LET’S STUDY

A Guide for Rabbis, Teachers and Students to Study and Teach the Parashat Hashavua through the Eyes of its Most Important Translator

By Stanley M. Wagner and Israel Drazin

Based on the five volume, Onkelos on the Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy), Understanding the Text, by Israel Drazin and Stanley M. Wagner, published by Gefen Publishing House, /New York, 2006–2010.

STUDY GUIDE

MATTOT (CHAPTER 30:2–32:42)

SUMMARY OF THE TORAH PORTION

The laws concerning vows are presented, which allow an annulment of the vow in the case of a vow made by a wife or daughter; war is waged against the Midianites, they are defeated and many are annihilated; the Israelite warriors who killed someone in battle, or who came in contact with a corpse, must be purified, along with his garments and vessels; the spoils of war are divided and distributed, and instructions are provided for making these vessels acceptable for use; representatives of the tribes of Reuben and Gad approach Moses with a request that their tribes be allowed to settle on the eastern side of the Jordan River which has already been conquered; Moses remonstrates against them and warns that God will punish them and the nation if they choose to remain behind and not participate in the conquest of Canaan; Moses decides to allow them to settle their families on the east side of the Jordan River on condition that they will cross over with the rest of the nation and fight with their brethren to conquer the land, and they agree to do so.

HOW SERIOUS IS THE MANDATE TO STUDY THE WEEKLY WITH THE ONKELOS TRANSLATION?

We have been advocating a return to the study of Onkelos in order to truly understand the biblical text, thus also reinforcing the rabbinic mandate to do so. Rabbinic mandates

1 actually come on different levels of seriousness. All are important, but some are more important that others, if we assess them and their impact on Jewish life. There is an extraordinary discussion concerning Onkelos on what appears to be a very simple and uninspiring verse (32:2, pages 286 and 287)1 that contains nothing but names of places. It reads as follows: “Ataroth, Dibon, Jazer, Nimrah, Heshbon, Elealeh, Sebam, Nebo, and Beon,” Our appendix (pages 418–419) presents the fascinating dispute focused on this verse: The rabbis mandated that Jews should read the Torah portion three times weekly, twice in the original Hebrew and once in the translation of Onkelos. Verse 3 of our chapter contains only names. Does the rabbinical mandate apply to verse 3? The Babylonian , Berakhot 8a, b, states that one should do the weekly reading also for verse 3, and such a reading prolongs life. While this may be a hyperbolic statement, it is clear that the rabbis wanted to emphasize that reading Onkelos is important. on Berakhot 8a, b explains that the Talmud is insisting that although verse 3 has no translation, no exceptions should be made, and one should still read Onkelos. The Sperber and Berliner versions of our , like the text held by Rashi, are not translated, but there are Onkelos versions that do translate the names. (The Onkelos in our edition contains the Aramaic translation of the names.) Rashi refers to Megillah 3a, where the rabbis discuss who wrote Onkelos, and assures us that Onkelos is the authorized text that the rabbis want Jews to read. This Targum was composed before the time of its alleged author, whom Rashi identifies as “Onkelos” (see our introduction to Genesis for more on the identity of the Onkelos targumist); God gave it to the Israelites at Sinai; however, as the Talmud states, it was “forgotten and then restored” by the Onkelos targumist. Tosaphot seem to differ slightly with Rashi. Tosaphot agree with Rashi that when the Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 49a, states that Jews should read the Targum weekly, they meant “our (authorized) translation” (“targum didan”) Onkelos. However, Tosaphot contend that since Onkelos has no translation, one should read Pseudo- Jonathan to verse 3. Tosaphot also state that the rabbis required the Targum reading because the Aramaic translation helps us understand the text. It is as Rav Yosef said in the Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 3a, “Were it not for the Targum of this verse, we would not have known what it meant.” Tosaphot to Bava Kamma 3b explains that Rav Yosef was an expert in the Targum, a complex subject requiring years of expertise. Thus, according to Tosaphot, since the purpose of reading the Targum is to understand the text, Pseudo-Jonathan should be read. There is a reasonable support for Rashi’s position that Jews should read Onkelos to verse 3 even though it lacks a translation. The rabbis taught midrashic biblical interpretations in the Midrashim and the . However, they recognized in their

1 All page numbers refer to the Drazin-Wagner Onkelos on the Torah volumes.

2

stated principle “ein mikra yotzei mi’dei peshuto,” that, in essence, people should also know the plain, non-aggadic biblical intent. Therefore, they advised—some say mandated—Jews to read Targum Onkelos because Onkelos contains the text’s plain meaning. Recognizing basic psychology, they knew that if they allowed exceptions, the minor exceptions would soon grow and ultimately the Targum would be ignored. Once this is understood, one can see the difficulty with Tosaphot’s position. The purpose of reading the Targum to understand the Torah’s plain meaning is defeated when one reads the midrashic Pseudo-Jonathan. This purpose is also nullified by those who maintain that since they cannot understand the Aramaic of Onkelos they can fulfill the rabbinic requirement to read Onkelos by reading Rashi; unlike Onkelos, Rashi generally contains midrashic material and not just the plain meaning of the Torah. It would be edifying, once again, to quote the Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chayim, Hilkhot Shabbat 285:1 and 2, based on ’ , Hilkhot Tephillah 13:25) verbatim, so that there will be no question in anyone’s mind concerning the authority of the law: Even though a person listens to the entire Torah reading every Shabbat with the congregation, he is (still) required to read individually every week the Torah portion twice from the Scriptural text, and once with the Targum (Onkelos), even Ataroth veDibon (verse 3). If one has reviewed the parashah with Rashi’s commentary, it is as though he reviewed it with the Targum, (however) God fearing persons will read the Targum and Rashi’s commentary. Interestingly, it is also permitted to fulfill the mandate of reviewing the Torah portion twice and once with the Targum during the congregational reading of the Torah (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim, Hilkhot Keriat Sefer Torah 146:2 and Hilkhot Shabbat 285:5). Now, admittedly, this law fell into disuse, and as we indicated in our Preface, “the importance of accurate biblical translation gave way to an overwhelming preoccupation with interpretation; textual analysis was replaced by contextual exegesis; and lovers of the Bible focused almost exclusively on the brilliant commentaries that were composed to ‘flesh out’ biblical narratives and laws.” But it is also interesting to note that “the talmudic dictum was written when there were many important exegetical collections, like , Mekhilta, and Sifrei. Yet, the oft-quoted recommendation urged only the reading of Onkelos when reviewing the Torah portion. Furthermore, by the time the Shulchan Arukh was written, and the law promulgated, most of the classical medieval biblical commentaries were already in circulation.” Nevertheless, Targum Onkelos was considered indispensable in order to understand the biblical text.

3

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS

ON ONKELOS

We revert to the question: “How serious is the mandate to study the parashah weekly with the Onkelos translation?” In the first place, one can find justification for not fulfilling this law on the basis of the dictum, keivan d’dashu bei rabim, since most Jews, even in the Torah world, ignore this imperative, it no longer qualifies as a law that must be obeyed. Second, most people are not sufficiently acquainted with Aramaic to be able to understand or appreciate Targum Onkelos. Of course, now that Onkelos on the Torah is available with its English translation of the Aramaic and an English commentary that excuse appears rather lame. Third, these days there just isn’t enough time to do all of the Torah studying that we feel we should study. We have to set priorities; and compared to the importance of other requisite learning, reviewing Targum Onkelos weekly seems to be a very low priority. That seems reasonable. Actually, unfortunately, in the Torah world today, even Tanakh, the Bible itself, is given a low priority for students, who are expected to devote themselves entirely to —the Talmud and commentaries, responsa and Shulchan Arukh and commentaries. How do you now feel about the importance of Onkelos in your own set of Torah learning priorities?

GENERAL DISCUSSION

We raise questions in our “Beyond the Text” (page 285) on chapter 31 that merit our attention and are worthy of discussing. We bring them to your attention: Chapter 31 contains God’s command to “Avenge the Israelite grievance against the Midianites” (verse 2; see commentary). It is true that the Midianite hostile actions in attempting to lure the Israelites away from God and the Torah required a response. The question is whether “vengeance” is an appropriate motivation for hostility. Can you think of circumstances today when “revenge” would be justified? God is known as the “El nekamot,” “the God of vengeance” (Psalms 18:48). What can that mean? If this is an attribute of God and we are required to emulate God, what imperative does this impose upon us? What about the harshness of the military campaign against the Midanites (31:17-18)? Could Moses have questioned the justice of God’s decree as Abraham did when he was informed that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah would be destroyed (Genesis 18:20–33)? What does the emotion of the desire to seek vengeance do to the person who harbors it? What emotion might be substituted for the desire for vengeance in order to be motivated to respond to evil? It is difficult to find anywhere in rabbinic literature a justification for “anger.” The sages have said: “there are four kinds of temperaments. One who is easily angered and easily pacified—his loss (caused by his anger) is canceled by his gain (for his ability to be pacified); he who is hard to anger and hard to pacify—his gain is cancelled by his loss; he whom it is difficult to anger and easy to pacify is a pious one;

4

he whom it is easy to anger and difficult to pacify is an evil person” Avot 5:14). Yet, our Torah describes Moses as being “angry” because of the actions of his officers (31:14). Is it possible to define a type of anger as “righteous indignation” and justify it? If we did not become “angry” at the existence of poverty, corruption in government, injustice, inequity, and other moral perversions, would there be any hope of eradicating them? Isn’t a dose of “anger” sometimes necessary to propel us to action? How can we learn to control our anger?

FOR FURTHER STUDY

1. See 31:50 and commentary, “ARMLETS, BRACELETS, SIGNET RINGS, EARRINGS, GIRDLE” (page 282). Defining some of the booty taken from the Midianites, a variety of opinions.

2. See 32:24 and commentary, “FOR YOUR SHEEP” (page 291). The targumist ignores the misspelling of a biblical word.

3. See 32:41 and commentary, “VILLAGES . . . VILLAGES” (page 292), and appendix (page 420). Alternative translations of an obscure word.

5