1 A Definition and a Direction
In its most general sense, the word targum
It is therefore more fitting to adopt the definition proposed by Houtman and Sysling, who managed to capture the intricacies of the Targums in a single sentence: “Targum is a Jewish Aramaic interpretative word-by-word translation of the biblical text in exegetical dependence on its wording.”2 They arrived at this definition on the basis of past approaches to defining the Targums; and, therefore, this definition requires some unpacking. The Targums are indeed both Jewish and Aramaic, which are important characteristics to distinguish them from other Jewish translations, such as the Septuagint. These translations are certainly ‘interpretative’, incorporating material from across the Jewish corpus. Even Targum Onqelos, generally considered to be a quite literal translation, contains exegetical expansions to the Hebrew text.3 And yet, despite these additions, the Targums are still word-for-word translations, in the sense that every word of the Hebrew text is represented in some form.4
Houtman & Sysling recognized the need for further sub-categories alongside their definition. At the time of their composition in the Rabbinic period, we can generally speak of two centers of Jewish cultural and political life, namely Babylonia and Palestine. These two cultural capitals had their own customs, reading cycles, and produced their own literatures. We generally divide the Targums into Babylonian and Palestinian Targums, though these terms can cause confusion. The Babylonian Targums are Targum Onqelos to the Torah and Targum Jonathan to the Prophets; however, their origins are likely to be found in Palestine.5 The confusion arises from the dominant Jewish Palestinian Aramaic character of the translations, which contain some Eastern Aramaic dialectal elements. The most prominent theory regarding their origins is that these texts emerged in Palestine around the first or second century CE, after which they found their way to Babylonia, where they were adapted and recast into Babylonian Aramaic and reached their ‘definitive’ form by around the fourth century.6
Under the umbrella term ‘Palestinian Targum’, we find a variety of texts; from running texts such as Targum Neofiti, to consciously collected units of Targum known as the Fragment Targums. Due to the multiplicity of recensions of the Palestinian Targum, it is complicated to speak of a singular Palestinian Targum from which they all emerged. We will revisit this discussion in the final chapter of this work.7 To further complicate the matter, the transmission of the Palestinian Targum was much more fluid than that of Targum Onqelos, which had both the authorization of the Babylonian authorities8 as well as a masorah9 (though this came later) to ensure its preservation. However, undeniable is the large amount of shared material among the various manifestations of the Palestinian Targum tradition which points in the direction of a common ancestor, often referred to as the ‘Proto-Palestinian Targum’ source. General consensus dates the formation of this common source to around the third century CE, a period in which the dialect of the Palestinian Targums (Jewish Palestinian Aramaic), has been attested in other texts.10 That being said, we have no extant evidence of this text. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, long believed to be a Palestinian Targum, finds itself in a separate category, somewhere in-between the two, acting somewhat as a reworked combination of Targum Onqelos and the Palestinian Targum.
The purpose of this work is to bring to light a new category of Targum, another prominent group of witnesses to the enigmatic Palestinian Targum tradition, which has largely been neglected. The Liturgical Targum to the Torah, or the Targum units contained in medieval liturgical manuscripts, (e.g., prayerbooks such as mahzorim), is broadly aligned to the other members of the Palestinian Targum tradition and shares many exegetical expansions with it. Nonetheless, undeniable is the influence from Targum Onqelos, which is very much apparent throughout the witnesses. The development and evolution of the Liturgical Targum, worthy of its own designation as a separate recension of the Palestinian Targum (which can further be broken down into various textual families, as will be illustrated), is nevertheless deeply intertwined with Targum Onqelos and the other Palestinian Targum recensions. The exact degree to which these liturgical texts are linked to the broader Targum corpus, and the reasons for this interdependence are the focus of this work.
The following sections will provide an overview of the practice of reading the Targum in the synagogue from its inception to its decline in the medieval period. It is in this declining period that we place the manuscripts of this study, which contain remnants of a once vibrant and active tradition of the public reading of Targum. The sections after that will look at the past scholarship concerning the text of the Liturgical Targum. At the end of this chapter, one can find the overarching research questions and aims of this work expressed more explicitly.
2 Targum in the Synagogue
2.1 Origins to Late Antiquity
All Targum texts available to us are the result of generations of copying and editing. It is therefore important to bear in mind, that when we refer to the evolution of the use of ‘the Targum’ in the sections that will follow, we are not necessarily referring to a textual tradition known to us today. The ancient origins of Targum, are, despite many efforts in scholarship, largely clouded in mystery due to a scarcity of convincing primary evidence. The evidence available to us—predominantly Rabbinic statements concerning the status, function, and practice of Targum—is heterogenous in content, purpose, and provenance. They represent almost a millennium of thought on Targumic practice in both Palestinian and Babylonian contexts. In many cases it is impossible to know which context is being referred to.11 In other words, it is an enormous challenge to confidently reconstruct anything about the origins of Targum, though we will try in the following sections.
Most scholars presume Targum had its origins as an oral tradition; though not because of an ideological reason (i.e., a need to distinguish Holy Writ from translation)—this came later—but rather because of practical matters: literacy in the Rabbinic period was scarce and producing manuscripts was incredibly costly.12 The oral nature of Targum had serious implications for its transmitters and audience; not only did its recitation demand an impressive knowledge and memory of the text,13 it also required a detailed understanding of the original Hebrew and its interpretation, which at the time of Targum’s origins, lacked the vocalization known to us in the Masoretic text today.14 When looking at Rabbinic sources, it becomes quite clear that in many cases, the texts of the Targums cited there are different from the versions in extant manuscripts.15 This can largely be explained by two major factors: 1) Rabbinic works have had their own histories of textual transmission which have introduced all kinds of variation to their respective works,16 and 2) a different ideology concerning textual authorship and preservation; it would seem scribes felt at liberty to amend, extend, and reinterpret texts in the periods with which we are concerned; resulting in different versions of the same work circulating simultaneously.17 Despite its oral beginnings, written Targum texts were in circulation in the Rabbinic period,18 though it is likely that transmission did not always occur in a written-written or oral-oral pattern, but rather, as W. Smelik states: “The written text no longer appears in isolation from the oral performance, which may both precede and follow it.”19
As mentioned previously, virtually the only information available on the Targums’ origins comes from Rabbinic statements. Some of these statements are contradictory in nature, which, if anything, illustrates that the views on the functions of Targum were dependent on location and, perhaps more importantly, evolved over time.20 In addition to this caveat, we must take the citations from texts like the Talmud and other halakhic works as “essentially prescriptive, not descriptive: they state what ought to happen, not necessarily what actually happened.”21
The question remains: to what degree can Rabbinic sources shed light on the development of Targum in the synagogue and provide us details about its early practice? What is the relationship between the extant Targums and the early synagogal practice of translation? The relationship between the practice of performative translation and the emergence of targumic literature is, as Z. Safrai illustrates, a chicken-or-the-egg scenario:
When did the custom originate of reciting the Targum of the Torah in synagogue during the reading of the Torah portion? When did it become a regular part of the liturgy of the synagogue? On the one hand, it might seem that this custom could become prevalent only after the formulation of targumic literature. On the other hand, it is possible that this custom itself brought about the development of these very Targumim into the form that we possess, or at the very least initiated the process of development.22
On the basis of Tractate Megillah in the Mishnah (m. Meg. 4), Safrai dates the origins of reading the Targum in synagogue to the Usha period (mid-end second century CE).23 Rabbinic statements concerning communal gatherings that predate the Usha period never mention the Targum.24 Though in essence an argument ex silentio, it seems a plausible dating when one considers the vast number of Rabbinic statements concerning all matters pertaining to Targum during and after the Usha period; which reflect that the practice became a fixed part of the liturgy towards the middle of the Talmudic period.25
Let us take a look at the text of m. Meg. 426 as it is the earliest source providing insight into the practice of Targum. We will then complement the text with examples of other statements from contemporary and later sources. As the statements regarding the Targum are vast in number, we will not mention all of them here,27 but rather attempt to provide an overview of the most relevant complementary and contrastive viewpoints. The goal is to provide a picture of what the practice of Targum may have looked like in its formative period and early life.
The first passage of m. Meg. 4 does not discuss reading the Targum. It concerns the posture one must have when reading the Megillah, the days on which the scroll is read, and the blessings before and after the reading. However, this particular portion incites an important discussion in the Palestinian Talmud pertaining to Targum.
y. Meg. 4:1
רבי שמואל בר רב יצחק עאל לכנישתא .חד בר נש קאים מתרגם סמיך לעמודא .אמר ליה .אסור לך .כשם שניתנה באימה ויראה כך אנו צריכין לנהוג בה באימה ויראה .רבי חגי אמר .רבי שמואל בר רב יצחק עאל לכנישתא .חמא חונה (read: חזנה )קאים מתרגם ולא מקים בר נש תחתוי .אמר ליה .אסיר לך .כשם שנתנה על ידי סרסור כך אנו צריכין לנהוג בה על ידי סרסור .עאל רבי יודה בר פזי ועבדה שאילה .אנכי עומד בין־יי וביניכם בעת ההיא להגיד לכם את־דבר יי .רבי חגיי אמר .רבי 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 b. R. Isaac went to a synagogue. A man was standing and translating while leaning on a pillar. He said to him: ‘This is forbidden to you, just as it was given in terror and reverence, so must we treat it with terror and reverence.’ R. Haggai said, R. Samuel b. R. Isaac went to a synagogue. He saw the hazzan standing (and) translating without a replacement (to read the Targum). He said to him: ‘This is forbidden to you, just as it was given by means of an intermediate, so must we treat it by means of an intermediate.’ R. Judah b. Pazi went and made it a question: ‘I was standing between the Lord and between you at that time, to tell you the word of the Lord.’ R. Haggai said, R. Samuel b. R. Isaac went to a synagogue. He saw an instructor providing the translation from a book. He said to him: ‘This is forbidden to you, things that were said orally (lit. ‘by mouth’) (should remain) oral; and things that were said in writing (should remain) in writing.’
This discussion in the Palestinian Talmud reveals several underlying themes that have characterized our understanding of the function of Targum in its earlier days as part of the liturgy. R. Samuel was a fourth century Palestinian Amora, and the aforementioned reference would suggest—if the attribution is trustworthy28—that the delivery of Targum was already a common practice in the synagogue in his lifetime. Perhaps even more strikingly is the mentioning of the Targum in a book, which would suggest that some synagogues had access to written Targums, which we will discuss in more detail below. Three ‘rules’ are revealed in this story: 1) the Targum must be delivered with good posture (i.e., standing straight), 2) the Targum must be delivered by someone other than the reader of the Torah or Prophets (i.e., the reader and translator cannot be the same person), and 3) it is forbidden to transmit an oral tradition (in this case referring to Targum), in writing.
Regarding the first point, A. York has argued that Rabbi Samuel suggests the Targum and Torah are to be viewed as equals, deserving uniform reverence and respect in their delivery.29 W. Smelik has also argued in great detail about the status of Targum in this period, placing its position somewhere between Holy Writ and Oral Torah.30 From his work, it would seem that the opinions concerning the status of Targum vary considerably among the extant sources available to us, though the impression garnered from this particular passage suggests the Targum was valued highly in relation to the Hebrew text. This is further exemplified in a statement in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Ber. 45a) attributed to R. Simon b. Pazi (another Palestinian Amora), who states that the voices of both the reader and the translator should never drown out the other.31 That being said, we also find statements that clearly aim to subordinate the translation with respect to the Hebrew text. One example is the statement in b. Ber. 1:8 which prescribes that one is to prepare for the reading by studying the text in the Torah twice and the Targum once.32 Evidently a solid preparation of the Hebrew text was primary. Though this statement refers to private study, this is exactly the kind of practice that we can assume was undertaken by the meturgeman in his preparation.33
The second point by R. Samuel concerns a mediator, which in its most literal sense emphasizes that the Targum must be delivered by a separate person from the reader of the Hebrew text.34 This is discussed in greater detail in a passage from the Tosefta:
t. Meg. 3:13
א׳ קורא בתורה וא׳ מתרגם לא יהא א׳ קורא ושנים מתרגמין ולא שנים קורין וא׳ מתרגם ולא שנים קורין ושנים מתרגמין אחד קורא בנביא וא׳ מתרגם א׳ קורא ושנים מתרגמין אבל לא שנים קורין וא׳ מתרגם ולא שנים קורין ושנים מתרגמין אחד קורא מגילה וא׳ מתרגם א׳ קורא ושנים מתרגמין שנים קורין וא׳ מתרגם שנים קורין ושנים מתרגמין קטן מתרגם על ידי גדול אבל אין כבוד שיתרגם גדול על ידי קטן שנאמר (שמות ז׳ :א׳ )ואהרן אחיך יהיה נביאך .
One person reads in the Torah and one translates. It should not be one reads and two translate, nor two read and one translates, nor two read and two translate. One reads in the Prophets and one translates, one reads and two translate, but not two read and one translate, nor two read and two translate. One reads the Megillah and one translates, (or) one reads and two translate, (or) two read and one translates, (or) two read and two translate. A minor35 (
קטן ) (may) translate under supervision of an elder, but it is unfit for an elder to translate under supervision of a minor, as is said: (Ex 7:1) ‘And Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.’
The division of the reading into two separate individuals serves to further differentiate between the Hebrew and its translation; to ensure they were perceived as separate texts. As Fraade eloquently states: “The combined effect of the implementation of these rules would be for the audience to experience the aural equivalent of an interlinear or parallel-column bilingual text […].”36 The statement in the Mishnah as well as its expansion in the Tosefta imply that finding two members of the synagogue who were both well-versed in Hebrew and Aramaic was not a difficult task in some communities; this is a matter we will discuss further below.
The third point of y. Meg. 4:1 concerns written translations.37 R. Samuel’s words are clear: what has been passed down orally should remain oral, and vice-versa for that which has been passed down in writing. Some scholars have interpreted this point to refer to only a ban on the use of written translations in the synagogue, while others consider this interpretation to be insufficient.38 This is certainly how it is interpreted in later sources, especially if we look at a statement from Midrash Tanḥuma-Yelammedenu, which explicitly reinforces the oral nature of Targum:
Midr. Tanḥ.Vay. 5:1
וה׳ אמר המכסה .ילמדנו רבנו ,המתרגם בתורה מהו שיהא מסתכל בספר תורה ומתרגם ?כך שנו רבותינו :המתרגם אסור לו להסתכל בספר תורה ולתרגם ,כדי שלא יאמרו תרגום כתוב בתורה .והקורא אסור לתן עינו חוץ לתורה ,שלא נתנה התורה אלא בכתב ,שנאמר :וכתבתי על הלחת את הדברים .ואסור למתגרם ברבים לתן עיניו בתורה .אמר רבי יהודה בן פזי :מקרא מלא ,שנאמר :כתב לך את הדברים האלה הרי תרגום שנתן על פה .
‘And the Lord said: Shall I hide …’ (Gen 18:17). May our master teach us, (may) the translator look in a scroll of the Torah and translate? Thus our masters teach: it is forbidden for the translator to look into a scroll of Torah and to translate, lest they should say Targum is written in the Torah; and it is forbidden for the reader to turn his eyes away from the Torah, for the Torah was given only in writing, as it is said: ‘And I will write upon the tables the words …’ (Ex 34:1). It is forbidden to translate in public and to turn the eyes to the Torah. R. Judah b. Pazi said: ‘It is contained in Scripture’, as it is said: ‘Write for your sake these words’ (Ex 34:27), thus Targum is that which was given orally.
Regardless of how we interpret y. Meg. 4:1 (4), Rabbinic statements highlight the existence of written texts in circulation.39 If the meturgeman’s job was entirely based on memory, what then would be the use of a written Targum text? It might have served as a guideline, or private study material to be consulted in preparation—but not during—the performance of translation.40 Evidence of serugin or ‘short-hand’ manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah suggests some meturgemanim used liturgical cheat-sheets in the preparation for their reading;41 though this may not have been their primary raison d’être, as we also find them for the Hebrew text (e.g., Oxford, Bodleian, ms Heb. f. 56), which would normally have been read from a scroll.42 Though these are much later than the period we are currently dealing with, they may reflect an older practice of using written mnemonic aids. Even so, some authorities extended a ban of written Targums, even in the contexts of private study or teaching.43
And yet—the question remains—what might a written Targum have looked like in its early life? We have no textual evidence from the first half of the millennium CE and therefore it is impossible to know. However, to address part of this question, it will be worthwhile to make a minor excursus at this stage. An interesting sixth-century statement in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Qid. 2:49a) addresses a question concerning the recitation of Torah and translation in the context of a betrothal. A summary of the statement is as follows: to fulfil the betrothal, one must recite and translate three verses. The question then arises: does one translate according to one’s own knowledge, or rather, which translation does one use? To which the Sages answer: ‘our translation’ (
Though we may not know exactly what was being read, m. Meg. 4 might give us some idea of how the translation was performed, as seen below:
m. Meg. 4:4
הקורא בתורה לא יפחת משלשה פסוקים .לא יקרא למתרגמן יותר מפסוק אחד ,ובנביא שלשה .היו שלשתן שלש פרשיות ,קורין אחד אחד .מדלגין בנביא ואין מדלגין בתורה .ועד כמה הוא מדלג ,עד כדי שלא יפסק המתרגמן .
The one who reads from the Torah will not read less than three verses. He will not read to the translator more than one verse (at a time), and (regarding) the Prophets, (no more than) three (at a time). If the three (verses) are three paragraphs, read (them) one by one. (One may) skip in the Prophets but not in the Torah. How far may he skip? As far as (he can, insofar that) the translator does not finish (his translation).
This particular part of m. Meg. 4 refers to the pace at which the Targum is to be read. If one reads in the Torah, one must read at least three verses in one ‘sitting’, for lack of a better word.45 There is a clear preference for a verse-by-verse translation of the Torah, whereas the Prophets may be translated three verses at a time. Regarding the skipping through the Prophets, it would seem that the translator may skip around the text as far as he can, as long as he could continue the reading before the meturgeman finished; skipping ahead in the reading presumably required unrolling the scroll, which meant it could take some time before the reader could find his new starting place.46
m. Meg. 4:6
קטן קורא בתורה ומתרגם ,אבל אינו פורס על שמע ,ואינו עובר לפני התיבה ,ואינו נושא את כפיו .פוחח פורס את שמע ומתרגם ,אבל אינו קורא בתורה ואינו עובר לפני התבה ואינו נושא את כפיו .סומא פורס את שמע ומתרגם .רבי יהודה אומר ,כל שלא ראה מאורות מימיו ,אינו פורס על שמע .
A minor (may) read the Torah and translate, but he may not recite the Shema, and not pass before the ark, and he may not lift his palms. One with ripped clothes may recite the Shema and translate but may not read the Torah and may not pass before the ark, and may not lift his hands. A (person who has become) blind47 may recite the Shema and translate. R. Judah says: ‘All who have not seen the lights in his days (i.e., someone who was born blind), they may not recite the Shema.’
We have previously seen the mention of a minor in t. Meg. 3:13, which is repeated in the text presented here. The fact that a minor was allowed to give the translation means that Targum was already part of the curriculum at an early age.48 Smelik, on the other hand, argues that this could also reflect a scarcity of suitable readers.49 Nevertheless, various Talmudic references confirm the role of the Targum in primary education.50
The study of Targum in the context of education is intimately connected to its role in the liturgy, as it is likely that the meturgeman’s performance was a tandem effort of individual preparation and the teachings of the learned in school. P. Alexander suggested that Targums Onqelos and Jonathan had a function in language acquisition.51 These Targums had a function in the
Rabbinic statements are also concerned with the content of the translation. While we stated earlier that the meturgemanim were granted some freedom in their translation, this is not to say that they were allowed to translate entirely without restriction.55 A passage in the Tosefta elaborates on this further:
t. Meg. 3:21
כתב הנכתב ליחיד מכנין אותה לרבים לרבים אין מכנין אותה ליחיד רבי יהודה אומר המתרגם פסוק כצורתו הרי זה בדאי והמוסיף הרי זה מגדף .
A passage written in singular (we can) change it to plural. (If) in the plural, we cannot change it to singular. R. Judah said: ‘He who translates literally, behold he is a liar. He who adds (to it), behold he is a blasphemer.’
This statement immediately makes one wonder about the (sometimes extensive) variation between the Hebrew text and the extant Targums; variation that often extends far beyond the changing of a passage from singular to plural. It is probable that much of the more extensive variation came about as part of the literary development of the Targums, which occurred outside of the context of live translation in the synagogue. That being said, variant Targumic traditions were in circulation, as we find evidence of Rabbinic authorities condemning them—which A. Tal argued to be one of the main raisons d’être of the Targums; namely, to define and control the interpretation of Scripture.56 An illustrative example of this phenomenon is y. Ber. 5:3 concerning an improper translation of Lev 22:21; where the ‘mistranslators’ are labelled as
m. Meg. 4:10
מעשה ראובן נקרא ולא מתרגם .מעשה תמר נקרא ומתרגם .מעשה עגל הראשון נקרא ומתרגם .השני נקרא ולא מתרגם .ברכת כהנים מעשה דוד ואמנון לא נקראין ולא מתרגמין .
The matter of Reuben (Gen 35:22) is read but not translated. The matter of Tamar (Gen 38) is read and translated. The first (mention of the) matter of the calf (Ex 32:1–20) is read and translated. The second (Ex 32:21–24) is read but not translated. The Priestly Benediction (Num 6:24–26) and the matter of David and Amnon (2 Sam 13) are not read and not translated.
Evidently some verses would cause shame or embarrassment to the congregation or would disgrace the honor of important Jewish figures.58 The sheer amount of passages that were forbidden to translate illustrates that Rabbinic authorities apparently went to great lengths to control the content of the translation.59 It is important to note here that the prohibition applies only to the translation of certain passages in public; we still find them in written form in the extant Targums, though their treatment of the Rabbinic prohibition of translation varies.60 Some scholars have suggested that forbidding only the translation in the synagogue implies that the general congregation likely did not comprehend the Hebrew enough to be offended.61 Fraade, however, argues that the problem lies with the act of translation to an audience that would have understood both the Hebrew and Aramaic: “If these passages must be read publicly, better they be read without either the literal enunciation or apologetic elucidation of translation.”62
This will take us directly into a discussion about what we know about the audience of the Targum in the synagogue in this period—a topic which we have avoided in between the different Rabbinic statements for the sake of clarity—but will discuss here. Despite the ancient and modern claims that the Targums originated due to a dwindling knowledge of Hebrew, it is now generally accepted that Hebrew was still spoken and used in various contexts (not only in the liturgy) during the time of the Targums’ conception.63 But how has this changed the landscape of Targum scholarship, and how do we explain the development of an Aramaic translation when its target audience may have still understood Hebrew?
As we have discussed, the Targums are believed to have emerged in Palestine in the first centuries (b)CE. This society had a population with varying knowledges of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic dependent on location, status, and profession.64 In a diverse society such as this, we can find several raisons d’être for an Aramaic translation. Firstly, it is important to mention that even a native Hebrew speaker in the first centuries CE may have had difficulty in understanding the Biblical text.65 As H. Rabin stated, if we take Mishnaic Hebrew to represent a living language (as opposed to an artificial literary construct) then its vocabulary and syntax are not sufficient to guarantee a complete understanding of the Biblical text.66 In this situation it is not unreasonable to assert that the proximity of the Aramaic translation to the more archaic Biblical Hebrew would be helpful in understanding the Scriptures. Perhaps knowledge of Hebrew was only reserved to a particular part of society (i.e., men of upper class), which would support Rashi and Samuel Luzzatto’s statements about the Targum being for commoners or women;67 or the Targums could have originated in a milieu in which Hebrew was not spoken (e.g., a monoglot Aramaic milieu).68 It is perhaps also important to remember that the practice of Targum was not mandatory in its early beginnings. Evidently in communities that were well-versed in both Hebrew and Aramaic, it may have been an optional practice.69 Though we have attempted to sketch a picture supported by the limited evidence available to us, the exact origins and milieu of the Targums will remain largely a mystery.
Let us provide a quick summary of what we know about the Targum in its early beginnings. By the second century CE, translations were circulating and without regulation, to the great irritation of the Rabbis, who were not entirely enthusiastic about translations in general. In response, they oversaw the translations and formulated strict regulations regarding their use and performance in the synagogue. An important evolution took place: biblical translations changed their status to that of Oral Torah, which resulted in a ban of written translations employed in the synagogue service. These regulations concerning the form and recitation of Targum would require the Hebrew text to be read from a scroll and the Aramaic translation to be recited from memory. This was, among other things, to ensure the primacy and stability of the Hebrew text, while at the same time differentiating the Targum as part of Oral Torah. The translator had an obligation to translate the Hebrew faithfully, with the exception of verses forbidden from translation, and that meant he did not have the freedom to make any significant changes in meaning.
2.2 The Medieval Period
The general picture of Targum provided by early medieval sources is largely one of devaluation, though certainly not to the degree to assert that “[t]he Jews of Europe never seem to have used the translation,” as Elbogen did.70 Across Europe, conversations were being had about the value of Targum. In its conception, the Targum was a translation in the lingua franca of the time, Aramaic. Would a translation in a vernacular European language not fulfil the same purpose?71 Evidently, some communities in France and Italy felt that their vernaculars sufficed.72 Nevertheless, Aramaic was a crucial language in which the most important Jewish documents are written, and as a result, the Targum evolved from an exegetical aid in understanding the Torah, to a linguistic tool to understand the language of the Talmud.73
In Ashkenaz, we find discussions of the Jewish scholarly elite struggling to find a place for the translation amongst other texts such as Rashi’s commentary.74 This feature is quite literally reflected in many manuscripts. Whereas we usually see the Hebrew and Aramaic texts alternate verse-by-verse (underlining their interdependence in the performance of the reading), we also find manuscripts where the Hebrew text is placed centrally with Rashi’s commentary and the Targum adorning it in the margins.75 Nevertheless, Rashi himself valued the Targum highly, believing it was given on Mt. Sinai and having made frequent use of it in his own work.76 Similarly in
In some communities, it is plausible that the practice of the weekly reading of Targum persisted,80 though not without some necessary modifications. Whereas m. Meg. 4:6 allowed the reading of the Targum to be performed by a minor, by the medieval period this had become the norm in some communities.81 The ban on the usage of written texts in the synagogue was apparently also ignored.82 In addition, we previously mentioned the serugin from the Cairo Genizah, which may have been a liturgical cheat-sheet that was used by the meturgemanim in the preparation of their readings.83 A comment from Rashi on b. Meg. 24a also reflects that the Targum to the Prophets was still performed in his lifetime, as he believed it inconsequential if a meturgeman made an error in the recitation of the haftarot.84 Some communities clearly abandoned the reading of the Targum, as we can infer from a statement by the tenth-century Ashkenazi sage R. Gershom b. Judah Me’or Ha-Golah who argued that neglecting to read the
The rise of Islam and the adoption of Arabic as the lingua franca for the Jews of Spain and North Africa meant that the devaluation of the Targum occurred more rapidly here than other parts of Europe. We find statements such as the one by R. Judah Ibn Quraish (ninth century) concerning a synagogue in Fez, where he complains that the practice of reading the Targum is neglected and looked down upon.86 The many Arabic biblical commentaries and translations such as Saadiah Gaon’s Tafsir now likely fulfilled the same purpose as the Targum in its early life.87 These factors and others contributed to an early abandonment of the practice of reading Targum in these regions, which is estimated to have died out around the tenth century.88
Despite the value retained by the Targum in Ashkenaz and Italy, in some communities it seemed difficult to find a proper meturgeman to actually perform the translation. This is evident from a comment by the Tosafists on b. Meg. 23b, which discusses the minimum number of verses to be read by a translator.89
tos. Meg. 23b
לא שנו אלא במקום שאין מתרגמין —ועל זה אנו סומכין שאין אנו מתרגמין הפטרות שבכל ימות השנה וכן הפרשיות .
This has not changed except in places where there is no translator. We rely on this (situation) in that we do not translate the haftarot for all the days of the year and neither the parashiyyot.
Some communities may have found a solution to this problem by replacing the performance of the Targum with one in the vernacular. This seems to have been the case in Italy, as illustrated by a quote by R. Zedekiah b. Abraham Anav, who argued that a translation in Italian serves the same purpose as the Aramaic did in its time.90 Evidently the same kinds of discussions were happening in Babylonia, as Natronai Gaon wrote in his responsum that those who replace the Targum with a translation in the vernacular were not fulfilling their obligation.91
The reading of the Targum unquestionably prevailed across many European Jewish communities well into the medieval period for two festival days: the seventh day of Pesach and the first day of Shavuot.92 These festivals celebrate the Israelites’ liberation from Egypt and the receiving of the Ten Commandments respectively; arguably being two of the most important Jewish holidays. We cannot be sure if it is for this particular reason that the practice of reading the Targum persisted on these occasions, though it is likely.
Mahzor Vitry, a twelfth-century liturgical-halakhic compilation from France, instructs for the seventh day of Pesach:
וקטן מתרגם כל פסוק ופסוק מן ויהי בשלח ומשירה כולה שהיום עברו ישראל את הים .ומתרגם הפרשה לפרסם הנס .וכיון שנהגו לתרגם בתורה נהגו לתרגם אף בנביא .וכן בעצרת ולא בשאר מועדים .
A young person reads the Targum,93 verse-by-verse from Ex 13:17 and the entire song (Ex 15); for on this day, Israel crossed the sea. He reads the Targum to proclaim the miracle. It is customary to read the Targum for the Torah and to read the Targum for the Prophets. Likewise with Shavuot, but not with the remaining festivals.94
In fact, most of our knowledge about the Targum in the medieval liturgy is based on what we find in the mahzorim. The Targum passages for these two festival days, the seventh day of Pesach and the first day of Shavuot, as well as their associated haftarot readings, are consistently copied in manuscripts across Europe.95 Indeed, one could speculate that the inclusion of Targum passages in mahzorim does not necessarily indicate an active function in the synagogue. However, manuscript production was an expensive procedure and space was precious; it is unlikely that texts would be copied if they did not have some kind of function. Lehnardt has made an argument regarding the quality of the text and its vocalization, suggesting that the haftarot readings in these manuscripts indicate an active function, though it is unlikely that they were read properly.96
It is important to note that, while we do find Targum Onqelos in the mahzorim, the Torah sections for Pesach and Shavuot are more frequently accompanied by a liturgical recension of the Palestinian Targum. Apparently, this was acceptable to the European authorities as illustrated by a statement of Judah b. Barzillai:
ותרגום ארץ ישראל שיש בו תוספת הגדות ,הוסיפו חזנין שלהן מחמתן ואמרו שמותר לאומרו בבית הכנסת מפני שפירוש הוא .
The Targum of the land of Israel, which contains haggadic expansions, the ḥazzanim included them on their own accord and said it was permissible to perform them in the synagogue because it is an explanation (of the reading).97
This Palestinian Targum text contains many aggadic expansions that incorporate material from across the Jewish corpus. Klein noted the transposition of certain expansions attached to verses outside of the context of the festival readings to verses within the reading for the seventh day of Pesach (e.g.,
This custom of ‘adorning’ the Targum may have earlier origins outside of Europe, as the following Geonic responsa would suggest a tradition for the festival of Simḥat Torah:
יש מנהג בבבל בזה בפ׳ ויעל משה בלבד ,אבל לא בפני הישיבה .וכך היו עושין .קורא פסוק וגולל בידו ס״ת ואוחזה כשהוא עומד .ומתחיל המתרגם בדברי הגדה מחוברין שיש בהן שבח למשה רבינו ,ונהי על אסיפתו ,ודברי תוכחות מעין הפסוק ההוא ,פיוטין בחרוזות ושלא בחרוזות ,מהן בלשון קדש ומהן בלשון ארמי ממין לשון התרגום ,ומזכיר טעמי הגדה באותו הפסוק .ואומ׳ דהכי מופרש בתרגומא וקורא את התרגום .ואח״כ פותח הקורא את הספר וקורא פסוק אחר .ואם רצה המתרגם מרחיב [ד ]ברים כבראשונה ,ואם רצה קורא תרגומא גרידא .100
This is customary in Babylonia only for the portion (beginning with) Deut 34:1, though not in the (Gaon’s) Yeshivah. Thus, they used to do: (The one reading the Torah) reads one verse, rolls the book with his hand and holds it standing. Then the one reading the Targum begins to string together haggadic sayings, which include praise for Moses and laments over his passing away and admonitions related to that verse, (and) rhymed and unrhymed poems, some in Hebrew and some in Aramaic similar to the language of the Targum, and he (further) recites haggadic interpretation of that same verse, and says: ‘Thus it is explicated in the Targum,’ and reads the Targum. Afterwards the one reading the Torah opens the book and reads the next verse, and if the one reading the Targum wishes he (recites) many words as he did previously, or if he wishes he just reads the Targum.101
The practice described here, though it is not identical to what we find in medieval Europe, is very similar, and indicates that the tradition of accompanying or adorning the Targum reading with poems was a widespread practice. Many of the expansions being referred to are also contained in some of the witnesses to the Fragment Targums, which indicates the connection of some of their material to the liturgy.
One of the theories proposed by Klein is that the Fragment Targums contained supplementary material that could be used by the meturgeman to complement his reading.102 This theory is substantiated by FragTgP’s inclusion of three complete festival readings (Gen 1:1–2:3; Ex 13:17–15:26; Ex 19:1–20:15), interspersed with introductory poems such as the ones we find in mahzorim. The striking similarity of the text of FragTgP and versions that are found in mahzorim has been noted103 and the present work will contribute further to this discussion (see Chapter 4).
Another indicator of an active reading tradition is the composition of the various reshuyyot or introductory poems that accompanied the reading of the Targum in the medieval period.104 Not only do these works demonstrate a high level of creativity in a period where Aramaic had little practical use for the average European Jew, they also reflect a high esteem for the liturgical reading of the Targum within the various communities that composed them.105 Perhaps the most famous of these reshuyyot is
However, the picture presented by European manuscripts is complicated. On the one hand, the various attestations of the Targum in liturgical manuscripts indicates an active tradition—though it would be disingenuous to assume that it endured for many generations. The practice of reading the Targum in the medieval synagogue certainly died out across Europe by the fifteenth century, and likely much earlier in some communities (e.g., in Spain, as discussed previously). In a sixteenth-century Italian mahzor (t1652, f. 134v), is written the following statement, introducing the Targum for the parashah for the seventh day of Pesach:
It is unclear if the festival reading traditions in the mahzorim reflect remnants of a once larger tradition, or if these Targum sections were added to the festival days due to their apparent popularity. It is even more difficult to consider to what degree the average member of the congregation would still have understood the material by the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, the continued transmission and the efforts made to preserve these units of Targum and their expansions highlight their importance for the communities that made use of them. Overlaps of the liturgical material with other Targum traditions indicate that their origins and development are intertwined in the broader Targum network. It is for these very reasons that a comprehensive analysis of these texts would be an important contribution to the scholarly field. Now that we have discussed the evolution of the reading practice, it is time to turn our attention to the study of the text.
3 The Liturgical Targum
3.1 Previous Scholarship108
The data is limited regarding the extent to which the Palestinian Targum was known in Europe. It would seem that in the tenth century, knowledge of the Palestinian Targum was quite narrow, as illustrated by a quote by R. Hai Gaon, who states that he had heard only a small bit of it and did not know its author.109 Though he was active mostly in Iraq, he received questions from all across Europe and kept in steady contact with European Jewish communities. Similarly, R. Meir of Rothenburg (thirteenth century) wrote in his
The Liturgical Targum is a new category of Targum that the present work wishes to bring to light. We use the term ‘Liturgical Targum’ to refer to the units of Targum contained in liturgical manuscripts. The present work focuses on one particular category of liturgical manuscripts, namely mahzorim, and aims to provide an understanding of the relationship(s) of the Liturgical Targum to the other ‘known’ Targum traditions (i.e., Onqelos, Neofiti, etc.). Mahzorim are codices that contain sections from the Pentateuch and the Prophets that were read on festivals, sometimes accompanied by their Targum.113 The Targum units in the mahzorim bear witness to a textual tradition derived from Palestinian Targum sources that has undergone its own distinct textual transmission. It therefore forms a distinct ‘recension’ within the textual tradition of the Palestinian Targum. Contrary to ‘running-text Targums’ containing large portions or the entirety of the Pentateuch, mahzorim and other liturgical manuscripts contain Targum texts that, for some time, were compiled and performed for the general congregation of the synagogue.114 They provide rare insights into the liturgical heritage of the average medieval Jew and engage in intertextual dialogue with many midrashim.115
Previous scholarship has already provided some insight into the character of what I am proposing to call the (Medieval European) ‘Liturgical Targum’ to the Pentateuch—though they did not call it that—and clarified some aspects of its relationship to other known Targums, however there remains a large gap of knowledge regarding the textual nature of this Targumic tradition. Many medieval mahzorim contain units of Targum that accompany the Torah readings for the seventh day of Pesach (Ex 13:17–15:26) and the first day of Shavuot (Ex 19:1–20:23). As previously mentioned, their textual character is broadly aligned to that of the Palestinian Targums and are characterized by large exegetical expansions that incorporate material from across the Jewish corpus. Exactly how and why these units of Targum made their way into Europe is still uncertain, but their popularity and relative importance is illustrated by their attestation in various liturgical rites across a large geographical range (Italy, Ashkenaz, Provençal France, Spain, Romania).
The focus of past scholarship of liturgical manuscripts has been on haftarot collections, whose main function was in private study rather than in a liturgical service. Some work has been done on the sections to the Prophets in the mahzorim, most notably by L. Díez Merino,116 R. Kasher,117 and H. Patmore.118 The latter has provided a full overview of the scholarship concerning the sections of the Prophets in liturgical manuscripts, and as the focus of this work is the Targum to the Torah in mahzorim, we will not dive into great detail here.119 However, R. Kasher and H. Patmore’s works included the study of mahzorim, and it is therefore worthwhile to discuss them briefly here. Kasher collected several expansions in mahzorim and haftarot collections from Ashkenaz and Italy and noted that the majority of these units were integrated into the text of Targum Jonathan and were often written in its dialect.120 Similarly, as part of his larger work concerning the text of Targum Samuel, Patmore also consulted European liturgical manuscripts, including mahzorim. He noted that the quality of the text in these manuscripts reflected a fluid process of transmission, that led to many augmentations and adjustments of the text.121 He also noted that the Italian manuscripts had significant variation from the continuous text tradition, in contrast to the Ashkenazi witnesses which were essentially aligned with it.122 Ultimately, his conclusion is that the European liturgical manuscripts contain texts that fundamentally belong to the Western textual tradition.123
The Liturgical Targum units to the Torah in mahzorim were first noted in the second half of the nineteenth century by Leopold Zunz,124 who collected and attributed some of the expansions to medieval authors. Shortly thereafter, Bernhard Ziemlich,125 in his analysis of Mahzor Nürnberg characterized the texts as a combination of three different Targums, namely Targum Onqelos, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and the Fragment Targums. He describes the Liturgical Targum as a fluid, grammatically harmonized text, incorporating expressions or additions from various sources. Ginsburger126 came to a different conclusion, stating that mahzorim contain a Targum tradition that corresponds to neither Onqelos nor Pseudo-Jonathan. His side-by-side comparison of the text contained in Mahzor Vitry and FragTgP revealed a more or less identical text with minor variations. Ginsburger recognized the need for a separate, exhaustive study of the liturgical manuscripts in order to properly understand their relationship with Targum Yerushalmi, which in his milieu was the text contained in the Fragment Targums and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. In a later article,127 he collected and published the expansions for the seventh day of Pesach and the first day of Shavuot.
At the turn of the century, Epstein128 published several Pentateuchal Targum expansions that he came across in editions of the Rabbinic Bible.129 In his article, he presents the expansions that are also found in the mahzorim for the seventh day of Pesach. These expansions, he argues, are crucial to the understanding of the formation of the Fragment Targums, which he considered to be repositories of variants to other Targums.130 He brings the text of Mahzor Vitry into the discussion, pointing out that the expansions for the seventh day of Pesach are included as replacements for verses of Targum Onqelos. Epstein argued that the language and content of some of the expansions reflect a relatively late composition, and that the designation of
About a century later, Díez Macho published an article with his commentary on the Palestinian Targum tradition of the seventh day of Pesach and the first day of Shavuot.132 The manuscript he consulted (t1608, Parma, Palatina, ms 3089) is a medieval French mahzor containing the Targum to Ex 14 and 20. Contrary to Epstein, Díez-Macho argued that the expansions he encountered are authentically Palestinian, as indicated by their epigraphs (predominantly
More recently, Klein tackled one expansion within the Palestinian Targum tradition for the seventh day of Pesach.134 He looked at an expansion to Ex 15:2, or
In an unpublished dissertation, Uwe Gleßmer dedicated a part of his research on the Tosefta Targums to the texts contained in mahzorim.136 His focus was to explain the development of the Palestinian Targum tradition on the basis of the Tosefta Targums. Gleßmer consulted a handful of mahzorim and posed some of the major questions concerning their material—how does one explain the similarity between the mahzor texts and some sections of the Fragment Targums? He also posed questions concerning an overlap in material between Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the mahzorim. He noticed several textual peculiarities within the Liturgical Targum (such as the conflation of midrashic traditions in the expansion to Ex 13:17),137 which we will engage critically in Chapter 4. He argues that the idea of an original, singular Palestinian Targum from which all of the various manifestations stem is impossible, and that one must rather consider the Palestinian Targum as a fragmented tradition that developed in various contexts (one of these being the liturgy).
In sum, previous scholarship has largely focused on the expansions within the Liturgical Targum which has produced studies that have sought to explain their origins, their different midrashic components/references and their function within the liturgy. It was not until the work of S. Kaufman and Y. Maori (1991) that a study would shed some light on the textual transmission of the Liturgical Targum. Kaufman and Maori sought to reconstruct a single (proto‑)Palestinian Targum for the parashah of Ex 20.138 They included the Targum text of Mahzor Vitry and Mahzor Worms, two Ashkenazi mahzorim, and noticed a high level of textual affinity between the Targum texts in these manuscripts and parts of FragTgP. They grouped these texts together into one recension they termed ‘P/Mahzor’. According to Kaufman and Maori, P/Mahzor is characterized by two features: 1) expansions shared with other members of the Palestinian Targum tradition, and 2) the influence of Targum Onqelos.139 They also noted that P/Mahzor did not apply to all mahzorim; some mahzorim seemed to contain a different recension of the material. Kaufman and Maori did not notice, as it was not their focus, that there are separate textual families among the mahzorim, as this present work will demonstrate. Nevertheless, Kaufman and Maori’s grouping of the material in the mahzorim and FragTgP is significant, as it recognized that these texts are part of an independent line of transmission, separate from the other witnesses of the Palestinian Targum. Due to their small sample size and the focus of their article being on the reconstruction of the Palestinian Targum, they were not able to go into much detail. Understanding the enigmatic relationship between FragTgP and the Liturgical Targum is one of the research gaps that this present work aims to fill.
3.2 Aims
This work forms a sub-project within the larger ERC-funded project known as textevolve (PI: Prof. dr. Hector Patmore). The overarching research question of this project is as follows:
How, when, and why, did the Targums evolve over time?
Obviously, this question is far too broad and demanding to be answered in the context of one monograph. However, this subproject aims to tackle one piece of this larger puzzle, the Liturgical Targum, and to shed light on a textual tradition that has not received the attention it so desperately deserves. The main research question of this project is therefore:
How does the Liturgical Targum relate to other known Targums?
This research question considers the influence of Targum Onqelos (one of the main chapters of this work) but also the areas of overlap with the other recensions of the Palestinian Targum. There are areas of overlap with the Fragment Targums, as might be expected, but also with more obscure traditions such as Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. In some cases, material that was thought to be unique to one particular tradition is also found in the Liturgical Targum. This material naturally leads to sub-questions which will be addressed throughout the work, namely:
Can the Liturgical Targum reveal anything about the development or evolution of the Palestinian Targum tradition?
What is the direction of influence concerning shared material between the Liturgical Targum and other Palestinian Targum texts?
Though the Liturgical Targum tradition is a defined tradition with characteristics that differentiate it from other Palestinian Targum texts, we can nonetheless identify different textual families within the Liturgical Targum, with the most defined being the Italian and Ashkenazi groups. These different textual families are the products of generations of transmission within a particular community, which begs the following questions:
What can the different families of the Liturgical Targum tell us about its transmission in European communities?
How do the different families relate to one another, how do they differ?
Because the scope of the material is so large and the witnesses are plenty, it would be impossible to undertake an exhaustive study of all mahzorim and the texts they contain within the confines of a monograph. Some limitations have been made so as to provide as much information as possible within a manageable and representative corpus size.
This work will focus solely on the Torah portions for the seventh day of Pesach (Ex 13:17–15:26) and the first day of Shavuot (Ex 19:1–20:26), though some mahzorim do contain the portion for Simḥat Torah (Deut 33:1–34:12). The readings for Pesach and Shavuot are by far the most well-attested of all the festivals; they likely reflect the only days on which the Targum was still being read. Pesach celebrates the liberation of the Israelites and their passage through the Red Sea, and Shavuot celebrates the receiving of the Decalogue; arguably two of the most important festivals in Judaism.
The corpus is comprised of thirty-two mahzorim from various parts of Europe and a diversity of liturgical rites. The texts contained in these manuscripts will be compared to seventeen fragments from the Cairo Genizah, four Fragment Targums and the texts of Targum Onqelos, Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo Jonathan. The diversity in manuscript type and provenance provides a substantial overview of the Liturgical Targum across Europe. An exact description of these manuscripts and a justification for their selection can be found in the following chapter.
For example, the reference in b. Meg. 3a. See also, P. Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures’, in M.-J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988) p. 217. As Smelik has illustrated,
A. Houtman and H. Sysling, Alternative Targum Traditions: The Use of Variant Readings for the Study in Origin and History of Targum Jonathan, (Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture, 9, Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2009) p. 18.
For more information on the different translational characters of the Targums, consult M. Klein, ‘Associative and Complementary Translation in the Targumim’, in A. Shinan and R. Kasher (eds.), Michael Klein on the Targums, (Leiden: Brill, 2011) pp. 77–88. See also, S. Lasair, ‘Targum and Translation: A New Approach to a Classic Problem’, AJS REV 34.2 (2010), pp. 265–287.
Houtman and Sysling, Alternative Targum Traditions, pp. 17–18. See also the ‘seven rules of Targum’ in P. Flesher and B. Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2011) pp. 39–54.
This theory is the product of almost two centuries of scholarship, which most prominently occurred throughout the nineteenth century (and beyond) as part of the famous Wissenschaft des Judentums movement. The most prominent defender of a Palestinian origin for Onqelos was T. Nöldeke, who was later succeeded by G. Dalman, though his preoccupation was with deciphering the language that Jesus spoke. Though A. Geiger believed that Onqelos was a Babylonian composition (and this position was later renewed by P. Kahle—though on the basis of different arguments), general scholarly consensus agrees that Onqelos and Jonathan were composed in Palestine, and later edited in Babylonia. See also the discussion in M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, ‘The Language of Targum Onqelos and the Model of Literary Diglossia in Aramaic’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 37.2 (1978), pp. 169–179; G. McDowell, ‘Aramaic Texts’, in R. Fuller and A. Lange (eds.), A Companion to Textual Criticism (The History of Research of Textual Criticism 3A, Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2022) pp. 317–325.
Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, pp. 84–85; P. Flesher, ‘Is Targum Onqelos a Palestinian Targum? The Evidence of Genesis 28–50’, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 19.1 (1999), pp. 35–79; P. Flesher, ‘The Translations of Proto-Onqelos and the Palestinian Targums’, Journal of the Aramaic Bible 3.1 (2001), pp. 75–101. A different perspective was proposed by E. Cook, who suggested that Targum Onqelos originated in a milieu with a dialect ‘continuum’ he called ‘Central Aramaic’. E. Cook, ‘A New Perspective on the Language of Onqelos and Jonathan’, in D. Beattie and M. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) pp. 142–156; McDowell, ‘Aramaic Texts’, 320.
The argument for a singular Palestinian Targum (that pre-dates Targum Onqelos) can also be traced back to T. Nöldeke and G. Dalman in the nineteenth century. It was not until the works of P. Kahle in the twentieth century that a renewed case would be made for a purely Babylonian origin for Targum Onqelos. See also the discussion in A. York, ‘The Dating of Targumic Literature’, Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 5.1 (1974), pp. 49–62.
See for example, b. Qid. 49a.
For more information consult M. Klein, ‘The Masorah to Onqelos: A Reflection of Targumic Consciousness’, Hebrew Union College Annual 68.68 (1997), pp. 63–75; M. Klein, The Masorah to Targum Onqelos: As Preserved in MSS Vatican Ebreo 448, Rome Angelica Or. 7, Fragments from the Cairo Genizah and in Earlier Editions by A. Berliner and S. Landauer / Critical Edition with Comments and Introduction by Michael L. Klein. (Binghamton, NY: Global Publications, 2000).
Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, 156; A. Tal, ‘The Dialects of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic and the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch’, Consejo superior de investigaciones científicas 46.1 (1986), pp. 441–448.
S. Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee of the Third-Sixth Centuries’, in L. Lee (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992) p. 255.
Smelik, Rabbis, p. 221.
W. Smelik, ‘Orality, Manuscript Reproduction, and the Targums’, in A. den Hollander, U. Schmid, and W. Smelik (eds.), Paratext and Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions, (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003) p. 52.
Smelik, Rabbis, p. 222.
For some examples, consult R. Kasher, ‘The Aramaic Targumim and Their “Sitz Im Leben” ’, Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies (1985), p. 80.
Isaac b. Moses (12th century) described seeing different versions of Rashi’s commentary (apparently written in his own hand). See the discussion in M. Beit-Arié, ‘Transmission of Texts by Scribes and Copyists: Unconscious and Critical Interferences’, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library (1994), p. 34.
Smelik, Rabbis, p. 224. See also B. Levinson, ‘You Must Not Add Anything to What I Command You: Paradoxes of Canon and Authorship in Ancient Israel’, International Review for the History of Religions 50.1 (2003), pp. 1–51.
Tannaitic sources recognize the existence of written texts of Targum. Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum’, p. 256.
Smelik, Rabbis, p. 224. Smelik also cites S. Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy (Albany: SUNY, 1991) p. 19. Some elements of the liturgical texts—though these developed quite a bit later—hint at this kind of transmission, especially in acrostic expansions or piyyutim; the form itself indicative of a mnemonic function. For example, one often finds more variation among manuscripts at the end of an acrostic expansion, when presumably the memory of the scribes began to fail.
Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum’, pp. 253–254; P. Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, Vetus Testamentum, Supplements 36 (1985), p. 21.
P. Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules’, p. 21.
Z. Safrai, ‘The Origins of Reading the Aramaic Targum in Synagogue’, Immanuel 24/25 (1990), p. 187.
W. Smelik agrees with this conclusion, though he doubts that this custom was widespread in the mid second century; Smelik, ‘Orality’, p. 52.
Safrai, ‘The Origins of Reading the Aramaic Targum in Synagogue’, p. 190.
S. Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) p. 130; H. Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan in the West: A Study of Italian and Ashkenazi Manuscripts of the Targum to Samuel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) p. 53.
The cited Rabbinic and medieval texts were consulted via Sefaria, and the translations found there served as the basis for our own translations (
The most comprehensive work on this subject is Smelik, Rabbis, Language and Translation in Late Antiquity.
H. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, (New York: Atheneum, 1980) pp. 102, 133, 137, 241–242.
A. York, ‘The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School’, J Study Jud 10.1 (1979), pp. 75, 80; A. Shinan, ‘Live Translation: On the Nature of the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch’, Indiana University Press 3.1 (1983), p. 42.
Smelik, Rabbis, pp. 225–232. See also McDowell, ‘Aramaic Texts’, p. 297.
See also the discussion in Smelik, ‘Orality,’, p. 50; Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum’, p. 257.
Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, p. 22. McDowell, ‘Aramaic Texts’, p. 298.
A statement in the Tosefta (t. Meṣ. 2:21) describes this practice in Palestine more fully. See also Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum’, pp. 264–265; A. Houtman, ‘The Role of the Targum in Jewish Education in Medieval Europe’, in A. Houtman, E. van Staalduine-Sulman and H.-M. Kirn (eds.), A Jewish Targum in a Christian World, (Leiden: Brill, 2014) pp. 81–82.
See also y. Meg. 4:1 (6) and y. Meg. 4:1 (7). A. York mentions t. Meg. 4:20 in the discussion as the context for why this particular ḥazzan was reprimanded. York, ‘The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School’, pp. 76–77. See also Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules’, pp. 23–24.
The part concerning a minor is probably taken from m. Meg. 4:6 which will be discussed below.
Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum’, p. 257.
See also y. Meg. 4:1 (5).
Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules’, p. 25.
Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum’, p. 265.
Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum’, p. 265; Smelik, ‘Orality’, p. 63.
M. Klein, ‘Serugin (Shorthand) of Onqelos from the Cairo Genizah’, Maarav 8 (1992), pp. 275–287.
These manuscripts were first noted by A. Neubauer, ‘The Hebrew Bible in Shorthand Writings’, Jewish Quarterly Review 7 (1895), pp. 361–364; M. Friedlander, ‘A Fragment of Shorthand Hagadah’, Jewish Quarterly Review 9 (1897), pp. 520–521; H. Patmore, S. Efrati, and J. Verrijssen, ‘Aramaic from Antiquity to the Middle Ages’, in J. Olszowy-Schlanger and C. Merchán-Hamann (eds.), Jewish Languages and Book Culture (Oxford: Bodleian Library Publishing, 2024) pp. 30–47.
See b. Shab. 115a, t. Shab. 13:14, y. Shab. 15c, Sof. 5:15, as mentioned in Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules’, p. 25.
Fraade goes on to argue that this is an example of how Babylonian authorities exerted control over the text of the Targum. Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum’, pp. 264–265. McDowell, ‘Aramaic Texts’, p. 298.
See the expanded explanation in Smelik, ‘Orality’, pp. 53–55.
See also, Rambam on m. Meg. 4:
On the discussion of blindness, see Smelik, ‘Orality’, p. 64; Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum’, pp. 258–259.
See also A. York, ‘The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School’, p. 82.
Smelik, Rabbis, p. 221.
Houtman, ‘The Role of the Targum’, p. 83.
Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules’, pp. 22–23; P. Alexander, ‘How Did the Rabbis Learn Hebrew?’, in W. Hornbury (ed.), Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999) pp. 71–89; Houtman, ‘The Role of the Targum’, p. 83.
York, ‘The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School’, p. 80.
Houtman, ‘The Role of the Targum’, p. 84.
See also York, ‘The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School’, pp. 83–84; Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum’, p. 263.
Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules’, pp. 25–26.
A. Tal, ‘Is There a Raison d’être for an Aramaic Targum in a Hebrew-Speaking Society?’, Revue des études juives 160.3–4 (2001), pp. 357–378.
See also Shinan, ‘Live Translation’, p. 42.
See also M. McNamara, ‘Some Early Rabbinic Citations and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch’, in M. McNamara, Targum and New Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) p. 164.
P. Alexander, ‘The Rabbinic Lists of Forbidden Targumim’, Journal of Jewish Studies 27 (1976), pp. 171–191; Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum’, pp. 260–261; M. Klein, ‘Not to Be Translated in Public—
See, for example, the cases in Klein, ‘Not to Be Translated in Public—
Shinan, ‘Live Translation’, p. 42; Smelik, Rabbis, p. 111.
Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum’, p. 261.
In general, we refer to the documents in Qumran and Wadi Murabba’at as well as the Bar Kokhba correspondence which indicated that Hebrew was still very much employed in the post-exilic period. Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum’, pp. 277–286; W. Smelik, The Targum of Judges (Leiden: Brill, 1995) pp. 1–23; Smelik, Rabbis, pp. 100–137.
H. Rabin, ‘Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century’, in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century (Assen: Stichting Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, 1976) p. 1007.
This, however, did not seem to apply to Jews in Babylonia, who apparently understood halakhic discourse, as a story in b. Pes. 42a would illustrate that common people understood the teaching of R. Judah in Pumbeditha. See Smelik, Rabbis, p. 112.
Rabin, ‘Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century’, pp. 1020–1021.
Rashi states this in his commentary on b. Meg. 21b, whereas Luzzatto writes this in his
Smelik, The Targum of Judges, p. 9. See also U. Gleßmer, Entstehung und Entwicklung der Targume zum Pentateuch als literarkritisches Problem, dargestellt am Beispiel der ZusatzTargume, (University of Hamburg, unpublished dissertation), pp. 46–48 [in German].
Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, p. 23.
I. Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History, trans. R. Scheindlin (Philadelphia; New York: Jewish Publication Society; Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1993) p. 154.
Houtman, ‘The Role of the Targum’, pp. 87, 90.
Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, pp. 63–66.
L. Gottlieb argued that the Targumim had more than simply a liturgical function, and that the study of Aramaic compositions and their language continued well into the Middle Ages. L. Gottlieb, ‘Composition of Targums after the Decline of Aramaic as a Spoken Language’, Aramaic Studies 12 (2014), pp. 1–8; Houtman, ‘The Role of the Targum’, p. 93; McDowell, ‘Aramaic Texts’, p. 323.
Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, 57–60.
E. Attia, ‘Targum Layouts in Ashkenazi Manuscripts: Preliminary Methodological Observations’, in A. Houtman, E. van Staalduine-Sulman and H.-M. Kirn (eds.), A Jewish Targum in a Christian World, (Leiden: Brill, 2014) pp. 99–122; Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, p. 67.
P. Toledano, Rashi’s Commentary to the Pentateuch and its Relation to the Targumim with Special Reference to Targum Onkelos (dissertation, University College London, 1980). Houtman, ‘The Role of the Targum’, pp. 88–89; Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, pp. 60–61.
Houtman, ‘The Role of the Targum’, p. 87.
Houtman, ‘The Role of the Targum’, p. 89.
See
I. Ta-Shma, ‘Ashkenazi Jewry in the Eleventh Century’, in I. Ta-Shma (ed.), Creativity and Tradition: Studies in Medieval Rabbinic Scholarship, Literature and Thought (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006) pp. 1–5.
See the description in Mahzor Vitry in the following section.
R. Mikva, ‘Midrash in the Synagogue and the Attenuation of Targum’, Jewish Studies Quarterly 18.4 (2011), p. 325.
Klein, ‘Serugin (Shorthand) of Onqelos from the Cairo Genizah.’
Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, pp. 60–61; Smelik, ‘Orality’, pp. 54–55.
This is quoted in Mahzor Vitry. S. Hurwitz (ed.),
Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, p. 154.
Mikva, ‘Midrash in the Synagogue and the Attenuation of Targum’, p. 324.
A. Díez-Macho, ‘Nueva fuente para el Targum Palestino del dia septimo de Pascua y primero de Pentecostes’, Salmanticensis 28.1/2 (1981), p. 234; Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, p. 63.
Houtman, ‘The Role of the Targum’, p. 90.
Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, p. 154.
The verb used here is
Mahzor Vitri 106 (S. Hurwitz [ed.], Machsor Vitry [Nürnberg: J. Bulka, 1923], 1:304 = A. Goldschmidt [ed.], Mahzor Vitri, 2nd ed. [Jerusalem: Otzar haPoskim, 2009], p. 2:474). Another halakhic work, the fourteenth-century Sefer Kolbo states that the Targumic passages for the festivals had lost their function as strict translations and were therefore embroidered with aggadic expansions in the vernacular in order to ensure the tradition of reading them in the synagogue remained relevant. See Mikva, ‘Midrash in the Synagogue and the Attenuation of Targum’, p. 326. Lehnardt noted similar instructions concerning the reading of the haftarot for the seventh day of Pesach in t1633, a thirteenth/fourteenth-century Italian mahzor. P. Lehnardt, ‘The Role of Targum Samuel in European Jewish Liturgy’, in A. Houtman, E. van Staalduine-Sulman and H.-M. Kirn (eds.), A Jewish Targum in a Christian World, (Leiden: Brill, 2014) p. 53.
Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, pp. 63–67.
As Lehnardt describes concerning the haftarot readings: “The form of the text […] shows signs of a tradition at the limits of the possibilities for it to be performed in an appropriate manner, mainly because of inconsistent, if not misleading, vocalization or due to crucial omissions and other effects of corrupting transmission. Even the literate elite of these communities, who were engaged in producing these early copies of a comprehensive prayer book in Italy, did not have enough knowledge of reading and writing Aramaic nor, as an important factor in the field of liturgy, in performative aural memory”, P. Lehnardt, ‘The Role of Targum Samuel in European Jewish Liturgy’, pp. 56–57. See also the discussion in Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, pp. 332–333. For a discussion on vocalization, see S. Heijmans, ‘About the ‘Unreliability’ of the Vocalization of Western Targum-Manuscripts’, Aramaic Studies 9.2 (2011), pp. 279–289.
Shor, Y.
M. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch: According to Their Extant Sources (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980) pp. 21–23. For a detailed analysis of this particular expansion, consult R. Le Déaut, La Nuit Pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum d’Exode xii 42, (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963).
Verrijssen, J. ‘On the Shores of the Red Sea: A Medieval Reconstruction of Palestinian Targum?’, in H.M. Patmore, H. Najman, S. Schorch, J. Verrijssen, and H. van der Schoor (eds.), Reading: Performance and Materiality in Hebrew and Aramaic Traditions (Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures, Cambridge: Open Book, 2025), 385–404.
University of Toronto Library, ms FR 3-011 (formerly Sassoon 593), p. 53. Published by A. Goldschmidt (ed.), ‘Responsa by Rav Hay Gaon’, in Esh Tamid: A Memorial Book for Eliezer Schlesinger (Jerusalem, 1989), 23–30, here 28 [Hebrew].
I am greatly indebted to my colleague Dr. Shlomi Efrati (KU Leuven) who brought this material to my attention and whose translation I have used here.
Klein, The Fragment Targums, 19.
S. Kaufman and Y. Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20: Reconstructing the Palestinian Targum’, Textus 16.1 (1991), pp. 13–78. In addition, work by the present author has contributed to the analysis of the relationship of FragTgP to the Liturgical Targum, see J. Verrijssen, ‘The Liturgical Targum to Pesach’, Aramaic Studies 21.2 (2023), pp. 166–184.
M. Klein, ‘Introductory Poems (R’Shuyot) to the Targum of the Hafṭarah in Praise of Jonathan Ben Uzziel’, in A. Shinan and R. Kasher (eds.), Michael Klein on the Targums: Collected Essays 1972–2002, (Leiden: Brill, 2011) pp. 167–176; M. Ginsburger, ‘Aramäische Introduktionen zum Thargumvortrag an Festtagen’, Zeitschrift der Deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 54.1 (1900), pp. 113–124; M. Ginsburger, ‘Les introductions araméennes à la lecture du Targoum (suite et fin)’, Revue des études Juives 73.145 (1921), pp. 14–26; L. Zunz, Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie (Berlin: Adolf Cohn Verlag und Antiquariat, 1867). The most complete collection of these poems can be found in Y. Frenkel,
Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, pp. 64–65.
J. Hoffman, ‘Akdamut: History, Folklore, and Meaning’, Jewish Quarterly Review 99.2 (2009), pp. 161–183; Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, p. 65.
See t1661i (Parma, Palatina, ms 1898): […]
The material in this section directly overlaps with the introduction of an article published by the author. J. Verrijssen, ‘The Liturgical Targum to Pesach’, Aramaic Studies 21.2 (2023), pp. 167–170.
A. Tal, ‘The Role of Targum Onqelos in Literary Activity during the Middle Ages’, in H. Gzella and M. Folmer (eds.), Aramaic in Its Historical and Linguistic Setting, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2008) p. 138.
’
A list of citations to from the Targumim to the Torah can be found in N. b. Yehiel, Aruch Completum, ed. A. Kohut, 8 vols. (Vienna 1878–1892) vol. 1, pp. 12–19. R. Speier, ‘The Relationship between the Arukh and the Palestinian Targum, Neofiti 1’, Leš 31 (1966–1967): pp. 23–32, 189–198 [Hebrew], as cited in McDowell, ‘Aramaic Texts’, p. 302. See also the discussion in G. McDowell, ‘The Date and Provenance of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: The Evidence of Pirqe deRabbi Eliezer and the Chronicle of Moses’, Aramaic Studies 19.1 (2021), p. 126; L. Gottlieb, ‘Towards a More Precise Understanding of Pseudo-Jonathan’s Origins’, Aramaic Studies 19.1 (2021), pp. 109–116.
McDowell, ‘The Date and Provenance of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’; Gottlieb, ‘Towards a More Precise Understanding of Pseudo-Jonathan’s Origins.’
For an extensive overview of the contents and kinds of mahzorim, see the opening sections of E. Fleischer, ‘Prayer and Piyyut in the Worms Mahzor’, in M. Beit-Arié (ed.), Worms Mahzor: Ms Jewish National and University Library Heb 4o781/1, (Jerusalem: National and University Library, 1985) pp. 26–60.
Some mahzorim were commissioned for private use. B. Narkiss, ‘Mahzor’, in M. Berenbaum and F. Skolnik (eds.), Encyclopedia Judaica (Detroit 2007) pp. 363–366; Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, p. 65.
Mikva, ‘Midrash in the Synagogue and the Attenuation of Targum’, 319–342.
L. Merino, ‘Mahzor Vitry and the Palestinian Targum to the Prophets’, in U. Hoxen, H. Trautner-Kromann, and K. Goldschmidt Salamon (eds.), Jewish Studies in a New Europe, (Copenhagen: Reitzel, 1998) pp. 199–211.
R. Kasher,
Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan.
Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, pp. 301–310.
Kasher,
Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, p. 332.
Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, p. 341.
Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, p. 343.
L. Zunz, Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie.
B. Ziemlich, Das Machsor Nürnberg (Berlin, 1886).
M. Ginsburger, ‘Die Thargumim zur Thorahlection am 7. Pesach- und 1. Schabuoth-Tage’, Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 39 (N.F. 3).3 (1895), p. 98.
Ginsburger, ‘Aramäische Introduktionen zum Thargumvortrag an Festtagen’, pp. 113–124.
A. Epstein, ‘Tosefta du Targoum Yerouschalmi’, Revue des études Juives (1895), pp. 44–51.
Epstein, ‘Tosefta du Targoum Yerouschalmi’, p. 44.
Epstein, ‘Tosefta du Targoum Yerouschalmi’, pp. 49–50.
Epstein, ‘Tosefta du Targoum Yerouschalmi’, p. 50. He argues further that the designation
Díez-Macho, ‘Nueva fuente para el Targum Palestino’, pp. 233–257.
Díez-Macho, ‘Nueva fuente para el Targum Palestino’, p. 234.
M. Klein, ‘The Targumic Tosefta to Exodus 15:2’, in A. Shinan and R. Kasher (eds.), Michael Klein on the Targums, (Leiden: Brill, 2011) pp. 133–140.
Klein, ‘The Targumic Tosefta to Exodus 15:2’, p. 140.
Gleßmer, Entstehung.
Gleßmer, Entstehung, p. 452.
Kaufman and Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20’.
Kaufman and Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20’, p. 17.