotations are used to support the exegesis given, became part of the targumic practice. The fact that there are great differences in the form of the citations (the introductory formulas, the variations in the use of opening formula on one and the same verse, Hebrew versus Aramaic quotations, adaptations to the context) in the different Palestinian Targums shows that the Palestinian Targum tradition may have been an unstable and fluctuating one, which was not subjected to an editorial hand. 172 chapter three

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

126 See Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 225, 234–37. 127 See Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 3–4; P.S. Alexander, The Targum of Canticles, Collegeville 2003, 29–31. 128 So in the edition of Grossfeld, 63 (B. Grossfeld, The Targum Sheni to the Book of Esther. A critical edition based on ms. Sassoon 282 with critical apparatus, New York 1994). The reading of Sperber, Bible in Aramaic, 4A.197, is ‘in the sacred writings.’ targumic quotations 173

2.2. Exchangeability of Aramaic and Hebrew quotations Turning to the quotations themselves, we note first that in Targum Esther Sheni we sometimes find citations that are in Hebrew in one of the manuscripts, but in Aramaic in another.129 Such is the case, for instance, in Tg Esther Sheni 1:1, where the quotation of Isa 65:24 is in Hebrew in Sperber’s edition (based on ms Or. 2375 of the British Museum),130 whereas it is in Aramaic in ms Sassoon 282.131 Or first the quotation is given in Hebrew, followed by its Aramaic rendering,132 as is the case in Tg Esther Sheni 1:2 where the first three words of Jer are cited in Hebrew, followed by an Aramaic (פתיתני יהוה ואפת) 20:7 A .(תקיפתא יתי ויכילתא שבשתני יהוה ואשתבשית) translation of verse 7a similar case is the quotation of the first part of the Hebrew text of Hag- gai 2:8 in Tg Esther Sheni 1:4. The Hebrew is followed by a longer quotation in Aramaic (see below). As we saw before,133 in Tg Esther Sheni 2:7 first a Hebrew quotation is given of Isa55 :13, which is followed by an Aramaic explanation of two Hebrew words, and ends with an Aramaic translation of Isa 55:13a.

2.3. Relationship to Targum Jonathan Only a small number of the quotations in the Targums Canticles and Esther Sheni are (partly) in line with Targum Jonathan. Let us give a few examples. The rhetorical question of David in 2 Sam 19:23 ‘Should a (single) man in Israel be put to death this day?’, responding to the wish of some of his servants to kill Shimei, is translated fairly literal in both Targum Jonathan and in the different manuscripts of Tg Esther Sheni 2:5. The and it 134,(יומא דנן) wording of Tg Esther Sheni, however, is Palestinian ימות remains closer to the Hebrew text, using the Aramaic equivalent קטל√ whereas Targum Jonathan chooses the itpeel of יומת of Hebrew (‘should a single men in Israel be killed this day’):

129 It has to be remarked that most of the quotations in Esther Sheni are Hebrew quotations. 130 Sperber, Bible in Aramaic, IVA.171. .II.72 ,שקיעים ,See Goshen-Gottstein 131 .I.XVI ,שקיעים ,See on this phenomenon Goshen-Gottstein 132 133 See above, p. 154. the reading of ,יומא הדין ms Urbinati 1. The reading in De Lagarde (240) is 134 .היומא הדין (Sperber (4A.184 174 chapter three

היום יומת איש בישראל MT יומא דין יתקטיל גברא בישראל TJ יומא דנן ימות גברא בישראל Tg Esther Sheni135 Translation of the quotation is given here within its context: A Jewish man was in the fortress of Susa whose name was Mordecai; and why was he called a Jewish man? Only because he feared sin, and concerning him, David prophesied when he said: ‘Shall there die on this day a man of Israel?’ The fact that 2 Sam 19:23 is quoted here in the Targum is probably based in the Hebrew איש בישראל on the connection between the expressions in Esther 2:5.136 איש יהודי text of 2 Sam and Also in line with Targum Jonathan is the quotation of Jer 20:7 in Tg Esther Sheni 1:2:137 So when the prophet Jeremiah arrived, and saw the city of Jerusalem destroyed, and the Babylonian armies surrounding it, he cried out intensely and wept bitterly. He declared saying: ‘You enticed me, O Lord, and I was enticed [Hebrew]. You have confounded me, and I have been confounded. You overpowered me and prevailed [Aramaic].’ As we have seen, first the quotation is given in Hebrew, followed by its Aramaic rendering.138 The Aramaic is, regarding the equivalents chosen, in line with Targum Jonathan, although its language is Pal- estinian. Targum Jonathan’s ‘and prevailed over me’ is an addition to Hebrew ‘you prevailed’.139 Both renderings of the Hebrew verse have -to confound’ as a transla‘ ,שבש√ chosen the stronger Aramaic verb entice’, presumably to avoid a too‘ ,פתה√ tion equivalent to Hebrew

135 ms Urbinati 1. 136 Cf. B. Grossfeld, The Two Targums of Esther, Edinburgh 1991, 133 n. 5. See the discussion in b.Meg 12b–13a on the question of why Mordecai is called here a Jew and elsewhere a Benjaminite: The Rabbis, however, said: The tribes competed with one another [for him]. The tribe of David said: I am responsible for the birth of Mordecai, because David did not kill Shimei the son of Gera [a Benjaminite] and the tribe of Benjamin said: He is actually descended from me … Why then was he called ‘a Jew’? Because he repudiated idolatry. For anyone who repudiates idolatry is called ‘a Jew’, as it is written ‘There are certain Jews (Dan 3:12)’. See also TT 1 Kgs 2:36; Agg. Esther 2:5 (18); Tg Esther Rishon 2:5. Cf. B. Ego, Targum Scheni zu Esther, Tübingen 1996, 216. 137 See De Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice, 233. It is not given in Sperber, Bible in Aramaic (cf. IVA.179). .I.XVI ,שקיעים ,Cf. Goshen-Gottstein 138 .see Jastrow, Dictionary, 1518 ,שבש√ On Aramaic 139 targumic quotations 175 strongly anthropomorphic expression.140 It is of interest that the same quotation is also found in the Midrash Pesikta de Rav Kahana (13:14).141 We may compare the Hebrew text and the three Aramaic translations of Jer 20:7, as follows: פתיתני יהוה ואפת חזקתני ותוכל MT שבישתני יוי ואשתבשית תקיפתני ויכילת לי TJ שבשתני יהוה ואשתבשית תקיפתא יתי ויכילתא Tg Esther Sheni 1:2 שדלתני י״י ואשתדלית PRK 13:14 The passage quoted in Pesikta de-Rav Kahana translates the Hebrew -to persuade, entice’, which is com‘ ,שדל√ with the Aramaic פתה√ verb mon in Palestinian sources,142 although the verb is also used in On- kelos and Jonathan.143 It maintains the strong anthropomorphism in line with other Palestinian explanations of the text.144

In Tg Esther Sheni 2:7 (and also in 7:9) a quotation is given of part of Zech 1:8: … and she was called Hadassah, a name for righteous ones, for thus it says concerning Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah: ‘… standing among ,is Babylonia צולה that were in the captivity — and ,[הדסיא] the myrtles dry up’ (Isa 44:27)145 :צולה as it is written, ‘who says to the deep’, with the captivity of Babylon is‘ ,מצולה The equation of Hebrew apparently based on the reading of Targum Jonathan, where Hebrew :’which were in Babylon‘ ,די בבבל is interpreted as אשר במצלה and he was standing among the myrtle trees which were in Babylon This equation is also found in b.Sanh 93a, where likewise Isa 44:27 is cited as a proof text, and were the myrtle trees represent the righteous. This might have been supposed in Jonathan’s rendering ‘myrtle trees’,

140 See the remark of Hayward, Targum of Jeremiah, 105 n. 5 ‘Tg. removes a poten- tial blasphemy’. 141 Edn Mandelbaum, 238. 142 See Sokoloff, JPA, 538. .(פתה√ See TO Exod 22:15; TJ Judg 14:15, 16:5 (all for Hebrew 143 144 See e.g. the lengthy explanation of Jer 20:7 in PesR 21 (107a); cf. Goshen- .II.135 ,שקיעים ,Gottstein והוא קאים :According to ms Urbinati 1 which reads the last sentence as follows 145 -see also Lagarde, Hagiograp ,בגלותא for the reading ;בין הסדה די בגלותא וצולה היא בבל ha Chaldaice, 241; the reading of Sperber (ms British Museum Or. 2375; Sperber, Bible .והוא קאים בין הדסיא די בצלותא וצלוה ]וצולה ?[ היא בבל :in Aramaic, IVA.185) is 176 chapter three and is clearly expressed in the marginal reading of Codex Reuchlin: ‘among the righteous who were in exile in Babylon’.

Only partly in line with Targum Jonathan is the quotation of 1 Sam 2:8 in Tg Esther Sheni 6:11: Now at that moment that she [Esther] saw Mordecai, the son of her father’s brother, she responded by saying to him: ‘In you is fulfilled the verse that is written in the sacred Prophets: He raises up the poor out of the dust and lifts up those downcast of spirit from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory.’ We will give a synoptic presentation of the Hebrew version and the Aramaic translations of 1 Sam 2:8. מקים מעפר דל מאשפות ירים אביון MT 1 Sam 2:8a מקים מעפרא מסכינא מקלקלתא מרים חשיכא TJ מקים מן אפרא מסכינא ומן קיקלתא ]מרים?[ למכיכי Tg Esther Sheni 6:11146 רוחא להושיב עם נדיבים וכסא כבוד ינחלם MT 1 Sam 2:8b לאתבותהון עם צדיקיא רברבי עלמא וכרסי יקרא מחסין TJ להון למותבא יתהון ]עם שלטונין[ וכרסיא דיקרא מחסי)ן( Tg Esther Sheni 6:11 יתהון

The first part of Tg Esther Sheni is in line with Targum Jonathan,147 and so is the last, apart from the dissimilarity in the use of the accusa- The rest differs strongly .(יתהון ‹—› להון) tive of the personal pronoun -poor’, it offers the ex‘ אביון from Jonathan. As a rendering of Hebrew those) downcast of spirit’, which does not occur)‘ ,מכיכי רוח pression elsewhere in the Targums for the Hebrew word,148 whereas Targum nobles’, the‘ ,נדיבים lean, poor’. For Hebrew‘ ,חשיכא Jonathan reads princes’; Jonathan on the other hand offers a‘ ,שלטונין citation gives the righteous ones, the chiefs‘ ,צדיקיא רברבי עלמא :double translation

146 According to Grossfeld, Targum Sheni. 147 Sperber’s ms (Bible in Aramaic, IVA.197) remains close to Targum Jonath- for TJ’s מן קיקלתא and ,מאפרא for TJ’s מן אפרא an, whereas Grossfeld’s ms reads .MT Ps 113:7–8 is mostly, apart from some variants, identical with 1 Sam 2:8 .מקלקלתא מקים מעפרא (But the final part differs from it: (Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice, 68 He raises the poor‘) מסכינא מקיקלתא ירים חשוכה לאותבא עם רברביא עם רברבי עמיה from the dust, and lifts up the needy from the dunghill, to make them sit with the princes of his people’). TJ Isa 66:2 (for Hebrew ,(שפל רוח But see TJ Isa 57:15, Tg Prov 23:23 (for Hebrew 148 .II.61 ,שקיעים ,Cf. Goshen-Gottstein .(דכאי רוח Tg Ps 34:19 (for Hebrew ,(נכי רוח targumic quotations 177 of the world’,149 in line with the eschatological interpretation of 1 Sam 2:1–10 in this Targum.150

Of interest is the quotation of Haggai 2:8 in Tg Esther Sheni 1:4. First the Hebrew text is partly quoted, followed by a longer piece in Arama- ic. We may present the Hebrew text and the two Aramaic translations of Haggai 2:8 as follows: לי הכסף ולי הזהב נאם יהוה צבאות MT Haggai 2:8 דילי כספא ודילי דהבא אמר יוי צבאות TJ דידי כספא ודידי דהבא אמר ייי מרי חילותיה Tg Esther Sheni 1:4 The first part is in line with Targum Jonathan apart from the dialecti- The translation of the divine 151.דילי and דידי cal differences between -however, differs from the literal translation of Tar ,יהוה צבאות name gum Jonathan. Apart from Tg 1 Chron 14:24, it is not found elsewhere is often translated in other צבא)ות( in the Targums, although the noun 152.חיל)וון( contexts with Although the Targums on Esther are known as expansive translations, the citations in them are not necessarily freer than those in Tar- gum Jonathan. A fine example is the quotation of Isa65 :24 in Tg Esther Sheni 1:1: Since the days of old, since ancient times, when distress came upon the people of the House of Israel, they would pray before their Father in Heaven and He would answer them, as it is written: ‘Now it came to pass, before they call, I will answer; while they are still speaking, I will respond.’ As said before, the citation is in Hebrew in Sperber’s edition (ms Or. 2375), but in Aramaic in ms Sassoon 282.153 Remarkably, the verse quoted is a literal translation, whereas Targum Jonathan has replaced the neutral expressions (‘call’, ‘answer’, ‘speak’, ‘respond’), by prayer

149 See on these differences, also Ego, Targum Scheni, 309 n. 727. We are not convinced that, as she argues, there is a better contrast in Tg Esther Sheni (between downcast of spirit and princes) than in Targum Jonathan (the poor versus the righteous ones). She neglects the fact that Targum Jonathan gives a double translation. 150 See Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 215–16. II.31. According to Sokoloff, JPA, 146, dil– is ,שקיעים ,See Goshen-Gottstein 151 extremely rare in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (see, however, y.Taan 66c, y.BM 10b), M. Kosovsky, Concordance to ;8–7 ,לשון התרגום ,as compared with did–; see also Tal the Talmud Yerushalmi, 8 Vols, Jerusalem 1979–2002, II.858–59. 152 See e.g. Neof Deut 20:9, Num 2:23, 10:22. Other examples in Sokoloff,JPA , 199. .II.72 ,שקיעים ,See Goshen-Gottstein 153 178 chapter three formulas (‘pray’, ‘accept the prayer’; ‘beseech’, ‘do [their] request’), as can be learned from the following survey: והיה טרם יקראו ואני אענה עוד הם מדברים ואני אשמע MT Isa 65:24 ויהי עד לא יקראון אנא עני עד לא ימללון אנא אשמע Tg Esther Sheni 1:1 ויהי עד לא יצלון קדמי אקביל צלותהון ועד לא יבעון מן TJ קדמי אעביד בעותהון This more lenient approach towards its source-text is in line with Tar- gum Jonathan’s tendency ‘to transform human utterances to God into prayers’.154

A similar case is the quotation of Isa 55:13 in Tg Esther Sheni 2:7, a passage which discusses the meaning of the name Hadassah: Now why was she called Hadassah? Because the righteous ones are likened to the myrtle, concerning whom the prophet Isaiah prophesied, saying: [Hebrew quotation] ‘Instead of the thorn shall the cypress come up, and instead of the nettle shall the myrtle come up.’ What mean? Thorn. [Aramaic quotation] ‘In place of the thorn הנעצוץ does will rise a cypress’; thus in place of the righteous Mordecai, the wicked means nettle; [continuation of סרפד .Haman will ascend the scaffold the Aramaic quotation] thus in place of a nettle a myrtle will arise; so in place of Vashti, Esther will reign. In Tg Esther Sheni first a Hebrew quotation is given of Isa 55:13, with the introductory formula: ‘… concerning whom the prophet Isaiah prophesied, saying …’. This Hebrew quotation is followed by an Ara- ,(thorn = הגתא Aramaic) נעצוץ maic explanation of the Hebrew word followed by an Aramaic translation of the first part of Isa55 :13a, and of nettle’), followed by the second part of‘ ,ארבניא Aramaic) סרפד Hebrew Isa 55:13a. The translation offered is a literal one, and it is followed by a symbolic interpretation: ‘thus in place of the righteous Mordecai, the wicked Haman will ascend the scaffold … so in place of Vashti, Esther will reign.’ Targum Jonathan equates the thorn and nettle with the wicked and sinners, and the cypress and myrtle with the righteous and ‘those who fear sin’. In this way, it gives only a symbolic interpretation of the text, whereas Targum Esther starts with a literal rendering.155

154 Van Staalduine-Sulman, Targum of Samuel, 175. For the importance of prayer in Targum Jonathan, see Smolar-Aberbach, Studies, 164–69. .II.68–69; cf. b.Meg 10b ,שקיעים ,Goshen-Gottstein 155 targumic quotations 179

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

The quotation in Tg Cant 1:1 of Isa 30:29 is a free rendering of the Isaiah-text, re-interpreting the verse as ‘an eschatological marching song’,157 and adding references to the yearly pilgrimage to the Moun- tain of the Lord on the night of Passover. Targum Jonathan on the other hand faithfully renders the MT, apart from a few additions and changes: For you, there shall be a song, as on the night when a festival is hallowed; there shall be gladness of heart just as when they flow with (a hymn of) thanksgiving and with a flute, to go to the holy Mountain of the Lord, to appear before the Strong One of Israel. Although one might suppose that the rendering of our verse in Tg Can- ticles shows evidence of the existence of a — more expansive? — Pal- estinian Targum,158 it seems more likely that it is an elaboration of Targum Jonathan, with which it has in common first the reference to the Passover feast (the Hebrew text merely speaks of ‘a feast’) and, sec- the Rock of Israel,’ as‘ ,צור ישראל ondly, the interpretation of Hebrew .’the Strong One of Israel‘ ,תקיפא דישראל

156 See on the tradition of the Ten Songs, Mekhilta Shirta 1:1 (Horovitz-Rabin, 116– 17), MRS Beshala 15 (edn Epstein-Melamed, 71), b.Pes 95b, GenR 6:2 (Th-A 41–42), Tan Beshala 10, MidrPss 113:1. The tenth Song of Tg Cant is number one in the Me- khiltot. See Towner, Enumeration, 164–68; McNamara, New Testament, 209–14 (discusses the relation of the rabbinic and targumic material to Rev 5:9–13, 14:3, 15:3f). 157 It is characterised as such by Loewe, ‘Apologetic Motifs’, 169. 158 See Alexander, Targum of Canticles, 78 n. 13. 180 chapter three

2.4. Summary 1. It should be realised that the Targums on the Writings are of a pe- culiar nature. With them we are on the borderline between targum and midrash. Unlike the classical midrashim, we do not find in these ‘targumic midrashim’ references to named authorities, but like the midrashim they are often characterised by the frequent use of scriptural quotations. Most of them are in Hebrew, but some are in Aramaic. In Targum Esther Sheni and Targum Canticles we discovered eight quotations in Aramaic, all of them formula quotations using a variety of introductory formulas, and taken from the books of 1–2 Samuel (2), Isaiah (3), Jeremiah (1), Haggai (1) and Zechariah (1). 2. There is great variation between the different manuscripts of the Targums Esther Sheni and Canticles. Citations that are in He- brew in some of the manuscripts are in Aramaic in others. There is, moreover, great variation in the form of these quotations (additions, spelling-variations, use of prepositions, etc.). Such differences in the form of the quotations might demonstrate that the Targum tradition of the Writings was a fluctuating one and that it was not so strictly edited as to form an authoritative translation. 3. As we have seen, the quotations in Tg Canticles and Tg Esther Sheni are only in a few cases exegetically in line with Targum Jonathan (2 Sam 19:23 quoted in Esther Sheni 2:5; Jer 20:7 quoted in Esther Sheni 1:2 and Zech 1:8 quoted in Esther Sheni 2:7 and 7:9). The wording of these quotations, however, is Palestinian. In the case of Es- ther Sheni 1:2, where Jer 20:7 is quoted, the Palestinian Targum fol- as a translation שבש√ lows Targum Jonathan in choosing the verb ,avoiding a strong anthropomorphism ,פתה√ equivalent to Hebrew whereas the Palestinian Midrash Pesikta de-Rav Kahana uses Ara- maintaining the anthropomorphism. More often the ,שדל√ maic quotations are only partly in line with Targum Jonathan or differ strongly from it. 4. The Targums on the Writings are known to be expansive translations, whereas Targum Jonathan is often seen as a fairly literal translation. There are, however, several examples of translations in the Targums on Esther that are (far) more literal than the official Targum (Isa 65:24 in Esther Sheni 1:1; Isa 55:13 in Esther Sheni 2:7). On the other hand, also an example is given of the reverse, a faithful and literal translation of Isa 30:29 in Targum Jonathan as compared to a free rendering in Targum Canticles 1:1. targumic quotations 181

3. Quotations from the Prophets in the Tosefta Targums 3.1. Survey of quotations The Tosefta Targums of Targum Samuel have been studied in the previous chapter. Here we concentrate on quotations from the Prophets that are found in the whole corpus. They may consist of quotations of the verse with which a certain Tosefta is connected (and sometimes such a verse is quoted twice), or of quotations taken from another chapter or another book. Some of these Tosefta texts are almost completely made up of lines that are composed of citations and allusions (Tosefta Targums on 2 Kgs 4:1, Isa 66:1, Ezek 1:1, Zech 2:14). First we will give a survey of the known citations: Targum Prophets Tosefta Targum Introductory formula Tg Judg 5:9 TT on Judg 5:3 Tg 1 Sam 15:29 TT on Zech 2:14 Tg 2 Sam 3:29 TT on 1 Kgs 2:1, 2:30 ‘and thus [it says] …’ Tg 2 Sam 21:17 TT on 2 Sam 21:15–19 ‘for thus it is written, read and explained’ Tg 1 Kgs 8:27 TT on Isa 66:1 ‘As it was said by Solomon, the ( = Tg 2 Chron 6:18) king …’ Tg 1 Kgs 18:3 TT on 2 Kgs 4:1 Tg 2 Kgs 21:16 TT on Isa 66:1 ‘as was written …’ Tg Isa 6:1 TT on Isa 6:1159 ‘The prophet Isaiah said …’ Tg Isa 14:13–14 TT on Ezek 1:1 ‘and thus he said …’ Tg Isa 60:8 TT on Isa 66:23 ‘in order to fulfil [the Scripture] (, that says …)’ Tg Isa 66:1 TT on Isa 66:1 ‘But now, said the Lord …’ Tg Jer 49:11 TT on 2 Kgs 4:1 ‘and the Lord of the World answered …, and said … Tg Ezek 1:1 TT on Ezek 1:1160 ‘The prophet Ezekiel said …’ Tg Hos 1:2–3 TT on Hos 1:2 ‘and the Lord of the World answered me (and said) … Tg Micah 5:4 TT on Zech 4:2 Tg Zeph 3:5 TT on Zech 2:14

159 See on this Tosefta Targum the Dutch study by A. Houtman, ‘De Targoem van Jesaja 6:1’, in: J.W. Wesselius (ed.), Een handvol koren: Opstellen van enkele vrienden bij het vertrek van Dr. F. Sepmeijer van de Theologische Universiteit Kampen, Kampen 2003, 11–15. She concludes that the Tosefta is based on Targum Jonathan, and expands the official Targum with additions taken from the Babylonian Talmud (b.AZ 5a). 160 This quotation has been discussed extensively by A. Damsma, An Analysis of Targum Ezekiel and its Relationship to the Targumic Toseftot, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University College London 2008, 97–99. 182 chapter three

3.2. Exchangeability of Aramaic and Hebrew quotations As in the more expansive targums on the Writings we often find quotations in the Tosefta Targums that are in Hebrew within Aramaic ones. As an example we may point out the Hebrew citation of Jer 23:19 in the Tosefta Targum of Ezek 1:1.161 In the same passage, one will find an explicit Aramaic quotation of Isa 14:13–14 (with the introductory phrase ‘And thus he said …’), followed by a Hebrew citation of the same verse. The lenghty TT ends with a quotation of the ‘source text’, Ezek 1:1, with several deviations from TJ Ezek 1:1.162 3.3. Relationship to Targum Jonathan It has often been noticed that the Tosefta Targums, which in all likeli- hood are Palestinian in origin,163 were recast in the dialect of Targum Jonathan at a certain time. When we take a closer look at the citations in the Tosefta Targums, we will see that they often correspond to the text of Targum Jonathan, sometimes with minor differences between both texts. But there are also citations that differ from Targum Jonathan, being more expansive or remaining closer to the Hebrew text where Targum Jonathan offers a free interpretation. Let us first look at a few examples of the latter. The Tosefta Targum on 2 Kgs 4:1164 opens with a formula of introduction and then offers a fairly literal translation of the Hebrew text of Jer 49:11 (‘Leave your orphans with me, / I will rear them; / Let your widows rely on me!’): And the Master of the World answered me: ‘Trust on me,’ and he said to me: ‘Leave your orphans with me, and I will establish (them); and your widows, let them rely on me!’ In the Tosefta Targum every single Hebrew word is represented by its Aramaic equivalent, apart from a few modifications. Targum Jonathan, on the other hand, offers a free interpretation of our verse, transforming the image of orphans and widows into the metaphor of the solitary House of Israel: You, O House of Israel, shall not be forsaken. I will establish your orphans and your widows shall trust in my Memra.

.[108–107 :א180ff. [125 ,תוספתות ,See Kasher 161 162 See the discussion of this quotation in Damsma, Analysis of Targum Ezekiel, 97–99. 163 See the description of the common opinion and the evaluation of the evidence below, pp. 239–247. .[94:9] 140 ,תוספתות ,See Kasher 164 targumic quotations 183

We may compare both translations of our verse: עזבה יתמיך אני אחיה ואלמנתיך עלי תבטחו MT Jer 49:11 לשבוק יתמך אנא אקיים וארמלתיך עלי תתרחיץ TT 2 Kgs 4:1165 אתון בית ישראל לא תשתבקון יתמיכון TJ Jer 49:11 אנא אקיים וארמלתכון על מימרי יתרחצן Targum Jonathan opens with an exhortation to the audience, ‘You, O House of Israel’, which resembles similar formulas of admonition in Palestinian sources.166 It transforms the imperative of the Hebrew into a general admonition, adding a negative particle, and changes the singular suffixes into plural ones. It furthermore adds an object (‘your orphans’) to Hebrew ‘I will rear’ (in the Aramaic translations: ‘I will establish’). In this it is more expansive than the Tosefta Targum. The same applies to the following example. Targum Jonathan on Hosea 1:2–3 offers an allegorical interpretation of the command to Hosea to marry a wife of whoredom: )2( The beginning of the word of the Lord with Hosea. The Lord said to Hosea, “Go, speak a prophecy against the inhabitants of the idolatrous city, who continue to sin. For the inhabitants of the land surely go astray from behind the worship of the Lord.” )3( So he went and prophesied concerning them that, if they repented, they would be forgiven; but if not, they would fall as the leaves of a fig tree fall. But they continued to do wicked deeds. The command ‘Go, get yourself a wife of whoredom’ (Hosea 1:2) is here transformed into a new command to deliver a prophecy against an idolatrous city.167 This to avoid the idea that the prophet could receive a divine command to act immorally by marrying a harlot. The translation of Targum Jonathan is only slightly connected with the Hebrew text and freely interprets its source text, offering an allegorical explanation of the text, adding homiletical themes on repentance and for- giveness and making a pun on the name Diblaim, which is associated a cake of pressed figs’.168‘ ,דבילה with Hebrew

שבוק יתמך ואנא איקיימינון :Sperber’s reading (Aramaic Bible, II.277) differs 165 .וארמלתך עלי תתרחץ in PsJon Lev 18:26, 20:22. For אתון כנישתא דישראל Cf. the exhortation formula 166 ,אגדתם של מתרגמנים ,and variants, see Shinan עמי עמי בית ישראל the more common 192–96. 167 See Cathcart & Gordon, Minor Prophets, 29 n. 5; for a similar transformation of a command to perform a symbolic act, see TJ Zech 11:4 (and see Cathcart & Gor- don, 212 n. 16). On the halakhic problems involved, see Smolar & Aberbach, Studies, 43–44, Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 82–83, and see b.Pes 87ab. 168 See Smolar & Aberbach, Studies, 216 n. 557. In b.Pes 87b the name is associated 184 chapter three

The quotation of our text in the TT on Hosea 1:2 on the other hand is closer to the Hebrew text, following the Hebrew word order: (2b) Thus said the Holy One Blessed be He to Hosea, “Go, get yourself a wife of whoredom, and she will bear you children of whoredom.” (3) And he went and married Gomer, daughter of Diblaim. Gomer (is her name), for the whole world runs after her and (they) gratify their lust on her … And she conceived and bore him two sons and a daughter.169 Although there are several additions (‘and she will bear you [children of whoredom],’ ‘two sons and a daughter’170) and transformations, it sticks more closely to the Hebrew text than Targum Jonathan does. It avoids the metaphorical interpretation. Linguistically, however, the Tosefta Targum is in line with the Aramaic of Jonathan.171 The Tosefta Targum likewise has a pun on names, not on Diblaim but on Gomer.172 It is of interest to see that sometimes a citation in one manuscript is more in line with Targum Jonathan than in another. For example, in a TT to Isa 66:23, Isa 60:8 is quoted. In ms Parma 555 the first part of this quotation is literal and differs therein from Targum Jonathan that interprets it as a metaphor. The second part, on the other hand, resembles Targum Jonathan. In ms Urbinati 1, however, the whole citation is more in line with Targum Jonathan. We may compare the different versions: מי אלה כעב תעופינה וכיונים אל ארבתיהם MT Isa 60:8 מן אלין דאתן בגלי כעננין קלילין ולא לאתעכבא גלותא TJ Isa 60:8 דישראל דמתכנשין ואתן לארעהון הא כיונין דתיבן לגו שובכיהון )לקיומי( TT Isa 66:23 מאן אילין דבעננא פרחן הרי במנחתא וכיונין דיתבין לגו ms Parma 555173 שובכיהון הרי בצפרא

,cake of fig’. In the talmudic explanations‘ ,דבילה ill fame’, as well as with‘ ,דבה with however, no comparison is drawn between Diblaim and the fallen leaves of a fig tree. .[15–132:12] 202 ,תוספתות ,Cf. Kasher 169 for the daughter, see Hos ;ילדי זנונים This seems to be derived from the plural 170 1:6. TJ Isa 8:1, TJ Jer 36:2, TJ Ezek 4:1. For Aramaic ,סב לך See for the expression 171 .Cf .(ועברת וילדת see TJ Isa 8:3 (Palestinian Aramaic would read ,ועדיאת וילידת .II.76–77 ,שקיעים ,Goshen-Gottstein אמר רב שהכל) The explanation is the same as the one given by Rav inb.Pes 87ab 172 .(’Cf. Jastrow, Dictionary, 255 (‘all people could gratify their lust on her .(גומרים בה .[36–120:35] 170 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 173 targumic quotations 185

)לקיומי כתבא דאמיר( TT Isa 66:23 מאן אילין בגלאי כעננין קלילין די לא לאיתעכבא הרי בצפרא ms Urbinati 1174 גלותא דישראל דאתאן לארהון הא כיונין דיתובין לגו שובביהון הרי במנחתא Targum Jonathan uses the images of cloud and doves in our verse for a description of the return of the exiles: Who are these that come suddenly like swift clouds, and are not to be checked? The exiles of Israel, who are gathered and come to their land, even like doves which return to the midst of their cotes.175 In the Parma ms of the TT on Isa 66:23 the picture of the returning of the exiles is combined with the idea of the restoration of the cult: And when the clouds of glory come, they carry you in the morning and bring you to the Temple, and you will pray before Me, and after the prayer you will return to your places. And so also in the time of the evening offering, in order to fulfil [the Scripture, that says:] ‘Who are these who fly like a cloud’, that is in the evening. ‘And like doves which return to the midst of their cotes’, that is in the morning. The first part of the quotation is literal and differs from Targum Jonathan. It does not refer directly to the exiles of Israel. The second part, however, is in line with Targum Jonathan. ms Urbinati 1 lacks the words ‘and bring you in the Temple’. The quotation of Isa 60:8 is introduced with the phrase ‘to fulfil the Scripture that says’, whereas ms Parma abbreviates this with ‘to fulfil’. The quotation is here more in line with Targum Jonathan, both versions referring to ‘the exiles of Israel (who) will come to their land’. One further notes that the order of events (morning / evening) differs in the manuscripts: [ms Urbinati 1] … in order to fulfil the Scripture that says: ‘Who are these (that come) suddenly like swift clouds without being checked,’ that is in the morning. ‘The exiles of Israel who come to their land, even like doves which return to the midst of their cotes’.176

174 See P. Grelot, ‘Deux tosephtas targoumiques inédites sur Isaïe LXVI’, RB 19 (1972), 536–37. 175 A similar image is used in TJ Isa 35:6 (‘Then, when they see the exiles of Is- rael who are gathered and going up to their land, even as swift harts, and not to be checked …’). See also PTs on Exod 19:4 (Neof: ‘I have born you on the clouds of the Glory of my Shekhinah upon the wings of swift eagles and brought you nigh to the instruction of my Law’). .which seems to be the result of a writer’s error ,שובביהון The ms here reads 176 From the midrashic explanations of Isa 66:23 in PesR 1, Grelot (‘Deux tosephtas’, 542– 43) concludes that the Urbinati text is based on traditions of Amoraim in the 3rd or 186 chapter three

The differences in the manuscript tradition of the Tosefta Targum may indicate that these targums did not undergo a strong editorial process. Most of the other quotations in the Tosefta Targums are in line with Targum Jonathan, or show minor variations or additions. In some cases, they are built up out of a mixture of several verses. We will give a few examples.

Although quite clearly based on the text of TJ Judg 5:3, the Tosefta Tar- gum to the same verse has several additions and variations. Targum Jonathan gives a free interpretation of the Hebrew text: Hear, O kings! Listen, O rulers! Deborah was saying in prophecy before the Lord, “I am praising, thanking and blessing before the Lord, God of Israel”. The Tosefta Targum expands the text, identifying kings and rulers, and explaining that ‘the subjection of Israel was not due to the strength of the oppressors’:177 Hear, O kings, who came with Sisera for war! Listen, O rulers, who were with Jabin, king of Hazor! Neither by your power nor by your strength did you prevail and come up against the House of Israel. Deborah said in prophecy, “I am sent to praise before the Lord, God of Israel”. The quotation of the last phrase is not exactly the wording of Targum Jonathan, whose text reads: ‘I am praising, thanking and blessing before the Lord, God of Israel.’ Smelik argues that ‘the final phrase of the Tosefta agrees with [TJ Judg] 5:9 rather than 5:3.’178 In our view, however, it is formed as a combination of the two nearly like-worded verses 5:9 (Deborah said in prophecy: ‘I am sent to praise [the scribes of Israel] …’) and 5:3 (Deborah was saying in prophecy … before the Lord, God of Israel’).

In the TT to Zech 2:14 it is said of God: ‘for he cannot act deceitfully, and he does not repent of what he has promised’,179 an expression

4th century, and belongs to the milieu out of which also Pesikta Rabbati originated. It is very difficult, however, to ascertain whether the Tosefta is dependent on Pesikta Rabbati or vice versa, as Grelot admits. 177 As formulated by Smelik, Targum of Judges, 398. 178 Smelik, Targum of Judges, 398. -he cannot act deceit‘ ,לית קדמוהי למעבד שקר) A shorter variant in TJ Zeph 3:5 179 fully’). There is a very close relationship between TJ Zeph 3:5, and TT Zech 2:14, see Gordon, Studies, 96ff. targumic quotations 187 which can be taken as a quotation or verbal echo from 1 Sam 15:29 (‘Moreover, the Glory of Israel does not deceive or change his mind, for he is not human that he should change his mind’). Targum Jonathan gives a free interpretation of 1 Sam 15:29 (because of the abrupt transition from the preceding verse: the fact that the kingdom of Israel is taken away from Saul?),180 which emphasises the theological idea that God’s words are unalterable. God faithfully ful- fils his promises and he does not repent or change his mind, as human beings do:181 And if you say: ‘I will turn from my sins …’ it is already decreed upon you from before the Master of Israel’s victory, before whom there is no deceit, and he does not repent of what he has promised; for he is not like the sons of men who say and act deceitfully, decree and do not carry out. The TT to Zech 2:14 alludes to this formula in what has been called a pastiche or cento of targumic citations.182 There are echoes of various scriptural passages in this Tosefta: Rejoice and give praise, O congregation of Zion, for the Glory of the Lord is revealed, and the world will shine with the splendour of His glory;183 for He has promised to make His Shekhinah dwell in your midst. For He cannot act deceitfully, and He does not repent what He has promised; like the morning light which becomes stronger than everything throughout the whole world, so are His praise, His glory and His justice. When we compare both renderings of 1 Sam 15:29 we see that there to act’ is‘ למעבד are minor variations and that in Targum Jonathan lacking: לא ישקר ולא ינחם MT 1 Sam 15:29 דלית קדמוהי שקר ולא תאיב ממא דאמר TJ 1 Sam 15:29 ולית קדמוהי למעבד שקר ולא תייב מן מא דאמר TT Zech 2:14 We might have here in the Tosefta Targum a free quotation of Targum Jonathan on 1 Sam 15:29. As Robert Gordon has shown, the first part of

180 See Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 333–34. 181 See on this theme in Targum Jonathan, Smolar & Aberbach, Studies, 134; E.B. Levine, The Aramaic Version of the Bible: Contents and Context, Berlin & New York 1988, 54. 182 See Gordon, Studies, 98–107. On the relation between our quotation and Num 23:19, see Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 334. 183 See on this expression, Smelik, ‘Mystical Transformation’, 133ff.; for possible reminiscences of Ezek 43:2, see Gordon, Studies, 99. 188 chapter three this ‘quotation’ is exactly the same as the wording of TJ Zeph 3:5, which in many ways has influenced the rendering of the Tosefta Targum. 184

Fully in line with Targum Jonathan are the quotations of 2 Sam 3:29 in the TTs on 1 Kgs 2:1185 and 2:30.186 Targum Jonathan offers a fairly lit- one slain‘ נפל בחרב eral translation, clarifying the Hebrew expression :’one) who is killed by the sword)‘ ,מתקטיל בחרבא by the sword’ by May the guilt fall upon the head of Joab and upon all his father’s house. May the house of Joab never be without one who is flowing, or one with a skin disease, or one who handles the spindle, and who is killed by the sword, or one lacking bread. The Tosefta Targums are in accord with Targum Jonathan, including מחזיק בפלך the clarification just mentioned. The meaning of Hebrew ‘one who handles the spindle (?)’ is unclear,187 as is the Aramaic render- -a reading which is given support in the Tosefta Tar ,מתקיף באגר ing gums, but which cannot so easily be understood.188 TheArukh (1:22, s.v. one who‘ ומתקיף באגיד gives the reading of Targum Jonathan as (3 אגד seizes a staff’189 which is in line with the reading κρατῶν σκυτάλης of the Greek version, and might contextually indicate crippled people.

At times there are only minor differences between the text quoted and the original. In the TT on Isa 66:1 we find a fairly literal quotation of TJ 1 Kgs 8:27, with some spelling-variants: As it was said by Solomon the king: “For who would imagine and who would consider that the Lord has indeed chosen to make his Shekhinah reside in the midst of the sons of men who dwell upon the earth. Behold the heavens and the heavens of heavens cannot contain Your glory, how much less the House which I have built”.190 The quotation in the Tosefta Targum is introduced by the formula ‘As it was said by Solomon the king’. Compared with the text of Targum

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

Jonathan it shows minor spelling variants.191 A more conspicuous they cannot‘ לא יכלון לסוברא variation is that instead of the expression contain (Your glory)’ in Targum Jonathan, the Tosefta Targum reads ,occurs elsewhere סבר√ and סבל√ Variation between .לא יכלון לסובלא תרג׳ הא שמיא reads (סבר .see Tg 2 Chron 2:5, 6:18. The Arukh (6:12, s.v ,supporting the reading of Targum Jonathan ,ושמי שמיא לא יסוברונך but remaining closer to the wording of the Hebrew text. Of interest is the ‘Palestinian’ quotation of Tg 1 Kgs 8:27 in the parallel text, Tg 2 Chron 6:18, which has several additions: For who would imagine and who would consider that the Lord indeed has chosen to make His Shekhinah reside in the midst of the sons of men who inhabit the earth … For it is impossible for the upper heavens, the middle heavens, and the lower heavens to contain the glory of Your Shekhinah, for You are the God who sustains everything, the heavens and the earth and the depths and everything which is in them — how much less this House which I have built. This targum, which seems to be based on Targum Jonathan,192 explains the Hebrew expression ‘heavens and the heavens of heavens’ as meaning ‘the upper heavens, the middle heavens, and the lower heavens.’ Instead of ‘Your glory’ it reads ‘the glory of Your Shekhinah.’ For the addition ‘for You are the God who sustains everything, the heavens and the earth and the depths and everything which is in them’, one may compare Tg 2 Chron 2:5. In the same TT on Isa 66:1 the base text is quoted twice. First, only Isa 66:1a (‘Thus said the Lord: / The heaven is My throne, / And the earth is My footstool’) is cited, followed by a free comment on the next two lines (‘Where could you build a House for Me, / What place could serve as My abode?’): [a] And he [Isaiah] prophesied to the people of Israel, thus said the Lord: ‘The heaven is the throne of My glory and why do you behave proudly before me in this House that was built for my name? Even the upper and lower (heavens) cannot carry the Shekhinah of my glory’.193 The quotation here of Isa 66:1a is in line with Targum Jonathan’s rendering. In the second part of the Tosefta the base verse is quoted again,

II.157 ‘nothing but a variant of Targum ,שקיעים ,Cf. Goshen-Gottstein 191 Jonathan’. 192 See D.R.G. Beattie & J. Stanley McIvor, The Targum of Ruth / The Targum of Chronicles, Edinburgh 1994, 15–16. .[5–120:3] 169 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 193 190 chapter three this time from the beginning to the end, after having mentioned the story of Isaiah’s death: [b] Until Isaiah was killed, he was admonishing them and said: “Do not think that because of your merits this House was built. It was rather because of the merit of the righteous that the Holy One Blessed be He let his Shekhinah dwell in it.” But now said the Lord: Where could you build a House for My name, what place could serve as the abode of My Shekhinah?194 We may compare both of these citations in the Tosefta Targum with Targum Jonathan’s rendering of our verse: כה אמר יהוה MT Isa 66:1 השמים כסאי והארץ הדם רגלי אי זה בית אשר תבנו לי ואי זה מקום מנוחתי כדנן אמר יוי שמיא כורסי יקרי וארעא כיבש קדמי TJ Isa 66:1 אידין ביתא דתבנון קדמי ואידין אתר בית אשריות שכינתי כדנן ]אמר[ ייי שמיא כורסי יקרי … (TT Isa 66:1 (a וברם השתא אמר ייי שמיא כורסי יקרי וארעא כיבש קדמיי אידין (TT Isa 66:1 (b ביתא דת>יבנון< קדמיי אידין ואידין אתר בית אשריות שכינתי The Tosefta seems to be built on Targum Jonathan. It follows the additions of Targum Jonathan, avoiding to speak of God in anthropomorphic terms and replacing the expressions by more reverential ones as ‘My throne’, ‘My footstool’, and ‘My abode’, by ‘the throne of My glory’, ‘a stepping stool195 before Me’, and ‘the abode of My Shekhinah’. At one ,’now‘ , כדנןpoint, however, it differs from Targum Jonathan. Instead of .’but now‘ ,וברם השתא it opens with

A third quotation in the TT on Isa 66:1 is that of 2 Kgs 21:16. Here the Tosefta closely follows the text of Targum Jonathan:196 And the blood of Isaiah the prophet was spread, as was written: ‘Moreover, Manasseh shed so much innocent blood that he filled Jerusalem from end to end197 — besides the sin he committed in causing those of the House of Judah to do what was displeasing before the Lord’.198

.[18–120:15] 170 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 194 195 B.D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum, Edinburgh 1987, 126, translates ‘a highway before me’, instead of ‘stepping stool’; but see Jastrow, Dictionary, 611. .II.22–23 ,שקיעים ,See Goshen-Gottstein 196 .from end to end’, see TJ 2 Kgs 10:21‘ ספא בספא For the expression 197 For the traditions on the martyrdom and .[14–120:12] 170 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 198 death of Isaiah, see A. Houtman, ‘The Targumic Versions of the Martyrdom of Isaiah’, in: M.F.J. Baasten & R. Munk (eds), Studies in Hebrew Language and Jewish targumic quotations 191

As we have seen so far, the Tosefta Targums sometimes remain close to the Hebrew text where Targum Jonathan offers a free interpretation of the same text. At other times, however, the TT is strongly paraphrastic in contrast with the rendering of Targum Jonathan. In Isa 14:14 we read: ‘I will mount the back of a cloud — / I will match the Most High.’ as ‘above ,על במתי עבTargum Jonathan interprets the difficult Hebrew as ‘I will be higher than אדמה לעליון all the people’, and the following them all’: I will ascend above all the people, / I will be higher than them all -higher’, and He‘ ,עלאי Perhaps wordplay is involved between Aramaic Most High’.199 The TT on Ezek 1:1200 seems to presuppose‘ ,עליון brew Targum Jonathan, but offers a free interpretation of the verse describing the arrogance of the king of Babylon: And thus he said: ‘I will ascend to the highest of heavens, and I will destroy the highest beings, and I will wage war with the highest angels [lit.: holy ones], and consider the seat of my kingdom as higher than the seats on high, for thus it is written therein [in Scripture]: I will mount the back of a cloud, I will match the Most High’.201

3.4. Summary 1. We have discussed above 15 quotations from the Prophets in the so-called Tosefta Targums. Citations in them are taken from the biblical books Judges (1), Samuel (3), Kings (3), Isaiah (4), Jeremiah (1), Hosea (1), Micah (1) and Zephaniah (1). As we saw, some of the Toseftas are made up of several quotations (three for example in the TT on Isaiah 66:1). 2. Viewed linguistically, the quotations, being part of the Toseftas, are recast in the dialect of Targum Jonathan, showing a few traces only of their presupposed Palestinian origin. With regard to their translation techniques and their contents, some of these Tosefta quotations differ from Targum Jonathan. As we have seen, the quotation of Jer 49:11 in the Tosefta Targum (on 2 Kgs 4:1) is a far more literal

Culture, Dordrecht 2007, 189–201. See also TT 2 Kgs 24:4. Cf. b.Yev 49b, y.Sanh 10:2 (28c), Tosafot on b.Taan 26b. According to y.Taan 4:5 (68d) on the seventeenth of Tammuz an idol was set up in the Temple by Manasseh. See m.Taan 4:6, b.Sanh 103b, 109b. 199 See Chilton, Isaiah Targum, 32n. .[183 ,181 ,98–97 ,22–15 (א)180ff [125 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 200 .[17–15] 181 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 201 192 chapter three

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

4. Quotations from the Prophets in magical texts Much work has been done in recent years in the field of incantation texts on magical bowls or amulets.203 These texts contain many biblical quotations, which are mostly in Hebrew but sometimes also in Aramaic.204 Only a few Aramaic quotations from the Prophets have

202 As has been suggested already by P. Churgin (Targum Jonathan, 42), the official Targums may have been subjected to later revisions and additions. 203 For a recent survey see Levene, Corpus of Magic Bowls. 204 In studying these magical texts we have to be aware that often liturgical formulas are used that are based on prophetic texts. On this problem, which is a field in itself, see Levene, Corpus of Magic Bowls, 11–14. A study of these liturgical formulas would exceed the limits of our study. targumic quotations 193 been published so far. One of them is a quotation of Isa 40:12 on an amulet among the incantation texts from the Cairo Genizah (Amulet 15, Israel Museum, No. 69.3.146).205 Elsewhere this verse (‘Who measured the waters with the hollow of His hand?’) is quoted in Hebrew on two incantation bowls, one in the Jewish National and University Li- brary (Heb. 4º 6079), which quotes only part of our verse, and another in the Metropolitan Museum in New York (No 86.1.259), citing the whole verse.206 The Aramaic quotation on the Cairo Genizah amulet which is of unknown provenance, adjusts the verse grammatically to the form of an oath: He said to them: (I) swear to you in (the name) of He ‘who has measured the water in the hollow of His hand’ (Isa 40:12), that wherever … Although the text transforms the syntax of the Hebrew sentence and adapts the verbal forms it remains much closer to the Hebrew than Targum Jonathan on our verse does: Who says these things? One who lives, speaks and acts, before whom all the waters of the world are reckoned as the drop in the hollow of a hand. remains (מדד) Apart from several additions, part of the Hebrew verse untranslated in Targum Jonathan, as is the suffix in ‘(in the hollow of) His hand’. Evidently, the quotation of the text on the amulet, although it is a fragmentary one, gives an Aramaic translation of the Isaiah verse which diverges from the official Targum Jonathan.207 Well-known since its first publication in1973 by Stephen A. Kaufman is the inscription on a magic bowl from Nippur.208 The text on the bowl consists of a series of biblical quotations, which is quite unusual on magical bowls.209 First the Hebrew text of Ezek 21:22–23 and of Jer 2:2 is cited. The text closely agrees with the Masoretic text, apart from some plene-spellings. This is followed by the Aramaic rendering of Jer 2:2, which in translation reads:

205 Naveh & Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls, 104–105. For the magic story in which this quotation occurs, see 25, 111–122. 206 Cf. Naveh & Shaked, Amulets, 190–91. 207 As concluded already by Naveh & Shaked, Amulets, 110: ‘We have here a version of Is. 40:12 which is close to the Peshitta. The Targum to this verse diverges from the Hebrew text.’ 208 See Kaufman, ‘Magic Bowl’, 170–75. 209 See the discussion on 171–72, and the conclusion (172): ‘Thus the evidence strongly favors the conclusion that this is indeed a “magic bowl”, and that its inscription is an incantation’. 194 chapter three

Go, Jeremiah the prophet, and prophesy before the people of Jerusalem, saying: Thus said theLord : I accounted to your favour the good things of the days of old, the love of your fathers who believed in My Memra and followed My two messengers, Moses and Aaron, in the wilderness forty years without provisions in a land not sown. This targum is in line with Targum Jonathan, apart from the addition of the prophet’s name and epitheton (‘Go, Jeremiah the prophet’) and The 210.(ואתנבי) to the imperative (ותתנבי) the change of the imperfect -There are a few varia .יוי instead of יהוה spelling of the divine name is ,עמא דירושלים and ,טבוות where Targum Jonathan reads ,מן טבות :tions לא instead of דלא מזדרעא ,עמא דבירושלם where Targum Jonathan reads ,The Aramaic text in turn is followed by the Hebrew of Jer 2:3 .מזדרא and of either Jer 2:1 or Ezek 21:23, and ends with the Targum of one of these verses. The magic bowl dates from 350–500 ce, and from the use of the targumic passages the editor, Stephen Kaufman, concludes: ‘… that Targum Jonathan to the Prophets was already considered to be an ancient, authoritative and sacred document (in Babylonia, at least) by the time of the composition of this incantation …’.211 On the basis of other bowls from Nippur, Christa Müller-Kessler arrives at similar conclusions for Targum Onkelos.212 With regard to both Targums, she sharpens Kaufman’s conclusion and states: ‘Both Targums are either translated before the destruction of the town of Nehardea [that is 259 C.E.] or shortly after in the newly founded Jewish Academies in Sura and Pumbeditha.’213

5. Quotations from the Prophets in the Babylonian Talmud 5.1. Survey of quotations As we have seen in the above, quotations in the Babylonian Talmud make use of formulas that indicate that the Targum is an authoritative

210 See Kaufman, ‘Magic Bowl’, 173. 211 Kaufman, ‘Magic Bowl’, 173. 212 See the examples given of (a) a bowl found at Nippur with a biblical quotation (Exod 15:12) followed by its Aramaic translation, using the wording of Targum Onkelos but with minor spelling variations, and (b) a bowl with quotations from Exod 15:9–12 followed by Aramaic translations, in C. Müller-Kessler, ‘The Earliest Evidence for Targum Onqelos from Babylonia and the Question of its Dialect and Origin’, JAB 3 (2001), 181–98, at 193–95. See also her recent study Die Zauberschale- texte in der Hilprecht-Sammlung, Jena und weitere Nippur-Texte anderen Sammlun- gen, Wiesbaden 2005, 194–96. 213 See Müller-Kessler, Die Zauberschale-Texte, 184. targumic quotations 195 source for the interpretation of a biblical verse, or for the explanation of a mishnah. The formulas often refer to Rabbi Joseph bar iyya, to whom the final redaction of Targum Jonathan is ascribed by some scholars.214 Rabbi Joseph, who died in 333 ce, was head of the school of Pumbeditha. According to traditional sources he possessed a deep knowledge of both the Written and Oral Torah, and therefore was nicknamed ‘Sinai’.215 Most of the quotations from Targum Jonathan in the Babylonian Talmud are ascribed to him with the following formulas: ’as Rav Joseph translates‘ כדמתרגם רב יוסף (a) TJ 2 Kgs 2:12 b.MQ 26a TJ Isa 5:17 b.Pes 68a TJ Isa 19:18 b.Men 110a TJ Isa 33:21 b.Yoma 77b TJ Isa 41:16 b.AZ 44a TJ Jer 46:20 b.Yoma 32b TJ Hosea 4:2 b.Qid 13a TJ Amos 7:14 b.Ned 38a TJ Obad 6 b.BQ 3b TJ Zeph 3:18 b.Ber 28a TJ Zech 9:6 b.Qid 72b Rav‘ אמר רב יוסף אלמלא תרגומא דהאי קרא לא הוה ידענא מאי קאמר (b) Joseph said, Were it not for the Targum of this verse, we should not know what it means’. TJ Isa 8:6 b.Sanh 94b TJ Zech 12:11 b.MQ 28b b.Meg 3a For the sake of completeness, we may include the following formula:

214 See W. Bacher, Die Agada der babylonischen Amoräer, Frankfurt am Main, 1913; repr. Hildesheim, 1967, 101–07; Ergänzungen, 11; Die Agada der palästinischen Amoräer, 3 Vols, Strassburg 1892–99, repr. Hildesheim 1965, III.298–302 (‘Von Huna tradierte Aussprüche Josephs’). 215 Cf. Bacher, Agada der babylonischen Amoräer, 102: ‘weil er eine umfassende Kenntniss der gesammten überlieferten Lehre, die am Berge der Offenbarung ihren Ursprung hat, besass, und mit seinem Wissen gleichsam den Inbegriff der ganzen יוסף בר חייא מכוליה :(Tradition darstellte’. Of rabbi Joseph it is also said (b.ul 18b Joseph bar iyya learns from the whole world’; see on the meaning of this‘ ,עלמא גמיר expression, W. Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, Leipzig 1899, 1905, repr. Darmstadt 1965, II.29. 196 chapter three

’Rav Joseph learnt‘ תני רב יוסף (c) Tg Jer 52:16 b.Shab 26a Tg Ezek 9:6 b.AZ 4a These, however, although being understood as such, are not quotations of targumic passages, but Aramaic explanations that Rav Joseph gave of difficult Hebrew expressions, without any reference to the official Targum.

In addition to the formulas that are connected with the exegetical activity of Rav Joseph, the following introductory phrases are found in the Babylonian Talmud: ’and we translate‘ ומתרגמינן (d) TJ 2 Sam 5:21 b.RhS 22b TJ Isa 41:16 b.AZ 44a TJ Isa 62:5 b.MQ 2a ’Rav Huna said‘ אמר רב הונא (e) TJ Isa 10:32 b.Sanh 95a

5.2. Relationship to Targum Jonathan It is hardly surprising that generally the quotations in the Babylonian Talmud are in line with Targum Jonathan, apart from orthographic and spelling variants, and a few additions. There are, however, a few exceptions: one quotation that is completely different and another that is partly in line with Targum Jonathan but contains extra material. We will start with these exceptions. In b.Ber 28a a quotation of Zeph 3:18 is found, introduced by the formula ‘As Rav Joseph translates’. As we shall see it differs completely from Targum Jonathan on our verse. The Hebrew text of Zeph 3:18 is notoriously difficult to understand. It could possibly be translated as follows: Those disconsolate (being far) from a festal day, / I shall take away your (cries of) woe / and you will no longer endure reproach216

216 For a text-critical analysis of the text, with full use of the ancient translations and medieval commentaries, see D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, Fribourg & Göttingen, 4 Vols, 1982–2005, III.915–920 (1992). The proposed translation there is: ‘Je rassemblerai ceux qui gémissent privés de toute fête. Ils avai- ent été séparés de toi — opprobre qui pesait sur elle (Jérusalem)’. targumic quotations 197

Targum Jonathan gives a free paraphrase of the text: Those who were delaying among you the times of your festivals I have removed from your midst. Woe to them, for they were taking up their arms against you and were reviling you is rendered ‘those who ,נוגי ממועד It is difficult to explain why Hebrew were delaying among you the times of your festivals’. We are not con- -deriv ,נוגים מועד vinced that it might have been based on the reading II (‘thrust away’), as has יגה ing the first verbal form from Hebrew been suggested by Robert Gordon.217 It seems more plausible that the ,נגה√ with the Aramaic נוגי meturgemanim connected the Hebrew which has the meaning ‘to become late’, afel ‘to prolong’.218 Undoubt- edly, the interpretation is connected with the return of the exiles, whereas in b.Ber 28a the verse is used to reproach those who want to delay the reading of the afternoon prayer: Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: If one says the musaf tefillah after seven hours, then according to Rabbi Judah the Scripture says of him [Hebrew quotation]: ‘I will gather them that are destroyed because of the festival, who belong to you …’. How do you know that the word nuge here implies destruction? As Rav Joseph translates: ‘Destruction comes upon (destruction upon)219 the enemies of the House of Israel, because they delayed the times of the festivals in Jerusalem.’ Rabbi Eleazar said: If one says the morning tefillah after four hours, then according to Rabbi Judah the Scripture says of him: ‘I will gather them that sorrow because of the festival, who belong to you …’. How do we know that the word nuge is a term of sorrow? Because it is written: ‘My soul melts away for sorrow [tuga]’ (Ps 119:28). Rabbi Naman b. Isaac said: We learn it from here: ‘Her virgins are afflicted [nugot] and she herself is in bitterness’ (Lam 1:4). As Gordon and Cathcart remark, the Aramaic quotation here substantially deviates from the standard text.220 There are, however, certain points of correspondence between the rendering of Targum Jonathan and the quotation in b.Ber 28a: (1) the notion of ‘delay’ (although the verbs used differ), (2) the expression ‘the times of the / your festival’. It is

217 See Gordon, Studies, 50 n. 42; and see Cathcart-Gordon, Minor Prophets, 174 n. 42. 218 See Sokoloff, JBA, 728–29. ,תברא על תברא but ms Münich has the reading , תבראThe standard edition reads 219 which is also the reading attested by Sekhel Tov on Gen 42:38. Cf. Goshen-Gottstein, see Sokoloff, JBA, 1192–93 תברא II.85 and see TJ Jer 4:20. For the meaning of ,שקיעים (‘calamity’). 220 See Cathcart-Gordon, Minor Prophets, 15. 198 chapter three

-calam‘ ,תברא not easily explained why the quotation uses the Aramaic but in the Targum of Lamentations ,נוגי ity’, ‘destruction’, for Hebrew ,hifil and possibly piel ,יגה√ is a standard translation for Hebrew תבר√ ‘to make suffer’, ‘to inflict’.221 From the continuation of the discussion in b.Ber 28a it appears that different explanations existed of the obscure The interpretation of Rabbi Eleazar (in the .נוגי )ממועד( expression as ‘those inflicted’, referring to נוגי name of Rabbi Judah) of the word Ps 119:28 and Lam 1:4, seems to have a more solid philological basis, and is defended by medieval exegetes and modern text critical analysis.222 In our opinion, the quotation which is handed down by Rabbi Joshua ben Levi is not so much a misquotation,223 but based on an Aramaic version which strongly deviates from the standard version, -first interpreted as ‘ca ,נוגי offering a double translation of the word lamity’, ‘destruction’, and secondly as ‘delay’, ‘prolongation’. It is difficult to decide, but this version might have been a more ancient one than the official translation, in which the double translation has been dissolved. That the talmudic variant is the older one is also argued by Gordon, who derives this from the fact that in the standard version external enemies are in view (those who were ‘taking up their arms against you’) whereas the talmudic variant refers to an internal dispute on cultic observance. In his view the talmudic tradition may go back to the early third century, that is to a time prior to the standard- ising of the targumic text.224 Another example of a quotation in the Babylonian Talmud that differs from the official Targum Jonathan, is the quotation of Zech 9:6 in b.Qid 72b. The Hebrew text reads in translation: And a mongrel people225 shall settle in Ashdod. I will uproot the grandeur of Philistia. -in the Hebrew text as re ממזר Modern exegesis interprets the word ferring to a mixed population in Ashdod of Jews and non-Jews.226 In

ארום אלהין ברישא) 3:32 ,(יי דיתבר יתי) 1:12 ,(ארום יי תבר יתה) See Tg Lam 1:5 221 For the (Western) text, according .(בגין כן גרם לאסתקפא תברא בבני אנשא) 3:33 ,(יתבר to Codex Vat. Urbinas Hebr. 1, see C.M.M. Brady, The Rabbinic Targum of Lamenta- tions, Leiden & Boston 2003, 147–54. 222 See Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, III.919–20. 223 Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 148 (376). 224 Gordon, Studies, 50–52. .’bastard‘ ממזר .Hebr 225 226 See e.g. Th. Chary,Aggée-Zacharie Malachie, Paris 1969, 159–60. Cf. Neh 13:23–24. targumic quotations 199

those of) a)‘ מעם זר Targum Jonathan it seems to be interpreted as foreign people’,227 and applied to the House of Israel that will dwell in future times in a Philistine city: And the House of Israel shall dwell in Ashdod where they were as foreigners, and I will put an end to the grandeur of Philistia. The verse is quoted in b.Qid 72b, as well as in the Arukh. The Talmud refers to a discussion between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose on the question of whether the mamzer will be pure in the future world or not.228 Rabbi Meir argues that they will not become pure, whereas Rabbi Yose is convinced of the opposite. As for R. Meir, it is well: hence it is written ‘and the bastard shall dwell in Ashdod.’229 But according to R. Yose, why ‘and the bastard shall dwell in Ashdod?’ — as Rav Joseph translates [the verse]: ‘The House of Israel shall dwell in security in their land, where they were [formerly] as strangers.’230 We may compare the different versions: וישב ממזר באשדוד והכרתי גאון פלשתים MT Zech 9:6 ויתבון בית ישראל באשדוד דהוו בה כנוכראיןTJ Zech 9:6 231 ואבטיל רבות פלשתאי יתבון בית ישראל לרוחצן בארעהון דהוו דמו בה b.Qid 72b לנוכראין דיתבון בני ישראל לרוחצן בארעהון דהוון דמיין (5:162) ממזר .Arukh, s.v בה לנוכראין The quotation in the Talmud is only partly in line with Targum Jonathan,232 and it contains extra material, for in substitution for He- -shall settle in Ashdod’, it reads: ‘shall dwell in se‘ וישב באשדוד brew curity in their land’. The quotation in the Arukh of Elias Levita is substantially the same as the talmudic quotation, with minor variations.

227 Cf. A. Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bible in Ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums, Frankfurt am Main 19282, 52. 228 See on this debate also y.Qid 3:15 (65a). 229 According to Rabbi Meir the verse means that the mamzerim will live apart from the other Jews and will remain impure. 230 In Rabbi Yose’s view the bastard refers to the Israelites who once lived as strangers in Ashdod. According to Joshua 13:1–3, Ashdod was seen as part of Israel, but it was not yet conquered, so the Israelites were as strangers there. .דלית להון אבא :Antwerp Polyglot Bible, 1569/73 adds 231 232 Pace Cathcart & Gordon, Minor Prophets, 15, 204 n. 10 (‘Substantially the same Tg. is given in b. Qidd. 72b, the Aruch (sub mmzr), and by Menachem ben Salomo’). 200 chapter three

Assuming that the quotation which is put in the mouth of Rabbi Yose (ben alafta) is dependent on the targum text, we might suppose that it reflects a variant reading of the text, or a rendering by heart, which is based on the common interpretation of the verse, taking Ashdod as referring to the city which according to what is written in Josh 15:46–47 was once part of the land of Israel but where the Israelites still lived as strangers.

The remaining quotations in the Babylonian Talmud are (nearly) identical with Targum Jonathan, or show minor variants. We will discuss some of these quotations.

The Hebrew text of Isa 5:17 is notoriously difficult to explain. A possible translation of it could be: Then lambs shall graze as in their meadows, and strangers shall eat (on the?) wasted places (ruins?) of the fat ones. In Targum Jonathan the lambs represent the righteous and the fat ones or fatlings symbolise the wicked.233 The theme of the righteous who will possess the wealth of the wicked is a popular one in the Isaiah Targum.234 Offering a symbolic and rather free interpretation of our passage, Targum Jonathan renders it as follows: Then shall the righteous be nurtured (and increase)235 as was said concerning them,236 and the righteous shall possess the possessions of the wicked. In b.Pes 68a a quotation is found of Isa 5:17 together with its Aramaic translation, as textual evidence in a halakhic discussion on the mishnaic rules connected with the preparation of the lamb for the Passover of its (מיחוי) offering (cf. m.Pes 6:1), and the meaning of the cleansing bowels: Rabbi (Eliezer) said: What is iyya bar Rab’s reason? Because it is written ‘and strangers shall eat the (on the?) wasted places (ruins?) of the fat ones.’ How does this imply it? As Rav Joseph translated: and the righteous shall possess the possessions of the wicked.

?(blotted out’ (see Jastrow, Dictionary, 758‘ מחוי with מחים Connecting Hebrew 233 .Tel Aviv 1973, 385 ,המקרא באור התרגום ,See on the symbolism, Y. Komlosh 234 Cf. TJ Isa 30:23. See on this theme Smolar & Aberbach, Studies, 173. ,See Sperber, Bible in Aramaic .ויסגון :Many mss and several editions add 235 III.11. .385 ,המקרא ,see Komlosh ,כדברם For this interpretation of Hebrew 236 targumic quotations 201

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

Use of the proleptic pronominal suffix in the Talmud text to express the genitive form in the quotation seems more idiomatic. It may reflect the custom of the memorised quotation or testify to the instability of the Jonathan text, which presumably underwent a long editorial process.

It may perhaps be due to the fact that Isa 10:32 is one of the festal readings for the seventh day of Passover,238 that it evoked long aggadic explanations in both Targum Jonathan and the Babylonian Talmud. The Hebrew text reads in translation: This same day at Nob / He shall stand and wave his hands. / O mount of Fair Zion! / O hill of Jerusalem! In Targum Jonathan the scriptural verse here is transformed into a long story about the attack of king Sennacherib of Assyria against Jerusalem:239 While the day was still young and he had much time to enter, behold Sennacherib the king of Assyria came and stood at Nob, the city of the priests,240 opposite the wall of Jerusalem. He answered and said to his forces, ‘Is not this Jerusalem, against which I stirred up all my armies? Behold it is fainter than all the fortresses of the peoples which I have suppressed with the strength of my hands.’ He stood over it shaking his head, waving back and forth with his hand against the Mount of the Sanctuary which is in Zion, and against the courts which are in Jerusalem.

237 Chilton, Isaiah Targum, XXVIII. 238 C. Perrot, ‘The Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 147. 239 Whether this long aggadic explanation is an uncharacteristic addition to TJ Isaiah, as Chilton states (Isaiah Targum, 26 n.), is difficult to decide. According to Smolar & Aberbach (Studies, 76–77) the story alludes to the march upon Jerusalem of the Roman emperor Titus in the year 70 ce. 240 The city is called this in 1 Sam 22:19. It is told in 1 Sam 22 that 85 priests were killed in Nob by Doeg the Edomite by order of king David. 202 chapter three

The same story is told, with other details, in b.Sanh 95a, and in a far more expansive form in Codex Reuchlin. We may compare the text of Isa 10:32 in these three different texts: Targum Jonathan הלא דא היא ירושלם די עלה ארגישית כל משריתי ועלה כבישית כל מדינתי הא היא חלשא מכל כרכי עממיא דכבישית בתקוף ידי עלה קם מניד ברישיה מוביל ומיתי בידיה על טור בית מקדשא דבציון ועל עזרתא דבירושלם b.Sanh 95a241 הלא דא היא קרתא דירושלם דעלה ארגשית כל משריתי ועלה כבשית כל מדינתא? הלא היא זעירא וחלשא מכל כרכי עממיא דכבשית בתקוף ידי עלה וקם ומניד ברישיה מוביל ומייתי בידיה על טור בית מקדשא דבציון ועל עזרתא דבירושלם Codex Reuchlin הלא דא היא קרתא דירושלם דעלה ארגישית כל משרייתי ועלה כבישית כל מדינתי הא היא זעירא והא היא חלשא מן כל כרכי עממיא דכבשית בתקוף ידיי עלה תוה וקם תוה מניד ברישיה ומוביל ומייתי בידיה על טור בית מקדשא דציון ועל עזרתא דבירושלם The quotation in b.Sanh 95a is mostly in line with Targum Jonathan, -and orthographic varia (הלא היא זעירא ,קרתא) but has a few additions tions. The Reuchlin-text seems to be based largely on the Talmud text, for it has the same additions and variations.242 Minor variations are also visible in the quotation of Isa 19:18 in b.Men 110a. The Hebrew text speaks of the ‘Town of Heres’ or ‘Town of Destruction’: In that day, there shall be five towns in the land of Egypt speaking the language of Canaan and swearing loyalty to the Lord of Hosts; one shall be called Town of Heres. In the Isaiah manuscript of the Dead Sea scrolls and in several other City of the‘ ,עיר החרס but עיר ההרס manuscripts, the text does not read Sun’. This reading is also found in the Vulgate (civitas solis)243 and in the Targum, identifying it with the Egyptian city Heliopolis: In that time, there shall be five towns in the land of Egypt speaking the speech of the Canaanite and swearing (loyalty) by the name of the Lord

241 See also SER 8 (edn Friedmann, 45). 242 For a thorough treatment of the text see P. Grelot, ‘Le Targoum d’Isaïe, X, 32–34 dans ses diverses recensions’, RB 90 (1983), 202–28. 243 For the reading of the Septuagint, Πόλις–ασεδεκ, ‘city of righteousness’, see I.L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems, Lei- den 1948, 68. targumic quotations 203

of Hosts; of one city, Beth Shemesh [‘House of the Sun’], which is about to be devastated, it shall be said, This is one of them. In fact there is in Targum Jonathan a double interpretation of the word which on the one hand is explained as ‘(house of the) sun’, on the ,חרס other as ‘destruction’ (‘which is about to be devastated’). A similar interpretation of our text is given in b.Men 110a. To underline the given exegesis, the targum is quoted with the introductory formula ‘As Rav Joseph renders it in Aramaic’: One shall be called the city of Heres — What is meant by the city of Heres? — As R. Joseph rendered it in Aramaic: The city of Beth Shemesh [‘House of the Sun’],244 which is about to be devastated, will be said to be one of them. But whence do we know that the city of Heres signifies ’not to shine [חרס] the sun? For it is written, ‘who commands the sun (Job 9:7). A comparison of the quotation in the Talmud and Targum Jonathan shows that there are a few grammar and spelling variations: קרתא בית שמש דעתידא למחרב יתאמר היא חדא מנהון TJ Isa 19:18 קרתא דבית שמש דעתיד למיחרב איתאמר דהיא חדא מנהון b.Men 110a A similar case concerns the quotation of Isa 33:21 (‘For there the Lord in His greatness shall be for us / Like a region of rivers, of broad streams, / Where no floating vessel can sail / And no mighty craft can travel’) in b.Yoma 77b. Both in Targum Jonathan and in b.Yoma 77b -mighty craft’, is explained as ‘a Libur‘ ,צי אדיר the Hebrew expression nian ship’. Targum Jonathan reads: But from there the might of the Lord will be revealed to do good for us / From a region of rivers, going forth, overflowing, broad (streams), / Where no fishermen’s ship can sail / Nor any Liburnian ship245 can pass through. In b.Yoma 77b only part of Isa 33:21 is quoted: One might have assumed that one may cross it in a big Liburnian ship, therefore Scripture says: Neither shall gallant ship pass thereby. How does that follow from the text? — As R. Joseph interprets it: No fishermen’s ship can sail, nor any Liburnian ship can pass through.246

244 Cf. Jer 43:13 ‘He shall smash the obelisks of the Temple of the Sun (Beth Shemesh) which is in the land of Egypt …’. .see Jastrow, Dictionary, 150 (‘Liburnian (ship)’). Cf ,בורני רבתא For Aramaic 245 PsJon Deut 28:68, Num 24:24, TJ Ezek 30:9. See also Krauss, Lehnwörter, II.302. .(ליברנין גדולה) (y.Sheq 6:2 (50a ,(בורני גדולה) See also b.RhS 23a 246 204 chapter three

As in the example above there are minor variations between the quotation in the Talmud text and Targum Jonathan: דלא תיזיל ביה ספינת ציידין ובורני רבתא לא תגוזיניה TJ Isa 33:21 לא תזיל ביה בספינת ציידין ובורני רבתי לא תזוגינה b.Yoma 77b In b.RhS 22b a literal translation of a few words from 2 Sam 5:21 (‘The Philistines abandoned their idols there, and David and his men took them’) is given: How do we know that the word massi’in [in the Mishnah] connotes ‘burning’? — Because it is written in the Scripture, ‘wayisa’em David and his men’ and we translate ‘and David burnt them’. The targum is quoted here as an authoritative source for the explanation of a mishnah. The quotation is a literal one, although there are minor spelling variants. The translation in Targum Jonathan of Hebrew ‘and David and his men took them’, by ‘and David and his men burnt them’ may be the result of harmonising two contradictory verses, for in 1 Chron 14:12 it is stated of the idols that were abandoned: ‘and David ordered these to be burned’. Elsewhere in the Talmud, in a discussion between Rabbi Yose and the Rabbis (b.AZ 44a),247 another -is given by Rabbi Yose, namely ‘to scatter’, refer וישאם explanation of ring to the targum of Isa 41:16. But Rabbi Yose’s interpretation is con- tradicted there by the other Rabbis who are of the opinion that the verb must be taken in its literal sense. The quotation inb.RhS 22b is fully in line with Targum Jonathan, although there are some spelling variants: whereas Targum Jonathan has ,ואוקדינן דוד the Talmud text reads .ואוקידנון דויד )וגברוהי( .is given in b.AZ 44a וישאם As said before, another explanation of There the Targum of Isa 41:16 is quoted as evidence: … It is an expression for scattering,248 as R. Joseph translated the word in the passage, You shall winnow them and the wind shall carry them off, and we translate it ‘You shall winnow them and a wind will disperse them!’ There are a few differences between the quotation and its source text: תדרינון ורוחא תטילנון TJ Isa 41:16 ומתרגמינן תזרינון ורוח תטלטלינון b.AZ 44a

247 See also t.AZ 3:19 (edn Zuckermandel, 465). ספר ,but see the variant readings in R. Rabbinovicz ,לישנא דזרוייThe text reads 248 .(לישנה דדרויי) Munich 1867/68 ad locum n. 7; cf. Sokoloff, JBA, 351 ,דקדוקי סופרים targumic quotations 205

in the Bavli text is somewhat suspicious, the better תזרינון The reading which is in line with the reading of Targum 249,תדרינון reading being is based on a palpel form of the verb תטלטלינון Jonathan. The reading whereas Targum Jonathan chooses a pael form.250 ,טול

In the biblical story of Elijah’s ascent to heaven in a whirlwind it is told that his personal pupil Elisha, on seeing his master ascending to heaven, exclaimed: ‘Oh, father, father! Israel’s chariot and horsemen!’ (2 Kgs 2:12). In the targum of our verse, the word ‘father’ is interpreted as ‘rabbi’, ‘teacher’, as is done elsewhere in rabbinic literature:251 Elisha saw it, and he cried out, ‘My master, my master, who was (a) better (protection) for her, for Israel, by his prayer than chariots and horsemen.’ When he could no longer see him, he grasped his garments and rent them in two (pieces). In b.MQ 26a this targum is quoted as a further explanation of the mishnaic rule on the rending of clothes of those who are closely related to the dead: Whence derive we (these rulings)? — From what is written: ‘Elisha saw it, and he cried out, My father, my father! Israel’s chariots and horsemen!’ ‘My father, my father’, that is, (to rend on the loss of) one’s father or mother. ‘The chariots of Israel and horsemen’, that is (for) a Master who taught one Torah. How exactly does it convey this (meaning)? — As R. Joseph rendered it (in Aramaic): ‘My master, my master, who was (a) better (protection) for them, for Israel, with his prayer than chariots and horsemen’. When comparing both Aramaic texts we discover some variants: רבי רבי דטב ליה לישראל בצלותיה מרתכין ומפרשין TJ 2 Kgs 2:12 רבי רבי דטב להון לישראל בצלותיה מרתכין ופרשין b.MQ 26a The quotation is fairly literal, but there are minor differences: theBavli taking ‘Israel’ as a collective noun, and ,ליה instead of להון text reads פרשין does not repeat the apocopate form of the preposition, reading .מפרשין instead of

249 See Sokoloff, JBA, 351. 250 Jastrow, Dictionary, 536, 523. b.Mak 24a ;(אבי אבי רבי רבי אבי שגדלני רבי שלמדני תורה) Cf. SifreDeut 305, 327 251 -b.Ket 103b. See also Akiba’s exclamation at the death of Rabbi Eliez ,(רבי רבי מרי מרי) er in Evel Rabbati 9:2; cf. Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 188–89 n. 13; P. Kuhn, Gottes Trauer und Klage in der Rabbinischen Überlieferung (Talmud und Midrasch), Lei- den 1978, 108ff.; Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 278–79 (on 1 Sam 10:8–12). 206 chapter three

A much discussed scriptural verse is Zech 12:11 (‘In that day, the mourning in Jerusalem shall be as great as the mourning at Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddon’). The targum of the verse is quoted both in b.Meg 3a and b.MQ 28b. Targum Jonathan connects the mourning at Hadad-rimmon first with the mourning for Ahab who died in a battle with the king of Aram,252 identified with Ben-hadad, son of Tabrimmon.253 In the fact that ‘the plain of Megiddo(n)’ only occurs in Zech 12:1 and in 2 Chron 35:22 the targum finds reason to introduce here a mourning for Josiah son of Amon, who died in a fight with the Egyptian king Neco and for whom there were rites of mourning and lamenting in Jerusalem:254 In that time, the mourning in Jerusalem shall be as great as the mourning for Ahab son of Omri whom Hadad-rimmon son of Tabrimmon killed, and as the mourning for Josiah son of Amon whom Pharaoh the Lame killed in the plain of Megiddon. This targum is quoted in b.Meg 3a with orthographic variants and some changes and the addition of ‘in Ramoth-gilead’: The meaning of the Torah is expressed clearly, but in the Prophets some things are expressed clearly, but others enigmatically.255 [For instance] it is written: ‘In that day, the mourning in Jerusalem shall be as great as the mourning at Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddon.’ And R. Joseph said: Were it not for the targum of this verse, we should not know what it means. [It runs as follows]: ‘In that day,256 the mourning in Jerusalem shall be as great as the mourning for Ahab son of Omri whom Hadad-rimmon son of Tabrimmon killed in Ramoth-gilead,257 and as the mourning for Josiah son of Amon whom Pharaoh the Lame killed in the plain of Megiddo.’ In b.MQ 28b the same quotation is found, but here it is introduced by ‘Rabbi Aqiba said: In that day …’, etc.258 The fact that Pharao Neco

252 As recorded in 1 Kgs 22:29–38. 253 See 1 Kgs 15:18. There is no mention of mourning rites for Ahab in the biblical story about his death, as Gordon, Studies, 55, rightly remarks. 254 See also 2 Kgs 23:28–30. 255 See on the meaning of this sentence, Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 12. in‘ בעידנא ההוא on that day’, where the targum has‘ ביומא ההוא The text reads 256 that time’. b.MQ 28b is in line with TJ. 257 As mentioned in 1 Kgs 22:4, 12, 20, 29; 2 Chron 18:5, 11, 14, 19, 28. 258 Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 42 n. 63 states that this shows that Aqiba knew the Targum of our verse, but that seems doubtful; see Cathcart & Gordon, Minor Prophets, 219 n. 29. targumic quotations 207 is nicknamed ‘the Lame’ has to do with an old story that he became lame by attempting to ascend the throne of Solomon, and this is based -crip‘ ,נכה on a homiletic explanation of his name, equating it with pled, lame’.259 We may compare the three different Aramaic versions of Zech 12:11.

Targum Jonathan בעדנא ההוא יסגי מספדא בירשלם כמספד אחאב בר עמרי דקטל הדד רמון בר טב רמון וכמספד יושיה בר אמון דקטל פרעה חגירא בבקעת מגדון b.Meg 3a ביומא ההוא יסגי מספדא בירושלים כמספדא דאחאב בר עמרי דקטל יתיה הדדרימון בן טברימון ברמות גלעד וכמספדא דיאשיה בר אמון דקטל יתיה פרעה חגירא בבקעת מגידו b.MQ 28b בעידנא ההוא יסגי מספדא בירושלם כמספדא דאחאב בר עמרי דקטל יתיה הדדרימון בן טברימון וכמספד דיאשיה בר אמון דקטל יתיה פרעה חגירא בבקעת מגידו

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

5.3. Summary 1. We have discussed above 17 targumic quotations of passages from the Prophets in the Babylonian Talmud. These quotations are generally ascribed to Rav Joseph bar iyya, who must have played an important role in the propagation (and possibly redaction) of Tar- gum Jonathan. That he himself was not the author is clear from the expression (used to introduce 2 quotations) ‘Rav Joseph said, Were it not for the Targum of this verse, we should not know what it means’ which strongly suggests that he quotes from an existing text. The quotations in the Babylonian Talmud are furthermore introduced by formulas such as ‘as Rav Joseph translates’ (11 quotations), ‘and we translate’ (3 quotations), ‘Rav Huna said’ (1 quotation).

259 Jastrow, Dictionary, 910. See Targum en Peshitta on 2 Kgs 23:29, LevR 20:1, EcclR 9:1, PRK 26:1 (edn Mandelbaum, 383); see Smolar & Aberbach, Studies, 94. 208 chapter three

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

6. Quotations from the Prophets in the Palestinian Talmud Surprisingly, there are no direct quotations of targumic passages from the Prophets in the Palestinian Talmud. Nowhere do we find quotation formulas that introduce a citation from Targum Jonathan or from an unknown Palestinian targum. With regard to the implicit quotations, the evidence regarding the Palestinian Talmud is very scant. There are, however, a few passages in which the Palestinian Talmud might show knowledge of a targum of the Prophets, as is the case with y.Taan 2:1, 65b where Joel 2:13 is quoted.260 In this prophetic verse a formulaic enumeration of divine attributes is found, as known from God’s revelation to Moses in the Book of Exodus (34:6–7): Rend your hearts / Rather than your garments, / And turn back to the Lord your God. For he is gracious and compassionate, / Slow to anger, abounding in kindness, / And renouncing punishment slow to anger’ is‘ ארך אפים In y.Taan 2:1, 65b, the Hebrew expression -who keeps anger at a dis‘ רחיק רגיזtranslated by Rabbi Levi with 261 tance’ (or ‘who is far removed from anger’). This is in line with Tar- מרחיק :gum Jonathan on Joel 2:13 where however a pael form is used which is the normal rendering of our expression in both Onkelos ,רגז and Jonathan.262 Goshen-Gottstein rightly remarks that the quotation

260 See also PRK 24:11 (Mandelbaum, 364). Cf. Tan Tazria, 9. .quoting from a Geniza-fragment רחיק רגוז See Sokoloff, JPA, 515, who reads 261 262 See TO Exod 34:6, Num 14:18; TJ Jonah 4:2, Nah 1:3. targumic quotations 209 only dialectically differs from the official targum, for in the Palestin- 263.רחיק רגיז ian Targums our liturgical phrase is likewise rendered with

Goshen-Gottstein has brought forward a number of other passages that contain indirect quotations, but in our view it is questionable whether they are to be seen as quotations at all. Some of them are characterised by Goshen-Gottstein as ‘variants to known targums’. To this type belongs the quotation of Joshua 7:20 in y.Sanh 6:3, 23b. When Joshua summons Achan to ‘pay honour to the Lord … and make confession to him’ (7:19) Achan admits that he has violated the proscrip- tions made: Achan answered Joshua and said: It is true, I have sinned against the Lord, the God of Israel. it is) true’ is translated)‘ אמנה In Targum Jonathan the Hebrew word in truth’ or ‘sincerely’.264 In y.Sanh 6:3, 23b the meaning‘ בקשטא as truth’. There‘ קושטא of the Hebrew word is explained with Aramaic is, however, no evidence that the Aramaic explanation given refers to an existing targum. It lacks the preposition that we find in Targum Jonathan and in Palestinian targumic sources a regular substitute 265.מן קושטא would be to life’ (1 Sam‘ לחי Equally doubtful is the quotation of the expression 25:6) in y.Sanh 2:3, 20b. From the Hebrew story we learn that David sent ten young men to Nabal commanding his men to wish him all the best: Say as follows: To life! Greetings [lit.: peace] to you and greetings to your household and greetings to all that is yours. to your life’, to‘ ,לחיך Targum Jonathan adds a suffix and translates avoid any misunderstanding of the addressee.266 In y.Sanh 2:3, 20b the which either means ‘to ,לקיומא expression is explained in Aramaic as life’,267 a literal translation of the Hebrew, or ‘to the protector, patron’.268

רחיק) II.28. Cf. Neof and FTV on Exod 34:6 ,שקיעים ,See Goshen-Gottstein 263 .(רחק רגז) Neof and FTV Num 14:18 ,(רגז as a translation of the same Hebrew word. In the בקושטא ,Cf. TO Gen 12:10 264 .מן קושטא Palestinian Targum Neofiti the reading is 265 See Sokoloff, JPA, 508. 266 See Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 437. 267 Cf. the translation of G.A. Wewers, Übersetzung des Talmud Yerushalmi: San- hedrin Gerichtshof Iv 4, Tübingen 1981, 66: ‘(Der Ausdruck meint:) für das Bestehen.’ 268 See Sokoloff, JPA, 489, following S. Liebermann, Greek in Jewish Palestine, 210 chapter three

In our view it remains doubtful whether the meaning ‘protector’, ‘pa- is testified in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic and קיום tron’, for Aramaic whether it fits the interpretation of 1 Sam 25:6. Irrespective of the translation one chooses, however, it remains impossible to decide whether we find here a quotation of an unknown targum, or just an ad hoc translation of the Hebrew expression.

In y.Shab 6:4, 8b the irenic picture of nations that no longer take up their swords against each other, as described in Isa 2:4 and its parallel Micah 4:3, is quoted: And they shall beat their swords into plowshares / And their spears into pruning hooks is translated with Aramaic אתים In Targum Jonathan the Hebrew מזמרות which has the same meaning, ‘ploughshares’.269 Hebrew ,סיגין pruning hooks’ or ‘sickles’.270 In‘ מגלין is translated with Aramaic the rendering in y.Shab 6:4, 8b other equivalents are chosen. Hebrew -which can be seen as a di ,אטין is here translated with Aramaic אתים which מיגזיין is rendered מזמרות rect translation equivalent. Hebrew -cutting tools’.271 The Palestin‘ מיגזירין presumably is a corruption of ian Talmud here is not dependent on Targum Jonathan, and as in the above, it remains impossible to decide whether use is made of a Palestinian targum tradition or of an on-the-spot spontaneous rendering of the Hebrew words.

In Isa 3:16–4:1 it is told that because of the pride of the women of Jeru- salem, God will remove the symbols of their pride. Isa 3:18–23 gives a catalogue of the beauty that will be removed: In that day, my Lord will strip off the finery of the anklets, the fillets, and the crescents; of the eardrops, the bracelets, and the veils; the turbans, the armlets, and the sashes; of the talismans and the amulets;

.לקיומו New York 1942, 65. In MidrSam 23 (58a) the reading is into (סכיכון) Jastrow, Dictionary, 988. Cf. Tg Joel 4:10 ‘Beat your ploughshares 269 .’into spears (מגליכון) swords, and your sickles 270 See Jastrow, Dictionary, 728–29; cf. Tg Joel 4:10. In Tg Isa 18:5 the Hebrew sword’. The word is also common in Palestinian Jewish‘ חרבא is rendered as מזמרות Aramaic, see Sokoloff, JPA, 290. 271 See Sokoloff, JPA, 290. J. Levy (Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midras- ,from the Greek μαγάς, μαγάδις מיגזיין chim, Berlin und Wien, 1924) III.14 explains a musical instrument, following the comments of Benyamin Musafia in the Arukh .(מגזיין .s.v ,5:74) targumic quotations 211

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

MT TJ y.Shabbat קורדיקייה מסניא העכסים anklets שלטוניה ושביסיא והשביסים fillets עונקייה וסבכיא והשהרנים crescents של מיני ענקיא הנטיפות eardrops שיראין ושירי ידיא והשירות bracelets בלנידייא וחנסנסיא והרעלות veils כליליא כליליא הפארים turbans פרופסלה ושירי רגליא והצעדות armlets קרקישיא וקולמזמסיא והקשורים sashes אסטו מוכריאה וקדשיא ובתי הנפש talismans קדשיא וחליטתא והלחשים amulets חיזקייא עזקתא הטבעות signet rings ? וטלטוליא ונזמי האף nose rings פירזומטא כיתוניא המחלצות festive robes קולבין ומעפרן ושושיפיא והמעטפות mantles סבניין רברבן ולבורסיא והמטפחות shawls זונרין מציירין ומחכיא והחריטים purses ואילוסריקא מציירין גלגלייה ומחזיתא והגלינים lace gowns סדיניא וקרטיסיא והסדינים linen vests אולרייא וכתריא והצניפות kerchiefs לסוטא וכבינתא והרדידים capes

As it is customary in Palestinian sources, the Aramaic words in tractate Shabbat are heavily influenced by both Latin and Greek. The word -shoes made from the bark of the oak’, for instance, is de‘ ,קורדיקייה rived from Latin, corticea or from Greek, κορδικία.272 Comparing the

272 See Krauss, Lehnwörter, II.519; S. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-fsutah: A Comprehen- sive Commentary on the Tosefta, New York 1973, Shabbat, 68; Sokoloff, JPA, 484. For id. II.415 and cf. II.327 (see also Tg עונקייה see Krauss, Lehnwörter, II.581; for שלטוניה .id. II.581 של מיני for ;(ענקיא ,Judg 8:21, Isa 3:19 212 chapter three

lists in Targum Jonathan and in the Palestinian Talmud, we can see that there are a few Hebrew words only that are translated with (more turban’ is rendered in‘ פארים or less) the same equivalents. Hebrew -The translation chosen in Targum Jonath 273.כליליא both corpora as bracelets’ corresponds to that of the‘ שירות for Hebrew (שירי ידיא) an signet rings’ is‘ טבעות Hebrew 274.שיראין Palestinian Talmud, namely sg.) and in the Palestinian) עזקתא rendered in Targum Jonathan as ,regularly interchange ע and ח but the consonants ,חיזקייא Talmud as In Targum Jonathan 275.עיזקייא so that it may be represented by eardrops’ but in the‘ נטיפות is given as a rendering of Hebrew ענקיא 276 is the translation of עונקייה Palestinian Talmud the corresponding 277 ,-ear‘ קדשיא crescents’. In both of the lists the Aramaic‘ שהרנים Hebrew nose-ring’278 is found, but in Targum Jonathan it is represented in He- talismans’ whereas in the Palestinian Talmud it is‘ ובתי הנפש brew by amulets’. In all other respects, the lists‘ והלחשים rendered in Hebrew as given differ. Remarkably, the Palestinian Talmud offers a double trans- זונרין purses’, first translating the word by‘ חריטים lation of Hebrew decorated‘ ואילוסריקא מציירין decorated belts’,279 and then by‘ מציירין (embroidered) silk garment’, from the Greek ὁλοσηρικόν ‘entirely of silk’.280 The double translation might show that the Aramaic expression was no longer understood or had to be clarified by expressions borrowed from the Greek. From the great number of differences in both lists we may conclude that the Palestinian Talmud here offers an on-the-spot translation of the Isaiah text, or is based on an unknown Aramaic translation of the passage. Isa 21:13 belongs to a series of harsh prophetic oracles or ‘burdens’281 against several people. In the JPS translation it reads:

273 See Sokoloff, JPA, 260 (‘woman’s headdress’) and cf. Neof Exod 39:28. 274 See Sokoloff, JPA, 549 (‘silk garments’); Jastrow, Dictionary, 1568. in Palestinian Aramaic, see ע and ח For the interchange of the consonants 275 G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, Darmstadt 1960, .is not represented, but see Sokoloff,JPA , 401 s.v חיזקייאIn Sokoloff the word .99–98 .is found in b.Shab 8b עיזקייא the form ;עזקה 276 See Jastrow, Dictionary, 1096. 277 See Sokoloff, JPA, 399 (‘necklace’). 278 See Sokoloff, JPA, 478. 279 Sokoloff,JPA , 174. See for this reading also Menaem ben Solomo’s Even Boan, .חרט .s.v 280 Sokoloff, JPA, 39; Krauss, Lehnwörter, II.19. ,(J.D.W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33 (WBC 24 ,משא See on the meaning of the word 281 Waco 1985, 190. targumic quotations 213

The “In the Steppe”282 Pronouncement. In the scrub, in the steppe, you will lodge, O caravans of the Dedanites! In Targum Jonathan the oracle is called ‘an oracle of a cup of cursing283 to give to the Arabians to drink’, referring to the complete doom intended for the nation involved: An oracle of a cup of cursing to give to the Arabians to drink. In the forest in the evening the caravans of the sons of Dedan will lodge.

In y.Taan 4:5, 69b, Isa 21:13 is quoted as follows: That is what is written ‘The oracle on Arabia.’ — A large (heavy) burden284 on the Arabs. ‘In the scrub, in the evening, you will lodge’ — Who allowed you to lodge in the forest of the Lebanon? But [it says] ‘o caravans of the Dedanites’ — will caravans of the sons of the Dedanites act in this manner?285 There are a few similarities in the interpretation of both texts (e.g. in -as ‘in the evening’), but compar )ביער( בערב the translation of Hebrew ing the latter part of both texts, we will notice the differences: ברמשא יביתון שירת בני דדן TJ Isa 21:13 כן אורחהון דבני דודייא עבדין y.Taan 4:5, 69b 286 caravan’ for Hebrew‘ שיירה Whereas Targum Jonathan uses Aramaic the Palestinian Talmud makes use of a translation-equivalent ,ארחות also occurs in Palestinian sources.287 שיירה although the noun ,(אורחא)

6.1. Summary Apart from the quotations we have treated here, there are a few other citations in the Palestinian Talmud that we have discussed already in the previous sections.288 As said before it remains surprising that

282 The title is ambiguous and perhaps one should translate it ‘Pronouncement (Oracle / Burden) on Arab’. ,cf. Tg Isa 13:1, 15:1) משא The same expression is found elsewhere for Hebrew 283 17;1, 19:1, 21:11, 21:13). .Sokoloff,JPA , 301 ,מטול רב See on the expression 284 285 See also LamR 2:5. .ארחתהון דבני דדנייא עבדיו:In LamR 2:5 the reading is slightly different 286 287 See Sokoloff, JPA, 547. 288 See the quotation of 1 Sam 9:24 in y.Meg 1:14[12] (72c), MidrSam 14:4 (45a) and of 2 Kgs 17:30–31 in y.AZ 3:2 (42cd) which have been discussed in our subsection on quotations in the Babylonian Talmud. For the quotation of Isa 33:21 in y.Sheq 6:2 214 chapter three there are no direct quotations of targumic passages in the Palestinian Talmud.289 Only a few implicit quotations might show knowledge of Targum Jonathan or of a Palestinian Targum of the Prophets. The best example is that of the liturgical phrase in Joel 2:13, quoted in y.Taan 2:1, 65b. With regard to its exegetical contents, it does not differ from Targum Jonathan, but dialectically it represents the Palestinian form that is also found in the Palestinian Targums. In other cases, it is often difficult to decide whether use is made of an existing targum or of an on-the-spot spontaneous rendering of the Hebrew text.

7. Quotations in the Midrashim 7.1. Genesis Rabbah To the earliest works of aggadic midrash belongs Genesis Rabbah, which was composed in the fifth or sixth century.290 Recently, it has been remarked that in the aggadic midrashim often short glosses are found that ‘are in Aramaic and can be viewed as snippets of Targum’.291 Albeck has given numerous parallels between Genesis Rabbah on the one hand and Targum Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan on the other.292 Parallels between Genesis Rabbah and Targum Neofiti have been ad- vanced by Aberbach and Grossfeld.293 When we look for quotations of a targum of the Prophets, we note however that in Genesis Rabbah there are only a few direct quotations of targumic passages and just a small number of indirect quotations.

A direct quotation is found in the firstparashah of Genesis Rabbah. In discussing the relation between creation and Torah,294 the meaning of

(50a), see above, p. 203. See note 77 for the quotation of Isa 41:19 in y.Ket 7:9 (31d). See also 2 Sam 3:29 as quoted in y.Qid 61a. 289 See also W.F. Smelik in ‘Language, Locus, and Translation between the Tal- mudim’, JAB 3 (2001), 199–204, at 203. 290 See M.B. Lerner, ‘The Works of Aggadic Midrash and the Esther Midrashim’, in: Safrai, Literature of the Sages. Second Part, 149. 291 See M. Hirshman, ‘Aggadic Midrash’, in S. Safrai et al., Literature of the Sages. Second Part, 116. 292 See Albeck, Einleitung, 44–54. 293 See M. Aberbach & B. Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis: A Critical Analy- sis Together With An English Translation of the Text, New York 1982; B. Grossfeld, Targum Neofiti 1: An Exegetical Commentary to Genesis Including Full Rabbinic Par- allels, New York 2000. 294 See on this discussion P.S. Alexander, ‘Pre-Emptive Exegesis: Genesis Rabba’s Reading of the Story of Creation’, JJS 43 (1992), 230–45, at 237; P. Schäfer, ‘Bereshit targumic quotations 215 the word ’Amon is discussed by Rabbi Hosha‘ya. One of the meanings given to the word is ‘great’, and this is illustrated by a quotation from Nahum 3:8. The biblical text reads: Were you any better than No-Amon, / Which sat by the Nile, / Surrounded by water — / Its rampart a river, / Its wall consisting of sea? In GenR 1:1 (Th-A 1) the verse is quoted together with its Aramaic rendering: אמון רבתה היך מה דאת אמר התיטבי מנא אמון ומתורגמנינן האת טבא מאלכסנדריא רבתא דיתבא ביני נהרותא Amon means great, as in the verse ‘Were you any better than No-Amon?’, and we translate: Were you any better than the great Alexandria, which is situated between the rivers? Apart from an orthographic variant this quotation is in line with Tar- gum Jonathan on Nahum 3:8.295 The identification of No-Amon (the Egyptian city of Thebes) with Alexandria is an old one and is found both in the Vulgate (Alexandria populorum) as elsewhere in Targum Jonathan (TJ Jer 46:25; Ezek 30:14–16).296

A direct quotation from the Prophets is also found in GenR 31:8 (Th-A 281) where Joshua 5:2 is quoted and an explanation is given for the He- :’make for yourself flint knives‘ ,עשה לך חרבות צרים brew sentence ‘Make for yourself an ark’ (Gen 6:14). R. Issi said: In four places this phrase ‘Make for yourself’ is employed; in three places it is explained, while in one it is not explained … ‘Make for yourself knives of flint’, means [Aramaic] flint knives. ,גלבין דטינר is explained by Rabbi Issi as Aramaic חרבות צרים Hebrew which seems to have the same meaning.297 This diverges from the rendering of Targum Jonathan which translates the expression by sharp cutting tools’,298 identifying the cutting tool with‘ אזמילון חריפין

Bara Elohim: Bereshit Rabba, Parashah 1, Reconsidered’, in: A. Houtman, A.F. de Jong & M. Misset-Van de Weg (eds), Empsychoi Logoi. Religious Innovations in An- tiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst, Leiden & Boston 2008, 268–89, at 268–69. 295 H. Odeberg, The Aramaic Portions of Bereshit Rabba with Grammar of Gali- laean Aramaic, 2 Vols, Lund & Leipzig 1939, I.122, incorrectly notes that the inter- rogative particle indicates that it is not written in Galilean Aramaic. 296 Cf. R.P. Gordon in Cathcart & Gordon, Minor Prophets, 140 n. 17. 297 Cf. Sokoloff, JPA, 128 (‘razor, knife’; cf. Neof Num 6:3, 8:7) and 224 (‘flint’). 298 See Jastrow, Dictionary, 46. See TJ Isa 44:13. 216 chapter three the surgeon’s knife used for circumcision in talmudic times.299 In ,איזמילין טינרין or 300,איזמילין טיזרין Codex Reuchlin this is given as ‘cutting tools of flint’.301 The Palestinian rendering of Genesis Rabbah is found in a modified form in Kimi’s Shorashim. There the reading -knifes of rock (?)’. In a Tosefta Tar‘ גלבין דטור but ,גלבין דטינר is not gum, furthermore, the command to Joshua, ‘make for yourself knives of flint’, is explained as ‘make for yourself weapons of war, swords and מאני קרבא סיפיו) … sharp spears, the weapons of the people of Israel The continuation of the Tosefta .(ורומחין חידאן מאנ]י[ קרבא עם ישראל Targum makes clear that these weapons are seen as symbols for the גברין חכמין דלא הוו) ’wise leaders, in whose heart there is no obduracy‘ who are ordained by Joshua to punish the people for ,(בלבהון טפשותא their transgressions.302 In GenR 99:3 (Th-A1275 ) a midrashic explanation is given of Gen 49:27, ‘Benjamin is a ravenous wolf’. The ravening of the wolf is compared with Ehud’s attack on king Eglon of Moab (Judg 3:19–23): ‘Benjamin is a ravenous wolf’ — this alludes to the judge descended from him. As a wolf seizes, so did Ehud seize Eglon’s heart. Thus it is written: ‘And when Ehud approached him, he was sitting alone in his cool upper chamber’ (Judg 3:20). This means, [Aramaic] in a cool upper chamber. ‘And he said: Your majesty, I have a secret message for you’ (Judg 3:19). Thus has the Master of the World spoken to me, said he, Take a sword and plunge it into his bowels. ‘And the filth [?] came out’ (Judg 3:22) — [Aramaic] his excrements. ‘Then Ehud went forth into the vestibule’ (Judg 3:23) — R. Yudan said: (It means) [Aramaic] into the palace. R. Berekhya said: It means, the place where the ministering angels sat in ordered fashion. In the above midrash, several Hebrew expressions in Judg 3:19–23 are the word ,עלית המקרא explained by Aramaic ones. First of all, Hebrew -occurring only here and in Judg 3:24, is clarified in the mid מקרא -the cool upper cham‘ עליתא קרירתא rash by the Aramaic equivalent ber’, whereas Targum Jonathan translates the same expression by the upper chamber of his summer house’.303 Hebrew‘ עלית בית קיטא -a hapax legomenon of uncertain meaning, in Judg 3:22 is trans ,פרשדנה

299 Cf. Smolar & Aberbach, Studies, 54, and see y.Shab 19:1 (16d), b.Shab 130ab. 300 So incorrectly Sperber, Bible in Aramaic, II.7. .I.140–41. Cf. Sokoloff, JPA, 224 ,שקיעים ,See Goshen-Gottstein 301 .(nr. 1, 70 (ms T-S B 13.12, line 32–38 ,תוספתות ,Kasher 302 303 See Smelik, Targum of Judges, 373 n. 275. Cf. Tg Amos 3:15. targumic quotations 217

-his excrements’.304 Targum Jonathan circum‘ פרתיה lated here by the filth came‘ ונפק אכליה שפיך scribes the sentence more vividly with פרש as a combination of פרשדנה pouring out’, taking the Hebrew word to cast out’.305‘ שדא dung’, ‘excrements’, and‘ hall, vestibule?’) there are two explanations‘) מסדרונה For Hebrew palace’.306‘ פלטורא in Genesis Rabbah. R. Yudan gives as its meaning it refers to the ,סדר According to R. Berekhya, starting from its root In .(מסודרין) ministering angels that sat in the place in ordered fashion vestibule’, from Greek ἐξέδρα, is‘ אכסדרא Targum Jonathan Aramaic chosen.307 We may conclude then that there are important differences here between the quotation of Judg 3:19–23 in Genesis Rabbah and the rendering of Targum Jonathan, both in their choice of lexical equivalents as well as in the different interpretations of the passage given.308 In a rather cryptic passage in one of Isaiah’s prophetic messages (Isa 21:5), the preparations for a meal as the beginning of a military campaign seem to be described: “Set the table!” To “Let the watchman watch!” “Eat and drink!” To “Up, officers! grease the shields!” In Targum Jonathan the singular forms of the first sentence are given plural Aramaic renderings:309 Arrange the tables, set up watchmen, eat and drink. Arise, officers, rub down and polish the weapons. In GenR 63:14 (Th-A 699) the verse is quoted to explain the sentence ‘and he [Esau] did eat and drink’ (Gen 35:34): ‘And he did eat and drink’ — He brought in with him a company of ruffians who said: We will eat his dishes and mock at him, while the Holy Spirit exclaimed, ‘Set the table!’ — (that is) arrange the table. ‘Light the lamp (ha-zafith)’310 — arrange the lamp. R. Abba bar Kahana said: There are places where a lamp is called zafith. ‘(Rise) up, officers’ — this

304 Sokoloff, JPA, 452. 305 Smelik, Targum of Judges, 374. 306 See Sokoloff, JPA, 435. 307 See Krauss, Lehnwörter, II.44–45. .II.119–20 ,שקיעים ,See for a similar conclusion, Goshen-Gottstein 308 309 Sperber, Bible in Aramaic, III.40. .’is here explained as meaning ‘let the lamp shine צפה הצפית Hebrew 310 218 chapter three

means Michael and Gabriel. ‘Grease the shields’ — make a record that the birthright belongs to Jacob. As in Targum Jonathan the plural is chosen for the verbal forms in tables’, here the‘ ,פתורין the first sentence, but whereas Jonathan reads is used.311 The interpretation of the rest of the sentence פתורא singular in Genesis Rabbah, with its reference to the archangels Michael and Gabriel, differs completely from the rendering of Targum Jonathan. Several elements, however, of this midrash are found in the Targum Jerushalmi reading that is found in Codex Reuchlin:312 Targum Jerushalmi. ‘Set the table’. Arrange the table before Bel-shazzar,313 king of Babylon. Light the lamp, eat and drink. Up, Michael and Gabriel, the two officers, call to account the kingdom of Babylon and give the kingdom to Cyrus and Darius, the kings of Persia and Media. Here, there are some similarities with the interpretation of Genesis as צפה הצפית the interpretation of ;פתורא Rabbah: use of the singular אדליקו בוצינה meaning ‘light the lamp’ (although here the expression -the refer ;(סדר מנרתא is used,314 whereas in Genesis Rabbah we read ence to Michael and Gabriel (but they are called here ‘the two officers’, which is lacking in Genesis Rabbah). Both Genesis Rabbah and Codex Reuchlin may go back to a Palestinian translation and interpretation of our passage, which differs in many respects from Targum Jonathan.315

Some of the quotations in Genesis Rabbah that lack any introductory formula, we have discussed already elsewhere.316 In Isa 29:17 it is said of the Lebanon in a chiastic form that it ‘shall return into a fruitful land’ and that ‘the fruitful land shall be esteemed as a forest’. In Tar- :’is interpreted as ‘thickets of people יער gum Jonathan Hebrew Is it not a very little while, until Lebanon shall return to be as a fruitful field. And the fruitful field will cause many cities to be inhabited? In GenR 24:1 (Th-A 230) a similar interpretation of the word is found:

,table’ occurs both in Eastern and Western texts, cf. Jastrow‘ פתורא Aramaic 311 Dictionary, 1250; Sokoloff, JPA, 454. 312 P. de Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, Leipzig 1872, XXIX. 313 The text reads Belteshazzar, but the reference is to King Belshazzar of Daniel 5. .Sokoloff, JPA, 88 ,בוצין See on 314 315 The reference to Cyrus and Darius in Codex Reuchlin is also found in a similar explanation of our verse in CantR 3:4. 316 See for the quotation of Joshua 7:21 in GenR 85:14 (Th-A 1050), above p. 152. The quotation of Isa 41:19 in GenR 15:1 (Th-A 135–36) is mentioned on p. 153, n. 77. targumic quotations 219

Is it not a very little while, until Lebanon shall return into a fruitful field — (that is) into a royal palace. And the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest — (that is) as forests of men. There are several differences between both texts. In Targum Jonathan is used as a metaphor for ‘cities that will be inhabited (by יער the word people), whereas in Genesis Rabbah the word is explained as ‘many people’. In Targum Jonathan the explanation of ‘fruitful field’ as ‘royal palace’ is lacking. 7.2. Leviticus Rabbah In the Midrash Leviticus Rabbah there are no direct quotations of a targum of the Prophets. The passages which have been brought forward by Goshen-Gottstein are mostly alternative renderings of He- brew words or expressions and, in our view, do not necessarily reflect a targumic interpretation of the text. in Zeph 3:5 is לא נעדר In LevR 31:9 (730), for instance, the meaning of it [God’s sitting in judgement] does not cease’,317‘ לא פסק explained by God’s)‘ לא מתעכב whereas Targum Jonathan interprets the words as judgement) is not held back’.318 In 1 Sam 28:8 it is told of king Saul that he disguised himself to visit the woman of Endor: ‘Saul disguised himself; he put on different is found in (לבושין אחרנין) clothes …’. A literal Aramaic translation מאנין Targum Jonathan, whereas in LevR 26:7 (M 599) it is rendered as garments of a commoner’.319‘ פגניקא In the Book of Judges it is told of Sisera, the army commander of King Jabin of Canaan, that his army was defeated by the Israelites. He es- caped on foot and tried to seek refuge in the tent of a certain woman Jael. When they meet each other it is said (Judg 4:18): Jael came out to greet Sisera and said to him, “Come in, my lord, come in here, do not be afraid.” So he entered her tent, and she covered him with a blanket. blanket’ does not occur elsewhere in the Hebrew‘ שמיכהThe Hebrew word Bible, as has been noted already by Resh Lakish in LevR 23:10 (M 542): ‘We have searched the whole of Scripture, and we have not found any

317 See also MidrPss 19:11 (85ab). .II.79–80 ,שקיעים ,Cf. Goshen-Gottstein 318 319 See Sokoloff, JPA, 426; Kraus, Lehnwörter, II.421. The same interpretation is found in MidrSam 24:1 (59b). 220 chapter three article named semikha’. In Targum Jonathan the word is rendered with -also meaning ‘blanket’.320 In the passage we have mentioned al ,גונכא ready of Leviticus Rabbah it is told that there were different opinions on the meaning of the word among the Palestinian and Babylonian sages: What is the meaning of ‘with a semikha’? Our rabbis here (in Palestine) (and our rabbis there (in Babylon 321,’(סודרא) say (it means) ‘with a scarf 322.(משיכלא) ’say (it means) ‘with a cloak There are many examples in Leviticus Rabbah of such alternative renderings of certain difficult words. See the following selection of passages: .murderers’ in Isa 1:21‘ מרצחין The different renderings of Hebrew .1 .עבדין קטולין (killers of souls’ and LevR 4:1 (M 76‘ קטולי נפשן See TJ the anxious of heart’ in‘ נמהרי לבThe explanations of the expression .2 ,’those who are] anxious in their heart]‘ דמוחן בליבהון Isa 35:4. See TJ .’those crushed at heart‘ מפגרי לבה (as against LevR 19:5 (M 428 bracelets’, in Ezek 23:24. See‘ צמידים The interpretation of the word .3 .’prostitutes‘ קדישין (and LevR 33:6 (M 767 שירין TJ on ivory beds’ in‘ על מטות שן The interpretation of the expression .4 (on beds of ivory’ and LevR 33:6 (M 767‘ בשין דפיל Amos 6:4. See TJ on ivory bedsteads’.323‘ על ערסין דשן דפיל a flying scroll’, in‘ מגילה עפה The interpretation of the expression .5 .]מגילה[ טייסא (and LevR 6:2 (M 130 מגילה פרחא Zech 5:1. See TJ from Isa 58:11 is given (יחליץ) In LevR 34:15 (M 811) one Hebrew word four different Aramaic interpretations: means: he will loosen (יחליץ) to your bones. It (יחליץ) And give strength and he will 326,(ישיזיב) he will deliver 325,(יזיין) he will arm 324,(ישמוט) 327.(ינוח) give rest

-eine zottige oder faserige Decke’); Jastrow, Diction‘) גנכא .See Arukh 2:320, s.v 320 ary, 224; cf. Tg 2 Kgs 8:15. On the variant readings in the mss, see Smelik, Targum of Judges, 389 n. 365. 321 See Sokoloff, JPA, 370. 322 See Jastrow, Dictionary, 852 (‘a sort of cloak’). According to the Arukh (5:272), the word means ‘Waschbecken’. .(על ערסין דפיל) Cf. NumR 10:3 323 324 This explanation is derived from Deut 25:9 ‘and loose his sandal from his foot’. is given in the (ישלוף) A variant reading .ותשרי The reading of TO on Deut 25:9 is .חלץ .Arukh, 3:411 s.v .’(חלוצים) Which is derived from Deut 3:18, ‘You shall pass over armed 325 326 See Ps 140:2, ‘Deliver me, o Lord, from evil men’. 327 Which is derived from the liturgical phrase: ‘be pleased and give us rest targumic quotations 221

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

7.3. Lamentations Rabbah Like Isa 21:13, a verse we have discussed above, Isa 22:1 belongs to a series of harsh prophetic oracles or ‘burdens’. In the JPS translation it reads: The “Valley of Vision” Pronouncement As elsewhere in the Book of Isaiah, Targum Jonathan explains the word :as an ‘oracle of prophecy’, which is directed against Jerusalem משא The oracle of prophecy against the city which lies in the valley, against which the prophets prophesied … In a Genizah fragment of Lamentations Rabbah published by Rabinovitz,328 the same exegetical interpretation of the expression ‘valley of vision’ is found: R. Yoanan opened (his discourse with) the oracle of the valley of vision, (that is) [Aramaic] a large (heavy) burden329 in the valley of prophecy. In the valley of vision — [Aramaic] (in the valley) of prophecy From the fragment we may learn that a common exegesis of the expression ‘valley of vision’ existed,330 but it does not necessarily show that Lamentations Rabbah is dependent here on Targum Jonathan.

A common exegetical background is also visible in the interpretation of ‘your conduct and your acts have brought this upon you’ (Jer 4:18) in Targum Jonathan and Lamentations Rabbah. We may compare the Aramaic rendering in both texts:

.which is said in the benediction after the sabbath meal ,’(והחליצנו) גנזי מדרש, לצורתם הקדומה של מדרשי חז"ל לפי כת"י מן ,Z.M. Rabinovitz 328 .Tel Aviv 1976, 123–26 ,הגניזה — קטעי מדרש 329 See above, n. 284. 330 See also the (Hebrew) explanations given in LamR, petita 24: ‘a valley concerning which all the seers prophesied’; ‘a valley from which all the seers originated’. 222 chapter three

אורחתך בשתא ועובדך מקלקליא גרמו אלין ליך … TJ Jer 4:18 אורחתיך בישאתא ועובדיך דמרידאתא … LamR, petita 16 The interpretation of ‘conduct (lit. ways)’ in both corpora is the same: Your evil ways. Both of the texts offer the same negative interpretation of ‘deeds’, but the qualifications given are different: ‘corrupt deeds’ in Targum Jonathan, and ‘rebellious deeds’ in Lamentations Rabbah. As in the previous case, it might show that Lamentations Rabbah is dependent on Targum Jonathan, but it does not necessarily do so. In Ezek 24 the city of Jerusalem is twice called a ‘city of blood’ (Ezek 24:6, 9) and in an allegorical way compared to ‘a cauldron whose scum is in it’. Ezek 24:6 runs as follows: Assuredly, thus said the Lord God: / Woe to the city of blood — / A caldron whose scum is in it / Whose scum has not been cleaned out! In Targum Jonathan the ‘city of blood’ has become ‘the city in whose midst innocent blood was shed’. The same interpretation is found in LamR, petita 5. We may compare both texts: אוי עיר הדמים MT Ezek 24:6 וי על קרתא דאשדי דם זכי בגוה TJ Ezek 24:6 אוי מן קמי דקרתא דשפכו דמים בגווה LamR, petita 5 The Lamentations Rabbah text remains closer to the Hebrew and linguistically it represents the Palestinian dialect.331 Here, each part of verse 6, at the beginning of the petita, is followed by an Aramaic paraphrase: Rabbi Abbahu, in the name of R. Yose ben aninah, opened (his discourse with) Assuredly, thus said the Lord [God]: Woe to the city of blood — [Aramaic] Alas for the city in the midst of which they shed blood. A caldron whose scum is in it — [Aramaic] in which the dregs remain. And whose scum has not gone out of it — [Aramaic] Whose dregs have not gone out from it. filth’ or ‘sediment’332‘ זיהומא Whereas Targum Jonathan uses Aramaic scum’ or‘ ,חפשישו Lamentations Rabbah chooses ,חלאתה for Hebrew ‘sediment’.333 In the same petita also Ezek 24:9 is quoted, in which the

in TJ is scarcely known in Palestinian sources. See also שדי√ The use of theafel 331 .שפך .Sokoloff, JPA, 563 s.v 332 See Jastrow, Dictionary, 391. quoting our passage, reads ,חפשית .Cf. Sokoloff, JPA, 212. The Arukh 3:467 s.v 333 .חפישותא targumic quotations 223 phrase ‘woe to the city of blood’ is repeated. Both in Targum Jonathan and in Lamentations Rabbah on Ezek 24:9 the same Aramaic interpretation of the phrase is given. Here, in our view, the interpretation of Lamentations Rabbah of the expression ‘woe to the city of blood’, both in Ezek 24:6 and 24:9 is dependent on Targum Jonathan. 7.4. Ecclesiastes Rabbah In the Song of the Vineyard in Isaiah 5, sung by the beloved or friend of a bridegroom,334 the owner of a beautiful vineyard complains of the fact that it does not produce good grapes but only ‘stinking things’ (5:5). The owner then decides that he will lay it waste and declares: And upon the clouds I will lay a command / not to rain on it (5:6) In Targum Jonathan the rain-giving is compared to prophecy: and I will command the prophets that they prophesy no prophecy concerning them335 In EcclR 11:3 a fairly literal quotation of this last sentence is found, with the introductory formula ‘Aquila the Proselyte renders …’. There are only minor differences between the Targum Jonathan and the quotation: ועל נבייא אפקיד דלא יתנבון עליהון נבואה TJ Isa 5:6 ועל נביאיא אפקוד דלא יתנבאון להון EcclR 11:3 נבואתה -against them’, ‘con‘ ,עליהון The most conspicuous one is the reading -about them’, in Ec‘ להון cerning them’, in Targum Jonathan, as against clesiastes Rabbah. The remaining differences are orthographic ones.

There is also an example in Ecclesiastes Rabbah of alternative render- which is of ,האמנות ings of certain difficult words. In 2 Kgs 8:16 Hebrew ,lintels‘ ,סקופיא uncertain meaning, is rendered in Targum Jonathan as thresholds’,336 whereas in EcclR 9:18 there is a difference of opinion on circles, garlands’,337 whereas‘ ציפריא its rendering. Rabbi Levi suggests hinges (of bamboo wood)’.338‘ שיגמיא the other rabbis suggest

334 In TJ the ‘beloved’ or ‘friend’ is equated with ‘Israel — which is like a vineyard, the seed of Abraham, my friend’. The latter expression is taken from Isa 48:1. See A. Houtman, ‘The Role of Abraham in Targum Isaiah’, AS 3 (2005), 7–8. .(אל תטפו יטיפון Cf. TJ Micah 2:6 (for Hebrew 335 336 Cf. Jastrow, Dictionary, 1019. 337 Cf. Jastrow, Dictionary, 1298. It is not found in Palestinian sources. 338 See Sokoloff, JPA, 537. 224 chapter three

7.5. Canticles Rabbah In Ezekiel 16, the city of Jerusalem is compared to a whore, and she is called a sister of the two cities Samaria and Sodom. In 16:61 it is said of Jerusalem: You shall remember your ways and feel ashamed, when you receive your older sisters and your younger sisters, and I give them to you as daughters, though they are not of your covenant. In Targum Jonathan the relationship of Jerusalem and her sisters is described in terms of a war that will cause expansion of the territory of Judea, and that in the future shall include Samaria and Sodom and their neighbouring cities:339 And you shall remember your ways and feel ashamed, when you wage war against countries that are mightier than you, together with those that are smaller than you, and I hand them over to you to surrender, even though you did not observe the Torah. The sisters are compared here with countries that shall be conquered in the future by Judea. In CantR 1:5 the sisters are ‘cities’ or ‘villages’, that in future times will be given to Jerusalem as a marriage gift from God: R. Yoanan said: Jerusalem will one day become the metropolis of all countries, and draw people to her in streams to do her honour … It is written ‘… and I give them to you as daughters, though they are not of your covenant. What is meant by ‘daughters’? Villages. ‘… though they are not of your covenant’ — not from your (marriage) deed, but as a deed [marriage gift] from the Lord. There are great differences in the interpretation of Targum Jonathan on the one hand and Canticles Rabbah on the other. In Targum Jonathan ‘sisters’ is used as a metaphor for ‘countries’, countries that are mightier than Judaea and countries that are smaller. The expression ‘covenant’ is taken to mean ‘Torah’. In Canticles Rabbah the sisters are ‘cities’ and the ‘covenant’ is understood as a marriage deed.

339 See Levey, Targum of Ezekiel, 55 n. 30. targumic quotations 225

7.6. Midrash Samuel In 1 Sam 3 the young Samuel receives a message from God announc- ing his verdict on the priestly house of Eli: ‘And I declare to him that I sentence his house to endless punishment for the iniquity he knew about — how his sons were blaspheming at will340 — and he did not rebuke them’ (1 Sam 3:13). Targum Jonathan gives a fairly literal interpretation of the latter part of the verse: כי מקללים להם בניו ולא כהה בם MT 1 Sam 3:13b ארי מרגזין להון בנוהי ולא כהא בהון Targum Jonathan In translation: ‘because (of the fact) that his sons are blaspheming (for piel), Targum) קלל√ them), and he did not rebuke them.’ For Hebrew afel) ‘to excite, ‘to blaspheme’. Extremely literal) רגז√ Jonathan uses is Targum Jonathan’s translation of the words ‘and he did not rebuke them’. In MidrSam 10:1 (28b), where these last words are quoted, how- which also has the meaning ,גער√ but 341 כהא√ ever, the verb used is not ‘to rebuke’.342 Here, Midrash Samuel seems independent of Targum Jonathan.

1 Samuel 17 relates the story of David and Goliath. David’s brothers are fighting in the army of Saul, waiting for a confrontation with the Phil- istines and Goliath. David’s father Jesse tells him to go to his brothers (1 Sam 17:17) and to ask for their well-being (17:18): Take these ten cheeses to the captain of their thousand. Find out how your brothers are and bring a pledge (guarantee) from them.343 In Targum Jonathan the phrase ‘and bring a pledge (guarantee) from is interpreted as ‘and bring (a report of) their (ואת ערבתם תקח) ’them -MidrSam 20:5 (54a) explains He .(וית טיבהון תיתי) ’well-being back (’[lit. ‘things that are cut off, pieces of milk [of cheese) חרצי החלב brew in its literal meaning as ‘kids taken away from their mothers’, and interprets ‘enquire after your brothers welfare’ as meaning ‘[ask] a token .דוגמא דידהון of them’, 344

340 Or: ‘were blaspheming God’. One of the tiqqune soferim, see E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis [etc.] 1992, 66; Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, I.151. is used, which also means ‘to נזף√ In Codex Reuchlin, however, the verb 341 rebuke’. 342 See Sokoloff, JPA, 134. 343 JPS translates: ‘… and bring some token from them’. 344 Cf. Jastrow, Dictionary, 282–83. 226 chapter three

As has been noted by Van Staalduine-Sulman it is remarkable that in is ערבון Targum Jonathan (and likewise in Midrash Samuel) Hebrew not interpreted in the line of rabbinic sources, where it bears the technical meaning of a ‘guarantee for a financial transaction’ or in a more specific way as ‘guarantee that a divorce was valid’. This last meaning however is found in a marginal note of Codex Reuchlin, that explains [a bill of divorce345 of their [Davids brother’s‘ גט פיטורי נשיהון as ערבון wives’.346 This may be taken directly from b.Shab 56a: Everyone who went out in the wars of the House of David wrote a bill for his wife, for it is said: Take these ten cheeses (גט כריתות) of divorce to the captain of their thousand. Find out how your brothers are and :R. Joseph learnt ?ערובתם bring a pledge from them. What is meant by The things which pledge man and woman [to one another]. In this case, also, the rendering of Midrash Samuel seems independent of Targum Jonathan. Like Targum Jonathan it bears no connection with the interpretation in talmudic sources, where the word ‘pledge’ is understood as the pledge that is the sign of the marriage between man and woman. 7.7. Midrash Tanuma In the above, we discussed the expression ‘as the going forth of the sun in its might’ in Judg 5:31 and its quotation in TJ Isa 41:25.347 The influence of this phrase in the development of the idea of the mystical transformation of the righteous in rabbinic and pre-rabbinic sources is shown in a recent study by W.F. Smelik.348 In Midrash Tanuma Bereshit 6, the whole verse is quoted, introduced by the phrase ‘as we translate (in Aramaic)’. There are some small differences between the targumic text and its quotation in Midrash Tanuma: ורחמוהי יהון עתידין לאזהרא בזיהור יקריה על חד תלת TJ Judg 5:31 מאה ארבעין ותלתה כמפק שמשא בגבורתיה ורחמוהי צדיקיא יהון עתידין לאזהרא כזהור יקרה על חד Tan Bereshit 6 349 תלת מאה ארבעין ותלתא כמפק שמשא בגבורתה Apart from some spelling variations, the differences can be made visible in the English translation of the quotation:

345 See Jastrow, Dictionary, 1161; cf. TO Deut 24:3, PsJon Exod 21:11; m.Git 9:3 346 See above, Chapter Two, p. 89. 347 See above, p. 149. 348 Smelik, ‘Mystical Transformation’. 349 A Hebrew quotation of the verse is found in Tan Noa 3. targumic quotations 227

… and his lovers, the righteous,350 will be destined to shine like the splendour of his glory a three hundred and forty-three times more, as the rising of the sun in his might.’ The addition ‘the righteous’ is also found in several of the Western manuscripts of Targum Jonathan, as has been remarked by Smelik.351 is found in ms Or. 1471 of the British Museum and כזהור The reading in Codex Reuchlin.352 We may assume that Midrash Tanuma here is based on a Western manuscript of Targum Jonathan.353

7.8. Midrash Psalms You)‘ ,פצמתה In MidrPss 60:2 (on Ps 60:3–4) the meaning of the word have made the land quake), You have torn it open’ (Ps 60:4) is discussed. To illustrate its meaning the targum of Jer 36:23 is quoted: :You have torn it open’)? (It means‘) פצמתה (What is (the meaning of ‘You have split apart) her doors [the doors of the earth]’. As it is said: ‘When Yehudi had read three columns …’, and we translate in Aramaic .’[splittings’ [i.e. columns‘ ,פצימין in Jer 36:23 means ‘columns’ or ‘leaves’ of a scroll.354 In דלתות Hebrew According to the .פצין Targum Jonathan the Aramaic equivalent is -The Ara .פצים the reading of the targum is (פצם .Arukh (6:393–94, s.v The .פצים is a plural form of (פצימין) maic rendering in our fragment .pl) פצא different readings may be due to the confusion of the forms which both have the meaning ‘board’ or ,(פצימין .pl) פצים and (פצין ‘column’.355

7.9. Pesikta de-Rav Kahana The verse ‘Arise, shine, for your light has dawned’ (Isa 60:1), which is the opening verse of a festive haftarah reading, has found several comments of Resh Lakish in PRK 21:3. In one of these comments he

350 Smelik, ‘Mystical Transformation’, 133 translates ‘… and his (righteous) lovers’, but it seems better to take ‘righteous’ as an apposition to ‘lovers’. 351 See Smelik, ‘Mystical Transformation’, 133 n. 58, where he gives four additions to Sperber’s apparatus. 352 See also the Western manuscripts mentioned in Smelik, Targum of Judges, 480 n. 864. 353 See Smelik, ‘Mystical Transformation’, 133 n. 58. 354 Cf. A. Demsky & M. Bar-Ilan, ‘Writing in Ancient Israel and Early Judaism’, in Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 13; Tov, Textual Criticism, 204. 355 See also Hayward, Targum of Jeremiah, 9. 228 chapter three illustrates the verse by a parable of a king with a daughter. A man asks for her hand, but in the eyes of the king he is not worthy to marry her. A second one is refuted on the same grounds. But when the third comes, the king says in Aramaic words: ‘Arise, shine, for your light has come’. Here, we find a fairly literal Aramaic quotation of Isa 60:1 which differs from Targum Jonathan on our (קומי הנהרי דאתיא נהוריך) Apart from the use of .(קומי אנהרי ירושלים ארי מטא זמן פרקניך) verse the haphel-form in the quotation of the Pesikta de-Rav Kahana356 as against the ‘aphel form in Targum Jonathan the latter is far more interpretative by its direct address to Jerusalem,357 and by taking ‘light’ as a symbol of ‘salvation’.358

In the Pesikta de-Rav Kahana there are furthermore several examples of alternative renderings of certain difficult words in the Hebrew text: sheep breeder’ in 2 Kgs 3:4. See‘ נ)ו( קדThe interpretation of the word .1 In the same verse Hebrew ‘the .(רעי) and PRK 6:2, 116 (מרי גיתי) TJ דכרין דרעיא wool of (a hundred thousand) rams’ is rendered in TJ as ‘(and a hundred thousand) rams of the pasture’. In PRK Rabbi Abba small livestock’.359‘ פרובטא bar Kahana renders this with with lights’ in Isa 24:15. See‘ בא)ו( ריםThe interpretation of the word .2 ’(when the light comes (to the righteous‘ (במיתי נהורא ]לצדיקיא[) TJ by these (two) lights’.360‘ (באילין פנסיא) and PRK 21:1, 319 embroidered garments’ in Ezek‘ רקמהThe interpretation of the word .3 and PRK 11:8, 184 (‘Rabbi Simay says [it 361(לבושי ציורין) See TJ .16:10 -many‘ פילקטין purple garments’; Aquila translates‘ פורפירין [means coloured garments’).362

-Cf. edn Mandel .קומי אנהרי דאתא נהוריך :A variant reading, however, gives 356 baum, 321. 357 Cf. Tg Isa 54:1, 10, 15, 17; 56:9, 60:4, 12, 17. 358 See on rain and dew as a symbol of salvation and resurrection, Sysling, Teiyyat Ha-Metim, 159–61. 359 See Krauss, Lehnwörter, II.481. 360 That is, the sun and the moon. See Sokoloff, JPA, 438. 361 Cf. Jastrow, Dictionary, 1275–76. see Krauss, Lehnwörter, II.112 (‘bunte ,פקילטון Perhaps one should read here 362 Kleider’). targumic quotations 229

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

בקשו את יהוה כל ענוי הארץ אשר משפטו פעלו (MT Zeph 2:3 (a תבעו ית דחלתא דיוי כל ענתני ארעא דדיני רעותיה עבדו Targum Jonathan האווין תובעין אורחיה דמלכיה דעלמא כל מכיכיה Ginze Schechter, 175 דארעה דעבדי]ן דינא בקשו צדק בקשו ענוה (MT Zeph 2:3 (b תבעו קושטא תבעו ענותנותא Targum Jonathan ודעבדין[ קושטא ומהלכין במכיכו קמי מרי דעלמה ועד Ginze Schechter, 175 איין כתיב בהון

אולי תסתרו ביום אף יהוה (MT Zeph 2:3 (c מא אם יתגן עליכון ביום רוגזא דיוי Targum Jonathan א]ולי תסתרו ביום אף יהוה[ דעתד לכון קברהו מן Ginze Schechter, 175 ההיא שעתא דרוגזא Here, Targum Jonathan is more literal than the quotation in the Geni- zah fragment, adding only a few explanatory words: Seek the fear of the Lord, all you humble of the land, who have kept the judgements of His pleasure; seek truth, seek humility. Perhaps you will be protected on the day of the Lord’s anger The Palestinian quotation of our verse in the Genizah fragment is more interpretative and diverges from Targum Jonathan in many ways: Keep seeking the way of the King of the World, all you low ones of the land, who fulfil the law and who keep the truth, and who are going in lowliness before the Lord of the World. And still it is written about them 'Perhaps you will find shelter on the day of theLord 's anger (Hebr.) who prepared for you His [?]364 graves for [?] that hour of anger.

363 Ms T-S 124 Cambridge University Library. Following Goshen-Goldstein II.30), we placed it under the header Pesikta Rabbati, although it is not ,שקיעים) certain whether it comes from this collection or from another collection of pesik- tot. Ginzberg calls it therefore more neutrally a ‘new pesikta’ (Genizah Studies: In Memory of Doctor Salomon Schechter (= Ginze Schechter). I. Midrash and Haggadah, New York 1928; repr. New York 1969, 172). for the difficult קברהון II.30 n. 2) suggests reading ,שקיעים) Goshen-Gottstein 364 .קברהו 230 chapter three

Here, differences from Targum Jonathan are found (a) on a grammatical level (use of the periphrastic imperative,365 reading perfect tenses b) in its use of translation) ;(בקשו ]צדק[ ,בקשו ]ענוה[ for the imperatives (low ones’) and substitutes for the divine name; (c‘ מכיכי) equivalents in the interpretation of ‘you will find shelter on the day of the Lord’s anger’ as ‘the Lord prepared for you his graves [as a shelter?] for that hour of anger’.

As in other midrashim we have discussed, in Pesikta Rabbati there are several examples of alternative renderings of certain difficult words in the Hebrew text: .sapphires’, in Isa 54:11‘ ספירים The interpretation of the word .1 PesR 32, 148a/b ;(סמפירינין) and PRK 18:4, 295 (אבני טבן) See TJ .(סנפירונין) MidrPss 87:1, 376 ;(סנפירינין) ruby (?)’ in Isa 54:12. See TJ‘ כדכד The interpretation of the word .2 ,PesR 32 ;(אבני כדכודיה / אבני כדכדיינון) and PRK 18:5, 296 (מרגולין) .(אבני כדכדא) 148a/b 7.11. Summary What can be said of the quotations of passages from the Prophets in the Midrash collections we have investigated? First we may note that there are surprisingly few Aramaic quotations in this large corpus, which by its nature is based on scriptural evidence for its midrashic explanations. Within this small number there are only a few direct quotations, that is quotations with an introduction formula (Nahum 3:8 quoted in GenR 1:1, Josh 5:2 in GenR 31:8, Judg 3:19–23 in GenR 99:3, Isa 21:5 in GenR 63:14; Isa 22:1 in a Genizah fragment of LamR, Ezek 24:6 in LamR, petita 5; Isa 5:6 in EcclR 11:3; Ezek 16:61 in CantR 1:5; Judg 5:31 in Midrash Tanuma Bereshit 6 and Jer 36:23 in MidrPss 60:2). Of these direct quotations the first (Nahum 3:8 inGenR 1:1) is, apart from being an orthographic variant, in line with Targum Jonathan, and the same is true for the quotation of Isa 5:6 in EcclR 11:3. In the case of Judg 5:31, the quotation seems to be based on a different, Western Vorlage of the Aramaic text. In the other cases, the translation differs from Targum Jonathan, remaining somewhat more closely to the Hebrew

(II.30 ,שקיעים) is the correct reading. Goshen-Gottstein האווין Assuming that 365 referring to ,ה]א[ווין תובעין also mentions the use of the paraphrastic imperative J.C. Greenfield, ‘The Periphrastic Imperative in Aramaic and Hebrew’, IEJ 19 (1969), 199–210. We have to be cautious, however, for this reading is far from certain. In his edition of the fragment, Ginzberg notes that the reading of the last 4 (!) characters of .(is very doubtful (Ginze Schechter, 175 n. 20 האווין the word targumic quotations 231 text (Ezek 24:6 in LamR, petita 5), or showing exegetical differences (Josh 5:2 in GenR 31:8, Judg 3:19–23 in GenR 99:3, Isa 21:5 in GenR 63:15; Ezek 16:61 in CantR 1:5). Sometimes, it is difficult to establish whether the translation given is dependent on Targum Jonathan or not (Isa 22:1 in a Genizah fragment of Lamentations Rabbah, Jer 4:18 in LamR, petita 16; Jer 36:23 in MidrPss 60:2). Looking at the indirect quotations, we see that there are often differences from Targum Jonathan. This, for instance, is the case in the following cases: Isa 29:17 quoted in GenR 24:1; 1 Sam 3:13b in MidrSam 10:1, 1 Sam 17:17 quoted in MidrSam 20:5; Isa 60:1 quoted in PRK 21:3 and Zeph 2:3 quoted in a Genizah fragment of pesikta anochi. In line with Targum Jonathan is the quotation of Isa 5:6 in EcclR 11:3. As we saw, numerous examples of alternative renderings of Hebrew words have been adduced by Goshen-Gottstein. We have given some examples of such alternative renderings, but in our view they do not necessarily reflect a targumic interpretation of the text.

E. Survey and Conclusions

In this chapter we have discussed quotations of targumic passages in the Palestinian Targums, in the Tosefta Targums, in Targum Esther Sheni and Targum Canticles, in magical texts, in Talmudim and Mi- drashim, in order to shed some new light on the early history of targumic practice. Within this context we have also paid attention to the long debated question as to whether there ever existed a complete Pal- estinian Targum to the Prophets. Before we summarise our findings, it has to be noted that a full picture cannot be given without further study of the quotations that are found in the works of medieval authors such as are mentioned in the first section of our chapter. We are also in need of a comparable study of the quotations from the Torah in the works we have investigated here. In this study, we have first of all given a survey of previous research on the subject. We have offered some criticism on the valuable work of Goshen-Gottstein, which fails to define more precisely what is meant by a quotation. Following the suggestions of Hughes, we have tried to define the difference between explicit or direct quotation on the one hand and indirect quotation or allusion on the other. It is important to see that direct quotations, that are quotations with an introductory formula, may also comprise free renderings of biblical texts, allusions, or combinations of scriptural passages. In line with the definition of 232 chapter three a quotation that is given by Hughes, we have excluded from our research the ‘alternative renderings, either of lexical or exegetical interest’ (Goshen-Gottstein), which do not refer to a specific textual source. Philological interpretations of certain difficult Hebrew words are often the issue.

We now come to some general observations: 1. The number of direct quotations in the works under discussion is not very high. We have studied 47 quotations that are introduced by all kinds of introductory formulas. Some of these are well known from the Jewish literature of the intertestamental period, or from Christian sources or early rabbinic writings. Each of the sources we have studied has its own specific way of indicating the provenance of a certain quotation or giving authority to the reasoning in a discourse. In talmudic sources we may find formulas that indicate that the quoted targum is an authoritative source for the interpretation of a biblical verse or for the explanation of a mishnah. 2. In the Palestinian Targums, quotations are especially found in the lengthy midrashic introductions that are connected with the weekly sabbath readings or the readings for certain festivals. These introductions are of a midrashic nature and are characterised by certain common elements of form. As in the midrashim, they abound in quotations of scriptural passages. This is also the case in the more midrash-like Targums on Canticles and Esther. 3. Some of the direct and indirect quotations are, apart from orthographic variants, completely in line with Targum Jonathan, or show minor variations. Other quotations differ from the official Targum. The differences sometimes are of a linguistic nature, but at other times the quotations differ with regard to their contents. Although this is sometimes assumed, the fact that they deviate from Targum Jonathan does not mean that they are always more interpretative than Targum Jonathan, for in quite a few cases the situation is just the opposite: they are far more literal than Targum Jonathan. Such is the case, for instance, with the quotation of 1 Kgs 18:37 in the lengthy introduction of parashat Kora (Num 16:1ff.) in the Frag- ment Targum, or with the quotation of Isa 51:6 in the Palestinian Targums on Deut 32:1. We have given two examples of a more literal translation in Targum Esther Sheni (Isa 65:24 in Esther Sheni 1:1, Isa 55:13 in Esther Sheni 2:7). There is, however, not a regular pattern of targumic quotations 233

such more literal translations that might lead us to conclude that a more verbatim Palestinian Targum existed. 4. The quotations in the Babylonian Talmud are mainly ascribed to Rav Joseph bar iyya, who must have played an important role in the propagation (and redaction?) of Targum Jonathan. That he himself was not the author is clear from the expression ‘Rav Joseph said, Were it not for the Targum of this verse, we should not know what it means’, which strongly suggests that he quotes from an existing text. 5. It comes as no surprise that most of the quotations in the Baby- lonian Talmud are in line with Targum Jonathan, although there are often minor variations. In one case, Zeph 3:18 in b.Ber 28a, the quotation is completely different from Targum Jonathan. We have argued that the talmudic variant might be older than the standard Jonathan version, which possibly underwent an editorial revision. The quotation of Zech 9:6 in b.Qid 72b, which also differs from the official targum, seems to be dependent on Targum Jonathan, but may represent a variant reading of the text. 6. With regard to the quotations on magical bowls, we may repeat here the conclusions of Christa Müller-Kessler that both Targum Onke- los and Targum Jonathan ‘are either translated before the destruction of the town of Nehardea [in 259 ce] or shortly after the newly founded Jewish academies in Sura and Pumbeditha’. In an earlier publication, Stephen Kaufman dated a magic bowl from Nippur with targumic quotations between 350–500 ce. As already mentioned, Joseph bar iyya, who lived in the fourth century ce, may have played an important role in the redaction of the official targum and its acceptance among the rabbinic leaders. The fact that a few quotations in the Babylonian Talmud from the books of Zephaniah and Zechariah differ completely from the known version of Targum Jonathan, might show that the redactional process was not closed at the time of Joseph bar iyya. The quotations that show minor variants might reflect the custom of memorising the citation or might testify to the instability of the Jonathan text. 7. The oldest Palestinian quotations are those in the Palestinian Tar- gums, which are usually dated between the third and fifth centuries ce. These quotations, as we saw, are only partly in line with Targum Jonathan, but more often they deviate from it linguistically or with regard to their exegetical contents. In Genesis Rabbah, one of the 234 chapter three

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

A. Evaluation of the Terminology

In Chapter One we noticed that the term ‘targum’ has a very wide spectrum of meaning and has been used indiscriminately for all kinds of translations of Scripture. We decided that it is good to reserve the technical term ‘targum’ for a specific kind of Aramaic Bible translation and we suggested the following definition: Targum is a Jewish Aramaic interpretative word-by-word translation of the biblical text in exegetical dependence on its wording. This is still a rather broad term that may be narrowed down by different adjectives, depending on the context in which it functions, since linguistic research obviously needs other terminology than literary or exegetical research. It proved to be the case that for our goal, i.e. the mutual comparison of different targum traditions, the division according to literary character is the most fruitful. We also considered the question of categorizing individual targum traditions by external features, in response to Alexander’s division 236 chapter four into a- and b-type targums. We distinguished the following types: 1. Literal word-by-word translation. 2. Extended translation with detachable glosses. 3. Interpretative word-by-word translation. 4. Extended interpretative translation.

In Chapter Two we examined in greater depth the so-called Tosefta Targums to the Books of Samuel, and in the process we also touched upon matters of terminology. The term ‘Tosefta Targum’ has the advantage of its widespread use, though it is not in all cases applied ac- curately. We propose not to abandon the term altogether, but to restrict its use to targumic traditions that serve as additions to Targum Jonathan. That includes textual additions to Targum Jonathan itself (e.g. 1 Sam 3:14) as well as complete alternative targumic renderings of certain verses that are preserved as a supplement to Targum Jonathan (e.g. 1 Sam 10:22). Minor textual variants that are presented as coming from another text tradition, such as for instance the sefer aer variant in 2 Sam 1:6 in Codex Reuchlin, should in our view איזדמנא איזדמית not be termed Tosefta Targum. Some extensive traditions that technically speaking can be called Tosefta Targums may need an extra denominator to describe them properly and distinguish them from other sorts of TTs. For instance, the long TT 1 Sam 17:42 may be appropriately called a ‘targumic poem’, whereas the compilation of 2 Sam 21:15–19 may be termed ‘targumic derashah’.

In Chapter Three we discussed the Aramaic quotations of the Prophets, which can be found in a wide range of sources. We have tried to define more precisely such terms as ‘quotation’, ‘allusion’, ‘free renderings of biblical texts’, and the like, basing our comments on earlier studies of these terms. Following the suggestions of Julie Hughes in her study on the Hodayot,1 we define the term quotation as ‘a phrase which is marked, explicitly or implicitly, as referring to the words of a speaker who is not the implied speaker of the composition’. For the term allusion we have adopted her working definition describing it as ‘a reference which is recognized by a reader as referring to a textual source, knowledge of which contributes to the meaning for the reader’.2

1 J.A. Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot, Leiden & Bos- ton 2006. 2 Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 52. summary and conclusions 237

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

B. Assessment of the Variants

As explained in the Introduction,4 the plans laid down in the ITTEP proposal were one of the reasons that motivated us to write the present book. In the proposal two goals were formulated.5 The first goal was defined as the creation of a single text for each targum that forms the best scholarly approximation of the earliest form of the text that can be identified. This text will be as fixed as possible, with all the necessary text-critical decisions made. Apparatuses could include variant readings in important manuscripts, indications of regional or stem- matological variances, orthography, interesting variations and additions, and so on. The second goal was defined as the creation of tools and textual data with which to study each targum as a living tradition over the centuries. For the realisation of the first goal serious text-critical and stem- matological research is needed. The simple variant readings that are found in particular in the marginal readings with the designations

–Vols, Ramat-Gan 1983 2 ,שקיעים מתרגומי המקרא הארמיים ,M. Goshen-Gottstein 3 1989, I:XX. 4 See above, pp. 1–2. 5 See http://www.targum.info/IOTS/TEECprop36.pdf, 5–6 (accessed Oct. 29, 2008). 238 chapter four sefer aer and lishna aerina of Codex Reuchlin and in quotations in rabbinic and medieval Jewish texts may be useful in this kind of research. However, especially in the case of the quotations, each instance must be studied on its merits since it must first be decided whether it concerns actual quotations or on-the-spot Aramaic renderings of certain difficult Hebrew words. The TTs on the other hand can hardly play a role in the construction of a reliable base text of Targum Jonath- an, but, if used with care, they can be of aid in the reconstruction of the later textual history.6 The TTs should be incorporated into one of the databases that are planned within the framework of the second goal of ITTEP. Such a database already exists within the enterprise of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon,7 but these data can be further corrected and supplemented with additional material. It is also desirable that not only one representative, but all the textual witnesses be included in the TT-database and that they be tagged indicating their source and provenance. In that way these data may be helpful in research into the development of regional customs. It is advisable that the targumic quotations be similarly collected in a database. Such a database should, besides the text of the quotation, also indicate the source in which the quotations occur, whereby the main division should be between early rabbinic and medieval sources.

C. The Origin and Early Development of the Targum of the Prophets

We start this last section with a short overview of the common opinion regarding the story of the development of the Targums (1),8 before we evaluate our findings in the light of the question of whether there is evidence of a once complete Palestinian Targum of the Prophets (2). Fi- nally we consider what our findings may or may not reveal concerning the use of the Targum of the Prophets in different times and ages (3).

6 See A. Houtman, ‘Different Kinds of Tradition in Targum Jonathan to Isaiah’, in: P. van Reenen, A. den Hollander & M. van Mulken (eds), Studies in Stemmatology II, Amsterdam & Philadelphia 2004, 269–83, at 283. 7 http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/ (accessed Oct. 29, 2008). 8 This overview is largely based upon P.S. Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Transla- tions of Hebrew Scriptures’, in: M.J. Mulder & H. Sysling (eds), Mikra: Text, Transla- tion, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen [etc.] 1988; repr. Peabody, Mass. 2004, 217–253, at 247–50. summary and conclusions 239

1. The common opinion The Targums originated in Palestine in the late Second Temple period. The oldest Targums were probably written in a formal dialect, such as the language of the Aramaic Qumran documents. As evidence shows, from early times expansive and non-expansive Targums existed side by side. From the number of recensions of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch it becomes clear that the Palestinian Targums were never standardised. After the Bar Kochba war, when the centre of rabbinic authority moved to Galilee, some of the Targums were recast into the local dialect. This probably had to do with the newly established practice of translating the weekly Torah reading and its prophetic complement orally into Aramaic. At some point, probably before this linguistic adaptation, recensions of a Palestinian Targum of the Pen- tateuch and of the Prophets were taken to Babylonia where they were subjected to a thorough revision and standardization, which among other things involved a shortening to bring the texts into closer con- formity to the Hebrew Bible. In the meanwhile in Palestine the ancient targum tradition stayed alive and — like any living tradition — continued to develop. In the post-talmudic period the authoritative Babylo- nian recensions returned to Palestine, where, although they did not entirely repress the Palestinian recensions, they certainly influenced them linguistically. Probably because the faithful and sober translations did not entirely satisfy the needs of the Palestinian audience, which was educated in a midrashic tradition, truncated forms of the Palestinian Targums emerged, which were designed to supplement the authoritative Targums. These truncated forms survived as Fragment Targums and TTs.

This reconstruction is largely based on an analysis of the Pentateuch Targums of which fortunately various recensions have survived. The origin and history of the Targum(s) of the Prophets, for which less evidence is available, is argued by analogy. This is not unreasonable, though one must bear in mind that besides the similarities between the Targums of the Pentateuch and of the Prophets there are also some notable differences. There is, for instance, a difference in status between the Books of the Torah and those of the Prophets, the Torah being on the highest hierarchical level. Apart from this difference in status, there is also a difference in nature and purpose. Whereas the Torah is meant as a guideline for daily life, the Books of the Prophets 240 chapter four also contain more esoteric wisdom that has no practical purpose. This is well illustrated from a passage in b.Meg 3a: Rabbi Jeremiah (some say Rabbi iyya bar Abba) said, “The translation of the Torah was made by Onkelos the Proselyte, that he learned from Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. The translation of the Prophets was made by Jonathan ben Uzziel, who learned it from the Prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. At that time, the Land of Israel shuddered 400 Persian miles by 400 Persian miles. A Bat Kol came forth, saying ‘Who is it that revealed My secrets to human beings?’ Jonathan ben Uzziel stood up and said, ‘I am the one who revealed Your secrets to human beings. But You know very well that I did it not for my own honour, nor for the honour of my father’s house, but rather I did it for Your honour, in order to minimize arguments within the people of Israel.” The gemara continues the discussion, seeking out the difference between the Targum of Onkelos, which elicited no shuddering on the part of the Land of Israel as did the translation of the Prophets. It is argued that the Torah is meant to be an accessible book, with a clear meaning available to anyone who makes the effort to study it, while the meaning of the Books of the Prophets, who often communicated their visions in difficult, even undecipherable, poetic language, is not meant to be easily accessible to everyone.9 Finally, there is also a difference in function with regard to the liturgy. Whereas the Torah is read in its entirety, either in one or in three years, only selected parts of the Prophets are read as haftarah to the Torah. The Torah is at the centre of the Jewish liturgy, the Prophets functioning primarily to shed light on the Torah reading.

2. Evaluation of the evidence If, for the moment, we disregard the differences between the Torah and the Prophets, and assume that the situation sketched above also holds true for the origin and history of the Targum(s) of the Prophets, then there must have existed at least one complete Palestinian Targum of the Prophets. Traces of this/these older version(s) may then have

9 Also in later Christian circles there was a certain reluctance to accept the Tar- gum of the Prophets. Cardinal Jiménez de Cisneros, Archbishop of Toledo, had all the Targums prepared for use in the Complutensian Polyglot Bible that was published at Alcalá (Spain) between 1514 and 1517. However, on further consideration, the Targums of the Prophets and the Writings were not incorporated into the Com- plutensian Bible, because they were considered to be corrupt and full of ‘talmudic fables’. They were instead to be kept in the Public Library of the Complutensian Uni- versity, to enable teachers and students to consult them. summary and conclusions 241 survived both in Targum Jonathan itself and in variant traditions. It is no easy task, however, to recognize these traces and to use them to reconstruct the possibly older version(s), because of the marked internal development of the Palestinian tradition and the later adaptation to the language of Onkelos and Jonathan. The original Palestinian Tar- gum that may have formed the base of Targum Jonathan has been lost, and at best some remnants have survived in the Palestinian tradition. It is very difficult to decide whether they survived in their original wording or were subject to later developments. If we sketch the development schematically the following picture emerges: 1. Targum(s) to the Prophets in Jewish Literary Aramaic 2a Redaction in Babylonia → TJ 2b Organic development in Palestine, adaptation to local dialects 3. TJ accepted in Palestine and supplemented with local Palestin- ian traditions that were adapted to the language of Onkelos and Jonathan, and with later exegetical material that emerged from the Babylonian schools. So, if with regard to the Tosefta Targums we find targums of the Prophets other than Targum Jonathan in a local Palestinian dialect, they probably belong to stage 2b. If, on the other hand, we find traditions in Jewish Literary Aramaic, they might either belong to stage 1 or stage 3. If we are lucky there are some tell-tale signs that give away a little more information, as becomes clear for instance from the linguistic investigations of Alinda Damsma in her dissertation on Targum Ezekiel, who succeeded in dating some Tosefta Targums to the geonic period on the basis of linguistic resemblances to Late Jewish Literary Aramaic.10 Another tell-tale indication of a late stage of development is the awareness shown of Babylonian traditions. This all means that whereas it is in some cases possible to date traditions to the second or third stage of development, it is extremely difficult to find traces of the first stage in which we were initially especially interested.

Considering next the evidence of the quotations, we may first point out that the oldest Palestinian quotations are those in the Palestinian Tar- gums to the Pentateuch, which are usually dated between the third and fifth centuries, with of course the notable exception of Pseudo-Jonathan

10 A. Damsma, An Analysis of Targum Ezekiel and its Relationship to the Targumic Toseftot, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University College London 2008. 242 chapter four which also contains material of a much later date. These quotations, as we saw in our study, often deviate from Targum Jonathan linguistically and/or with regard to their exegetical contents. The number of these quotations in the Palestinian Targums is small and they mostly form part of the ‘midrashic’ introductions, which are connected with the liturgical readings. The texts of the quotations vary from Aramaic renderings that are more literal than Targum Jonathan (e.g. 1 Kgs 18:37 in FTP Num 16:1) to very free renderings (e.g. Ezek 39:9–10 in PsJon Num 11:26). The same phenomenon is observed in the Palestinian Targums Esther Sheni and Tg Canticles, where we saw translations that are far more literal than Targum Jonathan (e.g. Isa 65:24 in Esther Sheni 1:1) alongside a free rendering that is more expansive than the official Tar- gum (Isa 30:29 in Tg Cant 1:1). Also the targumic quotations in the Tosefta Targums show the same mix of more literal (e.g. Jer49:11 in the TT on 2 Kgs 4:1) and more paraphrastic renderings (e.g. Isa 14:14 in TT Ezek 14:14). This variety in nature of the targumic quotations within other Palestinian Targums is in accordance with the findings of Qum- ran, where very literal Aramaic translations were also found besides paraphrastic renderings. Apparently the two different ways of interpreting a Hebrew text existed side by side through the ages without a notable development from paraphrastic to literal or vice versa. As might be expected, the quotations in the Babylonian Talmud are generally in line with Targum Jonathan, which already stood in high esteem at the time of the Talmud (as is clear from the way it is cited). The more remarkable is a targumic rendering of Zeph 3:18 inb.Ber 28a, which is completely different from Targum Jonathan. We have argued that in this case the talmudic variant may be older than the redacted version of Targum Jonathan. The evidence from the Palestinian Talmud and from the midrashic literature is very scarce. Within the relatively small corpus of quotations there are great differences in the way the quotations are introduced, in their wording in different manuscripts, and in adaptations to the context. This implies a free and fluctuating Palestinian Targum tradition that was probably not subjected to an editorial hand. The scarcity of the quotations, combined with the fact that different targumic traditions apparently existed side by side, and the fact that the traditional exegetical literature from Palestine did not appeal to the Targums as an authoritative source, as the Babylonian tradition does, may indicate that the Targums had a lesser status in Palestine than they had in Babylonia. summary and conclusions 243

Just as in the case of the Tosefta Targums, and perhaps even less so because of the brevity of most of the quotations, it is practically impossible to deduce the origin of the quotations from their linguistic characteristics.

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

11 See e.g. S.A. Kaufman & Y. Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20: Reconstruct- ing the Palestinian Targum’, Textus 16 (1991), 13–78, at 20–21, who follow this stem- matological principle in their reconstruction. 244 chapter four grounds,12 and its occurrence in different traditions might lend support to her proposition. However, although the poem may have ancient roots, its present form is probably post-talmudic. The poem as we have it now has some clear Babylonian linguistic characteristics; it apparently reworked older traditions and it contains references to Targum Jonathan.13 In this specific case therefore the broad distribution may in fact be the result of its literary qualities rather than its age. Another indication for an early origin of individual traditions may be their incorporation into the text of Targum Jonathan.14 This is the case for instance in 1 Sam 2:9 and 2 Sam 6:23. The fact that these variants also occur in Genizah fragments may add to the plausibility of this reasoning.

On the basis of the analogy with the Pentateuchal Targums, and because it is not very likely that Targum Jonathan was constructed from scratch, it seems reasonable to presuppose a once complete Palestinian Targum to the Prophets. This hypothesis is supported by the many instances of Palestinian targum to verses that are not part of known liturgical reading cycles. The case remains hypothetical, however, because of lack of sufficient evidence. But from the moment that Targum Jonathan received its Babylonian recension, which, on the basis of the fact that R. Joseph (d. 333) already referred to it and on the evidence from the magic bowls, must have been somewhere in the third century ce, we stand on slightly firmer ground. It seems clear that Targum Jonathan was supplemented in Palestine with local traditions. We found in our sample two Genizah fragments which contain additions that are incorporated into the text. From Palestine the TTs spread out into the Western World. It appears that the Sephardi community was more apt to incorporate the TTs into their tradition than the Ashkenazi community. Nine TTs found their way into Sephardi texts (1 Sam 17:8; 17:39; 17:42; 18:19; 18:25; 2 Sam 6:23; 12:12; 19:30; 20:22), as against only three in Ashkenazi texts (1 Sam 17:8; 17:39; 17:42). The latter all concern the battle between David and Goliath, which may be no coincidence in a strongly anti-Jewish envi- ronment. There are no TTs in our sample which occur exclusively in

12 See the literature mentioned on p. 118. 13 See above, p. 117–118. Tel Aviv ,לשון התרגום לנביאים ראשונים ומעמדה בכלל ניבי הארמית ,See e.g. A. Tal 14 1975, 1996. summary and conclusions 245 the Ashkenazi tradition. Research into the TTs of the other books of the Prophets is needed to see whether this distribution is accidental or a common trend. Of the two targumic derashot that occurred in our sample, one (2 Sam 21:15–19) was found only in ms Gaster 1478, a type- written copy of ms 1020 that apparently contained aggadic traditions to the haftarot. The other, which consists of verses from the haftarah to the Seventh Day of Passover, (2 Sam 22:3, 8, 11, 13, 17, 28, 47) was found only in two closely related Italian Mazorim. This occurrence in especially Italian Mazorim is not surprising, given the fact that in Italy the custom of translating into Aramaic all the haftarot for Passover and those for the two days of Shavuot has been preserved until recently.15 It may be that these kinds of derashot were assembled for special occasions, in a creative way making use of existing material. This seems to be a late development. In the material we studied we found one acrostic Aramaic poem concerning 1 Sam 17:42, consisting of a dialogue between Goliath and David. The poem occurs in two Ashkenazi manuscripts from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and in five Sephardi texts from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It may be that the content of this poem is old, but the present form seems to be post-talmudic. As becomes clear from its wide distribution, this poem was very popular in the Middle Ages in Europe.

Let us at the end of this section look back for a moment upon the short excursus we made in Chapter Two on the Pentateuch Targums.16 We discussed there briefly the case of the Fragment Targums, which are collections of fragmentary targumic traditions that seem to have been consciously selected and assembled as a supplement to another Targum. We noticed the resemblance to the corpus of TTs that also consists of additions as well as variant readings. For the case of the Pentateuch, the late Michael Klein noted the following differences between the two corpora:17 1. The TTs are expansive passages of aggadic midrash, while the Frag- ment Targums also carry brief verses, phrases or even single words.

15 See e.g. E. Fleischer, ‘Prayer and Piyyu in the Worms Mazor’, in: M. Beit- Arié (ed.), Worms Mazor: MS. Jewish National and University Library Heb. 40 781/1, Jerusalem 1985, 36–78, at 42 n. 62. 16 See above, pp. 46–48. 17 M.L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 Vols, Cincinnati 1986, I.xxvi–xxvii. 246 chapter four

2. Even though Palestinian in origin, the TTs have been used to supplement Onkelos and consequently have undergone a conscious dialectal adaptation to the language of Onkelos. The Fragment Tar- gums on the other hand have retained the language of the Palestin- ian Targums. Moshe Bernstein added to this another difference: 3. The Fragment Targum covers the entire Pentateuch, while the extant TTs are limited to a few select passages from Genesis and Exodus.18

If we now review and compare what we found in our work on the Tosefta Targums with the observations for the Pentateuch, we notice the following: Ad 1. The corpus of TTs to the Books of Samuel does not only consist of expansive passages of aggadic Midrash, but contains, as do the Frag- ment Targums, also brief verses and phrases. Cases of single words were found in the categories sefer aer and lishna aerina, but we decided not to count them as TTs. Ad 2. The TTs to the Books of Samuel have probably been used to supplement Targum Jonathan, just as the TTs to the Pentateuch supplemented Onkelos, and therefore their language has been adapted to Targum Jonathan to some extent. It is still unsolved to which work the Fragment Targums are supplements as Klein has shown.19 It may be that they were meant as supplements to a Targum other than Onkelos, which would explain their Palestinian usage. Ad 3. As becomes clear from the work of Kasher on all the TTs of the Prophets, the TTs are relatively evenly spread over all the biblical books. In this respect they are comparable to the Fragment Targums rather than to the TTs of the Pentateuch.

It seems obvious that the TTs to the Prophets functioned as a supplement to Targum Jonathan. This may be deduced from the fact that many of the TTs do not make sense without the text of Targum -indi וגו' Jonathan. Moreover, in a number of cases the abbreviation cates that the copyist is writing within a frame of reference of some

18 M.J. Bernstein, ‘A New Manuscript of Tosefta Targum’, Proceedings of the 9th WCJS: Division A, The Period of the Bible, Jerusalem 1986, 151–58, at 151. 19 M.L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources, 2 Vols, Rome 1980, I.12–19. summary and conclusions 247 other complete targum.20 He cites only the variant portions of verses and refers the reader to the base-targum for the completion of the verse. The same occurs in the Fragment Targums.21 So, in this respect there is not much difference. The main problem is that we do not really have a consciously selected and assembled corpus to the extent of the Fragment Targums, though at times small collections seem to have been transmitted separately.22 It is to be feared that, unless new evidence surfaces, the question of whether the TTs may be considered a corpus comparable to the Fragment Targums, or that they are rather a stray collection of all kinds of targumic traditions, varying from old traditions that for one reason or another did not become part of Tar- gum Jonathan to younger traditions that are the result of later developments, will remain unresolved.

3. Sitz im Leben Regardless of whether or not there was ever a complete Palestinian Targum to the Prophets, the fact is, that we have evidence of a Palestin- ian targum tradition that apparently existed side by side with Targum Jonathan. What can this evidence teach us about how the Targums functioned? According to Kasher, the two targum traditions, the short one from Targum Jonathan and the longer one as represented in the TTs, existed side by side, having different functions. Targum Jonathan functioned in the schools (biblical language and exegesis), whereas the TTs functioned in the synagogues (homily and education).23 Along the same lines Gleßmer argued that the term ‘Jerushalmi’ came to denote targums for liturgical purposes in medieval literature.24 We are not sure whether this division can be made so sharply. In Codex Reuchlin

20 In our sample we find the expression in 2 Sam 21:5. This is, however, asefer aer variant that we decided not to attribute automatically to the TTs, although in this specific case it would have been defensible to do so. Examples from the remainder of the Prophets are (based on the book of Kasher): Josh 7:5, 1 Kgs 5:11, 1 Kgs 5:13, 1 Kgs 19:10/14, 2 Kgs 4:1, Isa 41:2, Isa 66:24, Hos 1:2 (in Kasher erroneously as Hos 2:1). 21 Klein, The Fragment-Targums, I.15 22 Bernstein, ‘A New Manuscript’, 151; Klein, ‘Targumic Toseftot’, 410; U. Gleßmer, Einleitung in die Targume zum Pentateuch, Tübingen 1995, 165; C. Leonhard, The Jewish Pesach and the Origins of the Christian Easter: Open Questions in Current Research, Berlin 2006, 356–57. .Jerusalem 1996, 63 ,תוספתות תרגום לנביאים: ההדיר, ביאר ותרגום לעברית ,R. Kasher 23 24 U. Gleßmer, Entstehung und Entwicklung der Targume zum Pentateuch als literarkritisches Problem, dargestellt am Beispiel der Zusatztargume, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University of Hamburg 1988, 69–70. 248 chapter four

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

25 W.F. Smelik, The Targum of Judges, Leiden [etc.] 1995, 77. .nr. 87 133 ,תוספתות ,Published in Kasher 26 -ms Halberstamm as cited in G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch ,ספר העתים 27 palästinischen Aramäisch, Darmstadt 1960, 30. This text dates from ± 1100 ce. summary and conclusions 249 bar Ilai. So, a distinction was drawn between a targum that served as a translation of Scripture and a targum that served as an explanation of the same.

If we now turn to the targumic quotations, we see that the quotations in the targumic literature may have had a homiletical function, connecting different parts of Scripture as proof of the unity of Scripture. In the midrashic and talmudic literature their function was mainly expositional. In later medieval literature the quotations always had an academic function, be it expositional, as in the medieval commentaries, or linguistic, as in the dictionaries.

From the fact that the Targums had a liturgical use long after any possible language necessity had ceased, and more than that, even in times and circumstances where probably the majority of the audience did not understand Aramaic, it can be deduced that in later times the use of Targums in the liturgy was traditional rather than functional. Where it originally had started as a daring innovation, it developed gradually into a conservative element.

4. Epilogue To conclude this book we would like to quote the famous saying of Ecclesiastes 12:12b: The making of many books is without limit And much study is a wearying of the flesh This is very true, as all scholars will readily confirm. But although our study was indeed wearying, it is not to deny that it was also reward- ing. We gained new insights, but then again we did not find as many and as clear answers as we would have liked to present to the reader. Initially, we had hoped to discover more of the prehistory of Targum Jonathan, especially with regard to the much-debated question of a possible Palestinian Targum to the Prophets. As it stands now, we have not sufficient evidence to declare ourselves either against or in favour of this hypothesis. On the positive side our research has provided a systematic approach to the Tosefta Targums and targumic quotations that can be used for text critical ends. Moreover, our investigations have shed new light on the relation between Targum Jonathan and alternative targum 250 chapter four traditions. It turned out that not only in the Tosefta Targums, but also in the targumic quotations, the differences are not only linguistic, but also exegetical. No development could be detected from either literal to more paraphrastic or vice versa. Both ways of translation were apparently used alongside each other though the ages.

In the course of our work we became aware of some lacunas in our present knowledge that perhaps future studies can help to fill. This concerns the following: »» Obviously the research into the Tosefta Targums has to be extended to the remainder of the Books of the Torah and the Prophets. Among other things, attention should be paid to the question whether the distribution among the different traditions that was noticed in the present study is accidental or a common trend. »» More linguistic research is needed with regard to both the Tosefta Targums and the targumic quotations. »» The research into the targumic quotations has to be extended to the medieval works, an initial impetus for which is given in Appendix One. »» The liturgical function of the Targums in times and places where Aramaic was not a commonly known language remains an enigma and deserves further research. A last point that deserves scholarly attention is the influence of historical and cultural circumstances on the development of the Targums. This need will be partly filled by a new research program that started last year at the Protestant Theological University in Kampen in cooperation with the Evangelical Theological Faculty in Leuven. This project is called ‘A Jewish Targum in a Christian World’ and investigates the influence of the historical circumstances on the development of the Targums in Europe in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period. We express the hope that worldwide more projects will be undertaken to elucidate the origin and development of the rabbinic Targums and to pave the way for new scholarly editions. Appendix one

Targumic quotations from the Prophets in the order of the works in which they appear

In this appendix a list of quotations is given according to the works in which they appear. The first 18 categories coincide more or less with the material discussed in Chapter Three, though not all items are discussed there in full. The second part, from category 19 onwards, contains material from other, mostly medieval, sources. We wish to stress that we did not identify, nor study, all the material given there ourselves. We compiled the list partly from references in other works, in particular the valuable work of Goshen-Gottstein, and partly from cases we have come across during our own research. In Appendix 2 the same citations are arranged in the order of the biblical books. There- fore we decided not to include this material in the index. Scholars who want to check whether there are any known targumic citations of certain passages from the Prophets can use Appendix Two.

A. Targum, Magical Texts and Rabbinic Literature

1. Targum

Palestinian Targums Bibliographic Quotation Context information1 1 Tg 1 Sam 25:29 PsJon Deut 31:16 II.19–21 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Kgs 18:37 FTP, intr. to parashat GG 2 Kora, Num 16:1 (8.14), cf. II.52ff. 3 Tg 1 Kgs 21:19, 23 FTP, intr. to parashat (2 Kgs 9:10, 36–37) Kora, Num 16:1

1 In this bibliographic information the following abbreviations are used: GG, Vols, Ramat-Gan 2 ,שקיעים מתרגומי המקרא הארמיים ,M. Goshen-Gottstein = שקיעים 1983–1989; Bacher, ‘Notes’ = W. Bacher, ‘Notes on the Critique of the Text of the Tar- gum of the Prophets’, JQR 11 (1899); Bacher, SH = W. Bacher (ed.), Sepher Haschora- schim: Wurzelwörterbuch der hebr. Sprache von Abulwalîd Merwân Ibn Ganâh (R. Jona), Berlin 1893–96; Sokoloff-Yahalom, JPAP = M. Sokoloff & J. Yahalom, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry from Late Antiquity: Critical Edition with Introduction and Commentary, Jerusalem 1999. Other abbreviations speak for themselves. 252 appendix one

(II.21 (8.15 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Kgs 22:28 FTP, intr. to parashat GG 4 (= Tg 2 Chron 18:27) Kora, Num 16:1 5 Tg Isa 1:2 PTs Deut 32:1 6 Tg Isa 40:4 PsJon Exod 12:37, Num 14:14 II.25–26 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 51:6 PTs Deut 32:1 GG 7 (8.20) 8 Tg Isa 63:2–3 PTs Gen 49:11 9 Tg Isa 65:17 PTs Deut 32:1 II.27–28 ,שקיעים ,Tg Jer 17:5, 7 PTs Gen 40:23 GG 10 (8.22) 11 Tg Jer 17:8 PTs Num 21:34 12 Tg Jer 32:18 PTs Exod 20:5 13 Tg Ezek 18:13 CGF (TT) / FTP Exod 13:17 14 Tg Ezek 37:12 (13) PTs Gen 30:22 15 Tg Ezek 39:9–10 PTs Num 11:26 16 Tg Obad 18 PsJon Gen 30:25

Targum Jonathan (quoting other passages in Targum Jonathan) 17 Tg Judg 5:31 TJ Isa 41:25 18 Tg 2 Kgs 19:3 TJ Hos 13:13 (cf. TJ (= Tg Isa 37:3) 2 Sam 22:5)

Targum Writings II.61–62 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Sam 2:8 Tg Esther Sheni 6:11 (ms GG 19 Urbinati 1) (9.24) II.62–63 ,שקיעים ,Tg 2 Sam 19:23 Tg Esther Sheni 2:5 (ms GG 20 Urbinati 1) (9.25) II.66–68 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 30:29 Tg Canticles 1:1 GG 21 (9.31) II.68–69 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 55:13 Tg Esther Sheni 2:7 (ms GG 22 Urbinati 1) (9.32) (II.72 (9.36 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 65:24 Tg Esther Sheni 1:1 GG 23 (Mikraot Gedolot) I.xvi; II.135 ,שקיעים ,Tg Jer 20:7 Tg Esther Sheni 1:2 (ms GG 24 Urbinati 1) (11.39) I.xvi, II.31 ,שקיעים ,Tg Hag 2:8 Tg Esther Sheni 1:4 (edn GG 25 Grossfeld 36–37) (8.262)

2 Refers erroneously to Hag 2:4. appendix one 253

II.80–81 ,שקיעים ,Tg Zech 1:8 Tg Esther Sheni 2:7 (ms GG 26 Urbinati 1) (9.45)

Tosefta Targums 27 Tg Judg 5:9 TT Judg 5:3 28 Tg 1 Sam 15:29 TT Zech 2:14 ;(124ff. (72:9–10 ,תוספתות ,Tg 2 Sam 3:29 TT 1 Kgs 2:1 Kasher 29 TT 1 Kgs 2:30 126ff. (75:1–2) (116ff. (69:61 ,תוספתות ,Tg 2 Sam 21:17 TT 2 Sam 21:15–19 Kasher 30 -II.157–58 (12.04); Kash ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Kgs 8:27 TT Isa 66:1 GG 31 (169ff. (120:5–7 ,תוספתות ,Tg 2 Chron er =) 6:18) ,II.63–64 (9.26); Kasher ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Kgs 18:3 / TT 2 Kgs 4:1 GG 32 .140ff ,תוספתות Tg 2 Kgs 4:1 ,II.22–23 (8.16); Kasher ,שקיעים ,Tg 2 Kgs 21:16 TT Isa 66:1 GG 33 (169ff. (120:12–14/16 ,תוספתות 34 Tg Isa 6:1 TT Isa 6:1 Houtman, ‘De Targoem van Jesaja 6:1’ .180ff ,תוספתות ,Tg Isa 14:13–14 TT Ezek 1:1 Kasher 35 .189f., 190ff., 193ff ;(17:[א]125) ,II.70–71 (9.35); Kasher ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 60:8 TT Isa 66:23 GG 36 (36–120:35) 170 ,תוספתות (169ff. (120:3, 17–18 ,תוספתות ,Tg Isa 66:1 TT Isa 66:1 Kasher 37 38 Tg Jer 49:11 TT 2 Kgs 4:1 –126 [א]125) 184 ,תוספתות ,Tg Ezek 1:1 TT Ezek 1:1 Kasher 39 127); Damsma, Analysis of Targum Ezekiel, 38–39 ,II.76–77 (9.41); Kasher ,שקיעים ,Tg Hos 1:2–3 TT Hos 1:2 GG 40 (5–132:3) 03–202 ,תוספתות ;(II.78 (9.43 ,שקיעים ,Tg Micah 5:4 TT Zech 4:2 GG 41 .219ff ,תוספתות ,Kasher (64–62:[א]144) ,II.79–80 (9.44); Kasher ,שקיעים ,Tg Zeph 3:5 TT Zech 2:14 GG 42 .213ff ,תוספתות (4–3:[א]144) 2. Magical texts 43 Tg Isa 40:12 Incantation Naveh–Shaked, Amulets, 110 Texts – Cairo Geniza (Amulet 15, Israel Museum) 254 appendix one

44 Tg Jer 2:1–2 Nippur-bowl Kaufman, ‘A Unique Magic Bowl’, 170–75 45 Tg Ezek 21:23 (?) Nippur-bowl Kaufman, ‘A Unique Magic Bowl’, 170–75

3. Talmud

Babylonian Talmud (II.118–19 (11.21 ,שקיעים ,Tg Josh 7:21 b.Sanhedrin 44a GG 46 47 Tg 2 Sam 5:21 b.Rosh ha-Shanah 22b b.Avodah Zarah 44a 48 Tg 2 Kgs 2:12 b.Moed Qatan 26a (II.126–27 (11.32 ,שקיעים ,Tg 2 Kgs 17:30–31 b.Sanhedrin 63b GG 49 50 Tg Isa 5:17 b.Pesaim 68a 51 Tg Isa 8:6 b.Sanhedrin 94b 52 Tg Isa 10:32 b.Sanhedrin 95a 53 Tg Isa 19:18 b.Menaot 110a 54 Tg Isa 33:21 b.Yoma 77b 55 Tg Isa 41:16 b.Avodah Zarah 44a (II.133–34 (11.37 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 41:19 b.Rosh ha-Shanah 23a GG 56 57 Tg Isa 62:5 b.Moed Qatan 2a 58 Tg Jer 46:20 b.Yoma 32b 59 Tg Jer 52:16 b.Shabbat 26a 60 Tg Ezek 9:6 b.Avodah Zarah 4a 61 Tg Hos 4:2 b.Qiddushin 13a 62 Tg Amos 7:14 b.Nedarim 38a 63 Tg Obad 6 b.Baba Qamma 3b (I:84–85 (2.39 ,שקיעים ,Tg Zeph 3:18 b.Berakhot 28a GG 64 65 Tg Zech 9:6 b.Qiddushin 72b 66 Tg Zech 12:11 b.Megillah 3a b.Moed Qatan 28b

Palestinian Talmud (II.156 (12.03 ,שקיעים ,Tg Josh 7:20 y.Sanhedrin 6:1 (23b) GG 67 (II.122–23 (11.26 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Sam 9:24 y.Megillah 1:14[12] (72c) GG 68 (II.123–24 (11.28 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Sam 25:6 y.Sanhedrin 2:3 (20b) GG 69 (II.124–25 (11.30 ,שקיעים ,Tg 2 Sam 3:29 y.Qiddushin 1:7 (61a) GG 70 appendix one 255

71 Tg 1 Kgs 18:37 y.Sanhedrin 10:1 (28a) (II.126–27 (11.32 ,שקיעים ,Tg 2 Kgs 17:30–31 y.Avodah Zarah 3:2 GG 72 (42cd) (II.127–28 (11.34 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 2:4 y.Shabbat 6:4 (8b) GG 73 (= Tg Micah 4:3) ;(II.128–32 (11.35 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 3:18–23 y.Shabbat 6:4 (8b) GG 74 I.73–74 (2.21, Tg Isa 3:22) (II.65 (9.28 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 21:13 y.Taanit 4:5 (69b) GG 75 76 Tg Isa 33:21 y.Sheqalim 6:2 (50a) II.133–34 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 41:19 y.Ketuvot 7:9 (31d) GG 77 (II.28–29 (8.23 ,שקיעים ,Tg Joel 2:13 y.Taanit 2:1 (65b) GG 78

4. Midrash

Genesis Rabbah (I.140–41 (7.20 ,שקיעים ,Tg Josh 5:2–3 GenR 31:8 (Th-A 281) GG 79 (II.118–19 (11.21 ,שקיעים ,Tg Josh 7:21 GenR 85:14 (Th-A 1050) GG 80 (II.119–20 (11.22 ,שקיעים ,Tg Judg 3:20, 22, GenR 99:3 (Th-A 1275) GG 81 23, (24) (II.64–65 (9.27 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 21:5 GenR 63:14 (Th-A 699) GG 82 (II.66 (9.30 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 29:17 GenR 24:1 (Th-A 230) GG 83 (II.133–34 (11.37 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 41:19 GenR 15:1 (Th-A 136) GG 84 (II.73 (9.38 ,שקיעים ,Tg Ezek 7:11 GenR 31:1 (Th-A 277) GG 85 86 Tg Nah 3:8 GenR 1:1 (Th-A 1–2)

Leviticus Rabbah (II.120 (11.23 ,שקיעים ,Tg Judg 4:18 LevR 23:10 (M 542) GG 87 (II.124 (11.29 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Sam 28:8 LevR 26:7 (M 599) GG 88 (II.23 (8.17 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 1:21 LevR 4:1 (M 76) GG 89 (II.132 (11.36 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 35:4 LevR 19:5 (M 428) GG 90 (II.69–70 (9.33 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 57:18–19 LevR 16:9 (M 366) GG 91 I.XX, II.134–35 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 58:11 LevR 34:15 (M 809ff.) GG 92 (11.38) (II.136–37 (11.41 ,שקיעים ,Tg Ezek 23:42 LevR 33:6 (M 767) GG 93 (II.29 (8.24 ,שקיעים ,Tg Amos 6:2, 4 LevR 5:3 (M 104–05) GG 94 (II.77 (9.42 ,שקיעים ,Tg Amos 7:7 LevR 33:2 (M 758) GG 95 (II.79–80 (9.44 ,שקיעים ,Tg Zeph 3:5 LevR 31:10 (M 730) GG 96 (II.137 (11.42 ,שקיעים ,Tg Zech 5:1 LevR 6:3 (M 130) GG 97 256 appendix one

Numbers Rabbah (II.29 (8.24 ,שקיעים ,Tg Amos 6:2, 4 NumR 10:3 GG 98

Lamentations Rabbah (II.65 (9.28 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 21:13 LamR 2:5 (Buber 108) GG 99 (II.66 (9.29 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 22:1 LamR (Rabinovitz, GG 100 (26–123 ,גנזי מדרש (II.24 (8.18 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 22:2 LamR, petita 24 GG 101 (II.72–73 (9.37 ,שקיעים ,Tg Jer 4:18 LamR, petita 16 GG 102 (II.75 (9.40 ,שקיעים ,Tg Ezek 24:6 LamR, petita 5 GG 103 (II.75–76 (9.40 ,שקיעים ,Tg Ezek 24:9 LamR, petita 5 GG 104

Ecclesiastes Rabbah (II.127 (11.33 ,שקיעים ,Tg 2 Kgs 18:16 EcclR 9:18 GG 105 106 Tg Isa 5:6 EcclR 11:3

Canticles Rabbah (II.64–65 (9.27 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 21:5 CantR 3:3 GG 107 (II.73–74 (9.39 ,שקיעים ,Tg Ezek 16:61 CantR 1:5 GG 108

Midrash Samuel (II.60 (9.23 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Sam 2:4 MidrSam 5:10 GG 109 (II.122 (11.25 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Sam 3:13 MidrSam 10:1 GG 110 (II.122–23 (11.26 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Sam 9:24 MidrSam 14:4 GG 111 (II.123 (11.27 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Sam 17:18 MidrSam 20:5 GG 112 113 Tg 1 Sam 25:6 MidrSam 23:9 (II.124 (11.29 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Sam 28:8 MidrSam 24:1 GG 114 115 Tg 2 Sam 24:15 MidrSam (Rabinovitz, (203 ,גנזי מדרש

Midrash Tanuma 116 Tg Judg 5:31 Tan Bereshit 6 (II.121 (11.24 ,שקיעים ,Tg Judg 18:27 TanB Re’eh 14 GG 117 (II.133–34 (11.37 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 41:19 TanB Terumah 9 GG 118 (II.133–34 (11.37 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 41:19 Tan Terumah 9 GG 119

Midrash Psalms (II.24–25 (8.19 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 26:13 MidrPss 28:2 GG 120 appendix one 257

(II.26–27 (8.21 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 54:11–12 MidrPss 87:1 GG 121 122 Tg Jer 36:23 MidrPss 60:2 (II.79–80 (9.44 ,שקיעים ,Tg Zeph 3:5 MidrPss 19:11 GG 123

Pesikta de Rav-Kahana (II.121 (11.24 ,שקיעים ,Tg Judg 18:27 PRK 10:8 (M 169–70) GG 124 (II.125–26 (11.31 ,שקיעים ,Tg 2 Kgs 3:4 PRK 6:2 (M 116) GG 125 (I.112–13 (5.08 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 24:15 PRK 21:1 (M 319) GG 126 (II.26–27 (8.21 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 54:11–12 PRK 18:2, 4, 5 GG 127 (M 294–96) (II.70 (9.34 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 60:1 PRK 21:3 (M 321) GG 128 (II.135 (11.39 ,שקיעים ,Tg Jer 20:7 PRK 13:14 (M 238) GG 129 (II.136 (11.40 3 ,שקיעים ,Tg Ezek 16:10 PRK 11:8 (M 184) GG 130 (II.28–29 (8.23 ,שקיעים ,Tg Joel 2:13 PRK 24:11 (M 364) GG 131

Pesikta Rabbati (II.26–27 (8.21 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 54:11–12 PesR 32 (148a/b) GG 132 133 Tg Zeph 2:3 Pesikta anochi Ginze Schechter, 175; (II.30–31 (8.25 ,שקיעים ,GG

B. Medieval Works

1. Late Midrash and Kabbalah

Sekhel Tov, Menaem ben Solomon (I.120 (6.06 ,שקיעים ,Tg Josh 10:21 Sekhel Tov, Exod 11:7 GG 134 (I.68–69 (2.13 ,שקיעים ,Tg Judg 4:21 Sekhel Tov, Gen 31:25 GG 135 (I.84–85 (2.39 ,שקיעים ,Tg Zeph 3:18 Sekhel Tov, Gen 42:38 GG 136

Yalkut Shimoni (II.64–65 (9.27 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 21:5 YalqSh, Isa 420 GG 137 (II.73–74 (9.39 ,שקיעים ,Tg Ezek 16:61 YalqSh, Ezek 383 GG 138

Sefer ha-Zohar (I.78 (2.28 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 60:7 edn Margaliot, I.232 GG 139

3 Refers erroneously to PRK 18:8. 258 appendix one

2. Dictionaries and Lexical Works

Sefer ha-Shorashim, Jonah ibn Jana 140 Tg 2 Sam 5:24 Sefer ha-Shorashim, s.v. Bacher, SH, 63 בכה 141 Tg 2 Kgs 5:7 Sefer ha-Shorashim, s.v. Bacher, SH, 32 אגר ;(I.74 (2.22 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 5:5 Sefer ha-Shorashim, s.v. GG 142 Bacher, SH, 437 צרב 143 Tg Isa 63:3 Sefer ha-Shorashim, s.v. Bacher, SH, 70 בעט Bacher, SH, 63 ביר .Tg Jer 9:20 Sefer ha-Shorashim, s.v 144 Bacher, SH, 9 אב .Tg Ezek 47:12 Sefer ha-Shorashim, s.v 145 146 Tg Zech 13:9 Sefer ha-Shorashim, s.v. Bacher, SH, 61 בחר

Sefer ha-Rikmah, Jonah ibn Jana (I.74 (2.22 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 5:5 Sefer ha-Rikma, edn GG 147 Wilensky, 130

Arukh, Nathan ben Yeiel4 גמד Tg Judg 3:16 Arukh II.308 s.v. 2 148 מחס .Tg 1 Sam 1:6 Arukh V.111 s.v 149 (I.70 (2.16 ,שקיעים ,GG פרס .Tg 1 Sam 9:13 Arukh VI.436, s.v 150 למה Tg 1 Sam 12:21 Arukh V.44 s.v. 2 151 אפא Tg 1 Sam 13:18 Arukh I.209 s.v. 1 152 גלך .Tg 1 Sam 17:5 Arukh II.296 s.v 153 נסיס Tg 1 Sam 20:3 Arukh V354 s.v. 1 154 ברתא .Tg 2 Sam 6:5 Arukh II.204 s.v 155 מרג Tg 2 Sam 12:31 Arukh V.239 s.v. 2 156 גף Tg 2 Sam Arukh II.334 s.v. 2 157 13:17–18 קמץ Tg 2 Sam 17:9 Arukh VII.125 s.v.4 158 קמץ Tg 2 Sam 18:17 Arukh VII.125 s.v.4 159 אכסן .Tg 2 Sam 21:19 Arukh I.80 s.v 160 רכפה .Tg 2 Sam 22:12 Arukh VII.277 s.v 161 תב Tg 2 Sam 23:8 Arukh VIII.193 s.v. 4 162 II.157–58 ,שקיעים ,GG סבר Tg 1 Kgs 8:27 Arukh VI.12 s.v. 2 163 (12.04)

4 Not included are quotations that are in agreement with Targum Jonathan appendix one 259

(I.72 (2.20 ,שקיעים ,GG כל Tg 2 Kgs 23:7 Arukh IV.229 s.v. 7 164 (I.105 (4.15 ,שקיעים ,GG נגר Tg 2 Kgs 24:14 Arukh V.310 s.v. 3 165 (I.73 (2.21 ,שקיעים ,cf. GG ,ברנק .Tg Isa 3:22 Arukh II.196 s.v 166 מחך.Arukh V.109 s.v דר Tg Isa 41:16 Arukh III.135 s.v. 4 167 Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen שען .Tg Isa 56:12 Arukh VIII.122 s.v 168 Vorträge, 81 note dd 5 ,I.XX ,שקיעים ,GG חלץ .Tg Isa 58:11 Arukh III.411 s.v 169 II.134–35 (11.38) Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen בז Tg Ezek 1:3 Arukh II.29 s.v. 2 170 Vorträge, 82 note c 6; GG, ;(I.82 (2.34 ,שקיעים Damsma, Analysis of Targum Ezekiel, 148–50 (II.75 (9.40 ,שקיעים ,GG חפשית .Tg Ezek 24:6 Arukh III.467 s.v 171 (I.106 (4.17 ,שקיעים ,GG גזזטרא .Tg Ezek 41:13 Arukh II.264 s.v 172 גלד .Tg Zech 14:6 Arukh II.293 s.v 173

Arukh Qatsar (I.110 (5.05 ,שקיעים ,GG וותק .Tg 1 Kgs 19:11 Arukh Qatsar, s.v 174 (I.144 (7.26 ,שקיעים ,GG טדי .Tg 2 Kgs 3:15 Arukh Qatsar, s.v 175

Arukh Goren, Menaem ben Eljakim I.103–04 ,שקיעים ,GG גהר .Tg 1 Kgs 18:42 Arukh Goren s.v 176 (4.11) Perles, Beiträge, 11 Sefer ha-Shorashim, David Kimi (I.140 (7.20 ,שקיעים ,Tg Josh 5:2–3 Sefer ha-Shorashim, s.v. GG 177 גלב

Even Boan, Menaem ben Solomon Bacher, ‘Notes’, 652 נד Tg Josh 3:16 Even Boan, s.v. 2 178 Bacher, ‘Notes’, 652 צען .Tg Judg 4:11 Even Boan, s.v 179 Bacher, ‘Notes’, 653 דהר .Tg Judg 5:22 Even Boan, s.v 180 Bacher, ‘Notes’, 653 דע .Tg Judg 8:16 Even Boan, s.v 181 Bacher, ‘Notes’, 653 הדם .Tg Judg 14:6 Even Boan, s.v 182 Bacher, ‘Notes’, 653 כר .Tg 1 Sam 7:11 Even Boan, s.v 183

5 Refers erroneously to Isa 55:12. 6 Refers erroneously to Ezek 1:2. 260 appendix one

Bacher, ‘Notes’, 653 חוג .Tg 1 Sam 13:6 Even Boan, s.v 184 ,Bacher, ‘Notes’, 653; GG עדן Tg 1 Sam 15:32 Even Boan, s.v. 2 185 (I.71 (2.17 ,שקיעים Bacher, ‘Notes’, 653 בתר .Tg 2 Sam 2:29 Even Boan, s.v 186 ,Bacher, ‘Notes’, 653; GG פקע Tg 1 Kgs 6:18 Even Boan, s.v. 2 187 (I.120–21 (6.07 ,שקיעים ,Bacher, ‘Notes’, 653; GG גלל .Tg 1 Kgs 14:10 Even Boan, s.v 188 (I.103 (4.11 ,שקיעים ;Bacher, ‘Notes’, 653–54 צקל .Tg 2 Kgs 4:42 Even Boan, s.v 189 (I.104 (4.13 ,שקיעים ,GG ,Bacher, ‘Notes’, 654; GG בת Tg 2 Kgs 23:7 Even Boan, s.v. 4 190 (I.72–73 (2.20 ,שקיעים ,Bacher, ‘Notes’, 654; GG בת Tg Isa 3:20 Even Boan, s.v. 4 191 (I.112 (5.07 ,שקיעים ,Bacher, ‘Notes’, 654; GG חרט .Tg Isa 3:22 Even Boan, s.v 192 (I.73–74 (2.21 ,שקיעים Bacher, ‘Notes’, 654 שחר Tg Isa 8:20 Even Boan, s.v.2 193 ;Bacher, ‘Notes’, 654 צי 4 ,אח Tg Isa 13:21 Even Boan, s.v. 7 194 ,Bacher, ‘Notes’, 654; GG ארך Tg Isa 40:20 Even Boan, s.v. 1 195 (I.106 (4.16 ,שקיעים ;Bacher, ‘Notes’, 654 חרצב .Tg Isa 58:6 Even Boan, s.v 196 Bacher, ‘Notes’, 655 נק .Tg Jer 13:2 Even Boan, s.v 197 ,Bacher, ‘Notes’, 655; GG סחר Tg Jer 14:18 Even Boan, s.v. 2 198 (I.79–80 (2.31 ,שקיעים ,Bacher, ‘Notes’, 655; GG אנש Tg Jer 15:18 Even Boan, s.v. 2 199 (I.80 (2.31 ,שקיעים Bacher, ‘Notes’, 655 פצם .Tg Jer 36:23 Even Boan, s.v 200 Bacher, ‘Notes’, 655 אצל Tg Jer 38:12 Even Boan, s.v. 3 201 ,Bacher, ‘Notes’, 655; GG דם Tg Jer 48:2 Even Boan, s.v. 4 202 (I.80–81 (2.32 ,שקיעים ,Bacher, ‘Notes’, 655; GG טפסר .Tg Jer 51:27 Even Boan, s.v 203 (I.81 (2.33 ,שקיעים ,Bacher, ‘Notes’, 655; GG גרש Tg Ezek 45:9 Even Boan, s.v. 1 204 (I.107 (4.18 ,שקיעים Bacher, ‘Notes’, 655 ממזר .Tg Zech 9:6 Even Boan, s.v 205

Ha-Madrikh ha-Maspik, Tanum ben Joseph Yerushalmi (אI.111 (5.05 ,שקיעים ,GG רהט .Tg 2 Kgs 3:15 edn Toledano, s.v 206 appendix one 261

Glossary, Jewish-German, student of Moses ha-Darshan ,I.105 (4.14); Perles ,שקיעים ,Tg 2 Kgs 16:17 GG 207 Beiträge, 149

Sefer ha-Tishbi, Eliah Levita (I.113 (5.10 ,שקיעים ,Tg Amos 6:5 Sefer ha-Tishbi, s.v. GG 208 פזם

3. Bible and Bible Commentaries

Fari-Bible7 (I.139–40 (7.19 ,שקיעים ,Tg Josh 2:15 GG 209 (I.140–41 (7.20 ,שקיעים ,Tg Josh 5:2–3 GG 210 (I.141 (7.21 ,שקיעים ,Tg Judg 14:18 GG 211 (I.164 (7.61 ,שקיעים ,Tg Judg 19:22 GG 212 (I.164 (7.61 ,שקיעים ,Tg Judg 20:13 GG 213 (I.164 (7.61 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Sam 2:12 GG 214 (I.164 (7.61 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Sam 10:27 GG 215 (I.141–42 (7.22 ,שקיעים ,Tg 2 Sam 17:29 GG 216 (I.142–43 (7.23 ,שקיעים ,Tg 2 Sam 22:28 GG 217 (I.143 (7.24 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Kgs 2:5 GG 218 (I.143–44 (7.25 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Kgs 19:11 GG 219 (I.164 (7.61 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Kgs 21:10, 13 GG 220 (I.144 (7.26 ,שקיעים ,Tg 2 Kgs 3:15 GG 221 (I.144–45 (7.27 ,שקיעים ,Tg 2 Kgs 4:3 GG 222 (I.145 (7.28 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 1:22 GG 223 (I.145 (7.29 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 25:4 GG 224 (I.146 (7.30 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 26:20 GG 225 (I.146–47 (7.31 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 58:9 GG 226 (I.147 (7.32 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 62:5 GG 227 (I.147–48 (7.33 ,שקיעים ,Tg Jer 2:16 GG 228 (I.148 (7.34 ,שקיעים ,Tg Jer 46:4 GG 229 (I.149 (7.35 ,שקיעים ,Tg Jer 48:12 GG 230

7 This manuscript, also known as ms Sassoon 368, contains a curious collection of more than 150 apparent targumic quotations. In the margins of the pages 183–89 ’and ‘Palestinian Targum (תרגום שלנו) ’there are comparisons between ‘our Targum .and Arabic. See D.S (לשון רז'ל) with explanations in rabbinic Hebrew (תרגום ירו׳) Sassoon, Ohel Dawid: Descriptive Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manu- scripts in the Sassoon Library, London, London 1932, I.6–14. 262 appendix one

(I.149–50 (7.36 ,שקיעים ,Tg Ezek 9:2 GG 231 (I.150 (7.37 ,שקיעים ,Tg Ezek 16:7 GG 232 (I.150–51 (7.38 ,שקיעים ,Tg Ezek 36:20 GG 233 (I.151 (7.39 ,שקיעים ,Tg Ezek 39:9 GG 234 (I.152 (7.40 ,שקיעים ,Tg Hos 6:5 GG 235 (I.152 (7.41 ,שקיעים ,Tg Jonah 1:3, 4:2 GG 236 (I.153 (7.42 ,שקיעים ,Tg Jonah 1:7 GG 237

Commentary on the Torah, Rashi 238 Tg 2 Sam 6:6 Rashi on Deut 19:5 edn Chavel, 559 239 Tg 2 Sam 6:14 Rashi on Exod 28:4 edn Chavel, 275 240 Tg Isa 33:21 Rashi on Num 24:24 edn Chavel, 486

Commentary on the Prophets and Writings, Rashi ;(I.76 (2.25 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 16:10 Rashi, com. on Isa GG 241 15:5 Maarsen, Parschandatha II.44 242 Tg Isa 58:12 Rashi, ad loc. Maarsen, Parschandatha II.127 (II.73–74 (9.39 ,שקיעים ,Tg Ezek 16:61 Rashi, ad loc. GG 243 244 Tg Micah 7:3 Rashi, ad loc. Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vor- träge, 82 note f

Commentary on the Psalms, Rashi 245 Tg 1 Kgs 8:27 Rashi, Ps 55:23 Maarsen, Parschandatha III.52 246 Tg Jer 22:14 Rashi, Ps 60:4 Maarsen, Parschandatha III.56 247 Tg Jer 46:22 Rashi, Ps 74:6 Maarsen, Parschandatha III.72

Commentary on the Prophets, Kimi 248 Tg Judg 11:1 ad loc. Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 81 note a; Smelik, Judges, 542 249 Tg 1 Sam 1:11 ad loc. 250 Tg 1 Sam 17:8 ad loc. Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 81 note a; Van Staalduine-Sulman, Samuel, 348 251 Tg 1 Sam 27:7 ad loc. 252 Tg 1 Kgs 22:21 ad loc. Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 81 note a 253 Tg 2 Kgs 4:1, 6, ad loc. Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen 7 (4:7 TT) Vorträge, 81 note a, b appendix one 263

254 Tg 2 Kgs 13:21 ad loc. Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 81 note a (I.75 (2.24 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 14:18–19 ad loc. GG 255 256 Tg Jer 48:37 ad loc., Ezek 5:1 Zunz Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 82 note a 257 Tg Ezek 5:1 ad loc. (I.82–83 (2.35 ,שקיעים ,Tg Ezek 21:3–4 ad loc. GG 258 (I.83–84 (2.37 ,שקיעים ,Tg Ezek 32:14 ad loc. GG 259 (I.84 (2.38 ,שקיעים ,Tg Ezek 34:9 ad loc. GG 260 261 Tg Ezek 43:17 ad loc.

Commentary on Job, Ramban (I.77–78 (2.27 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 33:7 com. on Job 15:29 GG 262

Perush ha-Torah, Hezekiah ben Manoa (I.122 (6.10 ,שקיעים ,Tg Ezek 16:6 com. on Exod 12:6 GG 263

Mayan Gannim, Samuel ben Nissim Masnut (I.77–78 (2.27 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 33:7 com. on Job 15:29 GG 264

Commentary on Jeremiah, Joseph ben Joseph Namias (I.78–79 (2.29 ,שקיעים ,Tg Jer 2:6 edn Bamberger, ad loc. GG 265 (I.121–22 (6.09 ,שקיעים ,Tg Jer 23:36 edn Bamberger, ad loc. GG 266 (I.113 (5.09 ,שקיעים ,Tg Jer 25:16 edn Bamberger, ad loc. GG 267

4. Tosafot and other commentaries on Rabbinic Literature

Tosafot on the Babylonian Talmud (I.56 (1.20 ,שקיעים ,Tg Jer 1:11 Tos. on b.Bekhorot 8a GG 268

Perush ha-Geonim, Hai Gaon (I.72 (2.19 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Kgs 20:38 edn Epstein, 76 GG 269 264 appendix one

Commentary on the Babylonian Talmud, Rashi (I.72 (2.19 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Kgs 20:38 Rashi on b.ullin 123b GG 270 271 Tg Isa 66:1 Rashi on b.Taanit 26b Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 81 note d 272 Tg Hab 2:1 Rashi on b.Taanit 23a Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 82 note h

Commentary on the Mishnah, Samson ben Abraham of Sens (I.72 (2.19 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Kgs 20:38 com. on m.Kelim 28:8 GG 273

Amude Kesef, Joseph Ibn Caspi (I.69 (2.14 ,שקיעים ,Tg Judg 10:16 Amude Kesef, 52 GG 274

Commentary on b.Berakhot, Jonah of Gerondi (I.70 (2.16 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Sam 9:13 edn Rozenkranzts- GG 275 Shriftzetser, 26 (I.110 (5.05 ,שקיעים ,Tg 1 Kgs 19:11 com. on b.Berakhot 9b GG 276

Beit ha-Beira, Menaem Meiri (I.76–77 (2.26 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 31:9 com. on b.Ketuvot 15b GG 277

Or Ha–Sekhel, Abraham ben Gedaliah ibn Asher (I.71 (2.18 ,שקיעים ,Tg 2 Sam 19:18 com. on GenR 76:4 GG 278

Shitah Mekubetset, Bezalel Ashkenazi I.76–77 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 31:9 com. on b.Ketuvot 17b GG 279

5. Piyyut and Prayer Books

Ancient piyyutim 280 Tg 1 Sam 12:21 Sokoloff–Yahalom, JPAP 206 281 Tg 2 Kgs 4:1 Sokoloff–Yahalom, JPAP 184 282 Tg 2 Kgs 8:12 Sokoloff–Yahalom, JPAP 144 283 Tg 2 Kgs 19:35 Sokoloff–Yahalom, JPAP 214 284 Tg Isa 40:12 Sokoloff–Yahalom, JPAP 258 285 Tg Jonah 1:4 Sokoloff–Yahalom, JPAP 194 286 Tg Micah 7:19 Sokoloff–Yahalom, JPAP 96 appendix one 265

Arugat ha–Bosem, Abraham ben Azriel (I.121 (6.08 ,שקיעים ,Tg Jer 2:21 edn Urbach, I.271 GG 287 (I.83 (2.36 ,שקיעים ,Tg Ezek 24:17 edn Urbach, II.53 GG 288

Perush Kerovot 289 Tg 1 Sam 16:23 Perush Kerovot Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 81, note aa 290 Tg 2 Sam 6:16 Perush Kerovot, Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Mazor ms Hamburg Vorträge, 80 note dd; GG, ,I.110 (5.04); Churgin ,שקיעים 156a ,152 Targum Jonathan, 42 8 291 Tg 2 Kgs 3:15 Perush Kerovot Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 81, note aa; (I.144 (7.26 ,שקיעים ,GG

Siddur aside Ashkenaz, Salomon ben Samson of Worms (I.111 (5.06 ,שקיעים ,Tg 2 Kgs 5:18 edn Herschler, 104 GG 292

Mazor Vitry, Simah ben Samuel of Vitry 293 Tg Judg 5:31 edn Hurwitz, 738 (I.70 (2.15 ,שקיעים ,Tg Judg 15:6 edn Hurwitz, 314 GG 294 (I.74–75 (2.23 ,שקיעים ,Tg Isa 5:24 edn Hurwitz, 324 GG 295 296 Tg Ezek 18:13 edn Hurwitz, 305

Perush ha-Berakhot we-ha-Tefillot, David ben Joseph Abudarham 297 Tg 1 Sam 9:13 edn Venedig [1546], f. Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen 26b Vorträge, 80 note e (I.102–03 (4.10 ,שקיעים ,Tg 2 Sam 14:22 Perush, 95 GG 298 299 Tg Isa 54:11 edn Amsterdam [1726], Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen f. 84a; edn Venedig Vorträge, 81 note e [1546], f. 83c

8 Refers erroneously to 2 Sam 6:11. Appendix two

Targumic quotations from the Prophets in the biblical order

In this Appendix the citations are arranged in the order of the biblical books. The numbers refer to Appendix One.

Tg Joshua Tg Samuel Josh 2:15 209 1 Sam 1:6 149 Josh 3:16 178 1 Sam 1:11 249 Josh 5:2–3 79, 177, 210 1 Sam 2:4 109 Josh 7:20 67 1 Sam 2:8 19 Josh 7:21 46, 80 1 Sam 2:12 214 Josh 10:21 134 1 Sam 3:13 110 1 Sam 7:11 183 Tg Judges 1 Sam 9:13 150, 275, 297 1 Sam 9:24 68, 111 Judg 3:16 148 1 Sam 10:27 215 Judg 3:20, 1 Sam 12:21 151, 280 22, 23, (24) 81 1 Sam 13:6 184 Judg 4:11 179 1 Sam 13:18 152 Judg 4:18 87 1 Sam 15:29 28 Judg 4:21 135 1 Sam 15:32 185 Judg 5:9 27 1 Sam 16:23 289 Judg 5:22 180 1 Sam 17:5 153 Judg 5:31 17, 116, 293 1 Sam 17:8 250 Judg 8:16 181 1 Sam 17:18 112 Judg 10:16 274 1 Sam 20:3 154 Judg 11:1 248 1 Sam 25:6 69, 113 Judg 14:6 182 1 Sam 25:29 1 Judg 14:18 211 1 Sam 27:7 251 Judg 15:6 294 1 Sam 28:8 88, 114 Judg 18:27 117, 124 Judg 19:22 212 2 Sam 2:29 186 Judg 20:13 213 2 Sam 3:29 29, 70 2 Sam 5:21 47 2 Sam 5:24 140 2 Sam 6:5 155 appendix two 267

2 Sam 6:6 238 2 Kgs 9:10, 36–37 3 2 Sam 6:14 239 2 Kgs 13:21 254 2 Sam 6:16 290 2 Kgs 16:17 207 2 Sam 12:31 156 2 Kgs 17:30–31 49, 72 2 Sam 13:17–18 157 2 Kgs 18:16 105 2 Sam 14:22 298 2 Kgs 19:3 18 2 Sam 17:9 158 2 Kgs 19:35 283 2 Sam 17:29 216 2 Kgs 21:16 33 2 Sam 18:17 159 2 Kgs 23:7 164, 190 2 Sam 19:18 278 2 Kgs 24:14 165 2 Sam 19:23 20 2 Sam 21:17 30 Tg Isaiah 2 Sam 21:19 160 Isa 1:2 5 2 Sam 22:12 161 Isa 1:21 89 2 Sam 22:28 217 Isa 1:22 223 2 Sam 23:8 162 Isa 2:4 73 2 Sam 24:15 115 Isa 3:18–23 74 Isa 3:20 191 Tg Kings Isa 3:22 166, 192 1 Kgs 2:5 218 Isa 5:5 142, 147 1 Kgs 6:18 187 Isa 5:6 106 1 Kgs 8:27 31, 163, 245 Isa 5:17 50 1 Kgs 14:10 188 Isa 5:24 295 1 Kgs 18:3 32 Isa 6:1 34 1 Kgs 18:37 2, 71 Isa 8:6 51 1 Kgs 18:42 176 Isa 8:20 193 1 Kgs 19:11 174, 219, 276 Isa 10:32 52 1 Kgs 20:38 269, 270, 273 Isa 13:21 194 1 Kgs 21:10, 13 220 Isa 14:13–14 35 1 Kgs 21:19, 23 3 Isa 14:18–19 255 1 Kgs 22:21 252 Isa 16:10 241 1 Kgs 22:28 4 Isa 19:18 53 Isa 21:5 82, 107, 137 2 Kgs 2:12 48 Isa 21:13 75, 99 2 Kgs 3:4 125 Isa 22:1 100 2 Kgs 3:15 175, 206, 221, 291 Isa 22:2 101 2 Kgs 4:1 32, 281 Isa 24:15 126 2 Kgs 4:1, 6, 7 253 Isa 25:4 224 2 Kgs 4:3 222 Isa 26:13 120 2 Kgs 4:42 189 Isa 26:20 225 2 Kgs 5:7 141 Isa 29:17 83 2 Kgs 5:18 292 Isa 30:29 21 2 Kgs 8:12 282 268 appendix two

Isa 31:9 277, 279 Jer 17:8 11 Isa 33:7 262, 264 Jer 20:7 24, 129 Isa 33:21 54, 76, 240 Jer 22:14 246 Isa 35:4 90 Jer 23:36 266 Isa 37:3 18 Jer 25:16 267 Isa 40:4 6 Jer 32:18 12 Isa 40:12 43, 284 Jer 36:23 122, 200 Isa 40:20 195 Jer 38:12 201 Isa 41:16 55, 167 Jer 46:4 229 Isa 41:19 56, 77, 84, 118, 119 Jer 46:20 58 Isa 51:6 7 Jer 46:22 247 Isa 54:11 299 Jer 48:2 202 Isa 54:11–12 121, 127, 132 Jer 48:12 230 Isa 55:13 22 Jer 48:37 256 Isa 56:12 168 Jer 49:11 38 Isa 57:18–19 91 Jer 51:27 203 Isa 58:6 196 Jer 52:16 59 Isa 58:9 226 Isa 58:11 92, 169 Tg Ezekiel Isa 58:12 242 Ezek 1:1 39 Isa 60:1 128 Ezek 1:3 170 Isa 60:7 139 Ezek 5:1 257 Isa 60:8 36 Ezek 7:11 85 Isa 62:5 57, 227 Ezek 9:2 231 Isa 63:2–3 8 Ezek 9:6 60 Isa 63:3 143 Ezek 16:6 263 Isa 65:17 9 Ezek 16:7 232 Isa 65:24 23 Ezek 16:10 130 Isa 66:1 37, 271 Ezek 16:61 108, 138, 243 Ezek 18:13 13, 296 Tg Jeremiah Ezek 21:3–4 258 Jer 1:11 268 Ezek 21:23 (?) 45 Jer 2:1–2 44 Ezek 23:42 93 Jer 2:6 265 Ezek 24:6 103, 171 Jer 2:16 228 Ezek 24:9 104 Jer 2:21 287 Ezek 24:17 288 Jer 4:18 102 Ezek 32:14 259 Jer 9:20 144 Ezek 34:9 260 Jer 13:2 197 Ezek 36:20 233 Jer 14:18 198 Ezek 37:12 (13) 14 Jer 15:18 199 Ezek 39:9 234 Jer 17:5, 7 10 Ezek 39:9–10 15 appendix two 269

Ezek 41:13 172 Tg Habakkuk Ezek 43:17 261 Hab 2:1 272 Ezek 45:9 204 Ezek 47:12 145 Tg Zephaniah Tg Hosea Zeph 2:3 133 Zeph 3:5 42, 96, 123 Hos 1:2–3 40 Zeph 3:18 64, 136 Hos 4:2 61 Hos 6:5 235 Tg Haggai Tg Joel Hag 2:8 25 Joel 2:13 78, 131 Tg Zechariah Tg Amos Zech 1:8 26 Zech 5:1 97 Amos 6:2, 4 94, 98 Zech 9:6 65, 205 Amos 6:5 208 Zech 12:11 66 Amos 7:7 95 Zech 13:9 146 Amos 7:14 62 Zech 14:6 173 Tg Obadiah Obad 6 63 Obad 18 16

Tg Jonah Jonah 1:3 236 Jonah 1:4 285 Jonah 1:7 237 Jonah 4:2 236

Tg Micah Micah 4:3 73 Micah 5:4 41 Micah 7:3 244 Micah 7:19 286

Tg Nahum Nah 3:8 86 Bibliography

Primary Literature Aggadat Bereshit Agadath Bereshith: midraschische Auslegungen = ) אגדת בראשית ,S. Buber zum ersten Buche Mosis), Krakow 1902; repr. Jerusalem 1973 Aggadat Esther Aggadat Esther: Agadische Abhandlungen zum = ) אגדת אסתר ,S. Buber Buch Esther), Krakow 1897; repr. Tel Aviv 1982 Amude Kesef (Joseph ibn Caspi) עמודי כסף ומשכיות כסף – שני פרושים על ספר המורה ,(.S.Z. Werbluner (ed Die Kommentare von Joseph Kaspi), Frankfurt am Main 1848 = ) ,לרמב''ם Arugat ha-Bosem (Abraham ben Azriel) ספר ערוגת הבשם: כולל פרושים לפיוטים … חברו אברהם בן ,(.E.E. Urbach (ed parts in 3 Vols, Jerusalem 1939–1963 4 ,עזריאל Arukh (Nathan ben Yeiel) A. Kohut, Aruch Completum, sive Lexicon vocabula et res, quae in libris targumicis, talmudicis et midraschicis continentur, explicans auctore Nathane filio Jechielis, 8 Vols, Vienna 1878–1892 (A ninth part with additamenta was published in 1937 in Vienna by Samuel Krauss); repr. New York 1955 Arukh Qatsar Constantinople 1511 (see further ,ספר הערוך הקצר ,Nathan ben Yeiel Perles, Beiträge, 1–9) Arukh Goren (Menaem ben Eljakim) Ms 1518 (Neubauer), Bodleian Library, Oxford (see further Perles, Beiträge, 9–56) Avot de-Rabbi Nathan S. Schechter, Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, New York 1967 Babylonian Talmud I. Epstein, Talmud Bavli 1–35, London 1935–1952 L. Goldschmidt, Der Babylonische Talmud, 1–9 Berlin 1897–1935 Rashi, Asher ben Jehiel, Moses Maimonides, Samson ben Abraham, Jacob ben Asher, Yitshaq ben Aharon & Yehoshua ben Shimon Boaz, Krakow 1602 ,תלמוד בבלי: עם פירוש רש״י ותוספות ורבינו אשר Beit ha-Beirah (Menaem Meiri) בית הבחירה על מסכת אבות: עם פתיחתה כוללת סדר הקבלה ,(.B.Z. Prag (ed Jerusalem 1964 ,ושלשלת גדולי הדורות bibliography 271

Bereshit Rabbati H. . Albeck, Midraš Berešit Rabbati ex libro R. Mosis Haddaršan collectus, Jerusalem 1940 Bible (Hebrew) R. Kittel et al. (eds), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Stuttgart 1973 Canticles Rabbah Jerusalem & Tel Aviv 1980 ,מדרש רבה: שיר השירים, מדרש חזית ,S. Dunsky Commentary on the Torah (Rashi) Jerusalem 1982/83 ,פרוש רש״י על התורה ,(.Ch.B. Chavel (ed Commentary on the Torah (Hezekiah ben Manoa) Jerusalem 1982 ,פרוש התורה לחזקיה בן מנוח ,(.Ch.B. Chavel (ed Commentary on the Prophets (David Kimi) …–Ramat-Gan 1992 ,מקראות גדולות הכתר ,(.M. Cohen (ed Pesaro 1516 ,נביאים אחרונים עם פירוש רד״ק Commentary on Jeremiah (Joseph ben Joseph Namias) M.L. ( = M.A.) Bamberger (ed.), Commentar zu dem Buche Jeremias von Rabbi Josef ibn Nachmias, Frankfurt am Main 1913 פירושי רבי יוסף בן נחמיאש על משלי, מגילת אסתר, ,(.M.A. Bamberger (ed Tel Aviv 1982 ,ירמיהו, פרקי אבות וסדר עבודת יום הכפורים Commentary on the Prophets and Writings I. Maarsen, Parschandatha: The Commentary of Raschi on the Prophets and Hagiographs, 3 Vols, Amsterdam & Jerusalem 1930–1936 Commentary on Job (Ramban) Vols, Jerusalem 1963–64 2 ,כתבי רבנו משה בן נחמן ,(.Ch.B. Chavel (ed Commentary on Mishnah Toharot (Samson ben Abraham of Sens) Amsterdam 1647 (this commentary is also contained in most ,סדר טהרות editions of the Talmud) Commentary on the Talmud (Rashi) See Babylonian Talmud Commentary on the Talmud (Samson ben Abraham of Sens) See Babylonian Talmud Commentary on b.Berakhot (Jonah of Gerondi) הלכות רב אלפס: מסכת ,(A.Z. Rozenkranzts & R.M.M. Shriftzetser (eds Vilna 1910 (this commentary is also contained in most editions of ,ברכות the Talmud) Deuteronomy Rabbah S. Liebermann, Midrash Debarim Rabbah, Jerusalem 1964 Ecclesiastes Rabbah .Wilna 1884–1911; repr ,ספר מדרש רבה: על חמשה חומשי תורה וחמש מגלות Jerusalem 1962 272 bibliography

Epistula ad Africanum M. Harl & N. de Lange (eds), Philocalie, 1–20 sur les écritures et La lettre à Africanus sur l’histoire de Suzanne (Par Origène), SC 302, Paris 1983 Epistula ad Pammachium I. Hilberg (ed.), Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae: Pars I, Epistulae I–LXX, CSEL 54, Leipzig 1910 Even Boan (Menaem ben Solomon) Esslingen 1846 ,אבן בחן מהחכם ר׳ מנחם בן שלמה ז״ל ,(.L. Dukes (ed Exodus Rabbah A. Shinan, Midrash Shemot Rabba: Chapters I–XIV, Jerusalem & Tel Aviv 1984 Genesis Rabbah J. Theodor & Ch. Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabba, 3 Vols, Jerusalem 1965 Glossary, Jewish-German Ms Hebr. 66, Munich (See Perles, Beiträge, 145–53) Ha-Madrikh ha-Maspik (Tanum ben Joseph Yerushalmi) B. Toledano, Sefer al-muršid al-kafi: (ha-madrikh ha-maspik. ), Tel Aviv 1961 H. Shy, Almurshid al-kafi: ha-madrikh ha-maspik. : milono shel Tanum ha-Yerushalmi le-Mishneh Torah la-Rambam, Jerusalem 2005 Lamentations Rabbah Midrasch Echa Rabbati: Sammlung = ) מדרש איכה רבה ,S. Buber agadischer Auslegungen der Klagelieder), Wilna 1899; repr. Tel Aviv 1964 Proceedings of the sixth ,’מדרש איכה רבה בקטעי גניזה‘ ,Z.M. Rabinovitz WCJS, Jerusalem 1977, III.437–39 Leqa Tov Wilna 1880 ,מדרש לקח טוב ,S. Buber Leviticus Rabbah M. Margulies, Midrash Wayyikra Rabbah, 5 Vols, Jerusalem 1953–60; repr. in 3 Vols, Jerusalem 1972 Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum J. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum: With Latin Text and English Translation, 2 Vols, Leiden 1996 Mazor Vitry Berlin ,מחזור ויטרי לרבנו שמחה, אחד מתלמידי רש״י ,(.S.H. Hurwitz (ed 1893; repr. Jerusalem, 1963 Massekhet Soferim New York 1937; repr. Jerusalem 1970 ,מסכת סופרים ,M. Higger Mayan Gannim (Samuel ben Nissim Masnuth) S. Buber (ed.), Majan-Gannim: Commentar zu Job von Rabbi Samuel ben Nissim Masnuth, Berlin 1889 bibliography 273

Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael H.S. Horovitz & I.A. Rabin, Mekhilta d’Rabbi Ismael cum variis lectionibus et adnotationibus, Jerusalem 1970 Mekhilta de-Rabbi Simeon ben Yoai מכילתא דרבי שמעון בן יוחאי: עפ״י כתבי יד ,J.N. Epstein, & E.Z. Melammed Jerusalem 1955 ,מן הגניזה וממדרש הגדול Midrash ha-Gadol M. Margulies, Z.M. Rabinowitz & S. Fish, Midrash Ha-Gadol on the Pentateuch, 5 Vols, Jerusalem 1975–1983 Midrash Psalms Wilna 1992; repr. Jerusalem 1976 ,מדרש תהלים ,S. Buber Midrash Samuel Krakow 1893; repr. Jerusalem 1965 (together with ,מדרש שמואל ,S. Buber (מדרש משלי Midrash Tannaim D. Hoffmann, Midrasch Tannaim zum Deuteronomium, 2 Vols, Berlin 1909; repr. Jerusalem 1966 /67 Mikraot Gedolot Biblia Rabbinica: A Reprint of the 1525 Venice Edition, introduction by M. Goshen-Gottstein, 4 Vols, Jerusalem 1972 …–Ramat-Gan 1992 ,מקראות גדולות הכתר ,(.M. Cohen (ed Mishnah ששה סדרי משנה: מפורשים בידי חנוך אלבק ומנוקדים ניקוד חדש ,H. . Albeck Vols, Jerusalem & Tel Aviv 1952–1959 6 ,בידי חנוך ילון G. Beer, Faksimile-Ausgabe des Mischnacodex Kaufmann A 50, Den Haag 1930; repr. Jerusalem 1968 Or ha-Sekhel (Abraham ben Gedaliah ibn Asher) ספר אור השכל: כולל ביאור המדרשים הנדרשים לרז״ל בחמישה חומשי תורה Venice 1567; repr. Ashdod 1997 ,ובחמש מגילות Palestinian Talmud Talmud Yerushalmi, Krotoschin 1866; repr. Jerusalem 1969 Y. Sussmann, Talmud Yerushalmi According to Ms. or. 4720 (Scal. 3) of the Leiden University Library with Restorations and Corrections, Jerusalem 2001 Perush ha-Berakhot we-ha-Tefillot (David ben Joseph Abudarham) .Lissabon 1489; repr ,דוד בן יוסף אבודרהם, פירוש הברכות והתפלות Jerusalem 1963 Perush ha-Geonim (ai Gaon) J.N. Epstein (ed.), Der Gaonäische Kommentar zur Ordnung Tohoroth: eine kritische Einleitung zu dem R. Hai Gaon zugeschriebenen Kommentar, Berlin 1915 274 bibliography

Perush Kerovot Mazor ms Hamburg 152 Pesikta de-Rav Kahana B. Mandelbaum, Pesikta de Rav Kahana According to an Oxford Manuscript, 2 Vols, New York 1962 Pesikta Rabbati M. Friedmann, Pesikta Rabbati: Midrasch für den Fest–cyclus und die ausgezeichneten Sabbathe, Vienna 1880; repr. Tel Aviv 1962 L. Ginzberg, Genizah Studies: In Memory of Doctor Solomon Schechter ( = Ginze Schechter): I. Midrash and Haggadah, New York 1928; repr. New York 1969 Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer Warschau 1852; repr. Jerusalem ,ספר פרקי רבי אליעזר הגדול ,D. Luria 1964 Piyyut M. Sokoloff & J. Yahalom (eds), Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry from Late Antiquity: Critical Edition with Introduction and Commentary, Jerusalem 1999 Ruth Rabbah .Wilna 1884–1911; repr ,ספר מדרש רבה: על חמשה חומשי תורה וחמש מגלות Jerusalem 1962 Seder Eliyahu Rabbah M. Friedmann, Seder Eliahu Rabba and Seder Eliahu Zuta, Vienna 1902; repr. Jerusalem 1969 (together with Pseudo-Seder Eliahu Zuta) Sefer ha-Rikmah (Jonah ibn Jana) M. Wilensky (ed.), Sefer Hariqma (Kitāb al–Luma`) ab Jona ibn Ganā: Lingua Arabica Conscriptus Hebraice vertit Jehuda Ibn Tibbon, 2 Vols. Berlin 1928–30; repr. Jerusalem, 1964 Sefer ha-Shorashim (Jonah ibn Jana) W. Bacher (ed.), Sepher Haschoraschim: Wurzelwörterbuch der hebr. Sprache von Abulwalîd Merwân Ibn Ganâh (R. Jona), Berlin 1893–96 Sefer ha-Shorashim (Kimi) J.H.R. Biesenthal & F. Lebrecht (eds), Rabbi David Kimchi Radicum Liber sive Hebraeum Bibliorum Lexicon cum animadversionibus Eliae Levitae, Berlin 1847; repr. Jerusalem 1966/67 Sefer ha-Tishbi (Eliah Levita) Isny 1541 ,ספר התשבי לאליהו התשבי שרשיו כמנין תשבי Sefer ha-Zohar 3 ,ספר הזהר על חמשה חומשי תורה מהתנא שמעון בן יוחאי ,(.M. Margaliot (ed Vols, Jerusalem 1970 bibliography 275

Sekhel Tov S. Buber, Sechel Tob: Commentar zum ersten und zweiten Buch Mosis, Berlin 1900/01; repr. Tel Aviv 1973 Semaot / Evel Rabbati D. Zlotnick, The Tractate “Mourning” (Śĕmaot): Regulations Relating to Death, Burial, and Mourning, New Haven & London 1966 Shitah Mekubetset (Bezalel Ashkenazi) ספר אספת זקנים: והוא חדושי מסכת כתובות אשר בשם תלמוד קטן יכנה … Constantinople 1738 ,וקראו בשם שיטה מכובצת Siddur H. aside Ashkenaz (Salomon ben Samson of Worms) Siddur of R. Solomon ben Samson = ) סידור רבינו שלמה ,(.M. Herschler (ed of Garmaise including the Siddur of the Haside Ashkenas), Jerusalem 1971 Sifra J.H. Weiss, Sifra: Commentar zu Leviticus, Vienna 1862 Sifre Deuteronomy L. Finkelstein (H.S. Horovitz), Siphre ad Deuteronomium, Berlin 1939; repr. New York 1969 Sifre Numbers H.S. Horovitz, Siphre d’Be Rab, Leipzig 1917; repr. Jerusalem 1966 Sifre Zutta H.S. Horovitz, ‘Siphrei Zuta al Sepher Bemidbar’, in: Horovitz, Siphre d’Be Rab (appendix), Leipzig 1917 Tanuma Buber S. Buber, Midrash Tanchuma, Ein aggadischer Commentar zum Pentateuch, 2 Vols, Wilna 1885 Targum A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic: Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts, 5 Vols, Leiden 1959–73; repr. Leiden 1992 Targum Pentateuch A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana, 6 Vols, Madrid & Barcelona 1968–1979 M.L. Klein, The Fragment–Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources, 2 Vols, Rome 1980 D. Rieder, Targum Jonathan ben Uziel on the Pentateuch, Jerusalem 1974 E.G. Clarke (W.E. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd, F. Spitzer), Targum Pseudo- Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance, Hoboken (NJ) 1984 M.L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 Vols, Cincinnati 1986 Targum Prophets A. Sperber, Codex Reuchlinianus no. 3 of the Badische Landesbibliothek 276 bibliography

in Karlsruhe (formerly Durlach no. 55): with a general introduction: Masoretic Hebrew, Copenhagen 1956 P. de Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, Leipzig 1872; repr. Osnabruck 1967 Targum Writings P. de Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice, Göttingen 1873; repr. Osnabrück 1967 תרגום לחמש מגילות: רות, קוהלת, שיר השירים, איכה, ואסתר: כתב ,É. Levine Jerusalem 1977 ,יד וטיקן, אורבינטי 1 D.M. Stec, The Text of the Targum of Job: An Introduction and Critical Edition, Leiden 1994 B. Grossfeld, The First Targum to Esther According to the MS Paris Hebrew 110 of the Bibliotheque Nationale, New York 1983 B. Grossfeld, The Targum Sheni to the Book of Esther: A Critical Edition Based on ms. Sassoon 282 with Critical Apparatus, New York 1994 R. Le Déaut, Targum des Chroniques (Cod. Vat. Urb. Ebr. 1), Rome 1971 Tosafot See Babylonian Talmud Tosefta S. Lieberman (ed.), The Tosefta According to Codex Vienna, with Variants from Codex Erfurt, Genizah Mss. and Editio Princeps (Venice 1521): Together with References to Parallel Passages in Talmudic Literature and a Brief Commentary by Saul Lieberman, Second Augmented Edition, Jerusalem 1992 M.S. Zuckermandel (ed.), Tosephta based on the Erfurt and Vienna Codices, New Edition, Jerusalem 1970 Yalkut Shimoni ילקוט שמעוני על התורה לרבנו ,(D. Hyman, D.N. Lerrer & I. Shiloni (eds Vols, Jerusalem 1973–1991 9 ,שמעון הדרשן

Secondary Literature

Aberbach, M. & B. Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis: A Critical Analysis Together With An English Translation of the Text, New York 1982 Albeck, H. Einleitung und Register zum Bereschit Rabba, Jerusalem 1965, I.44–54 (included in volume 3 of J. Theodor–H. Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabba, Jerusalem 1965) Albright, W.F. ‘A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age: The Nash Papyrus’, JBL 56 (1937), 145–76 Alexander, P.S. ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Salamanca 1983, Leiden 1985, 14–28 bibliography 277

— ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 217–253 — ‘Pre-Emptive Exegesis: Genesis Rabba’s Reading of the Story of Creation’, JJS 43 (1992), 230–45 — ‘Textual Criticism and Rabbinic Literature: The Case of the Targum of the Song of Songs’, BJRL 75 (1993), 159–73 — ‘How did the Rabbis Learn Hebrew?’, in: W. Horbury (ed.), Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, Edinburgh 1999, 71–89 — The Targum of Canticles, Collegeville 2003 Aufrecht, W.E. ‘Some Observations on the Überlieferungsgeschichte of the Targums’, in: P.V.M. Flesher (ed.), Targum Studies. Volume One: Textual and Contextual Studies in the Pentateuchal Targums, Atlanta 1992, 77–78 Avigad, N. & Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea. Description and Contents of the Scroll, Facsimiles, Transcription and Translation of Columns II, XIX–XXII, Jerusalem 1956 — ‘The Palaeography of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Documents’, Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jerusalem 19652, 56–87 Bacher, W. ‘Alte aramäische Poesien zum Vortrage des haphtara-Targum’, MGWJ 22 (1873), 220–28 — ‘Kritische Untersuchungen zum Prophetentargum’, ZDMG 28 (1874), 1–72 — Die Agada der palästinensischen Amoräer, 3 Vols, Strassburg 1892–99; repr. Hildesheim 1965 — ‘Notes on the Critique of the Text of the Targum of the Prophets’, JQR 11 (1899), 651–55 — Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, two parts, Leipzig 1899–1905; repr. Hildesheim 1965 — Die Agada der babylonischen Amoräer, Frankfurt am Main 1913; repr. Hildesheim 1967 Barthélemy, D. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 4 Vols, Fribourg & Göttingen 1982–2005 Bassfreund, J. ‘Das Fragmenten–Targum zum Pentateuch, sein Ursprung und Charakter und sein Verhältnis zu den anderen pentateuchischen Targumim’, MGWJ 40 (1896), 1–14, 49–67, 97–109, 145–63, 241–52, 352–65, 396–405 Beattie, D.R.G. & J. Stanley McIvor, The Targum of Ruth / The Targum of Chronicles, Edinburgh 1994 Beattie, D.R.G. & M. McNamara (eds), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context, Sheffield 1994 Bernstein, M.J. ‘A New Manuscript of Tosefta Targum’, Proceedings of the 9th WCJS: Division A, The Period of the Bible, Jerusalem 1986, 151–58 278 bibliography

— ‘Goshen–Gottstein’s Fragments of Lost Targumim’ (review), JQR 80/3– 4 (1990), 376–79 Beyer, K. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, Göttingen 1983 Black, M. The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of the New Testament, London 1961 — An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, Oxford 1967 Brady, C.M.M. The Rabbinic Targum of Lamentations, Leiden & Boston 2003, 147–54 Brauer, E. The Jews of Kurdistan (completed and edited by Raphael Patai), Detroit 1993 Brewer, D.I. Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE, Tübingen 1992 Brock, S. ‘Translating the Old Testament’, in: Carson & Williamson, It is Written, 87–98 Brockelmann, C. Lexicon Syriacum, Halle 19282; repr. Hildesheim 1995 Carson, D.A. & H.G.M. Williamson (eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, Cambridge 1988 Cathcart, K.J. & R.P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets, Edinburgh 1989 Chary, Th. Aggée–Zacharie Malachie, Paris 1969 Chilton, B. The Isaiah Targum, Edinburgh 1987 Churgin, P. Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, New Haven 1907 [= 1927]; repr. in Smolar-Aberbach, Studies, 229–380 Cowling, G.J. The Palestinian Targum: Textual and Linguistic Investigations in Codex Neofiti I and Allied Manuscripts, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University of Aberdeen 1968 Dalman, G. Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, Leipzig 1905; repr. Darmstadt 1960 Damsma, A. An Analysis of Targum Ezekiel and its Relationship to the Targumic Toseftot, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University College London 2008 (to be published in the series Studies in Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture) De Lagarde, P. ‘Targum Onkelos: Herausgegeben und erläutert von dr. A. Berliner. Mit Unterstützung der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin… Berlin 1884’ (review), GGA 22 (1886), 861–880 De Moor J.C. & E. van Staalduine-Sulman, ‘The Aramaic Song of the Lamb’, JSJ 24 (1993), 266–79 De Moor, J.C. et al. (eds), A Bilingual Concordance to the Targum of the Prophets, 21 Vols, Leiden [etc.], 1995–2005 De Moor, J.C. ‘Multiple Renderings in the Targum of Isaiah’, JAB 3 (2001), 161–80 bibliography 279

De Vaux, R.G.M., J.W.B. Barns, J.T. Milik (eds), Qumran Cave 4: Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128–4Q157), Oxford 1977 Díez Macho, A. ‘Nuevos fragmentos del Targum Palestinense’, Sefarad 15 (1955), 31–39 — ‘Las citas del Targum Palestinense en el Midrash Bereshit Zua’, in: A. Caquot et al. (eds), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor, Neukirchen–Vluijn 1985, 117–26 Díez Merino, L. ‘Tosefta targúmica a Génesis y Exodo’, Anuario de filología 8 (1982), 137–144 — ‘Procedimientos targúmicos’, in: V. Collado-Bertomeu & V. Vilar- Hueso (eds), II. Simposio Bíblico Español (Córdoba 1985), Valencia & Cordoba 1987, 461–86 — ‘Mahzor Vitry and the Palestinian Targum to the Prophets’, in: U. Haxen et al. (eds), Jewish Studies in a New Europe: Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of Jewish Studies in Copenhagen 1994, Copenhagen 1998, 199–211 Dimant, D. ‘Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 379–419 Ego, B. Targum Scheni zu Esther, Tübingen 1996 Ellis, E.E. ‘Biblical Interpretation in the New Testament Church’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 691–725 Epstein, A. ‘Tosefta du Targoum Yerouschalmi’, REJ 30 (1895), 44–51 Fahr, H. & U. Gleßmer, Jordandurchzug und Beschneidung als Zurechtweisung in einem Targum zu Josua 5 (Edition des MS T.–S. B 13,12), Glückstadt 1991 Fishbane, M. ‘Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 339–77 — Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, Oxford 2003 Fitzmyer, J.A. ‘The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament’, NTS 7 (1960–1961), 297–333 — ‘Some Observations on the Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI’, CBQ 36 (1974), 503–24 — A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, Missoula 1979 — The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary, Rome 20043 Tarbiz 37 (1967–68), 265–78 ,’ראש ראשי חדשים‘ .Fleischer, E — ‘Prayer and Piyyu in the Worms Mazor’, in: M. Beit-Arié (ed.), Worms Mazor: MS. Jewish National and University Library Heb. 40 781/1, Jerusalem 1985, 36–78 — ‘Piyyut’, in: Safrai et al. (eds), The Literature of the Sages. Second Part, 363–74 280 bibliography

Flesher, P.V.M. ‘Exploring the Sources of the Synoptic Targums to the Pentateuch’, in: Idem (ed.), Targum Sudies. Volume One: Textual and Contextual Studies in the Pentateuchal Targums, Atlanta 1992, 101–34 — ‘Targum as Scripture’, in: Idem (ed.), Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translation and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke, Leiden & Boston 2002, 61–75 Fox, M.V. ‘The Identification of Quotations in Biblical Literature’, ZAW 92 (1980), 416–31 Fraade, S.D. ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee of the Third–Sixth Centuries’, in: L.I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, New York & Jerusalem 1992, 253–86 — ‘Scripture, Targum, and Talmud as Instruction: A Complex Textual Story from the Sifra’, in: J. Magness & S. Gitin, Hesed ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs, Atlanta 1998, 109–21 — ‘Locating Targum in the Textual Polysystem of Rabbinic Pedagogy’, BIOSCS 39 (2006), 69–91 Frankel, Z. Zu dem Targum der Propheten, Breslau 1872 Gaster, M. ‘Das Buch Josua in hebräisch-samaritanischer Rezension: Ent- deckt und zum ersten Male herausgegeben von M. Gaster’, in: ZDMG 62 (1908), 209–79, 494–549 Geiger, A. Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bible in Ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums, Frankfurt am Main 19282; repr. of first edition by Elibron Classics 2006 Ginsburger, M. ‘Aramäische Introductionen zum Thargumvortrag an Festtagen’, ZDMG 44 (1900), 113–24 — ‘Les introductions araméennes a la lecture du Targum’, REJ 73 (1921), 14–26, 186–94 Ginzberg, L. Eine unbekannte jüdische Sekte, New York 1922; repr. Hildes- heim 1972 — Genizah Studies: In Memory of Doctor Solomon Schechter ( = Ginze Schechter). I. Midrash and Haggadah, New York 1928; repr. New York 1969 Gleßmer, U. Entstehung und Entwicklung der Targume zum Pentateuch als literarkritisches Problem, dargestellt am Beispiel der Zusatztargume, unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University of Hamburg 1988 — Einleitung in die Targume zum Pentateuch, Tübingen 1995 Goldberg, A. ‘Die Schrift der rabbinische Schriftausleger’, FJB 15 (1987), 1–15 — ‘The Rabbinic View of Scripture’, in: P.R. Davies & R.T. White (eds), A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and bibliography 281

History, Sheffield 1990, 153–66 (translation of ‘Die Schrift der rabbinische Schriftausleger’) Golomb, D. ‘“A Liar, a Blasphemer, a Reviler”: The Role of Biblical Ambiguity in the Palestinian Pentateuchal Targumim’, in: P.V.M. Flesher, Targum Studies. Volume One: Textual and Contextual Studies in the Pentateuchal Targums, Atlanta 1992 Gordis, R. ‘Quotations in Wisdom Literature’, JQR 30 (1939/40), 23–47 — ‘Quotations as a Literary Usage in Biblical, Oriental and Rabbinic Literature’, HUCA 22 (1949), 157–219 Gordon, R.P. Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets: From Nahum to Malachi, Leiden [etc.] 1994 — ‘Sperber’s “Additional Targum” to Zechariah 2:14–15: Studying a Targumic Cento’, in: Idem, Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets, 96–107 ,’לקראת חקר השקיעין של מסורות התרגומים הארמיים‘ .Goshen–Gottstein, M in: Y.D. Gilat et al. (eds), Studies in Rabbinic Literature, Bible and Jewish History, Ramat-Gan 1982, 43–47 שקיעים מתרגומי המקרא הארמיים, (with the assistance of Rimon Kasher) — 2 Vols, Ramat-Gan 1983–1989 — ‘aspects of Targum Studies’, Proceedings of the 9th WCJS: Panel Sessions Bible Studies and Ancient Near East, Jerusalem 1988, 35–44 Grabbe, L.L. ‘Aquila’s Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis’, JJS 33/1–2 (1982), 527–36 Greenberg, M. ‘“You Have Turned Their Hearts Backward” (I Kings 18:37)’, in: J.J. Petuchowski & E. Fleischer (eds), Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann, Jerusalem 1981, Hebrew section, 52–66 Greenfield, J.C. ‘The Periphrastic Imperative in Aramaic and Hebrew’, IEJ 19 (1969), 199–210 Grelot, P. ‘L’exégèse messianique d’Isaïe, LXIII, 1–6’, RB 70 (1963), 371–80 — ‘Une Tosephta targoumique sur Zacharie II’, 14–15, RB 73 (1966), 197–211 — ‘Deux Tosephtas targoumiques inédites sur Isaïe LXVI’, RB 79 (1972), 511–43 — ‘À propos d’une tosephta targoumique’, RB 80 (1973), 363 — ‘Le Targoum d’Isaïe, X, 32–34 dans ses diverses recensions’, RB 90 (1983), 202–28 — ‘Un poème acrostiche araméen sur Exode 12’, Semitica 38 (1990), 159–165 — ‘De l’apocryphe de la Genèse aux Targoums: sur Genèse 14, 18–20’, in: Z.J. Kapera (ed.), Intertestamental Essays: In Honour of Józef Tadeusz Milik, Kraków 1992 282 bibliography

— ‘Trois poèmes acrostiches sur Exode 12,2’, RB 106/1 (1999), 41–65 — ‘Deux poèmes araméens sur Exode 20:1–2’, REJ 159 (2000), 49–61 Griñó, R. ‘El Meturgeman y Neofiti I’, Biblica 58 (1977), 153–88 Grossfeld, B. The Two Targums of Esther, Edinburgh 1991 — Targum Neofiti 1: An Exegetical Commentary to Genesis Including Full Rabbinic Parallels, New York 2000 Harrington D.J. & A.J. Saldarini, Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets, Edinburgh 1987 Hayward, R. The Targum of Jeremiah, Edinburgh 1987 Ha-Sifrut ,’שרידים מיצירתם הפיוטית של המתורגמנים הקדמונים‘ .Heinemann, J 4 (1973), 362–75 Jerusalem 1974 ,אגדות ותולדותיהן — Hirshman, M. ‘Aggadic Midrash’, in: Safrai et al., Literature of the Sages. Second Part, 107–32 Houtman, A. ‘De Targoem van Jesaja 6:1’, in: J.W. Wesselius (ed.), Een handvol koren: Opstellen van enkele vrienden bij het vertrek van Dr. F. Sepmeijer van de Theologische Universiteit Kampen, Kampen 2003, 11–15 — ‘Different Kinds of Tradition in Targum Jonathan to Isaiah’, in: P. van Reenen, A. den Hollander & M. van Mulken (eds), Studies in Stemmatology II, Amsterdam & Philadelphia 2004, 269–83 — ‘The Role of Abraham in Targum Isaiah’, AS 3 (2005) 3–14 — ‘The Targumic Versions of the Martyrdom of Isaiah’, in: M.F.J. Baasten & R. Munk (eds), Studies in Hebrew Language and Jewish Culture, Dordrecht 2007, 189–201 Hughes, J.A. Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot, Leiden & Boston 2006 Jansma, T. Twee Haggada’s uit de Palestijnse Targum van de Pentateuch, Leiden 1950 Jastrow, M. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, Philadelphia 1903; repr. New York 1971 Jongeling, B., C.J. Labuschagme & A.S. van der Woude (eds), Aramaic Texts from Qumran, Leiden 1976 Kahle, P. The Cairo Genizah, Oxford 1959 Tarbiz 45 (1975), 27–45 ,’התוספתות התרגומיות להפטרת שבת–חנוכה‘ .Kasher, R — ‘The Interpretation of Scripture in Rabbinic Literature’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 547–94 — ‘The Aramaic Targumim and Their Sitz im Leben’, Proceedings of the 9th WCJS: Panel Sessions Bible Studies and Ancient Near East, Jerusalem 1988, 75–85 bibliography 283

— ‘Angelology and the Supernal Worlds in the Aramaic Targums to the Prophets’, JSJ 27 (1996), 168–91. AJS Review 21 (1996), 1–21 ,’האם יש מקור אחד לתוספתות התרגום לנביאים?‘ — Jerusalem 1996 ,תוספתות תרגום לנביאים: ההדיר, ביאר ותרגום לעברית — Kaufman, S.A. ‘A Unique Magic Bowl from Nippur’, JNES 32 (1973), 170–74 — ‘The Job Targum from Qumran’, JAOS 93 (1973), 317–27 Kaufman S.A. & Y. Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20: Reconstructing the Palestinian Targum’, Textus 16 (1991), 13–78 Tarbiz 76/1 ,’שירת בני מערבא: היבטים בעולמה של שירה עלומה‘ .Kister, M (2008), 84–105 Klein, G. ‘Bemerkungen zu Herrn Dr. Bacher’s “Kritische Untersuchungen zum Prophetentargum”’, ZDMG 29 (1876), 157–61 Klein, M.L. ‘The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume, Vienna 1980, Leiden 1981, 162–77 — ‘Palestinian Targum and Synagogue Mosaics’, Immanuel 11 (1980), 33–45 — ‘Targumic Poems from the Cairo Genizah’, HAR 8 (1984), 89–99 — ‘Fragments of Lost Targumim: Part One’ (review), JBL 104 (1985), 709–11 — Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 Vols, Cincinnati 1986 — ‘Targumic Toseftot from the Cairo Genizah’, in: D. Muños León (ed.), Salvacíon en La Palabra. Targum – Derash – Berith: En memoria del Professor Alejandro Díez Macho, Madrid 1986, 409–18 JJS 39 (1988), 80–91 ,’לא מתרגם בציבורא – Not to be Translated in Public‘ — — Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, Cambridge 1992 — ‘Introductory Poems (R’shuyot) to the Targum of the Hafarah in Praise of Jonathan ben Uzziel’, in: S.F. Chyet & D.H. Ellenson (eds), Bits of Honey: Essays for Samson H. Levey, Atlanta 1993, 43–56 Koehler, L. & W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden 1958 סיני, ספר יובל) ,(.in: Y.L. Maymon (ed ,’כתבי יד של תרגומים‘ .Komlosh, Y 81–466 ,(58–1957) ,)תשי׳ח Tel Aviv 1973 ,המקרא באור התרגום — Kosovsky, M. Concordance to the Talmud Yerushalmi, 8 Vols, Jerusalem 1979–2002 Krauss, S. Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmudim Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, 2 Vols, Berlin 1898–99; repr. Hildesheim 1964 284 bibliography

Kroeze D.J.D. & E. van Staalduine–Sulman, ‘A Giant among Bibles: “Erfurt 1” or Cod. Or. Fol. 1210–1211 at the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin’, AS 4/2 (2006), 193–205 Kuhn, P. Gottes Trauer und Klage in der Rabbinischen Überlieferung (Talmud und Midrasch), Leiden 1978 Kutscher, E.Y. ‘Dating the Language of the Genesis Apocryphon’, JBL 76 (1957), 288–92 — ‘Aramaic’, in: Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem 1971, III.259–87 Lagarde, P. de, ‘Targum Onkelos. Herausgegeben und erläutert von dr. A. Berliner. Mit Unterstützung der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin… Berlin 1884’ (review), GGA 22 (1886), 861–880 Le Déaut, R. ‘The Current State of Targumic Studies’, BThB 4 (1974), 3–32 — ‘La Septante, un Targum?’, in: R. Kuntzmann & J. Schlosser (eds), Études sur le judaïsme hellénistique, Paris 1984, 147–195 Le Déaut R. & J. Robert, Targum du Pentateuque, 5 Vols, Paris 1978–1981 Lehman, M.R. ‘1 Q Gen. Ap. in the Light of the Targumim and Midrashim’, RQ 1 (1958–59), 249–63 Leonhard, C. The Jewish Pesach and the Origins of the Christian Easter: Open Questions in Current Research, Berlin 2006 Lerner, M.B. ‘The Works of Aggadic Midrash and the Esther Midrashim’, in: Safrai et al. (eds), Literature of the Sages. Second Part, 133–229 Levene, D. A Corpus of Magic Bowls: Incatation Texts in Jewish Aramaic from Late Antiquity, London [etc.] 2003 Levey, S.H. The Targum of Ezekiel, Edinburgh 1987 Levine, E.B. The Aramaic Version of the Bible: Contents and Context, Berlin & New York 1988 Levy, B.B. Targum Neophyti, 2 Vols, Lanham [etc.] 1986 Levy, J. Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim, 2 Vols, Leipzig 1867–68 — Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, Berlin & Vienna 1924 Lieber, L. ‘“Oh my Dove, Let Me See Your Face!” Targum, Piyyut, and the Literary Life of the Ancient Synagogue’, in: A.A. den Hollander et al. (eds), Paratext and Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions: The Textual Markers of Contextualization, Leiden [etc.] 2003, 109–35 Lieberman, S. Greek in Jewish Palestine, New York 1942 — Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, New York 19622 — Tosefta Ki-fsutah: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta, 9 Vols, New York 1955–88 Loewe, R. ‘Apologetic Motifs in the Targum to the Song of Songs’, in: A. Altmann (ed.), Biblical Motifs, Cambridge (Mass.) 1966, 159–96 bibliography 285

Lougee, R.B. Paul de Lagarde 1827–1891: A Study of Radical Conservatism in Germany, Cambridge (Mass.) 1962 .Vienna 1830; repr ,אוהב גר: מאמר מחקרי על תרגום אנקלוס הגר .Luzzatto, S.D Jerusalem 1969 — ‘Nachträgliches über die Thargumim’, WZJT 5 (1844), 124–37 Marmorstein, A. The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God: 1. The Names and Attributes of God, Oxford & London 1927 McNamara, M. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Rome 1978 — Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers, Edinburgh 1995 — Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy, Edinburgh 1997 Vols, second enlarged 2 ,מפרשי המקרא: דרכיהם ושיטותיהם .Melammed, E.Z edition, Jerusalem 1978 Metzger, B.M. ‘The Formulas Introducing Quotations of Scripture in the NT and the Mishna’, JBL 70 (1951), 297–307 Milik, J.T. & R. de Vaux, Qumrân Grotte 4. II Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128 – 4Q157), Oxford 1977 Mulder, M.J. De targum op het Hooglied, Amsterdam 1975 BiOr 42 (1985), 386–87 ,שקיעים Review of Goshen–Gottstein’s — Mulder M.J. & H. Sysling (eds), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen [etc.] 1988; repr. Peabody (Mass.) 2004 Müller–Kessler, C. ‘The Earliest Evidence for Targum Onqelos from Babylonia and the Question of its Dialect and Origin’, JAB 3 (2001), 181–98 — Die Zauberschale-texte in der Hilprecht-Sammlung, Jena und weitere Nippur-Texte anderen Sammlungen, Wiesbaden 2005 Muraoka, T. ‘The Aramaic of the Old Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI’, JJS 25 /3 (1974), 425–43 — ‘Notes on the Old Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI’, RQ 9 (1977), 117-25 Tel Aviv 1978 ,על פסיפס ואבן – הכתובות הארמיות והעבריות .Naveh, J Naveh, J. & S. Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity, Jerusalem 1985 Neubauer, A. Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, 2 Vols, Oxford 1886–1906; R.A. May (ed.), Supplement of Addenda and Corrigenda to Volume I (A. Neubauer’s Catalogue), Oxford 1994 O’Connor, M. Hebrew Verse Structure, Winona Lake 1980 Odeberg, H. The Aramaic Portions of Bereshit Rabba with Grammar of Galilaean Aramaic, 2 Vols, Lund & Leipzig 1939 Patte, D. Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine, Missoula 1975 286 bibliography

Pautasso, L.G. ‘Gen. 44:18 – A Case for the Textual Relevance of the Targumic Tosefta’, Henoch 10 /2 (1988), 205–218 Perles, J. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Hebräischen and Aramäischen Studien, Munich 1884 Perrot, C.H. La Lecture de la Bible dans la Synagogue: Les anciennes lectures palestiniennes du Shabbat et des fêtes, Hildesheim 1973 — ‘The Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue’, in: Mulder & Sysling, Mikra, 137–159 Munich 1867/68; repr. Jerusalem 2002 ,ספר דקדוקי סופרים .Rabbinovicz, R Rabin, H. ‘Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century’, in: S. Safrai & M. Stern (eds), The Jewish People in the First Century, Assen & Amsterdam 1976, 1007–1039 גנזי מדרש, לצורתם הקדומה של מדרשי חז״ל לפי כת״י מן .Rabinovitz, Z.M Tel Aviv 1976 ,הגניזה – קטעי מדרש Rand, M. ‘Observations on the Relationship between JPA Poetry and the Hebrew Piyyut Tradition: The Case of the Kinot’, in: A. Gerhards & C. Leonhard (eds), Jewish and Christian Liturgy and Worship, Leiden & Boston 2007, 127–44. Reiss, W. ‘Wortsubstition als Mittel der Deutung: Bemerkungen zur Formel FJB 6 (1978), 27–69 ,’אין … אלא Rodrigues Pereira, A.S. Studies in Aramaic Poetry (c. 100 B.C.E. – c. 600 C.E.): Selected Jewish, Christian and Samaritan Poems, Assen 1997 Safrai, S. ‘Education and the Study of the Torah’, in: Safrai & Stern, The Jewish People in the First Century, II.945–70 Safrai, S. & M. Stern (eds), The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, 2 Vols, Assen & Amsterdam 1974–76 Safrai, S., Z. Safrai, J. Schwartz & P.J. Tomson (eds), The Literature of the Sages. Second Part: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science, and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature, Assen 2006 Safrai, Z. ‘The Origins of Reading the Aramaic Targum in Synagogue’, Immanuel 24/25 (1990), 187–93 — ‘The Targums as Part of Rabbinic Literature’, in: Safrai et al., The Literature of the Sages. Second Part, 243–78 Samely, A. ‘Scripture’s Implicature: The Midrashic Assumptions of Relevance and Consistency’, JJS 37 (1992), 167–205 — The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums, Tübingen 1992 Sassoon, D.S. Ohel Dawid: Descriptive Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the Sassoon Library, London, 2 Vols, London 1932 bibliography 287

Savran, G.W. Telling and Retelling: Quotation in Biblical Narrative, Bloomington & Indianapolis 1988 Schäfer, P. ‘Bibelübersetzungen II (Targumim)’, in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie VI (1980), 216–28 — ‘Bereshit Bara Elohim: Bereshit Rabba Parashah 1, Reconsidered’, in: A. Houtman, A.F. de Jong & M. Misset–van de Weg (eds), Empsychoi Logoi. Religious Innovations in Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst, Leiden & Boston 2008, 267–89 Schäfer P. & S. Shaked, Magische Texte aus der Kairoer Geniza, Band 1, Tübingen 1994 Seeligmann, I.L. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems, Leiden 1948 Segal, J.B. with a contribution by Erica C.D. Hunter, Catalogue of Aramaic and Mandaic Incantation Bowls in the British Museum, London 2000 Shepherd, D. ‘Translating and Supplementing: A(nother) Look at the Targumic Versions of Genesis 4.3–16’, JAB 1 (1999), 125–46 — Targum and Translation. A Reconsideration of the Qumran Aramaic Version of Job, Assen 2004 Vols, Jerusalem 1979 2 ,אגדתם של המתורגמנים .Shinan, A — ‘The Aramaic Targum as a Mirror of Galilean Jewry’, in: L.I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, New York & Jerusalem 1992, 241–51 ,תרגום ואגדה בו: האגדה בתרגום התורה הארמי המיוחס ליונתן בן עוזיאל — Jerusalem 1992 — ‘The Aggadah of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Rabbinic Aggadah: Some Methodological Considerations’, in: D.R.G. Beattie & M. McNamara, The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context, Sheffield 1994, 203–17 — ‘The Late Midrashic, Paytanic, and Targumic Literature’, in: S.T. Katz (ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism IV: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, Cambridge 2006, 678–98 Smelik, W.F. The Targum of Judges, Leiden [etc.] 1995 — ‘On Mystical Transformation of the Righteous into Light in Judaism’, JSJ 26 (1995), 122–44 — ‘Translation and Commentary in One: The Interplay of Pluses and Substitutions in the Targum of the Prophets’, JSJ 19/3 (1998), 245–60 — ‘The Rabbinic Reception of Early Bible Translations as Holy Writings and Oral Torah’, JAB 1 (1999), 249–72 — ‘Language, Locus, and Translation between the Talmudim’, JAB 3 (2001), 199–224 — ‘Orality, Manuscript Reproduction, and the Targums’, in: A.A. den Hollander et al. (eds), Paratext and Megatext as Channels of Jewish and 288 bibliography

Christian Traditions, Leiden [etc.] 2003, 49–81 Smolar, L. & M. Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, New York & Baltimore 1983 Sokoloff, M. The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave 11, Ramat-Gan 1974 — Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Ramat-Gan 1990 — Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods, Ramat-Gan, 2002 Sokoloff, M. & J. Yahalom, ‘Aramaic Piyyutim from the Byzantine Period’, JQR 75/3 (1985), 309–321 שירת בני מערבא – שירים ארמיים של יהודי ארץ ֿישראל בתקופה הבינזטית — ( = Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry from Late Antiquity: Critical Edition with Introduction and Commentary), Jerusalem 1999 Stanton, G. ‘Matthew’, in: Carson & Williamson, It is Written, 205–19 Starke, F. ‘Zur Herkunft von akkad. ta/urgumannu(m) “Dolmetscher”’, WO 24 (1993), 20–39 Stec, D.M. The Targum of Psalms, Collegeville 2004 Steinschneider, M. Die Hebraeischen Handschriften der K. Hof– und Staatsbibliothek in Muenchen, Munich 18952 Stuckenbruck, L.T. ‘Bibliography on 4QtgLev (4Q156)’, JSP 10 (1992), 53–55 Stuckenbruck. L.T & D.N. Freedman, ‘The Fragments of a Targum to Leviticus in Qumran Cave 4 (4Q156): A Linguistic Comparison and Assessment’, in: P.V.M. Flesher (ed.), Targum and Scripture, Leiden 2002 Syrén, R. The Blessings in the Targums: A Study on the Targumic Interpretations of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33, Åbo 1986 Sysling, H. Teiyyat Ha-Metim: The Resurrection of the Dead in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Parallel Traditions in Classical Rabbinic Literature, Tübingen 1996 — ‘Three Harsh Prophets: A Targumic Tosefta to Parashat Korah’, AS 2 (2004), 223–42 — ‘“Go, Moses, and stand by the sea”: An acrostic poem from the Cairo Genizah to Exodus 14:30’, in: R. Roukema et al. (eds), The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman, Leuven 2006, 139–54 — ‘Laments at the Departure of a Sage: Funeral Songs for Great Scholars as Recorded in Rabbinic Literature’, in: M.F.J. Baasten & R. Munk (eds), Studies in Hebrew Language and Jewish Culture, Dordrecht 2007, 81–102. Tel Aviv 1975 ,לשון התרגום לנביאים ראשונים ומעמדה בכלל ניבי הארמית .Tal, A לשון התרגום לנביאים ראשונים ומעמדה בכלל ,in: Idem ,’תרגום של תוספתא‘ — Tel Aviv 1975, 191–200 ,ניבי הארמית — ‘Is there a Raison d’être for an Aramaic Targum in a Hebrew-speaking Society?’, REJ 160 (2001), 247–64 Tov, E. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis [etc.] 1992 bibliography 289

Towner, W.S. The Rabbinic ‘Enumeration’ of Scriptural Examples: A Study of a Rabbinic Pattern of Discourse with Special Reference to Mekhilta d’ R. Ishmael, Leiden 1973 Van Bekkum, W.J. ‘Pijjut’, Theologische Realenzyklopädie XXVI, 1996, 634–640 Van der Ploeg, J.P.M. ‘Le targum de Job de la grotte 11 de Qumran, Première communication’, Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen afd. Letterkunde, Amsterdam 1962 Van der Ploeg, J.P.M. & A. van der Woude, Le Targum de Job de la Grotte XI de Qumrân, Leiden 1971 Van der Toorn, K., B. Becking & P.W. van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, second extensively revised edition, Leiden 1999 Van Staalduine–Sulman, E. ‘The Aramaic Song of the Lamb’, in: J.C. de Moor & W.G.E. Watson (eds), Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose, Neukirchen 1993, 265–92 — ‘Reward and Punishment in the Messianic Age (Targ. 2 Sam. 23.1–8)’, JAB 1 (1999), 273–96 — The Targum of Samuel, Leiden 2002 Vanderkam, J.C. ‘The Poetry of 1 Q Ap Gen xx–2–8’, RdQ 10 (1979), 55–66 Veltri, G. ‘Der griechische Targum Aquilas: Ein Beitrag zum rabbinischen Übersetzungsverständnis’, in: M. Hengel & A.M. Schwemer (eds), Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum, Tübingen 1994, 92–115 Watts, J.D.W. Isaiah 1–33, Waco 1985 Wewers, G.A. Übersetzung des Talmud Yerushalmi: Sanhedrin Gerichtshof Iv 4, Tübingen 1981 Weinberg, J. The Light of the Eyes: Azariah de’ Rossi. Translated from the Hebrew with an Introduction and Annotations, New Haven & London 2001 Tel Aviv 1979 ,התרגום הארמי לספר איוב .Weiss, R Weiss Halivni, D. Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara: The Jewish Predilection for Justified Law, Cambridge (Mass.) & London 1986 Wilcox, M. ‘Text form’, in: Carson & Williamson, It is Written, 193–204 — ‘The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School’, JSJ 10 (1979), 74–96 Tarbiz 47 (1978), 173–82 ,’״אזל משה״ בפפרוס‘ .Yahalom, J — ‘ ‘Syriac for Dirges, Hebrew for Speech’: Ancient Jewish Poetry in Aramaic and Hebrew’, in: Safrai et al. (eds), The Literature of the Sages. Second Part, 375–91 Zuckerman, B. ‘The Date of 11Q Targum Job: A Paleographic Consideration of its Vorlage’, JSP 1 (1987), 57–78 Zunz, L. Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie, 2 Vols, Berlin 1865–1867 — Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, Frankfurt am Main 1892; repr. Hildesheim 1966 Index of Primary Sources

Biblical references Hebrew Bible Genesis 25:9 220 1:28 154 28:12 153 6:14 215 32:1 161, 170 18:1 154 32:39 109 30:22 155, 164, 170 35:34 217 Joshua 40:11 155 5:2 215, 230 42:38 197 5:2–3 153 49:11 165 7:20 153, 209 49:11–12 51 7:21 152, 218 49:27 216 8:31 144 9:27 66 Exodus 15:46–47 200 4:15–16 12 13:17 155, 170 Judges 15:3 87 3:19–23 230 15:9–12 194 3:19–24 216 15:12 194 3:20 153 20:3 164 3:22–23 153 20:5 149, 155, 170 4:18 219 28:36–38 118 5:31 150, 226, 230 34:6–7 208 1 Samuel Leviticus 1:1a 23 10:10–11 12 1:18b 22 11:9 95 2:2 109 16:14 32 2:2a 22 16:20 32 2:4 147 16:21 32 2:8 176 24:11–15 103 2:9 109, 244 2:22 80 Numbers 3:13 225, 231 16:1 170, 232 4:1–11 87 16:33 109 4:12 243 23:19 187 6:19 83 8:1 21 Deuteronomy 8:3 80 3:18 220 9:5 24 5:7 164 9:21 24 5:26 130 9:24 213 10:17 123 10:22 90 14:9 96 11:2 91 23:4 92 11:11 78 index of primary sources 291

12:2 80 22:28 245 12:5 84 22:47 245 12:11 81 15:6a 23 1 Kings 15:17 24 15:18 206 15:29 187 18:37 162, 164, 232, 17:4 92 242 17:5 93, 96 21:19 147, 160 17:8 86, 243 21:23 147, 160 17:10 89 22:4 206 17:17 231 22:12 206 17:17–18 225 22:20 206 17:25 89 22:29 206 17:26 89, 130 22:29–38 206 17:36 130 17:40 117 2 Kings 17:42 243, 245 2:12 205 17:49 117 3:4 228 22:16–19 66 8:16 223 22:19 201 9:10 147, 160 22:22 123, 126 9:36–37 147, 160 23:27 63 17:30–31 153, 213 25:6 78, 154, 210 18:22 87 25:29 70, 148 19:3 150 26:20 69 19:4 130 28:8 219 19:16 130 30:16 70 23:28–30 206

2 Samuel Isaiah 1:2–4 63 1:2 161 1:21 75 1:21 220 3:5 111 2:4 153, 210 3:27 71 3:16–4:1 210 3:29 214 3:18–23 153 3:30 71 5:5–6 223 5:21 145, 204 5:6 230 6:23 111, 244 5:17 200 7:22 109 10:32 127, 201 12:15 106 10:32–12:6 125 13:3 125 14:14 191, 242 15:4 76 19:18 145, 202 19:23 173 21:5 217, 230 20:22 111 21:13 212, 221 21:1 73 22:1 221, 230 21:15–22 93, 245 22:2 153 22:3 245 24:15 228 22:5 150 29:17 218, 231 22:8 245 30:29 242 22:11 135, 245 33:21 203, 213 22:13 245 35:4 220 22:17 245 37:3 150 292 index of primary sources

37:14 130 37:12 153 37:17 130 37:13 164 40:4 149 38:1 146, 159 40:12 193 38:15 146 41:4 164 39:9–10 242 41:19 153, 214, 218 39:10 146 41:25 150 43:2 187 44:6 164 44:27 175 Hosea 48:1 223 1:2 183 51:6 232 3:1 65 53:7 112 5:1 12 54:11 230 13:13 150 54:12 230 55:13 154, 232 Joel 58:11 153, 220 2:13 208, 214 60:1 227, 231 60:8 184 Amos 63:2 165 6:2 153 65:24 154, 178, 232, 6:4 153, 220 242 66:1 190 Obadiah 66:23 185 6 145

Jeremiah Micah 2:1–3 193 4:3 210 2:2 193 5:4 151 4:18 221, 231 10:10 130 Nahum 17:5 158 3:8 215, 230, 234 17:8 160 20:7 154 23:19 182 Zephaniah 23:36 130 2:3 229 32:18 149 3:5 219 36:23 230 3:18 196, 208, 233, 43:13 203 242 46:20 145 49:11 182, 242 Haggai 49:20 168 2:8 154, 177

Ezekiel Zechariah 5:1 95 5:1 220 16:10 228 9:6 199, 208, 233 16:61 224, 230 12:1 206 21:22–23 193 12:11 206 21:31 149 23:24 220 Psalms 24:6 222, 230 31:19 153 24:9 222 60:4 227 33:9–10 146 96:5 164 index of primary sources 293

110:1a 126 Esther 113:7–8 176 2:5 174 119:28 197 140:2 220 Daniel 145:16 153 3:12 174 4:28 85 Proverbs 4:2 91 Nehemiah 14:9a 13 13:23–24 199

Job 1 Chronicles 9:7 203 3:3 111 14:12 204 Canticles 16:26 164 1:6 84 17:20 109

Lamentations 2 Chronicles 1:4 197 18:5 206 18:11 206 Ecclesiastes 18:14 206 7:5 54 18:19 206 12:12b 249 18:28 206 32:27 90 35:22 206

New Testament

Matthew Acts 5:17–18 15 2:34 126

Luke Revelation 16:17 15 5:9–13 179 23:43 70 10:11–16 165 14:3 179 John 15:3 179 11:49–52 112

Septuagint Isaiah 19:18 202

Translation of Aquila

Genesis Deuteronomy 1:1 16 7:13 16 294 index of primary sources

Vulgate

Isaiah Nahum 19:18 202 3:8 215

Targum

Targum Onkelos 35:9 154, 157 40:12 155 Genesis 40:23 156, 168 12:10 209 45:22 152 25:2 152 49:11 141, 156, 165 42:23 9 Exodus Exodus 1:16 151 4:15–16 12 12:2 157 7:1 13 12:37 141, 156 15:3 87 12:42 157 15:12 194 13:17 141, 156, 158, 20:5 148 169 22:15 175 15:18 157 34:6 208 18:13 169 19:4 185 Leviticus 20:5 141, 148, 156 11:9 94 21:11 226 11:10 94 34:6 209 34:7 149 Numbers 39:28 212 14:18 208

Deuteronomy Leviticus 18:26 183 14:9 94 20:22 183 24:3 226 22:27 158 25:9 220 22:28 157 26:39 149

Palestinian Pentateuchal Numbers Targums 2:23 177 6:3 215 Genesis 7 95 3:7 152 8:7 215 14:3 160 10:22 177 18:1 154 11:26 53, 141, 145, 156, 30:22 141, 153, 156 158, 242 30:25 141, 156, 158, 14:14 141, 156 167 14:18 149, 209 index of primary sources 295

16:1 147, 156, 158, 14:15 175 160, 162, 166, 16:5 175 242 21:14 158 1 Samuel 21:34 141, 156, 159 1:1a 23 23:19 130 1:10b 22 24:4 130 2:2a 22 24:6 160 2:6 108, 113, 136 24:24 203 2:8 172, 176 2:9 56, 61, 83, 109, Deuteronomy 113, 136 1:5 158 2:22 61, 136 3:1 159 3:13 225 3:2 160 3:14 82, 135, 236 3:3–4 159 4:12 61, 63, 135 3:10–11 159 6:19 56, 83, 136 3:13 159 8:1 21 20:9 177 10:22 90, 135, 236 22:3 152 11:2 91, 135, 136 22:12 152 11:11 78, 136 28:12 153 12:2 80, 136 28:68 203 12:5 84, 135 31:16 148, 156 12:7 78 31:24 158 12:11 81 31:26 158 15:6 23 32:1 53, 141, 156, 15:17 24 160, 167, 232 15:29 181, 187 32:3 157 17:4 92 34:6 152 17:5 93 17:8 56, 60, 86, 97, 107, 117, 133, Qumran Targum 244 17:10 88 Leviticus 17:16 88, 136 17:17 225 16:14 32 17:18 61, 67, 89, 225 16:20 32 17:39 60, 103, 107, 16:21 32 244 17:42 54, 60, 114, 135, Targum Prophets 236, 244 17:43 126 Joshua 18:19 60, 104, 107, 7:5 247 244 10:13 158 18:25 244 21:16 61, 67 Judges 23:8 117 5:3 181, 186, 192 25:29 156 5:5 85 26:9 61, 68, 76, 78 5:9 181, 186 26:20 61, 69 5:31 149 28:8 219 8:21 211 28:19 61, 69, 78, 136 296 index of primary sources

30:16 61, 70, 131 8:27 181, 188 31:4 56 8:28 163 8:29 163 2 Samuel 8:30 163 1:6 61, 74, 131, 236 8:35 163 1:18 158 8:45 163 1:21 61, 75, 78, 131 8:49 163 3:5 61, 64, 131 8:52 163 3:27 61, 71 16:34–17:1 248 3:29 181, 188 17:22 163 3:33 78 18:3 181 5:21 196, 204 18:37 156 6:19 61, 65, 135 19:10 247 6:23 60, 64, 110, 113, 19:14 247 244 21:19 156 12:6 106 21:23 156 12:12 60, 105, 135, 22:28 156, 166 244 15:4 61, 76, 131 2 Kings 15:11 61, 72 2:12 195, 205 18:25 61 3:4 228 19:23 172, 180 4:1 126, 181, 191, 19:30 61, 106, 135, 244 242, 247 20:22 61, 111, 135, 244 8:15 220 21:1 61, 66, 73 8:16 223 21:3 61, 72 9:10 156 21:5 61, 73, 77, 247 9:36–37 156 21:12 61, 77, 131 10:21 190 21:15–19 93, 119, 130, 133, 13:4 163 135, 236 19:3 150 21:16 126, 135 21:16 181 22:3 128, 133 22:19 163 22:3–47 60 23:29 207 22:5 150 24:4 191 22:8 128, 133 22:11 128, 133 Isaiah 22:13 128, 133 1:2 141, 156 22:17 128, 133 1:21 220 22:28 128, 133 3:19 211 22:47 128, 133 5:5–6 223 23:4 150 5:17 195 23:8 126 6:1 181 8:1 184 1 Kings 8:3 184 1:1 126 8:6 38, 195 2:1 181, 188 10:32 196, 201 2:30 181, 188 13:1 213 2:36 174 14:13–14 181 3:27 85 14:14 192 5:11 247 15:1 213 5:13 247 17:1 213 index of primary sources 297

18:5 210 17:7 156, 168 19:1 213 17:8 141, 156 19:18 195 20:7 172, 180 21:5 217 25:34 90 21:11 213 32:18 141, 148, 156 21:13 213 36:2 184 22:1 221 36:23 227 22:2 153 46:20 195 24:15 228 46:25 215 29:17 218 49:11 181, 191 30:23 200 52:16 196 30:26 150 30:29 146, 172, 179 Ezekiel 33:21 195, 203 1:1 181, 191 35:4 220 4:1 184 35:6 185 9:6 196 37:3 150 14:14 192, 242 40:4 141, 149, 156 16:10 228 40:12 37, 145, 193 16:61 224 41:2 247 18:13 141, 156 41:16 195, 204 23:24 220 41:25 149, 226 24:6 222 44:13 215 24:9 223 44:27 175 30:9 203 51:6 156, 166 30:14–16 215 54:1 228 37:12 141, 156 54:10 228 39:9–10 141, 156, 159 54:11 230 54:12 230 Hosea 54:15 228 1:2 247 54:17 228 1:2–3 181, 183, 192 55:13 172, 178, 180 4:2 195 56:9 228 13:13 150 57:15 176 13:15 90 60:4 228 60:8 181, 184, 192 Joel 60:12 228 4:10 210 60:17 228 62:5 196 Amos 63:2-3 141, 156, 165 2:14 147 65:17 141, 156 3:15 216 65:24 172, 177, 180 6:4 220 66:1 181, 188 7:14 195 66:2 176 66:23 136, 181, 184, Obadiah 192 6 195 66:24 247 18 141, 156, 168

Jeremiah Jonah 4:20 197 4:2 208 17:5 156, 168 298 index of primary sources

Micah Proverbs 2:6 223 23:23 176 5:4 151, 181 Canticles Nahum 1:1 146, 172, 179, 1:3 208 242 2:10 90 2:6 149 3:8 215 3:10 84

Zephaniah Lamentations 2:3 229 1:5 198 3:5 181, 186 1:12 198 3:18 62, 195, 196, 3:32–33 198 208 Haggai Esther Rishon 2:8 172, 177 2:5 174 Zechariah Esther Sheni 1:8 172, 175, 180 1:1 154, 172, 177, 2:14 181, 186 180, 232, 242 2:14–15 151 1:2 154, 172, 180 4:2 151, 181 1:4 172, 177 5:1 220 2:5 172, 180 9:6 195, 198, 199, 2:7 154, 172, 175, 208 178, 180, 232 11:4 183 3:3 130 12:11 195, 207 6:11 172, 176 7:9 175, 180 Targum Writings 1 Chronicles Psalms 3:3 64 4:2 163 14:24 177 7:1 13 16:3 65 13:4 163 20:4 93 18:5 151 20:6 93 27:7 163 20:8 93 34:19 176 60:7 163 2 Chronicles 69:14 163 2:5 189 69:17 163 6:18 181, 189 69:18 163 18:27 156, 166 32:27 90 index of primary sources 299

Early christian literature

Jerome Origen

Epistula 57 ad Pammachium Ad Africanum 5 16 4 15 11 16

Early jewish literature

Pseudo-Philo

Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 54:3 87 54:4 63 61:5 93, 117

Rabbinic literature

Mishnah

Pesaim Sanhedrin 6:1 200 10:3 109

Taanit Avot 4:6 191 1:2 84, 136 1:12b 118 Megillah 2:13 48 4:4 10, 130 3:14 90 4:6 10 4:10 10, 39 Tamid 3:2 79 Gittin 9:3 226 Yadayim 4:5 8

Tosefta

Terumot 3:28 10 7:20a 112 3:31–41 10 3:41 14 Shabbat 4(3):31–38 39 13:2 11 Avodah Zarah Megillah 3:19 204 3:20 10 3:21 10 300 index of primary sources

Palestinian Talmud Berakhot Megillah 4:1 79 1:1 51 1:8 9 Terumot 1:14 213 8:10 112 4:2 127 4:11 39 Shabbat 6:1 153 Ketuvot 6:4 153, 210 7:9 153, 214 16:1 11 19:1 216 Sotah 7:2 51 Pesaim 36b 65 Qiddushin 3:15 199 Sheqalim 61a 214 6:2 203, 213 Sanhedrin Rosh ha-Shanah 1:2 83 2:6 83 2:3 64, 154 2:5 11 Taanit 6:3 153, 209 2:1 90, 208, 214 10:1 162 3:1 158 10:2 191 4:5 191, 213 Avodah Zarah 3:2 153, 213

Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 115b 8 6a 126 130ab 216 6b 163 8ab 38 Eruvin 9b 163 53b 70 12b 70 27a 79 Pesaim 28a 195, 196, 197, 66a 145 198, 208, 233, 68a 195, 200–201 242 87ab 183, 192 31b 163 95b 179

Shabbat Yoma 8b 212 9ab 62 26a 196 22b 106 56a 89, 226 32b 145, 195 56b 106 77b 195, 203 115a 11 index of primary sources 301

Rosh ha-Shanah 72b 195, 198, 208, 233 1:2 11 18a 11, 82 Baba Qamma 22b 145, 196, 204 3b 145, 195 23a 153, 203 119a 66 25a 81 Baba Metsia Taanit 17a 152 2a 164 61b 169 2ab 164 4b 12 Baba Batra 26b 191 99a 33 123b 168 Megillah 3a 9, 33, 195, 206, 240 8b–9a 8 Sanhedrin 19b 105 10b 178 21a 64 12b–13a 174 38a 126 21b 33 44a 152 23b 127 63b 153 25b 39 93a 175 31a 125 94b 38, 195 32a 10 95a 126, 196, 202 Moed Qatan 103b 191 2a 196 109b 191 26a 195, 205 28b 152, 195, 206 Makkot 23b 85 Yevamot 24a 205 49b 191 66b 152 Avodah Zarah 78b 66 4a 196 105a 82 5a 181 11a 33 Ketuvot 44a 195, 196, 204 9ab 89 58b 34 103b 205 Menaot Nedarim 110a 195, 202 38a 195 ullin Sotah 18b 195 37b 12 66b 94, 96 42b 87, 89, 93 137b 34

Gittin Temurah 88b 126 6b 169

Qiddushin Niddah 13a 195 51b 94, 96 49a 14 302 index of primary sources

Midrash (alphabetical) Aggadat Bereshit Lamentations Rabbah 22:3 112 2:5 213 petita 5 222, 230 Canticles Rabbah petita 16 222, 231 1:5 224, 230 petita 24 221 3:4 218 Leviticus Rabbah Deuteronomy Rabbah 4:1 220 7:6 164 6:2 220 9:5 13 Ecclesiastes Rabbah 19:5 220 7:5 54 19:6 112 9 112 20:1 207 9:1 207 22:6 66 9:17 54 23:10 219 9:18 223 26:7 70, 219 11:3 223, 230 30:12 83 31:9 219 Ecclesiastes Zutta 33:6 220 7:5 54 34:15 153, 220

Evel Rabbati Massekhet Soferim 9:2 205 1:9–10 8 9:9–10 39 Exodus Rabbah 15:2 11 31:4 169 18:5 33 31:6 169 31:13 169 Mekhilta de R. Ishmael   31:14 169 Beshala peti ta 149 Shirta 1:1 179 Genesis Rabbah  1:1 215, 230, 234 Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yo ai  1:5 153 Beshala 13 149  6:2 179 Beshala 15 179 15:1 153, 218 24:1 218, 231 Midrash Psalms 31:8 153, 215, 230 7:2 63 48:8 79 18:30 126 63:14 217, 230 19:11 219 73:4 164 59:4 64 73:7 168 60:2 227, 230 75:5 168 78:5 164 80:1 11 87:1 230 85:14 152, 218 113:1 179 94:9 112 99:3 153, 216, 230 Midrash Samuel 5:10 147 10:1 225, 231 10:5 70 index of primary sources 303

11:1 63 Sifre Deuteronomy 14:4 213 305 148, 205 14:7 92 327 205 20:5 225, 231 21:1 117 Sifre Numbers 23 154, 210 83 149 23:5 70 24:1 219 Tanuma 24:5 70 32:3 112 Bereshit Numbers Rabbah 6 226, 230 4:20 65  5:3 66 Beshala 8:4 66 3 149 10:3 153, 220 10 179

Pesikta de-Rav Kahana Emor 6:2 228 2 70 11:8 228 13:14 175 Noa 18:4 230 3 226 18:5 230 21:1 228 Tazria 21:3 227, 231 9 208 24:11 208 26:1 207 Tanuma Buber

Pesikta Rabbati Emor 1 185 4 70 21 175 32 230 Metzora pesikta anochi 229 10 87

Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer Terumah 32 70 9 153

Ruth Rabbah VaYera 2:5 127 12 112 35 164 Ruth Zutta 1:5 93 VaYetzei 16 164 Sekhel Tov Gen 42:38 197 Yalqut Shimoni Sifra Shemini 1:9 12 Torah Shemini 3:5 96 §136 64 304 index of primary sources

1 Samuel Ruth §103 64 §600 93 §114 81 §140 70 Ecclesiastes §973 54 2 Samuel §989 54 §141 64 §143 65 1 Chronicles §156 127 §1075 127

Psalms §777 64

Medieval Literature

Arukh 1:22 188 2:296 94 2:320 220 3:411 220 3:467 222 5:74 210 5:162 199 5:272 220 6:12 189 6:393–94 227