Is There a Raison D'être for an Aramaic Targum in a Hebrew-Speaking Society?

Abraham TAL Tel-Aviv University

IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM IN A HEBREW-SPEAKING SOCIETY?

RÉSUMÉ

L'opinion traditionnelle selon laquelle le Targum araméen était une nécessité sociale, destinée aux masses qui ne maîtrisaient plus l'hébreu, est actuellement contestée par les découvertes récentes qui ont prouvé la vitalité de l'hébreu et son usage extensif aux temps où le premier Targum fut conçu. Cet article propose la thèse que le Targum du type Onqelos n'avait pas comme but d'exposer aux masses ignorantes la Loi de Moïse dont la langue originelle ne leur était plus accessible. Au contraire, son dessein était de protéger l'original de l'inclination à le «moderniser» en accord avec le langage et les idées contemporaines. Comme on l'apprend des rouleaux de la mer Morte, du Pentateuque samaritain et même des sources rabbini- ques, de tels exemplaires harmonisants de la Loi existaient durant les premiers siè- cles de l'ère chrétienne. L'emploi du Targum à côté de l'original permettait de la moderniser, sans altérer le texte sacré.

SUMMARY

The traditional view considering the Aramaic Targum as a social necessity aimed at the masses that no longer understood Hebrew is challenged by the recently dis- closed testimonies that Hebrew was in active use among the common people by the time the first Targum was conceived. The present article submits the thesis that the Onqelos type Targum was not destined to expose the ignorant masses to the Law, whose language was inaccessible to them. It was rather directed against the tendency to “modernize” the text of the holy writ in accordance with the contemporary linguistic habits and ideological trends. As we learn from the Dead Sea scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch and even rabbinical testimonies, such harmonizing exem- plars of the Law existed in the first centuries C.E. The use of the Targum along with the original made possible the modernization, without altering the sacred text.

Introduction1

Recent research has raised crucial questions regarding the position of Hebrew vis-à-vis Aramaic during the Second Temple period, producing 1. Unless otherwise stated, all translations from Hebrew and Aramaic are mine - A. T. The following abbreviations are frequently used: b.: Babylonian Talmud; Kutscher:

Revue des Études juives, 160 (3-4), juillet-décembre 2001, pp. 357-378 358 IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM? some embarrassment among scholars involved in Aramaic studies, particu- larly among those interested in the Targum. The cardinal discoveries in the Judean Desert, which clearly, anchor the vitality of Hebrew in Palestine during the Second Temple period, are apparently incompatible with the existence of a contemporary Aramaic Targum in the same area. For if everyone speaks Hebrew, who needs an Aramaic translation of the Torah? More than a hundred years ago, considerable consensus existed among scholars with regard to the position of Hebrew in the linguistic environment of Palestine during the Second Temple period, based upon a somewhat ro- mantic belief about the return of the exiles from Babylon, that took place under the benevolent auspices of the Persian emperors. The prevailing view was that the return from Babylon was animated by religious enthusiasm. It was there, in exile, that their strong devotion to the Law evolved. Upon their return to the homeland, they established a firmly crystallized society, grounded in scrupulous adherence to the prescriptions of the holy Torah. The returned exilees, rebuilders of Jerusalem and the Temple, born mainly in exile, had their educated in Babylon, and, naturally, no longer spoke He- brew. Their vernacular, obviously, was the language they acquired in exile: Aramaic. Nevertheless, one essential fact could not be ignored: the large majority by far of this period’s Jewish literary output was written in He- brew, generally termed as “Mishnaic Hebrew”. To explain this “anomaly”, the well-known theory regarding the status of Hebrew in the new Jewish society was generated. First formulated by S. Lewisohn in his pamphlet Essay on the Grammar of the Language of the Mishna (Vienna 1815 [Hebrew]), it was further enunciated by A. Geiger in the introduction to his Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischnah (Breslau 1845): Seit der Zeit des zweiten Tempels war bereits die Volksprache der Juden in Palästina das Aramäische; damals began daher schon das Uebersetzung der im Gotteshaufe vorzulesenden Stücke aus den Pentateuch, und zum Theil auch aus den Propheten, in das Aramäische… Das Hebräische hatte somit auf- gehört, eine lebendige Sprach zu sein, dennoch aber blieb es, wie das Latei- nische im Mittelalter, eine religiöse Gelehrtensprache während der Zeit des zweiten Tempels… Die Sprache der Mischnah ist demnach ihren Wesen nach die hebräische, nur eine spätere Ausbildung derselben, nachdem sie bereits aufgehört hatte, in dem Munde des Volkes zu leben (pp. 1-2).

E. Y. KUTSCHER, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa), Leiden, 1974; LOT: The Literary and Oral Traditions of Hebrew and Aramaic among the Samaritans, vols. I-V, Jerusalem, 1957-1977 (Hebrew); m.: Mishnah; Segal: M. H. SEGAL, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew, Oxford, 1927; MT: Masoretic Text; SP: The Samaritan Pen- tateuch; t.: Tosephtah; y.: Yerushalmi Talmud. IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM? 359

Although Geiger’s position was criticized by H. Graetz, who character- ized it “Grundirrthum”2, it continued to influence scholars until the turn of the century, when M. H. Segal’s research led him to the following quite different conclusion3: The answer, therefore, which grammar has to offer to the question whether MH was a natural, living and popular dialect, developed gradually and system- atically out of old Hebrew or merely an artificial and mechanical scholastic jargon,… is… unequivocally in favor of the former alternative… (p. 735). Since then, a new factor has entered the debate, one that changed the general attitude vis-à-vis the position of Second Temple Hebrew consider- ably: the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nahal Îever and Wadi Muraba¨at documents. The multitude of compositions discovered, extremely rich in literary style and linguistic innovations, attest to Hebrew productivity during the Second Temple period. Moreover, many of these documents reveal that the use of Hebrew was not restricted to literary expression; rather it was a living language used in non-literary documents as well, such as lists of — real or imaginary — hidden treasures and letters written by military leaders to various addressees. I refer to the Copper Scroll on one hand and to the Bar-Cochba’s letters on the other. Both represent a linguistic register very similar to Mishnaic Hebrew4. The discovery of Hebrew letters along with Aramaic and Greek ones, casts a new light on R. Jonathan of Bet Guvrin’s ארבעה לשונות נאים שישתמש בהן העולם ואילו הן: לעז לזמר, רומי לקרב, :dictum Four languages are appropriately used in the“ סורסי לאילייא, עברי לדיבור. world and these are: La’az [= Greek] for song, Latin for battle, Syriac [= Aramaic] for wailing, Hebrew for speech (y. Megilla 71b)”5. This evidence for the active use of Hebrew ostensibly put an end to the dispute regarding its position during the period treated in this paper. How- ever, some hesitations still remained, as seen from J. A. Fitzmyer’s conclusion to his article on the languages of Palestine:

2. Orientalistische Litteraturblatt 1845, pp. 14-15. 3. M. H. SEGAL, “Mishnaic Hebrew and its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to Aramaic”, Jewish Quarterly Review, O. S. XX (1908), pp. 648-737. See also A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew, Oxford, 1927, passim. 4. J. T. Milik, the editor of the text, expressed his belief: “The thesis of scholars like Segal, ben-Jehuda and Klausner, according to whom Mishnaic Hebrew was a language spoken by the population of Judaea during Persian and Greco-Roman periods, is no longer a hy- pothesis; it is an established fact” (Discoveries in the Judean Desert II, p. 70). See also J. M. GRINTZ, “Hebrew as the Spoken and Written Language in the Last Days of the Second Temple”, Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1960), pp. 32-47. 5. On this matter, see E. Y. KUTSCHER, “The Hebrew and Aramaic Letters of Bar Koseba and his Contemporaries”, Leshonenu 26 (1962), p. 8. 360 IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM?

I should maintain that the most commonly used language in Palestine in the first century A. D. was Aramaic… But pockets of Palestinian Jews also used Hebrew, even though its use was not widespread. The emergence of the targums supports this6. Fitzmyer finds support for his opinion about the limited use of Hebrew in the existence of the Aramaic Targum. This position differs from the traditional view mentioned above only in its admission of the existence “pockets of Palestinian Jews” among whom Hebrew was still a living language. Such a view is, of course, admissible, as far as the transitional period from Hebrew to Aramaic is concerned, i. e., most of the second century C.E., but questionable with regard to the Second Temple period.

Standard Literary Aramaic

Discoveries of Aramaic documents at Qumran shed new light on the Aramaic used during the Second Temple period. These documents, which represent a range of subjects, are written in an Aramaic that differs from Biblical Aramaic and the language of the archives of Elephantine on one hand, and from the Aramaic of the “Palestinian” Targums on the other, a fortiori from the Aramaic of the Talmud and Midrash. This Aramaic resem- bles in many respects the prevalent language preserved in many documents in the region from Palmyra in the desert to Palestine and the Sinai peninsula and to the northern part of the Arabian peninsula. This is a novel form of Aramaic, one presaging the characteristics of the Aramaic dialects to develop some centuries later. At this stage it is still non dialectal, serving many ethnic groups alongside their autochthonal languages. J. C. Green- field labelled this language “Standard Literary Aramaic”7. Naturally, these discoveries reopened the old much-disputed question of the origin and time of Onqelos. Given the large number of participants in this dispute8, I shall limit myself to those most relevant to our topic. According to A. Geiger, primitive Onqelos and the Targum of the Proph- ets were the work of a kind of Übersetzergilde, which functioned in Second Temple Palestine, and produced an Aramaic translation replete with homi- 6. “The languages of Palestine in the First Century A. D.”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 32 (1970), p. 531 (= A Wandering Aramean, Collected Aramaic Essays, Scholars Press, Chico, California, 1979, p. 46). 7. J. C. GREENFIELD, “Standard Literary Aramaic” in André Caquot et David Cohen (eds.), Actes du Premier Congrès international de linguistique sémitique et chamito-sémi- tique, Paris 16-19 juillet 1969, The Hague - Paris 1974, pp. 280-289. 8. See the account given by U. GLESSMER, Einleitung in die Targume zum Pentateuch, Tübingen, 1995, pp. 92-94. IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM? 361 letical and halakhic interpretations frequently deviating from Scripture’s literal meaning. As handed down to later generations, they both are the product of a thorough redactional process performed in Babylon, part of the wide reform that took place within this cultural and religious center, which determined the character of Judaism for the centuries to come: Jedenfalls haben sie beide ihre Schlussredaktion in Babylonien erhal- ten; Sprache und Auffassungweise gehören der dortiger Gegen und Richtung an9. A more extreme position was taken by Z. Fränkel, who attributed the composition of Onqelos to Babylonian Judaism: Die aus Babylon zurückkehrenden Exulanten hatten…die aramäische Sprache mitgebracht, durch die nahe Berührung mit Syrien… bekam jedoch der Volksdialekt eine syrische Färbung und wandelte sich in Westaramäisch um. In diesem Dialekt ist der jerusalemische Talmud und das targum Jonathan zum Pentateuch verfasst. Die babylonischen Juden sprachen das Ostaramäische, in diesem Dialekt sind verfasst der babylonische Talmud, Targum Onkelos und noch andere Targumim10. Many scholars shared this view, most prominently, P. Kahle, who main- tained in various articles the thesis that Onqelos was of Babylonian origin; for example, in his The Cairo Geniza, Oxford 1947, p. 117 he states: “…there is no doubt that they [Onqelos and Jonathan to the Prophets - A.T.] were composed in Babylonia”. However, in the second edition (Oxford 1959, p. 194), he admits the possibility of a Palestinian prov- enance, albeit without abandoning his original position: “…The other alternative is… that the Targum Onqelos originated in Babylonia”. This position was utterly opposed to Th. Nöldeke, who believed that Onqelos was of Palestinian origin. In the introduction to his monumental Mandaic grammar he stated: Zu beachten ist übrigens, dass das officielle Targum (Onkelos und Jonathan), obwohl in Babylonien redigiert, einen Dialect zeigt, dessen Grundlage palästinisch ist11. A similar opinion was expressed by Dalman. He assumed that Onqelos emerged in Judea, the spiritual center of the Second Temple period, not in the Aramaic vernacular but in a sort of upper-language, designed to repro- duce the Hebrew original faithfully:

9. A. GEIGER, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwiklung des Judentums, Frankfurt a/M 19282 (first edition: 1857), p. 13. 10. Z. FRÄNKEL, Zu Targum der Propheten, Breslau, 1872, pp. 5-6. 11. Th. NÖLDEKE, Mandäische Grammatik, Halle, 1875, p. XXVII, n. 1. 362 IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM?

Dabei ist aber das Onkelostargum auch nicht die Niederschrift einer Übersetzung des Pentateuchs in den judäischen Volksdialekt, sondern eine gelehrte und künstliche Nachbildung des hebräischen Originals…12 In his linguistic analysis of Genesis Apocryphon, E. Y. Kutscher clearly demonstrated that this document was composed in Palestine in the first century B.C.E. He also found a striking linguistic resemblance between the scroll and Onqelos13. Based on this resemblance we can conclude that both the Genesis Apocryphon and Onqelos represent Greenfield’s “Standard Literary Aramaic.”

Targum in Rabbinic sources

Once again we raise the question of what role the Targum played in what now appears to have been a Hebrew-speaking society. Although the oldest rabbinic sources mention Targums in many instances, unfortunately, they, as well as later testimonies, do not offer an unequivocal answer to this question. Let us consider the most important ones, noting that the notion of Targum has more than one meaning in these sources. In m. Yadayim IV, 5 Targum refers to the Aramaic portions of the books of Daniel and Ezra: תרגום שבעזרא ושבדניאל מטמא את הידים תרגום שכתבו עברית ועברי שכתבו תרגום וכתב עברי אינו מטמא את הידים. לעולם אינו מטמא את הידים עד שיכתבינו אשורית .The Aramaic of Ezra and Daniel renders the hands unclean“ ,על העור בדיו. If an Aramaic [portion of the Scriptures] was written (= translated) into Hebrew, or if Hebrew [Scripture] was written in Aramaic, or in (ancient) Hebrew script, it does not render the hands unclean. [The Holy Scriptures] render the hands unclean only if they are written in Assyrian characters, on leather, and in ink”. From the reference to Ezra and Daniel we can infer that the Mishna adverts here to the Aramaic chapters of the Bible and ,here denotes “Aramaic”. According to this citation תרגום that the word these chapters are not considered sacred as long as they are written in the ancient Hebrew characters utilized for non sacred writings14. However,

12. G. DALMAN, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, Leipzig, 19052, pp. 12-13. 13. E.Y. KUTSCHER, “The Language of the ‘Genesis Apocryphon’. A Preliminary Study”, Scripta Hierosolymitana IV (1957), pp. 1-35. See especially, pp. 9-10 and n. 44. "ביררו להן לישראל כתב אשורית ולשון הקודש והניחו להדיוטות כתב:See b. Sanh. 21b .14 עברית ולשון ארמי. מאן הדיוטות, אמר רב חסדא כותאי. מאי כתב עברית אמר רב חסדא כתב Assyrian” characters and “the Sacred Language” was selected for Israel, and“ ליבונאה". “Hebrew characters” and “Aramaic language” was left to the commoners. Who are the commoners? R. Hisda said: the Cutheans (i. e., the Samaritans). What are “Hebrew characters”? R. Hisda said: Libona'a characters (probably the Canaanite alphabet). The exact meanings of the terms found in this passage are beyond the scope of this study. IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM? 363 in the sense of translation into another תרגום m. Megilla II, 1 uses the word הקורא את המגילה למפריע לא יצא. קראה על פה קראה תרגום בכל :language -If one reads the Scroll (i. e. the book of Esther in the syna“ ,לשון לא יצא. gogue) in wrong order, he does not fulfill his duty. If one reads it by heart, or if he reads it in Aramaic or in any other language, he does not fulfill the duty (of reading the Scroll)”. This rather negative attitude towards the Targum, obviously provides in- direct testimony to its penetration into cultic life. There are even indications that at a certain point in its struggle for recognition the (Aramaic) Targum did enjoy a certain success, as witnessed by some halakhic passages that reflect attempts to regularize the use of the Targum in the synagogal service, albeit not without limitations to secure the primordiality of the origi- הקורא בתורה לא יפחות :nal holy writ. One such witness is m. Megilla IV, 4 One who“ ,משלושה פסוקים. לא יקרא למתורגמן יותר מפסוק אחד ובנביא שלושה. reads the Torah (i. e., one who is invited to read in the synagogue) may not read less than three verses. One may not read to the interpreter [from the Hebrew into the Aramaic] more than one verse [at a time]… but [if he reads] in the Prophets, [he is allowed to read] three [consecutive verses]”. The Torah involves more precision than the Prophets, therefore, the translation must follow every single verse closely, so that the translator can remember its wording and translate accurately. This commandment, as well as many others, were intended to limit the use of the Targum as much as possible. Yet this tendency to admit the Targum with what were considered necessary restrictions, brought other restrictions in its wake, such as the prohibition to read or to translate certain passages, which may discredit the ancestors of the nation, in public (m. Megilla IV, 10)15. Note that we deal with an oral Targum at this stage, not a written one16. There are, however, some indications of a position that afforded the Targum a distinguished position at a certain point in Jewish antiquity. For למען ילמד :(example, the tannaitic treatise Sifre Devarim states (§161 ליראה את ייי אלוהיך. מלמד שהיראה מביאה לידי מקרא. מקרא מביא לידי תרגום. תרגום מביא לידי משנה. משנה מביאה לידי תלמוד. תלמוד מביא לידי מעשה. מעשה .that he may learn to fear the Lord your (!) God (Deut“ ,מביא לידי יראה. 17:19), it teaches that reverence leads to reading [of the Scriptures], reading leads to translation, translation leads to (verbal) teaching, teaching

15. The question of the forbidden passages has been thoroughly treated by M. GINSBUR- GER, “Verbotene targumim”, Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 44 (1900), pp. 1-7. 16. Perhaps the aversion to a written Targum stems from the general disinclination to דברים שבכתב אי אתה רשאי לאומרן על פה, דברים :record oral traditions. See b. GITTIN 60b The words which are written you are not at liberty to‘ ,שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאומרן בכתב. say by heart, and the words transmitted orally you are not at liberty to recite from writing’. 364 IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM? leads to learning, learning leads to performance, performance leads to reverence”. If the Aramaic translation is meant, then the Sifre assigns to the Targum a rather important rank in the chain of wisdom17. Nevertheless, there is strong reserve among tannaitic circles regarding the very existence רבן שמעון בן :of the Aramaic Targum, as witnessed by y. Megilla 71c גמליאל אומר אף בספרים לא התירו שיכתבו אלא יוונית. בדקו ומצאו שאין התורה R. Simeon“ ,יכולה להיתרגם אלא יוונית. בורגני אחד בידא להם ארמית מתוך יוונית. ben Gamaliel says: even books (= sacred rolls?) it was permitted only that they be written in Greek. It was investigated and found out that the Torah can only be translated into Greek. A certain watchmen forged Aramaic from Greek.”18 As far as the attitude toward a written Targum is concerned, t. Shabbat If they (= the“ ,היו כתובים תרגום ובכל לשון מצילין אותן. :XII, 2 is instructive holy writings) were written in Aramaic or in any other language, they should be saved [from fire]”. The passage unequivocally adduces the very existence of books that contain Targum. Their holiness is expressed by the obligation to save them in the case of fire. The struggle for recognition אמ' ר' יוסה :(.sometimes produced confrontations among the rabbis (ibid מעשה שהלך ר' ֶח ְל ְפּ ָתא אצל רבן גמליאל לטבריא ומצאו שהיה יושב על שולחנו של יוחנן בן נזיף ובידו ספר איוב תרגום והיה קורא בו. אמ' לו ר' חלפתא זכור הייתי ברבן גמליאל הזקן אבי אביך שהיה יושב על גב מעלה בהר הבית והביאו לפניו ספר R. Iose said: R. Helpeta“ ,איוב תרגום ואמר לבניו (= לבניי) וגנזוֹ תחת הנדבך. went to Rabban Gamaliel in Tiberias and found him seated at the table of Yohanan ben Nazif (= “the rebuked?”). In his hand was the Book of Job in Targum which he was reading. R. Helpeta said to him: I recall Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, your grandfather, sitting on the staircase [going up to] the Temple mount (see m. Middot II, 3). The Book of Job in Targum was brought before him, and he instructed the builder to hide it under the course of stones”. Rabban Gamaliel of Iabne, heir to Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai as Nasi (= prince), studies a Targum, which his grandfather, the head of the Sanhedrin, had disqualified in front of the elders assembled “on the staircase of the Temple mount”. This was a most revered public place, from where communiqués were sent to the Galilee and to the Diaspora (see t. Sanhedrin II, 6)19.

-if there is no wis“ ,אם אין חכמה אין יראה, אם אין יראה אין חכמה :Cf. m. Avot III, 17 .17 dom, there is no fear, if there is no fear, there is no wisdom”. 18. This passage is very difficult. It occurs, with great variation, in Esther Rabba (IV, 11- ברברי (= יווני) אחד בידה להון :according to which Lieberman reconstitutes the original ,(12 and translates: “a watchman took out the Latin from the Greek”. See ,לשון רומי מלשון יוני S. LIEBERMAN, Greek in Jewish Palestine, New York 19652, p. 17. 19. The whole matter is widely treated in R. LE DÉAUT, Introduction à la littérature targumique, Roma, 1966, pp. 38-51. IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM? 365

The controversy surrounding the question of the legitimacy of a written Targum continued during the amoraic period. Thus y. Megilla 74d relates: ר' שמואל בר רב יצחק עאל לכנישתא. חמא חד ספר מושט תרגומא מן גו סיפרא. אמר ליה: אסיר לך. דברים שנאמרו בפה בפה ודברים שנאמרו בכתב בכתב. “R. Samuel bar R. Isaac went to a synagogue and saw a teacher presenting a Targum from a book. He said to him: It is forbidden to do it that way. Things stated orally [must be presented] orally. Things stated in writing [must be presented] in writing” (see note 16).

For whom was the Targum composed?

From these passages, as well as from many others, scattered throughout tannaitic and amoraic sources, we can adduce the struggle of the Aramaic Targum for recognition. It was difficult, indeed, to install it into the synagogue service. Unfortunately, the records provide nothing by far of an answer to the question asked earlier: given the fact that Hebrew was spoken when the Targum emerged, for whom was it conceived? Let us first consider the traditional answers given in former generations. שהתרגום אינו אלא :In his commentary to b. Megilla 21b Rashi states להשמיע לנשים ועמי הארץ שאינן מכירים בלשון הקודש והתרגום הוא לעז הבבליים… the Targum is…“ ,ובתרגום של תורה צריכין אנו לחזור שיהו מבינין את המצות. aimed at women and commoners, who do not understand the Holy Lan- guage; the Targum is [composed in the] foreign language of the Babylonians… We must [teach them] the Targum of the Torah repeatedly so that they understand its commandments”. In Rashi’s opinion, therefore, educated people were not in need of a Targum, for they had mastered the Hebrew of the Scriptures and, as opposed to the uneducated, were not likely to misunderstand the commandments of the Torah. In his Ohev Ger S. D. Luzzatto follows Rashi20: “Targum Onqelos was not conceived for the learned, but for the commoners. Its main concern was to remove any stum- bling block from the path of the masses and the proselytes, so that their hearing [of the reading of the Scriptures] would be beneficial to them”. A contemporary expression of this view is found in Aberbach and Grossfeld’s introduction to their English translation of Onqelos21: “…there is no doubt that T.O. [Targum Onqelos - A.T.] was designated for the benefit of the Aramaic-speaking masses, not for scholars who were gene-

20. S. D. LUZZATTO, Philoxenus, sive de Onkelosi, chaldaica Pentateuchi versione, Dissertatio hermeneutico-critica…, Cracoviae MDCCCXCV, p. 1. 21. M. ABERBACH and B. GROSSFELD, Targum Onkelos to Genesis, vol. I, Hoboken, N. J., 1982, p. 9. 366 IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM? rally familiar with Hebrew and spoke it among themselves, at least in learned discussions, as late as the third century C.E.”. We have seen above that “the masses” were not unfamiliar with Hebrew at the time when Onqelos was composed. On the contrary, there are tangible testimonies that even in the late second century C.E. Hebrew was in active use among the common people22. A well-known instance is the anecdote related in y. Megilla 73a (= b. Megilla 18a) regarding of R. Judah the Prince’s maid, who candidly edified the scholars assembled there about the meaning of certain Hebrew words. Indeed, the less learned, the inhabitants of the out- lying places, belong to the category of speakers last affected by the proces- ses of language-shift23. This observation, of course, does not support the thesis of Rashi and his followers, from Luzzatto to Aberbach and Gross- feld. In a lecture delivered at the John Rylands Library in Manchester in 1970, James Barr proposed the following thesis24: Though the Targum originated in communities in which the knowledge of He- brew was negligible, it came to spread by adoption to communities in which both Hebrew and Aramaic were known. It functioned not simply as a straight translation of the Hebrew Bible, but as a paraphrastic interpretation… we have to distinguish between two things: difficulty in understanding the Old Testa- ment is one thing, and complete ignorance of Hebrew is another. A person who could speak Hebrew in the first century, and even one who could write — or could even speak! — ‘biblical’ Hebrew, as some of the Qumran people could, could still be in difficulty with the actual biblical text. The text was now holy, and it was not possible to bring it up to date by a rewriting in a more contemporary Hebrew. Hebrew commentaries (the pesher type) existed, but not modernizations of the actual text. For those who knew Hebrew, the Ara- maic version functioned as a more or less authoritative interpretation, which 22. This, of course leads to the question of what language Jesus spoke. It is interesting to note that his teachings, carefully transmitted for centuries, were preserved in Greek, not in his spoken language, which was a disputed matter: was it Hebrew or Aramaic? This question sparked a long polemic which engaged many scholars for years. The majority admits that transcription of words, such as jli jli lema sabaxqanei (Matthew 27:46), taliqa koum (Mark 5:41), reflects Aramaic, but with regard to effaqa (Mark 7:41), Abba (vocative, Mark 14:36) a consensus has yet to be reached. See, e. g., A. MAYER, Jesu Muttersprache, Freiburg, 1896; M. BLACK, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, Oxford, 19673; ID., “Aramaic Studies and the Language of Jesus”, In Memoriam Paul Kahle, Berlin, 1968, pp. 17-28; Sh. MORAG, “effaqá, certainly Hebrew, not Aramaic”, Journal for Semitic Stu- dies 17 (1972), pp. 198-202, and many others. H. BIRKELAND (The Language of Jesus, Oslo, 1954) was convinced that Jesus’ language was Hebrew and that the Targum was intended for the Babylonian Jews who could not handle Hebrew (p. 31). 23. See U. WEINREICH, Languages in Contact, New York 1953, pp. 95-97, 108). As for the shift from Hebrew to Aramaic in the late 2nd century C. E., see E. Y. KUTSCHER, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa), Leiden, 1974, pp. 12-13. 24. “Which Language did Jesus Speak? — Some Remarks of a Semitist”, Bulletin of John Rylands Library 53 (1970), pp. 9-29. IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM? 367

both elucidated the linguistic obscurities of the original and smoothed out its religious difficulties. In this brilliant analysis, Barr still pays tribute to the conception of a Targum as a linguistic necessity and attributes its composition to “communities in which the knowledge of Hebrew was negligible”, although we lack solid testimony for a linguistic division within the Jewish population, whose local communities seem to share the same liturgical and other cultic habits. However, his assumption that “a person who could speak Hebrew in the first century… could still be in difficulty with the actual biblical text” is far more pertinent. Moreover, I believe that the solution to the problem raised earlier lies in the conclusion of the above-cited passage. Although Barr wrongly attributes the role of a commentary to the pesher25, he cor- rectly notes that the Aramaic version “elucidates linguistic obscurities and smooths out religious difficulties”. Ch. Rabin26 as well raises the question “for whom were the targums made? If we are right in our view that Mishnaic Hebrew was spoken during the Second Temple period, there seems to be no raison d'être for targums in Judea at that period”. Rabin thinks that the Targum was a necessity for its time, designed to close the gap between Biblical Hebrew and spoken Hebrew and to prevent the holy text from being paraphrased: A paraphrase into Hebrew was impossible, because the uninstructed could easily take the paraphrase as part of the sacred text… It [the Targum - A.T.] was therefore an almost ideal way out of the difficulty to provide the explana- tions in a literary language, transitional Aramaic, which was no doubt widely understood (p. 1030). In the following lines, I wish to further flesh out and substantiate this thesis. It is indeed very likely that the first Aramaic Targum was composed in a Hebrew speaking environment. Obviously, not a Biblical Hebrew-speaking environment but still one where Biblical Hebrew was not only understood but even practised for literary purposes, albeit in a new form — with its own grammar, vocabulary, and style — but still linked to the past, viz., the Hebrew reflected by the writings of Qumran and its vicinity. We may say without fear of exaggeration that this was the “modern” Hebrew used

25. A pesher is not a commentary in the usual sense of the word. It is rather a kind of actualization of Scripture which connects a prophecy or a narrative with a contemporary or future event or figure. 26. “Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century”, in S. SAFRAI & M. STERN (eds.) Com- pendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, vol. 1.2, 1976, pp. 1007-1039. See especially pp. 1029-1031. 368 IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM? within a population that extended beyond the tiny geographical area demar- cated by the term “Judean Desert”27. Many arguments have been made for or against the independent status of this Hebrew; however, nobody denies the fact that the literature for which it was used had a certain public and, therefore, this language was in circulation alongside what is known as Mishnaic Hebrew. This means that Biblical Hebrew did not become incom- prehensible to the public at large. After all, the uninterrupted practice of the Torah reading, as well as the continuous exegetical and homiletical treatment of the Scriptures in public28 kept its contents as well as its language in the public eye, and recte, understanding. Under such circumstances, it hardly seems plausible to assume that the text read in the presence of an audience frequently attending synagogue was completely alien to that audience. Moreover, there is little reason to assume that the great literary compositions of the epoch, such as Ben Sirah or the Apocrypha were intended for a limited circle of specialists. Given their linguistic affinity with Bibli- cal Hebrew, it is conceivable that the language of the Scriptures comprised no obstacle to their audience29. If all this is correct, then the Targum was not imperative in order to make Scripture accessible to the masses. It was rather intended to protect Scrip- ture from the masses! The main concern of those who encouraged the pro- duction and propagation of the Targum was to eschew a transfiguration of the holy writ. And indeed, this fear was not ungrounded, as attempts to re- write the text, to adapt it to current linguistic habits and to give it a more “modern” image existed in various circles. We may distinguish here between two types: (1) “modernization” that become the norm in certain communities, and (2) attempts that did not develop into stable traditions.

The Samaritan tradition

The first category is represented by the Samaritan tradition. Samaritans never hesitated to introduce textual improvements into the Scriptures when-

27. For the status of this Hebrew, see E. QIMRON, “The Contribution of the Judaean Desert Scrolls to the Study of Ancient Hebrew”, Qadmoniot XXX (1990), pp. 82-85 (He- brew). See also the important article by J. F. ELWOLDE, “Developments in Hebrew Vocabu- lary between Bible and Mishnah”, in T. MURAOKA and J. F. ELWOLDE (eds.), The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira, Proceedings of a Symposium held at Leiden University, 11- 14 December 1995, Leiden, 1997, pp. 17-55. 28. Public lectures held by the rabbis are mentioned in several sources. See, for example, the story about a woman attending the derasha of R. Meir in y. Sota 16d. 29. See the candid story (Neh 8) about the popular assembly under Ezra's leadership during the Sukkot festival, when Ezra opened the book of the Torah in front of “men and women” (v. 3) and the “Levites helped the people to understand the Law” (v. 7). They ex- plained the law, they did not translate it. IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM? 369 ever they considered this necessary to render them coherent or linguistically appropriate30. For example, in the large recapitulative portions in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, parts of the narrative are frequently repeated according to their corresponding parallel passages31. We also find numer- ous adjustments made in order to produce an unquestionable text; for ויאמר :example SP’s narration of the story of Qain and Abel is impeccable and Qain said to Abel his brother, let us go out“ ,קין אל הבל אחיו נלכה השדה to the field” (Gen 4:8), whereas the last two words are missing in the MT, producing literary unease32. Incongruent constructions are also changed; for Deut) ראה למדתי אתכם example, the singular imperative with the plural -Similarly, the dis .ראו למדתי אתכם was changed into the congruous (4:5 (Deut 4:37) ויבחר בזרעו אחריו and תחת כי אהב את אבתיך crepancy between .etc ,תחת כי אהב את אבתיך ויבחר בזרעם אחריהם :was settled Change of different order is found in Numbers 22:32, where the SP reads because your way has deteriorated before me”, instead of“ הרע דרכך לנגדי -has been a matter of dis ירט The meaning of .ירט הדרך לנגדי MT’s cryptic pute in biblical interpretation from its very beginning. The Targums under- the way has deviated”, etc. The“ ,סטת אורחא :.stood it midrashically, e.g same interpretation has been assimilated by the SP, which simply substi- .33ירט for the hapax legomenon הרע tuted the common Many similar changes made to avoid old, obsolete words can be cited. and she lowered her jar” in Gen 24:20 which replaces“,ותורד כדה Such is -and she emptied her jar”34. Samaritan Hebrew does not rec“ ,ו ַ ְתּ ַער כדה the even in its other two occurrences, where it has the ,ערה ognize the verb sense of “expose”35.

30. The best survey of the changes the Samaritans Pentateuch presents was W. GESENIUS, De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine indole et auctoritate, Halae, 1815. A modern and well documented survey is B. K. WALTKE, “The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Text of the Old Testament” in J. B. PAYNE (ed.), New Perspectives on the Old Testament, Waco TX, 1970, pp. 212-239. 31. GESENIUS, op. cit., pp. 47-48. 32. The SP is in line with the Septuagint, diélqwmen eìv tò pedíon, and even with the ,M. L. KLEIN) ואמר קין להבל אחוי אתא ונפוק תרינן לאפי ברא :Jewish Palestinian Targumim Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, vol. I, Cincinnati, 1986). If indeed this is an interpretative addition, it has been incorporated into the text of the Greek and Jewish Aramaic versions as well as in the Samaritan text. 33. GESENIUS, op. cit., p. 39. 34. GESENIUS, op. cit., p. 31. ואיש אשר ישכב את אשה דוה וגלה את ערותה את I refer to Lev 20:18 where the MT has .35 if a man lies with a menstruating woman, and uncovers her nakedness, he has“ ,מקרה הערה transforming the syntax of the הערה exposed her source, etc.”. The SP replaces the verb and uncovers her pudenda, the source of the“ ,וגלה את ערותה את מקור הערוה :whole verse pudenda”. The phrase is here a mere explicative apposition to the preceding phrase, not its apodosis, as in MT. Similarly, in the following verse. 370 IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM?

However, when it comes to SP’s linguistic system, matters are, in a large measure, concealed by its unvocalized text. After several attempts, only partly successful, made in the nineteenth century and later in the 1950s, it was only recently that an account of its linguistic structure has been given in a full phonetic transliteration of the traditional Samaritan reading. The text, as published and analyzed by Ben-Îayyim, represents a real adaptation of the old Hebrew Pentateuch into the Hebrew vernacular in circulation during what may be generally called “the Mishnaic Period”36. In Ben- Îayyim’s words37: If the expressions ‘language of the Torah’ [Biblical Hebrew - A.T.], ‘language of the Sages’ [Mishnaic Hebrew - A.T.] are taken merely as signposts we are entitled to say that… the ‘language of the Torah’ of the Samaritans has a closer relationship to the ‘language of the Sages’ than it has to the ‘language of the Torah’ of the Jews. Here are a few examples attesting to the linguistic metamorphosis that took place in the process of modernization of the scriptural text. 1. The absolute infinitive, so frequent in the MT, was largely eliminated, being replaced by a finite verb, in accordance with Mishnaic Hebrew usa- -and the waters receded from the earth (con“ ,וישובו המים הלוך ושוב :ge38 For .וישובו המים הלכו ושבו tinually)” (Gen 8:3), was replaced by the perfect :remember this day” (Ex 13: 3) the SP has an imperative“ זכור את היום הזה :Sometimes the absolute infinitive is replaced by a noun .זכרו את היום הזה כי I will (indeed) bless you” (Gen 22:17), the SP has“ ,כי ברך אברכך for -for He has triumphed (glo“ ,גאה גאה pronounced birrok); for) ברוך אברכך .”a proud nation“ ,גוי גאה riously)” (Ex 15:1), the SP has 2. Where the construct infinitive is used in an unusual way, a circumlo- and the doubling of“ ,ועל ִה ָשּׁנוֹת החלום אל פרעה cution is preferred. Such is Pharaoh’s dream” (Gen 41:32), which was transformed into the common and the dream appeared for the second time to“ ,ועלה שנית החלום לפרעה Pharaoh”. This recalls Mishnaic Hebrew, where the construct infinitive .in compound predicates)39) ל never occurs without a prefixed 3. The inner passive voice was replaced by the active voice. Thus in Ex גרשום they were thrust out of Egypt”, was replaced by“ ,גֹרשו ממצרים 12:39 -the Egyptians thrust them out”. We also find replacement by a re“ ,מצרים

36. Z. BEN-ÎAYYIM, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic Amongst the Samaritans, Jerusalem, 1957-1987, vol. IV, Jerusalem, 1977. 37. Z. BEN-ÎAYYIM, “Samaritan Hebrew — An Evaluation” in A. D. CROWN (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen, 1989, pp. 517-530, esp. p. 523. 38. LOT, vol. V, §2.14.4. Cf. Segal, pp. 155-156. 39. Segal, p. 165. IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM? 371 both ,וגֻנב מבית האיש Ex 22:6) for) ונגנב מבית האיש :flexive conjugation meaning “and it was stolen from the house of its owner”40. The preference given to the active voice is paralleled by the inclination towards the אל reflexive, especially when MT has an intransitive verb: Gen 45:24 for “do not quarrel”. This is in ,אל תרגזו instead of the masoretic ,תתרגזו line with Mishnaic Hebrew which replaced many intransitive verbs with .etc41 ,נתחמד became חמד reflexives. Thus conjugation has been replaced in a multitude of instances by נפעל The .4 shall bless themselves” (Gen“ ,ונברכו Thus .נתפעל the Mishnaic Hebrew 18:18) is rendered in the Samaritan pronunciation as wnibbarrÇku. The doubling of both the first and the second radicals indicates the presence of a .42ונתברכו ,.i. e ,ת with an assimilated נתפעל These few examples, picked at random from a multitude, suggest that the tremendous change that has taken place in the language of the SP follows a path of adaptation to the general linguistic evolution reflected by Mishnaic Hebrew.

Non stabilized Traditions

The second category consists of various witnesses to textual divergences from the canonical Bible, which did not develop into recognized tradition. Many such divergent texts belong to the Qumran sectarians, who produced copies of biblical books. The diversity of the readings found in the Isaiah scroll, 1QIsa, is in a large measure a product of their efforts to offer a modern version of the original (also reflected to a degree in Qumran: 1QIsb; but see below). Some examples of how textual difficulties were smoothed out follow. 1. The passive Qal participle, non-existent in Mishnaic Hebrew, has been a nation tall and“ ,גוי ממשך ומורט interpreted as a second Pu¨al participle in prefix has been haplologically elided. Such מ smooth” (Isa 18:2, 7), whose a grammatical aberration was intolerable to the scribe of the scroll, who .43גוי ממשך וממרט :promptly restored the lost mem -who keep my Sab“ ,אשר ישמרו את שבתותי ובחרו באשר חפצתי Isa 56:4 .2 baths and choose the things that please me” contains an inverted imperfect with a waw consecutivum, not used in Mishnaic Hebrew44. The scribe

40. LOT, vol. V, §2.10. 41. Segal, p. 67. 42. LOT, vol. V, §2.1.4. 43. See Kutscher, p. 344. 44. Segal, p. 54. 372 IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM?

אשר ישמורו את שבתותי :replaced it by the imperfect with waw copulativum .thus harmonizing the verse’s verbal forms ,ויבחורו באשר חפצתי ונתתי :The opposition between the plural and the singular in Isa 56:5 .3 I will give them… I will give him” is resolved thus in the“ ,להם... ואתן לו .ונתתי להמה... אתן להמה :scroll 4. An incongruence in gender occurs in Isa 56:6 between the feminine כל שומר :Sabbath and the related masculine pronominal suffix related to it -every one who keeps the Sabbat from profaning it”. This in“ ,שבת מחללו ושומרים את :congruence was harmonized by the use of the feminine suffix .השבת מחללה -Isa 56:7) is com) עולתיהם וזבחיהם לרצון על מזבחי The elliptic phrase .5 -their burnt offer“ ,עולותיהמה וזבחיהמה יעלו לרצון על מזבחי :pleted in 1QIsa ings and their sacrifices will go up on my altar”. all the beasts of“ ,כל חיתו שדי... כל חיתו ביער The repeated archaism .6 כול חיות שדה... :the field…” (Isa 56:9) were substituted by normal forms .וכול חיות ביער 7. Sometimes typical biblical expressions, considered grammatically or מי בקש זאת מידכם רמס :lexically obsolete, were found unacceptable, such as .(who had required this at your hand to tread my courts?” (Isa 1:12“ ,חצרי In contemporary Hebrew the infinitive had lost its ancient nominal status, and could no more stand alone being used exclusively in its verbal sense, -Obviously, the scribe preferred the form preva .45ל always with the prefix ,He made the same alteration in the following verse .לרמס :lent in his times since ,46להביא ”with the “modern לא תוסיפו הביא מנחת שוא replacing -in להביא ,לרמוס demanding ,רמס ,הביא Mishnaic Hebrew did not tolerate stead. In both cases, it would be hard to believe that the older forms were no longer understood, therefore the only justification for the replacement could be modernization. A clearly Mishnaic form of the infinitive occurs in .”who set out to go down to Egypt“ ,ההולכים לרד מצרים :Isa 30:2, namely but ,ת was restored by a supralinear ,לרדת ,The old infinitive of I-yod verbs the fact remains that the scribe originally followed Mishnaic Hebrew47. 8. The third person plural of verbs tends to replace the inner passive in expressing indefiniteness, in accordance with Mishnaic Hebrew48. Thus, ,(will they take the prey from the mighty?” (Isa 49:24“ ,היקחו מגבור מלקוח joy and“ ,ששון ושמחה ימצאו בה ;”can… be taken“ , ֲהיֻ ַקּח replaces MT’s will be“ ,י ִ ָמּ ֵצא gladness they will find in her” (51:3), replaces MT’s

45. On the infinitive in Mishnaic Hebrew, see Segal, pp. 165-167. 46. Kutscher, pp. 41, 346. 47. Kutscher, p. 344. 48. See Segal, pp. 210-212. IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM? 373

”they will call you the repairer of the breach“ ,וקראו לך גודר פרץ ;”found you shall be called…”. The same tendency may“ ,וְֹקָרא לך replaces (58:12) and they buried him“ ,ויקברו אתו עם אבותיו ,.be detected in Chronicles, e. g and he“ ,וִיּ ִ ָקּ ֵבר… :with his fathers” (II 25:28), when 2Kgs 14:20 is cited was buried…”49. Similar to the SP (see above), at Qumran passive conjugations were sub- ,ועל בורכים תשתעשו… ובי[רו]שלים תתנחמו ,.stituted by reflexive ones, e. g “and on her knees you shall be fondled… and in Jerusalem you shall be Cf. the Temple) . ְתּ ָשׁ ֳע ָשׁעוּ… ְתּנֻ ָחמוּ comforted” (Isa 66:12-13) for MT’s ”for whoever will not be afflicted“ ,כיא כול הנפש אשר לא תתענה Scroll’s .50( כי כל הנפש אשר לא ְתּ ֻענּ ֶה :col. XXV:11-12), a paraphrase of Lev 23:29) Unlike 1QIsa, the text of 1QIsb is infinitely more conservative, that is, very close to the MT. As it is in a very fragmentary state, I could compare the readings for chapters 43-60 alone. In all of them 1QIsb follows the readings of the MT, emphasizing the existence of contradictory tendencies inso- far as the transmission of Scripture is concerned. Indeed, similar adaptations to the contemporary linguistic and stylistic habits occur in other biblical texts found at Qumran. For example, in a frag- ment of Deuteronomy (4QDeutn) the scribe substituted the more popular -out of its hills”, unusual in Mishnaic He“ ,ומהרריה for the old (8:9) ומהריה you shall not covet your“ ,לא תתאוה בית רעך brew51. He also exchanged unlike ,או"י since the root ,לא תחמוד בית רעך neighbor’s house” (5:17) for -does not exist in Mishnaic Hebrew52. However, there also are frag ,חמ"ד ments of Deuteronomy far closer to the MT, such as 4QDta, 4QDtd, 4QDtg. The impression gathered from the examples treated above is one of diversity: the caves of the Judaean Desert preserved more than one tradition, the conservative and the innovative side by side53. Naturally such adapta-

49. Kutscher, p. 402. 50. See G. BRIN, “Linguistic Observations on the Temple Scroll”, Leshonenu 43 (1979), p. 25 [Hebrew]. castles in“ ,הררים התלויים בשערה It occurs only in the following idiomatic clusters .51 Spain” (t. Erubin VIII,3; Îagiga I, 9; Sifre Devarim §335); and in a citation from Deut .הררי קדם :in Sifre Devarim §353 33:15 52. Thus, the text was harmonized with the parallel passage in Ex 20:13. For the sake of out of the midst of the fire, the cloud and“ ,מתוך האש הענן והערפל harmonization he changed the gloom” (5:18) into “darkness, cloud and gloom”, in accordance with 4:11. See E. ESHEL, “4QDeut, A Text That Has Undergone Harmonistic Editing”, Hebrew Union College An- nual, LXII (1991), pp. 117-154. 53. To be sure, linguistic innovation in the spirit of later times already exist in the canonical Bible itself, as the books of Chronicles attest, when compared with the parallel books of Samuel and Kings. Here also, Mishnaic Hebrew manifests itself in many instances, in both grammar and lexicon. See, for example, S. JAFET, “Interchanges of Roots, in Verbs, in Paral- lel Texts in Chronicles”, Leshonenu 31 (1966-67), pp. 165-179; 261-279 [Hebrew]. 374 IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM? tions54 could not be acceptable to the ears of orthodox Judaism which could not admit any attempt to alter the form of the Scripture. The rejection of adaptations, of course, affected only a portion of the plu- ralistic Second Temple Jewish society. The existence of divergent, at least partial, versions of the Bible within the very core of rabbinic Judaism is well known. A case in point is the copy of the Torah in the possession of the outstanding second century scholar Rabbi Meir, with whom a large part of the Mishna is associated55. The old Midrashic anthology Bereshit Rabba, cites three divergent readings from his copy, all of which reveal a “modernizing” approach to the text56. Two of them disclose phonetic developments characteristic of a spoken language. (a) a dephonemization of d/t in final In the Torah“ ,בתורתו של ר' מאיר מצאו והנה טוב מאד והנה טוב מות :position ”והנה טוב מות (as) והנה טוב מאד of Rabbi Meir it has been found written (Gen 1:31 — p. 70); (b) the confusion of gutturals, characteristic of the lat- בתורתו של ר' מאיר מצאו כתוב כתנות :est phases of Second Temple Hebrew for) ”כתנות אור In the Torah of Rabbi Meir it has been found written“ ,אור -Gen 3:21 — p. 196)57. The third instance is a case of grammati ,כתנות עור cal adjustment aimed at attaining congruence between a plural subject and a In“ ,בתורתו של ר' מאיר מצאו כתוב ובן דן חושים :(singular predicate (p. 1181 ובני דן for) ובן דן חושים the Torah of Rabbi Meir it has been found written Gen 46:23)”. Another reference to Rabbi Meir’s Torah is found in ,חשים In the“ ,בתורתו של ר' מאיר מצאו כתוב משא דומה משא רומי :y. Ta¨anit 64a

54. The innovations of the Temple Scroll are of a different order. Here the text is not a adapted copy of a biblical book, but a paraphrase, and, as such, adjustments are to be ex- ”how“ ,איך pected. Indeed, they abound in every column. Eloquent examples are the use of -in a citation from Deut 18:21, the replacement of the condi איכה col. 61, line 2) instead of) ;used in Mishnaic Hebrew: col. 52, 8; 53, 12 אם with the normal parallel כי tional particle 54, 8; etc. For a comprehensive examination of the Bible as presented in the Temple Scroll, G. BRIN, Issues in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Tel-Aviv, 1994, pp. 172-221. libellarius – a scribe in contemporary – לבלר Probably written by him, for he was a .55 כשבאתי אצל ר' ישמעאל א"ל בני מה מלאכתך, אמרתי :Hebrew. This is what b. Sota 20a relates לו לבלר אני. אמר לי בני הוי זהיר שמלאכתך מלאכת שמים היא שמא תחסיר אות אחת או תתיר אות When I came to R. Ishma'el he said to me: ‘My“ ,אחת נמצאת אתה מחריב את כל העולם כלו. son, what is your profession?’ I told him ‘I am a libellarius’. He told me: ‘Be careful, for your profession is a godly one. If you omit a letter or write a superfluous letter, you may de- מעשה ברבי מאיר שהלך לעבר :stroy the entire universe”. Furthermore, b. Megilla 18a relates R. Meir went to proclaim a leap year in“ ,שנים בעסיא ולא היתה שם מגילה וכתבה מלבו וקראה. Asia, and there was no megilla, so he wrote one by heart and read it”. See also Qohelet .”R. Meir was a good and distinguished libellarius“ ,ר' מאיר היה לבלר טוב ומובחר :Rabba II 56. Cited from the critical edition: Y. THEODOR & H. ALBECK, Bereshit Rabba, Jerusalem, 1965 (reprint). a ,(דאוקר .garments of glory (var = לבושין דיקר Cf. the Jerusalem Targum which reads .57 leather” (Gen 3:21). On the reduction of gutturals, see“ ,עור rather than on ,אור word play on E. Y. KUTSCHER, Studies in Galilean Aramaic, Ramat Gan, 1976 (Transl.: M. Sokoloff), p. 67ff.; LOT V, §1.1.8. IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM? 375

Isa) משא רומי (as) משא דומה Torah of Rabbi Meir it has been found written 21:11)”. Apparently, this is an actualization of the ancient text, undoubt- edly, a reminder of a homily that connected Edom with Rome, both de- tested for various reasons. A similar association of Edom with Rome occurs והיה in one of the manuscripts of the Samaritan Targum, which renders .58ויהי רומה ירתה Edom shall be dispossessed” (Nu 24:18) as“ ,אדום ירשה Whatever midrashic use made of these divergent readings in order to find material justifications for its hermeneutic discourses, the simple fact remains that these readings existed and were known. Still another reference to Rabbi Meir’s divergent text is found in the eleventh-century anthology בתורתו של ר' מאיר :Bereshit Rabbati, compiled by R. Moshe Haddarshan In the Torah of Rabbi Meir it is“ ,כתוב וישני לאב שנאמר אשר ישה59 ברעהו -Gen 45:8)”. Here the midrash cites additional tes - וישימני for) וישני written דין מן מליא :timony from a copy of the Torah located in a Rome synagogue דכתיבן באורייתא דנפקת מן ירושלם בשביתא וסלקת לרומי והות גניזא בכנישתא This is one of the words (= versions) written in the Torah, which“ ,דאסוירוס was taken from Jerusalem and brought in captivity to Rome and was hidden in the synagogue of Severus”. A list of further textual divergences occur- ring in this book is given. R. David Qimhi mentions the same book in his -men טוב מות commentary to Gen 1:3, to which he attributes the version tioned above60. The Codex of the Severus synagogue is also mentioned, together with a list of its variants, in the Damascus Codex61. A book presenting textual variants “found in Jerusalem” is mentioned in כך שמענו מפי חכמים הראשונים :the Geonic responsa published by Harkavi שאמרו בריתא הדא בספרים מסכתא באותו ספר תורה שמצאו אותו בירושלם שהיה משונה בכתב ובמנין פסוקין שלו וכן ספר תילים וכן ספר דברי הימים אבל עכשו אין Thus have we“ ,תורה אלא כך ואין תילים אלא כך ואין דברי הימים אלא כך. heard from the ancient Sages’ who said this Beraita in Masekhet Soferim (VI, 4) about a Torah that they found in Jerusalem, which was different in writing (=orthography?) and its numeration of verses…, however, now there is no Torah but thus (= the conventional version)…”62.

58. See MS A of my edition: The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch, vols. I-III, Tel- Aviv, 1980-83. 59. H. ALBECK (ed.), Midrash Bereshit Rabbati, Jerusalem, 1940, pp. 209-212. 60. The Commentary of R. David Qimhi to the Pentateuch, The Book of Genesis, Pressburg, 1842 [Hebrew]. See A. EPSTEIN, “Ein von Titus nach Rom gebrachter Pentateuch- Codex und seine Varianten”, MGWJ 34 (1885), pp. 337-351. A recent study regarding the readings of the “Severus scroll” is J. P. Siegel, The Severus Scroll and 1QIsa, Scholars Press, Missoula 1975. 61. A. A. HARKAVI, Îadashim gam Yeshanim, part VI, (Ha'asif, 1885), p. 4 [Hebrew]. 62. A. A. HARKAVI, Zikkaron Larishonim wegam La'aÌaronim, vol. 1, Berlin, 1887, p. 3. 376 IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM?

Indeed, books representing divergent versions are mentioned in several אמר ר' שמעון בן :sources. There is a reference thereof in tractate Sofrim63 לקיש שלשה ספרים נמצאו בעזרה ספר מעון. ספר זעטוטי. ספר הוא. באחד מצאו כתוב מעון ובשנים מצאו כתוב מעונה אלהי קדם. וקיימו שנים ובטלו אחד. באחד מצאו כתוב וישלח את זעטוטי בני ישראל ובשנים מצאו כתוב וישלח את נערי בני ישראל וקיימו שנים ובטלו אחד. באחד מצאו כתוב אחד עשר הוא ובשנים מצאו כת' Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said: Three‘ ,אחד עשר היא. ובטלו אחד וקיימו שנים scrolls were found in the Temple courtyard: Maon Scroll, Za¨atute Scroll and in two of them מעון and He Scroll. In one of them they found written ”the eternal God is your dwelling place“ מעונה אלהי קדם they found written (Deut 33:27) and they adopted the two and abrogated the one. In one of and in two of them they וישלח את זעטוטי בני ישראל them they found written and he sent the young men of the“ ,וישלח את נערי בני ישראל found written people of Israel (Ex 24:5)” and they adopted the two and abrogated the and in two of them they הוא one. In one of them they found written eleven eleven instances of the feminine pronoun for =) היא found written eleven the masculine) and they adopted the two and abrogated the one’. The question whether all of these instances were real divergent versions or marginal glosses, written for homiletical purposes and finally replacing the original, was a matter of dispute for decades. I believe that the material brought to light from the Dead Sea caves favors those who assert that there was more than one textual tradition within Second Temple Judaism. In any case, the existence of various textual types within mainstream Judaism at that time is not yet self-evident. What the sources present is no more than sporadic relics of unrealized textual harmonizations, which remained unaccepted by mainstream Judaism. Truly divergent texts were in broader circulation among various (dissi- dent?) circles, such as the Qumran community. It is probable that the sud- den end of the community prevented them from developing into lasting traditions. As we have seen above, the only “modernizing” attempt that became obligatory in a given environment and that has survived to the present was the Samaritan Pentateuch64.

63. M. HIGGER, Masekhet Sofrim, New York, 1937, pp. 169-171. The reference occurs with minor changes in Sifre Devarim §356 (ed. FINKELSTEIN, Berlin, 1940, p. 423), y. Ta¨anit 68a, Avot deRabbi Nathan §34 (§38 in version b) and in Machzor Vitri, ed. HOROVITZ, Jerusa- lem, 1963 (reprint), p. 696. For a treatment of the passage, see M. H. SEGAL in D. Yellin’s Festschrift, Jerusalem, 1935, pp. 1- 22; S. TALMON, in Segal’s Festschrift, Jerusalem, 1965, pp. 252-264. 64. Actually, the Samaritan tradition was rather flexible in its attitude towards the text until the late Middle Ages. See my article “Divergent Traditions of the Samaritan Pentateuch as Reflected by its Aramaic Targum”, Journal of the Aramaic Bible I (1999), pp. 297-315. IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM? 377

Conclusion

For normative Judaism the external form of the Scriptures had the same measure of holiness as their substance. This is why it remained opposed to any attempt, whether voluntary or involuntary, to remodel their form. Fi- nally, a solution was adopted that could enable the text of the holy writ to resist such attempts: the Aramaic Targum. As Aramaic was widely known in the bilingual/multilingual Palestinian society, it could be successfully used in order to surmount the lofty character of the Hebrew original. Being distinct from Hebrew, there was no danger that Aramaic would penetrate the text of the Torah in the course of parallel reading. Obviously, the process of the composition of the Aramaic Targum took place when both languages were in use; therefore, we must assume that the oldest Aramaic Targum in use was the prototype of the Targum from which Onqelos is descended. The affinity between the Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Onqelos proves that the language in which the first Targum of the Torah — either Onqelos, or its supposed progenitor — was composed was “Standard Literary Aramaic”65. Not everyone found this solution acceptable. As we saw above, there were those who banned the use of Targums66. In the final analysis, no obstacle could bar the Targum from spreading to the synagogue, where it was admitted. However, this was a long process accompanied by restrictions to ensure the primordiality of the Hebrew original. In order to prevent the Targum from replacing the Scriptures, its reading was subject to strict regu- lation. The situation was different among the Samaritans. As they were prepared to make the Torah as popular as possible, they adopted a pragmatic approach and made the necessary linguistic and ideological-religious adaptations. This explains why there was no Samaritan Aramaic Targum contem-

65. Jonathan was its partner for the Former Prophets, and no linguistic difference exists between them. Even for some of the Hagiographa there was a Targum, as proven by Job from Qumran, close to them in language. A very learned study was recently published: W. F. SMELIK, The Targum of Judges, Leiden, 1995. The author treats extensively the problems of the Targum in general and of the Targum of the Prophets in particular. 66. b. Megilla 3a relates the embarrassment that the composition of the Targum of the תרגום של נביאים יונתן בן עוזיאל אמרו… ונזדעזעה ארץ ישראל… יצאה בת קול :Prophets created ואמרה מי הוא זה שגילה סתריי לבני אדם, עמד יונתן בן עוזיאל על רגליו ואמר אני הוא שגיליתי סתריך -The Targum of the Prophets was com“ ,לבני אדם… לכבודך עשיתי שלא ירבו מחלוקת בישראל. posed by Jonathan b. Uzziel… and the Land of Israel quaked [thereupon]… a Bat Qol came forth and exclaimed ‘who is this that revealed my secrets to mankind?’ Then Jonathan b. Uzziel arose and said: ‘It is I who revealed your secrets to mankind… I have done this for your honour, so that dissension may not increase…’. ” 378 IS THERE A RAISON D'ÊTRE FOR AN ARAMAIC TARGUM? porary with Onqelos. Over the course of time, things changed. Hebrew lost its status as spoken language in Palestine, and the Samaritans were faced with the problem of understanding the Torah properly, which they solved by translating the Torah into Aramaic. This however happened much later, in the third century, when Palestinian Aramaic was the local vernacular and, as such, differed greatly from the “Standard Literary Aramaic” of the Second Temple period. It is, therefore, distance in time, in the first place, which separates the Aramaic of the Samaritan Targum from the Aramaic of Onqelos. Hebrew’s loss of status affected the Jewish population equally, which became Aramaic speaking. The Scriptures were no longer properly understood, and the Targum was a necessity. But Onqelos, with its elevated language, prevalent at the end of the pre-Christian Era, was now equally re- mote from popular understanding. Accordingly, a new Targum was composed in contemporary Aramaic: the so-called Jerusalem or Palestinian Targum67. To this period also belongs the Samaritan Aramaic Targum in its oldest form68. Onqelos was forgotten and its reading was no longer practised in Palestine. It was in Babylon that it survived through constant use in the synagogue69.

67. For the character of this Targum, whose language manifests affinities with the Jerusa- lem Talmud, see my articles “The Infinitive in Palestinian Aramaic”, Anniversary Volume dedicated to Z. Ben-Îayyim, Jerusalem, 1983, pp. 201-218 (Hebrew); “The Dialects of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic and the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch”, Sefarad 46 (1986), pp. 441-448. 68. The chronological position of the various versions of the Samaritan Targum is treated in my The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch, vol. III, Tel-Aviv, 1983, pp. 93-105. 69. Even a Masora was composed there. See for example: S. LANDAUER, Die Masorah zum Onkelos, Amsterdam, 1896.